Category Archive

As a continuation of yesterday’s discussion, I created a simple graphic to illustrate the relative timescales of significant (to us) events in our cosmic history. The two inner squares show the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction (65.5 Ma) and Emergence of Homo (2.5 Ma) (Ga = gigaannum = 1 billion years; Ma = megaannum = 1 million years). Any events more recent would be smaller than a pixel.

I wonder how many galactic empires rose and fell in the blue area, before our own place in the galaxy even began to take shape.

Comprehending exponential timescales is one of the greater challenges of the human mind. As Brent pointed out:

You need a thorough understanding of the multiple levels of computing.  Programming requires understanding more levels of complexity than a mathematician, physicist, chemist, or structural engineer.

Cosmology and astrophysics as well require similar comprehension of scale from atomic fusion to stellar and galactic furnaces, and to a lesser extent geology depends on understanding the vast ages of the planet and universe.

Magnitudes such as these are difficult to understand fully, which I think contributes to the continuing challenges in the classroom over the theory of evolution. A majority of Americans do not fully accept the implications of common descent, preferring views which maintain a special status for humans, partially because it is difficult for most people to conceive of a time when there were no humans! Thinking about the world ten million years ago is daily work for a geologist, but it is nearly inconceivable for many others.

Though limited to the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water and lacking any experimental methods, some of Aristotle’s insights foreshadow the paradigm shifts brought on by the discovery of fossils and radioactive dating.

But these changes escape our observation because the whole natural process of the earth’s growth takes place by slow degrees and over periods of time which are vast compared to the length of our life, and whole peoples are destroyed and perish before they can record the process from beginning to end.
–Aristotle, Meteorologica XIV

Today’s post at Whiskey River again reminded me of a parallel from the gospel of Matthew:

The more we persist in misunderstanding the phenomena of life, the more we analyze them out into strange finalities and complex purposes of our own, the more we involve ourselves in sadness. But it does not matter much because no despair of ours can alter the reality of things, or stain the joy of the cosmic dance which is always there. Indeed, we are in the midst of it, and it is in the midst of us, for it beats in our very blood, whether we want it to or not.
–Thomas Merton

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And can any of you by worrying add a single hour to your span of life? And why do you worry about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these.
(Matthew 6:25-29)

Since the Second Ecumenical Council, Christianity has almost exclusively focused on the divinity of Christ. Looking at Jesus the man portrayed in the gospels, though, I find a curious mystic who was not trying to establish theology as much as share his own realization of spiritual fulfillment with others.

Although several years old, this paper by Changnon et al. (2000) makes an excellent observation regarding our perception of the increasing severity of natural disasters. Over the past fifty years the total cost of damages due to weather related events rose from ~$100 million to ten times as much, but the cost per person has remained constant:

…the results collectively indicate that the major cause of trends in losses related to weather and climate extremes is societal factors: the growth of wealth with more valuable property at risk, increasing density of property, and demographic shifts to coastal areas and storm-prone areas that are experiencing increasing urbanization.

Our pattern of continuous growth creates the opportunity for more damaging storms as we settle into high risk regions and construct expensive structures. Perhaps the many prophets of doom throughout history simply realized the long-term consequences of unsustainable growth and therefore included meteorological catastrophe as inevitable from our lifestyle.

And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that you are not alarmed; for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places: all this is but the beginning of the birth pangs. (Matthew 24:6-8)

A great and rich power will be subject to serious natural disasters, particularly earthquakes and flooding, and rend the nation from end to end, causing enormous conflict, despair, and misery. The wealthy power will be bankrupted attempting to deal with its disasters. (Nostradamus, Times of Trouble)

Various prophets have had different ideas of the things to come, but they all saw in our world a sign of the times.

And as one realizes…
that one is a dream figure…
in another person’s dream,
that is self-awareness.
You haven’t met yourself yet.
But the advantage to meeting others in the meantime…
is that one of them may present you to yourself.

From the film Waking Life

We struggle to define or describe consciousness itself, and yet we seem to have little trouble in designating other creatures as “not conscious” and “purely instinctual”. Perhaps our mode of perception is unique to our species, but I sincerely doubt that the phenomenon of consciousness itself is a binary characteristic.

Our significance is merely an illusion from a cosmic perspective, yet I think this realization only magnifies the wonder and amazement of our home.

