Make the Most

Twenty years ago, I was a supporter of Greenpeace. I made monthly contributions by standing order. I wasn't 100% convinced about the need to rid the world of nuclear power but what I did admire was the stauch belief that the world was at risk from humanity.

Unfortunately, Greenpeace got it wrong. Nuclear power may be dangerous to humans, but nothing like as dangerous as carbon-based power. It's not really their fault. In 1990, no one had woken up to the possibility of global warming so Greenpeace focussed on what appeared to be the greatest threat. Even now, we're still working with incomplete - and in some cases possibly flawed - science, but now only people with their heads buried in the sand or with a vested interest in the staus quo will deny that there is a real probability that the world is at risk from CO2 emissions.

Yes Nuclear power still has risks, but I just can't see how any of the renewables are going to be a big part of the energy equation. The Finacial Times published a fascinating supplement this week which is available online as "The Future of Energy"

According to the managing director of EDF's nuclear business in Britain, we will all have to subsidise his efforts to the tune of 227.UKP per family per year to build the nuclear reactors we need to retain some energy independence over the next 50 years. Now I have to say that I'd rather subsidise a British company to build nuclear reactors in Britain but that's not really an option. We sold out the rights to own our own power generation years ago. That being the case, we just need to bite the bullet and pay. Never mind who builds the reactors as long as we are cleaning up our energy generation and better still that they are on our soil. That way we do have the ultimate sanction should push come to shove.

Finally, let us not imagine that this is the only problem we need to be looking at. Let's not repeat the mistakes of the past. We're still pumping out toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the small, earthly vessel we live in. There WILL be consequences, so we need organisations like Greenpeace raising our awareness and hopefully, they will look at the big picture and use all the best science available! All I need to do now is decide whether to restart contributions...

Today looks like it might be the best windsurfing opportunity I'll get before the winter chill chases me from the sea. The trouble is, I feel so out-of-practice and so unfit, it's making me nervous. Otherphil isn't decided whether he's going to come and give it a go or just take pictures of me crashing!

At the moment, the reports suggests it's gusting from Force 6 to Force 8 with the wind dead onshore which is all a bit much. Smallest sail I have is 4.5m when a 4m would be more appropriate. According to the forecast, things should ease up once the wind veers soon after midday. If that's so, it should be great.

The gnarly conditions set me in mind of "Breath", the book by Tim Winton that I've just finished. If you are a surfer or love the sea or even if you just like good books, this is definately worth a read. The descriptions of the 'Old Smokey', the big wave are deeply evocative.

[Follow up: 07/11/09]

Conditions proved less perfeect than hoped. Otherphil and I arrived at Climping by which time the wind had dropped a lot. Too much in fact. I rigged up my 4.5m sail and wasn't out long before coming in to switch up to the 5.3m. This proved to be a good move because as the sun sank low over the horizon, the wind filled out just enough to keep me powered up for loads of carve gybes. All right, none of them would have won prizes (well perhaps one) but it was fantastic being out there in the surging forces of nature, skittering across the wave tops.

Now I need more! COME ON WIND! I shall attempt the loop this year.

Mine apparently needs a television. I couldn't decide whether to get excited about the prospect of buying a new sleek flat-screen TV for the bedroom or appalled.

"Surely the bedroom should be for lingerie, leather and unending lust?" I asked my beloved.
"It's the TV or nothing!" quoth she. [Paraphrased somewhat... but the gist is there.]

My choice of book was met with a mixed reaction last night. The general concensus was "a good holiday read". Although I agree that Christobel Kent's crime novel set in Florence was lightweight, I found it evocative in that I found myself transported to that city, so much so that I'd like to go.

Anyway, I would not have wanted to read a heavyweight crime novel. It's not my genre and so many of them look very dark and unpleasant.

We dream because our brains are inference engines. The brain has evolved over millions of years to use electrical signals to make sense of the world. A good part of that involves the game of "what happens next", a bit like a survival version of Spot the Football photo competitions. "Does the sabre-toothed tiger pounce at me?", "Is that fish swimming towards my net?", "If I leap the stream, will I make the other bank?" So the whole time the signals are coming in and establishing key facts about the "what is", the brain is already working on the "what will be".

If you want proof of this, you need only look to 'deja-vu'. You've seen the scene because your brain was several nano-seconds ahead of you and constructed it in your head already and your conscious mind only just processed it. For another example, just think of humour. Much of our humour is based on the unexpected. The joke lines up your brain for one outcome and then presents you unexpectedly with an entirely different one. The bigger the gap between the expected and outcome, the bigger the surprise and the laugh. Your inference engine got it wrong. An even better example is the tennis player, moving with little conscious thought to intersect the arc of the ball in flight, tennis racket perfectly angled to dampen the power from the opponents shot so as to drop the ball just over the net and out of reach of her opponent. That is the massive power of the inference engine at work, calculating speed, vectors, wind, spin and guessing at the opponent's likely actions!

So what's going on when you dream? Well, in deep sleep, there's not a great deal of external feed into the brain. Everything's damped right down. But when you're in shallower sleep, signals start to creep through and neurons start firing. The brain's response? Build plausible scenarios or as they should perhaps be called "pre-realities". Hey presto, you dream. "What do those signals coming in from my hand mean? Oooh, don't know! Perhaps a crocodile is eating it? Perhaps you're extracting honey from a tree trunk?"

Why are dreams so crazy? Because your conscious mind isn't entirely engaged, the brain (mostly) doesn't have control over where these dreams go. Furthermore, rational processing in the neo-cortex isn't on-hand to discount absurd scenarios. And the reason so many of them are absurd is because the signals coming in aren't strong, so the inference engine isn't getting good direction. The weaker the signals from sensory apparatus, the more hazy the predictions become and the more zany the 'pre-reality' can become.

Some people report being able to control how their dream evolves and that's entirely consistent with this theory. This is because as you gradually wake, your conscious mind begins to be able to process and discard scenarios. Still though, the input signals are weak, so there's not much competition from sensory input so the dreamer can pick and choose from the possible outcomes presented.

It might be a while before my theory is accepted as mainstream, especially as so many people want to see a positive theory for why we dream. My explanation suggests it's merely a by-product of the processes we need while we're awake which isn't very WOW, but it IS nice and simple.