Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 14, 1994 TAG: 9404130020
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Joel Achenbach
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
A: We know where the light comes from when our eyes are open, so where does it come from when they're closed? Does light "leak" into the brain through the somewhat translucent eyelids? Is there a Coleman lantern tucked down by the hypothalamus?
This is a really dumb-sounding question so naturally we called a Nobel laureate for the answer: Francis Crick, who along with James Watson discovered the DNA molecule. Crick is now researching how the brain works, and is the author of a new book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis."
Crick says that the mental process known as vision can flow in two directions: Forward and backward. Forward-moving vision is the most familiar type: You open your eyes, light strikes the retina, and you "see" things. The mental processing of the image is fast but incremental. One set of brain cells detects the outlines of what you're looking at, another set fills in the contrasts, another set adds details, and finally an elite group of neurons "recognizes" the thing you are looking at ("Wow, is that a bad hairpiece!")
But the reverse also happens, only less vividly. You start with an idea - bad hairpieces - and from there move backward, constructing a mental image, from details to contrasts to outlines. The moral of the story is that there's not a huge difference between seeing with your eyes open and seeing with them closed. Both visual processes are basically "imaginary."
"We know the flow is in both directions but we don't understand the details of the backflow," Crick says. "It's just what you get in a firm. You get people lower down sending information up to the top and people at the top sending information to people lower down."
Powers of visualization seem to vary from person to person. This is even more true of sounds. Some people can conjure up the sound of music in their mind, with perfect fidelity. For them the mind is like an orchestra, with trombones and oboes and woodwinds.
But other people seem to have instruments permanently out of tune. The mental orchestra is undisciplined, inept, and can't do much of anything other than bang a gong. (You can just picture it, can't you?)
Q: Why are there only two major cola companies, the same way there are only two major political parties?
A: The main difference between cola and politics is that the cola companies have better slogans. What Michael Dukakis needed was a slogan like "Duke Is It!" as opposed to the one he chose, which as we recall was something kind of clunky like "I'm A Silly Man With Tedious Hand Gestures!"
Why are there only two major colas? The answer is, we're lucky we have two and not just one. For most of this century, Coca-Cola dominated the industry and Pepsi-Cola was a distant second. Aggressive marketing to young people (the "Pepsi Generation") in the '60s and '70s finally allowed Pepsi to inch up right behind Coke.
Why haven't other companies been more successful? Because cola companies don't actually make cola. They make syrup. Bottling companies actually concoct and distribute the stuff you drink. The contracts in this business make it hard for a bottling company to make two competing colas or two competing lemon-lime sodas. Thus a bottling company has to get aligned, the same way voters get aligned. Logic dictates that the bottler make a product for which there is a known consumer demand, as opposed to, say, a new and unheralded product with a name like Ecoli-Cola.
So what about RC Cola? We read that over the years they have been burdened with the "country" image from having advertised for years on the Grand Ole Opry. The "RC Cola Generation" just doesn't have a sophisticated ring to it. (The Why staffers are members of the "Pabst Generation.")
Joel Achenbach writes for the Style section of The Washington Post.
by CNB