Friday, March 28, 2014

Deadly 'Snowboob' Envelops Southern Ontario

I was planning to pack it up early today until I saw this amazing Twitpic on Mashable.

Perhaps you’ve heard of haboobs, intense dust and sand storms that can reach 10,000 feet high. Not uncommon in Phoenix during the monsoon season there, they look like a giant brown wall as they approach. But have you ever imagined a ‘snowboob’?

It turns out that snow squalls can take on the same appearance as haboobs. The wall of snow in the image above enveloped Toronto and other parts of Southern Ontario yesterday (Feb. 27).

Here’s another view:

Unfortunately, the giant snow squall caused mayhem for drivers across southern Ontario. Near Barrie, Ontario, north of Toronto, the sudden white-out conditions resulted in a 96-car pileup. And at least one death has been blamed on the wall of snow — to the west in Sarnia. You can find more details at The Toronto Star.

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Monday, March 24, 2014

The Most Depressing Things <em>True Detective</em> Says About The Self Are True

rust_cohle

We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self. A secretion of sensory experience and feeling. Programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when, in fact, nobody is anybody.

Rust Cohle has tumbled down a deep, dark philosophical hole and wants us to follow him. In HBO’s episodic crime drama True Detective, Cohle—played masterfully by Matthew McConaughey—accentuates his homicide investigations with disturbing existential rumination. Listening to Cohle lecture on the futile nature of human life or the cosmic indifference of the universe is emotionally arresting to say the least. His “corrosive” soul is the fulcrum for the supernatural element in True Detective, a nihilistic car wreck to stare at each week.

But Cohle is more than just dark when he speaks about human nature, he is right.

When Cohle says that we are “programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody,” he’s not just trying to ruin partner Marty Hart’s “silent reflection periods,” he is bringing up some of the biggest questions in the scientific exploration of human consciousness. Is the mind separate from the body? Who is in control? What makes the mind? Some research suggests that fully understanding consciousness involves biting the bullet that Cohle loads in the gun: our sense of self is programmed, a construct, an illusion.

Ask most people if mind and body are one and they will say no. This is referred to as “naïve dualism.” The people who think the body and mind are separate—more specifically the physical brain and the mind—are not naïve or stupid themselves, so to speak, but rather we are born thinking this way without consideration. When we look in the mirror, for example, we instinctively comment on our physical appearance separate from the mind. “You” haven’t aged but your body looks older. When you trip on the sidewalk you might say your legs gave out, but it wasn’t your fault. We feel as though we drive our bodies like a vessel our minds inhabit. But these feelings are still considered naïve because of what we now know about the brain.

James Bridges/Michele K. Short/HBO James Bridges/Michele K. Short/HBO

When we knew nothing of where the mind sprang from, it was understandable to think ourselves something of a puppet master. We are born (and cultured) with a sense of self located somewhere behind the eyes, in between the temples. Ultimately, our intuitive sense of self is like our pre-programmed intuitive sense of physics—useful in most situations, but not very accurate when we ask bigger questions.

With support from countless experiments and a number of intersecting fields, science is now certain mind and brain are one. More succinctly, “The mind is what the brain does.” If you—the you that harbors your personality, your will, your conscious thought—were truly separate from the physical brain, then brain damage or surgery could never change who you were. But it does. In theory, a surgeon could remove or alter a part of your brain and you would become an entirely different person (the case of Phineas Gage being the classic example). We’ve seen it enough times to know that our naïve dualism lives up to the designation. You are your brain. Dualism is no longer a scientifically tenable position. It may be a philosophical one, but Cohle has something to say about that too.

The dark truth Rust Cohle is alluding to is this: Who you are is entirely dependent on the physical brain, “this meat,” as Cohle puts it. And this meat makes mistakes about reality all the time.

Illusions are the easiest (and maybe the least depressing) way to see that our brains make mistakes. A famous optical illusion like this one makes it pretty clear that something is off. No matter how many times you try to see it, only by changing the conditions does something flip in your brain to say, “These blocks are the same color.”

Your brain is a prediction and modeling machine. There is simply too much information coming into our senses at any one time not to take advantage of some shortcuts. In the block example, your brain is assuming that the blocks are a different color because of their apparent lighting and 3D orientation. It makes a guess and that’s what you perceive.

