A Courier With Urgent News Wonderful work! It`s great to see you on Chowk after a long time. After reading the story, I was prompted to go back and re-read a poem by Goethe, which I had read a long time ago, Erlkonig (from his first Weimar years). It`s the story of a father who is riding in a dark night with his sick child. Time and Death, like an object and its shadow, complimentary and inter-related.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde Re: TAhmed321

That is an important point, building character. In this context, this implies a moral code for personal and public behavior.

Now, my question is the following: Why have the religious and cultural institutions failed to teach even the basics of this character building?

The problem is very deep-rooted. Pakistan is full of ``religiously trained`` people who have no qualms about committing murder or any other crime in the name of religion. What is the reason for that?

Women’s Rights in Pakistan Re: Rama

I am sorry if you got the impression that:

(a) I was defending one religion i.e. Islam

(b) I was blaming some other religion i.e Hinduism.

I was doing neither, as a perusal of my article would readily confirm.

best

Rumba All the Way to Sunset Re: Venki

Continuing the story ...

suppose Eva gets the holoview of her father`s vacation from the Dream Maker. It contains the exact state of mind of her father, and she can experience it completely. To her father, his last vacation with his wife, whom he loved very much, was very close to a mystical experience.

Does that imply that Eva can have the same mystical experience?

Isn`t then there an ``objective`` truth to that experience, that is no longer bound inside the head of the person who experiences it?

Isn`t myticism then ``mystical`` only because our neurons are not inter-connected??

regards

Rumba All the Way to Sunset Re: Kafir

Thanks for the compliments. I started off by asking myself how would the future generations treat their elderly? People from traditional cultures take care of their elderly and keep them a part of their families. In some other cultures old people stay with other old people, away from their families.

I think your comment about the flatness of the characters is very perceptive. It was partly intended by me (the other part being attributable to my writing skills... :) ). I wanted to create a world where one`s existence as a part of a larger society was accepted, like an article of faith, since only faith can allow a person to accept voluntary death, one`s own or one`s parent`s.

I sometimes wonder, how flat and lifeless our lives must be, when looked through the eyes of our ancestors?

And then the issue of death itself. How we look at it. Our immediate mortality being tied up with an immortality, one way or another. Whether it is an immortal divinity or an immortal humanity.

That gets very interesting -mortality being the engine of desire.

regards

Evolution 101 Re: Shafqat (Re: 13)

I am sorry for my delayed reply, I was out of commission for a few days. The design of the body is definitely not flawless, as we both agree :)

You wrote in your reply that in order to explain the complexity of life one need not invoke any metaphysical forces, but rather extend present evolutionary paradigms. I think that we agree completely. Thanks for clarifying that point, since the word ``design`` is often construed to mean ``conscious design``.

I also thought you might find this interesting: There is an essay on Chowk, called Science and Religion by late Prof. Abdus Salam (it`s in special editions). In that essay, he writes at one point:

``I do not see why once having created certain attributes within matter, and the laws which govern the operation of the fundamental forces, the path we follow in physics is not creationism in the wider sense.``

This point of view is appealing on its own, especially as a unifier between creationism and ``Darwinism``. It could have interesting consequences on Islamic theology. Philosophers and scientists might have a problem though (e.g Occam`s razor).

Re: SR

``Your earlier replies here were, indeed, as Saad said, reminiscent of Russell`s Principia Mathemtica.``

Thank you, that is quite a compliment. However, I must watch out then. For every Russell is a Godel! :)

regards

Is Science a Religion? A classic Dawkins! -powerful, evocative, refreshing and thought-provoking.

But simplistic when it talks about faith.

Allow me to pull a Dawkins on Dawkins ... I would really appreciate if the author could answer this personally.

