If you think about human brain, it is a huge network contains billions of neurons, making connections with each other. Information flows through these trillions of knots called synapse. It controls basic reflections, sensations, drives evolutionarily conserved behaviors that are essential for viability of the organism. It makes sense to extrapolate that the more complex the organisms are, the more complex the neuronal network should be. However, there seems to be a huge jump between human to other primate, and from primates to other mammals. The complex is not simply a matter of numbers of neurons, or knots. Compared to brains of lower organisms like worms or flies, the design of human brain is more like a master piece of abstract art that is not tangible by rationality. It is a mystery to appreciate scientifically.

One of the specific design of human brain (or primates) is that each brain is designed to communicate with other brains (most efficiently with the brains of the same species). It means we are not only able to sense the outside world (by sensations, which by the way, we are not the best one for most parts), we are privileged with the ability to enter the minds of others, by intuition and by speech. (sympathy and language). I am not going to talk about language this time. (Actually, both of the two topics would take tons of words, let alone I am too much a layman to both of the two topics to explain in detail.)

Intuition or sympathy means we are able to understand other people's feelings without experiencing them. With intuition or sympathy, we can understand other people's emotions. In our brain, there are a group of neurons called mirror neurons (or mirror system). They fires (or get activated) at both times when we perform some action and when we see someone perform the same action. It reflects the actions performing by others as that we are doing the same action, hence generates an emotional sympathy.

The mirror system is one of the beautiful models of how our brain works. As most of the known working models of our brain, it sounds simple and shallow, yet think-provoking. Rather than give a clear explanation, it embarrasses us with the fact that we have no idea of how these effortless emotional sympathy works daily.

Sometimes, reading good articles about brain function does not feel like reading a scientific papers. It bridges science and philosophy. In science, I am curious about the mechanism of how a brain works. In philosophy, I am more eager than ever to know the truth of self, the truth of me.

Still in the middle of reading about mirror system. Recommendations are welcome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k Great lecture.

Because I am leaving the current field of molecular biology of alternative splicing, I am not really conduct much bench work recently. Instead, I am acting like a greedy reader, browsing websites, literatures, books and sometime even youtubes, reading or listening articles and lectures talking about neuroscience, cognitive science, and behavior. These topics have magic powers that whenever a conversation comes across those topics, I can not shut my month and keep silent.

Here comes the problem, I regularly have an afternoon coffee break time with my friend in the lab, a indian postdoc who has great mania to small RNA biology and molecular biology. The major topic we have during coffee break is about science. I found myself in a biased situation that every time he talks about small RNA biology, I just could not feel the magic power. I feel I hear too many cliches, claiming regulatory roles of certain molecules in globally every system of biology.

Whenever I think about the questions like how we appreciate our abilities to see the colors, sense the smell of rose, or even as abstract as recognizing a friend from seeing the back of the shoulders, I feel talking about small RNAs or protein degradation does not generate answers to these questions. I am very aware of the possibilities that small RNAs or protein degradations play important roles in these processes, hence investigating these topics would help finding answers to interesting questions I mentioned. However, I feel science would be boring if one was stuck or satisfied with playing games of protein degradation or small RNAs.

Meanwhile, I am wondering if myself is stuck by the magic of these big questions that I neglect "small" molecules executing various biochemical reactions in our body. Or I am just so greedy in chasing these questions that I "wish" all small molecular biology stuff should have a meaning related to these questions.

In retrospect, I used to argue with college classmates of how RNA interference pathway works in C. elegans, how chiral molecules generate polarized lights, the purification of an endogenous executor of cell apoptosis. In biology, I used to have a very broad interest in almost every aspect of model molecular biology. With those passions, I almost finished the giant bible of "principle of biochemistry" and "alberts MCOB". However, I find myself mostly biased towards neuroscience. I can not taste the beauty of a lot of molecular biology, while I develop my own taste of neuroscience, as detail as into how drosophila development neuronal circuits to sense achromatic vision and color.

One thing I have learned is that science is a paradox of revealing natural common truth and expressing personalized opinion. In that way, you are in a dilemma of pursuing applause and anticipating debates. The beauty is using all your discoveries to build a theory, a theory that can be used to explain, a theory can never be proved to be right, but can be (but not easily) proved to be wrong.

So, for myself, never feel too sad to be biased if you are developing your own taste. All try to broadcasting your own theories and asking for debates.