Brian Cox: Everything Is Connected

Physicist Brian Cox, who is a professor at the University of Manchester and a well-known BBC science presenter, caused a sensation when he was trying to explain Pauli Exclusion Principle in layman's terms on TV.

Here is the segment in the show:



And here is the relevant quote from the segment:

"...but this shift in the configuration of the electrons inside the diamond has consequences, because the sum total of all the electrons in the Universe must respect Pauli. Therefore, every electron around every atom in the Universe must be shifting as I heat the diamond up, to make sure that none of them end up in the same energy level. When I heat this diamond up, all the electrons across the Universe instantly but imperceptibly change their energy levels. So everything is connected to everything else."


Apparently this statement caused quite a stir on the net, especially on Twitter where Prof. Cox was greeted with a flurry of criticisms from physicists and non-physicists alike.

Recently, physicists Ed Copeland and Tony Padilla on the YouTube channel "Sixty Symbols" weighed in on the discussion and here are their views:



In summary, they felt that Prof. Cox should have used the term "quantum state" rather than "energy level", since two electrons CAN have the same energy level.

Prof. Padilla mentioned the example of helium, where two electrons do occupy the same energy level but don't violate Pauli Exclusion Principle because they have different angular momentum.

But both of them felt that there was nothing controversial in what Prof. Cox said; Prof. Padilla thought that the spirit of what he said is OK, while Prof. Copeland enjoyed the TV lecture and expressed surprise that it provoked such a reaction.

He thought that some people might have interpreted the "everything is connected" part as applicable to the connection of human consciousness, which is not what Prof. Cox meant at all.

**********

Here at Fresh Brainz, we are NOT SURPRISED that this statement could have sparked such a heated debate.

In fact, I see three key parts in what Prof. Cox said that have the potential to generate controversy.

And here they are, in order of increasing intensity:


1. Energy Level

As mentioned earlier, two electrons can share the same energy level but not the same quantum state.

This simply means that no two electrons can have the same four quantum numbers.

Energy level is one of the quantum numbers, but there are three more: angular momentum, projection of angular momentum, and spin.

Prof. Copeland observed that people who notice this technical inaccuracy tend to be physicists.

He defended it by noting that Prof. Cox was speaking to a TV audience who might find the idea of "energy level" novel enough, let alone the concept of "quantum state".

Since these physicists don't consider this a major inaccuracy, I'll have to take their word for it.

Nevertheless, I should mention that the choice of words is important, especially when there are different meanings of the same word in academia and everyday use.

This can't be helped because it is the regular language users, and not scientists, who determine the common meanings of terms, unless it is a new term invented specifically for the science, eg. "quantum state".


2. Everything Is Connected

"Oooooooo..."

I can almost hear the groans from science educators and communicators.

Although Prof. Copeland didn't think there was anything untoward about this assertion, Prof. Cox himself saw it coming:

"This statement received some criticism in scientific circles. Not because it’s wrong, because it isn’t; without this behavior, we wouldn’t be able to explain the bonds that hold molecules together. The problem is that it sounds like woo woo, and quantum theory attracts woo-woo merde-merchants like the pronouncements of New Age mystics attract flies – metaphorically speaking.

For the record, the reason that everything being connected to everything else does not allow us to be, (selects randomly from a pit of drivel), at one with the Universal consciousness, is that the subtle interconnectedness in quantum theory cannot be used to transmit information. Quantum theory, in other words, describes a counterintuitive world, but not a mystical one."


Unfortunately, in popular culture, statements like "everything is connected" are already strongly associated with New Age mysticism.

Supporters of such beliefs immediately interprete it as the "connection" between consciousness, or something like that.

I think they feel that their views are validated when a well-known particle physicist actually said it!

From what I see, much of the negativity on the net is directed against this phrase, and I empathize with Prof. Cox.

Let me explain what I think is going on.

As part of the training, scientists have to give presentations, sometimes to people outside the field who may not understand the significance of their research.

The style of presentation called "zoom-in, zoom-out" is a useful strategy to keep the attention of your audience.

Start with a broad overview, zoom into the technical details, and then finally zoom out again to discuss the wider implications of your work.

Prof. Cox is doing exactly that; by widening the scope to that of the entire Universe, he is trying his best to capture the attention and hopefully the imagination of his audience.

Moreover he is trying to impress on his audience the power of quantum mechanics, which as Prof. Copeland explained, can describe all of the particles with just one wavefunction.

The difficulty here is to choose a statement that has impact so that the audience can have a "take-home message" that is easy to remember.

It might be technically more accurate to say that the electrons in the heated up diamond will affect the quantum state of all other electrons in the Universe, but such a statement clearly lacks the impact of "everything is connected"!


3. Instantly But Imperceptibly

Although many criticisms target the "everything is connected" part, personally I find the part "...all the electrons across the Universe instantly but imperceptibly change..." more contentious, especially the latter bit about "imperceptible change" which I will talk about later.


a. But first, I'll briefly mention the former bit - "instantly".

Dr. Copeland insisted that by "instantly" Dr. Cox didn't mean to say that Einsteinian causality has been violated.

Other people are not so sure.

In an online discussion between physicist Tom Swanson and Prof. Cox, there are people who sought clarification about this.

For example twistor59:

"However in the present discussion we’re talking about a correlation, not just of a spin direction which could give either up or down when you measure it, but in energy levels – energies can be measured, and if my excitation of an electron in London can cause an instantaneous change in an electron energy in the Klingon system, wouldn’t that mean that information can be transmitted instantaneously in principle?"


And Moshe:

"So for example, if you start with such a stationary state and “wiggle” one subsystem, the full system does not have to instantaneously adjust itself so that it stays in a definite energy state. The story is more complicated, and certainly is causal: if an electron 5 lightyears away wiggles, all the electrons in my body will certainly adjust, but not until at least 5 years from now. This is not much different from what happens in classical physics, where we interact in small ways with faraway objects (nor should it be different, physics is classical on those scales)."


Since I'm not an expert in this area, I'll leave it at that.


b. What disturbs me more is the latter part about "imperceptible change".

