2003

Albert-László Barabási
[8.22.03]
Samuel Barondes
[12.4.03]
Richard Dawkins
[7.23.03]
Daniel C. Dennett
[7.23.03]
Jared Diamond
[4.28.03]
Edge Books Page
[5.28.03]
Edge Dinner
[2.27.03]
Peter Galison
[6.24.03]
Murray Gell-Mann
[7.2.03]
Neil Gershenfeld
[7.23.03]
Gerd Gigerenzer
[4.2.03]
Marc D. Hauser
[8.22.03]
Nicholas Humphrey
[2.10.03]
Stuart Kauffman
[11.3.03]
Jaron Lanier
[11.19.03]
Katinka Matson
[2.24.03]
Elaine Pagels
[7.17.03]
Irene Pepperberg
[9.23.03]
Lisa Randall
[2.10.03]
Martin Rees
[5.19.03]
Matt Ridley
[6.18.03]
Robert Sapolsky
[6.4.03]
Lee Smolin
[2.24.03]
 
Steven Strogatz
[5.12.03]
Summer Postcards-2003
[9.10.03]
Leonard Susskind
[12.4.03]
E.O. Wilson
[5.28.03]
World Question Center - 2003
[1.6.03]


2003

THE WORLD QUESTION CENTER — 2003 [1.6.03]

"WHAT ARE THE PRESSING SCIENTIFIC ISSUES FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD, AND WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE ON HOW I CAN BEGIN TO DEAL WITH THEM?" —GWB

I wish the above was really an email from President Bush. It is not. It's the set-up for this year's Edge Annual Question — 2003, and because this event receives wide attention from the scientific community and the global press, the responses it evokes just might have the same effect as a memo to the President....that is, if you stick to science and to those scientific areas where you have expertise... I am asking members of the Edge community to take this project seriously as a public service, to work together to create a document that can be widely disseminated to begin a public discussion about the important scientific issues before us.

SEVEN SCIENTISTS: AN EDGE OBSEQUY FOR THE ASTRONAUTS OF SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA [2.10.03]
Nicholas Humphrey

Amidst all the self serving rhetoric, I think Edge should contribute its own obsequy. The people who died were scientists. Whatever else they may have believed in, their goal was to learn and to explore.

Contributors: Oliver Morton, Gregory Benford, George Dyson, Nicholas Humphey, Paul Davies, Martin Rees, Karl Sabbagh, Piet Hut, Gerald Holton


THEORIES OF THE BRANE [2.10.03]
Lisa Randall


Additional spatial dimensions may seem like a wild and crazy idea at first, but there are powerful reasons to believe that there really are extra dimensions of space. One reason resides in string theory, in which it is postulated that the particles are not themselves fundamental but are oscillation modes of a fundamental string.

REMEMBERING DOLLY [2.14.03] 

Dolly, the first clone from a mammal, died on February 13th at the age of 6 years old.

Where were you on July 5, 1996? What did you think when you read the news about the accomplishment of Ian Wilmut and his team at Roslyn Institute in Edinburgh? What is Dolly's lasting historical significance? How does Dolly's life change our view of humanity?

Contributors: Jaron Lanier, Martin Rees, John Horgan, Robert Sapolsky [.....] 

LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY: LEE SMOLIN [2.24.03]
Lee Smolin
 
Science is a kind of open laboratory for a democracy. It's a way to experiment with the ideals of our democratic societies. For example, in science you must accept the fact that you live in acommunity that makes the ultimate judgment as to the worth of your work. But at the same time, everybody's judgment is his or her own. The ethics of the community require that you argue for what you believe and that you try as hard as you can to get results to test your hunches, but you have to be honest in reporting the results, whatever they are. You have the freedom and independence to do whatever you want, as long as in the end you accept the judgment of the community. Good science comes from the collision of contradictory ideas, from conflict, from people trying to do better than their teachers did, and I think here we have a model for what a democratic society is about. There's a great strength in our democratic way of life, and science is at the root of it.

