Edge Question of the Year

One of the more interesting places to go on the internet is a website I have recommended for a couple of years now, edge.org. There are fascinating places to go to discover the latest scientific findings, sciencenews.org being a good one, and other places where you can simply find interesting things to discover and think about but what makes edge.org different is that it is a place to find out what brilliant people, particularly scientists, think outside of the limitations of academic rigor. here you can find out what scientists think about how scientists should behave, how future discoveries might be made, whether they are hopeful or not about the future.

The biggest thing this site does is ask a question each year of luminaries of the intelligentsia. As an aside, the moments I was most impressed with in Obama's State of the Union speech were calls for teachers to be given greater respect and for the winner of the science fair to be considered as important as the winner of a sports match. There have been some fascinating questions previously such as, "What will change everything?" and "What have you changed your mind about?"

This year's questions is,

"WHAT SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT WOULD IMPROVE EVERYBODY'S COGNITIVE TOOLKIT?"

How about thinking about that for a little while? Feel free to give your answer in the comments section.

My answer is, I think, a sort of meta-answer to the question. It is simply the scientific concept of when to use reason to determine truth. There are times when it is foolish to attempt to use the scientific method in order to determine truth, such as the tenth of a second before a car crash, or to in picking a spouse, or when listening to music and deciding whether you like or not. There are other times when of course scientific thinking is useful, such as an architect deciding whether his design for a bridge will stay up, or whether a plane will be able to fly.

The problem is that the majority of people do not do anything like a good job of deciding when to use rational, evidence-based thinking to make a decision. Most people make important decisions about measurable events based on social pressures, by what tribe they identify with, and from initial feelings on the matter. In a recent poll in the USA 80% of people think prayer helps healing and that 63% of doctors should pray along with their patients if asked to do so. This is despite scientific double-blind studies that shows no statistically significant result. The majority of people wish their doctors to do something useless at healing them in order to be healed.

In politics in the USA there is a substantial group of people who support small government and no budget deficits. These people almost universally vote Republican, even though over the last several decades Republicans have expanded government and increased deficits more than Democrats.

In personal life why do most people decide to have children? This is actually hard to determine since having children is such a basic assumption of people that the question of why you would have a baby is never asked (why not is asked with much greater frequency). However, I must assume that a big part of the answer is to make people happier, or because one would regret not having a baby. Scientific evidence shows that while you are raising children it makes you somewhat less happy, and afterwards it makes no difference.

In your work would you choose a job paying you ten percent less if it was twice as close to your home? Many would not despite money being a minor effect on your happiness and commuting being shown to be the most miserable daily activity for people.

Socialized medicine costs less money for businesses, helps people miss less days as a result and reduces corporation's human resources bureaucracy. Are business people for or against socialized medicine. Who contributes more to the productivity of businesses, managers or workers? Who gets paid more?

I have seen many people outraged about illegal immigration and the terrible crime it produces. The problem is that illegal immigration if anything reduces crime.

Ask people around you if things are getting better or worse. I bet you get a lot of answers that things are getting worse, despite increased wages, health, freedom, and decreased poverty, hunger, crime.

I think the most useful scientific concept that the general population could use but presently doesn't is simply when to think rationally.

Fear Raising Incompetence.

I have repeatedly talked about fear on this blog. I have talked about wishing to be courageous in my own decisions, about the foolishness of letting our decisions be made through irrational fear. I've mentioned such things as white people crossing the city limits into Detroit locking their car doors, and people not going to Mexico (a country of three quarters of a million miles) because of there being dangerous parts to Mexico.

My latest example is a facebook post that went as follows,

"This woman came into my bar 20 mins ago w/her 6 yr old son, gave him $3 for food & left him here. Told him to walk back down the block & find her when he's done."

This was described repeatedly by different people as abuse, neglect. People suggested calling the cops, that the child should be taken from her, and that the mother should be punched in the face. The"abuse" happened at 2pm on a Saturday at this bar in Ann Arbor, MI, a leafy collegiate idyll. The block that the boy would have to walk is 50 yards with no street crossings to Main Street, made famous by Bob Seger.