Another example you’re going to hate me for: Your nose is always in your field of vision. The only reason why you don’t notice it all the time is that your brain is effectively editing it out like some green screen effect. Not only does the brain edit out reality, it fills it in. For example, you have two fairly substantial blind spots in your vision that you never notice. Only when you do a test like this do they “appear.” Otherwise, you would never see two large black spots in your vision. The brain is making predictions about the world and modeling what would be in those blind spots if the world were consistent within them. It’s a weird concept—the world we perceive is only our brain’s best simulation of what is beyond our eyes, ears, and noses. It gets even weirder than that.

In The Self Illusion, psychologist Bruce Hood lays out the case for how the brain’s models extend all the way to the self. Life seems rich and continuous and coherent to us, but thanks to the numerous illusions that fool us we know that’s not true. Because of how our vision works, for example, we are functionally blind between the times our eyes dart from one focal point to another, but we never notice. (Just try to see your eyes moving in a mirror.) Hood claims this blindness adds up to hours each day, but it’s never a part of our conscious experience. Those kinds of insights lead to a disturbing conclusion—the brain also models the self.

The “you” that rationalizes and chooses and deliberates is simply a way for the brain to navigate the world. Having a sense of a self that apparently controls the body from behind the eyes is an efficient way to deal with other sentient creatures, and evolved along with our intelligence, or so psychologists like Hood suggest. This conclusion doesn’t necessarily have to come from a scientific perspective either. In Buddhist philosophy, the term “anatta” refers to Rust’s contention of the “not-self” or the self illusion. If you simply pay attention to the nature of perception—what you feel and how—eventually you will notice that the sensation of a singular sense of self melts away. Of course, that kind of meditation does not work for everyone, and does not prove there is no “you.” Maybe shrinking your mirror down to the size of a quarter will help.

Think about the brain’s self modeling like The Matrix. In that film, humans are kept alive and thinking by electrical inputs wired straight into their brains. The humans in turn create a sense of self and experience from these inputs alone. But their sensory experience is completely illusory, and they’d never know it. Is that really any different from how we experience the world? Isn’t the self just a jumbled of sensory input that is stitched together like some rag doll that looks terrible up close? Now that’s thinking like Rust Cohle.

Rust Cohle Rust Cohle by p1xer on deviantART

Matthew McConaughey’s character in True Detective could go down in TV history as the world’s biggest bummer—a pessimist walking into extinction. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong. Knowing that the mind is not separate from the brain, that our senses can be fooled, that our sense of self can break down if we simply pay attention to the here and now, Rust Cohle is right—we are a multitude of unconscious processes cobbled together in a locked room and labeled “You”.

People… I have seen the finale of thousands of lives man. Young, old, each one was so sure of their realness. That their sensory experience constituted a unique individual. Purpose, meaning. So certain that they were more than a biological puppet. Truth wills out, everybody sees once the strings are cut off all down.

If you haven’t seen True Detective, this will give you a good sense of the fantastic (and depressing) acting you are missing (video contains spoilers):

And check out the incredible fan art!

Human consciousness is nowhere close to figured out, and there is no way I could cover every argument about the self here. For more, check out these videos and books:

The Self Illusion: How Your Brain Creates You—A talk by psychologist Bruce Hood

Me, Myself, and Why: Searching for the Science of Self—By Jennifer Ouellette

The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity—By Bruce Hood

Image Credits:
Rust Cohle by p1xer on deviantART
James Bridges/Michele K. Short/HBO

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Thursday, March 20, 2014

The Astonishing Trend Line of Planetary Discovery

Earlier this week, two NASA-affiliated teams announced the discovery of 715 new planets around other stars. I have to pause on that number for a moment. From the dawn of Mesopotamian astronomy around 2000 BC until 1992 AD, astronomers discovered a grand total of three planets: Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. (I’m still counting Pluto as a planet. So sue me.) Now, in a single data release, scientists have found 715, bringing the total number of known alien worlds to 1,750.

A brief history of planetary discovery. Blue shows early discoveries, red shows previous Kepler discoveries. The gold bar displays the 715 new planets announced this week. (Credit: NASA Ames/SETI/J Rowe) A brief history of planetary discovery. Blue shows early discoveries, red shows previous Kepler discoveries. The gold bar displays the 715 new planets announced this week.
(Credit:
NASA Ames/SETI/J Rowe)

And the news is even more amazing than the raw numbers convey. Through almost all of history, our solar system contained the only real estate that we knew about. Yes, astronomers studied other stars and nebulae, but they knew nothing of planets–the only places where life can exist, so far as we know, the only places where humans might set down and explore. Now we know that other planets exist, and that they come in a wide variety of exotic forms never before imagined.

