Hi Pluto!

New Horizons is a success!  Today's flyby is an amazing accomplishment.  It's hard to believe that we finally know what Pluto looks like in great detail.  As a kid, I loved looking at images of the solar system, but I was frustrated by the fact that our best images of Pluto were so blurry.

That's not a problem anymore!

Say hi!

(NASA)

Billions of miles traveled.  9 years have passed since New Horizons loaunched, and it took many years of planning to even get to that point.  Congratulations to the people who made it possible!

Video: Riding Light

This short film is 45 minutes long, but it's worth a look if you'd like a light speed tour of our solar system!

Video: Winning at Rock-Paper-Scissors

Here's an interesting video explaining how you can use psychology to decimate your opponent. Though I've never tried it, I imagine this technique could be adapted to win at Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock as well.

DeflateGate with Bill Nye and Funny or Die

Gotta love Bill Nye!  However, Bill Nye plus Funny or Die is amazing!

Bill Nye The Science Guy Tackles DeflateGate from Funny Or Die

Wanderers: A Short Film

I don't know what else to say.  This is amazing and inspiring.  I hope we find a way to make this future a reality sometime soon.


Wanderers - a short film by Erik Wernquist from Erik Wernquist on Vimeo.

Landing on a Comet: A Love Song

For those of you who somehow haven't heard the news, a man made space craft has landed on a comet for the first time.  Hello 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko!

The Rosetta mission has been in the works for a long time.  This mission was approved in 1993, and the craft itself was launched in 2004.  You can see a timeline of the mission HERE.  This is an amazing moment, not only for the ESA, but for humanity as a whole.  Let's celebrate!




You can also hear the comet "sing" to you!  Apparently the sound is caused by weak oscillations in 67P's magnetic field.  You can find a more in-depth explanation for this HERE.  Keep in mind, we wouldn't normally be able to hear these sounds.  The frequency has been increased by a fair bit (about 10,000 times) to make your enjoyment possible.




A big congratulations and thank you to all the scientists who made this achievement possible!

Partial Solar Eclipse Coming to North America This Week!

The Collision of Andromeda and the Milky Way

O is for Original vs. Copy

Today I want to address the topic of duplicates.  In science fiction, a duplicate can be created through cloning, or through some kind of freak accident.  When this happens, the story in question has a great opportunity to explore the nature of identity.

Now, in thinking about how I wanted to tackle this issue, I realized a post that I wrote months ago on my writing blog addressed most of the issues that I wanted to talk about here.  So, I decided to re-post it here, not out of laziness, but because I think it's worth sharing here.  You can see the original post HERE.

*               *               *

Descartes penned the famous words "I think, therefore I am."  We know we exist because we are thinking beings.  And our thoughts, our memories, are a large part of who we are.  Even when we stand at a crossroads in life, confused about which path to take, we still feel confident about our identity.  We know our name, we know about our past, we know what our dreams were as children (even when real life forces us to change gears). When someone asks us who we are, we can typically provide them with an answer deemed satisfactory by both parties.

However, life can become complicated.  And in the realm of science fiction, life altering complications are the norm.  I recently re-watched the Star Trek TNG episode "Second Chances" (Season 6, Episode 24).  In this episode, a visit to a science outpost reveals that there are two William T. Rikers.  When Riker served aboard the Potempkin eight years earlier, a transporter accident resulted in the materialization of two Rikers: one aboard the Potempkin, and one on the science station.  After living alone on the science station for eight years, Lieutenant Riker is shocked to learn of the existence of Commander Riker.

Is one of them the real Riker?  After all, we each have an idea of our own unique identity.  Would the presence of a copy threaten that unique identity?  (In thinking about this question, I wrote a poem.)  Let's run with our intuition for a minute in thinking about this question.  Say you were to walk into a scientist's lab and scanned.  Before your eyes, a perfect duplicate materializes, complete with a record of your memories.  You'd intuitively say "I'm the real me.  They're the copy."  Yet, possessing your memories up to the point of being scanned, your duplicate would likely make an impassioned case that they're the real you. Why wouldn't they?  They possess everything you do that makes you who you are.  You are both thinking beings, and you think you possess the same identity. How can that be?

In the case of this episode, Riker didn't even see a duplicate materialized.  His body was disassembled, and the information ended up manufacturing two Rikers.  Both of them came into existence at the same time with the same DNA and the same memories.  In a very real sense, there's no way to point to one of the Rikers and say "This is the real one."  At the moment they both materialized, they both had an equal right to declare the same identity. It is my assertion that for that one moment, the Rikers were very much the same person, though they inhabited different bodies.  After that moment of genesis, however, their lives proceeded down very different paths, producing distinct memories and attitudes.  Each passing day differentiated them from one another a little more. The identities they possessed became more recognizably their own.  When we see the two of them together on the Enterprise eight years later, they are certainly similar in more ways that not, and a casual observer might say they are the same person, though that is no longer the case.

