Where numbers come from

June 6, 2022

Of course it all depends on what numbers are taken to be. Numbers are not real. You cannot see or touch or smell them. They are labels (words) with associated symbols (numerals). They are neither nouns nor adjectives though, in some contexts, they can be used as nouns. Philosophy calls them abstract objects. They are perceived as abstractions in the real world of existence. But they are abstractions which display relationships and patterns among themselves quite independent of the applications from which they are discerned. What lies at the source of numbers? How did they come to be? I see numbers as a means, a language, for describing the underlying patterns connecting countable things in the existing universe.

It starts with one. 

There are four abstract concepts, I suggest, which lie at the source not only of all numbers and numbering systems but of mathematics in general (beginning with arithmetic and geometry). It seems to me that these four concepts are necessary and sufficient.

    1. Oneness (1)
    2. Set
    3. Sum
    4. Arithmetical addition (+)

If there were nothing to count, we would not have numbers.

Of things that exist, even abstract things, human cognition distinguishes between countable things and uncountable things. The necessary and required conditions for things to be considered countable are, first that they exist, and second that each has a unique, discrete identity. Things that are uncountable are those perceived as being part of a continuum and therefore not discrete or unique. (The word uncountable is also used for countable things which are too numerous for the human mind to contemplate but it is not that meaning that I use here). Thus apples, oranges, grains of sand, people and atoms are all countable. Things and concepts that cannot be divided into discrete elements are uncountable. Space, sky, water, air, fire, and earth are all perceptions of continua which are uncountable. Nouns for generalisations are uncountable (furniture, music, art, ….). The distinction applies to abstract things as well. Discrete thoughts or specific ideas can be counted. But abstractions (shapes, information, news, advice, ….) which lack a discrete, unique identity are within the ranks of the uncountable. Types of emotions are countable, but emotion is not.

To be discrete and unique give substance to identity. Existence (a Great Mystery) comes first, of course. To have identity is to have some distinguishing characteristic which enables the quality of “oneness”. Note that the quality of being identical (similar) does not disturb identity. Two, or many, things may be identical, but the identity of each remains inviolate. An atom of hydrogen here may be identical to an atom of hydrogen elsewhere, but the identity of each remains undisturbed. It is estimated that there are between 1078 to 1082 atoms existing in the observable universe. Each one distinct from all the others. Each one having identity.

We use the word identity in many contexts. In the philosophical sense, which includes the context of counting, my definition of identity is then:

identity – oneness; the distinguishing character of a thing that constitutes the objective reality of that thing

It is the discreteness and uniqueness contained in identity which gives rise to the concept of oneness as a quality of a thing which makes that thing countable. It is having the concept of oneness which allows us to define a concept of number, label it as “one” and give it a symbol (1). How the concept of identity (oneness) emerged in the species is another one of the Great Mysteries of life and consciousness.

But the concept of identity alone is not sufficient to generate the need to count and the invention of numbers. Having defined one (1), something else is still needed to generate a number system. A social, behavioural component is also required; It is cooperation and interaction with others which leads to the need to count. It probably emerged when humans created social groupings and things were accumulated for rainy days. The notion of addition as the accumulation of things belonging to a set is also needed. An ancient human may have gathered an apple an orange and a goat and accumulated many things but would probably not have thought of those things as belonging to the set of things. If he had gathered only apples and oranges, he may well have recognised that he had accumulated a set of things identified as fruit. And someone at sometime in our prehistory did note that his accumulation of individual goats all belonged to the set of things identified as goats. We cannot now know how our ancestors first came to a numbering system and the concept of addition with numbers, but it must certainly have been at around the same time that the need for counting emerged.

To get from just observing the accumulation of things in the real world to the concept of arithmetical addition was a major intellectual leap.  That journey also needed that the concepts of a set and of a sum were in place. We can only speculate on how that emergence and conjunction of the necessary concepts took place. It would surely have been noticed that there was a common, underlying pattern (rule) which applied with the accumulation – separately – of, say, apples and / or goats. But it would also have been noticed that the pattern did not apply when dealing with mixtures of apples and goats together. Accumulating an apple and an apple exhibits the same underlying pattern as accumulating a goat and a goat. But a goat and an apple followed the same rule only when they were considered, not as goats or apples, but as things belonging to a greater class (set) of things.