Pale Blue Dot, a photograph of Earth from a distance of 3.7 billion miles by Voyager 1, in honor of the 11th anniversary of Carl Sagan’s death and the Carl Sagan blog-a-thon.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known. –Carl Sagan

The question of human free will pervades philosophical and religious thought, with classical solutions to the problem newly confounded by the quandaries of quantum mechanics. Regardless of a person’s view on the existence or non-existence of free will, I doubt that such an opinion pragmatically affects lifestyle in any way.

Suppose our interpretation of past events generates consciousness and our actions are therefore dictated by non-conscious thought. Such an argument against free will seems irrelevant because we actively perceive our choices as if by our own free will. Whether or not we actually choose action by our own volition, free will seems real enough for pragmatic living (e.g., accountability for one’s actions).

What value, if any, exists in the belief or rejection of free will?

If we eliminated our temporal sensations, how would our individual perception of time change? Would we operate on a sort of dream time?

I need to set aside a blind day to explore this question.

Back in State College after a great conference–and seamless travel.

Our thoughts, perceptions, and interpretations–that which forms the core of our being–are only accessible to ourselves. Others view us solely through our words and actions, which provides a mechanism for diverse persona.

Back in State College after attending an interracial wedding directly across the street from Bob Jones University (really).

Yesterday’s entry at Whiskey River makes a concise and important observation about the experience and creation of artistic expression.

My most profound musical moments (which often occur in the practice room) would be accurately described as “a self-forgetful, perfectly useless concentration”. As a performer involved in the creation of this art, there is virtually no distinction between self and music, nor is there any distinction between the music generation and experience. In a sense, the physical body (which generates the music) is indistinguishable from the auditory sensation (which interprets the music).

Of course, in the end it is impossible to accurately describe the musical experience in words. But to fully experience an art form we continually strive toward this state of mind where artistic expression speaks for itself.

We can, perhaps, define real life as a set of memories that corroborate present perception:

1) Perform sufficient reality checks to ensure a waking state.

2) Construct the set of all memories, from any method of perception.

3) Any memory that intersects with the sets of both physical evidence and the memories of others is considered real.

The exception to the rule often draws the most attention. This extra attention, though, does not imply extra importance.

Our minds often fixate upon that which requires the most attention, clouding our vision of the grander scheme.

If our experiences are our only certainty, then our perceptions cannot be delusional.

Delusion can only exist if we adhere to a view or belief that contradicts one or more of our experiences.

By continually assessing our own experiences with our perceived worldview, then, we can prevent delusion–provided we can come up with the right questions.

Given this dependence on the proper line of reasoning, though, can we ever assume that we have reached a non-deluded state of mind? There is no mechanism to generate the right questions, so there is no guarantee that a delusional worldview will be shattered.

Today be International Talk Like a Pirate Day! In keepin’ wi’ tradition, today’s entry be brought t’ ye in buccaneer speak.

If we assume th’ Kantian notion that our experiences be ou’ only certainty, then what would we consider delusion?

Delusion cannot be a discrepancy between someone else’s perspective an’ yours, on accoun’ o’ thar be nay reason t’ think that th’ perspective o’ another be more valid than yer own. Neither can we assume that dissent from th’ experiences o’ th’ majority be delusional, fer–although democratic reality can be useful–thar be nay reason t’ reject certain perception fer th’ uncertain claim o’ others.

Within this framework, then, delusion be only possible when ye hold a view that be inconsistent wi’ th’ sum o’ yer experiences. Delusion be th’ purposeful avoidance o’ inevitable conclusions.

It seems strange to think that the only interactive visual perception we have of ourselves is through a mirror. Photos and video can capture our behavior (and can be either enlightening or embarrassing to view), but we cannot interact with ourselves in these preserved media. Self-interaction via mirror is limited as well, though: you cannot converse with a mirror image, nor can you even view yourself as others see you (since the reflection you see is fixed, based on the position of your eyes). Multiple mirrors allow you to increase your visual range (such as seeing the back of your head), but these do not add much toward perceiving yourself the way others do.

It seems that this experiment lends itself nicely to the dreamworld, though. Meeting oneself in dreaming life will still suffer from some limitations, but the full suite of available senses in a dream provides an advantage to the mirroring technology of the waking world. The world of dreams–especially lucid dreams–creates the ability to meet and interact with ourselves.

