Walking increases spontaneous fluctuations in the brain(salon.com)
salon.com
Walking increases spontaneous fluctuations in the brain
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/28/walking-and-spontaneous-fluctuations-brain/
122 comments
So basically a mobile hotspot with a webrtc webpage on which your headset microphone gets relayed? Participants can scan the QR-Code to join the hotspot WLAN and get directly redirected to the webrtc session
Oh boy, if ever there was a time to invoke the Dropbox comment!
Seriously though, I think it's an under-explored area. Several years ago[^] I thought it could be a fun way to do an ephemeral social networking type thing on the tube; then something a bit similar ('YikYak'?) became briefly popular (in the UK at least) but just using GPS or whatever for location, still with a central server.
I think there's plenty of interesting things you could do ephemerally, P2P over Bluetooth or mobile WLAN.
([^] edit: that's not some weird claim to fame, I mean it in the sense of I've long thought this should be good, but then, I've not bothered to do anything about it, and neither it seems has anybody else, so...)
Seriously though, I think it's an under-explored area. Several years ago[^] I thought it could be a fun way to do an ephemeral social networking type thing on the tube; then something a bit similar ('YikYak'?) became briefly popular (in the UK at least) but just using GPS or whatever for location, still with a central server.
I think there's plenty of interesting things you could do ephemerally, P2P over Bluetooth or mobile WLAN.
([^] edit: that's not some weird claim to fame, I mean it in the sense of I've long thought this should be good, but then, I've not bothered to do anything about it, and neither it seems has anybody else, so...)
How could you possible get that connection going? I'm pointing out how someone could potentially implement the product the parent wanted....... The easy to use parallel like Dropbox was to network shares doesn't exist.
Knowing Dropbox is like 10M lines of code now always teaches me the importance of not pretending things can in fact be built in a weekend.
The conceit that I could glue a bunch of libraries together in a 48 period to get an MVP-level of program that is nowhere near as polished as the collective output of teams of people, and would fall over at anything resembling load, is not the problem.
It's the implicit derision, that eg Twitter is inherently worthless because I could glue a few libraries together to a database over a weekend, and have a simplistic system where users who are able to broadcast short messages to other users, that is so odious about the "build it in a weekend" mindset. It denigrates the very real, but largely invisible effort it takes to scale a system up to that level. For any of us who have been involved with scaling a system up, it's invalidating to have your work invalidated like that. A Twitter or Dropbox clone built in 48 hours isn't going to handle the scale of actual Dropbox, nor will it be as resilient as actual Twitter in the face of eg a whole AWS region going down.
Build something awesome this weekend! (or even just something useful; it doesn't even have to be software) Just don't shit on someone else's hard work, even (especially!) if you don't get it. That Dropbox, reduced to it's basics is "just" a filesync client, and isn't actually the most technology fascinating project when described at that level, is an reflection of the oversimplification of the problem at hand, and not the inherent worthiness of solving that problem. The social aspects of what a program can be used for goes wholly underestimated and misunderstood a lot of the time. No one could deny the effect on the world that Twitter has had (though we don't have to agree on if the net effect was positive or negative), but many people still don't see the value of a product that isn't a revolutionary new technical product, like terabit wifi, but that's a reflection on their lack of imagination on their part, and not a poor reflection on Twitter as a business idea.
It's the implicit derision, that eg Twitter is inherently worthless because I could glue a few libraries together to a database over a weekend, and have a simplistic system where users who are able to broadcast short messages to other users, that is so odious about the "build it in a weekend" mindset. It denigrates the very real, but largely invisible effort it takes to scale a system up to that level. For any of us who have been involved with scaling a system up, it's invalidating to have your work invalidated like that. A Twitter or Dropbox clone built in 48 hours isn't going to handle the scale of actual Dropbox, nor will it be as resilient as actual Twitter in the face of eg a whole AWS region going down.
