The shape of things to come?

  • Whit Blauvelt

    June 6, 2023 at 8:16 pm

    To me, the Nature paper supports McGilchrist’s thesis that scientists today don’t know how to write. They authors define “eigenmodes,” but apparently assume that their use of “geometry” needs no specifics. It’s long known there are various waves in the brain, both EM and chemical. There’s plenty of mystery in how to relate these to the various classes of neural cells, and their connections. There have also long been suggestions of a close relation between music and consciousness. So there’s much these authors may speak to.

    But there also are many ways to define a brain’s geometries. In the Conversation article they skip any definition. If there’s definition in the Nature article, is it obscured somewhere in the mathematics? I don’t find it in the English part of the text. Publication in Nature is significant, but of what here?

    One place to look would be if the geometric differences between the hemispheres correspond to each be differently resonant, in the sense (EM? of what frequencies?) that these authors find significant. If so, are such resonances cause, or mere correlation?

    • Mike Todd

      June 7, 2023 at 2:54 am

      Thanks, Whit.

      I appreciate your attention to important, and rather elementary, details I overlooked. I’ll see if there’s supplementary information out there – perhaps other research by the authors – that resolves the imprecisions you highlighted.

Log in to reply.