If you think this scenario seems disconcerting, you're not alone.  Lieutenant Riker and Commander Riker clearly rubbed each other the wrong way.  They saw in one another what might have happened, what may have been.  They also likely felt intruded upon.  Lieutenant Riker expresses interest in rekindling his romance with Deanna Troi, which Commander Riker had left behind in the pursuit of his career.  So long as the two of them remained on the same ship, it seemed inevitable they would tread on each others toes.  It seems clear there's only enough room in our lives for one of us.

In the end, Lieutenant Riker leaves the ship to restart his career.  There was little doubt this would happen.  He has to make a new life for himself, and he could never do that on the Enterprise.  Commander Riker is our Riker.  He's the one who serves as Picard's right hand man.  He's the one we've watched play poker and trombone.  While it was fun to see the other Riker for a time, one feels more authentic than the other.  We may know intellectually that this is ridiculous, but that doesn't change the gut feeling we have.  Had we begun the series following Lieutenant Riker on the science station, our feelings would be different.

Perhaps this is why, before he goes, Lieutenant Riker decides to go by his middle name: Thomas.  He understandably wants to claim a life for himself, though to be fair, he could have just as easily said Commander Riker should change his name. Except one of them has been alone for eight years, and when he did set foot on a starship again, he clearly stood in the shadow of our Riker.  He changes because he's put in a position where he feels like an imposter, regardless of how strongly he feels about who he is.  One Riker has an entire ship of colleagues who can attest to who he is and can say that he's the Riker they know.  The other doesn't have that.  He needs to seek that out.  Deciding to claim the name Thomas is, in my opinion, an attempt on his part to embrace his own path and make a place for himself.

I know I've covered a lot here, but I'm encouraged by the questions I've raised.

• How is our sense of self enforced by the people around us?
• Why would a duplicate threaten our sense of identity?
• What constitutes identity?
• How do experiences shape our identity?  What about biology?  (Nature vs. Nurture is an old philosophical debate)

I is for Immortality

Humans spend a lot of time contemplating death.  In general, though we know we’ll die eventually, we do what we can to prevent it.  Medical advances have been increasing life expectancy, and there is good reason to believe that scientists will continue to research cures for the ailments that afflict us.  Will those efforts one day lead us to virtual immortality?  Would that even be a desirable outcome?

One way we could potentially extend life is through replacing body parts as they wear out.  This could either be through building mechanical replacements, turning one into a cyborg.  It could also entail cloning human organs and transplanting them.  (The film The Island shows entire cloned people being kept in reserve for the instance when the original might need a transplant from them.)  Or perhaps the entire body could be cloned, and the memories of the person transferred from the old, worn-out body into the new one.  Could such a transfer be possible?  If you attempt to transfer a person’s memories and personality, could something be lost in that transfer?  Do you think he/she would count as being the same person after undergoing such a procedure?

Image courtesy of emtotskee/
DeviantArt

Science fiction has also played with the idea of downloading a person’s consciousness into a computer.  In the Doctor Who episodes “Silence in the Library” and “Forest of the Dead” we see people kept as digital information inside the planet’s data core.  The upcoming film Transcendence also deals with downloading someone to cheat death.  The question is, is this really cheating death?  How do you know that the downloaded consciousness is the same person?  What if something is lost in the transfer?  Could a human consciousness cope with being taken away from a physical body, or would the shift be so dramatic that it could drive them to madness?  Or would they be liberated to become something superior to humans?  Would they even count as human beings anymore?

There are so many unknowns that it’s impossible to answer these questions with absolute certainty.  I’d like to leave you with one final question though.  If you could become immortal, would you want to?  Would living forever be a gift, or a burden?  (I’m thinking of the Star Trek Voyager episode “Death Wish” as I write this.)

G is for Genetic Engineering

As science progresses and we learn more about genetics, we become more capable of manipulating genetic codes.  The human genome has been mapped, and we’re gaining new understandings as to how our genetics influence our lives.  Some people are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of cancers.  Genetic defects lead to lifelong diseases, some fatal, some debilitating.  With time and additional research, scientists hope to devise ways of treating such diseases.

Image courtesy of  Caroline Davis2010/
Flickr

As we look upon this new frontier, we need to understand where this new frontier might lead us.  It’s one thing to use our existing knowledge to cure existing diseases, but it is another altogether to use that knowledge to engineer humans to circumvent these issues in the first place.  In the film Gattaca, parents can choose which traits should be eliminated from their children.  This includes diseases, but can also include myopia, a propensity for obesity, and other things of that nature.  Parents can select eye and hair color.  Embryos that do not meet the specified requirements are discarded.

