Ever since our brain and there by mind evolved to the point of thinking about the universe and our place in it, the age old question has been why is there something rather than nothing? Built into this key question is the innate desire for an answer or what I call certainty in an uncertain world. From this wonder, three institutions have emerged and have tried to answer this question and satisfy our need for certainty; these institutions are religion, philosophy, and science. Therefore, I must ask what is certainty and why is it important? Certainty comes from the Latin certus, which means "sure, fixed, settled, and determined...” In other words, we want consistency, knowledge, i.e., a way to control and manipulate our environment in order to survive but the universe seem to be indifferent to our desires or as Albert Camus called this feeling, the Absurd, our need for the universe to give us an answer and its refusal to do so. Nevertheless, we want to live, we want to survive and we don't know why? Perhaps this desire is what Arthur Schopenhauer called the will to live and Immanuel Kant called the thing in itself, we want to avoid suffering and reduce our chances of ending our life because of the uncertainty of what happens after death. I agree with Epicurus about a fear of death, when he stated "Why should I fear death? If I am, death, is not. If death is, I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not."
As I stated earlier, I think uncertainty is the creator of religion, philosophy and the sciences. I think humanity want certainty because it gives us a sense of security and safety and this gives us an illusion of control. The desire for control over our environment and its resources creates an idea at least that we are increasing our chances of survival. The reason or the evolutionary drive for survival is our will to live, or the emergence of life and its continuance. I think uncertainty was an important precursor to religious ideology because it gives the practitioner the false impression of control or influence over the outcome. As a result, if you throw divination bones, read the intestines of a goat, the oracles of the cracks of a heated tortoise or turtle shell you get the delusion of control. Even in the so-called dominant religions of today, where people believe in a god who created the universe and who will make life for his believers better, they read his so-called word, pray, there is still a delusion of control and certainty. I think prayer has replaced the manipulative functions of divination, because in prayer the person is trying to influence the outcome by control or influencing the source of power (the god) behind their situation. As Voltaire once wrote if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. For Plato wrote in The Republic, his idea of the ideal society, that a belief in the gods and an afterlife is necessary to keep the societal order, in other words, it’s all about our delusional need for power and control. This is why people avoid agnosticism like it is the plague because it is an uncertain position. Even though it is the most intellectually honest position, just to say "I don't know" to most people is unacceptable and people who default to belief or non-belief according to psychologist are happier than people who are uncertain, even when people know something bad they are happier than not knowing, this seems to go against the old saying or idea by William Blake “where ignorance is bliss tis folly to be wise…” Although uncertainty is essential to the pursuit of science, for it gives scientist a problem to investigate, I still feel that the motivation is still the desire to control the unknown and uncertain, because not knowing can be detrimental to survival, in other words, our evolutionary will to live drive us to do whatever is necessary to pass on our genes to the next generation.
Finally, while thinking on the certainty of uncertainty, I watched a documentary online by Jacob Bronowski titled "Knowledge and Certainty", which is part of a 13 segmented series called the "Ascent of Man". I think the film goes along with what I have been discussing and I feel the film's message was we can be certain within limits of a principle which Professor Bronowski called "The Principle of Tolerance" which he borrowed from Heisenberg called the "The principle of Uncertainty". Tolerance is an engineering term in that when parts are manufactured with a certain degree of tolerance or "a give or take" that is, an approximation is incorporated in the product for it is not possible to make anything to perfect dimension, not because of human fallibility, however, because of the uncertainties in matter and energy itself. In other words, our scientific facts or laws are approximations because of the give or take i.e. the uncertainty that is innate in matter and energy. However, when our approximated truths become a dogma it is no longer science it is another religion, which means it is something that binds us and our thinking. I think we can be reasonably certain of some things but understand that in this certainty there are areas of uncertainty and limitations. I am advocating a philosophical position called Fallibilism, a doctrine that nothing can be known for certain, that is, there is no infallible knowledge, but there can still be knowledge, or as the Philosopher Rick Roderick stated it "That means something like