Binaural Hearing

We have, of course, two ears which jointly allow us to localize the direction of incoming sound. But our ears are much more than simple point hearing devices; there must be some more advanced mechanisms contained within. Why? Because we can tell whether a sound is coming from our back or our front.

Imagine the case in our ears were replaced with two simple mono microphones of appropriate sensitivity. Any sound would be picked up by the two microphones, though at different delays. Knowing the speed of sound, it is simple to calculate the distance of the source from each microphone and hence, the intersections (locii). Note the word intersections. With two point microphones, there are two intersections (in a 2-D scenario) and infinite intersections (dispersed in a circle in a 3-D scenario).

If our ears were only point microphones, we would not be able to differentiate sounds coming from behind us. 

But of course, we can. That is because our ears are directionally sensitive, or at least, structures in our ears serve as directional filters.

One interesting result of this line of thought is that with headphones, it is not possible to duplicate full directional sound. Headphones are merely two point sources of sound; there will be ambiguity of direction, leading us to confuse front-back sounds.

Suicide and Refusal of Life-Extension

What is the difference between the refusal of life-extension procedures and suicide? Suicide is the act of intentionally causing one's own death. By this definition, the two seem distinct. But is there a philosophical difference between an act that reduces one's potential life span from X to zero, and refusing an act that increase one's potential life span by X?

The idea seems to be that there is some natural life-span whereby it is immoral to willfully reduce, but perfectly acceptable to refuse to extend. This seems indefensible. If suicide is deemed wrong because it robs us of future choices (as per some arguments from liberty), then it is also wrong to refuse life-extension as it prevents us from enjoying the same future choices. If life is sacred (as per deontological argumenst) and has value in itself, then the loss of this life due to the non-adoption of life-extension procedures is also immoral.

Now, consider this thought experiment. Assume that one's remaining life span can be perfectly predicted in advance, and that that amounts to X years. Now, also assume that there exists some full treatment that can increase one's lifespan by Y years. One also has the option of taking a partial treatment that has a lesser effect, and extends life by only Z years, where Z is less than Y. Now, there are four people.

Person A refuses treatment, and lives X years.

Person B accepts partial treatment, and lives X+Z years.

Person C wants a partial treatment, but the center only offers full treatment. He accepts full treatment, but at the same time he swallows a poison that he knows will kill him in X+Z years time. He lives X+Z years.

Person D accepts full treatment. After X+Z years, he kills himself. He lives X+Z years.

If we accept that A is not immoral by his refusal of the life-extending procedure, then we must accept that B is not immoral by choosing a partial treatment. There is little practical difference between B and C; both live an additional Z years. Can we consider C to have committed suicide? While he has intentionally caused his own delayed death, his motivation is not to die, but instead to extend his life by Z rather than Y years. Therefore we do not consider it suicide.

What about D? Most would class it under suicide. But what are the philosophical differences between D and B,C? In all cases they do not want to live past X+Z years; the difference is only that D has made his choice rather late.

Revival of Extinct Species

Lonesome george died. Well, ok, that's only one extinct subspecies. What's more, it might not be gone forever.

Apparently, one animal has been un-extincted, though only briefly. The Pyrenean Ibex, which first died out in 2000, was subsequently cloned in 2009, though the clone lived for only seven minutes. Still, fairly promising. One factor in favor of reviving Lonesome George is the fact that only the particular subspecies was extinct. Subspecies can capable of interbreeding, that is, they are not differentiated by reproduction. In other words, other subspecies still exist, that are capable of surrogancy for cloning.

While that's fine and good, the thought of reviving extinct species made me wonder if we could indeed resurrect creatures even more far gone, where no direct genetic material, or no subspecies of the like, exist.

Typically, we might imagine evolution to be a one-way process, where species change with time into forms that are more adapted to the existing conditions. Such changes are brought about by recombination and mutation, the reshuffling and flipping of genetic material into new forms. Conceivably, the process is irreversible, or at least difficult to reverse. It is hard to imagine a modern creature evolving assuming ancient, extinct forms. 

Yet, it seems possible to revive extinct species, or some approximation of, through 'devolution' of a modern descendant. First, imagine if environmental conditions were reset to the time of the extinct species. If so, then the optimal adaptation is no longer of the modern evolved creature, but rather of the extinct form! Natural selection therefore favors the evolution of the modern creature towards the ancient, extinct predecessor. Just like how the final products of chemical reactions can vary with temperature and pressure, the direction that evolution takes can be redirected by varying the conditions under which evolution occurs.

