Will Humanity Evolve to Embrace Kindness?

 

Human nature is not black and white but black and grey — Graham Greene

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary With wars and deceit dominating the headlines, and our fascination with the negative outcomes of human actions, it’s natural to wonder if humanity could ever evolve into a species where kindness, empathy, generosity etc. become the norm. What are the chances of us transforming into a society where wars and deceit are relegated to a mere historical anomaly? Unfortunately, chances of that seem slim to none.

Throughout history, humanity has endured countless wars, each leaving behind a trail of devastation and sorrow. These conflicts, driven by various motives, have shaped the course of civilizations and influenced the trajectory of human progress. Yet, amid the chaos and destruction we so often create, glimmers of hope persist in the acts of kindness and solidarity people extend to one another. It’s no surprise that during natural disasters — hurricanes, earthquakes, fires, and the like — your neighbor often becomes your greatest ally in the fight for survival.

What are the chances that, as we evolve, positive attributes of human nature — kindness, empathy, generosity etc. — will become the norm and will be an innate part of us as a species? Could natural selection eventually lead us to a kinder, gentler self and help us build a civilization where wars are merely a regrettable chapter in our history, one we had to endure to achieve a better future?

Let us consider the possibility.

According to the principles of natural selection, species evolve over time by acquiring traits that enhance their ability to secure a larger share of available resources in their environment. For a characteristic to eventually become an innate trait, it must pass the litmus test of enhancing the chances of survival and reproduction.

Following this principle, humanity’s potential to improve with time will also depend on whether the positive attributes that we want to see become permanent, and the dominant fixture of the human race will enhance our chances of survival and reproduction. If they do then there is a possibility that over a period, they might become innate traits.

To consider the possibility of this happening, let’s start at the very beginning when interaction among humans started. Let us consider if the positive attributes we want us to acquire might have helped their survival and reproduction.

Within a small hunter-gatherer group, the trait of caring for one another was crucial for survival. Over the course of evolution, such traits have shown that fostering psychological attributes like empathy, cooperation, and kindness improves survival chances for individuals within these groups. The jungle is a harsh environment, and being alone offers no advantage.

What happens when a small group, aided by positive traits, starts to thrive and grow larger?

As small groups evolved into larger social structures such as tribes, villages, kingdoms, and nations, it becomes important to consider whether the same attributes that benefited a small group will continue to be effective as the group size increases.

In thinking about that possibility, we must take into consideration other forces that may come into play and could potentially disrupt the dynamics that once helped small groups of hunter-gatherers survive and thrive. Let us delve into what those forces are.

As the size of a group increases, maintaining feelings of sharing, kindness, and camaraderie with individuals who are not closely related becomes more challenging. The influence of kinship diminishes with distance, making it harder to empathize with individuals who are farther removed. In larger groups, the distinction between “us” and “them” becomes apparent and can lead to friction, where negative feelings associated with them may begin to outweigh positive ones.

Another influencing factor that comes into play is a feature that is constantly nudging the working of the universe; that feature is randomness.

Due to inherent randomness, individuals within a hunter-gatherer group exhibit variations in physical and cognitive abilities, as well as differing psychological traits. Some members of the group may possess superior strength, speed, and hunting skills, and demonstrate greater proficiency in resource gathering. These physical disparities can result in differential survival and reproduction rates, potentially causing inhomogeneities that lead to friction and negative emotions such as jealousy and rivalry.

Random physical differences are not the sole factors at play. A more significant contributor is the variation in psychological and cognitive attributes and the subtle impacts these have on survival and reproduction.

In an expanding group of hunter-gatherers, the initial balance of equality, sharing, and empathy could be disrupted if an individual realizes that cheating can be advantageous for survival and reproduction. An individual with superior cognitive abilities might recognize the benefits of using them to manipulate others. Similarly, an individual in better physical condition may be viewed as attractive and sought after as a partner. These differences, although random in origin, can lead to disparities and potential conflict.

The point is that as the size of groups become larger, natural inevitability of physical and psychological differences (caused by randomness) could easily lead to runaway amplification of negative attributes and outweigh the beneficial effects of positive attributes we would like to see evolve with time.

One could try to argue that the size of the original group would always be contained as splinter groups of smaller sizes emerge. The problem of conflict, however, does not go away. The conflict to enhance chances for survival and reproduction, and amplification of negative attributes, will continue among the splintered groups.

In conclusion, the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, along with the impact of random fluctuations, presents significant challenges that must be addressed for the potential amplification of positive attributes. The inherent randomness in nature, combined with the complexities of human behavior, results in marked inequalities that erode social cohesion typically found in smaller groups. These disparities heighten tensions, fuel conflicts, and impede the enhancement of positive attributes.

Conflict tends to increase more easily and can overshadow positive attributes. Conversely, positive attributes face challenges in increasing similarly due to opposing forces.

In conclusion, the chances of positive attributes to become innate traits are slim to none.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Would Immortality be a Cure for the Existential Crisis?

