A Curious Statistical Anomaly

Many years ago, when I was a young’un, the list of criteria for being sentient was quite short and only humans qualified. Over the years, the criteria for sentience has subtly and quietly changed as more and more animals were found to qualify. For example, some animals were found to use tools, so tool using was dropped from the list.

Star Trek: The New Generation did an episode where Data was to be returned for disassembly by an AI researcher. Picard defended Data in court to prove his sentience and rescind the order. The full text of the scene is available online.

PICARD: What is required for sentience?
MADDOX: Intelligence, self awareness, consciousness.

Picard manages to create enough of a case and create enough doubt that the judge had to find for Data. It seems to me there was a similar episode during the original Star Trek series but I’m not sure. (If anyone knows for sure let me know which episode and basic case.)

From Ask The Van: in response to question on AI sentience:

When it comes to animals, there are a number of things which scientists try to measure – here are a few examples:

(1) The ability to observe and respond to one’s environment. This requires sensory perceptions and the ability to react to those perceptions. This is a pretty basic property of life, although the extent to which various creatures can do it varies widely. Most (all?) AIs already possess this ability.

(2) Intelligence. *”The ability to learn and understand, the ability to cope with a new situation” Many animals, including primates, pigs, and dolphins, have been shown to have very high intelligence. Some AI’s have also been shown to possess a high level of intelligence.

(3) Sentience / Consciousness. To be *”able to feel and think”. This is a tricky one. There is some very strong evidence out there indicating that certain species of animals are capable of both emotion and rational thought, but the argument hasn’t yet reached final resolution.

(4) Self-awareness. In the animal debate (and also the AI debate, I suspect), this is a big deal. Does the animal have awareness of itself? There are a zillion different experiments out there to test this, and they all seem to rely on a different idea of what proves self-awareness. For example, some definitions require that an animal understand how its own movements affect the image in a mirror. Some depend on an animal’s ability to lie. Some even rely on the fact that carnivorous animals don’t try to eat their own flesh. In the end, this is still a very nebulous issue, and the answers aren’t clear.

As you see from the above response, animals have been found to achieve many of these criteria. I’ve never managed to get over my feeling that we, humans, are so full of ourselves and our place at the center of the universe that we’ve ignored the possibility that we may share this world with a number of other intelligent/sentient species. In doing some research for this article, I ran across the following quote from Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) from Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

“Other animals, which, on account of their interests having been neglected by the insensibility of the ancient jurists, stand degraded into the class of things. … The day has been, I grieve it to say in many places it is not yet past, in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated … upon the same footing as … animals are still. The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?…the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?… The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes…”
Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)
Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789)

The quote was used in an article on Ethics and discussed our anthropocentric view of sentience.

I believe that I’d got way beyond this author’s views. I believe we are still very anthropocentric. In fact, as strict as we tune the criteria for sentience to always keep mankind on the top of the stack as the only sentient species on Earth — we have many people, humans, who don’t feel that other humans, because of skin color, sexual preference, perceived intelligence or whatever, are really sentient or, in fact, human. Whenever humans from whatever government start a war the first thing that is done is the dehumanizing of the enemy. Evidently it is much easier to kill if you don’t believe the enemy is actually “one of us”.

So, the other day when I came across this article on PhysOrg.com, “Scientists say dolphins should be treated as non-human persons” (January 6, 2010 by Lin Edwards), my first reaction was, “it’s about time.” The article abstract states:

Scientists studying dolphin behavior have suggested they could be the most intelligent creatures on Earth after humans, saying the size of their brains in relation to body size is larger than that of our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, and their behaviors suggest complex intelligence. One scientist said they should therefore be treated as “non-human persons” and granted rights as individuals.

More than about time, but since people don’t consider all people as having rights as individuals, I doubt that this will get very far. But it is a step in the right direction. As we move out into space, we need to recognize that if we were to find intelligent, sentient life out there somewhere, it won’t necessarily look like us. If we can’t accept the possibility of intelligent/sentient life other then homo sapiens on this planet, I don’t hold out much hope for a first contact situation going very well if we should find life on other planets. The odds of this happening are increasing as current research shows that the possibility that we’ve found that life once existed on Mars is increasing as more research is done on available samples.

So, while I think it’s time that we re-examine our relationship with the species that we share our planet with, I doubt very much that humanity is willing to accept the possibility of animal sentience, let alone plant intelligence, when so many can’t accept that all humans are sentient.

Never the less, I’m leaving you with the introductory song to the motion picture, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. Besides being a great riff on humanities blindness to other intelligences, it’s a wonderful piece. Enjoy.

Feedback on this article is welcome but unless it is more than — great article or nice blog — it won’t be approved in the comments.