We explore the world and learn information through our senses; this, along with our brain’s processing of this information, forms the basis for how we perceive the world. Living in the world day after day, we learn to accept certain processes, occurrences, and events as commonplace. Through this repetition, we learn what is real in the world.

Exploration of the dreamworld and other altered states of consciousness provide a unique perspective on this perception of reality, though. This is not to say that the world is unreal, but rather that our perception of the world is strictly limited by our sensory input devices. The dreamworld is just as real to our minds as waking life, since dreams contain the same type of visual, auditory, and tactile sensations to our minds.

Dream experiences are generally considered “less real” than waking experiences, perhaps because in waking life others can corroborate and share our experiences, thus confirming the reality. Yet it is difficult to argue for universal perception among all human beings in the so-called real world: altered states of consciousness (meditation or chemical use, for instance) affect sensory input; the lack of a sensory device (blindness, deafness) drastically changes perceived reality; and individual experiences (personal history, environment) contribute to a wide range of sensory interpretation. There is certainly a difference between the dream world and the waking world–but the exploration of individual perception makes shared waking life all the more surreal.

The past is fleeting, and the future is looming. Eternity is here and now.

Passed my master’s defense today!

Willful ignorance is irresponsible, but willful apathy is sometimes necessary.

Our eyes, ears, and other sensory organs are simply devices that gather signals for our brains to interpret. Our perception of reality is not defined by these input devices, but instead by our brain’s interpretation of these signals. Anything that alters the brain’s ability to process and interpret these signals also alters our perception of reality (as the 1970’s proved).

This extends beyond chemical alteration of the mind, though. I am learning that the dreamworld is just as real to your mind as the waking world. The dreamworld is not a shared perception, but your perception of senses is still fully functional–the dreamworld is as real to your mind as anything else you perceive.

A blind or deaf person is considered disabled because they lack one of the five traditional senses most humans and many animals possess. Yet the world is not defined by five senses; sensory experiences are physical sensations created by the brain, not the world. We use our senses to explore the world and interpret it, and the blind man does exactly the same with a different set of senses.

Plants, fungi, and microscopic organisms all interact with the world as well. They do not share our senses, but they have their own set of senses specialized for a particular lifestyle and environment. Our sensory and perception of the world is adapted to our particular needs as a species.

Two observations after much discussion:

1) It is convenient to assume democratic reality–that is, collective reality is defined by the experiences of the majority.

2) Each person should walk the path of maximum experience. This is beneficial for the community at large.

Minimalist music is everywhere, though often by other names.

Consider a given time interval divided into three equal parts A, B, and C. Suppose that from our current state of knowledge we can determine that one event occurred during A, five events occurred during B, and fifty events occurred during C. Other events happened during these times, but they are not easily identifiable or observable by our methods.

Although A, B, and C each span the same amount of time, the differing number of events identified in each period will cause them to differ in perceived significance. Namely, C will appear to be the most important time period while A will seem to be the least important. Usually the reason for this discrepancy is that recent events are easier to recollect (or unearth, or discover in the geologic record, or observe through a telescope). It is useful to focus on the data and information we possess, but often the volume of information gives us a false impression of importance.

Let’s condense the 4.6 billion year history of the Earth to 1 year.

The rise of atmospheric oxygen in the Paleoproterozoic occurred around 6 months ago.

The Cambrian Explosion took place about 1.5 months ago.

The K-T extinction event (that killed the dinosaurs) was 5 days ago.

Humans and human ancestors appeared about 7.5 hours ago.

The Agricultural Revolution (and rise of civilization) took place one minute ago.

It’s interesting to consider how much importance we put on that last minute.

Where do you draw the line between technology and magic? Is there even a difference?

The knee-jerk reaction is something like, “Of course there’s a difference! Magic is based on the existence of a non-physical world, while technology is based on the progress and discoveries of science!” The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized there is not such a stark contrast between the two.

The only real defining characteristic of magic (before the technological era) was a process/force/divination/outcome that amazed onlookers because of the mystery surrounding the event. Through some unknown means, a sage of the middle ages might have concocted a love potion that drew two people together–magic, yes? But if this same potion were made today we would call it medicine, because we would also describe the effects of the potion on brain chemistry and hormone levels, having the effect of increasing sexual desire. In other words, when we think we understand the entire process, magic becomes technology.

