I would not be lying to you if I told you that I've been working out very regularly for little more than a month now. I actually enrolled at the gym way back in August of the previous year, which amounts to a mere 15% utilization of resources and I couldn't let the gym folks have the pleasure of ripping me off. Besides, I badly needed to increase my stamina - which I found out, during a recent hike, had considerably waned over the past six months, owing to the sedentary lifestyle I had involuntarily chosen to lead. Anyway, those were incentives enough to transport my lazy ass onto a treadmill.
So there I was running on a treadmill, my eyes inconspicuously looking around for some eye candy to distract my mind off pressing the stop button. And let me tell you - that is no easy task, especially when one is so used to rationalizing everything. Thoughts like "Come On, five more minutes of running.", would inevitably be followed by a string of replies like these -
"Big difference. Perhaps I would do better to avoid the next time I feel like having a pizza."
"Then five more minutes would be a bonus."
"But if I do run for five more minutes, I'd probably give in to the temptation and gobble down a cheese-burst without so much as a hint of regret."
"Or maybe I won't. Let me try to emulate the state of my mind before consenting to have pizza for dinner."
...
Before I would act on these "rationalizing" thoughts, my only hope was that those five minutes would lapse.
This would happen everyday, and during the 20-25 minutes of running, the battle of reason vs. excuses would be fought everyday with new weapons and strategies in the battlefield of my mind just to keep my feet on the treadmill and my hands off the stop button.
But all this changed one fine evening, when a very pretty female walked into the gym. She was perfect and my eyes lingered on her for a second too long. She definitely noticed me staring, but before she could react I forced myself to look at the TV which was showing a really dull cricket match. I didn't dare look at her directly again, nor did I try to surreptitiously look through the mirrors, which were put up all over the place, hoping to get a glance at that beautiful face which had instantly captivated me. I was once caught in an elevator, in the same act, and at the cost of a minutes' embarrassment, learnt a lesson that light reflects both ways off a mirror. So, I glanced around everywhere, except in her general direction, following the eyes of iron-pumping macho guys to see if they too were trying to steal a look at her. But no. Most seemed to be interested in two other females, one of whom wore tracks which said "Juicy" on the ass. No one seemed to be interested in THE girl. She was mine and mine alone and a small voice inside me went an overjoyed "Yay!".
Thus the story began.
As days went by, I noticed that I actually started looking forward to going to gym everyday at 7.45 pm - which is when she came. And what's more? She lives in the same apartment as I do, although in a different block. That bit of information was easy to find out given that I ensured our gym timings overlapped.
The set of excuses I had to deal with everyday before going to the gym simply vanished and the ones which would pop up while running on the treadmill could be consoled with little effort. That was a strange feeling, because I always had to resort to employing extremely convoluted loops of self-referencing arguments to confuse the part of my mind which made excuses. And now the following argument "If you run for five more minutes, maybe there is the tiniest possibility that she'll notice you." would power me for ten extra minutes. A disturbing realization of how powerful emotional responses can be in a person who sees rationality as the highest ideal. I knew she was way out of my league. If I were a 3 she was a 9. Yet, I continued to happily and successfully fool myself that there was just that tiniest of chances. The rational side of my brain wasn't completely disappointed - the "excuse making" side was much easier to fool now than ever before. Although there was always that uneasy feeling of harbouring a foreign visitor who could one day turn against you.
Nevertheless, I welcomed the seemingly innocuous and certainly beneficial musing into my formerly rational and safeguarded mind. And I discovered a thing or two about it. The more I let my myself get carried away by it, the easier it became in the gym. The "excuse making" part of my brain didn't demand deeply reasoned and carefully crafter counter-arguments, like it used to - it was content with the expectation of seeing the girl in the gym. In fact, I was able to improve my workout routine just based on her. The deal I made with myself was that normally I would run for 3kms, but if she showed up I would run for 4kms. And it actually worked! I admired and appreciated this new found power I had for self-discipline but I also feared it.
And so it went on for a couple of weeks when I decided that I had to talk to her. I spent the next week flooding my mind with all kinds of strategies of approach - from funny ones like getting a slab of ice, breaking it in front of her and then saying "Now that the ice is broken..." to horrendous ones like maliciously using Stockholm syndrome to my advantage! But obviously I could come up with nothing sensible and reassuring, and so I posed this conundrum, over lunch to three of my friends. They seemed to be sympathetic, but one of them did put forth an alarming idea which could have had disastrous results. "What if you walk up to her and, <quiet> <quiet> <quiet> <quiet> BOOBS! ". Damn, it becomes even harder to stifle that thought just because he mentioned it. If you've seen "The Melty Man Cometh" episode in Coupling, you know exactly what I mean. Anyway, the consensus was that I should walk up to her ( from the front, not the back ), and ask her if she lived in the same apartment building as me and I was promised that no sexual harrassment cases would be filed if I stuck to just that.
Well, today was the day I braced myself for the encounter. It was Friday, a holiday on the occasion of Good Friday, and I had noticed that she came a tad early on holidays. So I went in at 7 pm. She walked in at 7.30. I was done by 8.15 pm, but hung around pretending to be busy - not that she noticed anyway. I waited until she left for the ladies dressing room - which was adjacent to men's. After a few awkward minutes at the water cooler, from where I could see if she exited, gulping down liters of water ( without realizing that no one was watching ), I followed her to her bike, went a little ahead of her, turned around and
"Hey, don't you live in Roystonea? I think I've seen you around."
She replied in an unusually high pitched voice "Ya, I've seen you too. ", while she was looking for her keys.
For the first time, I was looking at her face clearly, and Damn! She was old. Would be atleast 10 years older than me. All the beauty that wasn't, simply melted away when she uttered those words in her squeaky tone. But I suppressed my shock, and tried to carry on,
"It is impressive how you manage to come here so regularily".
"What, what do you mean?"
"No, I am just saying that it isn't easy sticking to a routine. Is it?", I fumbled slightly surprised to hear that.
"Gym is a part of my routine and I follow it. OK.", she said dismissively.
I simply gave up and left. Perhaps I should have added a "Nice talking to you." at the end, but what the hell - she had ruined it all. She had killed the foreign visitor anthropomorphically speaking. And I am back to reality where there are no magical sentences I can employ anymore.
It would have been better to keep my mouth shut, and let the dream live on...
"But then I'd always be dreaming and never meet a real woman."
"Wouldn't that be all right? No real woman would come close to my imaginary one. Who was more useful in the end?"
"But, now that I know that the real one sucks, how could the imagination live on...?"
"Then I'll have to find a new stronghold, but I shouldn't be looking for it, lest I may not be able to fool my imagination."
"And Until then I'll have to continue looping through thoughts like these..."
...
Friday, April 2, 2010
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Selfish Gene - A review
My inquiry into any topic is almost inevitably aimed at understanding the big picture. Rationale is that if the theory is sound, one would naturally try to explore the area in a greater detail. The biggest problem with this approach is finding a source of knowledge coherent enough to make the attempt at painting the big picture. Most authors/professors do a very bad job of that either due to a lack of presentation skills or knowledge or both. Richard Dawkins is exceptionally talented at describing the whole picture, giving adequate attention to detail for the layman.
Just as formal systems lie at the heart of all computers and logic, the theory of Selfish Gene is an attempt at answering a very profound question -
1. How did life come about from the non-living ?
In my opinion this question is one of the two strongest pillars in constructing a sound theory about Human Beings. The other question is regarding the phenomenon of consciousness -
2. What is consciousness and how does it arise from a given formal system, notably how does it spring forth in Human Beings?
I accept that this formulation is very loaded, and perhaps why attempts at answering this have met with limited success. One remarkable explanation lies at the core of Godel, Escher, Bach.
