Tag: neuroscience

The Relational Consciousness Series: Why the Parts Don’t Add Up

Mason LaiLeave a comment

What Today’s Theories of Consciousness Explain, and What They Leave Out

Image by PIRO from Pixabay

In the last essay, I suggested that consciousness may be less like a spotlight in the brain and more like a groove in a jazz ensemble. In other words, not a thing located somewhere, but a pattern of coordination that sustains itself over time.

That idea doesn’t come from nowhere. Modern neuroscience and philosophy of mind have developed powerful frameworks for understanding how the brain integrates information, represents the world, and makes decisions. So in the realm of theories, we’re good. We have enough, so that’s not the challenge. The challenge is just that even our best theories often explain the ingredients of cognition without fully explaining the organization of experience.

To see this, it helps to look briefly at what these theories get right.

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes that consciousness corresponds to the degree to which a system’s parts form an irreducible whole. It gives us a formal way to talk about integration and complexity. But while IIT quantifies how tightly a system is connected, it does not by itself explain why that integration should take the form of a unified, temporally unfolding field of experience rather than a static structure of relations.

Global Workspace Theory (GWT) describes how information becomes globally available to multiple brain systems, enabling reasoning, report, and flexible control. It explains why some information influences thought and behavior while other processing remains unconscious. But global availability does not guarantee experiential unity. A system could, in principle, broadcast information widely without producing a single, coherent field of awareness.

Higher-Order Thought (HOT) theories emphasize metacognition, where a mental state becomes conscious when the system represents itself as being in that state. This highlights the importance of self-representation, but it leaves open a deeper question. Why should layering representations on top of one another produce a seamless, continuous stream of experience rather than a stack of discrete, momentary snapshots?

Predictive processing models the brain as a hierarchical prediction engine, constantly minimizing error between expectations and sensory input. This framework beautifully captures the brain’s anticipatory, feedback-driven nature. Yet prediction alone does not explain why coordinated inference should be accompanied by a felt point of view, or why experience is structured as a single, centered flow.

Each of these theories identifies a crucial feature of conscious systems: integration, global availability, self-representation, hierarchical feedback. And they get a lot of it right. But they often treat these features as if each of them alone can be sufficient in explaining this enigmatic process. What remains underexplained is how these processes must be organized together in time to produce a stable, unified experiential field.

In other words, we know most of the musicians. We just haven’t fully described the conditions under which they lock into a groove.

This is where a dynamical, relational perspective becomes necessary. Consciousness may not arise simply because information is integrated, broadcast, represented, or predicted, but because these processes become recursively entangled across multiple levels, aligning in time and stabilizing into a pattern that can sustain itself. The difference is subtle but important: it shifts the focus from what functions are present to how their interactions are structured.

When we approach this question of consciousness from this angle, the central question changes. Instead of asking which module or computation “contains” consciousness, we ask: under what dynamical conditions do neural processes form a self-sustaining pattern that organizes thought and self-awareness into a single, continuous field?

The Relational Consciousness Threshold framework is an attempt to answer exactly that question. It does not replace existing theories; it reframes them as describing components of a larger process. Integration, broadcasting, prediction, and self-modeling become not competing explanations, but interacting elements that must cross a threshold of coordination before experience emerges.

The next step is to make that threshold explicit. What kinds of feedback must be present? How much temporal alignment is required? And what does it mean, physically, for a pattern of brain activity to hold together as the moment-to-moment “center” of experience?

Those are the questions we turn to next.

The Relational Consciousness Series: When the Brain Finds the Groove

Mason LaiLeave a comment

Consciousness as a Relational, Dynamical Event

Image by Anastasia Beloychuk from Pixabay

If you’ve ever listened to a jazz quintet, you know the feeling: the drummer sets a rhythm, the bassist responds, the piano punctuates—and suddenly, the room “locks in.” The groove isn’t in any single musician; it emerges from the real-time coordination between them.

Consciousness is like that. It doesn’t exist in a single neuron, brain region, or module. It emerges when the brain’s internal activity organizes itself into a temporally extended, relational pattern. This is the core insight of the Relational Consciousness Threshold (RCT) Theory, which I’ve developed through a year of independent study in philosophy and neuroscience.

Most contemporary frameworks like Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory, or higher-order thought models capture important components of neural processing but do not fully explain why distributed activity feels like something from the inside, why experience is unified, or why it unfolds as a continuous, temporally extended flow. RCT Theory addresses this gap by proposing that consciousness arises only when three jointly necessary conditions are met:

  1. Multilevel Feedback Closure (MFC): recursive loops connecting sensory, cognitive, and reflective layers.
  2. Coherence Threshold (CT): sufficient temporal and functional alignment across those loops.
  3. Self-Stabilizing Attractor Formation (SAF): an emergent pattern that maintains continuity and resilience despite perturbations.

These conditions are measurable, falsifiable, and most importantly, theoretically grounded. Together, they define what a system must do for conscious experience to occur, rather than where it “sits” or what it “contains.”

This perspective reframes longstanding philosophical puzzles: the unity of experience, the sense of a center or self, and the continuity of conscious states. It also bridges to empirical neuroscience: EEG, MEG, and perturbational complexity metrics can test whether a system achieves these organizational thresholds. Beyond theory, it has ethical consequences for all sorts of things including AI, clinical assessment, and human-machine integration. Under RCT, consciousness should no longer be an abstraction. We can prove that it is an objectively constrained phenomenon, and why that matters.