FIVE FLOWERS By Katinka Matson [2.24.03]

"One of the reasons—besides sheer artistry—that Katinka Matson's work resonates so strongly with us is that is that the insect-like vision that results from scanning direct-to-CCD runs so much deeper in us than vision as processed through a lens. By removing the lens, Matson's work bypasses an entire stack of added layers and takes us back to when we saw more by looking at less." — George Dyson

ON SCANNER PHOTOGRAPHY — Contributors: George Dyson, William Calvin, Nicholas Humphrey, Colin Tudge


THE EDGE SCIENCE DINNER - 2003 [2.27.03]

On February 27, 2003, Edge Foundation, Inc. celebrated the 6th anniversary of Edge at the "Edge Science Dinner" (formerly known as "The Billionaires' Dinner") at Cibo's Restaurant, in Monterey, California. Among the world-class scientists attending the dinner (who are also Edge contributors) were biologist Jared Diamond (Guns, Germs, And Steel); psychologist Steven Pinker (The Blank Slate); cognitive scientist Daniel C. Dennett (Darwin's Dangerous Idea); Computer scientists Marvin Minsky (Society Of Mind), Rodney Brooks (Flesh And Machines), and W. Daniel Hillis (The Pattern On The Stone) ; Physicists Freeman Dyson (Disturbing The Universe), and Lee Smolin (Life Of The Cosmos), and atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider (Laboratory Earth).


SMART HEURISTICS [4.2.03]
Gerd Gigerenzer

 
Goethe as an artist knew that intuition was terribly important for organizing the data that we accumulate through sensory perception. We need a balance between the analytical way of knowing and the intuitive way of knowing, both of which can be cultivated systematically. In our educational system today, we focus on the analytical, and we just leave the intuitive alone. In fact we tend to deny or ignore it. Just as we've been kicking shit out of Nature for 400 years, we've been doing the same to that part of our own nature that we call subjectivity or intuition.

WHY DO SOME SOCIETIES MAKE DISASTROUS DECISIONS [4.28.03]
Jared Diamond

Lewis Thomas Prize Lecture
The Rockefeller Institute, New York City
Thursday March 27, 2003

What I'm going to suggest is a road map of factors in failures of group decision making. I'll divide the answers into a sequence of four somewhat fuzzily delineated categories. First of all, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives. Secondly, when the problem arrives, the group may fail to perceive the problem. Then, after they perceive the problem, they may fail even to try to solve the problem. Finally, they may try to solve it but may fail in their attempts to do so. While all this talking about reasons for failure and collapses of society may seem pessimistic, the flip side is optimistic: namely, successful decision-making. Perhaps if we understand the reasons why groups make bad decisions, we can use that knowledge as a check list to help groups make good decisions.


WHO CARES ABOUT FIREFLIES?:
A TALK WITH STEVEN STROGATZ
[5.12.03]
Introduction by Alan Alda


We see fantastic examples of synchrony in the natural world all around us. To give a few examples, there were persistent reports when the first Western travelers went to southeast Asia, back to the time of Sir Francis Drake in the 1500s, of spectacular scenes along riverbanks, where thousands upon thousands of fireflies in the trees would all light up and go off simultaneously. These kinds of reports kept coming back to the West, and were published in scientific journals, and people who hadn't seen it couldn't believe it. Scientists said that this is a case of human misperception, that we're seeing patterns that don't exist, or that it's an optical illusion. How could the fireflies, which are not very intelligent creatures, manage to coordinate their flashings in such a spectacular and vast way?

