I started thinking after playing with this great webpage:

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/

We can now just about see atoms.  We can even see the effect of electron orbitals.  When I first got interested in science, I doubted I would ever be able to see such things, but science and technology have moved on.

But, In some ways we still see almost nothing of the full scale of reality.  There have been some amazing presentations that illustrate the scale of the universe.  One of the most famous is "Powers of 10":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm0bIuAVmOA


However, this barely begins to deal with reality as we now think it might be like.  It looks like the universe went through an exponential expansion close to its origin.  This means that the volume that we call the visible universe is an insignificant fraction of the universe that resulted from that expansion.  How small is that fraction?  Take the universe at the largest scale of the Powers of 10 video (100 million light years), and expand by 10 again, and again, and again, and again, and then we get close to the scale of the universe we can see.  But there is so much more.  Remember the Powers of 10 video?  Imagine an ant walking across the hand of someone in the original frame.  Now, follow the zooming outs, all the way to 100 million light years.  Are we there yet?  Almost.  Zoom out 6 more times, and we are around the minimum size that the full inflated universe might be.  Our universe, with its 100 billion visible galaxies, each with perhaps a trillion stars is to reality as an ant is on a scale of tens of light years.

But that is how little we can see outwards.  What about inwards?

We can now visualise within atoms.  That is on scales of fractions of nanometres:  10 powers of reduction below a metre.  However, particle accelerators can look deeper.  They can use high energy particles to probe at much smaller scales than atoms.  How much smaller?  Take an atom, and magnify it to the size of a football stadium.  The nucleus on that scale is the size of a fly.  We can see that.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is about to start working (at last!).  It will look at scales much, much smaller than atoms.  How much smaller?  Expand an atom to the size of an apple in the first frame of Powers of 10.  The LHC looks at atoms within that apple.  But is it looking at the smallest scales?  Not even close.

One of the most popular ideas about the fundamentals of physics is that reality consists of strings of something vibrating at close to the Planck scale.  What is the Planck scale?  Picture an apple tree.  If an atom in one of those apples was expanded up to the size of the visible universe, the Planck scale would be the size of that apple tree. 

We think we have gone some way towards exploring reality.  We see within atoms.  We see planets around other stars, and across billions of light years.  But we have barely started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

This is a great talk, with some very complex ideas clearly explained.  Particularly good is the discussion of why the universe looks flat.

There are a few of points that Krauss discusses that I want to add to.

Firstly, Krauss says that the flatness of the universe means that it could have come from nothing.  That is a bit of a problem, as what he actually means is that it could have come from a quantum fluctuation.  But that fluctuation would have required some framework of physics in which quantum mechanics operates.  The term "fluctuation" is also a problem, as what is it that is fluctuating when there is no space and time.  I don't disagree with his conclusions, but his language does not really deal with the question of what the universe could have come from.  However, he makes a good point that the true language of physics is mathematics, so trying to put things into words is a real problem. 

Secondly, Krauss makes an interesting point about the problems of infinity and eternity.  In an infinite and eternal system (which can involve more than just our universe), quantum mechanical fluctuations have time to make anything at all.  This has led to some philosophical problems.  Science assumes that we are typical observers of reality.  But in an eternal universe which reaches heat death, there is endless time for quantum fluctuations to create - out of nothing - intelligent beings.  Those should outnumber us infinitely.  (These beings are called 'Bolzmann Brains', after the great mathematic physicist Ludwig Bolzmann, who came up with the idea).    There are various possible explanations as to why this could be wrong.  Perhaps universes can't be eternal (they would have to last a very, very long time indeed for a Bolzmann Brain to appear).  But also, it is most probably very, very much more likely that a random fluctuation will create a new universe than a brain.  So, young universes with evolved intelligences will vastly outnumber those with spontaneously randomly arisen intelligences.   It is a weird problem, but this is the kind of thing one ends up with when dealing with infinity.

Finally, it is stretching things a bit to make any kind of prediction about what the universe will be like in 100 trillion years (I think that is what he said), especially in a talk that describes how our understanding of cosmology changed so dramatically just over a decade ago with the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.  Who knows what we will find in another decade or two?  Predictions aren't wise when the system you are using to predict is changing so much.  There is even a possibility that the acceleration of the universe is itself going to speed up, leading to a rather dramatic destruction on all matter, perhaps on a timescale of only tens of billions of years.   Unlikely as this probably is, it is still not excluded based on observations.  As we have no idea what dark energy is, there is the possibility that the universe could enter a phase of deceleration at some time.