Faith is an unquestioning belief, sometimes after a thoughtful inquiry that returns nothing to the contrary. In an uncertain world, a strategy that works, or even one that does not fail miserably, is often considered preferable to risking a new one, especially in the case of slim survival margins. Classic case of exploration versus exploitation. Though the article lambasts believers thoroughly (and justifiably), it still does not address the all important question of why faith arises in the first place, and what importance does it have in human (personal and cultural) survival. There are many cases where a complicated behavior emerges out of rather simple actions, e.g Dawkins has discussed the emergence of altruism from purely selfish behavior. If one were to look at faith also as arising from a desire to enhance one`s personal survival, it would not look that ridiculous. Plus faith is not just the faith of a narrow minded zealot, it is also the faith of a humble and pious person.

One possible explanation: Faith, especially spirituality, confers on a believer a consistency of action, primarily coming from an enlargement of a point of view. To put it another way, the world is no longer considered to be a zero-sum game with obvious survival advantages conferred upon the believers. Believers themselves form communities that are tightly knit, further enhancing their survival.

Faith at the very least, even if ridiculous, does serve the purpose (even if unintentional) of conferring upon a believer a sense of purpose, an identity and provides a foundation for the definition of a society.

Re: Shahbaz

``welcome to enlightenment...``

That`s an unfair remark I think. ``Enlightenment`` is not new to many, many, many Chowkwallas in my opinion... :)

Evolution 101 Dear Saad,

I was so intrigued by your comment about the human eye that I decided to read up on it on Brittanica online. I could not help noticing one passage that describes the structure of the eye ... it goes as follows: ( * * are added by me for emphasis...)

``The eye is made up of three coats, which enclose the optically clear aqueous humour, lens, and vitreous body (Figure 10). The outermost coat consists of the cornea and the sclera; the middle coat contains the main blood supply to the eye and consists, from the back forward, of the choroid, the ciliary body, and the iris. * *The innermost layer is the retina, lying on the choroid and receiving most of its nourishment from the vessels within the choroid, the remainder of its nourishment being derived from the retinal vessels that lie on its surface and are visible in the ophthalmoscope. * * The ciliary body and iris have a very thin covering, the ciliary epithelium and posterior epithelium of the iris, which is continuous with the retina.``

An engineer who wants to design a visual organ would not put the light sensitive retina *behind * the blood vessels, this seems like a design flaw. An informed designer would perhaps put the blood vessels behind the retina. If on the other hand, the eye were to evolve, then I guess it would be fair game, whatever works well should do it. (Unless of course some other more detrimental effect necessitates the present arrangement.)

I understand your comment about the level of detail and subtlety in biological design, and of the ever present possibility of discovery of new principles that would give a better description of the complexity of life around us. But need one still talk of design? Doesn`t that complicate a lot of things?

regards

Evolution 101 Re: RanaRansher (reply 2)

Let me consider a simple example, which can be generalized.

Suppose you are trying to find the maximum of a function f(x,y) in the range x and y from 0 to 7 inclusive using a GA. Then the solution to the problem is to find the values (x0,y0) that will maximize thefunction. For simplicity assume that x and y can only be integers.

If one did not have any clue what the values of x0 and y0 were, one would pick pairs of integer numbers at random until one found a pair that gave a maximal value of the function. This process would be exceedingly inefficient, especially if the function has a very narrow maximum.

Using GA, one the strategy is the following: You say that you can represent the values of x and y individually as genes, whose alleles encompass the entire allowable values for x and y. Since genes, by definition, are the individual functional blocks that contain necessary and sufficient information about one aspect of the whole genetic code of an organism, this approach is valid. Now the question arises how do you represent the two values x and y.

Nature codes the DNA based on the nucleotides Thymidine, Cytidine, Guanidine and Adenylic acid. The sequence of nuleotides runs randomly throughout the length of the DNA molecule in a paired fashion ie the DNA is a double helix with G`s always bound to C`s and A`s always bound to T`s through hydrogen bonds. Only one of the strands in a double helix codes for a protein and is called the ``coding`` or the ``Sense`` strand; the other strand is the template. Therefore nature uses a four letter alphabet.

