6

On November 1st, I attended a truly fascinating seminar given by a Bangor psychology professor Guillaume Thierry. Initially, Guillaume gave a brief introduction to the theory of evolution, the simplicity of which he apologised for, mentioning that he usually presented the seminar to those not from biological science backgrounds. He had been encouraged to present to SBS by someone in the psychology department who thought it would interest some of the students – it did! Unfortunately, only ten or so people attended the lecture, which wasn’t advertised via Bangor’s mail system.

The professor then discussed the future of evolution, comparing the complexity of the human socio-economic structure to that of a colonial organism such as a beehive or ant colony, where a collection of smaller organisms act as one, forming a super-organism. However, professor Thierry suggested that human society was in fact more unique, in that a single bee or ant may be removed from a hive or colony – and yet the society will carry on functioning as normal. The queen may even be removed, and another individual will take her place. As humans, we are far more dependent on the roles of individuals – if we remove teachers or doctors from society, for example, chaos ensues. Autonomy is also something which segregates human beings from other animals. As humans we are well aware of our position, and the greater goals of society. A bee or ant lacks the cognitive ability to contemplate its own role within its society, it knows what it should be doing – and does so accordingly – but it does not know its own value to the colony. This is a theory which I haven’t heard before, but has some merit, and does raise questions about how much control we actually possess over our own future – we may make choices and decisions which affect our own lives, but we are also governed by laws and taught how to think from a young age.

This brought Guillaume to his next topic – how the human mind works. He showed us a collection of brain teasers, puzzles and images that trick the mind into seeing something that isn’t there or can be interpreted in different ways, depending on how the brain of each individual processes the information. Our eyes see the reality, yet the brain is constantly disregarding and altering information. Why it does this is mysterious – is the brain only focusing on the information it feels is needed to keep us alive? This all happens subconsciously, too quickly for us to consider and process – so how much control do we actually have over how we think?

Please watch this video before continuing:

Professor Thierry wanted us to acknowledge the complexity of our own brains, by showing us how much we take the normality of what we perceive for granted. Of course there are those whose brains function in a completely different way to most of us – people often classed as ‘mentally ill’. Take a look at the following painting of cats, by the artist Louis Wain, whose perceptions of reality completely changed in the years after he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia – the cats eventually becoming little more than psychedelic looking fractals:

http://imgur.com/gallery/15A60

The point is that we still understand very little about how the mind works, despite years of research by neuroscientists. We might have a simple grasp of the mechanics, but no two brains are alike, and we’ll never truly understand the processing power and potential of the human mind.

Finally, Guillaume spoke about what little we can do in an attempt to harness our own minds, and the power of meditation. It is almost impossible to completely clear our heads and think of nothing – something Buddha is said to have done in his quest for enlightenment. Maybe through meditation, we can learn to shut off some of the trivial thoughts that constantly plague us, and begin to notice some of the finer details of the world surrounding us that we usually pay little attention to. My curiosity has certainly been captured, and I’m keen to find out what I’ve been missing in my haste.

Exploring Large Scale Questions in the Study of Mammalian Biology

31 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by bsu32b in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

I recently attended a seminar presented by Dr Phil Stephens of Durham University. Phil wanted to discuss the way data is collected in reference to the conservation of large mammals, and the ways in which this data can enhance or inhibit biological studies. The presentation attracted a large audience which suggests, at least in Bangor, that there is a significant deal of interest in the subject matter.

Phil began the presentation by using previous studies on insects and birds to exemplify the way in which data is collated. He introduced the audience to the analysis of trends and coefficients – supported by a large number of graphs – as a means of both current population examination, and future population prediction.

Phil then progressed to explaining where the majority of mammalian data sets came from – citing short-term studies, incidental data (often collected by hunters), and long-term studies. He identified the benefits that the long-term study has in terms of tracing the life-history of mammals, population in relation to climate change and heritability.

Alpine Chamois

Dr Stephens progressed to exploring the alternative methods of data collection and cited some specific in-depth studies into Italian Chamois population based on records collected by hunters, and Red Fox distribution records which were collated over a huge time-scale and via a multitude of methods. After addressing the benefits of the studies and the positive data collected, Phil questioned both the viability and adaptability of these data collection methods as a standard. My own, albeit far less significant, experience in data collection led me to sympathise with the point Phil was making. Anyone who has ever written a literary review will know that data collection methods are intensely varied and can often be difficult to compare in a like-for-like manner.

Dr Stephens showed a keen interest in exploring other, perhaps more tailored, data collection methods. Though his suggestion that we were approaching the end of the long-term study as a viable data collection method was perhaps intentional hyperbole, he made a valid point in that it’s relevance was dwindling – and new data collection methods would have to be developed and adopted as standard if we are to find greater conservation success in the future.

Red Fox

Phil identified technological advances as being the major key to progression in development of data collection techniques, suggesting that a Europe-wide, or even global database could be created to keep track of population changes in a number of mammals. I believe a standardised data collected system must be adopted sometime in the near future. Collusion between scientists is vital if we are to streamline data collection methods, and in the current technological age, there is no excuse for lack of communication.

I found the talk particularly engaging, and despite Dr Stephens’ insistence that grassroots data collection was not a ‘sexy science’, the fact that mammals were the focus of the presentation attracted a large audience. Mammals will always encourage greater conservation interest (particularly those showing signs of endangerment) and as a result, attract a greater deal of funding than many other scientific classes. Perhaps, for this reason, mammalian conservation can help to pioneer a new method of data collection which can be extrapolated and aid the conservation of all species on earth.