1 apple + 1 apple follows the same abstract, underlying pattern as 1 goat + 1 goat or 1 thing + 1 thing, but the rule breaks down at 1 apple + 1 goat.

A set of things – is a multiplicity of similar countable things which together can assume a separate identity (unique and discrete)

It is likely that it was then that they realised that the accumulation of things could be represented by abstract rules (patterns) which were independent of the set of things being accumulated. The rule of arithmetical addition (+), they would have found, applied in a like manner to accumulations of members of any set, and that a common name could be given to the result (sum) of the accumulation.

Sum – the result of an accumulation

But they would also have found that the rule (pattern) of accumulation and counting broke down when dealing with mixed sets of things. Whereas one apple and one apple gave the same sum as one goat and one goat, that sum had no meaning if one apple was accumulated with one goat. However, the summation rule reasserts itself when considering the sum of things with the accumulation of one thing (apple) and one thing (goat). This general, but abstract, rule of the summation operation was arithmetical addition.

Arithmetical addition (+) – the accumulation of one number to another number giving a sum as the result

Maintaining identity remained crucial. They would have noted that the abstract rule did not apply if the things being accumulated lost identity (their oneness) during the operation. One goat and one lion gave one lion. One bubble and one bubble could merge to give one bubble. But they would also have noted that uncountable things were not capable of being accumulated.

Given the abstract concepts of identity (oneness, 1) and arithmetical addition (+), all natural numbers inevitably follow. With a 1 and with a +, and the concept of a set and a sum, all the natural numbers can be generated.

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 ……

Having invented a label and a symbol for oneness (one, 1), new labels and symbols were then invented for the abstract sums. The chosen base (binary, decimal, hexagesimal, vigesimal, ….) determines the number of labels and symbols to be invented.

1 + 1 gave 2, 1+ 2 gave 3, ….. and so on

And all the natural numbers were born.

The reverse of accumulation, the giving away or lessening of things, led to the abstraction of arithmetical subtraction (-) and that gave us zero and all the negative integers. Note that oneness and one (1) must come first before the concept of zero (0) makes any sense. Zero is a very specific quality of nothingness, but zero is not nothingness. In the observed world an absence of apples (0 apples) is not quite the same thing as an absence of goats (0 goats), but the number abstraction (0) from both is the same. As a number, zero is special and does not follow all the rules discovered connecting, and applying to, the other numbers. (Zero also functions as a placeholder in our notations but that is a different matter to its properties as a number). Zero added to another number does not create a new number as every other number does. Division is allowed by any number but not by zero. Division by zero is undefined. One (1), not zero (0), is where numbers start from. Zero is merely a consequence of removing (subtracting) one (1) from one (1).

Multiplication is just recursive addition. Recursive subtraction leads to division and that generates irrational numbers. Applying numbers to shapes (geometry) led to the discovery of transcendental numbers. Number theory is about studying and discovering relationships between numbers. But all these discovered relationships exist only because numbers exist as they do. All the relationships exist as soon as the concepts of oneness (1) and addition (+) are fixed together with the concepts of a set and a sum. Discoveries of the relationships can come much later. Numbers depend on counting and number theory depends upon the numbers.

Numbers start with one (1), and without a one (1) there can be no numbers.

Numbers, ultimately, rest on the concept of identity (oneness).

Tags: , ,
Posted in Mathematics, Philosophy | Comments Off on Where numbers come from

All my heresies

May 28, 2022

A heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox doctrine.

I find that a great many of my beliefs and opinions are diametrically opposed to modern fashionable doctrines. 