this, a fallibilist is someone who passionately believes certain things.. Some of them quite bizarre ... But about those beliefs, they believe that those beliefs could be wrong." On the one hand, I understand that we have evolved by the will to live and the more certain we are the happier, confident, and more inclined to survive and pass on our genes. On the other hand, arrogance or thinking that we are infallible is dangerous because if matter and energy, the very foundation of all we know is uncertain, then the only certainty is the certainty of uncertainty, that is, the give and take innate in the universe. Any ideology that does not allow for give or take is static and dead because it leaves little room for tolerance or the “give or take” for the universe is about change. Because of our innate desire to survive, or as Schopenhauer called it our will to live, I think the scientific method that is, wonder, hypothesis and testing is the best method that we have in finding an approximated truth because built in it is a self-correcting system that understands that it could be wrong. In summary, I think the evolutionary drive to pass on our genes or "the will to live" necessitates the creation of certainty in order for life to continue but in our delusion of certainty we need to be open to the hypothesis that we could be wrong and the best way to do this are through critical thinking, the Socratic and Scientific Methods, but I am open to the possibility or at least remind myself that this too could be wrong. In other words, what it all boils down to is I don't know and I know that I don't know and it's okay to say this for life will continue whether I am certain or not. Think about it... John D. Socrates
References:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_tolerance
2. http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/bronowski.html
3. http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/fallibilism.php
4. http://rickroderick.org/101-socrates-and-the-life-of-inquiry-1990/
Friday, November 5, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Strength in Weakness Theory and the Mid-term elections of 2010
What they call mid-term election officially has ended. The prediction of big GOP gains in the House came true. The Senate may have a slight Democratic majority possibly a 53 to 47 and this may benefit President Obama, because it will make the GOP put up or shut up.
The reason I think this may benefit the President is this is a classic example of an idea by Frans de Waal in his book Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. The idea, in Chapter 2 entitled Power, is a coalition theory called "strength is weakness". In "strength is weakness" the most powerful player is often the least attractive ally. Dr de Waals use the example of three chimps, Yereon, Nikki, and Luit in the Arnhem Zoo in Holland to illustrate his point. He tells the story of Luit who was the alpha male and how he was killed. Yereon, who was the alpha, was dethroned by Luit and after Yereon got over his loss, he skillfully aligned himself with Nikki because aligning himself with Luit had little or no benefits because Luit did not need his support. Luit eventually was double-teamed by Nikki (who became the new alpha male) and Yereon when they are all caged together one evening.
In one scenario the GOP House could be considered the powerful player. The president joining them adds little to their strength which in turns results in fewer benefits for him. However, if a coalition is formed by throwing weight behind a weaker player like the Democratic-lead Senate it gives one far more leverage and also translates into more prestige and benefits for him. Using the Paradoxical idea of weakness is strength; minor players can position themselves at an intersection that offers great advantage. The president could use the veto strategically to thwart any plan GOP lead house may have. The president as the weaker player could strengthen his position by playing the competing interest against each other and a strategic use of the veto would force the GOP to water down their plans because they don't have the votes to over-turn a veto, this may work if the Democrats would unite and not override a veto because it takes a two-third majority to override a veto.
I see another scenario of this "weakness is strength" coalition theory also being played by so-called Centrist Senators both Democratic ones like Manchin or Independents like Leiberman, uniting with moderate Republicans like Mark Kirk,Olympia Snow, etc.. They could be calling the shots because of the division in Congress (i.e. the conservative Republicans versus progressive Democrats). The GOP who have a majority is in a weaker position than these so-called moderate Senators because they need them to pass any sustainable legislation.
This also show evolutionary theory is such a powerful explanatory tool, we need to get the chip off our shoulder and wake up to the fact that we are Hairless Apes or Primates (i.e. we are not the central purpose of the universe). We evolved in communal societies like other primates, this is why we seek out coalitions and why we are gregarious. We diverged from a common ancestor with our Chimpanzee and Bonobos cousins six million years ago. We are not the only intelligent social primates on this planet as so eloquently illustrated by Frans de Waal in Our Inner Ape.
Think about it...
