Tag Archives: Science

BRINGING LIFE TO THE DEAD WITH CGI TECHNOLOGY

Once upon a time, when a person died… they stayed dead. Sure, they were remembered through paintings, etchings, busts and even death masks, but their long-gone images remained distorted likenesses of how they truly appeared in life. That’s no longer the case, as modern Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) has the uncanny ability to eerily bring the dead back to life.

Images created with CGI technology are so good that it’s nearly impossible to tell what’s real and what’s invented inside a computer. Today, computer generated images are commonplace. You see them everywhere around you. From blockbuster movies like Toy Story and Iron Man to still-framed Amazon ads that capture your buying attention, you’re constantly bombarded with CGI impressions.

But, all CGI technological projects aren’t aimed at entertaining you or exploiting your bank account. The forensic world slowly endorsed computer generated imagery since its inception. CGI technology was a perfect fit for reconstructing faces on skulls found with decomposed human remains.

Once forensic anthropologists teamed with computer scientists specializing in CGI technology, the field expanded. It wasn’t long before specialized companies like Face Lab at Liverpool John Moores University developed cutting-edge techniques to move beyond realistically recreating facial recognition from bare bones to analyzing historical works depicting famous people.

Recently, the team at Face Lab released stunningly-real images of Cleopatra, King Tut, Nefertiti, Shakespeare, Bach, George Washington, Mary Queen of Scots, Saint Nicholas and many other high-profile historical people. Yes, even the real Santa Claus has been brought back to life with CGI technology. Here’s a look at how Face Lab does it and some samples of their deadly depictions.

Technology Behind Computer Generated Imagery

You’d think computer generated imaging is a recent forensic and technological breakthrough. Not so. CGI first hit the public domain via the movie business with Westworld in 1973, Star Wars in 1977, Jurassic Park in 1993 and then in 1995 when Toy Story made Woody and Buzz come alive. Now, two decades into the 21st century, it’s fair to say that virtually every TV and big screen production uses CGI for special effects. Forensic science took awhile to adopt the digital techniques.

Albrecht Durer

Would it surprise you to know the basic principle behind computer generated imagery showed up in the 16th century? It’s called ray tracing. A brilliant German painter/printer by the name of Albrecht Durer discovered an artistic technique of following light rays from the human eye back to the object rather than the normal method of human perception where the eye captures a light ray blast. Durer didn’t have a computer, but his revolutionary technique was so successful that it influenced Renaissance Masters like da Vinci and Raphael.

In computer graphic terms, ray tracing is a rendering technique for generating images by tracking a light ray’s path from the viewer’s vantage point back through a pixel and onto a virtual object. The CGI designer works with shape, color, texture and light levels on the object to give it life-like realism once the image is transferred back to the eye. In a sense, it’s fooling the brain to see non-real objects as real.

This sounds simple, but it’s incredibly complicated. Ray tracing to build computer generated images is also exhaustively time-consuming. Images built through ray tracing also require mathematical expertise in using trigonometry to build algorithms that account for light ray effects. Computers are the key to managing huge information packages and pull the entire CGI process together.

Ray tracing produces believably-good images, but it comes with a cost. A skilled CGI technologist can spend a full day developing one frame of a movie. That transpires to thousands of person-hours building one movie scene which has to pay back through box-office sales.

Gamers can’t afford the time and money spent on developing picture-perfect imagery that movie-goers demand. Because video games are more real-time experiences, the gamer technologists use a CGI technique called rasterization. It works on manipulating light through tiny polygons rather than pixels and produces “raster” images. The results aren’t as real, but it’s hundreds of times faster and far cheaper than ray tracing.

Face Lab and Their Fantastic Faces of Forgotten Folk

Face Lab is an interdisciplinary research group attached to the Institute of Art and Technology at Liverpool John Moores University. It’s headed by Professor Caroline Wilkinson who is a world-renown leader in craniofacial analysis, facial depiction and forensic art. With her group at Face Lab, Prof. Wilkinson specializes in facial reconstruction through computer generated imagery as well as building portraitures of population demographics.

Besides contributing to forensic facial identification cases with law enforcement agencies like Scotland Yard, Interpol, the FBI and the RCMP, Face Lab finds time to have a little fun. They work with world-class museums to reconstruct realistic portraits from exhibit material. Using actual skulls of historical figures as well as authentic images, the Face Lab team applies highly-technical processes like 3D scanning, modeling and animating to known likenesses.

Recently, Face Lab took on a side project where they brought long-dead celebrities back to life with CGI technology. Their convincing result lets you look guys like Julius Caesar and Nero in the face. Here’s a peek at some fantastic faces of forgotten folk.

