Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?

A song by the Lovin' Spoonful asks "Did you ever have to make up your mind? Pick up on one and leave the other behind?" When a new idea comes along, how can we tell if it is right or wrong, especially in a complex field such as human medicine? How can we tell whether a voice in the wilderness is a Galileo or Einstein, correctly seeing things that others can't, or an L. Ron Hubbard promoting a Scientology that is baseless? Ultimately time will tell, but when the stakes are our own health, time is not on our side. How do we decide? We need to look at whether the idea seems to make sense, and look for corroboration from sources we trust or think we can believe.

Recently I read the book Grain Brain by Dr. David Perlmutter. (You may still be able to find a TV segment featuring him on Dr Oz's web site.) He is a board-certified neurologist and nutritionist, apparently the only doctor in the U.S. who is both, so he should know what he's talking about. His theory is that the low-fat, low-cholesterol, high-carbohydrate diet containing wheat gluten currently recommended by most experts is harmful and is responsible for many brain problems, insulin resistance and diabetes, obesity, and heart problems. though the focus of the book is on the brain. The book is fairly easy to read, and he backs up his assertions with an average of 25 references per chapter. One has to ask whether this is for real, the beginning of a reversal of "conventional wisdom". Everyone is aware of the "epidemic" in diabetes and obesity, in spite of 40+ years of promotion of low-fat high-carb. Something is obviously wrong.

Many people have become aware of gluten in connection with celiac disease, but this is different. The theory is that gluten sensitivity is common in people who do not have celiac, that our human genome is not adapted to it, and that consumption of gluten has dramatically increased in a short time. 

Many people have become aware of inflammation as a proposed cause of coronary artery disease. Dr. Perlmutter extends this concern to brain disease, and not just vascular but neural disease. 

He also contends that rather than being harmful, dietary and serum cholesterol and LDL and certain fats are essential to neurological health. (This is consistent with recent Alzheimer's research I have seen.) He also contends that carbohydrate consumption, rather than fat consumption, causes obesity, insulin resistance, and diabetes. There are very convincing studies showing a direct, not inverse, relationship between cholesterol levels and brain function. They seem to show that high cholesterol levels significantly improve cognitive function.

I can't summarize the whole book here - you'll need to read it before it will make sense. He cites many studies to back up these conclusions, and points out studies which directly contradict the low-fat, low-cholesterol advice we have received for the last 40 years or so. His information does not seem to have the vague, unscientific, conspiracy-theory flavor of many of the "detox" and "cleansing" promoters.

Large studies are essential because they try to control for extraneous factors to zoom in on proving specific facts. We can consider anecdotal evidence but must be cautious and understand it does not conclusively prove anything. With that in mind, here's my own anecdotal evidence. My parents were both diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease within a year or two, and it progressed in both of them at a similar pace. My father died of AD and artery disease a year ago, and my mother will die of AD eventually. Why both of them? Did they have something environmental or dietary in common? Well, yes. In the 1970's, Dad was diagnosed with high cholesterol, and went on a low-cholesterol and fairly low-fat diet. Mom did all the cooking, so she ate the same diet (we all did). As far as I know, they tried to maintain that diet all their lives. Current research indicates that AD begins developing years or decades before symptoms appear, and progresses exponentially. So if Grain Brain is correct, it's quite possible that both were affected in the same way, beginning way back then.

Is there corroborating evidence from other experts? Some. The studies cited by Dr. Perlmutter sound convincing, but they are narrowly focused and have not received much public attention or comment. In a recent web article, heart surgeon Dr. Dwight Lundell proclaims the same reversal of theory concerning heart health that Dr. Perlmutter proposes for brain health: low-fat, low-cholesterol, high-carb is wrong. And the molecular mechanisms he explains are exactly or nearly the same. It will be interesting to see if this line of thought gains momentum. (On the other hand, it's hard to know whether to trust individual experts or not: although Lundell has terrific credentials and experience, he's been in trouble with medical authorities and has drawn his share of criticism.)

So if Grain Brain is correct, why has it taken so long to realize it? One possibility is "confirmation bias". We tend to notice evidence that which confirms our opinions, and it takes a lot of evidence to change our minds. (See this and other articles on the Less Wrong web site for more information.) Dr. Perlmutter also points to "publication bias" in which respected journals are reluctant to publish controversial papers. Maybe. Part of the problem is that the underlying biochemistry is complex and variable, and it is nearly impossible to do long-term, double-blind studies on thinking humans.

At this time, none of this fits in with the official positions of the American Medical Association, the Heart Association, the Alzheimer's Association, or any other large organization. In a lecture I attended last night, Maria C. Carillo, Ph. D., Vice President, Medical & Scientific Relations of the Alzheimer's Association talked about a "heart-head connection", meaning that what is good for the heart is good for the brain, but only in the sense that heart health promotes good oxygenation and nutrition of the brain. Her description of what is healthy for the heart was low fat, low cholesterol. As far as I know, the Association has not made any statement regarding the Grain Brain theory.

