I think that which makes it all autonomous is something we can yet see smell taste or touch. Although I think we are also autonomous but in such a complex way that it doesn't seem so. In the very basic form a cell divides. Why? It doesn't choose to. It just does because it is programmed to during certain circumstances.

I don't think we are all that different. Our autonomy only changes due to new programming which comes from different experiences. I see it as a gigantic pyramid of ever increasing complexity. In the macro we appear to be very complex machines.

A car as a whole doesn't seem like much, but it does more than just drive down the road. It plays music, can bring light in darkness, is able to change direction and speed. Now put AI in the, seat and program it to goto work and go home and sleep and have fun on the weekends. That's us.

The cell wasn't "programmed". It's best to look at it in a simpler, inorganic way. Just reduce it to a simple chemistry. You have three chemical reactions competing over the same substrate in a petri dish. The products of the reaction generates more reactants.(so growth is exponential) Leave the petri dish. Reaction A is 1000x as fast as Reaction B which is 100x faster than Reaction C. After ten days, how much of each reaction is happening? Chemical reactions take place more readily in a compartmentalized membrane (cell) which assemble spontaneously when fat with polar ends are put in water. Now you've got a cell. Finally, imagine that the reactants can change over time. You get catalysts and membrane potentials. It really isn't too hard to imagine what could happen next. It just happened. That's all.

The verb programming still implies a programmer. How does experience "change our programming". The answer in a biological sense can be to look at protein expression, or the structures in the brain/body. That isn't the only way to look at it. Like I said earlier, we are tool makers and these ideas are tools. They are shortcuts to doing something useful, so that we can indulge in the irrational nonsense that we are "programmed" to do.

Hmm. I'm gonna have to roll this around my head for a bit.

And the piece of the puzzle bridged the connection.

Late to the party, but another neuroscientist here. I have a few comments that I feel add to this thread.

First, I have always felt that most all neuroscience research feels like we're studying an 'ad infinitum' problem when it comes to making any sense of life, nature, consciousness, the human/mammalian condition, etc. To me, the job has turned to a relatively boring work affair. Breakthroughs into mechanisms, or discovering new structure-activity relationships, or new concepts backed by evidence are all cool as hell--but I've found that reaching a certain level of understanding in the area of neuroscience hasn't helped my personal life at all, nor has it given me any meaning at all. It's just work like any other field.

I think the reductionist approach in biology will eventually lead us to a point of diminishing returns. We may 'know' a lot at that point, but in the end, who really cares? I've suffered from mental health issues my entire life. And in going down the neuroscience path, I thought maybe someday I might be able to make sense of my own internal machinery, and in doing that, come up with some kind of way to outsmart it. Nope. It's only made me realize how biased a lot of research is. It's also made me realize how polarized the researchers are, and how they embody a specific world view of a disordered state and cling to it.

No one has any effing clue as to how something like depression or bipolar disorder really work. We can identify transmitters and proteins involved. We can identify structures involved. We can describe the psychology of it all. Yet, no one can explain exactly what mania is. No one can explain why depression happens, nor what that is. I could go on, but to me it feels like fish studying water. At this point, it feels like some of these mental health issues are not so much diseases, but archetypes selected over the last 100k years for group selection. The mystical types that have an overabundance of empathic pain and devote their life to healing the rest of the tribe, is just one example. Maybe some individuals are born as novelty generators for everyone else? Or maybe it's about busting through the restrictions of tradition? No one knows, but where there is disorder there is also order. It may not appear that way from an outsider's perspective, but I firmly believe the mystery of mental illness may reveal itself to be equal part mental stability for the collective group. Mental instability in one individual is grounding to all others that can learn from that one individual. Yes, I am arguing that mental instability leads to greater stability for the group--trailblazers to new states of allostatic equilibrium.

Second, I want to posit a logic argument. Life is weird. Life itself seems weirder than psychedelic realms. To me, the psychedelic realms seem to have intrinsic order in a mathematical way. Life has a lot more 'noise.' Therefore, life doesn't make logical sense. But we can make this conclusion using logic itself. And life as we know it includes the entire universe. So, logic must span greater than our known universe. That in itself should make you stop and think. There appears to be some consistent structure with greater span than all life and physics as we currently understand it.

I spent a few years working in development. That basically means you mess up embryos in novel ways that don't kill them, then you study the functional output. A few years was enough to realize that everyone walks around pretending they understand a lot about this bizarre thing we call reproduction and the origin of life. But to me, I just felt exhausted trying to save face and pretend to understand. The field is ripe with farce and delusion about how this all comes about. Just because you can explain in mechanistic terms how two cells become one, and then begin dividing, and then become an embryo doesn't mean you understand where it comes from.

