Machines Like Us – Science News

Lurking in the shadows, in a secret location known only to a select few, is the man behind this website. You won't find his name mentioned anywhere else on the site, because he's a modest soul, but if he is willing to interview us ego-heads, it's about time one of us did the same to him. Norm Nason is a senior graphic designer, illustrator and fine artist. By day he makes beautiful women look perfect, but by night he is an essayist, a musician, a filmmaker and a veritable Hoover of human knowledge. You can learn more about Norm's other interests here, but first let's meet the machine behind Machines Like Us.

Interview conducted by Steve Grand.

Steve: Hi Norm. I've known you for a few years now -- I don't recall exactly how we first came into contact, but you used to send me science articles that you thought I'd find interesting. In a sense I suppose this website is a natural progression from there, but we'll come back to that in a moment. First I'd like to know what a fine artist (in both senses of the term) like you is doing in a place like this. Where did your interest in science come from, and how does it relate to your interest in the arts?

Norm: That's a good question, Steve. The short answer is that I don't distinguish between art and science. I'm simply curious about things -- most everything, it seems -- and want to learn as much as I can about the world in the time I have. I'm particularly interested in human beings: how we function, how we evolved, how we learn and remember what we observe. As I see it, our thoughts and emotions emerge from biological processes; our yearning to create -- our aesthetic sense -- is derived from fundamental mechanics. I began life with a desire to make things, and over time this has grown to encompass a wish to understand the processes behind the desire. Does that make sense?

I don't believe that we are born with talent, but I do believe that we are pre-disposed to express an interest in certain areas. My parents are both artists, and at an early age they exposed me to art. Since then I have acquired a deep appreciation of drawing, painting, and sculpture, which grew in time to encompass all of the creative arts. In Junior High School I attended my first science class. Since that initial exposure I have continued to deepen my understanding of the sciences. So it has been with nearly everything: an initial exposure, followed by a lifetime of interest.

I am fond of activities which combine several of my interests into one. Film making is one of these, since it combines photography, writing, editing, and music composition. The internet is another such "combiner"; it has provided me with a wonderful creative outlet. Machines Like Us is both creatively and technically challenging, and it has enabled me to meet many interesting people to boot!

Steve: That makes a great deal of sense, yes. I'm fascinated by your meta-interest in creativity. That, combined with your interest in cross-disciplinary activities and your rejection of the distinction between art and science make you a Renaissance Man, or a member of what John Brockman termed the Third Culture. I spend a lot of time with people from the first two cultures -- arts and sciences -- and in my experience few scientists are able to think creatively and freely like an artist, while few artists can think rigorously and groundedly like a scientist. I'd be interested in your views on what goes wrong and what we can do to put it right. Why are scientists so uncreative, and artists so unable to ground their thinking? And what can we do to encourage a dialectic between these two almost opposed kinds of mind?

Norm: A good deal of the responsibility rests with our schools, the manner in which science and art are taught to our youth. Typically today, science and art are not just separate majors, they are treated as entirely separate institutions. So it doesn't come as a surprise that the benefits of one rarely influence or attract the other. Science classes in the US consist largely of the rote memorization of facts, with little time given to how these facts might be used to inspire exciting new hypotheses. Hence, the majority of science graduates become mere technicians. To grow creatively, science needs to shed some of its elitism and cross-pollinate with as many other disciplines as possible. Of course, this does not mean that science should set aside its objective methodology.

Today's art instruction, on the other hand, is mostly an "anything goes" affair, lacking the disciplined hierarchy of craft. Craft is what made Leonardo da Vinci both an artist and a scientist; the lack of it made Andy Warhol a farce. The process of coming to terms with art should be like learning to write: one must first learn the letters of the alphabet, then learn to form words, then write sentences, then paragraphs, then essays, then books. It takes time, but once the hierarchy of craft is mastered, one may express one's ideas with ease and fluency. With few exceptions, private art schools are much better at teaching artistic facility and indeed, because of their master-apprentice approach, are better at inspiring creativity. Unfortunately, becoming master of one's craft does not guarantee economic success in our priority-confused society.

The term "Ph.D." -- "Doctor of Philosophy" -- used to mean that the recipient was a generalist, well versed in all major disciplines. Today, Ph.D. means that the holder is a specialist, and has narrowed his range of pursuits. We need to reverse this trend, and also remember that both science and art are not essentially about tools, they are about ideas.

