Delusions of Superiority
As the new school
year starts here in Portugal, I'm force fed a number of bullshit assertions that
I've long ago shunned from my mindset.
It all relates to that simple and level-headed rule of science "There are no
special rules for phenomena", that is, no phenomenon whatsoever is entitled to a
special set of rules before the normal rules are deemed insufficient. But people
do this all the time.
On my Education Psychology class, though I concur with my teacher that
observation, perception and interpretation depend on the beholder, I can't
concur with him that there are only the view points of humans and no others.
Well, I'm not postulating aliens, supernatural entities or other poppycock like
that.
What I'm talking about is a neutral point of view. That which science strives to
achieve. Which I envision as a grayscale interaction of waves of quantum fields
(though it nor is grayscale neither only constituted by waves).
Though that's the fabric that underlies reality, I do have confidence in my
senses when it comes to evaluating the normal and the ordinary. Only when it
comes to the extraordinary: the detached realms of experience, whether the
astral plane or the field of the strong nuclear force, I realize my senses can't
apprehend those stimuli. Only logic and technology can deem those realms real or
not.
Has I think no sentient species is special, or they as a whole are special, I
tend to cringe at the quantum mechanic's experimental paradigm.
It states that an experimenter affects what it observes in certain manners, For
example, one can't know both the position and velocity of a particle accurately.
Though this shows the inner workings of quantum physics I think that stating
experimental constraints as a fact is more of a hindrance than a benefit as it
leads to strange notions as "anthropic universe". The problem here is that the
way experiments detect, for example electrons, is through their interaction with
"probes", particles the experimenter throws in their way to see what happens.
The way we study objects doesn't constraint what they can do. Electrons will act
mainly as particles or waves depending on the interaction they receive. Whether
it is an electromagnetic pulse of a particle accelerator or the nucleus of a
star it is of utter irrelevance.
So the answer to that “Zen” question: "What sound makes a tree falling when
there's no one to listen" is "IIIIIIIIEEEEEAAAAR CRAAASH".
On my Biology-related classes I'm dumbstruck by the affirmation of the better
design of mammals over any other creature on Earth. As it should be, the cherry
to top the icing is the “blatant” fact that man is the most evolved mammal.
I frankly don't know where to start here. Better said I could start in so many
ways that it’s difficult to choose.
So many good people spent their time trying to dispel this, but so many more
continue affirmating this as if it were the most obvious truth.
So I'll state it here in the simplest way possible, an axiom, so no one gets
confused:
"No creature is perfectly adapted to its environment."
The obvious corollary for this axiom, is that creatures are only sufficiently
adapted to their environment in order to survive and reproduce normally. No
matter how much we are dazzled by the intricacy of many creatures’ adaptations,
they’re just as good as it gets.
Humans are not the most evolved species in our planet: I think the swimming
sea-cucumber, Pelagothuria, takes the cake. So many strange adaptations,
reversals, are needed to reach this animal that having a greatly developed organ
as we do doesn't quite match up to that.
We are, yes, one of the most adaptable species of this planet. We are the most
intelligent species here, no doubt. But this doesn't make us the epitome of life
on Earth, but very simply that strange, strange, relative of a scarab beetle.
Unless otherwise noted, all artwork, texts and webdesign are © 2006 Renato Santos