 

I don’t want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying — Woody Allen

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Bored

Summary: This blog post delves into the concept of existential crisis, examining how our awareness of mortality shapes our search for meaning. It explores a counterfactual world where immortality might seem like a solution, only to reveal that existential angst could persist in different forms. The discussion highlights the complexities of finding an optimal lifespan that balances health, novelty, and purpose and minimizes existential crisis.

The Existential Crisis

All seems to be going well, or at least it appears so. Mornings come, hours of the day are spent engaged in various activities, and by 10 pm, it’s time for bed again. The cycle repeats over and over. Indeed, it all seems to be going well, and then…

…one afternoon on a brilliant September day, sitting outside a café, enjoying a glass of crisp Sauvignon Blanc and watching people pass by, for a moment, the usual sum of two and two does not add up to four. There is a momentary flutter in the fabric of space and time, a glimpse of us watching ourselves from high above, and a sense of unease that the us below is a complete stranger. Does that stranger have a narrative of where he has been, where he is, or where he is heading? Or is the narrative just an incoherent story of random steps that add up to zero? That, after all, is the hallmark of random walk.

It is only when we take a break from the motions of living, sit back, and try to put the meanderings of our footprints in the sand into a coherent story over a time span longer than merely a day, a month, or even years, that the question of a larger narrative strikes. Those are the moments when the alienation of an existential crisis emerges.

The concept of an existential crisis is deeply rooted in human experience, often arising from the awareness of mortality and the search for meaning of our finite existence. Perhaps it is the price we pay for the gift of consciousness. The luxury of consciousness did not turn out to be a free lunch.

Given that an oft-cited cause of existential crisis is our awareness of mortality, wouldn’t it be interesting to consider a counterfactual world where we were immortal? Would we then be free from the ailment of existential crisis (if I can call it an ailment)? Starting with the role mortality plays in sustaining existential crisis, let us explore that counterfactual world of immortality.

Existential Crisis and Mortality

In mortal life, the finite nature of existence shapes much of human experience. The awareness of death brings several existential concerns to the forefront. The inability to discern a coherent narrative about being born one day and dying later, along with trying to attach meaning to everything we do in between, can be disorienting. This cognitive dissonance leads to significant unease, anxiety, and fear. With a limited lifespan, we frequently wonder and strive to find purpose and meaning in our lives.

The question about the meaning of our existence may lay dormant most of the time, only to awaken when jolted by life transitions — such as the death of a loved one, the realization of our aging and the magnified reality of mortality, or transitioning from a long career into retirement, which can upend many facets of our identity. Such events are rife with the dangers of awakening the sleeping giant of an existential crisis.

The realization of life’s temporariness can lead to feelings of insignificance and dread, prompting philosophical and spiritual explorations. This might involve developing narratives like the notion of an afterlife or a universal connectedness, where our present physical form, although dispersed, continues as part of something else, all in attempts to soothe our unease.

The awareness of life’s finiteness can also inspire a desire to leave a lasting impact or legacy, driving many of us to achieve accomplishments, create, and contribute to society. The cure may also lie in developing a portfolio of engagements that align with what we value.

What would happen if we were immortal? In such a counterfactual world, would we be free from the angst of an existential crisis? Let us imagine life in such a world.

Existential Crisis and Immortality

Imagine living in a world where we are immortal. Without getting entangled in the logistical issues such a world might present, let us focus on what might happen to our feelings of existential angst.

With the fear of death no longer haunting us, the questions about comprehending the grand sum of the meanings of our engagements should no longer exist. It is only within the finite limits of a beginning and an end that questions like “Why am I here?” and “What is the meaning of coming into existence one day and then dying at a later time?” are magnified. These questions are further complicated by the lack of assurance that the self we are aware of will continue to exist in some form beyond our death. With those edgy questions gone, it seems like such a world would be a kiss of death to the existential crisis.

Or would it?

If you were to zoom in and look closely at humans in that world, you might notice a different kind of existential angst etched in the furrows of their brows. The inhabitants of that world might grapple with a sense of eternal boredom. With endless time, the challenge might shift to finding ways to stay engaged and avoid monotony over an infinite lifespan. Without the pressure of a finite life, finding a sustained sense of purpose and motivation could become a different flavor of existential angst.

Over an eternal life, maintaining a coherent sense of self and identity could become challenging. As experiences and memories (particularly the negative ones) accumulate indefinitely, their weight might become burdensome. Observing the humans in that counterfactual world, life does not seem as rosy as we might have imagined.

Is There a Sweet Spot?

It is beginning to sound like there is no escape from the existential crisis, and it may come in different flavors. If we are mortal, there is the struggle to find meaning in finite existence. If we are immortal, the problem may then be overcoming boredom and lethargy, not knowing what to do with infinite time. The desire for novelty and engaging in new activities urges us to get out of bed and look forward to tomorrow. Take that away, and suddenly, an immortal life starts to sound drab. Perhaps there is a sweet spot of longevity between mortal and immortal life where the feeling of existential crisis would reach a minimum.

What could that optimal lifespan be? Perhaps the answer lies in considering several dimensions — the interplay between healthspan and lifespan, the novelty of experiences, the financial well-being. Balancing these dimensions involves trade-offs and personal preferences. In essence, an optimal lifespan may be a multidimensional optimization problem.

