Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

I saw Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast in Dymocks, skimmed through a few pages, and concluded that I had stumbled upon quite an interesting topic. So I borrowed the book from the library. It is subtitled "The Evolutionary Origins of Belief", and if you've ever wondered why people believe what they believe, this book attempts to provide some of the answers. Why is belief so important? Because all of our behaviours are influenced by what we believe. Furthermore, the beliefs of people in positions of power dictate how society operates. It is up to these people to ensure that their beliefs are conducive to a well-functioning society. To quote Harry Kroto, "We can't afford to have power concentrated in the hands of people influenced by mystical rather than rational philosophies."

The author, Lewis Wolpert, is a British developmental biologist. He is also one of the UK's foremost science writers. In this book he looks at how beliefs originated, and puts forward a theory that we naturally try to find a causal explanation for things, even when there is insufficient information to do so. Why do we do this? It's all to do with how our brains evolved in relation to our environment. Here's a story to illustrate the point:

Back when man was living the hunter-gatherer life, uncertainty was everywhere. He could be taking a leisurely stroll one minute, then be pounced upon by a sabre-toothed tiger the next. He needed some way to exert greater control over his destiny. One day, he was out hunting near his cave, when suddenly there was a rock slide. He leapt back, but he wasn't fast enough, and one of the rocks landed on his foot. He fell to the ground, howling in pain.

In the branches of a nearby tree, a peacefully dozing sabre-toothed tiger was suddenly jolted awake. Growling angrily, the tiger jumped out of the tree and charged towards the injured caveman. The caveman had to think fast. He couldn't run away. He saw the rocks all around him, remembered the pain they could cause, and instinctively grabbed one in each hand. As the beast swiped its paw at his face, he brought the rocks together and crushed the paw between them. The tiger roared in pain and limped off into the jungle.

After the caveman's fear had subsided, he realised that the rocks he was holding were extremely valuable. If he were ever in such a situation again, he would need those rocks. But first, he would have to make them easier to carry. Tool making was born. The hassle of the hunting process was greatly reduced. Humans had an adaptive advantage and the process of evolution moved forward. More patterns in nature were found - as well as causing pain, two rocks could cause sparks to appear if struck together at the right angle. When these sparks landed on dry twigs, man became owner of a powerful tool with which to control the environment - fire.

Man now had time to ponder in front of a warm fire. This led to questions. He questioned why things happened - what caused the sun to rise each morning, what caused his fellow tribe members to become ill, what happened after death. Using a combination of experience and intuition, man began to devise answers. Causal beliefs were born.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a causal belief is the belief that something will happen as a direct result of another thing. For example, I believe that when I strike a match, I will see a flame appear at its tip. Of course, this is a rational causal belief, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a flame will indeed appear. However, when the evidence is missing, causal beliefs still arise, and people stubbornly hold on to them, no matter how irrational they may be. Wolpert convincingly argues that there is an evolutionary basis for this behaviour, and after reading this book, I find that I agree with him.

Looking at human history, we can ascertain that many beliefs evolved to help with survival. This is especially evident when we look at the many irrational beliefs people have about the subject of health. In many tribes around the world, illness is still seen as the result of failing to please one of the many omnipresent supernatural beings. In Western society, vitamins are often perceived as providing a defence against a variety of illnesses. However, studies have been done showing that swallowing a sugar pill is often just as effective. This is because the person believes that they are swallowing a vitamin, and has the expectation that they will be cured. This is known as the placebo effect. Strangely enough, the placebo effect also comes into force when a person prays. If the person believes that praying to God can cure an ailment, a positive effect can indeed be achieved. The person believes it will work, so it works.

Frame of mind is also important for those who have a belief in the paranormal. When sceptics observe a psychic, they believe that they will be exposed to some sort of trickery, whereas believers in psychic powers expect a genuine display, and hope to make contact with another world. These expectations do affect the observer's experience. Their later recall of what happened is greatly influenced by their beliefs - the believers recall psychic phenomena even when the demonstration has been unsuccessful.

