The Universal Song

Of late, I have been finding myself in situations that involve watching or reading something that I have watched or read before, and finding something new from the experience. I am not sure if it is my ability to understand things that has changed or improved, or if it is just a new found skill to better quantify and solidify when and how I have novel thoughts. I guess whatever the reason for this change is, what matters is that, I am aware of these new thoughts, and whether or not that has to do with improved thinking or improved awareness is beside the point.

I was just now re-watching Jonathan Millers atheism tapes 1-6 which I believe I downloaded from someone on DC++ back in 2nd year of BITS. I had watched it back then, and I believe another time after that (perhaps while I was in Bangalore). So, that makes this the 3rd time I am watching this series. What made me pause the last video in the series and write this just now, is the fact that, throughout this re-watching I've been hearing or understanding or extrapolating thoughts that I did not hear/understand/extrapolate before (or at least have no memory of it. Oh man! I hope I am not getting too old and just losing my memory. That is also an explanation to why I am finding "novel" thoughts, like a person with Alzheimer's (I took 2 minutes to remember the name of the disease, I am definitely losing my mind!). Anyway, this 3rd theory of why I am finding new understanding from old shows does also not preclude the need for me to write this, so on I go...).

First of all I will express some wonder on the very fact that my mind is finding new understanding from old information (whatever the cause, Alzheimer's or otherwise!). The human mind is such a convoluted blob of states and networks that, even if the exact same external inputs are given, the output has large variation. I guess the realization to be had is, the mind has not just external inputs, but a significant number of internal stimuli. This is not news, everyone understands that we have "moods". What is more relevant then is that, our "moods" also shape our (supposedly) logical thoughts. Now, by definition logical thoughts are supposed to be independent of moods, but, since I am a unable to think outside the bounds set by a brain that is the product of evolution, I am never entirely free from this, this evolutionary baggage as it were.

Now, the new thought that I specifically wanted to write about is an extension of the more general idea of evolution. I have (until now) used the word evolution mostly in the context of biological entities, how and why living things are the way they are. What I realized just a few minutes ago, is that evolution does not start with primordial bacteria and end with complex organisms. You see, one of the most profound revelations that evolution by natural selection gives is that we are strictly speaking, machines. Why we are the way we are is a manifestation of material things, there is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain morality or empathy or success of the species. Now, since bacteria themselves are much more complex than say, clumps of hydrogen and helium floating around in mostly empty space, why not apply the same evolutionary arguments to how bacteria came to be. Evolution is blind, unfeeling and without purpose. We see the results of the process and can look back and wonder. Just like feathers on a bird seem so inexplicable in the way they came to be from small changes. Like Dawkins affirms, at all points of evolution, the small variation must have an advantage if it is to propagate. No trait survives simply because it has potential. A feather does not start out as a pimple that is completely useless. The more likely explanation is that, feathers are a re-molded version of a variation that helped in some other way than the ability to fly. Now, what I want to try and make the reader (my future self) do is realize that a similar argument can be made about how the first primordial life came to be, starting with the beginning of the universe. In fact, the beginning of the universe itself is a part of it. The reality of existence is very much an advantageous trait! Inflation of the universe with non homogeneous matter-energy distribution, is an advantageous trait. Clumps of hydrogen gas gravitating into denser blobs is an advantageous trait. And so on.

Once I had this thought, I started to see the two people in the video I was just watching as this weird amalgamation of haphazardly put together advantageous traits. I saw them (and by extension myself and all complex multi-cell organisms) as an analogy to the feather, so, weird in their shape and form, yet so apparently useful and apt for their purpose, but in reality, what they were was the result of a blind unfeeling indifferent process. Think about it this way. As living things we are so inefficient. I mean, why don't we all have minds that float in non biological brains and derive energy directly from the sun using some sort of advanced 99% efficient photosynthesis. It would be like asking why birds have feathers, why not an anti gravity gene that lets them float with much less energy expenditure. It is because evolution has no goal, no ultimate purpose. It only builds and reshapes what already exists. And I was able to see human beings as this distorted Frankensteinish creature of different things that were re-molded blindly and unfeelingly and purposelessly into this blob of matter. I guess that is how an alien species of similar intelligence would view us . They might say, "You guys breath oxygen and use ATP-ADP synthesis to release energy! Ha! So weird!". But an alien species of superior intelligence would simply see us and add us to the list of covers of the same universal song.