Now consider a person who does not understand any nuances of technology. A satellite phone is no less amazing than a wizard’s magical message spell that allows two people to speak over great distances. The outcome is the same, and for a person who knows absolutely nothing of technology the difference is irrelevant–by some process unbeknownst to them, they are able to speak with a person thousands of miles away.

The distinction between the two is nonexistent. Technology is the magic of our times.

The Meaning of Life, Part II: Growth and Learning (from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life)

Chaplain: O Lord…
Congregation: O Lord…
Chaplain: … ooh, You are so big…
Congregation: … ooh, You are so big…
Chaplain: … so absolutely huge.
Congregation: … so absolutely huge.
Chaplain: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Congregation: Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here, I can tell You.
Chaplain: Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and…
Congregation: … and barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But You’re so strong and, well, just so… super.
Congregation: Fantastic!
Chaplain: Amen.
Congregation: Amen.

Bigger is always better, at least in the philosophical and spiritual realms. Our perception of the size of the world is based on our perception of our own size–we express distances, weights, and volumes in human-sized units and maybe add a prefix onto the front to accommodate the measured quantity.

In recent years, a lot of scientific knowledge has been gained in astronomy and in particle physics. The study of the subatomic scale has philosophical connotations for how we view matter and thus how we view the material we are made of, but it the small-scale of particle physics does not have the same ramifications as the large-scale discoveries of astronomy. Looking down into the world of particles, we learn the composition of our world; but looking up into the stars we learn that our world is much larger than we thought. It is no wonder that anthropomorphized deities are always “big” instead of “small”.

It is nearly impossible to change the mind of an individual. You can present whatever evidence or reason you have for your view and argue until you’re blue in the face, but your opponent will not change their mind unless they want to. Even if your opponent understands everything you say, this does not automatically imply that they will change their worldview to facilitate your ideas. This is simply not how individuals work.

People, however, operate differently. As a population, there will likely be some people who are ready to listen and change their minds. The Agricultural Revolution, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution are all examples of radical ideas that eventually propagated through the population to become part of a collective worldview. Of course, for every successful revolutionary idea there are countless failed ideas. Nevertheless, the fact remains that radical change in worldview is possible even on a global population level. Although certain (and perhaps many) individuals may not be interested in changing their minds, the effects of a revolutionary idea on a population can be (and have been) the catalyst for a global change in cultural perspective.

Which is more important: the forest or the trees?

Certainly, it is necessary to understand the individual tree to understand the forest, but knowledge of the forest is more than the total knowledge of all the trees within. Operating on a larger scale with more complex interactions, balances, and feedbacks, the forest seems to be the more important one–for a general applicability, that is; of course there are people who will be more fascinated with the trees than the forest.

Is the forest always more important? There is one particular case where the tree is more important: the case of an extraordinary tree. An extraordinary tree (perhaps with superior genetic qualities, disease, or some other trait) may have the potential to influence other trees in the region, that can then affect other trees further away, eventually impacting the entire forest. But even though the forest dynamics are the matter of concern, study of the individual (extraordinary) tree is necessary. So forest before trees, except in the case of extraordinary trees.

This works for more than just trees, too, but it bothers some people to talk this way about human populations.

I have referred to the Earth as the self-regulating system of “Gaia” in several entries (including yesterday). Gaia has existed for approximately 4 billion years, and has so far managed to keep the planet consistently favorable for the presence of some life. This life may not always be human life, but the continuity of the community of life has been preserved.

However, if we look just one rock closer to the Sun we notice another unusual planet. Venus is about the same size as Earth and may share similar internal features; it is also possible that Venus once had oceans–and perhaps even life. It is difficult to prove or disprove this, but in any case Venus may be an indicator of Earth’s future. As the Sun slowly warms (possibly in concert with Earth’s own warming) our planet will eventually enter a runaway greenhouse state, leading to a drastic rise in surface temperature and cloud cover. If this mechanism becomes the dominant force in Earth’s climate, it could lead to the end of the entire community of life. I would not be surprised if Gaia is even more resilient than we assume; but even so, Gaia may not be invincible either.

Today, I discuss one of my favorite topics in astronomy: nucleosynthesis!

All matter came into existence at the Big Bang; however, this matter was mostly hydrogen, with some helium and trace amounts of lithium. Elements heavier than this did not exist, though. Due to a nonuniform distribution of matter, gravitational forces led to clumps of matter that eventually formed stars. These stars fused hydrogen into helium, and helium into some of the heavier elements. Large stars formed nearly all of the elements up to iron late in their life (as Red Giants). Iron is the most stable element on a curve of binding energy, though, so normal fusion does not allow the combination if iron nuclei. (Fusion occurs when elements lighter than iron are combined to release energy. Fission occurs when elements heavier than iron are split to release energy.)