Now, I walked to and from my primary school by myself in England, about half a mile each way, past a train station and across the High Street, returning to a house with no parents. I am sure I was doing this at six years old. I can remember when my school was over the masses of school children not entering a line of SUV's but walking home from school. On the weekends I would walk to the local park, Bushy Park, and spend hours playing in the park alone . Apparently, according to a pretty standard group of American people I was abused, neglected and should have been taken away from my mother, who just so happens to have been a teacher.

So, why is leaving a six year old to eat some food by themselves in a restaurant and then walk along a sidewalk viewed as abuse and neglect? The most common worry was that they were left with strangers, who might abduct them. So let's look at this rationally. There are 75 million children in the USA and 115 of them are abducted by non-family members. Each year in the USA a child has a .000153% chance of being abducted by a stranger. You have two hundred times that probability of being killed by lightning this year. Children are in more danger from the sky than from strangers.

Now, this is the situation in general, but what we have is a downtown restaurant on a Saturday afternoon. The waitstaff knows who the mother is. Can you imagine what would be the reaction in any restaurant if a stranger tried to take a child away? Those who wish to abduct children don't wait on busy streets in the afternoon, or in upscale bars, they take them from playgrounds and schools and hospitals. The child was in far, far more danger being put in a safety seat and driven to the area than he ever was in a restaurant or walking down the street. Several times more children a year in safety seats are killed in car accidents than are abducted by strangers.

So, we have a totally ridiculous and irrational fear. Why is it so acceptable? What are the consequences of the prevalence of this irrational fear of strangers? It is acceptable in the same way that spending $100 million per person killed in 9/11 to prevent future terrorism attacks is acceptable but paying $100,000 per person a decade to provide health care to the uninsured is not acceptable. Terrorism is scarier than disease because it is unpredictable, sudden, happens to almost nobody and is intended by others. Abduction is scarier than car accidents because it is unpredictable, sudden, happens to almost nobody and is intended by others.

Yes, if something is the result of the harmful actions of others but never happens it is scarier than an accident that happens often.

What are the consequences of acting as though if you leave your child around strangers bad things will happen? It means that your child will consider strangers dangerous. What is the best thing for a child in danger to do? That's right, find someone to help. Why are people frightened of Muslims, Mexicans, blacks/whites, men? It's because they have been taught that people they don't know are frightening. So one of the consequences of this prevalent attitude is the inculcation of xenophobic fear in our children.

Now, I personally think this was excellent parenting. A child was taught that it is capable of doing things independently, such as paying for food, walking down a street and recognizing his mother. As children get older introducing them to situations where they take care of what they can take care of for themselves gives them the idea that they can do such things. The alternative produces the idea that the child is not capable of what they are actually capable of doing. The result of that is "children" in their twenties, living at home who can't do their own laundry, get themselves a job, fix anything, or cook their own food. What you get are children without the basic education to take care of themselves, who inaccurately think they are special and amazing, and who fear and hate difference.

Ten Minutes Later

Ten minutes later the sounds that conjure
the peat, the smoke and the hay
Wend their way through mistletoed paths
of a mind without decay.
The graft and the heart of mortal men
may not pass this way,
but the summertime sweet of the afternoon
sings a memory of May
A wistful smile 'midst a frantic mile
the terror of today.

My Love Sleeps

my love sleeps and my mind it creeps
searching through the fog
for something to grasp, a futile task
when my thoughts are but a cog
that grinds away that wall that may
shield me when I might rest
free from all that conjures me
the worst and yet the best
in all that yearns and wriggling worms
that build and build and build
a structure high I can't defy
an edifice of transient bliss
of why and how and why?

written in three minutes. Just an idea.

Love.

This will be an unusual post. Usually I have gone for a walk and had the idea for a post in my head for a while before I post. However, this idea occurred to me not one minute ago and I am deliberately writing as fast as I can before my forebrain can catch up to what I am feeling.

