Memory as a bridge between your selves

Recently I came home from work with my head so full of the next day’s chores that I couldn’t relax until I had made a list of all I needed to do. The list was full of cryptic items like “foop email in boilers?”. Looking at the jotted notes, I thought that in five years, probably none of this would make sense to me any more; it would be as if the list had been written by someone else. In the end, this speculation about my five-years-from-now self was beside the point, because my next-morning self couldn’t find the list.

That incident neatly captures our uneasy relationship with future and previous selves. Years ago I had a friend who liked to think of his choices in terms of making his future self’s life easier, in part by keeping as many options open as possible (e.g., avoiding going deeply into debt). This is an optimistic take on the relationship with our future selves, although aside from the obvious things like enough money to live on, it’s sometimes hard to know what your future self will want. And sooner or later your options must narrow; even not choosing winds up being a choice. Montaigne recognized these other selves with a more rueful attitude when he wrote that “I now and I anon are two several persons; but whether better, I cannot determine. It were a fine thing to be old, if we only travelled towards improvement… .” Indeed.

Even more interesting, though, is the way our past selves can confound us. Last year when my younger son was preparing to move away from home for grad school in another state, he told me that he sometimes thinks his mission in life is to do things that will later baffle himself. As evidence, he produced a gallon milk jug full of sand that he had no recollection of ever acquiring. I know exactly what he’s talking about; the reason I speculated about that to-do list was that other lists had floated to the surface months or years after I wrote them, and sometimes it feels as if they were written by someone else. Last year I made the following list of words, evidently seeds for some essay or meditation that never saw the light of day: faith, stories, twilight, food, evening, street. An evocative list, perhaps, but as devoid of meaning as if the words had appeared at random during a Scrabble game (which they might have, for all I know to the contrary). I’m reminded of Robert Browning’s explication of one of his poems: “When I wrote that, God and I knew what it meant; now God alone knows.”

Some of our past actions puzzle us because the behavior wasn’t important enough to register very deeply in the first place. Several years ago I ran into my older son on campus and we came back to my apartment for something to eat. There we found a jar of peanut butter in the dishpan with a few dishes waiting to be washed. My son was amused (“I want some of whatever you were smoking”), but I was curious about how that peanut butter got there. I could remember having peanut butter on toast for breakfast, and it was a new jar of the kind of peanut butter that separates and needs to be stirred. It’s hard to stir it without dribbling some down the side, and I guess that I took the jar over to the dishpan to wipe it off with the dishcloth. Why I then set it down in the dishpan is anyone’s guess.

It’s not exactly that I forgot where I put the jar; I wasn’t really aware of it in the first place. It wasn’t very important, and I was on autopilot. There’s often confusion when the conscious mind demands an accounting from the unconscious, demanding “Where did I set those keys down?” In my experience, a big part of being organized is setting up your surroundings so that you can unconsciously and by habit do things that will make sense later.

Other things register in our consciousness but don’t warrant saving in long-term memory. There are plenty of things I do at work that fit into this category. I’m a technical writer, and the documents that we work on come with logs that tell you who worked on them when. Sometimes I wonder who made a particular change, or think of something that needs to be fixed and find that it’s already done, and am surprised to look in the log and find that it’s my own work. I edit hundreds of documents every year, and look at hundreds more that are edited by my co-workers, so it makes sense that much of my work resides in short-term memory and then gets flushed periodically. If I remembered every single edit I made, I wouldn’t have room in my brain for the important things, like my family’s birthdays and the dozen or so passwords that are required for my online existence, or the names of the half-dozen teams that the Indiana University men’s basketball team played on its way to the NCAA championship in 1987. You can’t possibly remember everything, and so we have to let some things go.

John Locke proposed that our personal identity is based on our memories of ourselves: we are who we remember ourselves being. Strictly speaking, this doesn’t take into account the necessity for letting some things drop out of our memories as we accumulate more and more experiences. My identity doesn’t feel compromised by the fact that I can’t recall what I had for breakfast on this date six years ago. However, with the proviso that some forgetting is normal and even essential, I tend to agree with Locke. Some memories do seem tied up with my identity, and the loss of them does seem to diminish my sense of who I am.

I think sometimes we forget who we used to be because those previous selves are connected to states of mind that it’s hard to re-enter after they have passed. Who we are at a certain place and time—or maybe more accurately, what it feels like to be who we are—is dependent on things like who we were spending time with and talking to, what we were hearing about on the news, what the weather was like, what we were eating, the route we took to work every day. The matrix of thoughts and associations and conversations and routines is not our identity exactly, but it’s a very strong link to what our identity felt like to us. A complex interplay of biochemistry and emotions plays a major role in our actions, and these things really are a part of our identity. It can be hard to understand who we are, or were, without remembering these factors.

William James wrote about what it is that makes the stream of thought continuous in each of us so that we know we are the same person over time. In particular, he talks about the way we pick up the thread of consciousness again after sleep. Even if we know what was in someone else’s mind when he went to sleep, we can’t reconnect with his earlier thoughts the way we do with our own. James distinguishes between the two things by saying that we remember our own earlier state, while we can only conceive of another person’s: “Remembrance is like direct feeling; its object is suffused with a warmth and intimacy to which no object of mere conception ever attains.”

