Michael+Read

Michael Read first entry The foundations of science and mathamatics have always interested me. Stories of how language and mathematics came to be are the basis of all we know and use today. I personally am impressed by the Babylonians. Their advanced mathematics, all done by hand mind you, are more than equivalent to what I do today with a graphing calculator. If they had not made these simple base systems and followed through to formulate new theorems, we might not have the math we know today. I was surprised to find that while some cultures held religious beliefes tied to their medical practices, many separated the two reasonably. For a time that was based on the gods and the stars, such an objective viewpoint is admirable. Though some cultures may have included astrology (egytians) in with their healing, they still maintained that the other aspects were the true concern. Perhaps most notable in all the readings were the Pythagorean. The Pythagorean theorem is one of the most well known in the world. Students as young as 5th grade learn of its useful properties that hold completely true even today. All of these accomplishments contributed to the world we live in today. Without then we would not have the ability to heal, communicate, create, or survive in our ever changing world.

Michael Read: First swipe at "What is this science"

What is this science? This science the culmination of thousands of years of trial and error, guess and test. The methods of today have links to the past but some are something new, something untested. Every “science” of the past was like the one today in that they all encompass the knowledge and protocols of the previous versions. The “best of,” if you will. You see science does not start anew whenever a new technique or system is adopted. These new systems were created based on what had worked or failed previously. A new technique is created when an old one fails to answer the questions being asked. Furthermore, “this” science is fleeting. It is impossibly brief, infinitesimally small. Every fraction of every second, a new idea or concept is being conceived somewhere, by someone, and by doing so, they are changing what “this” science really is. These tiny changes may not be clearly evident but each “step” in science is based on billions of thoughts such as these. Although we separate science into ages and different groupings, the fact is that they are more like a sloping line than steps. In between the huge steps created for convenience of conversation, an infinite number of steps exist, smoothing the veritable slope of scientific progress. Now this is not to say that certain singular events and revelations have not made science what it is. What we call “this” science is defined by several factors. The current rung in the ladder is represented by quantum mechanics, and age based on environmental friendliness, and global concern. Our age encompasses nanotechnology, alternate energy, and so much more. One key factor in the recent boom in scientific “progress” is the advancement of computers. The increase in the power of computer chips is on an exponentially growing course. As time passes the technology we use gets more and more advanced, faster and faster. The technology that developed leads to the ability to ask new questions and answer them. In this way our current scientific growth is accelerating more every day. New computer chips build new satellites, telescopes, spacecrafts, iPods, cars, homes, and everything else. At this rate some estimate that we may have a computer to match the human brain by 2015 (http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html). How soon after that will be develop super intelligence? AI? These may sound like concepts from a Hollywood movie, but at our calculated rate of technological growth, it is only a matter of years. The past “sciences” contributed to what we know today, but we also left some concepts behind. Science itself evolves. It does so to meet the demands and capabilities of the time it exists in. In the past it would be quite normal for medical studies to be seen as filthy acts. Potions and incantations were the best forms of medical care, and witch hunts pursued anyone who might be on to something new. These times were often oppressive to new ideas, especially those that were in contradiction to the church. In these dark times the quest for knowledge was quieted but not extinguished. However, each new advancement was somewhat based on those before in what could be viewed as a cause and effect chain. It would be impossible to jump the gap of time significantly as the advancements along the way are critical. If you were to hand Einstein’s theory of relativity to someone in the 1800’s, they would not even be able to decipher it. This is because they don’t have the tools and techniques to comprehend what is to come. This example demonstrates that discoveries in science are the factor that “opens the door” for the next set of questions to be asked. As the saying goes, as one door closes, 10 new ones open.