Adventures of Riley: Riddle of the Reef by Amanda Lumry and Laura Hurwitz, Scholastic Press, ISBN: 978-0-545-06847-5, $16.99 US, $21.99 Canada (Hardcover, there is also a paperback version).

Riley flies out to Australia to help Aunt Martha, Uncle Max, Alice, and Wyland find out what’s killing off the coral of the Great Barrier Reef. The set up of having Riley join them allows the authors to provide informational and scientific data within the context of the story as Riley asks the questions that most nine-year-old boys would ask about what is happening and what he’s seeing. Alice appears in the illustrations and seems to be the same age as Riley; but has no part in this story other than being there. Aunt Martha has only a few lines. It’s Uncle Max and Wyland who provide information, instructions, and work with Riley. I would have felt more comfortable with the females of the expedition also being more active in the imparting of knowledge rather than simply adding gender balance.

In the context of a story there’s not much here. But as a source of information about the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Bleaching, packaging the information in an adventure in which the young protagonist, Riley, gets to take part allows the authors to provide exposition in a more natural way than they otherwise could with standard fictional story. Here Riley is taking an active part but, because he’s young, inquisitive, and not trained — he becomes the sounding board for the adults.

While this lesson in environmental change and the destruction of the coral that makes up the Great Barrier Reef is easy to understand, given in small doses throughout, it does require that the reader or if read to, the hearer, to be moderately interested in the subject matter. The authors don’t tone down the information though they do use easily understood language and they also provide a Glossary at the end of the book.

The book is heavily illustrated with photos and art. The art is realistic and colorful and the photographs are matched to the text to help to make the material clear and to focus on what’s being imparted about the reef and coral. While having art on top of photographs is a bit jarring, it works in this context to keep some distance from the material, while having the immediacy of photography.

Using Wyland as a character in the book is a great way to appeal to children, many of whom will be familiar with his murals of sea life. We lived in Providence, Rhode Island for a while and one of his murals is visible from the interstate as you drive through. His realistic murals of undersea life and whale creates an instant connection for children who are familiar with his work.

The scientific information is given in two ways: as conversation/instruction or as insert/sidebars. The inserts/sidebars have a quote about coral, sea life, or some related topic and are fully attributed. I found this first one to be striking and memorable:

* A coral reef produces its own sunscreen, using the same chemical in the sunscreen that humans use.
* Corals are like tiny anemones or jellyfish. Over 3 million little algae live in their skin and produce energy for them to feed on.
* The Great Barrier Reef is so large, it can be seen from outer space!
— Tim McClanahan, Ph.D., Senior Conservation Zoologist, Wildlife Conservation Society.

In the end, our adventurers discover some of the issues that are destroying the reef and causing coral bleaching. The book ends with a few suggestions for what people can do to help slow the destruction.

This series has a website where you can get further information on this and other books about Riley’s adventures: www.adventuresofriley.com.

On the whole, I heartily recommend the book for a young person who wishes to know more about the environment, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, coral, or the world’s oceans. The science is sound, though on a basic level, and matched to a young person’s understanding. Books on scientific topics are difficult to write for young people and these authors have done a wonderful job of balancing science information with a story narrative. If the reader has an interest in the core science area of the adventure, then they’ll enjoy the book.

Imagine my surprise when I bumped into this item when scanning through some science sites this morning.   I checked out the website at http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/ where you need to click on the language you prefer to read. I watched the trailer promo there and then moved on to the YouTube Beagle Channel. The website will have the 35 episode after they air on Dutch television.

Even though the voyage started on September 13th (that’s at least what I gather from the promo) you can still catch up and follow along as they retrace the five year voyage in one year on the Clipper Stad Amsterdam. It will be very interesting to follow along and see how the past and the present mesh and what that might mean for the future.

Guess I’ll go dust off my copy of Origins of the Species — oh, wait it isn’t dusty, I’ve also got an electronic copy (available from several online sources including Gutenberg. There’s also a Facebook page and Twitter coverage.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a crew member exposed to lethal radiation in science fiction stories and the doc just loads up the anti-radiation serum and gives them a shot and everything is looking good. In movies and TV, I’m sure you’ve seen it. Just the other night we were watching a Battlestar Galactica DVD and the planet had high radiation levels and Starbuck, Helo, and Boomer just dosed themselves with the anti-radiation serum at regular intervals.

Now it looks like science has caught up with fiction. Ynet News has a story on Cure for radiation sickness found? by Ronen Bergman. The medication developed by Professor Andrei Gudkov – Chief Scientific Officer at Cleveland BioLabs has immediate real life implications for people who have or need to be exposed to high levels of radiation. From the article:

Gudkov’s discovery may also have immense implications for cancer patients by enabling doctors to better protect patients against radiation. Should the new medication enable cancer patients to be treated with more powerful radiation, our ability to fight the disease could greatly improve.

