A Curious Statistical Anomaly

I ran into this extremely interesting article on Scientific American online called, One World, Many Minds: Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom by Paul Patton. Scientists, or rather neuroscientists and psychologists, believed that the brain developed over time and as life forms became more complex and sophisticated the brain got more sophisticated also — that’s an extremely gross exaggeration but just about right. In other words, humans were the top of the ladder and that’s just the way things were. There was also the side idea that somehow we still had all the other lower levels of development but just added to them to get our wonderful brain and cognition and intelligence and all the other materials for right thinking.

The article basically says:

# The brains of other animals are not merely previous stages that led directly to human intelligence.
# Instead—as is the case with many traits—complex brains and sophisticated cognition have arisen multiple times in independent lineages of animals during the earth’s evolutionary history.
# With this new understanding comes a new appreciation for intelligence in its many forms. So-called lower animals, such as fish, reptiles and birds, display a startling array of cognitive capabilities. Goldfish, for instance, have shown they can negotiate watery mazes similar to the way rats do in intelligence tests in the lab.

Now this is something, that I find myself thinking — it’s about time. When I was taking neurology, I often thought that some of the basic premises didn’t make sense. And over the years, I’ve noticed that the basic list of skills required to be called sentient seems to change every times some scientific discovery shows that an animal of whatever species or description possess one of the criteria for intelligence — the criteria gets changed. For example: tool using used to be one of the criteria for intelligence. Then when it turned out that quite a few animals, and even some birds use tools (some even make them to be used), that criteria bit the dust.

I found the entire article just fascinating especially the information about octopuses:

Behavioral studies show that octopuses can distinguish and classify objects based on size and shape, much as rats do. They can learn to navigate simple mazes and to solve problems, such as removing a tasty food item from a sealed container. In 1992 two Italian neuroscientists, Graziano Fiorito of the Dohrn Zoological Station in Naples and Pietro Scotto, then at the University of Reggio Calabria in Catanzaro, published surprising evidence that an octopus can learn to accomplish a task by watching another octopus perform it. They trained octopuses to choose between a red ball and a white ball. If the octopus opted for the correct ball, it got a piece of fish as reward. If it selected incorrectly, it received a mild electric shock as punishment.

Once the training was completed, the investigators let an untrained octopus watch a trained animal perform the task from behind a glass barrier. The untrained animals did monitor the trained animals, as indicated by movements of their head and eyes. When allowed to select between the two balls themselves, the observer octopuses then made correct choices, which they could only have learned by watching. The ability to learn by studying others has been regarded as closely related to conceptual thought.

Maybe more research into the area of comparative neuroanatomy will show that while we may not be able to converse with an octopus, whale, dolphin, goldfish, ape, or bird — they may not be as “lower” class in the conceptual thought processes as we once thought. However, this also raises some very interesting philosophical questions if we learn that inhabitants of this planet (not humans) are capable of conceptual thought and cognitive abilities.  Do we have the right to experiment on them or … eat them?

Think about it for a minute. If some super-intelligent being came from out of nowhere and decided because our brains didn’t work like theirs that we were not worth bothering with except as pets, food, or work animals — we wouldn’t like it very much. Do we have the right to do the same to those creatures on our planet?

We’re starting to move off our little planet and there is the chance, even though it is considered minuscule, that we could meet intelligent life out there. However, if every time we find evidence of intelligence in something “not us” here on Earth we change the definitions to eliminate all the “not us” creatures — how can we truly be open-minded enough to recognize that intelligence if we find it.

I’m not about to turn vegetarian — or at least not completely — but these are the sorts of questions that I think about. And, I think more people should be thinking about these issues too. Our technology and science is getting to the point where the ethics of whether we should do something is going to be as important as can we do something. But, I’m not talking about the knee-jerk ethical babblings we seems to be having now, but true discourse on the issues discussing the ramifications for us, our society, our laws, and our humanity.

