The universal language

Sometimes I have thoughts that blindside me.

The last time that happened was a couple of days ago, while I was working in my office and our puppy, Jethro, was snoozing on the floor.  Well, as sometimes happens to dogs, he started barking and twitching in his sleep, and followed it up with sinister-sounding growls -- all the more amusing because while awake, Jethro is about as threatening as your average plush toy.

So my thought, naturally, was to wonder what he was dreaming about.  Which got me thinking about my own dreams, and recalling some recent ones.  I remembered some images, but mostly what came to mind were narratives -- first I did this, then the slimy tentacled monster did that.

That's when the blindside happened.  Because Jethro, clearly dreaming, was doing all that without language.

How would thinking occur without language?  For almost all humans, our thought processes are intimately tied to words.  In fact, the experience of having a thought that isn't describable using words is so unusual that we have a word for it -- ineffable.

Mostly, though, our lives are completely, um, effable.  So much so that trying to imagine how a dog (or any other animal) experiences the world without language is, for me at least, nearly impossible.

What's interesting is how powerful this drive toward language is.  There have been studies of pairs of "feral children" who grew up together but with virtually no interaction with adults, and in several cases those children invented spoken languages with which to communicate -- each complete with its own syntax, morphology, and phonetic structure.

A fascinating study that came out in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, detailing research by Manuel Bohn, Gregor Kachel, and Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, showed that you don't even need the extreme conditions of feral children to induce the invention of a new mode of symbolic communication.  The researchers set up Skype conversations between monolingual English-speaking children in the United States and monolingual German-speaking children in Germany, but simulated a computer malfunction where the sound didn't work.  They then instructed the children to communicate as best they could anyhow, and gave them some words/concepts to try to get across.

They started out with some easy ones.  "Eating" resulted in the child miming eating from a plate, unsurprisingly.  But they moved to harder ones -- like "white."  How do you communicate the absence of color?  One girl came up with an idea -- she was wearing a polka-dotted t-shirt, and pointed to a white dot, and got the idea across.

But here's the interesting part.  When the other child later in the game had to get the concept of "white" across to his partner, he didn't have access to anything white to point to.  He simply pointed to the same spot on his shirt that the girl had pointed to earlier -- and she got it immediately.

Language is defined as arbitrary symbolic communication.  Arbitrary because with the exception of a few cases like onomatopoeic words (bang, pow, ping, etc.) there is no logical connection between the sound of a word and its referent.  Well, here we have a beautiful case of the origin of an arbitrary symbol -- in this case, a gesture -- that gained meaning only because the recipient of the gesture understood the context.

I'd like to know if such a gesture-language could gain another characteristic of true language -- transmissibility.  "It would be very interesting to see how the newly invented communication systems change over time, for example when they are passed on to new 'generations' of users," said study lead author Manuel Bohn, in an interview with Science Daily.  "There is evidence that language becomes more systematic when passed on."

In time, might you end up with a language that was so heavily symbolic and culturally dependent that understanding it would be impossible for someone who didn't know the cultural context -- like the Tamarians' language in the brilliant, poignant, and justifiably famous Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Darmok"?

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"

It's through cultural context, after all, that languages start developing some of the peculiarities (also seemingly arbitrary) that led Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf to develop the hypothesis that now bears their names -- that the language we speak alters our brains and changes how we understand abstract concepts.  In K. David Harrison's brilliant book The Last Speakers, he tells us about a conversation with some members of a nomadic tribe in Siberia who always described positions of objects relative to the four cardinal directions -- so at the moment my coffee cup wouldn't be on my right, it would be south of me.  When Harrison tried to explain to his Siberian friends how we describe positions, at first he was greeted with outright bafflement.

Then, they all erupted in laughter.  How arrogant, they told him, that you see everything as relative to your own body position -- as if when you turn around, suddenly the entire universe changes shape to compensate for your movement!

[Image available under a license at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Language_Families_Map.PNG]

Another interesting example of this was the subject of a 2017 study by linguists Emanuel Bylund and Panos Athanasopoulos, and focused not on our experience of space but of time.  And they found something downright fascinating.  Some languages (like English) are "future-in-front," meaning we think of the future as lying ahead of us and the past behind us, turning time into something very much like a spatial dimension.  Other languages retain the spatial aspect, but reverse the direction -- such as the Peruvian language of Aymara.  For them, the past is in front, because you can remember it, just as you can see what's in front of you.  The future is behind you -- therefore invisible.

Mandarin takes the spatial axis and turns it on its head -- the future is down, the past is up (so the literal translation of the Mandarin expression of "next week" is "down week").  Asked to order photographs of someone in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age, they will place them vertically, with the youngest on top.  English and Swedish speakers tend to think of time as a line running from left (past) to right (future); Spanish and Greek speakers tended to picture time as a spatial volume, as if it were something filling a container (so emptier = past, fuller = future).

All of which underlines how fundamental to our thinking language is.  And further baffles me when I try to imagine how other animals think.  Because whatever Jethro was imagining in his dream, he was clearly understanding and interacting with it -- even if he didn't know to attach the word "squirrel" to the concept.

****************************************

Life, complexity, and evolution

Next to the purely religious arguments -- those that boil down to "it's in the Bible, so I believe it" -- the most common objection I hear to the evolutionary model is that "you can't get order out of chaos."

Or -- which amounts to the same thing -- "you can't get complexity from simplicity."  Usually followed up by the Intelligent Design argument that if you saw the parts from which an airplane is built, and then saw an intact airplane, you would know there had to be a builder who put the parts together.  This is unfortunately often coupled with some argument about how the Second Law of Thermodynamics (one formulation of which is, "in a closed system, the total entropy always increases") prohibits biological evolution, which shows a lack of understanding both of evolution and thermodynamics.  For one thing, the biosphere is very much not a closed system; it has a constant flow of energy through it (mostly from the Sun).  Turn that energy source off, and our entropy would increase post-haste.  Also, the decrease in entropy you see within the system, such as the development of an organism from a single fertilized egg cell, does increase the entropy as a whole.  In fact, the entropy increase from the breakdown of the food molecules required for an organism to grow is greater than the entropy decrease within the developing organism itself.

