Looking out for a hero . . .

          Poor Lance Armstrong.  Talk about the proverbial “from the thrill of victory to the agony of defeat.”  Talk about a crash and burn.  A man who was handed a cancer sentence, beat that cancer, and went on to become the top athlete in his sport.  Now he is eating humble pie in all the right places. 

            We sure do like to build up our heroes; but we enjoy, we savor, tearing them down even more.

Oh, you say it was Armstrong’s decision to take what are both illegal and unsanctioned drugs?  You say that no one coerced Lance Armstrong into doping?  I concede this much: he put the drug in his mouth and swallowed (or injected, whatever the case might be).

            What are these doping drugs?  What do they do, or promise to do, that is so great that an athlete would risk side effects, disqualification, and just plain bad publicity.

The performance-enhancing drug category includes anabolic steroids, androstenedione, human growth hormone, erythropoietin, diuretics, creatine and stimulants.

Anabolic steroids increase muscle mass and strength.  The prime anabolic steroid hormone naturally produced by the body is testosterone.  Anabolic steroids help an athlete recover from a hard workout more quickly by reducing the muscle damage that occurs during that workout.  A dangerous class of anabolic steroids are the synthetics that have been created to be undetectable by drug tests.

Androstenedione (aka: andro) is a hormone produced by the adrenal glands, ovaries and testes.  It is normally converted to testosterone and estradiol in both men and women, and is available legally in prescription form.  It is touted for its ability to allow athletes to train harder and recover quickly.  Scientific studies refute these claims and show that almost all of the andro is rapidly converted to estrogen, the primary hormone in women.

Human growth hormone has an anabolic effect and is taken to improve muscle mass and performance.  However, it has not been shown conclusively to improve either strength or endurance.  It is available only by prescription and is administered by injection.

Erythropoietin is a hormone used to treat anemia in people with severe kidney disease.  It increases production of red blood cells and hemoglobin, resulting in improved movement of oxygen to the muscles.  Erythropoietin use among competitive cyclists was common in the 1990s and allegedly contributed to at least eighteen deaths.  Inappropriate use of it may increase the risk of stroke, heart attack and pulmonary edema.

Diuretics change the body's natural balance of fluids and salts (electrolytes) and can lead to dehydration, which can decrease an athlete's weight, helping to compete in a lighter weight class.  Diuretics may also help athletes pass drug tests by diluting their urine and are sometimes referred to as a "masking" agent.  Diuretics taken at any dose predispose athletes to adverse effects such as dehydration, cramps, exhaustion, heart arrhythmia, blood pressure drop, loss of balance and coordination, heatstroke and even death.

Creatine monohydrate is the most popular nutritional supplement among athletes and is available over-the-counter.  Creatine is a naturally occurring compound, produced by the body, which helps  muscles release energy.  Supplements appear to help muscles make more ATP, which stores and transports energy in cells, and is used for quick bursts of activity, such as weightlifting or sprinting.  There is no evidence, however, that creatine enhances performance in aerobic or endurance sports.  Because our kidneys remove excess creatine, the value of supplements to someone who already has adequate muscle creatine content is questionable and high-dose creatine use may potentially damage kidneys and liver.

Stimulants are used to stimulate the central nervous system and increase heart rate and blood pressure, to improve endurance, reduce fatigue, suppress appetite, increase alertness and aggressiveness.  Common stimulants include caffeine and amphetamines.  Risks are nervousness and irritability, insomnia, dehydration, heatstroke, addiction or tolerance (which would result in the need to take great amounts to achieve the desired effect).

           Now we know a bit about doping drugs.

          Certainly, as we all realize, Lance Armstrong is not the first or the only athlete to be involved with doping.  To name only a very few:

Andre Agassi (tennis) admitted to the use of crystal meth.

The late Lyle Alzado (football) admitted to the use of anabolic steroids.  Alzado died of brain cancer in 1992.

 

After his career was over, Jose Canseco (baseball) admitted to taking anabolic steroids.

Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens (baseball) were accused of taking anabolic steroids.

Marc McGwire (baseball) admitted to taking steroids when his career was over.