Instead let me use a binary alphabet. Since the values of x and y are bound to be between 0 and 7 inclusive, I can represent any integer in that interval entirely by a three digit binary number (000=0, 001=1, 010=2, 011=3, 100=4, 101=5, 110=6 and 111=7). Therefore my genes for x and y would consist of three digits, each of which could have a value (allele) 0 or 1. The whole genetic code (genome) of the organism could then be given by a string of six binary digits where the first three encode the value of x and the last three value of y. i.e. 010110 (x=2 y=6) or 111001 (x=7 y=1) etc.

Here is how you would now solve the problem: You will create a population of such strings. Say you pick 10 strings of six binary digits at random. You would evaluate the fitness of each string (i.e the value of f(x,y) corresponding to those values of x and y). Then you would assign a probability of reproduction to each string that is proportional to its fitness. So the string that gives the highest value of the function in the population of ten strings would be the fittest and have the highest probaility assigned to it etc. Once you have done that, it is time to reproduce and create a new population. You pick pairs of strings in the population according to their reproduction probability. Say you picked strings 001101 and 011110. All strings have a pre-assigned and constant cross-over probability which says how often, when two strings reproduce, do they exchange their genetic material. Usually it is of the order of 0.5-0.8. Now according to cross-over probability, you exchange the genetic material of the two strings as follows. You pick a point to break the two strings (genomes) at random and flip the genetic code after that point. Say you picked the second digit. Then the original strings would change as follows: (I am putting a ``|`` at the break point)

00|1101 becomes 001110
11|1110 becomes 111101

(If according to cross-over probability you do not perform cross-over, then you simply put the copies of the original two strings into the new population). Finally you take each and every digit and randomly flip it from 0 to 1 or vice versa
with a very small probability (typically 0.001). This is the analogue of mutation.

You repeat this process for pairs of selected strings until you have created a new population of 10 strings. Then you replace the old population by the new population and repeat the process for a specified number of generations (or any other convergence criterion).

This is called a Simple Genetic Algorithm (SGA), but even this contains the basics of the biological processes it is based on. There are other more sophisticated algorithms that also emulate the behavior of speciation (i.e having multiple ``fittest`` solutions) and migration between different populations of solutions etc.

How does this work? The gist is as follows: Natural selection tries to find the shortest genetic codes that have a maximal impact on the fitness of the individual. (In technical jargon they are called schemas of low order). The processes of cross-over are more likely to leave a sub-string like * *11 * * (where * could be either 0 or 1) intact as compared to a substring like 1 * * * *1. Through successive generations, the process selects short sub-strings that have large impact on the fitness of a solution or individual and uses them to reach the optimal solution. It is really very elegant.

The theoretical foundation of GA`s lies in a problem of decision theory, called the Two Armed Bandit problem. Suppose you have a slot machine with two arms, such that one arm has a higher probability of giving a prize than the other. What is the optimal number of times you must play a given arm (if the amount played is a constant) such that not only do you find out the better arm but also minimize your loss in the process of finding it out. This is a classic case of exploration versus exploitation. The answer to this problem allots an exponentially increasing number of trials to the arm with an observed payoff that is larger. GA`s are equivalent to an N Armed Bandit scenario, where the problem to find the best genome such that the best individuals in a given generation have the most influence on the subsequent development of the generations.

There are many references to GA`s: My favorite at the beginning level is:

An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms by Melanie Mitchell. (MIT Book Press, ISBN 0-262-63185-7)
(also references contained in it...)

It`s very well written and is also cheap (twenty dollars)!

Evolution 101 Congratulations on a wonderfully written article. I truly enjoyed reading it, and found it to be very instructive.

