101. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146095 by Rational_G on March 18, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Not to be picky, but the screenplay to 2001 came first, co-written by Clarke and Kubrick. The novel came later.

That being said, sad to see Mr Clarke go. Enjoyed his short stories and his take on science & technology.

102. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #144605 by Rational_G on March 16, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Wow. Great collection, nice themes. (saw table of contents on Amazon UK).

I'll be buying it.

103. Selling science to the masses

Comment #144534 by Rational_G on March 16, 2008 at 10:07 am

Framing is bs. Dumbing down to people is not the answer. Give it to people straight. And as PZ Meyers says, the problem is more with media and people in general than science. People "relate to" the bullshit they are fed on television. Whose fault is that? Is it the scientists' fault that people are more interested in Paris Hilton's party habits than the actual real world around them? Or that the they have a millisecond attention span? Or that they'd rather watch "Survivor" than witness a lunar eclipse?
Or have knee jerk communication via blogs (present site excepted of course)?

Not really. It's media and it's the lack of imagination in the people themselves - their imaginations dulled by media, consumerism, the cult of celebrity personality and mediocre education.

Give it to people straight - don't try to make it "cool'. That is dishonest. If people actually want to learn something about the real world they are going to have invest the time and be satisfied with not being instantly gratified. There are plenty of scientifically savvy people willing to communicate the richness and beauty of the real world clearly and directly.

Did Sagan dumb shit down? Does Dawkins? No.

104. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #143203 by Rational_G on March 13, 2008 at 4:20 pm

ultimate_samurai:

I agree with you 100%. I didn't mean to equate skepticism of scientific claims with skepticism of religious claims.

Supernatural claims are nonsense. Religious dogma is nonsense. Scientific claims are peer reviewed. Big difference.

Science and technology are our only hope, in my opinion.

Cheers.

105. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142608 by Rational_G on March 12, 2008 at 8:38 pm

I understand where squinky is coming from and agree that a lot of these "breakthroughs" are hyped. And I've noticed that some people who post on this site are only too happy to believe some of the hype and want to believe that miracle breakthroughs are always just around the corner. The healthy skepticism we have about religion should also be applied to miraculous technological claims. It's all about having the capacity for independent critical thinking. Hopefully that is learned somewhere along the way (education, upbringing, life experience). I am the number one believer in science and technology and its capacity to provide enormous benefit (human genome, synthetic life, nuclear power, genetically modified food, stem cell research, it's all good) but at the same time I always have my bullshit detector on.

I wish the SSC had been built. As a pure research project. The US is wealthy enough to do it. I agree it should be justified on its own merits. Not because of "spinoffs". Same with the space program. If you can't justify something on its own merits then it doesn't deserve public funding. You make an honest case for it and let society decide.

I think it's OK to name drop your scientific credentials if you want. It's somewhat useful to the reader but of course it doesn't guarantee that you're right. I think if you do have some experience in a technical field you know how hard it is to actually discover something, or build something or make a breakthrough. And you do have a tendency to be skeptical (rightly in many cases) about wild speculation and shaky extrapolation. It's never that easy. What did Edison say? 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration? Sounds about right.

106. Chemical brain controls nanobots

Comment #142520 by Rational_G on March 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm

It is much ado about very little ;-)

107. Out of the Blue

Comment #140740 by Rational_G on March 8, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I do like the idea of trying to build a brain from scratch.

108. Out of the Blue

Comment #140735 by Rational_G on March 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Steve -

Do you believe the simulated system can be conscious, without a sense of self, ie some sort of body? I guess we're going to find out eventually....

109. Out of the Blue

Comment #140731 by Rational_G on March 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm

A living person, no matter how disabled, still has a body which maintains homeostasis.

110. Out of the Blue

Comment #140723 by Rational_G on March 8, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Bonzai and JDCherry:

I totally agree. The body is part of consciousness.

I recommend Antonio Damasio's book - "The Feeling of What Happens, Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness"

111. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140525 by Rational_G on March 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm

Teratornis:

I have to admit, a very thorough response to my question. I read in the NY Times today that the US got only 11% of its oil from the Persian Gulf in 2005. Sounds a little low. I guess we get a lot from Nigeria (not exactly a nice place either), Speaking of energy alternatives, what do you think of this guy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/books/07book.html

If only the US would increase its fleetwide gasoline MPG average by say 50% we would probably not need much foreign oil at all.

Cheers,

Rational_G

112. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140266 by Rational_G on March 7, 2008 at 4:55 am

Teratornis;

Can I take the train to see RD, or will that support Saudi Arabia also?

113. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #139898 by Rational_G on March 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Tetratornis:

Value of seeing something in person:

It's called reality.

Human interaction with other like minded people comes to mind as well.

The setting.

Not constrained to the camera eye view.

Did I mention reality? as opposed to pixels on a screen?

114. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137080 by Rational_G on March 2, 2008 at 10:25 am

"It doesn't matter to the core beliefs of Buddhism whether not it is true. It is about whether it is useful."

