I had the fortune of seeing Neil deGrasse Tyson this week at the Altria.
"Looking for Life in the Universe" or something was the title. I didn't actually know it had a title until he began speaking. He said, "Oh wow, this talk has a title! I was on the front of the building." I honestly didn't expect a title, because I didn't expect for him to have much of a spearheaded monologue instead of a colloquial lecture. Lo and Behold, he introduced himself and declared, "You are about to sit through a two-hour astrophysics lecture."
I was able to take away two concepts that I (likely?) would not have gathered from just reading his books. It was these two concepts, along with the simple privilege of being in the presence of and hearing the professed knowledge of an intelligent individual. I would also like to include a 'note-to-self' to follow-up and actually read some of his books.
The first concept was based on the differences between humans and the closest-related living thing (to our knowledge) - primates. Shout all the condemnations for my lack of specific monkey/ape vernacular. The point is that we (humans) share all but some 1.5% of the same DNA structure found in primates. Of course we do, we've seen examples of the demonstrated cognitive functions of monkeys for years (far before the unlocking of deoxyribonucleic acid [not DNA from Kendrick]). All of these are sidenotes. Tyson expresses these similarities, specifically showing us an image of the problem-solving capabilities seen in certain apes (stacking boxes to reach an otherwise inaccessible banana [are these experiments specist?]). Problem solving, the epitome of intelligence? Reasoning? Morality? Judgement? Maybe intelligence is the rationalising of response outside of the primal instinct. These similar genetic 'cousins' to humans are only differing in particle makeup by some 1.5%, and yet they have only been able to accomplish feats that rival human toddlers. Tyson concludes with a thought: maybe aliens have been here and know we exist, but they are 1.5% more 'advanced' than us. "'There are no signs of intelligent life on this planet' they might say", he asserts. "They could possess the most advanced human abilities in their toddlers; 'Oh, honey, what did you do today in kindergarten?' 'I wrote a symphony today!' 'Aw, isn't that cute! I'mma tack it to the fridge.'"
The second, and possibly more profound, was a view at a potentially misled search for life outside of our planet. Tyson does mention several astronomical discoveries that were latched onto so strongly because they resemble human life (such as a geographical structure on the surface of Mars that looked like a human face in certain lighting conditions). The point here is that we often don't use appropriate scientific methods to determine the information we gather. Percival Lowell, the reason we have the amazing Lowell Observatory, was misled into thinking he proved the existence of canals on Mars. The story goes that Lowell heard about theories of other Italian astronomers seeing 'canales' on the martian surface. In his proclamation of seeing 'canals," Lowell was mostly reiterating the Italian findings, but the media took it a little harder than that because there is quite a difference in translation. The Italian canales are more like naturally occuring "channels" than the alternatively created "canals." It was so easy to latch onto this concept, "Life on Mars!" It inspired the creation of H. G. Wells' book War of the Worlds, for example. Ultimately, it was wrong. In fact, the supposed channels seen through the telescope were later revealed to be a refraction of light through blood vessels in the human eye. Time and time again, the life we seek to find, hope to find, is something that we can compare to our own. Tyson asserts that the important search for life should include anything that sustains life. We should keep our minds open, and our gaze broad, as we seek answers.
And seek answers, we should! Seek truth. Seek knowledge. Seek understanding. Seek growth.
"Looking for Life in the Universe" or something was the title. I didn't actually know it had a title until he began speaking. He said, "Oh wow, this talk has a title! I was on the front of the building." I honestly didn't expect a title, because I didn't expect for him to have much of a spearheaded monologue instead of a colloquial lecture. Lo and Behold, he introduced himself and declared, "You are about to sit through a two-hour astrophysics lecture."
I was able to take away two concepts that I (likely?) would not have gathered from just reading his books. It was these two concepts, along with the simple privilege of being in the presence of and hearing the professed knowledge of an intelligent individual. I would also like to include a 'note-to-self' to follow-up and actually read some of his books.
The first concept was based on the differences between humans and the closest-related living thing (to our knowledge) - primates. Shout all the condemnations for my lack of specific monkey/ape vernacular. The point is that we (humans) share all but some 1.5% of the same DNA structure found in primates. Of course we do, we've seen examples of the demonstrated cognitive functions of monkeys for years (far before the unlocking of deoxyribonucleic acid [not DNA from Kendrick]). All of these are sidenotes. Tyson expresses these similarities, specifically showing us an image of the problem-solving capabilities seen in certain apes (stacking boxes to reach an otherwise inaccessible banana [are these experiments specist?]). Problem solving, the epitome of intelligence? Reasoning? Morality? Judgement? Maybe intelligence is the rationalising of response outside of the primal instinct. These similar genetic 'cousins' to humans are only differing in particle makeup by some 1.5%, and yet they have only been able to accomplish feats that rival human toddlers. Tyson concludes with a thought: maybe aliens have been here and know we exist, but they are 1.5% more 'advanced' than us. "'There are no signs of intelligent life on this planet' they might say", he asserts. "They could possess the most advanced human abilities in their toddlers; 'Oh, honey, what did you do today in kindergarten?' 'I wrote a symphony today!' 'Aw, isn't that cute! I'mma tack it to the fridge.'"
The second, and possibly more profound, was a view at a potentially misled search for life outside of our planet. Tyson does mention several astronomical discoveries that were latched onto so strongly because they resemble human life (such as a geographical structure on the surface of Mars that looked like a human face in certain lighting conditions). The point here is that we often don't use appropriate scientific methods to determine the information we gather. Percival Lowell, the reason we have the amazing Lowell Observatory, was misled into thinking he proved the existence of canals on Mars. The story goes that Lowell heard about theories of other Italian astronomers seeing 'canales' on the martian surface. In his proclamation of seeing 'canals," Lowell was mostly reiterating the Italian findings, but the media took it a little harder than that because there is quite a difference in translation. The Italian canales are more like naturally occuring "channels" than the alternatively created "canals." It was so easy to latch onto this concept, "Life on Mars!" It inspired the creation of H. G. Wells' book War of the Worlds, for example. Ultimately, it was wrong. In fact, the supposed channels seen through the telescope were later revealed to be a refraction of light through blood vessels in the human eye. Time and time again, the life we seek to find, hope to find, is something that we can compare to our own. Tyson asserts that the important search for life should include anything that sustains life. We should keep our minds open, and our gaze broad, as we seek answers.
And seek answers, we should! Seek truth. Seek knowledge. Seek understanding. Seek growth.
Comments
Post a Comment