Black Socrates
The reason I think this may benefit the President is this is a classic example of an idea by Frans de Waal in his book Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. The idea, in Chapter 2 entitled Power, is a coalition theory called "strength is weakness". In "strength is weakness" the most powerful player is often the least attractive ally. Dr de Waals use the example of three chimps, Yereon, Nikki, and Luit in the Arnhem Zoo in Holland to illustrate his point. He tells the story of Luit who was the alpha male and how he was killed. Yereon, who was the alpha, was dethroned by Luit and after Yereon got over his loss, he skillfully aligned himself with Nikki because aligning himself with Luit had little or no benefits because Luit did not need his support. Luit eventually was double-teamed by Nikki (who became the new alpha male) and Yereon when they are all caged together one evening.
In one scenario the GOP House could be considered the powerful player. The president joining them adds little to their strength which in turns results in fewer benefits for him. However, if a coalition is formed by throwing weight behind a weaker player like the Democratic-lead Senate it gives one far more leverage and also translates into more prestige and benefits for him. Using the Paradoxical idea of weakness is strength; minor players can position themselves at an intersection that offers great advantage. The president could use the veto strategically to thwart any plan GOP lead house may have. The president as the weaker player could strengthen his position by playing the competing interest against each other and a strategic use of the veto would force the GOP to water down their plans because they don't have the votes to over-turn a veto, this may work if the Democrats would unite and not override a veto because it takes a two-third majority to override a veto.
I see another scenario of this "weakness is strength" coalition theory also being played by so-called Centrist Senators both Democratic ones like Manchin or Independents like Leiberman, uniting with moderate Republicans like Mark Kirk,Olympia Snow, etc.. They could be calling the shots because of the division in Congress (i.e. the conservative Republicans versus progressive Democrats). The GOP who have a majority is in a weaker position than these so-called moderate Senators because they need them to pass any sustainable legislation.
This also show evolutionary theory is such a powerful explanatory tool, we need to get the chip off our shoulder and wake up to the fact that we are Hairless Apes or Primates (i.e. we are not the central purpose of the universe). We evolved in communal societies like other primates, this is why we seek out coalitions and why we are gregarious. We diverged from a common ancestor with our Chimpanzee and Bonobos cousins six million years ago. We are not the only intelligent social primates on this planet as so eloquently illustrated by Frans de Waal in Our Inner Ape.
Think about it...
Black Socrates
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Grand Design and the World as Will and Idea
I have read several reviews of the Audio Book I have listen to this week, it is by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow it is titled "The Grand Design". A lot of people are critical of it because they're advocating the M-Theory, which are a "whole family of different theories, each of which is a good description of observations only in some range of physical situations". From the reviews and from listening to the book, I understand that he's saying we live in a universe that is one of many universes called a multiple-universe or multiverse, in which there could be 10 to the 500 power of universes, that is a 1 with 500 zeros, and thus it is inevitable that we happen to live in a solar system that is one of hundreds of billions of solar systems just in the Milky Way galaxy alone; and our galaxy is one among hundreds of billions of galaxies and we live in a solar system in which the laws of physics and the anthropic principle (weak and strong) are so that life is possible at least on our planet. Another interesting concept that was brought out was what they called Model-Dependent Realism. "These examples bring us to a conclusion: There is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality. Instead we adopt a view that we call model-dependent realism: the idea that a physical theory or world picture is a model (generally of a mathematical nature) and a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observations. This provides a framework with which to interpret modern science. Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2017262,00.html#ixzz11PWjFEFU. As I read the reviews and listened to the Audio book, I thought about Schopenhauer's classic, The World as Will and Idea or Representation and Alan Watts' the Way of Zen, that you cannot separate the subject (observer) from the object (the observed), For example, the World as Will and Idea, in which we are non-dual objectification of Will as Helen Zimmern states it "Schopenhauer endeavours to define this Substance itself, and declares it to be a Will. From the idea of Will, action is inseparable; and the existence of the phenomenal world is, according to him, sufficiently explained by regarding it as the result of the craving of the eternal Will, the substratum of all existence, to manifest itself in an external form. This Will, in a word, is a will to live." Alan Watts calls the Will Mind (citta) is the "what" that cannot be defined but gives objectification to every thing it classifies. In other words, every thing in the universe is a non-dual substance that objectifies itself in what we call matter in the three dimensions of space and time. Think about it...
