Posted by: davidlarkin | October 21, 2009

Who’s that Starring in My Dream?

I had a dream this morning that I was riding in a car with a few strangers. We were driving on a narrow blacktop road around the perimeter of a grassy square courtyard in some upscale institution, sort of a seaside cross between the Stanford University campus and a religious retreat with a Spanish Mission style, both in spirit and architecture, if that is conceptually possible. It seemed busy like a college campus, but at the same time, serious and sober like a religious retreat. There were Eucalyptus trees along with the California-themed architecture, so it was likely somewhere on the California coast, maybe between LA and San Diego in Dreamland. I dreamed that I told the strangers with me in the car that I had stayed here before in one of the rooms, impliedly available to the public, as if I was recommending a vacation destination. In the dream, I had a memory of the dusty orange earthtone painted, sparsely furnished and dusky sunlit room overlooking the sea, as I told them about it while we wheeled around the square courtyard sightseeing.

As I awoke this morning out of that dream, my thoughts were about the dream. I remembered more about the time I stayed at this same place. I remembered it as from another dream I had quite a while ago. I remembered details of the prior dream that I did not tell the people in the car, including walking around the perimeter of the courtyard and seeing a pub with a neon sign down a flight of stairs between two buildings, and seeing the light coming around a line of buildings telling me of an approaching sunset over the sea. I don’t remember watching the sunset in that dream, just thinking about it. I know that when I was telling them about my prior stay, it was me remembering the experience. So, I was in a dream telling strangers about an experience that was a memory of a real event for my dreaming persona, but in fact, I was telling dream companions about a prior dream, as if it was a memory of a real experience of my dream persona.

So, the question is whether my dream persona is the same person that is writing this post. I don’t know. Dream David Larkin seems to have his own memories that are real to him, but are only dreams to me, Awake David Larkin. Perhaps, I was just remembering the same dream from last night, fractured in two, and reversed in time sequence, like a Charlie Kaufman short with the solo dream coming out of sequence after the social dream. Maybe I need to consult with dream guru, Roger Kamenetz, who wrote the book.

Posted by: davidlarkin | July 1, 2009

Time, Time, Time, See What’s Become of Me

In John Updike’s collection of his early short stories, The Early Stories: 1953-1975, in the story “In Football Season,” Updike describes the late adolescent’s attitude toward time, as his boisterous group of high school students meander home after a football game:

. . . we taunted the cold stars with song, one mile, two miles, three miles. How slowly we went! With what a luxurious sense of waste did we abuse this stretch of time! For as children we had lived in a tight world of ticking clocks and punctual bells, where every minute was an admonition to thrift and where tardiness, to a child running late down a street with his panicked stomach burning, seemed the most mysterious and awful of sins. Now, turning the corner into adulthood, we found time to be instead a black immensity endlessly supplied, like the wind.

Updike had a precociously mature sense of time in his early writing days, passing through the young adult phase where abuse of the freedom to use time as we please has made billions for purveyors of time-wasting activities, staying long enough to identify and sample it and be able to express it. Updike began making his living early as a young writer selling stories to the New Yorker. The struggle to support his young family likely produced his respect for time, with the need to produce marketable prose. With his Olympian powers of observation, he must have experienced insufficiency of time for responsibly and elegantly expressing in writing all he had to say, finalizing the product and getting it to market. As he says,

But we would-be novelists have a reach as shallow as our skins. We walk through volumes of the unexpressed and like snails leave behind a faint thread excreted out of ourselves. From the dew of the few flakes that melt on our faces we cannot reconstruct the snowstorm.

From “The Beloved Man of Boston” in his Early Stories.

When I watch my 18 year old son play a combat video game for three hours because he needs to conquer the game, I marvel at his lack of concern for time. Then, I think of myself at 18, or even 35, and how I wasted time, I forgive him and pray for forgetfulness. Like Updike’s characters, he is turning the corner into adulthood. He is off to college. Unlike me, he has some career and life goals already. Does the global economy put pressure consciously or unconsciously on this generation to set long-term goals? Presumably, his career goals will help him resist the temptation to waste time better than I did. I did not have any goals when I left for college, other than a generalized aim to satisfy my over-sized curiosity. Now, at age 61 (in two weeks), I consider my time precious, but what are my goals now? I still find myself wasting time playing solitaire, or watching Billy Mays’ commercials (may he rest in peace), rather than wasting time agonizing over what I can do that is a prudent use of my time. I look at my unread books in my library I bought with unlimited hope, when, even in my fifties, time for me was still a “black immensity endlessly supplied, like the wind.” I balk at the task of deciding which are still worth reading, of those which should I read, and in what order, while I add classic novels to my Kindle for 90 cents apiece.

So, is it a prudent use of my time to try to express my thoughts in verse? If a poem is written on a computer and no one reads it, is it still a poem? As Bishop Berkeley might say, “God reads it.” So, with that audience in mind, maybe writing a bad poem is not a prudent use of my time. And if a bad poem is written on a computer and even if someone reads it, is it really a poem?

Time, time, time
See whats become of me
While I looked around
For my possibilities
I was so hard to please

Paul Simon – Hazy Shade of Winter [1966 Simon and Garfunkel video click here]

Posted by: davidlarkin | February 28, 2009

Evolution “Invents” a New Photoreceptor in Humans

In the December 24, 2008 issue of The New Republic, Oren Harman reviewed a book on biological clocks, Rhythms of Life: The Biological Clocks that Control the Daily Lives of Every Living Thing by Russell G. Foster and Leon Kreitzman, Yale University Press (2005). Link to The New Republic book review.

In the review, Harman explains that scientists have discovered that the internal biological clocks in animal organisms are synchronized to the outside world by cues from the environment. Syncronization is necessary for the internal biological clock to operate in the world and be useful to the organism in survival. The process is called “entrainment.” Harmon writes:

. . . while cues like temperature, food availability, humidity and even social contact can act as triggers, light is nature’s greatest entrainer of all.

This makes good evolutionary sense. Light is the most stable of these cues, and it can be used not only to signal dawn and dusk, but also, since the amount of light falling on the Earth varies precisely with latitude and season, to calculate the time of year.

In his discussion of how light “entrains” an organism’s biological clock, not surprisingly, Harman offers no explanation of how light in the environment causally effects evolution to bring about this new biological feature. Of course, it cannot because current evolutionary theory relies on microbiological change unconnected to the environment. That new mammalian receptor would have to evolve through a pathway of naturally selected random mutations of DNA uninfluenced by the light of day or the dark of night, and then be naturally selected once the pathway randomly produced the final functioning new receptor.

Presumably, historical evolutionary reptilian precursors to mammals without the new receptor would have trouble getting to sleep and waking up with no biological clock, but apparently that would not prevent survival until the receptor appeared in the evolutionary advanced human species we are. Apparently, then, the mammal with the new receptor would be be more fit for survival, for example, now able to follow the maxim: “Early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise.” Accordingly, he and she would dominate in the battle of the selfish genes, and the inferior time-confused genetically-older semi-reptilian brethren, rising too late or too early, would become extinct.