I have sometimes thought that some of my earlier selves might as well have been strangers for all I could remember of what they were thinking, but if James is right, that’s not quite true. We probably seldom feel about our own past exactly the way we would about a story that a stranger told us about his past. There’s probably at least a little bit of that warmer feeling even toward past events that we remember only imperfectly. Even that scrap of paper with the list of words is recognizably a part of me, simply because I know that I’m always jotting things down on scraps of paper and the backs of shopping lists.

But the strength of that warmth and immediacy lessens as time goes by and we forget the details of our circumstances. Or maybe we misremember how we felt at the time or what our rationale was for whatever mystifying decision we came to. A particular past self feels further and further away, until at some point we have lost a part of ourselves.

Of course, it’s not only past selves that we can lose. As we grow older, we realize there are some things we will never be or do. The future self that lives in Europe or has a PhD or knows how to speak five languages slowly fades away and one day we realize it’s lost. This is a foretaste of the eventual loss of all our future selves. Perhaps that’s why I protest against losing touch with my past selves. Or maybe it’s because I’m a writer, and I take to heart Christopher Buckley’s observation that “A writer’s life is his capital.” I value experience, and I don’t want to forget any of the experiences I’ve gathered so far. If we have to let some things go, it’s good to at least retain signposts to help us access some of them again.

Maybe this is why people hang onto old letters or ticket stubs or the keys to old cars. Just holding these physical objects in our hands can call to mind the situations in which they were new to us: the 22-cent stamp, the handwriting of a lost love, the heft of the key in our hand. Walking around an old neighborhood (assuming you are fortunate enough to have a pleasantly memorable old neighborhood that hasn’t been utterly transformed by intervening years) can let loose a flood of memories. Music and smells are also powerful stimuli to this kind of memory.

Maybe that’s why we keep journals, too. My older son recently gave me a practical example of how useful this can be: he keeps notes as he writes code, so that if he has to go back and revisit the code later, he doesn’t need to work through his whole problem-solving process again to figure out why he programmed something a particular way. Most of us can probably see the usefulness of this: immersed in a task, you hit upon some process that makes perfect sense at the time, but later you (and probably your co-workers) wonder what on earth it was all about. I can almost feel a click in my mind later when things fall into place and I remember the sequence of thoughts that led to a particular workaround or decision. A journal helps you to reach that state much more quickly. Diaries about our personal lives can have the same effect; they can help you take a step closer to that immediate connection with your earlier self that James talked about.

In the months before my first marriage, I carried around a spiral-bound notebook full of to-do lists for the wedding, notes about tux rentals and caterers and music, notes about the plans that my first husband Andy and I had for setting up a household together, and a sort of a crude day planner. This thing was lost to my sight for the better part of 20 years, and when it resurfaced 5 or 6 years ago, I was curious about what glimpses it would offer of my earlier self, who by then appeared somewhat puzzling to me.

I was 17 when I decided to venture into marriage, child-rearing, and what turned out to be a brief stint at back-to-the-land idealism. I thought I remembered the facts well enough, but I couldn’t really get inside the head of that naive teenager. What on earth made me think that I could live among the cows and chickens when I had never lived outside the city and didn’t even enjoy camping all that much, for example? I opened the notebook with high hopes for reconnecting with that earlier self; I found a fascinating blend of nostalgia and bemusement.

Some of the things in the notebooks were bewildering at first but ultimately understandable. Amidst all the flowers and white satin, I found a note to myself to buy a box of chocolate-covered cherries and a snorkel. This had me scratching my head for a moment, but I realized these were undoubtedly usher gifts for my younger brothers, one of whom is fond of chocolate-covered cherries. The note “Chicken Little Day” for a day in July made me pause for a moment, but I remembered that it was a reference to the day of Skylab’s fiery return to Earth.

(On the other hand, some things are utterly opaque to me now. I have a list that is headed “To add to Andy’s mother’s guest list” but instead of containing names, the list contains only the single baffling entry “wicker basket (instead of serving bowl)”. Maybe some parts of our earlier selves really are strangers to us. Luckily that’s not a very important part.)

There were more important hints of my earlier self, though. For example, I had the idea that I had been becoming more and more of a worry-wart as I got older as an unfortunate reaction to the inevitable ups and downs of life. In the notebook, however, I can see that I had an impressively detailed “Wedding worries” list that ran to no fewer than 14 addenda, and this for a simple low-budget wedding (no sit-down dinner, no alcohol, no limousines, no swans). So maybe I was this much of a worry-wart all along.

I had forgotten the tremendous enthusiasm with which I tackled my new life, the lists I made of the skills Andy and I would need to acquire and the things we hoped to do. I had also forgotten that I had planned to move out of my parents’ house before the wedding and live on my own, for reasons that I considered so obvious at 17 that I didn’t write them down, which makes them hard to reconstruct now. (Diaries have their limits, after all.) This planned move was a surprise to me; it never happened and I had forgotten that it was even contemplated. Maybe I was trying to prove my maturity to my parents, but I guess it’s just as well I didn’t carry it too far. I can’t imagine now what I would have lived on in a place of my own, since I was in college and working half-time. My list of assets was touchingly optimistic: $800 (with $800 crossed out and $605 written instead; even in 1979 this was not a lot of money), a bicycle, a record player, a sewing machine, two plants (one hanging). After all my notes about the apartment search, I wrote: “When you unpack, remember, the unicorn comes first!” I had totally forgotten a small glass unicorn that Andy had given me, but it was a precious object to me at the time.