In this series, I will unpack each of these conditions, connect them to lived experience, and show how consciousness, like a jazz groove, is an emergent event. The goal is to move from metaphor to mechanism without losing the intuitive insight: consciousness is something the brain does, not something it has.

If we want to understand the mind, we have to stop looking for the “seat of the soul” and start looking at relational dynamics.

The Philosophy of Calvin and Hobbes

Mason Lai1 Comment
Daily writing prompt
What’s your favorite cartoon?
View all responses

Calvin doesn’t so much move across the page as erupt onto it. Like a small cyclone with boundless imagination and a staggering refusal to conform. Hobbes, on the other side, meets him with wit and affection and a philosophical steadiness that Calvin never quite attains. Their world often flashes to and fro between their backyard and the cosmos, between quiet suburbia and impossible fantasy, from nostalgia for a simpler time to the familiar anxieties of the modern psyche. Reading Calvin and Hobbes as a grade schooler, I treated the strip as pure fun and entertainment. But since then I’ve found it to be an unexpectedly rich index of the human condition refracted through Watterson’s lens of ink, play, and the irreverent honesty of a child.

To read the strip carefully is to see ourselves more clearly. To sit with it is to recognize the strange mixture of wonder and failure that defines humanity. And along the way, one gains appreciation for the fact that the most complex issues can sometimes be explained best in the simplest ways.

I. Daring to Imagine

Children imagine constantly, but Calvin imagines with unusual density and velocity. He becomes Spaceman Spiff, fleeing a pop quiz by recasting his teacher as an alien despot. He marshals snowmen into moral allegories and tiny apocalypses, like sculptures of doubt, dread, and delight that speak when he cannot. He turns a cardboard box into a transmogrifier, duplicator, time machine, and philosophical device depending on his mood.

His inner life becomes a kind of atlas for the rest of us. All his shenanigans remind us that our minds are a borderland where both truth and delusion reside. Watterson skips the lengthy dissection of this duality and instead illuminates it through a boy who cannot stop making worlds and a tiger who loves him enough to question each one.

II. Hobbes

Hobbes’s ambiguity is not a gimmick but a crack in the frame through which possibility spills. To adults he is cotton and stitching; to Calvin he is full of pulse and mischief. The strip leaves the interpretation open: imaginary friend, inner voice, independent soul, or evidence of how little adults understand the secret languages of children.

What matters is that Hobbes behaves like someone with a center of gravity all his own. Wry, affectionate, predatory in bursts, he occupies the space of a true companion. He spars verbally, punctures Calvin’s conceits, offers moral hesitation when it’s needed, and leaps into joy without hesitation.

Their relationship rejects the notion that children grow only under adult tutelage. Instead, it suggests that selfhood is a duet formed with the million interactions one has with others. If Calvin is the force of aspiration and unruliness, Hobbes is the counterforce that gives those energies shape.

Identity, the strip suggests, is not born alone.

III. Improvisation

Calvin is not on a quest to discover a “true self”; he is busy inventing one, then discarding it, then inventing again. Tracer Bullet, Stupendous Man, dinosaur, philosopher—each identity a doorway out of confinement and into possibility. Developmental psychology frames this as exploration, but Watterson frames it as resistance, as a refusal to be caught in the nets of labels and expectations. And Calvin is allergic to containment. His improvisational selves critique a culture devoted to categorization and clarity of purpose.

IV. Morality

Calvin’s morality varies in a polar manner. He’s cruel one moment, tender the next, and always capable of mischief. Hobbes compliments him by meeting Calvin where he is rather than where adults believe he should be. This flexible, relational ethics stands in contrast to the rigid structures Calvin resists: punitive school routines, arbitrary rules, the moralism of adults who cannot articulate their own logic.

The strip also subtly challenges the idea that morality should be instilled through rigid rules and external discipline. Calvin resists systems that feel hypocritical or authoritarian, becoming the vessel of Watterson’s critique, aimed not at morality itself but at the ways society attempts to impose it.

V. Emotion

Calvin experiences emotion with almost no moderation. A math test becomes a Lovecraftian nightmare. A snowy hill becomes a site of ecstatic danger. A family camping trip becomes an existential crisis about bugs, cold, and mortality.

Hobbes helps navigate this turbulence all the time. He mocks Calvin’s exaggerated fears, saying, “If you can’t stand the pressure, don’t be a kid”. He acknowledges Calvin’s genuine dread, and dives headlong alongside him into joy, like during their sled rides that inevitably end in catastrophe.

The strip thus critiques a society that rewards emotional suppression. Rather than simply dismissing them for their drama, Calvin’s extremes give insight into the intensity of human feeling, because we were all kids once too.

VI. Critique

Watterson uses Calvin’s world as a mirror held up to our own. School becomes a factory of compliance. Consumer culture turns imagination into merchandise. Suburban repetition blurs days into sameness. The media’s drone replaces attention with noise.

Calvin resists instinctively, questioning rules that feel hollow or hypocritical. His rebellion is imperfect and sometimes destructive, yet it serves to reveal how often adults surrender to systems simply because it is comforting to in their familiarity.

The strip’s critique is timeless not because it predicts the future but because it understands the present. It reminds us to regain some more creativity and sparks in our lives.

