Many Minds

We egocentric humans have been reluctant to grant that any other creatures have minds like ours. Although that may be partly true—the human mind is the most complex one on Earth—ongoing research is demonstrating that most animals indeed have quite sophisticated minds. In fact, until the last several decades, many people did not believe that animals had a mind at all; but were more like automatons who also had no feelings. We can thank Rene Descartes for this idea, who, in the 17^th century, viewed animals as more like unconscious, stimulus-response machines.

Fortunately,  more and more of the solid barriers we once thought God had erected between us and other creatures are collapsing. For example, many recent clever experiments have demonstrated that animals make and use tools, recognize themselves in mirrors, have a sense of self, use symbolic communication, solve complex problems, and display other complex, cognitive abilities. Charles Darwin was way out in front of the effort to see similarities, when he wrote, “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.”

Despite these similarities in cognitive abilities, there is one barrier that we may never surmount: knowing what it's like to be another creature. Although our minds may work in roughly similar ways, the sensory inputs to minds are often very different. A dog's sense of smell is far greater than mine, so how its brain interprets its world will be heavily swayed by aromas that I am ignorant of. Our worlds will feel different. An eagle's eyes are for more acute than mine, so its visual world will be quite different from mine. Yet neither a dog nor an eagle can count to 10 or build a smart phone, so we likely will never be able to bridge the gap between us, to know what it's like to be the other. We are shut out from each others' imaginations and perceptions.

Current experiments in the field of ethology (animal behavior) are demonstrating that many animals respond to their environment in similar ways that we do. It's only reasonable to assume that they have comparable intentions and feelings. We can see that they also must represent their world internally, but because our senses are so different, we cannot know how it feels to them. Other research has shown that even plants possess sentience of some sort; even they have some kind of mind.

These findings will likely be very relevant, if we some day discover extraterrestrial life. If we can't imagine what it's like to be a bird or a bat on Earth, how will we fare when we meet aliens whose sensory inputs may be exotically different? Like Descartes once thought about dogs and cats, we may not even recognize that alien life possesses a mind, when in fact their minds may make ours appear quite primitive—like an amoeba.

Life's Launch

I have been taking an online course on the subject of the origin of life on Earth. This is a field of study that seems to be getting tantalizingly close to an answer. The field got a major boost back in the 1950s when two researchers conducted an experiment that showed when a mixture of certain gases (thought at the time to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere) were heated with water and a spark passed through the vapors, complex organic molecules were formed. It seems as if the pre-life chemicals have a predilection to combine into complicated configurations—all on their own, in the form of many different complex amino acids.

But the process of these complex molecules then taking the next steps into something animate, is another huge leap. Lots of research is going on and it is tantalizingly close to an answer, but the difficulties of the process are immense.

We do know that life arose very early in Earth's history. Our planet was formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and life appeared quite shortly thereafter—under conditions that most types of life today would be unable to tolerate. Life is tough, though. Given half a chance, it will thrive, and it did. Then it took a very long time (some 3.5 billion years) for life to grow past single-cell creatures. Only about 500 million years ago did multicellular animals appear on the scene, during what is termed the Cambrian Explosion.

What struggles did life encounter in its early days to stay alive? Current research suggests that life may have originated in various clement locations on our planet. I use the word “clement” in a relative sense here... all conditions on Earth were very harsh in those days. 

Life may in fact have gotten started more than once and then earlier forms died out, before sustaining itself; in a sort of stuttering manner. It's also possible that different forms of life came into existence and that the kind of life we know today may have driven other forms extinct.

Then again, life may not have originated on Earth. Meteorites continue to fall on our planet from space, which contain complex organic molecules. Maybe life got seeded here from elsewhere in the solar system or the cosmos. The environment on Mars some 3-4 billion years ago was warm and wet. Maybe life arose there and traveled on a rocky space ship to Earth. We have fund several meteorites on the Antarctic snow that we know did come from Mars (due to their unique Martian composition), and some of their interiors appear to have had primitive life forms embedded in them.

As I wrote above, the more scientists learn about the origin of life, the more complex that beginning seems to have been. It may not be long before we've deciphered the story, however.

Republican Rout In 2022?

In a previous post I addressed societal illnesses in the US that promote out-of-control gun violence. There are numerous other problems we have, such as voting restrictions, control of government by moneyed interests, economic inequality, racism, extreme right-wing violent actions, poor public education, etc. Neither party—Democrats nor Republicans—has done much to deal with these problems, but it's safe to say that the Republican Party deserves far more blame for the sad state of affairs in this country.

