We are looking for highly motivated graduate students who are interested in neuroimaging, neural engineering, and neurosciences.
■ Engineering and/or medicine backgrounds are preferred.
■ The major for the degree would be MS/PhD in engineering (biomedical engineering) or in medicine (physiology).
■ Full supports for tuition, space, and devices are available from government-funded research projects.
■ Internship is also available with partial supports.
■ We don’t have any program for supporting international students.
Please send an email with a brief curriculum vitae to email@example.com.
August 4, 2020
As I read more and more articles about a single subject (functional lateralization in this case) it feels like I’m falling into a rabbit hole. So much controversy among different researches emerge and it’s just too much for me to handle.
I’m currently searching for various studies on the assessment of resting state functional connectivity of any kind. Between two different methods of analysis, one of them seems like total gibberish according to the other and vice versa. But since both of them are published on highly acclaimed journals and numerously cited, calling either one of them ‘gibberish’ seems quite imprudent.
Then what should I do? Cherry-pick only the researches that support my claims? I used to think cherry-picking is the last thing a researcher should do, but it just seems like there is no other choice. Not only if I come up with a grand unified theory for every single thing I do research on, cherrypicking seems pretty much inevitable.
I’m not quite sure of anything right now. All I’m sure of is that if I keep digging for more rabbit holes, I’ll never finish my paper in time. I should just stop thinking too deep and start writing….. If that’s even possible.
After watching the movie <Interstellar> a couple times, it made me think about the concept of higher dimensions. Merely bringing up this concept might be more than enough to intimidate some people. But it just seems to me that every time we mention 4 or 5 dimensions, we compel ourselves to do the impossible. We try to ‘visualize’ the 4 or 5 perpendicular axes in three dimensional space, giving ourselves a small stroke. But the point is not ‘visualizing’ the high dimensional space, but conceptualizing and utilizing it.
Those ‘fifth dimensional beings’ in <Interstellar> would look at us pretty similar to how we look at ants.In other words, ants would have small strokes thinking about the three-dimensional space. Then, how would ant-Christopher Nolan in ant-world, render the ‘cube’ scene with ant-Cooper ‘floating’ in 2D space? If the third dimension here is a ‘z-axis’ for 3d space, ant-Nolan would render intersecting one-dimensional lines each showing a certain time in 2D space, projected onto the line. Well, that’s not so comprehensive, so let’s give the third dimension to ‘time’. Certainly time also flows the same in 2D as in 3D. This time, the intersecting lines would be projections of a single 2D space in different points of time and ant-Cooper is floating around his two-dimensional world pushing one-dimensional book shelves sending messages to ant-Murphy.
How about a practical example in our everyday lives. If theoretical physicists like Einstein or Stephen Hawking tried to conceptualize higher dimensions in theory, composers like J.S. Bach or L.V. Beethoven has already mastered the concept in their guts and was frankly leaping through countless dimensions. All different voices in polyphonic music are accountable as independent components. For example, Bach’s fugue in C# minor in his first book of the Well Tempered Claviers is a triple fugue(this means it has 3 separate subjects) with four voices. This is conceptually equivalent to three people hopping around 4 dimensions. Pretty much like Cooper floating around the four-dimensional cube?
I could go on and on with different examples all around everything. But what really fascinates me is that within a selected scope, two things so radically different (Cooper’s four-dimensional cube and Bach’s Fugue) can be deduced to a single mutual concept.