Thursday, November 30, 2006
Mathematicians in Love
Well, Rucker's latest is finally in my sweaty little hands, so all other reading is being dropped until I get through Mathematicians in Love. That means a couple of books on Richard Dawkins, the Collins book (sorry, Lisa, but I haven't read it yet), The Left Hand of God (about liberal religion and politics), and The Greatest White Trash Love Story Ever Told will all have to wait (as well as any undead-related reading that I may, or may not, be starting this holiday season!)
Wishing I Was an Elf
For reason #23 why I wish I was an elf see the current Dungeon Crawl, Inc. comic strip (link in the right column!) Castor's closing line summarizes it well: "Damn elf mojo! How are regular guys suppose to score with you around?"
Apologies to those who are offended by the strip or the language of the quote or even the vaguely sexist implications of it, but really, the point is that chicks dig elves, I mean, "women people" not "chicks," oh, heck, humans dig elves. Is that any better?
Apologies to those who are offended by the strip or the language of the quote or even the vaguely sexist implications of it, but really, the point is that chicks dig elves, I mean, "women people" not "chicks," oh, heck, humans dig elves. Is that any better?
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Chance or the Dance?
[Note: this is a rather lengthy post about evolution, a topic that many of you who read this blog semi-regularly could care less about. It's ok, I don't expect it to be read. This is just a convenient place to store my thoughts as I work through the issue. If you want to chime in, great. If not, that's fine as well.]
Is this world and all its myriad of living creatures the result of random chance or is it all orchestrated by a Choreographer? Science tells us the answer is neither.
Contrary to popular misconception, evolution does not say that we evolved by chance. What it does say is that we evolved by natural selection, which isn't particularly random at all. There is survival of the fittest because the fittest survive. Fittest for what? For surviving in a particular niche in a particular time and place with particular neighbors (predators and prey, as well as vegetation, water, sunlight, etc.) And not just surviving, but reproducing before dying. As Richard Dawkins points out in River Out of Eden, every single living organism today is a direct descendant from a chain of ancestors who all mated at least once before they died. Those who survived long enough to reproduce propagated their genetic material. Those who didn't, well obviously, they didn't.
So, we have a process where some organism are able to reproduce and some aren't. Eventually the traits of the members of a species that contribute to survival/reproduction are dominant in the gene pool, and other traits are not. A change to the environment (migration to find new food, natural disaster, etc.) begins to favor new traits. Over a period of time, a new set of traits become favored. Given enough time, enough changes, speciation occurs: the changes become so pronounced that a group of the same species that migrated to look for food elsewhere can no longer interbreed with the (relatively stable, genetically speaking) descendants of those who remained in the original area.
Randomness does factor in during the infamous "good mutation" story. In this tale, an organism might have a random genetic mutation (don't ask me how, probably cosmic radiation, like the Fantastic Four) that creates a trait that gives it a greater chance for survival/reproduction, thus introducing new genetic material into the gene pool. Note, by our definition this new material will be favored by natural selection.
The problem with this tale is that almost all known mutations are harmful, many are fatal, and several lead to an inability to reproduce. The problem with this problem is that we've only been looking at mutations at a genetic level for less than 100 years! Even if you bought 100 lottery tickets, you still wouldn't have very good odds of winning the Big Jackpot. But if you, J. Random Player wouldn't have good odds of winning, the odds are pretty good that someone will win.
Given that there is a wealth of information in the DNA of any critter, evolution by natural selection says that those critters who have traits that are more conducive to surviving and reproducing will survive and reproduce more than those who don't. But this is all relative to the complexities of the environment, which may be more or less stable, but is also, more or less, always changing as well. At times, dice are tossed into the mix both by large scale environmental changes and mutations (of the latter, most are harmful, likely resulting in the immediate death of the organism, but some very few are X-Men-like).
This is why artificial life became such a big deal in the 1990s. A-life studies computer-generated "life." The archetypical example would be the cellular automata of John Conway's Game of Life. This creates a very simple environment with very simple rules (basically a spreadsheet of square cells with rules about when a cell is shaded in or not), but it results in a large variety of emergent behavior. "Species" of a sort emerge from combinations of shaded cells and rules, as does reproduction and symbiosis. This in no way approaches the complexity of even the simplest biological evolutionary scenario, but it is a sort of "proof of concept" that this kind of theory does play out in some scenarios (the admittedly simplistic digital ecologies of artificial life).
