I am currently tending a very sick palm tree in my garden, which I think has had its roots attacked by hungry beetles. The symptom is a loss of leaves (fans) at an alarming rate and in the past week I have removed over twenty. I had a palm with a similar problem last year, which regrettably ended with the tree being chopped down. There is a small glimmer of hope with the current ailing patient because there is still some new growth from the crown, which might survive and if so, possibly grow and lead to further new shoots. But I know from my previous experience that I'm clutching at straws so as well as removing the poorly fans, I have tidied up the trunk and tried to give the tree a little bit of TLC and dignity during what could be the twilight of its life - after all, we're related! Now before you conclude that I'm off my trolley, let me explain my views on the relationships between me, the rest of mankind and other living species.
Let's start with our own species, homo sapiens. I am the result of a relationship between my two parents (two people). My parents were the results of relationships between two sets of parents (four people). My grandparents were the results of relationships between four sets of parents (eight people). Continuing this historic extrapolation and assuming my ancestral line remains 'pure' (an assumption that I will prove to be invalid later in this blog), let's look at how many people were associated with my current existence, at various points in history. If we go back eight generations, around the time Abraham Lincoln was born, there were 256 people responsible for my birth. Back to the time of Shakespeare and the number becomes 16,384. Twenty generations ago the number has risen to 1,048,576. This doubling every generation means that sixty-four generations ago, around the peak of the Roman empire, the number becomes one million trillion, which is several thousand times the number of people who have ever lived. If I now return to the assumption that my ancestral line is 'pure', clearly that can't be true and my existence, you're existence, everyone's existence is the result of a considerable amount of incest but far enough removed from the main family line so it wouldn't be obvious. This means that most people you come in contact with, including your partner, are probably relatives.
That's all very interesting but what does it have to do with my palm tree? The evidence for evolution is very strong. Indeed, biologists often make a distinction between the FACT of evolution (i.e. all living things are cousins) and the THEORY of what drives it (natural selection versus rival theories). The current estimate for the number of living species is around ten million. To draw all the relationships between the species in the form of a family tree on a manageable-sized piece of paper, is clearly impossible. The best illustration I have seen is the Hillis plot, which transforms the classic plot of a family tree into a more compact circular illustration stripped down drastically to around three thousand species in order to fit into even this huge diagram. In my view, what is more exciting than visual representations of genetic family trees, is what will be possible from processing genetic-relationship information. Over the past fifty years, computer processing power has followed something called Moore's Law. It is an empirical law and can be observed as the doubling of computer processing power in a given volume every eighteen months to two years. In financial terms, this means the cost of processing information is rapidly reducing. Current extrapolations suggest that by 2040 it should be technically possible and affordable to create a massive database of DNA sequences across all the animal and plant species.
So what about my palm tree? Well clearly there is very strong evidence that I have a genetic relationship with it and at some time in the future, probably after I have departed this world, it might be possible to 'plot' our relationship. So why shouldn't I show it the same respect as I should have for my own or any other species on the planet? I'll let you know if it survives.
Thursday 13 September 2012
Monday 3 September 2012
Thinking About Thinking
On a couple of occasions my wife has made the following comment on my behaviour: "You think too much". I have thought deeply about her observation! Human beings communicate using languages they have learnt but whatever the native tongue, language is full of ambiguities and prone to misinterpretation. So what did my wife mean by her comment? I don't think (there I go again!) that she could possibly mean I should stop thinking; after all, thought is the basis for almost all our actions and interactions, so it is going on all the time. If she had said: "You spend too much time thinking and not enough time doing", then I would understand where she was coming from, particularly as my 'doing-to-thinking ratio' is a considerably lesser quantity than my wife's.
One of the discussion groups I am currently participating in, on the subject of thinking(!), has touched on the issue of male versus female thought processes and particularly the key differences. A view has been expressed that women's thoughts tend to relate to the natural (real) world whereas men use their ideas to relate to the conceptual world and I quote one comment: "I think a woman might generalise men as dreamers who get wrapped up in their theories". Well I have to admit to being able to relate to that point of view and one of my favourite pastimes is thinking about thinking.