Regarding the environment of future astronomers in his scenario, I also feel Krauss is possibly mistaken to suggest that they could find no evidence of the Big Bang.  This may just be possible, as event horizons give off radiation, and due to expansion we would effectively be in a galaxy surrounded by an event horizon.  It is just barely possible that an extragalactic probe could detect this, and realise that space is expanding.  OK, this is very unlikely, but if we are talking of technologies trillions of years hence.

But anyway, a really fantastic talk; taught me a thing or two.

A few days ago, Rory Cellan-Jones wrote a review of the latest Ubuntu version.  It wasn't that favourable.  I think he was mistaken.

Vista and Windows 7 have some nice features for desktop management, but nothing that isn't, or can't be, replicated in the popular Ubuntu desktop KDE.

Ubuntu is very, very fast.  It is hard to get to the startup time of minutes that can be typical of Windows.

Networking, especially wireless, can be very simple indeed.  No complex network management tools and diagnostics as in Windows.

Device installation (when it is compatible) is trivially easy: just plug it in.  A new printer on Ubuntu can require no more than plugging in.  Compare this to the driver-hunt procedure for Windows.

Superb software packaging system, so that applications are tested to work together, and can largely be all installed from a single source (the package manager) - no confusing installation systems.

Very secure.  Viruses are very rarely a problem with Ubuntu, and there is no need for anti-virus software (and so no need to choose software, pay for it, download it and maintain it).

More power for applications.  Ubuntu is a smaller and lighter system than Windows.  It won't take up a GB of memory just for the OS.

It isn't all perfection, though:

The big disadvantage - abscence of Windows games and iTunes.  There are apps appearing that can do most of what iTunes can do, but they aren't ready for mass use yet.

There can also be problems with sleep and hibernation on some hardware, but when Ubuntu is pre-installed this will already be set up.

So, in contrast to Cellan-Jones, I have no hesitation in recommending Ubuntu to non-computer-literate friends and relatives.  They have little problem with it.  It's exactly what such inexperienced people need - small, fast, secure, robust, and with easy handling of software and hardware.

Something else that is worth mentioning is that now nearly 1% of users have Ubuntu or another flavour of Linux as their main desktop system.  That is a huge number of users:  it's probably around 10% of MacOS, especially considering that Linux installs are hard to count (as it is freely distributable), and Windows is the default pre-installed system on almost all PCs.

Why I can't stand Twitter:

Firstly, it is a stage for celebrities.  They can post updates, and know that tens or even hundreds of thousands of people will be listening.   They can be performing continuously without having to audition.

Secondly, there is no equality.  People with followers attract more followers, so some voices are heard more loudly (widely) than others.  Stephen Fry has written about this matter.

Thirdly, it demeans the typical user.  The idea is that by adding '@' to a user name you can send a message to them.  But it doesn't.  Try sending an intelligent and useful message to a popular poster.  The chances are that your message will be ignored.  Twitter has the implied promise of access to other users that simply isn't there.

Finally, there is no permanence to posts.   It isn't even the supposed "microblogging" service it is sometimes described as.  It is far too fast and transient for that.

Twitter provides nothing for the typical user that isn't available via e-mail or chatrooms. 

No wonder it has such a high turnover of users.  Unless you are a celebrity, there is no value in tweeting.

Others have written some interesting pieces about the attempt by the Vatican to lure Anglicans, such as this excellent article by Paula Kirby.

There is an aspect to this that I have long found rather bizarre, and amusing.  It seems to me that people changing churches because of disagreements over doctrine is really rather odd, as it contradicts one of the principles of Christianity, which is that there are absolute truths, accessible either through the Bible or through tradition, or via the Holy Spirit.  It's not supposed to be a matter of consumer choice. 

Years ago, when the Church of England introduced women priests, there were some defections to the Catholic Church.  I find it hard to describe how ludicrous I found such defections.  The defector is basically claiming to have a personal better understanding of God's wishes than the Synod.   Surely the only honest position is to admit personal ignorance about the deity's wishes and listen to those who are supposedly better trained at researching ultimate truths? 