Are there problems with the theory of evolution? Of course. The details are not worked out. By way of comparison we still don't know some very specific things about quantum physics, and even gravity still has some mysteries for us. Mysteries do not mark the end of science, but its beginning. Science is the quest to explain the mysteries of the world around us in terms of natural explanations. Natural selection is a natural explanation. Divine intervention is not.
All of which is good and fine and dandy, but... what if there is a Divine Intervener who is out there? If there is, would we still not be able to put together the best naturalistic theories we can, and continue to refine them to deal with new evidence, and, essentially, be wrong? If there is, for instance, a Creator, then any theory of origins that denies such a creator would be wrong no matter how much explanatory power it had. The Ptolemaic system of astronomy had a certain explanatory power as well. It turned out to be wrong. Could all naturalistic theories of ultimate origins and destiny also turn out to be wrong? If so, how would a system that by design and definition can only see naturalistic explanations ever come to know this?
Perhaps the theistic evolutionists have the best position, affirming as they do aspects of both theistic religion and evolutionary science. But by affirming both, they also deny aspects of both, aspects that both scientists and the faithful are uncomfortable in denying. That is one thing naturalistic evolutionists and creationists often agree on: theistic evolutionists are wrong. Far from being a workable compromise, theistic evolution represents a third position altogether.
Where does this leave us? Well, it leaves me believing the bible and believing modern science (or, more dangerously, it leaves me believing that I believe the bible and believing that I believe modern science. But, and here is the scary part, maybe I don't believe one or the other or maybe neither, maybe I only believe that I believe them. How would one know the difference?) Anyway, none of this is intended as an assault on faith (I still believe in the triune God and salvation through the incarnate Son, at least I believe that I believe that :-), nor does is it a dismissal of the critiques of evolution by intelligent design proponents (I am open to the possibility that evolution could be wrong).
It's only in the last year or so that I've begun to think very seriously about evolution at all. I am not a scientist, but I'd like to understand why so many believe evolution is as true a truth as we know and why others reject it as being either a mistaken theory or a lie straight from the pit. Supposedly it's about the evidence and facts, about what we sometimes call "science," but there's also a lot of talk about theory and the nature of science. Science is rarely just about the facts, but is about explaining those facts (and often this means going to great efforts to collect facts which have never been collected). Is evolutionary biology a proper science? Who gets to decide and how are those decisions made? If it's not, why do so many say it is? If it is, why do so many say it's not?
Is this world and all its myriad of living creatures the result of random chance or is it all orchestrated by a Choreographer? Science tells us the answer is neither.
Contrary to popular misconception, evolution does not say that we evolved by chance. What it does say is that we evolved by natural selection, which isn't particularly random at all. There is survival of the fittest because the fittest survive. Fittest for what? For surviving in a particular niche in a particular time and place with particular neighbors (predators and prey, as well as vegetation, water, sunlight, etc.) And not just surviving, but reproducing before dying. As Richard Dawkins points out in River Out of Eden, every single living organism today is a direct descendant from a chain of ancestors who all mated at least once before they died. Those who survived long enough to reproduce propagated their genetic material. Those who didn't, well obviously, they didn't.
So, we have a process where some organism are able to reproduce and some aren't. Eventually the traits of the members of a species that contribute to survival/reproduction are dominant in the gene pool, and other traits are not. A change to the environment (migration to find new food, natural disaster, etc.) begins to favor new traits. Over a period of time, a new set of traits become favored. Given enough time, enough changes, speciation occurs: the changes become so pronounced that a group of the same species that migrated to look for food elsewhere can no longer interbreed with the (relatively stable, genetically speaking) descendants of those who remained in the original area.
Randomness does factor in during the infamous "good mutation" story. In this tale, an organism might have a random genetic mutation (don't ask me how, probably cosmic radiation, like the Fantastic Four) that creates a trait that gives it a greater chance for survival/reproduction, thus introducing new genetic material into the gene pool. Note, by our definition this new material will be favored by natural selection.
