---

I treated myself to a lie-in, following a very late night seeing in the new year at an impromptu party at a neighbour's house. The fireworks by the Thames were incredible. (We watched them on TV rather than fight for space with 10 million people).

Son was still poorly until about 4pm when he made a sudden and visible recovery, and he literally hasn't stopped eating since. Making up for lost time I suppose. He doesn't want to discuss the details of his illness, and I don't want to hear them. But his mother does, partly because of her medical background but mainly because she's his mother. He made the mistake of telling his sister that while he was at the hospital yesterday, they asked him if he was gay (this is a routine question. To which she replied, "they could probably tell anyway, it's obvious". She's 25 but has a mental age of 14.

He's missing his girlfriend, who is visiting her parents in Cheshire. Her father and brother are Man United season ticket holders, so I like her. Sadly my boy couldn't take up the offer of a free ticket to the game against Spurs today, but we watched it live on TV. But yet another home defeat, and Fergie in attendance, like the ghost of Christmas past.

The weather today has been appalling so no one even thought about going outside, except I did to get milk and bread. And comics. And soup and toilet rolls. The grandchildren popped round so I went out (again) to get McDonalds happy meals for them. Then the boys of the house played a three-geenration Subutteo tournament. http://en.subbuteo.com/

To maintain the gender stereotypes, my granddaughter helped her mum and Nanny to make cakes. The kitchen table was literally covered in flour when I looked in, which reminded me of Nigella Lawson for some reason.

But the highlight of the day was the return of "Sherlock". How did he fake his own death? I must admit that when I heard (3 years ago) that they were going to make a modern day version of Sherlock Holmes, my heart sank and I was ready to send a letter of complaint to the BBC, as I am a somewhat obsessive fan of the books and the original TV adaptation featuring Jeremy Brett. But it was excellent. Benedict Cumberbatch is excellent. Martin Freeman is excellent. Mark Gatiss is excellent as Mycroft and as a writer. The spirit of the original stories has been preserved.

---

---

MrsC has a habit of setting booby traps. For example I open a cupboard door and bags of flower and sugar will fall on my head. This morning there was a stack of dishes on the kitchen drainer and I knew just the slightest movement would set the whole lot in motion, like a cross between Jenga and Buckaroo. I couldn't resist and as I pulled out a teaspoon I was immediately diving to catch falling plates and cups like a low budget circus act. Nothing was broken.

Head cold is very bad today and MrsC is also suffering so New Year's Eve will be the two of us for the first time in many years. Except... We won't as son is on his way to see us. He's had stomach pain for 6 days and didn't bother telling anyone until now, when it's unbearable.

Spent 2 hours in A&E with him. Very quiet there so his timing was good. It can take 5 hours to see a doctor on a busy night. No doubt this is the quiet before the New Year Party storm, when the hospital staff will be verbally and physically abused by drunken revellers with broken ankles and faces.

While my son was being attended to I was amazed to see a lad about his age hobble in with what appeared to my untrained eye to be a broken leg. He kept apologising for bleeding on the floor, then he apologised for vomiting and promptly passed out. A nurse thought this might be a bad sign so she attended to him fairly quickly.

Son has meds and appointment for further tests. He will be spending new year with his coughing, sniffling, sneezing parents for New Year's Eve. It will be like New Year in a hospital ward.

Today's coffee was Pico Duarte...
Transport yourself to the exotic climes of the Caribbean with this beautifully smooth and delicate coffee. Pico Duarte Coffee is a rare coffee, grown on the mountain slopes of the Dominican Republic, lulled by the gentle trade winds and balmy humid climate. The soil is rich in limestone, creating a completely different taste experience to other South American beans. Deliciously mellow with a slightly acidic kick and subtle notes of spice, Pico Duarte Coffee is sunshine in a cup.

Who writes this stuff? Anyway, it was delicious.

9pm - my macbook refuses to boot up - it's got stuck in an endless loop halfway through an OS upgrade. Hard disk needs repair, it says. Disk Utility won't repair it. Won't roll back to pre-install state. OS installation disk not recognised. Time Machine back up won't recognise the hard disk. ARGH! This is the worst day anyone who ever lived, ever had, ever. WHY IS GOD PUNISHING ME?

10pm - The macbook randomly pops up a message to connect to wifi. I type in the password. It boots up normally with no problems.

This is the best day ever!

:rfH::::rfA::::rfP::::rfP::::rfY: ::rfN::::rfE::::rfW:: :rfY::::rfE::::rfA::::rfR:

{ Image: tinyurl.com/o8gqcka }

---

---

Woke up to discover it was Monday. This was a surprise because it's been Saturday for the last 5 days. Mrs C has to go to work. I don't. Hahaha!

Checked my GT results over the last 7 days – won 27 lost 15. Then the usual chuckles on the GT religion db over breakfast.

Then my daughter arrives distressed that her car is “jumping”. I start the engine and it's misfiring. Leads and plugs are worn. Sounds like it needs a new exhaust too. She gets my car and I get to keep hers until the local garage can take a look. Which will be Saturday.

Midday, I go for a long walk (no choice really). It's a cold, fresh day, perfect for clearing the head.

Watch two episodes of Columbo which I'd never seen before, and MrsC arrives home for tea. We keep the meals simple today. Mainly leftovers. New dishwasher has been ordered, arrives on Thursday. How on earth we will manage until then, I just don't know. I've sort of started detoxing. No beer all day. That's a full 24 hours.

Babysitting in the evening. Some epic rounds of hide and seek followed by Lego.

I think I'm getting a cold…

---

---

Nothing happened.

---

---

Morning: Today's coffee from my Christmas selection was: Colombian

"From Andean slopes, richly aromatic with notes of citrus. Our Colombian beans come from small farms scattered across the steep humid slopes of the Andean mountains. The plantations are rooted in rich volcanic soil and shaded by the dripping fronds of banana and rubber trees. The coffee is known for its silken, aromatic flavour. It is medium bodied with a richly complex taste that balances pleasing acidity with soft sweetness. Harvested all year round, Colombian captures the exotic taste of its origin."

Well I don't know about all that, but it tasted good to me.

Midday: The dishwasher died. This is very bad news. To be fair, it has been running continuously for the last 5 days, so it died on active duty having served heroically. I'm looking on YouTube to see if anyone can demonstrate how to wash up without a dishwasher.

Afternoon: Grandchildren arrive. It's bright and sunny - but 2 degrees Celsius (36 Fahrenheit). We go to the park where I'm running around playing football (soccer) with the boy and his uncle (my son). We are assigned roles. I am Messi, the boy is Ronaldo and my son is David de Gea, in goal. I'm too old for this and I am totally unlike Lionel Messi in every possible respect, but I provide some useful in-swinging corners for the boy to blast past the keeper. My son throws himself around in goal, in the mud. We arrive home rosy cheeked and ready for tea.

Evening: To the Bull Inn with MrsC to catch up with my best friend (we've been friends since the age of 5) and his latest female companion who he found here...

http://www.eharmony.co.uk/

She's very lovely and good fun.

After what seemed like 10 minutes we realised 3 hours had passed. Time flies when you're having fun, As we left I noticed the pub was full of teenagers. At least they looked like teenagers to me. Another sign of old age I suppose.

---

---

Day begins with a major caffeine hit thanks to one of my Christmas presents: The Whittards Coffees of the World Selection. This morning's choice was "Guatemalan Elephant" coffee, which apparently…"gets its name from its enormous beans, grown on Arabica bushes on small plantations on the fertile volcanic slopes of Lake Atitlan. Extremely rare and highly prized, the plantations combine their precious harvests and take them to local cooperatives to be pulped. The massive elephant beans are roasted to a deep shade of mahogany to bring out their rich full-bodied taste." The coffee grounds smelled like … well a bit like an old elephant, but once brewed it was delicious. MrsC only drinks defcaf so I had to drink a whole pot.

{ Image: tinyurl.com/pe5xy6y }

Day ends with a game of Hero Quest - a board game from the 1980s which I haven't played for at least 12 years and which is a simplified version of Dungeons and Dragons. My son invited round three of his friends that I haven't seen since they were at school together more than 10 years ago. All grown men now with respectable jobs - but sitting around my table debating whether to kill the goblins, steal the gold or revive the Wizard who is low on body points. One of the boys, I mean men, decides he would like to buy his own copy of the game. He discovers it now sells on eBay for £100. I offer to sell him mine for £150 and he thinks about it. I wouldn't sell it.

{ Image: pbs.twimg.com/media/BciFN3-CQAAikbV.jpg:large }

For reasons which are too complicated to explain, I also spent some time today wielding an antique Samurai sword.

Detox starts tomorrow.

---

---

Breakfast - coffee, Christmas cake, mixed nuts.

Boiled a gammon joint. Then glazed and baked in oven. That's my cooking contribution for the holiday season.

Went to Maplin to buy an HDMI cable. Was persuaded to buy a remote control helicopter by the friendly assistant.

Invaded by grandchildren. Assembled Peppa Pig kitchen. Found batteries. Disassembled Peppa Pig kitchen. Inserted batteries. Reassembled Peppa Pig kitchen.

Break for buffet tea. Gammon goes down well with yesterday's left overs. Prosecco for grown ups. Mrs C steals the show with a Baked Alaska.

Back to assembling toys. Why is it nowadays that toys are fixed into the packaging with so many wires, tape and screws so you need hydraulic car-crash rescue cutting equipment to get the toy out of the box?

Watch grandchildren play with their new stuff. How did my granddaughter become such a stereotypical girl (dolls, prams, princess outfit, tea set) and my grandson such a stereotypical boy? (Skylanders, FIFA 2014, Premier League sticker album, stunt scooter).

Capture some nice family pics of 4 generations. Just like the Royal Family. Skype with daughter in Canada. Can't help noticing a boy lurking in the background who appears to be Shaggy from Scooby Doo. Anyway she's happy and all is well with the world.

BBC News crew arrive to film aftermath of bomb explosion. They leave when I explain we're just clearing up after the grandchildren. Move along please - nothing to see here.

The day ends as it began - coffee and mixed nuts.

Detox starts tomorrow.

---

---

Bucks Fizz then visit grandchildren who seem to have had an entire toy shop delivered overnight. Back home and opened the first round of presents. Very pleased with my Columbo Complete 10 Seasons box set (a gift to myself). Also pleased with Peter Gabriel autobiography. Mrs C seemed pleased with tickets to see James Taylor next year.

Skype with daughter in Canada who is spending Christmas in a ski lodge with 15 friends. If I didn't know better I'd say she looked hungover but probably just a bad internet connection.

Sherry.

Queen's speech at 3,000 decibels so mother-in-law could hear.

Roast Turkey dinner, wine, washing up, minor loss of consciousness. Pudding. Total loss of consciousness. More washing up.

Board games, Downton Abbey (6,000 decibels), more washing up.

Nightcap.

Bed.

---

---

A Christmas family tradition for us is board games and it can be competitive especially if my son is with us, as he is this year.

This year two new games have been introduced:

Dixit - I've never heard of before, but like all the best games is simple to learn and difficult to master. It's not easy to explain so... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixit_(card_game)

It's a game anyone can play, but it makes you think in abstract ways. We played it twice and I lost both.

Next up was Perudo - also known as Dudo or "liar dice".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudo

Apparently a common game but new to me. And surely a game that could be implemented on GT. Played twice and I lost both.

Then it was Happy Families - an old favourite. I came 2nd, narrowly beating a 6 year old.

On Friday I'm the dungeon master for a game of Hero Quest with my son and his pals as the adventurers, seeking to discover gold whilst defeating orcs and goblins. If you've ever watched Big Bang Theory you will get the idea.

What I like about all this is that although the Wii and Xbox and iPads are fantastic, kids still enjoy old style games, possibly they appreciate them more as they are a novelty.

---

---

Last week, my youngest daughter and her pals decided to drive from Quebec to NYC. At the border, her friend Jack explained to the US border guard that he'd recently lost his passport (it was destroyed when his car caught fire after hitting a moose. I'm not making this up).

Jack had an official letter confirming that his replacement passport was being processed and he also had a valid visa to work in Canada.

The US Border Guard wasn't impressed with this so Jack was refused entry to the USA. To gain entry he had to get another document from the Canadian border guard (who was 100 yards away). So they drove 100 yards back into Canada, picked up the new document and then drove 100 yards back to the same US border guard, who waved them through.

To be fair, that's the kind of bureacracy that every border guard in every country I've ever been to seems to be specially trained in. A minor inconvenience except that the next time Jack (who is British with Lebanese parents) travels to the USA, he will have to tick “Yes” in the box on the visa entry form which says “Have you ever been refused entry to the United States?” Which could be tricky.

After a few days in NYC they drove back and had a tyre blow out. None of the four 20-year-olds in the car had a clue how to change the wheel. A car pulls up. It's an ex-Marine with his wife. He expertly changes the wheel for them, and drives away. Another passer-by observes that they should get the punctured tyre repaired, and she drives with them to the nearest tyre shop, which was unusually busy. This second good samaritan stayed with the kids for three hours until the trye was repaired, and berated the tyre shop manager who was trying to rip them off (and would have done had she not been there).

This second incident reflects my personal experience of American hospitality, friendliness and helpfulness. Yes I know that if they'd broken down in certain neighbourhoods in NYC instead of upsate NY it might have been a different story, but in my many trips to the USA the people I've met have been the most helpful, kindest, generous and friendly people I've known.

Apart from the border guards.

---

---

This week I am back in the classroom learning about the psychology of change and the various approaches to change: Behavioural, Cognitive, Psychodynamic and Humanistic.

I am already familiar with some of the psychodynamic theory, specifically the "Kübler-Ross model" sometimes referred to as the "five stages of grief":

(1) Denial "This isn't happening to me"

(2) Anger "Why me? Who's to blame?"

(3) Bargaining "I'll do anything, I promise to change, I take it all back"

(4) Depression "Why bother to do anything? Why go on? What's the point?"

(5) Acceptance "It's going to be okay. I'm prepared for what's coming. Time to move on"

We've all experienced this to some degree. Perhaps due to a loss of job, or the onset of a serious illness, or the loss of a loved one. Or at a trivial level it might be the defeat of a sport team we follow.

By recognising this process as natural and common to nearly everyone, we can develop ways to support and counsel people who are experiencing it.

Anyway, that's the theory. I have a lot to learn during the week, and my brain is ageing rapidly. No doubt if I fail the exams, I will be experiencing the five stages of grief myself…

---

---

Aged 82 she was rushed to hospital after a routine check up at the doctor and survived a quadruple heart bypass.

A few weeks ago, aged 86, she undergoes a routine procedure to remove a gall stone - the procedure caused internal bleeding that couldn't be stopped without a major operation that she probably wouldn't survive.

My wife and I were at her bedside as she semi-consciously vomited pints of blood into bowl after bowl. Then the surgeon joined us, followed by the head of surgery and various other distinguished specialists, all looking grave and pondering what could be done, preparing us for the worst. And my wife feeling guilty that we hadn't planned a funeral. At least 5 scans and x-rays were performed to identify the source if the bleeding, all inconclusive. The only option therefore was to transfer to a specialist hospital and risk major surgery by the country's expert in this kind of thing.

And the next day, the vomiting stopped, she woke up and asked for a cup of tea. The internal wound had clotted, the bleeding had stopped. Her pulse and blood pressure returned to normal.

She was far from her old self. She's always been very active, walking for miles and carrying shopping home. Now she was too weak to move, unable to walk. It was time to consider how she could be cared for when she left hospital, probably in a wheelchair. Two days later she was able to shuffle to the bathroom with a walking frame.

She was then transferred to a rehabilitation facility I didn't know existed, where she had her own apartment with a bedroom and kitchen, but constantly monitored by nurses. Within two days she was cooking her own meals and within a week she was walking unaided.

And now she's home. Carers came every day to help her shower herself but she didn't like that idea and sent them away. And today she's walking to town, meeting her friends for coffee and shopping. I've never seen her look better.

I'm not sure what makes her so tough. She was raised during WW2 when times were unimaginably tough although she has fond memories of the war. (I like to tell people she was in the Gestapo. She wasn't).

She hates organised religion. She actually reprimanded the hospital chaplain because he was talking about God to another patient within her earshot. However I think she believes in an afterlife.

I suspect her toughness is genetic. Her mother lived to be nearly 100 and was self sufficient to the end.

My lasting impression of all this is the medical care that she received free of charge. OK it's not really "free" as we pay for it through taxation. She worked and paid tax from the age of 14 to 60 so I guess that covers it. But even so, the treatment, scans, tests, intensive care and so on must have cost more than £200,000. There's no financial business case that justifies spending that much money to keep an 86 year old for a few more years. But we do and so we should. I won't hear a bad word against the NHS but I know it has faults. The staff were incredible and I saw nurses having to deal with very difficult and abusive patients.

At least my mother-in-law isn't abusive, although like many English people of her generation she reverts to an unintentional, casual racism which is funny and awful at the same time. A typical comment might be "That doctor was from India but he was very nice".

Anyway she's still with us. And we still haven't planned the funeral. I suspect mine will be happening before hers.

---

---

I've been asked to explain why we know good from bad. It's a long story. And quite dull. I will think of something less boring to post here later. Anyhoo...

Approximately 200,000 years ago, the process of evolution by natural selection resulted in a primate species emerging that was physically identical to its predecessors and contemporaries, but with a tiny difference in its DNA. This resulted in brain functions capable of taking many abilities that had evolved over millions of years to a spectacular new level of sophistication. These included reasoning, learning, explanation, language, emotions, knowledge sharing and many more. This species was homo sapiens and initially they lived in the same way as their predecessors, using their inherent morality to be successful and survive. We still observe this inherent morality in other primates as well as ourselves.

Natural selection ensures that behaviours which are successful become dominant, but that's an incredibly slow process. Homo sapiens were able to use reasoning to identify those behaviours and teach them to subsequent generations, and so small structured societies were formed with structured rules and explanations of the natural world. The knowledge gained by one generation wold be passed on to the next. As societies slowly increased in size over hundreds of thousands of years, so the rules of societies also evolved. As knowledge increased over time, so our explanations became more accurate. And so we fast forward to the present day, where we see a variety of societies with a variety of rules and beliefs, but we are still learning, still evolving our ideas, improving our knowledge.

So what of the principles which distinguish between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour which is what we call "morality"? These are are the same principles given above. Our inherent morality is determined by our emotions and in particular our empathy. We suffer when we cause suffering, we feel happy when we reduce suffering. These feelings, like all emotions, cannot be learned. That's why even if we just read stories of suffering and pain, we feel disgusted or angry. This inherent morality results in our general abhorrence of the obvious wrongness of killing, selfishness, stealing, etc. This inherent morality was identified in our distant past, the oldest descriptions of which is in ancient Buddhism and Hinduism. Note that the ancient philosophers didn't invent the rules of good and bad - they observed them and wrote down what they reasoned to be true. Selfishness, killing and stealing can have short term benefits, but are not sustainable. They are bad. By definition.

How do we know what is right and wrong? Well, because of inherent morality, we just "know". But because we are homo sapiens we can extend that inherent knowledge using reason and learning. Being good is therefore a combinations of what we emotionally feel (which governs the "big" moral questions) and what we learn (which has a more sophisticated influence, described later). It can be described in a nutshell as respecting people's rights, minimising suffering, and increasing happiness. The earliest known codification of this principle is in ancient Buddhism, but it appears over and over again in every written, human moral code, because it works and it makes sense.

Note that there are a minority of individuals who do not share the same emotional responses as the vast majority. We can consider this minority to be "abnormal" and neuroscience is explaining how this happens. Psychopaths are the most extreme examples. So from this point on, when I refer to "people" or "we" or "us" or whatever, I am referring to the "normal" people who from the vast majority of any society.

So, both our biological imperatives and society contribute to individual morality, and in any society the vast majority of individual moralities coincide and are common, thereby forming the basis of social morality, which gives further feedback to each individual's morality, and so on. The wellbeing of the individuals depends on the wellbeing of society, and vice versa, so they work together. Morality continues to evolve way beyond the obvious basics of killing and stealing, so that nuanced moral decisions on human rights, free speech, discrimination, safety, quality of life, punishment, justice, healthcare and so on gradually become enshrined in law as we learn more and more with each generation.

