1 . Science begins with mystery. Arguably, the two greatest mysteries are the universe and awareness-the vast world out there and the powerful world within. Scientists attracted by one can be called to study the other, led by the thought that these mysteries are connected. Science writer George Musser’s book Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation (方程) reviews their progress: Can physics unlock the mystery of awareness? Does awareness form the basis of fundamental physics?

The result is an ambitious but ultimately disappointing tour, filled with breathless encounters with well-known scientists. Representative of the cast is MIT’s Max Tegmark, who tells Musser, “If you look at the problems that were still difficult to answer in fundamental physics, pretty much all of them trace back to awareness.”

The book shows how physicists are contributing to understanding the mind, continuing a long history of physicists exploring other fields. Musser integrates physics with neuroscience, economies, mathematics and more. Yet a key source of local knowledge is obviously absent — psychology. An early example: Musser rightly applauds physicists’ contributions to artificial neural networks but is overly trustful of their implications, declaring that “ChatGPT” is already starting to demonstrate a generalized intelligence like that of humans. Interviewing more psychologists could have exposed the considerable gap remaining.

What about awareness itself? Why are some states associated with felt experience, such as the pain of a headache and the sight of a sunset, but others not? Musser’s focus is integrated information theory(IIT). IIT begins with five self-evident principles of awareness: awareness exists, and it is structured, specific, unified, and definite. It then concludes assumptions concerning the causal structure of awareness systems, identifying awareness with integrated information. Finally, IIT offers a mathematical measure of this quantity: an equation for awareness.

However, despite its enthusiasts, IIT has significant problems. Its working basis is unfounded, and serious doubts surround its testability and definability. Of course, a theory of awareness must detail when, why, and to what degree we are aware of ourselves. Here, psychology’s absence is most obvious. Over the last century, psychological research has revealed countless phenomena of awareness, from models that alter awareness to methods that stimulate unawareness; from extraordinary disorders of awareness to careful studies of metacognition (元认知).

Although questionable, such phenomena are the data that any scientific theory of awareness must account for. Yet these phenomena and ideas are almost nowhere in the book. Of course, psychology has not solved awareness, but one cannot hope to explain awareness without confronting these data.

Awareness is genuinely mysterious. So is fundamental physics. But hoping that physics can solve awareness while excluding other approaches is only a recipe for more mystery, not less.

3 . Studies about sleep and employee behavior typically focus on various activities that occur within the body during sleep, and their impact on daytime cognition. New research adopts a different method.     1    

The researchers conducted three studies involving thousands of dreams recalled by employees. The first study asked participants upon awakening to rate the degree of awe (敬畏) and wonder brought by their dreams and to write down their biggest work problem.     2     Another one they answered was whether they envisioned anything good arising from the difficult work situation—a measure of resilience, which meant the ability to become strong and happy again after toughness. Those who found positive meaning in dreams reported higher levels of awe.     3    

In the second study, participants who recalled a dream likewise reported its positive or negative meaning, and then wrote descriptions of the dream and what they took to be its causes and meaning. After work they answered questions about their resilience and progress on the day’s tasks.     4     The third study tracked similar measures among employees who participated daily for two weeks, and it looked at how naturally curious each person was. It found similar results about awe and showed that it raised resilience and productivity far more in the naturally curious.

    5     Awe can help people deal more effectively with challenges and progress toward goals. “Our research reveals how awe can be brought about at a time that has a critical impact on daily work outcomes,” the researchers write. “Employees could use dream journals and simple practices to ‘guide’ their nighttime visions, thus increasing their odds of having meaningful, awe-inspiring dreams.”

4 .

It is perhaps easy to accept the statement that the universe is expanding. It is just some strange physics indicating that, as time goes on, galaxies (星系) get further away from each other just like two cars racing away from each other.

I personally don’t like it and prefer the balloon analogy. In this situation, there are dots all over a balloon. When we blow it up in real life, the dots would increase in size. In this analogy, let’s assume they don’t. What we are interested in is how the distance between the dots on the surface of the balloon grows as we put more air into it.

The balloon analogy relies somewhat on our geometric sensibilities which refer to our sense of shapes and how they change over time. At its core, what we are trying to develop a sense for is how we measure distances. This concept is also the fundamental goal of general relativity, Einstein’s theory of gravity. In general relativity, the most important piece of information is what we call the metric, an equation that describes how distances are measured, and therefore also tells us about the shape space-time is taking.

The whole idea that space-time is expanding was first noticed as a mathematical consequence of general relativity by Georges Lemaitre in 1927, when he solved Einstein’s equation and found a solution for the metric showing that distances grow with time. His work provided a theoretical explanation：the standard for measuring cosmic (宇宙的) distance was itself changing with time.

