1451. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129332 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:36 am

but,surely, that is part of what religions have sought to do.....ensure particular kinds of behaviour in order to promote survival.

Indeed, and strictly to this extent, they have been useful for the survival of certain groups.
But on the other hand, since religion has linked these helpful behavioural guidelines to metaphysical statements and value-judgements that have lead to immensely bloody wars, persecutions etc - we cannot say that any one specific religion (except maybe Janism) was/is a trait that has helped the survival of the species as a whole. Nor can we say that the groups with religions wouldn't have flourished better without the metaphysical addition to the helpful behavioural guidelines.

1452. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129322 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:31 am

MaxD,

I think (hope) that what was meant was that if we think that the theory of evolution is true, and we know that the phenomenon of religion exists and has persisted through time that we have to see it as part of evolution.

Concerning the validity and inferences from that, I direct you, krisking to my comments above.

1453. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129311 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:26 am

And, as has been stated time and again - this says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the metaphysical claims, and has no influence on the probability of these convictions being true.

1454. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129308 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:23 am

the only thing that is common to all theistic religions is the assumption of metaphysical entities with certain powers. Most religions that ever existed died out, many still exist. Have you had a look at the video? Just as in nature the condition of being killed by a parasite persists because new host are found, religions persists although it can have detrimental effects because new hosts are found all the time in converts or offspring of the afflicted. All that is required for religion to persist through evolution is not to sterilize all the hosts so that they can pass it on to offspring or to get a steady flow of converts - or both.

What's important for survival is behaviour of a certain kind, not metaphysical convictions.

1455. Cutting Edge: Baby Bible Bashers

Comment #129296 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:10 am

Aren't there laws against beating children in the US? I know there are in Germany. 'spare not the rod'... one more way in which this specific form of religion is or leads to child abuse. Disgusting.

1456. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129294 by MPhil on February 19, 2008 at 1:05 am

Given that we accept evolution, then I suspect it is pretty certain that we have to accept that belief in God/gods has to be part of the evolutionary process, and was (is) important for the survival of particular groups of peoples.

Without their mono-theistic beliefs and well-developed religious systems, they would surely never have survived given the hammering they have taken over the centuries.

...or maybe, without theism, and thus theistic differences, there wouldn't have been so many conflicts.

But seriuosly. Certain rules of behaviour that were codified by religions and in strongly religious communities observed might have provided a selection advantage, but not the metaphysical theistic concepts around them, which are neither necessary nor uniquely linked to the behavior that provides a selection advantage.

Furthermore, genes determine a lot of things, but they don't determine completely the structure and thus functioning of the individual brain/mind. The specific structure and weight of the synnapses, even their number is mostly a product of stimulation, of conditioning. Thus, we cannot simply say with full confidence that religion is properly in our genes.

But the point is that yes, religion is part of the natural world, and is persistent. I suggest you have a look at this very informative video, a talk given by Daniel Dennett on memetics, and (among other things) the religious memes:

Ants, terrorism and the awsome power of memes (approx. 15 minutes)

1457. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129250 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:58 pm

So what is then understood philosophical exactly as MIND ? More as spirit, intelligence, information processing, ability for reasoning etc.. or more the mythical SOUL as transcendental medium used for rebirth ?

The definition is of course dependent on the theory of the individual philosopher. But I wouldn't associate the word "spirit" with 'intelligence, information processing, ability for reasoning'. "Spirit" elicits concepts of the immaterial, the mystical, the 'holy spirit', of 'ghosts' etc.

But generally, philosophy of mind does not include notions of 'rebirth'. Transcendence is somehow out of fashion as well. Kant certainly thought the mind is transcendent, but nothing to do with rebirth or ancient myths.

So, generally, philosophy of mind looks at the abilities of the 'mind' we observe, which are understanding and producing language, solving problems, having emotions, being conscious, self-conscious and so forth and then tries to work out a coherent concept from that, figure out the ontological implications and erase the false assumptions.

1458. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129246 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:33 pm

I guess it was "Der Geist fiel nicht vom Himmel", and I would translate 'Geist' to 'mind'. It's common practice in philosophy and empirical science.

1459. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129239 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Dualism is unable to make predictions, as it postulates something that cannot be intersubjectively observed. As such it is non-falsifiable. We can 'only' show that it is both unnecessary and incompatible with our scientific understanding. But that's more than enough.

1460. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129237 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:17 pm

And vice versa for areas like biology and higher physics.

But Sith? If so, I want my lightsaber! Does that mean that we will inevitably lose? Doubt it :)


Btw, for those of you who don't know it, I suggest you have a look at Ramachandran's "Phantoms in the Brain" on http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8455399781703865307&q=Ramachandran&total=256&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Even such strange conditions as the Capgra's delusion (Suddenly awaking one day and having the strong conviction that a very familiar person, usually a spouse has been replaced by an identically looking imposter) now have neurphysiological explanations, thanks to Ramachandran.

