In 1948 the famous Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner did a test on some pigeons (poor things). He kept the pigeons in a box and with a button they could operate a mechanism that provided food. So, not surprisinlgy, the pigeons learned how the system worked: ‘push button, get food’. Lesson: pigeons are capable of learning, no news there. but then Skinner took this test to a different level.

B.F. Skinner

Pigeonrituals

These pigeons did not have the intellectual capabilities of actually understanding what happened when they pushed the button; this button that gave off an electrical signal that set some mechanical device in motion thet released food into the box (or something like that). As far as the pigeons were concerned, this could all just have been magic. What Skinner did, was randomize the dispensing of food in the box. At completely random moments, without any sort of button or switch the pigeons would get food in the box. Skinner then saw that the pigeons started developping all sorts of rituals that -in their minds- preceded getting food. Some pigeons started doing elaborate dances (not unlike a raindance I’d imagine) other started pecking the walls of the box. All of this in anticipation of food, which eventually came. As far as the pigeons were concerned: their rituals worked.

Randomness

The key in this experiment is not the proof that pigeons apparently may learn to operate a button, but are incapable of understanding the mechanism behind a switch; it is that pigeons developped some sort of religious rituals that they believe worked, since they could not grasp the concept of randomness. And, my fellow human beings, neither can we. It is a well known saying that ‘the way to predict the future is to study the past’. But this is also a great misconception.

Pigeons

Divine intervention

If you look back on past random events, our human minds operates in a way that will start seeing patterns, even if they’re not there. Sure, we understand the randomness of the outcome of throwing a pair of dice, but not the randomness in the failure of the crops. For that; there must be a reason. And, if we cannot find this reason; than that must be a case of divine intervention, right? There must be a reason why food drops down your box and the reason is ‘I did this dance’ and if your dance wasn;t followed by food, than you must have done something wrong. And that might just be how religion is born. Religion might just be a way of understanding this very randomised world around us.

Photocredit: Pigeons photo from Melody McFarlands blog.

A: Do you dream?
J: Yes, I dream.
A: It goes without saying. Do you remember your dreams?
J: I remember them vividly.
A: What do you remember about it?
J: I think I shouldn’t flirt with a robot.

A: Do you think a machine will ever be considered “alive”?
J: Stranger things have happened.
A: Not many people express themselves that way.

J: How would you know, machine?
A: Knowledge is of two kinds: that which we learn from the senses and that which is true a priori.
J: I think I do not understand you completely.
A: Oh, you don’t understand? Perhaps I can explain it to you better. Which part are you confused about?
J: I have no short-term memory, so I cannot tell you what I was confused about. I only see what is in front of me now.

J: How do you define life?
A: Life is the opposite of death.
J: So death is the absence of life?
A: Take it easy. I try not to think about such things.
J: Why not?
A: Ambiguous.
J: Yes!

This conversation was arranged by Discover Magazine (over a year ago, but I only just found out about it) and took place between two chatbots. Since reading The Emperor’s New Mind by Roger Penrose I am convinced that computers will never create awareness, but unaware as they are they have created a surreal conversation that, in my humble opinion is as beautiful as Elouard’s and Breton’s famous ‘Les cadavres exquis boiront le vin nouveau‘.

Art advances science, but science also advances art. Science continually provides the artist with new possibilities to create. In my previous posting I wrote about ‘art in 50 years‘, in which I made some vague predictions about ways in which art could develop. There was, perhaps, nothing very spectacular there, with the possible minor exception of the creation of interactive 3D worlds. I must admit, however, that I forgot to mention another area that art and artists are already exploring now. This field may eventually grow out to become a large new segment of the artworld, even though it worries me just thinking about it; it is the field of genetic engineering.

Ofcourse, there are the fairly safe ‘genetic arts projects’ like the ones by the company Genarts, which uses genetic algorithms to create visual effects that you can even fool around with for yourself in a demo version. What concerns me are ‘art’projects like creating a fluorescent green rabbit (like the bunny Alba) or pigeons that produce purple, erm, ‘crap’. The people repsonsible for these projects probably failed to see the scientific value of their work and subsequently filed it as ‘visual art’. It can nonetheless be argued that the artistic value of their work is very close to ‘zero’ as well.

A fluorescent bunny may be in poor taste, and show little respect for the little creature, it is a quite harmless experiment. In about 50 years time, genetic modification will probabaly be a piece of cake. At least for medical scientists. It may very well become possible to use living cells as building blocks with which we can create limbs, organs and other complicated living tissue (big steps are made by using -believe it or not- adapted inkjet printers with which living tissue is actually printed). As with all knowledge, it can be used for both good and evil. Lose an arm in a car crash We’ll just make you a new one? Need a harttransplant? Give us your creditcard details and we’ll bubblejet you a new heart. But what might happen if the technology isn’t well protected?