Like other aspects of life, the acuity of existential crisis in the context of lifespan may follow a U-shaped curve. If the benefits of sleep, food intake, stress levels, and exercise hours often follow a U-shaped relationship, why not a similar relationship between the length of lifespan and the level of existential crisis?

In summary, an immortal life may not be a cure for the existential crisis that consciousness brings.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Life Without Randomness: An Exploration In a Counterfactual World

 

In life, as in a game of poker, the cards are dealt randomly, but how you play them is not random — Unknown

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Imagine a world devoid of randomness, where the future holds no uncertainties. Would such a place be monotonous and dull? Without randomness and with a complete understanding of causality, would we have missed the opportunity to build the rich superstructures of religious and philosophical traditions?

I get fooled by a 30% chance for rain

As I walk home during my evening stroll, I nervously eye the ominous dark clouds gathering in the sky. The morning forecast had predicted a 30% chance of rain after 3 pm, but I wasn’t sure how to interpret that number and decide whether to bring an umbrella.

I don’t quite know at what probability threshold to carry an umbrella. Or perhaps, at the risk of looking like an overcautious old fart, I should just carry an umbrella as a mitigation strategy and forget about looking up at the chance of rain all together. That would be a workable strategy to circumvent future outcomes that are probabilistic. This strategy, however, is not always feasible, for you see, carrying an umbrella (if you have one), does not cost anything extra. Bur mitigating strategies and accompanying actions can cost an arm and a leg.

Randomness Is Prevalent

In the afternoon, whether it will rain or not is uncertain because its occurrence depends on numerous local and non-local factors in space and time, making it beyond comprehension. Given infinite resources, by tracking every butterfly’s wing flap and every molecule’s motion, we might narrow down the cone of future uncertainty. But is it worth the time and effort?

Without understanding the causality that takes water molecules from their morning meanderings in the air to coalescing into rain clouds by 4 pm over my head, it’s easier to lump the countless hidden factors shaping the future into a convenient concept called the Randomness.

All would be well if the afternoon rain was the only consequence of randomness, a minor hiccup, but the consequences of randomness do not stop there. Everything about the future is uncertain and, in one way or another, attributable to the complexity of invisible forces shaping outcomes that get lumped into the mysterious dark force of randomness.

Randomness Is Stress

The uncertainty about the future is not a good feeling to have. We are always trying to narrow the cone of uncertainty and wishing that we can have a peek into the future. Would it not be wonderful to know what the stock market was going to be one year from now? Knowing that single number be such a huge advantage for our well-being (of course, only if I am the privileged one and no one else knew about it).

Knowing the future, and thereby, minimizing the consequences of randomness has obvious evolutionary advantage to it. It is no wonder we are wired to favor certainty because is good for the notion of the survival of the fittest. Lack of uncertainty is good for keeping stress at bay.

But let us assume that humanity does get its desire. What would be counterfactual world without randomness be like?

A Counterfactual World Without Randomness

Imagine a world where randomness does not exist, where every event and outcome is predetermined by where you start from and a set of immutable laws that propagate them forward. In this counterfactual world, the future is mostly deterministic, and the concept of chance is nothing more than a relic of our imagination. Would such a world be boring and monochromatic, or would it be a realm of unparalleled clarity and understanding. Would it be enjoyable?

In a deterministic universe, every action and reaction follows a predictable path. The state of the universe at any given moment would be an inevitable result of its previous state, governed by unchanging laws of nature.

The Appeal of Clarity

One of the most compelling aspects of a deterministic world is the clarity it offers. Without randomness, the universe operates like a well-oiled machine, where every cog and wheel has a defined purpose and function. This predictability could lead to a deeper understanding of the natural world, as scientists and philosophers could trace every event back to its origin with precision. The principle of sufficient reason, famously articulated by Leibniz, would reign supreme: everything would have an explanation.

In such a world, the mysteries that currently baffle us — what is the chance we exist today, where are we going, what would be the moment of my death — could be unraveled with certainty. This clarity could foster a sense of security and confidence, knowing that the universe is not subject to the whims of chance. Before closing my eyes and calling it a day, I would know for certain that I will wake up tomorrow.

The Risk of Boredom and Monotony

However, the absence of randomness might also strip the world of its vibrancy. Randomness introduces variability and novelty, making life unpredictable and exciting. Without it, every event would be a foregone conclusion, potentially leading to a sense of monotony. The thrill of discovery, the excitement of the unknown, and the joy of serendipitous moments, the joy of occasionally drenched my summer rain, would be lost.

Moreover, human creativity and innovation often thrive on randomness. The unexpected connections and spontaneous ideas that drive artistic and scientific breakthroughs might be stifled in a deterministic world. The richness of human experience, characterized by its unpredictability and diversity, could be diminished.

So, what would we prefer? A state of clarity or a falling into the risk of boredom and monotony. Or perhaps, there is a sweet spot in between with just the right amount of randomness and uncertainty about the future that will dampen the stressful aspects of uncertainty while keeping the interesting parts.