So what is “this science”? Well, “this” science is one less limited than those of the past. Today the advancements of the scientific community are not limed by oppression, superstition, or fear. All are encouraged to bring what they know to the table. Trying new ways of doing things has become the norm. Companies and individuals alike are intentionally breaking away from many of the constraints of the past in order to make a brighter future. As we understand more and more, we begin to realize that we do not have all the answers. For example the questions linked to global climate change are debated on a constant basis. Does it exist? How do we fix it? Did we do it? All of these are questions without answers. With our newfound knowledge, worry and responsibility follow. Now that we can better see and measure the effects of our actions, past and present, we see that we have the responsibly to make better choices and prepare for the future. In contrast the highly secretive and exclusive science of the past, our science aims to educate all in search of answers. No longer is science simply parlor tricks for the rich; it is an ever changing world link that binds humankind together. “Our” science, “this” science, is “the” the science of the here and now is what we have. And with this science, the world will change, just as it has been for thousands of years. Science has existed, in my opinion, since the first signs of man. What makes a science? Science simply requires thoughts on a subject that beg the questions, why, what if, how. The first time this thought occurred, in words or simply as intent, science was born. Many will argue that science is the act of following procedure for solving a clearly asked question. But why can’t science go outside these forms? The methods created were not intended to limit science, but to facilitate its progression. Why use the clearly outdated systems that were never intended to be “the” method? I say that science needs no instruments, no tools, no techniques; only the existence of questions and the want of answers. “This” science is returning to that state. We as a culture are shedding the restraints of our ancestors, slowly but surely. There is no telling what our future holds but we can hope that free knowledge and endless questions are the basis of what we will soon call the “new” science. Until then, think free, ask questions, and never be afraid to be wrong.

Michael Read Sept 24

Newton’s studies in alchemy were both mysterious and compelling. Though Newton my have been an upstanding man of society and the scientific community, he had a near fascination with alchemy. Alchemy was not part of the “science” of the time. Alchemy was not confined by processes and measurements; it combines scientific techniques with incantations and potions. Never before had the techniques of man been combined with the power of the gods. This uniting of earth and heaven in the name of science was certainly in interesting aspect. As for turning lead into gold, from the scientific view they are only one electron apart. However, the alchemical side stated that in order for this secret to be revealed, God had to choose to tell it. Newton had years of work notes on the subject and they consisted of his interpretations of how the mythological fit the chemical. However, Newton’s notes are not clear for many reasons and therefore it is impossible to tell what exactly he may have found. “This” science as well as the contributions Newton made to it, were a very important subject and is still an interest today. Who wouldn’t want to turn lead into gold? Its taunting mysteries that lead not only the sciences of the past but the sciences of today and into the future.

Michael Read Sept 30

Though many believe that Charles Darwin was the sole dissenter to creationism, in fact many before and during his time had radical ideas too. In his early life Darwin was not interested in the normal repetition and memorization of school but spent countless hours observing the world around him. His father was disappointed in his lack of assertion to become a doctor and sent him to pursue a life in the parish. Though Darwin may have disagreed with the church, he thought that a quiet life in the country would allow him to pursue his real interests so he agreed. Darwin’s idea of evolution was a byproduct of his natural interest in observations. He did not set sail on the Beagle with the intent of creating a theory of evolution, but rather with the simple purpose of observing the natural world. This method may be more reliable than others because he did not jump to conclusions since all of his research cam e first. In this way Darwin’s theory of evolution became a solid and valid scientific principle. Despite its quality, Darwin’s theory of evolution would not be presented for some time yet. The hold that the church had on society would have doomed Darwin if he chose to share his findings. It was this fear that prevented Darwin from doing just that. Eventually his observations and work would emerge and become the widely accepted theory we see today; a theory that explains how new species are born from old and shows that the world is much older than the 6,000 years the bible claims. Darwin may be one of the most well known figures in biological history and his work has changed science as we know it.

Michael Read 10/7/09 The case of Dr. Collins is an interesting one; I feel it also describes, quite accurately, some of the attitudes and beliefs that make up “this” science. First and foremost, his strong religious beliefs are quite controversial and very different from what many would consider a traditional scientist. However, despite this common belief, further thought reveals that the men we consider to be the very first scientists were also incredibly pious men. Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and many others, though admittedly controversial, were men of God //and// men of science. Dr. Collins was a scientist who claimed he discovered god along the way and saw a connection. Many of his peers frown upon this merger of religion and science with the opinion that it will hinder progress. It is no secret that religion has often sought to quell the voice of contradictive science. Now the coworkers of Dr. Collins naturally feel that his religious beliefs might get in the way. I feel that he should be in his current position because regardless of the beliefs and occurrences of the past, he has much to offer science. As an agnostic, I believe that perhaps this unusual combination of beliefs may lead to something better than either could have achieved alone. I await to see what he will accomplish in his time as director.

