the evolving mind

A new cosmological finding got me thinking about how darn huge the universe is. Ironically, the theme of the piece was about nearness.

Black Hole Found to Be Much Closer to Earth Than Previously Thought

How close is that black hole to us? 7800 light years. Only 7800? My that is close.

Or is it? How close is 7800 light years? With a few back-of-the-envelope computations, let’s see if I can put it in perspective.

The circumference of the Earth is roughly 40,000 km. Time it would take to walk around our planet: about 1000 days. Time it would take to drive around the planet: about 400 hours. Time it would take to fly around the planet: about 40 hours.

Now we get to the unit of cosmic distances: the light-year. Time it takes for a photon to travel the distance of the Earth’s circumference: about 1/10th of a second.

How long does it take for a photon to travel from the Sun to the Earth? About 8 . . . minutes.

The distance between between the Sun and Earth is roughly 150 million kilometers. The Sun is that far away, and still sizable in the sky?! It’s huge!

Time it takes for a photon to travel to that black hole: 7800 light years. Not 7800 seconds, not minutes, not hours, not days. Years. That’s far. That’s blow-your-mind far.

And yet, from a cosmic perspective, it’s “much closer” than previously thought. Wrap your mind around that.

Technorati Links: cosmos, physics

Can you see the constellation, the Biggest Dipper, in the above grouping of stars? If so, you are clever. And totally nuts. No such constellation exists.

I wonder how many dots I have connected in my own beliefs that are fully imaginary?

But wait, before I shrug my shoulders and conclude there is no way to tell . . . when wanting to transcend my own potential delusions I should remember this: science is a social enterprise. We look outside our flawed selves for answers; we discuss, we debate, we expand our horizons. Socially.

Technorati Links: cosmos, science

If you are not perfectly female nor perfectly male, you can come out of the closet now. Science continues to reveal how complex and varied the development of gender is.

Consider this recent finding – Ovaries must suppress their inner male.

For an ovary to remain an ovary, the female organ has to continuously suppress its inner capacity to become male. That’s the conclusion of a study in the December 11th issue of the journal Cell, a Cell Press publication, revealing that the ovaries of mice can be reprogrammed into testes (minus the sperm) by silencing a single gene.

So Freud was right with all his “penis envy” talk and whatnot? Deep down inside woman want to become male, literally even?

But wait a minute. Any fetus, XX or XY, that is not exposed to testosterone in utero — or is blocked from responding to it via a genetic disorder or experimental intervention — will develop a “female body plan.” The transition to maleness is precarious and results in a great number of birth defects. Some claim it is linked to males’ greater mortality rate throughout the lifespan.

As you might guess, there have been people who argue that this makes the default sex “female.” We all begin life as a female. Of course, this can be viewed as complimentary to one gender. Or the other.

XX) Aha! We all begin life as physical females, until testosterone makes some male! Males, in fact, could be considered a developmental afterthought, an alteration of a more original form. Go team ovaries!

XY) Aha! Males are the upgrade sex! We all begin life in the default category, and some are upgraded into first-class maleness! Go team testes!

Is there a default or true gender? Please.

We are growing and changing lumps of biological clay, molded by many factors, the primary of these being genes and sex hormones. When it comes to gender, perfect and true are in the eye of the beholder. Those with keener eyesight tend to see how complex the issue really is. Biologically, psychologically, socially.

Technorati Links: gender, psychology

The above flowering vine that freely grows in our yard isn’t edible. If it were, and tasty, I might add it to tossed salads. You can’t get more locally grown than that.

Those little yellow things? Insect eggs. They may be edible for all I know — in terms of the human digestive system. Were they more substantial in size, I might consider scrambling a few and frying the hodge-podge of destroyed potential life.

Ouch.

Yes, we survive by eating living or formerly living biological matter. Some of that matter has nerve cells, or will. Some doesn’t. Still, you rip a carrot from the earth before it flowers and passes on its genes. How cruel! For breakfast you may eat a pre-chicken, easy-over. How cruel!

Mind you, I’m not making fun of any particular position. I just think earthly existence is a strange thing. Full of gray shades.

Technorati Links: biology, nature photos

It seems that alleged psychics, with their “intuitive” understanding of people, are not the only ones who engage in cold reading. It seems we all can do it, to some extent, with a fair degree of accuracy.

In a recent psychological experiment, subjects viewed photographs of individuals then made comments about the personality of the individual. The finding:

Self-esteem, ratings of extraversion and religiosity were correctly judged from physical appearance. [source]

Interesting. Here’s more detail:

Researchers asked participants to assess the personalities of strangers based first on a photograph posed to the researchers’ specifications and then on a photograph posed the way the subject chose. Those judgments were then compared with how the person and acquaintances rated that individual’s personality. They found that while both poses provided participants with accurate cues about personality, the spontaneous pose showed more insight, including about the subject’s agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, likability, and loneliness.

If a person were particularly adept at “reading people” via non-paranormal means, and felt comfortable, and were likewise adept at, expressing what they saw in highly suggestive language — we’ll, you’ve got the requirements for hanging an “I’m psychic” shingle.

Technorati Links: paranormal, psychology

List for decorating an impressive place of worship:

Gold candlesticks . . . check.

Throne-like chair with red velvet padding . . . check.

Statue of your most favored deity, bloodied and hanging from a cross . . . WTF!?

