Thursday, June 30, 2011

Humans are pattern-seeking creatures

We see funny, ridiculous stories like this all the time:

KINSTON, N.C.— Residents in an eastern North Carolina city say a patch of kudzu growing on a utility pole is more than an invasive vine. They see a likeness to Jesus Christ on the cross.

Have you ever wondered why people see jeebus everywhere? It's simple: people see patterns. It's what we do. This talent helped our ancestors to survive and that's why it persists in humans to this day. We had to see patterns, had to notice that when we traded with a particular person we always got the raw end of the deal. It was a pattern. Seeing patterns helps us to survive into the future.

It's a wildly useful talent. Early humans saw patterns all around them. They noticed that Winter comes once a year and that the seasons occur in a regular order. By keeping track of these patterns they were able to plan and survive -- and they invented science: the investigation of patterns.

Unfortunately, this human talent is active even when it's not needed and this produces useless perceptions like the faces and animals that we (think we) see in clouds. It's a talent that is always looking for an object; it can't stop seeing patterns. So we see an old man in the curl of the tablecloth, a figure in the shadows. This inerrant pattern recognition does us no good -- but we can't turn it off. It's how brains work.

We extend this talent further when we think that the wind and storms have a personality. We see a pattern and decide it's Mother Nature. But there is no Mother Nature. It's just something we once thought we saw. This talent is what gives rise to the idea of gods, a notion meant to be the ultimate summary of all patterns.

But the cloud creatures and Mother Nature and the gods are random products of aimless pattern-seeking, a talent gone mad. And those who fall prey to the god pattern see it all around them: in toast, oils spills, wood knots -- and vines.

It's a basic human capability gone haywire. When not put to good use, pattern-seeking latches on to nonsensical things and tries very hard to see them as something real. That's its job. It's like a kid that needs a project -- it just can't settle down. But it's all just static in our brains, a game that doesn't know how to shut itself off. There is no jeebus in the vines or anywhere else.

We see these things because we're hairless monkeys. We can't help it; evolution made us this way. This talent is both our saving grace and a swift portal to irrationality.

Finally, help for kids with Progeria

There is some hopeful news about Progeria in the news today. This is the dreadful disease that makes kids age prematurely, turning them into 80-year-olds by the time they're 12. And 12 years old is pretty much the upper limit for their life span. It's a cruel, horrible disease.

Until now, there has been no effective treatment to offer these children. But a recent study showed that an existing drug, rapamycin, and its derivative, everolimus, is very effective in reducing the excess progerin that causes the disease. I'm so happy that the parents of these kids -- and the kids themselves -- may have something to look forward to.

The story even used that magical word: "reverse". Rapamycin can reverse the damage caused by Progerin. I hope this isn't a red herring or an overstatement. These kids need help yesterday and I'm excited that positive things may finally be on the horizon for them.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

The CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley

Have you guys been watching this show? Well I have and I'm shocked. It's actually good!

Now, maybe I'm just a sucker for the sound and pace of the new show. They've obviously taken a page from the PBS News Hour with the look and feel of the presentation. It's very understated and seems to scorn the usual self-important tone of other network news shows.

But it's more than that. They seem to be providing the real news! I haven't seen a news show do this in our country for ages. I'll say it again: the news they present seems to be the real news!

It's too early to hand out any permanent accolades. After all, maybe it's just a set-up and they won't tell us what's going on when it really matters. But it sure seems like they're doing it now. Have you watched the show? What do you think?

God needs to go

Todays' AP:
A man charged in a brutal rape and stabbing attack on a lesbian couple in Seattle two summers ago has admitted to the attack in court, saying God told him to do it.
And god told those idiots to ram planes into the World Trade Center ten years ago. There is no room for gods in this world. No room at all.

God needs to go.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Are the latest pitches really new?

To me, a baseball pitcher just "throws a ball". I have no idea what pitch it is and no clue what the announcers are talking about when they say "he was lookin' slider but got a change-up". Just seems to me the pitcher threw a ball and the guy either hit it or not. What can I say? I'm not up on pitches.

During yesterday's disappointing Cubs game (it's no fun when you win because the opposing pitcher has a meltdown) the inimitable "Len and Bob" brightened the dismal goings-on by talking about when and how pitches were "discovered". I found it interesting.

Bob (I think that's who it was) said that back in the 1800s they had no idea about types of pitches because there were no types. He surmised that the first two pitches that appeared in baseball were a fastball and a slower version of the same pitch: an off-speed pitch, in other words. He then went on to name so many kinds of pitches that I was amazed. I didn't write them down, darn it, but I remember one was called a "palmball".  Many of the "new" pitches faded out over the years, but some stuck around and got new names. The palmball, for instance, turned into the change-up. Bob seemed to think that new pitches appeared on the scene one by one, periodically over the century-plus that baseball has been played in this country.

This doesn't ring true to me. In Bob's scenario, the pitch was in Unknown Space until one day a pitcher hauled it into our universe and tried it -- and the world saw its first curveball (or whatever). And this process continued, Len says, until the present day. All along the road, new pitches were invented.

I don't find this convincing. Let's make believe we're back in the late 1800s and the game of baseball has been played professionally for three years. Already, there are a number of pitchers that are considered great. I think that if a knowledgeable baseball fan from today was taken back to one of those games, he'd see sliders, screwballs, change-ups and more. It's just that there weren't names for them yet. Then again, I know nothing about pitches, as I said at the outset.

Chime in. What do you think? In the old days, did baseball pitchers know how to throw the kinds of pitches that are thrown today? Or were these pitches truly invented one at a time during baseball's long history?

Monday, June 27, 2011

Just a thought

I don't know about you but I detest doing chores. Anything I have to do repeatedly gets my dander up. I try to be all Ghandi about it but it doesn't work. I do not want to be making sandwiches, cleaning, setting up the coffee pot, doing laundry, etc. These tasks drive me crazy.

And you know what's the worst thing? An odd feeling I sometimes get when I'm taking care of a chore -- a feeling that I've always being doing the chore. Like I'll be putting pills into those damn plastic pill-popper things and I'll think, "Wasn't I just doing this, like five minutes ago?" When this happened recently, a thought occurred to me.

What if that's the truth? What if I've always been putting pills into pill-holders, and the rest -- my supposed life -- is just a dream? Maybe some aliens want pills put into plastic holders so they got a slave, me, and, to keep me happy they inserted some code into my brain that makes me think I have a life. But really all I do is put these stupid pills into these stupid plastic slots.

Does this strike a chord within you -- a scary, Twilight-Zoney chord?

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Album to CD to . . . what?

We used to say that a musical artist put out a new album. And then, when we didn't buy albums anymore, we spoke about an artist's latest CD. 

So what the heck do we say now? No one buys CDs anymore. We download our music. Is it the artist's latest digital burst?

What do we call this stuff? I know iTunes still calls them albums, but that just doesn't work for me anymore.

Hmmmm. I just bought Bon Iver's latest . . . what?