Coffee is not Caffeine: When Researchers Make Dumb Equations

This one comes out of Duke University (2008, January 28), a world-renown institution at which one would think researchers would have gotten the memo that, especially in the world of biology, context matters.

The article, Cutting Caffeine May Help Control Diabetes, from ScienceDaily, makes the now common logical and biological error of equating the chemical caffeine with foods that contain caffeine.

Anyone who has experienced the difference between drinking coffee and taking caffeine pills knows what I'm talking about.

It doesn't take a scientist to know that somehow the body sees a big difference between downing a couple of "No-Doz" pills and drinking even the "equivalent" amount of caffeine.

That's because, in the body, the caffeine in coffee apparently is modulated by the literally thousands---yes, thousands---of compounds in complex relationships with each other and with chemicals produced by the body that is nowhere near equatable with the consumption of pure caffeine.

The Duke University study did the following:

Participants took capsules containing caffeine equal to about four cups of coffee on one day and then identical capsules that contained a placebo on another day. Everyone had the same nutrition drink for breakfast, but were free to eat whatever they liked for lunch and dinner.

The researchers found that when the participants consumed caffeine, their average daily sugar levels went up 8 per cent. Caffeine also exaggerated the rise in glucose after meals: increasing by 9 percent after breakfast, 15 percent after lunch and 26 per cent after dinner.

Please.

Whether caffeine, in its purified, pill form, does or does not effect blood glucose levels and, thus, diabetes, is not my point. What I want to point out is that it's not helpful in the least---and, in fact, it seems kind of dumb---that researchers ignore the incredibly complex nature of a food that delivers a chemical, caffeine, in a biologically meaningful context and blithely assume that pure caffeine, not modulated by that incredibly complex food, effects the body the same way.

Coffee is NOT caffeine. To wit:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2007, August 2). Coffee Drinking Related To Reduced Risk Of Liver Cancer. ScienceDaily.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (2007, May 25). Drinking Four Or More Cups Of Coffee A Day May Help Prevent Gout. ScienceDaily.

American Academy Of Neurology (2000, November 14). Study Ties Coffee Use With Lowered Parkinson's Risk. ScienceDaily.

JAMA and Archives Journals (2006, June 28). Coffee Intake Linked To Lower Diabetes Risk. ScienceDaily.

Harvard School Of Public Health (2004, January 6). Long-Term Coffee Consumption Significantly Reduces Type 2 Diabetes Risk. ScienceDaily.

One message is: if you're worred about blood sugar levels, stay away from caffeine pills!

Quantum Physics and "Them Dry Bones"

One principle in quantum physics sets out that everything in the universe is, at bottom, information and that information is never lost. Information may be cut up, scrambled, blurred or whatever, but it is not "lost."

IOW, in the example of a building that is demolished by an explosion, theoretically all the information that comprised the building still exists and, if it could be gathered, the building---unlike Humpty Dumpty---could put back to together again.

This point became the crux of the debate on Stephen Hawking's "The Information Paradox."

But here's a point on a different note.

This principle of quantum physics---that information is never lost---is a principle also evidenced in man's nonscientific conclusions.

To see this, we have to look to conclusions / principles humans have reached in developing various belief systems.

In one major belief system, Christianity, there is a story of a valley of "dry bones" which gather their former information and reform into living human bodies. This is very similar to the example given by quantum physicists (the demolished building being reassembled).

In the context of a belief system, the occurence (or future occurence) of this event is what we commonly call a "leap of faith." However, logically the first step in a "leap of faith" must involve a measure of acceptance of the conclusion that such an event is possible.

Although here the belief system contains no observable or articuable basis for the conclusion that human bodies, being made of information, theoretically can be reassembled, arguably the possibility of such an event is proven by quantum physics.

If information is never lost, then the information in the valley of dry bones was not lost and, theoretically, could be reassembled. This is true whether the story was intended literally or as an example of a discerned principle about the universe.