Build something awesome this weekend! (or even just something useful; it doesn't even have to be software) Just don't shit on someone else's hard work, even (especially!) if you don't get it. That Dropbox, reduced to it's basics is "just" a filesync client, and isn't actually the most technology fascinating project when described at that level, is an reflection of the oversimplification of the problem at hand, and not the inherent worthiness of solving that problem. The social aspects of what a program can be used for goes wholly underestimated and misunderstood a lot of the time. No one could deny the effect on the world that Twitter has had (though we don't have to agree on if the net effect was positive or negative), but many people still don't see the value of a product that isn't a revolutionary new technical product, like terabit wifi, but that's a reflection on their lack of imagination on their part, and not a poor reflection on Twitter as a business idea.
That sounds even better than what I was thinking of because you wouldn’t need people to download an app. Also, ESPN and Sky could have a version of that which it could license to broadcast the audio of a football game at bars or pubs
This is actually a really good idea. The hotspot could just locally serve the client and server side. Some pre connected devices could be distributed also for the elderly or the disabled.
Then you could package it with a "creation studio" to create your own version for tourguides, museums, etc. Resell some hardware also as per requirements. You've got yourself a nice little business that seems useful for the business and client.
Then you could package it with a "creation studio" to create your own version for tourguides, museums, etc. Resell some hardware also as per requirements. You've got yourself a nice little business that seems useful for the business and client.
We already have this. Just have the professor start a Zoom call on their phone and have everyone else join it using their phones while wearing headphones and their microphones muted.
I think the interesting bit is tying a stream to a (moving) location, and not having to scan QR codes, type in codes, or URLs to join.
Brilliant idea. We have thought of that before, when in a museum, where you know there is so much more history and information than just a label.
Surprised no one had done it yet.
Bloomberg Connects[1] is an attempt to do something like this. An institution connects their CMS and then visitors can access additional text, audio, video, images using triggers in the museum space.
However, to my knowledge it does not support live synchronous audio.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.bloomberg....
However, to my knowledge it does not support live synchronous audio.
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.bloomberg....
Could we geocode the lecture-snippets, so the statements persist at location? That way, one could advance at ones own pace. Or map it to a route of ones own design, while keeping the pace..
I recall projects that did something like this. Besides museums and historic neighborhoods, one memorable application was at a graveyard. Reenactors read letters and diary entries written by the deceased. The closer you were to the writer's tombstone, the louder their audio. From far away all you heard was a combination of barely audible voices. I believe the relevant terms are "audio walks" or "phonoscapes".
I have created something similar for a museum. I placed bluetooth beacons behind the exhibits, and when visitors approached them the app automatically switched to the "page" for this exhibit. The app was able to display texts, videos, images and audio files.
A lot of tour buses catering to speakers of foreign languages do exactly this.
The museum would lose revenue because you wouldn’t have to pay to rent their audio devices.
I am a software dev for a company that builds museum exhibits. Many museums these days have bespoke web or downloadable apps that serve audio tours, sometimes activated based on location through QR codes, computer vision, beacons (iBeacons, Eddystone beacons), or RFID scannable bracelets given to every visitor.
Could you please pitch this app as a more scalably-profitable revenue stream for your employer?
It's not really "an app". Every museum wants a different MVP, and I just listed some of the common tech involved in most of them. We don't have a turnkey product for this, we build out a custom thing every time, because clients come to us specifically for one-of-a-kind technical implementations.
Aruba Networks does this with their Meridian division.
You could pay for access to the audio stream just as well.
Alcatraz almost has this!
Due to the pandemic they made an app where you can follow along and listen to different parts of the tour
It’s not very “smart” I.e. not location aware to start the next prompt but honestly much better than those clunky audio tour boxes
Due to the pandemic they made an app where you can follow along and listen to different parts of the tour
It’s not very “smart” I.e. not location aware to start the next prompt but honestly much better than those clunky audio tour boxes
Why not a 'tour guide portable FM transmitter' (less than $100) and a bunch of dollar store FM radios?
Some, many? most? cell phones have a builtin FM receiver
so in many cases no additional HW should be needed
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cell+phone+FM+tuner
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cell+phone+FM+tuner
FM audio on yoru phone usually relied on the headphone cable being used as an antenna to receive the FM signal. With the demise of wired headphones, especially for high-end phones, this is unlikely to be viable.
that is insidious.
