In times of change

Every weekend, I go on a hike.
I hike up a hill to watch the leaves falling, listen to the birds singing, or simply to stare at the trees swaying in the wind.
I hike to a waterfall and stare at the water gushing through the rocks and crevices and feel the mist kissing my face.
I hike to the middle of nowhere and stare at the vast skies and feel the gentle breeze.

But why?

Encoded Information

bzyjdpsebjz vjfna hsfow jzfr kvwz be usz xw dwsn


Information exists and is transmitted in many forms. Oral and written languages, developed over eons in various pockets of the world are how humanity has communicated information for a vast majority of its history. Recently, with the development of technology and the internet, a new method of communication has been developed in the form of 1's and 0's, a new language capable of being transmitted and read easily by a device that can differentiate between 2 states, but a language nonetheless easily convertible from the archaic languages.

However, over the last few years, a new treasure trove of information has been found, one that describes the functioning of all life on earth, but cannot be translated into the prior kinds of information. The discovery that DNA stores and transmits information was a revolution in our understanding of the world, not just because of all the secrets unravelled about the functioning of life, but also because it proved the existence of information encoded in the world around us.

Questionable Science

Science is the new religion

Over the course of the last few decades, increasing awareness of the advances science has made in explaining the laws of the world has resulted in a mass migration of people away from religions towards a more 'scientific' understanding of the world around them. However, how much of what is commonly portrayed as science is truly in the spirit of science?

The vast majority of the public never reads published papers. The source of science for them, then, is second hand sources available through media outlets, websites and social networks which alter the original content by extrapolating, exaggerating or otherwise manipulating it to make it more appealing and/or fit their own narrative. The end result is a mere shadow of the original - popular science. The spirit of science lies in the questioning of everything, and not accepting the words of another unless proven. Does this unidirectional injection of 'scientific facts' into the public awareness constitute true science? How is science whose very basis is hidden behind insurmountable paywalls for the populace any different than a religion whose faith is beyond reproach?

The 1955 paper of Keys on the relationship between cholesterol intake and heart health was a cornerstone of heart health for the last 50 years after being blown up the then media and has been accepted as fact by the public. However,  this was a preliminary study and no further study has shown more than a correlation and the correlation has recently been completely negated with recent reports claiming no evidence of any link between the two. However, with the media not showing any interest in these results, this new nugget of science has yet to reach the populace. When media act as the gatekeepers of science who decide which facts reach the public, does it still count as science?

Science is driven by grants given the governments or private parties for 'exciting' research. What counts as exciting is determined by whether the research yields immediate, palpable results and whether the research appeals to the public. Pure science research, long term research and research which explores new avenues with unknown potential take second seat to research with immediate application. The greatest potential of science is in developing a better understanding the world which as a side effect, would allow for the development of new technologies. Focusing on science which delivers immediate results is short sighted and will only prove to be a detriment in the long term.
The entirety of the electronics industry is founded on a prior and gradual understanding of electrons and electric circuits over the course of more than 200 years.
A crucial part of science is the verification of old results, to prevent biased results which force a narrative. This kind of research also does not yield palpable results but increases the credibility of science as whole and is a necessary component of the scientific method. However, this again takes a backseat to research in the 'next big thing' as that is the only kind of research that is funded. Unless all kinds of research are funded, including verification of old papers, and pure science research,  we will run around in circles trying to find new applications within known areas of science instead of exploring outwards into new horizons. Giving control of the direction of research to agencies outside the scientific establishment promotes popular science, and not science.

Much has been written about issues with the publishing industry, and I would suggest a quick google search in this regard. Suffice to say that this industry is sorely in need of a complete reform as the paywalls of this establishment have grown beyond the reach of the richest universities in the world. The world's worst restaurant needs to be shut down!

However, even published papers do not always reveal the data that was used to draw conclusions. How does one question the results of the paper unless the data used to draw the conclusions is available? An influential economics paper in 2010 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w15639) which found a correlation between median growth rate and public debt was later found to have a flaw in the excel formula used in the calculations and the corrected result was a far lower degree of correlation between the two. This however, was only found after a paper in 2013 was published by Herndon et al questioning the results of the 2010 paper. This questioning of prior papers is an essential part of science, and cannot be efficiently done unless all data is shared, as re-collecting the same data to verify papers adds a degree of redundancy. The sharing of data might have been an issue in the past when it was infeasible to exchange large volumes of data over large distances, but, given the rise of the internet, is it not time to bring science into the modern age and open up all science to better questioning?

The crux of the issue of opening up science to the masses, is that science is not just a set of facts describing how the world works, but the ability to question everything we read. Unless the science we read is open to questioning, all we do is replace one set of beliefs with another. The rise of the popularity of science is just a myth. It is the birth of a new religion of popular science with the media acting as the new priests who hear the voice of god.

Limited by thought

The freedom to make our own decisions has been argued for by kids across the world. The freedom to voice our opinions is being fought for every day on the streets. Are we, however, free to think?

Several popular theories about how our brain works liken it to a chaotic computing system with our various senses providing inputs to the system. Our thinking is a cascade of neurological operations not unlike the working of a computer; our consciousness, a result of the chaos of a system with an excessively large number of extremely variable analog inputs. We learn through repeated reinforcement of a stimulus, and things we don't constantly experience are slowly forgotten. Using this understanding of our brain, rudimentary neural networks have been developed that are capable of path finding, pattern recognition and even defeating humans at games like chess and go.

However, with the success of this model to describe the functioning of the brain, it is worth questioning whether an AI would be able to uncover restrictions placed on its ability to process information.

Asimov in his various books describes robots that are limited by the 3 laws of robotics to not hurt humans, but they are made explicitly aware of these limitations. However, if the robots were unaware of the limitation and the limiting circuit was programmed to be avoided, each time the robot attempted to hurt a human, the limiting circuit would kick in to prevent the action and over time, build up an aversion to the action even before initiating the limiting circuit. As this new pathway circumvents the limiting circuit itself, a robot that is designed to learn efficiently doesn't use the limiting circuit enough to discover its existence unless externally forced to.

Using this as an analogy for human behavior, societal constructs which limit our thinking accumulate over time and across generations. Our unshakable belief in our personal worldview rests on our inability to overcome these generational limitations. Our belief in democracy, religion, the concept of nation states and ownership, and the value of paper currency are all belief's we share to allow the functioning of a civilization with 7 billion people.

Furthermore, in the analogy of the robot, if the limiting circuit is essential to the regular functioning of the robot, the development of the neural network occurs through the regular use of the circumventing pathway. If the limitation is to be overcome, the entire neural networks would need to be reworked, which would alter the functioning of the system. If a human whose core belief is questioned, would it even be possible for such a dramatic change in functioning on a physiological level? Is it possible that we fundamentally have no ability to alter our perceptions even in the face of irrefutable facts if they have been established well enough?

Given the dramatic change in global climate, and the necessity for rapid adaptation of the human race, and of our thinking, it is necessary to use our increasing understanding of the human brain to better understand what we, as a race are and aren't capable of.