IN THE MATRIX [5.19.03]
A Talk with Martin Rees

Now life and complexity means information-processing power; the most complex conceivable entities may not be organic life, but some sort of hyper-computers. But once you accept that our universe, or even other universes, may allow the emergence within them of immense complexity, far beyond our human brains, far beyond the kind of computers we can conceive, perhaps almost at the level of the limits that Seth Lloyd discusses for computers—then you get a rather extraordinary conclusion. These super or hyper-computers would have the capacity to simulate not just a simple part of reality, but a large fraction of an entire universe....And then of course the question arises: if these simulations exist in far larger numbers than the universe themselves, could we be in one of them? Could we ourselves not be part of what we think of as bedrock physical reality? Could we be ideas in the mind of some supreme being, as it were, who's running a simulation?

EDGE "BOOKS" PAGE [5.27.03]

Books are news and Edge is inaugurating a new, ongoing, feature to recognize, and call attention to, third culture books by our contributors. Here's the Edge-like approach (suggested by Daniel C. Dennett):

You walk into a room full of Edge contributors—your peers, your colleagues. You have your new, and as yet unpublished book, in which you have marked a page, and, on that page, highlighted a single paragraph which you believe best represents the big ideas in your book. You pass the book around...


A UNITED BIOLOGY
A Talk with E.O. Wilson
[5.28.03]
Introduction by Steven Pinker


We're beginning to get some revolutionary new ideas about how social behavior originated, and also how to construct a superorganism. If we can define a set of assembly rules for superorganisms then we have a model system for how to construct an organism. How do you put an ant colony together? You start with a queen ant, which digs a hole in the ground, starts laying eggs, and goes through a series of operations that raise the first brood. The first brood then goes through a series of operations to breed more workers, and before long you've got soldier ants, worker ants, and foragers, and you've got a teeming colony. That's because they follow a series of genetically prescribed rules of interaction, behavior, and physical development. If we can fully understand how a superorganism is put together, we'll come much closer to general principles of how an organism is put together. There are two different levels—the cells put together to make an organism, organisms put together to make a superorganism. Right now I'm examining what we know to see if there are rules of how superorganisms are put together.

A BOZO OF A BABOON [6.4.03]
A Talk with Robert Sapolsky


For the humans who would like to know what it takes to be an alpha man—if I were 25 and asked that question I would certainly say competitive prowess is important—balls, translated into the more abstractly demanding social realm of humans. What's clear to me now at 45 is, screw the alpha male stuff. Go for an alternative strategy. Go for the social affiliation, build relationships with females, don't waste your time trying to figure out how to be the most adept socially cagy male-male competitor. Amazingly enough that's not what pays off in that system. Go for the affiliative stuff and bypass the male crap. I could not have said that when I was 25.

THE GENOME CHANGES EVERYTHING [6.18.03]
A Talk with Matt Ridley

The substance of what I'm interested in is that it's the genes that are related to behavior, and how they work. The big insight is that genes are the agents of nurture as well as nature. Experience is a huge part of a developing human brain, the human mind, and a human organism. We need to develop in a social world and get things in from the outside. It's enormously important to the development of human nature. You can't describe human nature without it. But that process is itself genetic, in the sense that there are genes in there designed to get the experience out of the world and into the organism. In the human case you're going to have genes that set up systems for learning that are not going to be present in other animals, language being the classic example. Language is something that in every sense is a genetic instinct. There's no question that human beings, unless they're unlucky and have a genetic mutation, inherit a capacity for learning language. That capacity is simply not inherited in anything like the same degree by a chimpanzee or a dolphin or any other creature. But you don't inherit the language; you inherit the capacity for learning the language from the environment.


EINSTEIN AND POINCARÉ [6.24.03]
A Talk with Peter Galison

After learning more about Poincaré I tried to understand how he and Einstein could have radically reformulated our ideas of time and space by looking at the way that philosophically abstract concerns, physics concerns, and these technological problems of keeping trains from bashing into each other and coordinating mapmaking across the empires might fit together into a story. I began with an extraordinarily simple idea: that two events are simultaneous if I can make clocks at the two events say the same thing. How do I coordinate these clocks? I send a signal from one to the other and take into account the time it takes for the signal to get there. That’s the basic idea, but all of relativity theory, E = mc2, and so much of what Einstein does follows from it. The question is, where did this idea come from? Albert Einstein and Henri Poincaré were the two people who worked out this practical, almost operational idea of simultaneity, and I want to see them as occupying points of intersection of technological, philosophical, and physical reasoning. They were the two people who were at those triple cross-sections.