How the discovery came about is one of those lucky ideas that sometimes happen when the right conditions come together.

The process that led up to the medical innovation dates back to 2003, when Professor Gudkov came up with the idea of using protein produced in bacteria found in the intestine to protect cells from radiation.

Tests so far on mice and monkeys look like this is the “real deal”. If approved after being moved to the fast track, this would be a preventative medication not a cure but it would be safe and easily injected. The possible uses could be a miracle for cancer patients, workers in the nuclear industry, astronauts and space workers, and many others such as governments who wish to stockpile medications — just in case the worst case scenario of MAD comes knocking.

In fact, if this drug manages to hold up to its promise, it could mean that space flight and/or long-term habitation of space stations and on ships heading to Mars (for example) would have less of a problem with radiation that would other wise limit our chances of success. It opens up a lot of possibilities that were previously unavailable to us because of the radiation exposure the crews would face.

What are your thoughts? And please read the original article before commenting?

We have an entire loft in the shed taken up with electronic this-n-that’s that we haven’t gotten rid of because we don’t know where to take it. I know they are toxic and dangerous to just dump and our recycle center doesn’t take any of it — so it sits in storage and moves when we do.

The other day, I spotted in the New York Times, this article “A Green Way to Dump Low-Tech Electronics.” At last, it seemed that someone or some groups were working on the problem. The paragraph that caught my eye was:

Since 2004, 18 states and New York City have approved laws that make manufacturers responsible for recycling electronics, and similar statutes were introduced in 13 other states this year. The laws are intended to prevent a torrent of toxic and outdated electronic equipment — television sets, computers, monitors, printers, fax machines — from ending up in landfills where they can leach chemicals into groundwater and potentially pose a danger to public health.

The problem was that a careful reading of the article didn’t elicit a list of those 18 states, though several of them got mentioned in the article. So, I clicked on the EPA link and found it only took me to other articles about the EPA. But, being crafty and loving Google, I looked for keywords and found this link to the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. On this site they had a link where you could look up and find a site in your state to take your own electronics to safely dump them. The only problem is that Maryland only has one site that takes electronics, and it’s in Baltimore — which means we’ll have to plan ahead to get there while they are open and based on our pile of electronics we’re ready to dump, it may take several trips.

What I’ve learned from this is that nothing is easy. It never is but you’d think that since toxic waste is such a problem and our society is getting more and more electronic devices in order to keep up connected and online and working 24/7 that it would be a bit easier to recycle or dump outdated equipment–safely. It seems from my reading over the day that the major problem is that no one wants to pay for it and no one wants to be responsible.

Okay, my husband and I recycle. We have ever since the first programs 20+ years ago in Maine. Here in Maryland we have to actually store our recyclables and take them to the center ourselves since we don’t have any pickup where we live and the center is about a 45 minute drive away. To get electronics to Baltimore is about 1 1/2 hours away by car and we need to get there during their open hours. We’ll probably do that but why isn’t there a skip for dropping off this type of waste at every major recycle center? Why make it so difficult for people to do the right thing?

For years I’ve wondered why there aren’t companies that buy waste from one company and sell it as input to another one? It only makes sense since often the waste of one is the input for another. The government should be encouraging such reuse of toxic materials. Why make more and more toxic stuff when we could reuse what’s already there with a bit of cleaning and filtering.

More food for thought I guess — I’m still trying to find a place to recycle our old batteries. We mostly use rechargeable ones but we do have some that just need to be tossed (mostly those for the camera and other related equipment). Our recycle center supposedly takes them but we haven’t been able to find the spot to put them, but have found plenty of signs saying not to put them HERE.

What’s your experiences with recycling or safely dumping electronic wastes?

I’ve been rushing to finish up the second sock that I’ve been knitting. Well, actually I want to finish up a number of projects that have just a bit left to go  because I want to start several new ones. So, I thought I’ll finish this sock then the sweater, then the next three things and then start the new stuff.

But on the very last row of the after-thought heel as I was turning it inside out to do the 3-needle bindoff — I dropped a stitch. It’s a stripped sock on number 2 needles and the stripe at the end was black… I’m sure you know where I’m going. At the moment, I’m unknitting down to where the stitch ran but it keeps running so I think I’m going to end up at the start of the heel again.

My grandmother had a saying for times like these — “the faster I go the behinder I get.” That’s how I feel right now. This whole day has been like that. Maybe knitting is sort of a metaphor for life. You run along great and then unlike real life you get an opportunity for do-overs. Well, I suppose you get opportunities for do-overs in real life too but they’re much more painful than with knitting. I can unravel knitting and just start over but with life there’s all the other connections with events and people and those can’t be just unraveled as if they never were to start from scratch again.