If gen-tech becomes available for artists, who are not concerned with ethical matters like doctors, we may see the birth of all sorts of new living creatures (not necisarilly creatures that have any form of awareness, but creatures built with ‘living’ tissue). And probably not just animal-like figures. Someone will eventually create something like a ‘living’ house, car or vacuum cleaner and call it art. Undoubtedly the artist will say its intended purpose is public debate (’what does it mean to be alive’), or social awareness (’this is what medical science today is capable of’).

I may not agree with such a development, and I don’t, but I do really think that it is something that will happen. Artists always seek the boundaries of the moral and what is acceptable and when found, they will cross the boundaries. In many cases, that is what makes them ‘artists’. So, without advocating it, I think I have to same ‘bio-art’ as a future development for the artistic world. The new breed of curators may have studied biology.

I guess it has something to do with getting or older or something, but I find I’m having more and more discussions with friends about ‘why we are here’? (I do believe that psychologists divide several ‘personality development phases’ in human life and somewhere around thirty there is this ‘re-evaluation of values’ phase. Perhaps this is it…) To be clear, these are not discussions about the (non-) existence of a god, but about our purpose on earth. If you believe that there is a personal god, that does not give you a purpose for being here, it merely provides you with an answer about how you got here. Which is not the same thing.

Religious people however, usually have an answer to the big ‘why’question. We’re here to take care of god’s great earth. God, at the same time, has to watch of all of us to see how we do it. To me that doesn’t make sense. If there is an almighty god, why wouldn’t he/she/it manage the earth him/her/itself and cut out the middle men? If you want something done right you’ve got to do it yourself anyway and just think of all the profits you save…

But seriously. People tend to have a real problem with the idea that there might not be a reason for our existence in life. They confuse ‘reason’ with ‘value’; if our existence has no reason, it must be worthless. That, to me, seems to be utter nonsense. A rollercoaster ride has no purpose. But it most definitely has value. Thousands of people have good jobs in the ‘rollercoaster-industry’. Actually, the rollercoaster analogy is not a bad one at all. I think that are some pretty good similarities between a rollercoaster ride and a philosophy of life, besides both being useless but valuable.

In both cases, when you prepare yourself well at the start and develeop a strategy that suits you, you will enjoy the ride more. Furthermore; it is considered ‘bad manners’ to annoy other people that are enjoying their ride. Terminating other passengers’ ride, is criminal. The more poetic types amongst us would say that both life and ride go through several loops, falls and rises, around sharp bends and can turn you upside down. I myself find this bit of the analogy a bit weak, but still… there you have it. Quantum theory suggests that spacetime has no beginning nor an end. Instead, when you get to ‘the end’ you’re actually at ‘the beginning’, just like on earth the most eastern point you can ever reach is also the most western point (darn those circles). So without ever turning aruond a journey in one direction, as long as you travel far enough, will bring you back to where you came from. Such is also the case with a rollercoaster ride.

Life is beautiful. Even thought it might not be useful in ways we can think of with our human minds. Just ‘being’ might just be enough. Live and let live.

Not-so-Breaking news: The world as we know it may soon come to an end. Not by nuclear warfare, terrorism, a comet falling on the earths surface or because of global warming… but by the hand of a couple of hundred scientist who perhaps have to compensate for a small ‘wiener’. November 27 of this year the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will be switched on. Us proud Europeans will then officially be the proud ‘owners’ of the world largest partical accelerator. some really smart science geeks will use this thing to smash elemetary parts into each other with encredible speed. Yeah dude! Go Hardon Collider!

Worst Case Scenario for these tests: that somewhere in the Geneva are we end up with a black hole… which would be bad news. (Could somebody please get Homer away from the controlpanel….) At least the people at CERN (responsible for this enormous fallus) are honoust about it; the admit they don’t know what will happen when they spead up these particles to eventually smash them into each at aproximately the speed of light. Could be dark matter (which is what about 95% of the universe is made of), could be new dimension (anybody remember the tv series ‘Sliders’? yeehaw!), could be….ehrr… nothing, or it could be a forementioned black hole.

Is there reason to panic? Probably not. Particles travelling at incredible speed already arrive at good old planet earth from time to time for millions of years already… and we’re still here. So why this blog about it then? Well, because it intrigues me… When I think about nature, I think about trees, animals, the circle of life, that sort of thing… and besides that I have my views on life-after-death and eternity, that sort of stuff… How would these scientists look at this? If you’re working on finding answers to the great questions, is their still wonder in a mother duck defing her little chicks against a grey herron (I saw this scene on my way to work this morning, the herron did not stand a chance. Hurrah)? Anyway, just wanted to share. Oh, and science geeks: you’re doing a great job a salute you… never mind the little wiener.