---

The final frontier for science, is the mind. So the big question:

Can science explain how the mind works?
Answer: Yes, but only hypothetically.

OK... next big question:
Is the mind something that science can ever explain beyond hypothesis?
Answer: "Probably".

A vague answer, but very different to the answer not so long ago which was "don't know". So what's changed?

Cognitive neuroscience is the most recent development in science - just 25 years old. There have been amazing discoveries already, but there's a long way to go. Perhaps the biggest problem is to define what it is we are trying to discover! What is consciousness? How can we figure out how it works if we don't know what it is?

One way to approach this is to divide up consciousness into the "easy problems" and "hard problem". The easy problems are still difficult, but these are the problems that can be solved by the scientific method. For example, science can explain the workings of pain, memory, vision, emotions, morality and all the things that make consciousness possible. The appropriate brain processes can be defined and we can see how they evolved. To quote the philosopher David Chalmers "We can hope to find adequate functional explanations for these phenomena."

But the real challenge lies with the "hard" problems. Physics shows us that reality can be explained in terms of forces, energy, particles, etc. But how can the physical processes (the "easy problems") tell us anything about what it's like to be yourself and your subjective experiences? For example, we can explain why the colour blue is perceived differently to the colour red, but where do we get the subjective impression of “blueness”? Why does my brain activity make me feel something, rather than nothing?

A major leap forward occurred in the 1990s when brain imaging technology became available. We can "see" thoughts happening; we can even "read" them, translate them. The approach to studying the biological basis of consciousness changed dramatically and enabled a collection of scientific hypotheses of consciousness to be developed for the first time ever. new frontiers in science are always defined by hypotheses, some conflicting, but eventually mature theories emerge and false hypotheses are discarded. and this is now happening in neuroscience. But there is a long way to go - the subjective essential question of “what it means” to be conscious remains a difficult question to answer scientifically. We need better methods of interpreting subjective data and that's a subject of intensive research.

There is another approach which is to put the subjective issues to one side, and focus only on understanding the biological mechanisms of the brain which affect consciousness. Once they are fully understood, go back to look at the subjective issues. This is a very sensible strategy: concentrate on the things that can be experimented on, and wait and see if the less tangible things subsequently become clearer when the experimental results are obtained. Don't try and guess the overall picture on the jigsaw when 80% of the pieces are missing (even though it's human nature to do so!)

So what does the research show so far? Here's a summary:

- A definite causal relationship between brain's structure and the functions of thought, intelligence, etc.

- Consciousness is the result of interactions among neurons in which the nerve impulse takes a particular path - a path that is not fixed, but changes with use, continuously modifying our perceptions of the world.

- Specific neuronal circuits & brain structures have been identified as playing a key role in conscious thought.

- Not all parts of the brain contribute equally to the processes of consciousness. There are many unconscious processes playing a role.

- The brain structures and processes cannot be considered in isolation - they opera as a whole in an integrated way - Receptors, neurones, ion channels, synapses, etc. all work collectively and simultaneously.

It's easy for creationists to criticise the work of neuroscience, because there are no mature theories yet, but scientists are the first to admit that the models of consciousness developed so far are at a very early stage and just the first step on a long journey to explain consciousness. It is no longer accurate to say that science can never explain consciousness. It's possible that we may have to discover some new physical laws before we can explain consciousness. All we know that there are an ever increasing number of empirical routes to be explored, and science is exploring them.

There's a lot of information about this on the internet - I think Wikipedia is a good place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_approaches

Also look out for work published by Francis Crick; Jean-Pierre Changeux; Patricia Churchland; Christof Koch.

---

---

Phantom limb is a phenomenon that's been known about for hundreds of years. It happens when an amputee continues to feel sensations from an amputated arm or leg. Sometimes, a patient can feel pain in a limb that isn't there. How can you cure such a pain? The problem is obviously in the brain, because the limb no longer exists. The last resort in such cases used to be to destroy the parts of the brain that are responsible for the phantom pain.

It is possible to create a map of the brain showing which parts correspond to which body parts. These maps show two interesting facts:

- The body parts responsible for facial expressions, hand gestures, lips, speech and fingertips, take up the largest area of the brain. Our evolution has depended heavily on these functions and so they need a lot of brain.

- The "sensation maps" which show the connection between brain area and body part are not static. They drift and reorganise. Our brains are constantly "re-programming".

(There's a third point of interest - to create the map requires a patient to have probes inserted into their brains while they are awake. The brain is the only part of the body with no nerve endings - so the brain doesn't feel pain. Brain surgery is common while patients are awake. When you get a headache, it's not your brain that's hurting!)

So, when someone loses a limb, the brain reorganises its sensation map and the amputee feels sensations in a limb that isn't there. In the 1980s a neuroscientist - VS Ramachandran - devised an ingenious treatment.

Ramachandran had a patient who felt his amputated left arm was painfully frozen in an awkward position. This sensation had been with him for many years. Ramachandran created a box with carefully positioned mirror inside.

{ Image: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/Ramachandran-mirrorbox.svg/150px-Ramachandran-mirrorbox.svg.png } The patient's right arm was inserted into the box, and when the patient inserted his missing arm into the box (or rather, imagined he was placing his missing arm in the box) the mirror showed his right arm where his missing left arm would have been. According to the patient... "This is amazing - my arm is plugged in again!"

Ramachandran had developed the "learned paralysis" hypothesis of painful phantom limbs. Every time someone tries to move a paralysed limb, they receive feedback into the brain that the limb does not move. After a while this feedback is programmed into the brain (a process known as Hebbian learning). When the limb is amputated, the brain is still programmed with the information that the limb is paralysed even when it's been amputated.

Ramachandran's mirror box re-programs the brain by making it perceive the limb is still there (when it's actually a mirror image) and when the patient sees the mirror image moving, the brain is re-programmed to assume the missing limb is no longer paralysed. This visual feedback to the brain is totally artificial, and the brain is "moving" a limb that is not there, and is able to unclench it from it's (virtual) painful, paralysed position.

This is quite astonishing for many reasons. But think about this... we can re-program a part of the brain using a "trick" even though the patient knows it is a trick!

---

---

In the 1930s it was discovered that everything we perceive in the universe appears to be made from combinations of two fundamental particles: electrons and quarks. Since then other particles have been discovered, especially since particle accelerators were built which recreate conditions close to the big bang. Then physicists noticed a pattern among the particles...