There are a few other equally deep questions, but their reign is limited to subatomic Physics. What I am getting at is that, in a way we have over the course of human history created three major checkpoints or layers of abstraction. The first checkpoint is at the atomic level. Anything below is in the domain of Physics which is still being actively explored ( Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory ). Chemistry is an attempt to explain macro world materials with the help of atoms. The Second Layer of abstraction is the living cell upon which Biology is build. Molecular biology, Evolutionary biology and the likes are like weak bridges between the atom and the cell. The concept of selfish gene is perhaps the strongest pillar this bridge has, and the best part is that it does not contain anything fundamentally new. Richard Dawkins' book presents a bunch of observations and comes up with conclusions which later seem so obvious that it makes you wonder why they didn't occur to you. ( This was my feeling at the end of the book, even though I knew I knew squat about biology ).
The Third Layer of Abstraction has its roots grounded in a collective of mathematical theories referred to as Foundations of Mathematics. It is these that try to define logic and these theories are so fundamental that all computers, algorithms and human brains (?) can be reduced to them. I refer to first two checkpoints as simply Hardware and the third as Software in deference to the simplicity of Personal Computers. But you might want to avoid these terms in colloquial usage when referring to Humans, or face the possibility of incessant ridicule. At first look, just three major categories might appear to be too restrictive given the plethora of questions philosophers have been throwing at scientists. But I have, with whatever little knowledge of science and logic, managed to generalize or rephrase many other seemingly profound, independent questions into either of the two questions, without compromising their validity.
Now that I've given you the context, I'll try to summarize what the Selfish Gene has to say. I'll also try to pose many old questions in a new light, more often than not, showing you how redundant they've become. If you haven't read the book, _do_ read the summary, as it might prompt you to read the book.
We'll obviously start at checkpoint 1, where we assume the existence of atoms and molecules.
How did life come about from the non-living? I'll try to paint a picture in less than a thousand words.
Before we answer this question, consistency calls for a definition of life and non-living. For now, let us define life as a primary property of molecules we'll call replicators. Non-living is a property of molecules which do _not_ tend to create replicas of themselves in the environment they live in.
Think of replicators as those molecules which react with other chemicals in their surrounding to form a copy of their own and a side product. ( Think Crystal Growth ... ) In this "primeval soup", there are some replicator molecules and many non-replicator molecules. As time goes by, the more efficient replicators increase in number. Through complex chemical reactions, some molecules may change ( may have an extra hydroxide or a hydrocarbon attached to them etc. ) as a result of change in the environment. Some changes would render a molecule unable for replication, where as some would make it more efficient ( there would be whole spectrum of changes in between, obviously ). The more efficient molecules would tend to become bigger and better at replicating in this race of replication in the primeval soup. Now, don't think of each molecule as conspiring to better themselves but adding an -COOH or a -CH3 and such. It is just that the molecules we see are the ones which survived by adding a part (or removing a bad one) to help them replicate better. We don't see the result of bad "mutations" as those molecules would have failed to replicate, perhaps ending up as a reactant in a replicator's reaction cycle.
In this process of reactions, it is not impossible to imagine a replicator essentially one molecular part protecting itself from other reactive replicators by building chemically-strong "walls" around it by making the outer layer passive to hungry replicator reactants. ( think of some inactive hydrocarbon etc... covering the outer part on some sides...). Now, as this "walled" molecule replicates, both its inner "naked" molecular part replicates as well as the outer assisting "wall". Incidentally, by our definition, this makes the outer wall also living. I hope you now see why a definition of life is far from trivial. This process of building protective "walls" assisting in better replication, or failing to make one and being chemically swallowed by other reagents, is perpetual. The intermediate products include viruses, bacteria, plants, animals ( including us ) etc. Surprise Surprise !!! ( Really? I didn't think so. You obviously saw it coming ).
An interesting observation is that all these "organisms" or replicators seem to have one thing in common. They all have either DNA or RNA or both. Now, doesn't it seem obvious that the primary replicators in all these is the DNA or RNA molecule? There are these replicators called Viriods which are only RNA molecules and you can actually draw the entire molecule. ( There are Prions which replicate by protein-folding...but that is an exception ). Hopefully the origin of unicellular living things is now clearer to you, and hopefully more digestible. What human beings ( or plants or animals etc ) are, in a simplified way, just a bunch of single cells formed physically together and residing in a blob. Although each of us considers ourself to be living, the primal replicator is still DNA, our cell walls are the "walls" that these replicators built up. There is no I or We! "I" or "We" comes as a result of consciousness which is part of the second profound question. But let us not jump to multi-cellular organisms yet.
Let us digress a bit from the "primeval soup story". There are two distinctly different ways of replication we've observed in nature. One in which the DNA along with the "wall" splits ( asexually ) and forms two daughter cells. The other one is more familiar, where the organism produces a single cell ( or two cells - sperm and egg ) and which upon incubation grows into the next individual. In the former, the "wall" is maintained during the replication. In the latter, all walls are reconstructed ( in humans this happens during the phases of pregnancy and growing up of the child ). But, alas, one thing that continues to propagate is the gene. So, either an organism can split up into two, or it can squeeze all the information it needs to build one of its kind into a single cell ( zygote ) thus helping in propagation.
Before, I proceed, I should explain what a gene is. DNA ( Deoxyribonucleic Acid ) just a double-helix shaped chemical molecule containing, among other things, bases called Adenine(A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). DNA is a long sequence of these molecules. And a gene is a subset of this sequence which is responsible (at least partly) for a particular characteristic in the corresponding ( or extended ) phenotype. Essentially, the information about the wall (protein) that gets created around the replicator is stored in the replicator ( obviously, since replicator is what originally evolved to create the wall which became a part of it ). This information is stored in the form of sequences of A,T,C and G, and by the process of transcription and translation, proteins (walls) are synthesized. In humans, each cell has the entire information about the human phenotype, as the (human)egg and the (human)sperm are responsible for storing the entire information needed to create another human. Why are there two different ways to replicate ? Dawkins talks discusses such questions in his book "The Extended Phenotype".
Coming back to the selfish gene. Gene being a fundamental unit of evolution, directly contradicts other "which is the most fundamental replicator" theories. Two favourite candidates are the individual selection theory, in which all living parts of an individual strive to maximize the chances of survival of the individual and a group selection theory, where individuals in a group strive to maximize the survival of a group as a whole ( even if it means them sacrificing ones own life, like worker bees or soldier ants or human soldiers ). Each of these theories is obviously good at explaining some observations but fails miserably at others. Most of Dawkins' book is devoted to explaining observations from the gene-centric view, defending his selfish gene theory. I will not try to elucidate upon most of these observations, but give you a couple of examples.
1. Why do parents love their children? Why do siblings care for each other?
Because each parent has contributed half of his/her genes to the child. It is in the interest of the genes to replicate. One marvellous observation is in the bee hive, where the worker bees do not reproduce. Most of the worker bees in a hive are a product of Queen's eggs. It turns out that the workers share an average of 3/4th of the genes with their siblings. If they themselves had a kid, then only half their DNA is propagated. This explains why they work hard assisting the Queen and not worry about reproducing on their own. Workers' genes would stand to gain more by having sisters/brothers ( propagating more of the same genes - 3/4 ) than having children ( 1/2 ). This observation beats Individual Selection theory. Group selection theory seems to work here, but it loses face in many many other situations ( why isn't the alpha male always the only one to copulate in a group ? Sperms are cheap anyway... )
2. Why do females play hard to get before copulation?
Eggs are big, nutritious and hence costly; sperms are small, numerous and hence cheap. This is the root cause of female exploitation.