Optimal Level of Randomness

Could there be just the right amount of randomness to keep the anticipation of future feeling us engaged but not too much to get us stressed. If would be like the notion of right amounts of spice in a dish or the pleasure of enjoying a balanced wine.

The balance between clarity and monotony in a deterministic world would, however, be deeply individualistic. Each person might experience and interpret this balance differently, shaped by their unique preferences, values, and outlook on life.

For some, the predictability and order of a deterministic universe could be a source of comfort and satisfaction. These individuals might find joy in the clarity and certainty that such a world offers, appreciating the ability to understand and anticipate every aspect of their existence. The absence of randomness could provide a sense of control and stability, aligning with their desire for a structured and comprehensible reality.

On the other hand, others might feel constrained by the lack of spontaneity and novelty. For these individuals, the excitement of the unknown and the thrill of unexpected discoveries are essential components of a fulfilling life. The predictability of a deterministic world could seem monotonous and stifling, depriving them of the serendipitous moments and creative sparks that make life vibrant and dynamic.

Ultimately, the perception of a world without randomness would vary from person to person. Some might embrace the clarity and order it brings, while others might yearn for the unpredictability and chaos that add color to their lives. This individualistic balance highlights the diverse ways in which people find meaning and satisfaction in their experiences, underscoring the rich tapestry of human existence.

How do you think you would perceive a deterministic world? Would you lean towards appreciating its clarity or the excitement of randomness?

For me, oh well. I would love to know where the S&P 500 will be a year from now, but I will not mind getting drenched in a summer deluge just because the forecast said 30% chance of rain and I decided not to being the umbrella. So much for wishful thinking though.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Infinite Resources, Diversity, and Creativity: The Paradox of When Plenty is Little

 

The secrets of evolution are death and time — the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to the environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations — Carl Sagan

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: In a world of infinite resources, there would be no need for competition, and the notion of survival of the fittest would be absent. Consequently, evolution would slow down, leading to a less diverse biosphere. Similarly, if humans were immortal, it could reduce the urgency for innovation, potentially causing societal stagnation.

Resources are Limited

Resources on Earth are limited. Although the Sun provides abundant energy daily and will continue to do so, and this energy has been stored over eons as fossil fuels, the amount of available energy is still finite. This simple constraint has profound implications for evolution.

Biological Evolution in an Infinite Resource Environment

In our world, the finiteness of resources drives the process of natural selection, leading to the mechanism of survival of the fittest. This competition for limited resources has resulted in a diversity of life forms, each adapted to its specific niche.

But what if resources were infinite and there was no need for competition? Can one imagine such a counterfactual world and the evolution of biology in it?

The paradox is that in a world with infinite resources, the driving force behind natural selection would be absent, and the notion of survival of the fittest would be missing. Without the pressure to compete for food, shelter, or mates, organisms would not need to develop specialized adaptations to survive. This could lead to a much less diverse biosphere. Species might evolve more slowly, as there would be no urgency to adapt to changing conditions or to outcompete others for resources. Having plenty might result in stagnation and lack of biological diversity.

Without the need for competition, the concept of “fitness” would be irrelevant. All organisms would have adequate access to resources, leading to a more homogeneous population. Evolution might still occur, driven by random mutations and genetic drift, but the pace and direction of evolution would be vastly different. Organisms that are more efficient and better at conserving their energy would exist alongside those that do not have the necessary traits to do so.

The rich biodiversity of life we see today, with its myriad forms and behaviors, might be replaced by a more uniform, less dynamic, and a less competitive ecosystem.

In another arena of human endeavor where something similar might happen is the fact that our time on this Earth is limited. The fact of our mortality may have shaped our urge and drive for creativity and innovations.

Human Mortality and Creativity

The finite nature of human life has been a significant driver of creativity and innovation. Knowing that our time on Earth is limited, we are motivated to achieve, create, and leave a legacy. Limitation of lime and the pressure to accomplish goals within a finite timeframe spur us to action.

In a counterfactual scenario where humans are immortal and there are no deadlines, the impetus for creativity and innovation might diminish. With infinite time, the urgency to create, discover, and innovate would be greatly reduced. Procrastination could become the norm, as there would always be more time to accomplish tasks. Having plenty of time may result in little.

Human society might become more stagnant, with less frequent innovations and less progress. The drive to solve problems, explore new frontiers, and push the boundaries of knowledge could wane. Art, science, and technology might advance at a much slower pace, as the pressure to innovate would be lessened.

On the other hand, one could argue that immortality could also lead to a deeper exploration of long-term projects and finer pursuits. With no fear of death, humans might undertake endeavors that span centuries, leading to achievements that are currently unimaginable. The focus might shift from short-term gains to long-term sustainability and harmony with the environment. In that counterfactual world we will miss on colorful phrases like “low hanging fruits” or “let us go for some quick wins.”