That’s no dead man walking. Which would be creepy enough. Hung in churches across the land: Jesus Houdini Christ just prior to escaping the shackles of corporeal existence.

An encore performance was promised, but has yet to materialize. Maybe backstage one day Satan punched Jesus in the stomach and permanently terminated his act.

Technorati Links: atheism, Christianity

Those with a beef about an area of science that challenges their beliefs will frequently engage in ad hominem attacks. They cast aspersions on the motives of the scientists in question. Or maybe they use a ludicrously broad brush and claim all scientists are driven by equally questionable desires.

What really drives scientists to do what they do? Of course, scientists are a diverse bunch. For some, a desire for fame, to become the next Einstein, may play a small role. Others are as interested in the social consequences of their work as they might be interested in hosting a talk show on celebrity gossip. Meaning not a whit. For others, wanting to “save the world” in some shape or form might drive them. I think all, however, are driven to some degree by an elemental urge. What is it?

Consider this article on recent work by scientists: Why England’s soccer team keeps losing on penalties.

What?! That’s science? Sure is.

Scientists are a curious bunch. What are they curious about? It depends upon the person, as is obvious in the above research. Scientists love to explore, tinker and understand.

Although I am not a practicing scientist, that is my temperament. Here’s a telling habit: whenever a household item malfunctions beyond repair, before it hits the garbage bin I take it apart. For two reasons. 1) I’m curious what I’ll find inside. 2) To scavenge parts for possible future use.

What are you curious about?

Certainly, there is more to doing science, and a commitment to it as a profession. However, scientists can and will do their work lacking a motive to get rich, to take over the world, to kick Gawd in the balls, or (insert diabolic motive here:)______________. But lacking an elemental curiosity — they do nothing.

Technorati Links: motivation, science

At first glance, the above photo could be of fungoid filaments invading a transparent cell.

But no. Those filaments are in the “firmament” above. And, to borrow an allegedly whispered line from Galileo: And yet it moves.

Solid and absolute “the heavens” are not. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say the cosmos is alive — at least not all of it — it certainly has evolved and continues to do so. From the microscopic filaments of a fungoid growth to the macroscopic filaments of an exploded star.

[photo thanks to NASA]

—

Update: Speaking of evolution, the 18th edition of the Carnival of Evolution has been posted here.  Look and learn.

Technorati Links: cosmos, evolution

You could could call testosterone the manhood hormone. And yes, it’s influence on human behavior has likely been exaggerated and even misconstrued. Nonetheless an influence one behavior has been detected by dozens if not hundreds of studies.

How great is the influence? It probably depends on the circumstance and a host of other factors.

Yesterday I came across a news release on the topic bearing this title: Testosterone does not induce aggression. As you can guess, it piqued my interest.

The writer of the news release, informed by material provided by the research authors, no doubt, included a discussion of how previous animal studies on testosterone have prejudiced our understanding of its influence on human behavior.

The prejudice thus grew over decades that testosterone causes aggressive, risky, and egocentric behavior. The inference from these experiments with animals that testosterone produces the same effects in humans has proven to be false. [bold mine]

Wow! Is that a myth-busting pistol in your pocket, or just the results of one study?

In their experiment, not only did the researchers find a lack of a positive correlation, but they also discovered that testosterone . . .

can encourage fair behaviors if this serves to ensure one’s own status. [bold mine]

That’s a hell of an if.

How was the study performed? It seems the subjects played a round or a few of what has been called the ultimatum game. And had their testosterone levels manipulated.

Dependent variable = testosterone level; independent variable = behavior in game. Good. And here’s what happened.

Test subjects with an artificially enhanced testosterone level generally made better, fairer offers than those who received placebos, thus reducing the risk of a rejection of their offer to a minimum. “The preconception that testosterone only causes aggressive or egoistic behavior in humans is thus clearly refuted,” sums up Eisenegger. Instead, the findings suggest that the hormone increases the sensitivity for status. [bold mine]

I have a real beef with the word causes. Human beings aren’t billiard balls. If you believe any single element — genetic, physiological, social, etc. — causes a behavior, you are looking at things far too simplistically. For more on this topic, see my post, Imperfect Flowers: Religious Violence and How Simple Answers Misinform. (Particularly the simple answers misinform part.)

“In the socially complex human environment, pro-social behavior secures status, and not aggression,” surmises study co-author Michael Naef from Royal Holloway London. [bold mine]

When I engage in surmising-behavior, I hope I pepper my words with qualifiers such as, maybe, sometimes, can, it seems, etc.

Hmm. Aggression never secures status? That sounds like a far too simplistic perspective to me.

Because critical thinking highlights the good and the strong, as well as the bad and the questionable, I would like to end on a high. I must say that neuroscientist Christoph Eisenegger and economists Ernst Fehr and Michael Naef put together an intriguing study. With over 100 subjects, no less. Well done. It has provided me much to think about.

Technorati Links: behavior, testosterone

The bottlebrush tree, Callistemon rigidus, needs no patent.

Callistemon, by the way, means “beautiful stamen.”

Rigidus? You can guess.

We have a bottlebrush tree growing in our yard. Though at this stage in its life cycle it is more like a bottlebrush shrub. I will say, though, that the supporting limbs are quite rigid. Are the stamen rigid? Frankly, I don’t know. Though I’ve photographed the plant’s blossomings many times, I can’t recall, um, feeling it. Next time it flowers I certainly will.

Beautiful? Most definitely.

Technorati Links: language, photography