THE MAKING OF A PHYSICIST [7.2.03]
A Talk With Murray Gell-Mann


Uncharacteristically, I discussed my application to Yale with my father, who asked, "What were you thinking of putting down?" I said, "Whatever would be appropriate for archaeology or linguistics, or both, because those are the things I'm most enthusiastic about. I'm also interested in natural history and exploration." He said, "You'll starve!" After all, this was 1944 and his experiences with the Depression were still quite fresh in his mind; we were still living in genteel poverty. He could have quit his job as the vault custodian in a bank and taken a position during the war that would have utilized his talents — his skill in mathematics, for example — but he didn't want to take the risk of changing jobs. He felt that after the war he would regret it, so he stayed where he was. This meant that we really didn't have any spare money at all.

I asked him, "What would you suggest?" He mentioned engineering, to which I replied, "I'd rather starve. If I designed anything it would fall apart." And sure enough when I took an aptitude test a year later I was advised to take up nearly anything but engineering. Then my father suggested, "Why don't we compromise — on physics?"


THE POLITICS OF CHRISTIANITY [7.17.03]
A Talk with Elaine Pagels


The kind of Christianity that pervades the religious right in this country divides the world between the saved and the damned, between God's people and Satan's people, between good and evil. We have all seen how this is played out in our politics. I used to think that President Bush was using this language as a political ploy. I still think he is, but I also think—to my disappointment—that he also believes it. His conviction that he is God's chosen one to "rid the world of evildoers" blinds him to the evil that he—and we, as Americans—are capable of doing. The conviction that we are on the side of good—of God—is, however, an ancient one—enormously powerful.

Christians invoking terms such as "evil-doers" read the bible, as anyone does, selectively. They choose the parts they like and they leave out the parts they don't. In this case the parts they like are the parts about an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, that is—and a life for a life. If someone's taken a life, then their life is required. And that's certainly a biblical tenet. Of course, it's from the Old Testament. You don't hear much about forgiveness and turning the other cheek from our President and his administration. The Old Testament is what they choose for this occasion because it suits their purpose.

What I've learned through studying the Gospel of Thomas and the context of the politics of early Christianity, is that anyone who participates in Christian tradition without having learned anything about it—and that's most people who participate in it, because it's not taught in public or private schools for the most part—often think of their traditions as immutable, as if they've just come down from God.


THE BRIGHT STUFF [7.23.03]
Daniel C. Dennett

The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny— or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic—and life after death.

THE FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT [7.23.03]
Richard Dawkins

A triumph of consciousness-raising has been the homosexual hijacking of the word "gay". I used to mourn the loss of gay in (what I still think of as) its true sense. But on the bright side (wait for it) gay has inspired a new imitator, which is the climax of this article. Gay is succinct, uplifting, positive: an "up" word, where homosexual is a down word, and queer, faggot and pooftah are insults. Those of us who subscribe to no religion; those of us whose view of the universe is natural rather than supernatural; those of us who rejoice in the real and scorn the false comfort of the unreal, we need a word of our own, a word like "gay". You can say "I am an atheist" but at best it sounds stuffy (like "I am a homosexual") and at worst it inflames prejudice (like "I am a homosexual").

PERSONAL FABRICATION [7.23.03]
A Talk with Neil Gershenfeld

We've already had a digital revolution; we don't need to keep having it. The next big thing in computers will be literally outside the box, as we bring the programmability of the digital world to the rest of the world. With the benefit of hindsight, there's a tremendous historical parallel between the transition from mainframes to PCs and now from machine tools to personal fabrication. By personal fabrication I mean not just making mechanical structures, but fully functioning systems including sensing, logic, actuation, and displays.