Hopefully there is an alternative
dangling a charging cable
or someone coming up with an antenna case that can boost the signal.
So far I'm good with just not buying one like that.
Because few people already carry FM store radios in their pocket, so relying on them requires solving a logistical problem.
True, but the FM solution could really be low latency, unlike the digital rube goldberg machine equivalent.
It will be more reliable than any solution based on either (i) a battery-powered web server, or (ii) mobile internet.
And latency will be constant and near-zero.
I suspect that's why a couple of the use cases you mentioned (city tours, dance parties) are usually addressed with FM radio and not apps.
Perhaps there's a way to do this with a modern bluetooth stack. But none of the offline messaging apps I've seen (Bridgefy, Meshenger) support group audio.
And latency will be constant and near-zero.
I suspect that's why a couple of the use cases you mentioned (city tours, dance parties) are usually addressed with FM radio and not apps.
Perhaps there's a way to do this with a modern bluetooth stack. But none of the offline messaging apps I've seen (Bridgefy, Meshenger) support group audio.
What's wrong with the reliability of mobile internet? I'd expect that in the target environment (e.g. some building in the middle of a city) mobile internet would be like 100% reliable, that would be a problem only in remote wilderness areas.
The things I had in mind:
1. I sometimes participate in Zoom/Meet calls when walking around SF. Not often enough to have a representative sample, but I know I've had a non-zero number of 1-2 second drops.
2. Students are often on a budget, and may have data caps on their mobile plans. Running out of data towards the end of the month might be OK if you're mostly in your room or the library. But it might impede you from participating in a lecture if you're walking out of wifi range.
1. I sometimes participate in Zoom/Meet calls when walking around SF. Not often enough to have a representative sample, but I know I've had a non-zero number of 1-2 second drops.
2. Students are often on a budget, and may have data caps on their mobile plans. Running out of data towards the end of the month might be OK if you're mostly in your room or the library. But it might impede you from participating in a lecture if you're walking out of wifi range.
Could be done with WiFi direct on phones that support it.
The fact that WiFi didn't originally ship with (and in many cases still does not support) simple P2P with nearby devices is just unbelievably stupid. Apple still insists on their own stupid standard instead of the actual standard too, at least on iOS devices. (I think Macs can be coaxed into the standard mode, but Macs are real computers.)
The fact that WiFi didn't originally ship with (and in many cases still does not support) simple P2P with nearby devices is just unbelievably stupid. Apple still insists on their own stupid standard instead of the actual standard too, at least on iOS devices. (I think Macs can be coaxed into the standard mode, but Macs are real computers.)
I am lookng forward to SDR-capable hardware falling in price to the point that it becomes the default for most devices. At that point, not only do wireless protocols become field-upgradeable (including more exotic options like UWB), but decentralized mesh-network protocols become installable as well.
I think this is planned for a future version of bluetooth.
I imagine that a silent disco setup would provide this rather well. Might need one with a better form factor for walking outside, but the technology for broadcasting locally to headsets has existed for a while now. Museums likely have these deployed already.
The trouble is that you need to distribute headsets to people, hope they don’t get broken, and then collect them back. If there is both an android and iPhone app, then you can let people use their own earbuds. You’d merely need to tell people “open Soapbox and pick #gymnosperms. We’ll set out on the trail on 8 or so minutes”
And then you have to deal with people who don't have earbuds with them.
Distributing headsets is a lot more reliable
Distributing headsets is a lot more reliable
Until you think about people that have devices that don't use headphone ports, or don't have bluetooth on their phones (both, IIRC, are very small counts, but potentially a problem). Not to mention if you're sharing headsets that, unless they're all coming in plastic bags suggesting that they're new from the factory, everyone else's germs are all over them.
> headsets to people, hope they don’t get broken, and then collect them back
Many museums do this already for their self-guided audio tours, it's pretty old tech but it works super well.