Slight diversion… I know Richard Dawkins is a pompous, po-faced, opinionated, individual when it comes to religion, but his explanations of genetics and evolution are superb. I recommend the book "The Selfish Gene" for a great explanation on why we act for the "greater good" without realising it. Anyway, back to the story…

The success of a society is compromised when the common morality is overruled by the will of a powerful few (a dictatorship). Even worse, the powerful few can indoctrinate people into believing bad things are good, typically by de-humanising their enemies. History shows that such societies result in suffering and natural selection results in such societies becoming extinct over time. The most successful societies are based on the common morality (democracies). This evolution is of course ongoing, and today we can see a whole range of societies, including dictatorships that are either doomed to failure or on the road to democracy. We see democracies with a range of political systems, some more successful than others so that democracy itself is still evolving. Various political systems come and go as we seek the best way to represent the common view of the people.

The reason dictatorships don't work is that the principle of common morality is removed because the morality of a powerful few takes over. And to become one one of the "powerful few" typically requires very bad behaviour. So it's extremely unlikely that a powerful few would be a group of good people whether they are atheists or theists. If a "powerful few" somehow take control of a democracy and its military and law enforcement, then it is no longer a democracy, and will eventually fall apart and become a democracy again. The transition from dictatorship to democracy is never smooth. Democracy cannot be created - it has to evolve. Fledgling democracies can fall apart spectacularly into dictatorships and then bounce back into democracy, perhaps several times, until democracy gets traction. And all of these transitions typically result in a lot of blood being shed. But the observed fact over thousands of years is that human society is naturally tending towards democracy.

A result of human morality is moral relativism. This is the term that describes the fact that although people agree on the basic inherent moral code described above, they can (and do) disagree on more subtle aspects of morality, so that 100% of morality can never be 100% absolute. Different cultures have different moral standards and they vary over time. Misconceptions about moral relativism include the idea that it advocates the tolerance of all behaviour regardless of how bad it is. Moral relativism is simply the observation that different moral or ethical frameworks can be seen in various historical and cultural circumstances. Some religious apologists equate an extreme form of moral relativism (there is no such thing as right and wrong) with atheism. Needless to say, hardly any person in their right mind thinks in that way. You don't need God to be good!

There are also religious apologists who advertise that they have an absolute definition of right and wrong, which is manifested in what they call "Scripture". This concept doesn't hold water because each person interprets Scripture according to what they feel is right and wrong and over time, Scripture has been (and still is) used as the basis for a range of contradictory moral judgements. This is not a criticism of Scripture - it is simply a demonstration that our interpretation (based on our emotions) overrules the words of Scripture that don't make moral sense to us, and confirms the words of Scripture that do make moral sense. That process happens all the time with everything we read and everything we are told. That's why religious apologists who disagree with each other, all agree that Scripture is absolute. It's absolute to them as individuals. When people are asked to write down a list of what is right and wrong, the vast majority produce the same list regardless of their backgrounds or religious belief or non-belief. We don't need that list in order to know right from wrong. The list comes from what we know is right and wrong, and what we've learned.

---

---

I was asked recently to provide a response to various statements by Ted Bundy (infamous psychopath, rapist, torturer, and serial killer, among other things) on morality. In particular, I was asked to comment from an atheist point of view and to provide a response “on moral grounds”.

Well, strictly speaking I'm not an atheist. But I will do my best to provide a response that does not require religion. It may have occurred to you, dear reader, that it's pointless to discuss morality with a serial killer and you'd be right! But I was asked, so here goes..."

---

Hello Ted

This is going to take a while. Let me start by describing the challenge I face. Then I will explain what you are, and why morality exists.

---

The Challenge

The problem I have in explaining morality to you is that it is impossible for you to comprehend the explanation.

Imagine that you have never been able to feel physical pain because of congenital analgesia. It's a very dangerous condition. You can literally eat your own tongue, break bones or contract infections and not realise. You put your hand in a fire, or stab your leg with a knife, and you feel nothing at all. You will likely die young because pain plays an important role in avoiding harm. Now imagine – how would you explain the sensation of pain to a person who has never felt pain?

This is the challenge I have. How do I explain having a conscious, or having empathy, or morality, to someone who has no capacity to feel these emotions?

You're smart enough to know the definitions of the words “right” and “wrong” because you've been well educated , and you've read about morality, and you've been told what good behaviour looks like and what bad behaviour looks like. But you only “know” these concepts in terms of the behaviour that represents good and bad – you are aware of them as cultural conventions, but that's it. So you know how to behave in a way that appears to be good – but you don't feel it. You can '”act” good if it suits you. But it's just an act. You don't - and can't – mean to be good because you have no idea how it feels to be good.

Put yourself in my place Ted – how would you explain why a joke is funny to someone who has no sense of humour, or sadness to someone who can't feel sad, or love to someone who can't feel love?

It's an impossible task, because you are lacking that mental capacity. So the best we can do is explain why your lack of conscience is so extremely dangerous, and so “bad”. Let's turn our attention to what you are...

---

What are you?

You are, in your own way, very special. You have no conscious, no empathy, no guilt. That is very, very rare. Approximately 0.5% of human beings have a condition similar to yours, and only a very small number of individuals come close to the extreme condition you have.

You are a psychopath. This means, among other things, that you are unable to respond to other people’s emotion. You are abnormal. That's not supposed to sound insulting. It just means that you deviate from what is normal. The vast majority of people have the emotions that you lack, and it's those emotions that make them good, and make you bad.

When a mentally healthy child has concepts of right and wrong explained to them, it makes sense to them, subconsciously. It resonates. It sinks in, because the child has an area of the brain ready and waiting to process that information. It has the hardware ready to run that software, if you like. When a mentally healthy person does good, they automatically feel good about it emotionally. When a mentally healthy person does bad, they automatically feel bad about it emotionally. They have a conscious, guilt and empathy and an area in the brain that makes those things happen. You understand evolutionary theory I'm sure, so you can understand why the good attributes outnumber the bad.

What makes you especially dangerous is that you have a high level of intelligence and reasoning, Normal people have their behaviour influenced and moderated by their emotions, whereas you don't.

We can learn a lot from damaged brains. Your brain Ted, is damaged in a very dangerous way because you have the mental faculties to act as if you are a normal person even though you are dangerously abnormal. The cruel thing about brain damage is that it often prevents you from understanding that your brain is damaged. You “feel” normal. You don't feel ill or abnormal. But you really are.

Apart from your lack of conscience and empathy, you have a perfectly functioning mind. You have good memory, excellent language skills, a normal attention span and a high IQ. You have impeccable logic and reasoning abilities. .

So what’s gone wrong in you brain? Well, morality is a function of the mind, and the mind is a combination of brain functions. You are brain damaged. And it's the emotional part of your brain that is damaged, and that is what makes you so terribly dangerous to society. I could give you a demonstration Ted, but you don't need it because you've killed so many people and watched them die. But here goes.

If a normal person watches a video (staged of course) of a stranger being hurt or tortured, they automatically generate a visceral, emotional reaction. Their hands start to sweat, and their blood pressure increases rapidly. But you Ted, you feel nothing. Never mind watching videos – you have watched your victims die in real life, and felt nothing.

Normal people don't just react emotionally to scenes on video. Even certain words like “kill” or “rape” will raise emotional levels in people – but not you. All words are equivalent to you. In fact, the more violent you get, the calmer you become. Violence actually reduces your blood pressure. Your acts of horrific violence have a calming effect on you. You know that obviously, but you can't appreciate how bizarre and wrong that sounds to a normal person.

Now Ted – you were executed in the 1980s. So you're dead now, but you'll have to trust me that in the year 2013, we can literally see what's happening inside the brain. For example, if a normal person sees an image of a frightened face, the emotional areas of the their brain show increased levels of electrical activation. So do the cortical areas responsible for recognising faces. So in the mind of a normal person, a frightened face becomes a frightening sight; Normal people naturally internalise the feelings of other people. You can't even imagine that feeling. A major advantage in our evolutionary development. But more on that later.

In your brain Ted, the response to a frightened face is just a lack of interest. The emotional areas of your brain are unperturbed, and your facial recognition system is less interested in fearful faces than in a perfectly blank face. Your brain is bored by expressions of terror.

So here in the 21st century, 25 years after you were executed, we can see the part of your brain that's broken. It's called the amygdala, and it's the area of the brain responsible for rendering the “aversive” emotions, such as fear and anxiety.
When a normal person makes someone else feel bad, they feel bad. But not you Ted. You don't feel bad even when you terrify and torture other people. Aggression doesn’t make you nervous. Terror isn’t terrifying to you.

A normal person has their amygdala activated even if they just think about doing something wrong - are you getting some idea now Ted of just how far away you are from normal?

There's another side to your problem. A normal person will learn from bad experiences. But you can't. Because in your mind, there is nothing inherently wrong with violence. If someone like you is released from prison, they are pretty much guaranteed to commit a crime. Hurting other people is just a way to get what you want. It seems perfectly reasonable to you.

What makes you evil Ted is not your lack of rationality – you have no shortage of rationality – what makes you evil is your lack of emotions. It makes the most basic moral concepts totally incomprehensible to you.

So now we get to the heart of the challenge – explaining morality to someone incapable of feeling morality...

---

Why morality exists and why it's important

Let's consider how to demonstrate that you're insane (or not). In the 1980s, the general assumption was that it was the rational brain that determined right from wrong. You would be spared prison if you could demonstrate a “defect in rationality” and therefore be declared legally insane. If you can’t reason, then you shouldn’t be punished.

Now of course, reason is an important factor. If we look at the course of human history, we see morality evolving, very slowly. But there is an undeniable trend towards greater justice. This isn’t because we’ve evolved a new set of emotions, but because we now apply our conscious feelings and empathy to a much wider population. Normal human beings have deep moral instincts (you don't). Those morals evolve in our social and cultural environments. Then, after all that, we reason about them. You can reason, but you can't control your emotions, and most of our moral actions are controlled by emotion and not reason.

In the modern world, we apply our moral emotions not just to people who look like us, or who are part of our tiny tribe. The trend we see across our history is that towards a world where everyone deserves our sympathy. Even you Ted! But – you don't know what sympathy feels like – so again i'm wasting my words.

So let's return to the original question that was posed such a long time ago. How do I respond to you on “moral grounds” without referring to religion?

Well, I've spent a long time explaining the “software” and “hardware” of human morality and how your morality is broken because your brain is broken. But you don't really know what morality feels like, so let's try another approach.

We started by saying that you are part of a very, very small minority. There really are hardly any people like you either living today or in the past. Why is that? Well, imagine a species where the majority lack the same emotions as you. Cruelty and violence would be “normal” and that species would become extinct very quickly. So a species where most people have the emotions we've discussed, will avoid violence and cruelty and will empathise with people who are frightened or in trouble. And will therefore be successful and increase its population because those emotions give a big advantage and those emotions are attractive to most people. And that's what happened with homo sapiens.

So if you want to know you are considered to be “bad” – there are two factors.

Firstly, your behaviour is not beneficial to the the human species. That's why nature results in you being in a very small minority. Now, being in a minority is not bad in itself. We can survive as a species with any number of minorities and minorities can make significant contributions to societies. For example, some people are unable to have children. If everyone was like that, we would be extinct - but that minority don't do harm and they are obviously capable of caring for children and benefiting society in many ways, even if they can't have their own children. So that brings us on to the second factor...

The reason you are considered to be bad is because you cause harm. That's obviously not beneficial – but in addition – your behaviour makes a negative contribution to society. It destroys. It results in suffering and fear. It creates extreme negative emotions in your victims. When normal people think about what you've done, they experience negative emotions of disgust and fear because you'd do those things to them if you had the opportunity, against their will.

It doesn't matter what explanations you are given – religious or otherwise. You are rational and clever and you will understand the concepts. But you will never have the feelings that you need to be good because you don't have the physical part of the brain that are required. So, Ted, you were always going to be a very, dangerous person. And there's nothing you could really have done about it, which is why people with your condition need to be removed from society as soon as possible. I don't support execution, which is what happened to you. But it's true to say the world is safer without you in it.

Perhaps one day we will be able to cure psychopathy using brain surgery. And that raises a whole new moral dilemma. But obviously, there's no point discussing moral dilemmas with you!

---

---

So as I lie on my recliner in the sun (with cloudy intervals) sipping my iced cappuccino (home made) with my iPhone keeping me connected to cyberspace and Jazz FM on the radio, I can't help noticing how the buddleia are absolutely covered in bees and butterflies. And I mean covered. In fact so are most of the flowers in the garden. They are literally crawling with bees. I haven't seen so many in this garden in at least 20 years.

But hardly any birds.

Are there more butterflies and bees because there are fewer birds to eat them?

Why are there fewer birds in our garden? Is it our chickens that put them off? Or do birds just keep a low profile in summer?

These are just some of the deep and meaningful questions that I am pondering today.

---

---

I'm told there's a competition running for the best blog on Goldtoken.

I expect some people will try and win votes simply by including pictures of cute children and animals.

Well you won't find me trying to steal votes like that.


{ Image: tinyurl.com/ptzlkjc }

---

---

We're having a heatwave in London. People are complaining.

Not me, I love it. The temperature is in the 80s. It's not exactly the Sahara. We love complaining about the weather here in the UK, but that's because it's usually wet and miserable. But this hot weather is fantastic! Sitting in the garden every evening with a cold drink and some music... I sometimes wonder if human beings have arrived here from another planet where it's always 68 degrees because that seems to be the only temperature most people are comfortable in.

Anyway, here are two people who were in my garden today and they are definitely not complaining about the weather...

{ Image: tinyurl.com/prq2eb7 }

---

---

We are very lucky to have a safari park within driving distance - it's certainly a lot easier than going to Kenya. My grandchildren love it there.

It's a wonderful way to learn about evolution...

{ Image: tinyurl.com/nzqoclk }	{ Image: tinyurl.com/njhk6de }
30,000,000 BC	2013 AD

---

---

{ Image: tinyurl.com/pmgjh3a }

{ Image: tinyurl.com/pw3f83q }

I love the atmosphere of old churches and cathedrals and I often visit them. Last month I had the opportunity to spend time in one of the finest cathedrals as my youngest child has recently graduated from one of Britain's oldest universities. The graduation ceremony was in the cathedral which is over 900 years old and the site of ancient and holy relics from the earliest days of Christianity in England.

During the ceremony I could literally feel the centuries of spirituality and history. I was struck by the antiquity of the tons of carefully crafted stone, the huge stained glass windows, the interred bishops and saints going back to 1000AD, the powerful music from the church organ and choir, the ancient vestments and robes of the professors... all acting as a backdrop to the fresh-faced youth of the graduands, who don't have a care in the world. (Except maybe for some of the girls who had to negotiate slippery, wet cobbled streets in high heels).

Added to the mixture of feelings was pride in my daughter's achievement, (indeed the achievments of all my children), the realisation that this was the last of my children to reach this milestone and that my baby will soon be heading off to Quebec for the next chapter in her life. (Her mother considers this to be the equivalent of living on the moon). I was reminded of my own mortality as I realised that this ceremony, in this building, will be going on a long, long time after I'm gone. And not least, I was reminded of Hogwarts. I'm sure I saw Dumbledore in the beer tent outside...

---

---

Debating Creationism can get tricky when Creationists, er... "create" terminology that is not found in any text book or dictionary. This can strangle a conversation because it's difficult to respond to a statement when its meaning is unclear.

I've developed a glossary which I find helpful. This enables me to translate the language of Creationists into plain (or plainer) English. Yes it's a very dull blog entry! But it's helpful for me

Creationese	English
Mindless mechanistic <noun>	Natural <noun>
That which does not appear to be guided by intelligence	Natural process
Non-intelligent mechanistic force	Force
Force which does not appear to be guided by intelligence	Force
Applied intelligence	Conscious action
A specific aspect of reality not recognized by those who would negate such	Theory
New dimension of reality	Reality
Intelligent force	Intelligent being
Pre-existent intelligent force	Creator(s) of our universe
A force guided by an intelligent being	Conscious action
Hyper-intelligent force	God
Ultimate creative force	God
Intelligent force pre-existing the creation of our universe	God
Intelligent force greater than that which we manifest	God
The creative force that is the first cause	God
An intelligent guiding force	God
Spiritual forces	God
Intelligence greater than we manifest	God
Hyper intelligence	God
Mindless	Natural
Intelligent dynamics	Consequence of a conscious action
Processes well beyond what might be observable	Speculation
Non-intelligent dynamics	Action resulting from a force
The dimension of reality that includes intelligence	Reality
Higher moral frame of reference	The Bible
Atheist society	Communist totalitarian dictatorship
End subscription of a point of view	Conclusion
Bitter and twisted	Non-Christian
Steps that lead to the end subscription of a point of view	Premises
Processes apparently not guided by intelligence	Natural processes
That which does not appear to be guided by an intelligent force	Natural
Consequence of action(s) guided by an intelligent force	Consequence
Action resulting from a force presumed not to be guided by intelligence	Action
Any ultimate reference regarding morality from any religious viewpoint that defines and subscribes to such	Stories about gods
Any society which subscribes to and promotes state atheism	Totalitarian dictatorship
An emphasis on offering reasoning on a step by step basis.	Argument
A force that operates due to some cause or another	Force
Operative force	Energy
Reality in its totality beyond limited purviews	Reality
Unfalsifiable opinions offered in the name of science	Unfalsifiable opinions
An understanding of the progression of God's revelations to God's people over time, and the progression of their understanding of His will and character.	Apologetics
Model of reality often ignored by those who only believe in a reality that is not guided by intelligent forces	Model of reality
That aspect of reality not accounted for by the limited human tools of physics and chemistry	Biology
A force that results in the creation of something	Conscious action
Realm not necessarily limited by physical creation	Universe
Agenda	Opinion
Salvation History	Stories about the Christian God
Misdirect	Ask awkward questions
Realm	Universe
Realm revealed by intelligence	Model of reality
Non-intelligent processes	Natural processes
Creative force	Conscious action
Dynamics	Forces
Bitter and biased	Non-Christian
Honest	Christian
Physical reality	Reality
The limited purview of science and its processes	Science
Another dimension unreachable through the limited human tools of of physics and chemistry	Supernatural
The limited human tool of mechanistic, scientific processes	Science
Overall responsibility as a dynamic factor	Input
Processes on a macro scale	Observable processes
Limited purview of the limited human tools of "science" and "rationality"	Reason
Reality beyond the purview of science and mathematics	Reality
Manifest reality beyond the scientific purview	Reality
Scientific opinions that will forever be "unfalsifiable"	Unfalsifiable opinions
Something beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.	The supernatural
A spiritual dimension to existence	Spirituality

---

---

{ Image: www.humanbrainproject.eu/template/images/illustrations/in_brief.jpg }

The psychiatrists where I work don't like comparisons between the brain and computers. They are right to reject such comparisons because computers don't learn, and the brain performs billions of calculations in a massively parallel way that computers can't. Plus, the brain performs these transactions across miles of fibres in the brain, using less power than a light bulb.

But all that is on the verge of changing thanks to initiatives such as the Human Brain Project. This is a billion dollar project (anyone out there remember the film Billion Dollar Brain?!) to recreate the human brain using computer power.

Not only will this have a huge benefit in medicine and the treatment of brain diseases, it will also enable research into the mind that was never possible before. And it's a two way process - it will benefit computer science by leading to the development of a new generation of computers that are so far beyond what we have today it's hard to imagine. This will revolutionise business and everyday life.

This video explains it all. It's over 7 minutes long, but quite interesting, and features scientists with funny accents...

http://vimeo.com/humanbrainproject/overview

---

---

The concept of a Brain Computer Interface (BCI) is not new - they have already been used to enable paralysed people to control artificial limbs just by using thought (in the same way that we control our limbs normally). This gives freedom to people suffering from "locked in syndrome" and motor neurone disease. Victims of these diseases used to be considered as "vegetables" until it was discovered that electro-chemical brain activity could be analysed to determine what the brain is thinking, and now we can translate that brain activity into physical activity, which the patient's body denies them.

A new development is the application of BCI to translate human thoughts into ways of communication, including art.

Heide Pfutzner was a teacher in Germany who was paralysed after developing Lou Gehrig's Disease. All she could move were her eyes. BCI now enables her to create paintings, just by using her thoughts. A computer translates her thoughts of colours, brushes and shapes into images.