Black Socrates
Black Socrates
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Value
There's a book I plan to read called the 36 Arguments for God's existence by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, it is a novel and at the end of the novel she has the 36 most common arguments for god's existence. The arguments and flaws were made available online. As I read the 36 arguments and the flaws, most if not all, where semantically ways of saying life would be meaningless or pointless if god did not exist, and therefore in order for life to not be meaningless or pointless there must be a transcendental force behind it all. It all boils down to, I want my life to mean something or have value to someone else besides me, there's someone who cares, therefore a god must exist because if god did not exist then my life would not have a point or a meaning. However, how does a god give our existence a point, how can I not ask, what is the point or meaning of God? What is his reason for being? Why do we want or need one pointless idea to explain another? What I mean by pointless is it is an idea that does not point to something else beyond itself. I think most of humanity are afraid of life being its own point and so we crave or desire something that's transcendental or outside of ourselves to give us or our life this meaning or value. I think it is passing the buck and avoiding taking responsibility for ourselves. Think about it.
Friday, July 9, 2010
The Collapse of the Kalam
I had an epiphany the other day. The epiphany I had was about the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. According the big bang cosmology the universe begin to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. Therefore God exist.
If you ever heard or read arguments from Christian Apologist like William Lane Craig they go on to define their god. They normally define their god as a timeless, immaterial, spaceless, personal being of great power and intelligence that created the universe and sustains its existence. I thought about this definition of god with the exception of immaterial, personal being of great power and intelligence, that timeless, spaceless were the conditions that existed before the big bang. My newest epiphany is that the big bang theory with inflation simply means that the universe begin to expand therefore creating space because prior to expansion there was no space, which is define as an interval between objects, and there was no time which is a continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2.a system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated. (The American Heritage Science Dictionary) The epiphany is that space-time begin to exist because prior to expansion there was no interval or interaction between two objects because everything was one there wasn’t anything for matter and energy to interact with. I think the energy within the universe has always existed, because according to the First Law of Thermodynamics as as it it commonly called the Law of Conservation of Energy (which includes Matter because from Albert Einstein’s famous formula: E = mc2 mass and energy are equivalent, in other words, all Mass has Energy and all Energy has Mass: in relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing and neither one appear without the other.); from the first law of thermodynamics energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed it changes from one form to another, and what happen is an infinitesimal amount of matter-energy expanded thereby creating space and time. In other words, the universe did not begin to exist only space and time begin to exist when the existing matter-energy expanded to create space and time. If there was a cause to space and time it was the matter and energy that was already there. Think about it...
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. According the big bang cosmology the universe begin to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
4. Therefore God exist.
If you ever heard or read arguments from Christian Apologist like William Lane Craig they go on to define their god. They normally define their god as a timeless, immaterial, spaceless, personal being of great power and intelligence that created the universe and sustains its existence. I thought about this definition of god with the exception of immaterial, personal being of great power and intelligence, that timeless, spaceless were the conditions that existed before the big bang. My newest epiphany is that the big bang theory with inflation simply means that the universe begin to expand therefore creating space because prior to expansion there was no space, which is define as an interval between objects, and there was no time which is a continuous, measurable quantity in which events occur in a sequence proceeding from the past through the present to the future. 2. An interval separating two points of this quantity; a duration. 2.a system or reference frame in which such intervals are measured or such quantities are calculated. (The American Heritage Science Dictionary) The epiphany is that space-time begin to exist because prior to expansion there was no interval or interaction between two objects because everything was one there wasn’t anything for matter and energy to interact with. I think the energy within the universe has always existed, because according to the First Law of Thermodynamics as as it it commonly called the Law of Conservation of Energy (which includes Matter because from Albert Einstein’s famous formula: E = mc2 mass and energy are equivalent, in other words, all Mass has Energy and all Energy has Mass: in relativity, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing and neither one appear without the other.); from the first law of thermodynamics energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed it changes from one form to another, and what happen is an infinitesimal amount of matter-energy expanded thereby creating space and time. In other words, the universe did not begin to exist only space and time begin to exist when the existing matter-energy expanded to create space and time. If there was a cause to space and time it was the matter and energy that was already there. Think about it...
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Fate of the Universe and the Meaning of Life
I came across a website www.askphilospher.com and I was wondering if anyone asked a question about Albert Camus and the Absurd and I found an interesting question and three answers. The question was "If every life results in death, then what is the meaning of life?" There were three replies, which were:
"Peter Lipton on November 23, 2005
The meaning of life comes from what you do in your life: your activities and achievements. These are real even though you die, and would be no more real if you lived forever (though admittedly you would have time for a lot more of them).