Republicans have fought gun control, promoted fossil fuel damage to our environment, opened the door to our government being controlled by the rich, cut taxes that have thrust many people into poverty and decimated our infrastructure, interfered with the ability of our schools to adequately educate our children, gerrymandered and distorted state elections—so that many minority citizens struggle to be able to vote, created a hostile atmosphere in government, unethically skewed the US Supreme Court so that six of nine justices possess extreme views that are out of touch with the desires of citizens, and much more.

It remains a mystery to me why Republicans have been successful at degrading American democracy as much as they have. On most of the issues listed above, they are very much out of touch with the desires and needs of most of the country's citizens. They force agendas that the majority of Americans do not support. It is a measure of how US democracy has been damaged. By definition, a democracy is a system of government that provides for the needs and welfare of its citizens through their participation. If the government ignores or overrides the needs of the people, it's not a democracy.

Evidence suggests that the Republican Party seriously began its assault on the American government after Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. His predecessor Jimmy Carter spoke to citizens in 1979—declaring that the country faced many critical problems. It was dubbed his “malaise speech,” in which he stated that in the future the country faced deeper and more damaging problems than those being struggled with at the time; such as long lines as gas stations, energy shortages, or rampant inflation. He described a “fundamental threat to American democracy,” that was surfacing as a crisis of confidence in the “growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” We had become a people that valued “owning things and consuming things.” He said that the federal government had become “isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life.” He stated that we must first “face the truth, and then we can change our course.” He went on to request that Americans must relinquish their current wasteful habits and conserve energy by cutting back on car trips, obeying a reduced speed limit, and setting their thermostats lower.

A little over a year later Carter lost his reelection to Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on the slogan “It's morning in America.” Reagan painted a very different picture from Carter—in which he claimed that Americans were embarking on a rosy future and there was no need to trim our appetites at all. It was a comforting message. People preferred Reagan’s slogan to Carter's admonition to face the truth, which was perceived a “fundamental threat to American democracy.” And over the 40 years since we have continued our reckless way, as the Republican Party has continued to push an agenda that denies climate crisis and has brought our democracy to a weakened state.

The party has gone so far that it ignores the will of the majority of citizens. We are in enough of a mess that Republican candidates for political office in November should be routed, but many prognosticators predict that the Republicans will take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is amazing how one party has derailed democracy and sold lies to Americans. If they are not routed in November, our future will look more like a strong-arm dictatorship than a democracy.

Elysian Eden

There are many stories of how ancient people once lived an idyllic existence in some sylvan setting, where life was peaceful, plentiful, and pleasant. Ahh... there's nothing like nostalgia for the good old days! The Judeo-Christian myth along this line is about our once residing in the pleasures of the Garden of Eden, before we were evicted by the almighty landlord. 

I have written before that there may well have been a historical setting for this garden of plenty: the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Once upon a time—several thousand year ago—the area was green and fecund and provided the people with plentiful sustenance, but the garden became over-farmed, the soil became barren and the area was transformed into a desert. We weren't expelled from the garden—we trashed it and then moved on.

There are somewhat similar Elysian stories about what happens after we die—that the glories of heaven await the faithful, who will bask forever in its splendor. It would be sort of like going back to the Garden of Eden in spirit—after having endured this vexatious mortal existence.

The dualistic perspective of the Abrahamic peoples posits an exact opposite of heaven as a place of eternal residence: hell. You've got only two conflicting and exclusive permanent destines: paradise or perdition.

What I find interesting is that human descriptions of hell are far more detailed than heaven. Every religion seems to possess a meticulous account of hell—a dismal, tortuous place where torment is everlasting. For example, Dante's The Divine Comedy is an epic 13^th century poem describing an anguishing journey through the underworld. In contrast, heaven has only superficially been sketched by humans... streets of gold, the faithful reposing on clouds, or enjoying divine music, etc.

Why do humans put so much more attention to hell than heaven? I think it's possible that the story tellers (usually priests) wanted to frighten people into being good. Humans are very prone to wandering off the path of goodness and into the ditches of depravity. Most priests have found that, rather than paint heavenly scenes, the stronger prod is to scare the hell out of them.

If you think for a bit about heaven, however, doesn't it sound quite boring? If I were to laze around forever on cushy clouds, listen perpetually to any kind of music, or smile until my face cracked, I'd soon go berserk. What's more, it's the vicissitudes of life that really make it interesting. When things get too effortless, we become flabby and feeble. I would not want to go to the mythical heaven. Let me face affliction here and now, and be able to grow from it.

At the end of the day I don't fret over going to hell or look forward to heaven. I don't believe they really exist as our stories describe. It's our choice to live in heaven or hell (or a mixture), right here in this precious life. I think it makes more sense to put my attention to the here and now.

