Thursday, March 31, 2011
Is it Science? (cont)
(continued from last blog) or to test the legitimacy of a hypothesis. A scientist who anticipates his results is not a scientist at all. The true practioner of the profession keeps an open mind and records all results of the experiments. The end result of this process is to attempt to explain the observed phenomena with as much certainty as possible.
The two fields of science and engineering are different in their execution, results, and support structures. While engineering benefits from a highly competitive free market, science is best nurtured in the socialist institution. The reason for this is that the profitability gains of science are not initially obvious, which makes it a risky profession to fund. I point this out because Georgina Ferry wrongly states on page 271 that the socialist John Bernal's claim that state funding is best for science is wrong, using the rapid expansion of web technology as an example. The internet and the services it has allowed are clearly not science, both by my definition and common sense. Yet Georgina's opinions continue to be pervasive.
To sum up, if your field has an "-ology" suffix, it's probably science (scientology and others notwithstanding). Otherwise, forget about it. Eat it liberal arts majors!
The two fields of science and engineering are different in their execution, results, and support structures. While engineering benefits from a highly competitive free market, science is best nurtured in the socialist institution. The reason for this is that the profitability gains of science are not initially obvious, which makes it a risky profession to fund. I point this out because Georgina Ferry wrongly states on page 271 that the socialist John Bernal's claim that state funding is best for science is wrong, using the rapid expansion of web technology as an example. The internet and the services it has allowed are clearly not science, both by my definition and common sense. Yet Georgina's opinions continue to be pervasive.
To sum up, if your field has an "-ology" suffix, it's probably science (scientology and others notwithstanding). Otherwise, forget about it. Eat it liberal arts majors!
Is it Science?
I am currently reading Seeing Further, edited by Bill Bryson, and I'm having a serious beef with some of his authors. Both Georgina Ferry and Philip Ball seem to think that science constitutes discovery and invention both. The following essay will show why they, and many others, are wrong.
I have had this debate before, at a science class meeting with a bunch of liberal arts students. We were asked to define what performing science wa, and my classmates began belting out things like "building bridges" and "making playdough". I casually attempted to set my mistaken colleagues straight, and got nought but angry looks and dismissal for my troubles.
What I told them was this: Science is what happens when you discover something, and Engineering is what happens when you make something. Thus, discovering the tensile properties of balsa wood, and making a model bridge out of that material are two different things. Another good example is that in science you pursue knowledge, whereas in engineering you pursue creation.
My fellow students drownwd me out in their disapproval. Science to them wasn't about gaining knowledge - it was about making cool stuff and then blowing it up!
But really who am I to rain on their parade? From reading Bryson's book it seems thar I am alone in my logical definitions.
Yet I believe it is important that we as humans make a distinction. Discovering the existence of critical densities which produce chain reactions cannot be put in the same category as making an atomic bomb. Why? Because the second example belies intent. And intent is the key difference between the professions.
An engineer sets off on a project with a goal in mind. Using information culled from scientific exploration, the engineer sets about altering materials to produce the creation. The end result is planned, and derivation from that plan is discouraged.
The scientist on the other hand starts with no end product in sight. The scientist's goal is to explain one or a series of observations, or to (cont)
I have had this debate before, at a science class meeting with a bunch of liberal arts students. We were asked to define what performing science wa, and my classmates began belting out things like "building bridges" and "making playdough". I casually attempted to set my mistaken colleagues straight, and got nought but angry looks and dismissal for my troubles.
What I told them was this: Science is what happens when you discover something, and Engineering is what happens when you make something. Thus, discovering the tensile properties of balsa wood, and making a model bridge out of that material are two different things. Another good example is that in science you pursue knowledge, whereas in engineering you pursue creation.
My fellow students drownwd me out in their disapproval. Science to them wasn't about gaining knowledge - it was about making cool stuff and then blowing it up!
But really who am I to rain on their parade? From reading Bryson's book it seems thar I am alone in my logical definitions.
Yet I believe it is important that we as humans make a distinction. Discovering the existence of critical densities which produce chain reactions cannot be put in the same category as making an atomic bomb. Why? Because the second example belies intent. And intent is the key difference between the professions.
An engineer sets off on a project with a goal in mind. Using information culled from scientific exploration, the engineer sets about altering materials to produce the creation. The end result is planned, and derivation from that plan is discouraged.
