the evolving mind

Oh lard. Not another physicist waxing poetic about how the conditions of the universe had to be just as they are for human intelligence to evolve (a.k.a., the anthropic principle). To me, this borders on superstitious thinking: taking one incidence (our universe) and finding meaning in it.

Across the Multiverse: Physicist Considers the Big Picture.

In my opinion, the anthropic principle involves taking a narrow view of the big picture.

Jenkins and co-writer Gilad Perez, a theorist at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel, discuss a provocative hypothesis known as the anthropic principle, which states that the existence of intelligent life (capable of studying physical processes) imposes constraints on the possible form of the laws of physics.

“Our lives here on Earth — in fact, everything we see and know about the universe around us — depend on a precise set of conditions that makes us possible,” Jenkins said.

Consider this scenario: on her birthday a woman goes to a bar with friends to celebrate — something she rarely does — and has too much to drink. Which is also something she rarely does. The woman is coaxed into playing a game of pool/billiards, although she is very bad at it. On her last turn of the game, she hits an expert-level shot to win it all. On her birthday! Was it meant to be? Change one of many variables and that specific outcome would not have occurred. Never. Not on her birthday, with friends, playing pool of all things. And winning. Drunk.

We could certainly excuse the woman, stumbling home happy, declaring “it was meant to be.” Although it is clearly a form of superstitious thinking. Just as, had she missed a very easy shot at the end of the game to lose it, declaring “it was meant to be” would likewise be superstitious thinking.

As for the manifold contingencies involved in our having evolved — I find no great significance in it.

When my wife and I lived in New Mexico we enjoyed “rock hounding” — going looking for minerals, crystals, fossils, “raw” semi-precious gemstones, etc. in the desert. Geodes were always fascinating. What was inside that round ball of rock? Layers of agate? A quartz-filled pocket? If today I were to slice into a geode with a diamond-tipped saw blade and find this overt message: It is Friday the 15th, 2010, and your name is Andrew. And the NASDAQ is going to finish the week at 2333.33. . . . sure, then I’d wonder about a “big picture” influencing all the little things going on here on Earth.  Sure, then I’d have grounds for concluding “it” was meant to be.  At least after ruling out a hoax.

Almost humorously, the science article contained this paragraph further down in the body:

“What is surprising about our results is that we found conditions that, while very different from those of our own universe, nevertheless might allow — again, at least hypothetically — for the existence of life. (What that life would look like is another story entirely.) This actually brings into question the usefulness of the anthropic principle when applied to particle physics, and might force us to think more carefully about what the multiverse would actually contain.”

Yes, think more carefully, please.

Trouble is, when physicists go all giddy with their far-out speculations, many readers will take these not with a grain of salt, but will view them as bits of crystalline insight into “the big picture.”

What is the meaning of human life? What is the meaning of a round rock filled with crystals? One question is not so different from the other. Careful — don’t go all superstitious in your thinking. Unless it’s your birthday and you’ve had too much to drink.

Technorati Links: anthropic principle, physics

If conscious and cognitively capable, would unicellular organisms floating in a drop perched atop a flower blossom wonder about possible “others” residing on unseen alternative blossoms and the fleeting world of dewdrop life which they depend?

An intriguing, popular, yet quasi-scientific solution to quantum and cosmological puzzles is the idea of multiple universes. Ours is merely one of many. The one we can see and know. The many? Fully hypothetical. At least at this point. Will there ever be a different point from which to see and perhaps know another universe? I wonder.

Technorati Links: comsmos, multiverse, photography

“When relations between human societies are bad, they are worse than between chimps, but when they are good, they are better than between bonobos.”
- Franz de Waal (27)

Human beings are not “just” another, albeit naked, chimpanzee-like primate. We’ve got cognitive abilities and social habits that, if not fully unique to our kind, then are at least developed to a degree well beyond that of chimps and bonobos. Perhaps the flexibility/variability of our behavior is the most startling and important divergence of all.

As Paul Ehrlich described the situation, there seems to be greater variation among human group and human group (and individual/individual) than there is between any two primate species.(28) Of course, my skeptical self wonders just how sensitive/perceptive we are to the many-hued spectrum of animal behavior, particularly that are beyond the most visible part of the spectrum — to us.

Many human intellectuals (is there such a thing as a chimp, bonobo or orangutan intellectual?) have claimed that what separates us from the relatively slacking pack of the rest of the animal kingdom is language. No other species, after all, spends as much time thinking up lyrics to a song on this theme: “Oh baby, I really, really want you.”

Kidding aside — the use of fire, at least when viewed from a distance, ranks somewhere high on the list of special, and truly unique, human behaviors. Fire allows for the cooking of food, and cooked foodstuffs tend to be much more digestible than raw.(29) An added benefit would be burning away infectious microbes. Equipped with fire, our kind can not only digest more of the food we collect, but we can also expand our pantry, so to speak, to include otherwise less-edible foods.