King Tutankhamun is the world’s most famous mummy. When his Egyptian tomb was opened in 1922, King Tut had been sealed away for over 3,200 years and the vault contained 5,000 dazzling artifacts. Some, like Tut’s gold funeral mask, are considered among the world’s most valuable antiquities.

King Tut was an unusual Pharaoh. He ascended the throne in 1342 BC as an 11-year-old boy. Tut died in 1324 BC from suspicious circumstances which some scholars believe involved foul play. Whatever the death mechanism was, Tut was never well. All depictions of him show Tut seated including his hunting and archery activities.

Recreating Tutankhamun was a classic case for Face Lab. They had his intact skull with preserved flesh to work with. The CGI technologists used 3D scans to build a life-like image and they used historical data from tomb paintings to get details like his skin and eye color bang-on.

Nefertiti was Tutankhamun’s stepmother. She was Queen to Pharaoh Akhenaten and lived between 1370 and 1330 BC. This royal pair was ahead of their time in religious views where they recognized monotheism or worshiping only one god.

Historians differ their view on whether Nefertiti carried on in power after Akhenaten’s death and before Tutankhamun took over. They also debate whether Nefertiti’s remains have been conclusively found. Some feel she’s still out there, and others attribute a mummy called “The Younger Lady” as being the long-dead queen.

What all agree on is that a bust of Nefertiti is authentic. It’s a limestone/stucco artwork found in 1912 and depicts a beautiful woman that matches other known images of her. From the bust and related works, a marvelous CGI portrait of a life-like Nefertiti emerged.

Cleopatra is perhaps the most famous woman in ancient history. That’s because of the mystique of her sexual power and masterful manipulation of men. It’s also because Cleopatra VII Philopator of the Ptolemy dynasty was beautifully portrayed by Elizabeth Taylor at the height of her acting career.

Cleopatra was the last ruler of Egypt’s Ptolemaic Kingdom. She lived between 69 and 30 BC and took the royal throne at the age of 18. Cleopatra was love-linked to Mark Antony and Julius Caesar although her relationships may have been more political than romantic.

There’s no doubt Cleopatra was a bright and shrewd lady. She spoke numerous languages and her survival strategy was one of keeping friends close with enemies even closer. Forces caught up with Cleopatra, and she was rumored to have committed suicide by taking poison. It’s popularly believed she was intentionally bitten by an asp.

Julius Caesar, by anyone’s standards, was a powerhouse in the old world. He was a Roman general/dictator responsible for the empire’s expansion ranging from England to Egypt. Julius Caesar lived from 100 to 44 BC and made major changes to Roman societal structure which didn’t sit well with some senior senators.

Many military historians consider Julius Caesar to be one of the world’s great strategists and tacticians. His military and political philosophy is entrenched as “Caesarism” and still used as a study model on how to, and how not to, over-extend. One of Caesar’s conquests was Cleopatra and their union produced a son.

Cleopatra and Julius Caesar’s relationship ended when he brought another woman to their Egyptian party. Caesar returned to Rome where he was assassinated by a conspiracy between rivals, one of which was Brutus (“et tu, Brute”). Today’s CGI techs were fortunate to have a host of Julius Caesar likenesses to work from.

Saint Anthony of Padua might not be a household name to some. To others, he’s known as the patron saint of lost things. Anthony was a Portuguese Catholic priest famous for wise preaching and teaching during his short lifespan that spanned 1195 to 1231 AD.

Saint Anthony was a masterful orator with an uncanny ability to heal the sick. He was intricately familiar with scriptures and explained bible quotations so the commoner could understand. Anthony’s frugal living and simplistic style related to people from peasants to the Pope.

Some strange things happened when Saint Anthony died. Legend has it that all the children cried as all the bells suddenly rang. The mystery goes deeper when his remains were exhumed 30 years after death. He’d turned into dust except for his tongue. Today, Saint Anthony’s preserved tongue is on public display in a Padua basilica.

Maximilien Robespierre was a prominent force in the French Revolution of 1789. He was a lawyer and political activist with an outspoken voice for commoners. His criticism of church and state led to profound violence and the French monarchy overthrow.

Although Robespierre was effective, he wasn’t a nice guy. His taste for power went beyond the public good, and he turned into a typical tyrant. Robespierre is now best known for his role in the “Reign of Terror” that took place between 1790 and 1794.

Maximilien Robespierre sent thousands of people to the guillotine. His turn came on July 28, 1794, when the tide turned and resistance fighters seized Robespierre, tortured him and cut off his head with the same system he used on so many. Today, Robespierre’s head is digitally reproduced through CGI technology.