Many museums do this already for their self-guided audio tours, it's pretty old tech but it works super well.
Your comment struck me as odd but then I thought maybe you live in the US or a country like that with a language largely used by everyone. In France and Belgium and Europe it's really common for museums to offer audio guides. Which are either headset with a radio receiver that plays whatever the radio emitter is cycling or a headset with a small media player that plays tracks when you enter a room or switch a button.
You need zero-latency for this to be comfortable if participants will be in partial-hearing range a portion of the time.
An analog solution (e.g. "walkie talkie") would work well, though.
An analog solution (e.g. "walkie talkie") would work well, though.
You could do a group call where everyone else is on mute.
Horrible idea. I want it silent while walking around solving a complicated problem. It's only partially the walking, it's also the silence which brings out the best solutions to think over. But a good idea is to walk along a very loud river, the noise also clears your brain.
Random talkers certainly not.
Random talkers certainly not.
Could be accomplished with BLE broadcasting.
I've tried using bluetooth in a museum exhibition before and noise from wifi and other equipment rendered it pretty hopeless... but may have been the modules I was using...
Flawless at home/office. Useless on site
Flawless at home/office. Useless on site
This app indicates that existing Android and iPhones can already act as receivers. Can you (or anyone more familiar with the tech) verify that is true?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27294649/i-want-ble-broa...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27294649/i-want-ble-broa...
Receivers of BLE broadcast packets? Yes, that's how devices are discovered. It's just that you can also stuff those packets with a payload and transfer data (one way) without a connection.
Something like SoundSeeder (works via WiFi)
Kinda near-range walkie, nice. Bluetooth transmission should do, shouldn't it?
Is this an audio guide available at lots of museums?
I think Crowdcast is what you are looking for.
That would be short range FM-Radio.
Couldn’t you use Zoom for that?
Zoom isn't really setup for something like this. Ideally you want something that is one to many (broadcast), is low latency (since the participants would be able to hear the professor talking both in person and over the app), and is reliable.
...that's AM/FM etc radio.
Yes. I think I’ve even seen this implemented.
Certainly some drive-in theaters in North America worked like this. There would be signs telling you to tune your car radio to such-and-such frequency to hear the film audio. Here’s a picture of one: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3186/2718300357_ec1b9f3f45_z.j...
Certainly some drive-in theaters in North America worked like this. There would be signs telling you to tune your car radio to such-and-such frequency to hear the film audio. Here’s a picture of one: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3186/2718300357_ec1b9f3f45_z.j...
These still exist :)
https://kendadrivein.com/faqs
https://kendadrivein.com/faqs
Yeah, this is totally doable with walkie-talkies. The biggest drawbacks I can identify would be audio quality and interference.
Within a distance you can walk, it should be pretty easy to find a band with minimum interference even in a crowded metro. Also, quality won't be as much of an issue as range. There are pretty low limits on how much power you can use on the FM bands without a license.
Source: I drove all over a crowded metro in the early 2000s with one of those fm transmitters for playing audiobooks to my shitty car stereo. 3 station presets was enough for the whole area.
Source: I drove all over a crowded metro in the early 2000s with one of those fm transmitters for playing audiobooks to my shitty car stereo. 3 station presets was enough for the whole area.
You just invented poorly implemented radio.
Does any proof exists that humans think 'rationally' even when they are solving essentially deductive puzzles?
Im not an expert about neurological stuff, but did anyone discover any hardware in our brains that does something beyond 'induction'?
Is this notion of divergent/converged thinking based on anything objectively measurable? How do I make a machine that tells me if a given thought is convergent or divergent? Or is this all just cultural constructs similar to believe systems?
I'm especially tempted to be extra skeptical with anything that attributes a particular metaphysical superiority to human thinking over machines or animals. Is that skepsis an example of convergent or divergent thinking?
I'm sorry if my question make an actual expert cringe. But perhaps it can be an opportunity to enlighten simple minds like me further...
Im not an expert about neurological stuff, but did anyone discover any hardware in our brains that does something beyond 'induction'?