The scientist on the other hand starts with no end product in sight. The scientist's goal is to explain one or a series of observations, or to (cont)
Friday, March 25, 2011
A follow up to the previous blog...
It occured to me after thinking more about the self transference issue which occupied me yesterday that copying the exact data from one mind to another would not actually transfer the existence of that person. In other words, when the operation was over, you would not wake up in that other body. Instead the original owner of the brain would awaken, albeit having all your quirks and memories. They would think they were you, but it wouldn't be you inside that body. Am I making any sense?
I like using computers as analogies for humans. Your brain is the hardware to the software of your conscience. The brain is a bit like an amalgamation of processor, RAM, and hard drive. Stored on your brain's hard drive is all of your memories, plus your "operating system" - your personality. Your "operating system" effects how you access and use your data, as well as interact with the outside world. Each night we must power down, and when we wake up, the operating system handles the start up tasks that get us ready to face the day again. The system includes a calendar, task list, face book, and various programs to accomplish the myraid of tasks we must go through everyday. Anyway, I'm rambling. (But this is my blog, so I guess that's ok)
The point is, let us say you want to swap your self onto another human. Brain transfers are incredibly difficult processes so let us say that we take another human and wipe their brain. After a format the blank mind is ready to accept new data. Using a machine, you copy the contents of your mind and paste them into the new brain. When you wake up, which body will you be in? Let's say that the copying process did not negatively effect your current brain, and it survives. Would you then wake up in both bodies? I doubt it.
The problem with this situation is that you will effectively create a clone of the data in your head, but not your actual self. Why is this? What if instead of copying the brain was taken out of my head and physically inserted into the other person? Would I wake up in the new body then? How much of the brain, or even parts of the body, are necessary to transfer a consciousness?
Much like Krang (pictured above), I believe that the entirety of ourselves are preserved in our brains, with the body serving as a multifunctional casing providing locomotion, manipulation, communication, and life support services, as well as housing the various sensors that let our brains perceive their surroundings. Unlike Krang however, our brains are not capable of existing outside of the body. We are quite stuck to the mass of meat and tissue that surround us. For now.
SO I posit this question to all you amateur neurologists and metaphysicians out there: What is the smallest physical amount of our bodies that retains our full idea of self? If I want to transfer my essence to another body, what do I need to take with me? Need I take anything at all? Get to work!
Thursday, March 24, 2011
the composition of self
We (humans) are atomic beings, and indeed we can point to those very atoms that compose each part of ourselves. But where is the location of your consciousness? What is the chemical formula for your essence?
I believe that what we consider to be ourselves is the total of the data stored in electronic impulses in our brains. Our "selves" are not physical, and depend wholly on the life support our bodies offer. Otherwise, when someone died, you could transfer their consciousness by copying the physical dimensions of the brain.
Think of the data in your head as data on a hard drive. It exists, and you can access it on a framework, but you cannot break the drive open and physically extract it. If this is true, then, much like a hard drive, it should be possible to transfer the data of the brain to another device, proper formatting permitted. What cosmic wonder it would be if our minds were formatted in ntfs.
The concept of self transference allows for many extravagent possibilities - new bodies, brain upgrades, even immortality. This all hinges of course on the idea that the self is separate from the body, which I believe is true. One day we may be able to discard these fleshy vehicles altogether for the cleaner and more versitile realms of robotics and cyberspace.
I believe that what we consider to be ourselves is the total of the data stored in electronic impulses in our brains. Our "selves" are not physical, and depend wholly on the life support our bodies offer. Otherwise, when someone died, you could transfer their consciousness by copying the physical dimensions of the brain.
Think of the data in your head as data on a hard drive. It exists, and you can access it on a framework, but you cannot break the drive open and physically extract it. If this is true, then, much like a hard drive, it should be possible to transfer the data of the brain to another device, proper formatting permitted. What cosmic wonder it would be if our minds were formatted in ntfs.
The concept of self transference allows for many extravagent possibilities - new bodies, brain upgrades, even immortality. This all hinges of course on the idea that the self is separate from the body, which I believe is true. One day we may be able to discard these fleshy vehicles altogether for the cleaner and more versitile realms of robotics and cyberspace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)