VII. What Each Last Panel Leaves Behind

Calvin and Hobbes endures because it captures a surprisingly wide span of human experience through the lens of childhood without romanticizing it.

Yet the strip’s critique of humanity is tempered by its affection for humanity. Yes, we standardize what should remain flexible. We suppress curiosity to maintain order. We abandon play for productivity.

But Watterson’s final panels remind readers that wonder is always recoverable. A sled ride through fresh snow, a philosophical aside about stars, or a simple moment of companionship between boy and tiger reopens the possibility of joy.

Humanity is flawed, and in that, it is—we are—magnificent. In their mischief, in their arguments, in their invented worlds, and in their shared astonishment at being alive, Calvin and Hobbes transports into a realm where we can see our limits, yes, but also respect the forgiveness that encourages us to try again.

Winnie the Pooh and the Art of Being Fully Alive

Mason Lai1 Comment

https://pixabay.com/photos/bear-winnie-the-pooh-toy-2982809/

Daily writing prompt
What’s your favorite cartoon?
View all responses

What a bear with very little brain can teach us about consciousness, mindfulness, and the ethics of care

At first glance, Pooh Bear seems simple. He walks slowly, he loves honey, and he forgets things. That’s it. Nothing complicated, nothing dramatic. And yet, the more you watch him, the more you notice: there’s a quiet wisdom in the way he inhabits his world.

Not wisdom in the “sage on a mountaintop” sense. Wisdom in the way he pays attention. The way he interacts with friends or navigates the small ups and downs of life.

The Power of Paying Attention

Pooh’s adventures are funny, but they also reveal a surprising truth about attention. Floating on a balloon to steal honey, he’s completely absorbed in the task, oblivious to how absurd it looks. Neuroscience tells us that attention is a finite resource.

We can’t multitask perfectly, and our brains are constantly prioritizing what matters. Pooh doesn’t “practice mindfulness” or meditate; he just throws himself into what’s in front of him. And he doesn’t overthink it. In doing so, he shows us how simple focus makes life richer.

And then there’s his forgetfulness. When Pooh tries to help Eeyore find his tail, he forgets details and causes a small ruckus. According to cognitive science, forgetting is normal. Research suggests that our brains prune memories to prevent overload and allow for more mental bandwidth for other things.

Care Without Drama

Pooh’s ethics are quiet. Checking on Piglet during a storm or helping friends in small ways, he makes the most of small actions rather than grand gestures.

Philosophers call this relational ethics, or care practiced in the moment rather than in theory. Pooh isn’t a moral model; he’s just kind because it feels natural. His friendships emphasize that being a good person is about the tiny, consistent ways we attend to others.

The Simple Joy of Desire

Pooh loves honey. It’s intense, sometimes compulsive, and it drives many of his adventures. From the perspective of affective neuroscience, desire and reward shape mood.

By grounding his happiness in something that he can get everyday (honey!), he lives a steady and reliable existence; he avoids the entrapment of the novel and the grand. In a world obsessed with achievement, Pooh’s satisfaction is a call to anchor our emotional lives in something familiar.

Lessons Without Preaching

Pooh, to put it simply, lives. The Hundred Acre Wood shows us that small acts of attention and care matter, that imperfection is human. And above all, that ordinary life can be magical.

You don’t think of a sage or an ideal when you think of Pooh Bear. But he sure is a good guide, a reminder that contentment often comes not from striving to be perfect, but from noticing the little things and caring too.

In his gentle simplicity there lies a lesson modern life sometimes makes us forget: you don’t need a lot to live well, you just need to be fully present for the small, sweet moments that surround you.

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.

Why I Never Make Wishes

Mason Lai1 Comment

I want my experience to guide me, not undeserved freebies.

Daily writing prompt
What is one thing you would change about yourself?
View all responses

I never make wishes. Not because I lack desire, or because I am practical in a boring sense, but because I want the arc of my life to emerge from my choices and mistakes, not from a free handout from the universe. A wish, by its nature, is a shortcut. An attempt to acquire a future without traversing the path that shapes the self along the way. I am more interested in that shaping than in the outcome itself.

Neuroscience

Neuroscience gives a strange kind of validation to this intuition. The brain learns most deeply through effort through what researchers call prediction error, the moment when expectation meets reality and the system adapts. Dopamine spikes which respond to effortful achievement serve to reinforce connections in the prefrontal cortex and striatum, helping us encode both skill and memory. If wishes were real, they would bypass that process. In a sense, it deprives the nervous system of experience, its most potent teacher.

Consider the subtle difference between a student who struggles for months to master a piece of music and one who magically acquires the ability with a single wish. Both may be able to play the notes, but only the first has undergone the kind of plasticity that transforms the mind. The hippocampus consolidates memories, the motor cortex refines its output, and the brain’s error-monitoring circuits, especially in the anterior cingulate cortex, learn to adapt. The journey, not the shortcut, builds agency. The wish, however tempting, is neurologically inert. Sorry, Aladdin. It asks nothing and returns nothing of value beyond the superficial.

Philosophy

Philosophically, my aversion to wishing aligns with existentialist thought. Kierkegaard wrote about authentic existence as reliant on decision, risk, and reflection. To hand over the authorship of your future, even symbolically, to some external wish is to abdicate the very process that makes life meaningful. Wishing collapses experience into instant gratification; it divorces outcome from effort, action from responsibility. And the self, stripped of its formative trials, becomes lighter, but also emptier.

