Meme Engine

The Encyclopedia of Life.

“For some years now I’ve been preaching the need to have a single-access system for collecting the information - organizing it - and I finally gave it a name in 2003; it was ‘The Encyclopedia of Life’. It would be an electronic encyclopedia with one page - infinitely extensible - for each of the species, into which everything we know about that species would be collected.”

-E.O. Wilson

What an incredible vision! This site apparently launched in 2008, and on looking around it seems bottomless! Blogs, photos, podcasts, tutorials… and of course all the information!

When I heard about this, my first thought was that you could fit all the information about an obscure bacterium on one page, but what would you do with the page for Homo Sapiens?? Well… I like how they handled it!

Posted 3 days ago

7 notes

eol, encyclopedia of life, encyclopedia, life, e.o.wilson, species, biology, science, taxonomy, classification,

I keep hearing about this phenomenon lately. There’s an important development in both science and philosophy, and it involves the two examples:

Imagine you are playing tennis.
Imagine you are moving between rooms in your house.

fMRI stands for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. It measures blood flow in the brain, producing an image with colored areas indicating activity. Currently, these scans can only be done on a patient that is completely still, inside a massive scanner. So the results you see above are *not* the scans of people playing Tennis, or actually moving from room to room. They are the scans of people imagining doing these things.

As you can see from the above scans, the images are quite different from one another. Where this becomes really interesting is when the scans are performed on patients in unresponsive vegetative states.

These patients have no voluntary control at all. They don’t respond outwardly to any speech or other stimulus… not in words, or expressions, or finger twitches. Not even their eyelids. Outwardly, such patients can seem utterly absent. In a 2005 study, just such a patient was scanned using an fMRI as she was asked to imagine herself playing Tennis, and then moving about her house. Surprisingly, the fMRI of the vegetative patient matched the results of the fully awake and functional control group!

What else are we to conclude but that the patient is still having experiences, and an inner life!

Not all patients respond like this… some seem unresponsive, even in their fMRIs. To further investigate the responsive patients, a doctor explains to them that they may answer yes/no questions while in the fMRI scanner… just think about playing Tennis for “YES”, and about moving around your house for “NO”. By this method, patients have been able to answer questions about their own histories completely accurately.

Should we take these brain results as more definitive than the presence or absence of verbal confirmation? Philosopher will know there is more than one option here. But (playing Devil’s advocate aside), I can’t help but believe that these results must indicate an inner, experiential life, even in outwardly unresponsive patients.

You can read more about a similar case in this article from The Guardian.

Posted 5 days ago

9 notes

fMRI, science, neuroscience, philosophy, consciousness, tennis, house, brain, vegetative state, inner life,

Here it all is.

I finally want to try and put into words why it is that I’m not satisfied with conventional Ontology. What’s an Ontology? I’ve always thought of it as a “list of things that exist”. I first heard the word in Philosophy classes, and philosophers might put things like matter, qualia, or intentions in their Ontologies (sometimes even God). The unspoken aim was to try and get as simple as possible, with very few types of things in your Ontology that could be used to build up the entire world that we know.

In general, I’m what you might call a “fan of science”… not a scientist myself, but a follower of the logic, and I’m generally inclined to believe in things that are endorsed by the majority of humanity’s scientific community. Whatever Ontology I believe in would have to be consistent with what “Science” as a whole has discovered.

It’s rarely put in these terms, but I think that Science comes with an assumed Ontology underneath: Natural Laws (that are empirically verifiable) plus Physical Reality (in terms of tiny particles or perhaps fields).

Lately I’ve been feeling that the Scientific Ontology is not enough. And the reason has to do with the man in the painting…

Posted 1 week ago

15 notes

consciousness, the hard problem, ontology, materialism, reductionism, matter, qualia, intentions, god, science, natural law, biology, complexity, model, isomorphism, interpretation,

This little sketch fell out of me trying to find a natural metaphor for the four quantum numbers associated with each electron bound up with an atom. It’s not exactly *natural*, but the mechanical lever-and-slider setup I drew does restrict the quantum numbers in a way matching reality.