Michael Phelps (swimming) admitted to cannabis (after the publication of that photo I don’t think he had any other choice but to fess up).

Rashard Lewis (basketball) received a ten game suspension for his use of steroids.

Rodney Harrison (football) was suspended for his use of human growth hormone.

            Armstrong admitted to using EPO, testosterone, cortisone, human growth hormone, and blood transfusions.  However, he is not the only cyclist to either have been accused of or admitted to doping: Floyd Landis admitted to using a blood booster, testosterone, human growth hormone and blood transfusions; Tyler Hamilton tested positive for the steroid DHEA.

            Again, though, why would an athlete take these drugs and risk the loss of career and status, not to mention money?

            As I have written before, we live in a world of CGI quasi-reality.  What we watch on any screen is filled with supermen, superwomen, super animals even, who do more than leap buildings in one bound.  Just below superpeople, we have the semi super men and women who effortlessly run down alleys and streets after the bad guys, and manage to take being bounced around against buildings while swinging from ropes with barely a black and blue bruise (ala: Bruce Willis in the Die Hard movies and Tom Cruise in his Mission Impossible extravaganzas), among other "fabulous" exploits.  We watch Angelina Jolie as Laura Croft perform dazzling feats with barely a change in her breathing.  We LOVE these movies; we LOVE these characters.  Then we have our sophisticated video games where we actually, as avatar controllers, are performing in our own incredible action adventures.

            Extrapolate all of the above to expectations when watching sports events.  Subconsciously or not, we carry over and muddle up the reality of a live honest-to-goodness physical interaction with those of CGI, film and video superpeople.  We expect our athletes to perform perfectly; they must score; they must win . . . and they must win spectacularly.

            The average expectations for today’s athletes are so beyond human capabilities, what do we think they will do to at least approach those expectations?  Yes, they train hard; that is part of the life.  Yes, many get paid tons of money for their abilities so we expect them each time to perform up to their $10Million or so a year . . . but let’s get real.  There is the human fulfillment of that $10Million a year salary which leaves room for injuries and error.  Then there is the unreasonable presumption of perfection which leaves no room whatsoever for injuries and error.  The amateur athlete is subjected to the same unreasonable expectations as the professional.

Make no mistake:  I am not promoting nor do I condone the use of steroids.  I am, however, saying that we need to approach the use of these drugs with a better understanding of why they are used, and the role that sports fans all over the world play in their increased usage.

            There is nothing wrong with an amateur or professional athlete working and training to be the best.  There is nothing wrong with us as an audience expecting to see them perform or play their best.  But there is something wrong when the goal consists of a superhuman perfection that is impossible to fulfill.  There is something wrong when we criticize and deride that fallibility that makes a sporting event more exciting and meaningful, and which also is an integral part of the definition of a human being.

 

            Until next time, LLAP!

 

References:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/performance-enhancing-drugs/HQ01105/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/28/tennis.agassi.crystal.meth/index.html
http://espn.go.com/classic/biography/s/Alzado_Lyle.html
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5244705
http://espn.go.com/new-york/story/_/id/8814011/barry-bonds-roger-clemens-do-not-belong-baseball-hall-fame
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4816607
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3876804
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4381822
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2999994
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/sports/cycling/21landis.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/
http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=4075873
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/15/health/armstrong-ped-explainer/index.html

 

Sight vs Seeing

           Last Saturday evening I popped in my “Matrix” DVD for a bit of diversion.  Of course, viewing “The Matrix” as pure diversion is futile because of the obvious questions it raises about reality, how our brains work, the purpose of life, which life has the purpose (the one within the Matrix or the one pushing to emerge), and what one will do in order to dwell in reality rather than a dream.

Among the issues that kept me awake that night (as a result of this “diversion”) were:  (1) what is it that we see with our eyes; (2) why do we see what we see; and (3) why does our brain automatically accept what it sees as what is really there.

Vision itself is a complicated process requiring numerous components of the eye and brain to work together.  Light reflects off objects around us, enters the eye through the cornea, passes through the pupil, and is imaged onto the retina by the lens.  The retina has light-sensitive cells called rods and cones, and is responsible for detecting light from images and sending the resulting impulses to the brain via the optic nerve.  Specifically, rods identify shapes and work best in dim light; cones identify color and work best in bright light.  When those light rays pass through the pupil, the iris (colored ring) makes the size of the pupil change depending on the amount of light available.  The brain decodes these images into information that we know as vision.

A fascinating piece of information discovered along the way:  Rene Descartes, who is more known as a philosopher than anything else, was also a physicist who made many advances regarding the understanding of sight in the Seventeenth Century.  Descartes surgically removed an eye from an ox and scraped the back of the eye to make it transparent.  He then placed the eye on a window ledge as if the ox were looking out the window.  He looked through the back of the eye and saw an inverted image of the scenery outside.  Descartes postulated that the image was inverted as a result of being focused onto the retina by the eye's lens.  Kind of makes you appreciate Descartes even more.

            There is also a field called the “psychology of sight” in which a study by Canadian researchers seemed to provide the first direct evidence that our mood affects the way we see things by modulating the activity of the visual cortex.  Putting on the proverbial rose-tinted glasses of a good mood is not so much about color, but about the broadness of the view.  Positive moods are associated with a tendency to perceive global components, and negative moods with the local components.  The neural mechanisms of these phenomena are unclear.  One possibility is that mood has a “top-down” effect on vision, such that higher order cognitive processes impinge on the visual areas of the brain.

          A negative mood, such as fear or sadness, causes one’s attention to be focused on specific details, at the expense of information in the periphery.  An example of this is that a person who witnesses a crime involving a weapon normally has an impaired memory for the appearance of the perpetrator because attention shifted to the weapon.  The negative emotional content of the event enhances the visual processes by which the specific details (the weapon) are perceived and later remembered.  This occurs at the expense of irrelevant peripheral information, which is suppressed, or filtered out.  Such mechanisms would serve to increase one’s vigilance in a possibly life-threatening situation.

On the other hand, positive emotions broaden the scope of the visual field, leading to increased breadth of attention.  Positive moods do so by directly modulating the visual system so that we can gain access to more information.  In psychology, the broaden-and-build theory holds that positive emotions enhance one’s awareness, and that this global perspective encourages novel thoughts and actions.  This broadened behavioral repertoire in turn leads to increased creativity and inventiveness.

Remember though that our eyes do not send images to our brains.  Images are constructed in our brains based on very simple signals sent from our eyes.  The nerve signals from our eyes mostly represent edges, shapes and motion; no images.  The images our brain forms are based on pattern recognition, which develops from infancy as we learn about the world around us.  I repeat: we do not see images; our eyes see line and motion, which our brains work to interpret and cause us to perceive whatever that object might be.

So what came first:  the properties of the object we see (the thing itself), or the perception of that object put together by lines and lights?

Now that we know about “patterning,” which develops from infancy, and that such patterning does not reflect what we are actually looking at, we now know also that we are not actually “seeing” anything we think we are seeing.  Since what we see is as a result of this patterning, what is it that we actually see?  Are we seeing what is really out there or merely a shared reality, a shared visioning?

And does it matter?

 

Until next time, LLAP!

 

References:

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEC/CC/vision_background.php

http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/06/08/how-we-feel-affects-what-we-see/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-we-see.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/3750/sight/sight.html

 

The Core

           All too frequently, when speaking of our goals and our ideals, we are admonished to get down to Earth and reminded that we need to be grounded in reality, "grounded” being the common metaphor for not putting on airs or acting superior and for associating with others as equals. Let us be honest; we tend to admire that every-day-grounded person as one who is somehow more real than the rest of us, that somehow that person has tapped into the secret of true honesty.

         In metaphysics, grounding is presented as a method of visualizing our centered energy as a stream going down into the earth to either provide a shield for protection against negative energies or as a method to connect ourselves with the energy of the planet.

But let us ask ourselves: what exactly is this ground that we are encouraged to seek, to bond with, to be allied with. In very real literal terms, what is it that we want to be associated with.  What are we truly asking for.  What are we admiring.  Remember, it is important that we use the right words and have the right thoughts to attain both our material and spiritual goals.  Who was is that said “Be careful what you pray for, you might get it”?