Given a supervised hand, the revival of extinct species from their modern descendants can be made even more viable. If the path of evolution is known, for example the amounts of environmental change, and the corresponding change in the species, it is possible to perform directed artificial selection. By seeking incremental regression along the known evolution history of the species, one can create a ratchet-effect to gradually skip backwards.

Tabula Rasa

Let's assume that utopia is possible, or if it’s not, let's instead imagine the state closest to utopia. Nobody would assert that today's world is that utopia. In fact, my suspicions are that it is impossible to ever arrive at that utopia via incremental steps.

One essential property of a utopia must be stability; it must be robust to degeneration into a state of non-utopia. I believe that achieving this single property requires the elimination of several unbalancing factors in today's world, as there are simply too many causes for conflict that would otherwise result in a collapse of the utopian society.

I then considered the design of an ideal society, without constraint. One important feature must be sustainability. Several ills can be attributed to the over-extended reach of humanity, which results in sub-optimal assignment of resources. If the population is to be distributed and controlled according to reasoned principles, then human numbers would be small, but localized to the most habitable regions where resources are ample and the incidence of natural disasters minimal.

My suspicions are also that social and familial structures would be different under a utopia. Social and familial structures are institutions founded on principles and assumptions that may not be the most optimal, but are merely too costly to change en masse.

A final, though dangerous, thought is that the people of an ideal society must themselves be superior to modern humans, not only in manner and philosophy, but perhaps, also in nature. There may be several genetic traits most conducive to an ideal society. Two properties that should, if possible, be selected for are empathy and restraint. Other physical advantages, such as resistance to disease or improved physical and mental abilities, are also boons that are almost certainly beneficial.

These lines of reasoning lead me to believe that it is difficult to form an ideal society, due to inertia and resistance. It is not possible to change social structures overnight, nor can the world population be reduced or redistributed. Incremental changes are simply not feasible.

Granted that the utopia is stable, any utilitarian must surely conclude that it is acceptable to usher in such a golden age via any means. Imagine if a dark age were declared specifically for the execution of 'any means', and any atrocity pardoned if it follows the grand plan. Utopia should then be treated as if it were founded on a blank slate.

The sole weakness of this idea is that it royally screws the present for the eternal future, which is why Utopia will never be realized.

Evidence for Hub and Spoke Model of Public Transit

It seems to me that during rush hours, more passengers alight from the front entrance of the bus rather than from the rear entrance. This could mean one of several things:

1)That passengers who board earlier take longer trips.

2) That passengers who board later drop earlier.

Taken together, there is some evidence that people use buses for one of two modes, trunk or short trips. It is correspondingly less efficient if a service caters to both types of passengers; much of the vehicle capacity is taken by trunk passengers, whereas the frequent alighting and boarding reduces the overall speed of the route.

Disaster Relief

Consider the following thought experiment, which I present as a series of questions.

1. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who has no money to feed himself because he lost all his money gambling, or has spent all his money on drugs and similar vice?

Probably not, I might guess. On to the next question, then.

2. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster?

Most likely yes, assuming that one is not in greater need. Now, finally:

3. Would you donate to help feed a starving and homeless person, who is a victim of a natural disaster, given that it is also known that the person is the same fellow as in question 1?

There are two possible answers, and both raise interesting thoughts.

If we agree to help the person, then the strange scenario is that from the position of the drug addict/gambler, a natural disaster is more favorable than no natural disaster. The position may also be inconsistent.

Conversely, if we refuse to help the person, the scenario becomes somewhat morally distasteful. Should we then introduce background checks or means testing prior to dispensing aid? Or should we just dispatch help to areas which are more 'deserving' or 'worthy' of assistance?

A Physics Thought Experiment

Consider the scenario illustrated by the following diagram:

There is a hot object initially at temperature T. The hot object is instantly teleported into a larger container, which contains a perfect vacuum and has a perfectly reflective inner surface. The closed container is perfectly reflective at all frequencies.

Assume that the container is magically suspended in the larger container. As the container contains a perfect vacuum, no heat is lost by conduction or convection. Heat can hence only be lost by radiation.

Does the final temperature of the hot object depend on the size of the larger container?

To know the exact hour of your death

If you were to somehow gain the knowledge of the exact hour of your death, and if that knowledge was absolutely accurate and immutable, what would you do ? Since the prediction was absolutely accurate and immutable, this prevents you from changing your time of death in any way. In such a scenario, what most people would do is probably to plan out their lives to make the most of such knowledge. I have other ideas.