I feel love right now. Not necessarily a personal, directed love, but a general feeling of rightness, of a depth of feeling of contentedness that means that I can spread this feeling without risk to myself. I want to give what I am feeling, and I think that everyone who might receive such a feeling from even such a poor source as some writing deserves it.

This is what I think is at the core of religion, the feeling of rightness, of love for the people who are around you, the desire to give others contentment. This is the feeling I had before my great enlightenment experience, and the recognition of that has probably stopped me from having it again. Maybe that is so again today, but that's alright.

I think every single one of you who reads this that I have met has a great capacity to care and love the people around us. You should be proud of that and remember it as much as you can. We all spend too much of our time being not what we would like to be, but I think that we spend an under-appreciated amount of our time being amazing, brilliant, wonderful creatures.

If you feel like receiving my love at this moment it is freely given, whoever you are.

I think you deserve it.

A Polarized Nation?

A man who I am sure suffers from schizophrenia shot a number of people in Arizona. Since one of the people shot was a Democratic politician and there has been large amounts of aggressive and militaristic rhetoric from the right there have been many descriptions of the USA as a polarized nation. There have been calls to tone down the rhetoric, to heal the nation.

I'm not someone who thinks that you can just say someone is crazy, a lunatic, and then think that is a reasonable explanation of events. Having had nearly two decades of working with people with delusions I feel I can confidently state as a fact that the delusional can still hear and understand messages, and that the content of those messages can effect what they do. On the other hand I think it ludicrous to expect public figures to tone down their speech so as not to risk the most insane people doing something bad.

I think what is needed at this time is the same thing that is always needed, some perspective followed by a healthy dose of reason. Government should be run by first having a truthful and real concept of what is going on. Without that you cannot proceed to the next step. I think the main problem with the USA is that it is at the moment very bad at this first step. So let us look to see if this perception of the USA as a polarized nation that needs healing is correct.

I think the first thing to do is to look at the range of political parties in the USA and compare them to other countries to see if the USA is particularly polarized. I'm going to take large, wealthy countries from each of the other continents and examine their political parties and compare them with the two party system in the USA of Democrats and Republicans.

In Europe the wealthiest countries in GDP per capita are smaller countries, Luxembourg, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway etc.. Of the larger countries (over 50 million in population) France edges out Germany for the wealthiest. France is a multi-party state with no party large enough to sustain a government by itself and has settled into two coalitions: a center-right coalition based around economic liberalism, maintenance of french independence, and Christian moralism (this should seem a very familiar set of views to Americans) and a center-left coalition under the leadership of the Socialist Party with assistance from the Communist Party, the Greens, and The Radical Party of the Left (this should only seem familiar to left wingers in San Francisco). The range of views that people can vote for range from communism to Christian morality and economic liberalism. All of these views have representatives in government.

In Asia the wealthiest large country is Japan. Japan has a parliamentary democracy with two main parties making up about 90% of the Diet, and about 80% of the House of Representatives with a slough of smaller parties making up the difference. The Democratic Party of Japan currently is in government and was formed essentially in opposition to the Liberal Democratic Party which had been in power previous to 2009 for 54 years. The Liberal Democratic Party of Japan was a conservative party essentially formed to preserve traditional Japanese culture. It is not an idealistic party, rather an institutionalized party. The Democratic Party was formed in order to represent the interests of those not well served by the Liberal Democratic Party, essentially a platform very similar to those of Democrats in the USA running on behalf of the Middle Class. There are other smaller parties ranging from a Buddhist based party to a Communist based party.

South Africa is the richest large state in Africa. it is a democracy but only has one party with a sniff at any power, the African National Congress. The ANC holds two thirds of the seats in government. Its main focus is on economic development for the poor although it has become more business friendly over time. It has held traditional links with the socialist trade union party and with the communist party. There are minor parties representing everything from conservative moralists opposed to homosexuality etc. to a party committed to uniting all of Africa.