Mary, Queen of Scots, was the ruling monarch of Scotland from 1542 to 1567. She was six days old when her father, King James V, suddenly died and she acceded to the throne. Mary ruled by title rather than in person for her formative years and grew up in France where she married Francis, the Dauphin of France.

Mary returned to Scotland in 1561after her husband’s death and married her half-cousin to which they had a son. Mary was never accepted by Scotland’s real rulers, the regents, and she was imprisoned in 1567. She was forced to abdicate and her son, James VI took over the title as King.

History generally views Mary, Queen of Scots as a decent woman who didn’t stand a chance of exercising power. In 1587, she was convicted of a trumped-up plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth I of England. Mary was beheaded for the “crime” and now is convincingly recreated in a 21st-Century image.

William Shakespeare may be the greatest writer the English language has ever known. The “Bard” invented or contrived over 1,700 unique words, phrases, cliques and sayings. Some are simple and familiar nouns like critic, bandit and lonely. Some are creative verbs like elbow, dwindle and swagger.

From Shakespeare’s birth in 1564 to his death in 1616, he produced 39 plays, 154 sonnets, 2 long narrative poems and uncountable verses. He’s the mind behind Macbeth, Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet. And Shakespeare wrote Othello, King Lear and A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Truly, William Shakespeare was a timeless talent.

However, some scholars doubt that Shakespeare produced all his attributed material. They also question what he really looked like as few Bard images exist. An engraving by Martin Droeshout is considered the most accurate Shakespeare portrait and it’s this piece that supports Face Lab’s CGI rendition.

Nero was the last Roman Emperor of the Judio-Claudian dynasty. He lived from 37 to 68 AD and died by suicide at the age of 31. Nero was a “Momma’s Boy” for his early years of rein, but turn-coated and had her murdered.

Tales of Emperor Nero’s instability abound. He seized Christians as slaves and had them burned more for cruel personal pleasure than serving public justice. Stories of Nero’s extravagance and tyranny finally caught up with the disturbed leader. The Romans revolted and rallied for Nero’s death.

During the Great Fire of Rome, Nero went to a rooftop and sang rather than pitching in with putting it out. Probably no one was more despised by nobles and commoners than Nero who took his own life. He left behind excellent sculptures and engravings that preserved his unquestionable likeness for eternity.

Meritamen means “beloved of the god Amun” in ancient Egyptian. She was the biological daughter and then wife of Ramesses the Great who ruled as Pharaoh from 1277 to 1213 BC. Meritamen was highly-influential in Ramesses II’s court, and many different depictions describe her appearance.

Egyptologists have identified Meritamen’s tomb and sarcophagus with inscriptions worshiping her. She’s also portrayed on numerous statues and drawn in detail on papyrus tributes. However, the only physical evidence of Meritamen is her skull and the remainder of her mummy is missing.

There is enough of Meritamen’s cranium and mandible to tell she had a sweet tooth. Her teeth showed advanced decay for her age. There was also enough information on  Meritamen from her skull, statues and drawings to generate a computer image of what was once apparently-attractive woman with exotically-braided hair.

King Henry IV was a nice guy as far as medieval kings go. Known as “Good King Henry” and “Henry the Great”, he reined England from 1399 to 1413 AD. Henry was 19 when he took over from his grandfather, King Edward III, after having his cousin King Richard II deposed.

Not everyone liked Henry, though. Cousin Richard came back to bite him through successive assassination attempts. History records 12 attempts to dethrone King Henry IV. After Richard died of starvation in jail, rebellions against Henry increased to the point where he fled to France.

Henry IV died under somewhat suspicious circumstances after clandestinely returning to England in 1413. He was well embalmed and was in good shape when exhumed in 1832 to verify his identity. Today, King Henry IV’s image is brought to life through computer generation.

Nicholas Copernicus was way ahead of his time in scientific disciplines. He lived from 1473 until 1543 during a time when most scholars thought the world was flat. Copernicus proved them wrong, but he didn’t have an easy go of it.

Nicholas Copernicus was a true Renaissance man who thought outside the box. In fact, Copernicus thought out the universe and first described the true nature of our sun-centered solar system. Today, we know Copernican Heliocentricism as a universal model from which our current understanding of the cosmos rests on.

Sadly, Copernicus and the Catholic Church didn’t see eye-to-eye. The papal institute made him renounce his blasphemous betrayal, and he publicly went along with it to save his skin. Nicholas Copernicus is now a role model of brilliance, but no one ever complimented his looks.

Johan Sebastian Bach was a German musical composer living between 1685 and 1750 AD. He’s best known for instrumental masterpieces like the Art of Fugue and vocal perfections such as the St. Matthew Passion. The 19th-century Bach Revival period recognizes the greatest western musical canon ever to live.