{ Image: www.dradio.de/images/85849/landscape/ }	{ Image: images.essentialkids.com.au/2013/05/26/4439474/nw-wd-painting-20130526210257503026-620x349.jpg }
A Brainpainting of Flowers	The artist: Heide Pfutzner

Currently, the brain's activity is detected by means of a skullcap which contains electrodes. This reduces the resolution of the signals. The next development will be to implant electrodes into the brain to enable high resolution data capture and far more accurate analysis of the brain's activity. Eventually, we will have technology to read every thought.

...which is quite a thought...

---

---

More and more patients where I work are being referred from jails when it becomes apparent that prison can't help them due to mental illness.

What I've noticed recently is peoples' attitudes to patients with mental illness who have committed crime. And I don't just mean the attitude of lay people - this also includes staff working in mental health.

There are staff who have to deal with violent and unpredictable patients on a daily basis, and they do so professionally. It's an incredibly difficult job. But when a patient also has a criminal record, some staff will treat that patient differently to a patient with the same symptoms who has no criminal record. There's an argument that staff shouldn't be told about a patient's criminal past but it's impossible to keep that secret, and probably wrong to do so anyway.

There is also an attitude towards patients based on the type of crime. A prison in London recently introduced a scheme to rehabilitate inmates by involving them in starting up their own business, making sandwiches which would be sold to local office workers.

The customers were told where the sandwiches had come from. There is no secret the sandwiches were made by prison inmates. One of the customers said he would buy a sandwich "but not if it was made by paedophiles" . Where is the logic here? Why is a sandwich made by a serial killer or a rapist (or a poisoner) somehow better than a sandwich made by a paedophile?

There's a much deeper moral question in here too. Forensic psychiatry is an interesting discipline, and it open up all kinds of moral dilemmas. What would happen if we discover that no one can really be held responsible for their actions - it's our brains that are to blame - not us? But our brains are us - aren't they? What if we can prevent criminal behaviour by "repairing" the brain using surgery or chemicals? Sounds like some horrible nazi experiment. It just sounds wrong. If I had an uncontrollable criminal tendency, which could be safely removed by surgery, would I opt for it? I think I would...

...but what if my ability to make that choice was compromised because of my mental illness?

---

---

My favourite TV show of all time is probably Columbo. Or possibly the Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett. Or Red Dwarf, or Peep Show. Or maybe Dexter. But then there's Fawlty Towers, Monty Python...

{ Image: www.folkbladet.se/img/2011/6/26/5688607.jpg }

...anyway Columbo is one of my favourite TV shows. I love the formula: We see a murder, we know who did it, and then we watch Columbo solve the crime in his bumbling, shabby style, a style that always works to his advantage as the murderer gets a false sense of security.

We rarely see him back at the precinct or in his office or arguing with superiors.

He drives a Peugeot 403 convertible - I had no idea anyone in America ever drove a Peugeot. And even better - I own a Peugeot convertible! (But not a 1955 model, sadly).

One reason to love the 21st Century is that every TV show ever made is available on satellite or cable or internet. And Columbo is on every week right now. Through the magic of Sky+ I can record them all and watch them at my leisure. And fast forward over the ads.

I'm also convinced some scenes in Columbo are improvised. I haven't done any research on this subject, but it just has that feel. There are some incidental scenes that are pure comedy, and the actors seem to be riffing.

so I say Columbo is unique. There's nothing else like it. In my opinion.

---

---

My wife's side of the family includes a small group of Christian evangelicals who live in California. Very nice people, obviously, and they take their religion very seriously, tuned in to Christian TV and radio stations constantly whenever I visit. Possibly just to annoy me! But we always have fun.

An elderly member of the family (let's call her Joan) was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer, and given about 12 months to live. Her religion and the religious community around her would be a great comfort in that kind of situation, at least that's what I assumed.

I've always been close to Joan even though I am not religious at all. And she knows I am not religious, but we didn't discuss religion so it's never been relevant. However, after her diagnosis she started to email me more often than usual.

She told me that her doctors had suggested chemotherapy to treat her cancer, but she had been told this was part of a money making conspiracy by insurance companies, and that there were more effective treatments that doctors deliberately dismissed. She told me she had signed up for some kind of treatment based on massive doses of vitamin C. She had done the research and the results were impressive. And it would cost her about $3,000.

This sounded like a complete fraud to me. The human body can't absorb large amounts of vitamin C so this "treatment" would literally go in one end and straight out the other. But one must never underestimate the placebo effect. If she believed this treatment would work, it's possible it could have a benefit. Mind over matter, if you like. But actually curing cancer in this way - well that seems unlikely to me.

I didn't tell her any of this. We spoke on the phone, and she was so convinced this was a miracle cure, and combined with her religious faith, she was so positive about a good outcome, I felt it could do her harm if I argued against it. So I was positive, but I did advise her to keep in touch with her doctors and at least consider their advice, to have as many options as possible. She suggested we should meet in August. She was very enthusiastic about this. Well - according to her doctor she'd be dead by then - but nevertheless I was also enthusiastic about meeting. I have seen several examples where someone can prolong their life by having something to look forward to.

Then she began emailing me about my religious views, and my opinion of the afterlife. This surprised me. She knows I don't believe in gods or life after death. So why ask me for my opinion? So I gave an honest answer which was that regardless of what I believe, it's impossible to know anything for sure. I could be wrong. Maybe Christianity is true, Maybe Hinduism is true, maybe all religions are wrong and all atheists are wrong and the truth is more wonderful than any living person will ever know. But I was very careful not to dismiss her faith when she needed it most and to be as upbeat as she was.

This exchange went on for a few days. Perhaps she wanted me to engage me in a religious debate so she could reinforce her belief by winning the argument. But I wasn't arguing. Maybe she didn't expect me to agree that her belief could be right and mine could be wrong. Perhaps she wanted me to eliminate any reference to uncertainty. But my honest opinion is that anything is possible.

(As an aside - Joan's older sister is 86 and has never been afraid to tell her younger sister that religion is hokum. But that's another story.)

I spoke to Joan again recently. The alternative treatment isn't working, and she only has a few weeks to live. She won't talk to us on Skype because she doesn't want us to see how her appearance has deteriorated.

I've spoken to many palliative care and hospice nurses in my time who tell me that the most religious patients are often the most frightened at the end of their lives. I'm not sure why this is. Perhaps that's what's happening to Joan. But at least I know she is surrounded by a loving and caring family, which is the most important thing.

---

---

I've been exploring Vienna with the current Mrs JimC and am delighted to report that I have discovered my favourite cafe in the world.

Strictly speaking, I think it is a "coffee house". It is called Eiles and it is in the old part of the city near the City hall. And as with all good discoveries, we stumbled on it by accident as we had a few hours to kill before heading to the airport . It's an impressive looking building near to our hotel and we'd walked past it several times. as we entered it was like going back in time 100 years, with Imperial decor, marble fireplaces, fancy ironwork tables, antiques, chandeliers, and bohemian customers, some in fur coats, some speaking Russian. This is where cold war spies would arrange to meet. I imagine. Or perhaps Sherlock Holmes would drink tea as he spied on Moriarty.

We sat down and twenty minutes later, there was still no sign of a waiter. Some people had actually walked in, sat down, and then left. People in a hurry. Tourists probably. We were trying to kill three hours so it wasn't a problem. An elderly couple near us were trying to attract attention so they could pay the bill. But no luck.

After half an hour, a waiter shuffled over to the table. He was dressed in the classic European style with a white apron, and he was the scruffiest waiter I've ever seen. He was also miserable, slow and deliberately unhelpful. I loved him. We ordered two coffees and he disappeared with a grunt. The couple next to us gave up trying to pay the bill and just left cash on the table.

Time passed by and still no sign of any coffee. But that wasn't a problem. Studying the other customers, who I assume must be locals, it seems they go there to read books, or write, or read the newspapers supplied by the cafe. This is the Starbucks of the 19th century. They probably sit in there all day, drinking a coffee every 2 or 3 hours.

After we'd been sitting for an hour, the waiter arrives with the coffee, and ambles off again ignoring the American couple near us who were waving at him as they wanted to try the local sachertorte.

I googled the cafe on my iPhone and discovered - to my delight - that the Eiles Coffee House was well known to travellers to Vienna and the waiter is actually a minor internet celebrity due to his total lack of customer service. I also read several reviews warning visitors to avoid the cakes and pastries which are either dry or generally disgusting. This instantly made it the highlight of my trip. I couldn't help wondering how a place like this stays in business.

After three hours it was time for us to head to the airport. No sign of the waiter obviously, so I left 10 Euros on the table which covered the coffee and a tip. Yes, I think he deserved a tip. As we were leaving he appeared from nowhere, transformed into a smiling and friendly uncle. Maybe he was pleased we were leaving. It was at this point I noticed the other side of the cafe was serviced by the world's busiest waitress, rushing around like a fly. So if you want some speedy service, that's where to sit. But I recommend you don't go there if you are in a hurry.

{ Image: pbs.twimg.com/media/A-URl1nCUAEp9pE.jpg:large }

Spot the waiter

---

---

When some people look at a flower, they see the work of God. I know what they mean. I share their sense of awe and wonder when I look at flowers, or galaxies, or just about anything nature has to offer. But I don't see God. I see billions of years of evolution, with unamiginable complexity arising naturally from absolutely nothing, one tiny step after another.

It's human nature to assume that anything with a purpose or pattern has been designed. Flowers have the appearance of design. Everything has. But scientific discoveries during the last 150 years have shown that reality is very different to our intuitive assumptions. In particular, we can't assume that something is designed, because our emotions tell us it must be designed.

One of the most spectacular examples is a form of geometry known as fractals, and in particular the Mandelbrot Set. This is a very simple equation discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot in the 1970s and it looks like this...

{ Image: tinyurl.com/btfv8q5 }

...where Z is a complex number.

It's not possible for the human mind to visualise this iterative equation. But a computer can. And an incredible aspect of these shapes is that we can keep zooming in to see more and more detail. In fact there's no limit to how far we can zoom in - it goes on forever. Here are three images which show: The basic Mandelbrot set, an image of what we see if we zoom in to the detail, and a 3-D version of theequation...

{ Image: pbs.twimg.com/media/A9RpoaTCYAA4QqT.jpg:large }


The implications of this are quite amazing.

- These shapes have the appeaance of design but they are not designed. They are described by a mathemetical equation.

- The equation was not designed. It was discovered. If human beings never existed, the geometry of Mandelbrot shapes, circles, triangles and everything that mathemetics describes, would still exist.

- Shapes in nature, such as coastlines, lungs, mountains, shells, trees, coral, etc. can be defined by fractal equations.

- Human beings discover mathemetical relationships in the same way that they discovered new countries.

- Mathemetics and science reveal aspects of reality that are beyond our senses, beyond our imagination. We can't visualise what the mandelbrot equation looks like in our minds. But a computer can. Does that mean a computer has a mind?

So many attributes of reality have been revealed by mathematics that at least one cosmologist has suggested that mathematics is reality. That's a mind-blowing idea. I suppose if I was religions, I'd say God created mathematics, and everything else just happened.

Anyway, if you want to see some more incredible fractal images, go here...
http://soler7.com/Fractals/3D1.html

---

---

Don't panic - I haven't turned to religion. But it's a phrase that comes to mind whenever I see someone in a bad situation that could just as easily have been me,

The thought crossed my mind on Saturday when I was chatting with a patient who I shall refer to as Bob. He's about my age, with a wife and a grown up family, and a grandchild. Just like me. His education and professional life were similar to mine.

The only difference between us is that 10 years ago, he fell down the stairs at home and cracked his head. And I didn't. He became a completely different person, unable to care for his family, unable to remember important things. He can't go anywhere alone, in case he forgets how to get back.

Despite all this, he's generally happy and content. He has decorated his from at the hospital nicely, and has reminders and photographs of his family. He recently went into the city - sightseeing with his family, and happily discusses his great day out. His medication results in weight gain but he tells me how he's lost 20 lbs by cutting out cream cakes and eating fruit instead. We discuss what's in the newspapers (nothing good). We have a nice chat like two old friends.

Out of the blue he stops a passing nurse and asks how long he's been at the hospital. "Nine years" she says, and hurries on.

Bob is devastated. "Nine years? I've lost nine years of my life? Really? Nine years?" and he was visibly shaken and upset.

This is one of the cruel effects of brain injury. On most days, Bob would be fully aware how long he'd been institutionalised. But today, he'd forgotten, and was imagining that he'd only been here for a short time. And the sudden realisation was too much to bear. As I started to console him another patient, Peter, wanders over and counsels Bob in his own way. "Hey - you haven't lost nine years of your life. You could have died, but you didn't. You're alive and you have a good time most days, so shut up. You're alright." This is swiftly followed with a hug, and all is well again.

I happen to know that Peter has been institutionalised for 40 years, since he was 9 years old, when a seemingly simple gum infection spread to his brain. And I know he's suffered at the hands of uncaring people in other institutions for many years before he came to us. Yes, Peter is also brain damaged, but like many over patients he is lucid most of the time and knows what he's talking about (when he's not trying to set fire to himself or drink shampoo).

Within 10 minutes normality (sort of) is restored and Bob and I are listening to Peter's latest opera CD purchase. But the thought crosses my mind again… it could just as easily be me.

---

---

{ Image: www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/features/get_together/remembrance_day/images/poppy_generic_270.jpg }

Just like millions of other people in the UK, I wear a poppy at this time of year as a symbol of respect for those who lost their lives in wars both past and present. It originates from the poppies that grew where millions of young men died in the killing fields of France and Belgium in the First World War. It's one of the only plants that grew in the barren land when the fighting had stopped.

Remembrance day is the 11th of November, the date WW1 ended. Remembrance Sunday sees the laying of wreaths at memorials across he country, and the Saturday before sees the annual Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall, which concludes with members from every military service standing in complete silence as millions of poppy leaves fall from above. I've seen this event many, many times, and it never fails to move me. At the same time, I can't help wondering about the motives of politicians, monarchy and church leaders who play a role in these events. Their concern and mourning seems false to me when I consider how they initiate and sanctify military action for political reasons, resulting in so many people being killed and maimed.

{ Image: pbs.twimg.com/media/A7z9hFNCAAAbymH.jpg }

The phrase that is often repeated at this time of year is "Lest We Forget" and that, to me, is the key message. Our generation and all future generations must never be allowed to forget the sacrifices made in conflicts. But more importantly in my opinion, they should never forget the causes of the conflicts and they should never forget how young people have been used as cannon fodder - literally.

---

---

Today I received a phone call from my wife while I was a work. She was so distraught she could hardly speak. I assumed someone must have died. Perhaps my mother-in-law. That was my first thought. But no, she's fine.

My wife was hysterical because a sapphire ring which had been in my family for several generations had gone missing. To be precise, it was lost. To be more precise, it had been thrown away in the garbage. To be very precise, my wife had thrown away what she thought was an empty, broken jewellery box into a garbage bag which I had then taken to the dump, two weeks ago. Turns out the box was not empty.

I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. It's just a possession, a thing. It was worth maybe one or two grand, but it's covered by insurance so money isn't the problem. OK - I understand the sentimental value. But I preserve my family through memories, not objects.

Twelve hours later and she's still sobbing. I suppose she feels guilty, and stupid. And so would I in her position. She says she has let me down. I explained to her that it's a sign she is going senile. Then I had to explain I was joking.

She doesn't understand why I'm not upset. But I'm really not. In any case, it's useful ammunition for me if I ever lose anything important in the future. If she starts to get angry with me, I can just point to my ring finger.

---

{ Image: www.all-eyes.co.uk/images/spectacles.png }

The 16th century theologian John Calvin (founder of Calvinism) once said that The Bible is like a pair of spectacles, which enable us to interpret the world properly and clearly. He was partly right. Our beliefs are like a pair of spectacles, and as we look through these spectacles at the world around us, they create our "world view". But he assumed that his spectacles were the only ones available. He did not realise that everyone has a pair of spectacles, and there's no guarantee that his are the best.

Our belief spectacles give us our world view which is a map that we use to navigate through life. It's impossible not to have a world view - it's a basic function of our brains to create this map. We couldn't survive without it. What's interesting is that everyone has a unique pair of spectacles. So we need a worldview to function, but we don't all need the same world view.

This idea of belief spectacles makes religious debates easier to understand. The religious person sees the world through their glasses, the non-religious person sees something different with their glasses. They each wonder why everyone doesn't see what they see. Perhaps they should try to swap their spectacles, just for a while.

Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. And there are extreme examples related to mental illness. Cotard's syndrome is a condition where a person believes they are dead or do not exist. That belief provides the spectacles through which they interpret the world. Here is the description of a patient who suffered physical brain injury after a motorcycle accident:

His symptoms occurred in the context of more general feelings of unreality and being dead. In January 1990, after his discharge from hospital in Edinburgh, his mother took him to South Africa. He was convinced that he had been taken to hell (which was confirmed by the heat), and that he had died of septicaemia (which had been a risk early in his recovery), or perhaps from AIDS (he had read a story in The Scotsman about someone with AIDS who died from septicaemia), or from an overdose of a yellow fever injection. He thought he had "borrowed my mother's spirit to show me round hell", and that she was asleep in Scotland.

That's what his spectacles of belief were telling him, and he just couldn't take them off. There's another widely quoted example, which may be apocryphal, but explains why people will come up with illogical and convoluted explanations for what they believe, instead of changing their beliefs...

A patient refused to eat because he believed that he was a corpse. After spending months trying to convince the patient that he wasn’t a corpse, the psychiatrist finally asked him if corpses bled. The patient said he didn’t believe they did, so the psychiatrist asked him to participate in an experiment that involved pricking the patient with a pin. The patient started to bleed, and in astonishment said, “Wow... so corpses do bleed after all...”

---

Case study
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=100699

---

---

The big story in the UK right now is Jimmy Savile. In case you don't know, Savile was a high profile, popular, TV and radio celebrity from the 60s through to the 90s who also raised millions for charity. The target audience for his TV shows were young teens, he travelled the country with a roadshow aimed at young teens, he worked tirelessly as a volunteer for hospitals with young teens, at mental health institutions with vulnerable young teens... (you may have spotted a pattern by now). During his lifetime he was honoured and knighted, and the tributes flooded in when he died last year. And that's when the rumours that had been circulating for years became public.

It now transpires he was the most prolific abuser of children and young teenagers this country has ever known. He got away with it by targeting children who no one would believe if they accused him, by being friendly with the famous and powerful (including the royal family and prime minister) and by creating a high profile "wacky" public persona of someone who was asexual and eccentric and would never do such a thing. He even made jokes in public about having sex with youngsters on the basis that someone who did that kind of thing wouldn't make jokes about it. To coin a phrase, he hid in plain sight.

A famous criminal was once asked why he robbed banks. and he said, "because that's where the money is." And that's why certain people are attracted to professions where they can be in contact with vulnerable children or adults, whether it's a hospital, church, school or children's home.

I work in an organisation that cares for adults and adolescents with mental health issues, many of whom are vulnerable. We take safeguarding very seriously, and an independent team is specifically responsible for identifying the potential for abuse of patients, and investigating claims. If a teenager with a history of violence is being treated for their mental health problem, and they claim a member of staff with an impeccable record has abused them, who would you believe? Where I work, no assumptions are made and every report is investigated. Patients and visitors are encouraged to report any incident or suspicion. On at least one occasion, a visitor has uncovered an issue simply from observing the body language of a member of staff.

Obviously, there are many false accusations. It's an easy way for a patient to cause trouble, and many of our patients are inclined to cause trouble, which is why they are patients.

The important thing for staff is to never be in a situation where an accusation could stand up. Savile spent a lot of time unsupervised with vulnerable young people. It seems incredible, but everyone trusted him. That should never happen where I work. There should always be someone watching you, and someone watching someone watching you. But of course, that's not always possible.

Safeguarding has a negative side in that it assumes staff can't be trusted. Some staff can take this apparent distrust personally. But the benefits outweigh the negatives.

---

---

Had a great evening at a school reunion - first time most of us have met since we were 16 years old - about 35 years ago. And only one deceased so far.

What surprised me was how many of us were instantly recognisable despite having no hair and bigger bellies. But one guy in particular has literally not changed - he still looks 16. It is very spooky and we all remarked on it. But everyone still seemed to have the same personality. The geeks are still geeks and the jokers are still jokers.