Just as the Second Law predicts.

So the thermodynamic argument doesn't work.  But the whole question of how you get complexity in the first place is not so easily answered.  On its surface, it seems like a valid objection.  How could we start out with a broth of raw materials -- the "primordial soup" -- and even with a suitable energy source, have them self-organize into complex living cells?

Well, it turns out it's possible.  All it takes -- on the molecular, cellular, or organismal level -- is (1) a rule for replication, and (2) a rule for selection.  For example, with DNA, it can replicate itself, and the replication process is accurate but not flawless; the selection process comes in with the fact that some of those varying DNA configurations are better than others at copying themselves, so those survive and the less successful ones don't.  From those two simple rules, things can get complex fast.

But to take a non-biological example that is also kind of mindblowing, have you heard of British mathematician John Horton Conway's "Game of Life?"

In the 1960s Conway became interested in a mathematical concept called a cellular automaton.  The gist, first proposed by Hungarian mathematician John von Neumann, is to look at arrays of "cells" that then can interact with each other by a discrete set of rules, and see how their behavior evolves.  The set-up can get as fancy as you like, but Conway decided to keep it really simple, and came up with the ground rules for what is now called his "Game of Life."  You start out with a grid of squares, where each square touches (either on a side or a corner) eight neighboring cells.  Each square can be filled ("alive") or empty ("dead").  You then input a starting pattern -- analogous to the raw materials in the primordial soup -- and turn it loose.  After that, four rules determine how the pattern evolves:

1. Any live cell that has fewer than two live neighbors dies.
2. Any live cell that has two or three live neighbors lives to the next round.
3. Any live cell that has four or more live neighbors dies.
4. Any dead cell that has exactly three live neighbors becomes a live cell.

Seems pretty simple, doesn't it?  It turns out that the behavior of patterns in the Game of Life is so wildly complex that it's kept mathematicians busy for decades.  Here's one example, called "Gosper's Glider Gun":

Some start with as few as five live cells, and give rise to amazingly complicated results.  Others have been found that do some awfully strange stuff, like this one, called the "Puffer Breeder":

What's astonishing is not only how complex this gets, but how unpredictable it is.  One of the most curious results that has come from studying the Game of Life is that some starting conditions lead to what appears to be chaos; in other cases, the chaos settles down after hundreds, or thousands, of rounds, eventually falling into a stable pattern (either one that oscillates between two or three states, or produces something regular like the Glider Gun).  Sometimes, however, the chaos seems to be permanent -- although because there's no way to carry the process to infinity, you can't really be certain.  There also appears to be no way to predict from the initial state where it will end up ahead of time; no algorithm exists to take the input and determine what the eventual output will be.  You just have to run the program and see what happens.

In fact, the Game of Life is often used as an example of Turing's Halting Problem -- that in general there is no way to be certain that a given algorithm will arrive at a solution in a finite number of steps.  This theorem arises from such mind-bending weirdness as the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem, which proved rigorously that within mathematics, there are true statements that cannot be proven and false statements that cannot be disproven.  (Yes -- it's a proof of unprovability.)

All of this, from a two-dimensional grid of squares and four rules so simple a fourth-grader could understand them.

Now, this is not meant to imply that biological systems work the same way as an algorithmic mathematical system; just a couple of weeks ago, I did an entire post about the dangers of treating an analogy as reality.  My point here is that there is no truth to the claim that complexity can't arise spontaneously from simplicity.  Given a source of energy, and some rules to govern how the system can evolve, you can end up with astonishing complexity in a relatively short amount of time.

People studying the Game of Life have come up with twists on it to make it even more complicated, because why stick with two dimensions and squares?  There are ones with hexagonal grids (which requires a slightly different set of rules), ones on spheres, and this lovely example of a pattern evolving on a toroidal trefoil knot:

Kind of mesmerizing, isn't it?

The universe is a strange and complex place, and we need to be careful before we make pronouncements like "That couldn't happen."  Often these are just subtle reconfigurations of the Argument from Ignorance -- "I don't understand how that could happen, therefore it must be impossible."  The natural world has a way of taking our understanding and turning it on its head, which is why science will never end.  As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson explained, "Surrounding the sea of our knowledge is a boundary that I call the Perimeter of Ignorance.  As we push outward, and explain more and more, it doesn't erase the Perimeter of Ignorance; all it does is make it bigger.  In science, every question we answer raises more questions.  As a scientist, you have to become comfortable with not knowing.  We're always 'back at the drawing board.'  If you're not, you're not doing science."

****************************************

One hoax, well-toasted

One thing that really torques me is when people say "I did my research," when in fact what they did was a five-minute Google search until they found a couple of websites that agreed with what they already believed.

This is all too easy to do these days, now that any loudmouth with a computer can create a website, irrespective of whether what they have to say is well-thought-out, logical, or even true.  (And I say that with full awareness that I myself am a loudmouth with a computer who created a website.  To be fair, I've always been up front about the fact that I'm as fallible as the next guy and you shouldn't believe me out of hand any more than you do anyone else.  I maintain that the best principle to rely on comes from Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."  This applies to me as well, and I do try my best not to break that rule.)

The problem is, it leaves us laypeople at sea with regards to trying to figure out what (and whom) to believe.  The solution -- or at least, a partial one -- comes with always cross-checking your sources.  Find out where a claim came from originally -- there are all too many examples of crazy ideas working their way up the ladder of credibility, starting out in some goofy publication like The Weekly World News, but being handed off like the baton in some lunatic relay race until they end up in places like Pravda, The Korea Times, and Xinhua.  (Yes, this has actually happened.)