The rote learner

July 19, 2014

Today was a typical Saturday of recent months. Inevitably, I followed the same pattern of; working late on Friday night, taking the car out to buy dinner; browsing through Netflix for a movie to watch while having a beer, failing to find one such movie or show that piques my interest, eventually browsing my own collection and watching something, sleeping, waking up earlier than I would have liked, completing the rest of the movie to which I had fallen asleep to, taking the car out to buy take out lunch from Little India Cafe, contentedly melting into a stupor of carbohydrate and meat induced coma, then waking up in the evening to mull over the fact that I had wasted another Saturday. Mind you, the fact that I had wasted another Saturday was not cause for great sadness or concern to me, it was... it just was.

It was then I took notice of the Asimov novel that I had bought from Leigh's favorite books on Murphy St about a month back. I had read the first section or two, but it had laid abandoned and unread on my bed for weeks thereafter, not because I had found the story unappealing, nor because I was too busy to read it (several wasted Saturdays and Sundays come to mind, not to mention weeknights), but perhaps because I have settled in to a routine that does not involve books of any kind, textbooks or otherwise.

Back in Bangalore in a big company, at least I had colleagues with whom I could discuss books that we had read recently. I guess being in a small company does have small and unexpected shortcomings (the work and the fun outweighs these small setbacks of course, in fact, I wouldn't have thought about this shortcoming if I weren't writing this... or perhaps that itself is something to think about). Nevertheless, I picked up the book where I had left off. And almost read the whole thing in one sitting. I have it now right next to me, just one more section to go. But I stopped in between to write this because, inexplicably, I wanted to revisit this long unattended canvas of my thoughts. It is interesting the things that had to happen to cause this inexplicable want (nothing is inexplicable remember? you just don't have enough data). But I am sure the recent documentary I watched called "Mortified nation", the book that I am reading, the work environment right now, all had some role to play.

I stopped midway in a section to muse over the nature of humanity (not surprising given what the story of Foundation deals with). But it is not about that I want to write about. I suddenly remembered the discussion I had with Alan, about how offsets in our sense amps were reduced when bias currents were increased. More than the techincal aspects of the discussion, what I was mulling over right now was the fact that I had fallen victim to something that I vehemently have fought to avoid all my academic life: rote learning, also known as parroting, spoon-feeding, word vomiting, exam learning etc. Come to think of it, I have always looked on people who cannot derive what they have learned from basic principles with more than a mild sprinkling of condescension. So I must not spare the rod on my self, right? In fact I should apply it all the more vigorously (also in tune with some masochistic qualities, but that's beside the point).

Why did I believe yesterday that increasing Vgs of a transistor reduces offset? Of course, there is precedent. I had used that very fact in all my comparators, sense amps, amplifiers whenever offset was an issue. Coupled with the long standing albeit opportunistically exercised philosophy of sticking to my believes, I argued the point with Alan. What scares me now, when I look back upon the discussion, was how absolute my conviction was. Even though Alan's counter arguments made logical sense to me, I did not start questioning my assumption until after two or three rounds of attempted justifications. In the end he was right, I was wrong. And I guess I can at least be mildly re-conciliated by the fact that I accepted that I was wrong with some grace, like a good scientist should (please note I use the word scientist in a very basic sense. I am no PhD, but I like to think that, since I use science or at least a tiny iota of it in my work, I am an adherent to the scientific principles).

So why was I wrong? Where did I make the mistake? At what point, could I have avoided making this mistake? What is clear is that I had fallen victim to the dangers of dogmatic believes. Believes that do not nurture the question of their origin. Yes it is true that for the same bias current, while designing a sense amp or amplifier, you can reduce offset by increasing Vgs at the cost of gain. And this is of course what I had used many times before, with results too. The danger it seems, is in using the fact so many times that you forget the conditions under which that fact remains true, in my particular case, the condition that was forgotten was that bias current has to remain the same. Like muscle memory for riding bicycles or swimming or running, my brain (and by extension human brains) seems to have a similar simplification for thoughts and ideas as well. By the time of the debate with Alan yesterday, the "fact" that increasing Vgs decreases offset had become muscle memory, rote-learned, ready to be parroted, and I had lost the ability to see the fact as true only under specific conditions. Rather, in my brain, it had become truth absolute, while in the rest of the universe, the real truth was, increasing Vgs without increasing bias current reduces offset.

I used to feel pity and condescension towards humans who stick to blind believes and never really counted myself among them. But this little incident and all the events including reading Foundation, got me thinking, am I starting to be easy prey for blind believes too? Or perhaps I have always been a victim, and didn't fully realize how susceptible I was until now. I do feel happy that I was able to understand and correct a false belief, as well as process its origins. But how many more lurk in that muddled mass of nerve cells that I have never seen or touched, but has forever been my, the individual's home? I can hope that I continue to be surrounded by people who question, for questions and incessant questions are the only way out of a false reality. I can take this incident as evidence of some addition to that elusive thing called wisdom, for I am now on better guard for another (unintentional) rote-learner. Me.