In that same discussion forum, commenter "The Jab" described it this way (in a very colourful language!):

"As to the validity of his claims, it is indeed true in a trivial way. If QM is correct, and if his model is accurate, then it is true that if he shakes the crystal all electrons in the universe will adjust to it. But there is nothing novel to it. Newton’s theory of gravitation could make exactly the same claim: if Newton flicked a booger in one direction and not another, all planets in the solar system would readjust to it (instantaneously, by the way). As for the claim, it was indeed correct at the time of Newton, and nobody would dispute it then (with the risk of getting some nasty letters from Newton himself). The question is of relevancy for the effect."


JG noted that:

"I think everyone would agree that Cox’s jiggling is not there for all practical purposes, I mean we’re talking about shifts of probability in the many googolplexth decimal place. It’s irrelevant to science in the same way the poincare recurrence theorem is irrelevant to statistical mechanics (maybe even much less relevant)."


And stringph added:

"Hmmm, I would hope that an experimental physicist would place a little more emphasis on what could either in principle or in practice ever be measured.

The difference between physics and pure mathematical or metaphysical speculation is precisely in this point. Asking yourself whether the ‘connections’ have measurable consequences is a great way of clarifying whether they represent any physical reality."


I think these commenters hit an important point in this entire discussion, which is the main reason why this TV lecture makes me feel uncomfortable.

Let me illustrate this with an imaginary scenario.

Suppose I am a counsellor, and my goal is to encourage you to feel good about yourself.

I could say inspirational things like...

"One tiny drop of water will make waves across an ocean."

"If you jump for the sky, you will move the Earth."

"Even a candle in the dark will light up the whole Universe."


And these are not merely metaphors - they are also technically correct, like The Jab's flying booger example.

Backed up by actual (classical macroscale) physics!

But the problem is, I neglected to tell you just how much change has been produced, and whether that change is even measurable.

In other words, these are "imperceptible changes".

Without knowing the size of the effect, the audience would walk away feeling encouraged and empowered; I have inspired them to feel better about themselves using metaphors that are given weight because they are based on technically correct physics.

Since that is my goal as a counsellor, I have succeeded.

However, if I was a science communicator, I did not succeed in conveying an accurate representation of the truth to the audience.

It is not inspirational that everything is connected to everything else... if the connections are practically undetectable.


Would you like to know more?

Critique of Prof. Cox's TV lecture:
- Everything is Connected (by Sean Carroll)

The reason why everyday objects don't pop in and out of existence:
- Quantum Decoherence

More about Quantum Mechanics:
- Power and Strangeness of the Quantum (Public Lecture by Serge Haroche)

Steamshovel Harry

Everything is better with Auto-Tune.






You won't get it unless you play the game first...

Steamshovel Harry Song
----------
by Brad Sucks

Lyrics:

Watch out for that gravity, watch out, watch out.
Gravity, watch out... watch out for that gravity.

Science times mass equals gravity.

Gravity is gonna kill you, Harry.
Gravity is gonna kill you... gravity.

It's time to learn about astronomy.
It's time to learn about astronomy.
It's time to learn about astronomy. Hey...

Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.
Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.

Asteroids are smaller than planets.
Asteroids are smaller, wo oh wo oh.

Asteroids are larger than meteorites.
I meant to say meteroids then, wo oh wo oh wo oh wo oh.

Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.
Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.

That meteor is gonna kill you, Harry.

Physics are gonna kill you, Harry.

Physics are gonna kill you, Harry!
Physics are gonna kill you, Harry!

It's gonna kill you and make you dead.

Physics gonna pull out a gun.
Shoot you right in the head.
BLAM oh no, look out now! Hey...

Physics.

Oh yeah. Oh...

Oh...

I can't wait to make love... to physics.

Gonna love her all night long.
Making physics love, singing the physics song.
Throw another downwards to double jump.
Or throw it up to not jump as high.

Do it Harry, do it to win.

Punch that missile right in the face.
Punch that missile all over the place.
One two three four, punch that missile!

When we open the door...

Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.
Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.
Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.
Steamshovel Harry, Steamshovel Harry.

Physics are gonna hunt you down and kill you in the middle of the night.
Physics are gonna hunt you down and make everything all right.


Would you like to know more?

About the Steamshovel Harry game:
- Steamshovel Harry flash game
- Steamshovel Harry music

What the hell is going on!?!!:
- Metagames: Games About Games

Japan Hit By Severe Earthquake And Tsunami

A severe earthquake hit Japan today at 2.46pm local time (0546h GMT).

The epicentre of the quake was about 100km off the east coast of main island Honshu, at a depth of about 20km.

The Japan Meteorological Agency reported it to be 8.8 on the Richter scale, which makes it the most intense earthquake ever recorded in Japan.

In addition, the northeastern coast of Honshu was hit by tsunamis as high as 10m. Boats, cars and even houses were swept away in the flood caused by a series of tsunamis. The worst hit areas appear to be in the region around the city of Sendai in Miyagi Prefecture.

Earlier today I watched some of the live TV coverage of the earthquake on NHK World; for those of you without cable TV, here are a couple of videos:

Severe Tremors at NHK Sendai Newsroom (from NHK World)



CCTV Footage of Tsunami Wave at Sendai Airport (from Russia Today)



I think this footage of the wave front sweeping into the airport - almost at a walking pace but gradually covering the entire tarmac - is especially chilling.

It is disturbing to see how unstoppable and how much damage the visually unspectacular flood flow was causing, if you compare these scenes to the hyped-up special effects in Hollywood disaster movies.

Videos taken by the NHK helicopter also show the wave front moving gradually and relentlessly, engulfing everything in its path. As it moved inland over farmlands and residential areas, the wave front picked up so much mud and debris that it became dark in colour and had a chunky appearance.

Live video from the air also helped to convey the huge scale of the tsunami waves as they approached the coast. The photo below is a screen capture from NHK video that shows several such waves, each of them hundreds of metres long, about to reach the coast of Sendai (treeline at the lower left):



















Based on latest reports, at least 300 people are dead.