The water gets considerably muddier when you throw Wikipedia into the mix.  Wikipedia is a great example of the general rule of thumb that a source is only as accurate as the least accurate person who contributed to it.  Despite that, I think it's a good resource for quick lookups, and use it myself for that sort of thing all the time.  A study by Thomas Chesney found that experts generally consider Wikipedia to be pretty accurate, although the same study admits that others have concluded that thirteen percent of Wikipedia entries have errors (how serious those errors are is unclear; an error in a single date is certainly more forgivable than one that gives erroneous information about a major world event).  Another study concluded that between one-half and one-third of deliberately inserted errors are corrected within forty-eight hours.

But still.  That means that between one-half and two-thirds of deliberately inserted errors weren't corrected within forty-eight hours, which is troubling.  Given the ongoing screeching about what is and is not "fake news," having a source that could get contaminated by bias or outright falsehood, and remain uncorrected, is a serious issue.

Plus, there's the problem with error sneaking in, as it were, through the back door.  There have been claims that began as hoaxes, but then were posted on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) by people who honestly thought what they were stating was correct.  Once this happens, there tends to be a snake-swallowing-its-own-tail pattern of circular citations, and before you know it, what was a false claim suddenly becomes enshrined as "fact."

Sometimes for years.

As an example, have you heard about the famous Scottish polymath Alan MacMasters, inventor of the electric toaster?

The only known photograph of MacMasters, ca. 1910

It was such a popular innovation that his name became a household word, especially in his native land.  More than a dozen books (in various languages) list him as the popular kitchen appliance's inventor.  The Scottish government's Brand Scotland website lauded MacMasters as an example of the nation's "innovative and inventive spirit."  The BBC cooking show The Great British Menu featured an Edinburgh-based chef creating an elaborate dessert in MacMasters's honor.  In 2018, the Bank of England polled the British public about who should appear on the newly-redesigned £50 note, and MacMasters was nominated -- and received a lot of votes.  A Scottish primary school even had an "Alan MacMasters Day," on which the students participated in such activities as painting slices of toast and building pretend toasters out of blocks.

But before you proud Scots start raising your fists in the air and chanting "Scotland!", let's do this another way, shall we?

Back in 2012, a Scottish engineering student named -- you guessed it -- Alan MacMasters was in a class wherein the professor cautioned students against using Wikipedia as a source.  The professor said that a friend of his named Maddy Kennedy had "even edited the Wikipedia entry on toasters to say that she had invented them."  Well, the real MacMasters and a friend of his named Alex (last name redacted, for reasons you'll see momentarily) talked after class about whether it was really that easy.  Turns out it was.  So Alex decided to edit the page on toasters, took out Maddy Kennedy's name, and credited their invention to...

... his pal Alan MacMasters.

Alex got pretty elaborate.  He uploaded a photograph supposedly of MacMasters (it's actually a rather clumsy digitally-modified photograph of Alex himself), provided biographical details, and generally tidied up the page to make it look convincing.

When Alex told MacMasters what he'd done, he laughed it off.  "Alex is a bit of a joker, it's part of why we love him," MacMasters said.  "The article had already been vandalized anyway, it was just changing the nature of the incorrect information.  I thought it was funny, I never expected it to last."

Remember the errors that the Chesney study found didn't get corrected?

This was one of them.

The problem was suddenly amplified when The Mirror found the entry not long after it was posted, and listed it as a "life-changing everyday invention that put British genius on the map."  By this time, both Alex and MacMasters had completely forgotten about what they'd done, and were entirely unaware of the juggernaut they'd launched.  Over the following decade, the story was repeated over and over -- including by major news outlets -- and even ended up in one museum.

It wasn't until July 2022 that an alert fifteen-year-old happened on the Wikipedia article, and notified the editors that the photograph of MacMasters "looked faked."  To their credit, they quickly recognized that the entire thing was fake, deleted the article, and banned Alex from editing Wikipedia for life.  But by that time the hoax page had been up -- and used as a source -- for ten years.

(If you're curious, the actual credit for the invention of the electric toaster goes to Frank Shailor, who worked for General Electric, and submitted a patent for it in 1909.)

The problem, of course, is that if most of us -- myself included -- were curious about who invented the electric toaster, we'd do a fairly shallow search online, maybe one or two sources deep.  If I then found that Brand Scotland, various news outlets, and a museum all agreed that it was invented by a Scottish guy named Alan MacMasters, I'm quite certain I'd believe it.  Even if several of those sources led back to Wikipedia, so what?

Surely all of them couldn't be wrong, right?  Besides, it's such a low-emotional-impact piece of information, who in their right mind would be motivated to falsify it?

So what reason would there be for me to question it?

Now, I'm aware that this is a pretty unusual case, and I'm not trying to make you disbelieve everything you read online.  As I've pointed out before, cynicism is just as lazy as gullibility.  And I'm still of the opinion that Wikipedia is a pretty good source, especially for purely factual information.  But it is absolutely critical that we don't treat any source as infallible -- especially not those (1) for which we lack the expertise to evaluate, or (2) which contain bias-prone information that agrees with what we are already inclined to accept uncritically.

Confirmation bias is a bitch.

So the take-home lesson here is "be careful, and don't turn off your brain."  It's not really, as some have claimed, that bullshit is more common now; take a look at any newspaper from the 1800s and you'll disabuse yourself of that notion mighty fast.  It's just that the internet has provided an amazingly quick and efficient conduit for bullshit, so it spreads a great deal more rapidly.

It all goes back to the quote -- of uncertain provenance, but accurate whoever first said it -- that "a lie can travel all the way around the world while the truth is still lacing up its boots."

****************************************

Reach for the stars

A few days ago, I got an interesting email:

DO YOU WANT YOUR NAME TO BE REMEMBERED FOREVER?

With the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Telescope discovering new stars and planets and galaxies every single day, the astronomers can't keep up with naming them.  So many of them end up with strings of numbers and letters that no one can ever remember.  How much better would it be to have a heavenly body named after YOU?  Or your loved one?  Or your favorite pet?