Stories like Aladdin illustrate a subtle truth about wishing and effort. Aladdin becomes wealthy, meets the princess, and transforms his life, but only because the narrative allows him access to opportunity. In real life, outcomes are far less generous. Contemporary philosophy and social thought remind us that effort alone does not guarantee escape from suffering. Structural barriers, resources, and circumstance shape who can act on their potential and who remains constrained, no matter how hard they try. Refusing shortcuts or wishes is therefore a personal ethical choice because it shapes the kind of person you become, but it cannot erase the imbalances of reality. What we gain from experience is valuable, but it is never distributed evenly.

Therefore, this is not to romanticize suffering or struggle. I am not advocating for unnecessary pain or the glorification of difficulty. But I do believe that real growth requires living inside the friction of consequence and choice.

Ethics

There is also a subtle ethical dimension. When we wish for unearned advantages, we are implicitly saying that we value our own gain above the discipline of learning or merit. By refusing to wish, I am also, in a small way, refusing to outsource my development to luck. I am committing to a life where reward is proportional to engagement, where consequence is respected, and where experience remains my guide.

The Reality

Sometimes life is harder, slower, and less immediately satisfying than it would be if wishes were real. I miss opportunities that might have arrived on a whim. I watch others take shortcuts and sometimes envy their efficiency.

And yet, I want my story written in synapses that were built in response to challenge, not circumstantial fortune. I want my character shaped by choices that left a mark both on my mind and on my life. The wish tempts me with speed, but I choose depth. I choose learning. I choose experience.

Because in the end, it is experience, not magic, that teaches us who we are.

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.

Are Night Owls or Morning People Healthier? Neuroscience Reveals a Surprising Winner

Mason Lai1 Comment
Daily writing prompt
Are you more of a night or morning person?
View all responses

Your body has a schedule, but are you listening?

You do not simply wake when you want to. You wake when your suprachiasmatic nucleus (a cluster of about 20,000 neurons in the hypothalamus) decides your internal clock has finished its nightly cycle (or just when your alarm goes off). You feel alert or sluggish depending on where you fall in a chronotype, a biologically influenced timing profile that shapes energy, mood, cognition, and metabolism.

We talk about morning people and night people as if they are personality traits, but neuroscience urges us to consider them as deep physiological patterns. The surprise is that neither chronotype is objectively “better.” The advantage depends on what modern life demands of you as well as how well your internal rhythms align with those demands.

Here is a more grounded look at what your body is actually doing.

I: What Chronotypes Really Are

Your circadian rhythm runs at about twenty-four hours depending on genetic architecture. The PER3, CLOCK, and BMAL1 genes help determine whether you drift earlier or later. About 40 percent of people lean morning, 30 percent lean evening, and the rest fall somewhere in the middle.

The timing affects more than just sleep. Research from the University of Birmingham and University of Surrey shows that chronotype predicts peak cognitive performance windows with real precision. Morning types perform best earlier in the day, with sharper working memory and mental stability. Evening types peak later, showing enhanced creativity and divergent thinking in the late afternoon and night.

Therefore, what you must consider is whether your schedule matches your internal timing.

II: The Neuroscience of Night Owls

Night owls tend to have delayed melatonin release, slower buildup of homeostatic sleep pressure, and greater resilience to sleep restriction in the late hours. They maintain higher activity in the reward circuitry during the evening, which has both benefits and risks.

Advantages

  • Peak creativity in non-standard hours. Several studies (including a 2020 paper in Personality and Individual Differences) show that evening types outperform morning types on divergent thinking tasks when tested in the late hours.
  • Flexible attention patterns. EEG recordings show that evening types maintain frontal-parietal connectivity later at night, supporting sustained attention into irregular hours.
  • Greater innovation under low structure. Environments that reward autonomy often see night-leaning individuals excel.

Drawbacks

  • Social jet lag. If society demands morning schedules, night owls experience chronic circadian misalignment, correlating with higher cortisol levels, impaired glucose regulation, and increased depressive symptoms.
  • Cognitive penalties early in the day. Working memory and decision-making dip sharply in morning hours for night types. (I can relate.)

So night owl advantages only fully show up when life allows a shifted schedule. Without that, the biological rhythm becomes a liability.

III: The Neuroscience of Morning Types

Morning people have earlier circadian anchors, in melatonin rising earlier, core body temperature peaking earlier, and cortisol following a strong morning surge that supports task initiation.

Advantages backed by research

  • Better synchronization with societal structure. Most schools and jobs begin early. Morning types rarely experience circadian misalignment.
  • Improved long-term health outcomes. Studies in Sleep Medicine Reviews link early chronotypes with lower obesity rates, more stable glucose metabolism, and reduced cardiovascular risk.
  • More consistent mood regulation. Morning types show stronger connectivity in the frontal control networks early in the day, which buffers emotional volatility.

Costs to consider

  • Lower creativity in late-day conditions. Evening testing often reveals reduced flexibility and weaker associative thinking.
  • Greater fatigue in late hours. Cognitive performance drops sharply past evening for early chronotypes.
  • Rigid energy curves. Morning types sometimes struggle with unpredictable schedule demands, late shifts, or creative tasks that require extended ideation windows.