In South America there is only one really large country by population in Brazil, but it is the fifth wealthiest. It is difficult to decide which is closest to the USA in terms for comparison between a country with a GDP per capita of $15,000 and a population of 40 million, or a country of 190 million with a GDP per capita of $10,000. Brazil's political parties can be described best as coalitions of coalitions of coalitions with as many ideologies as there are local districts. Argentina is different with two main parties the Justicialist Party which has been in power for most of the last fifty years and the Radical Civic Union. The Justicialist Party's power base is with trade unions and the Radical Civic Union is more left wing than that. There are nearly thirty other parties that have representation in government.

In the USA there are the two parties and essentially only the two parties. The Democrats are center left (for the USA, that would be center right elsewhere) and the Republicans are center right (which would be a center right elsewhere). In terms of ideology, political activity, stated goals and actual policy there is little difference between the available parties when compared with all of the other nations. There is no socialist, communist, populist, fascist, or religious party. Both parties believe in liberal economic policies (to different degrees) the same system of government with similar foreign policy actions and goals.

When compared with other large, wealthier nations what can be said for the USA? Well, first of all the USA is substantially less diverse in its politics than other nations, the differences between Democrats and Republicans is actually less than is usual inside ruling coalitions of separate parties elsewhere. The USA is actually one of the least polarized countries politically in the world. The second thing to notice is that the USA is more right wing than most of the countries around the world.

So, with the USA as actually a politically non-diverse country in terms of actual governance why is there this perception of polarization? Why do Americans think that this is a country that is deeply divided? The first reason is that Americans simply have almost no idea as to what is going on in the rest of the world. Americans have no idea that there are successful countries with socialists as part of the government. Americans simply refuse to believe that France might be better at some things than the USA. Americans are unaware that what are called left wing radicals here are thought of as center left elsewhere. If all you are aware of politically are the differences within the USA the extent of those differences will seem enormous. The idea that you can go buy a Starbucks Mochaccino in a country with communists in the government is beyond imagining.

So the non-diversity of opinion leads to the idea that whatever differences there are in opinion are vast and insurmountable. The very non-polarized, non-diverse nature of American politics leads those who have nothing else to get information from believe that things are much more polarized than they are. The second feature that I think matters is that with just two parties that are nearly indistinguishable from each other in terms of the range of world politics in order to win elections you have to accentuate the differences between the two parties and dramatically increase the perception of the importance of these matters. The similarities in US politics requires that there be more screeching. The very lack of differences requires an increased level of aggressive tone in talking about differences.

With a lack of difference in opinion the idea of bailing out corporations can be labeled as socialist, and socialist can be a code world for communist tyranny. This despite the fact that politically, governments operating for the interests of corporations is fascism. Obama purchased corporation stocks and told corporations what to do (actual socialism) and also bailed out banks (actual fascism) but only temporarily to return to liberal capitalism. Barack Obama did exactly the same things that the previous administration was doing and yet each side was labeled everything from fascist to socialist.

The USA is politically the opposite of a polarized nation. It is only in rhetoric that it seems to be so. The USA has fooled itself about what it is and what people believe. What is needed in US governance is someone brave enough to actually tell it like it is, describe what the US is, where it is falling behind and where it can learn from the rest of the world just as the rest of the world has learned from the USA.

Moore's Law, the end of aging, and being a god.

I just read a science fiction novel named Aristoi by Walter Jon Williams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristoi_%28novel%29

It has many interesting concepts that it explores, virtual reality, psychological aspects, social norms, etc.. One of the things that it explores is the concept of a human being being "improved" through genetic engineering, spiritual/psychological practice, and technology to the point where the question of whether they are gods or not becomes a legitimate issue. The book was published in 1992 and I think it highly illustrative of the pace of technological progress that I think it legitimate to think that people living today might be faced with such issues.

Moore's Law is that inexpensive computing power (as transistors on an integrated circuit) doubles about every two years. This trend has been maintained since the 1950's and although there are questions about an end point if this trend continues cheap computers with the computing power of the human brain are about twenty years away. This means that a computer would have the power to provide every sensation that a human brain experiences. Programmed adequately (probably by computers) entire lives, entire universes could be simulated by computer without detection by the person of the simulation.