I wanted to add a few comments, which might be naive, since I am not a biologist by training, however I only stand to learn :)

I was caught by your comment ``the notion of chance genetic variation as the sole ultimate basis for the complexity of living things is probably simplistic.``

In the past few months, I have been spending some of my spare time asking the question: Can we apply the mechanisms of biological evolution to solve problems in my domain, i.e. physics? Now let me digress for a second to convey what kind of problems I am very interested in. I am interested in non-linear problems, where the number of possible solutions is huge, and in many cases some solutions are only marginally ``better`` than others. By analogy, nature solves a similar problem in the mechanism of natural selection, i.e. to come up with a genome whose expression yields the fittest individual for the given circumstances. Again the number of possible individuals is huge, but somehow nature manages, through natural selection to zoom into the fit genotypes. Another bonus is that the mechanism of finding those individuals, at a genetic level, is extremely simple, cross-over, mutation etc. Through simple processes at a genetic level, one ends up with very complicated genomes that give rise to fit individuals.

These ideas brought me into a field of Genetic Algorithms, that I have been experimenting with for a little while now. Genetic algorithms basically do what nature does, in a very simplistic fashion. For a problem that you wish to solve, you construct a genome that encapsulates the different unknowns of your problem at hand. Then you create a population of such genomes, and find the fitness of each (which in this case would translate into how good is the solution that each genome represents). Then according to the fitness of each solution, you allow it to reproduce ... you pick another solution`s genome, find a cross-over point, switch the genes around the cross-over point to create two new individuals or solutions, randomly mutate the genes at each locus in the genome (with a very small probability) and add the solutions to a new population that replaces the old population. Successively, one replaces the older populations by newer populations, which are composed of the fittest individuals of the older population and their offspring. One can then follow this procedure for a given number of generations. Although there are many details in the implementation, the basic algorithm, as you see is quite simple.

Now the interesting part is when one starts to look at the degree of ``complexity`` that can arise through this simple process. The results are actually very interesting. I have personally used this method to solve optimization problems that are otherwise extremely difficult to solve i.e. non-linear problems where the standard tools of applied mathematics do not work. (Try asking a computer scientist how to solve the Travelling Salesman problem!) In all cases the actual solution set found through this simple method, is quite complicated. And if you go through the literature on genetic algorithms, you will find that they have been used to solve a diverse kind of problems of various difficulty levels, including programs that write other programs.

I guess that`s where I wanted to point out the particular sentence of yours. Sure, when one uses these methods, one is not solving the problem of designing a human being, but one can still get a large degree of emergent complexity from following simple rules. Now if these same simple rules were to be followed for billions of years, using all the biomass of the planet, I would not be surprised if life arises in all its intricacy. To use the analogy of Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene), all that one requires is the synthesis of the first replicator, a molecule that can replicate itself. The moment that happens, by definition, all of earth`s oceans would be filled by it, and process leading to the dawn of life would begin.

Even though the evolutionary process at the genetic level itself is simple, there is a cumulative effect due to selection based upon fitness. And that selection itself is not a simple process, but a highly intricate one that depends on the average fitness levels of the whole populations of individuals. So even though the mechanics of the process are simple, they are subject to very complicated constraints that, even in the simple examples of computation that I mentioned, lead to increasing complexity.

regards

The Incoherence of the Man-made Man I really enjoyed reading the article, not just for its style, but also for the issues that it addresses. The questions about human nature, capability and about our age-old curiosity about them are certainly among the most basic that every person has asked. While I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article, I could not help noticing a few things.

Whereas the question of a ``divine`` or a ``metaphysical`` origin of human faculties is certainly a valid philosophical issue, an attempt to ``prove`` the invalidity of a ``non-divine`` origin itself is incoherent. If I were to take the gist and the conclusion of the article to be a reductio ad absurdum ``proof`` of the invalidity of all ideas that do not require a divine source, then surely the article does not provide that.

Let me, for argument`s sake, point out the salient features of the argument:

(1) The central argument of the article is a teleological one, i.e. pertaining to the universe, and all of its constituent elements, having a reason or an end for their existence.

Now, whereas one may justifiably argue, that the human mind may require the presence of a reason or an end for its own satisfaction, one cannot in any honesty apply the same logic to anything non-human. Why should the universe have any reason at all? Why must it be laboring incessantly towards a pre-determined goal?