And amazing how far people had travelled for the evening - from all over the country and even the USA. A few still live in the same town where we went to school. Sadly the school was demolished years ago. I can't believe it wasn't preserved as a site of special historical interest.

There are several events i remember from school which I had often assumed I'd imaged or exaggerated. So it was great to confirm with the boys that those things had really happened.

- Yes, Wally Wilkins really did squeeze into a filing cabinet drawer and surprise a teacher who opened it.

- Yes, Woody used to be sent by teachers to the local shop to buy their cigarettes because he looked 21 when he was 16.

- Yes, Oggy really did get 9 of us into his mini after a party.

- And yes to several other things that are best not mentioned.

I don't know if time erases bad memories and preserves the good ones, but none of us could recall anything bad.

[Cue theme tune from Happy days]

---

---

It's a sad fact that science learns more from damaged brains than from healthy ones. A damaged brain usually results in reduced abilities, enabling scientists to pinpoint areas of the brain responsible for specific functions. But in very rare cases, a brain injury results in enhanced capabilities. and this has potentially uncovered an astonishing secret of how the brain works. A handful of people have developed amazing talents and skills after brain injury. They are known as acquired savants. There are three famous cases:

Orlando Serrell who was struck on the head with a baseball when he was 10 years old, and soon afterwards realised he had developed an incredible memory and calculation skill. He can remember the weather for every day following the accident and can perform calendar calculations, such s the number of days between two dates and so on. He is labelled a genius. But he wasn't a genius until a baseball hit him on the head.

Derek Amato dived into a swimming pool and hit his head on the bottom. After a brief stay in hospital he discovered he had become a musical genius. He literally sat down at a piano and began to play to complex jazz and classical piano, as if he'd been playing all his life. But he'd never played the instrument before and has no musical training.

Alonzo Clemens suffered a head injury at the age of three which left him with an extremely low IQ, and at the same time a talent for creating amazingly detailed sculptures of animals in just a few minutes.

(You might want to google their names to read their stories in full). It's worth noting that these people have suffered unwelcome side effects in addition to their "genius" abilities, such as speech impediments or impaired hearing.

A similar phenomenon has been seen in patients who have degenerative brain disease and gain artistic abilities as their condition deteriorates but only if the brain degenerates in a limited way. So people with Alzheimer's for example don't show the savant abilities because Alzheimer's affects the entire brain. It's as if the brain can rewire its own hardware as long as there is plenty of "spare" hardware to use. It could be that savants are unlocking parts of the brain most of us don't usually have access to, but which we all possess.

Neuroscientists have now gone one step further and are trying to induce "genius" behaviour in healthy brains. This is done by replicating the patterns of damage but without permanently damaging the brain using a machine called the Medtronic Mag Pro

{ Image: www.medwow.com/med/transcranial-magnetic-stimulator/medtronic/magpro-compact/magpro-compact.mth31603_200_200.jpg }
The Genius Machine

The machine creates a series of electromagnetic pulses which are directed at the frontal lobes. Under laboratory conditions, volunteers who couldn't draw found their artistic skills improving within just a few minutes. It sounds like science fiction but it opens the way to a future where anyone can give themselves a burst of intelligence when they need it, from their portable "genius machines" .

It has also resulted in a new theory for "genetic memory". If someone can get a knock on the head and suddenly become a concert pianist, we know the "rules" for playing the piano haven't' been taught - they were already in the brain and were "unlocked". The only way they could have got there is genetically. This changes what we know about DNA - implying that DNA is capable of a lot more than first thought. It's possible that genes don't just pass on physical attributes they also pass on knowledge from one generation to another.

---

---

In case you were wondering, this is what you get when all 3 megapixels of an iPhone 3GS are aimed at the sun, at 8am.

{ Image: pbs.twimg.com/media/A3n2YBiCUAINcvN.jpg:large }

---

reporting from London Bridge.

---

What I love about my extended family is how weird they are.

My wife's side hail from a remote part of the UK and apart from my wife's mother and her sister, have never (and I mean literally never) travelled more than 50 miles from home. We had a big get together recently (in their village obviously) and as I looked around the table I saw:

- The cousin who lives in a shack in a forest and has 14 dogs (which I've seen, and they look like wolves to me). He tells me he had to shoot one recently. I didn't ask why. His arm is in a sling because another one of the "dogs" dragged him down a steep hill into a tree last week. Tragically, one of his sons was killed by a lawnmower a few years ago.

- The widow of a cousin who killed himself 10 years ago with no explanation and left no note. She has never recovered from this.

- The widow's teenage daughter who has suffered with anorexia for many years, perhaps understandably. Her boyfriend was also there, who I recognised as the shaven headed bass player in a once well known rock band. After secretly googling him on my iPhone to confirm his identity, I had a chat with him and yes, it was him.

- The cousin who never speaks to anyone other than his parents and is a gifted craftsman and furniture maker.

- Another cousin with her arm in a sling. Her name is Linda but everyone calls her Julie. She is allergic to potatoes and apparently allergic to anything cooked within a mile of a potato. Her husband also had his arm in a sling.

- Uncle Bob (whose real name I discovered recently is Roy), a local fishing champion.

- Aunt Jo (whose real name is Winifred). I wonder if all these name changes are part of a witness protection program or something.

- Several unidentified 2nd and 3rd cousins under the age of 6 who were running around and seemingly normal as far as I can tell.

My children find it hard to understand that they are related to these people, whilst I am not.

Missing from the party were Aunt Audrey who emigrated to California in the 1960s after interloping with an American airman based in the UK and who can blame her. (Again I recently found out her real name is Elizabeth). Due to some bizarre genetic mechanism, her daughter is the spitting image of my wife, which I find rather strange when we visit them.

My extended family are equally eccentric but at least they use their real names. They are fabulously wealthy for reasons I've never been able to determine, yet buy their clothes from charity shops and drive a small, ancient rusty car. Great uncle Charles died a long time ago. He was (in my young mind) identical to Winston Churchill and wore a black homburg hat that he never took off. He was an accomplished chess player and taught me to play when I was 5. Whenever he took a piece he'd throw it across the room. I remember being too scared to laugh because he was so serious.

The thing is, I absolutely love all these people and I can't get enough reunions and family events. There is never a dull moment. Life would be so boring if everyone was the same.

---

{ Image: psychsurvivor2.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/dbs.jpg }


Yesterday I was lucky enough to speak to Peter (not his real name). Peter was admitted many years ago with a severe depression and had attempted suicide several times. Speaking to people like Peter really brings home what a terrible illness depression can be. He lost his job and his wife had given up her job to care for him. Medication didn't help. Electric shock therapy didn't help. The breakthrough came with deep brain stimulation (DBS)

Within a few weeks he was able to do things that we take for granted but had been impossible for him: read books, go for walks, engage with his family. He can enjoy his grandchildren whereas previously he had no interest in them. He is now getting back to the world of work with help from a recovery scheme at our hospital.

DBS is truly extraordinary - it consists of inserting thin electrical wires directly into the brain through a hole in the skull. In Peter's case he was awake during the procedure with only local anaesthetic. This enables the effects to be tested and fine tuned during the operation, based on the patient's responses. The only scary thing, according to Peter, was having his head clamped and feeling the pressure as they tightened the bolts. (obviously it's not good for your head to move around during brain surgery).

Initially the wires were not quite in the right place, subjecting Peter to a range of feelings. This must be a very peculiar experience - to feel emotions or pain for no apparent reason. Imagine someone flicks a switch and you feel backache or start sweating with anxiety. They flick the switch again and you feel OK.

These wires are connected to a small box which is like a brain "pacemaker". Electrical stimulation from the box passes through the wires into the brain. The wires are inserted to affect the appropriate areas of the brain, depending on the patient's diagnosis. They can either stimulate or inhibit particular brain "circuits" which control emotions, pain, pleasure, and so on. Sometimes these are abnormally over active or not active enough.

DBS doesn't always work, and even when it does work the precise reasons are not fully understood. And there is a more drastic treatment available where the emotional circuits are physically burned away. But in any case, it shows how our abstract thoughts, feelings and emotions are the product of electrochemical and biological processes, which we are just beginning to understand.

The psychiatrist who is monitoring Peter explained to me that the treatment is also being used to treat Parkinson's disease. It's not a cure, but it greatly reduces the tremors, stiffness of limbs etc.

The history of DBS is fascinating, and in its early days it resembles an experiment that Frankenstein would have been pleased with. The excellent "How Stuff Works" website has a very comprehensive article on DBS
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/deep-brain-stimulation.htm

---

{ Image: www.fabu-licious.com/images/heart-Russian-Dolls-300.jpg }

Name	Description	Scale	Evidence	Notes
Atom	A basic unit of matter, consisting of a nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons.	One trillionth of a metre. There are 7 billion billion billion atoms in a human body	First postulated by the Ancient Greeks, the existence of the atom was proved 100 years ago and 10 years ago they were photographed using the PICO electron microscope	Atoms look like a solid ball of stuff but that's an illusion. An atom consists almost entirely of nothing at all.
Atomic nucleus	At the heart of an atom are protons and neutrons which form the nucleus.	The nucleus is 100,000 times smaller than the atom. If an atom was 10 miles across, the nucleus would be the size of a tennis ball.	Observed when atoms are smashed in high energy particle accelerators	The space around the nucleus is empty apart from a fizzing cloud of electrons which give an illusion of solidity, but which themselves have hardly any mass. So every time you see a solid object, bear in mind that it's not solid at all. It's almost entirely empty space.
Quark	These are the fundamental particles of which protons and neutrons are composed	1,000 times smaller than the atomic nucleus	Observed when particles are smashed together in a particle accelerator.	Quarks and electrons are called fundamental particles because they are not composed of smaller particles. There are 17 fundamental particles which provide the building blocks for all matter in the universe.
String	Particles have no "solidity" - they are composed of a one dimensional vibrating string and the frequency of vibration of the string defines the type of particle. Each of the 17 fundamental particles is a different "note" on a string.	A million million times smaller than the nucleus of an atom.	Strings were discovered within the mathematics of quantum physics. The modes of vibration were used to predict the existence of fundamental particles before they were discovered, including the Higgs Boson. it is not possible to imagine how a string could be observed, but their mathematical properties predict aspects of the universe that are currently being tested.	String theory predicts 11 dimensions of space and the existence of a multiverse. If the tests to detect strings are successful, this would be further evidence of a multiverse. The tests consists of using the Large harden Collider to create microscopic black holes. This would be impossible according to classical physics, but is predicted by string theory and would also explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other basic forces in our universe.
Quantum Foam	This is the smallest possible level of granularity that can exist. It represents the structure of space-time itself, which can be imagined as a dynamic churning froth like a cappuccino, but at an impossible to imagine small scale.	0.000000000000000000000000000000000001m. 100 million billion times smaller than a quark. We have reached the smallest size there can ever be. This is the "Planck Length" - the shortest length that can ever be measured. it would be impossible to tell the difference between two locations at this scale.	Ironically, the way to test for the existence of the ultimate in small scale objects is to use a powerful telescope to look through the vastness of space. If quantum foam is real, photons from distant galaxies would arrive on earth slightly out of sync with each other. The lower energy photons would be slowed down by the "grain" of the quantum foam. Higher energy photons would be able to ride quicker through the foam.	In 2005 a gamma ray outburst 7 billion light years away was detected and the difference in speed between the gamma ray particles and photons of light from the same source was measured. it was seen that photons of different energies did have different arrival times. After a 7 billion year journey there was a 5 second delay between the different energy photons, demonstrating the "lumpiness" of space itself. This has another implication. Relativity is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant. This experiment proves it is not - it depends on the energy of the photon.

---

This blog post was inspired by the excellent BBC TV programme "Horizon" which broadcast "How Small is the Universe" on 3rd September 2012

---

People who are not religious are often asked the same question by people who are religious, and it goes something like this: If you don't believe in God, then what is your purpose? Or it might be phrased like this: What's the point of life if there's no reward after death - just nothingness?

The religious person is making an assumption: Without a god, there is no point to life, the universe or anything. This is a false assumption.

If your purpose comes from God who created everything, then that's His purpose - not yours. If you create a tool such as a hammer, you could say its purpose is to knock nails into wood. But in fact, that's your purpose for creating the hammer. The activities the hammer undertakes in its daily life have a meaning to the person using the hammer. They have no meaning to the hammer. Perhaps serving God is valid purpose for life? OK - imagine you were a slave owner in the 19th century, and let's assume a kindly, generous slave owner who treated his slaves well. What was the slave's purpose in life? it was to serve his master. But that purpose is not what the slave chose and it's of no benefit to the slave (other than to avoid punishment for failing to please). You could say the slave or servant has a meaning in life by having pride in the work they do for the master, but the purpose here is still the master's purpose. The hammer, or the slave, or the servant, are a means to an end for the creator or master or owner.

Some religious people have told me that God has a "hidden" purpose for us. They tell me there is a plan which makes our lives meaningful even though the plan is secret. But again, that's not a valid argument because whatever this plan is - it's not our plan, it's not our purpose. It's the purpose of the master, creator, God.

In my opinion, a purpose given to us by an external agency can never be more significant than a plan for our lives that is developed by ourselves, based on our goals and interests. In the absence of God, we are free to pursue our own purposes and live the life that is most fulfilling to us. If some kind of religious belief is still a requirement, then I suggest Buddhism is explored as it emphasises the purpose of leading a good life, for the sake of life itself.

At this point, the religious person might say that a limited life on earth can have no meaning if eternal life is not a possibility. They might say, what's the point of living, if you're just going to die? To me, it seems the religious logic is back to front here. My response is - why bother doing anything if you have forever to live? Why go to school, or climb a mountain, or study art, or read a book, or learn an instrument, if you have an infinite amount of time to do anything you want? If the afterlife is eternal, you could experience anything you want a million times. Would jumping from a high rock into a river be a thrill if you could do it over and over again, for ever?

Another argument I hear is the purpose of this life is a preparation for an "afterlife". But that argument simply makes this life less significant. And it avoids the question of a meaningful life because it shifts the question to the afterlife. So if this life is preparation for the afterlife, what makes the afterlife meaningful?

If you are prepared to recognise that this life is the only life then you are motivated to help others and give them the opportunity to live a meaningful life if they need help to do so. There's no reason for someone who believes in an afterlife to care about anyone or anything. Religious leaders recognised this flaw in the logic of course, a long time ago, which is why mainstream religions include the punishment and reward principle.

Despite the arguments, many religious people simply don't accept, and will never accept, that life can be meaningful without God but this ignores the fact that non-believers do lead meaningful lives, they do good things, they give to charity, they care for others and do all the things religious people would like to claim can only be achieved through religious belief systems. This was neatly encapsulated by Christopher Hitchens who pointed out that it is impossible to name an ethical statement made, or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer.

So my answer to the religious people who ask the question about purpose goes like this. My life has multiple purposes, almost too many to list! But if you are looking for a single, overriding purpose, then it is life itself. This one life, this infinitely precious life. I think this gives me a freedom and sense of fulfilment that can never be experienced by people who are ruled by divine judgement and are waiting for something better, something meaningful, to come along later.

{ Image: imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-488-488-90/58/5892/CTEPG00Z/posters/the-purpose-of-life-is-a-life-of-purpose.jpg }

---

---

Self awareness is a concept that has kept philosophers and theologians busy for thousands of years. In recent years, neuroscience has turned its attention to the subject - a subject that many theologians have maintained is "beyond science" (whatever that means).

As with any explanation we need to define our terms. Self-awareness is an awareness of one's own personality or individuality. It means being aware of one’s own feelings and behaviours. In the early days of neuroscience it was thought that three specific regions of the brain were responsible for generating the model of self-awareness.

In fact it's been common to assume that specific brain functions belong to specific areas of the brain. In the last 25 years it's become clear that the brain is more complex than we imagined, and that many brain functions are spread across a fantastically complex network throughout the brain. The psychiatrists i work with are very irritated when the brain is compared to a "computer". In a computer, there's a specific unit for memory, a specific unit for processing, and so on. The brain does all these things, but doesn't restrict itself to specific "units". The brain functions are distributed and dynamic because the brain is organic, and this structure is going to take human beings centuries to unravel completely.

Our hospital has a department that specialises in people with physical brain injuries. It's a sad fact that we are able to learn more about how the brain works from damaged brains than healthy ones. Studying patients with extensive brain damage has shown that self-awareness is the result of a complex network of pathways throughout the brain and is not confined to the three specific areas previously assumed - although those three areas have an important role to play. This is demonstrated by patients with damage to those areas, who still display self-awareness, self-insight and self-agency. One patient in particular has severe damage to his temporal lobes, but is still able to demonstrate self-awareness (although he is unable to "update" his self-image with new experiences or new memories.)

This patient's self awareness would have been a mystery 25 years ago, but new technology has enabled us to 'see" how the brain works. Neuroimaging shows us the regions of the brain that are active depending on what we think. When the patient is asked to consider himself, his actions, who he is and what he is, the network of pathways in the brain "lights up". The patient's undamaged brain tissue is making up for the tissue that is damaged.

This shows an incredible degree of redundancy and overlap in our brains. When a region is damaged. If the brain is like a computer, it's a computer that is constantly reprogrammed and uses multiple regions of the brain to carry out its programs and functions, enabling it to survive significant damage and recover functions that have been disrupted.

---

---

Where did our universe come from?

Short answer – we don't know for sure. There are many hypotheses, and more than one could be true. There are three things that all the hypotheses have in common:

Our universe is one of many within a multiverse
Universes can be created naturally
Universes can be created artificially.

Taking these one at a time...

Multiverse

---

This begs an obvious question: where did the multiverse come from? Some say God created it. But that begs the question, where did God come from? Some say. God is “uncaused”. But if we accept the concept of “uncaused” as valid logic, then the multiverse itself can be “uncaused”. One way to appreciate this is to consider the alernative, which is the existence of abosulte nothingness. That doesn't mean empty space, that means no space, no time, no dimensions, nothingness. In other words, we are considering the existence of non-existence which is an impossible state. And that means the existence of “something” is certain because there's no alernative. And that something could be a multiverse - a collection, perhaps infinite, of everything that can ever exist, in forms and configurations we can never imagine. There are currently several hypotheses to explain the arrangement of the multiverse, and some are being tested as we speak. So watch this space.

Natural universes

---

Universes, like snowflakes, can be created naturally, or artificially, and in many different ways. One mechanism is provided by M-Theory. We also know that our universe began life as a singularity, and black holes contain singularities at their centre, which implies black holes can create new universes, and if those universes contain black holes, then more universes are created, etc. Each of these universes will appear – to their occupants - to have appeared from “nowhere”, and to consist of zero net energy. And that's what we observe in oru universe.

Artificial Universes

---

To create universes artificially requires some advanced technology and a very powerful particle accelerator to create a singularity. Within a few hundred years – if we are still around – we will have that kind of technology. So we will be able to create universes. Which means that our universe could have been created artificially, by another civilisation in another unverse, who possess advanced technology.

So when religions put forward the idea of a “creator” - they could be right.

---

---

My exams are done. The classroom was in Oxford Street just round the corner from the Radha Krishna Temple, the UK home of the Hare Krishna movement. Several times every day we'd hear them from our classroom, chanting and drumming as they made their way up and down Oxford Street. I was early today and they passed me as I headed to Starbucks, so I took a snapshot on my iPhone.

{ Image: p.twimg.com/A1EgSFvCYAAgE3N.jpg:large }

I found it interesting that four of them set off, but when they get back there's about 10 of them. I wonder where they pick up the others? They remind me of my college days back in the late 70s when there were several Sanyasin or as we called them - The Orange People. That's the only colour they wore. You could always spot the Sanyasin washing machine in the laundrette.

Anyway, you can't help smiling and tapping your feet as the Hare Krishna band passes by chanting their mantra

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna
Krishna Krishna Hare Hare
Hare Rama Hare Rama
Rama Rama Hare Hare

...which reminded me of my favourite Beatle.

---

---

So, I have an exam today and I'm confident I will pass. That might sound immodest but the fact is I've always been good at passing exams. However, that does not mean I'm clever, smart or intelligent, unless we define someone whose passed a lot of exams as clever, smart or intelligent, and I don't agree with that definition.

What does "intelligent" mean? How about IQ? I always score highly in IQ tests. That doesn't mean I'm intelligent - it means I'm good at IQ tests.  We all know people with high IQ scores who are idiots.  My youngest daughter had to take a series of IQ tests to be accepted into her school of choice. So she practised sample tests for 6 weeks and her scores increased 15% . Does this mean she became more intelligent? Of course not.

