Thinkers' Forum USA

A Site for Intellectual Empowerment and Exchange of Ideas

Thinkers' Forum USA

Did modernity ruined our sleep? By Ed Yong in The Atlantic

Here’s the story that people like to tell about the way we sleep: Back in the day, we got more of it. Our eyes would shut when it got dark. We’d wake up for a few hours during the night instead of snoozing for a single long block. And we’d nap during the day.

Then—minor key!—modernity ruined everything. Our busy working lives put an end to afternoon naps, while lightbulbs, TV screens, and smartphones shortened our natural slumber and made it more continuous.

All of this is wrong, according to Jerome Siegel at the University of California, Los Angeles. Much like the Paleo diet, it’s based on unsubstantiated assumptions about how humans used to live.

Siegel’s team has shown that people who live traditional lifestyles in Namibia, Tanzania, and Bolivia don’t fit with any of these common notions about pre-industrial dozing. “People like to complain that modern life is ruining sleep, but they’re just saying: Kids today!” says Siegel. “It’s a perennial complaint but you need data to know if it’s true.”

The team asked 94 people from these groups to wear Actiwatch-2 devices, which automatically recorded their activity and ambient-light levels. The data revealedthat these groups all sleep for nightly blocks of 6.9 and 8.5 hours, and they spend at least 5.7 to 7.1 hours of those soundly asleep.  That’s no more than what Westerners who have worn the same watches get; if anything, it’s slightly less.

They don’t go to sleep when it gets dark, either. Instead, they nod off between 2 and 3 hours after sunset, well after it becomes pitch-black. And they napped infrequently: The team scored “naps” as periods of daytime inactivity that lasted for at least 15 minutes, and based on these lenient criteria, the volunteers “napped” on just 7 percent of winter days and 22 percent of summer ones.

The volunteers also slept continuously. They would toss and turn like everyone does, but they almost never woke up for a concerted window in the middle of the night. This contradicts a growing ideapopularized by historian Roger Ekirch, that sleeping in eight-hour chunks is a modern affectation.

Even if Siegel is right, that doesn’t mean that our sleeping patterns have been unaffected by modern lifestyles. After all, his team found that insomnia, a common affliction of Western society, is almost non-existent in the three groups. Neither the San nor Tsimane even have a word for insomnia in their language. Why?

His study provides three clues. First, all three groups wake up before sunrise, in stark contrast to Westerners who typically rouse when it’s already light. Once up, the volunteers got the most light exposure at around 9 a.m.; in the middle of the day, when the sun is at its strongest, they head for shade. Siegel thinks this might explain why people with seasonal affective disorder respond well to bright light, especially in the early morning. “It seems like more than a coincidence that this is when all these groups are getting their maximal light exposure,” he says. “We have lost this exposure by living indoors the way we do.”

Second, the volunteers woke up at virtually the same time every day. “They get up at 7 a.m. today and 7 a.m. tomorrow. The day-to-day variability is almost zero,” says Eus van Sommeren from the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience, who was not involved with the study. “This is advice we give to people with insomnia: No matter how much sleep you’ve had, always try to get up at the same time.”

The Hadza, Tsimane, and San were also strongly affected by falling temperature, much more so than failing light. They start to sleep as the night cools and begin waking up at its coldest point. “This suggests that temperature is a very strong and evolutionarily old signal that gets integrated into sleep-regulating systems in the brain, and that we could exploit better,” says van Sommeren. And as Siegel adds, “This temperature rhythm has been reduced or completely eliminated for most of us by our shelters and heating systems.”

“I think that these three things—sleeping during declining temperature, getting up at the same time of day every day, and exposing yourself to a lot of bright light in the morning—may be key to sound sleep,” says van Sommeren.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/the-many-myths-of-paleo-sleeping/410707/

posted by f.sheikh

Science & Metaphysics

(Metaphysics has a fluid definition, but generally it is considered a branch of philosophy that deals with abstract concepts explaining fundamental nature of being and universe. The discussion on recently posted article “ Is this world real or an illusion”  is mostly metaphysical as it deals with abstract thoughts on reality of universe which is hard to prove empirically. One of the problem in proving reality of the universe is that we do not have a ” God’s eye View” of the universe as we are part of the universe and our experience of the universe may be subjective than objective. In order to have objective view, we need God’s Eye view, which is not possible. The article below is about place of metaphysics where science is unable to reach. F. Sheikh )

The Paradox We Face When We Use Science To Explain Science

Technology cannot keep pace with theoretical predictions about subatomic reality coming from physics. The same applies to our ability to observe the far reaches of the universe. Theory outstrips data and can become more extravagant with the claims it makes about the character of a reality. Theories are moreunderdetermined by empirical results than ever, but scientists are reluctant to admit that the arguments they put forward are philosophical and metaphysical. Their theories provide a framework in which they can operate, but if they are removed not only from actual observation but from what in principle can be accessible to us, our descendants, or even any possible observer in our universe, it is hard to see that they are anything other than the product of pure reason. Just because scientists use such reasoning does not make it science.
What then has to be the case for genuine science as such to be possible? This is a question from outside science and is, by definition, a philosophical—even a metaphysical—question. Those who say that science can answer all questions are themselves standing outside science to make that claim. That is why naturalism—the modern version of materialism, seeing reality as defined by what is within reach of the sciences—becomes a metaphysical theory when it strays beyond methodology to talk of what can exist. Denying metaphysics and upholding materialism must itself be a move within metaphysics. It involves standing outside the practice of science and talking of its scope. The assertion that science can explain everything can never come from within science. It is always a statement about science.