The problem with this tale is that almost all known mutations are harmful, many are fatal, and several lead to an inability to reproduce. The problem with this problem is that we've only been looking at mutations at a genetic level for less than 100 years! Even if you bought 100 lottery tickets, you still wouldn't have very good odds of winning the Big Jackpot. But if you, J. Random Player wouldn't have good odds of winning, the odds are pretty good that someone will win.
Given that there is a wealth of information in the DNA of any critter, evolution by natural selection says that those critters who have traits that are more conducive to surviving and reproducing will survive and reproduce more than those who don't. But this is all relative to the complexities of the environment, which may be more or less stable, but is also, more or less, always changing as well. At times, dice are tossed into the mix both by large scale environmental changes and mutations (of the latter, most are harmful, likely resulting in the immediate death of the organism, but some very few are X-Men-like).
This is why artificial life became such a big deal in the 1990s. A-life studies computer-generated "life." The archetypical example would be the cellular automata of John Conway's Game of Life. This creates a very simple environment with very simple rules (basically a spreadsheet of square cells with rules about when a cell is shaded in or not), but it results in a large variety of emergent behavior. "Species" of a sort emerge from combinations of shaded cells and rules, as does reproduction and symbiosis. This in no way approaches the complexity of even the simplest biological evolutionary scenario, but it is a sort of "proof of concept" that this kind of theory does play out in some scenarios (the admittedly simplistic digital ecologies of artificial life).
Are there problems with the theory of evolution? Of course. The details are not worked out. By way of comparison we still don't know some very specific things about quantum physics, and even gravity still has some mysteries for us. Mysteries do not mark the end of science, but its beginning. Science is the quest to explain the mysteries of the world around us in terms of natural explanations. Natural selection is a natural explanation. Divine intervention is not.
All of which is good and fine and dandy, but... what if there is a Divine Intervener who is out there? If there is, would we still not be able to put together the best naturalistic theories we can, and continue to refine them to deal with new evidence, and, essentially, be wrong? If there is, for instance, a Creator, then any theory of origins that denies such a creator would be wrong no matter how much explanatory power it had. The Ptolemaic system of astronomy had a certain explanatory power as well. It turned out to be wrong. Could all naturalistic theories of ultimate origins and destiny also turn out to be wrong? If so, how would a system that by design and definition can only see naturalistic explanations ever come to know this?
Perhaps the theistic evolutionists have the best position, affirming as they do aspects of both theistic religion and evolutionary science. But by affirming both, they also deny aspects of both, aspects that both scientists and the faithful are uncomfortable in denying. That is one thing naturalistic evolutionists and creationists often agree on: theistic evolutionists are wrong. Far from being a workable compromise, theistic evolution represents a third position altogether.
Where does this leave us? Well, it leaves me believing the bible and believing modern science (or, more dangerously, it leaves me believing that I believe the bible and believing that I believe modern science. But, and here is the scary part, maybe I don't believe one or the other or maybe neither, maybe I only believe that I believe them. How would one know the difference?) Anyway, none of this is intended as an assault on faith (I still believe in the triune God and salvation through the incarnate Son, at least I believe that I believe that :-), nor does is it a dismissal of the critiques of evolution by intelligent design proponents (I am open to the possibility that evolution could be wrong).
It's only in the last year or so that I've begun to think very seriously about evolution at all. I am not a scientist, but I'd like to understand why so many believe evolution is as true a truth as we know and why others reject it as being either a mistaken theory or a lie straight from the pit. Supposedly it's about the evidence and facts, about what we sometimes call "science," but there's also a lot of talk about theory and the nature of science. Science is rarely just about the facts, but is about explaining those facts (and often this means going to great efforts to collect facts which have never been collected). Is evolutionary biology a proper science? Who gets to decide and how are those decisions made? If it's not, why do so many say it is? If it is, why do so many say it's not?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
No Spin on Video Games?
Ah, Morgan, your man O'Reilly here is takin' his shots close to home now, innit he? 'Course, I ain't sayin' he's all wrong now, not at all, at all. I'm just thinkin' things must be slow down in the old No Spin Zone. Oh well, they say it's a free country, so I guess it's alright then ;-)
Zombies for Scholars
Two new books for those who like to reflect on what the undead have to tell us:
- The Gospel of the Living Dead: George Romero's Visions of Hell on Earth (Baylor University Press)
- The Undead and Philosophy: Chicken Soup for the Soulless (Open Court Books)
Is It Plagiarism When You Steal From Yourself?