Family 1		Family 2		Family 3
Particle	Mass	Particle	Mass	Particle	Mass
Electron	.00054	Muon	.11	Tau	1.9
Electron-neutrino	< .00000001	Muon-neutrino	< .0003	Tau-neutrino	< .033
Up-quark	.0047	Charm Quark	1.6	Top Quark	189
Down-quark	.0074	Strange Quark	16	Bottom Quark	5.2

(By the way - each particle has an anti-matter "twin" particle which is not shown here)

A neat arrangement - but it raises questions... Why are there so many fundamental particles when most of the world we observe only needs electrons and quarks? Why three families? Why does a tau weigh about 4,000 times more than an electron? Did they occur by chance, or by some divine design, or is there a scientific explanation?

Then there are the forces of nature. We experience all kinds of forces, but physics shows they can be reduced to four types... Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak force and the strong force. The first two are familiar to us in everyday life, but the strong and the weak forces are less familiar because they only exert a force at subatomic scales - they are nuclear forces that keep molecules "glued" together and produce radioactivity.

We now know that each force has an associated particle which is the smallest possible "packet" of force. The force particles are summarised here...

Force	Force particle	Mass
Strong	Gluon	0
Electromagnetic	Photon	0
Weak	Weak gauge bosons	86, 97
Gravity	Graviton	0

And now we have even more questions! Why are there four fundamental forces? Why not five or one? If these forces were different, our universe would due different. Stars might not exist, and life itself might be impossible. Yes, it's that old "fine tuning" argument again!

So there lies the big question... why is the universe the way it is? And in the 1970s, an extraordinary explanation emerged, which became known as String Theory.

We've traditionally assumed that the fundamental particles are just that - fundamental - with no further sub-structure. String theory says if we could examine these particles, we would find each one is not a "point" but a tiny one-dimensional loop - an infinitely thin, oscillating string. It transpires that the observed particle properties described in the tables above, are a mathematical consequence of the various modes in which a string can vibrate. Instead of producing musical notes, each pattern of vibration of a string appears as a particle whose mass and force charges are determined by the string's vibrational pattern.

The electron is a string vibrating one way, the up-quark is a string vibrating another way, etc. Particle properties in string theory are the manifestation of a single, physical feature: the resonant patterns of vibration of fundamental loops of string. And the same idea explains the force particles and hence the forces of nature. Everything: all matter and all forces, unified by a single theory which as if that's not enough, also provides a model for multiple universes. The implications are profound...

String theory provides a single framework capable of explaining all forces and matter.

So - it's a neat explanation and Occam's Razor tempts us into believing it is right. But the scientific method requires it to make predictions which can be tested. Well, it certainly does make predictions - but to test them requires technology that won't be available for decades or maybe hundreds of years. Perhaps string theory is just plain wrong. Or maybe it's just an incredible coincidence that the modes of vibration just so happen to match the particle masses and charges. Perhaps the theory doesn't describe a physical feature - it's a framework that just so happens to explain the particle and force properties as an analogy, rather like the plastic models of molecules we remember from school. Molecules don't look like that at all - but the model works.

Whatever the outcome, it's going to keep physicists busy for many years to come...

---

---

During a recent debate with a creationist, I caused irritation by suggesting that the laws of physics were not designed and our universe is not "fine tuned" as many creationist authors like to suggest. I also caused some upset when i suggested the laws of physics we know about, could be different in other universes, or even in our own universe. Here's a brief explanation...

First of all, fine tuning. The creationist argument is that the existence of life on earth shows our universe has been "fine tuned" by a creator, in order to make life happen. This is based on a false assumption that the existence of something (anything) in an environment demonstrates the environment is "fine tuned". Using this logic implies that the South Pole is "fine tuned" for penguins, a rock in my garden is "fine tuned" for moss to grow on it, and so on. It's our old friend, "puddle thinking" as described in a previous blog!

So that's why our universe seems "just right" for the things that exist within it. But why is it the way it is? First thing to note is that the laws of physics did not exist before the universe came into existence. They didn't exist at the point of the big bang either. One of the greatest ongoing challenges in physics is to determine what the laws of physics were, prior to the laws of physics! During the first few trillionths of a second, the forces we see today came into being as space and time themselves came into being. And the forces did not all arrive at the same time. For example, the electromagnetic force and nuclear weak force were once a single force. So why are these forces and particles what they are, and how did they arrive? The best explanation so far is string theory.

String theory tells us that what we perceive as particles are actually one-dimensional strings which are not made of anything - but every particle and force is made of them. Just think about that mind blowing concept for a while...

This is consistent with the observation that the net energy in our universe is zero - in other words - the universe is just a special arrangement of nothing at all! The particles and the resultant forces that define our universe, and their attributes, are all accurately predicted by the vibrational modes of one dimensional strings. And even better, a whole range of new particles are predicted which we haven't observed yet. This makes string theory falsifiable, (i.e. testable).

String theory also has the added strength of being defined by mathematics and the equations are highly constrained by consistency. it means it is very likely there is only one unique string theory - a feature that competing particle hypotheses don't have.

We know that if we change the values of certain fundamental physical constants, the laws of physics would be different and our universe would be different, and life would be different. What we don't know is if these values can be different. Are all universes generated from strings? Is that a fundamental law for all universes? Is every other universe the same as ours? Can a universe be created that is not based on strings, but some other fundamental "thing"? Can universes have different physical dimensions to ours, maybe have no time dimension?

In a few generations, we will be able to create universes using particle accelerators and other methods. (This implies that our universe could have been created by an advanced civilisation in another universe. In other words - science supports the idea of a "creator"!)

When we begin to create universes ourselves, we will be able to answer some of the questions about how universes are "designed" assuming they can be designed. Will we be able to "fine tune" the strings?! And isn't it excellent that string theory allows us to have such cool musical analogies?! Wouldn't it be perfect if God was a cosmic Jimi Hendrix, and our universe was the result of a dominant seventh sharp ninth power chord on His Celestial Fender Strat? Maybe those harps the angels are supposed to play are a clue? But I digress...