When Gayle talked about aliens appearing, it made me think. Isn’t that the exact plot line to an untold number of science fiction moves? Aliens arrive and treat us like animals. And so we have to fight back against these “monsters”, to teach them that we’re worthy of respect. Now, whether we’re talking about gorillas, dolphins, octopi, or whatever, we’ve now got a lot of evidence suggesting that these animals are not dumb. What is it about humanity that refuses to accept that there can be more choices in the world than just Animal and Human? Of course the cynic in me says that there are still plenty of humans that refuse to accept other humans as equals. This superiority complex seems to be built in at a pretty basic level. I think that’s all the more reason to expose it to the light of scrutiny and get people to at least acknowledge that the situation exists.

The year 2009 is fast approaching.  Just a bit longer and the we’ll begin fresh with another year.  Of course this New Year’s Eve will be one second longer than the last several as a leap second is added to bring us back into synch with the Earth’s rotation around the sun.  It’s the time that people make merry and make lists of resolutions that they hope no one will remember so they don’t have to keep them.  Of course some people make resolutions that they do intend to keep — I hope all those who make resolutions with such intentions manage to follow through on their plans to improve their lives.

2009 is also the International Year of Astronomy. I ran across this bit of information on the Astronomy Photo of the Day site. They also had this beautiful video of some of the wonders you can find watching the sky.

túrána hott kurdís by hasta la otra méxico! from Till Credner on Vimeo.

So, why not make one of your resolutions for 2009 to take the time to look up at the stars. Wonder at the beauty of the universe and the fragility of our place within it. Learn to recognize some of the major constellations. The universe is grand and our solar system is such a tiny bit in a very large sea.

Me. My plans are to write more, read more, exercise, and enjoy every minute of every day with my full attention. Carpe Diem.

While I’m sure this comes as no big question to professional mathematicians, I’ve never come to an understanding of the nature of infinity. The question that came up this evening while sitting at a traffic light was: if the set of integer numbers is infinite, and the set of real numbers is infinite, and integers are a subset of real numbers, then isn’t one infinity larger than the other? Furthermore, if you subtract the integers from the reals, you still have an infinite set left over. Now take the numbers X/10, where X is an integer. There’s an infinite number of them too. And X/100, X/1000, on and on with increasing powers of 10 in the denominator. Obviously, there’s an infinite number of them as well. Plus X/2, X/20, X/200, X/3, X/30, X/300, etc etc etc. No matter how many infinite sets you take out, there’s still an infinite number left. So doesn’t that make the infinitely large set of real numbers infinitely larger than the infinite set of integers?

So, there’s no solution here, no grand philosophy, no rant. Just the simple acknowledgment that I really don’t understand the concept of infinity, and I wonder if anyone really does?

Today, this article in New Scientist caught my eye. It seems that after studying the phenomena scientists believe that lightning during a snow storm, which is a very rare event (called thundersnows), indicates that a blizzard is coming. The more lightning the stronger the blizzard.

I’m originally from Maine and I think I’ve only seen/heard of thunder and lightning during a snow storm maybe twice in all the time I lived there. Both times the snow was just incredible afterward. Guess I never put the two events together. The articles says that it only gives about a short warning of the blizzard but some warning is better than the current “eye-witness” weather reports.

Predicting weather is getting better all the time but there’s still a long way to go to be totally accurate. The longer the forecast is from the day you read about it the less reliable it is — reading Saturday’s forecast on Monday is unlikely to be more than a general tendency in the weather than an actual prediction.

But to be able to accurately predict a blizzard from the lightening may help those who have to make those decisions to open or close schools, government offices, and business. If it’s snowing fairly heavily and it starts thundering and lightning — it’s probably going to get a lot worse very soon.

Remember my post awhile ago about the connection between Earth and the Sun that occurs every eight minutes, well looks like more can happen during that connection than scientists first thought. NASA today released an interesting article about a recent discovery by the THEMIS project. It seems that during the connection, while THEMIS was actually watching, the Earth’s magnetic field was breached and solar energy flowed though, charging our magnetosphere. This loads up the Earth’s magnetosphere with charged particles and that can mean more powerful geomagnetic storms — cell phone disruption, prettier Auroras, and other related events.