Toward the end of a large star’s life, there comes a point at which the inward force of gravity overcomes the outward pressure forces, leading to core collapse. This event is a supernova, and it is sufficient to fuse iron into higher elements–all of the elements up to uranium. The supernova explosion has the added effect of distributing matter in a large vicinity, where it can be transported away from the generation site to form new stars. Smaller mass stars also contribute to this interstellar matter when they shed their outer layers later in life (a planetary nebula). This matter then clumps and forms gas clouds that become new stars–but this time they are already enriched in heavy elements.

Our Sun is a third generation star, which permitted planets, moons, asteroids, and comets to condense from the metal-rich solar nebula (astronomers consider anything heavier than helium to be a metal). We can observe many of these heavy elements in the Sun with a spectrometer, but the best evidence of this is simply to look around. All matter we interact with has its origins in the fusion process of stars long past.

We truly are stardust.

There is no universally agreed upon definition for classifying something as “life” or “non-life”. Let’s take a look at the conventional definition of life on Wikipedia (which is actually one that is presented in science at times). By this criteria, we can argue that stars are living organisms.

1) Homeostasis: Stars regulate their internal environment to maintain a constant state of hydrostatic equilibrium (in the first order, with more complexities when convection is considered).
2) Organization: Stars have a distinct structure, with a core and various layers that are specialized for particular functions.
3) Metabolism: Stars produce energy by nuclear fusion between hydrogen and helium. This process can occur in a variety of was, depending on the chemical composition and size of the star.
4) Growth: Stars have a complete life cycle that includes birth, growth, and death. Main sequence stars brighten ~30% over their lifetime, after which they “age” into other stellar types (depending on their mass).
5) Adaptation: Stars are able to adapt to changes in the environment, including but not limited to gravitational adaptations; binary star systems exhibit this in particular.
6) Response to stimuli: Stars respond to gravitational and radiational stimuli (and perhaps others).
7) Reproduction: At the end of a star’s life cycle, a metal-rich planetary nebula and/or supernova containing the star’s parent material is ejected into the interstellar medium. This material forms a cloud that begins the stellar life cycle all over again.

So there you have it: stars are alive! Either that, or we still aren’t quite sure how to define life.

This is one of my new favorite astrophotos. Cassini turned to look at Earth through Saturn’s rings, visible as a single pixel in the sky. A similar photo of the Pale Blue Dot was taken by Voyager 1. Carl Sagan was one of the masterminds of that project, so instead of my own philosophical musings I’ll simply defer to one of Sagan’s books.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.

–Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

There are many ways of observing the passage of time. Relatively slow changes, such as the seasons, are easy enough to observe qualitatively, but difficult to measure in comparison to, say, the relatively fast changes in the dripping of water or ticking of a metronome. Of the five “standard” senses (sight, touch, taste, smell, hearing), it is interesting to notice that three of these senses allow for the precise measurement of time, while the other two offer very little capacity for doing so. That is, one could easily devise a timekeeping device solely dependent upon sight, sound, or touch; however, doing the same for smell or taste is not as obvious.

With sight, repetitive flashing lights are sufficient to keep time. The sense of hearing requires a pulsating beat, such as the ticking of a clock and a touch-based clock would have a physical device that provided this rhythm (a booming beat that can be felt, or something that interfaces with the skin–feeling the dropping of water for instance). Taste and smell pose their own problems, though. While slow changes can be sensed by either of these methods, a pulsating scent, for example, will not convey the regular pulsation that a pulsating light can.

When viewing live music, all three of the relevant senses come into play. This difference between live and recorded music is one of the appeals of live music. Instead of a 1/5 sensory experience, the concert attendee gets a 3/5 sensory experience where the music is concerned. Taste and smell may come into play at a concert atmosphere, but most likely not directly related to the music itself.

Since humans have had the ability to think, they have sought to uncover the “deeper” meanings of life: questions of existence and purpose. The most fundamental questions of the Universe were (and are) discussed, pondered, answered, and re-thought over and over again.