Michael Read 10/14/09 I believe, in some ways, as Kenneth Miller does. I am agnostic, but as far as a God goes, I believe if one exists, his nature is deterministic. Rather than “the hand of God” moving the world alone, I believe that all was created at one point and set to run its course. Whether this start, this singularity, was an all knowing being, or simply nature, the result is the same. Scientists cannot describe what happened in that moment of creation, the singularity but they do acknowledge that it happened. I don’t think we will ever know whether it was “God” or nature in the infinitesimally small yet endless moment because I believe that in this context they are the same. If I had to explain it I would say that the universe, nature, evolution //__are__// the God. I think that all parts of nature and its processes and symmetries are sacred in that their existence is so perfect and balanced. What do people think “God” does? Many would claim that “God” can be described as the one who balances the universe to be fair. Following this is the classic belief that you get what you deserve. Such is the basic of many religions and the foundations of Karma. But what about nature? Does it not fit these criteria and many others associated with “God”? Nature has fire and water, sky and earth, hot and cold, life and death. Does this mean nature is the “God”? I believe that nature has so many perfect parts and so much symmetry and beauty that in that one moment of all creation, nature was God and vice versa. The most important part is to see nature the way a pious man sees God because we are all looking at the same things, just with different names.

Michael Read 10/28/09 During the time that that quantum theory was emerging, few scientists were willing to sacrifice their reliance on classic physics. In order to accept this new theory they would have to forsake some of the beliefs that they based previous calculations and theories on. However, the work of Max Planck made it possible to eliminate some of the mathematical problems with this new theory. His constant could be used to show that in fact the radiation would not grow infinitely larger since it was contained by hv in a way to cancel out. The study of blackbodies was almost exhausted since it was based on classical physics but Planck gave it new light. This discovery validated the new field and gave quantum mechanics the support it needed. The quantum mechanics theory was still not fully realized however. When Niels Bohr entered the scene he brought with him a new model of the atom. This was a critical step in development in that now this model could be used not only to apply theories, but form new ones as well. Since atoms were no longer considered solid balls, and now had defined orbits, the study of these moments fueled science. If tiny charges moved in this way, why not all things? Since these principals were based in the simplest of structures, it meant that they applied everywhere. This realization brought science ever closer to its ultimate goal. This goal was a single theory to describe everything. Ideally since it is found that objects move according to certain laws, theoretically that movement could be calculated even predicted. Science still moves towards this theory today but with much farther to go before reaching this perfect theory.

Michael Read 11/4/09 If only the world had listened to Einstein. His views and plans for peace were a goal we should all still strive for. Unfortunately, I believe his cynicism on the true soul of man was also correct. Einstein saw what he suspected was a darkness in all men that was sabotaging peace and creating greed and war. This side of people, he claimed, was dormant except for unusual circumstances. However as we can see on the news every day, often those who are given power, are corrupted by it. It is this very principle that makes the concept of an unallied team of people protecting the world from war diplomatically nothing more than a hopeful dream. If this organization were to exist to its full intended extent, inevitably corruption would follow as the power drove them to evil. This is not to say that all men are bad, many are not, but it does imply that, perhaps, every man does have his price. The nuclear research that followed, including the Manhattan project was both one of the most impressive things this world has ever created and single handedly the most destructive to date. Before the usage o Fat man and Little boy, nuclear power was already a killer. Nuclear energy may yet be our future, but it is, as many things are, a double sided discovery. The destruction that would follow the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the suffering and sick desolation, would rival anything before it. Now in our current age the threat of nuclear war quietly sneaks ever-closer. The cold war may be over but as more countries develop more and more efficient killing machines, the world dims. If and when WW3 occurs, it will surely be the last war on earth as well as the last event any of us will experience. It will end in no other way than the complete and utter extermination of the human race. No matter who fires first, we will all lose.