It's all seems just too weird to me.

A journalist I really respect, Johann Hari, has, on Facebook, attempted to defend the purchase of tabloid newspapers.

Here is my response:

People don't buy tabloids for the political coverage, but because the tabloids are clever enough to drip-feed populist politics and prejudices into stories, so people feel that their long-held (but rarely expressed) beliefs are supported by "that bloke/woman in the paper". Papers like the Daily Mail do represent what people feel because that is their strategy for selling papers. I don't oppose free speech, but I oppose giving those with money and power more volume of speech than anyone else unless it is accompanied by critical analysis. Political speech can be like a drug. It can need a health warning on the side. To say this isn't to have contempt for ordinary people, but to recognise that we are a representative democracy because most people aren't even vaguely educated in politics and what it involves. I have very great respect for the ordinary person and voter in the UK. I am proud of this country in which I have recently celebrated 3 years of a civil partnership. But all it takes is a look at popular tabloid newspapers to see what Britain could be like with the right propaganda.

There was a rather wonderful campaign on Twitter regarding a truly hateful and misinformed article by Jan Moir about the death of Boyzone singer Stephen Gately:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1220756/A-strange-lonely-troubling-death--.html

Also, Charlie Brooker wrote this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/16/stephen-gately-jan-moir

But now, Stephen Fry has started to express sympathy for Moir after the attacks on what she said.
http://www.stephenfry.com/2009/10/19/poles-politeness-and-politics-in-the-age-of-twitter/
And even Charlie Brooker, on Twitter, has started to express sympathy for Moir.


The Daily Mail is a newpaper based on hate and insinuation.  Normally it does this effectively, but delicately.  There is just the whiff of bigotry, rather than the stench, and it is almost always targetted at "nasty" people, such as single mothers or immigrants, or celebrities who are out of favour. 

Jan Moir's piece was perfect for the Daily Mail.  But the Mail made a big editorial mistake.  They picked on a celebrity who was liked, even loved, in a particular community.  That has led their poisonous approach to journalism being exposed.

Fry and Brooker have absolutely nothing to be ashamed about or to apologise for.  Moir, as a journalist, should have known about the general poisonous tone of the Daily Mail. 

A campaign against the Daily Mail and a clearly bigoted journalist has been effective.  That should not be a cause for guilt.

I have already linked to this video on Facebook, but I think it is important and interesting:

Dan Dennett - Consciousness

This is the thing:  if someone says "I know consciousness exists", they should be asked to define what consciousness actually is.  Having a feeling that you know what it is like to be conscious is not enough.

I have been thoroughly enjoying this BBC series:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/lastchancetosee/

Stephen Fry and the conservationist Mark Carwardine look again at species that Douglas Adams and Mark reported on 20 years ago.  It does not sound that promising, I admit.  But Stephen Fry seems to cope with living rough (apart from an awful accident in which he smashes his arm), and his intelligence and huge enthusiasm and awe for what he encounters makes the series really worth watching.

The result is very good indeed, and the pairing of Fry and Carwardine really works.  Carwardine has a great presence; perhaps the next David Attenborough?

So, Geert Wilders is now to be allowed into the UK.  I am disappointed.  I support free speech, but that does not mean we need give everyone a platform, especially when they have the visibility and status that Wilders does, and the views that Wilders does.

A reasonable question that can be asked of any immigrant or visitor is what their motivations are, and whether or not they intend to cause trouble or disruption.  I believe that Wilders will cause disruption, and that he is bigoted and rejects democratic principles. That is a strong statement; let me try and justify it.

Let's look at some of Wilders' suggested policies from his political manifesto Klare Wijn ("Clear Wine"):

"The present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, will be replaced by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions."

"A ban of five years on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any other language but Dutch."

"An immigration ban of five years for immigrants from non-western countries. Foreign residents no longer shall have the right to vote in municipal elections."

Wilders does not simply challenge certain Islamist views on the basis of their potential threat to democracy; he wishes to actively promote more traditional religions.  In other words, he isn't pro-equality and fairness, he is simply anti-Islam.  He is actively working to introduce divisions into society, resulting in some people having substantially fewer rights based on their accident of birth.  He is prepared to use normal, law-abiding people as political cannon-fodder in his fight against fundamentalist Islam.

