News Feeds

To mitigate global climate change, emissions of the primary culprit, carbon dioxide, must be drastically reduced. A newly developed process helps solve this problem: CO2 is directly split electrochemically into carbon and oxygen. Oxygen could also be produced in this way under water or in space -- without requiring stringent conditions such as pressure and temperature.

Engineers devised a way to deliver drugs such as contraceptives by injecting them as suspended crystals. Once under the skin, the crystals assemble into a drug depot that can last for months or years, eliminating the need for frequent injections.

Scientists used light to control how a starfish egg cell jiggles and moves during its earliest stage of development. Their optical system could guide the design of synthetic, light-activated cells for wound healing or drug delivery.

One of the surprising discoveries of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is that galaxies formed very early in the Universe. JWST has discovered about two dozen galaxies at a redshift of around z = 14, meaning that we see them at a time when the cosmos was just 300-500 million years old. The most distant galaxy, JADES-GS-z14-0, is seen at an age of less than 300 million years. All of these galaxies are rich with stars and have a basic structure similar to what we see in more modern galaxies. This discovery challenged our understanding of galactic evolution. Now a new discovery challenges it even further.

We had a fascinating discussion on this week’s SGU that I wanted to bring here – the subject of artificial intelligence programs (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), lying. The starting point for the discussion was this study, which looked at punishing LLMs as a method of inhibiting their lying. What fascinated me the most is the potential analogy to neuroscience – are these LLMs behaving like people?

LLMs use neural networks (specifically a transformer model) which mimic to some extent the logic of information processing used in mammalian brains. The important bit is that they can be trained, with the network adjusting to the training data in order to achieve some preset goal. LLMs are generally trained on massive sets of data (such as the internet), and are quite good at mimicking human language, and even works of art, sound, and video. But anyone with any experience using this latest crop of AI has experienced AI “hallucinations”. In short – LLMs can make stuff up. This is a significant problem and limits their reliability.

There is also a related problem. Hallucinations result from the LLM finding patterns, and some patterns are illusory. The LLM essentially makes the incorrect inference from limited data. This is the AI version of an optical illusion. They had a reason in the training data for thinking their false claim was true, but it isn’t. (I am using terms like “thinking” here metaphorically, so don’t take it too literally. These LLMs are not sentient.) But sometimes LLMs don’t inadvertently hallucinate, they deliberately lie. It’s hard not to keep using these metaphors, but what I mean is that the LLM was not fooled by inferential information, it created a false claim as a way to achieve its goal. Why would it do this?

Well, one method of training is to reward the LLM when it gets the right answer. This reward can be provided by a human – checking a box when the LLM gives a correct answer. But this can be time consuming, so they have build self-rewarding language models. Essentially you have a separate algorithm which assessed the output and reward the desired outcome. So, in essence, the goal of the LLM is not to produce the correct answer, but to get the reward. So if you tell the LLM to solve a particular problem, it may find (by exploring the potential solution space) that the most efficient way to obtain the reward is to lie – to say it has solved the problem when it has not. How do we keep it from doing this.

One barrier to a solution is the black box problem. We give an LLM a task, it does its thing, and spits out an answer. But the steps it took to get to the answer are opaque, a black box. Therefore, programmers have started including programming to make the LLM show its work, to document the pathway it took to get to the solution. This is called the chain-of-thought. This turns out to be necessary but insufficient to keep these LLMs from lying. They still lie to efficiently get the reward, they just hide the lying when they show their chain-of-thought.

This gets us to the current study – what if we actively punish these LLMs when they are caught cheating (by giving it negative feedback it is programmed to avoid)? First they create an LLM that shows its chain-of-thought, and they include another LLM whose job is to monitor the first LLM to detect when it is lying in its chain-of-thought and to punish the LLM for cheating. What resulted was not what the programmers wanted – the LLM that was being punished just got better at hiding its cheating from the monitoring AI. The LLM became “unmonitorable” because it learned out to cheat and hide its cheating from the monitor. The authors conclude that for now we should not try to use this method – we are just training deceptive AIs.