That they found this as the sun is going into Solar Cycle 24, with more frequent and stronger solar events, may add to the fun here on Earth. [Hyperion: Each Cycle is approximately 11 years long, measuring from Solar Minimum to Solar Minimum, with Solar Maximum hitting at the midway point, or 2012-2013 in this case.]

The really interesting bit is that scientists were convince this just couldn’t happen. But, it did. They have the data and it can’t be denied. It happened. So, now they have to deal with this new information and change their existing theories and check out the ones that they develop to take the place of the old one that was just proven wrong. You just got to love science — it’s so, so practical, the way that new data means throwing out the old way of thinking and start over and everyone just shrugs their shoulders and moves on. Wish that happened more often in the daily life.

I was pointed to a website with an example of genetic programming where the result was a pretty darn good approximation of the Mona Lisa.

Roger Alsing had done the programming to just have some fun, try out some code — and I presume stretch a bit in a different direction than he usually got to try. He also put up an FAQ about the project. The FAQ says that he’s cleaning up the code he hacked together and “may” make it available if he manages to get it like he wants it. The FAQ also give his reasons for believing that it’s actually genetic programming — I happen to agree with him on this.  I’d never really seen this applied to art before at least not that I remember so if I did, it probably wasn’t this impressive.

I’m actually just intrigued with the approximation he got the original. His website has the series of photos that show how the program steadily got a better and better looking approximation of the painting. Here’s the last of the images.

I find it amazing that a simple program could just tool along for three hours and get so close to the original. It really makes you think about how decisions made at points based on just what’s around you can make a world of difference to what happens overall.

I’m just saying that, whether it’s DNA, programming, or people making choices based on the information they have available, we make patterns. As each individual choice effects those around them until your have picture or a pattern or an effect.

It’s amazing the power that we have to create our own world view, actions, and environment.

Really, visit his website and read about the process and the result — it’s truly fascinating.

True evolution isn’t driven by a desire for beauty, or anything else other than simple survivability. I.E. if I make more offspring (and my offspring make more offspring) than my competitors, I must be fitter.  The problem is that Roger didn’t have millions of years to wait for something pretty to come out of his experiment.  So he cheated a bit with the fitness function, making it: Do I look like the Mona Lisa.   But this doesn’t change the fact that the polygons mutate and survive based on a fitness function, and it is therefore, in my opinion, an accurate, though severly simplified simulation of evolution through genetic selection.  If you read through the comments on Rogers’ site, the disrespect and meanness is truly disheartening.  Mostly though, they’re completely irrelevant to the point Roger was trying to make.  If I show you a snowball I’ve made, then telling me it’s nothing like a glacier, while true, is rather pointless, and only serves to make you look like a gormless git with “anonymous-internet”itis.

As more and more data comes back from our research vehicles on and about Mars, we learn that maybe Mars was once very much like home — Earth.

Recently, scientists have learned from the data that Mars periodically has some of its existing atmosphere ripped away by solar winds. Mars’ magnetic field isn’t a bubble that surrounds the planet like ours here on Earth. Mars has magnetic umbrellas. These umbrellas seem to help the solar winds rip out gouts of atmosphere from the planet.

Scientists will need more data to determine the exact mechanism as to how this happens and how often. Hopefully, as more research and data gathering vehicles are sent to Mars the data will be collected that will tell us more.

I’m curious as to how these magnetic umbrellas and the solar winds work to strip the atmosphere. Does this stripping takes place on a schedule or randomly? Why does Mars still have any atmosphere left? How long, at estimated loss due to this ripping of the atmosphere will it take to lose what’s left? And if it should all be gone already — where is the atmosphere coming from? And most importantly of all, could it happen here? Are we just lucky that Earth has a bubble and not umbrellas? Do other planets have bubbles or umbrella? Is a bubble a criteria for life?

Inquiring minds want to know.

A friend sent me a link to this NPR report on “Think You’re Multitasking? Think Again.” I was told at a previous job that it was not humanly possible to multitask, so we were to do one thing at a time. Of course that ignored the fact that we’d be fired if we actually waited to finish one task before beginning or working on another one.