The important thing to note is that the prediction (or prophecy) fixes the hour of death. It is true that one cannot live past that hour, but more importantly, one cannot die before that hour! In essence, the prophecy renders one immortal until the predicted hour of death.

Hence, if I were to gain such knowledge, I would undertake many extreme tasks which would otherwise take any human's life. I could easily beat all the survival stunts of famous magicians, such as holding my breath for months, or fasting for a year.

Of course, there are many possible pitfalls, The most important is to never participate in acts which could result in non-fatal injuries. For example, even with practical immortality, diving with hungry sharks is unadvised! The prophecy ensures that you will survive the swim, but survival does not equal immunity to harm! It is perfectly possible that you survive, but limbless. Hence, we should only choose acts which have two outcomes, death or perfect survival without any physical harm.

A major problem with this theory is that perhaps the prediction does not grant you temporary immortality, but rather, merely ensures that somehow, someone or something will happen to save you. For example, you may try to suffocate yourself with a shopping bag, but it will then be fated that someone will pass by and save you. Or, a gust of wind happens to blow the bag away before you carry out your plans.

In any case, being able to know the hour of your death is macabre, but useful.

---

Technorati Tags : Philosophy , Predestination , Prediction Prophecy , Hour of Death , Temporary Immortality

An Exploration into the Nature of Faith

Warning : Religious people may find the following material offensive.

---

I would like to propose a hypothetical scenario to those of faith. Assuming that one day, the supreme deity of the faith materialised before you and commanded of you to "Disbelieve in the faith", what would be your reaction and subsequent response ?

To close any loopholes in the question, due to some deific force, it is absolutely certain that the deity is indeed who he/she/it appears to be. Futhermore the command was conveyed in similarly deific way such that the meaning was unambiguous - that it was an instruction for you to turn way from the faith.

Faced with this unusual circumstance, what would you do ? Continue believing in the faith despite the commands of the deity, or to obey the command and disbelieve ?

---

An Analysis

To ignore the command is to believe that one's own internal compass is somehow more accurate than divine instruction. By continuing to believe in the faith, this act ironically negates one's faith in the divine agency. In essence, this is similar to the bibical story of Abraham, who was instructed to sacrifice his son. Faith requires a complete confidence in the power of divine agency, even over what one believes to be right.

The second option, to disbelieve in the faith, seems logically inconsistent. It is the equivalent to saying "This statement is false". However, I find this statement inherently more favorable than the first. Indeed, if I was religious and faced with the above scenario, this is the choice I would choose.

The reason for my choice boils down to faith. As mentioned earlier, faith requires complete conviction. Faith, by its very nature, requires belief outside of known fact [this line I quote from Wikipedia]. Hence, even if the command was absolutely ridiculous, I would obey, since I have [assuming I was religious] placed my entire trust in the divine.

Faith requires much out of people. Which, of course, is why I do not believe.

---

Technorati Tags : Philosophy of Religion , Nature of Faith

The Diet of Advanced Aliens

What is the likely diet of an advanced (spacefaring) alien civilisation? I suspect that all such aliens will be omnivorous.

Firstly, let me explain why we are unlikely to find herbivorous aliens (for brevity, I use aliens to refer to intelligent ones). For intelligence to evolve, it must first be useful to the evolutionary fitness of the creature. Is intelligence useful to early herbivores? I doubt this.

Intelligence is much more useful for meat-eating animals than purely herbivorous animals. Intelligence allows for the development of hunting tools and simple hunting tactics, which would prove highly significant in increasing the food sources of the hunting animal. But for a herbivorous species, intelligence affords no such benefit. If it does not increase the fitness of the herbivorous species, it is unlikely to evolve.

Then, if herbivores are unlikely to evolve into advanced aliens, would the opposite, a carnivorous race, be more likely to do so? Again, I doubt so.

It is quite reasonable to believe that a carnivorous race would become reasonably intelligent. However, as a civilisation, they are inherently limited. The reason - the lack of argiculture. Without agriculture to support a sufficently large population base, civilisation would not form, and technological advancement would be halted. This is why purely carnivorous species are unlikely to become our advanced spacefaring aliens.

From process of elimination, it appears that any advanced alien species must be omnivores!

---

Technorati Tags : Omnivorous Aliens , Advanced Alien Diet , Herbivorous Carnivorous Species , Evolution of Intelligence

The Life-Extending Process

Zombian medical researchers have made yet another advance. After much research, they have invented a life-extending process, which can artifically extend the life of any zombian. The procedure works by replacing aged cells with the newly discovered pseudo-cells, thus side-stepping aging. The same replacement process can be applied to diseased cells to treat all known illnesses.