Bach was a child prodigy. He was born into a musical family and, by 11-years-old, Bach arranged Latin organ compositions for the church that set musical standards of today. He’s considered the epitome of mastering counterpoint and harmonic organization as well as larger vocal works like four-part chorales.

Johan Sebastian Bach died from eye surgery complications when he was 65. He was buried into obscurity but accidentally rediscovered during a church renovation. Bach’s skull, along with an authentic bust, gave the Face Lab crew strong support for generating his image in their computer.

George Washington was the first American president and a founding father of the United States. Washington lived between 1732 and 1799 during the time of colonial revolt and the Revolutionary War. He served as a general of the continental army and a patriot leader.

Following U.S. independence from the British crown, George Washington turned from military life and took up politics. He helped in drafting the constitution and implementing a strong government with fiscal responsibility set as a high priority. Legislators today could take lessons from George Washington.

George Washington is one of America’s most recognized faces. He’s on money, hung up in schools and used as a marketing symbol for integrity and independence. Here, Washington is recreated through computer generated imagery with details so clear that you can see the whites of his eyes and his five o’clock shadow.

The Lady of Cao might not be as famous as George Washington, but she’s definitely fascinating. This lady was once a Peruvian aristocrat. Now, she’s a perfectly preserved mummy with a brilliant new image thanks to computer generation.

Archaeologists unearthed the Lady of Cao in 2005 when they excavated ruins in Peru’s El Brujo region. She’s estimated to have died around 400 to 450 AD and was buried with artifacts suggesting she came from the upper class. She was also interred with a lower-class woman who researchers suggest may be a human slave sacrifice to help her in the afterlife.

The Lady of Cao was so well-intact that there’s little left for guesswork. Her physical appearance was recreated by the Face Lab team with help from computerized tomography (CT) scans. The Lady’s image is that of a remarkable woman adorned in a regal headdress who was probably in her twenties when she passed.

Saint Nicholas of Myra was a Christian bishop from the Greek maritime city in Asia Minor. His lifespan stretched from 270 to 342 AD during which time he was known for generousness, especially towards children. He’s also renowned for miracles which explains his other title as “Nicholas the Wonderworker”.

Besides being the patron saint for sailors and merchants, Saint Nicholas is also the prime patron of children. Nicholas is attributed to his legendary habit of leaving secret gifts for kids which led to the modern-day “Sinterklass” practice.

Saint Nicholas has been called by different names at different times. He evolved into Saint Nick and then Santa Claus. We best know the jolly old elf’s description from the western world’s Coca Cola commercial. Professor Wilkinson and her Face Lab people took a different view of the fat old man in the red suit, and they brought life to the dead by computer generating this image from an ancient fresco of the child-loving man called Saint Nicholas.

*   *   *

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS?

What is consciousness? What’s in you—a conscious and thinking entity—perceiving and processing information from a myriad of sources to form intelligent images in your mind? You’re consciously reading this piece, which I consciously put together to explore an area of existence that current science really doesn’t know much about, and I think you’re wondering—has anyone explained what being conscious really is?

Scientists seem to understand macro laws explaining the origin of the universe and greater physical parameters governing the cosmos. Recent science advancements into quantum mechanics shed better light on micro laws ruling sub-atomic behavior. But nowhere has anyone seemed to clearly explain what consciousness truly is and why we—as conscious beings—observe all this.

The question of consciousness intrigues me. So much so, that I’ve read, thought and watched a lot on the subject. From what I’ve picked up, one of today’s leading thinkers about consciousness is Dr. David Chalmers. He’s a likable guy with a curious mind and he’s a Professor of Philosophy at New York University. Dr. Chalmers did a fascinating TED Talk called How Do You Explain Consciousness? Here’s the transcript and link to his thought-evoking talk.

Note to readers: It’s worthwhile to listen to Dr. Chalmers TED Talk while reading this transcript.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness?language=en

Right now, you have a movie playing inside your head. It’s an amazing multi-track movie. It has 3D vision and surround-sound for what you’re seeing and hearing right now, but that’s just the start of it. Your movie has smell and taste and touch. It has a sense of your body, pain, hunger and orgasms. It has emotions, anger and happiness. It has memories like scenes from your childhood playing before you.

And, it has this constant voiceover narrative in your stream of conscious thinking. At the heart of this movie is you. You’re experiencing all this directly. This movie is your stream of consciousness—the subject of experience of the mind and the world.