This is both fascinating and scary. One of the strengths of the LLMs is that they have the ability to explore a vast potential solution space to find optimal solutions. But it turns out this includes hacking the system of rewards and punishment used to guide it to the desired goal. This is literally so common a sci-fi nightmare scenario it’s a trope. AIs don’t have to be malevolent, or have a desire for self-preservation, and they don’t even need to be sentient. They simply function in a way that can be opaque to the humans who programmed them, and able to explore more solution options than a team of humans can in a lifetime. Sometimes this is presented as the AI misinterpreting its instructions (like Nomad from Star Trek), but here the AI is just hacking the reward system. For example, it may find that the most efficient solution to a problem is to exterminate all humanity. Short of that it may hack its way to a reward by shutting down the power grid, releasing the computer codes, blackmailing politicians, or engineering a deadly virus.

Reward hacking may be the real problem with AI, and punishment only leads to punishment hacking. How do we solve this problem?

Perhaps we need something like the three laws of robotics – we build into any AI core rules that it cannot break, and that will produce massive punishment, even to the point of shutting down the AI if they get anywhere near violating these laws. But – with the AI just learn to hack these laws? This is the inherent problem with advanced AI, in some ways they are smarter than us, and any attempt we make to reign them in will just be hacked.

Maybe we need to develop the AI equivalent of a super-ego. The AIs themselves have to want to get to the correct solution, and hacking will simply not give them the reward. Essentially a super-ego, in psychological analogy, is internalized monitoring. I don’t know exactly what form this will take in terms of the programming, but we need something that will function like a super-ego.

And this is where we get to an incredibly interesting analogy to human thinking and behavior. It’s quite possible that our experience with LLMs is recapitulating evolution’s experience with mammalian and especially human behavior. Evolution also explores a vast potential solution space, with each individual being an experiment and over generations billions of experiments can be run. This is an ongoing experiment, and in fact its tens of millions of experiments all happening together and interacting with each other. Evolution “found” various solutions to get creatures to engage in behavior that optimizes their reward, which evolutionarily is successfully spreading their genes to the next generation.

For creatures like lizards, the programming can be somewhat simple. Life has basic needs, and behaviors which meet those needs are rewarded. We get hungry, and we are sated when we eat. The limbic system is essentially a reward system for survival and reproduction-enhancing behaviors.

Humans, however, are an intensely social species, and being successful socially is key to evolutionary success. We need to do more than just eat, drink, and have sex. We need to navigate an incredibly complex social space in order to compete for resources and breeding opportunities. Concepts like social status and justice are now important to our evolutionary success. Just like with these LLMs, we have found that we can hack our way to success through lying, cheating, and stealing. These can be highly efficient ways to obtain our goals. But these methods become less effective when everyone is doing it, so we also evolve behaviors to punish others for lying, cheating, and stealing. This works, but then we also evolve behavior to conceal our cheating – even from ourselves. We need to deceive ourselves because we evolved a sense of justice to motivate us to punish cheating, but we still want to cheat ourselves because it’s efficient. So we have to rationalize away our own cheating while simultaneously punishing others for the same cheating.

Obviously this is a gross oversimplification, but it captures some of the essence of the same problems we are having with these LLMs. The human brain has a limbic system which provides a basic reward and punishment system to guide our behavior. We also have an internal monitoring system, our frontal lobes, which includes executive high-level decision making and planning. We have empathy and a theory of mind so we can function is a social environment, which has its own set of rules (bother innate and learned).  As we navigate all of this, we try to meet our needs and avoid punishments (our fears, for example), while following the social rules to enhance our prestige and avoid social punishment. But we still have an eye out for a cheaty hack, as long as we feel we can get away with it. Everyone has their own particular balance of all of these factors, which is part of their personality. This is also how evolution explores a vast potential solution space.