Steve -

Got to disagree with that statement. Bullshit is bullshit, useful or not.

Wrapping up useful ideas in cosmic nonsense is not my idea of seeking and promulgating the truth. You're picking out stuff a la carte and holding your nose about the rest - sounds like the Episcopalians.

115. Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

Comment #133840 by Rational_G on February 26, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Fuck Pakistan! (The govt that is.)

116. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132349 by Rational_G on February 24, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Mmmm... Guinness. Some of us yanks love it too.

117. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132268 by Rational_G on February 24, 2008 at 2:29 pm

I think the nitpicks are illuminating. They reveal the zeal in which string theorists present their untestable ideas.

However science is a big room - big enough to consider alternative ideas. As he says, time will tell.

118. Physicist Neil Turok: Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning

Comment #132238 by Rational_G on February 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm

"I think of the whole thing as a giant intellectual exercise..."

as opposed to a useful scientific theory. (Yawn.)

119. DLD08 - Life: a gene-centric view

Comment #132161 by Rational_G on February 24, 2008 at 11:24 am

Thanks for the insights and follow up on molecular taxonomy, guys. I was beginning to despair that The Ancestor's Tale was flawed. I feel better now.

120. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131879 by Rational_G on February 23, 2008 at 2:11 pm

Great video - I have no problems with the production values - the video fits fine with RD's great writing,

121. Revealed: Secrets of the Camouflage Masters

Comment #130978 by Rational_G on February 21, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Check out the complete video:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/206

122. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #130010 by Rational_G on February 19, 2008 at 10:30 pm

2029 indeed. What month?

I think the guy is kinda looney.

He also thinks he's going to live long enough for technology to allow him to live forever.

I think he's afraid of death.

123. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

Comment #129961 by Rational_G on February 19, 2008 at 8:16 pm

1. The anthropic principle doesn't explain anything.

2. SETI searches are worth doing.

3. Planets are ubiquitous.

124. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128197 by Rational_G on February 16, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Ben Stein = pompous ignorant fool.

125. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127973 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 8:24 pm

mesomodel:

Titan works for me also! The Cassini Huygens mission is outstanding. Love those radar flybys of Titan that are still going on. More missions!

126. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127963 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm

mesomodel:

Thanks for the info.

Here's hoping we find some of those hardy little critters somewhere else in the solar system besides Earth. The planetary missions are awesome from an engineering, scientific and cosmic perspective. Hope we find the money and the wisdom to do many more

Europa or bust!

127. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127937 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 7:03 pm

mesomodel:

Hey, I never said it would be easy! ;-)

Good points.

128. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127930 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Pretty exciting that the conclusion is that solar system analogs are not rare. The Drake equation is looking better all the time.

129. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127929 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Given the decent amount of mass exchange between Mars and Earth that has occurred over the eons I'd be surprised if there wasn't some bacteria on Mars. It probably came from Earth...... or vice versa!

130. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127915 by Rational_G on February 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Come on, warp drive?

Please......

However, only a matter of time before we image an earth like planet

131. New meat-eating dinos identified

Comment #126986 by Rational_G on February 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Did these dinosaurs eat meat on Friday?

132. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #126249 by Rational_G on February 12, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Chucky D rules!

133. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #124981 by Rational_G on February 10, 2008 at 2:59 pm

OK, not stupid - but still worthy of ridicule.

134. Why Darwin matters

Comment #124197 by Rational_G on February 8, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Growing up studying physics and engineering my giants were Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman. It is only as an adult, and having read the wonderful books of Dawkins and E.O. Wilson, have I come to appreciate how truly a giant Darwin was and is. How all encompassing his theories are to biology. Wow.

135. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

Comment #123813 by Rational_G on February 7, 2008 at 4:55 pm

I have "freely" "determined" that I going to step out and have a beer. ;-)

Check that - a pale ale! More free will!

136. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #123232 by Rational_G on February 6, 2008 at 4:40 pm

No equations doesn't necessarily mean dumb. I agree golly gee whiz superficial accounts of scientific ideas do not serve the educated reader. But I think some "popular" physics books treat the subject at a fairly high level. A lot depends on the expertise and the writing skills of the author. I find it useful to hear the arguments from the horse's mouth, so to speak, ie from the Weinbergs and Feynmans and Greenes and Smolins of the world. At least then you are getting a first hand account of the issues and problems from workers in the field, not some journalistic hype. There are also a few non scientists that write well on the subject, like Tim Ferris for example.

Of course I'm not an expert and can't peer review the competing theories (I'm an aerospace engineer), but you can educate yourself as to the current ideas.

Of course no one is saying don't pursue string theory. Some of us just get a little concerned when the adherents prefer elegance over experimental verification. Gotta stay grounded in the real world - even a 10 dimensional one ;-)

Cheers all and again this is a great web site. Intelligent, witty discourse!

137. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122735 by Rational_G on February 5, 2008 at 10:38 pm

A lot of people assert that intelligent life is rare. There's really no way to tell without looking around ie searching for electromagnetic evidence.

138. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

Comment #122733 by Rational_G on February 5, 2008 at 10:32 pm

The probability of planets around most stars keep going up. The probability of earthlike planets keeps going up. So the number of sites where life may exist keeps going up. Pretty soon we will image earth like planets' atmospheres - what if those atmospheres are earth like? What will that suggest? Life throughout the universe is plausible. Radio searches are reasonable. There are answers to Fermi's paradox. It's called the limits to exponential growth. There are probably bacteria on Mars. There may be bacteria on Europa and Enceladus, Perhaps even in the atmosphere of Venus. Intelligent life is a tougher question. We may get lucky with a radio detection some day - modest searching by radio is pretty easy and relatively cheap.

We live in interesting times.

139. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #122719 by Rational_G on February 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Yes well I only make the recommendation because the book summarizes nicely the state of theoretical physics over the last 30 years and exposes some of the problems some people have with string theory. I found that useful.

I don't have to be a theoretical physicist to know that if you can't falsify a theory it's not very useful.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

140. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #122707 by Rational_G on February 5, 2008 at 9:04 pm

I recommend "The Trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin. No equations. Discusses the string theory controversy within the physics community.

141. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

Comment #122697 by Rational_G on February 5, 2008 at 8:40 pm

String theory has never made a single experimental prediction. It can't make a falsifiable claim. It has no predictive power. It therefore fails as a scientific theory.

142. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121530 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Thanks, MPhil and Steve. Glad I stirred up this thread - learned a few things.

143. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121519 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 2:35 pm

"If there is a problem, it is hard to think how it can be solved by anything. This, incidentally, is one reason to think that the problem isn't really there."


I see what you mean. Thanks. To tell you the truth, the qualia "problem" never really kept me up nights ;-)

144. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121513 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Any reason to think the qualia problem won't be eventually solved by neurobiology?

Enjoying this thread! - and trying to keep up with the ideas !

145. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121486 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Righton:

I've already been name dropping Antonio Damasio ( I should get royalties!) He has three books out on the subject -

1, Descartes' Error

2. The Feeling of What Happens

3. Looking for Spinoza.

I've read #2 and am 25% through #3.

I find him easier to read than Dennet ("Consciousness Explained") another good book on the subject.

#2 deals with consciousness directly and #3 about feeling and emotion in the brain.

I'm sure I'm leaving out many other good sources.

146. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121482 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I think emergence has a lot going for it, both in physics and biology. Temperature is meaningless at the level of individual atoms and consciousness is meaningless at the level of individual neurons or even elementary brain functions as fernaoorphaoo and c4chaos have correctly pointed out.

If they were asserting something non physical -that's where I object. If not, then my misunderstanding. (Trying to be opinionated but fair.)

147. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121472 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 1:08 pm

I don't know about ALL natural objects, but it has been argued that every living organism's (including a single cell's) "desire" to maintain homeostasis is the beginning of the biology of consciousness.

148. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121462 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 12:52 pm

Hi Steve -

Really impressed by all your posts.

As much as consciousness is still a mystery, my rationalist training makes me feel guilty about dualist thoughts. ;-) I am a bit of a hyper-rationalist.

I rather like emergence, so I'm cool with that.

Of course, I really don't know how far neuroscience can explain consciousness but I am very excited about the gains made there and of course in evolutionary biology and microbiology as well.

Cheers.

149. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #121448 by Rational_G on February 3, 2008 at 12:18 pm

fernaoorphaoo:

I must differ with both you and c4chaos: The neuroscience of feeling and emotion IS viable and is being determined, slowly but surely. It is being determined by experiment and observation, just like any other scientific endeavor. Neuroscience is not exclusively behaviorist - it measures what the brain is actually doing - directly. Mapping physical parts of the brain to feeling and emotion. Constructing neural maps and models not just of sight and sound but of feeling, emotion, and the sense of self. It has gone beyond image and auditory models - you are short changing neuroscience today if you are reducing it to that. It's beyond psychology if that's what you object to. It's empirical - evidence based - data based and a bit more far reaching than the stimulus/response exercise you seem to want to reduce it to.

And if the mind is more than just physical processes, then what is it? Soul? ghost? Energy? life force? wetware? spirits?

These "subjective realms" which science cannot answer - what are they?

This sounds rather metaphysical to me. I prefer the physical. The natural - not the supernatural. The natural world is spectacular enough without having to invent other realms. I believe some people just insist there must be more to it than that. Why? What? I think you guys should take a fresh look at the frontiers of neuroscience before you write it off. You might be surprised. Again I would point you to the work of Antonio Damasio who has modeled a neurobiological account of the self. Based on hard data from the lab. No quadrants, no "alternate" sources of truth. No wild speculation. Just hard work.

To quote the physicist Murray Gell-Man: "You don't need something more to get something more."

The separation of mind and body is a mistake. That's my humble opinion anyway.

Cheers.

150. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120789 by Rational_G on February 2, 2008 at 2:31 pm

c4chaos:

Thanks also to you for your link. As you can probably tell, I'm leery of the metaphysical.

Cheers.