Gorka Zamora-López

This summer I spent some days in my hometown and, after many years, I opened those boxes gathering dust at my parent’s place. Some of the toys I used to play with, our first computer, the music cassettes for the walkman and … most importantly: the photos and my old diaries. It’s been a couple days of regression to those times and introspection. Among my diaries I found a short tale that I wrote when I was eighteen, during my first undergraduate year as a physics student.

The tale treats more a philosophical matter than a scientific one, but I thought it would be nice to give it a space in the blog. It was written in spanish. I hope I can bring an english version one day, although it will be tough. It is titled “Nada” which means “nothing.” However, “nada” has a broader connotation towards emptyness or nothingness than the english word nothing itself. In spanish, we would say “aquí no hay nada” to mean that a place is empty. So, the tale plays with this dual connotation. It is a tale about existence, and the origin of existence. Thus about genesis, and the origin of genesis.

“Nada”

Érase una vez un lugar en el que no había nada. Un lugar vacío en el que no había nadie, un lugar al que le faltaban los mares y las montañas. En el que no había ni estrellas ni planetas. Un lugar donde los cometas no tenían rumbo porque no había cometas. Allí donde la gente no volaba en sus sueños porque no había sueños. Un vacío sin luz en el que ni siquiera la oscuridad brillaba. Un lugar sin nada, que ni el vacío llenaba. Un lugar en el que, por no haber nada, ni siquiera había un lugar. Continue reading Nada – A short tale about (the origin of) existence →

Welcome to The Disco-(nnected) Brain, a blog to dance around diverse topics in circles and probably arrive nowhere.

I do research in the fields of complex networks, brain connectivity and other related topics such as graph theory or dynamical systems. As a scientist I write and publish my share of academic papers. However, I frequently have the impression that the classical pathway to debate through papers in academic journals is incomplete; slow and too stiff at times. Academic papers are – and should be – trustworthy informed reports, yes. But truth is, academic papers are also opinionated monologues and I usually find it hard to see actual debates flowing out. To me, the journal-paper-based scientific debate often feels more like a multilogue between deaf speakers.

I believe that as scientists we also need other – more informal – playgrounds for debate since the resolution of many issues requires a flexible and a dynamic exchange of views. Specially whenever divergent opinions meet on concepts, theories or methodological procedures. There is nothing wrong about being wrong. There is nothing wrong about being incomplete and opinionated. As long as this happens in an open and honest manner within the proper environment, and as part of a much needed exchange. And more importantly, if that exchange is a chance to reach well-informed conclusions about confusing matters and also to – why not – stablishing standard procedures and methodologies for issues that seem to perpetuate in the literature, floating around forever. Continue reading The Disco-(nnected) Brain →