Countless people who have revolutionized our world would never have been born in this world.  Is this a valid argument against genetic engineering, or could the case be made that the generations of genetically enhanced people might accomplish even more?  Does that even matter?  Is it unethical despite any positive results that might come from it?  Or is it simply our fear of the unknown that makes us hesitant?  Would it be more unethical to allow people to suffer from debilitating diseases that could have been prevented altogether?

Science fiction has also explored the possibility of splicing human DNA with that of other animals in the interest of enhancing our strength or other physical attributes.  What are the ethical implications of this?  What unforeseen consequences might result?  How would this kind of experimentation change what it means to be human?

C is for Colonization

One of the most common themes present in science fiction is colonization.  Even if the process of colonization is not present in a story, you often see humans living on alien worlds, or living on ships and exploring the cosmos.  This exploration/colonization is an undeniable part of our history.  Explorers have always pushed the boundaries of the known world, seeking out the unknown.  Though the exploration of space comes with expenses and challenges different from what has come before, there seems little reason to assume that we will not one day set forth and colonize other worlds.

Movies like Wall-E show humans leaving Earth due to severe pollution making the environment inhospitable to life.  Other scenarios show us spreading out due to overpopulation concerns.  The environment can, after all, sustain a certain number of human beings before we lose the ability to produce enough food to feed us all.  Some scientists estimate that maximum capacity to be about 10 billion people.

How do we go about the colonization process?  Terraforming is the process by which humans make uninhabitable worlds suitable for human needs, and is frequently used in sci-fi, though some scientists question whether such a project would be practical.  Sometimes humans simply look for worlds that are already suited to our biology, though those worlds may have their own life forms that would protest our plans.  We also see artificial environments such as biodomes set up on planets like Mars, or humans living on space stations.

Image courtesy of Shadow-Trance/
DeviantArt

Each method of colonization comes with its own concerns.  Regardless of whether it is practical to alter the environment of another planet, would it be ethical to do so?  If we colonize another world with other living creatures, how will our presence impact them?  What kind of responsibility would we have for those other life forms?  Do you think we really are destined to move between the stars, or will we allow concerns about money or a lack of ambition to keep us on the ground?

A is for Asimov and Artificial Intelligence

There is an undercurrent of fear in sci-fi when it comes to artificial intelligence.  AI is both a testament to the power of our own minds, as well as a reminder of our shortcomings.  Artificial intelligence doesn’t suffer from frailty of body as humans do.  It is also frequently envisioned as lacking emotion, such as Data in Star Trek.  This frightens us, as we do not know what an emotionless intelligence may be capable of doing.  For example, we see Skynet become self-aware in the Terminator franchise, and the results are devastating for humanity.

Isaac Asimov was a prominent science fiction writer, and he is perhaps best remembered for writing I, Robot and formulating the Three Laws of Robotics (which were introduced in 1942 short story “Runaround”).

1.       A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.      A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.      A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

The Zeroth Law was also later added.

0.      A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

These laws establish parameters for how we would like any potential artificial intelligences to relate to us.  Knowing how powerful AI could possibly be, we want to make sure it won’t harm us.  We fear a loss of control when it comes to that which we create to serve our own needs.

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick/
FreeDigitalPhotos.net

There are a few questions that have always intrigued me about AI, and I hope they trigger some discussion.

1. Could AI become so complex that we no longer recognize it as our own creation?
2. Which would we actually find more intimidating: an emotionless artificial intelligence, or an AI that has grown so complex that it becomes practically indistinguishable from us in an emotional sense?
3. If AI were to become so sophisticated that it has genuine emotion, is it unethical to force it to adhere to the laws of robotics?
4. What responsibility do we hold toward an AI that we create?  What responsibility to we hope it would feel toward us?  How can we negotiate any conflicts that might arise?

Science fiction will surely continue to deal with these questions, and many more.  What questions does the existence of artificial intelligence raise for you? 

Go Galaxy Hopping: Fly Through Thousands of Galaxies in 3D

Witness the Birth of a Snowflake (Video)

Video: Let's Go to Space!

The human species is full of differences, and those differences often lead to conflict.  Yet we all share a common interest in creating a better future for us all.  I've always believed that a crucial part of creating that future is venturing into space.

When I saw this video, I knew I had to share it.  It captures my feelings on the subject perfectly.  We may be different from one another in many ways, but our shared sense of curiosity and wonder, our shared humanity, must eventually lead us to the stars.  At least, I hope that's the case.

Video: Star-Crossed Galaxies

Bill Moyers and Neil deGrasse Tyson Talk Science and Religion

This program may be a half hour long, but the time passes quickly.  Of course, that's true with anything involving Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and an Awesome Kid

At age 9, this kid is obviously quite intelligent and curious, asking thought-provoking questions.  The future looks bright from here.

In Celebration of Carl Sagan: Crowdsourced Blue Dot