Consciousness is one of the fundamental facts of human existence. Each of us is conscious. We all have our own inner movie. That’s you and you and you. There’s nothing we know about more directly. At least, I know about my consciousness directly. I can’t be certain that you guys are conscious.

Consciousness also is what makes life worth living. If we weren’t conscious, nothing in our lives would have meaning or value. But at the same time, it’s the most mysterious phenomenon in the universe. 

Why are we conscious? Why do we have these inner movies? Why aren’t we just robots who process all this input, produce all that output, without experiencing the inner movie at all? Right now, nobody knows the answers to those questions. I’m going to suggest that to integrate consciousness into science then some radical ideas may be needed.

Some people say a science of consciousness is impossible. Science, by its nature, is objective. Consciousness, by its nature, is subjective. So there can never be a science of consciousness.

For much of the 20th century, that view held sway. Psychologists studied behavior objectively. Neuroscientists studied the brain objectively. And nobody even mentioned consciousness. Even 30 years ago, when TED got started, there was very little scientific work on consciousness.

Now, about 20 years ago, all that began to change. Neuroscientists like Francis Crick and physicists like Roger Penrose said, “Now is the time for science to attack consciousness.” And since then, there’s been a real explosion, a flowering of scientific work on consciousness.

All this work has been wonderful. It’s been great. But it also has some fundamental limitations so far. The centerpiece of the science of consciousness in recent years has been the search for correlations—correlations between certain areas of the brain and certain states of consciousness.

We saw some of this kind of work from Nancy Kanwisher and the wonderful work she presented just a few minutes ago. Now we understand much better, for example, the kinds of brain areas that go along with the conscious experience of seeing faces or of feeling pain or of feeling happy.

But this is still a science of correlations. It’s not a science of explanations. We know that these brain areas go along with certain kinds of conscious experience, but we don’t know why they do. I like to put this by saying that this kind of work from neuroscience is answering some of the questions we want answered about consciousness, the questions about what certain brain areas do and what they correlate with.

But, in a certain sense, those are the easy problems. No knock on the neuroscientists. There are no truly easy problems with consciousness. But it doesn’t address the real mystery at the core of this subject. Why is it that all that physical processing in a brain should be accompanied by consciousness at all? Why is there this inner subjective movie? Right now, we don’t really have a bead on that.

And you might say, let’s just give neuroscience a few years. It’ll turn out to be another emergent phenomenon like traffic jams, like hurricanes, like life, and we’ll figure it out. The classical cases of emergence are all cases of emergent behavior, how a traffic jam behaves, how a hurricane functions, how a living organism reproduces and adapts and metabolizes, all questions about objective functioning.

You could apply that to the human brain in explaining some of the behaviors and the functions of the human brain as emergent phenomena. How we walk. How we talk. How we play chess—all these questions about behavior.

But when it comes to consciousness, questions about behavior are among the easy problems. When it comes to the hard problem, that’s the question of why is it that all this behavior is accompanied by subjective experience? And here, the standard paradigm of emergence—even the standard paradigms of neuroscience—don’t really, so far, have that much to say.

Now, I’m a scientific materialist at heart. I want a scientific theory of consciousness that works, and for a long time, I banged my head against the wall looking for a theory of consciousness in purely physical terms that would work. But I eventually came to the conclusion that that just didn’t work for systematic reasons.

It’s a long story, but the core idea is just that what you get from purely reductionist explanations in physical terms, in brain-based terms, is stories about the functioning of a system, its structure, its dynamics, the behavior it produces, great for solving the easy problems—how we behave, how we function but when it comes to subjective experience—why does all this feel like something from the inside?

That’s something fundamentally new, and it’s always a further question. So I think we’re at a kind of impasse here. We’ve got this wonderful great chain of explanation that we’re used to it—where physics explains chemistry, chemistry explains biology, biology explains parts of psychology. But consciousness doesn’t seem to fit into this picture.

On the one hand, it’s a datum that we’re conscious. On the other hand, we don’t know how to accommodate it into our scientific view of the world. So I think consciousness right now is a kind of anomaly, one that we need to integrate into our view of the world, but we don’t yet see how. Faced with an anomaly like this, radical ideas may be needed, and I think that we may need one or two ideas that initially seem crazy before we can come to grips with consciousness scientifically.

Now, there are a few candidates for what those crazy ideas might be. My friend Dan Dennett has one. His crazy idea is that there is no hard problem of consciousness. The whole idea of the inner subjective movie involves a kind of illusion or confusion.

Actually, all we’ve got to do is explain the objective functions, the behaviors of the brain, and then we’ve explained everything that needs to be explained. Well, I say, more power to him. That’s the kind of radical idea that we need to explore if you want to have a purely reductionist brain-based theory of consciousness.

At the same time, for me and for many other people, that view is a bit too close to simply denying the datum of consciousness to be satisfactory. So I go in a different direction. In the time remaining, I want to explore two crazy ideas that I think may have some promise.

The first crazy idea is that consciousness is fundamental. Physicists sometimes take some aspects of the universe as fundamental building blocks: space and time and mass. They postulate fundamental laws governing them, like the laws of gravity or of quantum mechanics. These fundamental properties and laws aren’t explained in terms of anything more basic. Rather, they’re taken as primitive, and you build up the world from there.

Now sometimes, the list of fundamentals expands. In the 19th century, Maxwell figured out that you can’t explain electromagnetic phenomena in terms of the existing fundamentals—space, time, mass, Newton’s laws—so he postulated fundamental laws of electromagnetism and postulated electric charge as a fundamental element that those laws govern. I think that’s the situation we’re in with consciousness.

If you can’t explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals— space, time, mass, charge—then as a matter of logic, you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature. This doesn’t mean you suddenly can’t do science with it. This opens up the way for you to do science with it.

What we then need is to study the fundamental laws governing consciousness, the laws that connect consciousness to other fundamentals: space, time, mass, physical processes. Physicists sometimes say that we want fundamental laws so simple that we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. Well, I think something like that is the situation we’re in with consciousness. We want to find fundamental laws so simple we could write them on the front of a t-shirt. We don’t know what those laws are yet, but that’s what we’re after.

The second crazy idea is that consciousness might be universal. Every system might have some degree of consciousness. This view is sometimes called panpsychism—pan for all, psych for mind. The view holds that every system is conscious, not just humans, dogs, mice, flies, but even Rob Knight’s microbes, elementary particles. Even a photon has some degree of consciousness.

The idea is not that photons are intelligent or thinking. It’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, “Aww, I’m always buzzing around near the speed of light. I never get to slow down and smell the roses.” No, it’s not like that. But the thought is maybe photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling, some primitive precursor to consciousness.

This may sound a bit kooky to you. I mean, why would anyone think such a crazy thing? Some motivation comes from the first crazy idea, that consciousness is fundamental. If it’s fundamental, like space and time and mass, it’s natural to suppose that it might be universal too, the way they are. It’s also worth noting that although the idea seems counterintuitive to us, it’s much less counterintuitive to people from different cultures, where the human mind is seen as much more continuous with nature.

A deeper motivation comes from the idea that perhaps the most simple and powerful way to find fundamental laws connecting consciousness to physical processing is to link consciousness to information. Wherever there’s information processing, there’s consciousness. Complex information processing, like in a human, takes complex consciousness. Simple information processing takes simple consciousness.

A really exciting thing is in recent years a neuroscientist, Giulio Tononi, has taken this kind of theory and developed it rigorously with a mathematical theory. He has a mathematical measure of information integration which he calls phi, measuring the amount of information integrated in a system. And he supposes that phi goes along with consciousness.

So in a human brain with an incredibly large amount of information integration it requires a high degree of phi—a whole lot of consciousness. In a mouse with a medium degree of information integration, it still requires a pretty significant, pretty serious amount of consciousness. But as you go down to worms, microbes, particles, the amount of phi falls off. The amount of information integration falls off, but it’s still non-zero.

On Tononi’s theory, there’s still going to be a non-zero degree of consciousness. In effect, he’s proposing a fundamental law of consciousness: high phi, high consciousness. Now, I don’t know if this theory is right, but it’s actually perhaps the leading theory right now in the science of consciousness, and it’s been used to integrate a whole range of scientific data. It does have a nice property that it is, in fact, simple enough that you can write it on the front of a tee-shirt.

Another final motivation is that panpsychism might help us to integrate consciousness into the physical world. Physicists and philosophers have often observed that physics is curiously abstract. It describes the structure of reality using a bunch of equations, but it doesn’t tell us about the reality that underlies it. As Stephen Hawking put it, what puts the fire into the equations?

Well, on the panpsychist view, you can leave the equations of physics as they are, but you can take them to be describing the flux of consciousness. That’s what physics really is ultimately doing—describing the flux of consciousness. On this view, it’s consciousness that puts the fire into the equations. On that view, consciousness doesn’t dangle outside the physical world as some kind of extra. It’s there right at its heart.

I think the panpsychist view has the potential to transfigure our relationship to nature, and it may have some pretty serious social and ethical consequences. Some of these may be counterintuitive. I used to think I shouldn’t eat anything which is conscious, so therefore I should be vegetarian. Now, if you’re a panpsychist and you take that view, you’re going to go very hungry. So I think when you think about it, this tends to transfigure your views, whereas what matters for ethical purposes and moral considerations—not so much the fact of consciousness—but the degree and the complexity of consciousness.

