It’s a sure sign of spring. On a misty moist morning, the worms come out of the ground. By the hundreds. They emerge on one side of the road, and try to cross to the other side.
Why does a worm cross the road? Might as well ask a chicken.
But worms do seem to have some kind of deep-seated (if that’s possible in a tube measured more by length than depth) compulsion to surface from the soil to seek greener pastures.
When I take the dog out for her morning walk, I have to tread carefully to avoid squishing worms. (The dog shows no similar squeamishness.) The worms are mostly headed in the same direction, although the faint tracks they leave suggest that their sense of direction is somewhat less than perfect.
Crossing the road is surely not a rational act. Worms have evolved for life below ground. When they emerge from a lawn, they’re fair game for early birds. On a hardened roadway, they’re out of their element. Exposed and vulnerable. To birds. To car tires. Even to sunlight, should the clouds retreat.
It takes a worm a long time to cross a road. Only when I watch closely can I discern movement at all. The front end slithers forward a fraction. Then it has to pause while it drags the hind end along. It extends. It compacts. So it can extend again.
Of course, a worm doesn’t have eyes. So it can’t know what it’s extending itself into. Every wriggle forward is a venture into the unknown.
If the two ends of a worm could talk to themselves while they crossed a road, I can imagine a conversation something like this:
--“We’ve got to move on.”
--“No, we don’t.”
--“If we stay here, we’ll die.”
--“If we move, we’ll die.”
--“This is no place to quit.”
--“You have no idea where you’re going.”
--“Of course not. But I know I can’t stay here.”
--“You’re not taking me with you.”
--“I’m reaching out for new possibilities, whether you come with me or not.”
--“I don’t. And I won’t go willingly. I want to hang on to what I have now.”
--“Stop making me drag you along!”
--“I don’t care where you’re going, I don’t want to go there. I want to stay here. Or go back to where we were.”
Hmm… I think I’ve heard that dialog in other contexts, too. It sounds like the same kind of debate that goes on in politics. Or corporate boardrooms. Or churches.
I used to think that this attitude was limited to human organizations. But maybe it’s built into our evolutionary genes. There will always be front ends exploring the unknown; there will always be hind ends dragging their heels.
In science or society, every move into new ground is countered by a negative reaction.
The interplay reminds me of flirtation. (Do people still flirt? Is flirting politically incorrect now?) I think I can remember the process. You make tentative advances; you hesitate; you risk another move; you shrink back….
Maybe the reason worms cross the road is to enact a parable of progress.
*****************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups, and links from other blogs, welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To comment on this column, write jimt@quixotic.ca
*****************************************
YOUR TURN
Tom Watson liked last week’s column: “Juxtaposing the programming in your new car against our own human algorithmic programming made for a fascinating column.
“If I understand it correctly, the algorithms that lie behind the robotic functions in your car are called ‘bug algorithms.’ Their purpose is a simple one, really: To complete a collision free path to the apparent destination... all of which works fine until a choice has to be made between two paths, neither of which is collision free -- such as the crisis. as you suggest, which poses a dilemma that the algorithm may not be capable of solving.
“The interesting thing about the algorithms that lie behind our human actions in a crisis -- based as they are on past experiences that gradually build up our code (behavioural scientists might call this preconditioning) -- can, unless we overwrite old lines of code with new ones, lead us to make good/wise choices or bad/destructive choices. For example, take a person whose life has been programmed such that winning is the most important thing. I would suggest that person is not suitable for being elected to a position of high authority, for the choices made won't be any less amoral than the computer programs that run your car.”
Ted Archibald didn’t have much confidence in computer algorithms: “The current ‘algorithms’ are quite simple in their ability and do not have any of the inputs that would allow better decision making.
“I believe that when SAI (strong artificial intelligence) is developed and version 4.5 is released into the wild then it just might be able to make a decision as who to save and who to kill. It will know that the beautiful woman is your mistress and your son is on the work crew and that Trump is on the train that may be dumped into the canyon.
“However, by the time SAI 4.5 is running, it will be too late for the like of you and me because this AI will then run the world and we may be seen as ‘pets’ or in some cases ‘pests’.”