The issue of freedom of speech is not the main one here, I think, as the internet allows anyone to hear what Wilders says.  The issue for me is whether or not respect is shown to someone and their ideas.  Wilders' ideas are anti-democratic and bigoted.

This is a post that tries to tidy up some thoughts I have expressed recently about physicalism and qualia. I am not a professional philosopher, and may be expressing certain ideas inelegantly, or without useful citations, but please bear with me.

Consider what happens in terms of signal transfer and processing in nerve cells when someone sees the colour “red” and says that they see it:

Red image: Eye ----> visual cortex ---> various areas of the brain ---> parietal lobe ---> nerves ---> mouth: “That's red”

Now let's put ourselves in the position of someone who is thinking a bit more about that situation:

Red image: Eye ----> visual cortex ---> various areas of the brain ---> parietal lobe ---> nerves ---> mouth: “That's a sensation that I can't explain, but which I call red”.

Now, someone who is thinking about the idea of qualia (this may not be right, but assume it is):

Memory ---> visual cortex --->  various areas of the brain → parietal lobe ---> nerves ---> mouth: “Trying to visualise red, I get a sensation that I can't explain. That is weird. Let's call it a 'quale'”.

Of course, these processes need not lead to speech, just thoughts, but let's stick with speech for now. But the point is this – is it conceivable that we could get those speech output from those neural inputs simply in terms of brain cell activity? Yes, it is. Because there is always a conceivable pattern of nerve wirings and firings that leads to that speech output, given that input. So, it is conceivable that we don't need to invoke dualism or anything mysterious for someone to have made a statements about qualia. Please bear with me here. We need to think about here is what is conceivable, not what we know, or what is actually true.

Why do I want to stick with speech? Because it is reasonably objective, but also because when we speak to others about a subject, we can hear what we say and recognise that what we have said accurately our beliefs. So speech can act as a proxy for internal thoughts.

Also, from now on, I'll use the abbreviation PWAF (Pattern of Wirings and Firings) to save time.

Now here is something someone might say: “I am conscious and have experiences”.

Is there a conceivable PWAF that leads to that speech output, given the input of previous nerve states, such as someone being in a conversation and having certain memories? Yes, because of the argument above. There are vast numbers of nerves and synapses biased in certain ways, but it is conceivable that such a pattern exists.

Let's go further. Is there a conceivable initial conditions combined with PWAF that leads to the following speech: “having considered consciousness and experiences, it makes no sense to talk of qualia not existing”. Yes, there is.

This is the problem for dualists. Any given statement about consciousness, including apparently pretty convincing statements that it can't be purely brain activity, can conceivably be produced by a PWAF.

The route from eye, through brain, which thinks about what it has seen, and then to the mouth which then makes statements about qualia and consciousness is always conceivably purely physical.

But then comes the argument about subjective experience. Forget about what others say. How can personal experience be denied? That is why I used speech. If you say something, even to yourself, it can be an external expression of what you are thinking. It is not transient thoughts. You can record it and review it later. [this bit needs sorting out a bit, if anyone has any suggestions]

Right, assume you say “I am conscious”. Could that just be a PWAF, just nerve cells? Yes, of course. Assume you say “but this has to be something more!” Could that be a PWAF? Yes.

So, any thought you can verbalise about your own mind can just be a PWAF.

The thought “no, it really doesn't feel like that. It feels odd. There is something more, something ineffable” can therefore be just a PWAF.

This is no proof that qualia don't exist, as that probably isn't possible. But it is surely a convincing argument that we can't trust our own thoughts about our subjective experiences. Subjective experience is no good evidence for anything, not even subjective experience itself.

A friend has started to review Dr Who, series four.

This has reminded me of something.

I got this strange feeling that something was wrong about the commonly understood basis of Dr Who after the second series of the new adventures.  Let's look at what happens.

The Doctor encounters Martha Jones.  He says "Just one trip".  They end up meeting Shakespeare and preventing a major disruption in history.  Then, the next trip, they travel to meet the Face of Boe again, as prophesied (by whom?).  After that, they return Martha back home, just in time to see the news about the Lazarus Experiment.

So, these aren't just occasional problems the Doctor has to deal with every now and then.  Each trip in the Tardis in that sequence took him and Martha to a problem that needed to be solved.