Michael Read 11/11/09

The creation and development of the H-bomb (or super bomb) was a pivotal moment for both nuclear science and world relations. Near the end of WW2 the world had been shown, beyond any doubt, the malevolent destructive nature of atomic weapons. The horror that followed the deployment of “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” was one that has yet to be surpassed in all of history. Now discoveries were being made that would lead to the design and testing of a device that could be 10-100 more powerful. Capable of a blast equivalent of 50 megatons of TNT, it would be the most destructive device ever made. These new thermonuclear weapons brought with them many questions that would nag the minds and consciences of those who made and used them. If used the result would be genocide. Many stated that it would be impossible to confine use of this monstrosity for military operation since wherever it were to detonate it would kill millions of civilians without fail. Not only would use of this weapon be devastating to life, it would also show the United States in a blood red light. The world would see this as a act of malicious genocide with little or no acceptable reasoning. Not only that but the technology itself, were it to spread, would most likely end in worldwide thermonuclear war. This technology made the surest politicians question the correct path. Gain the fear and respect of all nations by murdering millions, or stop progress and be venerable in times of war? Ultimately the technology would be developed and tested. However, it has not been used in military action. Regardless, more and more countries continue to develop nuclear weapons leading the world towards a most dark and dangerous future. In the words of Lord Luis Mountbatten, “If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.”As we travel closer to this ultimate break point, the world as one must decide whether it will lay down its weapons and live or continue with fear and be turned to ash.

Michael Read 11/18/09 When the war was finished the moral repercussions of atomic weaponry had only begun. Now, not only were the bombings being questioned, the whole of nuclear research was under suspicion. Some praised the technology that ended the war, while others saw the technology for what it truly was: danger to the human race. Scientists like Heisenberg were bombarded with questions regarding their part in atomic construction. Many voices were accusing in this time, but some still praised the president and his decisions. On one hand, millions of innocent civilians were killed; but on the other hand, who knows how many were saved from continuing war? Either way, the war was over and, as usual, the economy that had been thriving on it began to weaken. This led the nation into a slight panic. This fear coupled with moral regrets about the bombings, and fear of communism, made for a very unprotected country that would soon lead to chaos.

Michael Read 12/2/09

First and foremost, Malcolm R. forester must be applauded for doing such an excellent job of clarifying and breaking down Thomas Kuhn’s //The Structure of Scientific Revolutions//. I find that the notions discussed are strongly backed and quite useful and well thought out. When scientist makes discoveries that are profound and unheard of they change the course of scientific development. These particular men and women must be noted as having discovered or thought of something so intriguing and new, that they created new branches of science. For example, one hundred years ago the ideas of current psychology were unheard of and many scientific principles now accepted as fact would have seemed considered ridiculous. Another interesting aspect is the idea that discoveries are rare because expectations obscure our vision. I find this to hold quite true. When we expect science to go in certain direction, perhaps what we consider to be a logical one, we try to force the change we foresee and ignore the other options. The most effective way to make discoveries would simply to be open to all new idea. Sometimes the limitations are due to the fact that most scientists study a certain feel and may not even know how a subject may relate to another. In this way scientific discoveries are unfortunately rare. Also, even in the current day scientific theories are rarely questioned. Thought they may be tested, we as humans have a tendency to stick to our original beliefs, even though they may be wrong. The more an idea becomes established, the less willing we are to let I go. Finally, science essentially is a snake eating its own tail. As it progresses forward science makes its previous discoveries useless by either debunking them, or simply changing the way they are seen. The new science ironically destroys what made it possible in the first place.

BOOK REVIEW


 * Bright Air, Brilliant Fire**, //On the Matter of the Mind//

By Gerald M. Edelman

The reader must be warned that this book, in order to explain the complex ideas put forward, many relatively large science terms are used. However, the author takes great care to explain the concepts and language in terms that most readers can easily understand. Gerald Edelman does an excellent job of not only organizing and presenting his own theories, but explaining and clarifying those of others and their relevance to his own.