Phlox

 Wild phlox blooms. Click to enlarge.

Too Many Murders—Part 2

What is going on here? Why can't we Americans take any definitive action to curb the bloodshed? I believe it's definitely not an issue that can be dealt with by gun control laws. As soon as the topic of gun laws comes up, the opposing, polarized sides face off, entrench, and any chance of collaborating to stop the slaughter is stymied. Americans are unwilling to face the truth that our gun violence has roots so deep that passing a few restrictive laws will have little effect. Those who favor guns will simply chip away at the edges of the laws, in order to enfeeble them. That is what has happened in the abortion issue.

America's gun problem that leads to these mass murders can be viewed primarily as a failure of our society. It's not a single bad apple shooting people up or a mentally ill kid that leads to these deaths—it is literally a mentally-ill society that promotes the slaughter. We may ask how did that kid reach that state of mind, or why his parents seemed to be ignorant of his plans, or why was the school not made into an impenetrable fortress? These are shallow questions that miss the deeper truths: our conflictual society created that kid; it created ineffectual parents; it created a gun culture that is out of control. 

Until we face the truth that our society is fundamentally unhealthy, no amount of tweaking laws that nibble at the edge of symptoms will solve anything. We are not yet ready to admit the depth and breadth of our sickness—let alone conceive of the fundamental societal transformation that is required to make significant change.

A healthy society can make several basic changes to discourage this and other kinds of violence. By this I mean to imply that our societal violence is far wider than people killing each other with guns; it also encompasses racist violence, economic violence in the form of gross inequality, poor education, voting suppression, etc. In contrast, a healthy society possesses (1) a functional democracy, (2) a citizenry nurtured to be robust in mind and body, (3) free and effective education, (4) safety and security, and (5) equality, and other nurturing processes. The US falls far short in all of these areas.

I am not able to offer a simple, expeditious solution to our gun fetish—or these other problems of our society. The problem is complex and deep—the solutions are thus comprehensive and profound. Legislation cannot do it, as long as we are so divided and lack an effective democracy. We need to admit our problems and seek fundamental changes that will begin to offer some of the features of a healthy society listed above. Like an alcoholic who is in denial, however, we are not yet ready to change.

Too Many Murders—Part 1

I ordinarily avoid posting about current events or breaking news in society—preferring to stick to the natural world and to philosophical topics. There already is far too much dispute over society's problems, as people scream at each other over the yawning gap that separates them. Social media add their angry insults to the mix, while mainstream media offer their well-worn and cliched comments. Yet nothing changes.

I shy away from addressing current events—especially when they are tragic—because our first response to them is often knee-jerk and superficial in nature. It's easy to respond with an overly-emotional thought that one later regrets having had. In this posting and the next, however, I will express some thoughts about two recent examples of ongoing crises in US culture—thoughts that I have been pondering for a long time. The fact that these calamities are repetitive phenomena that have been recurring for decades sets them aside from current events or late-breaking news. They are concerns that many of us Americans have agonized over for several years—wondering if our country may finally have had enough travesty and will ultimately rise up to do something about it. The first crisis I will address here is gun violence. The following post will look at the harm that the Republican Party has inflicted on the country, for some four decades now.

Gun violence: let me first try to put this crisis into context, to understand it as a deep, chronic problem in the US. Viewed from the perspective of every other relatively stable society on Earth, the frequency of deaths by guns in America is astonishingly high, as is the number of guns in circulation. The recent elementary school massacre in Texas is the latest painful reminder of the legacy of American gun culture. 

It is worth noting, however, that the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are not due to someone entering a school with an assault rifle and committing mass murder, but are due to single killings and suicides with pistols. Nevertheless, every time a massacre occurs, it is usually perpetrated against harmless people and catches the attention of the whole nation and creates grief and anger among most people. The slaughters seems to be endless.

The outpouring of sorrow after a massacre is typically immediately followed by outrage that yet another mass murder of innocents has occurred, along with demands that something be done about it. New gun laws are called for, but the powerful coalitions that created the culture of guns quickly stifle any efforts to confront gun violence, as the nation settles back into other distractions—until the next massacre.

Some people push for stricter gun laws, while the opposite view promotes increased gun ownership in order to combat the shootings. Some point to the widespread gun culture and lack of controls, while others blame a massacre on a lone individual, an isolated bad apple, and even call for more guns to stop the killings. Some push for restrictive laws, while others block any such action. Decade after decade goes by, while the gun lobby prevents any meaningful legislation, and the mass killings (as well as individual deaths) continue, and even escalate.

Next time, part 2