The alternative to development in accordance with the gradulism premise of Darwinism, would be a giant random genetic leap from reptile without the new class of receptors to a mammal with it. The massive genetic mutation necessary for the information in that leap is likely highly mathematically improbable. The gene that expresses the protein that connects the inside of muscle cells to the outside, running through the cell membrane, for example, has 2.5 million base pairs in a specific order. What precise genetic information would be necessary for a new photoreceptor containing multiple proteins?

Harman writes:

“Light has been such an important entrainer that evolution has even “invented” in mammals a whole new class of photoreceptors, different from the rods and cones used for vision, in order to bring it safely to the SCN in the brain. ["SCN" is the suprachiasmatic nuclei of 20,000 neurons in the brain now believed to be the neural center of biological clocks] The surprise existence of such receptors, discovered in Russell’s own lab six years ago, made it clear that even diseased eyes need to be kept intact in order to allow them to perform their circadian functions. Blind people, with no working rods and cones, still need their eyes for waking and sleeping.”

Thus, with great unspoken faith in evolution as an explanation, even recognizing the miraculous nature of this biological development in humans by his use of the language of creation and design, though he uses quotation marks to let you know that he is only kidding, Harman writes about evolution “inventing” this new receptor, with no thought of just how an empty-headed, dice-rolling machine of “evolution” might have done done that.

This is another example of the underlying evolutionary principle of expedient use and disuse of probability estimates in light of scientifically established historical time. For a scholarly discussion of the probability problem in micro-evolution of the species, see Stephen Meyer’s paper from the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. If it could have happened by chance, it did, regardless of the probability in light of time available or the lack of evidence in natural history or the laboratory. That is great faith.

Posted by: davidlarkin | November 7, 2008

The Morning After

Wednesday morning, November 5, 2008, the morning after the election of Barack Obama as 44th President of the United States, I opened my Bible to read the daily Bible selections from the Daily Office Lectionary in the Book of Common Prayer, the Episcopal and Anglican prayer book.

With the prior day’s election still in mind, I was peaceful with the outcome, happy and proud that the nation had recognized the excellence of Obama’s candidacy. The first reading was Psalm 72. I was struck with the prophetic impact of some of the verses in the Psalm:

1 Endow the king with your justice, O God,
the royal son with your righteousness.

2 He will [a] judge your people in righteousness,
your afflicted ones with justice.

3 The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,
the hills the fruit of righteousness.

4 He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
he will crush the oppressor.

. . .

12 For he will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.

13 He will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.

14 He will rescue them from oppression and violence,
for precious is their blood in his sight.

New International Version.

This is what the God of the Bible expects from the King of Israel and from government on this earth, even the United States government. This is what I hope to see from our government. I vote with this in mind. From what I know about Obama and his life and values, I am confident that Obama will bring a heart for the weak, afflicted and the needy to his policies and decisions, and hopeful that he will have the cooperation of Congress and the American people to accomplish what needs to be done. The words of the Psalmist gave me comfort the morning after the election.

My wife also follows this daily reading regimen and she had tipped me off earlier that morning that the Psalm today was prophetically significant. Hopefully, others who read this Psalm this morning after the election around the nation may have felt similar significance and comfort.

Psalm 72 is may be found here. According to commentators, Psalm 72 is both about earthly government, King Solomon, and heavenly government, prophetic statements about the Messiah. See e.g., Matthew Henry’s commentary on the Psalm written in 1706. In the Daily Office Lectionary, the 150 Psalms are arranged in a seven week pattern repeated through the year. The Psalm selections lead off the daily readings. The Book of Common Prayer is a product of the Church of England during the English Reformation. It was first published in 1549, written by Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, at the behest of Henry VIII.

Although I am not an Anglican or Episcopalian, I find Book of Common Prayer Daily Office Lectionary readings a helpful non-denominational devotional tool and daily discipline. The Daily Office is a two year program through the Bible. You will find all of the all of the controversial parts are omitted, as my friend, the Rockin’ Rev Phil Rountree, Rector of St. Francis of Assisi Episcopal Church in Novato, California, advised when I was beginning the programmed readings. I have a hard time skipping parts of the Scripture though because it is interesting to me, except the lists of ancestors and directions for how to build something.

Posted by: davidlarkin | November 1, 2008

Inexpensive Halloween Zombie Costume

A friend having coffee at Starbucks this morning told me he was going to a Halloween party tonight. He is a professor at Arizona State University and is equipped with a Ph.D in philosophy. He asked if I wanted to see his Halloween costume. I answered “Sure,” and he handed me this card:

Zombie expert, David Chalmers, a long-haired philosopher of consciousness and mind at the Australian National University, formerly at the University of Arizona until a few years ago, writes that there are three types of zombies:

Varieties of zombies

There are actually three different kinds of zombies. All of them are like humans in some ways, and all of them are lacking something crucial (something different in each case).

Hollywood zombies. These are found in zombie B-movies. Their defining feature is that they are dead, but “reanimated”. They are typically rather mean, and fond of human flesh. The zombies pictured on this page are mostly Hollywood zombies (though I’m informed that the one at the bottom is really a ghost demon). An expert tells me that the name should be “Pittsburgh zombies”, since the most important zombie movies were made in Pittsburgh, but somehow it doesn’t have the same ring.

Haitian zombies. These are found in the voodoo (or vodou) tradition in Haiti. Their defining feature seems to be that they lack free will, and perhaps lack a soul. Haitian zombies were once normal people, but underwent zombification by a “bokor” through spell or potion, and are afterwards used as slaves.

Philosophical zombies. These are found in philosophical articles on consciousness. Their defining features is that they lack conscious experience, but are behaviorally (and often physically) identical to normal humans.

from Zombies on the Web

Chalmers has also written in his book, The Conscious Mind, that he believes that a thermostat could have consciousness. He has an interesting personal website with a generous supply of information and resources. He is the philosopher who first referred to the qualitative experience of “consciousness” as the “hard problem” in the scientific study of consciousness, in his paper Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness.” See also, Thomas Nagel’s seminal 1974 paper on this hard problem: “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”

Based on their writings, a large portion of cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind are materialists who are, therefore, scientific determinists. They necessarily believe that the brain is a machine, and the actions of humans are determined by the interaction of particles of matter in fields of force in accordance with laws of nature. The rigid true believers look at consciousness as an epiphenomenon, mere froth on the wave of neuronal activity, with no causal powers or connection with an amorphous immaterial soul, mind or person. For a scientific determinist then, there is no functional difference between a zombie and a human with consciousness.

Those who believe in free will must recognize a difference between a zombie and a conscious human if they believe that free will entails conscious decision-making. I believe that such free will requires an immaterial source of creative will, but that discussion is beyond the scope of this post. It may be a matter of aesthetic posturing that the promoters of scientific determinism, who may fairly be identified with neo-Darwinists, make noises like they are exercising free will, but underneath they are identical to zombies, though they do not carry cards like my philosopher friend. For me and those who consider their actions to be often a matter of free will, we often make real decisions and create actions for which we are morally responsible because of our free will choices requiring creative consideration before action, rather than mere conscious observation of the effects of our personal neuronal chain of cause and effect governed solely by scientific law and no free personal choice.