Societies around the world have developed different ways of thinking and consequently have different beliefs. Wolpert states: "Compared to Europe and the USA, China and other East Asian societies remain committed to the idea of the individual as less important than the society." And further on: "Americans perceive the cause of murder as mental instability, whereas Chinese see it as reflecting society's failure."

Every society around the world has a religious tradition of some sort. We make gods and religious systems for the same reason that we make tools. Religion is a tool for the soul. Wolpert is aware that many people need religion. It gives their lives purpose and meaning, and the comfort of knowing that there is a controlling force. He acknowledges that there is evidence that religious activities reduce psychological stress and promote greater well-being and optimism. He also mentions the suggestion that some have raised that a full apprehension of the human condition would lead to insanity, and that paranormal beliefs can help with this, particularly the belief that we live in some domain larger and more permanent than mere everyday existence.

To me this seems to suggest that everyday existence is not enough for religious people. I can accept this, but not the fact that the concept of a higher power or an afterlife is touted as something that everyone needs to have faith in. Faith should be a personal thing. A person may intuitively feel that there is an entity greater than themself at work in the universe, but trying to explain this to others is futile, because other people cannot experience it.

Although Wolpert examines where belief came from, he refrains from attacking it. He remains very level-headed and unbiased, and simply says that people should look at the evidence for their beliefs rather than accept them without question. Of course, for many people this is easier said than done, since beliefs are formed using different principles and methods than the critical thinking approach inherent to science. Our belief engine prefers quick decisions, is bad with numbers, and sees patterns where there is only randomness. It is too often influenced by authority and it has a liking for mysticism. Perhaps Wolpert refrains from attacking belief because he accepts that causal thinking is a result of human evolution.

Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, revels in pointing out the logical flaws inherent in religious belief, and even goes so far as to claim that churchgoers are morally worse than those who stay away. This is actually quite an interesting point, as there is some truth to it. C.S. Lewis conceded the possibility in his popular theological work, Mere Christianity. The Gospel is generally preached to the weak and poor, such as when missionaries go to Africa to spread the word. Because of who is targeted when spreading the word, troubled souls may well be drawn disproportionately to the Church.

According to Lewis, the appropriate contrast should not, therefore, be between the behaviour of churchgoers and nongoers, but between the behaviour of people before and after they find religion. Dawkins's opinion that churchgoers are morally inferior to the rest of us is obviously logically unsound; one could use the same logic to deduce that medicine is bad because those sitting in a doctor's office are on average sicker than the rest of us. Dawkins also thinks that humanity as a whole would have been better off without religion. Many people who gain fulfilment from their religion would disagree, but in any case, the answer is unknowable. Our history has been shaped by Christian traditions. And the way our brains are wired means that if religion wasn't available, people would find something else to fill the God-shaped hole in their consciousness. Like celebrities. Or football.

Interestingly, Wolpert mentions that tools and causal beliefs may be the basis of the human fascination with ball games. "All involve focusing on how a ball will behave when struck or thrown, and thus involve a basic understanding of the physical forces involved." He asserts that all sports may reflect an innate interest in such processes, especially for those no longer making or using tools. Physical causality is indeed an innate attribute in humans. Wolpert observes that by eighteen months, babies will use a "tool" like a rake to pull a toy towards them that was out of reach. Chimpanzees find this difficult.

He goes on to say: "Babies one year old already point at things, which is something no ape, young or adult, ever does. Babies do this to get a toy before they can talk. It means that they know that what they see, some other person can also see." According to Wolpert, by the age of four, children have a well-developed theory of mind, and recognise that others have an image of the world. They know that beliefs are different from real objects, and know that beliefs determine to a large extent how people behave.