Extrapolating from the latest statistics, our galaxy must contain at least 5 billion Earth-size planets, and perhaps ten times that many, orbiting in locations that could be hospitable for life. We have truly entered a new era in the human relationship to the cosmos–one that I would call the 4th Great Era of Discovery.

What were the other 3? I’ll have a lot more to say about that in my next post.

Follow me on Twitter: @coreyspowell

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Monday, March 17, 2014

Talking Science, Aliens, And RoboCop With Kids!

Kyle Mutant SeasonThe hardest part of communicating science isn’t when it’s in front of your peers or viewers or readers—the people you expect to know what you are talking about and why. For me, it’s talking science with kids. There isn’t anything like the inquisitive stare of a pre-teen to elicit the feeling you are about to speak in front of your biggest audience ever.

At the same time, communicating science to kids can be the most rewarding part of the job. That highbrow metaphor you use to make sure readers understand exactly how that particular protein interacts with that particular cell in this particular animal doesn’t mean a thing anymore. You have to be at the top of your game, ready to field questions on everything from RoboCop to the plausibility of Ancient Aliens.

Returning for a second time, I tried to do just that with Gil, the incredibly precocious 11-year old host of the Nerdist Network’s Mutant Season podcast. It’s another long one, and we tend to get caught up in our own nerdiness, but we had a lot of fun. You can listen to the whole episode here and tell me how I did in the comments below. If you want something a bit more zombie-heavy, check out our first discussion too!

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Farewell to Discover

It has been just over a year since I posted Lighting the Match, the first entry in this venture called Fire in the Mind. During that time I’ve written about a variety of subjects from fluoride paranoia to the mystical mathematics of rock and roll. Some of my favorite posts were about Oliver Sacks and his idiot-savant prodigies, the beguiling psychology of cancer clusters, Rosalind Franklin’s missed opportunity to discover the double helix, the infinite obsessions of David Foster Wallace, and Jhumpa Lahiri and the magic of perfectly chosen words. There was also a dispatch about Horace Freeland Judson, author of the best science book ever written. His daughter, Olivia Judson, has been writing a moving series in the Times about cleaning out her famly’s old house in Baltimore. (Be especially sure to read part 5, A Piece of DNA, in which she comes across part of Watson and Crick’s famous wire and sheet metal model.)

Toward the end of my run, I wrote mostly about the mysteries of cancer, the topic of my most recent book, with a side trip into the peculiarities of one of the most brilliant people alive, Murray Gell-Mann, the reluctant subject of my biography, Strange Beauty. He is 84.

Now it is time to move on. In January I began a monthly column, Raw Data, for the New York Times. It will appear every third Tuesday in the science section, online and in print, and sometimes in between. The first two installments were about irreproducible experiments, confirmation bias, and the role of subjectivity in science. But as the column continues, it will range over as wide a ground as “Fire in the Mind,” which ends now with this post. For the time being, the old entries will stay here, though I may eventually move them to my website, talaya.net.

I was an early adopter of  the Internet, hand-coding my own web pages on a Unix command line with an editor called pico. (The real hardcores use vi.) I accessed the web by telnetting to a server at CERN and later with a barebones browser – text only – called lynx. On equal footing back then with WWW were WAIS (wide area information server) and Gopher (from the University of Minnesota). With the invention of Mosaic, the first graphical web browser, they have become all but obsolete.

Things have gotten better and worse since then. There were no ads or “search engine optimization” and it was years before I received my first spam, reading it with an email program called pine. (I also received around that time an email invitation from Steve Case,  founder of AOL, to buy 1,000 shares of his company for $10 each. Knowing that AOL was not the future, I declined. I was right but I could have become wealthy in the short run.) I still like to play around with Unix, and I run my own domain and email server on an old Mac Pro in my office. But nothing beats ink on paper.

I’ve enjoyed being at Discover and I thank the editors, especially Tasha Eichenseher, who has moved on to other ventures, and Siri Carpenter, who is rising rapidly through the ranks. Many other good people remain, and more are on their way, including (from my hometown of Santa Fe) April Reese. Last I heard via Twitter, she and a friend were approaching Discover’s home office from somewhere in Nebraska.