A friend of mine (who does not read this blog) has been asking me to write a more detailed email than "hi, how are you?" The exact request was for a novella. So I obliged by writing several screens of random junk. Being an exceptionally lazy slacker, I decided to lift a few paragraphs from my epic epistle on nothing and turn them into a post. So...
I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. My high school dreams of starving writer, Russian anarchist, or computer programmer are all pretty much beyond me now. Ditto on the elementary school kid that wanted to be a doctor. Actually, being a librarian who thinks too much isn't that bad. Eventually I may get off my lazy butt and do more work in philosophy, but until then... life's not so bad.
I drink too much. Caffeine, of course. In fact I usually tell people I run on caffeine and good intentions [editor's note: yeah, I cribbed this line from this blog. I'm lazy I tell ya!] It's more or less true (I also ingest disgusting quantities of sugar, fat and sodium). Oh, and the inside of my nose is sore.
I've been wondering about why certain things become important to us and other things don't. Why do some people like hockey and others don't? Why do I like vampires but not slashers? Why do I like mad scientists but not mad painters? Why is NASCAR an obsession for some, but others think it the most boring thing in all the world? Why do some things click with some of us, and other things with others? People are different. Sure, but why? What causes the differences? If I had a life maybe I'd stop wondering about these kinds of things.
Tangerine were the moths' heads, as fluttering and stuttering they sought the knights' fires, victims of uncertain meds, insect brains filled with lost desires.
White Christmas. Some kind of mythological event. Do we actually think the holidays will be less stressful with eight inches of white powder covering the land? Arctic lands look dead. Maybe that's the peace that White Christmas brings: the peace of the cemetery. Morbid? Not really, just wondering why we associate snow with the birthday of a kid in the Middle East.
Which is scarier: the thought that you may be crazy or the thought that you may be sane? For myself, I usually say I'm more afraid of being crazy. Sometimes I look at my thoughts, though, and hope that I'm not sane (because insanity would explain a whole lot...) The moon is waxing. It should be full around December 5. I guess that's what I'm thankful for. Full moons and internal combustion engines. Oh, and the letter "F" And, of course, my kids, my friends, my family, my acquaintances, the founders of our country, my ancestors, all modern technology (especially indoor plumbing), black and white photography, and Marie Osmond.
I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up. My high school dreams of starving writer, Russian anarchist, or computer programmer are all pretty much beyond me now. Ditto on the elementary school kid that wanted to be a doctor. Actually, being a librarian who thinks too much isn't that bad. Eventually I may get off my lazy butt and do more work in philosophy, but until then... life's not so bad.
I drink too much. Caffeine, of course. In fact I usually tell people I run on caffeine and good intentions [editor's note: yeah, I cribbed this line from this blog. I'm lazy I tell ya!] It's more or less true (I also ingest disgusting quantities of sugar, fat and sodium). Oh, and the inside of my nose is sore.
I've been wondering about why certain things become important to us and other things don't. Why do some people like hockey and others don't? Why do I like vampires but not slashers? Why do I like mad scientists but not mad painters? Why is NASCAR an obsession for some, but others think it the most boring thing in all the world? Why do some things click with some of us, and other things with others? People are different. Sure, but why? What causes the differences? If I had a life maybe I'd stop wondering about these kinds of things.
Tangerine were the moths' heads, as fluttering and stuttering they sought the knights' fires, victims of uncertain meds, insect brains filled with lost desires.
White Christmas. Some kind of mythological event. Do we actually think the holidays will be less stressful with eight inches of white powder covering the land? Arctic lands look dead. Maybe that's the peace that White Christmas brings: the peace of the cemetery. Morbid? Not really, just wondering why we associate snow with the birthday of a kid in the Middle East.
Which is scarier: the thought that you may be crazy or the thought that you may be sane? For myself, I usually say I'm more afraid of being crazy. Sometimes I look at my thoughts, though, and hope that I'm not sane (because insanity would explain a whole lot...) The moon is waxing. It should be full around December 5. I guess that's what I'm thankful for. Full moons and internal combustion engines. Oh, and the letter "F" And, of course, my kids, my friends, my family, my acquaintances, the founders of our country, my ancestors, all modern technology (especially indoor plumbing), black and white photography, and Marie Osmond.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Busyness... we all have intimate knowledge of it
When is it busyness, and when is it being active and engaged? When is it finding peace and balance, and when is it sloth and idleness?
