

Laws of Physics Can’t Trump the Bonds of Love - wallflower
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/laws-of-physics-cant-trump-the-bonds-of-love/

======
VMG
_I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't
agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and
I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a
flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I
think he's kind of nutty. [...] There are all kinds of interesting questions
that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and
mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it
subtracts._

\-- Richard Feynman

Let's hope science some day may prevent the disease that afflicts his son.

------
Strilanc
I was really unsure if I'd like this article. I'm still not sure if I do. It's
about how a teacher motivates his students (science can help his son), but the
way it's framed is very grating.

There's this wrong idea out there, that you run into everywhere, that love is
independent of physics. That a simulation of a human, grounded in rules of
reality, wouldn't tend to its children. It grates me.

A good analogy is: would you take an article about the fun of skydiving and
title it "Can falling trump physics?"?

~~~
smosher
Falling can be described in terms of physics, but the rush you get from it
can't be. Not with today's machinery. The model we call physics may be so off-
base as to be inapplicable at that stage.

I see what you're saying, but he's talking about 'the meaning of it all',
which doesn't feel like a scientific thing.

~~~
ksmiley
Perhaps I'm missing your point. The rush you get from skydiving _is_
explainable by physics. The human fight-or-flight response induces the adrenal
gland to release epinephrine, which causes a raised heart rate, excitement,
etc. Even complex feelings like "yearning to find the meaning of it all" and
"loving your disabled son" have a biological basis.

(Disclaimer: I get my science facts from Wikipedia and xkcd)

~~~
nsxwolf
I suggest you also use Wikipedia to get some philosophy: Look up "Qualia".
Science is wholly incapable of explaining just exactly why feelings feel the
way they do. "Adrenal gland releases epinephrine" is the trigger but it is not
sufficient to describe the experience of a conscious person.

~~~
Retric
Most Qualia are rather well understood an example taken from wikipedia "the
perceived redness of an evening sky".

You can talk about why they sky has 'redness' but subjectively what's
important is the sensors in your eye, and how what happens to the signal. If
you look at the research, people have tracked what causes each receptor to
fire and then followed colors back though the optic nerve. So, really the
subjective feeling is a signal we have tracked what more do you want?

Often when people say science can't explain X, really what they mean is they
can't follow the explanation.

~~~
smosher
I'd just like to point out that by definition, that's not qualia. You're
talking about something else—which is fine. You can deny the existence of
qualia all you like, and many people do.

Dennett has made a very good case for the term being so abused as to be
useless. He argues against its existence and seemingly the existence of
anything like it. I don't really agree with him in this extended sense but I
can't define exactly what it is I do agree with, so for now I can only say
that there is a lot more to learn about consciousness and related phenomena.

~~~
Retric
Feel free to edit wikipedia, _Qualia: individual instances of subjective,
conscious experience ... Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the
taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky._
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia> But, I think you might be thinking of
something else.

Some people object to saying Subjective Experience the same thing as Brain
State. But, I have never seen an argument that does not at some point
presuppose the difference. AKA assume a p-zombie exists...

PS: The Chinese room is a thought experiment is a great analogy for
consciousness, they only reason to suppose the room is not intelligent is if
you presupposes requirements that's the vary existence of such a room
disproves. A computer or person following the instructions may not understand
Chinese without the instructions but by following them they create something
which does understand Chinese. Just as neurons are not by themselves
conscious, but together and in the correct arrangement they can create
consciousness.

~~~
smosher
Go back to the 'definitions' section. Dennett went by this (and similar
formulations), and made a compelling argument. I would advise reading _Quining
Qualia_ if you are interested. I believe that is where he made the case so
well. (You can probably find it on the web.)

The Chinese room is a frustrating argument, and I essentially agree with you
on that.

------
littlegiantcap
Without getting too much into any sort of philosophical or religious
discussion this is a really touching story. Merry Christmas everyone.

~~~
munificent
Beautifully told too. No patronizing narration, no saccharine soundtrack, just
a really amazing story.

------
canweriotnow
The most beuatiful exposition of the weak anthropic principle I have ever
encountered.

------
gosub
The good old straw vulcan
<http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawVulcan>

------
rgonzalez
Amazing. What would happen if we replaced every crappy teacher with one like
this one? How different would the world be in 5,10,15 years? We need more
teachers that are as passionate and devoted as this guy.

------
JennyZ
"We say atoms are bound by weak attractors. Why not admit the truth: the
Universe is held together by love."

------
silentmars
Sorry if it annoys anyone to bring in politics on this beautiful article here
on Christmas, but here's what I have to say:

Bookmark this article. Then, next time you are talking to some dittohead who
is in favor of No Child Left Behind-style education, you can send them the
link and say, "where does this fit in with your standardized testing
horseshit?"

~~~
jpiasetz
Wat? What does this have to do with standardize testing? The article doesn't
mention standardized testing once.

Standardize test has nothing to do with measuring individual students or
individual teachers. It's a method for measure large scale changes. For
example does all day kindergarten lead to student being better educated?
Thanks to standardized testing in Ontario it can be measured whether or not
students improve with all day kindergarten. You can argue for better test and
you can argue for better application of the results of tests but there is no
argument against benchmarking.

Without a benchmark you're just shooting blind. People who are against
standardized testing are the Jenny McCarthy of education. They think they can
just tell when an education method is effective without measuring it

~~~
pekk
Yes, you are exactly right. I realized in high school that my standardized
test scores meant absolutely nothing except as a kind of survey of the school.
By no means were teachers "teaching to the test". And the material measured by
the standardized tests was so basic/remedial that there is no way it would
have been difficulty for AP track students - so fast changes in those scores
would have been a pretty significant indicator of institutional failure.

------
derleth
This ties into my own philosophy: We define what the universe means.
Intelligent life. We're the only ones that care, so it's up to us to decide
what the universe is all about. That's frightening, but freedom is always a
little bit frightening.

We get it wrong, as we have in the past, but, over the past 500 years, we've
been, overall, getting better and better at it over time.

There's no guarantee we'll continue to improve. But, on the other hand,
there's no, or very likely no, external grader, imposing an arbitrary standard
on us. Our standards are our own, which means we have a chance at measuring up
to them.

~~~
mylittlepony
> That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening

On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we
are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself.
But we can't escape physics. We are still just complicated sets of reactions.
We don't really have choices.

~~~
Xcelerate
> On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So
> we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of
> itself.

Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It
seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely
concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural
phenomena.

I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain
aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible
observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this
is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's
not science.

~~~
mitchty
I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up
someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two
disparate things. Measure the brain response.

If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they
consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have
free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking
it chose what processes in the brain have already decided.

[http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d...](http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision)

I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off.
Corrections welcome!

That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if
we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it
really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its
just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to
determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our
perception of free will and determinism.

~~~
Ygg2
Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to
mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the
participants.

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-
not-...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-
the-way-of-free-will.html)

Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned
easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.

~~~
Ygg2
Late edit: "subtle unconscious hints from researchers could be picked by the
participants"