UC Berkeley philosopher John Searle believes that consciousness is a purely biological phenomena, a feature of the organic brain. In disputing the idea of a machine with consciousness, he proposes a scenario where science has discovered a way to fix the brain by implanting silicon chips to replace bad brain tissue. He imagines a person with a degenerative brain condition who little by little has his brain replaced by silicon chips until the last remaining brain tissue is replaced by a silicon chip and the persons consciousness goes to black. If he continues to be conscious without sensation, it is a black emptiness. If he ceases to be conscious, and his body remains functioning, he passes the Turing test because we continue to communicate with him as if he had human consciousness, but he is a zombie.

Searle’s thought experiment also leads to the Ship of Perseus puzzle. If consciousness is a feature of the organic brain, and the brain cells are replaced by silicon chips, does the person with the silicon brain remain the same person he or she was when there was an organic brain composed of living cells instead of inanimate silicon chips. The ship of Theseus first surfaces in print in Plutarch (Vita Thesei, 22-23):

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

An alternative scenario would be some yet-unknown emergent consciousness from the sum of the silicon parts that emerges as a new person or merges with the biological consciousness at some point and remains the same person, arguably. In his entertaining novel, Prey, Michael Crichton’s human-manufactured nano-robots come together with an emergent consciousness like the combination of human cells comes together with a consciousness.

Entrepreneur developer of voice recognition software and futurist Ray Kurzweil apparently believes in some sort of emergent consciousness from non-biological sources. In his entertaining and informative 2005 book of technological prophecy The Singularity is Near, with confident prose expressing his upbeat faith in science, Kurzweil spends some quality time introducing his prophecies of genetic science with a page or so describing how he has chemically rebuilt his body. The guy is a dynamo. He is around 60 years old. His self-designed program includes 250 supplement pills a day and half-dozen intravenous therapies each week, basically nutritional supplements delivered directly into his bloodstream, thereby bypassing his GI tract. The section, titled “Designer Baby Boomers,” immediately precedes the section titled, “Can We Really Live Forever?” He apparently believes that we will be able to keep our bodies alive long enough for technology to reach the point where we will upload our brain scans into robots and our souls will follow, although he doesn’t see any difference between our brain software and consciousness, or the soul. Time will tell. 250 pills a day is a lot of pills. I hope 250 pills kill for him the increasing creakiness and aches and pains I am feeling these days, as well as the earlier tiredness I feel in the evening.

Designer Baby Boomers

Sufficient information already exists today to slow down disease and aging processes to the point that baby boomers like myself can remain in good health until the full blossoming of the biotechnology revolution, which will itself be a bridge to the nanotechnology revolution (see Resources and Contact Information, p. 489). In Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever, which I coauthored with Terry Grossman, M.D., a leading longevity expert, we discuss these three bridges to radical life extension (today’s knowledge, biotechnology, and nanotechnology). I wrote there: “Whereas some of my contemporaries may be satisfied to embrace aging gracefully as part of the cycle of life, that is not my view. It may be `natural,’ but I don’t see anything positive in losing my mental agility, sensory acuity, physical limberness, sexual desire, or any other human ability. I view disease and death at any age as a calamity, as problems to be overcome.”

Bridge one involves aggressively applying the knowledge we now possess to dramatically slow down aging and reverse the most important disease processes, such as heart disease, cancer, type 2 diabetes, and stroke. You can, in effect, reprogram your biochemistry, for we have the knowledge today, if aggressively applied, to overcome our genetic heritage in the vast majority of cases. “It’s mostly in your genes” is only true if you take the usual passive attitude toward health and aging.

My own story is instructive. More than twenty years ago I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The conventional treatment made my condition worse, so I approached this health challenge from my perspective as an inventor. I immersed myself in the scientific literature and came up with a unique program that successfully reversed my diabetes. In 1993 I wrote a health book (The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life) about this experience, and I continue today to be free of any indication or complication of this disease.

In addition, when I was twenty-two, my father died of heart disease at the age of fifty-eight, and I have inherited his genes predisposing me to this illness. Twenty years ago, despite following the public guidelines of the American Heart Association, my cholesterol was in the high 200s (it should be well below 180), my HDL (high-density lipoprotein, the “good” cholesterol) below 30 (it should be above 50), and my homocysteine (a measure of the health of a biochemical process called methylation) was an unhealthy 11 (it should be below 7.5). By following a longevity program that Grossman and I developed, my current cholesterol level is 130, my HDL is 55, my homocysteine is 6.2, my C-reactive protein (a measure of inflammation in the body) is a very healthy 0.01, and all of my other indexes (for heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions) are at ideal levels.

When I was forty, my biological age was around thirty-eight. Although I am now fifty-six, a comprehensive test of my biological aging (measuring various sensory sensitivities, lung capacity, reaction times, memory, and related tests) conducted at Grossman’s longevity clinic measured my biological age at forty.” Although there is not yet a consensus on how to measure biological age, my scores on these tests matched population norms for this age. So, according to this set of tests, I have not aged very much in the last sixteen years, which is confirmed by the many blood tests I take, as well as the way I feel.

These results are not accidental; I have been very aggressive about reprogramming my biochemistry. I take 250 supplements (pills) a day and receive a half-dozen intravenous therapies each week (basically nutritional supplements delivered directly into my bloodstream, thereby bypassing my GI tract). As a result, the metabolic reactions in my body are completely different than they would otherwise be. Approaching this as an engineer, I measure dozens of levels of nutrients (such as vitamins, minerals, and fats), hormones, and metabolic by-products in my blood and other body samples (such as hair and saliva). Overall, my levels are where I want them to be, although I continually fine-tune my program based on the research that I conduct with Grossman.” Although my program may seem extreme, it is actually conservative-and optimal (based on my current knowledge). Grossman and I have extensively researched each of the several hundred therapies that I use for safety and efficacy. I stay away from ideas that are unproven or appear to be risky (the use of human-growth hormone, for example).

We consider the process of reversing and overcoming the dangerous progression of disease as a war. As in any war it is important to mobilize all the means of intelligence and weaponry that can be harnessed, throwing everything we have at the enemy. For this reason we advocate that key dangers-such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, and aging-be attacked on multiple fronts. For example, our strategy for preventing heart disease is to adopt ten different heart-disease-prevention therapies that attack each of the known risk factors.

By adopting such multipronged strategies for each disease process and each aging process, even baby boomers like myself can remain in good health until the full blossoming of the biotechnology revolution (which we call “bridge two”), which is already in its early stages and will reach its peak in the second decade of this century.

Biotechnology will provide the means to actually change your genes: not just designer babies will be feasible but designer baby boomers. We’ll also be able to rejuvenate all of your body’s tissues and organs by transforming your skin cells into youthful versions of every other cell type. Already, new drug development is precisely targeting key steps in the process of atherosclerosis (the cause of heart disease), cancerous tumor formation, and the metabolic processes underlying each major disease and aging process.

The Singularity is Near, Viking (2005) pp. 210-212.  Kurzweil’s life extension is driven by his prophetic technological beliefs that in the future Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) will surpass human thinking and merge with humanity.  There will be no distinction between biological beings and robotic beings, and we will upload and download our conscous thinking process as software to be modified, saved and stored in our personal database, presumably synchronized with our operating system in our refurbished bodies, like an iPod. I can imagine the glitches that might occur where we accidentally and automatically download old or corrupted information from our mother database in the middle of something important and are transported to another dimension of thought and memory, or simply freeze, requiring restart. We’ll need a button for that, perhaps fittingly placed in the belly.

