Tradition and Darwin

The Darwin’s theory of natural selection is amazing. It neatly explains how various species evolved through mutation and subsequent survival of the fittest. Originally developed for explaining how nature operates, the theory has found applicability in explaining all types of things.

If you replace mutation by innovation, new products evolve all the time, albeit at a faster pace than mutations. Of these products, the ones best meet the needs of the customers (‘fittest”) survive. The others die.

Same thing applies in activities we learn and perform. We all need to keep up with the times. If we do not learn how to use the modern communication tools or conveyances, we will be left behind. No one would employ us and socially we will be rejected.

People adapt, businesses evolve and products change---just the way it happens in nature. The old gets replaced by new.

The only place where old remains old is in traditions and rituals. The world changes but the rituals do not.

At a recent wedding, the groom rode a horse and the bride arrived on a palanquin, the way she would have hundreds of years ago. The music was created using conch shells. The priest conducted the ceremony in Sanskrit that no one in the audience understood.

If the Darwin’s theory held true, the groom would have arrived on a Segway (more efficient and consumes no grass), the bride in a golf cart (four wheels instead of four people). The music would have been modern (uses less energy and is more appealing) and the priest would have transferred the wisdom through a power-point presentation--- in English.

But that was not the case---why?

Simply because the attributes such as efficiency and effectiveness of what is being done do not apply to rituals. The groom is in no hurry and the priest is not obliged to explain anything to the audience. Correctly performed ritual is supposed to ward of evil and bring peace and happiness. Why that should be so is not questioned.

Under these circumstances, an old ritual that does not adapt to the modern circumstances does not die. Further, there is no incentive to innovate and so nothing ever changes. Perhaps there is even fear of making a change, lest it would upset some deity.

The Darwin’s theory has finally met its match.

Wealthy

In these days of celebrating the Facebook billionaires and debating about 1% wealthy and 99% not, I would like to propose an alternate definition of who is wealthy and who is not. This definition is not based on a quantitative measure of how much money you should have before you are considered wealthy.

My definition is---you are wealthy if money is not what is stopping you from doing or acquiring what you really want.

The key word is what you really want. This is not you buying or doing something to impress others. A simple test to figure out what you really want is to respond to the question:  What would you purchase or do if you could not show it to others or talk about it?

If you don’t cheat in responding to this question, you may find that money is not a barrier to you living the life you want and hence, by definition, you are wealthy, even though your bank balance may not reflect the level expected by the conventional definition of being so.

Now, you may say, “what if I want to stop working, give a lot more to charity, and leave behind a big inheritance. Don’t these actions require a lot of money?”

Yes, but do you really want to?

If you don’t work, what will you do?  We cannot survive without some form of stimulus, and work generally provides a daily dose of it. Not having that is frequently a curse than a boon.

Next, if the objective of charity is to create an impact, one does not need a lot of money to achieve that. In fact, many folks who have created a big impact have done so by a good idea not the shear volume of money. Also, if what you want out of giving is to feel good, even a modest contribution or non-monetary effort may allow you to do so.

Similarly, leaving behind a large inheritance is not necessarily a good thing. I have seen nothing but problems when children expect to inherit lot and when they actually do so. Besides, if you live your life by the above definition, your children may follow you and are able to live a “wealthy” life without needing much money.  So, why would they need a big inheritance?

So, rejoice.  Money is not stopping you from doing what you really want and so you are wealthy and do not even know it!

Art Appreciation

I believe that I am a reasonably good photographer. I am on my way to learning the techniques for identifying interesting subjects, capturing the nuances of natural light, creating pleasing compositions, and then taking pictures that at least passes the muster of my friends and family. They provide very positive comments when I post my pictures on Facebook. Even some of the amateur photographers, who are not my friends, say good things when they see them on Flickr.

However, any ego that I may have developed as a result gets punctured when I go to my photography club. The professional photographers, and there are a few who attend, yawn when it is my turn to do a show and tell. But, that is not the surprising part.

What is surprising is their pictures. I am amazed at how awful they look from the basic standards of photography that I have learned. The subject is out of focus, there is too much clutter, the composition is bad, and the lighting is atrocious. Sometimes they look as if children took them. And yet, the professionals praise each other’s work.

The clue to why they like those pictures instead of mine came when our host asked me why is my picture different from what thousands of people may have taken. I suddenly realized that people use two criteria when appreciating art: aesthetics (or inherent beauty) and how different it is from what has existed.