The notebook did provide a portal through which I could catch a glimpse of my younger self. I could see that I had been willing to brave the cows and the chickens because I believed in giving myself wholeheartedly to a cause I thought was good and a relationship that I cherished. This is not news from nowhere, of course; I can see that same passion for throwing myself into things at work in my life now. Over time, however, it’s easy to forget the connection, to think you’ve changed more than you have. I may describe myself differently over the years, but the underlying traits are not that different in my younger and older selves. In short, reading that notebook re-introduced me to another and very different time of my life, and helped me to understand myself a bit better. Past experiences that had been growing misty are sharper in my mind now. I’m glad my all-those-years-ago self carefully put the notebook away in a box so that a later self could learn from it.

Augmented Animals

Here’s an unsettling article from Wired about a book called Augmented Animals by James Auger. Auger suggests that we develop devices to help animals overcome their physical limitations. Well, for wild animals the idea is to help them overcome their limitations and in some cases enhance whatever intelligence is present. (Like we know what we’re doing well enough to intervene without the risk of causing more problems than we solve?) The article also discusses some enhancements that would help animals deal with domestication or the trauma of factory farming. On the one hand, this sounds kind of like soma to me; we don’t need to really treat them better, we just need to delude them into thinking that they are living in better conditions. On the other hand, to be pragmatic about it, if we are going to treat them badly (e.g., factory-farming animals), maybe we do owe it to them to mitigate the misery if we can. Well, read the article for yourself and see what you think. I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who’s read the book.

http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67349,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

Thinking meat in the cosmos

In astronomy, some words start out as proper nouns: Sun, Moon, Earth, Jupiter. We realized that other stars are also glowing balls of gas like our Sun, and so we talk about the night sky as being full of suns. We also learned that other planets have moons like ours, and so we have our Moon and dozens of moons elsewhere in the solar system. I think that soon we will see lowercase earths and jupiters, as we can talk with more and more confidence about planets around other stars, and compare them to the planets around our local star.

The question of whether or not there is intelligent life on other planets is an important one for us as thinking meat. We want to know if there are other thinking beings out there, or if we are alone in the cosmos. Written records of humankind’s thoughts on the question go back to the early Greek philosophers, although we have taken different attitudes toward it over the centuries. We are finally in a position to at least discover whether or not life exists elsewhere in the universe, if not to locate intelligent life for sure.

Early questioners had no way to discover what was going on even on the surface of the moon, a mere quarter of a million miles away, much less what kind of planets might be in orbit around distant stars. It took us several centuries of telescopic observing before we had identified all the planets of our own solar system, and then suddenly at the end of the twentieth century we entered an amazing period of discovery as astronomers sought and found evidence of planets orbiting other stars. So far they have identified 154 planets around normal stars, including 14 planetary systems of more than one planet, plus some possible planets orbiting pulsars. (For the latest numbers, see the Catalogue of Extrasolar Planets.) What we’ve been able to detect so far from Earth is mostly large planets; the smallest one so far around a normal star is 14 times the size of Earth, but it’s in a very unearthlike orbit (very close to its parent star). Astronomers believe it’s likely that they have even gotten an image of an extrasolar planet, more massive than Jupiter and orbiting a brown dwarf, and another image of a planet orbiting a very young star. (However, the latter might turn out to be too massive to be a planet.) [April 30, 2005: The European Southern Observatory has issued a press release confirming that the former is indeed an extrasolar planet orbiting the brown dwarf.]

NASA has three missions in the works that will follow up on and complement the ongoing ground-based discoveries. These missions will use a variety of techniques to search for extrasolar planets, in particular those that are similar to Earth and are in the habitable zone for their parent star (i.e., at a distance where liquid water is possible). Furthermore, these missions should increase the amount of data we have about planetary systems: for each system, how many planets there are and their sizes and orbits.

With these missions and ongoing ground-based discoveries, we’ll have the basis for a broad comparative study of planetary systems. The planetary systems discovered so far from the ground do not resemble our own very closely; the big planets in these systems are generally much closer in to their stars than the big planets in ours. As we have more data to work with, we can begin to figure out how planetary systems form and how many of the various types there are in the nearby universe. As thinking-meat achievements go, this one is shaping up to be spectacular.

The Kepler mission will look for the ever-so-slight but regular dimming of a star when its planets pass in front of it, or transit. Kepler is scheduled to launch in October of 2007, and will watch 100,000 stars for four years, looking for tiny repeated dips in starlight that should occur if a planet is periodically blocking part of its star’s light as it transits the star.

It takes a very sensitive photometer to measure this decrease in starlight; Kepler’s photometer will be able to measure a change in brightness of about 100 parts per million. Once such a dimming is observed, we can calculate the planet’s orbit from the length of time that the star’s light is decreased. By measuring how much the star’s light is decreased, we can calculate the size of the planet.