Wikipedia has a nice summary of Kurzweil’s predictions.  Here are his predictions for 2099:

  • The human brain has been completely reverse engineered and all aspects of its functioning are understood.
  • Natural human thinking possesses no advantages over computer minds.
  • Machines have attained equal legal status with humans.
  • Humans and machines merge together in the physical and mental realms. Cybernetic brain implants enable humans to fuse their minds with AI’s.
  • In consequence, clear distinctions between humans and machines no longer exist.
  • Most conscious beings lack a permanent physical form.
  • The world is overwhelmingly populated by AI’s that exist entirely as thinking computer programs capable of instantly moving from one computer to another across the Internet (or whatever equivalent exists in 2099). These computer-based beings are capable of manifesting themselves at will in the physical world by creating or taking over robotic bodies, with individual AI’s also being capable of controlling multiple bodies at once.
  • Individual beings merge and separate constantly, making it impossible to determine how many “people” there are on Earth.
  • This new plasticity of consciousness and ability for beings to join minds seriously alters the nature of self-identity.
  • The majority of interpersonal interactions occur in virtual environments. Actually having two people physically meet in the real world to have a conversation or transact business without any technological interference is very rare.
  • Organic human beings are a small minority of the intelligent life forms on Earth. Even among the remaining Homo sapiens, the use of computerized implants that heavily augment normal abilities is ubiquitous and accepted as normal. The small fraction of humans who opt to remain “natural” and unmodified effectively exist on a different plane of consciousness from everyone else, and thus find it impossible to fully interact with AI’s and highly modified humans.
  • “Natural” humans are protected from extermination. In spite of their shortcomings and frailties, humans are respected by AI’s for giving rise to the machines.
  • Since knowledge and skills can be instantly downloaded and comprehended by most intelligent beings, the process of learning is compressed into an instantaneous affair instead of the years-long struggle normal humans experience. Free from this time-consuming burden, AI’s now focus their energies on making new discoveries and contributions.
  • AI’s are capable of dividing their attention and energies in countless directions, allowing one being to manage a multitude of endeavors simultaneously.
  • Femtoengineering (engineering on the scale of one thousandth of a trillionth of a meter) might be possible.
  • AI’s communicate via a shared electronic language.
  • Artwork and music created by machines encompasses areas of the light spectrum and frequencies of sounds that normal humans cannot perceive.
  • Money has deflated in value.
  • Some humans at least as old as the Baby Boomers are still alive and well.
  • Computer viruses are a major threat since most intelligent beings are software-based.
  • AI’s frequently make “backup copies” of themselves, guaranteeing a sort of immortality should the original AI be killed.
  • The concept of “life expectancy” has become irrelevant to humans and machines thanks to medical immortality and advanced computers.
  • The pace of technological change continues to accelerate as the 22nd century nears.

Kurzweil may be admired for his aggressive approach to life extension, but his unbridled optimism that he will be able to live this life forever as a hybrid techno-bio-creature of blood, guts, software and hardware, may blind him to the spiritual questions that should be considered and answered before the end of this life.

There have been remarkable advances in the bio-technology of brain-machine interface. The November 2, 2008 edition of CBS’s 60 Minutes had a story on the interface between a machine and the brain of a neuroscientist with ALS. With electrodes hooked to his brain through a cap, he was able to chose letters and communicate solely through his thought. In other words, he was able to make brain waves that were mechanically recognized by a machine and converted to the chosen letter of the alphabet, one letter at a time. Despite the amazing engineering and electrical connection between mind and machine, this advance is not life extension, nor does it approach being able to replicate the creative freedom of thought we experience or the operation of the human brain by means of the estimated one hundred billion neurons in the brain, each with on average 7,000 synaptic connections to other neurons.

Unfortunately for Kurzweil, looking at the state of technology, it is apparent to an honest observer that we will never know in our lifetime if Kurzweil’s man qua robot will ever come to be, and even if it be created, whether the reborn Zurzweil is a zombie, because I sure wouldn’t take a robot’s word for it, would you? I don’t trust them.

Regarding the question whether a machine could have consciousness, or as proposed by a friend, Ben S., whether a machine could have the Lord’s breath, obviously if the Lord so willeth, it could. Disney and Pixar have an ongoing theme of machines with consciousness, e.g., Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story, and most recently Wall-E (In the film Wall-E, the eponymous robot is constantly renewing himself from spare parts he keeps in his cargo container home. Near the end of the film, EVE rebuilds Wall-E, replacing nearly all of his parts, including his main circuit board).

In the Bible, Moses changes sticks into snakes and of course, the angel of the Lord causes Balaam’s ass (the animal “ass” for those unfamiliar with Balaam’s ass) to speak words which imply temporary consciousness, and passing the Turing test.

From Numbers 22:21-31 (King James English version):

And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the LORD stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way. But the angel of the LORD stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And the angel of the LORD went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay. Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Posted by: davidlarkin | September 3, 2008

A Prayer from Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who died last month on August 3, 2008, wrote about the horrors of the Soviet Gulag in his most famous work, the Gulag Archipelago. I read his One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich when I was in high school. My only memories of the book are from my imagination: images of gray skies, snow, prison barracks, and Soviet prison guards with guns. I remember the cold horror I felt reading the story (and also that the book was not too long, something I appreciated in my busy high school years). He received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970. I was reading last week in A Pocket Book of Prayers for Busy People, published by Christian Art Gifts, and found the following prayer authored by him:

How simple for me to live with You, O Lord
How easy for me to believe in You!
When my mind parts on bewilderment or falters,
when the most intelligent people see no further than this day’s end
and do not know what must be done tomorrow,
You grant me the serene certitude that You exist
and that you will take care that not all the paths of good be closed.
Atop the ridge of earthly fame, I look back in wonder at the path
which I alone could never have found,
a wondrous path through despair to this point
from which I too could transmit to mankind a reflection of Your rays.
And as much as I must still reflect You will give me.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Christopher Hitchens wrote a eulogy for Solzhenitsyn in slate.com. Hitchens begins his eulogy:

Every now and then it happens. The state or the system encounters an individual who, bafflingly, maddeningly, absurdly, cannot be broken.

Hitchens avoids connecting Solzhenitsyn’s Christian faith with the inability of the Soviet bullies to break him. As a current prophet of atheism, this is understandable, but ironic. He writes further:

To have fought his way into Hitler’s East Prussia as a proud Red Army soldier in the harshest war on record, to have been arrested and incarcerated for a chance indiscretion, to have served a full sentence of servitude and been released on the very day that Stalin died, and then to have developed cancer and known the whole rigor and misery of a Soviet-era isolation hospital—what could you fear after that? The bullying of Leonid Brezhnev’s KGB and the hate campaigns of the hack-ridden Soviet press must have seemed like contemptible fleabites by comparison. But it seems that Solzhenitsyn did have a worry or a dread, not that he himself would be harmed but that none of his work would ever see print. Nonetheless—and this is the point to which I call your attention—he kept on writing. The Communist Party’s goons could have torn it up or confiscated or burned it—as they did sometimes—but he continued putting it down on paper and keeping a bottom drawer filled for posterity. This is a kind of fortitude for which we do not have any facile name. The simplest way of phrasing it is to say that Solzhenitsyn lived “as if.” Barely deigning to notice the sniggering, pick-nose bullies who followed him and harassed him, he carried on “as if” he were a free citizen, “as if” he had the right to study his own country’s history, “as if” there were such a thing as human dignity.