I've always leaned to the spiritual side of things, but after 6 years in neuroscience research I have to say that I have learned I AM a spiritual person. You can take a macro zoom picture, then take a macro zoomed picture of the picture, then take a macro zoomed picture of the picture again, and keep going ad infinitum, but you're still just studying snapshots... How far do you take this reductionist approach before you question the reductionist approach? It's just another complex behavior we exhibit as human beings. How about a new way of integrating known and unknown? I don't yet know how to do that, and I am afraid of overanalyzing in the grand scheme. All I know is that feeling subjectively gives me a greater sense of meaning, purpose, and inner peace than does studying things objectively. The purpose of life is to live, after all. Everything else feels like distraction--endless distraction from what we feel.

Warrior,

I have come to many of the same conclusions. Academic pursuits, like so many others, often become a penis measuring contest. People are out to prove how smart they are instead of going into it with the goal of making life more livable. Science is not truth. Science is transient. Anyone who puts their faith in science is a fool. Anyone who denies the utility of science is a greater fool.

The funny thing about research is that in order for data collection to move forward, it does need to be reductionist. However, if there is no one to integrate these data into something usable by a layman, then we may as well be paying these people to sit around and jerk their gerkins all day. No other industry permits that much waste.

I'm not burned out yet, so I see this as an opportunity, and I'm certain that there are many others with the same revelation. The first generation to grow up with the internet is coming of age and that will bring some fantastic things our way.

I still love neuroscience, and will *forever* be reading the headlines of the major publications. I just don't know how much more of the doing part of it I care about anymore. If after my hiatus from lab work I decide to continue down that path again, I will probably try to focus on the computational elements exclusively. At least there I have creative freedom to try whatever I want. I enjoy the cartooning and day dreaming aspects of theoretical work.

HeavenlyBlue, what level of passion for your niche would you say you have? Is it at the all or nothing level? Or are you below an 8 on the 1-10 scale?

Regarding your OP, a total world view would accept both; the rational and the irrational... just two parts of one whole. Accept both and balance both creatively

Accepting both is a process for me. I won't ever admit it, but I feel it every day.

I lack the passion that I see in others in this field. (or perhaps blind enthusiasm?) I know where my passions lie and that won't ever put food on the table. I've got to eat. I will admit that I'm not in it for the long haul. That's why I want to focus on data analysis while I do my time. I can take those skills elsewhere.

I guess I'm just being pragmatic. I'm here, so I may as well may lemonade with lemons.

I like how you guys reached this point. Almost in a synergistic fashion.

I would like to add something extra to this paragraph because I feel its content is very different from my experience, and I wouldn't feel okay having someone discouraged because of this information. Heavenly, you said :



I don't know if it is so much different in the US than the UK, but a research assistant here gets paid around £1,500 (always after taxes) a month, while someone bagging groceries at whole foods gets the minimum wage which would be around £750. That's double, not the same. Post-docs wage here ranges from at least £2,000 to £3,000 per month, which is definitely enough to start a family, and not eat mac n cheese. After your post-doc, you get grants, that include your wage which is way higher than £2-3k per month.

I don't know where you got your numbers HB, but I wanted to give a different perspective since your description seemed rather bleak. Maybe it's indeed different in the US (even though I always looked at job posts and the wage seemed very similar).

I did exaggerate the "hopelessness".

A bagger at whole foods makes 12.50/hr here. I don't know why. That is $1500 a month after taxes. I think it is so bleak because compared to other post graduate education levels of similar time commitment, there is little return on your investment, which is why it is for those that are passionate, not for people that want to just find a job. Many starting salaries are around 40,000 for careers with a bachelors and even some technical degrees with a few years experience will make this.

Pharmacists on the other hand? same amount of education. Guaranteed six figures, but talk about bleak...

Ok now you balanced it properly

I agree that an academic research career can be much more tedious and less creative than research in the private/corporate sector, but it all boils down to the funding bodies that are affiliated with each university. Some are much more technical than others, and require a higher research output. All in all, (don't wanna be the culprit in derailing this thread which I already did), if someone's truly passionate and apt in innovation research, there are always niches to take advantage of. Still, money's adequate if research is your passion, but if you're looking just for a job, as you said, data analysis skills are sufficient to maintain an average quality of life for that purpose.

I once had the opportunity, due to my skillset, to trade my phd with becoming a research technician in psychology. Albeit technical as you mention (setting up MEG, EEG, programming etc), it had a very low pay rate, almost equivalent to a phd fellowship. I think things are indeed very different between UK and US.

Anyway, apologies for driving the thread off topic! Maybe it was a need for cognitive dissonance after all

Not a problem. You can't derail a thread that's already been to the moon and back. I feel as though I've gotten some really great and varied insights that I would not be able to find elsewhere. It's difficult to get honest answers from people when they look in hindsight. It takes courage to admit that a lot of hard work didn't accomplish what you intended and after many many years, I think it would be emotionally catastrophic to accept that notion.