The initial investment by a female is much more than the male ( esp. if the embryo has to grow in the womb as in the case of most mammals ). After copulation, if the male absconds, he has little to lose compared to the female if she deserts the child. (Someone has to take care of the child for the genes to survive...) In order to evaluate a particular male's patience, females have developed the technique of playing hard to get. A male has to show his commitment when he is courting a female, in order to mate with her and replicate. Female has to see if the male is being honest here. The game of deception is on...
Notice that I've refrained from using humans as examples. As much as I'd like to do that, there is one rather major question which needs addressing. Now that we (humans ) "know" more about ourselves than any other species, is it going to change anything? In other words, does the replicator ( gene ) still have control over her "walls" enough to replicate? It appears that, for the first time, Humans have the power over their replicators. ( We can simply commit suicide and trillions of DNA molecules will be destroyed, and their genes will not propagate ). The author introduces a concept of a meme, an analogy of gene. Meme is a cultural unit of replication. Think of it as an idea, which spreads among people through generations, and has the potential to influence the genetic evolution collectively. ( Think God/Religion ). I will not delve into this further, but I hope you can see how far the meme analogy can be extended. Richard Dawkins, while trying to defend many often observed apparent altruistic behaviours among members of various species, discusses the problem of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory. In that, he shows, how sometimes it is profitable for both competitors to play for the benefit of the other. In other words an Evolutionary Stable State does not always come from a greedy strategy.
I hope I've raised enough questions here to prick even a casual reader's mind. The author, of course, does a much better job than me. Every chapter of this 300 page book is a pleasure to read, do give it a try.
Right now, my inquisition is directed towards comprehending the extent of control of meme over gene and the other way around. Clearly, there is some sort of tangled hierarchy ( refer : GEB ). Another very interesting field to look into is Cellular Automaton. Somehow, while reading the book, I was constantly reminded of how the functioning of a gene can be aptly modelled using cellular automata. This might sound totally crazy, but I also cannot help but wonder if there is the tiniest possibility that it makes sense to formulate the genetic language in a formal system, and apply Godel numbering on it...just a musing.
These are the books I have planned for future : Phantoms in the brain ( V.S. Ramachandran ), Shadows of the mind ( Roger Penrose ), A New Kind Of Science ( Stephen Wolfram ), but before those, I think I need a break. Phillip Pullman and George Orwell to the rescue!! :)
Just as formal systems lie at the heart of all computers and logic, the theory of Selfish Gene is an attempt at answering a very profound question -
1. How did life come about from the non-living ?
In my opinion this question is one of the two strongest pillars in constructing a sound theory about Human Beings. The other question is regarding the phenomenon of consciousness -
2. What is consciousness and how does it arise from a given formal system, notably how does it spring forth in Human Beings?
I accept that this formulation is very loaded, and perhaps why attempts at answering this have met with limited success. One remarkable explanation lies at the core of Godel, Escher, Bach.
There are a few other equally deep questions, but their reign is limited to subatomic Physics. What I am getting at is that, in a way we have over the course of human history created three major checkpoints or layers of abstraction. The first checkpoint is at the atomic level. Anything below is in the domain of Physics which is still being actively explored ( Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory ). Chemistry is an attempt to explain macro world materials with the help of atoms. The Second Layer of abstraction is the living cell upon which Biology is build. Molecular biology, Evolutionary biology and the likes are like weak bridges between the atom and the cell. The concept of selfish gene is perhaps the strongest pillar this bridge has, and the best part is that it does not contain anything fundamentally new. Richard Dawkins' book presents a bunch of observations and comes up with conclusions which later seem so obvious that it makes you wonder why they didn't occur to you. ( This was my feeling at the end of the book, even though I knew I knew squat about biology ).
The Third Layer of Abstraction has its roots grounded in a collective of mathematical theories referred to as Foundations of Mathematics. It is these that try to define logic and these theories are so fundamental that all computers, algorithms and human brains (?) can be reduced to them. I refer to first two checkpoints as simply Hardware and the third as Software in deference to the simplicity of Personal Computers. But you might want to avoid these terms in colloquial usage when referring to Humans, or face the possibility of incessant ridicule. At first look, just three major categories might appear to be too restrictive given the plethora of questions philosophers have been throwing at scientists. But I have, with whatever little knowledge of science and logic, managed to generalize or rephrase many other seemingly profound, independent questions into either of the two questions, without compromising their validity.
Now that I've given you the context, I'll try to summarize what the Selfish Gene has to say. I'll also try to pose many old questions in a new light, more often than not, showing you how redundant they've become. If you haven't read the book, _do_ read the summary, as it might prompt you to read the book.
We'll obviously start at checkpoint 1, where we assume the existence of atoms and molecules.
How did life come about from the non-living? I'll try to paint a picture in less than a thousand words.
Before we answer this question, consistency calls for a definition of life and non-living. For now, let us define life as a primary property of molecules we'll call replicators. Non-living is a property of molecules which do _not_ tend to create replicas of themselves in the environment they live in.
Think of replicators as those molecules which react with other chemicals in their surrounding to form a copy of their own and a side product. ( Think Crystal Growth ... ) In this "primeval soup", there are some replicator molecules and many non-replicator molecules. As time goes by, the more efficient replicators increase in number. Through complex chemical reactions, some molecules may change ( may have an extra hydroxide or a hydrocarbon attached to them etc. ) as a result of change in the environment. Some changes would render a molecule unable for replication, where as some would make it more efficient ( there would be whole spectrum of changes in between, obviously ). The more efficient molecules would tend to become bigger and better at replicating in this race of replication in the primeval soup. Now, don't think of each molecule as conspiring to better themselves but adding an -COOH or a -CH3 and such. It is just that the molecules we see are the ones which survived by adding a part (or removing a bad one) to help them replicate better. We don't see the result of bad "mutations" as those molecules would have failed to replicate, perhaps ending up as a reactant in a replicator's reaction cycle.
In this process of reactions, it is not impossible to imagine a replicator essentially one molecular part protecting itself from other reactive replicators by building chemically-strong "walls" around it by making the outer layer passive to hungry replicator reactants. ( think of some inactive hydrocarbon etc... covering the outer part on some sides...). Now, as this "walled" molecule replicates, both its inner "naked" molecular part replicates as well as the outer assisting "wall". Incidentally, by our definition, this makes the outer wall also living. I hope you now see why a definition of life is far from trivial. This process of building protective "walls" assisting in better replication, or failing to make one and being chemically swallowed by other reagents, is perpetual. The intermediate products include viruses, bacteria, plants, animals ( including us ) etc. Surprise Surprise !!! ( Really? I didn't think so. You obviously saw it coming ).
An interesting observation is that all these "organisms" or replicators seem to have one thing in common. They all have either DNA or RNA or both. Now, doesn't it seem obvious that the primary replicators in all these is the DNA or RNA molecule? There are these replicators called Viriods which are only RNA molecules and you can actually draw the entire molecule. ( There are Prions which replicate by protein-folding...but that is an exception ). Hopefully the origin of unicellular living things is now clearer to you, and hopefully more digestible. What human beings ( or plants or animals etc ) are, in a simplified way, just a bunch of single cells formed physically together and residing in a blob. Although each of us considers ourself to be living, the primal replicator is still DNA, our cell walls are the "walls" that these replicators built up. There is no I or We! "I" or "We" comes as a result of consciousness which is part of the second profound question. But let us not jump to multi-cellular organisms yet.
Let us digress a bit from the "primeval soup story". There are two distinctly different ways of replication we've observed in nature. One in which the DNA along with the "wall" splits ( asexually ) and forms two daughter cells. The other one is more familiar, where the organism produces a single cell ( or two cells - sperm and egg ) and which upon incubation grows into the next individual. In the former, the "wall" is maintained during the replication. In the latter, all walls are reconstructed ( in humans this happens during the phases of pregnancy and growing up of the child ). But, alas, one thing that continues to propagate is the gene. So, either an organism can split up into two, or it can squeeze all the information it needs to build one of its kind into a single cell ( zygote ) thus helping in propagation.
Before, I proceed, I should explain what a gene is. DNA ( Deoxyribonucleic Acid ) just a double-helix shaped chemical molecule containing, among other things, bases called Adenine(A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). DNA is a long sequence of these molecules. And a gene is a subset of this sequence which is responsible (at least partly) for a particular characteristic in the corresponding ( or extended ) phenotype. Essentially, the information about the wall (protein) that gets created around the replicator is stored in the replicator ( obviously, since replicator is what originally evolved to create the wall which became a part of it ). This information is stored in the form of sequences of A,T,C and G, and by the process of transcription and translation, proteins (walls) are synthesized. In humans, each cell has the entire information about the human phenotype, as the (human)egg and the (human)sperm are responsible for storing the entire information needed to create another human. Why are there two different ways to replicate ? Dawkins talks discusses such questions in his book "The Extended Phenotype".
Coming back to the selfish gene. Gene being a fundamental unit of evolution, directly contradicts other "which is the most fundamental replicator" theories. Two favourite candidates are the individual selection theory, in which all living parts of an individual strive to maximize the chances of survival of the individual and a group selection theory, where individuals in a group strive to maximize the survival of a group as a whole ( even if it means them sacrificing ones own life, like worker bees or soldier ants or human soldiers ). Each of these theories is obviously good at explaining some observations but fails miserably at others. Most of Dawkins' book is devoted to explaining observations from the gene-centric view, defending his selfish gene theory. I will not try to elucidate upon most of these observations, but give you a couple of examples.
1. Why do parents love their children? Why do siblings care for each other?
Because each parent has contributed half of his/her genes to the child. It is in the interest of the genes to replicate. One marvellous observation is in the bee hive, where the worker bees do not reproduce. Most of the worker bees in a hive are a product of Queen's eggs. It turns out that the workers share an average of 3/4th of the genes with their siblings. If they themselves had a kid, then only half their DNA is propagated. This explains why they work hard assisting the Queen and not worry about reproducing on their own. Workers' genes would stand to gain more by having sisters/brothers ( propagating more of the same genes - 3/4 ) than having children ( 1/2 ). This observation beats Individual Selection theory. Group selection theory seems to work here, but it loses face in many many other situations ( why isn't the alpha male always the only one to copulate in a group ? Sperms are cheap anyway... )
2. Why do females play hard to get before copulation?
Eggs are big, nutritious and hence costly; sperms are small, numerous and hence cheap. This is the root cause of female exploitation.
The initial investment by a female is much more than the male ( esp. if the embryo has to grow in the womb as in the case of most mammals ). After copulation, if the male absconds, he has little to lose compared to the female if she deserts the child. (Someone has to take care of the child for the genes to survive...) In order to evaluate a particular male's patience, females have developed the technique of playing hard to get. A male has to show his commitment when he is courting a female, in order to mate with her and replicate. Female has to see if the male is being honest here. The game of deception is on...
Notice that I've refrained from using humans as examples. As much as I'd like to do that, there is one rather major question which needs addressing. Now that we (humans ) "know" more about ourselves than any other species, is it going to change anything? In other words, does the replicator ( gene ) still have control over her "walls" enough to replicate? It appears that, for the first time, Humans have the power over their replicators. ( We can simply commit suicide and trillions of DNA molecules will be destroyed, and their genes will not propagate ). The author introduces a concept of a meme, an analogy of gene. Meme is a cultural unit of replication. Think of it as an idea, which spreads among people through generations, and has the potential to influence the genetic evolution collectively. ( Think God/Religion ). I will not delve into this further, but I hope you can see how far the meme analogy can be extended. Richard Dawkins, while trying to defend many often observed apparent altruistic behaviours among members of various species, discusses the problem of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory. In that, he shows, how sometimes it is profitable for both competitors to play for the benefit of the other. In other words an Evolutionary Stable State does not always come from a greedy strategy.
I hope I've raised enough questions here to prick even a casual reader's mind. The author, of course, does a much better job than me. Every chapter of this 300 page book is a pleasure to read, do give it a try.
Right now, my inquisition is directed towards comprehending the extent of control of meme over gene and the other way around. Clearly, there is some sort of tangled hierarchy ( refer : GEB ). Another very interesting field to look into is Cellular Automaton. Somehow, while reading the book, I was constantly reminded of how the functioning of a gene can be aptly modelled using cellular automata. This might sound totally crazy, but I also cannot help but wonder if there is the tiniest possibility that it makes sense to formulate the genetic language in a formal system, and apply Godel numbering on it...just a musing.
These are the books I have planned for future : Phantoms in the brain ( V.S. Ramachandran ), Shadows of the mind ( Roger Penrose ), A New Kind Of Science ( Stephen Wolfram ), but before those, I think I need a break. Phillip Pullman and George Orwell to the rescue!! :)
Monday, September 28, 2009
Effect and Cause
After Godel, Escher Bach, I decided I needed to know a lot more about each field where this strange phenomenon of Tangled Hierarchy occurs. Genetics was my first pick, and The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins was Google's choice. Usually, I prefer to defer my comments until I've finished from cover to cover, but I simply cannot resist. I've just finished with the first three chapters and I have to put this down.
One of the plethora of questions which bothered me when I was glancing upon the population statistics of developed nations like Japan, was the change this "intelligence" of humans has brought about in Evolution. All living things have been wired to reproduce, insofar as to lead us to define life that way. But the struggle for life given the limited resources of earth, has edged out the weaker ones. And this was all mostly true even after Humans came despite the aim of creating welfare states and nations. But, now that we are intelligent enough to try and understand our origins, I was beginning to wonder how it would impact the formerly instinctive process of reproduction and survival. In the past wars, diseases, and famines tried to see that the "survival of the fittest" was the order of the day. ( Hitler saw to it that the present state of Israel is fit enough to defend itself! The strongest of Jews and their progeny are now thriving ) But the past few decades has witnessed an unnatural world, where we have IMHO by virtue(?) of being "good" to others, altered this equilibrium.
I was just trying to comprehend what this could mean, or how it would alter the course of evolution and more importantly, which parameter we should work towards optimizing. What I mean is, at what level should we aim to duplicate ourselves - molecules, genetics, individuals, families, racial groups, national groups, the homo sapien level or transcending species? People, to varying extents, seem to care about all the above, but for me the obvious
answer is at the "individual" level. But to define an individual "I" is itself so complicated! But that it a whole different story.
Richard Dawkins says the parameter is at the genetic level, and us, the phenotypes, are just ways to transport genes through time. He tries to make sense of this by painting a picture of the formation of "life" using molecules which become self-replicators. And he also tries to support this view with evolutionary evidence. For instance, one particularly interesting one is the
"Why do old people die?" question, which was posed very well in the movie "The Man From Earth". An evolutionary answer to this by Sir Peter Medawar is as follows.
If genes were to try and make sure they could survive until they were passed on to an offspring, they will try and fight the mutations and diseases which could harm their inhabited body until the reproduction process is over. This try and fight is obviously in reference to evolutionary improvements to genes across thousands of generations. This process, in effect makes mutations ( which have a probabilistic occurrence ) causing organ decay happen at an older age. One theoretical example of elongating life ( of species, not instance ) would be to force everyone to reproduce only after say 50 years and not before. Over generations genes would have evolved to ensure that the phenotype is healthy at least until fifty and on an average much more.
As promising as this books looks, the author mentions that his aim is not to address the apparent reversal of cause and effect with our "intelligent" species. Look at the irony - The genes have evolved so much, that the "survival machines" they build up are themselves questioning the purpose of their existence and to some extent affecting the survival of genes!
I'll get back to the book.
One of the plethora of questions which bothered me when I was glancing upon the population statistics of developed nations like Japan, was the change this "intelligence" of humans has brought about in Evolution. All living things have been wired to reproduce, insofar as to lead us to define life that way. But the struggle for life given the limited resources of earth, has edged out the weaker ones. And this was all mostly true even after Humans came despite the aim of creating welfare states and nations. But, now that we are intelligent enough to try and understand our origins, I was beginning to wonder how it would impact the formerly instinctive process of reproduction and survival. In the past wars, diseases, and famines tried to see that the "survival of the fittest" was the order of the day. ( Hitler saw to it that the present state of Israel is fit enough to defend itself! The strongest of Jews and their progeny are now thriving ) But the past few decades has witnessed an unnatural world, where we have IMHO by virtue(?) of being "good" to others, altered this equilibrium.
I was just trying to comprehend what this could mean, or how it would alter the course of evolution and more importantly, which parameter we should work towards optimizing. What I mean is, at what level should we aim to duplicate ourselves - molecules, genetics, individuals, families, racial groups, national groups, the homo sapien level or transcending species? People, to varying extents, seem to care about all the above, but for me the obvious
answer is at the "individual" level. But to define an individual "I" is itself so complicated! But that it a whole different story.
Richard Dawkins says the parameter is at the genetic level, and us, the phenotypes, are just ways to transport genes through time. He tries to make sense of this by painting a picture of the formation of "life" using molecules which become self-replicators. And he also tries to support this view with evolutionary evidence. For instance, one particularly interesting one is the
"Why do old people die?" question, which was posed very well in the movie "The Man From Earth". An evolutionary answer to this by Sir Peter Medawar is as follows.
If genes were to try and make sure they could survive until they were passed on to an offspring, they will try and fight the mutations and diseases which could harm their inhabited body until the reproduction process is over. This try and fight is obviously in reference to evolutionary improvements to genes across thousands of generations. This process, in effect makes mutations ( which have a probabilistic occurrence ) causing organ decay happen at an older age. One theoretical example of elongating life ( of species, not instance ) would be to force everyone to reproduce only after say 50 years and not before. Over generations genes would have evolved to ensure that the phenotype is healthy at least until fifty and on an average much more.
As promising as this books looks, the author mentions that his aim is not to address the apparent reversal of cause and effect with our "intelligent" species. Look at the irony - The genes have evolved so much, that the "survival machines" they build up are themselves questioning the purpose of their existence and to some extent affecting the survival of genes!
I'll get back to the book.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Godel, Escher, Bach
Part 1 - Godel's theorem.
Godel, Escher, Bach ( GEB ) is the author's personal attempt at understanding the evolution of life, intelligence, intuition, free will and many other question which have puzzled philosophers, biologists, mathematicians, AI developers and such. At the essence of his book lies a very deep and unsettling mathematical discovery - The Godel's incompleteness theorem, and much of the analogies he draws find their root back to this theorem. Hence, I'll first try to describe what this theorem means.
Mathematics is a form of systematic reasoning composed of axioms and theorems. Essentially, all other sciences use math as their base to perform derivations, and to try and explain the real world. Math is what's supposed to be the constant, unfaltering, all powerful tool which settles all disputes by unambiguous method of "proof". The story is that this axiom-theorem approach has what appears to be a big gaping hole in it. It turns out that if the theory is sufficiently complicated then there exist true statements which cannot be derived from the axioms. And if you try to include that in your set of axioms, then you can prove a theorem which will contradict the axiom. In this sense all formal systems are logically either incomplete or inconsistent.
What are formal systems?
Well, lets look at a system which uses three symbols - 'P','Q' and '-'. Here are the axioms
1) xP-Qx- is an axiom when x contains hyphen's only. ( for e.g. ---P-Q---- is an axiom )
2) Suppose x,y,z are all strings containing hyphens and xPyQz is a theorem, then xPy-Qz- is a theorem.
( Ok. I'll give this to you. Interpret the axioms by assigning the meanings "plus" and "equal" to P and Q. )
By using this we can generate many strings ( --P-Q--- is an axiom (1) and --P--Q---- is a theorem ( applying (2)))
( Given 2+1=3, this theorem proves that 2+2=4 etc )
So, this is fairly simple - we have a bunch of strings which can be generated and many more which cannot. For instance apply 2+2=4 again on (2) and you get --P---Q---- meaning 2+3=5 and so on. Observe how we can never produce a string like --P-Q- ( 2+1=1 ).
By successive application of the generated theorems on (2), we generate more theorems. And all these theorems are true ( as in they can be proved from their axioms ). In a nutshell this a what a formal system looks like. The point to note here is that this is not a sufficiently complex formal system. It is a truth-producing system but very limited in scope. You can easily see how formal systems could get more complicated. Our entire number theory ( additive axioms x+0=x, multiplicative axioms x*1=x, commutative axiom a+b=b+a etc ) has been formalized in these formal systems (Peano arithmetic et. al ). In GEB, the author comes up with a what he calls Typographical Number Theory (TNT) ( which is way more complex than the p-q system - containing many more symbols and much longer strings to express truths ). But like the previous system this also churns out strings of symbols which are true statements. So, this entire TNT is like a big bucket of strings which are either axioms or theorems generated by successive application of these axioms. Now what Godel's theorem says is that there exists a string outside this bucket which is true in this system. The obvious question is "what does true mean, if it is not generated from axioms". Well, it means, that this statement and the negation of this system both lie outside the bucket. Basically, in pq system, if I give you a string, you can immediately tell me whether it is a valid string. ( For e.g -PQ---, -P-Q---, PQ, PQRT are all invalid strings and -P-Q--, -P--Q--- are valid strings ), i.e you can tell whether a given string falls in the bucket or outside it.
But, as it turns out, when systems get sufficiently complex and cross a threshold, you cannot make this distinction anymore. This threshold level occurs when systems start talking about themselves. When self-reference is brought into play, for e.g ( suppose PQ system had a string which would answer the question of whether -P--Q----- was a theorem in PQ system). I know in the PQ system, such a string is not possible, but in "sufficiently" complex systems, such strings are possible. In these systems it becomes possible to write strings which say "I am not a theorem of TNT". Then it becomes impossible to assign a truth value to these strings. Quite like the Epimendis paradox "This statement is false" cannot be assigned a truth value. Another statement - "TNT is consistent" when codified into TNT as a string turns out to be a non-theorem of TNT ( falls outside the bucket ), as long as TNT is consistent. The process of codifying such statements into strings in the system is through the process of Godel numbering, which I will not describe here.
OK. So where is the catch?
The catch is to realize that systems, much like humans, though being excellent in stating truths about the world in general, become pretty weak when trying to talk about themselves. The realization is this : when a system has the power to mirror itself in it, i.e it becomes possible to write meta-theorems ( theorems about theorems etc ) in it, the layers in the system become entangled, where a statement means a truth in the one layer and false in the other, making even the most powerful systems collapse. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is a way to telling us that even mathematics cannot inspect itself from the outside. In reference to the system that you are a part of, your attempts to describe the system from the "inside" will always result in an incomplete analysis ( with some truths left out ) however hard you try to look at it from the outside.
Douglas R. Hofstadter describes the struggle to understand this from various perspectives. Some version or the other of this message can be found in Zen Buddhism, paintings by M.C. Escher, music by Bach ( although the music remains alien to me ). With this as the basic idea in mind, the journey in the book takes the reader through the realms of the genetic code to artificial intelligence. The quest to find where intelligence resides, whether the transistors in a CPU, or the neurons of the brain, whether the Operating system of a PC or the mind of a person. The entire book is sprinkled with allusions and isomorphisms to the Godel's theorem and the author believes that the concept of Strange Loops or Tangled Hierarchies is what lies at the core of life.
I'll follow up on this post soon, with many more profound observations ( Author's, not mine ), but if this was not impetus enough, I shall explicitly ask you to please go pick up this book and study it ( yeah! it makes for a pretty heavy read ).
Godel, Escher, Bach ( GEB ) is the author's personal attempt at understanding the evolution of life, intelligence, intuition, free will and many other question which have puzzled philosophers, biologists, mathematicians, AI developers and such. At the essence of his book lies a very deep and unsettling mathematical discovery - The Godel's incompleteness theorem, and much of the analogies he draws find their root back to this theorem. Hence, I'll first try to describe what this theorem means.
Mathematics is a form of systematic reasoning composed of axioms and theorems. Essentially, all other sciences use math as their base to perform derivations, and to try and explain the real world. Math is what's supposed to be the constant, unfaltering, all powerful tool which settles all disputes by unambiguous method of "proof". The story is that this axiom-theorem approach has what appears to be a big gaping hole in it. It turns out that if the theory is sufficiently complicated then there exist true statements which cannot be derived from the axioms. And if you try to include that in your set of axioms, then you can prove a theorem which will contradict the axiom. In this sense all formal systems are logically either incomplete or inconsistent.
What are formal systems?
Well, lets look at a system which uses three symbols - 'P','Q' and '-'. Here are the axioms
1) xP-Qx- is an axiom when x contains hyphen's only. ( for e.g. ---P-Q---- is an axiom )
2) Suppose x,y,z are all strings containing hyphens and xPyQz is a theorem, then xPy-Qz- is a theorem.
( Ok. I'll give this to you. Interpret the axioms by assigning the meanings "plus" and "equal" to P and Q. )
By using this we can generate many strings ( --P-Q--- is an axiom (1) and --P--Q---- is a theorem ( applying (2)))
( Given 2+1=3, this theorem proves that 2+2=4 etc )
So, this is fairly simple - we have a bunch of strings which can be generated and many more which cannot. For instance apply 2+2=4 again on (2) and you get --P---Q---- meaning 2+3=5 and so on. Observe how we can never produce a string like --P-Q- ( 2+1=1 ).
By successive application of the generated theorems on (2), we generate more theorems. And all these theorems are true ( as in they can be proved from their axioms ). In a nutshell this a what a formal system looks like. The point to note here is that this is not a sufficiently complex formal system. It is a truth-producing system but very limited in scope. You can easily see how formal systems could get more complicated. Our entire number theory ( additive axioms x+0=x, multiplicative axioms x*1=x, commutative axiom a+b=b+a etc ) has been formalized in these formal systems (Peano arithmetic et. al ). In GEB, the author comes up with a what he calls Typographical Number Theory (TNT) ( which is way more complex than the p-q system - containing many more symbols and much longer strings to express truths ). But like the previous system this also churns out strings of symbols which are true statements. So, this entire TNT is like a big bucket of strings which are either axioms or theorems generated by successive application of these axioms. Now what Godel's theorem says is that there exists a string outside this bucket which is true in this system. The obvious question is "what does true mean, if it is not generated from axioms". Well, it means, that this statement and the negation of this system both lie outside the bucket. Basically, in pq system, if I give you a string, you can immediately tell me whether it is a valid string. ( For e.g -PQ---, -P-Q---, PQ, PQRT are all invalid strings and -P-Q--, -P--Q--- are valid strings ), i.e you can tell whether a given string falls in the bucket or outside it.
But, as it turns out, when systems get sufficiently complex and cross a threshold, you cannot make this distinction anymore. This threshold level occurs when systems start talking about themselves. When self-reference is brought into play, for e.g ( suppose PQ system had a string which would answer the question of whether -P--Q----- was a theorem in PQ system). I know in the PQ system, such a string is not possible, but in "sufficiently" complex systems, such strings are possible. In these systems it becomes possible to write strings which say "I am not a theorem of TNT". Then it becomes impossible to assign a truth value to these strings. Quite like the Epimendis paradox "This statement is false" cannot be assigned a truth value. Another statement - "TNT is consistent" when codified into TNT as a string turns out to be a non-theorem of TNT ( falls outside the bucket ), as long as TNT is consistent. The process of codifying such statements into strings in the system is through the process of Godel numbering, which I will not describe here.
OK. So where is the catch?
The catch is to realize that systems, much like humans, though being excellent in stating truths about the world in general, become pretty weak when trying to talk about themselves. The realization is this : when a system has the power to mirror itself in it, i.e it becomes possible to write meta-theorems ( theorems about theorems etc ) in it, the layers in the system become entangled, where a statement means a truth in the one layer and false in the other, making even the most powerful systems collapse. Godel's Incompleteness theorem is a way to telling us that even mathematics cannot inspect itself from the outside. In reference to the system that you are a part of, your attempts to describe the system from the "inside" will always result in an incomplete analysis ( with some truths left out ) however hard you try to look at it from the outside.
Douglas R. Hofstadter describes the struggle to understand this from various perspectives. Some version or the other of this message can be found in Zen Buddhism, paintings by M.C. Escher, music by Bach ( although the music remains alien to me ). With this as the basic idea in mind, the journey in the book takes the reader through the realms of the genetic code to artificial intelligence. The quest to find where intelligence resides, whether the transistors in a CPU, or the neurons of the brain, whether the Operating system of a PC or the mind of a person. The entire book is sprinkled with allusions and isomorphisms to the Godel's theorem and the author believes that the concept of Strange Loops or Tangled Hierarchies is what lies at the core of life.
I'll follow up on this post soon, with many more profound observations ( Author's, not mine ), but if this was not impetus enough, I shall explicitly ask you to please go pick up this book and study it ( yeah! it makes for a pretty heavy read ).
Surrealism and Ki-Duk Kim
An attempt to document my thoughts after yet another Ki-Duk Kim movie. This time it was Bi-Mong aka Dream. Like any of his other movies, this left me speechless, my mouth dry, and my thoughts out-of-world. Spoilers ahead!
As far as I could understand ( haven't IMDB'd it yet ), this movie was about the limitations of our reality and how resolving certain issues requires one to end all association with the current reality. In mundane terms, this is perhaps one of the few films which shows a person suffering, working hard to fix his issues, and then shows suicide as the only resolution. Though the issues faced by both the people aren't based on typical sound reasoning, that is besides the point. Adequate mix of reason in mystic themes and added Arabian-ish Music is perhaps the best stimulus for an open mind. During the one and a half hours of the movie and an hour after, your mind cannot simple fathom the trivialities of this world. For a while _nothing_ really matters.
Ki-Duk Kim's movies are almost like a new form of stimulating the brain - just like Audio and Video. But using combination of these at the base layer, this director takes you to another level, where you are not analysing the song, or watching the movie as a bunch of sequences or like a story line. His movies talk to you in a language you cannot express, but you understand. It amazes me how he pulls out these highly abstract ideas, and their meta-ideas, effortlessly.
If you are planning to watch your first Ki-Duk Kim, I strongly suggest Bin Jip aka 3-Iron. It is my favourite and has relatively unambiguous interpretations. Other movies like The Isle, and The Bow require deeper levels of appreciation, some perhaps bordering on the edge of sanity.
As far as I could understand ( haven't IMDB'd it yet ), this movie was about the limitations of our reality and how resolving certain issues requires one to end all association with the current reality. In mundane terms, this is perhaps one of the few films which shows a person suffering, working hard to fix his issues, and then shows suicide as the only resolution. Though the issues faced by both the people aren't based on typical sound reasoning, that is besides the point. Adequate mix of reason in mystic themes and added Arabian-ish Music is perhaps the best stimulus for an open mind. During the one and a half hours of the movie and an hour after, your mind cannot simple fathom the trivialities of this world. For a while _nothing_ really matters.
Ki-Duk Kim's movies are almost like a new form of stimulating the brain - just like Audio and Video. But using combination of these at the base layer, this director takes you to another level, where you are not analysing the song, or watching the movie as a bunch of sequences or like a story line. His movies talk to you in a language you cannot express, but you understand. It amazes me how he pulls out these highly abstract ideas, and their meta-ideas, effortlessly.
If you are planning to watch your first Ki-Duk Kim, I strongly suggest Bin Jip aka 3-Iron. It is my favourite and has relatively unambiguous interpretations. Other movies like The Isle, and The Bow require deeper levels of appreciation, some perhaps bordering on the edge of sanity.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
You can kill only if it is alive
I posted this a long time ago, then read it, found it controversial and deleted it.
Apparently it was being shared in Google Reader.
I've decided to post it up again.
( Now that I am thinking of ideas far more controversial than this )
Here it goes ...
by Saran on 5/12/09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Final year Project is finally done and my mind can't wait to resume day dreaming.
Saw a Romanian movie a couple of weeks ago. 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days. It is basically about a 20-something woman trying to get an abortion, during the times when it was illegal. There was not really anything much to the movie, but the topic is thought provoking enough to keep one interested. Abortion.
In most countries there is a time after which you cannot legally terminate a pregnancy. It is usually around 25 weeks. The reasons stem from both ethical and practical concerns, but I am going to discuss only about ethics here. A major issue is to distinguish murder from abortion. And to do that we need to define when a mass of cells come alive. And to do that we need to define what is Alive.
And sure billions of human hours must have been spent on trying to define this. I'll attempt to do that trying to be cogent enough to an average individual.
As far as I am concerned, I am as alive as a Computer, but we'll come to that later.
Is a virus alive? Even medically it is a cat on the wall. Is bacteria alive? say single celled bacteria? Medically yes. Is the sperm and the egg alive? They are single cells. Well anyway, when they meet and form embryo and cells start to reproduce ( mitosis, meiosis ) they cells are alive. ( Only living things reproduce ). So when you terminate a three month old foetus, its cells are alive, but it is not alive as such ( going by law ). If it were, then the act would be murder. So, we can conclude that there is a difference between a clutter of live cells and the organism being alive.
When should we say, the baby comes alive? Heartbeat? No. Heart starts beating in the fifth week. How about this? As soon as the baby receives sensory inputs from its surroundings, its brain starts to process them and generate results and observations. The process of learning begins after the baby has opened its eyes and ears - when it is out of the womb. How about calling this alive?
So basically, a mother has the right to kill her child until the time the child's brain processes external stimuli. Until then, it is simply the mother's property. Just like her fingernail, her hand, her computer. It is all hers.
Well. OK. Now lets talk about what right a mother has to her baby. Can she filter sensory inputs? Yes. ( Parental filter etc on the web :P ). To what extent? Now, what if the mother, when the baby was her property, decides to block all input to its brain. ( Say she suddenly decides that the world is an evil place ). She keeps the baby in a dark room, sound proof and all that. No sensory input. No brain development.
She can still destroy her baby? Can't she?
Well, that was a question for you people.
As for me, acknowledging that I am no more than a computer, my mother can ethically terminate me whenever she wants. It is through her kindness, that I am free.
Apparently it was being shared in Google Reader.
I've decided to post it up again.
( Now that I am thinking of ideas far more controversial than this )
Here it goes ...
by Saran on 5/12/09
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Final year Project is finally done and my mind can't wait to resume day dreaming.
Saw a Romanian movie a couple of weeks ago. 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days. It is basically about a 20-something woman trying to get an abortion, during the times when it was illegal. There was not really anything much to the movie, but the topic is thought provoking enough to keep one interested. Abortion.
In most countries there is a time after which you cannot legally terminate a pregnancy. It is usually around 25 weeks. The reasons stem from both ethical and practical concerns, but I am going to discuss only about ethics here. A major issue is to distinguish murder from abortion. And to do that we need to define when a mass of cells come alive. And to do that we need to define what is Alive.
And sure billions of human hours must have been spent on trying to define this. I'll attempt to do that trying to be cogent enough to an average individual.
As far as I am concerned, I am as alive as a Computer, but we'll come to that later.
Is a virus alive? Even medically it is a cat on the wall. Is bacteria alive? say single celled bacteria? Medically yes. Is the sperm and the egg alive? They are single cells. Well anyway, when they meet and form embryo and cells start to reproduce ( mitosis, meiosis ) they cells are alive. ( Only living things reproduce ). So when you terminate a three month old foetus, its cells are alive, but it is not alive as such ( going by law ). If it were, then the act would be murder. So, we can conclude that there is a difference between a clutter of live cells and the organism being alive.
When should we say, the baby comes alive? Heartbeat? No. Heart starts beating in the fifth week. How about this? As soon as the baby receives sensory inputs from its surroundings, its brain starts to process them and generate results and observations. The process of learning begins after the baby has opened its eyes and ears - when it is out of the womb. How about calling this alive?
So basically, a mother has the right to kill her child until the time the child's brain processes external stimuli. Until then, it is simply the mother's property. Just like her fingernail, her hand, her computer. It is all hers.
Well. OK. Now lets talk about what right a mother has to her baby. Can she filter sensory inputs? Yes. ( Parental filter etc on the web :P ). To what extent? Now, what if the mother, when the baby was her property, decides to block all input to its brain. ( Say she suddenly decides that the world is an evil place ). She keeps the baby in a dark room, sound proof and all that. No sensory input. No brain development.
She can still destroy her baby? Can't she?
Well, that was a question for you people.
As for me, acknowledging that I am no more than a computer, my mother can ethically terminate me whenever she wants. It is through her kindness, that I am free.
Monday, March 9, 2009
A very long day.
The elevator started descending from the fifth floor. It was jam packed, but I was fairly comfortable, resting my forehead on the metal cage door. People outside were black and white. Everything outside was black and white, but out of nowhere I saw a beautiful girl in a red gown give me the eye. I was excited and as I rushed out of the elevator when it stopped two floors below. I took the stairs and climbed back up, but the corridor was vacant. I started running in the direction in believed she went. Running as fast as i could, breathing fast, panting hard. I ran out of breath...
Beep Beep. Beep Beep. The hands of the clock pointed to 5 and 3. I woke up, decided not to press snooze again, grabbed my tooth brush and paste and walked along the corridor to the basin. Along the way, I woke up two of my friends, Anupam and Sriram, who were to join me in a bicycle ride to Mahabalipuram.
Anupam had a racing bicycle which he bought for Rs. 400 from a repair shop. Sriram had a 6 year old bike and I borrowed a 4 year old one from a friend. We packed a set of extra clothes, a towel and some water in each of our backpacks and left our campus at exactly 6 am. The morning freshness, cool weather and empty roads buoyed up our spirits and we pedaled at good speed for an hour. At 7 am we had crossed the toll gate on the ECR roar and upon Pam's suggestion, stopped for breakfast at one of those little cafes which were just opening up for the day. After we had our fill of Idlies and Vadas and coffee, we resumed cycling with fresh "re-fuelled" determination to complete the remaining 3 quarters of the journey in 2 hours. But the sun was no more concealed behind the horizon, people were no more tucked in their beds and vehicles no more in their sheds. But, none of this was even of the slightest concern to us, as we got on to our cycles and steered forth. I put some music on and started pedaling, but 10 minutes at the task and I shouted "Macha, Pam, Wait. My chain is gone".
"Dude, it is really gone!" came back Pam's reply. And when I looked down, the inevitable was staring at me. The chain wasn't even present in the grove - it had fallen some 100 meters behind.
8 in the morning, in a village where the lone cycle shop was yet to resume its business, we decided to "pull" one of us until the next village.
This is what I mean by it. I was pulling Pam, who was sitting on the chain-less cycle.
Sriram managed to click another pic where a Lamborghini flew right past us. Not often do you get to see Lamborghinis in India, much less often with you riding on a cycle pulling another along.
We did this for about 10kms, ( This is much easier than you might think - 20% more effort in steady state ) until we found a truck repair shop. He agreed to repair our cycle and when I parked my cycle the tube burst. Sriram managed to convince a chap with a bike to return to a neighbouring village to get a new chain, tube and tyre. Some 2 hours later, we fixed the cycle continued to Mahabs. On our way we stopped at an awesome beach and swam the waters for an hour or so. I actually went quite deep, where obviously waves had stopped breaking. I saw, or thought I saw, a snake, got really scared and started making my way back to the shallows. Took me 20 minutes to get back. Now that I know that all sea snakes are poisonous, I'll never venture deep into the seas.
Anyway, after an hour we hit the streets again, reached Mahabs in another hour ( 1.00 pm ) had lunch in a restaurant, took some pics of very old monuments, as proof, that we went there, and then got into a compound wall full of ancient temples. Just when we were having an argument about the uselessness of guides, a chap approached us and offered his guide services for a hundred bucks or so. Despite my repeated "No"s Pam and Sriram decided to hire him. Lolers. The bugger couldn't speak in English, and Sriram took upon the job of translating boring historical crap, most of which sounded made-up, into English. The guide seemed to want to continue in English. I gave up, found my self a seat under a shade and let my mind drift off.
Later, when their tour ended, Pam came loling to me and said that this tour was the guide's first one ever, that he was still undergoing training. I didn't say "I told you not to entertain him". I knew Pam was happy to.
At about 3.30, we decided to return, and when we started cycling, Pam found his cycle's rear wheel tube punctured. Luckily we were still in the town and could get it repaired without hassles.
We returned to the beach, bought a water-melon, ate it, and when the sun went down, eagerly got on our cycles to return to the comfort of our rooms. But today, things were not going to happen straight. Pam's cycle again refused to cooperate. The tube gave way again and was drained of any air. We took it to another truck repair shop, who reluctantly agreed to help us out. It turned out that the puncture patch was improperly applied, and was leaking. An hour later, he fixed it, and when we were on our way back ( near Mayajaal ), his tyre simple burst. The truck repair guy, used to filling air in large tyres, filled more air than the thin cycle tyre could bear. Pam gave up, hired an auto and left. It was perhaps 8.30 in the night. Sriram and me did some fast cycling, our asses not accustomed to 12 hours of sitting on horribly-designed cycle seats. So we cycled fast, and reached our hostels by 10 in the night. A very long day it was, indeed.
Looking back at it, this is one of the most boring things I've ever written :P
Maybe I should delete this. Yeah?
Beep Beep. Beep Beep. The hands of the clock pointed to 5 and 3. I woke up, decided not to press snooze again, grabbed my tooth brush and paste and walked along the corridor to the basin. Along the way, I woke up two of my friends, Anupam and Sriram, who were to join me in a bicycle ride to Mahabalipuram.
Anupam had a racing bicycle which he bought for Rs. 400 from a repair shop. Sriram had a 6 year old bike and I borrowed a 4 year old one from a friend. We packed a set of extra clothes, a towel and some water in each of our backpacks and left our campus at exactly 6 am. The morning freshness, cool weather and empty roads buoyed up our spirits and we pedaled at good speed for an hour. At 7 am we had crossed the toll gate on the ECR roar and upon Pam's suggestion, stopped for breakfast at one of those little cafes which were just opening up for the day. After we had our fill of Idlies and Vadas and coffee, we resumed cycling with fresh "re-fuelled" determination to complete the remaining 3 quarters of the journey in 2 hours. But the sun was no more concealed behind the horizon, people were no more tucked in their beds and vehicles no more in their sheds. But, none of this was even of the slightest concern to us, as we got on to our cycles and steered forth. I put some music on and started pedaling, but 10 minutes at the task and I shouted "Macha, Pam, Wait. My chain is gone".
"Dude, it is really gone!" came back Pam's reply. And when I looked down, the inevitable was staring at me. The chain wasn't even present in the grove - it had fallen some 100 meters behind.
8 in the morning, in a village where the lone cycle shop was yet to resume its business, we decided to "pull" one of us until the next village.
This is what I mean by it. I was pulling Pam, who was sitting on the chain-less cycle.
Sriram managed to click another pic where a Lamborghini flew right past us. Not often do you get to see Lamborghinis in India, much less often with you riding on a cycle pulling another along.We did this for about 10kms, ( This is much easier than you might think - 20% more effort in steady state ) until we found a truck repair shop. He agreed to repair our cycle and when I parked my cycle the tube burst. Sriram managed to convince a chap with a bike to return to a neighbouring village to get a new chain, tube and tyre. Some 2 hours later, we fixed the cycle continued to Mahabs. On our way we stopped at an awesome beach and swam the waters for an hour or so. I actually went quite deep, where obviously waves had stopped breaking. I saw, or thought I saw, a snake, got really scared and started making my way back to the shallows. Took me 20 minutes to get back. Now that I know that all sea snakes are poisonous, I'll never venture deep into the seas.
Anyway, after an hour we hit the streets again, reached Mahabs in another hour ( 1.00 pm ) had lunch in a restaurant, took some pics of very old monuments, as proof, that we went there, and then got into a compound wall full of ancient temples. Just when we were having an argument about the uselessness of guides, a chap approached us and offered his guide services for a hundred bucks or so. Despite my repeated "No"s Pam and Sriram decided to hire him. Lolers. The bugger couldn't speak in English, and Sriram took upon the job of translating boring historical crap, most of which sounded made-up, into English. The guide seemed to want to continue in English. I gave up, found my self a seat under a shade and let my mind drift off.
Later, when their tour ended, Pam came loling to me and said that this tour was the guide's first one ever, that he was still undergoing training. I didn't say "I told you not to entertain him". I knew Pam was happy to.
At about 3.30, we decided to return, and when we started cycling, Pam found his cycle's rear wheel tube punctured. Luckily we were still in the town and could get it repaired without hassles.
We returned to the beach, bought a water-melon, ate it, and when the sun went down, eagerly got on our cycles to return to the comfort of our rooms. But today, things were not going to happen straight. Pam's cycle again refused to cooperate. The tube gave way again and was drained of any air. We took it to another truck repair shop, who reluctantly agreed to help us out. It turned out that the puncture patch was improperly applied, and was leaking. An hour later, he fixed it, and when we were on our way back ( near Mayajaal ), his tyre simple burst. The truck repair guy, used to filling air in large tyres, filled more air than the thin cycle tyre could bear. Pam gave up, hired an auto and left. It was perhaps 8.30 in the night. Sriram and me did some fast cycling, our asses not accustomed to 12 hours of sitting on horribly-designed cycle seats. So we cycled fast, and reached our hostels by 10 in the night. A very long day it was, indeed.
Looking back at it, this is one of the most boring things I've ever written :P
Maybe I should delete this. Yeah?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