Someone other than Hitchens, even an atheist, might have written respectfully of the source of Solzhenitsyn’s ability to live “as if” there were such a thing as human dignity. Hitchens ignores it as if he was unaware. Maybe he is, but I doubt it.

As a Christian, Solzhenitsyn accepted as a matter of faith that humans were created in God’s image, as the Scripture reveals, and derive their dignity from Him, as God’s beloved. Coral Ridge Ministries highlighted the irony of Christopher Hitchen’s eulogy in a video available here.

The irony here is that modern atheism has no rational source for lofty ideals of human dignity and freedom. As Richard Dawkins bluntly puts it:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

River out of Eden (1995) p.133.

As an atheist, with nothing but “blind pitiless indifference” in the universe, where does Christopher Hitchens find the source of his admiration for Solzhenitsyn acting “as if” there was human dignity? According to the scientific materialist view of human life, the source must be an accumulation of neuronal connections in his limbic system of the brain that ties memory, emotion and human action together to be presented to the soul or mind, or rather, consciousness (whatever that is, the “hard problem“, as philosopher of consciousness David Chalmers has referred to the problem of explaining the biological source of our qualitative experience of consciousness).

Surely, there is nothing inherently immoral about believing you have chosen your moral system that gives you the feeling of admiration for classic higher human values, because those higher human values are ultimately God-given and good. However, it is supremely ironic that a materialist like Hitchens can write “as if” he admires and takes human pride in moral concepts and values like “human dignity” and “freedom,” that apparently make him feel good, but are, from an atheistic point of view, purely fantasy. For the atheist, norms must be arbitrarily given as evolved from random and gradual natural selection, rather than standing timelessly apart from our time-bound natural reality as ideals which are discovered rationally and discursively over time. That there would be any higher purpose to humanity from which dignity might arise, other than mere survival, would be contrary to the core contemporary atheist belief in a universe that is blind, pitiless and indifferent.

Posted by: davidlarkin | August 23, 2008

Self-Control – A Meditation

Flan, one of my a favorite desserts, he said wistfully . . .
____________________________________________

The man who, in opposition to strong temptation, by a noble effort maintains his integrity, is the happiest man on earth. The more severe his conflict has been, the greater is his triumph. The consciousness of inward worth gives strength to his heart, and makes his countenance to shine. Tempests may beat and floods roar; but he stands firm as a rock, in the joy of a good conscience, and confidence of Divine approbation.

from Thomas Reid, Essays on the Active Powers of the Human Mind, Essay III, “Of the Principles of Action”, Part III, “Of the Rational Principles of Action”, Chap. VII, “Of Moral Approbation and Disapprobation, Sec. 8, “Operations of the faculty called moral sense.” (1788)
_____________________________________________________

A couple of years ago, I was diagnosed with adult-onset diabetes, Diabetes, type 2. So, for serious health reasons, these days I have to limit my intake of carbohydrates, especially sugar. I now look at desserts and pastries as the enemy.

It is a battle when I visit them — cheese danish, rich chocolate brownies, classic coffee cake, blueberry muffins, petite vanilla scones — an internal debate while I am waiting in line to order my coffee at Starbucks. I have visions of french fries as I drive past a McDonalds, and potato chips, Snickers and ice cream beckon to me as I walk down the aisle to pick up my prescriptions at Walgreens. There is no way to permanently avoid these occasions of sin and temptation. Carbs are ubiquitous.

The health penalty for not avoiding these foods has limited my occasion for having a pastry with coffee, or grabbing a bag of pretzels when I wheel by with my shopping cart, but I do not enjoy the moments when I consider whether to indulge. Fighting the temptation is stressful. The danger of self-deception lurks behind my thoughts in internal debate. If I fall and eat Haagen Dazs, I have convinced myself that I have not had a sweet for a long time, or that I will lay off for a long time in the future. If I do not fall, I leave the occasion feeling good about my self-control.

But what is this self-control?

For some, self-control is found beyond the self. For the Christian, it is spiritual: a conscious and unnatural effort requiring God’s help to avoid temptation or the occasion of sin because sin offends God. Some with addiction problems seek self-control by working the twelve-steps to conquer their addiction, recognizing first, that they are powerless over their addiction, and second, that a higher power of their choosing can provide the necessary power to overcome.

But for anyone, at the natural level of experience, self-control results from a conscious decision to avoid acting in a manner determined to be against one’s self-interest. As a child, while there is a muddling of self-determination and Pavlovian-produced habit, the motivating self-interest is to avoid punishment from a parent. When we leave home, we become interested in avoiding punishment by society, so we avoid criminal acts because we do not want to be arrested and go to jail. We may tell ourselves that it is not fear of punishment, but willing adherence to our personal moral code that causes us to avoid performing anti-social acts. But we really do not know that for a fact because typically we have not been in a position where we know without doubt that we can act badly without consequences.

We do not know how we would behave given the opportunity to act without jeopardy. In Plato’s Republic, Glaucon argues to Socrates that man’s nature is to act unjustly, a vision of the nature of man similar to the Christian view of original sin. We cannot help ourselves in desiring to act unjustly because it is natural. Glaucon uses the myth of Gyges to illustrate his belief that it is fear of being caught which motivates us not to act badly, our natural inclination:

Now that those who practice justice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be unjust will best appear if we imagine something of this kind: having given both to the just and the unjust power to do what they will, let us watch and see whither desire will lead them; then we shall discover in the very act the just and unjust man to be proceeding along the same road, following their interest, which all natures deem to be their good, and are only diverted into the path of justice by the force of law. The liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the form of such a power as is said to have been possessed by Gyges the ancestor of Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition, Gyges was a shepherd in the service of the king of Lydia; there was a great storm, and an earthquake made an opening in the earth at the place where he was feeding his flock. Amazed at the sight, he descended into the opening, where, among other marvels, he beheld a hollow brazen horse, having doors, at which he stooping and looking in saw a dead body of stature, as appeared to him, more than human, and having nothing on but a gold ring; this he took from the finger of the dead and reascended. Now the shepherds met together, according to custom, that they might send their monthly report about the flocks to the king; into their assembly he came having the ring on his finger, and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet of the ring inside his hand, when instantly he became invisible to the rest of the company and they began to speak of him as if he were no longer present. He was astonished at this, and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappeared; he made several trials of the ring, and always with the same result — when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible, when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one of the messengers who were sent to the court; where as soon as he arrived he seduced the queen, and with her help conspired against the king and slew him, and took the kingdom. Suppose now that there were two such magic rings, and the just put on one of them and the unjust the other; no man can be imagined to be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a God among men. Then the actions of the just would be as the actions of the unjust; they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly affirm to be a great proof that a man is just, not willingly or because he thinks that justice is any good to him individually, but of necessity, for wherever any one thinks that he can safely be unjust, there he is unjust. For all men believe in their hearts that injustice is far more profitable to the individual than justice, and he who argues as I have been supposing, will say that they are right. If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another’s, he would be thought by the lookers — on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another’s faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice.