Perhaps we will discover that universes can be "fine tuned", or perhaps we will discover that smashing particles to create universes creates unpredictable results, but if you smash enough you will eventually get a stable universe. Or we may discover that every time you create a universe, it looks just like ours. Come back in 200 years to see the results of those experiments! But there is a snag... when you create a universe, you can't see it or interact with it. So it could be tricky to determine whether we've created a universe, and what it's like.

And now let's consider just how solid our laws of physics are. What if, during those first few trillionths of a second after the big bang, there was more than one region created each with its own, different laws of physics? We haven't observed such a region and we tend to assume the laws of physics are consistent everywhere, based on what we've observed - but we can't rule it out. One thing science has learned is that axioms are only assumptions - and we often learn something amazing by breaking them.

Science can never rule anything out completely. Perhaps if we could travel millions of light years across our universe we'd find a region somewhere with 5 dimensional stars and silicon based life, or time running backwards, or giant clouds of crabs floating in space.

What if the laws of physics change over unimaginably long periods of time? Perhaps some of the oldest regions of the universe have different laws of physics to where we happen to live, because those laws have changed over time. When we view the distant galaxies at the edge of the observable universe, we are seeing light that is billions of years old - we see things as they were billions of years ago. Maybe time and space and the laws of physics are different out there "now".

Of course, a lot of this is hypothetical. All we know for sure is what we've observed. But science teaches us that anything is possible. We know what we know, and every year science discovers an awful lot more. I suppose there must be a limit to what science can discover, but we haven't reached it yet. In fact the rate of scientific discovery increases exponentially.

---

Gods have been described by humans for hundreds of centuries. Perhaps the idea is as old as our species. So let's go back in time and imagine our earliest ancestors who find themselves  creating tools, building shelters, changing their environment, lighting fires, making things with tools they've created.   Generally starting to control things in a small way.

Without knowing it, early humans are bypassing evolution. They don't have to wait for evolution to provide them with thick coats over hundreds of generations in order to survive the cold. They move to a cold area, see an animal with a woolly coat, and take it to make their own coats. Humans can live in just about any environment by using their superior brains.

Now imagine an ancient ancestor watching the sunset at the end of a busy day of making cool things.  He sees caves where he can hide from bears, trees that provide shade, plants that provide fruits and berries, a river with refreshing water and delicious fish. And he reflects on all this using his recently evolved neocortex and he asks himself a question... "This is an excellent place I'm in" and then he asks himself a question - a big question. It seems a reasonable question, but it's actually a fallacious question...

"So... who made the caves and trees and river and mountains?".  And then he thinks... "Well, there's only one thing I know about that makes things, and that's me and others like me.  But to make stuff this big... Well I couldn't do that. They must be a much bigger and more powerful thing than me. And I never see them doing it so they must be invisible. And in my tribe it's me and cousin Iggy who make the biggest stuff because we're the strong men, so whoever makes the mountains and rivers and caves must be male."

And so a god is born. Then more questions arise. When we make things it's because we want to do something with them. So our early human ancestor says... "If a god made the world around me, then why did he make it? He would have a reason." And so our ancestors think of reasons why a god would make a world.  And then they reach what seems an obvious conclusion.  

"These trees and rivers and caves and things to eat and animal skins... All this stuff which feeds me and keeps me sheltered and warm... Whoever made all those things must have made them for me. This god must care for me."

And so it goes on. The god is an answer to every question that can't be answered.

This is such a subtle trap to fall into because it seems such an obvious conclusion. To our ancestors it was intuitive, and 200,000 years of intuition isn't going to go away any time soon regardless of evidence which uncovers different explanations, often counter-intuitive, that don't require gods.

It reminds me of a puddle I spoke to last week who told me  how amazed he was that the hole he was in was such a perfect fit.  "This hole must have been created and fine tuned just for me - it can't be the right size by chance - that's just too improbable."

Then the sun came out...

---

In memory of Douglas Adams

---

---

Mathematics describes entities that don't exist in what we consider to be "physical reality". Perfect circles, squares, spheres... Multi-dimensional shapes which we can't even imagine. We are not inventing these things - they exist somehow. We discover them.

Let's think about what "reality" means. Physicist Max Tegmark refers to "the external reality hypothesis" - the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. But what is the nature of "external reality"?  For one thing,  it would have to be free from human language. And the only way to describe something without human language is using mathematics.  We know nature is accurately described by mathematics. Plato explained how the objects of mathematics actually exist. It seems abstract mathematics describes reality.

So here is Tegmark's crazy idea. Maybe the reason why mathematics describes reality so well is that mathematics is reality.  Mathematical entities actually exist - they are actual,  physical reality.

Just think about that for a minute...

... Yes it sounds crazy. But so did many famous theories when they were first hypothesised.  

In recent years physics has become totally reliant on mathematics structures. String theory might be the ultimate theory of the universe. It might not! But if it is, string theory is a mathematical structure so sophisticated it can describe everything, including our minds, our self-awareness, our feeling of being alive. 

If mathematics explains reality then it explains all of reality including all other universes.  And this would be possible because mathematical structures exist outside of time, independent of time.   A mathematical structure is a universe. 

A question arises... Even there are equations that describe our universe, why those equations in particular?  The answer is that other equations describe other parallel universes. Our universe has a specific set of equations because they statistically likely to happen based on the number of mathematical structures that can support life forms such as us.

This  hypothesis predicts there is more to reality than we ever imagined because every mathematical structure is another universe. Our universe is just another mathematical structure in a multiverse full of mathematical structures. Mathematics isn't just discovering things in our universe. We don't have to worry  which particular mathematical equations describe which type of reality. We just figure out whether we have uncovered a structure of our universe or the wider multiverse. 

Yes this is way out stuff.  Max Tegmark keeps these kinds of ideas separate from his "official" physics research. But if our descendants find a way to test Tegmark's ideas, it could be a momentous discovery.

---

---

One of the most extraordinary things about mathematics is how it discovers things that apparently don't exist in our universe. Perfect circles, squares, spheres - any shape described mathemetically – can only exist as approximations in our world. And yet the perfect versions exist "somewhere".

But there's even more amazing discoveries in mathemetics – it discovers things that we can't imagine. It has long been accepted by many people that there exists a “transcendent” realm where science could never reach, where things exist beyond human understanding. Recent discoveries in mathemetics (and physics) have broken this assumption.