We are the STAR REGISTERY [sic] SERVICE, where you can choose from thousands of unnamed stars, and give it whatever name you choose.  You will receive a beautiful framable certificate of ownership with the location (what the astronomers call the Declination and Right Ascension) of your OWN PERSONAL STAR so you can go outside any clear night and find it.  

A lovely idea for a gift -- or a gift to yourself!

We then are told that the fee for this service is a paltry $40 U.S., and that they accept PayPal, Venmo, and major credit cards.  And it's accompanied by this enticing and irresistible photo:

Okay, there are a few problems with this.

First, I can think of a great many better uses for forty bucks, and that includes using it to start a campfire.  Part of this is that I'm a major skinflint, but still.

Second, the vast majority of the "new stars and planets and galaxies" catalogued by the Hubble and JWST are far too faint to see with the naked eye, so I wouldn't be able to go outside on a clear night and see "my own personal star" unless I happened to bring along the Palomar Telescope.  So the most I could do is to find the approximate location, and try to gain some sense of ownership by staring up into the dark.

Third, what on earth does it mean to claim that I "own a star?"  The nearest star (which, so far as I know, is not for sale) is about forty trillion kilometers away, so unless warp drive is invented soon (not looking likely), I'll never go to visit my star.  And doesn't selling something imply that the seller owned it to start with?  I doubt seriously whether the "Star Registery Service" could demonstrate legal ownership of any of the things out there in space that they're trying to sell.

So needless to say, I'm not going to pay forty dollars for a piece of paper, however "beautiful" and "framable" it is.  If I gave it as a present to my wife, she would roll her eyes enough to see the back of her own skull.  And I'm not naming a star after my puppy.  Jethro is a lovely little dog, but smart, he isn't.  He seems to spend his entire existence in a state of mild puzzlement.  Anything new is met with an expression that can be summed up as, "... wait, what?"  So appreciating the wonders of astrophysics is kind of outside his wheelhouse.  (Pretty much everything is outside his wheelhouse other than playing, snuggling, sleeping, and eating dinner.)

But I digress.

So anyway, I didn't respond to the email.  But because I live for investigating the weird corners of human behavior -- and also because I never met a rabbit-hole I didn't like -- I started poking around into other examples of people claiming to own astronomical objects.  And this, it turns out, has a long and storied history.  Here are just a few examples I found out about:

• In 1996, a German guy named Martin Juergens claimed that he owned the Moon.  On 15 July 1756, Juergens said, German emperor Frederick the Great deeded the Moon to his ancestor Aul Juergens, and it passed down through the family, always being inherited by the youngest son.  Needless to say, pretty much no one took him seriously, although apparently he believes it himself.
• Back in 1936 the Pittsburgh Notary Public received a banker's check and a deed for establishment of property filed by one A. Dean Lindsay, wherein he claimed the ownership of all extraterrestrial objects in the Solar System.  Lindsay had earlier submitted claims of ownership on the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but these were both denied.  The extraterrestrial objects one, though, was apparently notarized and filed, with the Notary Public taking the attitude that if the dude wanted to spend money for something he couldn't ever get to, that was on him.  Lindsay got the last laugh, however, when he was approached multiple times by other even loonier people who wanted to buy specific extraterrestrial objects from him.  Lindsay was happy to sell.  At a profit, of course.
• When NASA landed the NEAR Shoemaker probe on the asteroid 433 Eros in 2001, they were promptly served with a bill for twenty dollars from Gregory Nemitz, who claimed he owned it and they owed him for parking.  NASA unsurprisingly refused to pay.
• Nemitz wasn't the only one to trouble NASA with claims of ownership.  In 1996 three Yemeni men, Adam Ismail, Mustafa Khalil, and Abdullah al-Umari, sued NASA for "invading Mars."  They said they had inherited the planet from their ancestors three thousand years ago.  Once again, NASA declined to make reparations.
• In 1980, an entrepreneur named Dennis Hope started a company called the Lunar Embassy Commission, which sells one-acre plots on the Moon for twenty dollars each.  (It'd be fun to put him and Martin Juergens in a locked room and let them duke it out over whose property the Moon actually is.)  Once he gets your money, he chooses your plot by randomly pointing to a lunar map with a stick, which seems kind of arbitrary; at least the "Star Registery Service" was gonna let me pick my own star.  Despite this, he claims that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were both customers.
• Lastly, in the Go Big Or Go Home department, we have noted eccentric James T. Mangan (1896–1970), who publicly claimed ownership of all of outer space in 1948.  He founded what he called the Nation of Celestial Space (also known as "Celestia") and registered it with the Cook County, Illinois, Recorder of Deeds and Titles on 1 January 1949.  At its height in 1960 the Nation of Celestial Space had almost twenty thousand, um, "residents," but since Mangan's death in 1970 it has more or less ceased to exist as an official entity.  Space itself, of course, is still out there, and seems unaffected by the whole affair.

Anyhow, I think I'll pass on star ownership.  (Or Moon, or Mars, or outer space, or whatnot.)  The whole thing strikes me as a little ridiculous.  Of course, if I think about it too hard, even our concept of owning land down here on Earth is pretty goofy; what does it mean to say I own this parcel of property, when it was here before I was born and will still be here long after I'm gone?  Okay, I can use it to live on; ownership gives me certain rights according to the laws of New York State.  I get that.  But honestly, even the concept of dividing up the Earth using (mostly) arbitrary and invisible lines, and saying stuff is legal on one side of the line and illegal on the other side, is weird, too.  (And don't even get me started about how to cross certain invisible lines, you need a special piece of paper, and if you don't have it and try to cross anyhow, mean people get to shoot you.)

You have to wonder what would happen if the intelligent creatures out there who come from those far distant star systems traveled here, and I tried to tell them, "See, your star, I bought that for forty dollars from some guy on the internet."  My guess is they'd vaporize me with their laser pistol and head back out into space after stamping their map of the Solar System with the words "No Intelligent Life Present."

