Winter Scene

 During these hellish, hot days of August, it can help to remember this winter panorama scene of a few years ago. Click to enlarge.

Descartes' Denial

I have written before about how Aristotle's teachings in philosophy set a supreme standard that still holds today—2500 years later. His reputation is so firm and strong that he is often referred to as simply “The Philosopher.” His teachings on science (called “natural philosophy” in his time), however, were subsequently shown to be mostly wrong. Unfortunately, his status was so towering that his errors prevailed for two millennia. The fact that the Catholic Church's teachings aligned with Aristotle's ideas helped to extend his theories over that long period of time.

Rene Descartes, in the 17^th century, began to speak out against Aristotle's scientific opinions. He was joined by the Irish scientist Robert Boyle, as well as several others. Both of them especially rebelled against the complex (and confusing) concept of “form,” which was championed by both Aristotle and Plato. Form, they believed, is the essential nature of something—a very abstract idea that says little about its particular qualities, and says nothing about what caused that something’s form.

Descartes and Boyle argued that the ancient concept of form is too vague and offers little help for allowing one to understand the important, causal physical properties of something, as well as how it behaves. They put forth instead what they called a corpuscular view of matter, proposing that all matter is constituted of tiny particles called corpuscles—a couple of centuries before the existence of atoms was proven.

They maintained that corpuscles move, bounce against, and connect to each other, and that their behavior is governed by the laws of motion—laws which had been expressed a few years earlier by Galileo Galilei. The Church tried one last shot at promoting Aristotle’s notion of forms, when a Jesuit, Francisco Sucrez, proposed that every object has a soul. Just as the human soul guides people from the inside, the soul of a tree guides its qualities from within and causes its form. It was a supernatural, not a scientific, explanation, however.

Descartes rejected this idea as even worse than Aristotle's teaching, because he was sure that inanimate objects could not have a soul. His—and Boyle's—idea was that the corpuscular theory provided a simple, mechanical world view. The activity of corpuscles drove the behavior of the parts of an object; it behaved like a machine. In fact, Descartes said that the body of living creatures is also like a machine, and does not require a soul.

Descartes soon displaced Aristotle, regarding the nature of matter. His and Boyle's ideas played a huge role in the scientific advances that occurred during the Enlightenment (late 17^th, into 18^th centuries). Nobody is perfect, however, and Descartes later expanded upon his views; saying that animals are machine-like and possess no soul, as humans do. He maintained that animals—being like machines—have no feelings, and do not therefore experience pain. It was another couple of hundred years before this concept was debunked—a period of time when physical harm to animals was deemed acceptable. As a result, we are finally beginning to treat animals with appropriate respect... well, except those we raise for meat.

Contamination Conundrum

Ever since we began sending humans and spacecraft to some of our solar system’s planets and moons, we've been concerned about the possibility of cross contamination—either contaminating those heavenly bodies with earthly microbes, or returning home from the Moon, after having picked up some alien microorganisms and spreading them around our planet. We note that many kinds of earthly invasive species get transported to new locales on Earth and then subsequently overrun native species, because there is nothing to check their proliferation in their new environment.

Could alien microbes (either from Earth, transported to other bodies, or from space to here) run amok and annihilate native species? This was the plot of H.G. Wells's novel War of the Worlds, which described the impending destruction of humans, until the invading monster Martians fell prey to earthly microbes and expired. The first three NASA astronauts returning from the Moon in 1969 were quarantined for three weeks, until it seemed unlikely they had picked up some Moon bugs.

These experiences have caused NASA to become increasingly concerned about contaminating any possible life on Mars or various solar system moons, where life might be harbored. It would be tragic to discover past life on one of these bodies, only to realize later that we'd inadvertently caused it to become extinct by introducing our germs. The problem has become increasingly challenging, since we've recently found many so-called extremophiles on Earth that have been shown to be able to survive the severe conditions of space, so we now know that we may have been sending invasive bugs throughout the solar system for a few years. 

NASA is fully aware that its past sterilization techniques were far less effective than today's meticulous methods. The Viking spacecraft that landed on Mars in the 1970s were most likely carrying a few Earth microbes, because they were not disinfected as thoroughly as is done today. What is the chance that those landers planted microbes that have had nearly 50 years to multiply and flourish? We are currently conducting quite sophisticated tests on Mars by rovers, to see if life might exist (or did exist) there. Could we possibly end up discovering the presence of our own bugs that have since mutated into Martian species?

But wait: there's also the possibility that all life on Earth originated not on this planet, but on Mars (or even elsewhere). Rocks have been found in Antarctica that were long ago blasted off the surface of Mars by an asteroid impact. They floated through space and were much later captured by Earth's gravity. Some of those Martian rocks appear to have microbial life (although that's controversial) enclosed in them. If so, could Mars have contaminated our planet? Might are we all really Martian immigrants?

Like many results in science—the more we come to know, the more we are shown our ignorance. So we continue looking for life elsewhere. Will we ever find it? If we do, can we be certain it is really alien? It's sort of like the old saying, “We have met the aliens, and they are us!”

Lord of the Rings

After years of searching everywhere, I finally found the Lord of the Rings. Click to enlarge.
 

Canine Cognition

I believe that my dog possesses what psychologists call “theory of mind.” I realize that some people would take exception to that claim for a mere dog, so let me describe why I make such an audacious allegation.

First, what is meant by theory of mind? It is defined by some experts as the capacity for empathy, as well as an understanding of what might be going on in the mind of others. Digging deeper, the result of that understanding is that the other (sticking for now to people) possesses beliefs and perspectives that are different from one's own.

So, for humans, it's the capacity to comprehend that another human is having thoughts that may be dissimilar from mine, yet I still have a good chance of guessing what's going on in their mind and can act accordingly. After several decades of living with my wife, for example, I have come to have a pretty good guess at what she is thinking when she finds my dirty socks on the floor and gets “that look.”

We humans are really quite good at guessing what's going on in the mind of another human, aided greatly by the fact that we use language to inform them about what we are thinking. In addition, we expect that our minds are very similar and operate in similar ways.

But what about my canine friend? She has a very different mind and cannot converse with me in my language. Well, she does in fact have a mammalian brain, which certainly operates far more like mine, than the minds of an insect or a crocodile. Thus, my dog's mind and my mind might be able to guess what’s in each other’s brain, to some limited extent.

Additionally, my dog and I have lived together for a few years—so we've had many occasions to learn, by trial and error, what the other may be thinking; just by observing each other’s behavior. We have unwittingly conducted many experiments that help us to penetrate each other's mind. We've come to make some pretty good guesses about what the other is thinking. Additionally, body language and tone of voice contain lots of supplemental information to verbal language.

So here's something she does that recently made me think that she really possesses some kind of a theory of mind. She is very quiet—she rarely barks or whines. So when she needs to go out to pee, she quietly stands at the door, looking through it, occasionally looking back at us, until we notice and let her out.

When she wants to come back in, however, she seems to comprehend that we can't see her on the opposite side of the door, so she does not simply sit and gaze at the door, waiting for us to notice her. She quietly scratches at the outside of the door, to signal us. Once again, no whining or barking—just her gentle signal which recognizes that although we can't see her, we can hear her gentle, scratchy request. Is she not comprehending that our perspective is different from hers—that we cannot see her and need more information? There is no verbal language to help her communicate with us (she can’t speak out), but she sure uses other effective forms of communication.

Explanation of Existence

Humans have perennially wondered about what is the meaning of their existence. Some typical questions we pose: What's it all about, Alfie? What's the meaning of life? Is there a purpose for it all? What am I doing here? Where am I going? 

These questions fall into the category of existential wonderings, and like many philosophical questions, there is no definitive, final, or universal answer for them. Depending upon one's belief system or perspective on life, several different responses to those questions can be offered. Here are a few—predicated on several different viewpoints.

The Theist: To follow the precepts and prescriptions of God's commandments and the instructions of priests; often to endure the vicissitudes of life's struggles, in order eventually to enjoy an idyllic and eternally blissful afterlife... if one is judged to have behaved righteously.

The Atheist: To accept the fact that there is no meaning to life (especially as described by theists) and that religious morals are baseless. One comes to value what can be acquired through the fulfillment of what the intellectual life has to offer; here and now.

The Naturalist or Pantheist: We simply are—including all animals and plants. If there is any meaning to existence, it is just to open to the wonder of the universe, realize our connection to it all, and revel in its beauty and our fortune to be alive and able to appreciate it.

The Eastern Philosopher: One's destiny and meaning is a function of one's ability to realize and act upon the messages taught by the ancient sages. One's full realization is found in aligning oneself with the harmony of the cosmos and seeking affinity with other beings.

The Western Philosopher: Meaning is found by seeking the insights of wise Western teachers who discovered deep truths about existence, and applying them to one's life, through the acquisition and appreciation of these truths, to guide one's choices.

The Western Capitalist: To acquire wealth and power and thus realize the pleasures of existence through control of one's destiny, without the need for assistance by the state or for widespread cooperation. Life is a competitive, individual win/lose game.

The Marxist: To educate the masses about their exploitation by capitalists, so they will rise up and cast off the yoke of oppression. The masses can then realize a fulfilled, peaceful existence, by gaining control of their lives and participating in an equal society.

The Hedonist: To revel in the pursuit of pleasure and to enjoy sensual self-indulgence. To luxuriate in the delights of libidinous existence, unconcerned about the future.

The Poor: Simply strive to survive today, with little ability to ponder the meaning of existence.

Jerry Garcia (lead guitarist for the Grateful Dead): To have fun.

Scientific Strides

The knowledge and understanding of science has grown gradually and progressively—step by step—for millennia. Originally termed “natural philosophy” in ancient times, the term science first came and into use in the 17^th century, as human comprehension of the universe systematically and rapidly began to grow. Each step along the way was necessarily built upon the accomplishments of those who went before. This became increasingly the case, as scientific knowledge grew every larger and complex. There may have been polymaths in the ancient world—people whose scholarship extended across many fields of knowledge—but as the field of science grew larger and complicated, no one individual could be acquainted with more than a fraction of the whole.

Major figures in science’s history—such as Isaac Newton in the 17^th century—knew that their significant contributions depended heavily on those who made previous contributions. In fact, Newton is known for his statement that his accomplishments  were made possible only because he “stood on the shoulders of giants.” That metaphor exquisitely captures the stepwise growth of science. He was dependent on the findings of scientists before his time—just as many who followed him built upon his work.

There was no predetermined plan for a Newton or an Einstein to enter the game. They were not necessary for the advancements that occurred. Every significant accomplishment in science was made by the person being at the right place and right time. Had Newton been born a few decades earlier, the scientific findings he built upon (those “shoulders of giants” waiting for him) would not have been there... he may not have made his renowned discoveries at all. Had he been born a few decades later, someone else would have previously had his insights. His timing was extremely fortunate. We are fortunate that his genius was primed to take on the challenge.

I find it fascinating that these advances did not exclusively depend on those who made them. The progression of science does not rest on the shoulders of any one individual... it's an impersonal advancement. History is not destined to play out as it has. It is very contingent.

So if Newton or Einstein had not appeared when they did, their discoveries would surely have been made by someone else. If so, would science have advanced more slowly? Would their breakthroughs have come later, by others… or maybe even sooner? How many brilliant people died before their time, or were kept from the path of discovery by external restraints?

History cannot be rerun, in order to play out other scenarios. We'll never know just how crucial were the contributions of famous scientists. We'll never know if our scientific knowledge today would be further advanced or set back, without their accomplishments. But I do think we can feel confident that science would have progressed (and will continue to progress), because it is in the nature of the human mind to be curious and to collaborate on ongoing projects such as teasing out Nature's secrets.