Overall the book was a fascinating look into how the mind and consciousness link back to biological development. Before diving into new theories, Edelman explains the history of psychology and biology and how they link to his own ideas. The book is broken up into four sections, each relating to a different aspect of the field of study.

Section one is focused on the problems currently associated with the concept of putting the mind back into nature. It discusses how the design of our brains leads to many difficulties discovering its many secrets. For example, Edelman starts the section by writing “Don’t think of an elephant”(pg 1). Of course the reader is going to think of an elephant and by doing so the author has already demonstrated an example of how our brains work. Edelman continues to discuss in detail the “wiring” of our minds. Explanations of the cortexes, processes, and functions of the brain are described in clear, although sometimes scientific, language. This attention to function and form is a critical basis in understanding what has already been discovered as well as new theories that are appearing.

Following the first section is an explanation of the sciences past as they relate to psychology and the brain. Edelman describes past theories and the building blocks of the subjects at hand. Scientists such as Freud are praised for their contributions to the fields with respect paid even to ideas that have since been proven false. At the center of this praise is Charles Darwin. Edelman describes how Darwin’s research concerning the evolution of species also relates to the evolution of the mind and consciousness. The origins and definitions of what we consider to be consciousness are carefully examined and several arguments are fairly proposed.

The third section consists of proposals, many of which relating to the theories of Darwinian evolution proposed earlier. Edelman states that consciousness and we perceive it is a trait that is selected due to need. For instance, many higher organisms may have “consciousness” while lower ones who have no need of it, will not. Although the definition of this consciousness is still debatable, this “Neural Darwinism” is a captivating and plausible theory. Edelman states that since the mind or consciousness is created out of Darwinian evolution, then the mind is a biological construct. Edelman’s Theory of Neuronal Group Selection, or TNGS, indicates that these clusters of brain mass are the physical representation of the mind. If these developed parts can be indentified and tested, it will provide the first proof that the higher consciousness of sentient beings is biological. This will dispel other theories which describe the mind to be a construct of God or some mysterious spark that is only possessed by the most elite of species.

Edelman completes his look into the origins of the mind by noting some aspects that are already observable. Based around the central themes of harmonies, this section covers the beautiful symmetry of many of the mind’s features. Also discussed are mental disorders and their linkage to causes, both biological and otherwise. This section also discusses the theories of philosophy and how many of them have already been proven false recently by science. How long, Edelman asks, will it be until this theory of consciousness proves another theological construct to be false? The beauty of such known functions of other sections of the brain is also linked to TNGS. For instance, functions of memory can be linked to the hippocampus, so does that mean that it should be possible to find the “mind” section of the brain? Questions such as this frequency arise in this final section. Although much of the information is a revelation of the complexity of the brain, deep and dark thoughts are brought to mind as well. Edelman reminds us that if this is true then the possibility of knowledge without doubt is nonexistent. Though there is hope for the future, science must realize that it must reevaluate both the positions of the subject //and// the observer in one unified theory.

From start to finish, Bright Air, Brilliant Fire is an astonishing look into what constitutes a mind and how consciousness can be linked to biology as never before. Through his clear explanations and knowledgeable linkage to other fields, Edelman succeeds in making a captivating read for anyone interested in biology, the mind, or the origin of thought. As Edelman said, the brain is not a computer, and the world is not a tape of information.

Michael Read –Wits final

What is this science? This science the culmination of thousands of years of trial and error, guess and test. The methods of today have links to the past but some are something new, something untested. Every “science” of the past was like the one today in that they all encompass the knowledge and protocols of the previous versions; The “best of,” if you will. Science does not start anew whenever a new technique or system is adopted. These new systems were created based on what had worked or failed previously. A new technique is created when an old one fails to answer the questions being asked. Furthermore, “this” science is fleeting. It is impossibly brief, infinitesimally small. Every fraction of every second, a new idea or concept is being conceived somewhere, by someone, and by doing so, they are changing what “this” science really is. These tiny changes may not be clearly evident but each “step” in science is based on billions of thoughts such as these. Although we separate science into ages and different groupings, the fact is that they are more like a sloping line than steps. In between the huge steps created for convenience of conversation, an infinite number of steps exist, smoothing the veritable slope of scientific progress. Now this is not to say that certain singular events and revelations have not made science what it is. What we call “this” science is defined by several factors. The current rung in the ladder is represented by quantum mechanics, and age based on environmental friendliness, and global concern. Our age encompasses nanotechnology, alternate energy, and so much more.