Shhh…listen carefully. Everything quiet now? Good. Listen really hard. If you listen closely enough, you can hear them–the questions of the Universe. You can hear them, right? No, that’s just your computer fan, try again. Concentrate. Still nothing? Well now, I guess that shows something: the Universe does not ask questions. People ask questions.

Either that, or you’re not listening properly.

As children, most of us played some sort of imagination game. Typically these games had no rules, or at least had a small set of unspoken implied rules. As we grew up, we turned to organized sports and formalized games, which had very specific rulesets when compared with the form-free gaming of childhood. These more organized games may be as fun as the free-form childhood games (or perhaps even more so), but I have often wondered whether or not the “ruleless” games have a benefit that is lost in the world of rules.

The world of rules is inevitable, but there can be ways around it. This is perhaps one of the reasons for my recent posts on chess variations. Although the rules of chess are specific and well-defined, changing the rules slightly allows for a surprisingly fresh outlook on a familiar paradigm. Even though the process of growing up requires us to adapt specific rulesets–whether this be the rules of business or the rules of baseball–but by making an effort to explore the variations in the rulesets we face, we can approach the limit of the ruleless games we knew as children.

Yesterday evening at the Tussey Mountain Wing Challenge, the singer of the featured band encouraged everyone to enjoy the “hot wings and cold beer”. My wings and beer were hot and cold, respectively, when I purchased them. However, toward the end, the wings had become cold and the beer hot.

However, both the wings and beer were simply approaching a thermodynamic equilibrium with the ambient temperature. In other words, even though the wings and beer approached the same physical temperature, they would be considered cold and hot (respectively) at this equilibrium point.

Just another example of how “hot” and “cold” are relative terms, not to be used in a precise discussion, at least without exact definitions.

It’s a classic experiment to determine when “self-awareness” occurs: a monkey (or child, or other creature) is placed in front of a mirror. A hat, food item, or other object is placed on the subject’s head. If the monkey reaches toward the image in the mirror, it is assumed that the monkey thinks there is someone sitting in front of it. If, however, the monkey looks in the mirror and proceeds to reach on top of its own head to retrieve the object, then the monkey is said to be self-aware–because it knows that the image in the mirror is itself.

Although the experiment itself is interesting, I have always had a problem with the conclusion. Does this really test self-awareness, or is it simply a way of assessing a creature’s learning ability (i.e. when does a creature learn how a mirror works?). Just because a monkey/baby/whatever reaches for the images doesn’t mean they aren’t self aware; it doesn’t even mean they don’t recognize their own image. All it means is that they do not understand the reflective properties of a mirror (after all, why wouldn’t they assume that a duplicate was created in the image of the mirror?). Self-awareness is indeed a difficult thing to assess, but often it seems to me that the methods for quantifying this are vague at best.

The generalist sees a forest.

The specialist sees trees.

The astrobiologist sees a forest of trees. (Well, at least we like to think so.)

There are patterns in nature, both obvious and subtle. The movie Pi suggests that this pattern could be the Golden Ratio. However, I think that such an underlying pattern is more likely sinusoidal in nature.

Any periodic function can be decomposed into a sum of simple sine functions. And variations in an individual pulsation can be decomposed into the product of simple sine functions. In this manner, any activity can be expressed by fundamental harmonic oscillators acting with each other. Consider the purring of a cat, the hum of an engine, the sensation of temperature on your skin…the regularity in periodicity for simple things like this is sometimes intuitive; for a more complex system, the function is more complex. Yet perhaps the harmonic oscillator is still the fundamental descriptor in these cases, although this behavior may be difficult to discern.

Maybe it’s just me. They seemed to like harmonic oscillators a lot in physics courses…

Life is sacred.

Well, many people will say they have such a view. But if forced to elaborate on their opinion, what they really mean to say is that human life is sacred. For some people, this is religious in nature (humans have a “soul/spirit” while other creatures do not). However, there are still many people who maintain a religious viewpoint is not crucial to the particular sanctity of human life. In this case, if forced to chose between a human life and a dolphin life (for example), the human life would always be chosen because the human life has more value (whether by virtue of intelligence, civilization, societal structure, or a number of other factors). What about two dolphins versus one human life? Three dolphins? Even if there is a religious justification for the inherent value in human life, there must be some number of dolphins N such that the value in preserving N dolphins is worth the loss of a single human life.