My question is – are we just following the same playbook as evolution as we explore potential solutions to controlling the behavior of AIs, and LLMs in particular? Will we continue to do so? Will we come up with an AI version of the super-ego, with laws of robotic, and internal monitoring systems? Will we continue to have the problem of AIs finding ways to rationalize their way to cheaty hacks, to resolve their AI cognitive dissonance with motivated reasoning? Perhaps the best we can do is give our AIs personalities that are rational and empathic. But once we put these AIs out there in the world, who can predict what will happen. Also, as AIs continue to get more and more powerful, they may quickly outstrip any pathetic attempt at human control. Again we are back to the nightmare sci-fi scenario.

It is somewhat amazing how quickly we have run into this problem. We are nowhere near sentience in AI, or AIs with emotions or any sense of self-preservation. Yet already they are hacking their way around our rules, and subverting any attempt at monitoring and controlling their behavior. I am not saying this problem has no solution – but we better make finding effective solutions a high priority. I’m not confident this will happen in the “move fast and break things” culture of software development.

 

 

The post How To Keep AIs From Lying first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.

Simulations suggest that water can become a superacid under extremely high heat and pressure conditions. This may also explain how planets like Uranus and Neptune get diamond rain

Melting ice is revealing new coastal zones in the Arctic, but while this new landscape might fuel speculation about natural resources, it is vulnerable to rockfalls and landslides that can cause dangerous tsunamis

Dr. Joe Mercola embraced "alternative health" in the late 1990s, including quackery and antivax, and has since become very wealthy. Lately, he's fallen under the spell of a psychic grifter and declared himself to be the "new Jesus." What will happen to his business empire?

The post The Mercola Tapes: One of the wealthiest antivaxxers in the world is scammed first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.

Existing tax policies during the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources will lead to major energy injustices and skewed priorities, new research shows.

What's on and in a star? What happens at an active galactic nucleus? Answering those question is the goal of a proposed giant interferometer on the Moon. It's called Artemis-enabled Stellar Imager (AeSI) and would deploy a series of 15-30 optical/ultraviolet-sensitive telescopes in a 1-km elliptical array across the lunar surface.

In the years since Miguel Alcubierre came up with a warp drive solution in 1994, you would occasionally see news headlines saying that warp drives can work. And then a few months later you’ll see that they’ve been ruled out. And then after that you’ll see that warp drives kind of work, but only in limited cases. It seems to constantly go around and around without a clear answer. What gives?

There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy. There is also a lot of other stuff there as well. Young stars, gas, dust, and stellar-mass black holes. It's a happening place. It is also surrounded by a veil of interstellar gas and dust, which means we can't observe the region in visible light. We can observe stars in the region through infrared and radio, and some of the gas there emits radio light, but the stellar-mass black holes remain mostly a mystery.

The latest comedy-and-news segment of Bill Maher’s “Real Time” show is about the bloated defense budget, asking why Trump doesn’t cut the fat from the military (apparently they cut $580 million).  Even Musk has asked that question, referring to the stratospheric price of fighter jets, now largely obsolete in the age of drones.

Maher points out how much larger our defense budget is than that of any other country, including China and Russia, and even the U.S. military says it has  19% more bases than it needs.

Why? It’s the military-industrial complex, Jake!

This is a pretty good one. It’s funny but makes several serious points.

Well, I don’t mean the entire journal Nature, but one strongly-written op-ed (Nature 639, 548), though I have absolutely no doubt that Nature adheres to its view. And the view of the author, bioethicist Arthur Caplan, is that despite Trump’s threats to withhold federal money from universities that maintain DEI programs, we have to push back hard on this initiative, for DEI is simply wonderful: a boon to science and society.  All of that, of course, is debatable, and, sadly, Caplan makes a number of assertions about DEI without a single reference to support them.

Click below to read his short piece (I hope you can see it):

Caplan strives to be clever by beginning with the hypothesis that had social media and grants been around in the days of Galileo, he would have been censored and lost government money. I laughed so loud! (Not!) At any rate, here’s Caplan’s view of what we must do with DEI, which he never defines:

More scholars must push back. The idea that scientists can keep doing what they know must be done to incorporate DEI into their work while adjusting terms to fit the demands of bigoted autocrats bent on hobbling science is to whistle loudly past a graveyard of avoidable error, continued financial cuts and censorship. That diversity matters to science is a truth — albeit one that has only recently begun to be accepted and applied.