James Russell strongly recommended the book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman: “The basic message is this: Life has a large element of chance. As a result, statistics and probabilities are our best guide to understanding and predicting events.
“However, humans are intuitively bad statisticians. Our brains are pre-wired by evolution to quickly and continuously generate ‘causal’ stories about the world. We have secondary thinking systems that can usually only be engaged by a sustained and focussed effort. Even so, we are pre-wired to aqct on the causal stories. This is true regardless of the weight of available evidence -- and in the ABSENCE of relevant evidence, and without much more additional effort, our brain just goes with the handiest story.
“Explicit algorithms can be devised and revised as new data and knowledge about probabilities and values is discovered. It's much harder to revise the implicit algorithms in our brains (evolution seems to have influenced them to make us less nervous, rather than more aware).
“It seems to me that this implies that the world will become more moral (able to act under uncertainty to make the ‘best’ decisions) when we rely MORE on algorithms outside our brains and LESS on those within. Just as we got ‘stronger’ by making power and power tools, and ‘smarter’ by making processors a part of all those tools, we will get ‘more moral’ by letting machines make more of the everyday decisions like where and how to distribute food and drive cars.
“Of course, it matters who writes the algorithms....”
Robert Caughell also mused about those algorithms: “As programs grow with an infinite set of ‘If, Then, Else/Other’ conditions to sort through, you also need a computer fast enough to analyze the above and make the right decisions to act on. You do not want conditions that have no impact and overwhelm the system. Which is more important (with a nod to Star Trek) -- The good of the many over the good of the few? Or the good of the one over the good of the few or the many? Difficult choices.”
Isabel Gibson didn’t like hypothetical scenarios: “They're set up to leave you with no good answer: worse, with only catastrophic answers. It seems to me that life isn't quite so dark and dramatic -- but maybe that just shows I've had an easy life.
“As to your point about recoding ourselves, one of the more optimistic findings of neuroscience has been the plasticity of our brains. We can learn new things, find new ways to do things, and repurpose parts of our brains. Sort of like over-writing old code with better code. Or teaching old dogs new tricks.”
Wesley White also had a book to recommend: “Practicing to make compassion a ready response reminds me of a book I often recommend, ‘Premeditated Mercy: A Spirituality of Reconciliation’ by Joseph Nassal.”
*******************************************
PSALM PARAPHRASES
When I read this Sunday’s psalm selection, Psalm 116:1-4, 12-19, it seems to me that it is about listening. Really listening. And all children know that no one listens better than grandmothers.
1 Nana listens to me.
I tell her my stories, and she believes me.
2 When others blame me, Nana doesn't jump to conclusions.
She doesn't get upset;
she doesn't always support someone else.
She really listens to me.
12 How do I thank her?
13 By running to her with my arms stretched out whenever I see her.
14 No matter who is there, I run to her.
15 Nana says I'm precious.
16 Everyone else expects me to do things their way.
But Nana doesn't expect me to be anyone but myself.
I would do anything to make my granny happy.
17 I help her set the table, without being asked.
I help her crack eggs for the pan;
I like making beds with her.
18 Even when she has company visiting, I fling my arms around her neck and hug her.
19 I love going to her house.
I hope God is like my Nana.
For paraphrases of most of the psalms used by the Revised Common Lectionary, you can order my book Everyday Psalms from Wood Lake Publishing, info@woodlake.com.
*******************************************
YOU SCRATCH MY BACK…
• Ralph Milton most recent project, Sing Hallelujah -- the world’s first video hymnal -- consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca
• Isabel Gibson's thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
• Wayne Irwin's "Churchweb Canada," an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
• Alva Wood's satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town are not particularly religious, but they are fun; write alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
• Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at twatson@sentex.net
*****************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
If you want to comment on something, send a message directly to me, jimt@quixotic.ca.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send an e-mail message to jimt@quixotic.ca. Or you can subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message or subject line) to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at softedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is up and running again -- thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and about five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Sunday called Sharp Edges, which tends to be somewhat more cutting about social and justice issues. To sign up for Sharp Edges, write to me directly, jimt@quixotic.ca, or send a note to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************