Yarn might be a bit kinked from being unraveled but basically it’s very forgiving — people, well, not so much. So, I guess I’m lucky that it’s only the stocking’s heel that’s giving me problems. So, I guess I’ve now talked myself into a better state of mind about the bungled heel and the dropped stitch. This is just another of knitting’s do-overs.

I usually keep my eye on global warming related reports and spotted these articles (Google News’s “Sea Rise from Antarctic Ice Melt Overestimated“, Christian Science Monitor’s “If W. Antarctic Ice Sheet melts, how high will sea levels rise?”, and Science’s “Ocean Science: Ice Sheet Stability and Sea Level” (link takes you to the abstract, you can’t read the full paper unless you pay) on the new figures for sea rise if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) melts.

Originally, it was thought that if the WAIS melted that sea levels would rise between 5-7 meters. However, that was based on models that just don’t seem to stand up in comparison to reality. So, once they started looking at the real world and comparing with the models they found that it was more likely that the sea level rise if the WAIS melted would be closer to 3.2 to 3.3 meters (depending on which report you read). So things aren’t as dire as scientists originally thought, although 10.5+ feet is still pretty dire. That’s still going to make drastic changes to the east and west coasts of the United States as well as some other countries.

You see sea level just doesn’t rise; it also runs horizontally. Most people hear that the sea level will go up a foot and they think that won’t bother me I’m above that level. Right, it won’t bother you directly if you’re above that level and not close enough to be bother with storm surges which can be much higher than normal high tides when pushed by a storm. But those people near rivers, streams, and in areas between the current sea level and the new one — even if they are inland — might find themselves having problems with rising water tables, water levels in streams and rivers, and now they sit in a flood plain.

If you look at a map with topographic markings you can see that areas that currently don’t connect with the sea, if the level rises a foot or a yard would suddenly be underwater. That’s the part of sea level rise that most people don’t think about and don’t seem to care about.

It’s the intellectual blindness that caused people to buy houses on the Mississippi between the river and the levees and never consider that the levees were there for a reason and maybe living between a levee and the river wasn’t a good idea. When the flooding occurred a few years back, I was really upset that so many people had lost their homes. Then I saw a live broadcast where they were talking to the homeowners trying to salvage whatever they could from the wreckage of their homes. The camera pans and there are the homes with the river on one side and the high levees on the other. Really, it was a matter of when not if they would lose their homes. I still felt sympathy that they had to go through this terrible experience but couldn’t stop thinking why didn’t they think about their situation logically before buying the home in the first place. People ignore what they don’t want to face. If there’s a levee and your home is between it and the river, that should be a “duh” moment and a no sale.

People have been ignoring global warming for years and now it is not just a nice little hypothetical thought experiment but is changing the face of the world. Still people hear about scientists discussing sea level rise and the possible factors that will effect the eventual change and what the numbers might be and they shrug and go on. Well, I won’t be buying any sea front property anytime soon but if I was I’d certainly be checking out topographical maps. Just maybe that house on the hill with lots of acres will turn out to be a nice private island in a hundred years or so.

I’ve been keeping my eye out for articles about windmills and Low-Tech Magazine had a great article, “Small Windmills Put To The Test”, with links to information that I haven’t found in other places — such as how many of these small windmills would you need to power your house. Granted I’ve seen articles with pages and pages of step-by-step instructions on the bazillion bits of information you need to collect in order to figure out what your home’s power usage is and how to match that to the output of a windmill…but mostly what I’ve been looking for is a ballpark figure for gross economic calculations. Of course, in our case we have too many trees and no clear space to put a windmill so this is mostly an exercise to satisfy my curiosity…I just like to know about things.

Anyway, in this test twelve windmills of various designs and sizes were tested in an open plain by the Dutch in the province of Zeeland (reportedly a very windy area) and their output measured over a year. The article then lists how many windmills of each type it would take to generate the energy for a typical Dutch household. Depending on the design and rotor dimension it could take anywhere from 47 windmills to 2 windmills. Two is not bad but 47 seems a bit extreme, might as well get a ginormous windmill and get it over with. Anyway, I thought others might be interested in the results of this test.

I’ve also been keeping my eye on the Broadstar Wind Systems, these seem to me to have some very interesting applications since they can go in parking lots and on rooftops. I’m waiting to see how it turns out as they actually put out the systems for use. If they work as advertised small towns could purchase systems to add to their generating capacity or as backup…don’t see why not.

Here in the US there seems to be an all or nothing attitude. Personally, I think that having multiple methods of gathering/generating energy means less chance of everything going off-line for extended period of time — as happens so often around here. (We lost our power today for five minutes. Clear skies, no storms…a puzzlement.) Every alternative method of generating power lowers the cost on the environment and makes us less depending on oil and that’s a good thing.