Keep in mind that the further out a planet is, the more slowly it circles its star. If you were viewing the solar system from far away and edge on, you’d see the Earth cross the face of the Sun every year; Mars, which is the next-furthest planet from the Sun, would transit every two years. By observing the same stars continuously for four years, Kepler would be able to see four transits for an Earth-like planet orbiting in the habitable zone of a Sun-like star, and fewer transits for planets further out. Kepler can find planets as small as Mercury, but is optimized to search for Earth-sized planets. Kepler should give us a better idea of how many stars have terrestrial planets.

If Kepler finds any terrestrial planets, we can look more closely at them with later missions. Kepler should also give us a much broader data set for comparing the planetary systems.

SIM PlanetQuest, which is slated for launch in 2011, will look for the telltale wobble, very tiny but detectable, of a star being tugged on by its planets. Since the star is very large compared to the planet, the gravitational influence that the star has on the planet is much much greater than the influence that the planet has on the star. However, if you look carefully enough, you can see that a star wobbles very slightly but regularly as the planet orbits it.

(Many of the ground-based discoveries, by the way, are based on detecting this same small wobble. From the ground, however, what researchers look for is very small periodic Doppler shifts in a star’s spectrum, redward and blueward as the star moves away from and toward us.)

SIM stands for Space Interferometry Mission, the original name for this mission. Interferometry is the process of combining light from two or more telescopes to simulate a single telescope of much bigger light-gathering capacity. The Very Large Array (VLA) of radio telescopes in New Mexico uses interferometry, which is easier to do with longer waves like radio waves. To do it with the much shorter wavelengths of visible light, it’s best to go into space. SIM PlanetQuest will use visible-light interferometry to measure the positions of stars much more accurately than we have been able to so far, and the accuracy of this positioning will also enable us to search for the signs of planets around these stars.

SIM PlanetQuest will look at the closest 250 stars in search of terrestrial planets. This is the hardest part of SIM, and will require the most precise measurements (one-millionth of an arcsecond, which is the thickness of a nickel on the moon as seen from the Earth). SIM will also survey a larger group of about 2,000 stars with a lower accuracy, looking for Neptune-sized and bigger planets to try to figure out how many of them there might be in this neck of the galactic woods. A third goal for the mission is to look for Jupiter-mass planets around young stars. The fact that so many of the planetary systems we’ve discovered from Earth are so different from our own has sparked a great deal of curiosity about how these systems and their planets are formed. By looking at young systems, the SIM mission might be able to shed some light on the early development of planetary systems.

The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) is the most ambitious of all the missions. It has two complementary parts: an interferometer that works in the infrared (not visible light like SIM), and a coronagraph. The idea behind the coronagraph is to observe planets directly by blocking the light of the parent star so that the comparatively dim planets have a chance to appear. Since the star is very bright and the planet very dim in comparison, this is a daunting task, and the smaller the planet, the harder it will be. (Note that the extrasolar planets possibly imaged so far from Earth were more massive than Jupiter.)

TPF, scheduled to launch between 2014 and 2020, will study up to 150 stars within 45 light years of Earth. In addition to detecting terrestrial planets, TPF would also analyze the spectra of any planets it finds. By breaking a planet’s light down into its component colors, TPF will reveal the chemical composition of the planet. This is where it gets extremely exciting, because in addition to detecting a planetary atmosphere and telling us what it’s made of, TPF can also look for biomarkers like the presence of molecular oxygen and methane, and also for chlorophyll.

If you could make such a spectrum for Earth, you would compress all of this planet’s biodiversity, all of the living processes, into a single diagram, dense with information but obviously not a complete picture of the planet. What would it be like to see a similar diagram for a totally alien world? If we have the luck to look in the right place, I wouldn’t really be surprised to see such a life-revealing spectrum. Earth harbors life in such unlikely and downright hostile places that I suppose that other planets might well harbor at least simple forms of life, although I’d guess that highly complex, intelligent beings are not very common. But who knows what we will find?

Two European missions, Corot and Darwin, will also look for extrasolar planets and signs of life.

Why should we look? I’m not sure it provides economic justification that would satisfy a financial analyst, but my answer is that I can’t imagine us not looking. It’s part of what we do best. Humans are curious about their environment. Maybe this is an adaptation; curious hominids might well do better at surviving and reproducing than slack-jawed dullards who lack the energy or inclination to see what’s over the next hill or whether there’s an easier way to do something. Deep space is not our immediate environment, true, and it doesn’t have much to contribute to our capacities for survival or reproduction (I don’t believe that space colonization offers much hope for relieving our resource problems on Earth, for example). But I don’t think we can turn our curiosity off; even if it evolved as an aid in certain specific situations, it’s a part of us now that we tend to apply in all kinds of other situations.

And the question of whether we’re unique or not in the universe is a very fundamental question, although on a huge scale, about our place in the natural environment. The discovery of even simple life on another planet would be bound to cause deep changes in our worldview. (In addition to the jubilation and excitement, and the possibility of a new science of comparative biology, I can imagine the conspiracy theories already, saying that the observations are faked. I just wish I had the imagination to weave a good story about why people would say they are faked, so I could write a blockbuster novel and make big bucks.)

Geoffrey Marcy, who with his team discovered over half of the extrasolar planets we know so far, recently gave a series of talks at Indiana University that provided an excellent look at the state of extrasolar planetary science. (If you ever get a chance to hear him talk, by all means go!) In particular, he gave a compelling presentation on why we should look for other life in the universe.