Over the last couple of years  I've spent time with patients with severe ADHD, autism and Aspergers. Not so long ago such people were branded "stupid" or "unintelligent". But these patients  can demonstrate extreme cleverness in many ways. The reason they are in a secure mental health hospital is because of their behaviour and the harm they could cause themselves and people around them. 

So maybe intelligence is an ability to learn? Well a few years ago I found some of my college lecture notes on multi-dimensional vector fields. I couldn't understand any of it, I don't even remember writing it down but it was my handwriting. I'd learned it, understood it, passed an exam, and then forgotten it. So that's not intelligent.

Is a great chess player intelligent? What if he's beaten by a computer - is the computer intelligent? The greatest scientists who ever lived must be intelligent right? But plenty of theologians will tell you those scientists are talking nonsense.

Where am I going with this? It seems to me that "intelligence" is a meaningless word. If you think someone is intelligent what you might mean is they have a certain mental aptitude or skill. That doesn't make them better than you. It doesn't make their opinion more valid than yours.

---

---

I'm spending this week in a classroom, having several hours of homework every night and taking two exams. My brain used to be good at this kind of thing.  But now it's showing it's age. In an attempt to boost the brain cells I've rescued my old mountain bike from its grave behind the shed so I can ride to school and back.  I read somewhere that bursts of exercise can boost brain power. Well I don't know about that, but it's an efficient way to get killed by buses or trucks. 

Sadly,  16 of the 24 gears are inaccessible but hey, that means I have 8 gears! And that's all I need.  My friendly neighbourhood bicycle repair man tells me he is overwhelmed with work - seems the Olympics has inspired everyone to get their old bikes on the road.

My Barracuda Showdown. (Actually not mine. I googled this pic. Mine has more rust)

{ Image: is03.thegumtree.com/image/big/139583215.jpg }

I've never been able to ride slowly so wherever I'm going I arrive on the verge of cardiac arrest. But I have fun annoying the guys in Lycra who struggle to overtake me on their £1,000 racing machines as I'm pedalling away with my jeans tucked into my socks. And I can ride over London's pot holes with ease on my chunky tyres whereas Lycra man's skinny wheels would send him crashing into the asphalt.

Anyway... Time for a caffeine boost then 8 hours of attempting to retain facts...

---

---

Back in the 1970s when I was a student, my room was covered in posters. That was something we all did in those days. I used to get most of mine mail order from ads in the New Musical Express. It was the decade that saw the invention of BluTac which I'm sure was a contributing factor to poster sales. I can picture the walls of my room even now (probably because I spent many hours staring at the walls). A lot of the posters were album sleeves (anyone under the age of 30 should ask their parents what an album sleeve is). I can see Led Zep IV and Close To The Edge (and some other Roger Dean classics) and Electric Ladyland. I can also see the Furry Freak Brothers (who remembers them nowadays?) and of course, The Tennis Girl and that Salvador Dali picture with the melting clocks.	{ Image: www.psychedelicrecords.com/images/classic-rock-albums/Yes__Close-To-The-Edge-04.jpg }
A masterpiece by Roger "airbrush" Dean
And then, there was the poem "Desiderata" which became very trendy and cool in the 1970s but then became instantly corny whn a spoken word version became a best selling single. (Again kids, ask your parents what a single was). At the time I thought this was words of wisdom from Native American Indian folklore (I don't know why I thought that. We didn't have Wikipedia). It's a Latin word after all. It was actually written in the 1920s by an obscure American writer who was only recognised posthumously. I can't remember exactly what the poster looked like, except that the poem was written in a flowing script with mainly sepia colours. I can't find the exact poster online but here are the words.	Go placidly amidst the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter; for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially, do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be, and whatever your labours and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul. With all its shams, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

This blog entry was written using two thumbs on an iPhone 3GS

---

---

We spent today at Eton Dorney to watch canoe and kayak sprinting. This sums up what I love about the olympics - a sport I've never even heard of, attended by thousands of people - hardly any empty seats. And it was exciting. And who knew there was a difference between canoeing and kayaking? (Probably everyone who reads this, but I didn't).

{ Image: tinyurl.com/c4bl23k }	{ Image: tinyurl.com/cxvzo3h }
Kayak (or possibly canoe)	Canoe (or possibly kayak)

The venue is very close to Windsor and I spoke to one of the locals. He said there's been no disruption at all. The traffic control and access control for the people who live there is incredibly well planned. All the visitors are bussed in.

And the weather was hot and sunny. What is going on? I'm not sure what's happened during this olympic period. It's like I'm not living in "broken Britain" any more. I wonder if previous Olympic cities have experienced this kind of boost, and whether it lasted? LA for example?

My 5 year old grandson's most vivid memory today was being taken to one side by the soldiers who had been drafted in to manage the security. After passing his backpack through the x-ray machine three of them solemnly informed him that because it was branded Manchester United, and the regiment was from Liverpool, it would have to be confiscated.

(They were joking of course. Well... half joking).

---

---

Wow. It seems I won the July best blog contest, with 15,000 votes* Thank you everyone.

Apparently I've won a Signature Goldie. I assume it will be sent to my home address by air mail. Hope it arrives soon. It will look nice in the garden, by the fish pond, I think.


*up to a maximum of

---

---

A strong police presence in London during the Olympics. Security is all important and it's vital to stay focused.

{ Image: tinyurl.com/dx4e3ey }

---

Woke at 7am, so took advantage of an empty supermarket to stock up the pantry and freezer. Bought Sunday papers, delivered Mail on Sunday to mother-in-law as usual.

Back home, house is asleep so coffee and bacon sandwich while chuckling at the latest entries on the GT Discussion Boards on my iPhone. Some witty people there. Feed the cats. take coffee and papers upstairs to Mrs C.

Sun was out but rain forecast, so mow the lawn.

Finally get around to taking old clothes to the Oxfam shop.

Daughter and grandchildren turn up closely followed by mother-in-law. An hour playing Rock Band on the Wii. Grandson on drums, me on lead guitar, daughter on vocals as we interpret Bon Jovi, Metallica and other giants of rock.

Off to the park, grandson on scooter, me on bike, up and down the skateboard ramps. I have no shame. Heavens open so we race back home, through the back gate.

Watched some olympics. Fencing, cycling, boxing and handball! Well done BBC for providing a separate channel for every sport. Attempt to console recently divorced friend on the telephone. Arrange to meet tomorrow.

Sunshine! back to the park, more stunts on the skateboard ramps. Then we watch a spectacular, huge, black thundercloud rolling in from the west. Race back to the house, through the back gate, as the thunder begins. We run upstairs to watch the storm through the bedroom window. Try to explain lighting to a 5 year old. Fail. He suggests Thor, which is hard to disprove.

More Wii Rock band - Beatles this time. Then Sunday Lunch for six people. Kitchen looks like it's been attacked with hand grenades.

Watch Andy Murray win gold medal. Restore kitchen to former glory.

Sun's out - back to the park for a game of football and stunts on the climbing frames. (Not me).

Back to the house for one more round of Rock Band. Visitors depart.

Clear up the wreckage. Cup of tea. Slice of cake. See TV ad for Monster Truck festival in 2 weeks. Book tickets.

More olympics, climaxing with gold for Usain Bolt, fastest man in the world. And tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence, so it seems fitting.

A bit of fun on Goldtoken before bed, then I realise... I haven't read the papers! I always read the papers on a Sunday morning. So just this once, read papers on a Sunday night.

---

---

I was up very early this morning and so I took a 2 mile run and bought a newspaper on the way home.

It contained an interesting article on some research which shows the average person tells at least ten lies every day.

This made me think because I never tell a lie so someone somewhere must be doing a lot of lying on my behalf to make the numbers up. And how do the researchers know if the people they asked about lying gave honest answers?

Anyway, it's a hot sunny morning here so I'd better go and feed the goats. Then it's off to the Olympic Stadium - GB can win 20 gold medals today.

---

there are ten lies in this blog entry

---

---

It's an Olympics year and so of course we're getting to hear the US National Anthem quite a lot in the UK recently. I don't mind. In fact, the Stars and Stripes is my favourite national anthem. It's not that I'm unpatriotic. But "God Save the Queen" is a dull tune with bizarre lyrics. The Stars and Stripes also brings back memories from my teenage years when I saw Jimi Hendrix perform his version at Woodstock. I wasn't at Woodstock (I was only 9 years old) But I saw the Woodstock movie several years after the event and Jimi made a big impression on me at the time which still remains.

{ Image: www.carandcamping.co.uk/shop/images/uploads/Stars_stripes_flag-web.jpg }

{ Image: assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/artists/304x304/jimi-hendrix.jpg }

---

Spent an exciting day at the olympics yesterday, with my son and 5 year old grandson. A boys' day out. And it was the day that GB started to win gold medals. The atmosphere was amazing, the organisation was great. We met people from all over the world which is not unusual in London, but this was like a carnival.

However, my grandson's memories don't seem to be sport related. Apparently, two things stood out for him: Policemen giving him high-fives as he sat on my shoulders, and a police horse who "did a poo in the street".

---

---

The Norse creation myth from the book "Mythologies" http://www.amazon.com/Mythologies-Bonnefoy/dp/0226064530

{ Image: tinyurl.com/brgu3k6 }

The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are too hot for humans to endure. It is guarded by Surt with his flaming sword. Beyond Muspell is the yawning void of Ginnungagap, and beyond this the cold realm of Niflheim. Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.

Where the heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this icy water grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir. Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.

Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir. Buri, Bor, and Bestla The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome. Buri begot a son named Bor, and Bor married Bestla, the daughter of a giant.

Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third. Odin is the ruler of heaven and earth. He is the greatest and most famous of all men. Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir. When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a tree trunk. From them spring the families of frost ogres.

The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken. Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks.

From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South. The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds. Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths.

The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements. To protect themselves from the hostile giants, the sons of Bor built for themselves an inland stonghold, using Ymir's eyebrows. This stonghold they named Midgard. This is the world as we know it.

While walking along the sea shore the sons of Bor found two trees, and from them they created a man and a woman. Odin gave the man and the woman spirit and life. Vili gave them understanding and the power of movement. Vé gave them clothing and names. The man was named Ash and the woman Elm. From Ash and Elm have sprung the races of men who lived on Earth.

In the middle of the world the sons of Bor built for themselves a stronghold named Asgard. The gods and their kindred lived in Asgard where there is a great hall named Hlidskjálf. Odin sat there on a high seat. From there he could look out over the whole world and see what everyone was doing. He understood everything that he saw.

Odin married Frigg, the daughter of Fjörgvin. From this family has come all the kindred that inhabited ancient Asgard and those kingdoms that belonged to it. Members of this family are called the Æsir, and they are all gods. Odin is called All-Father. He is the father of all the gods and men and of everything that he and his power created. The earth was Odin's daughter and his wife as well. By her he had his first son, Thor. Might and strength were Thor's characteristics. By these he dominates every living creature.

The chief sanctuary of the gods is by the ash tree Yggdrasil. There they hold their daily court. Yggdrasil is the best and greatest of all trees. Its branches spread out over the whole world and reach up over heaven.

---

---

{ Image: www.visiteastlondon.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/olympics-2012.jpg }

Having spent the last few days in rural England, circa 1965, I have returned to a parallel universe known as London 2012. In this strange place there is no security, but at the same time there are soldiers everywhere and surface to air missiles on every high rise block. There are dedicated traffic lanes for olympic officials, and dedicated traffic lanes for buses, but no lanes for cars. There is a football team featuring Ryan Giggs and a bunch of teenagers. And there's been a deliberate attempt to start a war with North Korea. By the way, if you are planning to visit London - it may seem to you that your cab driver is being thoughtful, but trust me, Stonehenge is not "on the way".

---

In 1630 The Pilgrim Fathers had just arrived in the New World, King Charles I was waging war on the Church of Scotland, and a fisherman was building a cottage in Devon so that I could stay in it nearly 400 years later. Thanks Thomas (which is what he might have been called). People must have been very short in those days. ~The doorways are only 5'5" high, the ceilings are only 6' high, and I've hit my head three times. All the houses are the same so it's not that Thomas was unusually small. The streets are cobbled and impossibly steep, so that donkeys or sledges are used to carry deliveries to the shop and the pub. The internet hasn't arrived here yet. I had to travel 25 miles just to get a 3G signal. It's amazing to find somewhere in the UK which is unspoiled. Not many people here. I hope it stays that way.

{ Image: newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47496000/jpg/_47496244_clovelly_donkeys_on_hill.jpg }

---

The weather is...	{ Image: www.wpclipart.com/weather/sun/sun_5/sunny_happy_day.png }
:car: And I'm heading here for a week...	{ Image: www.jessimine.co.uk/images/jurassic-coast_1374396c.jpg }

---

---

There's no doubt that people with mental illness experience stigma. This results in discrimination - people with mental illness can be denied job opportunities or accommodation or rejected socially.

{ Image: 4.bp.blogspot.com/--42PkkjqC6o/TszKlg_W55I/AAAAAAAAR1I/Oe1v6e4hzyo/s400/mentalillness.jpg }

I've seen overt stigma in practice but I've also seen more subtle versions. Perhaps I'm with a patient in a cafe or shop and their behaviour or appearance can attract attention, ridicule and "dirty looks" or even verbal abuse. But I kind of understand that.

Sometimes we take patients from our mental hospital to the "regular" hospital because they need treatment for a physical condition The attitude of some nurses and doctors in the physical healthcare world to our patients sometimes amazes me, because these people are supposed to be trained health care workers and mental illness is a healthcare issue. This I don't understand.

Then there's "self-stigma" where a person with mental illness turns the stereotype against themselves. They assume they will be rejected and so they assume they have no value. 

This, and the attitudes of other people, reduces their self esteem and can reverse their recovery. 

The stigma of mental illness also prevents people seeking treatment. It's not something most people want to admit to, even to a doctor. And many general practitioners don't understand mental illness anyway.

Mental illness can be very disruptive. Even a brief spell can disrupt work, family, relationships and even physical health. This can create depression and other psychiatric problems so it's a vicious circle.

What to do?

- For a start we should all examine our attitudes to mental illness. Let's think twice before mocking it. Even the family friendly Gold Token has a jokey "mental ward" discussion board!  I can't imagine a similarly lighthearted "cancer ward" where everyone pretends to have no hair from the chemotherapy.

- The media should examine its role. I've seen some excellent programmes featuring celebrities brave enough to discuss their mental illness. I've also seen high profile stigmatisation.

- we should ensure young adults are educated particularly teenagers 

- policy makers should involve people who have suffered mental  illness to work with them. Perhaps legislation is needed to redress the balance.

---

---

Debating on the internet can be rewarding, stimulating and educational. It can also be an emotional and stressful experience, especially where discussion forums are not moderated. Debating religion can be even more stressful! Luckily on Gold Token, the boards are strictly moderated, and you won't see the kind of thing I am about to refer to. In fact, much of what I've said here is covered in the Gold Token discussion board guidelines...
http://www.goldtoken.com/games/info?info=Discussion+Board+Rules

But sites outside of Gold Token are often unmoderated. Twitter in particular. So what happens if you stray into those waters?

Two strategies to look out for online are trolls and flamers. A troll will post messages that completely change the subject, attempt to waste your time, ignore your questions, or attempt to generate an emotional response. A flamer will resort to insults, hostility and profanity. Presumably a combination of these is a flaming troll?

According to various religious trolls and flamers over the years: I am condemned to burn for eternity in a pit of fire; I will be punished with years of lingering pain in this life due to cancer (and so will my children); I am no different to Stalin or Caligula, etc. (I fully understand why believers in a particular religion could become hostile when their beliefs are challenged, but that's a topic for another day.)

For some reason, I'm immune to this kind of thing, and lately I've been trying to figure out why. I didn't suffer abuse as a child, so it's not like I had to develop a way to protect myself from aggression and hostility. I have received professional training on how to manage aggression and violence in face to face situations, but I was immune before that. So I can only conclude that it's in my nature to understand how people's minds work, and why people behave the way they do. I can distance myself from their behaviour, and analyse it, as if they were a specimen in a test tube. Obviously, this wouldn't be the case with people I respect or love. If one of my children or a close friend made derogatory remarks about me, I guess I'd be upset. But insults from a stranger on the internet who doesn't know me - why should I care?

I also spend a lot of time with people who are institutionalised, and/or suffer with mental health problems. This provides no end of opportunities for face to face aggression and hostility. But I know these people can't help what they are doing or saying, and it doesn't matter how personal they get, it washes over me. To use the vernacular, I don't let them "get into my head".

So if you find yourself getting emotional or angry because someone you've never even met is attacking you online, first of all be patient. Perhaps they don't know they are doing it. Maybe they don't know they are trolling - they are just angry, or stressed, or mentally ill. Ignore them if you can. If you can't ignore them, there's a few ways to handle them…

- If they ignore points you've raised, just raise the same point again, calmly. Perhaps they just didn't see it. If they keep ignoring points you've made, then just repeat the point, perhaps using different words. But be aware if you keep raising the same point over and over - you might be trolling!

- If they change the subject, just change it back to where it should be. Unless the change of direction is interesting, in which case go with the flow.

- If it's a long-running debate, keep a record of what the trolls say. Trolls inevitably contradict themselves because they can't remember much of what they've previously said (they tend to make things up as they go along). Providing them with examples of what they said previously can sometimes keep them quiet.

- Sometimes a troll will accuse you of avoiding a question, without telling you what the question was. Well, perhaps you did inadvertently, especially in a busy discussion. So ask them, politely, to repeat the question. If they can't, then you are being trolled and you obviously did not avoid the question.

- If you're being insulted or abused, then it's best just to respond to the topic, calmly, and make no reference at all to the abuse. in other words, don't feed the trolls. But if your troll management skills are up to it, a light hearted sarcastic response can sometimes cause a troll to implode. But don't get so sarcastic that you become a troll yourself!

- Sometimes a troll will accidentally say something that you agree with. Compliment them!

- Keep your responses short. A lot of trolls create long winded, verbose posts just to waste your time by reading them. If you keep your responses pithy, then you haven't wasted your time, they've wasted their time writing hundreds of superfluous words.

- Take sensible internet precautions. Don't reveal your email address, place of work, or any personal details that make you traceable. Most trolls are harmless, but if a troll loses credibility, well you never know.

---

---

If your parents had conceived you one second earlier or later than they had, you would be a different person. You would not be here. And if their parents hadn't done likewise, you wouldn't be here.  And similarly with their parents, and so on. 

Go back ten generations to when Abraham Lincoln was born and your existence depends on 256 people conceiving precisely when they did, to the second.  Go back further to the time of the Mayflower and there are 16,384 ancestors  of yours conceiving at precisely the exact second in order for you to appear. 

Thirty generations ago, when the Chinese were inventing printing, your total number of parents' parents' parents' is over 1 billion - all choosing the precise second to conceive you. 

If we assume conception occurs during a range of 20 years in a life that's 630,000,000 seconds. Multiplied by 1 billion people means the odds of you existing are trillions to one against. And we've only gone back 700 years. If we go back further the odds of you being you are so tiny we can't measure it. It's almost zero.

But there you are. 

You may perhaps have noticed a flaw in the mathematics. If we keep progressing the number of ancestors by powers of two, then within a thousand years you would have more ancestors than the population of the planet. The explanation for this is that our ancestral lines are not pure. 

With so many millions of ancestors, there will have been many occasions when someone on our mother's side of the family procreated with a (hopefully) distant cousin from our father's side. 

In fact, there's a high chance you are related to your current partner somewhere along the line.

As Bill Bryson puts it... "When someone boasts to you that he is descended from William the Conqueror or the Mayflower Pilgrims, you should answer at once: "Me, too! In the most literal and fundamental sense we are all family."

---

---

Why do people show kindness to others, even those outside their families, when they do not stand to benefit from it? Being generous without that generosity being reciprocated does not advance the basic evolutionary drive to survive and reproduce.

Christopher Boehm, an evolutionary anthropologist, is the director of the Jane Goodall Research Center at the University of Southern California. For 40 years, he has observed primates and studied different human cultures to understand social and moral behavior. In his new book, Moral Origins, Boehm speculates that human morality emerged along with big game hunting. When hunter-gatherers formed groups, he explains, survival essentially boiled down to one key tenet - cooperate, or die.