Alexander George on November 23, 2005
If your life now has no meaning, no value or point to it, then having a lot more of such a life isn't going to improve the situation. A whole lot of nothing doesn't amount to much.
Peter S. Fosl on December 30, 2005
This is a compelling question. I remember encountering it in a powerful way reading Albert Camus's essay, "Absurd Reasoning." Recently, a student of mine broached it during a discussion we were having about the condition the universe seems to be heading towards. It seems, I'm told, that everything in the universe will ultimately degenerate into a vast, endless, more-or-less uniform, horribly cold and dark field of low-level radiation. Some call this condition, the final destination of the universe, "entropic hell."
In light of this apparent fact, the relevant question concerning the meaning of life is this: since everything we accomplish will ultimately be destroyed and degenerate into "entropic hell," what meaning can anything have?
I think there's something misleading about his question, however, something that lurks in a hidden assumption that the question makes. The question and its force rely largely on the assumption that life has meaning only if it lasts forever. In my view, this is a dubious assumption, and indeed one that plagues a good deal of our culture's thinking about value.
Far from being a necessary condition for meaning, I think that immortality and endless existence would actually undermine the meaning of life.
Consider the issue this way: would life be as meaningful or even meaningful at all if it weren't finite? That is, if we lived forever would much or anything matter to us? Perhaps the avoidance of physical pain would still matter, but simply not being in pain seems to be a relatively meaningless affair. Don't many of our projects have meaning for us just because we know that one day we and they will come to an end?
The very fragility of things gives us reason to care what happens to them, to defend them and us against harm or diminishment. When you can just start over or always have a substitute, things don't really matter. Because, however, things are finite and we know we're going to die our actions count. We'd better get things right because we're not going to get another shot.
Consider an imaginary world I call "Plentos." In Plentos people live forever, or at least as long as they wish. There are no shortages of any kind in Plentos. Every kind of food is available in limitless supply. Land of every description is available to all. No one wants for speedy, effective medical care. Everyone is omniscient.
In Plentos, life could not be meaningful."
To piggyback on the Peter Fosl's reply I thought about another analogy as well, if life was like a book, as a book have a beginning, for it to be meaningful it must have an ending. However, if a book never ended; how could one get a meaning out of a never ending story? As Dr. Fosl brings out the finite reality of something gives it its meaning. This is why Nietzsche brings out the problem of "other worldliness" of religion especially Christianity and Islam, it devalues this life by creating the idea of an afterlife. As a result, if you are certain of an afterlife would you really value your health, loved-ones, time, the environment, blow-up yourself on a bus or in a market full of people, fly airplanes into building, etc? I think so because you're certain that you'll get a second chance or a continuance of some type of existence. However, would you do this if you knew this is the one and only life you'll ever live? Think about it...
Black Socrates
"Peter Lipton on November 23, 2005
The meaning of life comes from what you do in your life: your activities and achievements. These are real even though you die, and would be no more real if you lived forever (though admittedly you would have time for a lot more of them).
Alexander George on November 23, 2005
If your life now has no meaning, no value or point to it, then having a lot more of such a life isn't going to improve the situation. A whole lot of nothing doesn't amount to much.
Peter S. Fosl on December 30, 2005
This is a compelling question. I remember encountering it in a powerful way reading Albert Camus's essay, "Absurd Reasoning." Recently, a student of mine broached it during a discussion we were having about the condition the universe seems to be heading towards. It seems, I'm told, that everything in the universe will ultimately degenerate into a vast, endless, more-or-less uniform, horribly cold and dark field of low-level radiation. Some call this condition, the final destination of the universe, "entropic hell."
In light of this apparent fact, the relevant question concerning the meaning of life is this: since everything we accomplish will ultimately be destroyed and degenerate into "entropic hell," what meaning can anything have?
I think there's something misleading about his question, however, something that lurks in a hidden assumption that the question makes. The question and its force rely largely on the assumption that life has meaning only if it lasts forever. In my view, this is a dubious assumption, and indeed one that plagues a good deal of our culture's thinking about value.