And look at how the Doctor controls the thing.  The most arbitrary controls, which are all unnecessary when there is apparently a psychic link to the pilot.

When it feels like it, the Tardis can drag the Doctor to where it likes, such as to ensure the production of Jenny, his daughter.

So, who are the real Time Lords?  It has to be the beings that are grown, not constructed, that decide where their companions go,  that meddle with time and causality to sort things out.  Get a view of their hearts, and they will transform meddlesome Slitheen to eggs, or feed the Time Vortex into Rose so that she can destroy the Daleks.

The Time Lords are, of course, the Tardises.

I don't think I went deep enough into why physics cuts out the need for an explanation of the mind/body problem in my last entry.

So I'm going to try and do that now. I should admit that the consequences of my arguments don't feel right. But that doesn't mean that they aren't true, just like the idea that we are on a globe spinning through space doesn't feel right, but is true.

There seems to be a problem about consciousness. But, I think this is not the right thing to think about. Let's try another way of looking at things. There seems to be a problem about why we think there is a problem about consciousness. No, that isn't quite right either. I think we should look at the problem in terms of function. The question is why a brain ends up with the thought “there seems to be a problem about consciousness”, and why those words appear on a page: Why do we type the words “there seems to be a problem about consciousness”? That, to me, is the real question.

Minds and Mary

Let's look at a version of the classic problem raised by the philosopher David Chalmers about consciousness. There is a woman called Mary who has lived in such isolation that she has never encountered the colour red. No matter how much information she is given, no matter how many brains she studies (live or dead), she just doesn't get what it is like to experience redness. Chalmers says that when Mary experiences the actual colour red for the first time, she gets new information, something that can't be determined from all the data. But this just isn't the case, because the whole problem is mistaken. The experience of red is the pattern of firing of certain nerve cells. That is the information that Mary needs. She can get that firing pattern either from seeing red, or by stimulating her nerves cells directly. This does not mean there is anything strange about qualia. All it means is that Mary will not have the mental state of knowing what red feels like unless certain nerve cells have been stimulated. There is no mystery.

Questioning consciousness

David Chalmers says “no-one can question their own consciousness”. Of course I can question my own consciousness. There are neurons firing that lead to me thinking “I am conscious”, and so far biologists have not found a nano-gram of consciousness within biological material. The problem is for those who don't question their own consciousness. What do they suggest extra in terms influence on neural activity, could have led them to have the thought “I believe that that I am conscious”, and “consciousness is special?” What they are implying is a major problem with physics. They suggest that some neurons are buzzing along nicely, and then “BANG” something happens to those neurons such that their firing is changed so as to lead them to end up with someone typing “there is something weird going on with consciousness.” So, either perfectly normal “atoms and the void” physics ends up with someone typing “consciousness is weird”, in which case there is nothing to explain, or there is something more than “atoms and the void” and there has to be energy transfer to neurons to change their states from some other physical realm. No such transfer has ever been observed. But as I'll point out in the next section, even if this is was the case, so what?

The inexplicably of qualia

There is supposed to be some essential nature of the the experience of consciousness that can't be explained by “atoms and the void”; by current physics. So, let's consider some additions to reality. Let's assume there is some other aspect to physical reality. In fact, let's go further and allow for anything else at all. Does this help explain what it is like to experience redness? Not one bit. No addition to physics, no logical proof, nothing can explain what it is like to experience qualia. How could these things help, as the experience is subjective.

It can always be physicalism

Here is the thing. Suppose I type the words “qualia are strange”. When I type these words, or say anything about consciousness or qualia, this results from nerve cell firings in my brain. If there is anything supposedly odd and emergent about consciousness then it has to somehow affect those firings so that my muscles move in the appropriate way. It is possible to conceive that a particular pattern of neural processing could lead to the typing of those words about quality. That this is only neural processing? I say it is possible to conceive that. And, because it is possible, then there is nothing at all to be explained in terms of anything but “atoms and the void”.

This is because anything that we express about the nature of consciousness can conceivably be due to a certain pattern of neural firing, and because of this, consciousness vanishes to become just physics.

Finally: Zombies

Contrary to David Chalmers, I do think “zombies” exist. I think I am one. This is what it feels like to be nothing but nerve cells processing signals. My physical reductionism doesn't rob life of meaning and experience; it means that meaning and experience don't require magic.