Please click here for a compilation of the latest reports on casualties and damage.


Would you like to know more?

Latest warnings:
- Japan Meteorological Agency: Tsunami Warnings/Advisories

Latest news:
- NHK World English
- LIVE: Japan earthquake (BBC News)

Latest casualty and damage reports:
- Massive earthquake brings a destructive tsunami in Japan (Earthquake-Report)

Science Reporting By The Straits Times

Just read a science article in the Straits Times entitled "Brain Illness Leaves Woman Fearless." (ST 18 Dec 2010 Page C14)

The research study that is featured in the article (diminished fear experience of a woman with a genetic condition of the amygdala) is quite interesting, but what is even more interesting is how the Straits Times presented the news.

Since the ST article was edited mainly from an original article by Agence France-Presse (with some details from an Associated Press report added in), it is informative to compare the ST and AFP versions to see the differences.

Words that are different or missing in either version are highlighted in RED (additional source marked with asterix).

~~~~~~~~~~

ST Version

Brain illness leaves woman fearless

WASHINGTON - United States scientists have discovered a woman with a rare brain disease that makes her afraid of nothing - not a huge snake lurking near her children, not a knife to her throat, and certainly not a horror movie.

The 44-year-old* woman cannot experience fear because of a condition that has destroyed the part of her brain - the amygdala - where researchers believe the feeling of fear is made.

Over the past two decades researchers have been analysing the woman, known as SM, for clues about her condition which they say could help them treat post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in soldiers returning from war.

A study of her fearlessness was published online on Thursday in the journal Current Biology by University of Iowa researcher Justin Feinstein and colleagues.*

"It is quite remarkable that she is still alive," said Mr Feinstein. "The nature of fear is survival and the amygdala helps us stay alive by avoiding situations, people, or objects that put our life in danger," he said.

Instead of fear, SM, whose rare condition is known as Urbach-Wiethe disease, describes "an overwhelming feeling of curiosity."

The woman's eldest son, who is in his 20s, told researchers he could not ever recall seeing his mother afraid.

He said he remembered one event in particular from his childhood when he was playing with his two brothers and they saw a big snake in the road nearby.

"Well, mum just ran over there and picked it up and brought it out of the street, put it in the grass and let it go on its way," he said.

The woman also told researchers that when she was in her 30s, a man grabbed her and stuck a knife to her throat.

"She looked at the man and confidently replied, 'If you're going to kill me, you're gonna have to go through my God's angels first.' The man suddenly let her go," said the study, adding the woman then described walking calmly home.

Other experiments devised by the researchers - leading her through a haunted house where people dressed as monsters and ghosts sprung from the darkness, and showing her a series of scary video clips - fell flat too.

She considered the haunted house to be "highly exciting and entertaining", like the rush she gets from a roller coaster, Mr Feinstein said.*

Scientists believe she was once able to feel fear because she has described childhood memories of being afraid of the dark, and being once frightened by a dog.

Mr Feinstein said he hopes that SM's experience could help treat people with post-traumatic stress disorder, a problem he has seen in his work treating US soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Their lives are marred by fear, often times unable to even leave their home due to the ever-present feeling of danger," he said.

"By understanding how the brain processes fear, we may one day be able to create treatments that selectively target the brain areas that allow fear to take over our lives."

*From AP report


AFP Version

Woman who knows no fear could offer brain clues

WASHINGTON - US scientists have discovered a woman with a rare brain disease that makes her afraid of nothing - not a huge snake lurking near her children, not a knife to her throat, and certainly not a horror movie.

The woman cannot experience fear because of a condition that has destroyed the part of her brain - the amygdala - where researchers say they believe the feeling of fear is made.

Over the past two decades researchers have been analysing the woman, known as SM, for clues about her condition which they say could help them treat post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in soldiers returning from war.

"It is quite remarkable that she is still alive," said lead author Justin Feinstein whose study appears in the journal Current Biology.

"The nature of fear is survival and the amygdala helps us stay alive by avoiding situations, people, or objects that put our life in danger," he said.

"Because SM is missing her amygdala, she is also missing the ability to detect and avoid danger in the world."

Instead of fear, SM, whose rare condition is known as Urbach-Wiethe disease, describes "an overwhelming feeling of curiosity."

To test her reaction, researchers led her into an exotic pet store filled with spiders and snakes, animals she repeatedly said she "hates" and tries to avoid.

"Upon entering the store, SM was spontaneously drawn to the snake terrariums and appeared visually captivated by the large collection of snakes," the study said.

Asked by a store employee if she would like to hold one, SM agreed and then played with one for about three minutes.

"She rubbed its leathery scales, touched its flicking tongue, and closely watched its movements as it slithered through her hands," it said.

"Her verbal behavior revealed a comparable degree of fascination and inquisitiveness: she repeatedly commented, 'This is so cool!'"

When she reached for a tarantula, however, she had to be stopped because there was a high risk she could be bitten.

"When asked why she would want to touch something that she knows is dangerous and that she claims to hate, SM replied that she was overcome with 'curiosity,'" the study said.

The woman's eldest son, who is in his 20s, told researchers he could not ever recall seeing his mother afraid of anything.

He said he remembered one event in particular from his childhood when he was playing with his two brothers and they saw a big snake in the road nearby.

"Well, Mom just ran over there and picked it up and brought it out of the street, put it in the grass and let it go on its way," he said.

"I thought that was kind of weird."

The woman also told researchers that when she was in her 30s, a man grabbed her and stuck a knife to her throat.

"She looked at the man and confidently replied, 'If you're going to kill me, you're gonna have to go through my God's angels first.' The man suddenly let her go," said the study, adding the woman then described walking calmly home.

Other experiments devised by the researchers - leading her through a haunted house where people dressed as monsters and ghosts sprung from the darkness, and showing her a series of scary video clips - fell flat too.

"She reacted to the monsters by smiling, laughing, or trying to talk to them," the study said.

"She found the fear films to be exciting and entertaining, and in one case, she inquired about the name of the movie so she could rent it from the video store later that day."

Scientists believe she was once able to feel fear because she has described a childhood memory of being afraid of a dog.

They also note that "SM has never been convicted of any crime, but rather has been the victim of numerous crimes."

Feinstein said he hopes that SM's experience could help treat people with post-traumatic stress disorder, a problem he has seen in his work treating US soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Their lives are marred by fear, often times unable to even leave their home due to the ever-present feeling of danger," he said.

"By understanding how the brain processes fear, we may one day be able to create treatments that selectively target the brain areas that allow fear to take over our lives."

Feinstein said science should look for PTSD treatments that "focus on ways to safely and non-invasively dampen amygdala activity," mainly through medication and psychotherapy.