There are interesting anecdotes all throughout the book, and this is one thing I really liked about it. Here is an example: "A test for whether children have a theory of mind, that is, whether they can understand what others are thinking, involves showing them a small tube with a very characteristic pattern that normally contains Smarties: the well-known sweets. A child, when asked what such a tube contains, will say that it contains Smarties. The child is then shown that it does in fact contain pencils and is then asked what their best friend would think was in the tube. Children with a theory of mind will reply that the friend would think it contained Smarties. Autistic children cannot give the correct reply, and will suggest pencils."

There is another interesting story about a tribe which has a belief that fosters cooperation. The Chewung in Malaya distribute food according to their belief in "punen". Punen is misfortune caused by the failure to satisfy an urgent need. To avoid punen, the group ensures that everyone's hunger is satisfied when sharing food.

In chapter seven, Wolpert looks at ways people can create false beliefs, using processes such as confabulation, delusion, and hypnosis. He also mentions schizophrenia and the hallucinatory effects of certain drugs. Especially interesting were the experiments showing that beliefs can be created in a hypnotised person's mind. A person's level of suggestibility and their willingness to accept what an authority figure tells them are the key factors in this being accomplished successfully.

There are a number of neurological illnesses that result in delusional beliefs, one being the Capgras delusion. Wolpert explains: "When the patient sees someone he knows very well, a wife or parent, or child, he claims that the person looks like, for example, his spouse, but she is not really his wife and may be an alien imposter. In other respects the patient may be largely normal. One explanation is that in seeing his wife, he recognises her, but that the normal emotional response is absent and thus it could not be his wife, and so he believes it must be an alien pretending to be her." Pretty strange.

In case you're wondering, the title of the book is a direct quotation from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland:

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Carroll makes his White Queen proud of believing impossible things - a feature of many passionate believers. In my opinion, irrationality is not a good way to live life. However, as Wolpert states: "Beliefs, once acquired, have a kind of inertia in that there is a preference to alter them as little as possible. There is a tendency to reject evidence or ideas that are inconsistent with current beliefs, particularly if they undermine central beliefs; this is known as the principle of conservatism." As Francis Bacon once said, "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."

I find it difficult to believe in anything that I can't know for sure. For example, I can see no evidence for the existence of a soul. Personally, I think the idea of a soul is unnecessary. It certainly doesn't affect our lives here on Earth. I think a plausible explanation is that the idea of a soul came about as a way for people to deal with the fear of death. The body dies, but the soul lives on. Many people would find this comforting.

I have a few criticisms of the book. At times I found it a little unfocused, and there are also a number of poorly constructed sentences. In the chapter on religion, Wolpert admits that his evidence is often weak. Often he prefers to provide more trivia rather than attempt to argue his own perspective. Wolpert classifies himself as an atheist reductionist materialist, and seems to be puzzled by belief, but accepts it nonetheless. As I see it, his main message, which appears on page 22, is this: "The freedom to have beliefs is very important, but it carries with it the obligation to carefully examine the evidence for them."

I'll conclude with a quote from Sam Harris: "The only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts."

Dreams and Reality

A couple of nights ago I had an unusual dream. I was in my bedroom in my childhood home, when all of a sudden this praying mantis showed up. It was a large praying mantis, about the size of a dog. I threw a handful of bugs towards it, and it gobbled them up. It then moved nearer to me, and I could see that spikes were growing on its head. I didn't feel scared at all. And that's all I remember.

I only pay attention to my dreams when there's something memorable about them. When I woke up, I remembered the praying mantis, and I wanted to find out what it meant. Apparently, seeing a praying mantis in your dream suggests that you are in a destructive relationship. So I had a think through my relationships and came to the conclusion that the only one that could possibly fit the bill is my relationship with my job.

It just so happens that during my working day before I had the dream, my legs were feeling stiff from lack of movement. I had a strong desire to go for a run just to get the blood flowing. Sitting at my desk in the office for hours on end can't be good for my body. So, was my subconscious telling me that my job will bring destruction of a physical nature, or was it something deeper?

