May 2008

Originally published February 04, 2004

From the Buddhabrot website,

The Buddhabrot Set is a re-visualization of the familiar Mandelbrot Set using a technique invented by Melinda Green. Instead of selecting points on the real-complex plane, initial points are selected at random from the image region. The point is iterated through the function, z = zˆ2 + c, where z has components in both the real and imaginary planes.If the particle escapes (exits the viewing area with high speed), it’s path is reiterated, exposing it’s position onto the image surface with each step. In this fashion, areas of high dense particle traveling appear bright white. The result is an amazing universe of structure, spirituality, and mathematical intrigue.

Wow. That is crazy. For me, this is like seeing Jesus’ face in the Shroud of Turin. Sure, this doesn’t really look like the Buddha. But it certainly looks as similar to the Buddha as the Shroud looks like Jesus. Now maybe for some people, I’m making a jump…but I believe that math has more to do with spirituality than religion does. And as are able to see and understand more of how our world works, we’re seeing the merging of the physical and metaphysical. This, to me, is extraordinarily powerful stuff.

Originally published December 01, 2003.

I am astounded by this awesome explanation of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity by Brian Raiter.

He actually explains the background, history and thoughts behind the theory using only 4 letter words or shorter. He refers to Albert Einstern as “Big Al”, Issac Newton as “Izzy” and Aristotle as “Ari”. Good stuff.

More importantly, this short story (only 6 printed pages) brings one of the most complex thoughts in human history down to a level that the average person can understand (well…almost). Since it ignores technical terms and speaks with simile and metaphor that most of us can follow, it does what much didactic texts do not.

It’s actually frickin’ teaches something.

What is most important in education are concepts…the whys of our world…not the whats. I learned more in these 6 pages than I did in 4 years of college (including college physics) and 3 years of graduate school (although my training wasn’t in physics…it was biochemistry…but for Christ’s sake…shouldn’t all scientists have a working understanding of the fundamental laws governing the behavior of the world around us.)

I highly, highly recommend a read of this. Take it with you to the crapper. It’s a lot more interesting than People magazine.

Originally published November 21, 2003

In Edge 128, Jaron Lanier writes a VERY interesting article entitled “Why Geordian Software Has Convinced Me to Believe in the Reality of Cats and Apples.”

You know why by the title that this guy is no joke.

Lanier, lead scientist for the National Tele-Immersion Initiative, talks about shifting paradigms in computer science…moving from a “wire” or temporal protocol based approach to computing to a more “Phenotropic” or surface interaction based approach. I’m still trying to completely understand his thoughts…but I’m already completely impressed with his line of thinking.

I mean, not only does he offer his thoughts on computer science and his work in the field…but he’s able to make more general observations about our world through his work.

That’s what I’m talking about!!!

Here is a sample:

I pushed that question further and further. Some people might remember the “rain drops” argument. Sometimes it was a hailstorm, actually. The notion was to start with one of Daniel C. Dennett’s thought experiments, where you replace all of your neurons one by one with software components until there are no neurons left to convert. At the end you have a computer program that has your whole brain recorded, and that’s supposed to be the equivalent of you. Then, I proposed, why don’t we just measure the trajectories of all of the rain drops in a rain storm, using some wonderful laser technology, and fill up a data base until we have as much data as it took to represent your brain. Then, conjure a gargantuan electronics shopping mall that has on hand every possible microprocessor up to some large number of gates. You start searching through them until you find all the chips that happen to accept the rain drop data as a legal running program of one sort or another. Then you go through all the chips which match up with the raindrop data as a program and look at the programs they run until you find one that just happens to be equivalent to the program that was derived from your brain. Have I made the raindrops conscious? That was my counter thought experiment. Both thought experiments relied on absurd excesses of scale. The chip store would be too large to fit in the universe and the brain would have taken a cosmologically long time to break down. The point I was trying to get across was that there’s an epistemological problem.Another way I approached the same question was to say, if consciousness were missing from the universe, how would things be different? A range of answers is possible. The first is that nothing would be different, because consciousness wasn’t there in the first place. This would be Dan Dennett’s response (at least at that time), since he would get rid of ontology entirely. The second answer is that the whole universe would disappear because it needed consciousness. That idea was characteristic of followers of some of John Archibald Wheeler’s earlier work, who seemed to believe that consciousness plays a role in keeping things afloat by taking the role of the observer in certain quantum-scale interactions. Another answer would be that the consciousness-free universe would be similar but not identical, because people would get a little duller. That would be the approach of certain cognitive scientists, suggesting that consciousness plays a specific, but limited practical function in the brain.