Is this notion of divergent/converged thinking based on anything objectively measurable? How do I make a machine that tells me if a given thought is convergent or divergent? Or is this all just cultural constructs similar to believe systems?
I'm especially tempted to be extra skeptical with anything that attributes a particular metaphysical superiority to human thinking over machines or animals. Is that skepsis an example of convergent or divergent thinking?
I'm sorry if my question make an actual expert cringe. But perhaps it can be an opportunity to enlighten simple minds like me further...
This isn't the answer to your question, but perhaps an additional point to consider.
One way humans are rational is when they "reason on paper". We write down most of the initial conditions and then use an algorithm (that's also written down) on them to get to the next step. We write down the result we got. Then we use an algorithm again on this result to get to the next step etc. This is how mathematics and science works. Obviously this is cultural - we learn to do this by learning to write, to do mathematics etc. It's not something ingrained to us.
I think humans can do something similar in their head, but it is greatly limited. The limiting factor is memory - an even remotely complex algorithm will eat up all your memory and you will forget about the results you had already got.
Eg adding 419875 + 87458284 uses the same algorithm as 356 + 472. We can easily do both on paper, but the former is difficult to do in your head, whereas the latter is fairly easy. You give someone an external memory (eg notes) and they both become easy again.
An external memory keeps our reasoning rational.
One way humans are rational is when they "reason on paper". We write down most of the initial conditions and then use an algorithm (that's also written down) on them to get to the next step. We write down the result we got. Then we use an algorithm again on this result to get to the next step etc. This is how mathematics and science works. Obviously this is cultural - we learn to do this by learning to write, to do mathematics etc. It's not something ingrained to us.
I think humans can do something similar in their head, but it is greatly limited. The limiting factor is memory - an even remotely complex algorithm will eat up all your memory and you will forget about the results you had already got.
Eg adding 419875 + 87458284 uses the same algorithm as 356 + 472. We can easily do both on paper, but the former is difficult to do in your head, whereas the latter is fairly easy. You give someone an external memory (eg notes) and they both become easy again.
An external memory keeps our reasoning rational.
I think this does answer some of the ambiguity I experienced with these concepts.
Your answer would suggest rational thinking does not come natural to us. That it requires a lot of discipline, external tools and culture.
That would suggest that the rational thinking itself does not take place in the brain, even when humans contribute to it.
Your answer would suggest rational thinking does not come natural to us. That it requires a lot of discipline, external tools and culture.
That would suggest that the rational thinking itself does not take place in the brain, even when humans contribute to it.
The evidence is that a group of humans can extremely reliably solve plenty of different classes of deductive puzzles, with error margins as close to 0 as you can find in the universe. Without that ability modern society wouldn't be possible.
The question is whether deduction is implemented in hardware or in software (that is: is it neurological or cultural).
I'll leave aside the question of deduction for the moment, but it seems quite clear that induction isn't the whole story. At the very least, we have to include abduction (ie. fuzzy pattern matching, or leaping to conclusions) in our repertoire.
To make the case for irrationality, you must make the case using truth, objectivity and reason, and therefore you're implicitly committed to them.
I was pondering an extreme 'sudoku' with the fewest of possible starting numbers: one. Then I realized you could solve it by starting with any solved sudoku and shuffling columns, rows, block-columns, and block-rows, in a manner similar to learning how a Rubik's cube works. That turned it into a vastly simpler deductive problem. I would say that this was creative but not irrational.
Just a small side note, you can solve any such sudoku in the same way you can fill a blank sudoku grid with a valid game state. Take the first 3x3 square and fill it with consecutive numbers 1,2, ..., 9. Then take the next 3x3 square and fill it with 2, 3, ..., 9, 1. Do the same for each next square and you'll end up with a valid board. To solve the one-number-only sudoku you would then simply take the 3x3 square the number is in, fill it with consecutive numbers around the given number, and then fill the rest of the board similar to the above.
Not much different. The advantage with using validity-preserving operations is that you can follow-up with more operations to satisfy additional constraints.