Steve: Given your emphasis on a polymathic approach and the fusion of conventionally isolated disciplines, maybe this is a good point to ask you about the specific (and quite unusual) combination of topics you've chosen for this website. I think you touched on this in your first answer, but could you tell us more about why you juxtaposed such apparently disparate subjects as artificial intelligence, evolution and, more strikingly, atheism? What is the central message you want the world to hear?

Norm: Machines Like Us uses evolution, cognition, and artificial life as its main themes. Within these broad categories the site also deals with atheism (and hence religion), artificial intelligence and robotics, health and medicine, biology and genetics. The common thread linking all of these together is the idea that life and consciousness are emergent properties based upon fundamental mechanics; they are not created by some supernatural being, and so, they are understandable and reproducible. Implicit in this idea is the realization that human beings are responsible for themselves -- their actions, their thoughts, their future as a species. No imaginary friend will come to our rescue if we screw up; no one will reward or punish us; no one will save our children from natural or man-made disasters. If these things are to be done, we must do them ourselves. We must set our own priorities, tailor our own agenda. If we wish to spend our limited time fighting wars and watching TV game shows, then that is what we'll do. But I might suggest that there are more admirable pursuits for us to consider.

Science and religion are incompatible. There is no room for 2000 year-old myths when human beings face their demise due to disease or senescence; no room when we are on the verge of truly understanding the mechanics of life and the workings of our own brains. We must soberly face the fact that we are our own navigators, and one day, our own architects.

Steve: Some would say that you paint a bleak picture -- Mankind is on the edge of extinction; we're nothing more than a bunch of deterministic machines; when we wear out we just stop operating and that's that; there's no higher purpose given us by a creator; no hope of a better life beyond this one... Are you peddling nihilism? What do we have to celebrate? Tell us more of these "admirable pursuits."

Norm: You know what the Army says: first you tear them down, then you build them back up! Actually, in this instance there is a lot of truth to the phrase. We live in an "Emperor has no clothes" society; so much of what we believe has been passed down to us from others and never questioned. Sometimes being faced with stark reality can be a good thing.

Let's take each of your points individually:

Mankind is on the edge of extinction.

No one can predict the future, but what we do know for certain is that mankind now has the ability to destroy itself. In the whole of human history, this had not been the case until recently. To prevent future disaster, we must do what we can to assure that our sense of compassion has matured as much as our technology.

We're nothing more than a bunch of deterministic machines.

If we assign great value to ourselves when we believe we are made by God, what has changed if we are made instead by evolution? We are still the same beings. Our bodies and minds are wondrous and beautiful -- the most complex and amazing things we have ever encountered. Lack of God does not diminish our value to ourselves, or to one another.

The question of free will is complex and presently unanswerable. Perhaps it is enough that we feel as though we have free will.

We just wear out, stop operating and that's that.

For centuries atheists, Confusionists and others have lived meaningful, happy, productive lives with that very knowledge. They have loved their families, and added value to society just as many believers have. One may argue that not believing in an afterlife makes one value one's own life, and the lives of others, all the more.

There's no higher purpose given us by a creator.

Yearning for a higher purpose is learned behavior, not a necessity for living a happy, productive life. Think about the literal truth of this statement: Everything we know about God came from other human beings. Even if there is a God and even if he has a purpose for us, we haven't the slightest idea what it is -- so why fret about it? We must assign our own meaning to our lives (as we unknowingly always have).

We are thinking beings with the potential to understand fundamentally what life is, what consciousness is, what our universe is. Unlike anything that has ever lived on this planet before, we have the capacity -- one might argue the responsibility -- to design our own destiny. I'll give you one of many examples: In 5 billion years or so our sun will use up the remainder of its hydrogen fuel, greatly expand, and fry the Earth to a crisp. Needless to say, we must engineer a way off this planet before that happens. How's that for a purpose?!

There's no hope of another life beyond this one.

That is not precisely true. When you think about it, there has really been only one life on this planet. It began with the first elemental life form, perhaps 3 billion years ago. It evolved and multiplied through the ages, and has been thriving here ever since. We are part of this one, single life; we expand it with our children, and nourish it with the elements of our bodies when we as individuals have gone. Is that not life beyond our own, and will we not always be a part of it?

I realize I'm sidestepping the issue a little. What people really mean when they ask for life beyond this one is for their own life to persist -- the rest be damned! Well, science is beginning to address this issue as well: the human life span has been greatly lengthened in the last hundred years; in time, given prudent research, we will learn to lengthen it indefinitely. My point is that science is the only path to the kind of knowledge that will be of fundamental value to the human race.

Steve: I applaud everything you've said and I'm sure most of your readers will too. One of the great problems with promoting a rational, scientific worldview is that we all end up preaching to the converted. Evolution by natural selection, for example, is a very simple concept to grasp, and once grasped it is immediately obvious that it must be true. Immediately obvious to you, to me and probably to the vast majority of people who visit this site. But many people find extended rational thought difficult. Their background biases them against it and they often fall prey to those who, knowingly or otherwise, use rhetoric and sophistry to make the opposing view (whether creationism, religiosity or postmodern relativism) seem very credible. Even without this hindrance, many people are quite unable to identify and expose logical fallacies when they meet them. You mention the importance of education, but when I look at my step-children's homework I see that maybe 20% of the science they're being taught is wrong or misleading, so clearly we have yet to educate the educators. You've gone to a huge amount of personal trouble to play your part -- I know this site takes a lot of work -- but what can the rest of us, as individuals, do to make the world a more rational place?

Norm: We can both passively and actively help to moderate change. Passively, we can confront false biases by simply being rational, ethically sound individuals ourselves. For instance, we can show others that atheists are no less moral than religious believers, and in many cases more so. We can actively help by countering false information when we see it. You mentioned finding misleading information in school textbooks; this shows you are actually reading those texts along with your stepchildren, and no doubt discussing errors with them. Other parents should be just as diligent. Rather than simply propping their child in front of a book or the television, they should take an active part in countering inaccuracies wherever they occur.

Another important way we can moderate change is by taking advantage our political system -- our vote, and our attendance. For instance, our current US Administration -- citing primitive biblical scriptures -- refuses to back the Federal funding of stem cell research, despite the fact that such research has the potential of saving countless lives. The Catholic church continues to discourage the use of condoms in Africa -- despite the fact that such use would prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of men, women and children every year due to AIDS. If we disagree with such policies, we should vote and/or withhold our support accordingly.

We can also donate money to secular philanthropic organizations -- and even to individual researchers -- who have demonstrated a progressive, rational bias. If we are qualified, we can seek employment with companies that promote this world view, or create a web log that shows the benefits of the scientific method and critical thinking. These are just a few of the many ways our efforts can help raise awareness and direct change.

Steve: The other day, a couple of very sweet Jehovah's Witnesses came to my door. At first they had difficulty with the term "atheist," until they realized it meant I didn't believe in God and one of them had met someone like that before (albeit only one). They had slightly less trouble with the word "scientist" and were enthusiastic that I, too, was curious about my world, although they were genuinely perplexed as to what a scientist might be doing in Louisiana. Given their outlook I sometimes wonder the same thing! You're a citizen of the Good Old US of A. As a final question, do you ever think of emigrating? If you do, where would you go and why? If you plan to stick it out, what do you think the future holds for you, your country and those who lie in its shadow?
 
Norm: Yes, I have thought about this; more in recent years. Several countries attract me -- each for different reasons: Sweden, because it has one of the largest populations of atheists (per capita) in the world; France -- where I have spent a good deal of time and have friends, and because I have an affinity for its culture and mindset. I appreciate France's outstanding healthcare system, marvelous food, lovely scenery, and central-European location. Canada is close to the States, its people are warm and welcoming, and for the most part they speak English (a plus for me!). I have never visited New Zealand, but friends tell me it is wonderful....

In truth, I don't yet know enough of the world to choose another country in which to live. I intend to continue traveling in order to remedy this. Even so, I don't think it is time to leave the US to the wolves. That would be akin to giving up, and I haven't come to that -- not yet. I think it's important to try to help regain our nation's good reputation in the world; to strive to once again become a country that stands for reason, compassion, justice, innovation, and integrity; a country of which we may be proud.

As for the future of the US, I have several worries. I am deeply concerned about our pre-occupation with religion. Can you imagine if one day we elect a President who takes the biblical account of Revelation seriously, and thinks Armageddon is in our best interest? I worry that a third of Americans do not understand science enough to believe in evolution, think the earth is 6,000 years old, and place their destiny in the hands of an imaginary being. I worry that not a single candidate poised for the next Presidential election has the guts to say "I am an atheist." I worry about the near certainty that if one did say as much, he/she would not be elected.

It is clear that if we continue on our present course -- rejecting scientific evidence, accepting religious myths -- our days as a global innovator and economic power are numbered. But I am hopeful that as our scientific understanding of the mechanics of life and consciousness matures, our popular and political mindset will change, critical thinking will prevail, and the religious tide will pass. As we uncover new ways to teach ourselves to be more caring, less fearful, and genuinely awed by the fact of our evolution in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths.

Read more Machines Like Us interviews here.