Plato’s Republic, Bk II (359c-360d)

Gyges is able to carry out without penalty those dark thoughts that spring forth into consciousness from beneath because he is invisible. We are not invisible, but we have the thoughts and desires to do wrong. We must exercise self-control to regulate our behavior, or pay the consequences. Regardless of what may motivate us to exercise self-control, what means do we have to limit our desires? As creatures of habit, if our desires are habitual, we can change our habits. Although our objects of self-control are commonly more than mere habits of movement, the fact that we can consciously train our bodies and change our habits of movement should encourage us that we can do the same with complex desires. Our desires unchecked activate the motor system of the brain when desires become movement, i.e., eye to cookie, desire enters consciousness, mindless instruction to hand, hand takes cookie, puts in mouth, chewing, and conscious reaction emotion of guilt follows.

To change a habit of physical movement, the motor systems in the brain that manage movement and habitual movement patterns must be reworked. When I was beginning my acting classes at the Loft Studio in Hollywood in the 80s, our teacher, William Traylor, told us stand in a line facing him and relax. Then we were each asked why do you have your hands in your pockets, or why are you holding the wrist of one arm with the hand of the other, or why are your arms crossed? None of us stood with our hands at our sides. He told us that we must train ourselves to keep our hands at our sides.

The body is naturally uncomfortable with the hands. We don’t know what to do with them so we put them in our pockets or clasp them together, anything but drop them to our sides. You can tell if an actor in a film is professionally trained if their hands drop naturally to their sides. Once the actor has made the words his own, the power of the words dominate, and any hand movements will be appropriately chosen and controlled by the actor and will have power when made, rather than distracting from speech. Obviously, the point was to get control of the arms and hands, not to act at all times with hands at the side. After being taught this, I remember seeing Richard Burton standing in the rain giving a speech to Elizabeth Taylor in The Sandpiper. His hands were at his side, and the viewer’s eye was riveted to his face and the words from his lips were heard without distraction. On the other hand, untrained young actors appear on sit-coms where their uncontrolled waiving arms and hands are unnecessarily distracting from what the actor is supposed to do with voice and words.

We were told to practice standing with our hands at our sides in public places. I went to public meetings for a couple of weeks and stood in the back with my hands at my side. It took conscious effort to change that habit; it was uncomfortable with my hands at my sides, my hands wanted to go into my pocket or my arms wanted to get crossed. It felt like everyone was looking at me with my hands at my sides. If they were, it was because I looked noticeably uncomfortable. With practice, I learned to let my hands drop to the side when standing, and they still do that 25 years later. My neural circuits in my brain’s motor system were reworked by conscious effort. I must say that I am not tempted to put my hands other than at my side. It was a professional choice to rework those circuits, but the alternative of putting my hands in my pocket has no independent sensual appeal, unlike the high carb load plate of homemade pasta with marinara topped with fresh grated parmesan cheese.

Is that what we do to avoid or withstand temptation, simply rework our neural circuits? Is the exercise of my will to avoid sweets reworking neural circuits, or am I just losing interest in sweets? Is my desire itself dissipated or are new brain circuits intervening, causing me not to reflexively act to eat sweets? I suppose the nature of desire is an issue here. If desire for sweets is physiological, then it would seem necessary to establish a new habit of intervention. This would account for my need now to look at pastry as the enemy rather than with indifference. It seems that over time, a particular desire might disappear. The object of our desires obviously change over time.

So, it is not the nature of “desire” that is central to the issue of self-control, but the nature of the desire that we decide is against our self-interest, that we try to control with conscious intervention. Just saying “no” is the obvious solution, but were it that easy, there would be no Alcoholics Anonymous, no liposuction, no nicotine patches.

There is a wack-a-mole principle operating beneath the surface, with the devil pushing the moles through the holes. You make a decision to cut out the red meat, and you eat too much of everything else. Temptations persist, despite remedial efforts. If this were not so, the Lord’s Prayer would not conclude with “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” You do not have to be a Christian to see the need for this petition. Obesity is a scourge of our nation because we cannot resist temptation, whether you think it is the devil or a corporate executive behind the seductive advertising for a happy meal. The child’s eyes are tempted by the happy face behind the high carbo load in a box, and the mother is tempted by the ease of meal preparation, and not having to work to prepare a nutritious meal and clean up after. There is work involved in resisting temptation. It’s easier to fall.

Studies have shown that after resisting a temptation, the mind is fatigued, will power is sapped.

In one pioneering study, some people were asked to eat radishes while others received freshly baked chocolate chip cookies before trying to solve an impossible puzzle. The radish-eaters abandoned the puzzle in eight minutes on average, working less than half as long as people who got cookies or those who were excused from eating radishes. Similarly, people who were asked to circle every “e” on a page of text then showed less persistence in watching a video of an unchanging table and wall.

Other activities that deplete willpower include resisting food or drink, suppressing emotional responses, restraining aggressive or sexual impulses, taking exams and trying to impress someone. Task persistence is also reduced when people are stressed or tired from exertion or lack of sleep.

What limits willpower? Some have suggested that it is blood sugar, which brain cells use as their main energy source and cannot do without for even a few minutes. Most cognitive functions are unaffected by minor blood sugar fluctuations over the course of a day, but planning and self-control are sensitive to such small changes. Exerting self-control lowers blood sugar, which reduces the capacity for further self-control. People who drink a glass of lemonade between completing one task requiring self-control and beginning a second one perform equally well on both tasks, while people who drink sugarless diet lemonade make more errors on the second task than on the first. Foods that persistently elevate blood sugar, like those containing protein or complex carbohydrates, might enhance willpower for longer periods.

New York Times, April 2, 2008

The economics of will-power are beyond my intended scope here, but clearly, the planning and exercise of self-control — watching your weight, cutting down on drinking, gambling, smoking, staying off the internet when your are supposed to be working, studying, writing — is stressful and often, distressing. Conquering one sin may build confidence, but it is no guarantee that the next sin will be conquered. I quit drinking 25 years ago, smoking 24 years ago, but quitting eating is another matter. Water is tasting better every day.

For the Christian, it is by petitioning God in prayer, as in the final petition in the Lord’s Prayer, where peace may be found. Psychologically, the burden is placed elsewhere and spiritually, the burden is where it is supposed to be. The alcoholic’s act of recognizing the need for the intervention of a higher power is an act of humility. Peace may be found in humility, but an attitude of humility is not easily adopted. There is pride, of course, in overcoming through will-power alone, and for those who do, they have the applause of those they impress to fortify their success. But for most, it is a humbling day-to-day battle to overcome the changing appearance of temptation, and the temporary distress of discouragement and defeat is a consistent barrier to successful self-control.