If we're talking job satisfaction, there are certainly aspects of my job that I do not enjoy. Yesterday was particularly unenjoyable. I spent the entire day calling prospects and rattling off the same spiel. Hardly anyone was interested. All in all, it was an empty day. However, last week I felt good after having convinced a prospect to buy. I made a sale. I tooted the horn. My boss recognised my value to the company. I guess you could say that I have a love/hate relationship with my job. Some days it seems challenging, other days it seems like a complete waste of time.

I was reading something the other day about what you need to get out of your job in order to feel passionate about it. You see, passion at work is not just about the product or service you are selling. It depends on two key aspects: whether you are doing something that has meaning for you (which can come from either the product involved or the process) and whether or not you are making progress. If you're able to find yourself a job that meets these criteria, your level of engagement, fulfilment, and ultimately, contribution, will rise exponentially.

Pan's Labyrinth

Recently I went to the movies and saw Pan's Labyrinth. One of the reasons I chose to see this movie was because I read it had been nominated for six Oscars. I also looked at the reviews beforehand and saw that it was universally endorsed by the critics. The synopsis described it as an enchanting, yet dark fairytale. So I was really looking forward to seeing it and was expecting a fantasy tale along the lines of Spirited Away or The Chronicles of Narnia.

Pan's Labyrinth was not at all like those movies. This is not a bad thing, but I feel that it has been marketed in a somewhat misleading fashion. At first I thought it might be a movie that children would go and see, but I quickly changed my mind after a particularly brutal and graphic scene. The movie has a fair amount of violence, and I'm talking violence that is very realistic and unstylised.

The story is set during the Spanish Civil War. It centres around a young girl named Ofelia who has just moved with her pregnant mother to live with her new stepfather. The stepfather is a particularly nasty army commander, and most of the movie's violence happens when he is onscreen. This aspect of the movie contrasts sharply with the mystical world of fauns and fairies that Ofelia frequently visits.

Ofelia learns that she is the human incarnation of an ancient princess, and to return to her rightful spot on the throne, she must complete three tasks before the next full moon. I became excited when this aspect of the story was introduced, and was anticipating a wildly imaginative fantasy adventure. When Ofelia began her first task by entering a hollowed-out old tree and making her way through a dark muddy tunnel, I was reminded of Alice in Wonderland, and I said to myself, "Yeah! This is the stuff!"

However, after Ofelia's completion of the task, we were back to reality and the story returned to its focus on the battle between the Spanish soldiers and the rebels. This side of the story actually receives more attention than the above-mentioned fantastical tale. It has elements of espionage and torture, and is quite intriguing. But I still found myself a little disappointed, because I thought I was getting a story set in a fantasy world. War movies generally don't appeal to me.

Yet this was a memorable movie - the character development is good, and the addition of fairytale-like aspects gave it quite an unusual feel. There's one very creepy scene where Ofelia enters a hall that is home to a hideous creature. The scene had a foreboding atmosphere, similar to what one might expect from a David Lynch movie.

I don't want to give away the ending, suffice to say that the two stories merged in quite a meaningful way. I did want to see more of the fantasy world, but I think this may be because I had been led to believe that the movie was something that it wasn't. The viewer should know beforehand that this is a war drama/suspense film, and that the fantasy elements are secondary. I'll finish off by providing my interpretation of the deeper meaning of the film, which won't make a lot of sense unless you've seen it: Pan's Labyrinth is an exploration of the human need for escapism during difficult times.

The Brain Test

The reading I've been doing lately about our growing understanding of how the brain works prompted me to do the Tickle.com Brain Test. The questions themselves were quite interesting, as there were no wrong answers - the option you choose will depend on what feels most natural. The test aims to find out if you are dominant in the left or right hemisphere of your brain, and will also determine if you are a visual or auditory learner. I was not surprised by my lack of hemispherical dominance. Here's what the report said:

Paul, you are balanced-brained, which means that you rely equally on both the left and right hemispheres of your brain.