Thus, in developing their nonscientific explanations of the universe, the ancients reached the same conclusion as quantum physics. Huh?

I am fascinated with the times that scientific knowledge (based on observation and extrapolations from observation) and unscientific knowledge (based on intuition, imagination and (some claim) some type of revelation) correlate.

Philosophically, when scientific knowledge posits a theory that, fundamentally, is the same as that posited by a myth, legend, belief system developed apart from and without the help of science, is that corroboration?

What does it say about our ability to discover facts / truth? Does it indicate that there are multiple valid ways to discover facts / truth?

If a theoretical conclusion is posited by both science and nonscience, is it more likely to be valid? Or does this fact speak more to something basic about how humans think?

If a theoretical conclusion is not posited by both science and nonscience, does that fact indicate anything about the validity of the scientific or nonscientific theory or conclusion? Is corroboration a one-way street?

How did the ancients discover and accept such a principle of quantum physics?

Swarmbots and Human Social Organization

Recently I saw two programs on the Science channel with information about swarmbots. In both programs, scientists were studying ants as a way to discover principles to apply to the collective functioning of swarmbots.

Ants constantly accomplish huge collective tasks, such as organizing their nests, yet they do so without any real means of communication, with no observable plan or rigidly assigned functions, with no way of perceiving the collective result of their individual actions, and with no leader.

A group of scientists in England have succeeded in making a "brood" of swarmbots that can accomplish a collective task under similar circumstances. The swarmbots are able to sort frisbees, collecting the white discs into a certain area or pattern and collecting the black discs into a certain area or pattern. (In addition to the above constraints, this task is accomplished without any onboard vision mechanism.)

How?

Interestingly, the scientists theorized that individual ants labor under a certain set of "rules," the result of which is the accomplishment of a huge collective task (and, I noticed, incidentally the effectuation of a regularized social order within the nest).

So the scientists mulled what type of rules might lead to the collective accomplishment of sorting frisbees. They came up with four and programmed the swarmbots accordingly.

The first rule was if you're moving forward and nothing stops you, keep on going.

The second rule was if you run into a large immovable object, such as a wall or another bot, make a random turn and then keep going (See Rule # 1).

The third and fourth rules had to do with picking up the frisbees. They were something like, if you pick up a white frisbee, take it a certain distance and drop it. And similarly do something objectively indeterminate if you pick up a black frisbee.

The swarmbots were then set to do their swarming according to these rules. After many hours, the frisbees were sorted and in their "correct" places. Moreover, this result was achieved even if not all the swarmbots functioned correctly or obeyed the rules. So long as the majority of bots did what they were supposed to do, the nest was as it should be and order reigned.

It occurred to me that this is a perfect illustration of how human social order is achieved and maintained. The majority of individuals obey a small set of simple rules, even though they cannot necessarily perceive how their individual act contributes to the collective result. Even if a percentage of individuals malfunction, or refuse to obey the rules, order still results so long as most individuals function in accordance with the rules.

Yes, there are people who break down or who insist upon banging their head against a dead-end. But so long as most people who hit an obstacle will turn around and try a different direction, and keep trying a different direction until they can move forward unimpeded, society as whole will move toward accomplishment of collective goals and social order.

It would be interesting to study the effect of majority obedience to a simple rule such as saying "please" when asking for something and saying "thank you" when receiving something. It's intuitive, in a gushy sort of way, that this would make social life better. But the ant-society-derived view of rules may explain this process in actuality.

And it may explain why "small" violations of what might be called the rules of our social contract---for example, rude talk and violent gestures in public---seemingly lead inexorably to some measure of breakdown in the larger social order.

IOW, it's one thing to observe that when most people obey the "rules" (whether the rule be one of law or one of custom or one of common decency and consideration in how to treat another human being), society is a more pleasant place for everyone. It's quite another to explain the actual mechanism by which this increased social order occurs.

Ants provide much insight for those researching robots. But I think they are a very apt subject for those studying human sociology as well.