I saw a bumper sticker on the Internet: Don't believe everything you think. Really good advice for me, but as always YMMV.
I also saw a bumper sticker on a car on campus: So Mote It Be. Since that phrase comes from Freemasonry and is currently in use in dozens of Wiccan and other neo-pagan rituals, I find it interesting (to say the least...)
Finally, I was reminded today that in my youth I never expected to live past 25 (and apparently I'm not the only one with that delusion). Now I hope to see a century (but won't be too stressed if I don't :-) It's funny how time changes your perspective, but leaves the essential you unchanged. The ex-Infidel brought this to mind with his rechristening: Old Young Guy. I've often said that I don't feel any different than when I was thirteen. How does wisdom and experience factor into essence and consciousness? What changes, if anything, as we age?
I saw a bumper sticker on the Internet: Don't believe everything you think. Really good advice for me, but as always YMMV.
I also saw a bumper sticker on a car on campus: So Mote It Be. Since that phrase comes from Freemasonry and is currently in use in dozens of Wiccan and other neo-pagan rituals, I find it interesting (to say the least...)
Finally, I was reminded today that in my youth I never expected to live past 25 (and apparently I'm not the only one with that delusion). Now I hope to see a century (but won't be too stressed if I don't :-) It's funny how time changes your perspective, but leaves the essential you unchanged. The ex-Infidel brought this to mind with his rechristening: Old Young Guy. I've often said that I don't feel any different than when I was thirteen. How does wisdom and experience factor into essence and consciousness? What changes, if anything, as we age?
Thursday, November 09, 2006
I Don't Know About Where You're At...
...but it smells too good outside to be trapped in an office today! The temperature is perfect, the breeze is perfect, and the leafy smell of fall is perfect.
Births and (Un)death
Today my daughter turns six and my biological father turns... hmmm, I have no idea. It's a killer gorgeous autumn day. I'm armed with a glass of iced earl grey and woke up early enough to begin rebuilding my desktop computer (hopefully I'll leave it be for a while and just use the thing instead of playing tinker gnome.) Thor's day, Arthur Dent might not have ever gotten them, but I find them marvelous enough!
Currently pretending to read: Habits of the High-tech Heart by Quentin Schultze (he was on campus last week, a really nice and really smart guy) and Luck, Logic, and White Lies by Jorg Bewersdorff (I originally thought this might be a biography about me, but it's really a book on the mathematics of games, which is probably the more interesting of the possibilities.)
Kender necromancers... can you imagine the kinds of items they could pull out of their pockets? Speaking of necromancers, last month Dragon magazine ran a story on the cult of Vecna. Is it worrisome when a neutral evil cult begins to make sense? Necromancy is the biotech of a fantasy world, and like our biotech, raises the question "just because we can do something, does that mean we should?"
Currently pretending to read: Habits of the High-tech Heart by Quentin Schultze (he was on campus last week, a really nice and really smart guy) and Luck, Logic, and White Lies by Jorg Bewersdorff (I originally thought this might be a biography about me, but it's really a book on the mathematics of games, which is probably the more interesting of the possibilities.)
Kender necromancers... can you imagine the kinds of items they could pull out of their pockets? Speaking of necromancers, last month Dragon magazine ran a story on the cult of Vecna. Is it worrisome when a neutral evil cult begins to make sense? Necromancy is the biotech of a fantasy world, and like our biotech, raises the question "just because we can do something, does that mean we should?"
Friday, November 03, 2006
Choices
I suspect some of you are like me: there's more than one thing you want to be when you grow up, but you only have this one life. If you'd list the things you'd like to be and do, and then prioritize them, where on that list does your current set of life choices fall? What's preventing you from following the first choice on the list? The past is the past, and we all get to enjoy the good times and learn from the bad ones... but today is the present, the doorway to the future. Choose today, not based on where you've been or where you feel you have to be, but start planning for where you want to be. It's as easy (and as hard) as that (for the record, I'm a lazy coward, so I will not be taking my own advice; but for the rest of you, live boldly!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