Morningness thrives in structured worlds. It can falter in environments requiring spontaneity or irregularity in patterns.

IV: So Who Is “Better” Off?

Here is the actual scientific answer:
You do better when the world matches your chronotype.

The most consistent finding across chronobiology is the cost of forcing an internal rhythm to fit an external schedule. Researchers call this circadian misalignment, and it functions like internal jet lag every day. It impairs memory formation, increases inflammation, disrupts metabolic hormones, affects cardiovascular function, and even shifts risk-taking tendencies.

Night owls suffer more because modern society is built around morning expectations, but they thrive in environments where people can choose their hours.

A 2021 University of Melbourne study found that when allowed to select their own sleep–wake windows, evening types perform as well as or better than morning types on executive function tasks.

The question is not “Which type is better?”
The question is “Does your environment punish your biology or support it?”

V: The Nuanced Middle

Most people are intermediate types. The research calls this “neither type” or “mixed chronotype.” They tend to have flexible rhythms and benefit most from stable routines rather than extreme schedules.

The nuance is this:
The best schedule is the one that creates alignment between circadian biology and daily demand.
For some, that is a dawn-focused rhythm. For others, it is a late-evening flow state. For many, it is a middle ground with slight adjustments.

Conclusion: Consider yourself in rhythms

The rhythm in your brain is older than culture, older than electricity, older than cities. It evolved under open skies long before clocks existed. So follow your rhythm.

This does not mean abandoning discipline. It means using discipline to protect the hours that work for you. If your peak focus arrives at 10 p.m., build your creative world around that window. If your clarity comes with first light, guard that time like a resource. Chronotype does not decide what you can achieve. It only decides when your work can feel less like a fight.

Productivity culture loves to shame the tired and praise the early. Neuroscience suggests something gentler: you are not lazy, disorganized, or poorly optimized. You are rhythmic. And when you move with your rhythm instead of against it, getting started on your to-do list becomes less about squeezing output from a fatigued mind and more about allowing your best self to arrive on schedule.

The Plastic Instinct

Mason Lai1 Comment
Who is Danny - stock.adobe.com

How instinct and intuition shape us, and how the nervous system allows us to rewrite our oldest impulses

Daily writing prompt
Do you trust your instincts?
View all responses

We usually imagine instinct as something permanent, a force that precedes thought and resists revision, moves faster than reason, feels older than memory, and often arrives before we have a chance to interpret it.

A sudden flinch, a tightening in the chest, a hesitation in front of a crowd; these are signals from biology’s first draft of the self.

Intuition, by contrast, feels learned yet inexplicable. It is judgment from experience, from patterns we have absorbed but cannot fully articulate. The distinction seems clear: instinct is inherited, intuition is acquired. Yet according to neuroscience, they are closer than meets the eye.

I. Instinct as the First Draft

Neuroscience shows that instinctive circuits through the amygdala, periaqueductal gray, and other subcortical structures operate at speeds that bypass conscious thought (LeDoux, 1996) in order to guide us toward survival. Instinct carries ancient wisdom, but it is not absolute, and in modern life some consider it an outdated architecture.

Instinct can change. Neuroplasticity allows the nervous system to reshape itself in response to experience, so emotional memory can be updated each time it is recalled in a process called reconsolidation (Phelps et al., 2009). Fear responses once thought permanent can be weakened through repeated exposure. Prosocial impulses can be reinforced through practice.

II. Intuition as the Brain’s Ongoing Revision

Intuition is the mechanism through which these revisions emerge through pattern recognition: the brain compressing thousands of experiences into a single instant of guidance.

A seasoned firefighter senses a building is unsafe before assessing the evidence. A guitarist feels the right chord before theory explains it. These are instincts refined by experience and practice.

The distinction between instinct and intuition fades because both rely on the nervous system’s ability to encode and adapt information. What feels immediate is often the negotiation between our ancient foundations and modern experience.

III. Rewriting Instinct and the Responsibility of Freedom

The possibility of rewriting instinct raises ethical and philosophical questions. If our deepest reactions can be altered, we bear responsibility for which impulses we cultivate. If courage can be trained, empathy practiced, fear tempered, then nothing stops us from imagining “ideal” humans—creatures optimized for rationality, cooperation, or moral virtue. History brings up a cautionary lens. Communism and socialism were once heralded as systems that could perfect society, yet the unpredictability of human behavior and the complexity of the world made total control impossible. Even carefully designed utilitarian experiments struggle to account for the emergent consequences of individual choices and the infinite ways context shapes action.

Maladaptive environments, however, can carve unhealthy patterns into the nervous system just as easily. The plasticity of instinct is both liberating and fragile. It allows us to grow, but it is also inevitably shaped by forces outside conscious control. In this sense, instinct is less a fixed verdict than ongoing revision. Human potential will perhaps always remain uncertain. We cannot manufacture perfection, yet we can still strive. So, the work of shaping instinct cannot be absolute; rather it fluctuates between what can be trained and what must be lived.

IV. Living Between Draft and Revision

Instinct is the prewritten framework of the self, a set of impulses we inherit before we can interpret them. Intuition layers experience atop it, shaping quiet guidance we rarely notice. Conscious attention is the instrument of our change, refining and redirecting without ever fully controlling the story.