The red sliders (and red lever) in the picture are the ones you can move to set the quantum numbers. The blue horizontal bars are the barriers (either natural or associated with the choices of the other numbers). The four key “numbers” n, l, m and “spin” are highlighted in yellow.

The quantum numbers represent four things about an electron… they are hard to explain outside the math they come from, but to at least put names to them…

n is the principle quantum number. Each choice of n represents one “shell” or “level” of electrons. Loosely, it helps me to think of n as the distance the electron is from the nucleus.
l and m both relate to the “angular momentum” of the electron… one could think of these numbers as relating to the shape of the electron’s orbit. When they are both zero, the orbit is a totally spherically symmetric probability cloud. Changing l and m skews it.
The spin is intrinsic to the electron as opposed to the orbit. Of course it’s more complicated than a spinning basket-ball… for example, it has only two possible values: 1/2 or -1/2, often just called up and down.

The number of different arrangements of the quantum number selectors is the number of electrons that can fit in an orbital shell around a nucleus. Who cares? Well… it’s actually the electron shells that determine how atoms react and combine… the smallest particles in the atom are the ones we have to pay attention to.

(Source: memeengine)

Posted 2 weeks ago

6 notes

science, electrons, chemistry, quantum numbers, orbitals, sketch, mechanical, metaphor, atom, nucleus,

So you can either say that electrons are very very tiny or that they are never-ending… either way is a pretty accurate way of describing what an atom is.

-

Prof Elizabeth Vogel Taylor, from an MIT Open Courseware Chemistry Lecture.

When I heard this sentence in context it made sense, although since then I think I’ve lost the thread…

Posted 3 weeks ago

4 notes

science, chemistry, electrons, atoms, wave function, quantum mechanics, infinity, probability, mit, Elizabeth Vogel Taylor,

Dr Barry Smith
"The "Mineness" of Self"
Discussion on The Hard Problem

The Science of the Brain is able to provide insight in so many areas where it almost seems that science should not be able to reach.

In this clip Dr Barry Smith talks about some of the philosophical insights we can take from studying lesions in the brain. He invokes names no less than Wittgenstein, and Descartes in the context of how their ideas about the “ownership of ideas” and the self have to be revised in light of recent research! And I think he is right.

This excerpt is just a sample from this excellent discussion on the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Posted 3 weeks ago

12 notes

philosophy, neuroscience, science, wittgenstein, descartes, ownership, audio, spoken word, barry smith,

Rupert Sheldrake
"Law as Metaphor"

Personally, the word “crackpot” always runs through my head at least once when I listen to a lecture from Rupert Sheldrake. That said, so many of the best ideas come from crackpots.

In this excerpt from his banned Ted Talk, Sheldrake claims that Law is a human concept, and the idea of a Natural Law is a metaphor that can (and has been) taken too far.

Interesting…

Posted 3 weeks ago

3 notes

rupert sheldrake, law, natural law, metaphor, crackpot, science, audio, spoken word,

Some thought-experiments in which Clocks run Fast or Slow.

I had to do some hard thinking recently when I was asked how Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity (SR) could explain why a clock in another frame of reference might run faster. The one-line explanation of SR is that clocks in other (moving) frames of reference always seem to run slower than your own. But since this “I’m the fastest clock” perspective is supposed to apply to anyone in their own frame, how do we reconcile this with two timekeepers looking at each other from differing frames of reference?

The “paradox” (actually only a veridical paradox, but that’s another story) is actually sort of a baby-version of the Twin Paradox. In general the twin paradox would be solved with appeals to General Relativity, but the simpler situation I outline here sticks to Special Relativity only.