A difference between the counterfactual world of immortality and counterfactual world of infinite resources is that we have consciousness that gives us a sense of agency that the process of evolution lacks,. Given enough time, we might actually come up with brilliant solutions to social issues that currently plague us. But do not wager on that bet yet.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Understanding the Basics of Natural Selection Through Tetris

 The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale — Richard Dawkins

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: The game of Tetris serves as a simplified analogy for understanding the mechanisms of evolution. Tetris and natural selection bear similarities like randomness, selection, and adaptation.

The Evolutionary Game of Tetris

At some point in your life, you may have played Tetris. If not, then you may have watched someone else playing, sitting next to you while waiting for whatever you two were waiting for. Tetris is a game that, on the surface, seems simple: various shapes, known as Tetriminos, fall from the top of the screen, and the player must rotate and position them to create complete lines, which then disappear. However, beneath this simplicity lies an interesting parallel to the process of evolution by natural selection.

Tetris: A Game of Randomness and Fit

Tetris is a game where random shapes are thrown at the player, and only those that fit into the existing structure are useful. Each falling Tetrimino represents a random guess, and the player’s task is to find the best possible fit for it within the current configuration. The goal is to create complete lines, which can be seen as a metaphor for achieving a stable and functional state.

Natural Selection: The Ultimate Game of Fit

Natural selection operates on a similar principle. In nature, random genetic mutations occur within organisms. These mutations are akin to the random Tetriminos in Tetris. Just as in Tetris, where only the pieces that fit well into the existing structure are beneficial, in natural selection, only the genetic variations that enhance an organism’s fitness (in the backdrop of the current state of the environment) are likely to be passed on to future generations. Over time, this process leads to the evolution of species, with traits that are well-suited to their environments becoming more common.

Commonalities Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Randomness: Both Tetris and natural selection involve an element of randomness. In Tetris, the shapes of Tetriminos are random (although selected from a limited pool). In natural selection, genetic mutations also occur randomly.
• Selection: In both processes, there is a selection mechanism. In Tetris, the player selects the best plays for each shape to fit. In natural selection, the environment “selects” the random mutations that are most advantageous for the survival and reproduction of the organism.

Differences Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Agency: In Tetris, the player actively makes decisions about where to place each shape. In natural selection, there is no conscious decision-making; the process is driven by the interplay between environmental pressures and random mutations.
• Time Scale: Tetris games are fast-paced, with decisions made in seconds. Natural selection operates over much longer time scales, often spanning generations.
• End Goal: The goal in Tetris is to clear completed lines and achieve a high score. In natural selection, there is no specific end goal; the process is a trajectory of evolution that can go in any direction over time, potentially stopping, bifurcating, or merging.

Conclusion

While Tetris and natural selection operate in vastly different contexts, they share intriguing similarities in their reliance on randomness and selection. Tetris provides a simplified, game-based analogy for the complex and ongoing process of evolution by natural selection.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Science, Engineering, and Evolution

 

Details may vary (and figuring those out is more of an engineering problem) but some basic, or self-evident facts, lead to inevitable outcomes that shape a vast range of downstream consequences.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Starting with a couple of basic facts, emrgence of the principle of survival of the fittest is inevitable. The various nuances of how survival of the fittest exactly operates, and has resulted in self-replicating molecules evolving to become complex forms like you and me, however, are still being investigated. Survival of the fittest is a fundamental understanding of the workings of nature; the rest (i.e., the exact trajectory of evolution) are practical solutions that the principle of survival of the fittest, operating within the constraints of the environment, finds.

Consider a car. I have a notion of what a car is. At the mention of the word “car,” the image that comes to mind is a metallic box that sits on four wheels. The box has a certain shape; it is longer than it is wider. On two sides of the box, there are doors that can open and close, allowing me to sit behind a steering wheel to get me from here to there.

Beyond the general notions people have about cars, what is under the hood differs from one car to another. Differences also exist in the details of the exterior. The notion of a car could be thought of as the guiding principle (or the science) of a car, while the details represent engineering.

The understanding of the diversity of forms and phenomena of things in the universe works along the same lines. There are some underlying notions that explain a vast majority of general features among individual objects, while specifics for each differ.

This combination of science and engineering works something like the following: The consequences of some simple, self-evident facts result in guiding principles. These guiding principles may, in fact, be inevitable outcomes of a few self-evident facts and interactions among them. Once there, these principles become powerful tools for understanding a wide range of solutions that can emerge. At a granular level, the specifics of solutions differ (like details differ under the hood of a car), but their fundamental workings can be understood by a few guiding principles.

A specific example will help drive this point home.

Limitation of resources is a basic and self-evident fact. The Sun is the provider of energy on the surface of the Earth. Vast as that energy source may be, it is a resource that is still limited and either has to be shared or competed for.

Now let us assume that, for whatever reason, some nascent forms of biology (e.g., self-replicating molecules) were to emerge on the surface of the Earth. Without worrying about the nuances of what the definition of biology may be, a sensible fact to differentiate it from a rock would be that biology has the innate drive to survive and reproduce, a process that requires energy.

When these two self-evident facts are brought together, the inevitable consequence is the emergence of the principle of survival of the fittest. In the quest to survive and reproduce, the traits that facilitate procuring a bigger share of energy get favored and proliferate in future generations, and the nascent forms of biology evolve along a trajectory.

One can argue about the details as to what the definitions of biology may be, or why traits among the members of a class of biological forms have to differ, but given the facts that (a) resources are constrained, and (b) the prime directive of biology is to survive and reproduce (a process that requires energy), the emergence of the principle of survival of the fittest is an inevitability. Once there, then working in the environment it operates it guides the specifics of evolution.

Following the same argument and guided by the principle of survival of the fittest, since biology also needs to be aware of its environment, senses emerge. Senses are the solutions biology has engineered to know the state of the environment. The exact details depend on the environment that biology is in and what solutions the principle of the survival of the fittest can produce.

To seek energy, biology needs to know where plentiful sources of energy are. To do that, it has to know about its surroundings. It just happens that there are various forms of carriers of information — light, sound, molecules — that permeate the environment and encapsulate some details about its state. If a biology comes to possess a means to sense its surroundings, having that capability will make it better at getting a larger share of energy and in its quest for survival and reproduction.

Starting from a couple of self-evident facts and the inevitability of the principle of survival of the fittest that followed, here I am with a collection of senses that are finely tuned to see, hear, smell, taste, and feel the surroundings in which I exist. Beyond serving their primary purpose, with the evolution of consciousness, these senses now let me also appreciate other pleasures in life.

The subtle beauty of the feat of engineering achieved by the principle of the survival of the fittest is that it does not require a conscious or predetermined design. Sensing the environment in which it operates, it tailors the appropriate solutions.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Inevitabilities

 

Details may vary (and figuring those out is more of an engineering problem) but some basic, or self-evident facts, lead to inevitable outcomes that shape a vast range of downstream of consequences.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: It is a fun exercise to start from a few simple, and perhaps, self-evident facts and to understand the intricacies of nature. One such exercise that brings a sense of enlightenment is coming to a sudden realization that in an energy limited environment, if biology is to evolve, the mechanism of survival of fittest is an inevitable outcome. And once its inevitability is in place, its explanatory power is far reaching. An example is understanding the reason for why I have specific organs for sensing the environment I live in.

A very basic, and a plausible fact is that the amount of energy in various corners of the universe is limited. No matter how plentiful it may be, it is still limited.

For our solar system, the main provider of energy is the Sun. The energy the Sun gives comes from thermonuclear fusion occurring at its core, a process where hydrogen nuclei (protons) fuse to form helium (two protons and two neutrons). This process results in a small loss of mass that is converted into energy, as described by Einstein’s equation, (E=mc²). This energy is transferred from the core to the surface of the Sun primarily through radiation and convection. From the surface, it is then radiated as electromagnetic waves, which travel through the empty space to reach the various planets in the Sun’s orbit.

For everything on the Earth, the Sun is the ultimate source of energy, and further, the amount of that energy that is available is limited.

Because energy is limited, the establishment of the mechanism of survival of the fittest becomes inevitable if biology happens to evolve in a resource limited environment. This is because the fundamental tenets of biology are:

- Biology needs to survive and reproduce.

- To do that, biology requires energy.

- Biology must compete with other organisms for the limited amount energy that is available.

In the desire to survive, thrive, and reproduce — activities that rely on the availability of energy — traits that help secure more energy become dominant over generations. This is the mechanism of survival of the fittest and natural selection. The emergence of natural selection, therefore, is a natural outcome of two self-evident facts: (1) the finiteness of available energy in the environment, and (2) the fundamental characteristics of being a biological organism., i.e., survival and reproduction (requiring energy).

Once in place, the mechanism of natural selection has sweeping explanatory powers for understanding the peculiarities of biological forms we see around us today. Examples include the incredible capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance, the long neck of giraffes in the African savannahs, the diverse beak shapes of Galapagos finches. And the list goes on.

It is not only biology to which the explanatory scope of natural selection extends. Many psychological traits and cognitive biases that humans exhibit today can also be linked to the process of natural selection. Examples include our preference for social bonding (or tribalism), our fear responses, our tendency to discount the future, our aversion to loss etc. There is an entire branch of evolutionary psychology devoted to exploring human behavior in the context of evolution and natural selection

The explanatory power of natural selection is so sweeping that one might even say that if a biological characteristic does not exist, it is because it failed the test of survival of the fittest in the context of the environment in which it tried to evolve.

Once the mechanism of natural selection is in place, it spawns its own inevitabilities downstream.

The mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest can be used to argue that biological organisms will have sensory organs, i.e., is also an inevitability. The argument would go something like this: To survive (and hopefully, thrive), biological organisms have to be successful in getting their share of energy that is available in the environment. They also have to compete for those resources with other biological organisms.

To be able to be successful in this endeavor, it would be advantageous for them to be able to sense the environment they are in and to know the time and locations where energy resources might be concentrated. Not only that, but they also need to sense the environment to avoid the dangers and become a source of energy for someone else.

It also just happens that the environment is permeated with carriers of information about its state, and it is matter of having the right set of receptors. Carriers of information include sight, sound, smell etc.

Given two facts: (1) biology needs to be aware of the state of the environment, and (2) such information is already being transmitted within the environment that the biological system inhabits, it is only a matter of time before natural selection, without any predetermined design, leads to the evolution of sensory organs that are receptive to the dominant carriers of environmental information.

And so, because biology needs to know about the state of the environment, traits that enhance an organism’s ability to sense and respond to environmental cues, therefore, are advantageous. Consequently, development of senses is an inevitability.

To highlight the interplay between the development of senses and carriers of information consider that biology has indeed evolved specialized sensory organs (like eyes, ears, and noses) to detect light, sound, and chemical signals that are present in the environment. These adaptations allow biology to gather information about their surroundings.

An implication of the above argument is also that the biology of senses will not be universal but will be dependent on the environment biology resides in. Organisms evolve senses that are most relevant to their ecological niche.

Returning back to where we started, a couple of basic facts that resources are limited and biology needs resources to survive and reproduce, the emergence of the mechanism of natural selection and survival of the fittest becomes an inevitability. Once natural selection is in place, and the fact that biology needs to know about the state of the environment to secure energy makes development of senses a next level of logical inevitability.

The subtle beauty of these inevitabilities is that they make the world all in place on its own and there is no need for a meticulous designer to do so.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Senses and environment: Connecting the threads

 

All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses — Friedrich Nietzsche

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: There is a dualism between me and the external world. To survive and thrive, I need to be aware of my environment. This awareness comes from tapping into various carriers of information. What diverse kinds of carriers are there? Although biological organisms did not consciously know about them, natural selection developed senses that tap into these carriers to improve survival chances.

There is me and there is everything else (i.e., the rest).

The rest is the environment in which the me, a biological organism, is trying to survive and thrive. Me and the rest form the notion of duality, implication of which are so profound and so intriguing that countless philosophers, religions, developers of social norms and ethics, have grappled with since the beginning of time.

Me and the rest are separated by a boundary. In my case, the boundary is my skin. For trees, it is bark and the surface of leaves. For cells, it is the cell membrane.

At the microscopic level it may be hard to tell where me ends and the rest begins, but at the macroscopic level, the boundary is the demarcation between the outside and inside of biological organisms. All biological organisms live inside of a boundedness like a cocoon hanging on the branch of a tree outside of my window.

In this duality of outside and inside, the outside environment is the provider of energy, and I am the consumer. I need energy to glue my biology together and keep it safe inside of my cocoon. It is also my innate desire to survive and thrive (and doing that requires energy). If I do not then I might as well be a rock.

As all other biological organisms also want to survive and thrive, I am also competing with them for the limited resources that the environment has to offer. As part of this competition, I also need to avoid dangers and stay alive and not become a source of energy for some predator. To achieve these goals, a basic need I have is to be constantly aware of what is going on around me. This awareness is facilitated by having some biology that reacts to carriers of information about the state of the environment that surrounds me.

A carrier of information about the state of the environment is something that leaves point A and has the ability to travel to point B (where I stand ready to receive the information). When the carrier of information leaves the point A, it either carries the information about what generated it or is influenced by some characteristics associated with point A. The generator of the information could be a lion having a sudden urge to roar or it could be a drop of morning dew hanging on a leaf and reflecting sunlight.

The carriers of information require a medium to travel through and that medium could just be vacuum or could be air (or water or some other material). It is the presence of those carriers of information about the state of the environment that evolution and natural selection patiently developed corresponding sense organs for.

In the universe I live in, the carriers of information are several and include waves, fields, particles.

The world is permeated by electromagnetic (EM) waves. It is the light coming from stars that travels through empty space and reaches the receptors in my eyes. It is the microwave background radiation that originated the at time of the Big Bang and is still around me conveying a message that originated 13.8 billion years ago. It is the radio waves which we have learned to exploit to communicate. The EM waves can travel through empty space.

The physics behind electromagnetic (EM) waves is electrons circulating the nucleus of the atom and when they jump from a higher to a lower energy orbit, a pulse of EM radiation is released. The orbits, and the corresponding energy levels, are unique to the atom and that information is codified in the spectral characteristics of the emitted wave.

On its way from the source to my eyes, the electromagnetic radiation could be reflected, absorbed, or scattered and such actions impart their own signature. The light that falls on leaves, chlorophyll absorbs the red and blue parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, it reflects green light, which is why leaves appear green to our eyes.

Sound, as a carrier of information, is a form of wave that relies on the compression and rarefaction of the medium such as air they travel through. Sound is generated by the vibration associated with the source. Unlike EM waves, sound (or compressions) waves require a physical medium (like air, water, solids) to propagate from point A to B.

Another form of waves is gravitational waves, and they are generated by sudden disturbances in the fabric of space and time. They are like throwing stones in a pond that creates ripples on its surface propagating away from the point of impact. Similarly, massive objects like merging black holes or neutron stars create gravitational ripples in the spacetime fabric that propagates away at the speed of light.

Going beyond the waves, particles like molecules drifting away from their point of origin could also be carriers of information. The particles could drift through emptiness or could be carried away through a medium like air.

Various fields, such as electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields and their gradients in space or variations in time, can also serve as carriers of information. While fields can be static or dynamic, waves are inherently dynamic. Changes in the strength of the fields, either in space or time, can be a carrier of information. Fields can exist in vacuum.

Another carrier of information could be subatomic particles, like neutrinos or cosmic rays, and are capable of carrying information from the source of their origin (e.g., core of stars where thermonuclear reactions generate them) to another location through vacuum.

Lastly, some carriers of information require physical contact to deliver their content. A bit of food has to be placed over my tongue for me to know its profile. Walking on the beach, a sharp piece of seashell pressing against my soles lets me know of its presence.

There may be more esoteric carriers of information out there that are beyond my limits of knowledge but whose existence I can speculate. For example, quantum entanglement where particles become interconnected in such a way that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of another, regardless of the distance between them.

Or perhaps, the neural activity inside my brain generates a signature that like a blue tooth signal can be picked over a short distance and someone with correct and sensitive enough receptors can tune into. Mind reading and telepathy may not be total fiction.

And so, biological organisms need to have a physical boundary. For surviving and thriving, they need to gather information about the state of environment. There are carriers of information that are present in the environment. The miracle is that independent factual threads come together in the patient hands of natural selection and evolution. Natural selections, by developing senses that respond to the carriers of information has connected these threads together.

Ciao and thanks for reading.

From Taste Buds to Dimensions: The Ever-Changing Landscape of Sensory Perception

 You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist. You can only prove that something does exist — John Connolly

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Senses are the only way I perceive the environment around me. The information they receive about the state of my surroundings is conveyed to the brain for interpretation, followed by a reaction (and choosing not to react is also a reaction). The sharpness, range, and quality (or however we want to define a scale for acuteness, something similar to IQ) of senses differ between individuals. For that matter, it changes within my lifetime with age.

As I grow older, the number of taste buds and sensory receptors in my mouth decreases, and the remaining ones become less sensitive. This decline in taste sensitivity makes broccoli taste less intense or bitter compared to when I was a child. Now, I find broccoli to be much more palatable than it used to.

Similar changes are occurring with my other senses. Now, I go around wearing glasses, trying to make the world look as sharp as it once did. Variations in the information content my senses can receive, and the way brain interprets them, imply that I see the world, the environment around me, differently and uniquely. The experience of wine for a sommelier is different from what I will get from the same bottle of wine.

Often in wine tasting classes, someone would praise the minerality of the wine. I, on the other hand, have no idea about what they are talking about. Even if I like some particular aspect of wine, I often find it hard to describe the flavor or aroma in words. Verbal communication is inadequate to convey or understand the notion of minerality in wine. I can hear wine having minerality, but that does not help convey the taste or smell of the wine.

The awe-inspiring vistas I saw standing at the summit of Cabo de Roca in Portugal, I will not be able to communicate that feeling to you. Years later, even seeing a picture I took there does not do justice to the feelings that were present in the moment. Missing a particular sense makes me miss a dimensionality of perception and experience that no words can substitute for. Think of a deaf person missing an entire dimension of experience that hearing could be.

The curious fact is that I can say that about a deaf person because I can experience that dimension and thereby comprehend what someone is missing. But the other way around is not so easy. If I do not have the necessary biology that is sensitive to a specific carrier of information that permeates the environment, I would not be able to describe what I am missing. I have no way of contextualizing what I cannot experience.

It is much easier to downshift. If I am no longer able to sense something that I can sense now, it would be easy for me to describe what I would miss. Upshifting and describing what I may be missing if I have never experienced the corresponding sensory perception, however, is a different story.

Living in three dimensions, I can imagine how a creature living in two dimensions might behave. I can try to teach them that they do not have to always move along the surface. Sometimes they can move faster from point A to B by leaping through the third dimension. But the creature living in two dimensions has no comprehension of the world of the third dimensions and would not understand what I am talking about. Similarly, if more space dimensions than three were to exist, it would be impossible for me to create a mental imagery of that world.

Who knows, limited by my senses, what I am missing that some other sentient beings might be privy to. Maybe there are sentient beings in the corners of the universe that can use small variations in magnetic or gravitational fields to sense their environment (after all, birds are capable of sensing variations in the magnetic field). Like we can sense photons to see the world, perhaps there are creatures out there who can sense neutrinos that are flying around us. And if they are anything like us, what beautiful art forms they might be creating from manipulating fields of neutrinos.

But I should not be (and I am not) nostalgic about what I am missing. How can I? It is just a notion that I may be missing experiences that carriers of information can bring but I have no sensory capacity for. There is no emotion associated with the notion. This kind of notion of missing out is different from FOMO. There, I know that people getting a variety of experiences is real, while for some reason, I am not a participant.

There is one exception, though, and that is my knowledge of mortality. Although I have no personal experience of what death would be like, I have seen it happening around me. Even without any experience, the consequence of mortality fills me with existential crises. So far, the same is not true for missing a capacity to sense fields of neutrinos.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.