  1. I believe in “good” behaviour but I find the invented, artificial concept of entitlements labeled as “human rights” to be a false god which undermines “good” behaviour. People do not refrain from killing or maiming or harming others because of their “human rights”. They refrain because their own code of behaviour does not allow them to behave that way. There are no entitlements which flow from the laws of nature.
  2. Humans are not born equal nor are they equal in ability or performance through their lives.
  3. A human life has no intrinsic value. The value of any individual to others is a subjective judgement made by those others. Being born creates no value. Subsequent behaviour does. Whether an individual life matters depends upon the behaviour of that individual.
  4. Race is the classification of humans by visible physical attributes which are primarily a consequence of ancestry. The classification is dynamic but only changes slowly over generational time. Skin colour is, and has been, the overwhelmingly dominant attribute used for this classification.
  5. Parents are partially responsible for the behaviour of any young they have nurtured, but not for any genes they have unwittingly provided to their biological offspring. Genetic makeup may provide an explanation for behaviour but is never an excuse.
  6. Descendants cannot claim credit, or assign blame, for the fame or shame or misery of ancestors.
  7. Genetic variation among humans is continuous but, by definition, the species has two genders as given by the reality of the bimodal clustering apparent on the scale of human genetic variation. Parthenogenesis is not a characteristic of the species. Where an individual falls on the scale is not a matter of choice. It is, therefore, neither a matter of pride or shame – it just is.
  8. Cultural appropriation is a measure of a culture with features worth appropriating. A culture without any features worth appropriating eventually dies out – as it should.
  9. Victimhood does not confer any state of grace. Victimhood of distant ancestors is no excuse for bad behaviour in the present.
  10. Being gay is not as genetically inevitable as being short or being tall. It may well be partially genetic but it is also partially a behavioural choice. “Gay pride” is as praiseworthy, or not, as “short pride” or “tall pride” or “rich pride”.
  11. Not to discriminate against what you think is “bad” is just stupid. “Positive discrimination” to compensate for some unjust discrimination elsewhere is inevitably, and unavoidably, always unjust.
  12. An open mind is a mind devoid of bias. Knowledge creates bias. Only an empty mind is devoid of bias. A learned judge is inevitably a biased judge. 
  13. Justice is about doing future harm to compensate for perceived harm done. Institutional justice is about exercising discrimination and doing harm to those judged against. Institutional justice always bows to force majeure.
  14. A Google search is not “research”. The ability to carry out a Google search does not make a scientist. Bean counting (like counting the number of articles for and against) is not science.
  15. Democracy is not about what is good or what is correct or what is just. It is about the majority view prevailing, even if bad or incorrect or unjust. “Goodness” is an individual moral judgement. A “democratic”, majority decision is silent about the goodness, correctness or truth value of that decision.
  16. A lie shared by all 7.5 billion humans remains a lie.
  17. “Freedom of speech” does not exist and has never existed. 
  18. Journalism is a sub-set of advocacy. There is no journalist who is not also a lobbyist.
  19. In armed conflict, a superior argument is always trumped by superior force. (It is best to have both).
  20. On workmen and their tools. A superior brush does not make a morally superior painter. An expensive bat does not make the good batsman. A killer is not absolved because it was easy or cheap to get a gun.
  21. ………

The list of my heresies seems to go on and on and on.

I can only conclude that I am not in tune with these times. I am old enough now not to care very much or be bothered enough to have to do anything about it. Heresy and skepticism, though, are the only antidotes to gullibility and indoctrination.

A few hundred years ago I would probably have been burned at the stake.

 

Heretic burning (image from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Or3eUymcEA)

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour | Comments Off on All my heresies

What evolution does not do

May 17, 2022

Of course evolution does not actually do anything.

Evolution is not causative. It is a label for the effects we see of other factors which effect survival and reproduction. I dislike the description of evolution being as a result of natural selection. Strictly, it is never about selection but always a result of deselection of those not able to survive. The primary “force” which gives evolution is the dying of the unfit. It is not the survival of the fittest but the survival of the good enough. When it is said that some creature is perfectly suited to its environment what is actually meant is that all others not suited to that environment failed to survive. More than 99% of all species that ever existed are now extinct. We cannot, I think, apply value judgements of “good” or “bad” to the result. It is not correct to even apply the terms “natural” or “unnatural” or “artificial” about the word evolution. The evolution of species in general or any species in particular has always been without direction and without purpose. But it could be that the human species is the first which may be able to introduce an element of purpose and direction to its own future course. Whether this direction can encompass “good” behaviour is still in the realm of fantasy.

It seems to me that the human definition of “good behaviour” has not changed very much in the last 10,000 years. The golden rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) probably became a golden rule whenever it was that our ancestors began cooperating in a serious way and built societies which were larger than the immediate family group. It seems plausible that this value judgement for “good behaviour” begins with the first establishment of clans or tribes. That takes us back at least 50,000 years and maybe even longer. Certainly it goes back to long before the first establishment of permanent settlements and cities (c. 10,000 years ago). But whenever it was that humans developed this value judgement for “good behaviour”, it does not seem to have been much favoured by the forces resulting in evolution.

