Carl on Cannabis

I recently discovered the book Marihuana Reconsidered written by physician Lester Grinspoon, father of astrobiologist David Grinspoon. Included in the book is an essay by Carl Sagan (who wrote under the pseudonym “Mr. X”) describing his experiences and opinions on the use and legal status of the drug.

I had reached a considerably more relaxed period in my life–a time when I had come to feel that there was more to living than science, a time of awakening of my social consciousness and amiability, a time when I was open to new experiences.
…
I do not consider myself a religious person in the usual sense, but there is a religious aspect to some highs. The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I’ve had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor.

Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds. A sense of what the world is really like can be maddening; cannabis has brought me some feeling for what it is like to be crazy, and how we use that word ‘crazy’ to avoid thinking about things that are too painful for us. In the Soviet Union political dissidents are routinely places in insane asylums. The same kind of thing, a little more subtly perhaps, occurs here: ‘Did you hear what Lenny Bruce said yesterday? He must be crazy.’ When high on cannabis I discovered that there’s somebody inside in those people we call mad.

Sagan contends that his appreciation for art and music is enhanced while high, and he also admits that on occasion a cannabis high contributed to his new insights in both the social and physical sciences. Scientist that he is, Sagan took careful steps to ensure that his thoughts and experiences while high were not delusional, such as recording detailed taped messages for himself in the morning. His experiments seemed to convince him that insights while high are still valid.

I am convinced that there are genuine and valid levels of perception available with cannabis (and probably with other drugs) which are, through the defects of our society and our educational system, unavailable to us without such drugs. Such a remark applies not only to self-awareness and to intellectual pursuits, but also to perceptions of real people, a vastly enhanced sensitivity to facial expressions, intonations, and choice of words which sometimes yields a rapport so close it’s as if two people are reading each other’s minds.

Finally, Sagan suggests (what I consider) a reasonable measure for the safety of psychedelic substances:

I think the ratio, R, of the time to sense the dose taken to the time required to take an excessive dose is an important quantity. R is very large for LSD (which I’ve never taken) and reasonably short for cannabis. Small values of R should be one measure of the safety of psychedelic drugs. When cannabis is legalized, I hope to see this ratio as one of the parameters printed on the pack. I hope that time isn’t too distant; the illegality of cannabis is outrageous, and impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.

On the Pursuit of Pure Science

(A) Karl Popper argues that all knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is negative. That is, we never know anything to be true, and the aggregation of knowledge proceeds through falsification.

(B) The study of the physical world through science, then, is an endless quest. Science will never reach a conclusion because positive knowledge is unattainable, and though theories may provide better explanations of observed phenomenon they will never be comprehensive across all domains.

(C) In a tautological worldview, an endless quest for knowledge is unnecessary. Tautologies can expand and be revised when new observations disrupt the former order, but in a steady state a tautology need not challenge itself. A comprehensive mythological interpretation of the physical world, for example, can posit satisfactory explanations for all facets of daily life and requires little to no regular modification of the framework.

 

If a tautological framework is simpler and more satisfying than the endless quest of empirical knowledge through falsification, then why do science at all?

 

(D) If we consider a dichotomy between “pure science” (gaining knowledge for its own sake) and “technology” (application of knowledge to solve a problem), then it is the latter that is typically used in justification of scientific research–especially in today’s funding environment. From (B), the pursuit of pure science is an endless quest (an asymptotic search for truth at best). A worldview based entirely upon pure science will always be less complete than a tautological worldview because the theories of pure science are always conjectural. The justification of science as “knowledge for its own sake”, then, is perhaps no more than a quixotic delusion.

(E) The success or value of a scientific theory often seems related to its consequences. Part of the success of Newtonian mechanics was its wide reaching explanatory powers and technological applications. On the other hand, a brilliant theory that arrives fifty years too soon may lay forgotten in wait until the idea eventually becomes pragmatic. Science, it seems, is fundamentally consequentialist.

(F) If science is consequentialist, then it is primarily technologically driven. Pure science, or the quest for knowledge, is not the driving force of science but instead is a tool for technological development. The quest for knowledge, too, is directed by the consequences: not all knowledge is considered equally valuable, and knowledge that produces results will direct future lines of investigation.