And then there’s another answer, which initially might sound like Dennett’s: that if consciousness were not present, the trajectories of all particles would remain identical. Every measurement you could make in the universe would come out identically. However, there would be no “gross”, or everyday objects. There would be neither apples nor houses, nor brains to perceive them. Neither would there be words or thoughts, though the electrons and chemical bonds that would otherwise comprise them would remain the just the same as before. There would only be the particles that make up everyday things, in exactly the same positions they would otherwise occupy. In other words, consciousness is an ontology that is overlaid on top of these particles. If there were no consciousness the universe would be perfectly described as being nothing but particles.

Here’s an even clearer example of this point of view: There’s no reason for the present moment to exist except for consciousness. Why bother with it? Why can we talk about a present moment? What does it mean? It’s just a marker of this subjectivity, this overlaid ontology. Even though we can’t specify the present moment very well, because of the spatial distribution of the brain, general relativity, and so on, the fact that we can refer to it even approximately is rather weird. It must mean the universe, or at least some part of it, like a person, is “doing something” in order to distinguish the present moment from other moments, by being conscious or embracing non-determinism in some fundamental way.

Wow.

Originally published October 16, 2003

CNN.com - Stanford sets new policy for med students - Oct. 16, 2003

I don’t have tons of respect for physicians as a rule. My background has afforded me an intimate view of medical and academic curricula…and although I don’t profess to have completed both of these courses of study…I know enough to know the “point” of each one.

A good clinician is not an academic. He or she uses direct and indirect techniques which require a certain level of feel and intuition to develop a set of parameters. For instance, heart rate is elevated…liver feels enlarged, confirmed by x-ray, etc. Based upon these parameters, a differential diagnosis is developed. This is rote memorizaton. Parameters 1, 2, and 3 means that it could be diagnosis 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Then they order predefined tests to rule out diagnoses so that they can, by a process of elimination, arrive at a diagnosis. It’s, in my opinion, more of an art of observation and less of a critical thinking exercise.

I have respect for clinicians in the same way that I respect auto mechanics. But no more.

Academics actually create new knowledge. They develop new techniques. They add to our understanding of the world around us. That requires a tremendous amount of intellect and creativity. At least to be a good one (there are a lot of hacks out there in all fields who simply do derivative work…there is no doubt about that).

But to see Stanford requiring their medical students to delve into the realm of academia gives me a new found respect for these docs. Rather that simply living in the “what”…these docs are now being forced to understand “why” and “how”. As such, they will be able to be more creative in their thinking and in their care…they’ll be able to solve bigger problems…and to think more critically. This allows me to think that perhaps medicine will now begin to address etiology rather than symptomology.

And if this is the case, we’ll all be the beneficiaries.

Originally published August 18, 2003

Trust me. I don’t completely understand theoretical physics. In fact, I barely understand theoretical physics. But then again, I barely understand all of the stuff that the nuns and priests fed me for the first 18 years of my life too.

That being said…I am completely intrigued by theoretical physics. It pushes toward the metaphysical in ways that other scientific disciplines simply cannot or at least will not. Theoretical physics allows us me (the ex-scientist) to understand the universe…or at least to give me a vocabulary of the universe that I can sort of understand. Take the article that I reference above for instance.

Again, I don’t completely understand every word of it…but then again, I didn’t understand every single concept in biological chemisty but I was a year from a Ph.D. in it at one time in my life. I digress.

What strikes me as fascinating about this holographic concept isn’t the 3D to 2D paradigm shift. It’s the idea of infinite parallel universes. Infinite parallel universes says to me that there is such a thing as immortality. Not in the “if you give your $20.00 to the church every week, you’ll go to heaven” kind of immortality. I’m talking about the kind of immortality that is possible when you abandon the fact that what we are experiencing right now is the only reality…or reality at all.

If you can do that, then you can imagine that “death” is simply a shift in perspective. A new reality of sorts…which, according to theoretical physicists (or at least my read of them), are happening infinitely.

My brain is starting to hurt…and I’ve probably confused anyone and everyone who may read this. But it brings me to a fantastic quote that I read today.

“Religion and science are opposed, but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything” - Sir William Bragg.

Originally published August 18, 2003

Andrew Zolli writes an interesting article about the infiltration of corporate brands into our culture. He writes:

For starters, brands aren’t invading the culture, for many they are the culture. The marketplace has trumped other ‘meaning making’ institutions in people’s lives, from political parties to religious institutions. Ask an average citizen to name their elected representatives and you’ll get a disinterested stare, but everybody has a passionately held opinion about Walmart.