Clearly some behavioural patterns do impact survival and reproduction and therefore must have some impact on the evolutionary result. Tribes and clans not inclined to cooperate went extinct long ago. Cultures where members did not specialise and cooperate, stagnated and gradually disappeared. The levels of specialisation and cooperation in today’s global society have reached unprecedented levels. If behaviour is to be selected/deselected for then it can only happen to the extent that behaviour is an inherited trait. Moreover, it can only be implemented by the continuous deselection of unwanted behaviour and selection of desired behaviour. That behaviour does have a genetic component is almost certain and that genes are mainly inherited is also certain. Breeding for emotional or behavioural traits is still a very chancy business. Domesticated animals, and even wolves and foxes, have been artificially bred for traits other than the purely physiological. This has involved “deselection” for some emotional traits (aggression for example) or to “select” for others (courage, tolerance of humans, ….). Individuals having desired traits are allowed to breed and those having undesirable traits are not allowed to reproduce. This ensures the passing on of genes. But from genes to behaviour is a very fuzzy step.

“Bad behaviour” is as prevalent today as it was in pre-history. “Bad behaviour” clearly is not deselected by “natural” evolutionary forces. “Good behaviour” is not selected for either. The propensity for violence, aggression and, generally, doing harm to others – albeit by a minority – has not changed much since ancient times. The only possible conclusion is that being “good” or “bad” does not lead to the evolutionary selection – or deselection – of a behavioural trait. What evolution certainly does not do is to choose between “good” and “bad”.

The persistence of bad behaviour through the ages suggests that it may even have some survival value.

Tags:
Posted in Behaviour, Evolution | Comments Off on What evolution does not do

Taking credit for your ancestors

May 14, 2022

I am always rather amused when people in the now try and bask in the past glories (usually exaggerated and always presumed) of their ancestors. Especially when someone claims descent from some very famous person. As if they chose them. To be proud of a famous father or grandfather is perfectly reasonable but to claim credit in the now for their deeds in the past is illogical. To claim credit for ancestors even further back in time verges on the ridiculous.

I find it especially silly when someone proudly declaims an ancestor’s presumed qualities or famous deeds and misses that they themselves suffer by comparison. I am equally unimpressed when someone proudly claims a long line of descent. Every single one of the 7.3 billion alive today (poor-man, rich-man, beggar-man, thief) has exactly the same number of ancestors as everyone else. One can now bask not only in famous ancestors but even in their past shame or misery. Nowadays it has  become fashionable to try and gain “victimhood credits” for the sufferings and failings of long-gone ancestors. Entitlement culture has now given us “victimhood privilege” as a new phenomenon of the 21st century.

Nationalist groups in many countries who are insecure about their own identities often bask in the presumed past glories of ancient civilizations. The one common feature of all these “great civilizations is, of course, that they all failed. It applies to all the classical “great civilizations” in Egypt, China, India, Greece and Rome. Some lasted much longer than others but they all eventually collapsed. Civilizations and societies which succumbed to others gives rise to claims of current victimhood credits for the sufferings and the failings of their ancestors. To be descended from the Phoenicians or the Mayans or Aztecs is now creditable in the now. To be descended from slaves of 200 years ago or from the colonised 500 years ago allows victimhood credits to be claimed in the present. Nowadays, in India, the Hindu right tries to take credit for the exaggerated, and often quite dubious, wonders of past “golden ages”, some two or five (or even ten!) thousand years ago. Never mind that the “golden ages” collapsed due to their own stresses, faults and imperfections. Never mind that the “golden ages” were always followed by millennia of “dark and dismal ages”. Never mind that glorious ages were followed by inglorious times because the glorious ages all led to decadence and depravity. Never mind that the “dark ages” and their misery were a direct consequence of the preceding “golden ages”,

Every person alive today had some ancestor who was a thief, a murderer, a cheat, a ruler or a slave. That includes every claimed descendant of Genghis Khan (40 generations) or Confucius (80 generations), and every current member of any “aristocracy” or “royal lineage” (the Norwegian House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg from 1106 CE is probably the oldest recorded). There is nobody alive today who can even presume to trace a direct line of descent for more than about 40 generations. Even the most detailed line of descent leaves out more ancestors than are included. In practice nobody has a record of all their ancestors for more than about 10 generations and very few for more than 5. And if we want to go back to the heyday of ancient Greece (500 BCE) we would need 125 generations. And to reach back to the first cities ever we would need 500 – 600 generations. Modern humans started around 10,000 generations ago.