I think what we call rationality is the most likely (aka most active path, when some cost timer in the brain runs out), one can restart it and train it for long periods, but usually its attention is fleeting, because attention is expensive and should be on important things, like food, group, booty and nothing.
I doubt that humans, being the herd animals that they are, use anything other than mere perceptibility (= volume and repetition possibly weighted with the status of the speaker) to reach consensus. As usual, 10% of the population are not quite like that.
That article had a ton of links, but I couldn't find any support for the real factual claim that walking increases spontaneous brain fluctuations. Would love to see that paper.
For the most part, spontaneous brain fluctuations are studied in the context of fMRI. Since you can't walk in an fMRI, I'd like to know how they actually measured anything.
For the most part, spontaneous brain fluctuations are studied in the context of fMRI. Since you can't walk in an fMRI, I'd like to know how they actually measured anything.
I think the article/salon is optimized for clickbait. It's hard to boil down the concept into a couple words.
Dr. Huberman mentions 'Optic flow', likely the same concept:
>When you move through space, whether walking, running, or driving, you’re in what’s called optic flow. Things are moving past your retina at varying speed, depending on how fast you’re moving, but your brain has knowledge of how fast you’re moving. It cancels out the movement in a way that says, okay, these objects aren’t moving past me. I’m moving past them. All of this boils down to a set of circuits in the brain and body that make it so that when we’re moving through space, it has this property of relaxing us and giving us a sensation that is somewhat rewarding. And so what this translates to is at least once a day, get out and move. Optic flow doesn’t have to be fast. It can be at slow speeds. Ideally, it’s variable speeds, but this, I believe, underlies the sensation, the both calming and invigorating and kind of replenishing feelings that we get from taking a bike ride or a long run or swimming, for that matter.
https://findingmastery.net/andrew-huberman/
Dr. Huberman mentions 'Optic flow', likely the same concept:
>When you move through space, whether walking, running, or driving, you’re in what’s called optic flow. Things are moving past your retina at varying speed, depending on how fast you’re moving, but your brain has knowledge of how fast you’re moving. It cancels out the movement in a way that says, okay, these objects aren’t moving past me. I’m moving past them. All of this boils down to a set of circuits in the brain and body that make it so that when we’re moving through space, it has this property of relaxing us and giving us a sensation that is somewhat rewarding. And so what this translates to is at least once a day, get out and move. Optic flow doesn’t have to be fast. It can be at slow speeds. Ideally, it’s variable speeds, but this, I believe, underlies the sensation, the both calming and invigorating and kind of replenishing feelings that we get from taking a bike ride or a long run or swimming, for that matter.
https://findingmastery.net/andrew-huberman/
Every movement our bodies make will show up in the brain in some way or another. This study for example started breaking down brain signal "noise" and basically found that the brain and body are super tightly coupled. The feeling of the pants against your legs and the wind in your hair is gonna show up in a brain scan, so of course you're gonna see brain stimulation while walking.
> When researchers studied the spontaneous activity of more than 10,000 neurons in the visual cortex of mice, they were surprised to find it to be rich with information about the animals’ seemingly irrelevant movements.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/noise-in-the-brains-vision-ar...
> When researchers studied the spontaneous activity of more than 10,000 neurons in the visual cortex of mice, they were surprised to find it to be rich with information about the animals’ seemingly irrelevant movements.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/noise-in-the-brains-vision-ar...
My mental model is that the brain has some kind of pseudorandom idea generator. Like any pseudorandom generator, it needs a wide array of inputs. I bet walking around provides all kinds of muscular and sensory inputs, as well as increased blood flow and engagement of most parts of the brain which is precisely what is required for pseudorandom creativity.
This also explains why I need time off after hard, creative work; or why vacation is so helpful. I need to repopulate entropy.
Why would it be pseudorandom? If the brain is natural, wouldn't it just be random?
Randomness is an abstraction for "we don't know how it works".
Randomness can be an abstraction even over a known more fundamental underlying model (similar to temperature vs. molecular motion) but it can be as fundamental as electron or anything else in a specific model (quantum mechanics).
So... Random = Pseudorandom?