The “current” science takes somewhat of a different form than those before it. Instead on hierarchies of old men who argue about their findings, society as a whole contributes. If there were to be one cultural aspect of the current science, it would be that this is the age of “Do It Yourself” science. Children in elementary school have science fairs that peak their interest. While their science classes may not be their favorite, they do spark ideas in the thoughts of many. As these children get older some still maintain that interest in the unknown and science. There are many programs in place designed to foster this interest; everything from robotics competitions to green energy design contests. Today, it is not just the bearded old scientists who make the most important discoveries, sometimes our world is changed by men and women who are no older than 17.

One key factor in the recent boom in scientific “progress” is the advancement of computers. The increase in the power of computer chips is on an exponentially growing course. As time passes the technology we use gets more and more advanced, faster and faster. The technology that developed leads to the ability to ask new questions and answer them. In this way our current scientific growth is accelerating more every day. New computer chips build new satellites, telescopes, spacecrafts, iPods, cars, homes, and everything else. At this rate some estimate that we may have a computer to match the human brain by 2015 ([]). How soon after that will we develop super intelligence? AI? These may sound like concepts from a Hollywood movie, but at our calculated rate of technological growth, it is only a matter of years.

The past “sciences” contributed to what we know today, but we also left some concepts behind. Science itself evolves. It does so to meet the demands and capabilities of the time it exists in. In the past it would be quite normal for gruesome medical studies to be a casual event. Potions and incantations were the best forms of medical care, and witch hunts pursued anyone who might be on to something new. These times were often oppressive to new ideas, especially those that were in contradiction to the church. In these dark times the quest for knowledge was quieted but not extinguished. However, each new advancement was somewhat based on those before in what could be viewed as a cause and effect chain. It would be impossible to jump the gap of time significantly as the advancements along the way are critical. If you were to hand Einstein’s theory of relativity to someone in the 1800’s, they would not even be able to decipher it. This is because they don’t have the tools and techniques to comprehend what is to come. This example demonstrates that discoveries in science are the factor that “opens the door” for the next set of questions to be asked. As the saying goes, as one door closes, 10 new ones open.

So what is “this science”? Well, “this” science is one less limited than those of the past. Today the advancements of the scientific community are not held back by oppression, superstition, or fear. All are encouraged to bring what they know to the table. Trying new ways of doing things has become the norm. Companies and individuals alike are intentionally breaking away from many of the constraints of the past in order to make a brighter future. As we understand more and more, we begin to realize that we do not have all the answers. For example the questions linked to global climate change are debated on a constant basis. Does it exist? How do we fix it? Did we do it? All of these are questions without answers. With our newfound knowledge, worry and responsibility follow. Now that we can better see and measure the effects of our actions, past and present, we see that we have the responsibly to make better choices and prepare for the future. In contrast the highly secretive and exclusive science of the past, our science aims to educate all in search of answers. No longer is science simply parlor tricks for the rich; it is an ever changing world link that binds humankind together. “Our” science, “this” science, is “the” the science of the here and now is what we have. And with this science, the world will change, just as it has been for thousands of years.

Science has existed, in my opinion, since the first signs of man. What makes a science? Science simply requires thoughts on a subject that beg the questions, why, what if, how. The first time this thought occurred, in words or simply as intent, science was born. Many will argue that science is the act of following procedure for solving a clearly asked question. But why can’t science go outside these forms? The methods created were not intended to limit science, but to facilitate its progression. Why use the clearly outdated systems that were never intended to be “the” method? I say that science needs no instruments, no tools, no techniques; only the existence of questions and the want of answers. “This” science is returning to that state. We as a culture are shedding the restraints of our ancestors, slowly but surely. There is no telling what our future holds but we can hope that free knowledge and endless questions are the basis of what we will soon call the “new” science. Until then, think free, ask questions, and never be afraid to be wrong.