Reflex can become deliberate as reaction can become understanding. We are neither prisoners of our earliest wiring nor masters of its total rewriting.

Rewriting instinct carries ethical weight. If courage, empathy, or fear can be trained, shaping the impulses of others through education, culture, or biotechnology is imaginable. History reminds us that attempts to “perfect” humans or societies fail, as the world resists total control. Yet this imperfection also carries hope: the same plasticity that allows harm also allows care, reflection, and responsible guidance.

To trust instinct is to honor its voice while recognizing limits. To engage thoughtfully is to co-author the self. Living fully must mean navigating the tension between inherited and cultivated impulses, letting both guide us. But this responsibility extends beyond personal growth. How we train instinct shapes the ethical contours of who we become. Courage cultivated in adolescence can influence moral choices in adulthood. Empathy reinforced through social experience alters how we respond to strangers. Fear tempered through exposure can prevent harmful overreactions. Shaping instinct means editing our identity. The ethical dimension is unavoidable: the self is inseparable from the impulses we refine, and the values we choose to embed in them.

References

  • LeDoux, Joseph. The Emotional Brain. 1996
  • Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 2011
  • Damasio, Antonio. Descartes’ Error. 1994
  • Phelps, Elizabeth et al. Nature, 2009
  • Sapolsky, Robert. Why Zebras Do Not Get Ulcers. 1994

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.

Should We Erase Painful Memories? The Neuroscience Behind Memory Editing

Mason LaiLeave a comment
Quick Shot/ Shutterstock
Memory-editing research is advancing fast. But removing our pain may also remove the person we became because of it.

There’s a question that keeps surfacing in neuroscience labs and ethical journals alike:
If we had the power to soften or erase painful memories, should we?

Researchers already know how to disrupt memory reconsolidation, which is the process by which a recalled memory becomes flexible before being stored again. Beta-blockers like propranolol have been shown to dampen the emotional intensity of traumatic recall in PTSD patients. Optogenetics experiments in mice have altered fear memories by re-tagging them with different emotional associations. Even human trials are exploring noninvasive stimulation to interrupt unwanted memories during sleep.

We are, quietly, entering an age where pain is editable.

But the more I read about these findings, the more a different question forms underneath the scientific one. Not Can we edit memory? But What happens to the self if we do?

The Problem with a Pain-Free Self

Memory is a fragile process, forever rewriting itself. Every time we remember something, we alter it slightly. Neuroscientists call this reconsolidation, but even without jargon, most of us know the feeling: a memory that once hurt becomes softer; another becomes sharper for reasons we can’t explain.

This plasticity is what makes memory-editing plausible, but it’s also what makes identity complicated. A life without painful memory might be easier, but would it still be yours?

Where Identity Lives

One of the more haunting ideas in cognitive science is that memory is less about accuracy and more about coherence. Rather than storing experiences like files; we reconstruct them to match who we believe we are now. The philosopher Daniel Dennett once suggested that the self is the “center of narrative gravity”, like a stabilizing illusion that helps us make sense of flux.

If that’s true, altering memory, scarily enough, changes the storyteller as much as the story itself.

A person who erases the memory of a betrayal becomes someone who never had to learn trust again.
A person who erases the memory of failure becomes someone without the quiet resolve that follows.
A person who erases grief becomes someone untouched by the shape love leaves behind.

One thing I continue to wonder is whether the edited self still be continuous with the original, or if the break in memory creates a break in identity too.

The Ethics of “Improvement”

There’s a moral seduction in self-editing. We are obsessed with optimization. Think better bodies, better habits, better productivity, everything in modern life. Why not better memories?

We know how important pain is, though. The fear of loss teaches us to hold people closer, and failure teaches us resilience. Even the most painful moments, those we’d give anything to erase, become part of how we find meaning again.

Neuroscientist Karim Nader, one of the pioneers of reconsolidation research, once said that memory’s primary function, surprisingly, is not to preserve facts, but to help us adapt. By that logic, even painful memories are functional. They help us navigate danger by recognizing patterns.

So when we “improve” ourselves by removing them, we risk becoming someone optimized, perhaps, but hollowed, a self that is easier to carry but harder to recognize.

The Risk of Losing the Lessons Without the Pain

The most compelling counterargument to memory-editing is not that it’s unnatural or reckless. It’s that we might remove the pain without keeping the wisdom.

In one study at NYU, rats whose fear memories were disrupted no longer avoided dangerous cues. They walked into places where they had once been shocked, oblivious to the threat. When we erase hurt, we erase the part of ourselves that learned how to endure.

A Different Kind of Healing

This isn’t an argument against treatment. For example, PTSD is more than just a memory; PTSD is a nervous system in overdrive, a life paused inside an unrelenting moment. In this case, damping the emotional intensity of those memories is more a form of liberation.

The ethical line appears not at the removal of unbearable pain, but at the removal of meaningful pain, a subtle difference.

So, scientific interventions can help us loosen trauma’s grip, but perhaps they should not offer us amnesia.

What We Stand to Lose

Every once in a while, when I think about memory alteration, I imagine a version of myself who never had to rebuild after loss. Someone lighter, less afraid, unburdened.

But that person would not know why loyalty matters, they would not understand the texture of fear or the softness that follows grief, and they would not know the cost of love. They would be me without the evidence that I have lived.