I mean, maybe. It's a rather philosophical question in the end. Can there be true randomness in the universe or is everything in some way deterministic, but it's just that the underlying system is so complex that it can never be computable. And is a deterministic, but uncomputable, system actually deterministic?
FWIW, the hidden-variable theory, that the universe is deterministic and we just lack all information to predict it, has been considered and rejected by physicists.
https://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-do-physicists-re... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory
https://www.askamathematician.com/2009/12/q-do-physicists-re... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory
While that is a pretty good 'laymans' description of Bell's theory, I do find it quite funny that step 3 of their proof that randomness exists requires you to "choose 2 random numbers".
Reminded me of the "Free Will" thesis by Sam Harris.
If the entire nervous system contributes to cognition, then you would assume that stimulating more of the body would stimulate more cognition – or "pseudorandom ideas".
There's such a thing as overstimulation. There is probably an optinal degree of stimulation to encourage cognition without overloading it.
> So while my students are out on their walks, they might be mind-wandering more than in the classroom, but this is a good thing
To be a bit flippant, isn't this obvious? Who thinks that mind-wandering is a bad thing? Teachers, I guess. How is it possible to be a philosopher without mind-wandering?
> In 2014, a new study showed that walking decreased rational and linear thinking and increased divergent thinking and imaginative mind-wandering
The only thing problematic here is the decrease in "rational" thinking. I think in context it means something closer to rigid, concentrated, and well-defined (ie - uninspired).
To be a bit flippant, isn't this obvious? Who thinks that mind-wandering is a bad thing? Teachers, I guess. How is it possible to be a philosopher without mind-wandering?
> In 2014, a new study showed that walking decreased rational and linear thinking and increased divergent thinking and imaginative mind-wandering
The only thing problematic here is the decrease in "rational" thinking. I think in context it means something closer to rigid, concentrated, and well-defined (ie - uninspired).
The three times I have my best ideas are: walking, showering, or that state when I'm drifting between awake/asleep.
I also get ideas reading. Which, really, makes me a bad reader because I get distracted.
Yes! I get this too. It can make reading books quite difficult.
I imagine it's because reading is a much "quieter" brain activity than what I do the rest of the time, which is spending time on dynamic, interactive systems: i.e. my phone and computer, so the background "noise" has a chance to surface without being dismissed by something more dynamic and interesting.
I imagine it's because reading is a much "quieter" brain activity than what I do the rest of the time, which is spending time on dynamic, interactive systems: i.e. my phone and computer, so the background "noise" has a chance to surface without being dismissed by something more dynamic and interesting.
I agree with the first two, but for me the latter doesn't produce much.
I will literally get a shower if I'm working on a hard problem (and a walk is not convenient). So many times I solve the problem, sometimes after having sat at the computer for hours trying to solve it.
I will literally get a shower if I'm working on a hard problem (and a walk is not convenient). So many times I solve the problem, sometimes after having sat at the computer for hours trying to solve it.
“Only ideas won by walking have any value.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
Salon, so probably fake news, but anecdotally, I've had a lot of good ideas while just walking outside (or in the shower, which I suspect could have the same effect). Basically when I'd get stuck on something hard at work, I'd lock my machine, leave my phone behind, and walk around the building a few times. Usually that was enough to figure out how to get unstuck at least, if not outright solve the problem. Try this, if you're able, I'm pretty sure it's not just me.
It's kind of aggravating that this is not considered to be "work" by most people. I'd say those are some of the highest value parts of my day.
It's kind of aggravating that this is not considered to be "work" by most people. I'd say those are some of the highest value parts of my day.
I’ve noticed it’s much harder to walk in my city and generate ideas because there are spontaneous loud sounds and random visuals compared to when I lived more rurally. I’m not sure if there is a way I can reduce this … dark sunglasses and noise-cancelling headphones maybe, but that seems distracting in its own way and potentially dangerous.
We have got parks.
Unfortunately the only park I’m near is very small, and people frequently blast music at it. I could commute to a larger park, but that wont work for daily walks.