A classic example are the assumptions made by Euclid which we all learn at school... parallel lines never meet; triangles have 180 degrees and so on. All seemingly true within our everyday experience. But then mathemeticians in the 19th century discovered that breaking these assumptions resulted in non-Euclidian geometry, which was consistent with its own equations. In fact it revealed several non-Euclidean geeometries. But do they describe “reality”? It was discovered that they do – the geometries of shapes on curved surfaces.

Some of the applications of non-Euclidian geometries didn't become clear until later scientific discoveries. Mathemetics was discovering features of our universe that we hadn't discovered by observation. Complex numbers based on the (unimaginable) square root of -1 is fundamental to our understanding of electrical power and various geometries in relativity.

A more spectacular example appears if we break the assumption that there are three dimensions of space. We're all familiar with our 3D world. We can create flat shapes (2D) and sold shapes (3D).

But what happens if we assume a fourth dimension of space? Or a fifth? Or 6, 7.... any number?

It's impossible to imagine a four dimensional universe, or four dimensional life. Imagine you are a “flat lander” living in a 2D world. You'd never see a square as a square, you could only see the edges and corners. But a 3D observer in “flat land” would be able to look down on you, and see inside your squares. For you, it would be impossible to look up – in flatland there is no up or down.

So a 4D observer in our 3D universe would be able to see inside our solid cubes – would be able to view our existence in a way we can't imagine.

Mathemeticians in the 16th century stumbled on this idea but considered it to be “unnatural”. In the 19th century n-dimensional geometry took off, and was discovered to be consistent, and therefore, ”real” in the sense that it can be analysed and defined. Although we can't imagine four dimensional shapes, we know all abou them and how they work. We can even project them onto our three dimensions in the same way that we can represent a 3D cube on a flat piece of paper. Here's a rotating 4D cube projected in 3 Dimensions...

{ Image: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/8-cell-simple.gif/200px-8-cell-simple.gif }

Multidimensional space which we can't imagine, but is it an abstract idea? Once again, physics eventually gets to a point where seemingly abstract mathemetics is required to resolve observations and theories. Quantum theory shows that our universe could be multidimensional, and that ours is not the only universe. The mathemetical work done in defining gemoeries we can't imagine, has a practical application.

The limits of science and mathemetics that we've assumed for so long, are starting to disappear.

---

---

2,500 years ago, Plato had a radical idea. Geometry defines ideal shapes: perfect triangles, circles, cubes, spheres, squares. But in reality, any shape that we create can never be perfect.

The most highly machined ball bearing is not perfectly spherical. The most accurately drawn triangle or square, created with the most advanced lasers controlled by supercomputers, will never be perfect. The level of perfection of what we make is determined by our ability to measure it, and a powerful microscope will discover imperfections or inaccuracy.

Plato considered the ideal shapes defined by geometry to inhabit another world, different to our physical world. This has been called the Platonic World of mathematical Forms*. This is where the perfect spheres, squares and triangles exist.

But is Plato's world “real”? Is it fictional – a product of our imagination? Either way it's a powerful idea because it makes us careful to distinguish between precise mathematical models and the approximate world of physical things.

Modern science provides theories to explain our world. A theory begins life as an hypothesis. This can't be an accepted theory until it's been used to make predictions which can be tested. When a scientist proposes a model of some aspect of the world, that model is mathematical so that it can be precisely specified. If it isn't, we can never be sure that the questions we are asking have well defined answers, which means we can't be sure our test results are right or wrong. But if the model is mathematical, it is also abstract.

We know our minds are not precise and can be tricked, and therefore our minds should not always be trusted. If we are providing scientific theories to describe our universe, we need something more reliable than our brains. And this is what mathematics gives us. It has a robustness far greater than any particular mind and it is internally consistent.

People engaged in mathemetical research feel like they are exploring a world beyond themselves and this world seems to have an objectivity which is independent of opinion. Mathematics isn't creating equations and models, it is discovering them. If human beings didn't exist, triangles, circles, squares and the number 7 would still exist in the world described by Plato. Mathemetical existence is not only different to our physical existence, it is different to the world we create mentally.

Not only that. Mathematics has gone even further and discovered and defined things that appeared to be totally abstract, but were then found to exist in our physical world. And even more amazing... mathematics has discovered and defined things that are beyond human imagination. More on this next time...

---

* Roger Penrose "The Road to Reality"

---

---

Kevin Nelson (Professor of Neurology at the University of Kentucky) has been studying near-death experiences (NDE) for more than 30 years and presents his research in a book I've just finished reading "The God Impulse".
http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Impulse-Neurologist-Spiritual/dp/1847378315
In the book he explains how all of the elements of NDE are explained by brain functions. I can't reproduce an entire book, but here are some highlights...

Gillian was aware the delivery of her child was going wrong as she slipped into unconsciousness. She knew she was losing a lot of blood. Then everything became dark except for a dot of brilliant light. She was scared but found comfort in the light. "I was being drawn closer to it and it was getting bigger and bigger," she says. "The brightness was shining like the walls of a tunnel. I felt no fear as I went into the tunnel and emerged fully into the brilliance. There was the most wonderful feeling of bliss. I can only describe it as ecstasy. Suddenly I heard a man’s voice saying: “Gill.” It was a very nice voice and I thought: “Oh no, I’ve come before God - and I don’t even believe in Him!” He asked if I knew who he was and I said: “Yes, but I’m afraid I can’t say your name.” He obviously had a sense of humour because he chuckled at that."

This kind of experience happens to about 10% of us, usually during cardiac arrest. We will see a light, travel through a tunnel, feel profound joy, meet someone deceased who we were close to, or float above our unconscious bodies and look down on ourselves. Many people believe this to be a glimpse of the afterlife, and it usually leaves them unafraid of death.

A key factor in NDE is ‘REM intrusion’ - this is a paralysis that accompanies REM sleep but happens when we are awake and is accompanied by vivid hallucinations. Instead of passing directly between the REM state and wakefulness, the brains of those with NDE are more likely to blend the two states into one another. This places the subject into the ‘borderlands’ of consciousness.

Professor Nelson explains: ‘Many people enter this unstable borderland for only a few seconds or minutes before emerging into REM or waking. In the borderland, paralysis, lights, hallucinations and dreaming can come to us. During a crisis such as a cardiac arrest, the borderland could explain much of what we know as the near-death experience.’