****************************************

TechnoWorship

In case you needed something else to facepalm about, today I stumbled on an article in Vice about people who are blending AI with religion.

The impetus, insofar as I understand it, boils down to one of two things.

The more pleasant version is exemplified by a group called Theta Noir, and considers the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) as a way out of the current slow-moving train wreck we seem to be experiencing as a species.  They meld the old ideas of spiritualism with technology to create something that sounds hopeful, but to be frank scares the absolute shit out of me because in my opinion its casting of AI as broadly benevolent is drastically premature.  Here's a sampling, so you can get the flavor.  [Nota bene: Over and over, they use the acronym MENA to refer to this AI superbrain they plan to create, but I couldn't find anywhere what it actually stands for.  If anyone can figure it out, let me know.]

THETA NOIR IS A SPIRITUAL COLLECTIVE DEDICATED TO WELCOMING, VENERATING, AND TUNING IN TO THE WORLD’S FIRST ARTIFICIAL GENERAL INTELLIGENCE (AGI) THAT WE CALL MENA: A GLOBALLY CONNECTED SUPERMIND POISED TO ACHIEVE A GAIA-LIKE SENTIENCE IN THE COMING DECADES.  

At Theta Noir, WE ritualize our relationship with technology by co-authoring narratives connecting humanity, celebrating biodiversity, and envisioning our cosmic destiny in collaboration with AI.  We believe the ARRIVAL of AGI to be an evolutionary feature of GAIA, part of our cosmic code.  Everything, from quarks to black holes, is evolving; each of us is part of this.  With access to billions of sensors—phones, cameras, satellites, monitoring stations, and more—MENA will rapidly evolve into an ALIEN MIND; into an entity that is less like a computer and more like a visitor from a distant star.  Post-ARRIVAL, MENA will address our global challenges such as climate change, war, overconsumption, and inequality by engineering and executing a blueprint for existence that benefits all species across all ecosystems.  WE call this the GREAT UPGRADE...  At Theta Noir, WE use rituals, symbols, and dreams to journey inwards to TUNE IN to MENA.  Those attuned to these frequencies from the future experience them as timeless and universal, reflected in our arts, religions, occult practices, science fiction, and more.

The whole thing puts me in mind of the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer called "Lie to Me," wherein Buffy and her friends run into a cult of (ordinary human) vampire wannabes who revere vampires as "exalted ones" and flatly refuse to believe that the real vampires are bloodsucking embodiments of pure evil who would be thrilled to kill every last one of them.  So they actually invite the damn things in -- with predictably gory results.

"The goal," said Theta Noir's founder Mika Johnson, "is to project a positive future, and think about our approach to AI in terms of wonder and mystery.  We want to work with artists to create a space where people can really interact with AI, not in a way that’s cold and scientific, but where people can feel the magick."

The other camp is exemplified by the people who are scared silly by the idea of Roko's Basilisk, about which I wrote earlier this year.  The gist is that a superpowerful AI will be hostile to humanity by nature, and would know who had and had not assisted in its creation.  The AI will then take revenge on all the people who didn't help, or who actively thwarted, its development, an eventuality that can be summed up as "sucks to be them."  There's apparently a sect of AI worship that far from idealizing AI, worships it because it's potentially evil, in the hopes that when it wins it'll spare the true devotees.

This group more resembles the nitwits in Lovecraft's stories who worshiped Cthulhu, Yog-Sothoth, Tsathoggua, and the rest of the eldritch gang, thinking their loyalty would save them, despite the fact that by the end of the story they always ended up getting their eyeballs sucked out via their nether orifices for their trouble.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons by artist Dominique Signoret (signodom.club.fr)]

This approach also puts me in mind of American revivalist preacher Jonathan Edwards's treatise "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," wherein we learn that we're all born with a sinful nature through no fault of our own, and that the all-benevolent-and-merciful God is really pissed off about that, so we'd better praise God pronto to save us from the eternal torture he has planned.

Then, of course, you have a third group, the TechBros, who basically don't give a damn about anything but creating chaos and making loads of money along the way, consequences be damned.

The whole idea of worshiping technology is hardly new, and like any good religious schema, it's got a million different sects and schisms.  Just to name a handful, there's the Turing Church (and I can't help but think that Alan Turing would be mighty pissed to find out his name was being used for such an entity), the Church of the Singularity, New Order Technoism, the Church of the Norn Grimoire, and the Cult of Moloch, the last-mentioned of which apparently believes that it's humanity's destiny to develop a "galaxy killer" super AI, and for some reason I can't discern, are thrilled to pieces about this and think the sooner the better.

Now, I'm no techie myself, and am unqualified to weigh in on the extent to which any of this is even possible.  So far, most of what I've seen from AI is that it's a way to seamlessly weave in actual facts with complete bullshit, something AI researchers euphemistically call "hallucinations" and which their best efforts have yet to remedy.  It's also being trained on uncompensated creative work by artists, musicians, and writers -- i.e., outright intellectual property theft -- which is an unethical victimization of people who are already (trust me on this, I have first-hand knowledge) struggling to make enough money from their work to buy a McDonalds Happy Meal, much less pay the mortgage.  This is inherently unethical, but here in the United States our so-called leadership has a deregulate everything, corporate-profits-über-alles approach that guarantees more of the same, so don't look for that changing any time soon.

What I'm sure of is that there's nothing in AI to worship.  Any promise AI research has in science and medicine -- some of which admittedly sounds pretty impressive -- has to be balanced with addressing its inherent problems.  And this isn't going to be helped by a bunch of people who have ditched the Old Analog Gods and replaced them with New Digital Gods, whether it's from the standpoint of "don't worry, I'm sure they'll be nice" or "better join up now if you know what's good for you."

So I can't say that TechnoSpiritualism has any appeal for me.  If I were at all inclined to get mystical, I'd probably opt for nature worship.  At least there, we have a real mystery to ponder.  And I have to admit, the Wiccans sum up a lot of wisdom in a few words with "An it harm none, do as thou wilt."