Every person alive today has more ancestors who were quite ordinary and forgettable than famous ones. There are more villains in each person’s ancestry than there are “good guys”. Basking in the fame or the shame of ancestors is about as silly as the human mind allows. There is no person alive today who does not have an ancestor who was an illiterate, speechless, murderous, selfish, tree-swinging ape.

Tags: ,
Posted in Anthropology, History | Comments Off on Taking credit for your ancestors

A strategy for Wordle 7

May 12, 2022

I am very new to Wordle and only started playing last week. The greatest challenges I found with Wordle 5 and 6 were the use of American spellings and the seemingly arbitrary conjoining of two words to create “words” which I would not consider to be single words.

Wordle 5 and 6 did not seem too taxing and soon got boring. Wordle 7 is now keeping me engaged for longer than 5 or 6 did. The “strategy” I have evolved is to use the same 3 starting words (entirely by trial and error) to cover as many letters of the alphabet as possible. The last 3 attempts seem to then be sufficient to find the hidden word in most cases. But I am still not happy with two word combinations being elevated to be taken as single words. (website, manhole ….). Smacks of cheating.

I only started with Wordle 7 this week. I am sure there must be better words but the three I have ended up using – again by trial and error – are:

THREADS

LOUNGER or LOUNGES

PRIVACY

So far so good. The success rate has come up to about 75% 95% (and most failures are on my unfamiliarity with American usage and Americanisms).

My three chosen words cover 17 letters. I now need to find three better starting words perhaps covering 18 or 19 letters of the alphabet. 

Posted in Language, Trivia | Comments Off on A strategy for Wordle 7

On the paradox of purpose and veracity in histories

May 11, 2022

I find that all our histories have one of only two purposes. The first is to satisfy the intellectual need to know and the second is the desire to influence future behaviour. The first is part of epistemic curiosity and the second is just politics. All histories are, of course, stories about the past. All histories consist of a selection of “facts” and a narrative (always speculative to some degree) connecting the chosen “facts”. Much of the study of history as an academic discipline (whether archaeology or genetics or anthropology ….) is about the selection and justification of what is to be considered “fact”. It is never, and can never be, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

Two purposes seems also to be the academic view though with slightly different labels.

In a discussion of the History Manifesto in 2015 Prof. Johann Neem wrote

Underlying the entire conversation was a tension between the two purposes of history, the philosophical or scientific, and the civic. The philosophical or scientific perspective considers the pursuit of historical truth to be of highest value. Like any organized scientific activity, historical research is corrupted when oriented to immediate public ends. Its public value ultimately depends on its autonomy.

The civic purpose of history, on the other hand, is to help a community—a nation, a religious or ethnic group—understand the present in ways that orient that group to the future. The questions asked, and the answers offered, will be ones relevant to the community at large rather than a scholarly community of inquiry.

We need both; in fact the civic depends on the scientific if history is to avoid becoming propaganda or having the preferences of the reading public drive the discipline’s priorities. Before historians can engage the public, they need good knowledge, and thus basic research.

What Neem calls “philosophical or scientific” purpose is just epistemic curiosity and what he calls the “civic” purpose boils down to politics. All epistemic curiosity in humans is ultimately just idle curiosity,

From my book Before Time Began (in preparation)

And then there is intellectual curiosity – epistemic curiosity. This only comes into play (a la Maslow) once basic survival needs are met. A recognizable brain is needed. It is the exercise of mind which epitomizes being an individual. Whereas perceptual curiosity is the drive to know enough to ensure survival, epistemic curiosity is the drive to know more. It seeks knowledge for the sake of knowledge. It gives us pleasure. It fuels study and learning and the accumulation of knowledge for its own sake. It gives us science and art. It drives language and literature and music and the other higher-order needs for self-actualization. It drives gossip and it drives play. ……….. Epistemic curiosity lies on an open-ended scale. It can never be satiated and we remain curious no matter what we discover. We are even curious about why we are curious. ………..