NDE is a misleading term because they also happen during fainting. The common factor is a severely reduced flow of blood to the brain, which remains active, but the person slips in and out of consciousness. NDEs are caused because of a reaction to this. "When blood is draining from the head, just before consciousness is lost, the tissue that is most sensitive to failure is not the brain, it is actually the eye, the retina. When the retina fails, darkness ensues and it fails from the outside inwards, producing the characteristic tunnel vision. The light at the end of the tunnel could come from two different sources. It could be from ambient light - such as the background light in a hospital emergency room which may be all the brain can recognise as blood drains from the head. Alternatively, the REM system, which is known for its robust activation of the visual system, could generate light internally, within the brain."

Travelling through the tunnel and out-of-body experiences are generated in the brain's temporoparietal region, which is joined to the area of the brain responsible for our sense of motion. it is supposed to be turned off during REM sleep but the process breaks down during NDE and our brain experiences motion even though we are not moving.

Then there's an astonishing discovery made by doctors in Switzerland. Professor Olaf Blanke was preparing a 43-year-old woman for surgery and applying electrical impulses to her brain to try to find out what was causing her to have seizures. Suddenly, the woman, who had to be conscious for the procedure, said she had floated outside her body and was looking down on herself. The electrical current was switched off and she returned to her body. The out of body experience came and went with the mechanical predictability of turning on a light switch. The technician operating the switch altered her consciousness at will. The on/off switch for out of body experiences had been discovered.

So what about the feelings of "bliss" or "spiritual feelings"? This is an inbuilt mechanism in the brain - during moments of extreme crisis, the body releases chemicals that provide a sense of relaxation and well-being - this is an evolutionary feature that dates back to prehistoric times which remains in the most primitive part of our brain.

The good news is that when it's time for us to die, as we drift into unconsciousness, our brains ensure it's a pleasant experience. And none of this disproves God of course. As the professor says... "After all, who’s to say that these mechanisms weren’t created by God in the first place precisely to provide comfort just when we might need it most - as we approach death."

---

---

This is an argument often used by non-scientists to dismiss an idea they don't like or understand. The Creationist argument against evolution is the classic example. Evolution isn't true because "it's only a theory". The problem here is a lack of understanding of the word "theory". When a scientist is told an idea is "only a theory" he or she will look very puzzled, because that statement makes no sense at all in a scientific context.

In everyday language, the word "theory" is sometimes used to mean a guess or a notion. But in science, the word has a very specific meaning. To a scientist, a theory is the ultimate objective - the best explanation.

What does the dictionary say about theory?

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Science uses the scientific method to ensure theories are not accepted until they have been tested and used to make predictions. A theory has to tie together all the relevant facts, providing an explanation that fits observations. Until that happens, it's just an idea or a hypothesis.

And now we have a new word… hypothesis - often confused with theory. But actually very different. A hypothesis is an explanation, but it is based on conjecture. It may be a completely wild notion, or it may instinctively seem like a great explanation to many people. But until it passes the criteria laid down by the scientific method, it remains a hypothesis. Many theories begin life as an hypothesis, but they are different things. If you have a hypothesis and you believe it must be true, you are using faith instead of the scientific method. You might be wrong, you might be right. But in the absence of the scientific method your faith is making you sure. And that's risky. The scientific method rules out faith. A few years ago a doctor published a hypothesis that MMR vaccinations in children resulted in autism. He had faith in this idea based on anecdotal evidence. It wasn't a theory. As a result, parents stopped getting their children vaccinated and some died as a result.

A less dramatic example of a scientist being embarrassed in this way was Fred Hoyle who made some remarkable discoveries in his time but also promoted what he called the Steady State Theory (which was really a hypothesis) instead of the Big Bang hypothesis.. He did so for the wrong reason - he didn't like the idea of the universe having a starting point. He had no evidence to support his idea, just his faith that the big bang must be wrong. And eventually he was embarrassed by a student called Stephen Hawking who proved him wrong theoretically and Edwin Hubble who provided the physical evidence. And so the Big Bang theory became the best explanation.

It is also believed by some people that when a theory is proven it becomes law. This is another misunderstanding. Science collects observed facts. it uses laws to describe them. it uses theories to explain them. And as for proof... There's an argument that nothing can ever be proven absolutely. Proof can be defined as having sufficient evidence to establish the truth of a proposition.

Here's another word... Law

A theory never becomes law. A theory is in some ways more important than a law. For example, let's take the law of gravity which describes the time needed for an apple to hit the ground if you know how far it will fall and which planet you are on. The theory of gravity explains why the apple falls the way it does. Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity which explained a lot, but Einstein developed a better theory because it explained certain observations that Newton's theory could not. And one day Einstein's theory will be further refined by another scientist. Or maybe not!

So Newton and Einstein provided theories, but these can't be changed into laws. They are theories - they provide explanations.

Evolution is another example. Evolution is a fact - it is genetic change over time and we see it happening. The theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the best explanation of those facts. Remarkably it seems to be the most robust theory ever provided by science - it's been tested for over 150 years and no one has come up with a significant improvement yet. It is even finding applications outside of biology which no one expected.

So… theory, hypothesis, law, faith… words which mean different things to different people. But within the realm of science, very specific words with very specific meanings.

---

---

That's me. Not just me. That's everyone.

This is one of the most amazing facts about the human brain. And exploring it reveals many secrets of how the mind works.

Most people are familiar with the idea of a left brain and right brain - the brain consists of two symmetrical "halves" called hemispheres. It was discovered in the 1960s that one way to cure people with severe epilepsy is to cut through the connection between the two halves - this connection is the corpus callosum. The treatment works. What was unexpected is how this affected the mind. The human brain carries out specific functions in the left and right halves, but what is odd is how the two halves can operate independently. Typically, the left half demonstrates behaviour that is logical, analytical, verbal and rational. The other side behaves in a conceptual imaginative way.

While the two halves are connected, instructions pass between them at the speed of light, to achieve "whole brain" behaviour. But with a patient who has a split brain, an amazing thing happens. A technique was developed to enable researchers to communicate with each half independently.

Researchers used this technique to interview a split brain patient. They asked his right side what occupation he would like to follow and it replied "racing driver". But his left brain responded "draughtsman". Other behaviours in other patients included trying to pull up his trousers with his right hand while his left hand was trying to pull them down, attacking his wife with his right hand while his left hand tried to defend her.

