Why we all need to think outside the box (1)
I enjoyed Chanda Prescod-Weinstein’s article about a subject that has had us all confused: “What makes a galaxy?” We do have this powerful need to put everything into boxes and, alas, it doesn’t always work. For example, is Pluto a planet? This is a subject that seems to cause endless anguish. Another example is the definition of a species, which, when you consider examples such as ring species (which illustrate how populations diverge to the point that they can no longer interbreed), makes it all a bit arbitrary (21 March, p 18).
I’m not against categorising things, because it helps with understanding, but we need to accept that there will always be things that don’t quite fit the model, rather than trying to force them into one box or another.
Alternative explanations for Stone Age seafaring (1)
I think Mark Pickin is wrong to conclude that Stone Age seafarers wouldn’t venture out to sea unless they could see indications of land ahead. Stone Age Polynesians travelled thousands of miles between islands, navigating by wave patterns and other means. Similarly, early Viking seafarers are known to have found Iceland, Greenland and later the Azores, all of which are far out of sight of other land (Letters, 14 March
Why we all need to think outside the box (2)
I’m not against categorising things, because it helps with understanding, but we need to accept that there will always be things that don’t quite fit the model, rather than trying to force them into one box or another.
From Sam Edge, Ringwood, Hampshire, UK
The debate over whether certain collections of stars should or shouldn’t be called galaxies based upon location, size, shape or dark matter concentration reminds me of the furore when Pluto was “demoted” from planetary to dwarf-planetary status. Taxonomy has its uses, but “galaxy” is just a word, also used to identify a type of chocolate bar in the UK. Get over it!
Understanding our understanding of physics (1)
In his article “Do aliens do physics?”, Daniel Whiteson speculates that “other [alien] species might build technologies without developing anything recognisable as physics”. Perhaps our fellow terrestrial species that also don’t ask “why” demonstrate this using the bedrock of physics: mathematics (14 March, p 42).
For example, honey bees use a “waggle dance” to communicate food sources to hive mates. Different segments of the dance convey the food source’s direction relative to the sun, distance (magnitude) and quantity. If an insect can communicate using intrinsic maths concepts, other species, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial, probably find them beneficial. Of course, in a multiverse, all bets are off.
Understanding our understanding of physics (2)
Whiteson proposes that there may be multiple equally valid explanations for the workings of the universe. I have often wondered how differently our scientific outlook would have developed if Benjamin Franklin had picked an alternative convention for the flow of electrical fluid, leading to the electron being regarded as positive and the proton as negative.
Alternative explanations for Stone Age seafaring (2)
Your article and the many letters on solving the mystery of Stone Age seafarers take a rationalist approach to the discovery of Malta from Sicily. Accident and emotion are at least as likely explanations. Stone Age fishers plying coastal waters off Sicily would have occasionally been caught in storms and blown out to sea. Survivors searching for home might have chanced upon Malta and then had further luck returning to Sicily.
As for emotion, Stone Age teenagers must have gotten their hands on fishing boats at times and set out to joyride or show off. Anyone with experience of groups of modern teens and automobiles will know what I mean. Some of these Stone Age teens would have sailed their boats over the horizon, gotten lost and, if very lucky, would have returned one day with stories of a new land they found.
How altruism shapes our biological fitness
Regarding David Robson’s piece, “Why are we so suspicious of do-gooders?”, in terms of evolutionary theory, altruism increases biological fitness if the cost of altruism is less than the benefit to my relatives, where the currency of cost and benefit is measured in terms of the future spread of my genes in the population. This is Hamilton’s rule, which has been tested in animal populations, where unfettered signals regarding costs, benefits and relatedness aren’t mediated by human communication systems (21 March, p 17).
In contrast, because humans in most societies are influenced by unreliable information sources (such as fashion or propaganda), when estimating the value of costs, benefits and relatedness, we constantly break Hamilton’s rule, which undermines our biological fitness, among other things.
Trigger-happy AI is no surprise (1)
It isn’t surprising that an AI might recommend nuclear strikes when faced with the prospect of losing a war regardless of the ethical and moral ramifications. Without a soul, and without the ability to internalise the horror and revulsion resulting from the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of course an AI could consider using a nuclear weapon, even if only as a last resort. As long as AIs are guided only by knowledge and experience, not wisdom, ethics and morality, AI-generated terror will be a danger (7 March, p 11)
Trigger-happy AI is no surprise (2)
Of course AIs don’t hesitate to use nuclear weapons in simulated war games. A machine doesn’t know fear and has no idea what this world is. So it is natural for it to opt for any weapon that is present in the game. It’s only following the rules, right?
The hand is the cutting edge of the mind
The piece on hominid hand structure is fascinating and shows the evolutionary importance of the development of hands. Jacob Bronowski, in his book The Ascent of Man, captures this well with the sentence: “The hand is the cutting edge of the mind (21 February, p 32)