One of his points was that we have some inherited traits that are counterproductive for us now (e.g., xenophobia and territoriality), but we also have some favorable attributes like curiosity and the capacity for compassion, and it’s an open question which aspects will prevail. I think that our hope as a species lies in nurturing the favorable traits, in particular curiosity. If exploration is one of the things we humans do, then let us do it well.

Looking for other life in the cosmos implies a belief in our own future—why bother looking if we believe that we ourselves are to be extinguished soon because of our own environmental and political mistakes? Furthermore, if we value life enough to seek it out among the stars, to me that goes hand in hand with valuing it enough to try to preserve it, in all its diversity, down here on this planet. There are other ways we can express both our curiosity and our belief in the future, but this is one of the important ones. May the meat keep on thinking, long into the future.

A relationship of memory

At my mother’s funeral, someone said to me, “You know, she’s not really gone.” I’ve thought about that a lot since then. I was raised to believe that we each have an immortal soul that lives on after we die, but I no longer believe that. If I can be said to have a soul, it’s an expression of my brain activity, and when my brain activity stops, my soul—my personality, my self—is gone. This belief doesn’t necessarily take away things like ethics, meaning, values, or beauty. But the one thing you indubitably do lose, if you adopt this viewpoint, is everlasting life. When you are gone, you really are gone.

My mother’s absence is still painful, even after four and a half years. I can’t talk to her on the phone, or share books with her, or take her out to lunch when I’m in Phoenix. And yet, it’s true that in some senses she is not really gone. Whether you believe in an afterlife or not, the dead linger on in our memories; we still have emotional reactions to them and things they did; their presence in our lives continues to influence us. In fact, maybe it was these traces of people who were gone that led humans to believe in an afterlife in the first place. If they are still in our hearts and minds, perhaps they still exist somewhere. I don’t believe they do, but I have learned to appreciate the ways that they stay present for us even in their absence.

For one thing, people who had children have left behind parts of themselves in a direct physical sense. Parts of my mother’s physical identity live on in me and in all my siblings. In the shape of my face, I can see her face, and when I am being particularly stubborn about something I am reminded of her. The unique mixture of genetic material that helped make her who she was got shuffled and passed along, in part, to us, and some of us are shuffling what we got and passing it along ourselves. It’s not the same thing as having her still here, but it is in some sense a continuation of her physical presence.

“Here in time we are added to one another,” wrote Wendell Berry. We share with each other ideas and attitudes, and we modify our behavior depending on who we’re close to. My mother’s personality has shaped mine to some degree, even beyond any personality traits I might have inherited. From long experience, I know what she would say about certain things. When I’m sick, I know what she would tell me to eat that would make me feel better. If I’m tempted to mope, I can imagine her quoting Longfellow to me (“Be still, sad heart, and cease repining! Behind the clouds the sun is still shining…”). Of course, sometimes the voice you hear is really your own, and there are people who use the line “This is what he would have wanted” as a stick to beat other people with. But if you’re honest with yourself, you can still hear the true echoes of the ones you’ve lost.

Sometimes the echoes are quite literally word-for-word accurate. “Better than a sharp stick in the eye,” I say to my sons, or “Don’t strain your zurch.” No one knows what a zurch is or even how it’s spelled (I’m just guessing) but my sons recognize the phrase right away and know that it comes from my mother. Whenever we had to move furniture or otherwise exert ourselves, she would warn people not to strain their zurches, and we’d all laugh. When discussing a person about whom it was hard to find anything good to say, she would say, “Well, he means well.” I inherited some of her tender-heartedness and I find this phrase handy myself from time to time.

People pass along countless bits of advice, some by word and some by example, that stay with us after they’re gone. When I’m particularly sluggish in the morning, I make a point of making the bed as soon as I get out of it. My mother told me when I was a child that this was a good thing to do, because then you’re less likely to crawl back in and go back to sleep. I have no idea how important this idea was to her; I suspect it was an off-hand comment that wasn’t intended to bear the weight of 35 years of remembering, but it stuck in my mind somehow and still comes to me on those sleepy mornings. (I wonder now what throwaway comments I have made to my sons that might have gotten stuck in their memories in the same way.) Whether we emulate or avoid the behaviors we see in others, we’re shaped by them the way trees are shaped by a prevailing wind.

We learn from each other all the time, and your parents in particular never stop being role models, positive or negative. Even though my mother is gone, I can still see the path she took, thirty years ahead of me on the road, and when I reach situations that are new to me, sometimes I get insight from what she did when she was at that point in her life. Maybe this is why people are sometimes uneasy when they live to be older than their parents did. Also there’s a peculiar intergenerational loop here. After my mother died, I felt almost guilty for going on living without her, and it seemed that certain levels of happiness were gone for good. But when I thought about my sons facing my death some day, of course I want them to go on enjoying life to the full and to flourish for as long as they possibly can, whether I’m here or not. I’m sure my mother would have felt the same way about me. That helped me to value my own life and continue to live it as well as I could.