St. Augustine speculated about the psychological state of Adam and Eve before Eve ate the apple. They were in a sinless state of grace, enjoying the Garden of Eden and all its fruits but one. But made in the image of God, they had a free will to choose evil. Although Augustine does not speculate what temptations, other than the forbidden fruit, they might have had before the serpent appeared. Presumably they could have given in to a natural temptation to gluttony without the serpent’s help and gorged themselves on some especially tempting newly discovered nectarines growing miraculously on a nearby peach tree. St. Augustine writes this of Adam and Eve before the Fall:

The pair lived in a partnership of unalloyed felicity; their love for God and for each other was undisturbed. This love was the source of immense gladness, since the beloved object was always at hand for their enjoyment. There was a serene avoidance of sin; and as long as this continued, there was no encroachment of any kind of evil, from any quarter to bring them sadness. Or could it have been that they desired to lay hands on the forbidden tree, so as to eat its fruit, but that they were afraid of dying? In that case both desire and fear was already disturbing them, even in that place. But never let us imagine that this should have happened where there was no sin of any kind. For it must be a sin to desire what the Law of God forbids, and to abstain merely from fear of punishment and not for love of righteousness. Never let us suppose, I repeat, that before all sin there already existed such a sin, the same sin, committed in respect of that tree, which the Lord spoke of in respect of a woman, when he said, “if anyone looks at a woman with the eyes of lust, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Matt. 5:28]

How fortunate, then, were the first human beings! They were not distressed by any agitations of the mind, nor pained by any disorders of the body. . . .

St. Augustine, The City of God, Book XIV, Chapter 10. (trans. Henry Bettenson) [emphasis added]

On my doctor’s strong recommendation, I have lost 30 pounds in the past year and a half, but I have been stuck at my current weight for more than six months. I must lose another 20 pounds. I feel the pressure everyday. If I could turn down the hot fudge sundae without being distressed by any agitations of the mind and experience a “serene avoidance of sin”, weight loss would be a piece of cake. There is serenity over time with regular exercise of will power as habits are changed and the memories of pleasure dim. But each of us has to find a source for the strength of will necessary to resist unwanted desires.

The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” Matthew 26:41

The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.” Exodus 15:2

Posted by: davidlarkin | August 11, 2008

Origins of Life

Miller/Urey Experiment

When I was in high school in the early 60s, I remember my zoology teacher telling us about the experiments done by scientists Miller and Urey in which they tried to create life from pre-biotic conditions, a primordial soup of chemicals, conditions they believed existed when life originated on earth. Stanley Miller, who did the experiments, was able to produce some amino acids, but was not able to combine those amino acids naturally to create the complex proteins necessary for life.

The study of the Origins of Life (“OOL”) is a research area of evolution science that has become stagnant. Today, very few scientists continue to try to create life on earth. Attempts to recreate the primordial soup of chemicals in the laboratory and with a spark of electricity create life in a test tube, as the media has portrayed the effort, have not been successful. Using a few sources, I have composed here a brief and admittedly skeptical summary of the modern history of origin of life theory and experimentation which describes the difficulties facing the OOL study today, as posed in large part by Stanley Miller himself.

In the early 1950s, Harold Urey proposed that the early pre-biotic earth had a “reducing atmosphere”

. . . since all of the outer planets in our solar system- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune- have this kind of atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The Earth is clearly special in this respect, in that it contains an oxygen atmosphere which is clearly of biological origin.

from a 1996 interview with Urey’s collaborator, Stanley Miller (1930-2007).

Urey proposed experiments attempting to recreate the reducing atmosphere in the laboratory with electrical sparks simulating the lightning of the theoretical pre-biotic atmosphere. Stanley Miller was a graduate student working for Urey. He asked Urey if he could do the experiments. In Miller’s words:

The experiments were done in Urey’s lab when I was a graduate student. Urey gave a lecture in October of 1951 when I first arrived at Chicago and suggested that someone do these experiments. So I went to him and said, “I’d like to do those experiments”. The first thing he tried to do was talk me out of it. Then he realized I was determined. He said the problem was that it was really a very risky experiment and probably wouldn’t work, and he was responsible that I get a degree in three years or so. So we agreed to give it six months or a year. If it worked out fine, if not, on to something else. As it turned out I got some results in a matter of weeks.

Here is an account of the experiments taken from Leslie Orgel’s Scientific American article “The Origin of Life on Earth” (Scientific American, October, 1994) which is included in the 1996 Miller interview article:

In the early 1950s Stanley L. Miller, working in the laboratory of Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago, did the first experiment designed to clarify the chemical reactions that occurred on the primitive earth. In the flask at the bottom, he created an “ocean” of water, which he heated, forcing water vapor to circulate through the apparatus. The flask at the top contained an “atmosphere” consisting of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2) and the circulating water vapor.

Next he exposed the gases to a continuous electrical discharge (“lightning”), causing the gases to interact. Water-soluble products of those reactions then passed through a condenser and dissolved in the mock ocean. The experiment yielded many amino acids and enabled Miller to explain how they had formed. For instance, glycine appeared after reactions in the atmosphere produced simple compounds – formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide. Years after this experiment, a meteorite that struck near Murchison, Australia, was shown to contain a number of the same amino acids that Miller identified and in roughly the same relative amounts. Such coincidences lent credence to the idea that Miller’s protocol approximated the chemistry of the prebiotic earth. More recent findings have cast some doubt on that conclusion.

Miller’s experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids, the building blocks of life, and catapulted a field of study known as exobiology into the headlines. But the additional steps needed to create life are a significant roadblock to success, and are not well known to the public. Miller himself was not sanguine about the prospects of making those additional steps in the laboratory. As one commentator, Casey Luskin, who took an OOL seminar from Miller, recently wrote:

OOL theorists often dramatically oversimplify how life started when talking to the public. The famous origin of life researcher Stanley Miller, however, has been more candid in some of his statements. At an origin-of-life seminar I took from him during my undergraduate studies at University of California, San Diego, Miller plainly taught us that “making compounds and making life are two different things.” Elsewhere Miller reportedly made a similar admission:

“Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that’s easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self-replicating polymers. That’s very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it’s easy to make money in the stock market–all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it’s done.”(Peter Radetsky, “How Did Life Start?” Discover Magazine at http://discovermagazine.com/1992/nov/howdidlifestart153/)

During the seminar class I took from Miller, he outlined various specific steps that would be necessary to originate life:

1. Pre-biotic synthesis and the generating of a “primordial soup”
2. Polymerization of pre-biotic monomers into larger molecules.
3. Origin of a self-replicating molecule (“Pre-RNA World”)
4. Evolution of the “RNA World”
5. Evolution of the “DNA / Protein World”
6. Origin of Proto-cells

There are problems with each of these steps, but for now I’d just like to highlight the major problem with steps 3 & 4.

Steps 3 or 4 maintain that sometime during the origin of life, there arose an RNA molecule, or pre-RNA information-bearing molecule, that was able to clone itself. If there are occasional mistakes in the replication process, those that are better able to survive and replicate tend to make more copies, and so on, and Darwinian evolution evolves it the rest of the way.

This origin-of-life hypothesis is implausible for a few reasons: Aside from the fact that chemists have not been able to synthesize RNA or an RNA-like information-bearing molecule under natural conditions and that we’ve never observed such a molecule that can adequately clone itself, the odds of getting just the right sequence of nucleotides to create a self-cloning RNA molecule is astronomically low. Even if we assume a sea of randomly sequenced RNA molecules, since there are no physical or chemical laws that mandate the order of nucleotide bases in RNA, the odds of getting a useless sequence are just the same as getting the right one. These all represent astronomically improbable events.