Epistemic curiosity, one could say, is the curiosity of idle minds.

Of these two purposes, one is a search for knowledge (truths) and is an end in itself. The other, the civic, political purpose, is as a tool for some other agenda. The curious thing is that whereas the veracity demanded by curiosity is absolute (since truths are needed to be considered knowledge) the use of history as a tool to influence future behaviour requires only perceived veracity. The use of a story about the past as a tool only works if others (those whose behaviour is to be influenced) perceive the history to be true. The actual truth value of the story may even be zero as long as the perceived veracity is high. A complete fiction becomes a history if it is perceived to be true.

Thus, actual veracity is irrelevant in a history to be used for social purposes. Only the perceived veracity matters. Actual veracity – the truth – is relevant only in satisfying epistemic curiosity.

When the purpose has no impact the truth is sought assiduously. Where the purpose is to have an impact, the actual truth is irrelevant and only perceived truth matters.

Perhaps it is just my cynicism but I find this somewhat of a paradox.

Tags: ,
Posted in History | Comments Off on On the paradox of purpose and veracity in histories

Mothers by the numbers

May 8, 2022

Mother’s Day today.

Estimates for May 2022

World population                     7.9 billion

World female population         3.92 billion

Number of mothers                  2.1 billion

Around 27% of the global population are mothers, (or one could say that about half of all the females in the world are mothers).

 

Tags:
Posted in Demographics | Comments Off on Mothers by the numbers

IPL 2022 – Only 6 teams left with a real chance

May 5, 2022

We are at the sharp end of the IPL.

10 teams. 14 matches each. 

70 matches in total before the play-offs. (We are now at match 50 later today).

The arithmetic is straightforward. A total of 140 points to be played for. In theory every team could win seven matches and end up with 14 points with everything to be decided by net run rate. In any event, net run rate will be needed to determine the final four. The fight for fourth place could well involve 3 – 4 teams on the same number of points.

Gujarat Titans have qualified with aplomb and Mumbai Indians are humiliatingly eliminated I think. I don’t think DC, KKR or CSK will make it either and that leaves 6 teams with a chance to make the play-offs. A number of the “young” captains have not excelled. Pant, Shreyas Iyer and Jadeja have been found wanting.

The most outstanding, match-winning performance so far was in match 14 on 6th April with Pat Cummins’ 50 off just 14 balls as he blasted Kolkata Knight Riders to a 5 wicket win over Mumbai Indians.

My take on the current status. 

 

 

 

Posted in Cricket, Uncategorized | Comments Off on IPL 2022 – Only 6 teams left with a real chance

“Good conduct” is not an evolutionary survival trait

May 4, 2022

What passes for “good conduct” today is not so very different to what it was at least 5,000 years ago. It is very probable that it has not changed very much for much longer than that. To lie, to rob, to cheat, to harm, to murder and to rebel against established societal authority have all been considered “bad conduct” in human societies from long before recorded history is available. The earliest known codes of laws go back to Babylonian (Hammurabi -1800 BCE) and even to Sumerian times (Urukagina – 2400 BCE). Codes of conduct can be inferred to even earlier times with the beginnings of Dharma in the pre-Hindu Indus-Saraswati Valley, in ancient Egypt and in ancient China. 

Code of Hammurabi

Definitions of what constitutes “good conduct” must originate with the earliest societies of hunter gatherers and must therefore precede the spread of farming, the growth of cities and even the beginnings of semi-permanent settlements at the end of the last ice age (c. 12,000 years ago). It is not unreasonable that the Golden Rule (Do to others as you would have them do to you) emerged as a core definer of good conduct around 40 – 50,000 years ago. 

50,000 years is not insignificant in evolutionary time. For humankind it represents around 2,500 generations of natural selection. But our conduct has not improved. Evolutionary changes can be observed in humans and they are not small. All the races we identify today have emerged in that time. The changes are continuing but it is not apparent over our short lifetimes as to what the future holds for us. The changes are sufficient that it is not very likely that a human from 50,000 years ago would be able to breed successfully with a human from today.

Wikipedia – Human traits that (have) emerged recently include the ability to free-dive for long periods of time, adaptations for living in high altitudes where oxygen concentrations are low, resistance to contagious diseases (such as malaria), light skin, blue eyes, lactase persistence (or the ability to digest milk after weaning), lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels, retention of the median artery, reduced prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease, lower susceptibility to diabetes, genetic longevity, shrinking brain sizes, and changes in the timing of menarche and menopause.

