National Geographic photography contest winners

I subscribe to National Geographic in part for the great photography. In additional to publishing photos taken by their professional photographers, NG also sponsors various photography contests in which readers send in their inspiring, idyllic and oftentimes stunning images. Here are two of the NG contest sites (here and here), with lots of incredible sights to be seen. I can't say enough about all of the terrific written content of National Geographic either. It is a must-read every month for me. What a bargain! For only $15 per year (a fraction of the cost of a ticket to many spectator events), you'll be transported to the four corners of the Earth (and beyond) every month.

Continue ReadingNational Geographic photography contest winners

Evolutionary explanations: historical trajectory versus convergence

In the April 16, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers), Johan J. Bolhuis and Clive L. Wynne asked "Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work? Their answer is that we need to be careful. Traits don't always smoothly work their way up from ancestors to contemporary species. Sometimes, traits appear as a result of "convergence," namely, these traits arise in species that are not closely related because these species were independently subjected to similar selection pressures. A good example of convergence would be the wings of birds and bats, which are not closely related species. Both species, however, were subjected to similar selection pressures, accounting for the existence of their wings. The authors argue that many studies suggesting that humanlike traits existed in lower primates lacked sufficient controls. Maybe those capuchin monkeys were not reacting on the basis of assessing "fairness" when they shared or rejected slices of cucumbers. Maybe they were rejecting an inferior reward simply because better rewards were potentially available. The authors suggest that their reanalysis of these experiments suggests that it is a mistake to assume the continuous development of mind up through the lower primates, culminating in human beings.

Continue ReadingEvolutionary explanations: historical trajectory versus convergence

Why it matters that humans are animals.

I have written numerous posts advocating that because humans are animals they should be recognized as such (for example, see here , here, here , and here). For zoologists and others who study animals, it is obviously true that we are animals. We do hundreds of things that the other mammals do, plus a few extra. You can see it every day when you eat, breathe, emote, poop, become fatigued and fall asleep. Yet millions of Americans are horrified by the thought that human beings are animals. Consider that we aren’t simply animals. Our species is a carefully defined type of animal. We are apes. Frans de Waal explains:

Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough . . . We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.

If you want even more detail on what type of animal humans are (we are in the ape sub-division of primates), watch this brisk video by Aron-ra. Again, this sort of information is really disturbing to many people, especially religious conservatives. So why don't I simply leave religious conservatives alone? Why do I persist on standing on rooftops and proclaiming this message that humans are animals? Why don't I just whisper this sort of information only to my closest of friends: "Pssst. Human beings are animals." Why don't I just let it be, and keep it all to myself? What could possibly be at stake that I feel compelled to spread the word that human beings are animals? I was in the process of assembling my own list when I just happened to read Chapter 12 of Mark Johnson's new book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Johnson is well known for his work with metaphors and embodied cognition with George Lakoff. Chapter 12 of his new book contains a section that leaped out at me: "The Philosophical Implications of the Embodied Mind." In that short section, Johnson sets forth nine reasons why it really and truly matters for people to acknowledge that they are animals and to fully accept that their minds are embodied, not free-floating entities independent of physical laws. Johnson's biggest target is the "objectivist theory of meaning," the idea that meaning "gets defined without any connection to the experience of the creature (i.e., the human) for whom the words are meaningful. Johnson points out that those who follow the objectivist theory of meaning believe that words and sentences somehow "carry" meaning without even trying to explain how words and sentences ever come to acquire meaning. It should send up immediate red flags that the predominate theory of meaning relies on floating thoughts, a theory of meaning that is not biologically anchored. Reacting to (and rejecting) this objectivist approach, Mark Johnson premises his analysis "with a mind that is not separate from or out-of-ongoing-contact with its body and its world." His worldview includes a specific definition of body and his impressive list of why it matters for human beings to take seriously "the embodiment of mind and meaning." Here are those reasons (I will be borrowing liberally from Johnson's book with these descriptions, beginning at page 279):

Continue ReadingWhy it matters that humans are animals.

A photo of another one of my cousins

As I worked tonight, this little beetle landed on my pad of paper. Hello, Cousin! You fit so easily between the lines of my pad of paper. You make my pen strokes look quick thick!

beetle-on-pad-of-paper

[For this shot, I was using a Canon SD1100IS (which only costs about $150 now), using the digital macro feature. This bug let me park my camera lens less than an inch away for this photo.]

Continue ReadingA photo of another one of my cousins

Breeding and weeding in the mind.

Repeat any word and it starts to sound like an unknown word in a foreign language. Toaster toaster toaster toaster toaster . . . toaster? It starts to sound like a word you’ve never heard before. For me, this phenomenon seems to happen to all words except the word “no.” Whenever I hear the word “no” it resonates deep down and immediately. The word "no" never sounds alien and it always and immediately means “no.” We seem to have special power when it comes to negating. In fact, I would suggest that "no" is the engine of reason. Now consider this: Based on introspection (a shaky foundation, I admit), it seems that we don’t directly decide what to say or do. Rather, it seems that many of our ideas and impulses somehow “rise” to our consciousness and that our main power is whether to exercise “veto-power” over them. It seems that our inner executive is not a creator, but (at most) a judge with veto-power. The power to inhibit our own actions is central to our ability to operate at a high function. Those of us who successfully function in the world seem to be especially able to inhibit our own thoughts and actions—this allows us to delay gratification and it gives us time to consider alternate options to that first idea that popped into our heads. It is important to cultivate this power to inhibit impulses while we are young. To the extent that we are successful in developing the power to inhibit our impulses and ideas, we will grow into more disciplined and therefore more successful adults. Consider that toddlers who have sufficient discipline to wait a few minutes for two marshmallows (rather than eating one immediately) grow up to score an average of 250 points higher on the SAT. The statistics are truly shocking. This ability to control impulses does far more allow us to score better on tests. I suspect that our ability to inhibit impulses is the basis for our sense of character coherence and our sense of personal freedom. Inhibiting our impulses (having the power to say no to thoughts and actions) allows us to steer a path among the wreckage of the ideas we reject. Saying “no” to 100 ideas that pop into our head might be the only way that we would ever have to get the opportunity “yes” to that 101st idea-- that 101st idea would never occurred had we not vetoed the first 100 ideas. Did you wait to marry a highly compatible partner or did you commit to the first romantic partner who paid any attention to you? Did you take the first job offered to you or did you turn down various offers, patiently waiting for a job that was an especially good fit between your skills and the job duties? Many people who can't wait end up paying a big price for their inability to say no.

Continue ReadingBreeding and weeding in the mind.