We hear constantly about the need to follow a "heart healthy" diet - probably everyone is in favor of that idea. Now the question seems to be about exactly what that means. The low-fat, low-cholesterol, high-carb diet is coming under attack, and it's only now getting publicized. Is this like the Paleo diet? Yes, in many ways, but it has different foundations. Is this like the Atkins diet? Yes, in many ways, but it is more specific about wheat gluten.

So what to do? Keep doing what we've been doing, and hope the advice of the last 40+ years is right? Or believe the recent studies that say it may be horribly backwards? Sometimes the heretic is right.

Dimensions of Intelligence and Personhood

I recently listened to this podcast interview with George Dvorsky. He made some excellent points about extending the definition of personhood, one of which involved the concept of intelligence or sentience as a "spectrum". He cited the recent PETA court case which attempted to extend the definition of "person" to orcas, to include them in the class of individuals which should not be subjected to slavery. (See PETA Sues SeaWorld for Violating Orcas' Constitutional Rights).


Dvorsky suggested that by assessing certain attributes of various species' intelligence and physiology, humans could assess the possible inclusion of those species in the class of "persons". He explained that the intelligence of a species can be viewed as a spectrum: a nearly brain-dead human is the low end, a developmentally impaired human is further along, and a normal human is in the middle. By extension, a human genius would be at the far end of the spectrum.

Dvorsky also compared the intelligence of certain animals to that of humans, specifically the idea that an African Gray parrot is considered about equal to a (presumably normal) 3- or 4-year old human. Over the years there have been many such comparisons: dogs and cats and horses and pigs have all been compared to humans of various ages. He opined that the first species to be granted personhood will be dolphins, of which orcas are a subspecies. 


While I agree with his Dvorsky's opinions, I think the use of a linear spectrum will be too limiting, and will cause humans to misjudge, overlook, deliberately ignore, or denigrate aspects of intelligence which are different from human intelligence, but are no less valid or important. A traditional IQ score, for example, ignores intelligence and skills in artistic and social areas. I suggest an approach to this assessment based on multiple dimensions of intelligence, while keeping it simple enough to be represented in two dimensions and visualizable by average humans. I hope that this approach can be used to help in the process of opening minds to different ways of perceiving intelligence, and lead to greater acceptance of the personhood of various species.  


Here is an example of what I mean. This is a modified version of a "radar chart" which presents hypothetical scores on a dozen aspects of intelligence. This is just an example - I'm sure we could argue for years over which attributes deserve to be included. I have deliberately included some that are stronger in certain non-human species. 

I suggest that the total score is what's important, not the scores in certain sectors which favor humans. (This particular kind of graph distorts the scores by showing more area in the outer rings, but you get the idea.) If we were to present these scores in a double-blind fashion, not knowing which species they represent, humans just might have to agree to set an objective threshold which indicates sufficient intelligence to qualify for personhood. Obviously there is variation between individuals of a species, sometimes very significantly, but a lack in one area or another does not disqualify a human from being a person. For example, a blind person would score poorly in Visual Pattern Recognition, but because of compensation by other senses, might outscore sighted humans in Auditory Pattern Recognition.


If we were to plot the scores for a variety of species, we would find that some clearly beat out humans in some aspects. Dvorsky casually mention in the interview that humans are the most intelligent species on Earth, but all things considered, that may not be true. I have not undertaken such a detailed, quantitative, objective study, but over several years I have begun to consider that the race may be very close indeed if we take a broad view of the definition of intelligence.


I agree with Dvorsky that cetaceans will be the first to be granted personhood. I think it may be a toss-up between dolphins/orcas and rorquals, for two reasons: dolphins/orcas are better known to most humans, and the intelligence they show more closely matches the "sectors" that humans currently appreciate and value. I'm basing my impressions on two excellent and deeply moving books; admittedly these impressions are anecdotal and emotional. 


In Listening to Whales, Alexandra Morton presents years of study of dolphins and orcas. Some sectors which will resonate with humans:

• Clearly they have a language. We do not understand it, but we can recognize different dialects.
• Clearly they are highly social, with complex, long-lasting relationships.
• Their auditory pattern recognition probably exceeds our visual pattern recognition. Read the stories of how orcas can use their sonar to not only "see" surfaces, but also see through us and each other like sonograms, and how they can detect heart rates and breathing rates.
• They mourn and in some cases bury their dead.
• They highly value synchronicity.
• They have exhibited compassion for humans.
• They are easily bored, and like to make up games for their own amusement, and to perplex their captors.
• They apparently have treaties between different populations to respect each others' food sources.