In some ways, people can become even stronger role models after they’re gone, as we try to keep alive the parts of their spirit that we especially value. I think people in my family are taking on some of the things that Mom used to do. My sister and I send each other Christmas boxes and birthday boxes like the ones my mother used to send me. My sister’s twin daughters were born one week before Mom died; that was a particularly bitter pill to swallow because Mom would have loved watching those girls grow up. I think some of us step in and do things for the twins that Mom would have done, if she were here to do them. And recently I was moved to tears when my father sent me a birthday box with exactly the same treats my mother always sent. She’s still in our hearts and our memories, and there’s a peculiar poignancy in sharing these memories in her absence.

And maybe that’s the most powerful way that the dead live on: in our memories. I tell stories about the time my mother killed the dog biscuit (she thought it was a bug), or about how her spaghetti sauce was so good we used to stand around the stove and eat it on bread before dinner even started. Or about the euphemisms she came up with (“Son of a pup!” she might say, or she would call someone a horse’s neck), or the arguments we had when, at age 17, I announced my intention of getting married. But it goes beyond just having memories. A grief counsellor told me that my mother’s death didn’t end my relationship with her; it turned it into a relationship of memory. Having a relationship implies that there’s an ongoing process, and even that there are obligations on my side.

Oddly enough, the obligations can call up a sense of a person’s presence more strongly than anything else. My mother kept a diary in a series of spiral-bound notebooks for many many years. After she died, my father threw them all away. I was deeply curious about what was in those diaries, and part of me would have liked to read them, so I could get a better view of some of the events of my childhood and see them through her eyes. I don’t remember if I ever talked to my father about those diaries, but the fact that he threw them away argued very strongly to me that she asked him not to let anyone read them after she was gone. And I know how that goes. I keep all kinds of journals and notes to myself that I don’t want another soul to ever lay eyes on. Someone once read some of my journal entries without my permission and it was a deep betrayal, and one of the things I trust my sons to do after I’m gone (are you listening, guys?) is to throw away my personal papers without reading them.

What surprised me when I first thought about it was how strongly I felt her personal presence in those diaries. It would have been violating her trust if I had looked at them, and I would have felt that I had wronged her even though she is gone and she never would have known that I looked at them. The dead have a right to privacy, of course; I just hadn’t realized how intensely their presence can linger on in the extensions of themselves that they leave behind.

In addition to the obligation to protect the privacy of those who are gone, we also know that we should remember the dead fairly, and as kindly as we can. Just remembering them at all seems very important. It’s important to us first because we want to keep them around somehow, even if it’s only their photographs or some of their things. By being in the places where they were, or where they are commemorated, by reading about them, by looking at their pictures or re-reading the letters they wrote to us, we somehow bring them nearer. It’s a bittersweet sort of comfort, not like actually having them here, but it’s better than forgetting them. The price of love is grief, I read somewhere, and we’d rather pay it than forget the ones we love.

The idea of being remembered is also important to us as we think about dying ourselves someday. Warren Zevon, in a deeply moving song written when he knew he was dying of cancer, asked “keep me in your heart for awhile.” That feels to me like something that we owe to the dead. It’s what we give to those who precede us, partly because we want to, and partly because we want those who follow us to give it to us in turn. It feels like solidarity: humans in the face of inevitable loss saying to each other, “You will not be forgotten. Even though you’re gone, there is a part of you that is still here among us. We won’t let the memory of you be lost while we are here to prevent it.” I think this is why we turn over a glass for absent friends. We want to honor their wish to be remembered, and we hope that someday someone will turn over a glass for us when we’re gone too.

At my mother’s funeral, the priest sang some prayers, and the only words I remember are “eternal memory”, a phrase he repeated several times. I’m always touched when people talk about loving or remembering someone forever, because we are so finite. Marcus Aurelius wrote that we all are creatures of a day, rememberer and remembered alike. A hundred years from now, I suppose no one will remember me, or my mother. What moves me about people saying they will remember forever is that what we mean is that we will remember for as long as we can. And when the last person who knew my mother or knew of her is gone, no one will be able to remember any more. We all will have gone into the darkness that Robinson Jeffers described in his poem Night as “the splendor without rays, the shining of shadow, peace-bringer…”. In the peaceful dark, we will not be aware of our oblivion and won’t mind it. Meanwhile, for as long as we’re here, we’ll hold those who have died in our hearts and there, at least, they will never be really gone.

Genetic basis of human variety

The Edge recently published a thought-provoking essay by Armand Leroi, plus several responses from others, on the subject of the genetic factors underlying normal human differences, particularly those between races. The topic of biological differences between groups of people is subject to all kinds of misuse and abuse for social or political reasons, so some are reluctant to study it, but on the other hand, maybe more knowledge is a better way to combat that misuse than keeping silent. This essay provides some interesting food for thought, at any rate.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/leroi05/leroi05_index.html

Why Thinking Meat?

I’m not sure I remember exactly when I first started to use the phrase “thinking meat”. It might have been when I was reading an article about whether or not exposure to video display terminals causes miscarriages. I was struck by the way people want to know why something happens, so that they can take action to avoid having it happen to them, or perhaps even comfort themselves by thinking “That couldn’t happen to me because… .” A surprisingly high fraction of pregnancies just don’t work; the embryo just isn’t viable. But a lot of people don’t want to accept that we’re subject to the vagaries of biological chance. Because we’re conscious and become emotionally attached to each other, we suffer more from things that leave plenty of other creatures untroubled. In nature, lots of creatures have far more eggs or offspring than can survive, and the mother turtle, for example, doesn’t grieve because a lot of the young die. But it’s different for us.

