As you know, I’ve been reading Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. In the book, he posits the theory that the development of language was critical for the development of consciousness. It makes sense, since we seem to “think” in words. I remember that by my last year of French class in high school I was even thinking in French in my next class. He also provides a very intersesting quote from Hellen Keller (from Wrentham, btw):

Before my teacher came to me, I did know that I am. I lived in a world that was a no-world. I cannot hope to describe adequeately that uncscious, yes conscious time of nothingness… Since I had no power of thought, I did not compare one mental state with another. ~Helen Keller, 1908

So our consciousness is dependent on and shaped by our language. Dennett says:

It is plausible to maintain that the details of a natural language - the vocabulary and grammar of English or Chinese or Spanish - constrain a brain in the manner of a high-level programming language. (p. 302)

The implications of this are very interesting. If a language does not have any words for something, we not only have no way to express it, but we have no way to even THINK it. The language that you speak can have a very profound way on the way you think. Here are two examples recently in the news:

• In yesterday’s New York Times, there was an article about people that speak Aymara. In this language, they describe the past as “ahead of them” and the future as “behind them.” This is apparently because of the importance they place on knowledge: past, known knowledge is in front to be seen, and future unknown knowledge is hidden behind them. But I wonder what other affects this has on their thoughts. Perhaps the one-way motion of time is simply because we have no words to describe it any other way.
• The other example is from the current (June) issue of Scientific American Mind. An article discusses a study where researchers gave personality tests to people that were bilingual. The tested the speakers with personality tests in both English and Spanish. And it turns out their personailities are quite different depending on which language they are speaking at the time!

So our language clearly affects how we think very much. This raises lots of interesting questions. What is our language missing? What things can we not even think about because there are no words for them? How do the thoughts of Spanish or German or Chinese speakers differ from our thoughts? This makes me really feel that I should try to become fluent in a second language, preferably one much different than English.

I just read a great article from the edge on synthetic biology and genetic engineering.  Basically they are now trying to develop bio-fabrication labs so that it will be easy for anyone to program new organisms.  These organisms could be drought-resistant crops, they might produce building materials, etc.  But he makes an interesting analogy to computers.  Everyone has free access to program computers.  It has created tons of great things and advances but you also have the computer viruses and spam emails and things like that.  If everyone is given access to program their own organisms, the results could be much more dramatic.  Hackers could be writing deadly human viruses, but also researchers could develop lots of extremely beneficial things.

I’ve been reading a great blog on the New York Times by evolutionary biologist Olivia Judson. It’s got me thinking about lots of things relating to evolution. One thing is that evolution occurs faster when there is more death. Death is essential to evolution. If no one dies and everyone can reproduce then there is no evolution, if a few die, there is a little evolution, and if only a few survive then there is very fast evolution (the genes of these few are quickly selected).

If you get into a state where there is very little death and nearly everyone can reproduce, then you can end up in de-evolution (DEVO). When mutations occur to the genes there are no longer any pressures to eliminate them. Our civiliziation may be approaching this state (or be in it). Medications allow many diseases to be survivable, artificial insemination allows couples that wouldn’t be able to conceive normally to do so, and cesarian sections allow women with small hips to still have babies. Of course any new diseases that pop up, or perhaps an ability to live in higher temperatures (with global warming) will create new pressure to evolve. But otherwise, what does this mean for humans? Mutations can start collecting up in our genomes, will be survivable with modern medicine and technology, and will continue in our genome. Might we reach some point where these mutations become too much and we die out? Hopefully some sort of technological solution will be found through genetics research (rather than going back to letting these diseases and things kill tons of people).

I was thinking the other day about how much I enjoy keeping this blog (even though no one reads it) because it helps me articulate my thoughts and ideas on different things. I have been having so many more interesting conversations about things like consciousness. Then I was just reading in ‘Consciousness Explained’ by Daniel Dennett about how perhaps we dont know what we’re going to say until we say it and perhaps we don’t really know what we think until we say it. Similar to when a writer releases a book and critics say “the author must have been thinking this” and the author thinks “maybe i was thinking that.” Dennett has a good quote from E. M. Forester: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?” I think I may take some form of that quote for a sort of subtitle for my blog.