“Because cooking caused the diet to be softer and more readily digested, it can readily account for the reduction in tooth area and gut size, as well as the increased energy needed for fueling a larger brain.” (30)

The use of fire for cooking is certainly a hallmark of the human. How else might we be distinctly different? (Beyond language and tool use.)

What about this class of behaviors as a potentially defining hallmark of humanity: insubordination? Yes, insubordination. No species is so good at circumventing and even toppling authority than our own.

As Christopher Boehm has discussed at length in his book, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, we are an uppity lot. As I will more completely explore in the next series of posts for my Almighty Alpha project (chapter title: “The Egalitarian Ape: All for All and None for One”), humans are cleverly capable coalition-builders. By acting collectively, the lessers can rise in power and/or reduce the power of others.(31)

Call it teamwork. That might just be the sine qua non of human uniqueness.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primates

The question in the title to this post is bogus. Can you spot why?

Yes, it’s that word — or. The question begs black or white answers. It very likely simplifies the issue to the point of gross distortion.

Valerie Tarico made the point in a recent HuffPost: Ugandan Atrocity: Perversion of Religion or the Real Deal?

She begin with this disturbing information:

Last week, the Seattle Times featured an editorial, finally, about the horrendous anti-gay movement that has been spawned in Uganda by American Evangelicals. Unable to make sufficient homophobic headway at home, evangelists have been heading to Africa, with their literally perfect Bibles as proof that God hates gays. Ugandan leaders found God – the god of the evangelists — and submitted a law condemning gays to death.

So religion is bad, right? Well, totally bad? Of course, religious folk keep touting the positive. Religion is good; religion is necessary. So, for balance, I guess, others attempt to rebut the claim.

But the good and bad are two sides of the religion coin. Religion isn’t “or,” rather it is “and.” As Tarico aptly puts it –

I find it ironic that anything evil done in the name of religion is a “perversion” or blasphemy — and anything good, that’s the real deal. It’s an argument I hear over and over in response to my articles on the Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

The falsehood is patently obvious. It’s like saying that selfishness and greed are a perversion of our humanity, and altruism is what humans really are all about. Get real. Ask any biologist whether dogs are affectionate or predatory and they will laugh at you: Do bees make honey or do they have stingers?

My selfishness is every bit as real as my generosity. My tenderness and bitchiness, compassion and aggression all are ME. Religion’s track record of power-brokering and atrocity is every bit as integral as its history of giving voice to our moral instincts and sense of wonder.

Actually, if religion were a coin, that coin would be one very complex, multi-sided thing.

One of the problems I have with any claims about religion being good or bad is that the examples cited assume that, religion aside, all other things/variables are equal. In other words, there is no control group in these discussions. Maybe religion is like a flag people march beneath, with little real causal power, good or bad. Mind you, I suspect that isn’t the case much of the time, but how are we to know that the good or bad wouldn’t get done without religion? That is one very important question.

It does seem to me, however, that religion includes two potent risks. First, the social structure it provides can be readily hijacked for bad. Oh, and for good. Can’t forget that. Are there other social structures out there that have a lesser propensity for being hijacked for bad but still retain the potential to do good?

Second risk: religious doctrine/dogma is generally moralistic. And people feel strongly about morals. Armed with emotional concepts, people will tend to use them, even where they don’t belong.

Consider this title and line of text I read this morning in a news release by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“Americans United Condemns TV Preacher’s Callous Statement on Haitian Earthquake”

On his Christian Broadcasting Network’s “700 Club” today, [Pat] Robertson said the Haitians “swore a pact to the devil” in order to become free of French domination.

And thus hell was unleashed on them.

If you ask me, Pat Robertson is insane. Delusional. One of the biggest “bads” religion seems to provide is a safe haven for delusions. Perhaps it even promotes their spread.

Is religion fully bad? No. Is it fully good? No. Can religion be refined to save the good while excising the bad? Maybe. But I suspect that once freed from all the dangerous and outdated content, what remained couldn’t be called religion. You’d have a secular interest group. Then why continue to call it religion? Because the term is attractive. And because we lack an equally attractive alternative.

Technorati Links: freethought, religion

Don’t tell anyone, but Earth, our very own uniplex habitat, is at this very moment being explored by semi-alien life forms.

Oh, sure, the life forms look familiar. But don’t let that fool you. Though they walk and talk among us, they have minds different from our own!

Wait a minute. What about you . . . . Are you an alien? Would I recognize as familiar the contents of your mind and the full spectrum of your habits?

Although we are both human, and thus have a degree of shared humanity — what about that unshared part? Should I fear it and declare it alien?

Maybe it would be better to educate myself by learning about you and others. Better for me. And the world.