Humans are the only species which has shown the capability of interfering with the conditions determining natural selection. We started neutralising the effects of environment on us when we built shelters and gained control over fire. We now create our own bubbles in which we live and nullify the impact that climate and weather once had on natural selection. We use technology to minimise the impact of natural disasters on the evolution of our kind. Of course, the greatest impact humans have had on natural selection has come in the last 200 years or so with the great advances of medical knowledge. Being weak – mentally or physically – is no longer a de-selector for survival and reproduction. Natural selection no longer favours the “fittest”. Choice of mates is no longer (entirely) based on physical superiority. We deselect some characteristics before birth (Down’s Syndrome). Whether we admit to it or not, we employ a kind of eugenics by default. We have begun artificial selection (AI) though we are not quite sure what we are selecting for.

But it is not at all obvious that “good conduct” is any more prevalent among humans today than it was 50,000 years ago. We continue to lie, cheat, do harm, murder and flout established authority. As individuals we do so utilising the most advanced technologies available to humankind, always one step ahead of the established authorities. No doubt there is a genetic component to “good conduct”, but natural selection has not found any benefit in promoting it. In today’s age of entitlements, survival and reproduction by transgressors is actually protected. The genetic components of “bad conduct” are given a protected status. As societies we continue to war on each other for quite frivolous reasons with the most wonderful new weapons. In fact weapons production leads many technology advances – as it always has done.

The inescapable conclusion I come to is that “good conduct” is not a survival trait and has no impact whatsoever on the evolution of the species. In fact, “bad conduct” may well be preferred by the selection forces we have now brought into play. What evolution will result in remains to be seen. But it is highly probable that our conduct will not be any better than it is now. There is a chance it could be much worse.

Tags: ,
Posted in Evolution | Comments Off on “Good conduct” is not an evolutionary survival trait

When the tree falls in the forest, the sound is only due to language

May 1, 2022

The classic, cliched question goes:

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

The non-philosophical part of question is easily answered.

  • If a tree falls within an extant medium, and
  • there is consequent vibration within that medium, and
  • there is an organ which can detect such vibrations, and
  • the organ generates impulses, and
  • it sends these impulses to a brain, and
  • that brain interprets the impulses as something the brain itself labels as sound, then
  • there will be sound.

If the tree fell in a vacuum there would be no vibration of anything. No medium, no sound. No ear, no sound. No brain. no sound. In fact, if we did not have ears connected to our brains our language would be unable to come up with words for ears, hearing or sound. If we had no word for sound then there might well be vibrations when the tree fell, but there would be no sound. The non-philosophical answer then becomes that if we had no word in language for sound then there would be no sound. When a dog or a bat detects vibrations at frequencies that our ears cannot detect then such signals never reach our brains to ever be classified in our language as sound. What an animal might interpret in its brain when its ears detect signals is whatever that animal interprets it or labels it to be.  Only if we define the word sound to loosely mean what any brain may interpret on receiving signals from any ear-like organ, could we say that the animal discerns sound.

The philosophical part of the question, however, which considers perception, observation and existence is much more interesting. There are many things we cannot directly experience with our limited senses. But we can infer and/or deduce that they exist by their interactions with other things giving changes which we can observe directly. We extend our senses by creating wonderful instruments which then produce changes observable directly by our traditional senses. We “see” in the ultraviolet or the infra-red only because our cameras convert these UV or IR signals into images that do fall within our visible range.

But what of all that we cannot observe, directly or indirectly, by our limited senses and our finite brains? Is it so that if something cannot be observed, cannot be perceived, cannot be inferred to exist by any interaction it has with anything else in this universe, then it does not exist? Or is it merely that we are ignorant of its existence? Philosophy is, of course, about asking unanswerable questions. Once a question can be answered it leaves the field of philosophy.

Take bongism for example. We cannot observe it, perceive it, infer it or deduce it. It has no known interactions with anything else in this universe. But it is the imbalance in bongism which caused all existence in the first place. It is the answer to the question “Why do things exist at all?”.

Does bongism exist?

It must do, since I have a word for it.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on When the tree falls in the forest, the sound is only due to language

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »