I understand the statistical argument for extraterrestrial life: "We know that life exists on Earth; there are probably megazillions of Earth-like planets in the universe; therefore, there are almost certainly many other life-bearing planets". (Incidentally, although Earth is an Earth-like planet, I am not aware that any new life is being created here now.)
But so far no one has given an informed probability for extraterrestrial life, which can easily be explained by our uncertainty as to the number of Earth-like planets. But if there are a mere one billion Earth-like planets in the universe, how do we calculate the probable number of life-bearing planets? Under what circumstances does life come into being? What is life anyway?
If the universe is teeming with extraterrestrial life, why hasn't ET landed on the White House lawn with an invitation to join the Galactic Union (GU)? My own answer: an action is motivated by emotional mental processes that establish the desirability of that action. If Earth-like planets are commonplace, why would any intelligent ET go out of its way to get here? I grew up on science fiction, too, but it is just fiction based on Earthling experience.
Furthermore, we have no tangible evidence that life exists anywhere but here. You can draw an infinite number of lines through a single point, just as you can imagine an infinite number of other worlds like ours.
Exactly what do we know about life on other planets? Nothing.
Eugene Paul
Friday, November 12, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Toward an understanding of insulin resistance
The body's regulation of insulin and glucose are involved in three related diseases: types 1 and 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a pathological condition that causes type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome; insulin resistance is not involved in type 1 diabetes.
Insulin is a hormone that enables glucose, which is the body's primary source of energy, to pass from the bloodstream into each cell through a protein structure in its wall called an insulin receptor. If the supply of insulin is inadequate, as in type 1 diabetes, glucose cannot pass through the receptor into the cell. And even if the supply of insulin is adequate, its action on receptors can be prevented by insulin resistance, as in type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
Type 1 diabetes is characterized by very high levels of blood sugar (serum glucose), which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin.
Type 2 diabetes is also characterized by high levels of blood sugar, which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin or, less successfully, by the regular use of pharmaceutical drugs; insulin injections are inconvenient and potentially dangerous.
Metabolic syndrome, which was discovered recently by Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, is characterized by slightly elevated levels of blood sugar and very high levels of blood insulin.
According to Dr. Reaven, some individuals are capable of overcoming insulin resistance by producing prodigious quantities of insulin, which avoids type 2 diabetes but results in metabolic syndrome. Individuals who cannot overcome insulin resistance by producing large quantities of insulin merely have type 2 diabetes. Both metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are serious diseases, and it is believed that metabolic syndrome may eventually evolve into type 2 diabetes if the pancreas loses its capacity to produce abnormally large quantities of insulin.
We come at last to the nature of insulin resistance, which is considered to be the cause of either the dangerously high levels of blood sugar (hyperglycemia) in type 2 diabetes or else of the dangerously high levels of compensatory insulin (compensatory hyperinsulinemia) in metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a defect in the insulin receptor or in the insulin itself. The thinking is as follows: insulin must work with insulin receptors in order for glucose to pass from the bloodstream into the cells, thereby reducing blood sugar levels to normal. I believe this thinking is wrong.
It is known now that insulin receptors are only present in the cells of certain kinds of tissue (e.g., muscle and fat), while the cells of other tissues (e.g., the kidneys, red blood cells, and -- most notably -- the brain) allow glucose to enter through their walls freely without any need for insulin receptors or insulin.
Suddenly the picture changes completely. Glucose can enter cells freely without the 'help' of insulin! Of what use, then, is the insulin/insulin receptor mechanism, which is what makes insulin resistance possible? It becomes obvious that this mechanism is actually designed to permit insulin resistance to occur. Therefore, insulin resistance, per se, must be normal, not pathological.
If insulin resistance is normal, then what purpose could it serve? Without insulin receptors, all cells in the body would have to allow glucose to enter their cells freely. Every organ in the body -- including the brain -- would receive the same amount of glucose. But the brain, which uses 25% of the body's glucose supply, cannot function without enough glucose; we know that severe hypoglycemia can cause coma and death.
During starvation, the supply of glucose is so diminished that the body begins to metabolize its own protein to survive. More glucose can be preserved in the bloodstream by insulin resistance, which prevents glucose from being 'wasted' on nonessential tissues such as skeletal muscle and fat. And the body can only survive as long as there is an adequate supply of blood sugar for the brain.
In short, I believe that insulin resistance is a natural survival mechanism designed to preserve life by preventing serum hypoglycemia.
Eugene Paul
Insulin is a hormone that enables glucose, which is the body's primary source of energy, to pass from the bloodstream into each cell through a protein structure in its wall called an insulin receptor. If the supply of insulin is inadequate, as in type 1 diabetes, glucose cannot pass through the receptor into the cell. And even if the supply of insulin is adequate, its action on receptors can be prevented by insulin resistance, as in type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.
Type 1 diabetes is characterized by very high levels of blood sugar (serum glucose), which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin.
Type 2 diabetes is also characterized by high levels of blood sugar, which can be reduced successfully by regular injections of insulin or, less successfully, by the regular use of pharmaceutical drugs; insulin injections are inconvenient and potentially dangerous.
Metabolic syndrome, which was discovered recently by Stanford endocrinologist Gerald Reaven, is characterized by slightly elevated levels of blood sugar and very high levels of blood insulin.
According to Dr. Reaven, some individuals are capable of overcoming insulin resistance by producing prodigious quantities of insulin, which avoids type 2 diabetes but results in metabolic syndrome. Individuals who cannot overcome insulin resistance by producing large quantities of insulin merely have type 2 diabetes. Both metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes are serious diseases, and it is believed that metabolic syndrome may eventually evolve into type 2 diabetes if the pancreas loses its capacity to produce abnormally large quantities of insulin.
We come at last to the nature of insulin resistance, which is considered to be the cause of either the dangerously high levels of blood sugar (hyperglycemia) in type 2 diabetes or else of the dangerously high levels of compensatory insulin (compensatory hyperinsulinemia) in metabolic syndrome. Insulin resistance is considered to be a defect in the insulin receptor or in the insulin itself. The thinking is as follows: insulin must work with insulin receptors in order for glucose to pass from the bloodstream into the cells, thereby reducing blood sugar levels to normal. I believe this thinking is wrong.
It is known now that insulin receptors are only present in the cells of certain kinds of tissue (e.g., muscle and fat), while the cells of other tissues (e.g., the kidneys, red blood cells, and -- most notably -- the brain) allow glucose to enter through their walls freely without any need for insulin receptors or insulin.
Suddenly the picture changes completely. Glucose can enter cells freely without the 'help' of insulin! Of what use, then, is the insulin/insulin receptor mechanism, which is what makes insulin resistance possible? It becomes obvious that this mechanism is actually designed to permit insulin resistance to occur. Therefore, insulin resistance, per se, must be normal, not pathological.
If insulin resistance is normal, then what purpose could it serve? Without insulin receptors, all cells in the body would have to allow glucose to enter their cells freely. Every organ in the body -- including the brain -- would receive the same amount of glucose. But the brain, which uses 25% of the body's glucose supply, cannot function without enough glucose; we know that severe hypoglycemia can cause coma and death.
During starvation, the supply of glucose is so diminished that the body begins to metabolize its own protein to survive. More glucose can be preserved in the bloodstream by insulin resistance, which prevents glucose from being 'wasted' on nonessential tissues such as skeletal muscle and fat. And the body can only survive as long as there is an adequate supply of blood sugar for the brain.
In short, I believe that insulin resistance is a natural survival mechanism designed to preserve life by preventing serum hypoglycemia.
Eugene Paul
Thursday, March 11, 2010
What is the Cause of Evolution?
A friend sent me a copy of a review (apparently from the February 2009 issue of a publication called Choice) of a book written by Susan Jacoby, entitled The age of American unreason. The reviewer wrote:
But [the book] ... offers a sharply argued defense of reason, logic, science, ... If the anti-evolution fervor of religious fundamentalism is the US's most glaring example of irrationalism, ...
Eugene Paul
But [the book] ... offers a sharply argued defense of reason, logic, science, ... If the anti-evolution fervor of religious fundamentalism is the US's most glaring example of irrationalism, ...
Strictly speaking, neither anti-evolution fervor nor anti-anti-evolution fervor are in the scientific tradition, which never quite believes any theory. Personally, I find the idea of progressive evolution to be in conflict with the idea of natural selection, and the latter seems more reasonable to me than the former. Namely, the idea that life was destined to progress from simple organisms to ever more complex organisms, culminating in homo intelligenticus, might appeal to some religious and social thinkers, but it seems irrational in the absence of an observed cause of this particular effect.
Natural selection, as I understand it, is the idea that different kinds of organisms may happen to be better equipped to cope with hostile new environments than other kinds of organisms. Those that are sufficiently well equipped will survive, while those that are not so well equipped will not survive. There is no guarantee that any organism will be sufficiently well equipped to survive. It may be, I might add, that those organisms that can cope marginally in a hostile new environment might eventually experience mutations that would permit them to cope more (or less) favorably.
Eugene Paul
Lord Russell's Amœbæ
Yesterday a recently retired philosopher friend quoted Bertrand Russell on the subject of evolution:
One day Lord Russell placed his hand under the objective lens of a powerful microscope and discovered to his delight that his own body consisted of trillions of amœbæ.
I used to hear the blighter talk on the radio, and I was always amused by his halting, stammering pattern of speech, which I attributed to the profundity of his thought. Now I know that his difficulty lay in arriving at an amœbic consensus.
Eugene Paul
"Evolution from amoeba to man is generally considered to be progress, but whether the amoeba agrees with this opinion is not known."
One day Lord Russell placed his hand under the objective lens of a powerful microscope and discovered to his delight that his own body consisted of trillions of amœbæ.
I used to hear the blighter talk on the radio, and I was always amused by his halting, stammering pattern of speech, which I attributed to the profundity of his thought. Now I know that his difficulty lay in arriving at an amœbic consensus.
Eugene Paul
Academic Mysticism
In thinking about evolution the other day, it occurred to me that I do not actually understand causality. Accordingly, I looked in at the Wikipedia monograph on Causality to see how much was already understood about that subject, and in so doing I came upon yet another infernal 'paradox':
The Paradox of the Grand Hotel
Consider a hypothetical hotel with countably infinitely many rooms, all of which are occupied – that is to say every room contains a guest. One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms. Etc., etc., etc.
Anticipated amusement turned to anger which soon became outrage. Why do academic mystics tie themselves into knots by making absurd assumptions and then marvelling at the paradoxical results?
The paradox is summarized in the monograph on Infinity as follows:
The paradoxical nature of infinity is illustrated by the idea of a grand hotel, with infinitely many rooms—all of which are occupied by guests—but can nevertheless manage to accommodate a new guest by moving each existing guest over, one by one, to other rooms.
A hotel with an infinitely large number of rooms, each large enough to contain a guest, would have to be infinitely large. But the only universe that we have ever experienced appears to be finite in size. It appears, therefore, that the paradoxical Grand Hotel could not exist because it could not fit inside the universe.
Infinity is a concept encountered in mathematical theory (1/0 = ∞) and in science fiction, but not in reality, or I'm very much mistaken.
Eugene Paul
The Paradox of the Grand Hotel
Consider a hypothetical hotel with countably infinitely many rooms, all of which are occupied – that is to say every room contains a guest. One might be tempted to think that the hotel would not be able to accommodate any newly arriving guests, as would be the case with a finite number of rooms. Etc., etc., etc.
Anticipated amusement turned to anger which soon became outrage. Why do academic mystics tie themselves into knots by making absurd assumptions and then marvelling at the paradoxical results?
The paradox is summarized in the monograph on Infinity as follows:
The paradoxical nature of infinity is illustrated by the idea of a grand hotel, with infinitely many rooms—all of which are occupied by guests—but can nevertheless manage to accommodate a new guest by moving each existing guest over, one by one, to other rooms.
A hotel with an infinitely large number of rooms, each large enough to contain a guest, would have to be infinitely large. But the only universe that we have ever experienced appears to be finite in size. It appears, therefore, that the paradoxical Grand Hotel could not exist because it could not fit inside the universe.
Infinity is a concept encountered in mathematical theory (1/0 = ∞) and in science fiction, but not in reality, or I'm very much mistaken.
Eugene Paul
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Leonard Peikoff's "Pre-Human" Defense of Abortion
Leonard Peikoff, who was one of Ayn Rand's closest associates, is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute, a former professor of philosophy, and undoubtedly the foremost proponent of Rand's philosophy.
My attention was drawn to a statement in support of abortion that professor Peikoff makes in an article entitled "Abortion Rights are Pro-Life", which can be found at his personal Web site.
Peikoff states, very courageously, that abortion would be murder if a fetus were a person, but then he goes on to assert that an embryo is clearly pre-human. (No distinction appears to be made between 'person' and 'human being', or between 'embryo' and 'fetus'.)
This defense of abortion is fallacious, because pre-humans simply do not exist. The term 'pre-human' has only been used by anthropologists to refer to presumed prehistoric ancestors of Homo Sapiens.
A pre-human fetus would be a creature that is not human but which could become human. But such a creature has escaped the vigilant notice of the sciences of biology, genetics, embryology, and obstetrics. In fact, given current knowledge about the human genome, such a creature would seem to be impossible. Every species has a characteristic arrangement of genes called its genome, e.g., the mouse genome, that is present in the cells of all its members but not present in any other species. Human embryos and fetuses carry the human genome in their cells, just like human adults.
Life is not discontinuous, as the term pre-human would suggest; it is continuous. In the process called mitosis, a living cell splits into two living cells, as when single-celled organisms reproduce or when multi-celled organisms, such as humans, grow.
In the process called meiosis, a living cell splits into two living gametes (i.e., sperms and ova), each of which is capable of recombining with a different living gamete to create a new living cell called a zygote, which is the first cell in a new embryo.
In human reproduction, a new zygote receives the human genome from its two parents when the genes in their gametes are recombined in the zygote. But the genes are recombined in such a way that the new zygote is genetically different from its parents, i.e., it is a new individual.
The zygote begins to grow as it divides into two cells, and those and subsequent cells continue to divide through mitosis. The new pairs of cells retain the zygote's genome, which contains all the instructions needed to grow into an adult human being by means of continued cell division over the course of years.
In other words, a human being begins as a single cell called a zygote and grows continuously by cell division through the phases that we call an embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, child, youth, and full-grown adult.
Eugene Paul
My attention was drawn to a statement in support of abortion that professor Peikoff makes in an article entitled "Abortion Rights are Pro-Life", which can be found at his personal Web site.
Peikoff states, very courageously, that abortion would be murder if a fetus were a person, but then he goes on to assert that an embryo is clearly pre-human. (No distinction appears to be made between 'person' and 'human being', or between 'embryo' and 'fetus'.)
This defense of abortion is fallacious, because pre-humans simply do not exist. The term 'pre-human' has only been used by anthropologists to refer to presumed prehistoric ancestors of Homo Sapiens.
A pre-human fetus would be a creature that is not human but which could become human. But such a creature has escaped the vigilant notice of the sciences of biology, genetics, embryology, and obstetrics. In fact, given current knowledge about the human genome, such a creature would seem to be impossible. Every species has a characteristic arrangement of genes called its genome, e.g., the mouse genome, that is present in the cells of all its members but not present in any other species. Human embryos and fetuses carry the human genome in their cells, just like human adults.
Life is not discontinuous, as the term pre-human would suggest; it is continuous. In the process called mitosis, a living cell splits into two living cells, as when single-celled organisms reproduce or when multi-celled organisms, such as humans, grow.
In the process called meiosis, a living cell splits into two living gametes (i.e., sperms and ova), each of which is capable of recombining with a different living gamete to create a new living cell called a zygote, which is the first cell in a new embryo.
In human reproduction, a new zygote receives the human genome from its two parents when the genes in their gametes are recombined in the zygote. But the genes are recombined in such a way that the new zygote is genetically different from its parents, i.e., it is a new individual.
The zygote begins to grow as it divides into two cells, and those and subsequent cells continue to divide through mitosis. The new pairs of cells retain the zygote's genome, which contains all the instructions needed to grow into an adult human being by means of continued cell division over the course of years.
In other words, a human being begins as a single cell called a zygote and grows continuously by cell division through the phases that we call an embryo, fetus, newborn, baby, child, youth, and full-grown adult.
Eugene Paul
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The "Selfish Brain" Theory, Diabetes & Obesity
I suspect that Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM 2) is deliberately caused by the brain under stress.
DM 2 is diagnosed whenever serum glucose (blood sugar) is elevated chronically. We are warned of coronary complications, told not to eat, and given insulin or medications to lower the glucose level.
We are told that DM 2 is caused by a mysterious condition called insulin resistance. Normally, molecules in muscle and fat cells called insulin receptors react to serum insulin by allowing glucose to enter the cells. But insulin resistance prevents the receptor mechanism from functioning properly, so glucose that doesn't enter these cells remains in the blood.
But in reading about chronic stress, I learn that the brain signals the adrenal glands to release the hormone cortisol, which counteracts the effects of insulin, which is just another hormone. Hans Selye even found that stress can cause DM 2.
Meanwhile I read in one book that the brain consumes some 25% of our blood sugar, and in another book a famous endocrinologist remarks as an aside that for some reason brain cells do not suffer from insulin resistance because neurons get their glucose directly without any help from insulin and insulin receptors. Bingo! I strongly suspect that the insulin receptor system in muscle and fat tissue is just a mechanism that allows the brain to get more glucose when it is under stress. (Which explains why your knees get weak under shock.)
Last week my suspicions were greatly reinforced when I read about the Selfish Brain theory that Prof. Dr. Achim Peters et al. at the University of Luebeck have been developing and testing for over a decade. According to Peters, who is a diabetes and obesity expert, the brain gets all of its energy from serum glucose, and it controls its energy supply in two ways. Normally it induces moderate DM 2 by using the stress system to slow insulin production by the pancreas and to increase insulin resistance in muscle and fat tissue; both of these actions make more glucose available to the "selfish" brain. But if the brain needs an even greater supply of serum glucose to be available, it increases the appetite, which causes more food to be ingested and more glucose to be produced.
But under severe chronic stress, the brain can reset the stress system to produce elevated levels of glucose chronically -- and later, when the brain is no longer under such stress and no longer needs so much glucose, the oversupply of glucose remains in the blood, just in case of another emergency. Meanwhile, the liver converts much of the excess glucose into fat, which is stored in fat cells so it can be used to produce more energy later.
The answer to the problem is to "train the brain" to re-reset the stress system to a lower demand for serum glucose, especially through relaxation techniques. This has been mentioned briefly in at least one article that discusses Peters' theory.
Eugene Paul
DM 2 is diagnosed whenever serum glucose (blood sugar) is elevated chronically. We are warned of coronary complications, told not to eat, and given insulin or medications to lower the glucose level.
We are told that DM 2 is caused by a mysterious condition called insulin resistance. Normally, molecules in muscle and fat cells called insulin receptors react to serum insulin by allowing glucose to enter the cells. But insulin resistance prevents the receptor mechanism from functioning properly, so glucose that doesn't enter these cells remains in the blood.
But in reading about chronic stress, I learn that the brain signals the adrenal glands to release the hormone cortisol, which counteracts the effects of insulin, which is just another hormone. Hans Selye even found that stress can cause DM 2.
Meanwhile I read in one book that the brain consumes some 25% of our blood sugar, and in another book a famous endocrinologist remarks as an aside that for some reason brain cells do not suffer from insulin resistance because neurons get their glucose directly without any help from insulin and insulin receptors. Bingo! I strongly suspect that the insulin receptor system in muscle and fat tissue is just a mechanism that allows the brain to get more glucose when it is under stress. (Which explains why your knees get weak under shock.)
Last week my suspicions were greatly reinforced when I read about the Selfish Brain theory that Prof. Dr. Achim Peters et al. at the University of Luebeck have been developing and testing for over a decade. According to Peters, who is a diabetes and obesity expert, the brain gets all of its energy from serum glucose, and it controls its energy supply in two ways. Normally it induces moderate DM 2 by using the stress system to slow insulin production by the pancreas and to increase insulin resistance in muscle and fat tissue; both of these actions make more glucose available to the "selfish" brain. But if the brain needs an even greater supply of serum glucose to be available, it increases the appetite, which causes more food to be ingested and more glucose to be produced.
But under severe chronic stress, the brain can reset the stress system to produce elevated levels of glucose chronically -- and later, when the brain is no longer under such stress and no longer needs so much glucose, the oversupply of glucose remains in the blood, just in case of another emergency. Meanwhile, the liver converts much of the excess glucose into fat, which is stored in fat cells so it can be used to produce more energy later.
The answer to the problem is to "train the brain" to re-reset the stress system to a lower demand for serum glucose, especially through relaxation techniques. This has been mentioned briefly in at least one article that discusses Peters' theory.
Eugene Paul
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
An Explanation of the Infamous Liar Paradox
The Liar Paradox is a statement that is expressed, variously, as "This statement is false", "This sentence is false", or "I am lying". We are told that the statement is paradoxical because:
* if it is false, as it claims, then it is true,
* if it is true, then it is false, as it claims.
Either way, we are told, the statement is both true and false at the same time. Logicians and philosophers profess their mystification.
Every student of logic has been introduced to logical propositions, which are statements that are either true or false, but never both true and false. If students of logic understood why propositions are never both true and false, they would understand why the statement of the Liar Paradox is not a proposition.
A true statement is an accurate statement about reality, whereas a false statement is an inaccurate statement about reality, e.g.,
* The Moon is a sphere, vs.
* The Moon is a cube.
These are statements of fact that can be verified by observing reality. But the Liar Paradox cannot be verified because it makes no statement about reality.
The Paradox is a non-propositional statement whose form imitates the form of an actual proposition. Consider three propositions:
1. Lead is denser than zinc.
2. Statement 1 is true.
3. Statement 1 is false.
The truth of statements 2 and 3 depends on the truth of statement 1. To say that statement 1 is true, is to restate statement 1, i.e.,
Statement 1 is true, i.e.,
It is true that lead is denser than zinc, i.e.,
Lead is denser than zinc.
Similarly, To say that statement 1 is false, is to restate statement 1 negatively, i.e.,
Statement 1 is false, i.e.,
It is false that lead is denser than zinc, i.e.,
Lead is not denser than zinc.
Thus, statements 2 and 3 are only valid propositions because they restate statement 1, which is a valid proposition. In contrast, the Liar Paradox is not a valid proposition because it does not restate any valid proposition. Consider two statements that resemble the Paradox:
1. Statement 0 is false.
2. Statement 2 is false.
We see that statement 1 is nonsense because it pretends to restate a statement that does not exist. Since it does not restate a statement of fact (a proposition), it is not a proposition.
Similarly, statement 2, which is the Liar Paradox and which pretends to refer to itself, is also nonsense because it pretends to restate a statement of fact that does not exist.
The Liar Paradox, then, is nothing more than a clever misuse of language.
Eugene Paul
* if it is false, as it claims, then it is true,
* if it is true, then it is false, as it claims.
Either way, we are told, the statement is both true and false at the same time. Logicians and philosophers profess their mystification.
Every student of logic has been introduced to logical propositions, which are statements that are either true or false, but never both true and false. If students of logic understood why propositions are never both true and false, they would understand why the statement of the Liar Paradox is not a proposition.
A true statement is an accurate statement about reality, whereas a false statement is an inaccurate statement about reality, e.g.,
* The Moon is a sphere, vs.
* The Moon is a cube.
These are statements of fact that can be verified by observing reality. But the Liar Paradox cannot be verified because it makes no statement about reality.
The Paradox is a non-propositional statement whose form imitates the form of an actual proposition. Consider three propositions:
1. Lead is denser than zinc.
2. Statement 1 is true.
3. Statement 1 is false.
The truth of statements 2 and 3 depends on the truth of statement 1. To say that statement 1 is true, is to restate statement 1, i.e.,
Statement 1 is true, i.e.,
It is true that lead is denser than zinc, i.e.,
Lead is denser than zinc.
Similarly, To say that statement 1 is false, is to restate statement 1 negatively, i.e.,
Statement 1 is false, i.e.,
It is false that lead is denser than zinc, i.e.,
Lead is not denser than zinc.
Thus, statements 2 and 3 are only valid propositions because they restate statement 1, which is a valid proposition. In contrast, the Liar Paradox is not a valid proposition because it does not restate any valid proposition. Consider two statements that resemble the Paradox:
1. Statement 0 is false.
2. Statement 2 is false.
We see that statement 1 is nonsense because it pretends to restate a statement that does not exist. Since it does not restate a statement of fact (a proposition), it is not a proposition.
Similarly, statement 2, which is the Liar Paradox and which pretends to refer to itself, is also nonsense because it pretends to restate a statement of fact that does not exist.
The Liar Paradox, then, is nothing more than a clever misuse of language.
Eugene Paul
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Life Cycle and Natural Selection
We observe that all organisms tend to come into existence, mature, reproduce, and go out of existence. In humans this cycle is represented by birth, attainment of adulthood, giving birth, and dying.
We observe that human populations only survive because the old are replaced by the young. A population that did not reproduce would eventually die out and disappear. There thus appears to be a causal relationship between birth and death, and it appears that the purpose of birth is to compensate for death, which is widely considered to be a flaw in the scheme of things. But it sometimes happens that we confuse cause with effect, so for the sake of argument we might hold in reserve the possibility that the purpose of death is to compensate for birth, or even that the cycle of birth and death serves some unknown purpose.
We also observe that there are two kinds of reproduction, sexual and asexual. Asexual reproduction is a kind of self-cloning, in which new individuals are created using genes from a single parent. This is a much simpler and more reliable process than sexual reproduction, so we might wonder why humans and other complex organisms don't reproduce asexually, as many less complex organisms do.
The reason for sexual reproduction, I believe, has to do with the length of time it takes an organism to mature to the point where it can reproduce. A single-celled organism can reproduce asexually soon after it is created. Significantly, there are bacteria that begin reproducing after they are only 20 minutes old. Furthermore, there are strains of bacteria that are highly susceptible to mutations, i.e., errors in copying genes when they reproduce. Because of this short life-cycle, favorable mutations can propagate into the species rapidly.
The ability of some viruses to quickly make themselves immune to our latest antibiotic medications is an example of natural selection at work. A strain of viruses survives because some mutations produce individuals that can survive better in an altered, hostile environment.
But in the case of complex multicellular organisms, the length of time needed to reach reproductive maturity becomes too great for asexual reproduction to be effective. New mutations would enter the gene pool very slowly. Sexual reproduction then becomes more effective, because mutant genes from many different individuals are shared when those individuals combine their genes during sexual reproduction. Plants tend to bear this idea out. Almost all plants can reproduce both sexually or asexually. Sexual reproduction is the preferred method, but since plants can't roam around looking for partners, they can resort to asexual reproduction when partners are not available. The species stagnates, but survives, during periods of asexual reproduction, and it thrives later by introducing more mutations into the gene pool during periods of sexual reproduction.
It should be noted that single-celled organisms do not experience natural death. They clone themselves into two new organisms when they reproduce. There doesn't seem to be anything about their cells that wears out after they have reproduced themselves a given number of times.
Since multicellular organisms are simply organized collections of single cells, it seems reasonable to assume that single-celled organisms existed first, and that multicellular organisms evolved from them later. But for some reason, the cells of multicellular organisms can only reproduce a given number of times before they, and the organisms, die.
When single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, the parts of the parent organisms are reused, and the species propagates itself most effectively. But when multicellular organisms reproduce sexually, the bodies of the parents cannot be reused during the process. In time, the parents will have contributed all of their potentially useful mutations to the gene pool, and they will have served their genetic purpose. It may be for this reason that they are designed to eventually self-destruct. Which is to suggest that the cycle of birth and death exists to serve the purpose of natural selection.
Eugene Paul
We observe that human populations only survive because the old are replaced by the young. A population that did not reproduce would eventually die out and disappear. There thus appears to be a causal relationship between birth and death, and it appears that the purpose of birth is to compensate for death, which is widely considered to be a flaw in the scheme of things. But it sometimes happens that we confuse cause with effect, so for the sake of argument we might hold in reserve the possibility that the purpose of death is to compensate for birth, or even that the cycle of birth and death serves some unknown purpose.
We also observe that there are two kinds of reproduction, sexual and asexual. Asexual reproduction is a kind of self-cloning, in which new individuals are created using genes from a single parent. This is a much simpler and more reliable process than sexual reproduction, so we might wonder why humans and other complex organisms don't reproduce asexually, as many less complex organisms do.
The reason for sexual reproduction, I believe, has to do with the length of time it takes an organism to mature to the point where it can reproduce. A single-celled organism can reproduce asexually soon after it is created. Significantly, there are bacteria that begin reproducing after they are only 20 minutes old. Furthermore, there are strains of bacteria that are highly susceptible to mutations, i.e., errors in copying genes when they reproduce. Because of this short life-cycle, favorable mutations can propagate into the species rapidly.
The ability of some viruses to quickly make themselves immune to our latest antibiotic medications is an example of natural selection at work. A strain of viruses survives because some mutations produce individuals that can survive better in an altered, hostile environment.
But in the case of complex multicellular organisms, the length of time needed to reach reproductive maturity becomes too great for asexual reproduction to be effective. New mutations would enter the gene pool very slowly. Sexual reproduction then becomes more effective, because mutant genes from many different individuals are shared when those individuals combine their genes during sexual reproduction. Plants tend to bear this idea out. Almost all plants can reproduce both sexually or asexually. Sexual reproduction is the preferred method, but since plants can't roam around looking for partners, they can resort to asexual reproduction when partners are not available. The species stagnates, but survives, during periods of asexual reproduction, and it thrives later by introducing more mutations into the gene pool during periods of sexual reproduction.
It should be noted that single-celled organisms do not experience natural death. They clone themselves into two new organisms when they reproduce. There doesn't seem to be anything about their cells that wears out after they have reproduced themselves a given number of times.
Since multicellular organisms are simply organized collections of single cells, it seems reasonable to assume that single-celled organisms existed first, and that multicellular organisms evolved from them later. But for some reason, the cells of multicellular organisms can only reproduce a given number of times before they, and the organisms, die.
When single-celled organisms reproduce asexually, the parts of the parent organisms are reused, and the species propagates itself most effectively. But when multicellular organisms reproduce sexually, the bodies of the parents cannot be reused during the process. In time, the parents will have contributed all of their potentially useful mutations to the gene pool, and they will have served their genetic purpose. It may be for this reason that they are designed to eventually self-destruct. Which is to suggest that the cycle of birth and death exists to serve the purpose of natural selection.
Eugene Paul
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Are You a Solar-Powered Parasite?
The seemingly outrageous suggestion that you might be a solar-powered parasite is but one of several easy deductions that can be made when we consider the implications of the fact that plants use photosynthesis to produce their own food whereas animals, yourself included, don't.
Virtually all plants make use of photosynthesis to capture energy contained in direct sunlight and use it to synthesize carbohydrates, fats, and proteins from the carbon dioxide available in the air and the water, nitrogen, and other materials available in the soil. But there is a very small class (logically speaking) of parasitic plants that exist by feeding on other plants rather than synthesizing their own food.
Animals do not produce their own food by means of photosynthesis. Herbivores are similar to parasitic plants in that they exist by feeding on plants instead of synthesizing their own food. And carnivores go a step farther by feeding on herbivores (and other carnivores) instead of synthesizing their own food. Finally, omnivores feed on both plants and animals instead of synthesizing their own food.
In other words, all animals feed on plants, either directly or indirectly, instead of synthesizing their own food, which is to say that all animals are parasites in the same way that parasitic plants are parasites. It follows from the foregoing, I regret to say, that you too are a parasite.
But while you are obviously a parasite, you may take some ecological consolation in the knowledge that you are a solar-powered parasite, however indirectly. The chemical energy that you derive by metabolizing the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins present in the tissues of your victims, both plant and animal, came originally from the radiant energy in sunlight, which the plants converted into chemical energy by means of photosynthesis.
Of the several easy deductions that can be made when we consider the implications of the fact that plants use photosynthesis to produce their own food whereas animals don't, the deduction that you are a solar-powered parasite is by far the least humiliating.
Eugene Paul
Virtually all plants make use of photosynthesis to capture energy contained in direct sunlight and use it to synthesize carbohydrates, fats, and proteins from the carbon dioxide available in the air and the water, nitrogen, and other materials available in the soil. But there is a very small class (logically speaking) of parasitic plants that exist by feeding on other plants rather than synthesizing their own food.
Animals do not produce their own food by means of photosynthesis. Herbivores are similar to parasitic plants in that they exist by feeding on plants instead of synthesizing their own food. And carnivores go a step farther by feeding on herbivores (and other carnivores) instead of synthesizing their own food. Finally, omnivores feed on both plants and animals instead of synthesizing their own food.
In other words, all animals feed on plants, either directly or indirectly, instead of synthesizing their own food, which is to say that all animals are parasites in the same way that parasitic plants are parasites. It follows from the foregoing, I regret to say, that you too are a parasite.
But while you are obviously a parasite, you may take some ecological consolation in the knowledge that you are a solar-powered parasite, however indirectly. The chemical energy that you derive by metabolizing the carbohydrates, fats, and proteins present in the tissues of your victims, both plant and animal, came originally from the radiant energy in sunlight, which the plants converted into chemical energy by means of photosynthesis.
Of the several easy deductions that can be made when we consider the implications of the fact that plants use photosynthesis to produce their own food whereas animals don't, the deduction that you are a solar-powered parasite is by far the least humiliating.
Eugene Paul
Friday, January 8, 2010
Sexual Utopianism vs. Biology
Proponents of same-sex marriage argue that male-male and female-female couples should have the same right to marry as male-female couples, but they ignore the biological nature of sex and the reason why there are two sexes.
We know from the study of human anatomy and physiology that male and female sex organs are designed to fit together for sexual intercourse. Male organs create genetic material (gametes) and transfer it to a female partner during intercourse. Female organs create comparable genetic material and, following intercourse, combine it with a male partner's genetic material to conceive a child and support its growth until it is born.
Sex hormones in both sexes create the desire to engage in sexual intercourse.
It is obvious from the preceding facts that pregnancy is the natural consequence of intercourse, but it may be less obvious that pregnancy is also the natural purpose of intercourse.
All members of any society are the result of pregnancy, and all (natural) pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. Therefore, all members of a society are the result of such intercourse. But if pregnancy is avoided totally, a society will have no new members and it will eventually die out and disappear. Therefore a society that habitually engages in intercourse without pregnancy cannot exist for long. In the long term, intercourse without pregnancy is impossible since there will be no one left to engage in intercourse. Therefore, the purpose of intercourse is pregnancy.
The argument made in favor of same-sex marriage, to the effect that male-male and female-female couples should have the same right to marry as male-female couples, is utopian because only a society of male-female couples can reproduce itself and survive.
In recent decades a same-sex counterculture has been created in opposition to the 'oppressive' male-female' culture. The builders of such a counterculture are social thinkers who have no idea why there are two sexes and why only a male-female society is possible.
A similar counterculture existed during the last century. The Shakers were a religious community that did not allow its members to engage in sexual intercourse. Consequently, this community did not reproduce itself and it was necessarily short-lived. It recruited new members from society at large, and it is said to have had a total of as many as 200,000 members, but never more than 6,000 at one time. Only four members remained near the end of the century. For the same biological reason the same fate must await the current same-sex counterculture.
Same-sex marriage, then, is a social institution of a society that cannot exist.
Eugene Paul
We know from the study of human anatomy and physiology that male and female sex organs are designed to fit together for sexual intercourse. Male organs create genetic material (gametes) and transfer it to a female partner during intercourse. Female organs create comparable genetic material and, following intercourse, combine it with a male partner's genetic material to conceive a child and support its growth until it is born.
Sex hormones in both sexes create the desire to engage in sexual intercourse.
It is obvious from the preceding facts that pregnancy is the natural consequence of intercourse, but it may be less obvious that pregnancy is also the natural purpose of intercourse.
All members of any society are the result of pregnancy, and all (natural) pregnancy is the result of sexual intercourse between a male and a female. Therefore, all members of a society are the result of such intercourse. But if pregnancy is avoided totally, a society will have no new members and it will eventually die out and disappear. Therefore a society that habitually engages in intercourse without pregnancy cannot exist for long. In the long term, intercourse without pregnancy is impossible since there will be no one left to engage in intercourse. Therefore, the purpose of intercourse is pregnancy.
The argument made in favor of same-sex marriage, to the effect that male-male and female-female couples should have the same right to marry as male-female couples, is utopian because only a society of male-female couples can reproduce itself and survive.
In recent decades a same-sex counterculture has been created in opposition to the 'oppressive' male-female' culture. The builders of such a counterculture are social thinkers who have no idea why there are two sexes and why only a male-female society is possible.
A similar counterculture existed during the last century. The Shakers were a religious community that did not allow its members to engage in sexual intercourse. Consequently, this community did not reproduce itself and it was necessarily short-lived. It recruited new members from society at large, and it is said to have had a total of as many as 200,000 members, but never more than 6,000 at one time. Only four members remained near the end of the century. For the same biological reason the same fate must await the current same-sex counterculture.
Same-sex marriage, then, is a social institution of a society that cannot exist.
Eugene Paul
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