Just recently researches at Harvard genetically altered mice (which have 99% of the same genes as humans) and produced not just a slowing down of the aging process but a dramatic reversal of it. The fastest growing area of science is in biology, over the next few decades it would be remarkable if scientists do not actually work out the aging process(es) and develop methods to prevent it. It is quite reasonable to believe that near immortality may be available to people within the next few decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/nov/28/scientists-reverse-ageing-mice-humans

If you add the capability of humans interacting directly with computing power through thought and sensation, something that is already happening, then you have the real possibility of an immortal with the ability to change the world experienced by people with a thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/7622279/Japanese-scientists-develop-thought-controlled-machines.html

Imagine a universe that seems as real as this one in which an immortal entity outside of the universe can enter and change the universe with the power of their thought. To those within the universe everything feels as real (or perhaps in the future more real) as this universe does to us. How is that immortal entity different from God?

This leads us to consider what would we do with the power of God? Would we consider the simulated people inside the simulated universe as real? Would we care how they acted? Would we be loving? or stern? or capricious? Would we watch from a distance, or act? Would we start off being involved and then get bored with our world and only stop by from time to time?

When I think about these matters the thing that strikes me the most is how much our universe resembles what I might expect humans to create in such a scenario. For a start the physical structure of the universe apparently consists of discrete, finite bits of energy/matter known as quarks. This seems intuitively weird, and yet fits exactly with the idea of the computer bit, the smallest unit of computing information, the 1 or the 0. Perhaps the improved computers of the future have transistors that not only have on or off (1 and 0) but also up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom? What we discover of the physical properties of the universe seem to mesh quite nicely with what we would expect from a simulation.

I think modern video games, particularly massively multiplayer online role-playing games, give a very good idea of the beginnings of what such invented universes would be like and the motivations of those who would make them. The evolving character of Jahweh, the dramatic interventions, the decline in magic, and so on being an excellent match with what I might imagine of a twenty first century human with the ability to create worlds.

What's It All About?

It is quite common for people to talk about the necessity of meaning in a good life. People really do care about the questions; "What's it all about? What does it all mean? What's the point?" Or at least people who aren't contented and happy ask those questions. I rather get the impression that people who are happy with how things are don't bother with such questions, they are too busy just doing what they like.

The presence of these sort of questions is rather interesting. After all these questions assume that there is something that it is all about, that there is a meaning to our lives, that there is a point to what is happening. The evidence is that the Universe operates according to a set of physical laws and that our existence came about as a result of certain circumstances, that is that we just came to being because of how things were. This suggests no point at all. Yet the human brain looks for patterns, meaning, a goal in almost everything. The familiar phrases of a relationship, "What does this mean to you?" or "Where is this relationship going?" are questions that occur between two people who presumably are together because they like it.

Any response that there is inherent meaning in our lives or the Universe must then come up with some suitable description of that meaning. Any such description must then take account of what makes up most of the Universe (the vacuum of space, nuclear explosions, frozen rock) or our lives (one third sleeping, lots of working, socializing, entertainment) which I would suggest leads to a rather mundane list of possibilities. So why is there this ubiquity of meaning in a place and existence that seems to have none? It must be because people like having meaning, or more accurately they like to have determined that there is a meaning whether there is one or not.

So, the happiest people don't ask what it is all for they just do what they like. People search for meaning because they like there to be meaning, even when there isn't any inherent meaning. This leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the meaning of life is to do what you like secure in the knowledge that not only are you enjoying your life but you are also fulfilling your meaning.

One of the more depressing moments of my life happened in discussion with my wife over the holidays in which she said that life was a series of compromises, that there isn't a "good place" but a "best place under the circumstances." You cannot get to a place where it is all fine, people will still annoy you, things will break down, and so on. I think this is absolutely fundamentally true, a great piece of insight, but it's not a happy thing to think. I am certain, because I have had lots of them, that there are wonderful transcendent moments, but these are fleeting and occur only when you are doing what you like.

What's it all about? It's about finding out what you like to do and doing it as much as possible.