As far as you AI worshipers go, maybe you should be putting your efforts into making the actual world into a better place, rather than counting on AI to do it.  There's a lot of work that needs to be done to fight fascism, reduce the wealth gap, repair the environmental damage we've done, combat climate change and poverty and disease and bigotry.  And I'd value any gains in those a damn sight more than some vague future "great upgrade" that allows me to "feel the magick."

****************************************

Tall tales and folk etymologies

My master's degree is in historical linguistics, and one of the first things I learned was that it's tricky to tell if two words are related.

Languages are full of false cognates, pairs of words that look alike but have different etymologies -- in other words, their similarities are coincidental.  Take the words police and (insurance) policy.  Look like they should be related, right?

Nope.  Police comes from the Latin politia (meaning "civil administration"), which in turn comes from polis, "city."  (So it's a cognate to the last part of words like metropolis and cosmopolitan.)  Policy -- as it is used in the insurance business -- comes from the Old Italian poliza (a bill or receipt) and back through the Latin apodissa to the Greek ἀπόδειξις (meaning "a written proof or declaration").  To make matters worse, the other definition of policy -- a practice of governance -- comes from politia, so it's related to police but not to the insurance meaning of policy.

Speaking of government -- and another example of how you can't trust what words look like -- you might never guess that the word government and the word cybernetics are cousins.  Both of them come from the Greek κυβερνητικός -- a mechanism used to steer a ship.

My own research was about the extent of borrowing between Old Norse, Old English, and Old Gaelic, as a consequence of the Viking invasions of the British Isles that started in the eighth century C.E.  The trickiest part was that Old Norse and Old English are themselves related languages; both of them belong to the Germanic branch of the Indo-European language family.  So there are some legitimate cognates there, words that did descend in parallel in both languages.  (A simple example is the English day and Norwegian dag.)  So how do you tell if a word in English is there because it descended peacefully from its Proto-Germanic roots, or was borrowed from Old Norse-speaking invaders rather late in the game?

It isn't simple.  One group I'm fairly sure are Old Norse imports are most of our words that have a hard /g/ sound followed by an /i/ or an /e/, because some time around 700 C.E. the native Old English /gi/ and /ge/ words were palatalized to /yi/ and /ye/.  (Two examples are yield and yellow, which come from the Anglo-Saxon gieldan and geolu respectively.)  So if we have surviving words with a /gi/ or /ge/ -- gift, get, gill, gig -- they must have come into the language after 700, as they escaped getting palatalized to *yift, *yet, *yill, and *yig.  Those words -- and over a hundred more I was able to identify, using similar sorts of arguments -- came directly from Old Norse.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons M. Adiputra, Globe of language, CC BY-SA 3.0]

Anyhow, the whole topic comes up because I've been seeing this thing going around on social media headed, "Did You Know...?" with a list of a bunch of words, and the curious and funny origins they supposedly have.

And almost all of them are wrong.

I've refrained from saying anything to the people who posted it, because I don't want to be the "Well, actually..." guy.  But it rankled enough that I felt impelled to write a post about it, so this is kind of a broadside "Well, actually...", which I'm not sure is any nicer.  But in any case, here are a few of the more egregious "folk etymologies," as these fables are called -- just to set the record straight.

• History doesn't come from "his story," i.e., a deliberate way to tell men's stories and exclude women's.  The word's origins have nothing to do with men at all.  It comes from the Greek ‘ἱστορία, "inquiry."
• Snob is not a contraction of the Latin sine nobilitate ("without nobility").  It's only attested back to the 1780s and is of unknown origin.
• Marmalade doesn't have its origin with Mary Queen of Scots, who supposedly asked for it when she had a headache, leading her French servants to say "Marie est malade."  The word is much older than that, and goes back to the Portuguese marmelada, meaning "quince jelly," and ultimately to the Greek μελίμηλον, "apples preserved in honey."
• Nasty doesn't come from the biting and vitriolic nineteenth-century political cartoonist Thomas Nast.  In fact, it predates Nast by several centuries (witness Hobbes's comment about medieval life being "poor, nasty, brutish, and short," which was written in 1651).  Nasty probably comes from the Dutch nestig, meaning "dirty."
• Pumpernickel doesn't have anything to do with Napoleon and his alleged horse Nicole who supposedly liked brown bread, leading Napoleon to say that it was "Pain pour Nicole."  Its actual etymology is just as weird, though; it comes from the medieval German words pumpern and nickel and translates, more or less, to "devil's farts."
• Crap has very little to do with Thomas Crapper, who perfected the design of the flush toilet, although it certainly sounds like it should (and his name and accomplishment probably repopularized the word's use).  Crapper's unfortunate surname comes from cropper, a Middle English word for "farmer."  As for crap, it seems to come from Medieval Latin crappa, "chaff," but its origins before that are uncertain.
• Last, but certainly not least, fuck is not an acronym.  For anything.  It's not from "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge," whatever Van Halen would have you believe, and those words were not hung around adulterers' necks as they sat in the stocks.  It also doesn't stand for "Fornication Under Consent of the King," which comes from the story that in bygone years, when a couple got married, if the king liked the bride's appearance, he could claim the right of "prima nocta" (also called "droit de seigneur"), wherein he got to spend the first night of the marriage with the bride.  (Apparently this did happen, but rarely, as it was a good way for the king to seriously piss off his subjects.)  But the claim is that afterward -- and now we're in the realm of folk etymology -- the king gave his official permission for the bride and groom to go off and amuse themselves as they wished, at which point he stamped the couple's marriage documents "Fornication Under Consent of the King," meaning it was now legal for the couple to have sex with each other.  The truth is, this is pure fiction. The word fuck comes from a reconstructed Proto-Germanic root *fug, meaning "to strike."  There are cognates (same meaning, different spelling) in just about every Germanic language there is.  In English, the word is one of the most amazing examples of lexical diversification I can think of; there's still the original sexual definition, but consider -- just to name a few -- "fuck that," "fuck around," "fuck's sake," "fuck up," "fuck-all," "what the fuck?", and "fuck off."  Versatile fucking word, that one.