Although, stated forcefully, and in many guises throughout the article, this point is never substantiated. And I believe that it is very difficult to also.

(2) The second major point was to point out the definition of morality in the absence of a divinity. I think the flaw in that argument is pretty obvious. Even mutually conflicting ideas of divinity give rise to pretty much uniform standards of morality.

(3) The third major argument was a cosmological one i.e to point out the ``impossibility`` of the emergence of nature and its complexity given only chance. While it is counter-intuitive that such complexity should arise from simplicity by itself, it does not mean that it is impossible. I remember a math professor of mine who taught me probability theory, he used to often say, ``Intuition quickly adjusts to reality``. In matters relating to probabilities and chance, our minds are seldom able to keep track of the way things unfold. Especially when certain processes are cumulative over long periods of time. Consider the simple example of erosion of rock by air. And then consider the reverse example of the development of the modern airplane from its ancestors less than a hundred years ago. A little bit of reflection clearly shows the flaw in all popular arguments against explanations that include only chance as their main engine of change. Everyone who vehemently opposes or refuses to understand evolution, for example, clearly fails to understand the effect of tiny forces when they are applied for millions of years.

(4) Now let me reverse the argument, and say that I want to show the ``Incoherence of a God-made man``. Here`re a few questions that I would ask:

(a) Why should there be a Necessary being?
(b) Can God create a stone He cannot lift?
(c) Why is there evil?
(d) Does the ontological argument of the imperfection of any imaginary divine being necessarily imply the presence of an actual divine being?
(e) Aren`t God`s omniscience and immutability mutually contradictory?

Questions simply stated, complicated answers.

(5) Even if everything does boil down to a post-modernist ambiguity, does that prove anything about the presence of a divinity? I do not think so. An absence of proof is not a proof of absence.

Evil Spirits Travel in Straight Lines Very impressive. Though initially daunted by the length (the usual generation-X-give-me-quick-gratification attention disorder syndrome :) ), once I started reading it, I knew I had to read it to the end.

I think you have a great talent for detailing human emotions and interactions. I have enjoyed your earlier work also.

best

Talking of Talks Extremely well written, illuminating and evocative article. I just went through it, and I will have to read it again and think about it before I give my detailed comments.

However, I wanted to make an observation. Regardless of how pessimistic the opinions of different diplomats and scholars are about the present and the future of Indo-Pakistani relations, I see your article being indicative of a clearly optimistic future.

If, with sufficient introspection and care, it is possible for us to IDENTIFY the causes of Indo-Pakistani estrangement then we have already de-bunked the popularly held notions about the impossibility of a normal relationship. Simply by putting them out on the table as explicable socio-political causes, whose time evolution is understandable in terms of different historical processes, the issue becomes not that of an irrational national hatred, but of two parties with a list of mutually inflicted grieviances, that can be discussed and resolved, at least in principle.

I would also like to say that it is not surprising that our leaders are habitually prophets of doom when it comes to Indo-Pakistani relations. Their power is derived from this antagonism, and they are simply acting to preserve their interests, which do not necessarily coincide with those of the people at large.

Hakim Said Assassinated Inna Lilla-he wa inna ilayhay rajeun.

This is a very sad incident indeed. And I think that our situation is even sadder -we have unfortunately become so attuned to this violence that only a tragedy of this magnitude shocks us now.

As a kid, I too, like many many others read Naunehal magazine. The loss of Hakim Said is a big loss. However, looked at from the point of view of principles, one murder is equivalent to another, and therefore I will tend to see this incident as a sad commentary on our society.

We mourn Hakim Said today, we should also mourn the countless thousands who along with him have been devoured by the same demon of lawlessness.

A Nuclear Identity Re: Rishi

Actually, for the example that you have given, I would find myself to be in agreement with you. I do not wish to say that people have no choice but to go down a path of confrontation. I guess I tried to clarify my point of view in the reply to Maliani.