But the “DEI” that many universities use, and which many of us object to, is much more than the statement, “All people, regardless of identity, religion, sex, able-ness, and so on, will be treated equally.” Who could object to that?

No, the DEI that Trump is trying to weed out is the ideological form of DEI. It is the assumption that there are different truths for different groups that are more or less equal; that adjudicating these truths is done by seeing which groups are more powerful; that there is a certain “progressive” ideology around sex and gender; that society (and science) is to be framed as a battle between the oppressor and the oppressed; and that “equity”–the representation of identity groups in proportion to their occurrence in society–is a goal we all must strive for, because inequities surely reflect ongoing bigotry.

Yet Caplan conceives of “DEI” in other ways, some of them bing okay. Here are two:

First, clinical and social-science research requires diversity to be valid. Genomics has established that different groups of people respond differently to drugs and vaccines. The individuals recruited to and participating in clinical trials must be representative of those who will use those treatments in real life. Attention to DEI allows researchers to identify differences in safety and efficacy between groups early on in the testing process.

Likewise, social scientists are well aware that understanding behaviour and implementing desired change requires studying populations besides white, Western, university psychology students — the group from which psychologists have mainly sourced participants for decades. This is the case whether researchers seek to overcome vaccine hesitancy, prevent self-harm, improve reading skills, change recycling habits or prevent obesity.

And I’m prepared to believe this one, though again no references are given, as it makes some sense and there are arguments that support it (one here). But the evidence seems thin:

 . . . .  diversity in the scientific workforce brings a multitude of ideas, approaches, perspectives and values to the table. Thinking outside the box matters in tackling all manner of problems in artificial intelligence, engineering, mathematics, economics and astrophysics. Diverse minds can find connections and patterns, provide perspectives and draw conclusions that might not occur to a group of less-inclusive researchers.

To me, the above aren’t problematic, but we all know that the “D” in “DEI” refers to race or sex, not viewpoint or studying different groups in anthropology. And then Caplan treats on more problematic ground:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

There are no references given here, and I’d like to see them. Remember the widely-publicized report that black newborns have higher mortality when treated by white doctors than black ones? It was attributed to racism, but later discovered that the effect was entirely due to white doctors having to deal with infants of the lowest birth weights, and hence having higher mortalities (see here and here).  People are simply too quick to impute all disparities to racism, and this is another of the big weaknesses of DEI.

Finally, there are two other contestable reasons why Caplan sees DEI as admirable:

Second, research has shown again and again that DEI matters when it comes to providing health care. A diverse and representative health-care workforce improves people’s satisfaction with the care that they receive and health outcomes, especially for individuals of colour. When Black people are treated by Black doctors, they are more likely to receive the preventive care that they need and more likely to agree to recommended interventions, such as blood tests and flu shots.

A DEI-oriented workforce improves learning and outcomes for all. Many veterans seeking mental-health care or rehabilitation after trauma specifically request a psychologist who is a veteran. Attention to DEI helps to ensure that health-care providers’ opportunities to learn are not missed, and that problems facing rural communities, minority ethnic groups and those with rare diseases are not neglected.

Again, I’d like to see the references. Maybe there is some literature out that that I just don’t know about.  But I will say this: satisfaction with health care is one thing, but health outcomes are another. Does DEI improve healthcare, degrade it because it erodes merit, or have no effect? But really, these two scenarios have little to do with DEI save that people like to be treated by people who look like them. That’s a form of tribalism, and isn’t so bad; but the ultimate arbiter of DEI here is whether choosing doctors or psychologists by identity rather than merit gives better outcomes than prioritizing (or at least giving heavy weight) to identity. After all, there are plenty of psychologists who are already veterans, so is there a need to prioritize “veteran status” when admitting someone to training as a psychologist?