Far from being a necessary condition for meaning, I think that immortality and endless existence would actually undermine the meaning of life.
Consider the issue this way: would life be as meaningful or even meaningful at all if it weren't finite? That is, if we lived forever would much or anything matter to us? Perhaps the avoidance of physical pain would still matter, but simply not being in pain seems to be a relatively meaningless affair. Don't many of our projects have meaning for us just because we know that one day we and they will come to an end?
The very fragility of things gives us reason to care what happens to them, to defend them and us against harm or diminishment. When you can just start over or always have a substitute, things don't really matter. Because, however, things are finite and we know we're going to die our actions count. We'd better get things right because we're not going to get another shot.
Consider an imaginary world I call "Plentos." In Plentos people live forever, or at least as long as they wish. There are no shortages of any kind in Plentos. Every kind of food is available in limitless supply. Land of every description is available to all. No one wants for speedy, effective medical care. Everyone is omniscient.
In Plentos, life could not be meaningful."
To piggyback on the Peter Fosl's reply I thought about another analogy as well, if life was like a book, as a book have a beginning, for it to be meaningful it must have an ending. However, if a book never ended; how could one get a meaning out of a never ending story? As Dr. Fosl brings out the finite reality of something gives it its meaning. This is why Nietzsche brings out the problem of "other worldliness" of religion especially Christianity and Islam, it devalues this life by creating the idea of an afterlife. As a result, if you are certain of an afterlife would you really value your health, loved-ones, time, the environment, blow-up yourself on a bus or in a market full of people, fly airplanes into building, etc? I think so because you're certain that you'll get a second chance or a continuance of some type of existence. However, would you do this if you knew this is the one and only life you'll ever live? Think about it...
Black Socrates
Monday, March 1, 2010
King Tut Unwrapped and need for Critical Thinking
Last week I watched the Discovery Channel King Tut Unwrapped. In the documentary, allegedly the truth about King Tut is finally revealed; however, I think it open up more questions than it answered. One important question is what is King Tut's Y-DNA and mt-DNA Haplogroups? First I think it is important to discuss what's a haplogroup, and why do geneticists concentrate on the Y-chromosome and Mitochondrial in their search for markers? For that matter, what's a marker? "Each of us carries DNA that is a combination of genes passed from both our mother and father, giving us traits that range from eye color and height to athleticism and disease susceptibility. One exception is the Y-chromosome, which is passed directly from father to son, unchanged, from generation to generation. Unchanged, that is unless a mutation-a random, naturally occurring, usually harmless change-occurs. The mutation, known as a marker, acts as a beacon; it can be mapped through generations because it will be passed down from the man in whom it occurred to his sons, their sons, and every male in his family for thousands of years. In some instances there may be more than one mutational event that defines a particular branch on the tree. What this means is that any of these markers can be used to determine your particular haplogroup, since every individual who has one of these markers also has the others. When geneticists identify such a marker, they try to figure out when it first occurred, and in which geographic region of the world. Each marker is essentially the beginning of a new lineage on the family tree of the human race. Tracking the lineages provides a picture of how small tribes of modern humans in Africa tens of thousands of years ago diversified and spread to populate the world.
A haplogroup is defined by a series of markers that are shared by other men who carry the same random mutations. The markers trace the path our ancestors took as they moved in and out of Africa. It's difficult to know how many men worldwide belong to any particular haplogroup, or even how many haplogroups there are, because scientists simply don't know.
Likewise for Mitochondrial DNA, the string of 569 letters is your mitochondrial sequence, with the letters A, C, T, and G representing the four nucleotides-the chemical building blocks of life-that make up your DNA. Here's how it works. Like I describe for the Y-DNA every once in a while a mutation-a random, natural (and usually harmless) change-occurs in the sequence of our mitochondrial DNA. Think of it as a spelling mistake: one of the "letters" in your sequence may change from a C to a T, or from an A to a G.
After one of these mutations occurs in a particular woman, she then passes it on to her daughters, and her daughters' daughters, and so on. (Mothers also pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their sons, but the sons in turn do not pass it on.)