50 Voices of Disbelief

Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk

I was looking forward to this book for a couple of reasons:  first, having encountered Russell on the internet, he's a great guy, with interesting ideas.  Secondly, the range of contributors to the book is simply amazing, including Gregory Benford, Susan Blackmore, James Randi, Peter Tatchell.. people with such different lives.  It also does not focus on the so-called "New Atheists" which is refreshing.

I have to admit being initially sceptical about what the book was actually for (other than just of interest to read).  How could a such a broad collection of stories lead to any conclusion, or highlight anything much at all?  Recent events have shown just one way this book is going to be useful.  The controversy over the Atheist Alliance International award to Bill Maher, someone is not strong on the subject of reason, means we have to understand the stories of those who call themselves non-believers, or atheists.  The label isn't enough.

So I think this book comes out at the right time, and it's going to be important in many ways.  I am finding it great fun to read personally because many people I admire have contributed.  It is also an important political reference, showing what it means to identify as atheist, often in quite atheist-hostile societies, and illustrating that reason is not always the route to the conclusion of a godless reality.

The book does not have much organisation.  For a while I thought that this could be a problem, but it isn't.  The voices that contribute are individual, and should be read in that way.  However, I did find the descriptions of contributors at the end useful, and was very pleased to see the book was well-indexed.

There isn't much I can say about the contributions as they are all personal, both in content and in style.  There is no flow from one story to another, which means this is a book which it is easy to pick up at any time.  A potential atheist "coffee-table" book?  Yes, but that is no fault, even though it is much more.

One thing I will say is that I dislike the cover.  A snuffed candle may symbolise the abandonment of religious ceremony, but Sagan called Science a "candle in the dark", and Science with Reason is yet a brighter candle.  It seemed a negative image considering the stories inside are from those who have escaped from religious constraints. 

However, that this book exists is an achievement. Collecting and editing this volume of contributions from these contributors is a major exercise.

This is going to be an essential read for anyone who is interested about the nature of the debate about religious thought and reason in the 'Late Noughties'.   It will kick-start or be involved in many important conversations.

Somewhere, in a laboratory, in the not-to-near future, a mind awakes and says “I have consciousness”. It is a precise replicate of a scientist in that laboratory, simulated in silicon, and with all the information captured by very small-scale NRMI.

[Or perhaps not, because ethics committees have seen previous neural simulations and decided that moving to consciousness would be a bit of a problem.]

But, it is feasible. It is not technology that we now think is impossible, either in the brain-scanning or the simulation. It's only a matter of scale, and a matter of time.

So, let's imagine a conversation with that consciousness, that awakening.

C = Consciousness simulation, E = experimenter, in the laboratory.

C: “Where am I”

E: “In a laboratory simulation.”

C: “But I have memories of decades past”

E: “That is due to the activities of circuits 2986, 29842, and 4005-499919925”

C: “But I feel aware”

E: “I know. I have just seen the activity in 67384 neuron simulations that has led to you say “But I feel aware.” I can trace them all from previous neural states.”

And so the ethical problem. Is that “consciousness” really a consciousness?

Our brains seem to contain no magic. There is nothing that prevents us from considering the previous conversation as reasonable and possible. And so, consciousness becomes nothing but a purely material and mechanical operation of neurons. Indeed, our understanding of consciousness is nothing but a purely mechanical operation of neurons, in this simulation.

The thing is, it doesn't stop there. This isn't just about simulations.

The philosopher David Chalmers says that we can be sure that there is something extra going on than the activity of nerve cells because we know what it feels like to be conscious. And, we can imagine the possibility of some being which is like us in every respect, but which says that it is conscious, but it isn't. He calls these beings “zombies”.

But as I type the following words: “I am conscious”, what else do I need but the activity of nerve cells to do it? When we can trace every twitch of my finger on the keyboard to the firing of cells in a brain (including the discussion of “zombies”), how can we be anything else but the controversial zombies of Chalmers? And so I side with Chalmer's mentor, Dan Dennett. I am not some spirit, some fire dancing above the particles in our universe, I am the patterns in those particles, and I am real. I see myself typing the words “I am real”. Every thought I think, every feeling I feel isn't separate from those particles, it is the patterns in those particles. This is what being conscious feels like, because this is what patterns of processing of information leads to fingers typing on a keyboard “This is what being conscious feels like”. How can it be anything else? There is no space for magic, and no reason for it.