BLACKOUT! "We're All On The Grid Together" [8.22.03]
By Albert-László Barabási

Once power is fully restored, it will take little time to find the culprit: most likely, it will be a malfunctioning switch or fuse, a snapped power line or some other local failure. Somebody will be fired, promotions and raises denied, and lawmakers will draw up legislation guaranteeing that this problem will not occur again.....Something will be inevitably missed, however, during all this finger-pointing: this week's blackout has little to do with faulty equipment, negligence or bad design. President Bush's call to upgrade the power grid will do little to eliminate power failures. The magnitude of the blackout is rooted in an often ignored aspect of our globalized world: vulnerability due to interconnectivity.

THE MORAL SENSE TEST [8.22.03]
Marc D. Hauser

"Our new web site is up and running," writes Marc D. Hauser of Harvard's Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory. "We are interested in understanding people's moral intuitions. The web site, includes background information and importantly, The Moral Sense Test. I would very much appreciate it if you would not only take the test, but also spread the word to your friends and colleagues, of all ages. We are particularly interested in getting cross-cultural data as well as developmental information, so even young children who can read would be terrifically helpful. The more the word spreads, the better for us. Thanks a lot for your help. — Marc"

SUMMER POSTCARDS [9.10.03]


THAT DAMN BIRD [9.23.03]
A Talk with Irene Pepperberg
Introduction by Marc D. Hauser

What the data suggest to me is that if one starts with a brain of a certain complexity and gives it enough social and ecological support, that brain will develop at least the building blocks of a complex communication system. Of course, chimpanzees don't proceed to develop full-blown language the way you and I have. Grey parrots, such as Alex and Griffin, are never going to sit here and give an interview the way you and I are conducting an interview and having a chat. But they are going to produce meaningful, complex communicative combinations. It is incredibly fascinating to have creatures so evolutionarily separate from humans performing simple forms of the same types of complex cognitive tasks as do young children.


THE ADJACENT POSSIBLE [11.3.03]
A Talk with Stuart Kauffman


An autonomous agent is something that can both reproduce itself and do at least one thermodynamic work cycle. It turns out that this is true of all free-living cells, excepting weird special cases. They all do work cycles, just like the bacterium spinning its flagellum as it swims up the glucose gradient. The cells in your body are busy doing work cycles all the time.


WHY GORDIAN SOFTWARE HAS CONVINCED ME TO BELIEVE IN THE REALITY OF CATS AND APPLES [11.19.03]
A Talk with Jaron Lanier


I've had a suspicion for a while that despite the astonishing success of the first generation of computer scientists like Shannon, Turing, von Neumann, and Wiener, somehow they didn't get a few important starting points quite right, and some things in the foundations of computer science are fundamentally askew.


NEW PILLS FOR THE MIND [12.4.03]
A Talk with Samuel Barondes, M.D.


Most of the psychiatric drugs we use today are refinements of drugs whose value for mental disorders was discovered by accident decades ago. Now we can look forward to a more rational way to design psychiatric drugs. It will be guided by the identification of the gene variants that predispose certain people to particular mental disorders such as schizophrenia or severe depression.

THE LANDSCAPE [12.4.03]
A Talk with Leonard Susskind


What we've discovered in the last several years is that string theory has an incredible diversity—a tremendous number of solutions—and allows different kinds of environments. A lot of the practitioners of this kind of mathematical theory have been in a state of denial about it. They didn't want to recognize it. They want to believe the universe is an elegant universe—and it's not so elegant. It's different over here. It's that over here. It's a Rube Goldberg machine over here. And this has created a sort of sense of denial about the facts about the theory. The theory is going to win, and physicists who are trying to deny what's going on are going to lose.


2003

John Brockman, Editor and Publisher
Russell Weinberger, Associate Publisher

contact: [email protected]
Copyright © 2005 by
Edge Foundation, Inc
All Rights Reserved.

| Top |