We have a responsibility today, to shape our future tomorrow. To do that, we must, if we can, learn from yesterday. I believe that all of us have moral obligations, consistent with our world views. I agree, all of us must have our black and whites unfortunately, but one must also consider that one`s views are not sacrosanct or even correct. Still, if one did not have convictions, one would not be able to function in this world.

I guess that is a part of the dilemma, to do one must know, and to know one must do. And just by the process of defining ourselves, we give birth to conflict. A world without conflict would sadly also be a world without identity, a gaia perhaps, but no individuals. Therefore the purity of an ideal world is quickly lost in this jungle.

regards

A Nuclear Identity Re: maliani

Actually I did not condone any excessive activity in my response. If it appeared to be so then it was entirely due to my inability to convey what I intended to say. Let me try again.

There are ethical issues, which pertain to the treatment of people (slavery, torture, murder), and I think my stand on all of those is the same as that of any person who believes in ``do unto others as you would have done to yourself``. I believe all of those are wrong.

Now let me take a step back and consider the phenomenon of war. Obviously war is a complicated state of affairs that involves all human faculties, including the vicious ones. In a perfect world there would be no causes for war (conflict of interest, historical animosities, man`s proclivity for aggression) and hence no war. We do not live in such a world, and sometimes I wonder, we cannot. Therefore, when one has to talk about historical processes, one has to use the language and methods of history and the evolution of human civilizations. That discourse necessarily includes a discussion and a reservation for the possibility of war (and its ensuing effects). Murder, torture, pillage and plunder is a sad part of our history (and our nature) and must therefore be included in it.

Now why would I restrain myself from passing an absolute moral judgement on something in my past? Simply because I am not living in that time, and therefore am not in a position to fully realize the forces at work. I can surmise what they were, or use my imagination as a guide, and come to a conclusion that X was absolutely wrong and Y was absolutely right. If I do so, then I have put myself in precisely the same position of X and Y, since they had a conflict only because they believed that both of them were absolutely right. Paradoxically I end up repeating the cycle.

However, what I can do is to prevent myself today from following a course of action whose antecedent is found in history. This would be simply logical, to learn from the experience of others. Following this, I would, for example not raise an army and lead a mission into Central Asia. I would use the historical knowledge available to me that suggests that such adventures are never sustainable.

That is the point of view that I am taking. Let us not dwell on the past, and instead use all that we have gathered to shape the present and the future. Most discussions about past lead nowhere due to the lack of information and the subjective nature of the issues in question.

Now a little bit of my rambling on the ethical issues that you have raised.

Now let me take another example: Murder. This takes many forms - pre-meditated murder, accidental murder, murder in self-defense, state-ordered execution and the killing of an enemy in a battle. Jurists have known from early on that these are not equivalent. Whereas a human being dies in each and every case, the killer is killed in the first case, imprisoned/fined in the second, not questioned in the third case, court-martialed if he/she refuses to follow orders in the fourth case and honored with medals in the fifth case. Same murder, different reactions. The way I see this is to say that a great deal of care and thought is required to be able to navigate oneself through this maze, it is not an exact science where you add one and one to get two.

So my questions to you:

So how would you treat war in the presence of all the agents that cause war in this imperfect world of ours?

In the presence of imperfect knowledge and imperfect human beings, if all avenues of conflict resolution are closed, is there an option but war especially if the survival of people depends on it?

I think even if there was no aggression in human beings to start with (which we know is patently false, just look at our cousins throughout the animal kingdom), agression would arise naturally. And even if it arises in one community, it will eventually spread in all communities because of the need for survival.

regards

p.s I did not know that Mohenjodaro did not have even a single weapon in it. Not that it necessarily means that their civilization was completely pacifistic (i.e weapons could have been removed by invaders, or carried away by the inhabitants in time of duress...). If one does assume that they did not have a single weapon (which I think is highly unlikely, since they must have hunted animals), then they were at a significant disadvantage compared to others around them, and were in a ripe position to be exploited.

p.p.s What other civilizations did not have any weaponry?