~~~~~~~~~~

A significant portion of the original AFP article is omitted from the ST version.

Interestingly, the missing parts are mostly related to the downside of having practically no fear, such as the inability to detect and avoid danger, fascination with potentially dangerous animals, becoming a victim of crimes etc.

A quick survey of other new reports indicates that this danger of lacking fear is actually an important message from the researchers - here are some excerpts:

~~~~~~~~~~

1. Associated Press

a) Her case shows that the amygdala plays a key role in making people feel afraid in threatening situations, researchers say.

Her life history also shows that living without fear can be dangerous, they said.

b) She apparently hasn't felt fear as an adult, not even 15 years ago in an incident described by the researchers. A man jumped up from a park bench, pressed a knife to her throat and hissed, "I'm going to cut you."

SM, who heard a church choir practicing in the distance, looked coolly at him and replied, "If you're going to kill me, you're going to have to go through my God's angels first."

The man suddenly let her go. She didn't run home. She walked.

"Her lack of fear may have freaked the guy out," Feinstein said.

But it also got her into that situation in the first place, he noted. SM had willingly approached the man when he asked her to, even though it was late at night and she was alone, and even though she thought he looked "drugged out."

SM has also walked into other dangerous situations because of her lack of fear, and all in all, it's remarkable she's still alive, Feinstein said.


2. ABC News

a) S.M. also had exposure to fearful situations in her past. She was held up at gunpoint and at knifepoint and was almost killed during a domestic incident. S.M. told researchers she did not feel fear during these life-threatening situations. She was also aware that her inability to react to fearful stimuli was not normal.

b) S.M.'s case is also important to understand because the ability to experience fear and respond to it is essential to survival. The researchers believe that because she could not detect threats to her safety and avoid them, she wound up in numerous life-threatening situations.

"Indeed, it appears that without the amygdala, the evolutionary value of fear is lost," the authors wrote.


3. Time.com (Healthland)

a) The authors note that SM's response to what would normally be considered fear-inducing situations was not characterized simply by a lack of responsiveness, but rather a heightened arousal and interest. In other words, she practically courted danger.

b) The researchers stress that SM's condition is more a curse than a blessing: "[SM's] behavior, time and time again, leads her back to the very situations she should be avoiding, highlighting the indispensable role that the amygdala plays in promoting survival by compelling the organism away from danger. Indeed, it appears that without the amygdala, the evolutionary value of fear is lost."


4. Discovery News

a) That wasn't the only occasion that SM, who was living in the projects in a seedy part of town, got herself into a precarious situation. There was the time, for example, that a man approached her from behind, put a gun to her head, yelled "Boom!" and then ran away. She figured her attacker was a drug dealer whom she had repeatedly turned in to the police, but she didn't consider calling the cops after the incident.

"She described the situation as strange," Feinstein said. "She's not reacting in normal ways that anyone who had fear would."

b) "We don't suggest by any means to remove this area of the brain," Feinstein said. "We don't want a million SM's walking around getting in trouble. This one case highlights why we do need an amygdala."

Instead, it's possible that drugs or behavioral methods could quiet the amygdala just enough to free people whose lives have been taken over by fear.


5. Scienceblogs.com (Neurophilosophy)

a) SM has been studied extensively during the past two decades. Early investigations showed that her non-verbal visual memory was signficantly impaired but that otherwise she had an IQ in the low-average range. She also displayed inappropriate social behaviours, quickly becoming friendly with the experimenters and making sexual remarks, due to disturbed executive control. Subsequently, it was found that she was unable to recognize emotions in facial expressions, and a study published earlier this year showed that the brain damage had eliminated her monetary loss aversion - that is, she makes risky financial decisions that most of us would avoid because of a fear of losing money.

b) But based on interviews with her and her three children, the authors suggest that she probably has not experienced fear at all throughout the whole duration of her adult life, despite having encountered an unusually high number of traumatic and life-threatening events. Aged 30, she had a knife held to her throat by a drug addict while she walked through a park at night, but did not panic and walked away calmly when he let her go. She has also been held at gun point, was nearly killed in an act of domestic violence, and has been the victim of numerous crimes in the poverty-stricken area in which she lives.

~~~~~~~~~~

From these excerpts, it can be seen that all the above news articles - except for the Straits Times version - emphasize the researchers' point about the dangers of lacking fear.


Would you like to know more?

- The Human Amygdala and the Induction and Experience of Fear (Feinstein et al. 2010) Current Biology

Beware Of Geeks Bearing Fembots

Latest development by Hiroshi Ishiguro's group: the Actroid-F.

Now attempting to bridge the uncanny valley with fast facial expressions!



The multiple eye blink demonstration from 1:26 - 1:33 is very impressive. To me, one major reason why androids today look so stiff is due to the sluggishness of the actuators.

People don't slowly move their heads and facial muscles into position; they sort of "snap" into it.

In that respect, the current Actroid-F appears to have the fastest motor response of any android so far. Older videos of the Actroid-F in April still show the slow eye blink and head movement, so something must have been enhanced since then, be it faster motors and/or software.

Also, I think there is one point in this video where the Actroid briefly slips across the uncanny valley.

It's at 1:46, when after repeating a series of mechanical-looking mouth movements, the Actroid suddenly shifts attention to the left in a snappy, human sort of way.

In that instant, the robot seemed to be alive.

Looking at the progress so far, this is merely a little taste of what is to come.