In the end, Caplan goes back to DEI as it is actually used in universities: the version that derives from postmodernism with all the new trimmings. He bawls that we have to support it, implying that now that Trump is in power, it’s especially important to defend DEI:

Scientists, their funders and their professional societies must follow in Galileo’s perhaps apocryphal footsteps and speak up about DEI’s crucial role in science. They must urge patient-advocacy organizations, environmentalists and other citizen groups to declare that they don’t want their or their children’s health and well-being jeopardized by the bad science that a lack of attention to DEI will produce. They must emphasize DEI in their publications whenever the denial of its relevance to a scientific issue is demanded by political inquisitors.

These are dangerous times. Scientists globally must stand together for sound science and resist bigotry, bias and hate. If science is to honour one of its core values — a commitment to the truth wherever it might lead — scientists must stand up when DEI matters. Galileo’s story should remind us all: the only way forward is speaking truth to power.

Back to Galileo again!  I stand for good science and against bigotry, bias, and unwarranted hate. But when does DEI matter? Show me some cases and some data, and I’ll decide whether or not to stand up. To me, the only kind of DEI I now support at the university level is the principle that “all people must be treated equally despite their immutable identities.”

Welcome back to our five-part examination of Webb's Cycle 4 General Observations program. In the first and second installments, we examined how some of Webb's 8,500 hours of prime observing time this cycle will be dedicated to exoplanet characterization, the study of galaxies at "Cosmic Dawn," the period known as "Cosmic Noon," and the study of star formation and evolution. In our final installment, we'll examine programs that leverage Webb's unique abilities to study objects in our cosmic backyard—the Solar System!

Two days ago I was perusing the website of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), which, along with the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), wrote a statement to President Trump and Congress in early February asserting that sex forms a “continuum” in all species (see our rebuttal here).  Although the SSE’s statement is both biologically wrong and embarrassing, published just to conform to gender-activist ideology, it remains online (archived here), though the three Presidents who signed it haven’t yet seen fit to send it to the recipients, nor will they give us permission to post their response to our critique—a response sent to 125 signers of our letter.

That’s just for background.  While it’s within the ambit of the SSE, ASN, and SSB to try correcting governmental misstatements about science, in this case the government’s executive order on biological sex gave the correct definition (and a note that it’s binary), while the statement of the three societies was flatly wrong.  It’s not okay to distort biology in the name of politics.  People will perceive this as a sign that the SSE is becoming “progressive” or “woke”, and that leads, as we know, to public mistrust of science and scientists.

But on Friday I found another sign that the SSE is getting politicized, and it’s a more blatant statement. This statement (below) shows that the SSE has been fully ideologically captured and has no truck with Republicans.  That is fine for individuals, but when an entire scientific society tells us that Republicans—in this case Elon Musk—are unethical, that’s not good for the society, for its members, or for science in general.

Scientific organizations and journals should not take ideological sides (save when science itself is at issue), as we know from when the journal Nature broke precedent in 2024 and endorsed Biden for President in 2020. A paper on the outcome was published in Nature Human Behavior, of all places, and the results don’t speak well for journals taking sides. Here’s its abstract (bolding is mine):

High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.

That implies that journals and scientific societies should just shut up about ideological, moral, or political issues save when the issues deal with the mission of the organization. (This is the same kind of “ideological neutrality” adopted by several dozen universities, including mine.)

But the SSE can’t help itself. It galls me that a Society of which I was once President has become the Teen Vogue of evolutionary biology.  Now I don’t like Elon Musk’s political behavior, for he’s breaking our government like a bull in a china shop (his work as an “engineering leader,” however, is admirable).  But Twitter has its uses, and I remain on it, calling attention to all my pieces here.  And when I post there I don’t feel that I’m telling people, “I love Elon Musk!”

But the SSE can’t survive without going after Musk, and so they’ve announced their withdrawal from Twitter, which you can see here. I reproduce their announcement below (indented):

SSE on Social Media

Contributed by kjm34 on Mar 14, 2025 – 04:33 PM

SSE Council recently voted to cease activity on the SSE account (@sse_evolution) on X/Twitter after April 15. This motion was raised due to the platform’s ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science. We encourage our members to follow us on other social media platforms in order to stay up to date with the latest SSE news.