Another experiment with split brain patients involved using flash cards to show a word so that the right half of the brain would interpret the information. The patient would write down the word with his left hand. But when the patient was asked what word he'd written, he didn't know. The information sent to the right hemisphere was unknown to the left side (which controls language).

Perhaps the most amazing result is in he area of opinions. A split brain patient was asked about perceptions of himself. His right brain responded that he was a good person, his left brain responded that he was not good. Each brain half seems to have its own emotions and opinions.

More information here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

---

---

Continuing on our French road trip we stop at the Aire du Poitou Charentes. That might conjure up an image of a sleepy, romantic French village but it's actually a motorway service area. Just about anything can sound romantic when you say it in French. I can't help being impressed by the facilities on the French motorways, and this rest area is excellent. But just my luck, two massive buses full tourists have arrived just before us, so it's going to be busy.

As I stand in line to order coffee, I am physically barged out of the way by a group of elderly French men and women. Now... I know stereotypes can be unfair, but there is a cultural difference between the UK and France when it comes to standing in line. In the UK we stand in line. In France, they don't.

I actually thought it was quite funny being jostled by these old people and I joined in the spirit and jostled them back. Not enough to knock them over of course. And I didn't use my elbows. That would be out of order.

Even the cafeteria staff seemed surprised. A bunch of these elderly travellers had grabbed various food items and were waving their money in the air, trying to pay the guy who makes the coffee, who was trying to explain that the cashier was at the other end of the counter. I had to laugh because these people - in their 70s and 80s - were behaving like a class of unruly 5 year olds on a school trip.

Eventually I'm sitting enjoying my coffee and croissant and observing the bus party as they fight for tables and generally swarm around. They are all wearing matching silk scarves, and some kind of badge with what looks like a crucifix. And then I notice two nuns who seem to be in charge, although they are keeping a low profile.

By the time I return to the car, the bus party are swarming all over the parking lot, oblivious to traffic. It would be wrong for me to drive through them so I wait until they disperse. Then i see the sign on the front of their buses - "Lourdes". They are on a pilgrimage to the village where The Virgin Mary made an appearance about 150 years ago, a place reputed to have healing powers in the water.

So perhaps these elderly people are in poor health, and seeking a cure, physically and/or spiritually. I feel sympathy for them and I hope they feel better after their trip. (However I did read once that many people return from Lourdes in worse health, because the place is full of sick people spreading disease - but that's another story).

I can't help imagining the scene in Lourdes, as they barge their way through other groups of pilgrims, knocking them over into the holy pool. Perhaps they will receive the gift of good manners.

---

I am in France. This is not through choice. My youngest child has been working as a teacher in the south of France and it's time for her to come home. She's gathered too many possessions to fly home with so it's become a road trip. 1500 miles in total.

In order to drive a UK car in France there are certain requirements. Every car must carry:

A red warning triangle
First aid kit
Fire extinguisher
High visibility reflective vests for each occupant of the car
A breathalyser (don't ask me why)
A "GB" plate identifying country of origin
Full set of documentation to validate insurance, roadworthiness and ownership of the vehicle
Flashlight
Spare set of bulbs for headlamps and rear lights
Headlight adjusters

That cost me about £100 before I'd even left home. And if you have a GPS device which includes the locations of speed cameras, it can be confiscated and you will be fined £1000. And speed limits are enforced with zero tolerance. If you exceed the limit by 1mph you're guilty, even though it's impossible to calibrate a speedometer to that level of accuracy.

The journey was surprisingly easy. The French motorways were almost empty, and the rest stops on the motorway are superb with great food, interesting shops and wifi.

And no sign of a policeman until I was 600 miles into the journey. We stopped at a toll booth and a policeman was standing in front of my car, legs apart, arms folded, staring at me. Reminded me of Robert Patrick as the T-1000 robot in Terminator 2. This is it I thought. I'm going to be fined because my first aid kit is the wrong shade of red or something.

But he wasn't an evil robot from the future after all. He just watched me as I drove past. Then I realised - of course he didn't stop me. My car is a Peugeot.

---

Thankfully, it's rare for a patient to die in our care, but such an event occurred this week, and it brought home to me how amazing the staff working in mental health care can be.

A couple of years ago, John (not his real name) was admitted following a severe physical brain injury, as well as significant physical healthcare problems. One day he was a fit, happy, family man. The next day he was something else entirely.

John couldn't speak. He would crawl around on the floor, displaying extreme aggression. He would disrupt other patients and required 24/7 supervision by a minimum of two staff, sometimes four staff, trained as nurses but also specialists in dealing with aggression and violence. I saw the treatment he received many times. Every small step he made was celebrated. Perhaps he would smile, or he would let a nurse brush his teeth, or he would say "yes" in response to a question. Even a short period of calm behaviour would be congratulated - it was a big achievement. When he was unhappy or scared, he would wail like, well like nothing I've ever heard in my life. The staff always treated him with dignity, compassion and respect even during his most extreme episodes.

Occasionally he would make eye contact and you could see fear in his eyes, confusion, pleading... you could tell he had no idea where he was, or what was happening to him. Sudden brain damage must be an unimaginable nightmare because you cannot process what is going on. You appear to be someone else. Not so long ago he would have been regarded as possessed by "demons" and exorcised. Some people would question the "value" of having to pay for four full time skilled staff on duty 24 hours every day, just for one patient.

I've seen some incredible recoveries in my time, thanks to advances in psychiatry, but John's brain was so badly damaged, and his physical health so poor, little could be done. His family would often visit, full of hope, but there was no happy ending. His physical health problems worsened and he passed away. A blessed relief some might say. But despite the incredible challenges he presented, we miss him because there was always hope.

---

---

Some people must assume they live in a soundproof force field and no one can hear what they say.

These events all occurred during the last 7 days...

I was on a train sitting opposite two guys. I soon realised they were discussing a defendant in a court case, and they were policemen out of uniform. Names were mentioned... evidence was discussed. How did they know I wasn't involved in the case? Or a journalist?

I was in a cafe and a group of three women were discussing the behaviour of a child. Turns out they were teachers. The child's name was mentioned. Some details about his parents private lives were revealed, including their address and the father's criminal record. I could have been a parent with a child at that school. Other teachers were named and criticised.

I was bagging my shopping and the cashier was chatting to another cashier about the previous customer - some very personal and nasty comments.

Whatever happened to discretion?

---

---

This is a tough week. 12 hours study everyday with two exams. I used to thrive on this kind of thing when I was in my 20s. But most of my brain has gone now.

Annoyingly I saw a book at the train station today and had to buy it. Annoying because I don't have time to read it, or rather, I shouldn't be spending time reading it this week, but probably will.

It's called "The God Impulse - Is Religion Hard Wired Into Our Brains?" and it's by Kevin Nelson, a Professor of Neurology with 30 years experience and it explores the biology behind human spirituality. He's identified the various neurological processes that produce spiritual experience as a by product.

Stay tuned for amazing revelations. But not this week. 

(I wonder if he has any tips for an elderly person taking exams?)

That reminds me.  Saw a movie called "Limitless" <SPOILER ALERT> about a pill that unlocks the 90% of the brain that we can't access consciously. I need one of those pills...

---

---

This is a neat diagram.

The "explanatory gap" is where all the cool stuff happens.

{ Image: dericbownds.net/bom99/Ch01/Ch01-1.gif }

---

...is one of my favourite TV shows. It shows us the life and times of a group of socially inept theoretical physicists. It's hilarious. Not only is the show terrific, so is the theme tune and I was ecstatic to discover a full version. I insist you download it from amazon now! here are the awesome lyrics...

Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unraveling the mysteries,
That all started with the big bang!

"Since the dawn of man" is really not that long,
As every galaxy was formed in less time than it takes to sing this song.
A fraction of a second and the elements were made.
The bipeds stood up straight,
The dinosaurs all met their fate,
They tried to leap but they were late
And they all died (they froze their backsides off)
The oceans and pangea
See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya
Set in motion by the same big bang!

It all started with the big BANG!

It's expanding ever outward but one day
It will cause the stars to go the other way,
Collapsing ever inward, we won't be here, it wont be hurt
Our best and brightest figure that it'll make an even bigger bang!

Australopithecus would really have been sick of us
Debating out while here they're catching deer (we're catching viruses)
Religion or astronomy, Encarta, Deuteronomy
It all started with the big bang!

Music and mythology, Einstein and astrology
It all started with the big bang!
It all started with the big BANG!

---

A psychiatrist colleague of mine has sent me an extraordinary piece of research which has resulted in a computer that can read your thoughts. The computer decodes your brain activity and reconstructs the electrical signals into the words you are thinking about. 

This isn't just a party trick...   people who are currently unable to speak could have a voice generated by a computer based on what they are thinking.  Now it seems to me that could be a bit awkward because sometimes I think words that I don't say!  But seriously... A major step forward for people who can't speak. And yet another massive step forward in explaining how the mind works.

"Potentially, the technique could be used to develop an implantable prosthetic device to aid speaking, and for some patients that would be wonderful," said Robert Knight, a senior member of the team and director of the Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute at the University of California, Berkeley, "Perhaps in 10 years it will be as common as grandmother getting a new hip."

Here's the research paper...

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001251

Last time I saw Mary (not her real name) she had been admitted to a mental health facility due to extreme psychosis. The voices in her mind were unbearable to the point where she was smashing her head on the corners of furniture to try to make them go away. The voices would tell her she deserved to die. They would criticise her every action and she was terrified to go to sleep. She was convinced that a UK TV talkshow host was Satan and phoned the police to have him arrested. To escape the "demons" she hid in a park under a tree overnight. Her family found her, called an ambulance and she was taken to a secure mental facility.

Today, we are able to have a conversation. Her head is scarred for life from the self harm, but the voices are not troubling her.

Medication was the key to stabilising her when she was admitted. Dopamine carries messages around the brain and if it's out of control... So are your thoughts. Not so many years ago families of people like this called on priests to "exorcise" the "demons". Now we know it's a bug in the brain's software that can be fixed, or worked around.

Mary might be on medication all her life. It's possible her brain will develop a resistance and another drug will be needed. It's possible she will be able to come off the drug over time and lead a normal life with therapy. Hard to tell as this kind of science is new and has a lot to discover .

OK, I know it sounds ridiculous. But let's think about what life is. Living things have these qualities:

1  They react to their environment 
2  They consume substances to extract energy
3  They reproduce
4  They use respiration 
5  They emit waste

So think about a forest fire.

1 it reacts to its environment. It changes if the wind blows. It burns brighter or with different colours depending on where it is 

2 It consumes wood, leaves, plastic, animals, all kinds of things to use for energy

3 It reproduces. It starts small and spreads across a massive area

4 Fire exhibits respiration. It uses oxygen. It dies without it. 

5 It emits smoke as waste. It leaves behind ashes and charcoal as waste.

So... Next time you put out a fire, note that you're not putting it out... You're KILLING IT!

I was throwing out some old magazines today when I found a copy of New Scientist which had this interesting list. The magazine explains that "There is nothing more fascinating to most of us than ourselves so it is hardly surprising that we have expended large amounts of effort trying to get to the bottom of what it means to be human. What is surprising is that there are so many traits that remain enigmatic. These range from the sublime to the ridiculous".

They certainly do. Here's the top 10...

1 Blushing: Why do we turn red when we lie?

2 Laughter: Endorphins are released when we laugh which make us feel good, but we sometimes laugh at things which re not funny.

3 Kissing: One theory is that it is associated with memories of breastfeeding and that ancient humans weaned their children by feeding them from their mouths, which reinforced the link between sharing saliva and pleasure. (ewww)

4 Dreaming: The process of dreaming has been explained but why we see strange visions has yet to be properly explained.

5 Superstition: Evolution can partly explain why we develop some unusual but reassuring habits in ancient times. Religion seems to tap into this impulse.

6 Picking your nose: There is no practical reason to do this. But a quarter of teenagers do it, on average four times a day. Also people who drive their cars who think no one can see them. Hey - I can see you.

7 Adolescence: It seems humans are the only animals to experience unpredictable and irrational behaviour in teenage years. Perhaps it helps our brain reorganise itself before adulthood or allow experimentation in behaviour before the responsibility of later years.

8 Altruism: giving things away with no certain return is odd behaviour in evolutionary terms although other animals do this apart from humans. It may help with group bonding or simply give pleasure.

