Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grade Chimp?

Researchers from Kyoto University's Primate Research Institute created a working memory task that involved displaying a series of numbers on the screen for a fraction of a second then covering them with boxes. The subjects (chimps and university students) were tasked to touch the white squares in the correct numerical order.

What they discovered was that the nine university students performed progressively worse as the time the numbers were visible decreased from 0.6 seconds to 0.21 seconds, as they had expected. The explanation is that humans cannot scan the screen fast enough to see and mentally record all of the numbers.

One of the two chimps in the study, Ai, demonstrated the same results. The other chimp, seven-year-old Ayumu, however, demonstrated no decreased ability as the time interval shrank. In other words, Ayumu actually performed better on this task than any of the students. The students' performance was on par with Ai, the older chimp.

Is it possible that the average, young university student has roughly the same cognitive abilities as a middle-aged chimp, and that younger chimps have better cognitive abilities than younger people? Sure, anything is possible. But it's not likely. Rather, the researchers believe that chimps in general (or at least Ayumu specifically) have much stronger eidetic memory (more commonly referred to as photographic memory) than the average human.

It should also be pointed out that the sample size of this study was limited to nine students and two chimpanzees. That's a pretty small sample for any real scientific study. However, this could open the door to new areas of cognitive research.

Recent Inactivity

Okay, I know I haven't been blogging much lately. I've been extremely busy with work and a new business venture, but I am going to make an attempt to pick up the activity on this blog. I've been trying to write more feature-type entries and do less of just re-posting other people's news. Hopefully, I can put pressure on myself to write more by doing things like signing up for a Technorati Profile.

Failed Predictions

"Difficult to see... always in motion is the future." - Yoda, Empire Strikes Back

The future is hard to predict accurately. Some of the smartest people who've ever lived have tried their hands at it and failed miserably. To illustrate that, a poster on The List Universe recently posted a list of the Top 30 Failed Technology Predictions.

It's pretty interesting to see some of the predictions that have been proven wrong over the years.

Occam's Razor

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

For those of you who don't read Latin, that translates as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity," and it's one of the most important concepts of logical thinking - Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor (also known as Ockham's Razor, since it was named after William of Ockham, the 14th century Franciscan monk who first postulated it) is more commonly phrased as, "all other things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one." This is usually applied when multiple theories are used to describe a situation; the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and the fewest entities tends to be the most accurate theory.

One of the main reasons we prefer simpler theories (according to philosopher Sir Karl Popper) is because simpler theories apply more broadly than complex theories, and thus they are more easily tested (and refuted). Since valid scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven, a theory that can be more easily tested and refuted is preferable to one that cannot be tested and refuted (in fact, theories that cannot be disproven are not valid scientific theories).

Occam's Razor is not a scientific theory. Rather, it is a heuristic method used for choosing among competing theories. While there is some risk of eliminating valid theories, probability theory and statictics argue in favor of Occam's Razor on the basis that all assumptions introduce possibilities for error. Thus, theories with more assumptions are more likely to be incorrect. Additionally, simpler theories will be easier to test and refute, bringing us back to the more complex theories that we originally bypassed.

If you have trouble remembering Latin (like I do), you can just keep in mind the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Hey Buddy, Wanna Be an Astronomy Researcher (Again)?

Back in January, I posted my first Hey Buddy... post, introducing a service called systemic that allowed amateurs (like you and me) to contribute to astronomical research. I bring this up now to introduce a new program that will allow amateurs and school children to participate in a project to help map star visibility.

The program, known as the Great World Wide Star Count, allows citizen scientists and school children to record their observations of various constellations during the period of October 1-15. The event, which is free and open to everyone who wants to participate, is organized by the Windows to the Universe project at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), in conjunction with planetariums and scientific societies across the country and abroad. Funding is provided by the National Science Foundation.

Bright outdoor lighting at night is a growing problem for astronomical observing programs around the world. By searching for the same constellations, participants in the Great World Wide Star Count will be able to compare their observations with what others see, giving them a sense of how star visibility varies from place to place. The observers will also learn more about the economic and geographic factors that control the light pollution in their communities and around the world.

This is a great opportunity to get involved in scientific research by enjoying a fun, educational family activity with your kids. I know I plan to participate!

Garage Researcher Makes Possible Breakthrough Discovery

If you've been reading this blog for a while, you know that I try to highlight opportunities for amateurs to help make advances in science and technology. A lot of people may think that the days of amateurs working on research in their basements or garages and making major discoveries is long past.

Those people would apparently be wrong. John Kanzius was trying to find a way to use radio frequencies to de-salinate saltwater more efficiently when he stumbled upon something rather surprising: the right combination of radio frequencies applied to the water caused the molecular bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen to weaken, releasing hydrogen gas. In other words, Kanzius found a way to allow salt water to become flammable.

The results were confirmed by Rustum Roy, a Penn State University chemist, and now Roy is seeking funding for the Department of Defense to conduct research into the possibility of using saltwater--one of the most abundant and easily accessible resources on the planet--as a fuel source. The scientists want to find out whether the energy output from the burning hydrogen - which reached a heat of more than 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit - would be enough to power a car or other heavy machinery.

We're Here... Where are They?

If, as some science-fiction novels and movies would have us believe, the universe is teeming with intelligent aliens, that begs the question: where are they? If they're out there, why haven't they come to visit us yet (and please, for the love of God, don't refer me to stories of alien abductions and UFOs)?

That question has been pondered many times over the years (most famously by Enrico Fermi in 1950), by many scientists far smarter than a lowly computer geek like me. The heart of the matter comes down to one question: just how common is intelligent life?

In 1960, Dr. Frank Drake proposed a method for estimating the number of intelligent species present in the galaxy by use of a mathematical equation, as follows:

N = R^* x f_p x n_e x f_l x f_i x f_c x L

Okay, you're saying, but what the heck does that mean?

Well, N is the number of intelligent alien species currently in our galaxy with which we might hope to be able to communicate.

R^* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy.

f_p is the fraction of those stars that have planets.

n_e is the average number of earth-like planets that are capable of supporting life per star that has planets.

f_l is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point.

f_i is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life.

f_c is the fraction of civilizations that develop advanced enough technology to release detectable signs of their existence into space.

L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.

By multiplying out the values you think are probably correct for those variables, you can get an estimate of the number of intelligent, advanced civilizations currently present in our galaxy. And the best part is, our knowledge of the universe is growing all the time, so we can refine the values used in this model as time goes on.

Drake and his colleagues used the following values in 1961:

R^* = 10/year (10 stars formed per year, on the average over the life of the galaxy)
f_p = 0.5 (half of all stars formed will have planets)
n_e = 2 (2 planets per star will be able to develop life)
f_l = 1 (100% of the planets will develop life)
f_i = 0.01 (1% of which will be intelligent life)
f_c = 0.01 (1% of which will be able to communicate)
L = 10,000 years (which will last 10,000 years)

If you work out the math, you'll find that Drake and his team estimated that there are 10 intelligent civilizations in the galaxy capable of producing advanced communication signals that we should be able to detect.

In the past 46 years, however, we've already learned enough to refine the model somewhat. For example, Drake estimated star formation (R^*) at 10 stars per year, but studies by NASA and the ESA show that the number is closer to 6.

Drake himself wrote an article for Wired Magazine in 2004 about revising the information for his model as new data became available. Drake now believes that there are far more intelligent species in the galaxy than he did fifty years ago.

But if Drake is right, then Fermi's original question stands: Where is everybody?