Science

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 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.