And of course the question doesn’t end there. How many earthworms have an equivalent value to a single human life? How many acres of rainforest? How large a bacterial colony? Of course I have no way of quantifying this value in life, but the automatic assumption of (nearly) infinite value in human life does not seem reasonable to me.

I’ve had my share of aerial city views: Sears’ Tower, Hancock Center, Empire State Building, St. Peter’s Cathedral, Eiffel Tower. All of these times I was impressed with the beauty of the city, the dazzling of the lights, and the expansiveness of the buildings. However, very recently when I was at the top of the Kuala Lumpur tower I had a very different experience. I looked out into the city, lights on display, and thought to myself: this is not really beautiful at all.

Now, I do not mean to say that I found the sight ugly or distasteful. But what struck me was the celebration of human achievement, dominion of urbanization over the natural world. In once sense there is beauty in the products that were built from human ingenuity, but at the same time there is a sense of discord between humanity and nature as our structures impose upon the land. This is not to say cities, civilization, or technology are evil or ugly–I happen to be a fan of all three. It is certainly possible for human cities and technology to coexist with the rest of the biosphere, and ideally humanity will reach that state soon. However, for whatever reason my sense from the KL Tower was not one of serenity but one of struggle. Human achievement has certainly been amazing at times, but to bask in our own glory is perhaps the first sign of delusion.

(From Beijing, after having just completed a 10 km climb of the Great Wall.)

Patterns are everywhere. People seem to be very good at intuitively recognizing patterns in nature, behavior, and progressions–even when no true pattern exists! Indeed, although I support SETI in spirit, I am sometimes skeptical as to their ability to discover a true patterned message from extraterrestrials (if in fact such a message exists). I’ve been noticing patterns of several types recently, in travel and elsewhere. I suppose the only way to check if these are true patterns is to watch the progression in time–but even then, if we want to see patterns then we will see patterns.

For more on patterns, I recommend the movie Pi.

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I’ll just let the image do the work today.

This is a continuation of yesterday’s post, so be sure to read it first.

Today, let’s go back 650 million years in Earth’s history. Using our time machine, we end up on a late proterozoic beach and wander around a bit. Eventually, we spot a creature–a jellyfish–floating in the water, and (as in all good science fiction) this jellyfish is able to speak with us. Suppose we were to ask this jellyfish our question: “how did things come to be?”. The response might be something like this:

How things came to be
Once the Earth cooled down, oceans began to form. Soon after this, conditions allowed for the formation of amino acids and proteins that developed into more complex molecules and then into living cells. For over a billion years this life remained simple single-celled organisms. But eventually some of the cells began to form multicellular systems and increase in complexity. Certain cells took on specific functions so that the organism would be able to have unique abilities for metabolism and motility. And finally, after millions of years of evolution, finally jellyfish appeared!

Using this as an example, hopefully it’s a bit more obvious that I’m not looking at the data/theory being presented, but rather the way in which we tell the story.

How have things come to be? This is one of the most ancient and profound questions that has been asked since the beginning of time. Answers to this question have taken religious, political, and scientific overtones (and probably others as well). Let’s listen and hear what “Mother Culture” has to say about this. (This should be familiar if you’ve read Ishmael.)

How things came to be
About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe came into existence via the Big Bang. This formed a lot of hydrogen, some helium, and a trace amount of lithium but not much else. Eventually, a non-uniform distribution of these elements resulted in gravitational attraction that eventually formed stars capable of fusing hydrogen into helium (and other heavier elements). When these stars reached the end of their lives, they dispersed heavier elements into space, allowing other stellar and planetary systems to form. In the third stellar generation, the solar system formed around the Sun. As the planets formed and cooled, one of them, Earth, retained liquid water on its surface. Eventually, conditions allowed the synthesis of amino acids, proteins, and other building blocks that led to the emergence of life. For over a billion years this life was simple and mostly single-celled. Over time, this life evolved into multicellular oceanic life. The development of ocean life was followed by the colonization of land by plants and amphibians. Reptiles and mammals came to flourish on the land, with mammals gaining an upper hand with the K-T extinction. Over the millions of years that followed, these mammals evolved, primates developed in the jungle, and eventually humans emerged as grassland-dwelling primate hunters.

This a familiar version of “Mother Culture’s” creation story. Do you see the problem? Look closely, or recite your own favorite version of this story, to see if you can figure out why I’m bringing this up and linking it with some “Mother Culture” (this has nothing to do with scientific accuracy, either).