The two “experiments” I outline are of the classic train-and-platform type used by Einstein himself. In both the train is going at a velocity 60% lightspeed, or 0.6c (yeah, that is fast, remember it’s just a thought experiment), and all the calculations are done using the Lorentz Transformations shown above. (but if you trust me you can just ignore the math and focus on the weirdness)

Experiment 1: A is a person with a clock standing on the platform, and B is a clock-holder on the train. As B whizzes past A, they start their timers together at 0 seconds. A waits for 10 seconds, then has a friend further down the platform pull B off the train (since it’s a thought experiment, we can have an infinite line of friends waiting, and whichever one is handy at the right time does the pulling). After B has been pulled to the platform we check his clock and see that it reads 8 seconds.
Experiment 2: Once again, A and B start their timers as B whizzes by, and just like before A waits until his timer reads 10 seconds. This time, A jumps onto the train. Checking B’s clock after A jumped on, they find that at the moment of the jump, B’s clock read 12.5 seconds.

Really work this around in your mind. If A pulls B from the train, he gets a B that has only experienced 8 seconds while A experienced 10. But if A instead jumps onto the train, he finds a B for whom 12.5 seconds have passed.

So who is time going slower for? A or B?

The pattern is that wherever A and B end up together, they agree that the other frame (and whoever was in it at the time) had time passing slower than their current one.

Here’s the explanation: Each frame comes with its own definition of simultaneity (and the definition depends on distance in the other frame!) When A’s friend pulls B from the train, we find that the platform frame had A being simultaneous with the B who had only experienced 8 seconds. But when A jumped onto the train, his view of which distant events were simultaneous shifted suddenly, so that he became simultaneous with the B who had experienced more time: 12.5 seconds.

Sooo… the Twin Paradox?

For me this helped answer the twin paradox. To create the twin paradox in Special Relativity, one only has to add in a 2nd train on the opposite side of the platform going the other direction. Then A and B can separate and come back together in many ways: B riding out then back, B riding out then A catching up, etc. The “paradox” is that all of these loops apart and back together seem like they should be equivalent, just by changing the frame or reference.

Wrong!

No matter which inertial frame of reference we stick to (either train or the platform), each of A and B will undergo a definite, invariant number of frame switches (like when A jumps on the train). It’s the number of switches that determines who experiences the least time passing (in the language of the twin paradox, it’s the twin that accellerates in a giant circle that stays young while the other ages).

Whew!

Posted 1 month ago

3 notes

relativity, special relativity, thought experiment, einstein, time, simultaneity, clocks, paradox, twin paradox, train, lightspeed, science, lorentz transformation,

Rupert Sheldrake
"A Divide in Science"

Here’s a 20-second soundbite from Rupert Sheldrake’s banned Tedx talk. As I’ve said before, I find Sheldrake’s ideas (and this talk as a whole) a little bit “crackpotish”, but his originality makes it worth listening to what he has to say. Questioning your own beliefs is good every now and then (“…uh, why do I believe that again?… [half-hour of difficult thought]… yes… yes, that is right!”)

As for this particular excerpt from the talk, I’m mostly in agreement!

Posted 1 month ago

2 notes

rupert sheldrake, science, ted, tedx, inquiry, world view, scientific method, audio, spoken word,

me·trol·o·gy
The scientific study of Measurement.

That’s a meta-science if I’ve ever heard of one! Methods of measurement and fine-tuned recording of the universe’s physical constants fall under the purview of the Metrologist.

I’d like to be a Theoretical Metrologist. I’d sit at my desk and ponder what it really means that Energy is measured in kilogram-meters-squared-per-second-squared.

Posted 1 month ago

1 note

metrology, metrologist, science, units, measurement, physical constants, study, meta, meta-science,

So, do we allow ourselves to believe very non-intuitive things based on chains of intuitively opaque but rational steps? My answer: yes!

- There is so much room for doubt in every corner… but I can’t help it - I trust mathematics and logic!

Posted 1 month ago

7 notes

mathematics, logic, relativity, intuition, rationality, Science,

The Partially Examined Life
"Why Do Philosophy?"