Read all about it... http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/How-Humans-Became-Moral-Beings.html#ixzz1ysZ3RkX2

{ Image: media.smithsonianmag.com/images/Moral-Origins-Christopher-Boehm-2.jpg }

---

---

The mental health hospital where I work has a very impressive "spiritual" team to meet the needs of patients. This team includes clerics from all major religions, as well as non-religious spiritual advisors. They don't "push" religion but it's there if people need it. My thanks to the chaplain who provided me with much of this information...

There is a very close link between spirituality and psychiatry, as spirituality is very important to recovery in mental health. So... What is spirituality? It's common to assume spirituality requires a god of some kind. That's a false assumption.

The Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interest Group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists provides this definition of spirituality...

Spirituality means experiencing:

a deep-seated sense of meaning and purpose in life
a sense of belonging
a sense of connection of 'the deeply personal with the universal'
acceptance, integration and a sense of wholeness.
 
Every human being experiences these regardless of their mental health status. But they are often more important during times of trauma, emotional stress, illness (mental or physical), bereavement or when one's life is nearing an end.

How is spirituality different from religion? Well, most religions do stress individual spirituality but each religion has its own rituals, beliefs, traditions and rules as a context. Some religious people will claim that non-believers can never understand the spiritual feelings their religion give them. But this is wrong - spirituality is independent of any particular religion. They are not getting the feeling from their religion. Each of us has their own unique experience of spirituality - a personal experience with or without a religious belief.

In the context of mental health care it is important to discover how each patient wishes to experience spiritual feelings. Caring for patients spiritual needs results in better self-control, self-esteem and confidence, a faster and easier recovery, a new sense of meaning, acceptance, hope and peace of mind. A spiritual assessment is part of every mental health assessment. Depression or substance abuse, for example, can be a symptom of a spiritual void in a person’s life. Sometimes there is an overlap between a spiritual crisis and a mental illness. Typically, patients have the same spiritual needs:

- meaningful activities such as creative art, work or enjoying nature
- to feel safe and secure
- to be treated with dignity and respect
- to feel that they belong, are valued and trusted
- time to express feelings to members of staff
- the chance to make sense of their life, including illness and loss
- permission/support to develop their relationship with God or the Absolute.
 
If a patient has a religious belief they will also need:

- a time, a place and privacy in which to pray and worship
- to be reassured that doctors will not try to undermine their faith
- the need for forgiveness depending on previous actions

There is a wide range of activities which support spirituality. These include:

- taking part in religious services, rituals, devotional/sacred music, symbolic practices and other forms of worship
- going on pilgrimages and retreats
- meditation and prayer
- reading scripture
- working, especially teamwork
- engaging in deep contemplation
- yoga, Tai Chi, martial arts
- spending time enjoying nature
- contemplative reading of literature, poetry, philosophy, etc.
- appreciating and studying the arts
- being creative - painting, sculpture, cookery, gardening etc.
- working to develop and sustain good family relationships
- making friendships, especially those with trust and intimacy
- partaking in team sports or team activities where trust is required
 
There is also a range of "spiritual skills" which everyone should develop:

- being honest
- be able to see yourself as others see you
- being able to stay focused in the present, to be alert, unhurried and attentive
- being able to rest, relax and create a still, peaceful state of mind
- developing a deeper sense of empathy for others
- being able to be with someone who is suffering, while still being hopeful
- learning better judgement, for example about when to speak or act, and when to remain silent or do nothing
- learning how to give without feeling drained
- being able to grieve and let go.

This is sound advice for everyone - regardless of our mental condition.

---

---

An important part of the recovery process for patients in a metal health hospital is for them to form friendships with staff.  But staff must be careful,  as a recent example demonstrates. (Names have been changed).

Joe is a patient in the low secure unit who formed a friendship with his regular escort, Dave. One day, Joe asked Dave if he had children. Dave knew Joe's history and realised that sharing details about his children would not be a good idea. So Dave said, "No I don't have any kids." to avoid any risks. Like any parent, Dave would do or say anything to keep his kids safe.

Joe relied on Dave a lot as Dave would escort Joe on occasional walks into town, as part of his recovery. So friendship and trust was important.

Several months later, Dave is out shopping with his wife and kids when he bumps into Joe who is on an escorted trip to the shops with a different staff member.  People with mental health problems are not stupid (just the opposite usually) and Joe immediately realised Dave had a wife and kids but had lied about it.  All trust was gone.

Joe took this very badly, including violent reactions as a side effect of his condition.  

Dave had to be relocated to a different ward as the situation with Joe became dangerous, and Joe's recovery was set back significantly. 

What did Dave do wrong? He should have not lied about having kids but at the  same time he should have been selective about details. If Joe was showing an interest in the kid's ages, or which schools they go to, and so on, Dave should have explained politely that he preferred to keep that kind of information private. 

It's a difficult balance but usually, honesty is the best policy.

---

---

Religious apologists are fond of saying science is based on faith. This is a strange thing to say because religions use faith to create certainty, while science is based on doubt.

Scientists puzzle over faster than light neutrino experiments, or try to find ways to test M-theory, or worry about dark matter, or argue about why animals tend to reproduce sexually rather than asexually, or struggle to develop theories to explain the mind, and thousands of other things.

On the other hand, we have theologians who not only tell us they know God exists, but also know specific things about His nature.

They know that He is infinite, omnipresent, loving, omniscient, and a single entity rather than multiple deities. They know Jesus was resurrected and the way to heaven is to accept Him as saviour. Rabbis know for sure Jesus was not resurrected.
Imams know for sure that the Quran was dictated by God. Priests know for sure there’s a soul that lives on beyond death. The list goes on.

Can you imagine a cardinal saying "We think God exists but we can't be 100% sure" or an Imam who says, “There is no God but Allah, probably" or a bishop who says "Our current hypothesis is that God exists, but this could be replaced by a better explanation after more testing"?

Me neither.

---

---

Creationist Question	Scientific Answer
Stephen Hawking says M-Theory explains the existence of our universe. If that's true, where did M-Theory come from?	M-theory was suggested by Edward Witten in 1995. Like any theory, it is a model of nature produced by human intelligence from the combined effort of thousands of human brains over hundreds of years.
Why should we assume nature conforms to models that science can explain?	It's not an assumption - it simply appears to be the case. It seems nature conforms to models that can be expressed mathematically. We don't know why, but this is being researched. Mathematics is capable of describing so much, it has led some people to wonder if mathematics is reality.
Why are there any laws of physics at all?	If there were no laws there would be no universe. It is likely that any kind of universe that can support life would require laws that are based in mathematics. Creationists claim the laws of physics are evidence of God. If life existed without any laws of physics, creationists would also claim this is evidence of God!
Why are the laws of physics what they are?	String theory explains this. And M-Theory is an extension of string theory.
Science is limited. It describes the world but it can never explain why we are presented with this kind of world rather than some other, and it doesn't explain why there should be a world at all.	The Big Bang tells us “why there should be a world at all.” The multiverse hypothesis explains why we see "this kind of world". Not all universes in a multiverse would support the evolution of sentient life. Ours does. Although in fact, 99.999999999999999% of the universe is a void which is inhospitable to life.
Science does not describe reality. Quantum theory says matter is made of particles which are waves as they move but particles when they stop. This is a paradox, not an explanation.	Science text books do not provide a description of the universe - they describe observations of the universe. No one knows what reality means or what reality is, so any attempt to talk about the reality of the universe is meaningless. All we know is that scientific descriptions are useful because they make testable predictions. Perhaps reality is an illusion, but it's an illusion that science helps us understand in meaningful ways.
Religion explains aspects of reality science can never explain.	Theologians are the only people who claim to understand reality but their predictions are either false, or contradictory, or unfalsifiable (and hence useless).
Scientists say they might one day achieve complete knowledge. This cannot be because science is limited by the brain which evolved to enable our survival. It is wrong to think such an imperfect instrument would be capable of mastering all knowledge especially knowledge that is not required for survival.	Firstly, any scientist who thinks that we’ll be able to answer all the questions about the universe is expressing an opinion that can't be proved (possibly as a way to sell books to the general public). To be a scientist you have to accept that you’ll forever live in doubt. Humans neurology has evolved by being able to determine truth. Science is a way to exploit that facility in a formal way and gives us tools that enable us to avoid the trap of our "common sense" being fooled, enabling our senses to be extended and refined. Science and mathematics show we are capable of discovering aspects of the universe that are counterintuitive, beyond imagination and completely incomprehensible to our ancestors, and sometimes incomprehensible to us! Religions have invented "other ways of knowing" which are not based on anything measurable. If science has its limits, and it might, religion doesn’t even get off the starting blocks.

---

I came across an amazing patient history at the hospital today, which even surprised experienced psychiatrists.

Mary (not her real name) was being examined by a physician because she couldn't speak clearly following a routine medical procedure. She had become frightened, depressed and confused. The doctors suspected bleeding into the bran but MRI scans showed nothing.

During the tests, Mary revealed a secret. She explained that a few days ago, while sitting in a park watching some swans, it had occurred to her that she was dead. She had spent days trying to convincer her friends and family that she was actually, completely dead. She was certain that she did not exist. Obviously, they didn't believe her. The physician referred her to the mental health hospital where I work. (His time at medical school enabled him to determine she wasn't dead.)

The psychiatrist treating Mary had come across this condition once before - Cotard's Syndrome. The precise physical cause is unknown. It usually follows some kind of concussion, seizure or schizophrenia.

What neuroscientists are looking for in relation to this condition, is a region of the brain which is responsible for confirming that we exist. It is reasonable to assume damage to this area would result in us believing we don't exist. Or maybe our feeling of "being" is a result of multiple and simultaneous brain functions. Research is ongoing but it's difficult because it's such a rare condition. But it provides a vital clue to how and why we are self aware.

It's also yet another example of how our brains can create experiences which we, as individuals, are convinced are "realer then real". and the person having the experience is certain they are aware of deep truths that no-one else can comprehend.

---

Here's a simple way to win an argument, regardless of what side you are on...

1) Find a folk tale featuring a character or characters who are stupid, vain, dishonest, blind or who generally have negative attributes.

2) Project your opponent into the folk tale as the negative character(s)

3) Allow the characters in the tale who are wise, talented, good, sighted, etc. to make your argument for you. 

4) Voila! You become wise/perceptive/good, your argument is proved right and your opponent is made to look stupid/blind/bad.

The Emperor's new clothes, and The blind men & the Elephant are handy examples. Here's how to use they can be used...

 

Original version	Theist application	Atheist application
A vain emperor is tricked into paying a lot of money to some rogues who persuade him that they are the world's finest tailors and he is buying an incredible fabric which appears beautiful to wise people and cannot be seen by idiots. Everyone is too afraid to admit they can't see the fabric, because they don't want to appear stupid and they compliment the emperor on his wonderful clothes. Then during a parade, an innocent boy shouts "The Emperor is naked!" and everyone realises the truth.	Scientists promote unsubstantiated scientific theories about the universe which gullible atheists accept on faith. But faith in God allows us to see these theories have no real substance. We can see the atheists are naked!	Religious leaders promote unsubstantiated myths about God which gullible theists accept on faith. But science and reason allow us to see these fairy tales have no real substance. We can see the religious are naked!
A group of blind men touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each man touches a different part and when they compare notes they learn that they are in complete disagreement. The man who touched the tail says an elephant is like a brush. The man who touched the tusk says the elephant is like a pipe. And so on. Then a sighted man walks by and sees the entire elephant, and explains the full picture to them	Scientists come up with theories to explain the universe, but fail to realise that reality goes beyond their limited abilities. They will never see God using their limited scientific tools	Each religion provides contradictory explanations of reality to every other religion because each is based on the dogma of faith and culture. Science and reason eliminate faith and dogma to allow us to see the whole truth

---

Here is a remarkable example of how our brains can be reprogrammed and made to adapt. Our brains enable us to perceive the world around us by creating models. If you're blind you've lost the information that you would naturally get from light. That doesn't stop you forming a model of your environment, but it does reduce some of the information that your brain has evolved to use in the process of model making.

We all know about braille as a way to read by touch, And I have a blind friend who strides through London faster than I do, because he has a model of the streets in his mind, and a stick to inform him of temporary obstacles - now scientists have created a way for the blind to "see" with their ears.

Sensory Substitution Devices (SSDs) are technology which provide visual information to people who can't see. These have been very basic until now, enabling the recognition of only large objects close up. But a new device has changed things radically.

A device worn by the blind person scans their surroundings converting the surroundings to patterns of sounds. The blind person learns what these sound patterns represent. The brain enables the blind person to "see" without eyes.

The terminology is misleading - we tend to assume our model of the world is like a tv show or a play. It's not - the brain creates a model of the world that is made of "mind". The more information it gets, the more accurate the model.

Here's a video showing the device in action...
http://opticalceu.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/listening-device-ssd-helps-blind-to-see.html?m=1

Here's a technical description of the device...
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0033136

---

---

The final frontier for science, is the mind. So the big question:

Can science explain how the mind works?
Answer: Yes, but only hypothetically.

OK... next big question:
Is the mind something that science can ever explain beyond hypothesis?
Answer: "Probably".

A vague answer, but very different to the answer not so long ago which was "don't know". So what's changed?

Cognitive neuroscience is the most recent development in science - just 25 years old. There have been amazing discoveries already, but there's a long way to go. Perhaps the biggest problem is to define what it is we are trying to discover! What is consciousness? How can we figure out how it works if we don't know what it is?

One way to approach this is to divide up consciousness into the "easy problems" and "hard problem". The easy problems are still difficult, but these are the problems that can be solved by the scientific method. For example, science can explain the workings of pain, memory, vision, emotions, morality and all the things that make consciousness possible. The appropriate brain processes can be defined and we can see how they evolved. To quote the philosopher David Chalmers "We can hope to find adequate functional explanations for these phenomena."

But the real challenge lies with the "hard" problems. Physics shows us that reality can be explained in terms of forces, energy, particles, etc. But how can the physical processes (the "easy problems") tell us anything about what it's like to be yourself and your subjective experiences? For example, we can explain why the colour blue is perceived differently to the colour red, but where do we get the subjective impression of “blueness”? Why does my brain activity make me feel something, rather than nothing?

A major leap forward occurred in the 1990s when brain imaging technology became available. We can "see" thoughts happening; we can even "read" them, translate them. The approach to studying the biological basis of consciousness changed dramatically and enabled a collection of scientific hypotheses of consciousness to be developed for the first time ever. new frontiers in science are always defined by hypotheses, some conflicting, but eventually mature theories emerge and false hypotheses are discarded. and this is now happening in neuroscience. But there is a long way to go - the subjective essential question of “what it means” to be conscious remains a difficult question to answer scientifically. We need better methods of interpreting subjective data and that's a subject of intensive research.

There is another approach which is to put the subjective issues to one side, and focus only on understanding the biological mechanisms of the brain which affect consciousness. Once they are fully understood, go back to look at the subjective issues. This is a very sensible strategy: concentrate on the things that can be experimented on, and wait and see if the less tangible things subsequently become clearer when the experimental results are obtained. Don't try and guess the overall picture on the jigsaw when 80% of the pieces are missing (even though it's human nature to do so!)

So what does the research show so far? Here's a summary:

- A definite causal relationship between brain's structure and the functions of thought, intelligence, etc.

- Consciousness is the result of interactions among neurons in which the nerve impulse takes a particular path - a path that is not fixed, but changes with use, continuously modifying our perceptions of the world.

- Specific neuronal circuits & brain structures have been identified as playing a key role in conscious thought.

- Not all parts of the brain contribute equally to the processes of consciousness. There are many unconscious processes playing a role.

- The brain structures and processes cannot be considered in isolation - they opera as a whole in an integrated way - Receptors, neurones, ion channels, synapses, etc. all work collectively and simultaneously.

It's easy for creationists to criticise the work of neuroscience, because there are no mature theories yet, but scientists are the first to admit that the models of consciousness developed so far are at a very early stage and just the first step on a long journey to explain consciousness. It is no longer accurate to say that science can never explain consciousness. It's possible that we may have to discover some new physical laws before we can explain consciousness. All we know that there are an ever increasing number of empirical routes to be explored, and science is exploring them.

There's a lot of information about this on the internet - I think Wikipedia is a good place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_approaches

Also look out for work published by Francis Crick; Jean-Pierre Changeux; Patricia Churchland; Christof Koch.

---

---

Phantom limb is a phenomenon that's been known about for hundreds of years. It happens when an amputee continues to feel sensations from an amputated arm or leg. Sometimes, a patient can feel pain in a limb that isn't there. How can you cure such a pain? The problem is obviously in the brain, because the limb no longer exists. The last resort in such cases used to be to destroy the parts of the brain that are responsible for the phantom pain.

It is possible to create a map of the brain showing which parts correspond to which body parts. These maps show two interesting facts:

- The body parts responsible for facial expressions, hand gestures, lips, speech and fingertips, take up the largest area of the brain. Our evolution has depended heavily on these functions and so they need a lot of brain.

- The "sensation maps" which show the connection between brain area and body part are not static. They drift and reorganise. Our brains are constantly "re-programming".

(There's a third point of interest - to create the map requires a patient to have probes inserted into their brains while they are awake. The brain is the only part of the body with no nerve endings - so the brain doesn't feel pain. Brain surgery is common while patients are awake. When you get a headache, it's not your brain that's hurting!)

So, when someone loses a limb, the brain reorganises its sensation map and the amputee feels sensations in a limb that isn't there. In the 1980s a neuroscientist - VS Ramachandran - devised an ingenious treatment.

Ramachandran had a patient who felt his amputated left arm was painfully frozen in an awkward position. This sensation had been with him for many years. Ramachandran created a box with carefully positioned mirror inside.

{ Image: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Ramachandran-mirrorbox.svg/150px-Ramachandran-mirrorbox.svg.png } The patient's right arm was inserted into the box, and when the patient inserted his missing arm into the box (or rather, imagined he was placing his missing arm in the box) the mirror showed his right arm where his missing left arm would have been. According to the patient... "This is amazing - my arm is plugged in again!"

Ramachandran had developed the "learned paralysis" hypothesis of painful phantom limbs. Every time someone tries to move a paralysed limb, they receive feedback into the brain that the limb does not move. After a while this feedback is programmed into the brain (a process known as Hebbian learning). When the limb is amputated, the brain is still programmed with the information that the limb is paralysed even when it's been amputated.

Ramachandran's mirror box re-programs the brain by making it perceive the limb is still there (when it's actually a mirror image) and when the patient sees the mirror image moving, the brain is re-programmed to assume the missing limb is no longer paralysed. This visual feedback to the brain is totally artificial, and the brain is "moving" a limb that is not there, and is able to unclench it from it's (virtual) painful, paralysed position.

This is quite astonishing for many reasons. But think about this... we can re-program a part of the brain using a "trick" even though the patient knows it is a trick!

---

---

In the 1930s it was discovered that everything we perceive in the universe appears to be made from combinations of two fundamental particles: electrons and quarks. Since then other particles have been discovered, especially since particle accelerators were built which recreate conditions close to the big bang. Then physicists noticed a pattern among the particles...

Family 1		Family 2		Family 3
Particle	Mass	Particle	Mass	Particle	Mass
Electron	.00054	Muon	.11	Tau	1.9
Electron-neutrino	< .00000001	Muon-neutrino	< .0003	Tau-neutrino	< .033
Up-quark	.0047	Charm Quark	1.6	Top Quark	189
Down-quark	.0074	Strange Quark	16	Bottom Quark	5.2

(By the way - each particle has an anti-matter "twin" particle which is not shown here)

A neat arrangement - but it raises questions... Why are there so many fundamental particles when most of the world we observe only needs electrons and quarks? Why three families? Why does a tau weigh about 4,000 times more than an electron? Did they occur by chance, or by some divine design, or is there a scientific explanation?

Then there are the forces of nature. We experience all kinds of forces, but physics shows they can be reduced to four types... Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. The first two are familiar to us in everyday life, but the strong and the weak forces are less familiar because they only exert a force at subatomic scales - they are nuclear forces that keep molecules "glued" together and produce radioactivity.

We now know that each force has an associated particle which is the smallest possible "packet" of force. The force particles are summarised here...

