First Blog

  Problem-Solving -  Beyond Impossible There is no problem the mind of man can set that the mind of man cannot solve. ― Samuel Johnson Figure 1. Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) Introduction. What can possibly be beyond impossible in problem-solving? It would seem that the “impossible” is as far as we can go. Yet, there is a nether region where the “beyond” modifier finds its place.   If you recall Johnson’s quote, it may be from the 1946 Sherlock Holmes movie, “Dressed to Kill” starring Basil Rathbone.   It does make you think, but it also gives you hope. It gives us hope we can solve anything we come across.   It gives hope we can ultimately answer every question – though some solutions may take more time than others. Unfortunately, Dr. Johnson was wrong. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) was known for saying, “You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it”. This is similar, after a fashion, to the ancient Greek historian Herodotus who told us “No man ever steps

Your brain is nature’s first attempt to manage big data. a. Too much and it dysfunctions. b. Some brains get filled but get cluttered like a dump. c. The best examples are those who can tease out what's needed when it's needed.  d. Some have the power to discard the irrelevant. e. Many keep working, always working on a problem.   f. Problem solving ability?  Use it or lose it.  g. Solving the hypothetical is like working out. It is possible that newer developments and needs by humanity to survive in the age of data, the next step in evolution has begun. It will favor a brain with adaptive, algorithmic sensibility.  It may be a rapid transition. In a previous evolutionary step, the brain with abilities to seek different food was favored. The hunter was born. To make and use tools to kill was another step to favor the hunter. The tool maker evolved.

We most often talk of the evolution that occurred.  Yet, some evolutionary steps that could have happened never did and never will. This is a story of one example. Evolution that doesn’t happen.  I thought of this years ago, but never had a really good example.  Thanks to the BBC series  Blue Planet II – Coasts , we see the story of a bachelor sea lion that  discovers a way to trap yellowfin tuna.  Normally, any sea lion could never catch the very speedy tuna. But our bachelor thought up his method to herd the tuna into the dead end of a very shallow coastal region in the Galapagos.   When it first tried, the tuna escaped though the sea lion herded them into the shallows successfully. The problem? He could herd and close the trap at the same time.  Then he recruited some “friends” and they worked together to trap the tuna with one of them closing of the escape route.  Each enjoyed their own 60 kilo tuna – big meal-deal.  The creator of this trapping tuna scheme is no doubt a sea lio

 An account of evolution from a (feedback) systems viewpoint. Species as systems.   It is a given that adaptable species are the most successful and that sometimes more the adaptable species exhibit greater intelligence.  To adapt requires more than instinct.  It requires a problem-solving capacity to comprehend survival options and make survival decisions.  So, if an adaptable species is stressed, it must solve survival problems.  Many, if not most species can do have and done this.  Availability of food sources is significant. In many species, we see local adaptability to local conditions.  This means non-cognitive solutions are found. Perhaps adaptability involves a modified method of hunting  or food gathering. Or it could involve a reactive change to climate or a need for protection. The tripod of survival: food, protection, and reproduction, are the progenitors of adaptation.  Pleasure, convenience, and comfort are not. View any species as a system.  It has states, such

June 24, 2016 The Constant Conundrum of Science - and Lately for Us A ll Most scientists envision the world where their theories are taught to all children at the appropriate time in their education.   They believe in standardized instruction of their theories.   To most, this is the ultimate affirmation of truth; such theories are carried to the next generation increasing their likelihood of survival in the test of time..  At any rate, this seems to be current thinking among practitioners and researchers in many subjects – that their accepted theory has reached something of an ultimate maturity – that future changes will not be revolutionary but at most mildly evolutionary – that we are within only a few discoveries of the final truth. Remarkably, it is an artifact of our modern era for scientists to believe that we have the final and ultimate theory.   We are there, they believe, with just a few more details to fill in. Indeed, the entire 18 th and 19 th cent

I love evolution theory ; I love creationism .  These are active and competing theories of human and life's existence, one based on contemporary scientific methodology and the other based on traditional, though religious beliefs.   Both involve a level supplemented by plausibility arguments. Both try to tell us where we are on a chronological scale and within a broad scheme of events.  The first tells us where we came from, how long it took, what were the steps, and ultimately how we got here.  It doesn't explain how it happened, but does assume it did happen.    The current evolution theory is consistent, contiguous, though evolving and incomplete.     Science should explain the how - but hasn't done so yet.  Science conjectures, theorizes, i.e. guesses on at the marvelous processes.  The problems are difficult.   In contrast, the creationist (i.e. religious) viewpoint explains the origins, with the "how" being a Devine intervention.  With the how "establi