You are able to draw on the strengths of both the right and left hemispheres depending on context. Typically, people with balanced right and left hemispheres are very comfortable with switching between local and global perspectives - that is, paying attention to both small details and larger issues when the circumstance indicates. That means they can identify elements that make up an image or situation and also attend to the larger, more holistic pattern or unified whole that those details comprise.

You are able to capitalize on the left hemisphere's skills in verbal communication as well on the right hemisphere's focus on patterns and association making. This rare combination makes you a very creative and flexible thinker.

Depending on the situation, you may rely on one hemisphere or the other. Some situations may lend themselves to using your right brain's creativity and flexibility while other situations may call for a more structured approach as dictated by your left brain.

My test results also showed that I am a visual learner. Apparently, Stephen Hawking is also a balanced-brained, visually learning person. As he is said to be the smartest man alive, I am in good company. The test report also has some interesting information about brain physiology:

Your brain is made up of many different parts and is responsible for many different functions of your body. Because of this, it has adapted to be a very specialized organ. There are parts that control what you taste, what you feel, how you learn, how you think, and how you reason. All of this is so no one part gets overtaxed or worn out, and also so you can perform more than one task at a time.

Your brain stem controls your reflexes and involuntary functions such as breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, and digestion. Your cerebellum helps coordinate movement. Your hypothalamus controls body temperature and feeds behaviors like eating, drinking, aggression, and physical pleasure. Your cerebrum, or cerebral cortex, translates information transmitted from all of your sensing organs. It helps start motor functions, it controls emotions, and it is the center for all thinking, reasoning, learning, and memory. In short, it analyzes all information you feed to it.

The cerebral cortex is divided into two hemispheres. The left hemisphere is responsible for speech, controls the right side of your body, and serves as your logic and reasoning center. The right hemisphere governs your creativity and your athleticism among other things. In the past, people oversimplified this relationship.

People used to say if you were logical, you were definitely left-brained, and if you were creative, you were definitely right-brained. This is no longer the case. New research indicates that there's more flexibility when it comes to our gray matter. And if you know where your strengths and weaknesses lie, you can train your brain to become more organized, creative, or better able to process all sorts of information. Here's some general information on the differences between the left and right hemispheres.

Left hemisphere
There's more to your left hemisphere than analytical strength. Your left hemisphere is involved in linear analytical processes, including processing word meanings and symbols, interpreting facts, and much of your language production and reception.

When you look at a photograph or a painting, your left hemisphere is the one that orients on the logical, linear, and literal action in the picture, such as the storyline or the characters in the picture, as opposed to the more abstract or conceptual elements. Furthermore, when you hear a word, it is the left side that decodes that word's meaning, as opposed to something that word might remind you of. Overall, the left hemisphere is heavily involved in more reductionistic processes, such as breaking a picture into its constituent parts, as opposed to seeing it as a single and unified whole.

Right hemisphere
Similarly, the right hemisphere is not just the seat of intuition. Perhaps it is more intuitively oriented than the left, but in most cases it also identifies patterns and performs spatial analyses. This hemisphere tends to process information in non-linear ways, looking at the whole instead of all the parts that make it up.

When you look at a photograph or painting and notice the overall pattern or abstract contour of the image, it is your right hemisphere that is being activated. As another example, the right side looks at a spiral and sees a unified spiral pattern. Whereas the left side of your brain would see the series of lines making up the spiral and would interpret it in a holistic manner.

If you'd like to take the test, click here.

Brain Science

The breakthroughs that neuroscientists are making into understanding the human brain are quite fascinating. Just recently, I read about a type of brain scanning technology that can look deep inside a person's brain and read their intentions before they act. The scan is done using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which uses the rate of blood flow to measure neural activity. Once patterns of activity are identified, they are translated into meaningful thoughts using specially-designed software, and a person's intentions can then be revealed before they have been acted upon.