(From some other source I cannot remember, I learned that dolphins have names for each other. In muddy water, they communicate frequently to keep in touch, and they identify themselves with unique names.)

In Among Whales, Roger Payne summarizes years of study of right whales, fin whales, blue whales and others. He expounds in great detail how the larger ones have developed extreme signal-processing capabilities which may explain why their brains are so huge. Lesser-known skills which, if proven, are clearly significant factors of intelligence, but are not well known among humans:

• Fins and Blues can sort out signals (vocalizations) from noise even across the entire North Pacific basin.
• Using this near-global communication, which predates humans' electronic communication networks by millions of years, they can coordinate their travels to arrange meetings at certain times and places.
• They can use sound shadows to locate islands or land masses from hundreds of miles away.
• They are creative - the complex music humpback whales produce is quite well known among many humans.
• They also have complex and long-lasting social relationships.
• It seems that they may think on a longer, more cyclical time scale than humans, which makes interpreting their behavior and intelligence difficult.

From other sources, it is clear that some gray whales now consider humans to be non-threatening, and actively encourage their young to approach us. I'm anthropomorphizing a bit here, but it may be that as a group they have forgiven humans for the genocide we perpetrated against them. For the same reasons we take our kids on field trips to the Holocaust Museum, gray whales now take their calves to meet humans, their former enemy, in their little rubber boats. If so, and if we add Compassion to our chart, whales clearly exceed humans in that aspect of intelligence.  

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of a multidimensional representation of comparative intelligence. I'm just now learning about this field; I'm sure the bioethecists and the Non-Human Rights Project people have thought of this approach. 


So why are transhumanists and singularitarians interested in the personhood of cetaceans? Because eventually humans are going to have to come to grips with the rights of "persons" which are extensions of humans, or former humans, or electronic clones of humans. Acknowledging the personhood of cetaceans, great apes, and elephants will come much sooner, and will provide humans some good practice in broadening their definition of "person".

Cetacean species I have seen in the wild

Gray whale
Bottlenose dolphin
Common dolphin
Humpback whale
Fin whale
Minke whale
Blue whale
Orca
Risso's dolphin
Pacific white-sided dolphin

Books on or related to the Singularity

These are all books and major I have read in the last couple of years that are about or deal with some aspect of the singularity:

• The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Ray Kurzweil
• The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos by James N. Gardner
• The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence by Ray Kurzweil
• Whole Brain Emulation: A Roadmap by Anders Sandberg and Nick Bostrom
• The coming Technological Singularity: How to Survive in the Post-Human Era by Vernor Vinge
• Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk by Eliezer Yudkowsky

Fiction:

• Singularity Sky by Charles Stross
• Marooned in Realtime (Peace War) by Vernor Vinge
• Accelerando (Singularity) by Charles Stross

These are on similar topics of science and cosmology but not explicitly about the singularity:

• Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman M.D.

Fiction:

• Rule 34 (Halting State) by Charles Stross

Learning Applescript

I'm a programmer, always have been, always will be. My current job doesn't involve much programming, so I enjoy doing projects on the side. About a year ago I got a MacBook Pro and have been looking forward to doing some programming there, but have been too busy with home improvement projects etc. I  wrote a program to manage backups from my server to a hard drive, but that was just a bit of Perl, nothing fancy.

After upgrading to Lion and buying an e-book about it, I learned that AppleScript is included, so I also picked up an e-book "Learn AppleScript: The Comprehensive Guide to Scripting and Automation on Mac OS X" and also Apple's language guide. I'm only about a third of the way through the Learn book, and I've done variations on several of the exercises.

Wow.

Wow.

I think AppleScript will be my new favorite language. The English-like syntax is OK - I don't really need that level of simplicity - but the power of what it can do ia amazing! Controlling scriptable applications is so powerful. I can envision doing lots of things with mail, Office programs... If one tried to do this in any of the C-based languages, it would take a lot of work. AS makes it simple, at least that's how it works so far.

With just what I've learned so far, I've pulled data on songs from iTunes, linked that to Finder to get data about the song titles, done simple searches... it almost lets you treat iTunes like a database.

Today's exercise involved events and setting up a simple client-server system. It turns out that AS itself is a scriptable app. I created a server script that runs in the background, executes a routine task every 10 seconds, and also responds to commands from a client. From a GUI dialog box in a client app, I can start, stop, and request services from the server app. The client is 11 lines of code. The server (which just speaks "initializing", speaks the current time on request, and speaks "quitting") is 22 lines of code.

And all this fits neatly into the Mac GUI... scripts can be dragged to the dock like any other apps.

Wow.

I can't wait to see what's in the remaining two thirds of the book!