Imagine trying to order a relatively short RNA molecule — 200 nucleotide bases — just right, so that self-replication can occur — by pure chance and sheer luck. The odds are 1 / 4^200. This is what ID folks like to call the “Information Sequence Problem”: Making chemicals might be possible, but how do you generate the information required for life? This question confounds origin of life theorists because they do not accept that new information comes from an intelligent cause. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer explains this:

[T]he need to explain the origin of specified information created an intractable dilemma for Oparin. On the one hand, if he invoked natural selection late in his scenario, he would need to rely on chance alone to produce the highly complex and specified biomolecules necessary to self-replication. On the other hand, if Oparin invoked natural selection earlier in the process of chemical evolution, before functional specificity in biomacromolecules would have arisen, he could give no account of how such prebiotic natural selection could even function (given the phenomenon of error-catastrophe). Natural selection presupposes a self-replication system, but self-replication requires functioning nucleic acids and proteins (or molecules approaching their complexity)—the very entities that Oparin needed to explain. Thus, Dobzhansky would insist that, “prebiological natural selection is a contradiction in terms.” … As noted above, the improbability of developing a functionally integrated replication system vastly exceeds the improbability of developing the protein or DNA components of such a system. Given the huge improbability and the high functional threshold it implies, many origin-of-life researchers came to regard prebiotic natural selection as both inadequate and essentially indistinguishable from appeals to chance.(Stephen C. Meyer, “DNA and the Origin of Life: Information, Specification, and Explanation,” pg. 246, Darwinism Design and Public Education (edited by Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell, 2004).)

As Meyer’s article concludes:

“Experience affirms that specified complexity or information … routinely arises from the activity of intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer or programmer. Similarly, the information in a book or newspaper column ultimately derives from a writer—from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Further, our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity or information (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source—that is, from a mind or a personal agent.” (Ibid., pg. 262)

Thus life far more complex than “just add water,” because adding water–or any other chemicals–will not magically generate the specified and complex information in life. In fact, we cannot understand how the information in life originated apart from understanding intelligent causes.

Taking a different approach, OOL researchers and astrobiologists find it much easier to just assume that life — complete with its information-rich order — can and does arise through blind chemical processes. And they know they’re right, because they must be right, for life exists.

from Luskin, The Implications of the Hypothetical Discovery of Martian Life for Intelligent Design

As a result of the standstill in OOL research, the apparent slim probability of success, and as an alternative to the origin of life on earth, a theory of panspermia, a the theory that life always existed in the universe and was transported to earth via meteor, has been promoted. Richard Dawkins endorsed panspermia as a possible solution to the riddle of the origin of life in an interview with Ben Stein in Stein’s film Expelled. Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915-2001), the British astronomer and science fiction writer became notorious for proposing this. From Wikipedia:

In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution’s Omni Lecture. After considering the very remote probability of evolution he concluded:

“ If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of… ”

Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000th. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80th), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.

Even if you propose that life originated elsewhere, or as Dawkins has proposed, intelligent life exists somewhere in the universe which had the ability to seed the earth with life, you are nevertheless stuck with the problem of the origin of that extraterrestrial life and the source of its origin, and on and on. This problem of infinite regression was well stated by Stephen Hawking in his 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which begins in Chapter 1:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”

The lack of success in OOL has limited scientific interest and apparently limited its funding. OOL is subsumed in the scientific field of “exobiology.” In the 1996 interview with Stanley Miller cited above, when asked about the current state of research in exobiology and OOL, Miller said:

The term exobiology was coined by Nobel Prize winning scientist Joshua Lederberg. What it means is the study of life beyond the Earth. But since there’s no known life beyond the Earth people say its a subject with no subject matter. It refers to the search for life elsewhere, Mars, the satellites of Jupiter and in other solar systems. It is also used to describe studies of the origin of life on Earth, that is, the study of pre-biotic Earth and what chemical reactions might have taken place as the setting for life’s origin.

. . . It is a very small field. There is a society, the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life. It has only 300 members, a rather small society.

By it own terms, science cannot simply adopt its creation story on faith. It must provide some verification of the truth of its story using the methods of science. Yet, it is assumed by many who rely on the materialist evolution story that life must have originated through some sort of random action of material particles in fields of force billions of years ago. Looking at the history of OOL research and the probabilities associated with the story, for those who assume it to be so, it is a matter of faith, not science.

Related Posts
Stephen Jay Gould’s Dissent
Vladimir Nabokov – “Furious” Darwin Doubter
Who’s a Leftist Creationist

Posted by: davidlarkin | August 6, 2008

Small Blessings

One of my favorite books is “Here I Stand: a Life of Martin Luther” by Roland Bainton (1894-1984). Bainton was Titus Street Professor of ecclesiastical history at Yale for 42 years. The book was first published in 1950. It remains in print, and still sells well enough to be found today on the shelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble. In Here I Stand, Bainton gives a lively account of how Martin Luther bravely stood up to the Papacy, and then orchestrated the Reformation from Wartburg Castle tower under the political and military protection of Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony and one-time nominee for Holy Roman Emperor.

A couple of years ago I was browsing at Bookmans, a chain of busy used book stores here in Arizona, when I came across a copy of the original paperback published in 1950 by Abington Press. At $3 it was a bargain, and I bought it. Later, looking at the book, I noticed that there was a signature on the inside cover page:

I could not imagine Roland Bainton sitting at table in a New Haven or Manhattan bookstore in 1950 with a line of people getting him to sign his book. It was a religious history biography written by a scholarly professor, not a New York Times bestseller after all. So, I thought it was unlikely to be an autographed copy, though if it was, I was likely one of the very few who would value it. I noticed that the middle initial was a unique star-like character. I looked up Bainton on the internet. His middle name was Herbert, so the star was an “h”. The uniqueness of the “h” led me to believe that it might be easy to compare this signature with a known signature of his.

After a little googling, I found out that his papers were archived at the Yale Divinity School. I emailed an inquiry to the Divinity School and the archivist emailed a reply offering to mail me a copy of one of Bainton’s signatures from his correspondence. I received the following page from one of his letters:

You can see from this enlarged signature from the letter that it matches the signature on the copy of Here I Stand I bought.

This was a blessing to me, small on the scale of blessings I suppose, but a thrill to have found a rare autographed copy of a 1950 book by a Yale history professor that had special meaning to me. The providence of God was evident. How else would this improbable autographed book find me?

Posted by: davidlarkin | August 1, 2008

Perugino Presages Palmer

Perugino, an early Renaissance Florentine artist (1446-1523), was so popular he needed a workshop full of assistants to meet the demand for his commissions for altar-pieces. Renaissance painter of genius, Raphael (1483-1520), learned his craft in Perugino’s workshop.

In Perugino’s “The Vision of St. Bernard” (1490-94), the Virgin Mary and her three attending angels all share the same type of feminine beauty, especially facial, when appearing in St. Bernard’s vision.

The Perugino use of similar visages for his Virgin and accompanying angels presages the vision of Robert Palmer in his 1989 music video Addicted to Love with the guitar-playing muses of similar beauty swaying behind him.

[Addicted to Love" Music Video link also in column on the right]

Older Posts »

Categories