What is delightful is that it means we can quite reasonably say that universe’s expansion is a gravitational effect. I enjoy this because it is so deeply counterintuitive to our usual understanding of gravity, which teaches us that it is a force that always draws things together. But in this case where gravity is a geometric effect, we are offered a broader range of gravitational possibilities.

It is worth noting that the geometric explanation of general relativity hasn’t been universally popular. The late physicist Steven Weinberg wrote that the geometric explanation of the theory of gravitation has been reduced to a mere analogy, but is otherwise not very useful. Another challenge with the balloon analogy and our reliance on geometric explanation is to explain why gravity seems to pull things together in many situations, while universe is expanding. This difference is resolved by acknowledging that local gravitational effects due to massive objects dominate over large-scale expansion effects, leading to the formation of structures like stars, galaxies and, eventually us.

In fact, the analogy where universe is only expanding and this is the only gravitational effect at play is a very idealized situation where matter was initially spread out perfectly evenly across the universe.

5 . When I was nine, my best friend nearly choked to death on a gobstopper, a type of hard candy. After several attempts, she coughed up the candy. I haven’t had a gobstopper since and I have carried with me a fear of seeing that scene again. Sadly, as I discovered this week, lightning can strike twice.

I was getting off a tube train in London when I noticed a woman coughing. I slowed down, watching her carefully. I had learned that coughing is rarely a sign that something is terribly wrong. Suddenly, the woman stopped coughing, her eyes widened and she bent over.

When I went over to ask if she was OK, she looked up at me, panicked, and pointed to her back. I started hitting her back and screaming for help. Despite having watched a few videos, I was terrified that I wouldn’t be able to correctly perform the Heimlich, a first-aid method, and that I would have to walk away with guilt for her death. But it was just the two of us, alone at an underground station; if I didn’t try to help, no one would. Thankfully, much like with my friend, after a few sharp hits, whatever had been stuck in her throat came loose. She thanked me, almost embarrassed, and walked up to the lift. I followed behind her, shaking, with tears in my eyes.

By the time we reached the lift, we had both calmed down. She took my hands and thanked me again, before disappearing. She might have been fine without my hurried hits on her back—I may not have actually saved her life—but at least she knew that someone, a stranger whom she would never see again, cared.

This experience also taught me about the bystander effect, where people assume others assumed to be available during an emergency, direct help from others is far less likely to will help, leading to inaction. I get it: the fear of making things worse, especially if you have no medical training, is real. Research suggests that when a “medically competent” person is assumed to be available during an emergency, direct help from others is far less likely to occur. Sometimes, though, regardless of who else could be nearby, it may be useful to get involved. So it was with the coughing woman on the tube.

6 . Do you want to boost your ATAR, a rank which indicates the overall achievements of all Year 12 students in Australia, and get a preview of university life? When you join the Deakin Accelerate Program, you’ll get a head start by completing two first-year university units while you’re still a high school student.

How Deakin Accelerate Program works

You’ll study two first-year university units through the program. If you choose to study and experience university life on campus, you’ll attend classes and conferences during the day. Or if studying online is more accessible for you, complete the program online in your free time at school or after hours when it suits you.

No matter how you choose to study, you’ll benefit from our online learning platform, which allows you to access classes, workshops, resources and more. Whether you’ re using your desktop, tablet or mobile, you’ll have access to course content all year round and get answers in real time.

After successfully completing your Accelerate units, you’ll gain credits which you’ can put towards a related Deakin university course. Plus, there is no charge for that.

Apply to the Deakin Accelerate Program if you’re:

·a high achiever with above-average Year 11 results;

·looking for an extra challenge in high school;

·a self-starter who can work independently;

·keen to make a head start on your university degree.

To be qualified for the program, you must:

·be completing Year 12 in 2024;

·meet the high school subject requirement;

·attain a minimum average grade of 65% across your subjects.

For more information about the Deakin Accelerate Program, you can read our FAQs or get in touch using our online inquiry form.

Submit an inquiry

8 . Being sensitive means that you are observant, careful, and thoughtful. It can also mean you sometimes overinterpret or overreact to perceived criticism or judgment. If you tend to be a highly sensitive person, you are more likely to misread signals from others, sense social threats, and struggle to adapt to new circumstances.     1    

The power of insensitivity can be interpreted as “sluggish (迟钝的) power” .    2     For example, those working on complex research projects with “sluggish power” persist with focus and determination in the face of challenges such as tight deadlines and limited resources. Their resilience facilitates effective problem-solving, ensuring the successful completion of tasks despite obstacles.

    3     That is one of the important reasons why insensitivity allows a person to better survive and adapt in a competitive environment. Knowing oneself is difficult, but knowing oneself correctly is undoubtedly an excellent ability — a trait shared by many successful people, who all clearly know where their strengths are, what they can do, what they want, and what direction to go.