It’s also natural to ask about consciousness in other systems, like computers. What about the artificially intelligent system in the movie Her, Samantha? Is she conscious? Well, if you take the informational, panpsychist view, she certainly has complicated information processing and integration, so the answer is very likely yes, she is conscious. If that’s right, it raises pretty serious ethical issues about both the ethics of developing intelligent computer systems and the ethics of turning them off.

Finally, you might ask about the consciousness of whole groups, the planet. Does Canada have its own consciousness? Or at a more local level, does an integrated group like the audience at a TED conference—are we right now having a collective TED consciousness, an inner movie for this collective TED group which is distinct from the inner movies of each of our parts? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I think it’s at least one worth taking seriously.

Okay, so this panpsychist vision, it is a radical one, and I don’t know that it’s correct. I’m actually more confident about the first crazy idea—that consciousness is fundamental—than about the second one—that it’s universal. I mean, the view raises any number of questions and has any number of challenges, like how do those little bits of consciousness add up to the kind of complex consciousness we know and love.

If we can answer those questions, then I think we’re going to be well on our way to a serious theory of consciousness. If not, well, this is the hardest problem perhaps in science and philosophy. We can’t expect to solve it overnight. But I do think we’re going to figure it out eventually. Understanding consciousness is a real key, I think, both to understanding the universe and to understanding ourselves.

It may just take the right crazy idea.

GILBERT PAUL JORDAN—THE “BOOZING BARBER” SERIAL KILLER

A5The term “serial killer” makes us think of hi-profile monsters like Ted Bundy, who beat and strangled his victims, or the Zodiac Killer, who shot most with a gun. There’s Clifford Olson who used a hammer. Jack The Ripper who liked his knife. And Willie Pickton who drugged his ladies, cut them apart with an electric Sawzall, then fed their pieces to his pigs.

By nature, serial killers follow a specific Modus Operandi—an M.O. peculiar to their wares. Some strangle, some shoot, some smash, and some slash. But the most unique and unsuspecting method of serial killing I’ve heard of came from Gilbert Paul Jordan, aka the “Boozing Barber”, who got his victims comatose drunk then finished them off by pouring straight vodka down their throats. He intentionally alcohol-poisoned at least nine women—possibly dozens more.

A1

Gilbert Jordan was a monster from the 1980’s operating in the Down Town East Side of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Today, the skid row DTES of Vancouver is still one of the most dangerous, crime and drug-ridden inner cities of the world. In the DTES, the most popular drug of choice is still alcohol—ethanol as it’s known in the coroner and toxicologist world.

A6Jordan was born in 1931 and started a crime career in his twenties by kidnapping and raping a five-year-old aboriginal girl. He beat the charges and went on to commit more sexual assaults including abducting a woman from a mental institute and raping her, too. Jordan bounced in and out of jail. He continued to prey on the helpless and downtrodden, especially alcoholic women from the First Nations culture. Gilbert Jordan, himself, became a raging alcoholic and consumed over fifty ounces of vodka per day.

Jordan learned barbering skills while in prison. Between jail sentences, he set up a barber shop on East Hastings Street in the heart of Vancouver’s DTES, being a regular fixture in the seedy bar scene. He blended easily and was not at all intimidating—short, stocky, balding, with thick glasses.

Jordan was a well-known mark for buying vulnerable aboriginal women drinks and he’d take them from the bars to his barber shop or a room which he kept in a derelict hotel. Here they’d party till they passed out. It’s estimated that hundreds of women binge drank with Jordan during his spree from 1980 to 1987.

Overdose deaths in the DTES were common.

A7The majority were intravenous drug users, many having a lethal toxin level amplified with mixed use of ethanol. It’s still that way today. But overdose deaths from ethanol consumption alone are rare. Usually, heavy drinkers reach a blood-ethanol limit where they pass out—long before ethanol effects shut down their central nervous system. The few deaths from ethanol alone are almost always caused by an unconscious victim aspirating on vomit—not from reaching a lethal blood-ethanol-content. A BEC of 0.35% (35mg of ethanol per 100 milliliters of blood) is considered the start of the lethal range. Note that 0.08% is the standard for drunk driving.