9 Art: Painting, dancing, sculpture, music could be the human equivalent of a peacock's tail in showing what a good potential mate someone is. Or, it could also be a tool for spreading knowledge or sharing experience.

10 Body hair: Humans have fine hairs on their bodies and thick hair on their genitals and armpits - which is the opposite of what occurs in primates, our closest animal relatives.

I've just found out Morgan Freeman is an atheist. This is a surprise. When I watched Bruce Almighty I thought he was very convincing in the role of God. Even his voice was perfect.

Not sure I will be able to watch that movie again.

I've been learning about synthetic biology. I've heard of it but had no idea how far it had gone.

Scientists can now design and build biological organisms that do not already exist in nature. That's quite amazing.

Even more amazing, scientists (and students) can create and share "bio-bricks" which are DNA sequences that perform a specific function. You can download these just like open source software. For example, you could download a biobrick which is the DNA sequence that makes a jellyfish glow in the dark and introduce that into the DNA of a mouse to make a luminous mouse. 

Ok that's not a very practical thing to do.  Here's a better example. Spider web silk is incredibly strong - if we had enough we could make fabrics stronger than anything man made. You could make bullet proof skin. So... 

- Isolate the spider gene that makes the web
- introduce that gene into a goat embryo 
- breed "spider goats". They look just like any normal goat by the way except...
- when you milk the goat, the milk contains the spider web protein.
- extract the protein in the lab and you can literally pull out as many miles of spider web silk as you want on to reels.

This isn't fantasy - this is actually happening on a commercial scale at Utah State university. 

Another example is the production of diesel from genetically modified yeast. You don't have to wait millions of years for crude oil to be created underground. You can make diesel in a lab, from yeast. And it's being done now.

Synthetic biology is now so widespread it's a hobby for some people - designing and modifying DNA sequences as biobricks on their home computers and sharing them online.

The moral questions are interesting...

About 3 months ago I started reading "The Road To Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" by Roger Penrose. I'm only halfway through - it's 1049 pages and it's hard going.

His approach is to show how the physics that defines our universe falls out of the underlying mathematics. And so he starts with Pythagorus and builds on that to derive all of the mathematics needed for quantum physics, space-time, and the laws of the universe. I can't confirm this as I'm still wading through fibre bundles and gauge connections (page 329).

He does however reveal a beautiful aspect of our universe whereby mathematics can lead to new discoveries - even new universes. It's quite a simple idea - you take something that is considered to be a fundamental truth and then analyse what happens if it's not true.

Take parallel lines which as we learn at school, never meet. What if they did? Well, that leads to non-Euclidean geometry. The impact of this discovery was sensational - it went way beyond mathematics and science.

This idea has been repeated many times. What if we assume (-1) has a square root? What if we can divide by zero? What if we assume more than three physical dimensions? And so on. Each one leading to a new aspect of reality. Whatever that is.

The physicist Max Tegmark has suggested that reality IS mathematics. Mathematics is all that exists. Could be...

Arranged to meet a colleague for lunch at St Paul's Cathedral - surely one of the most magnificent buildings in the world. They have a cafe in the crypt which does a very nice lunch of soup and sandwiches.

There is now a small encampment (known as "tent city") outside the cathedral where anti-globalisation protestors have been living for several months. In fact they are anti lots of things... religious fundamentalism, capitalism, war, that kind of thing.

When they first arrived there were thousands of them. The cathedral was closed for the first time ever, and the Dean had to resign. He'd seen the protestors as some kind of threat but ironically, they were protesting - peacefully - about many of the same things that Jesus spoke against. He should have spoken to them, made some arrangements. I guess the Dean lost his job for not having read the bible properly.

Anyhoo.... I had a look around tent city - they have a tent selling books and magazines - they call it Tent City University. They have all the facilities they need to stay for a long time, including a block of toilets. I chatted to some of the occupants and very pleasant they were too. But they were blocking the entrance to the cafe and I wasn't afraid to tell them.

The only way in was through the main entrance which usually means paying a hefty visitor's fee. But when I said I wanted the cafe I was escorted through various rope barriers and past queues of people as if I was a visiting dignitary, then allowed to head off on my own. Which means I had full access to the cathedral for nothing. Surprised they haven't spotted this loophole.

Eventually found my way to the cafe, where my colleague was waiting, having had a similar experience. But we had a delicious lunch, surrounded by the dead bodies of some of England's greatest leaders and thinkers. (Suitably entombed of course)

And the soup was delicious. So if you're ever in London - check it out.

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen the Thor movie yet - don't read any further!

Actually it's Monday. Which probably is derived from "moon's day" but maybe not. I can't be bothered to google it. Funny how most of the days of the week are named after gods... Tiu; Wodan; Thor; Friya...

Anyway... I picked up my grandson from school today and noticed how smart he was. His shows trousers and coat all looked clean and new. A sharp haircut. I'm sure when I was 4 years old I would be muddy and scruffy by the end of the school day.

We arrived at my house after a quick stop to buy some fruit pastilles and sat down to do some reading practice but that didn't last long, so we watched the Thor movie on DVD. Well not all of it - I skipped the boring bits so we watched the whole movie in 30 minutes. We cheered as Thor demolished the ice giants with his mighty hammer Mjolnir (try explaining how to spell that word to a 4 year old), then we almost shed a year when Thor's dad (Odin aka Wodan maybe?) shouted at him for starting a fight (but as I explained his dad was right) and we were most upset when Thor was banished to Earth with no superpowers as punishment. (Or the cosmic naughty step as I explained).

We laughed as human Thor came to terms with his limitations, scoffed pancakes in one mouthful at the diner, we were a bit embarrassed when he kissed a girl (ewww), we were angry at Loki for telling Thor his dad was dead, we couldn't believe it when Loki's Giant robot kills Thor. WHAT?!?!? How can a God be dead?!??? But imagine our joy when Mjolnir senses Thor's predicament and flies into Thor's hand and Thor is resurrected! Yay! He then goes on to deal with Loki, save the ice giants from annihilation, proves he is wise after all, and joins his dad in the heavenly realm of Asgard where they become friends again.

Sadly (for me) my daughter arrived at this point to collect my grandson so we didn't have time to play hot wheels. That will have to wait until Saturn's day.