I hope some of you will become readers of Raw Data and continue to follow me @byGeorgeJohnson.

photo by Kerry Sherck photo by Kerry Sherck

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Saturday, March 8, 2014

World's Tiniest Squid Gives Swimming Lessons

squidding

Learning to walk would be even harder if babies had to do it in jello. This is roughly the problem faced by young Humboldt squid. They start out life at one one-thousandth of their adult size and have to fight against the sticky water molecules surrounding them as they learn how to swim. They deal with it by sometimes swimming like jellyfish instead of squid (and hoping they survive long enough to grow).

Danna Staaf and her colleagues at the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University studied the swimming styles of newly hatched Humboldt squid. With a mantle (the bell-shaped part) less than a millimeter long, these might be the tiniest squid in the sea. The researchers picked apart their subjects’ swimming motions in high-speed videos, one frame at a time—sort of like a TV sports commentator analyzing Michael Phelps’s backstroke, if Phelps quadrupled his number of arms and was transparent.

Full-sized Humboldt squid have mantles of 1 meter (0.52 Michael Phelpses) or longer. They can hover, glide, or swim slowly by waving their fins and jetting water out of their mantles. Between jets they have to coast while their mantles refill with water. For a quick escape, they tuck their fins in close and shoot out an extra-strong jet.

The babies have a shorter, stubbier shape than adults. Since they’re so incredibly small, they’re also prevented from swimming well by the viscosity of the water around them. “The tiniest baby squid are not very efficient swimmers,” Staaf says. “They stop moving as soon as they stop jetting.” When they weren’t actively swimming, the researchers saw, baby squid always sank. You can watch a video here of one young squid struggling to stay up.

Unfortunately, a baby squid can’t just give up on swimming and sit on the seafloor while it waits to grow. To avoid predators, it hangs out lower in the water during the day but rises to the surface at night. Moving at about half a centimeter per second, it has to allow some time for those daily journeys. (Later, as an adult, it will travel hundreds of meters up and down with ease.)

To make up for their inefficient swimming, baby squid use a move called “hop and sink”—swimming upward for a few seconds, then resting and sinking back down. The researchers also saw them using a trick no one had ever seen before in squid. Instead of tightly sealing the space between their mantles and their heads below, so they can use the water inside for jetting, they sometimes “leave the mantle open so lots of water leaks out,” Staaf says. This “allows them to ‘tread water’ in a sense.” It’s more like how a jellyfish swims than an adult squid.

It’s possible that tiny baby squid use two different swimming styles (jellyfish-like and squid-like) simply “because their existence is so different from that of adults,” Staaf says. Being so small gives them a whole different set of physical forces to contend with. As they grow, they ditch the jellyfish impression and perfect their speedy, adult jetting.

Although newly hatched squid are inefficient swimmers, their efficiency peaks when they reach 1 centimeter (if they live that long). And as they grow from a centimeter to a meter or more, they’re limited only by the power of their muscles to squeeze out jets of water. Then the ocean’s other tiny inhabitants are the ones that have to watch out.

squid ruler screenshot

Images: Danna Staaf.

Staaf, D., Gilly, W., & Denny, M. (2014). Aperture effects in squid jet propulsion Journal of Experimental Biology DOI: 10.1242/?jeb.082271

submit to reddit

View the original article here

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Chasing the Universe's First Generation of Stars

Home»April»Chasing the Universe's First Generation of Starssubmit to redditA few years ago, Avi Loeb spent some time with his family near Cradle Mountain in the highlands of central Tasmania, a rugged island 150 miles south of Australia. Their cabin had no Internet connection, affording Loeb some free time after dinner to step outside and look up at the clear night sky, untainted by any trace of urban glow. He was bowled over by a dazzling spectacle: the countless stars of our galaxy, the Milky Way, airily stretched across the heavens. Off to the side, he could see our... DSCAprilCoverSubscribe and get 10 issues packed with:The latest news, theories and developments in the world of scienceCompelling stories and breakthroughs in health, medicine and the mindEnvironmental issues and their relevance to daily lifeCutting-edge technology and its impact on our futureRegistration is FREE and takes only a few seconds to complete. If you are already registered on DiscoverMagazine.com, please log in.

View the original article here