Confusing Effect for Cause

“[our] sense of adventure is located within the ventral striatum [of the brain]” — summary of a conclusion of experiments done by Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging at UCL (University College London) this week as given in Harper’s Magazine (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/07/WeeklyReview2008-07-01).

I wouldn’t doubt that the original study offers considerably more granularity than the above “conclusion” implies, but the quote is an example of how scientific studies influence the culture and indicates a significant problem as to how those studies are interpreted by the larger society, but also by scientists themselves.  In essence, it points to how frequently we confuse effect for cause.  And maybe how easily we throw up critical thinking and just accept the most convenient analysis that lays to hand.

Does the above conclusion mean that when I die my sense of adventure will cease?  Even scientists seem all too hasty these days to conclude that there is a direct causal relationship between co-existing phenomena, a mistake first-year philosophy students are rigorously trained to avoid.  Studies (especially dietary and health-related ones) often look at what occurs when something else occurs, and too easily conclude there is a unmediated causal relationship between the action itself and the observed effects.  One year “Coffee is good for the heart;” the next, “Coffee causes heart disease.”  Or some such.

But, all that aside, wouldn’t an equally plausible hypothesis (which is a temporary assertion, pending evidence) be that that region of the brain might be a location that helps the soul or trans-physical mind (i.e. the part of the individual that’s not merely an effect of the body system itself, but transcending that organism) negotiate new experiences harmoniously by integrating the various biological systems of the body around a chosen response?

Imagination Training for Students of Physics

Maybe every first year physics student should spend the entire year reading and discussing science fiction novels with classmates and professors, along with the chronicles of so-called perpetual motion machine inventors, and the mystical experiments of those who relied on Sacred Geometry to improve agriculture, health, and well-being (one example might be the Ansazi in Chaco Canyon). I was a physics student (at Purdue, then IU) for a couple of years, and having been absorbed with SciFi for years prior to that, and believing that with the Tesla coil I built there might be a way for me to teleport myself to another planet or dimension, I found a wild imagination to be invigorating and motivating. On second thought, it was my fecund imagination that ultimately caused me to seek fulfillment outside the field of physics, in Philosophy, and then to leave all that behind for adventures in self-discovery still under way! I’m not sure whether it strengthens or weakens my point, but that’s all another story.

Students of physics might approach a first year of intensive studies in the imaginary and the “extra-scientific” from the point of view that “We’re going to debunk all that stuff.” Or, they might approach it with an open mind and let the imagination enjoy itself. In either event, having a good imagination and being able to accept what initially seems preposterous is essential to real advancement in any endeavor, especially in the fields of science.

Every great advancement in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination.
- John Dewey

Imagination is the queen of truth, and possibility is one of the regions of truth. She is positively akin to infinity.- Charles Baudelaire

I have never looked for dream in reality or reality in dream. I have allowed my imagination free play, and I have not been led astray by it. – Gustave Moreau

We think we understand the rules when we become adults but what we really experienced is a narrowing of the imagination. – David Lynch

We must find order in the random flexings of the imagination. – Daniel J. Boorstin

I believe that imagination is stronger than knowledge… - Robert Fulghum

We say God and the imagination are one… -Wallace Stevens

Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. – Albert Einstein

Why Do We Like to Mow the Lawn?

I was mowing the grass yesterday. I asked myself, why do we men enjoy mowing so much? The answer came: because it is a mindless and asocial activity involving the exercise of power, which I found quite humorous. Alas, this power fixation can be a real conundrum for the world. But, fortunately, for the most part, when it is wrapped up in mowing, it is harmless.

While I was out there in the cool, spring afternoon, I relished the aroma of cut grass. I found a patch of strawberry blossoms and left them alone. Maybe they’ll produce strawberries later?

Is Technology for Profit the Best Use of Science?

That is the question.  Comments?

Why Does the Dollar Change in Value?

Food, water, clothing, shelter, the basics — why do these seem to vary in value over time? Scarcity (demand) surely would cause some of that. Greed undoubtedly causes some (although market forces should help keep that in check, except where there’s a monopoly). When the dollar itself changes in value (i.e. x dollars to buy item z later costs y dollars where x is not equal to y, and generally y>x) this implies that either the actual value of the item is greater or less (that is, individuals value it more), or that the value of the dollar has changed. Food and water become more precious when supply is stressed. But why have the changes in the apparent value of necessities been so great in recent years?

I would suggest that since the Federal Reserve has begun to coin our currency and consequently “lend” the currency to the banks rather than simply minting money for legitimate exchange (as was the duty and mission of the Treasury), that money has become a “debt instrument” and thus, over time, due to the interest that must perpetually be charged upon the instrument while it is in use, and the fact that more and more of the money that’s in circulation (in part due to the irrational push for “growth”), is actually money that’s been lent (debt-based), our currency becomes less and less valuable. To counter this problem, they mint more money (which has debt associated with it), creating a vicious cycle. Anyone have any thoughts?

It would, I believe, be useful and enlightening to use energy or calories to rate the value of essentials. In other words, we need energy to live and we get it from the environment in many forms. We also need nutrients in order to utilize energy (i.e. to keep the energy-using machine of the body in tact). If we valued items based upon the amount of energy required to secure and utilize them and the amount of usable energy they give to one I believe we could establish a fundamental system of valuation that would apply in normal circumstances (it wouldn’t apply when supply is stressed). This might be very useful. Gold doesn’t have intrinsic value (you can’t eat gold and it doesn’t give you any energy). Food does. Water does. Air does. Security and shelter do. Even love and peace have a value that can be determined based upon the energy usage of the individual — in unrest much more energy is required to accomplish the same goals as can be accomplished in peace using less energy. Anyone have any thoughts on this? It’s pretty rough, but I think it’s a useful idea.

Geometry Determines Events in Space-Time

I read a ScienceDaily article this morning about creating an invisible tunnel in space-time using nano-scale materials geometries. This, with other things going on in nano-scale science, is more evidence for something that has seemed true to me for some time: geometry determines the course of events in space-time. I believe this was the real basis for “sacred geometry,” as well as explaining the impact of various geometries, like the positions of planets and constellations and the bending of space-time by a massive body. Shapes have resonance, thus channeling existing energies and events in specific ways. John Wheeler also once said, pg. 130 in Gravitation, published by Freeman in 1973, “geometry tells matter how to move, matter tells geometry how to curve” (not in connection with so-called metaphysical phenomena, as far as I know).  I’ve read elsewhere that by “geometry” he may have meant “space.”  And in that context, he was talking about curved space telling matter how to move, and matter telling space how to curve.  Anyone have any thoughts on this? I think it’s a profound and potentially powerful topic.

Consciousness from Nothing?

Here’s an interesting post on the NewScientist site today:

Spooks in space
17 August 2007
* Mason Inman
* Magazine issue 2617POP.

What are the chances that an everyday object – a rock, a chair, you name it – could suddenly appear out of thin air? Not zero, surprisingly. In fact, given enough space and time, it is conceivable that a conscious being could arise, even if only for a microsecond.

OK, such an event would be incredibly unlikely, but not impossible – at least in theory. Physicists have dubbed such hypothetical beings “Boltzmann brains”, after the 19th-century Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, a pioneer in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. Boltzmann posed the question of whether the universe could have arisen from a thermal fluctuation; his work presaged the idea that a fluctuation could also give rise to a conscious entity that sees the universe. In this regard Boltzmann brains are not necessarily actual brains, but rather are a metaphor for observers of the universe that might appear spontaneously.

This is indeed interesting and fun as an idea. For me it is both encouraging and a little disappointing. Consciousness may arise in a form that is produced out of the “random” froth of quantum (Plank) space, but not because consciousness itself is a random phenomenon. It would be because the vehicle which consciousness occupies may arise from these bizarre behaviors of the quantum reaches of micro-cosmic space. That vehicle, then, somehow “draws” a consciousness into it. Consciousness itself is way beyond the simple cause-and-effect principles of space-time. Heraclitus referred to the Logos, the fundamental principle of creation. This principle determines all events, even these seemingly random events. This principle is itself Consciousness.

42 — A Question

In Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, 42 is the answer given by an immense computer to the question “What is the meaning of life?” It suddenly struck me to ponder in what base was 42 displayed. Suppose it was hexadecimal. In that case, 42 (hex) would be 66 (dec) (not far from the “number of the beast”). 42 (hex) written in Octal, is written 111 (a trinity of unities or of the first 3 powers of 8, eight being the “Master number” in numerology). And if 42 were displaying as an octal representation of a number, 42 (octal) would be 22 (hexidecimal) . 42 if displayed as a decimal representation would be 101010  binary. When viewed in binary, 42 (dec) is a trinity of dualities — i.e. 3 pairs of on-off (or yes-no, or light-dark, or true-false, or any other dichotomy, including the dichotomy of dichotomies, which is that we can talk about true and false, but there is a reality beyond true and false that both excludes and includes them). What if it is meant to be seen in all bases greater than or equal to base 5 (5 being the number of fingers on the human hand)?

The Photon’s Perspective — A Question

What would the universe look like to a Photon?  From Einstein’s perspective (vis. relativity), the universe would appear to be at a stand-still since the time-frame of the world outside the photon would be perpendicular to that of the photon, i.e. in stasis relative to the photon.  So, even though the photon is interacting with matter, does it see no change at all in the cosmos around it?  That seems unlikely as it must interact.  There seems to be a paradox.  Any physicist out there who can answer?