Maybe the Goal Isn’t Erasure

The goal is not to extract a memory as if it were a stain that can be lifted. Perhaps the goal is to reinhabit it in a new way, so that its emotional weight is redistributed and its meaning evolves rather than disappears. To reshape the experience without erasing the fact that it occurred.

Neuroscience may eventually offer the ability to select what we carry forward. Yet meaning is something we craft through engagement, not something we inherit passively or delete at will. The self grows through reinterpretation, revision, and integration, not through subtraction.

So, Is a Life Without Painful Memory Better?

It might be simpler, or lighter, but what makes a life whole is rarely what makes it easy. Pain itself is not the adversary. What harms us is the sense of being imprisoned by it, unable to move beyond its earliest form.

A life without painful memory may shield us from suffering, but one shaped through painful memory gives rise to everything that matters.

Most of us live somewhere between those two possibilities. We carry moments that hurt but keep learning how to carry them differently. In that ongoing process, memory acts as a teacher, and the self becomes something we build rather than something we escape.

That is where the story, no matter how tragic, ends, and growth begins.

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.

Frames of Identity

Mason Lai1 Comment
Hurca! - Stock Adobe
Daily writing prompt
What’s the first impression you want to give people?
View all responses
Hurca! - Stock Adobe
The first impression you give someone feels simple.

A glance, a phrase, the slight tilt of your voice as it tries to decide whether to sound confident or careful. But beneath that moment sits a truth most people never notice. It may be easy forget that others never gain awareness of the full architecture you are. Rather, a moment of awareness is simply one frame in a long sequence, and your brain rushes to stitch these frames together so you can believe there is a solid self living behind your eyes.

Identity is not what we think. I understand it as a continuity the brain desperately creates from separate moments to make sense of the movement of our lives. Neuroscientist Anil Seth calls this a controlled hallucination. The mind fills the gaps so you do not feel the gaps. It connects the flicker of one second to another until the whole thing seems unbroken, like a film reel running just fast enough to appear real.

We like to believe we are consistent people. Yet the research on memory says otherwise. We are creatures of reconstruction. Every remembered version of yourself is edited, packaged for memory, and rearranged. The brain rewrites the story so you can wake up each morning and believe today follows yesterday. This introduces a unique conundrum. Rather than storing identity, we regenerate it every day.

So when someone asks what first impression you want to give, the real question is much, much stranger, and it sounds something like this:

Which version of yourself do you choose to step into the next moment of your life? Which frame do you choose as the doorway?

This is where things shift from science to philosophy. Time feels like a flowing river, but psychologists who study chronostasis suggest that much of time is perception layered on top of uncertainty. The brain inserts its own continuity to prevent us from feeling the world as a collection of tiny, isolated pulses. If we experienced pure discontinuity, we would lose our sense of self within days.

Identity is the story your brain tells so you can stay afloat.

And yet there is something quite beautiful in that. If the self is an invention, it means you are not trapped by whatever story you once believed. You have a say in how the next frame develops. The first impression you offer someone is a creative act rather than a performance. It is the moment you decide which what stays, and what goes.

The poet Ocean Vuong once wrote that memory is a story we carry in order to survive. I think identity is similar. A living thing. An ongoing choice. A narrative held together not by perfect accuracy but by the desire to be understood.

So when someone meets you for the first time, they encounter a glimpse. A soft outline of a self that is always shifting. You might wish people could see the fuller version of you, the one that carries all your experiences and contradictions and small private joys. But this gentle incompleteness is part of what makes human connection meaningful. We meet one another through keyholes. We will never know the full interior, so we stay curious, listening. We keep evolving our impression of each other.

The mind protects us from the terror of a fractured reality by mashing together all the sense-datum we receive each day into something that seems continuous. Our task is just to participate in that creation with care and to let ourselves change while accepting that others will only ever see fragments.

Identity behaves a little like starlight. From a distance you see a single shimmer and assume it is the whole story. If you could travel closer, you would find a roaring furnace made of collisions, and pressure, and centuries of change. The light you see from afar, while seemingly false, is simply the only version that can cross the distance. It gives you a place to aim your attention.

A first impression works the same way. It is the part of you that travels. The part that reaches others first. The person you are is not the glow but the whole constellation of experiences that shaped it. And the self beneath all of that, the one even you struggle to map, is the vast system of forces and history that the mind is still learning to name.

The good thing about all this is that identity does not need to be solved. You do not have to know exactly who you are to live as someone real. You can be in motion, gathering pieces, setting others down, changing shape without warning. For you were never meant to be a statue.

Even scientists who study memory admit that the brain edits and revises and rearranges our story. If the mind keeps rewriting you, then you are allowed to participate in that creation. You are allowed to change your mind about yourself. You are allowed to hold uncertainty without feeling lost.

There is nothing weak about that. There is nothing broken about being unfinished.

Identity is a conversation between what made you and what you choose next. It is a bridge you are always building, even when the blueprint is unclear. The gaps are not failures. The gaps are invitations. They ask you to imagine, to choose, to become.

And maybe that is the real beauty. We are not defined by the parts we cannot explain. Instead, we are defined by the meaning we learn to create from them. Every time you step forward, you add a piece to your ever-growing puzzle. It does not matter if you don’t see the full picture yet, because, truth is, life wasn’t made to make sense from the inside.