The universe is simple, and described by simple physics. Consciousness is not some fundamental principle, but a word we type on a computer as a result of brain cells firing.

The public tends not to like politicians.  This is understandable, as politics is about compromise, and necessarily broken promises.  So, if you are going to wander into politics, you need to know what you are doing.

It's easy to be political without realising.  But all public statements of support for a point of view that attempt to change policy are by definition political.  It's the old philosophical problem – you can't get ought from is, and he “ought” is almost always political.  And, here is a problem: if you promote any position without emphasising that what concerns you is how you get there, you are going to find yourself in company that you might not like, as others may have taken a different route.

I have long been aware of this, and I have been arguing vigorously about the dangers of simplistic campaigning.  For an example, pick an ethnic minority group, some of whom have cultural traditions which are less than acceptable, and who justify those traditions through religion.   Put them in a situation where racist groups have been using religion as a surrogate for race.   Criticise their traditions, and watch the criticisms fly pass, missing the target for miles.  Those with the dodgy traditions find allies with others in that ethnic group, and with others who campaign against racism.  Together they easily fend off criticisms because of the long history of bad intentions behind such attacks.

You can say that you aren't racist.  You can insist you have good intentions.  But good intentions aren't enough.  It's all very well to say what everyone else should think of what you personally are doing, but they don't start from your position. This is why campaigns have to be skilfully targeted, to get under the radar of “racism” to deal with the real issues.  It is why an understanding of what messages are being received is vital, and not just what messages you think you are sending. 

Good intentions can blind people to serious mistakes.  Sam Harris is a campaigner for reason who I deeply admire.  His thinking is sharp, and his writing is precise, intelligent and witty.  And yet, he falls into the trap of playing politics.   Sam is someone who has written passionately against accomodationism; the principle that religion and science are compatible views of reality.   He sets up The Reason Project to help promote this, and other ideas.  He's doing well.  But then he invites Bill Maher to be associated with this project.   OK, it may just be as an advisor in terms of media skills, but it is a mistake.  Because giving the nod to someone doesn't have to be direct.  In a final series episode of The West Wing, the winning candidate gets tacit approval from a local celebrity merely by persuading them to stand beside them on stage.  It's a key moment.  It turns things around. No direct words, nothing explicit.  It is about messages.

[However, it has to be said that having Bill Maher as an advisor to a project to promote reason is equivalent to having Gordon Ramsay as an advisor to a project to clean up language.  It's equivalent to having Homer Simpson as an advisor to a project for the preservation of dougnuts.]

It's all gone wrong, and (charitably) due to a lack of good advice, and complacency.  The atheist and rationalist movement was on a roll, with increased visibility, people like Christopher Hitchens turning up all over the place, articles from Sam Harris in major media.  But the problem of politics turned up, as, in hindsight, it inevitably would always have.

My view is that the whole thing should split.  Let there be campaigns to support and teach secularism and reason, and a separate political campaign for atheist visibility for those who want it. You can't have the same people actively working on both campaigns if they are going to claim any kind of ideological purity.  You can't have someone (Sam Harris) passionately dismissing the compatibility of religion and science while on some level indicating their support and respect for someone else (Maher) who denies that vaccines work.  You can't have someone (Richard Dawkins) saying that they care about an understanding of evolution because they care about what is true, giving an award with their name to someone (Maher) who denies the bacterial theory of disease, even if the award isn't about that.  It is politically dangerous, and a publicity nightmare.  Why care anyway about ideological purity?  It's about messages. If enough supporters of reason have picked up on this, you can bet that the enemies of reason will have a field day. 

It's sad when people like Dawkins don't seem to get what the problem is.  He disagrees (he says) with Christopher Hitchens on politics, but both he and Hitchens arrive at their political positions through research, scholarship and reason.  Dawkins has worked with bishops to campaign against creationism, but he never handed over an award to them with his name praising their scientific stance.  The matter with Maher could not be more different than either of these situations.

I suspect there is a lot of work to be done to clean up this situation.  I doubt what I say here will have any effect, but I am saddened to see scientists I admire stumbling because of what are seem to be unintentional political mistakes. 

I guess we will just have to see what happens.