Geneticists use these markers from people all over the world to construct one giant mitochondrial family tree. As I can imagine, the tree is very complex, but scientists can now determine both the age and geographic spread of each branch to reconstruct the prehistoric movements of our ancestors. By looking at the mutations that we carry, geneticist can trace our lineage, ancestor by ancestor, to reveal the path they traveled as they moved out of Africa." (1)
As a result, I did a search on Google "King Tut's DNA results". I found the actual results were published in the JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) that Dr. Hawass used in the Discovery Channel's documentary and King Tut's Haplogroups information is absent, perhaps because there weren't enough data to conclude this information. However, I did another Google search "King Tut's DNA results haplogroup". I found the absent of haplogroup in the published report did not stop people from trying to speculate. Consequently, we now have an unproven speculation circulating on the World Wide Web that King Tut's haplogroup is R1b. I found the source of this speculation to be someone on RootsWeb (link: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1266472989) who claimed by looking at the screen shots of the video, they were able to decipher the Y-STR markers and therefore determine King Tut's Y-DNA Haplogroup. I watched the same video and no marker numbers are evident. From this now there is a great debate that King Tut and his ancestors where R1b on Rootweb and other places on the internet (some which have become racially tinged). Nowhere was the Y-STR markers published except for 2 Y-STR here's a link to the Article: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/638?home. The end result from this discussion someone published the so-called y-STR markers on Family Tree DNA's y-search.org under the ID ER7RQ. I think this should be a lesson in critical thinking; if you do not have enough data don't make it up. This led to another question; what was the motivation of the person who allegedly was able to determine King Tut's haplogroup? Quoting directly from the person who started this fiasco: "Additionally, if you look at the CODIS markers for Tutankhamen which they provide in the published study and run them in OmniPop, it indicates similarity with Europeans." In other words, did he want to know if King Tut was European? Why should King Tut's ethnicity matter? What I find fascinating is the science, that we can abstract DNA from a 3,000 year old mummy and verify his genealogy! Think about it....
Source:
Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html
A haplogroup is defined by a series of markers that are shared by other men who carry the same random mutations. The markers trace the path our ancestors took as they moved in and out of Africa. It's difficult to know how many men worldwide belong to any particular haplogroup, or even how many haplogroups there are, because scientists simply don't know.
Likewise for Mitochondrial DNA, the string of 569 letters is your mitochondrial sequence, with the letters A, C, T, and G representing the four nucleotides-the chemical building blocks of life-that make up your DNA. Here's how it works. Like I describe for the Y-DNA every once in a while a mutation-a random, natural (and usually harmless) change-occurs in the sequence of our mitochondrial DNA. Think of it as a spelling mistake: one of the "letters" in your sequence may change from a C to a T, or from an A to a G.
After one of these mutations occurs in a particular woman, she then passes it on to her daughters, and her daughters' daughters, and so on. (Mothers also pass on their mitochondrial DNA to their sons, but the sons in turn do not pass it on.)
Geneticists use these markers from people all over the world to construct one giant mitochondrial family tree. As I can imagine, the tree is very complex, but scientists can now determine both the age and geographic spread of each branch to reconstruct the prehistoric movements of our ancestors. By looking at the mutations that we carry, geneticist can trace our lineage, ancestor by ancestor, to reveal the path they traveled as they moved out of Africa." (1)
As a result, I did a search on Google "King Tut's DNA results". I found the actual results were published in the JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) that Dr. Hawass used in the Discovery Channel's documentary and King Tut's Haplogroups information is absent, perhaps because there weren't enough data to conclude this information. However, I did another Google search "King Tut's DNA results haplogroup". I found the absent of haplogroup in the published report did not stop people from trying to speculate. Consequently, we now have an unproven speculation circulating on the World Wide Web that King Tut's haplogroup is R1b. I found the source of this speculation to be someone on RootsWeb (link: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2010-02/1266472989) who claimed by looking at the screen shots of the video, they were able to decipher the Y-STR markers and therefore determine King Tut's Y-DNA Haplogroup. I watched the same video and no marker numbers are evident. From this now there is a great debate that King Tut and his ancestors where R1b on Rootweb and other places on the internet (some which have become racially tinged). Nowhere was the Y-STR markers published except for 2 Y-STR here's a link to the Article: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/638?home. The end result from this discussion someone published the so-called y-STR markers on Family Tree DNA's y-search.org under the ID ER7RQ. I think this should be a lesson in critical thinking; if you do not have enough data don't make it up. This led to another question; what was the motivation of the person who allegedly was able to determine King Tut's haplogroup? Quoting directly from the person who started this fiasco: "Additionally, if you look at the CODIS markers for Tutankhamen which they provide in the published study and run them in OmniPop, it indicates similarity with Europeans." In other words, did he want to know if King Tut was European? Why should King Tut's ethnicity matter? What I find fascinating is the science, that we can abstract DNA from a 3,000 year old mummy and verify his genealogy! Think about it....