We have had a few walking related stories on HN the past few weeks. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28268136 was interesting.
Oh my this article is painful to read on so many levels. It treats as important many phenomena that are either inevitable or uninteresting.
(1) The fact that engaging in one task distracts attention from another task is obvious. People derive inspiration from taking a shower, swimming, biking, playing music and yes, walking. All these tasks have something in common, they are different from whatever task one was doing beforehand, and they require less cognitive focus than many of the things that we do for work.
(2) The fact that noise in the brain is 1/f is not particularly interesting. Many natural systems have 1/f amplitude spectra. This pattern occurs commonly in multi-scale systems (the brain being one example).
(3) The fact that many aspects of brain activity (both signal and noise) are affected by aging, consciousness, mental experiences, memory and so on is not particularly interesting. Assuming that one is not a dualist, every distinct mental state must be reflected by some unique pattern of brain activity.
(4) Scientists know quite a bit about where these “spontaneous fluctuations” come from. Many of them are a consequence of changes in blood pressure, which varies substantially and randomly over time (within some finite band, of course). Others are caused by mental states that are difficult to measure and model, and so are unknown to the experimenter. But just because something is noise from the perspective of the experimenter doesn’t mean that it is noise from the perspective of the brain.
(1) The fact that engaging in one task distracts attention from another task is obvious. People derive inspiration from taking a shower, swimming, biking, playing music and yes, walking. All these tasks have something in common, they are different from whatever task one was doing beforehand, and they require less cognitive focus than many of the things that we do for work.
(2) The fact that noise in the brain is 1/f is not particularly interesting. Many natural systems have 1/f amplitude spectra. This pattern occurs commonly in multi-scale systems (the brain being one example).
(3) The fact that many aspects of brain activity (both signal and noise) are affected by aging, consciousness, mental experiences, memory and so on is not particularly interesting. Assuming that one is not a dualist, every distinct mental state must be reflected by some unique pattern of brain activity.
(4) Scientists know quite a bit about where these “spontaneous fluctuations” come from. Many of them are a consequence of changes in blood pressure, which varies substantially and randomly over time (within some finite band, of course). Others are caused by mental states that are difficult to measure and model, and so are unknown to the experimenter. But just because something is noise from the perspective of the experimenter doesn’t mean that it is noise from the perspective of the brain.
Yes I agree with all the article! Sometimes also if I can’t find a solution for something regarding the computer, I go out to make a walk and usually I find the solution thinks while walking, usually with the help of the phone while walking.
I wonder if any of the benefits of walking carry over to biking? I've basically given up walking to always biking but after reading "Deep Work" I'm starting to feel like I'm missing out by not rambling around and zoning out.
I'm curious about this, too. I love biking for the distance you can travel, the wind, the strength it builds, but I do have a distinct taste for walking, though I'd have to think about it more to have any ideas as to why.
P.S. a) It's easier to dawdle when you walk, to enjoy the particulars of the places you pass; biking is so fast by default that you have less time to savor details. b) Biking tends to be higher intensity exercise, which may actually take necessary energy away from mind-wandering; in fact, my mind wanders much less while biking than walking, so I'd guess this is the case, but maybe this isn't true for everyone. Moreover, biking forces external attention more regularly as you encounter pedestrians and traffic at a higher rate
P.S. a) It's easier to dawdle when you walk, to enjoy the particulars of the places you pass; biking is so fast by default that you have less time to savor details. b) Biking tends to be higher intensity exercise, which may actually take necessary energy away from mind-wandering; in fact, my mind wanders much less while biking than walking, so I'd guess this is the case, but maybe this isn't true for everyone. Moreover, biking forces external attention more regularly as you encounter pedestrians and traffic at a higher rate
I've found this too. I love biking and find it exhilarating, but it doesn't let my mind wander in the same productive way it does on a walk.
In college I took a lot more random walks. I'm going to try to build those into my day.
Isn't writing the pen going for a walk?
mercy_dude(4)
This would also be useful for city tours, outdoor dance parties, and churches with hard-of-hearing parishoners.