Would you like to know more?

- ACTROID-F: Android robot that coexists with human (AIST Channel)

Next Up, World Domination. But First, Here's A Song For You!

You know them pop stars - celebrities who don't play instruments, can't sing and can't really dance either.

Behold the next step in prepackaged, manufactured entertainment...



Whoa, that's almost... adorable.

As YouTubber anharmyenone grimly observed: "Skynet is a Japanese idol singer."

Verily I say, beware of Those with the half-bent knees and awkward head-shake.

Heh.

via Tokyo Mango

Update 24 Dec 2010: Video with clearer (less buzzy) sound quality and some close-ups of the robot - from AIST Channel.


Would you like to know more?

- The star: HRP-4C Gynoid
- The synthesized singing: Vocaloid Hatsune Miku
- The song: "出逢った頃のように" by EveryLittleThing

Can Science Answer Moral Questions?

Just watched an interesting TED talk by Sam Harris about how science can shed some light about questions of morality.

I like many of Harris' talks, and as a structuralist I agree with the overall premise that questions of morality can be investigated scientifically.

Thus I was looking forward to hearing his arguments; however, after listening to him I realized that I mainly disagreed with him instead!

Here, check it out first:



Eloquently articulated, to be sure, but I have so many disagreements with his view that... wow, where do I even begin?

1. "Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures."

Firstly, I don't know which moral philosopher would agree with Harris' definition of "values", but dictionary.com defines "values" as "the ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward which the people of the group have an affective regard."

In common language the term "values" has a very strong social component which is missing in Harris' definition - making "values" appear to be some kind of individual-level property.

This is a very big problem. There is a difference between the moral sense/personal principles of individuals and the social values of groups.

Harris makes it look as if social values can ultimately be reducible to neuroscience, which in my view is pitching it at the wrong organization level.

Secondly, how would you measure "well-being" in the context of social values?

There are many cultures that consider some amount of physical/psychological pain to be an important aspect of a person's development toward adulthood, or to be recognized as a legit member of society.

Even if someone was able to create some kind of standardized "well-being" metric, how would you convince other people to agree with it?

Take for example, our "civilized" culture in Singapore where children are subject to at least a decade of institutional education, usually longer.

It is a system which regularly inflicts pain of varying degrees.

Does anyone think that most teenagers want to be scolded by teachers/prefects, spend their holidays on homework/tuition, learn calculus/linear law, or train furiously/contort their bodies in order to get silver for their NAPFA test to avoid PTP during NS?

So are all these activities immoral?

2. "There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish - whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths."

During the talk, Harris constantly emphasized human "flourishing".

Harris was trained as a biologist, as was I. From a biological perspective, the survival of a population can be easily measured - in terms of reproductive fitness, children per woman, population growth rates etc.

But how would anyone agree on what "flourishing" means, let alone how to measure it?

Take for example, the Spartan civilization in Ancient Greece.

Spartan society was highly structured, militaristic and brutal - from the cradle to the grave.

Small or deformed babies were left to die of exposure. Boys began military training at age seven - deliberately underfed to encourage them to learn the skill of stealing food.

By eighteen they were trained to kill members of the Helot minority; at twenty they were eligible for military service and they would remain on duty until they were 60 years old.

If a Spartan soldier lost his shield in battle and returned alive, it was assumed that he attempted to flee and thus was subject to punishment by death or banishment. Even mothers enforced the militaristic lifestyle that Spartan men endured!

Yet, for such a cruel and warlike society, Sparta was well-admired during its day, considered by many people - even some of its rivals in Athens - to be an ideal state free from the corruption of commerce and money. Spartan women also enjoyed more rights and equality to men than elsewhere during that time period.

In terms of survival as a group, Sparta managed to maintain its political independence for several centuries.

So did the Spartans "flourish"?

And how do we critique the morality of their societal practices scientifically?

**********

There are many, many other things that I disagree with, but it's late and I need to sleep.

Suffice to say that I am amazed to see how reductionist Harris' view is, and how much he is attracted by the concept of a universal morality - eg. continuum along a single dimension, fixed peaks and valleys in his "moral landscape".

I realize that the systems perspective is not immediately intuitive, and people, even science-trained people, like to see things along a simple spectrum of black and white, right and wrong.

This spectrum, especially for social values, cannot exist because of confounding variables such as short-term vs long-term benefit, individual vs group benefit, stability vs flexibility etc - there are multidimensional trade-offs that preclude simple optimality.

Minister Pay To Increase By 8.8%

Despite the raging debate among citizens about the government's performance regarding the foreign talent policy, HDB price spike, losses by Temasek Holdings and GIC etc., looks like the government has decided to raise the salaries of ministers yet again in this year's Budget.

Committed to going green (TODAYonline)
by Teo Xuanwei 05:55 AM Feb 23, 2010

Excerpt:

"Salaries for political appointments - ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries - are estimated to be $58.28 million, or 8.8 per cent higher than last year."

Ministers in Singapore are already the highest paid politicians in the world, earning over a million dollars a year and beating their counterparts in other countries by a large margin.

Check out this graph that compares the salary of the Prime Minister with prominent leaders of first world countries:



















It is shockingly inappropriate timing to raise their salaries while our country has barely recovered from the recession, and the sustained recovery of the global economy is still in doubt.

Some commenters on sociopolitical blogs say that this pay hike suggests that the government is not confident of winning the next general election and thus is increasing their salaries while they can.

Alternatively, it is also possible that the election will not be held this year after all, since it is inconceivable that the government would make such an insensitive move shortly before the election.

A Teen Who Looks Like An Old Woman

Zara Hartshorn is a 13-year-old who lives in a poor neighbourhood in northern England.

Life there is difficult enough, but Zara is experiencing an even tougher problem...



She has lipodystrophy, a rare genetic condition involving the loss of fatty tissue, resulting in the wrinkled skin that makes her look much older than she really is.

Norwegian Blue, Beautiful Plume, Innit?

Something weird and beautiful appeared over the skies of Norway in the morning of December 9th...
