We are part of a complex system that we try to understand by using simple mental models of what we think is going on around us. Sometimes our mental models become very rigid preconceived ideas and even when 'reality' doesn't match our model, we are still reluctant to modify our ideas. What is 'reality'? Is my view of the world, which is my 'reality', the same as your 'reality'? We are each using our sensors - seeing, hearing, smelling, touching - together with complex processing, which draws upon experience, intuition, tradition, preconceived ideas - and forming opinions of the 'reality' that surrounds us. Sometimes we attempt to breakdown the complexity of the environment into simple building blocks. But that doesn't always work. Colours should be simple, easy-to-understand components but why does, for example, the colour of my house appeal to me but look crap to you? Are we seeing the same colour but processing it differently, or vice versa?
There can be a danger of trying to squeeze a non-linear world into our linear mental models. Cause and effect is a common view of 'reality' - this affects that, which affects this, which affects those........ etc - but it doesn't always work like that! A affects B, which affects C, which after time modifies A, which affects B, which after time also modifies A. So the simple linear model has time- dependent feedback loops creating a non-linear function. To understand even a comparatively simple non-linear A-B-C model, we have to view it from a system perspective, understanding not just the constituent building blocks, but also the relationships between them.
As we move from concepts to 'reality', we can direct our thoughtful energies towards trying to understand issues such as why did the economic crisis occur, how do we solve our financial woes, how many species are there on the planet, are homo sapiens the only mammals that pop up everywhere, are we taking more out of the planet than we are putting back in, is the planet warming, if so what can we do about it, why do we have wars,........???? The issues go on and on but every time we try to simplify them and tackle them in isolation, we usually fail. So that's why I see a benefit in thinking about thinking, because although traditional thinking has resulted in tremendous developments for mankind, we don't seem to be able to solve some of the real crunchy and destructive issues that we have created, which face us and will plague future generations. So OK perhaps I should spend more time doing rather than thinking but if we carry on doing what we're doing, why should anything change? We will only change what we are doing if we stop doing and think about it........just a thought!
One of the discussion groups I am currently participating in, on the subject of thinking(!), has touched on the issue of male versus female thought processes and particularly the key differences. A view has been expressed that women's thoughts tend to relate to the natural (real) world whereas men use their ideas to relate to the conceptual world and I quote one comment: "I think a woman might generalise men as dreamers who get wrapped up in their theories". Well I have to admit to being able to relate to that point of view and one of my favourite pastimes is thinking about thinking.
We are part of a complex system that we try to understand by using simple mental models of what we think is going on around us. Sometimes our mental models become very rigid preconceived ideas and even when 'reality' doesn't match our model, we are still reluctant to modify our ideas. What is 'reality'? Is my view of the world, which is my 'reality', the same as your 'reality'? We are each using our sensors - seeing, hearing, smelling, touching - together with complex processing, which draws upon experience, intuition, tradition, preconceived ideas - and forming opinions of the 'reality' that surrounds us. Sometimes we attempt to breakdown the complexity of the environment into simple building blocks. But that doesn't always work. Colours should be simple, easy-to-understand components but why does, for example, the colour of my house appeal to me but look crap to you? Are we seeing the same colour but processing it differently, or vice versa?
There can be a danger of trying to squeeze a non-linear world into our linear mental models. Cause and effect is a common view of 'reality' - this affects that, which affects this, which affects those........ etc - but it doesn't always work like that! A affects B, which affects C, which after time modifies A, which affects B, which after time also modifies A. So the simple linear model has time- dependent feedback loops creating a non-linear function. To understand even a comparatively simple non-linear A-B-C model, we have to view it from a system perspective, understanding not just the constituent building blocks, but also the relationships between them.
As we move from concepts to 'reality', we can direct our thoughtful energies towards trying to understand issues such as why did the economic crisis occur, how do we solve our financial woes, how many species are there on the planet, are homo sapiens the only mammals that pop up everywhere, are we taking more out of the planet than we are putting back in, is the planet warming, if so what can we do about it, why do we have wars,........???? The issues go on and on but every time we try to simplify them and tackle them in isolation, we usually fail. So that's why I see a benefit in thinking about thinking, because although traditional thinking has resulted in tremendous developments for mankind, we don't seem to be able to solve some of the real crunchy and destructive issues that we have created, which face us and will plague future generations. So OK perhaps I should spend more time doing rather than thinking but if we carry on doing what we're doing, why should anything change? We will only change what we are doing if we stop doing and think about it........just a thought!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)