I further suspect that as you get deep into appreciating any art your personal formula for art appreciation moves from beauty of what you are looking at to its uniqueness. The jaded photographers can only take so many pictures of flowers, no matter how aesthetically it is presented, before yearning for something different, no matter how ugly it is in the eyes of amateurs. I get that part.

But then what makes in their eyes one “different” picture better than the other? To me they all look the same---“different” and hard to appreciate. I do not get that part.

This of course does not apply just to photography. Only a few can appreciate the artwork of Picasso (although many will pretend that they do) or the music of Arnold Schoenberg. What may look like a painting of silly rectangular blocks stacked for no purpose, or music that best can be described as two alley cats in serious fight, gives goose bumps to a few, while the rest of us look on with utter disbelief. Here to, there may exist hard-to- explain rules that make one cat fight better than the others, but I have not been told.

I do not believe that the engineer in me will ever allow taking pictures that are completely “different.” However, just for the fun of it, I should take some pictures that are out of focus, cluttered with all types of objects, have atrocious lighting, and violate every rule of composition. I am sure I will get showered with praise at my photography cub. 

Free Will

For those of us who are non-believers, the concept of free will poses a special challenge.

We think of the universe, and the citizens living in it, following laws of science and not spirituality. These laws can already explain a lot of what we see and experience, and, we believe that what cannot be yet explained will be in the future.

In this picture, there is no place for the concept of soul as a separate entity from the body. Soul is not molecules and atoms, and the laws of physics do not dictate what it does. According to the non-believers, soul cannot exist. However, if soul does not exist, how does one explain that I have the freedom to identify choices and make decision on which one to select? What law of science explains that fuzzy, non-deterministic aspect of our experience?

A recent book by Sam Harris provides one theory of how to reconcile this quandary. http://www.samharris.org/free-will

He, of course, is a very vocal non-believer and I like his rational thinking, so I am inclined to believe in what he says.

Basically, his explanation is based on two points:

1. Our brain is under the illusion that it is freely identifying options and making choices, when it is not. One needs to dig deeper to find out what is going on. For example, you cannot decide what you will decide to do. Nor can you choose to choose what to choose. In other words, it is your physical being that decides what you will decide to do or choose what you will choose to choose. Sam cites scientific studies in which the body had made a decision before the person thought he made the decision based on free will.
2. To make the matter more complicated, as yet we do not know what this human “system” exactly is or how it will behave given a certain input. It is as yet an unexplained black box. However, it is a system formed through nature and nurture guided by laws of science. Genetics, environmental factors, neuron connections formed through experience---all are involved in making the system what it is.

Now this my sound like a play on words surrounded by uncertainties. However, it does provide a framework to explain free will without resorting to the concept of soul.

Just as science has cracked (or making good progress in cracking) tough nuts like creation of universe, evolution of life, or prediction of weather, it will make in roads in explaining the very essence of our existence like free will.

I feel confident.

Facebooking

8:30 am

Good morning Facebook. Let us see what comments I received for my photo album of fifty types of grasses.

What? No comments? Not a single “Like”? I tell you. These “friends” have no interest in photography or interesting subjects like grass.

Talking about interesting subjects, I bet folks will be really interested in this article on the decline of Inner Mongolia in today’s edition of New York Times. What a timely well-written piece! It is only 50 pages long. Let me post it on Facebook.

11:30 am

Here you go. Dan has posted an album of pigeons. Why does he think anyone gives a damn about pigeons? Who is going to look at them? Waste of electrons.

Also, I see an article about the fine art of Zen Buddhism posted by Alex. How long is it? Twenty pages? Where does he think I will get time to read a twenty-page article?

2:30 pm

It is already mid afternoon and not a single person has commented on the article on Inner Mongolia. I tell you no one cares what is going on in the world.

Oh, I see. Subhash is now in Bogota. Why does he think I give a crap regarding where he is? Besides, what is he doing in Bogota? May be he is involved with drug smuggling!

While we are on the subject of travel, let me post my daughter’s pictures---yes the ones where she is giving a lecture in the elementary school in Sudan. People will be so impressed with how well we have brought up our children.

5:30 pm

Not again. More pictures of Sam’s son singing in the school? Ok, I get it, he is talented, but how many pictures do I have to see?

No comments on my daughter’s pictures. No one cares. I bet no one has yet read the article I posted either. I give up.

But before I do that, I bet people will be interested in this album of my fifty pictures of icicles.