It's a UFO!

It's a transdimensional portal!

It's a SIGN FROM GOD ABOUT OBAMA'S PEACE PRIZE!



Heh, not a UFO anymore, it isn't.

More like the failed third stage of a Russian test missile.

Failure can be spectacular!


Pipette tip to Bad Astronomy.

Would you like to know more?
- Spirals Sighted Over Norway as Bulava Fails (The Moscow Times)
- It's not a UFO, just an intercontinental missile blowing up (Times Online)

Would You Bet Your LIFE On Science?

This guy did.





Heh, nice music. Somehow I feel that donning a Faraday suit and dancing with lightning bolts is more heroic than the old Feynman bowling ball trick...



Flinching at the last possible second!

There is a thin line between heroism and stupidity. That line is called knowledge.

Dubai World's US$59 Billion Debt

Dubai's sovereign wealth fund, Dubai World, has shocked investors with an announcement to delay debt payments until 30th May 2010.




Before the onset of the global economic recession, Dubai accumulated US$80 billion of debt, of which US$59 billion is owed by Dubai World.


Would you like to know more?
- Dubai World Seeks to Delay Debt Payments as Default Risk Soars (Bloomberg)
- World stocks slump amid Dubai's debt woes (Daily Mail)
- Dubai’s debt default shakes world (Hindustan Times)
- Dubai World debt fears haunt financial markets (The Australian)

Scientist, Programmer and Prostitute

The year was 2003.

PhD student Brooke Magnanti was living a double life. In the midst of making corrections to her thesis, she was unable to find a job in science and running out of money to pay rent.

So she became a part-time computer programmer... and prostitute.

For 14 months she worked as a high-class call girl in a London escort agency. She wrote about her sex work experiences as an anonymous blogger in the "Belle de Jour" blog, which led to a series of successful books and even spun off a TV show.

Today, she is a research scientist in developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology at St Michael's Hospital in Bristol.

Until two days ago, practically no one knew of the true identity of Belle de Jour.


Why is Fresh Brainz interested in this story?

Apparently she was also an experienced science blogger before she turned to prostitution. So boys and girls, what did we learn today?

1. Science blogging is not enough to pay rent.

2. Part-time computer programming is not enough to pay rent.

3. Sex work is enough to pay rent.

4. Science blogging + Sex work = Sex blogging

Crystal clear.


Would you like to know more?
- Belle de Jour: Diary of a London Call Girl
- British scientist unmasked as call girl Belle de Jour (Reuters)
- Belle de Jour blogger unmasks herself as 'big mouth ex-boyfriend' looms (Guardian)

More, More, Not Enough, Still Not Enough

If you like the webcomic "Cyanide and Happiness", you may like their latest short video:





As some guy once said: "Success is a menace. It fools smart people into thinking that they can't lose."

Some William guy.

Wrong Department

Whenever you face difficult problems in life, whenever the situation seems to be bleak and hopeless, whenever you need a shoulder to cry on, just remember - there will always be someone there for you...














... the Tech Support guy.

I don't know which is funnier, the fact that the lady thought that "support" was the place to voice her relationship woes, or that the respondent thought that to file for divorce is to "sue the shit out of the guy".

Whichever it is, here at Fresh Brainz we believe that the truth is always funnier.

Shutters Shutters Everywhere

The financial markets, energy prices and real estate prices are soaring.

Is the actual economy recovering?

Someone once said that you can't tell that Singapore is going through a recession because the central shopping districts are always packed with people.

Here at Fresh Brainz, we know that downtown malls are frequented by the rich and thus are not representative of the state of the economy in general.

Moreover, we have long realized that window shopping is free and thus you can't assume that everything is normal-normal simply because there are lots of people (penniless? heavily in debt?) walking around.

To know what is going on, you have to open your eyes and actually look at how the retailers are doing...

War Between Business And Science

Have you ever wondered why billionaire talkshow diva Oprah Winfrey is so well respected by business professionals but almost universally disliked by scientific professionals?




















Check out what a Harvard Business School Professor has to say about her:

""Still, when Professor Nancy Koehn introduced her guest on the last day of class this past spring, "everyone did a double take," Koehn recalls. Oprah Winfrey was in the house.

How the icon of daytime television and chief executive of a major media empire came to HBS after three years of effort is a story in itself. And what she told students brought them a unique perspective about leaders and leadership in the twenty-first century. "I think she's a great bellwether for the future of business," Koehn says. "Maybe she and her organization are on a path that a lot of leaders and organizations are going to be on.""

Compare and contrast that appraisal with this view from medical doctor David Gorski:

"Personally, I have no problem with Oprah’s level of success. Clearly, she is a very talented and savvy TV host and businesswoman.

Unfortunately, in marked contrast, Oprah has about as close to no critical thinking skills when it comes to science and medicine as I’ve ever seen, and she uses the vast power and influence her TV show and media empire give her in order to subject the world to her special brand of mystical New Age thinking and belief in various forms of what can only be characterized as dubious medical therapies at best and quackery at worst. Arguably there is no single person in the world with more influence pushing woo than Oprah."

Do you know why Oprah seems to be so intent on supporting dubious medical therapies?

Here at Fresh Brainz, I've had the misfortune of being trained in BOTH science and business, so let me give you my own analysis of what is going on...

**********

When you hear the word "science" or "evidence-based medicine" what does it mean to YOU?

Maybe you associate those words with a method of discovering facts and building theories by making observations, doing experiments/testing treatments, interpreting results and checking for biological significance/inherent biases/alternative explanations etc.

In other words, a careful method of learning about reality.

Or maybe you associate these words with large bureaucratic organizations/corporations, expensive machines, committees of powerful old men, obsession over meaningless details, close-mindedness and arrogance.

In other words, "wasting" tonnes of money to investigate the details of Nature that nobody else cares about, or a giant corporate machine that creates an incredibly high entry barrier so that only it alone can rake in the big bucks.

The reality is that modern scientific research is very expensive.

The days of the lone microscopist making a significant finding are numbered (though probably not true for the lone amateur astronomer). You can recycle fashion trends every two decades, but you can only make a scientific discovery once.