So if you feel unfinished, good. It means there is space to grow toward a self that feels honest. It means you still have room for new light. It means the story is unfolding and you are awake inside it.

You are allowed to be a work in progress. You are allowed to be a constellation still forming. You are allowed to discover who you are by living, not by knowing.

And that is enough.

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.

How to Rewire Your Brain in the Last 60 Days of 2025

Mason Lai1 Comment

Sixty days left in 2025. That’s enough time to either coast through the end of the year or to reprogram how you think, focus, and act. The truth is, your brain remains remarkably adaptable.

This is not about resolutions. It is about neuroscience and the quiet biological fact that change is built on repetition and reflection.

1. The Myth of the Big Reset

We love the fantasy of transformation: new notebooks, gym sign-ups, the illusion that change begins on command. But real rewiring does not happen that way.

Neuroscience shows growth is not a switch but a slow layering of signals. Every day your brain listens to your behavior and adjusts. Patterns of thought and action, repeated often enough, become automatic pathways. You do not “flip” into a new self. You train your neurons into one.

Mindset shift: Stop thinking in resolutions. Start thinking in repetitions.

The 1% Rule

Improve by one percent each day – one percent more focus, one percent more rest, one percent more presence. After sixty days, that is not sixty percent improvement. Compounded, it is exponential. Neural networks strengthen with consistency, not drama.

2. The Science of Rhythm: Finding Your Neural Schedule

Your perfect day is already coded into your biology. The brain runs on circadian (daily) and ultradian (hourly) rhythms that govern alertness, creativity, and fatigue. Ignoring those rhythms is like rowing against a current: possible, but exhausting.

The Focus Framework

  • Track your natural peaks for three days. Note when your brain feels sharpest and when it fogs.
  • Protect your high-focus window for deep work – writing, studying, thinking.
  • Use low-focus hours for logistical tasks and errands.
  • Rest every 90 minutes to align with attention cycles and help neurotransmitters reset.

Once you align your schedule to your neural rhythm, productivity will come more easily, not just from sheer willpower.

3. The Novelty Principle: Reawakening Dormant Circuits

The brain thrives on surprise. Novelty (new experiences, ideas, or environments) activates dopamine pathways tied to curiosity and learning. When everything feels repetitive, the brain goes into predictive mode and attention fades.

Novelty is not merely entertainment. It is biological nutrition for attention.

Small Ways to Add Novelty

  • Change your study or commute route.
  • Read an author or genre you rarely choose.
  • Listen to a podcast outside your usual subjects.
  • Rearrange your workspace or swap your morning routine.

Each small disruption forces your sensory and motor cortices to re-coordinate, for more whimsy in life.

4. The Attention Economy and the Art of Recovery

Your attention is your most limited neural currency. Every task switch or phone check spends dopamine and glucose, the fuels of focus. Constant context switching leads to micro self-interruption that accumulates fatigue.

The Two-Window Method

  1. Deep Work Window: One 90-minute period daily for immersion. One task, zero notifications.
  2. Restorative Window: 20 minutes of real rest after deep work: walking, breathing, or silent reflection. No screens.

During rest, your brain consolidates learning.

5. Sleep: The Night Shift of the Brain

Sleep is not optional. During deep sleep, brain cleaning processes remove metabolic waste. During REM sleep, emotional and sensory memories get integrated into long-term patterns.

The Rewind Ritual

  • Thirty minutes before bed, dim lights and screens.
  • Write three lines about what you learned or noticed today.
  • Visualize your brain sorting and storing those experiences overnight.

After sixty days, this simple ritual strengthens hippocampal memory consolidation and emotional balance.

6. The Emotional Brain: Reframing Stress

Stress in small doses sharpens focus and motivation; chronic stress is what harms the brain. The trick is to reframe stress as signal, not threat.

The Stress Reframe

  • Name it: say to yourself, “My body is preparing me.”
  • Breathe in for four counts, out for six to activate the calm response.
  • Turn the task into curiosity: ask, “What is this trying to teach me?”

This practice trains the prefrontal cortex to interpret pressure as stimulation. Over time, that narrative becomes automatic and resilience grows at the circuit level.

7. Reflection: The Architecture of Identity

Your brain learns not only from action, but from what it notices about action.

The Nightly Check-In

  • What did I learn today about the world or about myself?
  • What felt meaningful?
  • What drained me, and why?
  • Who made me smile?

Five minutes of nightly journaling rewires self-awareness. You begin to see patterns in the quiet beginning of self-creation.

8. The 60-Day Framework for Lasting Change

Use this structure to make the final sixty days of 2025 transformative without theatrics or burnout.

SystemActionNeural Benefit
FocusOne 90-minute deep work block dailyStrengthens prefrontal control
Recovery20-minute restorative breakResets dopamine and consolidates learning
SleepConsistent bedtime and Rewind RitualEnhances memory and mood stability
NoveltyOne new experience weeklyActivates neuroplasticity
Reflection5-minute nightly journalingStrengthens self-awareness circuits

9. The Quiet Revolution

When the year ends, the world may look the same. But beneath the surface, your brain will have changed. You will return to focus faster. You will respond to stress with more equanimity. You will notice life more clearly.

That is the real miracle of the human brain: it is always becoming. And sixty days is enough time to begin again.

You got this. Now take the steps, no matter how small, and finish the year strong.

Written by Mason Lai, a California high schooler.