So the thinking meat dilemma began with a curiosity about how people live with being meat, subject to all of the infections and injuries and wear and tear and deterioration that meat can suffer, while being conscious loving beings with feelings and vivid imaginations, who want to be here and fear having to leave, who grow attached to others just as vulnerable.

It can be scary to be a mortal animal walking around an uncertain world. You probably saw some of the horrifying images from the aftermath of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean on December 26, 2004, not to mention the images of people leaping from the World Trade Center to their deaths on September 11. And as awful as those things were, what can happen to the brain is worse. Think of Alzheimer’s disease, for example. Recently, the finance manager of the city of Phoenix came to a horrifying end, climbing onto the top of his car while he was driving down the street and then falling or jumping to his death. By nature a quiet and reserved man, he behaved this way because of parasites in his brain, the result of an improperly cooked meal he ate in Mexico. If you see the brain as the source of our consciousness, our memories, our feelings, and our personalities, and you realize the brain is so fragile, our vulnerability can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow. And if our own vulnerability is hard to take, the vulnerability of those we love is even more poignant.

Religion is one obvious way that people have dealt with their vulnerability and their subjection to natural laws that seem capricious. The dualism at the heart of much of Western religion sidesteps the thinking meat problem by claiming that we are something besides just meat, that we possess immortal souls that live beyond whatever happens to the body that we inhabit temporarily. I see no reason to believe in this dualistic view, but whether you believe it or not, religious belief obviously plays a large and complicated role in people’s attempts to resolve the thinking meat problem.

I believe that our brains and our minds are one and the same. In part, the Thinking Meat Project is about the journey from thinking in terms of a mind-body split to thinking in terms of embodied cognition, embodied consciousness, embodied feeling. I began this journey years ago when I left the church, and am still figuring out how to find meaning and purpose in a world where we are animals that think and where our deepest passions and values, which feel so personal and chosen, are partly a result of our biological makeup. As science learns more and more about our physical being, thoughtful people everywhere are having to make the same journey.

One of the hardest things to give up when I left the church was the idea of life after death. If our minds arise from the activity of our brains, then when we die, we’re gone. But another part of the thinking meat problem has to do with how we’re in some ways not entirely gone. When my mother died four and a half years ago, my sister’s mother-in-law said to me, “She’s not really gone, you know.” Well, I can’t call her on the phone, or send her a birthday present, or tell her about her grandson going off to grad school. But in another sense, she is still here. My siblings and I are carrying some of my mother’s genes. We and all the others who were close to her have been shaped in countless ways by her presence in our lives, and you can still see the imprint she left even though she herself is gone. She left behind memories and turns of phrase. Cultures around the world have beliefs about the continuing presence of the dead in the lives of the living. This is one of the things we have to understand, as thinking meat.

It’s not all sadness, being thinking meat. We’ve found ways to cope, besides religion. Several years ago, after 9/11 and after my mother died, I was at a world music festival, listening to the performers explaining the sources of their songs. A Cajun band sang about homesickness for Acadia, and a Mongolian woman sang the stories from her female forebears who missed their men-folk when the men were out on long journeys to bring back salt. It occurred to me then that maybe art is one answer to the thinking meat problem. We want our experiences to mean something, and we also want to know that other people have felt the same way; art tells us that we are not alone. In the process of sharing our experiences, art lets us take unpleasant facts and transform them into something beautiful, or funny, or thought-provoking. Maybe we can learn from other people, at least that they survived painful situations if not how they survived. Sharing meat, my son Greg said when I tried to explain this part to him.

Art also eases the pressure of finitude a bit. Life is too short, but if you can squeeze in other people’s experiences in addition to your own, at least you’re getting the most you can out of your time here. You can reach into the past by experiencing the work of other minds and other imaginations, and some of us are lucky enough to leave behind words or images or music that will reach into the future. The origins and functions of art are part of the Thinking Meat Project. This takes the project into such rich topics as cognition, memory, language, narrative, and metaphor.

And there is endless entertainment and intellectual exercise in being thinking meat. Our minds can get up to things that we don’t really understand (yet). Various quirks—collective and individual—of memory, language, and cognition can provide all kinds of fodder for studying how we think. My brain seems like a black box sometimes; I turn a crank and something comes out, but sometimes I have to wonder “Where did that come from?”

There is amusement to be had in the ups and downs of the meat too, if you look hard enough. (“If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane,” sang Jimmy Buffett, and sometimes you just have to laugh.) Anyone who has survived puberty, pregnancy, illness, injury, or aging is aware of how mysterious the ways of the body can be. Maybe my body seems fundamentally mysterious to me (in a way that my mind is not) because I’m very verbal, so I pay more attention to the part of me that creates the stream of words that constitutes my conscious life, and far less attention to bodily cues about what’s going on. But I think to some degree everyone has felt like multiple beings. Konrad Lorenz describes a life as a “great parliament of instincts”, and while I’m not sure which instincts he was talking about, the phrase resonates for me because sometimes I can hear the individual voices in the parliament. The mouth savors a flavor and wants to go on eating, but the stomach says, “Enough.” Or mouth and gut agree (“More!”) but the mind, having recently digested some dietary advice, says, “This is not doing my cholesterol levels any good.”