The "cheap" science, the "small" science; they have already been done by people in the past.

To do big science today, you need more than fancy degrees from a brand name school.

You also need big money.

That represents a very high entry barrier. You want to map the human transcriptome? Perform a large-scale clinical trial? Only governments and multinational corporations have that kind of money.

Moreover, from a purely business perspective, scientific research represents a weak return on investment.

Practically all curiosity-driven basic research has no chance of making money directly, while only a small proportion of biomed/biotech research will ever reach profitability. Even if you can come up with a technology or treatment with promising biological effectiveness, it will still have to face years of regulatory hurdles, as well as market pressures, before it can start raking in the dollars.

Clinical research is obviously nearer to practical applications, but only big companies have the resources to conduct large-scale trials. If you intend to invest money in a big, well-established pharma company, you can't expect to make much more than an incremental gain of around 10% yearly.

That is because most of the company's growth is already over, during its infancy - but that was also the riskiest stage of its development.

So what do you do if you are an ambitious young person who wants to build a successful business, preferably within your own lifetime?

Here's one way of doing it:

You take a fucking chance.

Governments and Big Pharma don't talk to nobodies. So you talk to much smaller players - obscure new outfits, individual inventors, alternative medicine practitioners, motivational gurus, unknown book authors...

It doesn't matter what they do, as long as you can identify the potential for a powerful social impact.

You have to understand the needs and desires of regular people, work closely with those who claim to have just the solution that the people need, and then promote their special solution confidently to the world.

The highest growth potential comes from untested small players, thus you should try to seek them out and grow with them. Remember that when blue chips rise by a few dollars it's only a percentage gain, but when a penny stock rises by a few dollars, it has increased its value by a FEW FOLD. The returns on investment can be tremendous.

However, penny stocks are very risky. Similarly, if you constantly align yourself with mystics and alternative healers, you might open the doors not only to harmless crackpots, but deliberate frauds and pranksters as well. This can have a negative effect, both on your bottomline and on your reputation.

Fortunately, if you were NOT trained in science, you don't have to dwell on it. Just disassociate yourself from any negative incidents, and move on. Your target audience won't know the difference anyway and won't expect you to be scientifically accurate. Academics may protest but you can always appeal to the anti-establishment sentiments of your supporters!

It's more important to get the timing right and seize an opportunity quickly, than to be factually correct or even conceptually consistent.

Remember that your goal is commerce, not science. More human than human should be your motto - it's about selling a hyperreality to the masses. Nobody will give you a single cent more for being too truthful or too careful.

In fact, in Oprah's case, she often seems to act first and check later!

This can be clearly seen from the site "Top 12 Oprah Mistakes, Lies and Embarrassments". The writer concluded that (emphasis mine) :

"In a long and extraordinarily successful career, Oprah Winfrey has often been wrong, but she rarely, if ever, conveys uncertainty. She’s admitted to having used cocaine in her 20s, under the influence of her then-boyfriend. She’s made questionable diet and health choices and presented each one to the world as a wonderful new discovery, only to change programs, beliefs and approaches. She’s invited at least two blatant frauds to share their stories with the world on her show, and has encouraged us to buy books full of lies and health products with no proven benefits. She is, in short, wrong quite a lot. And that’s okay. Most of us are. Most of us, though, don’t have millions of people accepting our every word as gospel. That should inspire a person to choose her words with a bit more care."

Note that uncertainty and persistence is the bread and butter of scientific research, whereas unshakeable confidence and flexibility is an indispensible aspect of business enterprise.

Also, Dr. Gorski may wonder why Oprah is successful despite her apparent lack of critical thinking, but in contrast, I find it hard to see how Oprah could have succeeded if she was saddled with critical thought!

**********

"Science" means something different from an academic or business perspective. It is both a method and an industry; an endeavour of individual effort and organizational strategy.

To make money directly from science is a difficult challenge because there are many contradictory skillsets between business professionals and scientific professionals.

But ultimately, in any organization somebody has to be the one to make the big decisions.

What if you spent your entire life training to become a scientist, only to realize that somebody who is neither interested in your research nor even appreciates its significance actually has more power over your research direction, your lab and your whole career than you yourself?

Conversely, what if you were a business-trained manager who was told that science was just another area of business, only to realize that research routinely spends far more money than it can ever generate, and because of the increasing pressure to achieve a better return on investment, you now have to convince over 1,000 disgruntled PhDs that all big science decisions have to be made by you yourself?

Those are interesting, academic questions.

Perhaps not academic for long.

South Korea Launches Naro-1 Rocket

Yesterday, South Korea launched their first Naro-1 (also called KSLV-1) rocket from Naro Space Centre at Goheung.

Technically it was a cooperative effort with the Russians who designed and built the first stage of the rocket, while the Koreans built the second stage and its payload, the STSAT-2 satellite.

Check out the launch video:



One of the scariest launches I've seen so far!

The vehicle leans to the right immediately after lift-off and then makes a sharp correction to the left.

Not sure why this happened but I'm guessing that the gantry arm might have something to do with it; a video taken from another angle showed the rocket leaning away when released from the gantry.

In any case the rocket managed to reach space, but the satellite was sent to a maximum height of 342 km, which is higher than its planned orbit at 306 km. Some news sources report this as "overshooting the orbit" or "higher orbit" or "incorrect orbit" but I think it's more likely that the flight path was too elliptical to even make one complete orbit.

According to Reuters, South Korea's space agency had tried to play down expectations, saying that only about 30 percent of countries' first attempts to put a satellite into orbit succeed. Their officials have called this project a "partial success".

*Update: The satellite failed to reach orbit because one of the two fairings that covered it during the atmospheric phase did not fall off properly, causing the rocket to pitch up and also to lose too much speed to enter orbit (S. Korean Satellite Lost After Flawed Launch - Korea Times).


Would you like to know more?

- Latest updates: KSLV-1 launch (NASA spaceflight forum)
- Satellite Fails to Enter Orbit (The Korea Times)

Was It The Publication Record?