Sound familiar? Steven Spielberg's 2002 movie, Minority Report, dealt with the kinds of problems that may arise with widespread use of such an advanced technology. Neuroscientists are aware of the serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future, and the recent rapid advances have forced those in the field to set up their own neuroethics society.

Barbara Sahakian, a professor of neuro-psychology at Cambridge University in England, said: "Do we want to become a 'Minority Report' society where we're preventing crimes that might not happen? For some of these techniques, it's just a matter of time. It is just another new technology that society has to come to terms with and use for the good, but we should discuss and debate it now because what we don't want is for it to leak into use in court willy nilly without people having thought about the consequences."

Professor Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and director of the Medical Research Council, said: "We shouldn't go overboard about the power of these techniques at the moment, but what you can be absolutely sure of is that these will continue to roll out and we will have more and more ability to probe people's intentions, minds, background thoughts, hopes and emotions."

Neuroscience is still far from developing a scanner that could easily read random thoughts. Currently, the scanning technique can read simple intentions, attitudes or emotional states. The computer learns unique patterns of brain activity or signatures that correspond to different thoughts. It then scans the brain to look for these signatures and predicts what the person is thinking. During a study, the researchers asked volunteers to decide whether to add or subtract two numbers they were later shown on a screen. The volunteers' brain imaging revealed signatures of activity in a marble-sized part of the brain called the medial prefrontal cortex that changed depending on their intention to add the numbers or subtract them. The software was able to predict the volunteers' intentions with 70% accuracy.

This score is obviously better than random guessing, yet it shows that the system still has a way to go before it is able to genuinely deduce what patterns are associated with which thoughts.

John-Dylan Haynes, the neuroscientist who led the study, has estimated that research into unspoken intentions could yield simple applications within the next 5 to 10 years, such as reading a person's attitude to a company during a job interview or testing consumer preferences through "neuromarketing".

There are already companies trying to use brain scanners to build a more accurate lie detector. Several recent studies have also used brain imaging to identify tell-tale activity linked to violent behaviour and racial prejudice. Lie detection is more complex, says Haynes, because it can violate mental privacy but also prove innocence. In some cases, refusing to use it to uphold a right to mental privacy could end up denying an accused person's right to self-defence.

Those most excited about this technology will be disabled people, as it has the potential to improve their quality of life. Being able to read thoughts as they arise in a person's mind could lead to computers that allow people to operate email and the internet using thought alone, and write with word processors that can predict which word or sentence you want to type. The technology is also expected to lead to improvements in thought-controlled wheelchairs and artificial limbs that respond when a person imagines moving.

As for using brain scanners to eavesdrop on people's thoughts for the purpose of judging whether they are likely to commit crimes, a crime is only a crime once it's been committed. If governments of the world really want to stop potential law-breakers, they'll need to rewrite the laws so that thinking about crimes is a crime. And then of course they'll have to create a new division in the police force, known as the "Thought Police". Need I say more?

Round the Bays 2007

On Sunday I competed in the annual Round the Bays fun run. This was the first time I had done the run. The distance of 8.4 km seemed shorter than what I had been expecting, and I passed the finish line with a good time. I wasn't planning to run continuously all the way, but the number of people around me forced me to change my mind. During my training runs, I was running for 4 minutes and then walking for 25 seconds. I think this is a good way to minimise fatigue, and also gives the legs a chance to rest, thereby reducing the likelihood of injury.

But during the Round the Bays, I felt like I had to run all the way - I didn't want to be overtaken, and I didn't want to lose momentum. I made a decision to follow the words of Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you." The only time I slowed down was to grab a cup of water from the stands at the side of the road. I overtook a lot of my fellow competitors, dodging and weaving my way past kids, mothers with prams, a DHL float, a girl in a Wonder Woman outfit...

Considering the distance I was from the start line when the race began, I think I made up a lot of ground. The advantage the people right at the front have over those further back is the biggest downside of this race, but I guess it can't be helped. When the cannon goes off, the people at the front start moving immediately, and run a distance of 8.4 km. However, the people further back have to slowly edge their way through the crowd for several minutes before even getting to the start line. So most of the participants travel further than 8.4 km, and are also not able to move when the cannon sounds, because everyone is tightly packed together like sardines.

The race was due to start at 9:30 am. I arrived at about 9:15, and jostled my way through the crowd so that I got to a position that was probably one-third of the way back. But then there were no more gaps to move through, so I had to stay put. When the cannon sounded at 9:33, none of the people around me moved for about 30 seconds. When we did start moving, we could only slowly shuffle forward until the crowd thinned. Four minutes and 32 seconds later I got to the start line. So I decided to time my run from this point. I ran it in 39 minutes and 21 seconds, but my official time was 43 minutes and 53 seconds.

The guy who won finished in 26 mins. Very impressive. I calculated that he would have been running one km every 3 minutes and 6 seconds. I was doing one km every 4 minutes and 41 seconds. The fastest woman said this was her third year doing the race. In the previous two years she didn't do so well, because she was far back in the crowd. This year she arrived an hour and a half before start time, just so she could be at the front. I wonder if it is worth it, having to wait around all that time just so a better time can be achieved. I guess if you are competitive and really want to win, then it is.

So that is what I will do in next year's Round the Bays. I will make sure I arrive early. That way I will get a good headstart on everyone else. And I will aim to improve my time of 39:21. I think I could probably get it down to around 35 minutes. To do this, I have to develop a faster stride rate. A faster stride rate means a better time. The quicker steps will also cause my body to stay closer to the ground, thereby reducing the impact of bounce on my ankles and feet.

Researchers have determined that most elite distance runners have a stride rate of about 180 strides per minute. To check my stride rate, what I'm going to do is go out for a normal run, get into my natural running rhythm, and then time myself for 60 seconds as I count my strides. The simple way to do this is to count each time my right foot hits the ground, then multiply by two. The best way to boost stride rate is to focus on rhythm, stay relaxed, and try to glide over the ground.

I think that being able to chart my progress like this is a great way to keep up my motivation to run. Seeing improvement is a good feeling. To quote Friedrich Nietzsche, "What is good? All that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is bad? All that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeing that power is growing, that resistance is overcome."

It's not just the feeling of overcoming resistance that makes runners a happy bunch of people. Hundreds of research studies have been done on exercise-induced neurochemicals, which have been proven to produce feelings of elation, inner harmony, and peacefulness. The "runner's high", which was once believed to be caused by endorphins, has more recently been attributed to endocannabinoids - substances released with exercise that produce an effect similar to a marijuana high. Also contributing to this state of euphoria is epinephrine (adrenaline) - the surge that comes with getting excited for a race, which also has the power to boost confidence and kill pain. Add to that serotonin and dopamine, two other feel-good brain chemicals that are well-known for their ability to reduce depression, and you've got a physiological cocktail that can turn a workout into happy hour.

We all have these neurochemicals flowing through us. Some people are able to tap into them and use them on demand, because their brains have developed a high level of neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's ability to change its structure and function by expanding or strengthening certain neural circuits while shrinking or weakening others. "Neurotransmitters released during exercise can contribute to neuroplasticity," says neuroscientist Ronald Duman, Ph.D., a professor at Yale University's School of Medicine. "Neuroplasticity within the brain's motivation and reward pathways may play a role in the perception of experiences, including exercise."

Simply put, the way you view exercise determines how motivated you will be to do it. Athletes can think and behave like better athletes by using positive thinking to reshape their brains. Once you begin to think positively about exercise, you just need to concentrate on doing it - and ensuring that it remains a pleasurable experience. Entering a state of flow when exercising - where your brain checks out and your body takes over - is the key to making the experience pleasurable, because it allows you to lose yourself in the moment - time flies, and you are totally engaged.

These days, I'm making a lot of time for exercise. During my lunch break, I make sure I go for a walk. I do Swiss ball exercises every day, which are good for flexibility. Some days I use a rebounder for 15 minutes or so, as jumping is a good exercise for cardio health. I run regularly. This has had a positive effect on my endurance levels. And lastly, when I get the time I also work out on my Total Gym 1000. The 45 minute workout is great for building strength. In conclusion, exercise is good and I will definitely keep at it.

Real Life as Art

Art often imitates life. There are artists who take this phrase literally and create paintings that look so realistic that they are mistaken for photographs. Some people are not fond of this style of painting, known as photorealism. They feel that it lacks an expression of the artist's inner feelings and experiences. For me, however, paintings that look like photographs are greatly impressive. I like the way they represent life as it is and have no underlying sense of abstraction. I am able to focus on the simple aesthetic beauty of the work and appreciate how much skill must be needed to accurately replicate a photograph using nothing but brushes and paint.

Just over a week ago, I attended a friend's art exhibition. Her work was also an example of art imitating life. But it was not a collection of paintings. It was a little room behind a glass screen, with a desk and chair, biology notes on the wall, a couple of pot plants, a geometric shape made of pencil leads, and a carefully balanced stack of books and CDs. There were a number of other objects strewn arbitrarily around the room. It was this lack of order that prevented me from truly appreciating what this artwork had to offer.

I have now interpreted the work as a metaphor for mental clutter. Additionally, I would like to think that the work represents the transformation of clutter into clarity. Let me explain. Life may seem random and patternless at times, yet we are still able to exert a certain amount of control over it. We create meaning for ourselves, often by way of creative expression. The revelations that come to us as a result of this creativity help us to fashion order from the chaos. During the exhibition, I found out that the aim of my friend's artwork was to display a workspace where creativity takes place. But I missed the deeper meaning behind the randomly-placed objects in the workspace. I now realise that they were there to represent the jumbled mess of thoughts that are swirling around one's head as he/she tries to complete a project of any kind.

However, displaying this intellectually-appealing theme by way of a visual representation is somewhat of a catch-22 situation. I don't know how others feel about this, but I find beauty in patterns and structures. I don't find beauty in haphazard disorder. Visual art is all about appreciating a creation for its form rather than function. The workspace had a function, and that was to exist as a place where chaos is transformed into order. The form through which this function was communicated satisfied my brain, but not my eyes.

Obviously, this opinion won't hold true for everyone. As much as I want to say that artists these days seem unconcerned with creating a work of beauty, it just isn't true. Beauty is subjective. For some art appreciators, a piece is beautiful if it requires interpretation of the emotions the artist felt while working on his/her creation. I'm reminded of the episode of The Simpsons where Homer attempted to build a barbecue pit in his backyard, and ended up creating a deformed mess of metal with an umbrella sticking out one side.

When Homer tries to dump the mangled barbecue, it is somehow brought to the attention of an art dealer in Springfield. She comes to the door of the Simpson home and wants to buy it. Homer tells her, "This isn't art. It's a barbecue that pushed me over the edge." The art dealer, rendered as a sophisticated academic, says, "Art isn't just pretty pictures. It's an expression of raw human emotion. In your case, rage."

Homer becomes an instant art-world celebrity. However, his follow-up artistic attempts are met with disapproval. His initial piece was created spontaneously - perhaps his receptiveness to the path laid by circumstance aligned the stars in his favour. But further success proves elusive. He finds out, as many artists have, that special and evocative artworks are difficult to create. The creation process seems to be all about instincts and reactions, and requires that the artist is in a particularly alert state of mind.

Even if the right factors converge, artists have no way of knowing how the art enthusiasts will react to their work. The more experimental the genre, the greater the uncertainty. Still, artists are always willing to share their creations. And the inspiration their art brings helps other people to inject a little bit of meaning into their own lives.