I have to chime in here with my $0.02.

Now, most people are going to read these words and think that I am some tight-assed corporate fool. I’m not. I’m just a guy who is completely tired of the complete lack of context in our world today.

What I mean is that the logos that we see aren’t the problem. As most understand, a brand isn’t a logo. It’s the sum total of all the experiences that you get from any entity. This can be a person, or a place, or a company. Most companies engineer these experiences so that they are in line with their competitive positioning. Makes sense. Now, the argument against corporatization is that people are identifying themselves based on the suite of brands that they like.

For instance, people can be classified as “Coke people” or “Pepsi people”. And that pissed alot of people off. But in reality, its not about Coke or Pepsi. It’s about which positioning you see yourself more aligned with. For instance, are you traditional or are you cutting-edge?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using brands as a shared language of expression. People have aligned themselves for what seems like forever with these sorts of things. In fact, the author says that political parties and religious affiliations are more important than corporate brands.

What?

They’re all the same thing. The Republican party is a brand. The Catholic Church is a brand. C’mon now. When I say “Republican” what do you think about? When I say “Catholic”, tell me that you don’t have a preconceived notion.

You can’t.

People associate themselves with whatever entities that they either feel close to or aspire to be like. It’s that simple. And if corporate brands are one instrument of this expression…then so be it. What’s wrong with secular associations or apolitical ones? I’m a big fan.

I don’t understand why these people think that one symbolic expression of self is better than another. So it’s corporate? So what? In fact, to be honest, I find government and religion more reprehensible than corporations.

Why? Because at least corporations will tell you…”We’re in it to make money.” They have to…they’re legally obligated to look out for their shareholders. They aren’t shady because you know the motivations up front.

That’s more than I can say for Andrew Zolli’s “meaningful-making institutions”.

Originally published August 13, 2003

I was flipping through an old Scientific American (yes, I am a tool)…and came across an article which had piqued my interest. It described work done by Richard Taylor at the University of South Wales regarding the underlying order of Jackson Pollack’s paintings.

Taylor and colleagues determined that the randomness of Pollack’s paintings indeed displayed order in the form of fractal patterns. They even went as far as to describe the level of complexity of his paintings over the course of his career.

It makes me think that somehow we are drawn to these patterns regardless of intent. In other words, we are incapable of randomness. There is an underlying pattern to all of our actions…certain natural rhythms if you will. It may also explain why we are drawn to Pollack’s work even though we don’t “see” anything.

Perhaps Pollack is tapping into something more fundamental. Something that we can’t explain but nonetheless are drawn to.

Whether or not this is true is clearly up for debate…but you certainly can’t deny the fact that these patterns are found across a wide array of natural phenomena. And as such, their importance cannot be denied. Check out any scientfic field these days…everyone is reexamining their data sets to look for more fundamental patterns. The age of the linear relationship is gone…or being refined at the very least.

Originally posted August 13, 2003

There are a lot of smart people in our world. Some people are expert in only an extraordinarily narrow field. Most basic scientists fall into this category. Some people are expert technicians and their intelligence lies in the perfect application of a prescribed protocol. Many physicians and surgeons fall into this category. But then again, so do nurses, auto mechanics, ice sculpters, bakers, etc.

Believe me, I respect and admire the skill and intellect of all of these types of minds. But what really inspires me are people who are able to step back and provide perspective and are able to synthesize ideas. People like:

• Watson and Crick who deduced the structure of DNA without actually performing an experiment at the bench;
• Kevin Kelly whose perspectives on information technology and its convergence with biology seem more true today than they were 7 years ago;
• Stephen Wolfram and his fearless pursuit of a unifying principle.

(I’ve only posted a couple of people…simply due to time restraints.)

This is the kind of thinking that inspires me. The kind of thinking that makes me want to think. The kind of thinking that we need in our world. Specialization is a 20th century concept…a lesson from the industrial revolution. The real power lies in being able to make connections between these specialists. There is so much incredible information out there…but so few people who know how to

1. get ahold of it,
2. understand the disparate vocabularies of multiple specialties, and most importantly
3. be able to discern the patterns.

You think that we’re smart now? Wait until we truly understand and embrace that concept.

That’s Dave Matthews.  In 1992.  On VHS.

If you didn’t know, the name of that song is Blue Water Baboon Farm.  I’ve been using “baboonfarmer” as my alias since about 1994.