Unfortunately, the process has one flaw. Due to some yet unrectifiable defect in psuedo-cell synthesis, all users of the life-extending process will experience permanent and chronic pain. Because this pain works on a still un-understood level, it cannot be relieved with current drugs.

Doctors are now faced with an interesting conundrum. Being doctors, their key prerogative is to save lives. If so, then they should use the life-extending process to prolong the lives of their patients. However, doing so would certainly cause much pain to their wards. This is problematic, for isn't reducing suffering another duty of doctors ?

---

Technorati Tags : Philosophy , Medical Ethics

The Stasis Machine

On the planet Zombius, a special stasis machine has just been invented. With this machine, doctors can zap a patient and render him in a state of stasis. Effectively, time stops for the zapped patient. This state of stasis can be reversed by using the same machine on the 'reverse' setting.

With the invention of the stasis machine, death has been averted (and in fact that was the advertising tagline of the stasis machine). Nobody rushed alive to a medical facility dies- if a patient cannot be saved using current medical technology, he is zapped with the stasis machine and stored in a 'temporary housing facility' to await a time where a cure has been discovered.

Everything goes smoothly. One day, however, doctors discover that they are unable to activate the reverse setting of any stasis machine. Zombian scientists research this phenomenon and link it to a permanent change in the frequency of solar flares, but are unable to come up with any solutions to the sudden problem. "It's hopeless", the scientists said.

With the failure of the stasis machines, the ruling body plans to shut down all temporary housing facilities. Arguably, those patients in stasis are little more than bodies incapable of being restored to life. Maintaining the facilities, however, costs a significant amount.

Family members of patients in stasis are displeased with the ruling body's plans. After all, those in stasis are not dead (yet). And there is always a small hope that the strange phenomenon would reverse itself.

---

Meanwhile, philosophers on another planet are pondering on what to do with brain-dead patients 'living' on life support.

---

Technorati Tags : Philosophy , Ethics , Brain Dead Patients

If there were duplicated WLs

I wonder what it would be like if somehow, I simultaneously duplicated 10 copies of myself in some weird experiment. Each copy would be identical in every way to the original.

What would I say ? Could I even say "Hi Wei Liangs" ? Since all the Wei Liang's are identical, won't they (we?) all behave and act in the same fashion, at the same time? The room might not hold meaningful conversation, only a simultaneous jumble of noise.

On the other hand, because each WL is identical only at point of duplication, tiny differences from that point on will cause them to act differently. Tiny differences are inevitable because all the WL's cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Hence they cannot experience the same experiences, and will therefore diverge in their behaviour. For example, WL1 may say "Hi WLs" after a minute because he(I?) was distracted by the window he was standing beside, while WL2 may say "Ouch!" because he stepped on a nail.

The greatest problem caused by the duplication is that every WL would think that he was the original copy (which actually is an oxymoron). Each would have the memory of pressing the "DUPLICATE ME" button. Since each WL is identical, there would be no way of determining the original unless there was some prior evidence (like the CCTV. Which is another issue altogether) .

But what if all the prior evidence was destroyed ! Oh no !

Everyone should take this to be a serious warning to not produce a self-duplicating device !

If we were thinking rocks

What would it be like to be a thinking rock ? A thinking rock is simply a rock endowed with one special ability, that to think. Otherwise it is similar to a normal, non-thinking rock.

Being a thinking rock may be excruciatingly boring. A thinking rock has no senses, and no ability to move or even act. In a sense, being a thinking rock is akin to trapping a mind inside a special prison, a small dark cell where one has neither freedom nor knowledge of the outside world. It is a depressing situation. Two possible real-life analogues of being a thinking rock are i) being in a coma and ii) being trapped in a sensory-deprivation tank.

If we had the prior experience of sensing and acting, being a thinking rock would be a deadening hell. But what if we had no such prior experience ? What if we were born as thinking rocks ? Would our experience of being a thinking rock change ?

The question is beyond my ability to answer. But I believe that the mind of a thinking rock would be significantly different, if not downright alien, to our human conception. For one, a thinking rock may not even have a sense of self. Without senses to percieve others, there is no distinct self. In fact, the mind of a thinking rock is essentially a universe comprising of nothing but itself. To a thinking rock, nothing exists but itself.

Actually, a thinking rock is really nothing more than an analogy for an absolutely abstracted mind, free of any associations with the 'real world'. It cannot sense nor interact with the 'real world'. This absolutely abstracted mind is a distinct possibility if mind-matter duality exists.
But that is another discussion for another day.

Til then, just convince yourself that thinking rocks do not exist.