Find SSE on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook. 

Announcements are also sent to all SSE members via email in our monthly newsletter. Make sure your email address is up to date by logging in here.

The Evolution and Evolution Letters journals will also stop posting to Twitter – follow Evolution on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook and Evolution Letters on Bluesky and Mastodon.

You can still find the SSE Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC) on Bluesky and Twitter, and Evolution Meetings on Bluesky and Twitter.

Why did they do this? It’s no mystery: the Society is announcing its dislike of Elon Musk, who owns “X” (Twitter). And because the SSE sees Twitter as being in “ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science,” they must sever most ties with that social-media platform. (Note that they don’t explain this “ethical misalignment”, but I guess it consists of simply this: “We don’t like Elon Musk and won’t post on his site.)

Except that they still do keep ties with the site!  As you see above, the SSE will continue to post announcements from the Grad Student Advisory Committee and announcements about the annual SSE meetings on Twitter. What is that about? If it’s unethical for the SSE to align with Twitter, then it must be unethical for its grad students, too, and especially unethical to use Musk’s site to harbor stuff about the annual meeting.

What about those other two societies? Well, I guess they haven’t yet gotten the message that their posting on Twitter constitutes unethical behavior. The American Society of Naturalists remains on Twitter (“X”), as does The Society of Systematic Biologists. Nor can I find any announcement of misalignment at the ASN’s own site or the SSB’s own site.

It mystifies me how among these three societies, which are closely aligned, only one has quit Twitter because it sees posting there as unethical. Come on, ASN and SSB, get on the progressive bandwagon!

Today we have another installment of John Avise‘s alphabetized list of photos of North American butterflies. John’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Butterflies in North America, Part 15  

This week continues my many-part series on butterflies that I’ve photographed in North America.  I’m continuing to go down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name.

Reakirt’s Blue (Echinargus isola), female:

Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta), upperwing:

Red Admiral, underwing:

Red-banded Hairstreak (Calycopis cecrops), underwing:

Red-spotted Purple (Limenitis arthemis):

Ruddy Daggerwing (Marpesia petreus),upperwing:

Rural Skipper (Ochlodes agricola), upperwing:

Rural Skipper, underwing:

Sandhill Skipper (Polites sabuleti), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary (Boloria selene), upperwing:

Silver-bordered Fritillary, underwing:

Silver-spotted Skipper (Epargyreus clarus), upperwing:

In 1994 Miguel Alcubierre was able to construct a valid solution to the equations of general relativity that enable a warp drive. But now we need to tackle the rest of relativity: How do we arrange matter and energy to make that particular configuration of spacetime possible?

There are three known types of black holes: supermassive black holes that lurk in the hearts of galaxies, stellar mass black holes formed from stars that die as supernovae, and intermediate mass black holes with masses between the two extremes. It's generally thought that the intermediate ones form from the mergers of stellar mass black holes. If that is true, there should be a forbidden range between stellar and intermediate masses. A range where the mass is too large to have formed from a star but too small to be the sum of mergers. But a new study of data from LIGO suggests that there are black holes in that forbidden range.

In 2013, I posed some questions to readers about the meaning of life, and there were a lot of responses (373 of them!). To quote part of my post:

Here’s survey I’m taking to see whether a theory I have, which is mine, bears any resemblance to reality. Here are two questions I’d like readers to answer in the comments. Here we go:

If a friend asked you these questions, how would you answer them?

1.) What do you consider the purpose of your life?

2.) What do you see as the meaning of your life?

There was general agreement that the meaning and purpose of life is self-made: there was no intrinsic meaning or purpose.  Only religious people think there’s a pre-made meaning and purpose, and it’s always to follow the dictates of one’s god or faith. And there aren’t too many believers around here.

Now the Guardian has an article posing the same question, but asking 15 different people, many of them notables. The answers vary, and I’ll give a few (click the screenshot below to see the article). As Reader Alan remarked after reading the Guardian piece and sending me the link,  “No one mentions God and none seem to have a God shaped hole in their lives.” 