None of us can stand outside all human understanding and conceptual schemes and talk of what there is or could be.

Similarly, in philosophy the question must be pressed as to where the verificationist—who believes that a proposition is meaningful only if it can be proved true or false—stands in order to deny the possibility of metaphysics. The dilemma can sometimes be expressed by the perennial challenge as to how the verification theory thesis can itself be verified. By its own lights it appears suspiciously metaphysical in that checking it through scientific means clearly begs every question. One answer (and that given at one time by A.J. Ayer) is that the verification principle is an “axiom.” That, though, does not settle the question of why we should choose such an axiom. It seems somewhat arbitrary and leaves open the possibility that others can just choose a different starting place without fear of rational criticism. Nothing has then been solved.

Some philosophers, particularly of a pragmatist persuasion, have talked of the impossibility of a “God’s eye view.” None of us can stand outside all human understanding and conceptual schemes and talk of what there is or could be. We are all anchored where we are. This is a truism, but it can quickly result in questioning the possibility of any detached reasoning. It takes us very quickly to a philosophical relativism as a destination, according to which we are the creatures of time and place. That though does not just demolish the possibility of philosophy and metaphysics. It undermines the whole self-understanding of empirical science. The latter depends on the idea of a disinterested, objective reason that can be shared by all humans everywhere. It is above all concerned with truth, in effect the ultimate value guiding the practice of science that must be respected by all scientists. That is why falsifying or exaggerating the results of experiments strikes at the heart of science. Scientific truth is not respectful of persons or cultures, and it is certainly not dependent on any.

Science has a universal reach. A scientific discovery about the character of the universe should be one that notional scientists in far-off galaxies could share. The physical laws at least of our own universe remain constant and are intelligible anywhere in it. This gives a clue to a basic fact about science that is often taken for granted by working scientists. Science investigates an objective reality open to all and independent of mind.

http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/why-science-needs-metaphysics

 

Functioning ‘mechanical gears’ seen in nature for the first time

Functioning 'mechanical gears' seen in nature for the first time

A plant-hopping insect found in gardens across Europe – has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ‘teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump.

The finding demonstrates that gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent. Scientists say this is the “first observation of mechanical gearing in a “.

Through a combination of anatomical analysis and high-speed video capture of normal Issus movements, scientists from the University of Cambridge have been able to reveal these functioning natural gears for the first time. The findings are reported in the latest issue of the journal Science.

The gears in the Issus hind-leg bear remarkable engineering resemblance to those found on every bicycle and inside every car gear-box.

Each gear tooth has a rounded corner at the point it connects to the gear strip; a feature identical to man-made gears such as bike gears – essentially a shock-absorbing mechanism to stop teeth from shearing off.

The gear teeth on the opposing hind-legs lock together like those in a car gear-box, ensuring almost complete synchronicity in leg movement – the legs always move within 30 ‘‘ of each other, with one microsecond equal to a millionth of a second.This is critical for the powerful jumps that are this insect’s primary mode of transport, as even miniscule discrepancies in synchronisation between the velocities of its legs at the point of propulsion would result in “yaw rotation” – causing the Issus to spin hopelessly out of control.

Functioning 'mechanical gears' seen in nature for the first time

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-09-functioning-mechanical-gears-nature.html#jCp

posted by f.sheikh

Is This World Real Or An Illusion ?The short answer is: we don’t know!

(Plato believed the world is a shadow and an Illusion.The ‘Truth’ lies more clearly in our minds in ‘ abstract ideal’ and not in natural things of the world observed through our senses. Aristotle argued that methodically applying mathematical proofs, experience and observation to natural things will lead to Truth. The article below by Marina Galprina looks at the issue through the minds of modern scientists, F. Sheikh).

Sean Carroll

(Cosmologist and Physics professor specializing in dark energy and general relativity, research professor in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology)

How do we know this is real life? The short answer is: we don’t. We can never prove that we’re not all hallucinating, or simply living in a computer simulation. But that doesn’t mean that we believe that we are.

There are two aspects to the question. The first is, “How do we know that the stuff we see around us is the real stuff of which the universe is made?” That’s the worry about the holographic principle, for example — maybe the three-dimensional space we seem to live in is actually a projection of some underlying two-dimensional reality.

The answer to that is that the world we see with our senses is certainly not the “fundamental” world, whatever that is. In quantum mechanics, for example, we describe the world using wave functions, not objects and forces and spacetime. The world we see emerges out of some underlying description that might look completely different.

The good news is: that’s okay. It doesn’t mean that the world we see is an “illusion,” any more than the air around us becomes an illusion when we first realize that it’s made of atoms and molecules. Just because there is an underlying reality doesn’t disqualify the immediate reality from being “real.” In that sense, it just doesn’t matter whether the world is, for example, a hologram; our evident world is still just as real.

The other aspect is, “How do we know we’re not being completely fooled?” In other words, forgetting about whether there is a deeper level of reality, how do we know whether the world we see represents reality at all? How do we know, for example, that our memories of the past are accurate? Maybe we are just brains living in vats, or maybe the whole universe was created last Thursday.

We can never rule out such scenarios on the basis of experimental science. They are conceivably true! But so what? Believing in them doesn’t help us understand any features of our universe, and puts us in a position where we have no right to rely on anything that we did think is true. There is, in short, no actual evidence for any of these hyper-skeptical scenarios. In that case, there’s not too much reason to worry about them.

The smart thing to do is to take reality as basically real, and work hard to develop the best scientific theories we can muster in order to describe it. Link to full article

http://www.hopesandfears.com/hopes/now/question/216693-is-reality-real