How do you think your studies in neuroscience inform your study of literature, and vice versa? Sorry to bang on about university It was 50/50 whether I would do humanities or science when I was doing my a-levels and neuroscience is a field that fascinates me
Same for me. Such a shame that you have to make those really big life changing decisions so early on. I wish I could have continued sciences alongside my literature/social sciences path....
The most selfless thing, hmmm...I don't really know, I try to live my life day to day as selflessly as possible, without getting walked over by other people. I make an effort to give my time and money to good causes whenever such things are going on at Uni especially, but I can't really think of a specific act of selflessness...I suppose the most selfless thing I've ever done is generally to make a purposeful effort to put others before myself, I don't always manage it, I am selfish sometimes, but I do try to be aware of my level of selfishness and to keep it in check. The most selfish thing...I'm quite protective of certain things that are of value to me and as such I don't like sharing them...My guitar for instance, having bought it so I didn’t have to be nice to my brother and borrow his, and certain books or albums that mean a lot to me. I'd have huge difficulty sharing them with someone even if I knew it would make them happy...I'd probably let them have it, but I'd be overprotective, which I know makes me sound a bit daft.
I like this question! I find it really useful to study both...In terms of the skills required to pass the courses I'm on, a lot of the scientifically minded neuroscientists have real trouble when it comes to writing essays... just because they don’t often have to do it, especially if their other subject is some form of chemistry which for quite a few people it is...I think a lot of scientists suffer from not being able to communicate their ideas, so its nice not to have a panic attack at the thought of writing something. In terms of studying literature, I find it’s often very useful to have a decent knowledge of various scientific theories and concepts. Literature so often comments on scientific discovery and the fears which it may create in society, I think one of the most important things literature can do is to question the power and ethical implications of science. However, at the same time I seem to keep coming across people studying (or teaching) literature who seem to have no idea how the science they're passing judgment on actually works, there's sort of an attitude that either you do an arty subject or a science…a lot of people seem to like classing themselves as one or the other. Not that I think everyone needs a science degree to consider ethics etc, but it would be nice to meet a few more people out there who at least admit what they do and don't know, and who take a genuine interest in science, like you guys! Did that turn into a rant? What I meant to say was something along the lines of, ‘Yes, having knowledge about one field is very useful in others, even though it wouldn't always seem obvious, the skills are often transferable. It also means I don’t sound like a bullshitting loon in English tutorials when someone starts a debate about something scientific that they don’t really understand but don’t like the sound of, often because they think it’s against their particular religion.’
Good question, I dont really know! It depends what grade I manage to come out with. I'd quite like to carry on and do masters in some area of neuroscience, but I need to get through this degree first!
Nope, I'm an Atheist. Religion has never appealed to me, my parents both consider themselves agnostic, so I was never brought up to follow any particular religion...Honestly, I don’t really understand religious people, I mean I get why people feel the need to believe in God etc, but to me it'd be like believing in, I don’t know...elves or something. I guess I was born without the 'God' gene, which in itself makes me think there isn't a God. I don't go in for any of this spiritual stuff either...I figure if it's real it can be tested and proven, at which point it'd become science and probably lose it's appeal for the majority of believers anyway. Half the board might hate me now…Did I mention I think religion is the root of most of the world’s evils…?
I won't hate you for that, I agree with much of what you just said. Of course science can't prove everything at the present time, we have to acknowledge that. But we should also recognise that given a lack of proof, the assumption of the non-existance of supernatural entities is the more logical position than belief in their existence. It is also an assumption I would make, that if all variables were observable, science could provide all answers. Religion has caused a lot of social and political problems over the ages. I don't think it is the root of most of the worlds evils, being the socialist I am I'd go with neo-liberal capitalism on that one, but I would say it has had a net negative effect rather than a net positive effect....
This is something which irritates me about those who make claims about a spiritual realm which is by definition not observable and measurable to us (not necessarily religion-heads, but those who insist on some extra-physical spiritual something). If there is some spiritual realm which in no way affects our lives or the universe and is not observable then it's utterly meaningless to posit its existence! But they usually claim that it does have influence in some way on our lives... and as soon as it does, it becomes, by definition, observable and measurable!
I think you're right. Science can be very important in illuminating some aspects of cultural theory, that's why I think popularisers of science like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Steven Pinker are so important; the split between the humanities and the sciences is very unhelpful, and it could be said that 20th century philosophy, literary theory and social science carried on as if Charles Darwin never lived! Too long the humanities have been in thrall to mythmakers like Freud and Marx, and I firmly believe the new sciences of mind and behaviour are capable of shedding light on the way we understand ourselves, our society and our culture. To carry on in the deep and meaningful vein ... what's your favourite food?
...Well, I take an interest and I vote. I think it's important to be aware of what's going on in politics; I have opinions on most of the major issues going on at the moment, although none of them are particularly controversial. I don’t really consider myself to be a political person, but then again, compared to many of my friends, who don’t vote and just don’t care, I suppose you could say I am.
I voted tactically for the libdems in 2005 because they were the main opposition to the sitting Tory MP in my constituency and because of their stance opposing the Iraq war. Why did you vote libdem, do you think you would again, and what do you think of Ming the Merciless compared to Kennedy?
I voted Libdem for similar reasons, at the time I was involved with someone who was in the army and just about to get sent out to Iraq...so it was something that I not only cared about, but that I felt involved me personally. Would I vote for them again? It would depend on the situation at the time, I'd say it's a strong possibility. I never really liked Kennedy, it's not so much that I disliked him, I just always felt that he didn't give much of an impression as a leader. I prefer Ming, If only for the Ming the Merciless jokes, but I'm not sure I'd want him leading the country, not that it’s likely anyway. Saying that...I'm not sure I want any of the current potential leaders leading the country.