 

If science is technological consequentialism, then is there any reason to be a “pure scientist”, aside from love of the endless quest?

The Starlight Zone: Catching Alien Eyes

This past Wednesday Col Maybury, host of the Australian radio show The Starlight Zone, interviewed Shawn and I about covering the far side of the Moon with mirrors as a remotely detectable technosignature.

Listen to the complete (~5 minute) interview at the Starlight Zone

This idea got far more press than either of us had anticipated, so we tried to use our air time to do some damage control and clarify the idea beyond the scope of a brief news write-up. We are currently in the process of drafting the manuscript for submission.

This work is unfunded: We came up with this idea following the Pale Blue Dot III meeting as a solution to particular problems with the SETI approach to finding intelligence; however, we are not funded to develop this idea nor do we have any intentions of proposing construction of mirrors on the Moon to any funding agency. (Our global society can’t even agree upon a consistent program to address climate change issues–I seriously doubt our ability to maintain a long-term signaling project.)

Our signal is omnidirectional: A targeted broadcast such as a radio signal or laser pulse is limited because of its directionality. Our scheme, though, covers the far side of the Moon with mirrors on pivots (with dark solar panels on the opposite side) so that the albedo of the Moon can be effectively changed from 0 to 1, resulting in a 20% change in luminosity for the Earth-Moon system. This change in luminosity will be observable from almost any direction at any time and will not require a targeted broadcast.

Our signal is broadband: Because the light reflected from the Moon’s mirrors comes from the Sun, the detected change in luminosity will span a large section of the electromagnetic spectrum (depending on the particular mirrors used). This further increases our chance of success because we make fewer assumptions about the preferred observational/communicative frequency of extraterrestrials (whereas conventional SETI presumes radio beacons or other narrow-band broadcasts).

This beacon requires current and near-future technology: The mirror/solar panel pivots can be constructed with current technology. Furthermore, we are detecting new extrasolar planets every day. In 2009, Kepler will launch in search of terrestrial planets around other stars, and in the next 10-20 years the Terrestrial Planet Finder will be able to observe these planets and take spectra of their atmospheres. In other words, within the century it will be within our technological grasp not only to build such a signal but also to detect a similar signal around a distant world.

ET’s may use a similar technique: Even if we never construct a technosignature using the Moon, it is conceivable that a technological extraterrestrial society may signal their presence using a similar method. If the Terrestrial Planet Finder were to detect an Earth-sized planet around another star blinking in the prime numbers, we would at least have a hypothesis to explain this seemingly deliberate signal.

Mirrors on the Moon

NewScientist wrote a short article on an idea Shawn and I have been discussing:

Mounting mirrors on the Moon and using them to signal across space could let ET know we Earthlings are here.

Ever since radio broadcasts began we’ve been trumpeting our presence to nearby parts of the galaxy, so far without reply. To improve the chances of being found, Shawn Domagal-Goldman and Jacob Haqq-Misra of Pennsylvania State University in State College reckon we should cover half of the Moon with mirrors.

Read the full article at NewScientistSpace.

On Location in Santa Clara

Last day of AbSciCon tomorrow. The conference has been useful and thought provoking, though I have almost reached my saturation level for absorbing new information from fifteen minute talks. I present my talk on the climate of the Archean Earth (2.8 billion years ago) tomorrow morning. I also didn’t realize this until I arrived here, but apparently I have my name on four abstracts at the conference!

A Revised, Hazy Methane Greenhouse for the Archean Earth, J. Haqq-Misra, S. Domagal-Goldman, P. Kasting, J. Kasting

Synthesizing Archean Models and Data: A Self-Consistent Evolutionary History, S. Domagal-Goldman, J. Kasting, J. Haqq-Misra

Sustainability and the Fermi Paradox, J. Haqq-Misra

TPF-SETI, S. Domagal-Goldman, J. Haqq-Misra

Compared to the other conferences I’ve attended, it’s quite rewarding to feel like I’ve contributed something to the astrobiology community. More on the conference when I get back this weekend!