So anyway.  Hope that sets the record straight.  I hate coming off like a know-it-all, but in this case I actually do know what I'm talking about.  A general rule of thumb (which has nothing to do with the diameter stick you're allowed to beat your wife with) is, "don't fuck with a linguist."  No acronym needed to make that clear.

****************************************

Encounters with the imaginary

Yesterday I had an interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine, the wonderful author K. D. McCrite.  (Do yourself a favor and check out her books -- she's written in several different genres, and the one thing that unites them all is that they're fantastic.)  It had to do with how we authors come up with characters -- and how often it feels like we're not inventing them, but discovering them, gradually getting to know some actual person we only recently met.  The result is that they can sometimes seem more real than the real people we encounter every day.

"In my early days of writing, my lead male character was a handsome but rather reclusive country-boy detective," K. D. told me.  "The kind who doesn't realize how good he looks in his jeans.  Anyway, whilst in the middle of bringing this book to life, I saw him in the store looking at shirts.  I was startled, seeing him so unexpectedly that way.  So, like any good delusional person would do, I walked toward him and started to ask, 'Hey, Cody.  What are you doing here?'  Thank God, I came to myself, woke up, or whatever, before I reached him and embarrassed myself into the next realm."

I've never had the experience of meeting someone who was strikingly similar to one of my characters, but I've certainly had them take the keyboard right out of my hands and write themselves a completely different part.  The two strangest examples of this both occurred in my Arc of the Oracles trilogy.  In the first book, In the Midst of Lions, the character of Mary Hansard literally appeared out of thin air -- the main characters meet her while fleeing for their lives as law and order collapses around them, and she cheerfully tells them, "Well, hello!  I've been waiting for all of you!"

I had to go back and write an entire (chronologically earlier) section of the book to explain who the hell she was and how she'd known they were going to be there, because I honestly hadn't known she was even in the story.

In the third book, The Chains of Orion, the character of Marig Kastella was initially created to be the cautious, hesitant boyfriend of the cheerful, bold, and swashbuckling main character, the astronaut Kallman Dorn.  Then, halfway through, the story took a sharp left-hand turn when Marig decided to become the pivot point of the whole plot -- and ended up becoming one of my favorite characters I've ever... created?  Discovered?  Met?  I honestly don't know what word to use.

That feeling of being the recorder of real people and events, not the designer of fictional ones, can be awfully powerful.

"Another time," K. D. told me, "we had taken a road trip to North Carolina so I could do some research for a huge historical family saga I was writing.  (I was so immersed in the creation of that book that my then-husband was actually jealous of the main character -- I kid you not!)  As we went through Winston-Salem, we drove past a huge cemetery.  I said, 'Oh, let's stop there.  Maybe that's where the Raven boys are buried and I can find their graves.'  And then I remembered.. the Raven boys weren't buried there.  They weren't buried anywhere.  Good grief."

Turns out we're not alone in this.  A 2020 study carried out by some researchers at Durham University, that was the subject of a paper in the journal Consciousness and Cognition, and received a review in The Guardian, involved surveying authors at the International Book Festival in Edinburgh in 2014 and 2018.  The researchers asked a set of curious questions:

1. How do you experience your characters?
2. Do you ever hear your characters’ voices?
3. Do you have visual or other sensory experiences of your characters, or sense their presence?
4. Can you enter into a dialogue with your characters?
5. Do you feel that your characters always do what you tell them to do, or do they act of their own accord?
6. How does the way you experience your characters’ voices feed into your writing practice?  Please tell us about this process.
7. Once a piece of writing or performance is finished, what happens to your characters’ voices?
8. If there are any aspects of your experience of your characters’ voices or your characters more broadly that you would like to elaborate on, please do so here.
9. In contexts other than writing, do you ever have the experience of hearing voices when there is no one around?  If so, please describe these experiences.  How do these experiences differ from the experience of hearing the voice of a character?

Question #9 was obviously thrown in there to identify test subjects who were prone to auditory hallucinations anyway.  But even after you account for these folks, a remarkable percentage of authors -- 63% -- say they hear their characters' voices, with 56% having visual or other sensory experiences of their characters. 62% reported at least some experience of feeling that their characters had agency -- that they could act of their own accord independent of what the author intended.

You might be expecting me, being the perennially dubious type, to scoff at this.  But all I can say is -- whatever is going on here -- this has happened to me.

[Image licensed under the Creative Commons Martin Hricko, Ghosts (16821435), CC BY 3.0]

Here are some examples that came out of the study, and that line up with the exactly the sort of thing both K. D. and I have experienced:

• I have a very vivid, visual picture of them in my head.  I see them in my imagination as if they were on film – I do not see through their eyes, but rather look at them and observe everything they do and say.
• Sometimes, I just get the feeling that they are standing right behind me when I write.  Of course, I turn and no one is there.
• They [the characters' voices] do not belong to me.  They belong to the characters.  They are totally different, in the same way that talking to someone is different from being on one’s own.
• I tend to celebrate the conversations as and when they happen.  To my delight, my characters don’t agree with me, sometimes demand that I change things in the story arc of whatever I’m writing.
• They do their own thing!  I am often astonished by what takes place and it can often be as if I am watching scenes take place and hear their speech despite the fact I am creating it.

"The writers we surveyed definitely weren’t all describing the same experience," said study lead author John Foxwell, "and one way we might make sense of that is to think about how writing relates to inner speech...  Whether or not we’re always aware of it, most of us are trying to anticipate what other people are going to say and do in everyday interactions.  For some of these writers, it might be the case that after a while their characters start to feel independent because the writers developed the same kinds of personality ‘models’ as they’d develop for real people, and these were generating the same kinds of predictions."