Why do they do it? Seth, Wes and Mark from the Partially Examined Life podcast offer some thoughts on why they do philosophy. (Incidentally, each episode of the podcast is 90 to 120 minutes, and this is episode 73… so these three really do philosophy!)

These are only excerpts from a much larger discussion, and the talk went to some satisfying places.

Discussion of super-specialized study in science or philosophy vs the very general examinations of Life, Purpose and Ontology.
How is Philosophy different than Science? That Religion?
Why is a “Partially” Examined Life possibly more desirable than either the Unexamined or “Fully” Examined Life?

One idea (not quoted in these excerpts) that I must share is that Philosophy differs from all other disciplines (including Science and Religion for ex) by being flexible in its base assumptions. Mark claimed in the podcast that if you have basic assumptions (for ex “God Exists”, or “There is Spacetime”, or “Inductive Reasoning is Valid”) that are off limits to questioning, then you are no longer doing philosophy.

Philosophy, he says, certainly makes use of base assumptions in nearly every branch, but it also recognizes the need to defend those base assumptions, and the validity of their being challenged in another theory.

I think I may like this definition, though it is just a touch self-aggrandizing.

The speakers you hear, in order, are Seth Paskin, Wes Alwan, and Mark Linsenmayer. You can check out the full episode here.

Posted 1 month ago

1 note

philosophy, science, religion, pel, partially examined life, audio, podcast, spoken word, seth paskin, wes alwan, mark linsenmayer, foundations, examined life,

A little sketch I made with the materials at hand.

When you read Science Fiction, you get a little something extra!

(Source: memeengine)

Posted 2 months ago

4 notes

Science, fiction, literacy, Lit, sci-fi, science fiction, art, sketch,

yaleuniversity:

Science writer Carl Zimmer ‘87 answers your questions - submitted via the Yale Tumblr Ask Box - about everything from Jurassic Park to life on Mars, and beyond!

VIDEO: http://youtu.be/-7ZYWQI6Hcg.

I’m famous!

Forgive me, I’m a little excited, my question was featured in this video! It’s number 6 out of 7, so you have to watch the three minutes or so leading up… but it’s no chore! Carl Zimmer is unassuming and charming, and handles the questions beautifully.

Thanks to the yaleuniversity tumblr for the opportunity!

Reblogged 2 months ago from yaleuniversity

18 notes

Carl Zimmer, yaleuniversity, dna, biology, science,

“I think that doing science and trying to understand science are two different things.”

This from Wes Alwan on the Partially Examined Life podcast (episode 67 if you’re interested).

I agree. And, when I stopped to think about it, so do lots of great scientists!

John von Neumann: “Young man, in mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them.”
Richard Feynman: “It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don’t understand it. You see my physics students don’t understand it… That is because I don’t understand it. Nobody does.”
David Mermin: “If I were forced to sum up in one sentence what the Copenhagen interpretation says to me, it would be ‘Shut up and calculate!’”
Niels Bohr: “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory hasn’t understood it.”

Though this last quote seems the least related, it is actually the most damning if you think about it… thousands of scientists use quantum mechanical calculations each day as normally as you or I would pour our cereal in the morning. Not shocked.

As they calculate, do they really concieve of Superposition? Wave/Particle Duality? The Pauli Exclusion Principle? As they must in order to function, I think many of them just accept the principles, and hypothesize, verify, repeat, hypothesize, verify, repeat…

This isn’t really a criticism, maybe just a suggestion that we do the “different thing” as well. If some must accept and move on, let’s also have some podering and trying to understand.

Posted 2 months ago

7 notes

science, philosophy, partially examined life, pel, wes alwan, john von neumann, von neumann, niels bohr, bohr, richard feynman, feynman, david merman, quotes, understanding, shut up and calculate, intuition,

Meme Engine "science"

Here it all is.

me·trol·o·gy

Favorite Podcasts:

Books I've Blogged About: