Sunday, 9 February 2014

Blindsight, animal pain and suffering (updated 22 Feb 2014)




People without a visual cortex seem to be blind yet it appears some respond to optical information from the world around them. This phenomenon is known as blindsight. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as ‘the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them, a condition which can occur after certain types of brain damage.’

 My understanding as a layman is that optical signals from the outside world, having been converted into neural signals by the retina, are relayed not only to the visual cortex but to other neurological centres which somehow allow the person, or animal, to take survival action – for example, avoiding crashing into a table even though they can’t touch it or consciously see the table or a picture on the wall. See this video.


In his book Nature Red in Tooth and Claw (I’ve not yet read it but hope to do so) the philosopher Michael Murray, who analysed a large amount of scientific literature, describes this phenomenon in relation to the experiencing of suffering as a consequence of injury. It seems that in humans and primates pain stimuli are transmitted to various neurological functions, one of which is related to our sense of self. When sensing pain through injury we experience self-pity,  anger at our own stupidity or someone else's for letting it happen, or anger at God. We also soon think of the implications for our family and our own lives. We also anticipate pain with dread if it looks like we are at risk of injury from, say, an approaching lion. (Pain can also result from certain diseases and this is another question. I'm not sure whether the book deals with this.)

Below the level of the primates, mammals such as rabbits, deer and dogs may not, according to Murray, feel pain in a self-conscious way. Such creatures don’t have the neurological channels associated with self-conscious pain awareness present in us and other primates. What they experience is analogous to blindsight. There is a neurological reaction at a certain level. It makes a dog yelp, for instance and the animal's body senses damage in some way, causing it to behave in a way which we perceive as distress. Maybe it’s to warn other dogs to steer clear of whatever caused the injury. But there is no self-pity or anxiety about the injury and its implications.  The dog is in a state it instinctively wants to escape from, and a message to avoid any  situation which might lead to this state is somehow lodged deep into its neurological system (e.g. steer clear of men with guns) to govern future behaviour

Recently I learnt of reports from lobotomy patients decades ago (before the treatment became controversial) that when their prefrontal cortex was removed they often felt pain but somehow it did not bother them in any way. A clear distinction between pain and suffering.

The structure and functioning of the brain is barely understood. For instance, neurologists do not agree on the demarcation of a given zone from those surrounding it, including the prefrontal cortex. Moreover, the human prefrontal cortex, which is associated with self awareness and hence perception of suffering, is 'absolutely, obviously and tremendously different' from that of any other creature, according to J.K.Rilling , a specialist in neuroimaging. (Trends in Cognitive Science, vol.18 no.1, January 2014.)

At the lowest level of the animal kingdom – insects, worms, snails etc.–the difference is obvious to anyone. The evidence seems to indicate a single neural pathway. Possibly there is no pain at all when, say, a fly is swatted. It may take evasive action, but so would a robot programmed to move out of danger when hit by a bullet. The single neural pathway is simply to help it survive.

 The idea that the natural world is cruel  might be a result of arrogantly projecting the nature of our own being onto the animal kingdom in general, especially onto those animals  (pets etc.) which seem closest to us. To prove this, of course, is philosophically impossible. We can only say what is the most likely situation on the evidence available and that the evidence is beginning to point in the direction of a fundamental difference between homo sapiens and any other species.

Some may worry that that this could be used  to justify bad treatment of animals but I don't see it that way.  We can never prove what animals feel like: as I said in a previous post  certain aspects of reality cannot be reached by logic. Moreover, gratuitously harming a living being, a manifestation of life, is dehumanising and evil, regardless of whether it feels pain or suffers in a self-conscious way.


John
cosmik.jo@gmail.com

Author, 2077: Knights of Peace

Friday, 31 January 2014

Is there meaning behind random events?



Here is a random sequence of numbers:

3,1,4,5,9,2,6,5,3,5,8,9,7,9,3, ........


There is no order to this – the next number in the sequence cannot be deduced mathematically. It is purely random.

But is it meaningless? No. It is obtained by dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter and is denoted by the Greek letter pi. Often this is approximated to 3.142. In effect the series goes on indefinitely but there are limitations on how accurately the diameter, circumference and perfection of the circle can be determined and on the power of the computer used in the division.

So what any statistical test would show to be a random sequence in fact denotes a geometric  property of space. There are other sequences of numbers which statisticians would call random but which are in fact calculated by formulae. Again, the numbers correspond to something meaningful – a mathematical equation formed as a consequence of rational thought.

There are all manner of events in reality which appear to be random. Tossed coins form a random sequence of heads and tails. Roulette wheels stop at random. People’s lives appear to be tossed about by random events. Volcanoes, earthquakes and solar flares seem to happen unpredictably. These, admittedly, events rather than numerical quantities. But the same principle should apply. One can assign  numbers to events of any kind or to the intervals between them.

 One example is the decay of a radioactive atom : beta particles fly off from an atomic nucleus at random intervals. Is there meaning behind this?  We cannot tell. This and quantum phenomena in general are unpredictable. Einstein did not accept that God had constructed the universe in a meaningless way, saying ‘God does not play dice’. He was criticised, sometimes ridiculed, for saying this in contradiction to the prevailing view. But Einstein could have been right: there could indeed be some level of reality behind quantum phenomena where a meaningful process generates random events.