And that leads to questions of identity. Which of our many manifestations represent who we really are? Women who suffer from PMS refer jokingly to “the evil twin” who takes over sometimes, and some of the self-help books of the 1980s advised you to mind your Inner Child. And we certainly show different parts of ourselves to different people; my parents see a different me than my children do, and my co-workers see someone else again. They’re all linked by many shared characteristics, but they’re certainly not the same persona. So which one is me? Or am I an amalgam of all of them? Maybe there’s a higher “me” that chooses which one to be at each moment.

The question goes beyond different behaviors, down to the biochemical level. It’s increasingly common these days to invoke neurochemistry or various substances to explain some of our behavior: a grump is serotonin-deprived; some people should not be talked to in the morning until after their second cup of coffee. Or maybe we joke about someone inheriting a tightwad gene. The Thinking Meat Project is about how our biochemistry, inherited and induced, combines with our environments and histories to create our behavior and our personalities.

Assuming that a mix of biology and environment has shaped us, what is “natural”? Where do we find our balance between respecting and cherishing nature (our physical natures, our emotional natures, Nature out there, all those sunsets and mountains and such), and working to improve it? I wear glasses and I take blood pressure medication, but I would hesitate considerably before taking an antidepressant if one were ever prescribed for me. If I could have identified the heritable glitch that causes my hypertension, would I have wanted to make sure my sons didn’t inherit it from me? Sure, I think, except that how would I know we understand everything about the complex factors that go into regulating blood pressure, and that eliminating this problem wouldn’t cause something even worse? And the questions get even tougher as we think about things like personality traits or emotional conditions.

In the wider world, I want some wild places left undisturbed, and I love to see natural beauty in its wild state, but I also enjoy the beauty that people can create in the areas where they live, in gardens and buildings that fit into natural settings but also in some sense improve upon them. I say that I value life as precious, but I don’t hesitate to end the life of a mouse in my kitchen. Everyone needs to decide on a place on the spectrum between total acceptance of nature and total rejection of it. This is part of our dilemma as thinking meat, as beings that are a part of nature and yet somehow apart from it.

Animals are commonly perceived as being closer to nature than we are, and we think of that in two ways. On the one hand, we envy the animals their innocence and simplicity, and we admire the fact that they don’t lie awake at night fretting over their place in the universe. We long to be as free as the animals to express our physical yearnings and pursue our comforts. In the words of the poet Mary Oliver, we want to let the soft animals of our bodies love what they love. Animals don’t build guns or bombs.

This view is, of course, exaggerated. Some animals commit infanticide, for example. They’re not as innocent as we imagine.

So we don’t want to be “just animals”, on the level of the beasts. We want to rise above our animal selves and be something more: civilized, altruistic. Animals eat other animals, but some humans argue that we should be better than that. Predators often pick out the weak or the sick and the young to prey on, and I can see that a breed of creatures becomes smarter and stronger and quicker under that kind of pressure. Yet I am moved by the haunting story that Loren Eiseley tells of a prehistoric human who lost an arm somehow, a dreadful and by all rights deadly loss in that time and place. The skeletal remains of this person showed that he had survived the injury and lived on afterwards, presumably tended lovingly by someone who valued his survival beyond his use as a food provider. I am touched at that defiance of the physical laws that bind us.

The view of ourselves as morally elevated is also exaggerated. Some animals are capable of altruism, for example; we’re not as far removed from them as we’d like to think. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

We do have an amazing ability to discover things about the universe we live in and about ourselves. Although our minds didn’t evolve in a world that required them to calculate the distance to a star or deduce facts about the genome from long complicated chains of evidence, we can do these things. There’s no particular reason we should be able to understand every last thing about how things work, and I’m curious about where the limits are. But mostly I’m enjoying what we’re finding in the meanwhile: the knowledge of the earth’s history and our own, lost in deep time but uncovered to some degree by patient curious humans; the images of the universe returned by the Hubble Space Telescope; the details of the human genome that we are only beginning to understand. Just in the past ten years or so, we have discovered planets around other stars. This gives us fuel for speculation on the age-old question of whether or not we are alone here in the universe. I am inclined to believe in the hypothesis put forth by Ward and Brownlee in Rare Earth, that life may be common but conscious life much less so. When I think of the many factors that had to come together to make our presence here possible, I am one happy hominid to be walking around on this planet.

The concept of thinking meat thus grew out of news stories, family situations, and lots of reading. When I started compiling a reading list last year to organize my efforts, I started to think in terms of the Thinking Meat Project. As broad as the project is, there is a core idea, or maybe a Gestalt, that links the many ideas together. After thinking in terms of Thinking Meat for awhile, you can recognize that Gestalt as you’re browsing the bookstore or reading the paper or cruising the Web. This site is an attempt to provide resources for others who are interested in thinking meat, to present some of the writing I’ve done on the topic, and also, I hope, to gather an online community of curious meat.

Thanks for stopping by. I hope you’ll come back often.