Practicing insensitivity involves several key strategies. Firstly, be assertive. Express our needs and opinions positively and with confidence. Secondly, adopt a forward-looking mindset.     4     Additionally, detach from external influences. Avoid excessive concern over others’ opinions and speculation on others’ thoughts. Lastly, manage relationships. Recognize our personal responsibilities while respecting others’ boundaries. Don’t interfere with other people’s subjects and don’t let others interfere with ours either.

    5     Once you become a bit “blunt” and slow down the pace, you will feel more comfortable.

9 . We are a social animal. Indeed, it is our sociality — such as the ability to make sense of each other, to communicate, to work cooperatively and, finally, to create culture — that marks us off from other animal species.

But then why are we everywhere striving to increase our isolation and limit our contact with others? As musician David Byrn e argues in an essay published last month, it is a striking fact about the new technologies that have so come to shape our lives, that they have precisely this effect: they limit our need for human contact. Online shopping? Check. Automated checkout? Check. Ride hail apps? Check.

Efficiency is the key. We purchase efficiency by limiting the human aspect, known as “autonomous operation”. This is perhaps even more pronounced with new technologies on the horizon. Take the MOOC, the teacher-less virtual classroom. As Byrn e notes, this is meant to deliver the values of a learning environment without, well, without the environment — you get to stay at home — no teacher, but also, no fellow students.

Byrne isn’t claiming we are consciously choosing to isolate ourselves. We shop online because it is convenient. The absence of contact with others is a side-effect. Maybe even an unavoidable one, as one of the things that makes online shopping so easy is precisely the absence of contact with other people.

But Bryne’s thought is that whatever our intention, the tendency of our tech to isolate us may be a feature, not a bug. His hypothesis is that we actually, at some level, crave (渴望) the increased isolation and we are actually making technologies to satisfy impulses that, in some way, go beyond or against our social nature. But I wonder, is this really new?

Even if we are social by nature, and do everything we can to embed ourselves socially, the need to find ways to be alone is, well, nothing new. It’s also striking that the very activities that risk separating us — in the old days, books, newspapers, TV; nowadays, the latest apps also connect us. We read about each other. What we read gives us information to share with each other.

I am well aware of the data that shows the more time you spend on social media, the sadder and more isolated and envious you feel of others. But how novel is the isolating effect of social media? Being there reminds me a lot of what it was like to be social in high school — you have a vivid sense of your status and your standing in relation to others, and you have to deal with that.

This may be isolating, sure. But it’s the isolating face of the social lives we’ve always had. It is isolating because of the ways technology brings us into real contact with others, not because it removes that contact.

I wonder whether more isolation is a real option, after all.

10 . The idea that aging reduces adults’ ability to imagine, a common theme in children’s literature, is contradicted by psychological research. While children are often portrayed as more imaginative, research indicates that adults not only keep this ability but sometimes surpass children in imaginative thinking.

Children are frequently celebrated for boundless imagination. Yet, research reveals that their make-believe games often center around realistic scenarios, such as cooking and cleaning, as demonstrated in a 2020 study published in Journal of Cognition and Development. Another study, lasting for four decades, also suggests that children are not naturally more imaginative than adults; their limitations result from a lack of knowledge and expertise to effectively use their imaginative capacity as adults.

Imagination may have evolved for considering alternatives to reality, but we use it most naturally to explore close alternatives, like preparing a different meal, rather than far alternatives, like riding on clouds. When we use imagination to envision far alternatives — to innovate or invent — we’re not digging into an inborn appreciation of the extraordinary; we’re using a tool designed to explore the ordinary. When considering alternatives to reality, we fix our attention on possibilities that are physically reasonable, statistically probable, socially conventional and morally permissible. When told about possibilities that violate such regularities, we usually deny they could happen. Generally speaking, our ideas about what could happen are firmly rooted in what we expect to happen.

This mindset is also particularly apparent in young children. In a 2018 study I co-designed with psychologist Jonathan Phillips, 4-year-olds were asked to help a distressed girl who disliked going to school due to missing her mother. Among all the solutions given, they perceived the only possible solution was for her mother to do something special after school to ease her concerns. Unexpected alternatives, such as snapping fingers and making it Saturday, wearing pajamas to school or lying about school being closed, were all regarded impossible. From this, we can conclude that children’s earliest intuitions (直觉力) about possibility confuse what could happen with what should happen.

Historically, the improbable event of traveling faster than a horse was considered impossible, as was traveling by air or traveling into space. Before the arrival of trains and planes, there were good reasons to think that people could travel only so far and only so fast. But these reasons were empirical (经验主义的), not logical. Imagination, on its own, lumps the improbable with the impossible, but we can combine imagination with other abilities — namely, knowledge and reflection — to separate the two. While imagination in children often subjects to expectation, adults can control their imaginative capacity for innovation by integrating it with accumulated knowledge and reflective thinking.