Force	Force particle	Mass
Strong	Gluon	0
Electromagnetic	Photon	0
Weak	Weak gauge bosons	86, 97
Gravity	Graviton	0

And now we have even more questions! Why are there four fundamental forces? Why not five or one? If these forces were different, our universe would due different. Stars might not exist, and life itself might be impossible. Yes, it's that old "fine tuning" argument again!

So there lies the big question... why is the universe the way it is? And in the 1970s, an extraordinary explanation emerged, which became known as String Theory.

We've traditionally assumed that the fundamental particles are just that - fundamental - with no further sub-structure. String theory says if we could examine these particles, we would find each one is not a "point" but a tiny one-dimensional loop - an infinitely thin, oscillating string. It transpires that the observed particle properties described in the tables above, are a mathematical consequence of the various modes in which a string can vibrate. Instead of producing musical notes, each pattern of vibration of a string appears as a particle whose mass and force charges are determined by the string's vibrational pattern.

The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string vibrating another way, etc. Particle properties in string theory are the manifestation of a single, physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration of fundamental loops of string. And the same idea explains the force particles and hence the forces of nature. Everything: all matter and all forces, unified by a single theory which as if that's not enough, also provides a model for multiple universes. The implications are profound...

String theory provides a single framework capable of explaining all forces and matter.

So - it's a neat explanation and Occam's Razor tempts us into believing it is right. But the scientific method requires it to make predictions which can be tested. Well, it certainly does make predictions - but to test them requires technology that won't be available for decades or maybe hundreds of years. Perhaps string theory is just plain wrong. Or maybe it's just an incredible coincidence that the modes of vibration just so happen to match the particle masses and charges. Perhaps the theory doesn't describe a physical feature - it's a framework that just so happens to explain the particle and force properties as an analogy, rather like the plastic models of molecules we remember from school. Molecules don't look like that at all - but the model works.

Whatever the outcome, it's going to keep physicists busy for many years to come...

---

---

During a recent debate with a creationist, I caused irritation by suggesting that the laws of physics were not designed and our universe is not "fine tuned" as many creationist authors like to suggest. I also caused some upset when i suggested the laws of physics we know about, could be different in other universes, or even in our own universe. Here's a brief explanation...

First of all, fine tuning. The creationist argument is that the existence of life on earth shows our universe has been "fine tuned" by a creator, in order to make life happen. This is based on a false assumption that the existence of something (anything) in an environment demonstrates the environment is "fine tuned". Using this logic implies that the South Pole is "fine tuned" for penguins, a rock in my garden is "fine tuned" for moss to grow on it, and so on. It's our old friend, "puddle thinking" as described in a previous blog!

So that's why our universe seems "just right" for the things that exist within it. But why is it the way it is? First thing to note is that the laws of physics did not exist before the universe came into existence. They didn't exist at the point of the big bang either. One of the greatest ongoing challenges in physics is to determine what the laws of physics were, prior to the laws of physics! During the first few trillionths of a second, the forces we see today came into being as space and time themselves came into being. And the forces did not all arrive at the same time. For example, the electromagnetic force and nuclear weak force were once a single force. So why are these forces and particles what they are, and how did they arrive? The best explanation so far is string theory.

String theory tells us that what we perceive as particles are actually one-dimensional strings which are not made of anything - but every particle and force is made of them. Just think about that mind blowing concept for a while...

This is consistent with the observation that the net energy in our universe is zero - in other words - the universe is just a special arrangement of nothing at all! The particles and the resultant forces that define our universe, and their attributes, are all accurately predicted by the vibrational modes of one dimensional strings. And even better, a whole range of new particles are predicted which we haven't observed yet. This makes string theory falsifiable, (i.e. testable).

String theory also has the added strength of being defined by mathematics and the equations are highly constrained by consistency. it means it is very likely there is only one unique string theory - a feature that competing particle hypotheses don't have.

We know that if we change the values of certain fundamental physical constants, the laws of physics would be different and our universe would be different, and life would be different. What we don't know is if these values can be different. Are all universes generated from strings? Is that a fundamental law for all universes? Is every other universe the same as ours? Can a universe be created that is not based on strings, but some other fundamental "thing"? Can universes have different physical dimensions to ours, maybe have no time dimension?

In a few generations, we will be able to create universes using particle accelerators and other methods. (This implies that our universe could have been created by an advanced civilisation in another universe. In other words - science supports the idea of a "creator"!)

When we begin to create universes ourselves, we will be able to answer some of the questions about how universes are "designed" assuming they can be designed. Will we be able to "fine tune" the strings?! And isn't it excellent that string theory allows us to have such cool musical analogies?! Wouldn't it be perfect if God was a cosmic Jimi Hendrix, and our universe was the result of a dominant seventh sharp ninth power chord on His Celestial Fender Strat? Maybe those harps the angels are supposed to play are a clue? But I digress...

Perhaps we will discover that universes can be "fine tuned", or perhaps we will discover that smashing particles to create universes creates unpredictable results, but if you smash enough you will eventually get a stable universe. Or we may discover that every time you create a universe, it looks just like ours. Come back in 200 years to see the results of those experiments! But there is a snag... when you create a universe, you can't see it or interact with it. So it could be tricky to determine whether we've created a universe, and what it's like.

And now let's consider just how solid our laws of physics are. What if, during those first few trillionths of a second after the big bang, there was more than one region created each with its own, different laws of physics? We haven't observed such a region and we tend to assume the laws of physics are consistent everywhere, based on what we've observed - but we can't rule it out. One thing science has learned is that axioms are only assumptions - and we often learn something amazing by breaking them.

Science can never rule anything out completely. Perhaps if we could travel millions of light years across our universe we'd find a region somewhere with 5 dimensional stars and silicon based life, or time running backwards, or giant clouds of crabs floating in space.

What if the laws of physics change over unimaginably long periods of time? Perhaps some of the oldest regions of the universe have different laws of physics to where we happen to live, because those laws have changed over time. When we view the distant galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, we are seeing light that is billions of years old - we see things as they were billions of years ago. Maybe time and space and the laws of physics are different out there "now".

Of course, a lot of this is hypothetical. All we know for sure is what we've observed. But science teaches us that anything is possible. We know what we know, and every year science discovers an awful lot more. I suppose there must be a limit to what science can discover, but we haven't reached it yet. In fact the rate of scientific discovery increases exponentially.

---

Gods have been described by humans for hundreds of centuries. Perhaps the idea is as old as our species. So let's go back in time and imagine our earliest ancestors who find themselves  creating tools, building shelters, changing their environment, lighting fires, making things with tools they've created.   Generally starting to control things in a small way.

Without knowing it, early humans are bypassing evolution. They don't have to wait for evolution to provide them with thick coats over hundreds of generations in order to survive the cold. They move to a cold area, see an animal with a woolly coat, and take it to make their own coats. Humans can live in just about any environment by using their superior brains.

Now imagine an ancient ancestor watching the sunset at the end of a busy day of making cool things.  He sees caves where he can hide from bears, trees that provide shade, plants that provide fruits and berries, a river with refreshing water and delicious fish. And he reflects on all this using his recently evolved neocortex and he asks himself a question... "This is an excellent place I'm in" and then he asks himself a question - a big question. It seems a reasonable question, but it's actually a fallacious question...

"So... who made the caves and trees and river and mountains?".  And then he thinks... "Well, there's only one thing I know about that makes things, and that's me and others like me.  But to make stuff this big... Well I couldn't do that. They must be a much bigger and more powerful thing than me. And I never see them doing it so they must be invisible. And in my tribe it's me and cousin Iggy who make the biggest stuff because we're the strong men, so whoever makes the mountains and rivers and caves must be male."

And so a god is born. Then more questions arise. When we make things it's because we want to do something with them. So our early human ancestor says... "If a god made the world around me, then why did he make it? He would have a reason." And so our ancestors think of reasons why a god would make a world.  And then they reach what seems an obvious conclusion.  

"These trees and rivers and caves and things to eat and animal skins... All this stuff which feeds me and keeps me sheltered and warm... Whoever made all those things must have made them for me. This god must care for me."

And so it goes on. The god is an answer to every question that can't be answered.

This is such a subtle trap to fall into because it seems such an obvious conclusion. To our ancestors it was intuitive, and 200,000 years of intuition isn't going to go away any time soon regardless of evidence which uncovers different explanations, often counter-intuitive, that don't require gods.

It reminds me of a puddle I spoke to last week who told me  how amazed he was that the hole he was in was such a perfect fit.  "This hole must have been created and fine tuned just for me - it can't be the right size by chance - that's just too improbable."

Then the sun came out...

---

In memory of Douglas Adams

---

---

Mathematics describes entities that don't exist in what we consider to be "physical reality". Perfect circles, squares, spheres... Multi-dimensional shapes which we can't even imagine. We are not inventing these things - they exist somehow. We discover them.

Let's think about what "reality" means. Physicist Max Tegmark refers to "the external reality hypothesis" - the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. But what is the nature of "external reality"?  For one thing,  it would have to be free from human language. And the only way to describe something without human language is using mathematics.  We know nature is accurately described by mathematics. Plato explained how the objects of mathematics actually exist. It seems abstract mathematics describes reality.

So here is Tegmark's crazy idea. Maybe the reason why mathematics describes reality so well is that mathematics is reality.  Mathematical entities actually exist - they are actual,  physical reality.

Just think about that for a minute...

... Yes it sounds crazy. But so did many famous theories when they were first hypothesised.  

In recent years physics has become totally reliant on mathematics structures. String theory might be the ultimate theory of the universe. It might not! But if it is, string theory is a mathematical structure so sophisticated it can describe everything, including our minds, our self-awareness, our feeling of being alive. 

If mathematics explains reality then it explains all of reality including all other universes.  And this would be possible because mathematical structures exist outside of time, independent of time.   A mathematical structure is a universe. 

A question arises... Even there are equations that describe our universe, why those equations in particular?  The answer is that other equations describe other parallel universes. Our universe has a specific set of equations because they statistically likely to happen based on the number of mathematical structures that can support life forms such as us.

This  hypothesis predicts there is more to reality than we ever imagined because every mathematical structure is another universe. Our universe is just another mathematical structure in a multiverse full of mathematical structures. Mathematics isn't just discovering things in our universe. We don't have to worry  which particular mathematical equations describe which type of reality. We just figure out whether we have uncovered a structure of our universe or the wider multiverse. 

Yes this is way out stuff.  Max Tegmark keeps these kinds of ideas separate from his "official" physics research. But if our descendants find a way to test Tegmark's ideas, it could be a momentous discovery.

---

---

One of the most extraordinary things about mathematics is how it discovers things that apparently don't exist in our universe. Perfect circles, squares, spheres - any shape described mathemetically – can only exist as approximations in our world. And yet the perfect versions exist "somewhere".

But there's even more amazing discoveries in mathemetics – it discovers things that we can't imagine. It has long been accepted by many people that there exists a “transcendent” realm where science could never reach, where things exist beyond human understanding. Recent discoveries in mathemetics (and physics) have broken this assumption.

A classic example are the assumptions made by Euclid which we all learn at school... parallel lines never meet; triangles have 180 degrees and so on. All seemingly true within our everyday experience. But then mathemeticians in the 19th century discovered that breaking these assumptions resulted in non-Euclidian geometry, which was consistent with its own equations. In fact it revealed several non-Euclidean geeometries. But do they describe “reality”? It was discovered that they do – the geometries of shapes on curved surfaces.

Some of the applications of non-Euclidian geometries didn't become clear until later scientific discoveries. Mathemetics was discovering features of our universe that we hadn't discovered by observation. Complex numbers based on the (unimaginable) square root of -1 is fundamental to our understanding of electrical power and various geometries in relativity.

A more spectacular example appears if we break the assumption that there are three dimensions of space. We're all familiar with our 3D world. We can create flat shapes (2D) and sold shapes (3D).

But what happens if we assume a fourth dimension of space? Or a fifth? Or 6, 7.... any number?

It's impossible to imagine a four dimensional universe, or four dimensional life. Imagine you are a “flat lander” living in a 2D world. You'd never see a square as a square, you could only see the edges and corners. But a 3D observer in “flat land” would be able to look down on you, and see inside your squares. For you, it would be impossible to look up – in flatland there is no up or down.

So a 4D observer in our 3D universe would be able to see inside our solid cubes – would be able to view our existence in a way we can't imagine.

Mathemeticians in the 16th century stumbled on this idea but considered it to be “unnatural”. In the 19th century n-dimensional geometry took off, and was discovered to be consistent, and therefore, ”real” in the sense that it can be analysed and defined. Although we can't imagine four dimensional shapes, we know all abou them and how they work. We can even project them onto our three dimensions in the same way that we can represent a 3D cube on a flat piece of paper. Here's a rotating 4D cube projected in 3 Dimensions...

{ Image: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif/200px-8-cell-simple.gif }

Multidimensional space which we can't imagine, but is it an abstract idea? Once again, physics eventually gets to a point where seemingly abstract mathemetics is required to resolve observations and theories. Quantum theory shows that our universe could be multidimensional, and that ours is not the only universe. The mathemetical work done in defining gemoeries we can't imagine, has a practical application.

The limits of science and mathemetics that we've assumed for so long, are starting to disappear.

---

---

2,500 years ago, Plato had a radical idea. Geometry defines ideal shapes: perfect triangles, circles, cubes, spheres, squares. But in reality, any shape that we create can never be perfect.

The most highly machined ball bearing is not perfectly spherical. The most accurately drawn triangle or square, created with the most advanced lasers controlled by supercomputers, will never be perfect. The level of perfection of what we make is determined by our ability to measure it, and a powerful microscope will discover imperfections or inaccuracy.

Plato considered the ideal shapes defined by geometry to inhabit another world, different to our physical world. This has been called the Platonic World of mathematical Forms*. This is where the perfect spheres, squares and triangles exist.

But is Plato's world “real”? Is it fictional – a product of our imagination? Either way it's a powerful idea because it makes us careful to distinguish between precise mathematical models and the approximate world of physical things.

Modern science provides theories to explain our world. A theory begins life as an hypothesis. This can't be an accepted theory until it's been used to make predictions which can be tested. When a scientist proposes a model of some aspect of the world, that model is mathematical so that it can be precisely specified. If it isn't, we can never be sure that the questions we are asking have well defined answers, which means we can't be sure our test results are right or wrong. But if the model is mathematical, it is also abstract.

We know our minds are not precise and can be tricked, and therefore our minds should not always be trusted. If we are providing scientific theories to describe our universe, we need something more reliable than our brains. And this is what mathematics gives us. It has a robustness far greater than any particular mind and it is internally consistent.

People engaged in mathemetical research feel like they are exploring a world beyond themselves and this world seems to have an objectivity which is independent of opinion. Mathematics isn't creating equations and models, it is discovering them. If human beings didn't exist, triangles, circles, squares and the number 7 would still exist in the world described by Plato. Mathemetical existence is not only different to our physical existence, it is different to the world we create mentally.

Not only that. Mathematics has gone even further and discovered and defined things that appeared to be totally abstract, but were then found to exist in our physical world. And even more amazing... mathematics has discovered and defined things that are beyond human imagination. More on this next time...

---

* Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality"

---

---

Kevin Nelson (Professor of Neurology at the University of Kentucky) has been studying near-death experiences (NDE) for more than 30 years and presents his research in a book I've just finished reading "The God Impulse".
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Impulse-Neurologist-Spiritual/dp/1847378315
In the book he explains how all of the elements of NDE are explained by brain functions. I can't reproduce an entire book, but here are some highlights...

Gillian was aware the delivery of her child was going wrong as she slipped into unconsciousness. She knew she was losing a lot of blood. Then everything became dark except for a dot of brilliant light. She was scared but found comfort in the light. "I was being drawn closer to it and it was getting bigger and bigger," she says. "The brightness was shining like the walls of a tunnel. I felt no fear as I went into the tunnel and emerged fully into the brilliance. There was the most wonderful feeling of bliss. I can only describe it as ecstasy. Suddenly I heard a man’s voice saying: “Gill.” It was a very nice voice and I thought: “Oh no, I’ve come before God - and I don’t even believe in Him!” He asked if I knew who he was and I said: “Yes, but I’m afraid I can’t say your name.” He obviously had a sense of humour because he chuckled at that."

This kind of experience happens to about 10% of us, usually during cardiac arrest. We will see a light, travel through a tunnel, feel profound joy, meet someone deceased who we were close to, or float above our unconscious bodies and look down on ourselves. Many people believe this to be a glimpse of the afterlife, and it usually leaves them unafraid of death.

A key factor in NDE is ‘REM intrusion’ - this is a paralysis that accompanies REM sleep but happens when we are awake and is accompanied by vivid hallucinations. Instead of passing directly between the REM state and wakefulness, the brains of those with NDE are more likely to blend the two states into one another. This places the subject into the ‘borderlands’ of consciousness.

Professor Nelson explains: ‘Many people enter this unstable borderland for only a few seconds or minutes before emerging into REM or waking. In the borderland, paralysis, lights, hallucinations and dreaming can come to us. During a crisis such as a cardiac arrest, the borderland could explain much of what we know as the near-death experience.’

NDE is a misleading term because they also happen during fainting. The common factor is a severely reduced flow of blood to the brain, which remains active, but the person slips in and out of consciousness. NDEs are caused because of a reaction to this. "When blood is draining from the head, just before consciousness is lost, the tissue that is most sensitive to failure is not the brain, it is actually the eye, the retina. When the retina fails, darkness ensues and it fails from the outside inwards, producing the characteristic tunnel vision. The light at the end of the tunnel could come from two different sources. It could be from ambient light - such as the background light in a hospital emergency room which may be all the brain can recognise as blood drains from the head. Alternatively, the REM system, which is known for its robust activation of the visual system, could generate light internally, within the brain."

Travelling through the tunnel and out-of-body experiences are generated in the brain's temporoparietal region, which is joined to the area of the brain responsible for our sense of motion. it is supposed to be turned off during REM sleep but the process breaks down during NDE and our brain experiences motion even though we are not moving.

Then there's an astonishing discovery made by doctors in Switzerland. Professor Olaf Blanke was preparing a 43-year-old woman for surgery and applying electrical impulses to her brain to try to find out what was causing her to have seizures. Suddenly, the woman, who had to be conscious for the procedure, said she had floated outside her body and was looking down on herself. The electrical current was switched off and she returned to her body. The out of body experience came and went with the mechanical predictability of turning on a light switch. The technician operating the switch altered her consciousness at will. The on/off switch for out of body experiences had been discovered.

So what about the feelings of "bliss" or "spiritual feelings"? This is an inbuilt mechanism in the brain - during moments of extreme crisis, the body releases chemicals that provide a sense of relaxation and well-being - this is an evolutionary feature that dates back to prehistoric times which remains in the most primitive part of our brain.

The good news is that when it's time for us to die, as we drift into unconsciousness, our brains ensure it's a pleasant experience. And none of this disproves God of course. As the professor says... "After all, who’s to say that these mechanisms weren’t created by God in the first place precisely to provide comfort just when we might need it most - as we approach death."

---

---

This is an argument often used by non-scientists to dismiss an idea they don't like or understand. The Creationist argument against evolution is the classic example. Evolution isn't true because "it's only a theory". The problem here is a lack of understanding of the word "theory". When a scientist is told an idea is "only a theory" he or she will look very puzzled, because that statement makes no sense at all in a scientific context.

In everyday language, the word "theory" is sometimes used to mean a guess or a notion. But in science, the word has a very specific meaning. To a scientist, a theory is the ultimate objective - the best explanation.

What does the dictionary say about theory?

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Science uses the scientific method to ensure theories are not accepted until they have been tested and used to make predictions. A theory has to tie together all the relevant facts, providing an explanation that fits observations. Until that happens, it's just an idea or a hypothesis.

And now we have a new word… hypothesis - often confused with theory. But actually very different. A hypothesis is an explanation, but it is based on conjecture. It may be a completely wild notion, or it may instinctively seem like a great explanation to many people. But until it passes the criteria laid down by the scientific method, it remains a hypothesis. Many theories begin life as an hypothesis, but they are different things. If you have a hypothesis and you believe it must be true, you are using faith instead of the scientific method. You might be wrong, you might be right. But in the absence of the scientific method your faith is making you sure. And that's risky. The scientific method rules out faith. A few years ago a doctor published a hypothesis that MMR vaccinations in children resulted in autism. He had faith in this idea based on anecdotal evidence. It wasn't a theory. As a result, parents stopped getting their children vaccinated and some died as a result.