It’s amazing how much better you feel after even just a ten minute bike ride.  I know that exercising releases endorphins which do make you happier.  Which is why runners get what they call the “runner’s high.”  Anyway, it seems like it would probably be a more natural anti-depression remedy than Prozac or whatever doctors prescribe for that sort of thing (Vagus nerve stimulation).

They’re both trying to keep people from freely accessing information. Nicholas Kristof wrote an op-ed in the New York Times earlier this week about China’s attempts to censor the internet so their citizens won’t be able to read about Falun Gong or the Tiennaman Square massacre. Meanwhile, I was just reading an article on the edge about one scientists fight to against the intelligent design movement. But he says:

“What really upset me and really offends me about these people is that they would rather children be ignorant than be exposed to knowledge that might - quote unquote might - weaken their faith. And that attitude of course is the same with the Taliban.

I do believe the greatest threat to our freedom, in a democracy or not in a democracy, is sort of the censorship that controls information. And knowledge, one way or another, breeds freedom. And so for me, to actively promote ignorance is the worst thing you can do.

Information is extremely important to our society and our ability to deal with things in a reasonable way.  Knowledge and  ideas have the power to captivate millions and accomplish incredible things.  It’s scary how much control people are trying to exert over information. With the internet however, it is almost impossible to block information.  Even in China, the best they can do is block a few sites out of millions, they just can’t keep up with all of them.  Free information empowers the people.

I’ve been thinking about the Iraq war with congress now arguing over settting a timetable for withdrawal of the troops.  But I think the thing that would make the most sense would actually be to send more troops to Iraq.  One of the problems since the start of the war has been the fact that Rumsfeld sent far fewer troops than his generals thought was necessary.  We have barely enough troops to keep even with the insurgency and we’re forced to try to whittle down their forces slowly in a long drawn-out war.  Meanwhile they are able to fight back and kill many of our troops.  We’re just spread too thin.  We should send more troops so we can end the insurgency much quicker and with fewer deaths.  Then we can bring ALL the troops back home much sooner.

I just read a New York Times Article on how a lot of personality is likely genetic. It didn’t seem like much of a surprise to me. Smart parents have smart children, skinny parents have skinny children, risk-taking parents have risk-taking children, etc. etc. What I find interesting is that if personalites are inherited then that means they are selected through the evolutionary process just like the rest of our genes. What’s interesting is that the only thing that our genes are selected on is our ability to procreate. If you had the choice to control what criteria different genes are selected on (like in the design of genetic algorithms), I would think you would choose something better than simply the ability to find a mate and live long enough to procreate. Things like selecting non-violent personalities, creative personalites, etc, would seem like better choices.

I just saw Stephen Colbert interview David Sirota on the replay of last night’s “Colbert Report”. It was interesting because he basically said exactly what I wrote the second point of my post on government corruption last week: that the politicians are currently being bought by corporations through campaign contributions and other monies and that the only solution is to publicly finance all elections. Without the politicians need for the corporate money, the corporations will be powerless. Colbert asked him about the cost of “welfare” for politicians and Sirota replied that you would save money quickly since they politicians would no longer be paying back corporations in no-bid contracts and absurd laws and such. I still wonder how plausible it would be to eliminate all outside money from elections though, it seems like it would be fairly easy to find a way around it.

I’ve been thinking about the environment and culture around us affects the way we think.  Our brains get wired based on the way that we use them.  So the expectations of the culture around us, the fact that things fall due to gravity, all these things affect how we think.  Since time flows one way, there is cause and then effect, and I’m sure we would think much different if there were not true.  Another example is how people from different cultures may think differently.  China’s government is actively trying to get their scientists and engineers to have more creativity in their work like Americans.  And now with people growing up with computers, which follow a very ordered logical methodology, were whenever you press this button or click this you will see the same response, our brains are probably getting more tuned to this.  I wonder what the effects are going to be of the new generations growing up with computers and the internet for their entire lives?

It reminds me of a short story I read called “Mimsy were the Borogoves” by Lewis Padgett from 1943.  In it, a boy finds a box of toys from the future.  The toys are meant to train children’s brains to think a certain way.  The analogy Padgett gives is that we have Euclidean geometry and the children playing with the toys are learning “x” geometry.  And they are such different ways of thinking that someone who knows Euclidean can’t understand “x” and vice versa.  Anyway, I dont want ruin the rest of the story, but its an interesting idea that the toys and puzzles and things that we play with as kids can profoundly affect the way we think.