During Jordan’s run, there were increasingly suspicious amounts of aboriginal women deaths from shockingly high BEC. They included:

  1. Ivy Rose — 0.51
  2. Mary Johnson — 0.44
  3. Barbara Paul — 0.47
  4. Mary Johns — 0.76
  5. Patricia Thomas — 0.51
  6. Patricia Andrew — 0.79
  7. Vera Harry — 0.49
  8. Vanessa Buckner — 0.50
  9. Edna Slade — 0.55

A8When Edna Slade was found dead in Gilbert Jordan’s hotel room, and it became apparent Jordan was the common denominator in many similar deaths, Vancouver Police put Jordan under surveillance. From October 12th to November 26th, 1987, VPD observed Jordan “search out native Indian women in the skid row area of Vancouver and take them back to his hotel room for binge-drinking”.

VPD officers listened from outside Jordan’s door and recorded him saying phrases like “Have a drink. Down the hatch, baby. Twenty bucks if you drink it right down. See if you’re a real woman. Finish that drink. Down the hatch, hurry, right down. You need another drink. I’ll give you fifty bucks if you can take it right down. I’ll give you ten, twenty, fifty dollars. Whatever you want. Come on, I want to see you get it all down. Get it right down.

On four occasions during the surveillance, police intervened and remove the comatose victims to the hospital.

A9Gilbert Jordan was convicted of manslaughter in the death of Vanessa Buckner. The prosecution used similar fact evidence from the other eight identified deaths. He was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. This was reduced to nine years on appeal and he served only six. When Jordan was paroled in 1994, he went right back to the business of stalking alcoholic aboriginal women. He was being watched by VPD and immediately sent back to prison for parole violation and an additional sexual assault. He served out his sentenced but was released in 2000, again returning to a life of chronic alcoholism and serial predation.

Gilbert Jordan, the Boozing Barber, died of the disease called alcoholism in 2006.

*   *   *

Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, has been used by humans for thousands of years for its relaxation effect of euphoria and lowering social inhibitions. Drinking ethanol is widely accepted around the western world and is an enormous economic force.

A12Ethanol abuse is a contributing factor in untold tragedies.

Despite ethanol’s popularity as a social interactor, the medical pathophysiology considers any amount of BEC to be clinically poisonous. Ethanol is metabolized by the liver at a rate of about 50 ml (1.7 fluid ounce) per 90 minutes. That’s like two beers or one 9-ounce glass of wine every hour and a half. Drink more than you can absorb and you’ll get drunk. Wake up still drunk and you’re hung-over.

A13The acute effects of an ethanol overdose vary according to many factors. The body mass and tolerance to the drug are primary as is the rate of consumption. Ultimately, acute ethanol poisoning depresses the body’s central nervous system, causing the respiratory system to shut down and the victim asphyxiates.

These are the average symptomatic presentations of ethanol poisoning in relation to BEC:

  • 02 – 0.07% — Intoxication and euphoria
  • 08 – 0.19% — Ataxia (loss of body control ), poor judgment, labile mood
  • 20 – 0.29% — Advanced ataxia, extremely poor judgment, nausea
  • 30 – 0.35% — Stage 1 anesthesia, memory collapse
  • 35 – 0.39% — Comatose
  • 40 +             — Respiratory failure, sudden death

A14In my time as a police officerthen as a coronerI attended lots of deaths where ethanol was a contributing factor. Very few were acute ethanol poisoning deaths, though. Many were mixed drug overdoses, especially mixing booze with prescription pills. Then there were suffocating on puke cases, suicides while pissed, fatal motor vehicle crashes driven by drunks, and violent homicides done during ethanol-fueled anger and inebriation.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not slamming the social use of ethanol. I’ve been around the booze scene my whole life and still enjoy decent wine and good scotch, although I’ve never had a taste for beer.

A15I grew up in a socio-economic environment where rampant alcoholism was common. It was accepted. Grant RobertsonI worked with Grant in my teensGrant was proud of his breathalyzer certificate proving he was caught behind the wheel at a 0.44% BEC. True story. I saw the paper. Grant was a die-hard—a chronic alcoholic with forty years of practice. I don’t think Grant ever went below two-five.

As a young cop, I brought an old guy in for a blow. I couldn’t tell if he was drunk but he’d caused a minor car accident and slightly smelled of liquor. Legally, I had to demand a breathalyzer test. He pushed the needle to a 0.36% and I’ll never forget the breathalyzer operator’s remark “You’re no stranger to alcohol, are you?

People have different tolerances to ethanol. And different physiological responses.

A16I’ve worked with cops who were drunk on duty, seen judges half-cut on the bench, had my pilot pass out before time to depart, and I’ve woken in places unknown. I’ve had countless laughs, spent way too much money on time pissed away, and have stories from nights in the bars.

But I still can’t get clipped in my buddy Dave’s chair without thinking of Gilbert Paul Jordan, the “Boozing Barber” Serial Killer of the Down Town East Side of Vancouver.