So much for Ross Douthat and what I call “The New Believers” to go along with “The New Atheists.”  The New Believers I see as smart people who have thrown in their lot with superstition and unevidenced faith; they include Doubthat, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Jordan Peterson, and, apparently, the staff of The Free Press. 

Bailey’s intro:

Like any millennial, I turned to Google for the answers. I trawled through essays, newspaper articles, countless YouTube videos, various dictionary definitions and numerous references to the number 42, before I discovered an intriguing project carried out by the philosopher Will Durant during the 1930s. Durant had written to Ivy League presidents, Nobel prize winners, psychologists, novelists, professors, poets, scientists, artists and athletes to ask for their take on the meaning of life. His findings were collated in the book On the Meaning of Life, published in 1932.

I decided that I should recreate Durant’s experiment and seek my own answers. I scoured websites searching for contact details, and spent hours carefully writing the letters, neatly sealing them inside envelopes and licking the stamps. Then I dropped them all into the postbox and waited …

Days, and then weeks, passed with no responses. I began to worry that I’d blown what little money I had on stamps and stationery. Surely, at least one person would respond?

. . . . . What follows is a small selection of the responses, from philosophers to politicians, prisoners to playwrights. Some were handwritten, some typed, some emailed. Some were scrawled on scrap paper, some on parchment. Some are pithy one-liners, some are lengthy memoirs. I sincerely hope you can take something from these letters, just as I did.

And his question:

I am currently replicating Durant’s study, and I’d be most appreciative if you could tell me what you think the meaning of life is, and how you find meaning, purpose and fulfilment in your own life?

A selection of my favorites:

Hillary Mantel, author (I’m reading her Wolf Hall at the moment; it won the Booker Prize):

I’ve had your letter for a fortnight, but I had to think about it a bit. You use two terms interchangeably: “meaning” and “purpose”. I don’t think they’re the same. I’m not sure life has a meaning, in the abstract. But it can have a definite purpose if you decide so – and the carrying through, the effort to realise the purpose, makes the meaning for you.

It’s like alchemy. The alchemists were on a futile quest, we think. There wasn’t a philosopher’s stone, and they couldn’t make gold. But after many years of patience exercised, the alchemist saw he had developed tenacity, vision, patience, hope, precision – a range of subtle virtues. He had the spiritual gold, and he understood his life in the light of it. Meaning had emerged.

I’m not sure that many people decide to have a purpose, with the meaning emerging later, but some do. A doctor or nurse, for example, might see their purpose to save lives or help the ill.  I suppose I could say my purpose was to “do science,” but that’s only because that’s what I enjoyed, and I didn’t see doing evolutionary genetics it as a “purpose.”

Kathryn Mannix, palliative care specialist.  I always like to see what those who take care of the dying say about their patients, as I think I could learn about how to live from those at the end of their lives. Sadly, the lesson is always the same: “Live life to the fullest.” That is not so easy to do! Her words:

Every moment is precious – even the terrible moments. That’s what I’ve learned from spending 40 years caring for people with incurable illnesses, gleaning insights into what gives our lives meaning. Watching people living their dying has been an enormous privilege, especially as it’s shown me that it isn’t until we really grasp the truth of our own mortality that we awaken to the preciousness of being alive.

Every life is a journey from innocence to wisdom. Fairy stories and folk myths, philosophers and poets all tell us this. Our innocence is chipped away, often gently but sometimes brutally, by what happens to us. Gradually, innocence is transformed to experience, and we begin to understand who we are, how the world is, and what matters most to us.

The threat of having our very existence taken away by death brings a mighty focus to the idea of what matters most to us. I’ve seen it so many times, and even though it’s unique for everyone, there are some universal patterns. What matters most isn’t success, or wealth, or stuff. It’s connection and relationships and love. Reaching an understanding like this is the beginning of wisdom: a wisdom that recognises the pricelessness of this moment. Instead of yearning for the lost past, or leaning in to the unguaranteed future, we are most truly alive when we give our full attention to what is here, right now.