On that theme, I recommend checking out the Humanist Symposium #48: A Winter Wonderland. Perhaps I will meet you there. Don’t be put off by my strange ways, however. I’m pretty much just like you. But different.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, humanism

First, a wacky cartoon, “Self-Description” from xkcd -

Second, a news-parody from the “local” section of the Onion -

Gay Teen Worried He Might Be Christian

LOUISVILLE, KY—At first glance, high school senior Lucas Faber, 18, seems like any ordinary gay teen. He’s a member of his school’s swing choir, enjoys shopping at the mall, and has sex with other males his age. But lately, a growing worry has begun to plague this young gay man. A gnawing feeling that, deep down, he may be a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian.

That’s a hilarious twist on things.

Technorati Links: humor

Vague words are blunt instruments. Science relies on the sharp. For where there is imprecision, error will slip in.

The following “science article” found at ScienceDaily just about made me slap my head in disapproval and disappointment. In fact, I did scribble oy vey! in the margin (and I’m not even Jewish). As a voluntary member of the language police, I had my sirens wailing.

Partners Sculpt Each Other to Achieve Their Ideal Selves: If Successful, Relationship Goes Well

A new international review of seven papers on “the Michelangelo phenomenon” shows that when close partners affirm and support each other’s ideal selves, they and the relationship benefit greatly.

While vague/general terms can have sexy connotations they are a poor choice for the truly scientific. Sure, it is nearly impossible to avoid dropping one into a sentence here and there, but when an article is chock full of them, can you really call it science? I can’t.

Is this science, or something you’d expect to find in the self-help section of a book store?

The Michelangelo studies show that close partners sculpt one another’s traits and skills and promote, versus inhibit, one another’s goal achievement. “It’s not just that you treat me positively,” Finkel said. “You treat me in particular ways that dovetail with my ideal self.”

That’s how Sara, an outgoing person with a great social network, brought Bob’s best out in him. Sara made Bob more comfortable being the person he wanted to be. With Sara celebrating his ideal self, he became much funnier.

What is “sculpting”? What is the “ideal self”? Methinks the authors are talking over the finer-grained psychological truth, the more precise social, cognitive, emotional, and biological mechanisms involved.

There is a place for appealing yet vague/general/abstract terms. That place is in astrological forecasts. In their lack of precision, vague terms allow too much room for the bogus to be injected.

Technorati Links: language, science

The cold snap has nearly bulldozed our yard with frost damage. I won’t know the extent of it until I prune some bushes in a couple months. Have the freezing temperatures burned most to the ground? For the many hibiscus, my guess is “yes.”

My plan to aid plant recovery? Actually, I have none. Rather than drastic measures to fight what nature has wrought, I tend to “go with it.” Maybe water a little; maybe sprinkle a handful of fertilizer here and there. More importantly, I will take note and refrain from re-planting any particularly hard-hit vegetation.

The wise gardener refrains from placing a plant’s personal aesthetic “fitness” above it’s fitness for the local climate.

Technorati Links: gardening, nature photography

New research has shown that playing music by Mozart helps them grow. In Mozart Therapy: A Sonata a Day Keeps the Doctor Away I read -

…research from Tel Aviv University finds that premature babies who are exposed to music by 18th-century composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart gain weight faster — and therefore become stronger — than those who don’t.

Wow. Moms and dads, you may want to rush out and buy some Mozart for your young child. You want a stronger child, don’t you? Science has shown it works wonders.

But maybe not. There are three important points to consider.

1) The likely explanation for the “how” of the affect is that the pre-term newborns moved less when Mozart was played. When resting they wasted less energy on movement, so to speak, and were thus able to put those calories, etc., into growth. The researchers themselves cite this as the likely mechanism.

2) The researchers did not control for other types of music and even other types of stimulation, acoustic or tactile (newborns’ vision isn’t sufficiently developed to go that route). My guess is that any type of stimulation that caught the newborns’ attention and held them in a relaxed state would yield the same results. Calling it “Mozart Therapy” is, in effect, engaging in a sort of ad hominem promotion.

3) The size of the effect was not mentioned. In terms of gauging the significance of a finding, this is crucial, yet too often left out. Tsk, tsk.

Sure, the research is interesting. But science shouldn’t be a sales pitch. And this bit of science comes across like it. At least to a degree. The same degree that weakens its scientific merit, in my opinion.

Technorati Links: Mozart effect, science, skepticism

Perhaps since that mythical Day One, humans have been pattern-seeking animals. In the reverse-inkblot night sky (an abstract pattern of light within darkness) we see not a meaningless arrangement of points — in terms of human life — but outlines of the gods.

Why is Day One a mythical thing? Just as the line between life and non-life is a smear of shades of gray, the delineation between human and not-quite-human is likewise gray.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, meaning