A less dramatic example of a scientist being embarrassed in this way was Fred Hoyle who made some remarkable discoveries in his time but also promoted what he called the Steady State Theory (which was really a hypothesis) instead of the Big Bang hypothesis.. He did so for the wrong reason - he didn't like the idea of the universe having a starting point. He had no evidence to support his idea, just his faith that the big bang must be wrong. And eventually he was embarrassed by a student called Stephen Hawking who proved him wrong theoretically and Edwin Hubble who provided the physical evidence. And so the Big Bang theory became the best explanation.

It is also believed by some people that when a theory is proven it becomes law. This is another misunderstanding. Science collects observed facts. it uses laws to describe them. it uses theories to explain them. And as for proof... There's an argument that nothing can ever be proven absolutely. Proof can be defined as having sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a proposition.

Here's another word... Law

A theory never becomes law. A theory is in some ways more important than a law. For example, let's take the law of gravity which describes the time needed for an apple to hit the ground if you know how far it will fall and which planet you are on. The theory of gravity explains why the apple falls the way it does. Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity which explained a lot, but Einstein developed a better theory because it explained certain observations that Newton's theory could not. And one day Einstein's theory will be further refined by another scientist. Or maybe not!

So Newton and Einstein provided theories, but these can't be changed into laws. They are theories - they provide explanations.

Evolution is another example. Evolution is a fact - it is genetic change over time and we see it happening. The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best explanation of those facts. Remarkably it seems to be the most robust theory ever provided by science - it's been tested for over 150 years and no one has come up with a significant improvement yet. It is even finding applications outside of biology which no one expected.

So… theory, hypothesis, law, faith… words which mean different things to different people. But within the realm of science, very specific words with very specific meanings.

---

---

That's me. Not just me. That's everyone.

This is one of the most amazing facts about the human brain. And exploring it reveals many secrets of how the mind works.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a left brain and right brain - the brain consists of two symmetrical "halves" called hemispheres. It was discovered in the 1960s that one way to cure people with severe epilepsy is to cut through the connection between the two halves - this connection is the corpus callosum. The treatment works. What was unexpected is how this affected the mind. The human brain carries out specific functions in the left and right halves, but what is odd is how the two halves can operate independently. Typically, the left half demonstrates behaviour that is logical, analytical, verbal and rational. The other side behaves in a conceptual imaginative way.

While the two halves are connected, instructions pass between them at the speed of light, to achieve "whole brain" behaviour. But with a patient who has a split brain, an amazing thing happens. A technique was developed to enable researchers to communicate with each half independently.

Researchers used this technique to interview a split brain patient. They asked his right side what occupation he would like to follow and it replied "racing driver". But his left brain responded "draughtsman". Other behaviours in other patients included trying to pull up his trousers with his right hand while his left hand was trying to pull them down, attacking his wife with his right hand while his left hand tried to defend her.

Another experiment with split brain patients involved using flash cards to show a word so that the right half of the brain would interpret the information. The patient would write down the word with his left hand. But when the patient was asked what word he'd written, he didn't know. The information sent to the right hemisphere was unknown to the left side (which controls language).

Perhaps the most amazing result is in he area of opinions. A split brain patient was asked about perceptions of himself. His right brain responded that he was a good person, his left brain responded that he was not good. Each brain half seems to have its own emotions and opinions.

More information here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

---

---

Continuing on our French road trip we stop at the Aire du Poitou Charentes. That might conjure up an image of a sleepy, romantic French village but it's actually a motorway service area. Just about anything can sound romantic when you say it in French. I can't help being impressed by the facilities on the French motorways, and this rest area is excellent. But just my luck, two massive buses full tourists have arrived just before us, so it's going to be busy.

As I stand in line to order coffee, I am physically barged out of the way by a group of elderly French men and women. Now... I know stereotypes can be unfair, but there is a cultural difference between the UK and France when it comes to standing in line. In the UK we stand in line. In France, they don't.

I actually thought it was quite funny being jostled by these old people and I joined in the spirit and jostled them back. Not enough to knock them over of course. And I didn't use my elbows. That would be out of order.

Even the cafeteria staff seemed surprised. A bunch of these elderly travellers had grabbed various food items and were waving their money in the air, trying to pay the guy who makes the coffee, who was trying to explain that the cashier was at the other end of the counter. I had to laugh because these people - in their 70s and 80s - were behaving like a class of unruly 5 year olds on a school trip.

Eventually I'm sitting enjoying my coffee and croissant and observing the bus party as they fight for tables and generally swarm around. They are all wearing matching silk scarves, and some kind of badge with what looks like a crucifix. And then I notice two nuns who seem to be in charge, although they are keeping a low profile.

By the time I return to the car, the bus party are swarming all over the parking lot, oblivious to traffic. It would be wrong for me to drive through them so I wait until they disperse. Then i see the sign on the front of their buses - "Lourdes". They are on a pilgrimage to the village where The Virgin Mary made an appearance about 150 years ago, a place reputed to have healing powers in the water.

So perhaps these elderly people are in poor health, and seeking a cure, physically and/or spiritually. I feel sympathy for them and I hope they feel better after their trip. (However I did read once that many people return from Lourdes in worse health, because the place is full of sick people spreading disease - but that's another story).

I can't help imagining the scene in Lourdes, as they barge their way through other groups of pilgrims, knocking them over into the holy pool. Perhaps they will receive the gift of good manners.

---

I am in France. This is not through choice. My youngest child has been working as a teacher in the south of France and it's time for her to come home. She's gathered too many possessions to fly home with so it's become a road trip. 1500 miles in total.

In order to drive a UK car in France there are certain requirements. Every car must carry:

A red warning triangle
First aid kit
Fire extinguisher
High visibility reflective vests for each occupant of the car
A breathalyser (don't ask me why)
A "GB" plate identifying country of origin
Full set of documentation to validate insurance, roadworthiness and ownership of the vehicle
Flashlight
Spare set of bulbs for headlamps and rear lights
Headlight adjusters

That cost me about £100 before I'd even left home. And if you have a GPS device which includes the locations of speed cameras, it can be confiscated and you will be fined £1000. And speed limits are enforced with zero tolerance. If you exceed the limit by 1mph you're guilty, even though it's impossible to calibrate a speedometer to that level of accuracy.

The journey was surprisingly easy. The French motorways were almost empty, and the rest stops on the motorway are superb with great food, interesting shops and wifi.

And no sign of a policeman until I was 600 miles into the journey. We stopped at a toll booth and a policeman was standing in front of my car, legs apart, arms folded, staring at me. Reminded me of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 robot in Terminator 2. This is it I thought. I'm going to be fined because my first aid kit is the wrong shade of red or something.

But he wasn't an evil robot from the future after all. He just watched me as I drove past. Then I realised - of course he didn't stop me. My car is a Peugeot.

---

Thankfully, it's rare for a patient to die in our care, but such an event occurred this week, and it brought home to me how amazing the staff working in mental health care can be.

A couple of years ago, John (not his real name) was admitted following a severe physical brain injury, as well as significant physical healthcare problems. One day he was a fit, happy, family man. The next day he was something else entirely.

John couldn't speak. He would crawl around on the floor, displaying extreme aggression. He would disrupt other patients and required 24/7 supervision by a minimum of two staff, sometimes four staff, trained as nurses but also specialists in dealing with aggression and violence. I saw the treatment he received many times. Every small step he made was celebrated. Perhaps he would smile, or he would let a nurse brush his teeth, or he would say "yes" in response to a question. Even a short period of calm behaviour would be congratulated - it was a big achievement. When he was unhappy or scared, he would wail like, well like nothing I've ever heard in my life. The staff always treated him with dignity, compassion and respect even during his most extreme episodes.

Occasionally he would make eye contact and you could see fear in his eyes, confusion, pleading... you could tell he had no idea where he was, or what was happening to him. Sudden brain damage must be an unimaginable nightmare because you cannot process what is going on. You appear to be someone else. Not so long ago he would have been regarded as possessed by "demons" and exorcised. Some people would question the "value" of having to pay for four full time skilled staff on duty 24 hours every day, just for one patient.

I've seen some incredible recoveries in my time, thanks to advances in psychiatry, but John's brain was so badly damaged, and his physical health so poor, little could be done. His family would often visit, full of hope, but there was no happy ending. His physical health problems worsened and he passed away. A blessed relief some might say. But despite the incredible challenges he presented, we miss him because there was always hope.

---

---

Some people must assume they live in a soundproof force field and no one can hear what they say.

These events all occurred during the last 7 days...

I was on a train sitting opposite two guys. I soon realised they were discussing a defendant in a court case, and they were policemen out of uniform. Names were mentioned... evidence was discussed. How did they know I wasn't involved in the case? Or a journalist?

I was in a cafe and a group of three women were discussing the behaviour of a child. Turns out they were teachers. The child's name was mentioned. Some details about his parents private lives were revealed, including their address and the father's criminal record. I could have been a parent with a child at that school. Other teachers were named and criticised.

I was bagging my shopping and the cashier was chatting to another cashier about the previous customer - some very personal and nasty comments.

Whatever happened to discretion?

---

---

This is a tough week. 12 hours study everyday with two exams. I used to thrive on this kind of thing when I was in my 20s. But most of my brain has gone now.

Annoyingly I saw a book at the train station today and had to buy it. Annoying because I don't have time to read it, or rather, I shouldn't be spending time reading it this week, but probably will.

It's called "The God Impulse - Is Religion Hard Wired Into Our Brains?" and it's by Kevin Nelson, a Professor of Neurology with 30 years experience and it explores the biology behind human spirituality. He's identified the various neurological processes that produce spiritual experience as a by product.

Stay tuned for amazing revelations. But not this week. 

(I wonder if he has any tips for an elderly person taking exams?)

That reminds me.  Saw a movie called "Limitless" <SPOILER ALERT> about a pill that unlocks the 90% of the brain that we can't access consciously. I need one of those pills...

---

---

This is a neat diagram.

The "explanatory gap" is where all the cool stuff happens.

{ Image: dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch01/Ch01-1.gif }

---

...is one of my favourite TV shows. It shows us the life and times of a group of socially inept theoretical physicists. It's hilarious. Not only is the show terrific, so is the theme tune and I was ecstatic to discover a full version. I insist you download it from amazon now! here are the awesome lyrics...

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their backsides off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

---

A psychiatrist colleague of mine has sent me an extraordinary piece of research which has resulted in a computer that can read your thoughts. The computer decodes your brain activity and reconstructs the electrical signals into the words you are thinking about. 

This isn't just a party trick...   people who are currently unable to speak could have a voice generated by a computer based on what they are thinking.  Now it seems to me that could be a bit awkward because sometimes I think words that I don't say!  But seriously... A major step forward for people who can't speak. And yet another massive step forward in explaining how the mind works.

"Potentially, the technique could be used to develop an implantable prosthetic device to aid speaking, and for some patients that would be wonderful," said Robert Knight, a senior member of the team and director of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, "Perhaps in 10 years it will be as common as grandmother getting a new hip."

Here's the research paper...

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001251

Last time I saw Mary (not her real name) she had been admitted to a mental health facility due to extreme psychosis. The voices in her mind were unbearable to the point where she was smashing her head on the corners of furniture to try to make them go away. The voices would tell her she deserved to die. They would criticise her every action and she was terrified to go to sleep. She was convinced that a UK TV talkshow host was Satan and phoned the police to have him arrested. To escape the "demons" she hid in a park under a tree overnight. Her family found her, called an ambulance and she was taken to a secure mental facility.

Today, we are able to have a conversation. Her head is scarred for life from the self harm, but the voices are not troubling her.

Medication was the key to stabilising her when she was admitted. Dopamine carries messages around the brain and if it's out of control... So are your thoughts. Not so many years ago families of people like this called on priests to "exorcise" the "demons". Now we know it's a bug in the brain's software that can be fixed, or worked around.

Mary might be on medication all her life. It's possible her brain will develop a resistance and another drug will be needed. It's possible she will be able to come off the drug over time and lead a normal life with therapy. Hard to tell as this kind of science is new and has a lot to discover .

OK, I know it sounds ridiculous. But let's think about what life is. Living things have these qualities:

1  They react to their environment 
2  They consume substances to extract energy
3  They reproduce
4  They use respiration 
5  They emit waste

So think about a forest fire.

1 it reacts to its environment. It changes if the wind blows. It burns brighter or with different colours depending on where it is 

2 It consumes wood, leaves, plastic, animals, all kinds of things to use for energy

3 It reproduces. It starts small and spreads across a massive area

4 Fire exhibits respiration. It uses oxygen. It dies without it. 

5 It emits smoke as waste. It leaves behind ashes and charcoal as waste.

So... Next time you put out a fire, note that you're not putting it out... You're KILLING IT!

I was throwing out some old magazines today when I found a copy of New Scientist which had this interesting list. The magazine explains that "There is nothing more fascinating to most of us than ourselves so it is hardly surprising that we have expended large amounts of effort trying to get to the bottom of what it means to be human. What is surprising is that there are so many traits that remain enigmatic. These range from the sublime to the ridiculous".

They certainly do. Here's the top 10...

1 Blushing: Why do we turn red when we lie?

2 Laughter: Endorphins are released when we laugh which make us feel good, but we sometimes laugh at things which re not funny.

3 Kissing: One theory is that it is associated with memories of breastfeeding and that ancient humans weaned their children by feeding them from their mouths, which reinforced the link between sharing saliva and pleasure. (ewww)

4 Dreaming: The process of dreaming has been explained but why we see strange visions has yet to be properly explained.

5 Superstition: Evolution can partly explain why we develop some unusual but reassuring habits in ancient times. Religion seems to tap into this impulse.

6 Picking your nose: There is no practical reason to do this. But a quarter of teenagers do it, on average four times a day. Also people who drive their cars who think no one can see them. Hey - I can see you.

7 Adolescence: It seems humans are the only animals to experience unpredictable and irrational behaviour in teenage years. Perhaps it helps our brain reorganise itself before adulthood or allow experimentation in behaviour before the responsibility of later years.

8 Altruism: giving things away with no certain return is odd behaviour in evolutionary terms although other animals do this apart from humans. It may help with group bonding or simply give pleasure.

9 Art: Painting, dancing, sculpture, music could be the human equivalent of a peacock's tail in showing what a good potential mate someone is. Or, it could also be a tool for spreading knowledge or sharing experience.

10 Body hair: Humans have fine hairs on their bodies and thick hair on their genitals and armpits - which is the opposite of what occurs in primates, our closest animal relatives.

I've just found out Morgan Freeman is an atheist. This is a surprise. When I watched Bruce Almighty I thought he was very convincing in the role of God. Even his voice was perfect.

Not sure I will be able to watch that movie again.

I've been learning about synthetic biology. I've heard of it but had no idea how far it had gone.

Scientists can now design and build biological organisms that do not already exist in nature. That's quite amazing.

Even more amazing, scientists (and students) can create and share "bio-bricks" which are DNA sequences that perform a specific function. You can download these just like open source software. For example, you could download a biobrick which is the DNA sequence that makes a jellyfish glow in the dark and introduce that into the DNA of a mouse to make a luminous mouse. 

Ok that's not a very practical thing to do.  Here's a better example. Spider web silk is incredibly strong - if we had enough we could make fabrics stronger than anything man made. You could make bullet proof skin. So... 

- Isolate the spider gene that makes the web
- introduce that gene into a goat embryo 
- breed "spider goats". They look just like any normal goat by the way except...
- when you milk the goat, the milk contains the spider web protein.
- extract the protein in the lab and you can literally pull out as many miles of spider web silk as you want on to reels.

This isn't fantasy - this is actually happening on a commercial scale at Utah State university. 

Another example is the production of diesel from genetically modified yeast. You don't have to wait millions of years for crude oil to be created underground. You can make diesel in a lab, from yeast. And it's being done now.

Synthetic biology is now so widespread it's a hobby for some people - designing and modifying DNA sequences as biobricks on their home computers and sharing them online.

The moral questions are interesting...

About 3 months ago I started reading "The Road To Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose. I'm only halfway through - it's 1049 pages and it's hard going.

His approach is to show how the physics that defines our universe falls out of the underlying mathematics. And so he starts with Pythagorus and builds on that to derive all of the mathematics needed for quantum physics, space-time, and the laws of the universe. I can't confirm this as I'm still wading through fibre bundles and gauge connections (page 329).

He does however reveal a beautiful aspect of our universe whereby mathematics can lead to new discoveries - even new universes. It's quite a simple idea - you take something that is considered to be a fundamental truth and then analyse what happens if it's not true.

Take parallel lines which as we learn at school, never meet. What if they did? Well, that leads to non-Euclidean geometry. The impact of this discovery was sensational - it went way beyond mathematics and science.

This idea has been repeated many times. What if we assume (-1) has a square root? What if we can divide by zero? What if we assume more than three physical dimensions? And so on. Each one leading to a new aspect of reality. Whatever that is.

The physicist Max Tegmark has suggested that reality IS mathematics. Mathematics is all that exists. Could be...

Arranged to meet a colleague for lunch at St Paul's Cathedral - surely one of the most magnificent buildings in the world. They have a cafe in the crypt which does a very nice lunch of soup and sandwiches.

There is now a small encampment (known as "tent city") outside the cathedral where anti-globalisation protestors have been living for several months. In fact they are anti lots of things... religious fundamentalism, capitalism, war, that kind of thing.

When they first arrived there were thousands of them. The cathedral was closed for the first time ever, and the Dean had to resign. He'd seen the protestors as some kind of threat but ironically, they were protesting - peacefully - about many of the same things that Jesus spoke against. He should have spoken to them, made some arrangements. I guess the Dean lost his job for not having read the bible properly.

Anyhoo.... I had a look around tent city - they have a tent selling books and magazines - they call it Tent City University. They have all the facilities they need to stay for a long time, including a block of toilets. I chatted to some of the occupants and very pleasant they were too. But they were blocking the entrance to the cafe and I wasn't afraid to tell them.

The only way in was through the main entrance which usually means paying a hefty visitor's fee. But when I said I wanted the cafe I was escorted through various rope barriers and past queues of people as if I was a visiting dignitary, then allowed to head off on my own. Which means I had full access to the cathedral for nothing. Surprised they haven't spotted this loophole.

Eventually found my way to the cafe, where my colleague was waiting, having had a similar experience. But we had a delicious lunch, surrounded by the dead bodies of some of England's greatest leaders and thinkers. (Suitably entombed of course)

And the soup was delicious. So if you're ever in London - check it out.

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen the Thor movie yet - don't read any further!

Actually it's Monday. Which probably is derived from "moon's day" but maybe not. I can't be bothered to google it. Funny how most of the days of the week are named after gods... Tiu; Wodan; Thor; Friya...

Anyway... I picked up my grandson from school today and noticed how smart he was. His shows trousers and coat all looked clean and new. A sharp haircut. I'm sure when I was 4 years old I would be muddy and scruffy by the end of the school day.

We arrived at my house after a quick stop to buy some fruit pastilles and sat down to do some reading practice but that didn't last long, so we watched the Thor movie on DVD. Well not all of it - I skipped the boring bits so we watched the whole movie in 30 minutes. We cheered as Thor demolished the ice giants with his mighty hammer Mjolnir (try explaining how to spell that word to a 4 year old), then we almost shed a year when Thor's dad (Odin aka Wodan maybe?) shouted at him for starting a fight (but as I explained his dad was right) and we were most upset when Thor was banished to Earth with no superpowers as punishment. (Or the cosmic naughty step as I explained).

We laughed as human Thor came to terms with his limitations, scoffed pancakes in one mouthful at the diner, we were a bit embarrassed when he kissed a girl (ewww), we were angry at Loki for telling Thor his dad was dead, we couldn't believe it when Loki's Giant robot kills Thor. WHAT?!?!? How can a God be dead?!??? But imagine our joy when Mjolnir senses Thor's predicament and flies into Thor's hand and Thor is resurrected! Yay! He then goes on to deal with Loki, save the ice giants from annihilation, proves he is wise after all, and joins his dad in the heavenly realm of Asgard where they become friends again.

Sadly (for me) my daughter arrived at this point to collect my grandson so we didn't have time to play hot wheels. That will have to wait until Saturn's day.