Let us take a simple look at a photograph of this Earth, this ground.

At the top level, we have the Crust, the outermost layer of our ground, running from zero to thirty-one miles deep, roughly the distance from Reno NV to Carson City NV.  The familiar landscape on which we live (rocks, soil, and seabed), it is composed of a variety of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.

The next level of our ground is the Mantle, which starts at about six miles deep and runs down another 1,806 miles.  This distance would roughly equal the mileage between Chicago IL and Las Vegas NV.  The boundary between the Crust and Mantle is conventionally defined by a contrast in seismic velocity, which is why we see the depth variation numbers.  The Mantle layer consists mainly of magnesium-iron silicate minerals, such as olivine and pyroxene.  It has an upper molten part and a lower solid part.  Many people think of molten part as lava, but it is actually rock so hot that it flows under pressure, like road tar.  This creates very slow-moving currents as hot rock rises from the depths and cooler rock descends.

The next level down in our ground is the Outer Core at a depth of 1,806 to 3,219 miles.  Starting from where your feet touch the surface of the planet, this would roughly be equivalent of getting in your car in San Francisco CA and driving to Key West FL.  It is believed to be liquid iron, nickel and sulfur, and very hot, perhaps 7,200 to 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The final level of our ground is the Inner Core at a depth of 3,219 to 3,981 miles, which leads us down to the kernel of the Earth.  Get back into your car, this time in Vancouver, British Columbia, and drive all the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and you would have a pretty good idea of how deep 3,900 miles might be.  This deepest layer is a solid iron ball, about 1,500 miles in diameter, and is thought to be solid, primarily iron, with nickel and sulfur, plus small amounts of other elements.  Estimates of its temperature vary between 9,000 and 13,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  Although this Inner Core is white hot, the highest temperature region in the Earth, the pressure is so high the iron cannot melt.  Interestingly, recent evidence has suggested that the Inner Core may rotate slightly faster than the rest of the planet.

Except at the Crust level of our ground, the interior of the Earth cannot be studied by drilling holes to take samples.  Scientists map the interior by watching how seismic waves from earthquakes are bent, reflected, sped up, or delayed by the various layers.  Each earthquake provides a glimpse of the Earth’s interior.

It is worth noting that it was from interpretation of the data from a 1929 earthquake in New Zealand that brought Danish seismologist Inge Lehmann to the theory that the Earth’s center consisted of a solid inner core surrounded by a liquid outer core.  How many people out there are aware that a woman developed the most major theory in modern geology?

Okay, so why the science lesson?  This all falls under the aforementioned category of “Be careful for what you pray for, you might get it” and also Buddha’s admonition “With our thoughts we make the world.”

            In the everyday sense of grounding, being frozen paralyzed, unable to breathe or move. . all of this results from being trapped in a solid ball of iron (not to mention death!).  If we are grounding ourselves in the metaphysical and spiritual sense, visualizing those tree roots running deep deep deep into the planet’s center, do we really want to spiritually shackle ourselves to a ball of solid iron?

 

            You might say, “Oh, come on now; isn’t this all a bit of over-reaching?”  I say no.  Neurolinguistics tells us of the connection between our words and thoughts, and hence our actions.  We must become more aware of what we say, and how and what we think.  We must be more aware and sensitive of the words we use to process thoughts, ideas, desires and beliefs.  Out of these words, thought or spoken, our lives evolve. 
 

            Until next time, LLAP!

 

 

References:

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/earth/p_lehmann.html

http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/earth/inside-the-earth/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC137819/

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2900/homepages/Marianne.Hogan/inside.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/crust_(geology).htm

http://science.yourdictionary.com/mantle

http://geography.geography-dictionary.org

Chang, Kenneth (2005-08-25). "Earth's Core Spins Faster Than the Rest of the Planet". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-05-24

 

 

 

 

What after??

Now that the moving boxes have been unpacked, yours truly has returned to her feeble attempts at make sense of the world at large . . . .

           Most individuals, if they were to be asked, would admit to a fear of that one too-real human “final frontier” of death.  It is the last life adventure we do not even want to think about, let alone talk about.  While a certain amount of refuge might be found in religious beliefs, our fears about that unknown finality of finalities more often than not override those religious teachings.  We fear a potential nothingness.  For most of us, after two generations, aside perhaps from the occasional passer-by who might glance at our headstone, no one will know that we ever existed. 
 

            Even for those who believe in the afterlife of a heaven and hell, all they truly “know” is that their souls “might” spend eternity either adoring God or suffering in hell fire.  So on the one hand you have the thought of the boredom of doing nothing else for the remainder of the remainder (Sorry, God, no disrespect intended), or, on the other hand, suffering in horrid pain for some slight that man has interpreted as a sacrilege against a particular God’s will.

             I am the last person to criticize a specific religious belief (unless it entails human and/or animal sacrifice or the abuse of children).  If you want to believe in heaven and hell, that is your perogative.  If you espouse atheism, that is also your perogative.  I do not believe in nothingness; I do believe that a force exists which is greater than any one of us individually.  I believe that each one of us is an integral part of that force.  Without even one of us, without even one of our atoms, that force would cease to exist; the universe would cease to exist.  What form that force takes is the question.

            Therefore, let us proceed with that question: if such a force exists, what is it?  Is there, can there be, a minute validity to a belief in any force whatsoever?  What could constitute a concrete basis for the conviction that a force of any kind exists . . . at least concrete in the context of our current understandings of the physical nature of the universe.

             Can a logical argument ever be made for the existence of “something” after death?  Let us see if we can develop a theory for the existence of a greater force through the analysis of certain aspects of our current knowledge of physics.

            Let us begin with a very basic review of the Big Bang Theory (“Bazinga!” as Sheldon would gleefully exclaim), the current prevailing scientific theory of the formation of the universe:

           According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly, such rapid expansion causing the universe to cool and resulting in its present continuously expanding state.  According to the most recent measurements and observations, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, which is therefore considered the age of the universe.  After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various  subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. While protons and neutrons combined to form the first atomic nuclei only a few minutes after the Big Bang, it took thousands of years for electrons to combine with them and create electrically neutral atoms.  The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium.  Giant clouds of these primordial elements would coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae. 

 

The Big Bang Theory postulates that the amount of energy in the universe was established at the Bang.  That the total energy content of the universe cannot be created and it cannot disappear.  While the total energy content of the universe is constant, it can be transformed into mass, chemical energy, heat energy, latent energy and work.  We also have to remember that at the point of the Big Bang, energy was concentrated and ordered.  The universe since then has expanded and energy has become diluted.  The universe continues to expand; if it were to stop, then it would cease to exist.  Even considering the expansion theory, that expansion of the universe doesn't take more energy:  as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate.

          Working in tandem with (or following) the Big Bang Theory, is the “Principle of Energy Conservation,” which states that mass and energy are complementary aspects of a fundamental quantity that, for lack of a better word, we call mass-energy.  Mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

Okay, so what do the Big Bang Theory and the Principle of Energy Conservation have to do with life after death?  Simple:  per these universe creation propositions, for the universe to continue, we (who participate in the energy form of the universe) must also continue.  The form of energy in which we continue might be in question.  But continue we must.  Our energy life force must continue for our universe to continue. 

Hmmmm.  Wouldn’t that make each of us a center of the universe?

           So perhaps, when religious belief does not work for us, and we ask that question “What’s it all about?” at a very basic level it is about the continuation of the universe as we currently know it.  At that very basic level, there is no death.

 

P.S. ---

 Now, if you are like me, you question what caused this Big Bang.  Nothing can come from nothingness.  A void is a void is a void.  When I hear the basics of the Big Bang, invariably I question where the particles came from that created the huge hot mass it supposedly was in the beginning.  This question interferes with my believing that the universe started from nothing.  The Big Bang did not occur out of nothingness;  it was precipitated by other events.  Therefore, if you attest that the Big Bang was the true and only forming ground for our universe, first tell me where the particles came from that created the hot mass from which the universe was formed.

                    

Until next time, LL&P!

 

 

 

References:

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

http://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143

http://arachnoid.com/gravity/index.html