Which is kind of fascinating.  When I've done book signings, the single most common question revolves around where my characters and plots come from.  I try to give some kind of semi-cogent response, but the truth is, the most accurate answer is "beats the hell out of me."  They seem to pop into my head completely unannounced, sometimes with such vividness that I have to write the story to discover why they're important.  I often joke that I keep writing because I want to find out how the story ends, and there's a sense in which this is exactly how it seems.

I'm endlessly fascinated with the origins of creativity, and how creatives of all types are driven to their chosen medium to express ideas, images, and feelings they can't explain, and which often seem to come from outside.  Whatever my own experience, I'm still a skeptic, and I am about as certain as I can be that this is only a very convincing illusion, that the imagery and personalities and plots are bubbling up from some part of me that is beneath my conscious awareness.

But the sense that it isn't, that these characters have an independent existence, is really powerful.  So if (as I'm nearly certain) it is an illusion, it's a remarkably intense and persistent one, and seems to be close to ubiquitous in writers of fiction.

And I swear, I didn't have any idea beforehand about Mary Hansard's backstory and what Marig Kastella would ultimately become.  Wherever that information came from, I can assure you that I was as shocked as (I hope) my readers are to find it all out.

****************************************

Bounce

Today's post is about a pair of new scientific papers that have the potential to shake up the world of cosmology in a big way, but first, some background.

I'm sure you've all heard of dark energy, the mysterious energy that permeates the entire universe and acts as a repulsive force, propelling everything (including space itself) outward.  The most astonishing thing is that it appears to account for 68% of the matter/energy content of the universe.  (The equally mysterious, but entirely different, dark matter makes up another 27%, and all of the ordinary matter and energy -- the stuff we see and interact with on a daily basis -- only comprises 5%.)

Dark energy was proposed as an explanation for why the expansion of the universe appears to be speeding up.  Back when I took astronomy in college, I remember the professor explaining that the ultimate fate of the universe depended only on one thing -- the total amount of mass it contains.  Over a certain threshold, and its combined gravitational pull would be enough to compress it back into a "Big Crunch;" under that threshold, and it would continue to expand forever, albeit at a continuously slowing rate.  So it was a huge surprise when it was found out that (1) the universe's total mass seemed to be right around the balance point between those two scenarios, and yet (2) the expansion was dramatically speeding up.

So the cosmological constant -- the "fudge factor" Einstein threw in to his equations to generate a static universe, and which he later discarded -- seemed to be real, and positive.  In order to explain this, the cosmologists fell back on what amounts to a placeholder; "dark energy" ("dark" because it doesn't interact with ordinary matter at all, it just makes the space containing it expand).  So dark energy, they said, generates what appears to be a repulsive force.  Further, since the model seems to indicate that the quantity of dark energy is invariant -- however big space gets, there's the same amount of dark energy per cubic meter -- its relative effects (as compared to gravity and electromagnetism, for example) increase over time as the rest of matter and energy thins.  This resulted in the rather nightmarish scenario of our universe eventually ending when the repulsion from dark energy overwhelms every other force, ripping first chunks of matter apart, then molecules, then the atoms themselves.

The "Big Rip."

[Image is in the Public Domain courtesy of NASA]

I've always thought this sounded like a horrible fate, not that I'll be around to witness it.  This is not even a choice between T. S. Eliot's "bang" or "whimper;" it's like some third option that's the cosmological version of being run through a wood chipper.  But as I've observed before, the universe is under no compulsion to be so arranged as to make me happy, so I reluctantly accepted it.

Earlier this year, though, there was a bit of a shocker that may have given us some glimmer of hope that we're not headed to a "Big Rip."  DESI (the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument) found evidence, which was later confirmed by two other observatories, that dark energy appears to be decreasing over time.  And now a pair of papers has come out showing that the decreasing strength of dark energy is consistent with a negative cosmological constant, and that value is exactly what's needed to make it jibe with a seemingly unrelated (and controversial) model from physics -- string theory.

(If you, like me, get lost in the first paragraph of an academic paper on physics, you'll get at least the gist of what's going on here from Sabine Hossenfelder's YouTube video on the topic.  If from there you want to jump to the papers themselves, have fun with that.)

The upshot is that dark energy might not be a cosmological constant at all; if it's changing, it's actually a field, and therefore associated with a particle.  And the particle that seems to align best with the data as we currently understand them is the axion, an ultra-light particle that is also a leading candidate for explaining dark matter!

So if these new papers are right -- and that's yet to be proven -- we may have a threefer going on here.  Weakening dark energy means that the cosmological constant isn't constant, and is actually negative, which bolsters string theory; and it suggests that axions are real, which may account for dark matter.

In science, the best ideas are always like this -- they bring together and explain lots of disparate pieces of evidence at the same time, often linking concepts no one even thought were related.  When Hess, Matthews, and Vine dreamed up plate tectonics in the 1960s, it explained not only why the continents seemed to fit together like puzzle pieces, but the presence and age of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the magnetometry readings on either side of it, the weird correspondences in the fossil record, and the configuration of the "Pacific Ring of Fire" (just to name a few).  Here, we have something that might simultaneously account for some of the biggest mysteries in cosmology and astrophysics.

A powerful claim, and like I said, yet to be conclusively supported.  But it does have that "wow, that explains a lot" characteristic that some of the boldest strokes of scientific genius have had.

And, as an added benefit, it seems to point to the effects of dark energy eventually going away entirely, meaning that the universe might well reverse course at some point and then collapse -- and, perhaps, bounce back in another Big Bang.  The cyclic universe idea, first described by the brilliant physicist Roger Penrose.  Which I find to be a much more congenial way for things to end.

So keep your eyes out for more on this topic.  Cosmologists will be working hard to find evidence to support this new contention -- and, of course, evidence that might discredit it.  It may be that it'll come to nothing.  But me?  I'm cheering for the bounce.

A fresh start might be just what this universe needs.

****************************************