Source:
Genographic project: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/lan/en/index.html
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Thinking about the absurd and Myth
As I have previously posted, "The Absurd" is when we rational humans try to find meaning in what appears to be an irrational or at least indifferent world. In the past there have been two traditional philosophical responses to this human condition, hope in something or someone that transcends the absurd or suicide which means you agree with the universe as being absurd but not worth living in, I think both are escapes from the absurd. Albert Camus offers a third approach of agreeing that the absurd exist and is true but instead of running away from it to face it by your revolt, your freedom, and your passion. In other words, as I have felt for long time life is its own point and you cannot improve or transcend it you can only add to what you have or to what it is. The way I like to say it "it is what it is". In other words, in spite of the world's indifference we should live our lives anyway and live it well. Another aspect of what Albert Camus calls Absurd Reasoning and what it amounts to is his argument against Rationalism. Rationalism as he presents it; is thinking that our human reason can make sense or give an explanation of this universe, this too he feel is absurd. Upon reflecting on this I learn something new, which is good, I learn that I am guilty of trying to think I can understand or use reason or rationalism to understand something that is indifferent or doesn't care to answer what my reason or rational mind begs an answer to. This is the absurd it is the confrontation or my desire for unity, clarity, for meaning, for a reason in a cold silent universe and my illusion that the universe will relent and answer. From this, I agree I should not take life too seriously because until proven otherwise, life is impermanent or temporal, and is the only one I know of, and I should live with what I know this life is, instead of what I don’t know, an unknowable afterlife. I think Joseph Campbell alluded on these themes in his writings that life is about the experience of being alive and myths are a way of describing or helping us get that experience of being alive and so the myth of Sisyphus informs me.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Absurd
I have been studying existentialism, and I feel that what it means to me is that it is up to the individual to define the meaning of their own life via choice and take responsibility for those choices. In my research of existentialism, the author Albert Camus is often mention, as a result, I read The Stranger or the Outsider and The Plague. To get a better philosophical perspective of his thinking, I read the myth of Sisyphus over the Winter Solstice break and it is about the absurd (from reading his perspective he was critical of existentialism so I don't know why he's consider an existentialist). The Absurd is humanity's attempt to find meaning or to make sense of an indifferent universe. Albert Camus starts the book off with discussion on Absurdity and Suicide. Suicide is when the person agrees with the Absurd, that is, existence is truly meaningless and thus not worth living. Camus analyzes the absurd and the normal responses which he concludes is a leap of faith and suicide, for the leap of faith which he concludes Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Husserl, and even Kafka all took the leap because they still tried to find meaning in an indifferent universe. Yet Camus offers a third option of living with or facing the absurd through revolt (i.e. we should not accept any so-called answer or solution in our struggle), freedom (i.e. as Sartre stated we a force to be free), and passion or diversity (i.e. we should pursue a life of abundant and various experiences). He demonstrates absurd living using four examples Don Juanism or the Seducer, the Actor, the Conqueror, and the Artist. Camus shows how the Greek myth of Sisyphus is the absurd hero who was condemned by the gods to push the rock to the top of the hill just to see it role back down to role it up again. I think this means the innate drive of life is twofold that is, everything revolves around survival and passing on your genes to keep the game going. In other words, life keeps on evolving, the universe keeps on expanding because it does not have a meaning or a point it is trying to get to, the universe and the life within it is its own point! I know some feel that in order for life not to be absurd there must be a purpose beyond life itself, yet if you ask what is the point or purpose of whatever is beyond life itself that is heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc, would it really be a point or a purpose? Why this life; if the point is a life somewhere else? I think living this life to get somewhere else is really Absurd. Think about it....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
