There is a great talk by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins available on the web from TED talks called Queerer Than We Can Suppose: The Strangeness of Science. He talks about how our understanding of the world is something we evolved. Our models of the world evolved because they were the most useful to us and helped our survival. Even though these models may not be entirely accurate in reality, they evolve because of their usefulness to us in the world we live in. The aspects of the world we normally live in, based on our size, our lifespan, our normal daily lives, greatly affect the understanding of the world that we develop.

For example, we see rocks as solid objects because that is what is useful for us in the world. We pick up and use rocks as solid objects so we understand them that way. In reality, rocks just have a denser collection of atoms than air, but there is no clear distinction between these two patches of atoms. If our bodies were on the scale of atoms, then we would have evolved an understanding that saw things as collections of atoms rather than solid objects and the facts of quantum physics would be standard knowledge for us. If our bodies were on the scale of universes then we would have evolved an understanding of relativity. One example that he gives is that water striders probably have a model of a 2-dimensional world (the flat surface of the water) and surface tension is a key component rather than gravity.

Dawkins also applies this theory to our personification of things. Since we live in a social world and interacting with others is important to our lives, we have evolved this theory of self and personality. We don’t attribute someone’s actions to the fact that they have extra dopamine in their brain at this moment or because some certain set of neurons just fired, we attribute their actions to their personality and decision making. This model makes it easier for us to interact with others. Since it works so well with other people, we often apply it to cars, dogs, etc, giving them names and personalities as well. It is quite interesting that something as ubiquitous as idea of selves and personality could exist just because they were the best ways of understanding the world around us.

There was an article in the New York Times this weekend, What Would the Democrats Do?, about the Democrats struggle to find a position on the war in Iraq.  What really bothers me about this article is that the Democrats are still depending on polls to find a position.  They’re having trouble finding a good position because they can’t find one that won’t alienate too many people.  Here is an actual quote from the article:

“It’s a dog’s breakfast,” said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which has done extensive polling on public attitudes toward the war. “The reason that Democrats aren’t talking about specific plans to end the war is because it’s hard to figure out what to say without alienating a broad swath of the electorate.”

This is so frustrating.  The democrats are so afraid of stepping on anyone’s toes or possibly bothering anyone.  Why can’t the democrats learn that its more important to have YOUR OWN view rather than try to find the least alienating one?  You can’t find a position that everyone will agree with, and even if you could that doesn’t make it the right one.  You’ll get more votes from people on both sides of the issue for actually believing in something and standing up for it than just following the “least alienating” policy.  Don’t any of the democrats believe in anything?  Is there a single one who will make a stand on his own rather than follow some poll to find what the least alienating policy is?  They’re supposed to be “leaders”…

A lot of the serious problems in our society today can be attributed to the difference in goals between the citizens of the country and monetary goals of the corporations that run most of the country. For example, oil companies want to make money at the expense of people’s pocketbooks and the environment. Health care companies want to make money from multiple doctor visits and procedures instead of trying to keep citizens healthy (which would mean fewer doctor visits). In order to make capitalism work in society’s favor, we need to somehow change the rules so that monetary benefits for companies are aligned with the needs and goals of the citizens and country as a whole. If there were monetary incentives to fixing health care, education, etc in this country then it would happen much faster than anything the government might do. So how do we change the rules to align companies and citizen’s goals? Is it even possible?

I’m not sure if this is possible. Obviously any changes in the rules to shift how the money is distributed in these industries would require law changes from Congress. And since Congress is run by the lobbyists of these industries, there is absolutely no incentive to do such a thing. The Veteran’s Health Administration is a great example of how this might work.  Since most people stay in they system for their entire life, the VA actually receives the benefits of doing preventive medicine.  Preventive medicine keeps the veterans healthy and prevents costly procedures being done later in their lives.  Since many people switch between HMO’s frequently (with each job change at least), one HMO does not see any benefit for good preventive care, since the later cost savings may be reaped by a different HMO.  So if we keep patients under one health care company for their entire lives, the company monetary goals end up in the best interest of the patients.  It seems that we should keep everyone under one health system to improve preventive care for everyone.  I think the most logical basis for this would be a national health care system based on the current VA system.

Do we have free will?  This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately.  If (1) our mind and our intelligence are just emergent properties of the neural networks of our brain and (2) these networks are based on electrochemical reactions that follow basic rules then we should be able to predict all our actions and decisions (assuming that random quantum fluctuations do not come into play, but then our actions are random, not our free choice).  The reactions and interactions involved would be very complex but it seems at least that all our actions are predetermined on the basis of a series of chemical reactions .  Does this mean we do not have free will?

I believe we still do have free will.  Although it may be possible to predict what decision someone is going to make by looking at the current state of their brain and knowing the experiences they are about to encounter, are they not still making the decision freely?  The very chemical reactions we would watch to predict their decision are in fact their decision being made.  Although these reactions are predetermined on a set of physical laws, the very reactions themselves are us, they are our decision making processes.  They are based on the development of our brain through our life and our experiences.  I do not think the fact that these chemical reactions may be pre-determined takes away from the fact they are, in fact, us making these decisions.  Being able to predict someone’s choice does not necessarily mean they had no free will to make the choice.