I found it interesting in this report that they say humans don’t multitask, we switch quickly between tasks, focusing first on one thing then another. So, we don’t really multitask. Whoever thought that multitasking was anything other than rapidly switching attention from one task to another? Though I wonder, is folding laundry while watching a movie rapid switching between tasks or true multitasking.  I’d say knitting or spinning while watching a movie is rapidly switching focus because I do need to keep a minimal degree of concentration on the knitting or spinning so I don’t get lost, but it’s almost negligible to someone watching from the outside looking at me doing it.

On the other hand, I’ve noticed that women are much better at switching attention from task to task so that they seem to truly multitask. I often will pick something up and move it to another point when going to do something so that the item gets closer to where it needs to be for a later task. I usually don’t even think about what I’m doing. It happens almost as if I didn’t plan it out at all. On the other hand, my son and husband can’t seem to get the hang of it. If they’re going upstairs for X, and Y needs to go up too, unless you stop them and ask them to take Y with them they don’t even think of it because their focus is on X. Women on the other hand would start out to do X and bring Y with them to save a trip.

Do women switch focus on tasks easier? If we think about stereotypical roles then women are certainly expected to do multiple tasks at the same time: cook a meal, watch the children, supervise homework, answer the phone, and talk to a spouse all at once. Granted it all happens over two hours or so but all the tasks overlap and that’s just picking one part of a day. Think of administrative assistants who answer phones, take notes, type letters/memo/etc, make reservations while talking to someone in the office, and so on. I think that’s a job with built in need for rapidly switching focus on tasks. Short order cooks aren’t the only ones. Waiters do the same: take orders, refresh coffee while moving to another table, clearing tables, watching the tables to see if anything is needed and delivering it while on the way to another table — and so it goes.

So, why do so many researchers feel it necessary to find or prove that multitasking is impossible? Is it because it’s a skill that’s mostly related to women rather than men? Or is it because if they can debunk it in favor of rapidly switching attention between tasks it sounds better? Why did they ever think it was anything more than rapidly switching attention between tasks? I think if you define something that doesn’t exist and no one claimed it did then perhaps you found what was actually happening. I wonder how many people can rapidly switch their attention between tasks and how often or how constantly they can do it without feeling like they’re overwhelmed.

Yo, it’s your friendly neighborhood lynx here, and I have a couple of comments on this topic.  First of all, if what they were saying were totally true, nobody would be able to walk and talk at the same time.  Humans do a lot of things all at the same time, in a way that can’t be called anything but multitasking; and by that, I mean at the exact same time.  But mostly those things are behaviors we’ve done so many times that we don’t have to consciously think of them anymore; some call it muscle memory.  When you’re learning to drive a car, you keep careful track of every little detail.  That’s why beginning drivers are so bad … they’re being swamped with input and they can’t process all the different parts fast enough to make proper decisions when things get hairy.   But after a while, large portions of the driving experience become second nature.  You don’t even notice that you’re doing them anymore (which is why I turn onto the road leading to work, when I’m suppose to be turning the other way towards the grocery store).  Portions of your brain are just imprinted with that function and you do it.   Note that when you get put in a crisis situation, you’re back to being a novice again: too many new things coming too quickly.

Now that doesn’t mean that you’re not limited in just how many things you can do.  Eventually you do get overwhelmed, but as things become second nature, you can do more and more of them without having to stop and think.

Now, from what I can see, what the report is really talking about is cognitive tasks.  These are highly complex things that require large amounts of your attention, especially when you’re new to them.  And what could be more new and complex than being stuck in an MRI machine and given arbitrary commands to perform when you see colors?  Of course the brain is going to stutter and pause.  And yet, aren’t these the same kind of things technicians are trained to do when they’re watching status boards?  If this turns red, do this, if that needle moves here, do this other thing.  But even here, after a while, they’re just twisting knobs and flicking switches, and discussing the big game with their friends.  Even these things can become second nature after a while, it just takes longer.

Anyway, I really think they need to define their terms better and actually get some better controls on what they’re actually trying to study.