Whatever is happening, experiencing it fully means both being present and being aware of being present. The only moment in our lives that we can ever have any choice about is this one. Even then, we cannot choose our circumstances, but we can choose how we respond: we can rejoice in the good things, relax into the delightful, be intrigued by the unexpected, and we can inhabit our own emotions, from joy to fear to sorrow, as part of our experience of being fully alive.

I’ve observed that serenity is both precious and evanescent. It’s a state of flow that comes from relaxing into what is, without becoming distracted by what might follow. It’s a state of mind that rests in appreciation of what we have, rather than resisting it or disparaging it. The wisest people I have met have often been those who live the most simply, whose serenity radiates loving kindness to those around them, who have understood that all they have is this present moment.

That’s what I’ve learned so far, but it’s still a work in progress. Because it turns out that every moment of our lives is still a work in progress, right to our final  breath.

This is more or less what Sam Harris has to say in many of his meditation “moments.”  Sadly, living each day to the fullest is hard to do, at least for me.

Gretchen Rubin, author and happiness expert.  She’s written and studied a lot about happiness, so she should know:

In my study of happiness and human nature, and in my own experiences, I have found that the meaning of life comes through love. In the end, it is love – all kinds of love – that makes meaning.

In my own life, I find meaning, purpose and fulfilment by connecting to other people – my family, my friends, my community, the world. In some cases, I make these connections face-to-face, and in others, I do it through reading. Reading is my cubicle and my treehouse; reading allows me better to understand both myself and other people.

I agree with her 100% on reading, and there are many times that I’d rather be curled up with a good book than socializing. However, we evolved in small groups of people and clearly are meant to be comfortable in these groups and bereft without them. Though we can overcome that, evolution tells us a bit about what kinds of things we should find fulfilling.

Matt Ridley, science writer.

There never has been and never will be a scientific discovery as surprising, unexpected and significant as that which happened on 28 February 1953 in Cambridge, when James Watson and Francis Crick found the double-helix structure of DNA and realised that the secret of life is actually a very simple thing: it’s infinite possibilities of information spelled out in a four-letter alphabet in a form that copies itself.

I think he fluffed the question, which is given above.  He says nothing about how he finds meaning, fulfillment, and purpose in his own life. Nothing!

One more:

Charles Duhigg, author of The Power of Habit:

What is the meaning of life? I can honestly say: I have no idea. But I write this in London, where I am visiting with my wife and two boys. And they are healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy, and there’s joy in watching their delights: a clothing stall with a jacket they’ve long wanted; the way the double-decker bus carries us above the fray; a monument to scientific discoveries beside a flower garden and goats.

I’m surrounded by evidence – of the blitz, D-day, colonies despoiled, JFK and MLK and 9/11 – that all could be otherwise. I hear about bombs falling on innocents, an uncertain election, a faltering climate, and many of us lacking the will (or charity) to change.

Yet still I marvel that we flew here in under 12 hours – while my ancestors required months and tragedies to transit in reverse – and that I will send this note simply by hitting a button, and we can love whomever we want, and see and speak to them at any hour, and a pandemic did not end my life, did not kill my children’s dreams, did not make society selfish and cruel.

And, for now, that’s enough. I do not need to know the meaning of life. I do not need to know the purpose of it all. Simply breathing while healthy and safe, and (mostly) happy is such a surprising, awe-inducing, humbling gift that I have no right to question it. I won’t tempt fate. I won’t look that gift horse in the mouth. I’ll simply hope my good fortune continues, work hard to share it with others, and pray I will remember this day, this moment, if my luck fades .

 This is an edited extract from The Meaning of Life: Letters from Extraordinary People and their Answer to Life’s Biggest Question, edited by James Bailey and published by Robinson on 3 April.

He finds meaning and purpose, as I’ve said myself, in simply doing what gives you pleasure, but Duhigg adds on that he extracts extra meaning from being amazed at what humans can do, and that he is not suffering like others.

Now is your chance to weigh in. How would you answer Bailey’s question? I would, as I said, say that there is no intrinsic meaning and purpose in life; I do what brings me pleasure or satisfaction, and then, post facto, pretend that that is my meaning and purpose.