Since we can't prove whether or not a given random sequence of numbers or events is a product of something meaningful, there could be more order in the world than there appears to be.

See also
John
Author, 2077 AD

cosmik.jo@gmail.com

Tuesday, 28 January 2014

Fatalism threatens science (updated 28 Jan 2014)

Image credit www.physics.sfsu.edu/
You may already be aware that modern cosmology has presented us with a strange conundrum, which is that the universe is precision engineered for life. This has only been known about for the last couple of decades  and is rarely talked about in the popular science  media. It has met with frightening indifference and fatuous explanations which seem to me anti-scientific and reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Dozens of physical constants (e.g. the gravitational, cosmological, weak interaction, strong interaction and fine-structure constants) are finely tuned to an extraordinary degree, e.g. 120 decimal places in the case of the cosmological constant. 

 Fine tuned for what? For the emergence of life. Also, the Big Bang point source of the cosmos started off with just the right amount of entropy to allow life to develop. (Entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder in a closed system.) There is no physical, testable explanation of how this just-right degree of disorder happened to be there. In fact not only life but advanced civilised life appears to be the purpose of the universe. The Milky Way Galaxy, the solar system and the unique physical conditions of our planet and its attendant moon as well as the right relative abundance of the 92 elements in the Periodic Table all conspire towards the emergence of advanced civilisation. There are volumes of evidence. The above are just sprinklings to give the flavour of the mystery.

What does this mean? These aspects of reality cry out for an explanation.

In an attempt to evade or avoid this question some have resorted to what is loosely known as the  Anthropic Principle which states that we can observe only those values of the fundamental constants and quantities that are compatible with our existence. The fact that we exist 'explains' (?!) why the science is such as it is. If it weren’t we would not be here to ask. This is a fatuous, fatalistic, curiosity-killing and non-scientific argument which I hope will be illustrated by the following imaginary dialog.



You have just been blindfolded and shot at point blank range by 100 people with live ammunition and AK 47s. Yet you're alive and unharmed. How could this have happened?


You don’t need to ask why. You are here to ask the question and that is all the explanation you need. The question of how improbable this is does not come into it. Curiosity killed at source.


You were floating in interplanetary space, untethered, with oxygen running out and death looming. Suddenly a great ET machine grabs you, takes you into its interior, revives you and takes you back to the spaceship from which you had broken loose and lets you go as soon as an amazed crew member open the hatch. You are saved. How could this have happened?


No questions needed. You are alive. Of course these things had to happen otherwise you would no longer exist. Again, curiosity killed at source.



The biosphere has, over billions of years, remained life friendly even as the sun's heat input to the planet has grown by 30%. Why?


Various proposals have been put forward but they imply purpose behind the natural world. This would be a heresy for the philosophical materialist. However, we can easily avoid awkward God-related questions about why this is possible by seeking no other answer than this: it had to happen this way, because if it didn't we would not be here. Curiosity killed at source.



Looking at the cosmos it appears to be organised in a very clever way, interconnected and finely engineered to mind boggling precision on an incomprehensible scale, engineered to allow life to emerge at only this place and time in a universe of this size and structure. How did this come about?


Why ask such awkward questions? If you had not been here it would not have happened. Chill out, man.


How can I chill out?


Just bury your head in the sand.


I exist. Why?


The fact that you exist is enough to explain why you exist. Stop asking awkward questions. Curiosity killed at source.


Hmm...



Many so-called scientists have either resorted to these 'explanations' or gone through the most painful  and paradoxical intellectual contortions, such as inventing imaginary universes beyond scientific proof,  to avoid the obvious conclusion that there is a Creator. 

 A good example of science being potentially held back by a stubbornly non-theist view of the universe is in elementary particle physics. For life to be possible there needs to be two kinds of quark (up and down) and two kinds of lepton (electron and electron neutrino).  What is not necessary for life - apparently - are 3  generations of these, making 12 in all. If one assumes these extra types of particle are surplus to requirements and just happen to be there in this particular universe by chance, there is no reason to look any further. They are just there. Curiosity killed.


Hopefully, scientists will look for a new theory in which these extra particles make sense and perhaps have an as yet hidden role in the functioning of life; but if the creeping intellectual paralysis took hold science would be on a downward track.

Biology is also in danger. It appears to be dominated by  an excessively reductionist neo-Darwinist mindset which puts too much emphasis on blind chance. Only a decade ago it was assumed that the 98% of the DNA genome which did not consist of  genes which encode proteins was junk, an accident of evolution by natural selection coupled with mutations. It now turns out that there is staggering functionality in this junk. Fortunately, the habit of looking for order is far from dead but if the habit faded the wrong attitude could be fatal for science.


Imagine where we would be now if Aristotle or Newton or Einstein had thought this fatalistic way. Why not admit there is a God and get on with the business of searching for explanations and theories on how it all fits together? 

That could be one reason we are here.

See also

Hold on to the truth

Why the future is unpredictable

Bridging gaps

The five-fold threat to science

The doctrine of chance

Our precious planet

Is there meaning behind random events?

Reweaving the rainbow

Fighting fatalism



Distorting reality

Jean Paul Sartre: not the way to Peace on Earth

What is truth?


John