I must say that I find Dr. Cai Mingjie's blog "A Singapore Taxi Driver's Diary" an interesting and engaging read.

It is a brutally honest account of a new taxi driver trying to make a living on the roads of Singapore.

But after reading his posts, most readers would undoubtedly ponder the question:

What happened?

How did an Associate Professor become a taxi driver?

Prominent blogger AcidFlask has a hunch; he examined Dr. Cai's publication record and found that Dr. Cai published a total of 16 papers (14, plus two more discovered by his commenters) in 16 years.

He felt that:

"With that in mind, it becomes a damning fact that Dr. Cai only has 14 publications to his name since joining the IMCB 16 years ago. Going only by that criterion of quantity, publishing less than one paper a year makes for a truly unimpressive publication record. But just about every practicing scientist knows that despite the current pressure to publish or perish, science and research isn’t (entirely) about churning out more and more papers, and the number of papers that can attributed to one’s name is not necessarily a good measure of a scientist’s productivity."

While AcidFlask acknowledges that there could be many other plausible factors leading to Dr. Cai's contract termination, one of his commenters is much, much less charitable...

#4 by i am not that great at August 19th, 2009:

"i don’t think it is that worth defending him per se. in the current competitive research environment, his publication record in 16 years probably only speaks of one thing – he is working in a very sheltered environment in which he does not have to fight for funding, and he is very comfortable in it.

i didn’t go that in depth into digging up his past papers, but my impression from his pubmed-searchable papers is that – his lab didn’t actually grow that much in the 16 years, and he does not have collaborators.

if he had worked in the states, and if he had been so comfortable with himself, he wouldn’t have survived the assistant professor stage. he probably is indeed a good scientist, but the environment spolit him. and when imcb’s culture changed, he didn’t realise it and he didn’t change, and he got killed.

hence, regardless of what measure a*star uses to judge the performance of its employees, he would still have been killed. face it, even in the US, if you are a young professor, you will have to work for money. if you apply for funding from ACS, you ought to package your work around cancer. it is a fact of life. if you work in a*star, you will have to make those guys that give you money happy. it is a different story if you are tenured, but obviously that guy is not…!"

**********

So, was it his publication record that ended Dr. Cai's appointment?

Here at Fresh Brainz, we are outsiders to this issue.

Moreover any single case is always a "unique" case.

However, Dr. Cai was not the only Principal Investigator who was affected.

When there is more than one case, an opportunity to learn more about the truth surfaces.

In Dr. Cai's blog a commenter by the name of Xinmin (most likely A/Prof. Cao Xinmin) left this comment:

Xinmin said...

"I read your article with tears. At the beginning, I was very sad, but at the end, I was so proud of you. I admire your courage and spirit. With these, nothing can beat you. As your former colleague, another PI in IMCB, we share a similar fate. I graduated from University of Chicago, working in IMCB for 19 years, publishing >50 papers (including 7 in 2008), trained many PhD, university, and polytechnic students. All the years of hard work and teaching don’t seem to count for anything. My lab will be closed down soon. You are not the first, and I won't be the last. We have made Singapore our home, and our children have gone or will go to National Service. More importantly, we have made our contributions to put Singapore on the world’s scientific map! Isn't it ironic that when the government is putting in considerable efforts to develop life science in Singapore, we lost or will lose our jobs? I may not have the qualification to become a taxi driver, but I will do my best in my life after IMCB, whatever that will be and to be like you. Even as a taxi driver, you live in a brilliant and wonderful way. I wish you all the best!

August 18, 2009 1:00 PM"

Was the publication record a major factor?














I'll let the readers decide.

God Is Made Of People

Just read an interesting comment regarding the ST news story "PhD holder now a cabby".

Posted by: opinion2009 at Wed Aug 19 17:51:07 SGT 2009

"Solomon said that men of understanding are not the only ones who gain riches: 'nor bread to the wise, nor riches to men of understanding; nor favour to men of skill, but time and chance happen to them all'.

Solomon is telling us that those who are better, wiser and stronger don't win the war, don't win the race, don't get the riches and don't win the favour.

But those who are in the right place at the right time win the race, and enjoy favour and success.

The only one who can put you in the right place at the right time is God.

We can try through self-effort to better position yourself for success by studying more, working harder and cultivating more strategic relationships.

You may end up being slightly faster, slightly stronger and more well-connected, but only God can put you in the right place at the right time and give you success.

There are people who find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are caught in a 'net' and they don't even know why.

For man also does not know his time: Like fish taken in a cruel net, like birds caught in a snare, so the sons of men are snared in an evil time, when it falls suddenly upon them.

We need God for 'Right Happenings'.

If we are honest and humble enough, we will acknowledge our need for God in our lives."

**********

So... God is somebody who gives you opportunities for success, and if you are "honest and humble enough", he will help you win wars, get $$$ and stuff like that.

But what if God has decided to put YOU in the wrong place at the wrong time?

And why would an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful God want to "help" some of his creations to become so rich and powerful that they would dominate and utterly devastate some of his other creations?

To an extraterrestrial observer, it seems like a "God" is actually a human social network that aggressively grows to accumulate material benefits to insiders while engaging in territorial conflicts with other "Gods".

Hmm... that reminds me of a classic movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy".



Narrator: "But the Gods have been careless; they had sent only one. And now for the first time in their lives, here was a thing which could not be shared because there was only one of it.

Suddenly everybody needed it most of the time; a thing they had never needed before became a necessity. An unfamiliar emotion began to stir. A feeling of wanting to own, of not wanting to share.

And other new things came. Anger, jealousy, hate and violence.

He was angry with the Gods.

He shouted: "Take back your thing, we don't want it. Look at the trouble it brought!"

But the Gods did not take it back.

He shouted: "You must be crazy to send us this thing, take it back!""

**********

Of course, the Gods will never take it back, because it was made by human beings.

To dispose of it, someone would have to take it to end of the Earth and throw it off, even if it meant that the person would have to walk for 20 days, perhaps 40.

Have you started walking yet?