1461. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129231 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:07 pm

I agree.

1462. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129226 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 10:00 pm

And doing a fine job at it.
Hu-rah marine. Lets show those damn dualists what we are 'made of'! ;P

1463. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129220 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 9:52 pm

Somehow I knew that we would both home in on this, Steve :)

1464. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129219 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 9:51 pm

To assume that a mind requires a brain is to simplify the issue a bit isnt it?

Actually, no. This position, or rather the position that the mind is nothing else than the funtion of the brain (or something functionally similar) is the only reasonable position given the evidence. Everything else is just idle speculation and entirely unsupported by evidence - actually, contradicted by it.

Cognitive neurosciences are incredibly complex and fascinating. If you haven't looked into this very young, yet amzingly productive and diverse field, you wouldn't believe what we know about the brain, and how its function is the mind.
We have already identified the funtion of most brain areas - Things we associated with an 'immaterial mind' in earlier times. And not only this, but we can already build artificial neural networks (pure hardware, no pre-programmed software) that can be conditioned to parse language, recognize faces and differenciate between male and female etc - all through the conditioning of synaptic bias.

We know from neuro pathopsychology that the Wernicke's and Broca's areas are responsible for language, we know that the ability interact socially responsible is the function of a part of the prefrontal cortex. And this is just a tiny fraction of what we know.

why do we think that the mind exists in the brain only.

For several reasons - first: If we assume that there is something like an immaterial mind, we are unable to conceptualize how it should be linked to the brain. After all, in cannot be properly said to be 'within' the brain, because only physical things can be within physical things. And we know that something non-physical (even assuming) something like this exists) could not influence something physical, because of thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics state the physical universe is causally closed. So neither could an immaterial mind influence the brain and thus our behaviour (substance dualism), nor could our brains somehow influence a non-physical mind.

But we know that for example if the broca's or wernicke's areas are injured or malformed in a certain way - we lose the ability to use or understand language. And after all - 'understanding' is supposed to be a mental activity, isn't it?

The brain is a processor for our sensual experiences, I agree, but is the mind reduced to a series of synapses and neurochemical transmiters.

The human brain is the most complex structure in the known universe. Have a look into neural network theory and cognitive neurosciences. It's amazing, really. Most people just don't want it to be true that the mind is the brain, because they feel that some 'magic' is lost. Yes, we do lose the 'magic'. But 'magic' explains nothing. Really understanding how the brain functions as the mind, in detail - is, at least for me, incredibly wonderful.

Why do humans have such advanced minds when we dont have the largest brains. Surely the largest brains would be the most intelligent?

No, the most complex functional structures with the highest-level systematic functions of self-monitoring and governing are the most 'intelligent'. The number of synapses, the structural complexity and the size of the certain 'important' areas is what counts. The neocortex (the evolutionary youngest part of our brains), the prefrontal cortex, as well as the Broca's and Wernicke's areas (for language that enables us to form and modify concepts, to symbolize thoughts and concepts and to process them on a multitude of levels) are of extremely high importance.

And with humans, the structural complexity concerning the areas and the number of synapses are highest of all the animals we know.

As I said, the human brain is the most complex piece of matter known to man.

1465. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129209 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 9:29 pm

They would survive the cold - but would they survive the collapse progressive collapse of the food-chains?

Then, of course, if asteroids are larger than a certain number of kilometres in diameter (was it 3?), they are 'global killers'.

1466. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128831 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 3:35 am

I agree.

Seeing as sensory-input/synaptic-coding/behavioural-output causal connections are formed through conditioning, such "Snow man"-statements are damaging to that well-supported, conditioned rationality.

Maybe a law-suit for "mental cruelty" would be in order?

1467. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

Comment #128821 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 2:56 am

Several million synapses of mine just screamed out in despair...

...not for the reason you would surmise, though, wooter.

1468. Why Darwin matters

Comment #128820 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 2:54 am

Ah well, enough time wasted on this.

Most definitely.

Although this will probably only enhance the sensation of this individual that he is correct, and that we just don't want to acknowledge the 'truth'...


Please, Josh, block the account, and hoping that it's a static one, the IP.

I really don't like to this, but I just had to use the 'troll' flag twice on this individual.

1469. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128817 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 2:48 am

Well, yes - but what is the proper question?

Good luck finding out on this flawed Earth II with the Golgafrincham genetic and cultural 'pollution'.

1470. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128800 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 1:19 am

Oh all right.
Don't count on my interpretative faculties to work right now. I haven't slept last night. It's 10:15 AM and I've been awake for the last 16 houes... furthermore, I'm just enjoying my second self-mixed good-night cocktail (a wonderful 'Touchdown'...and a 'Zombie' before that. hmmm, tasty) so I'm not entirely sober to boot.

:)

1471. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128795 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 12:49 am

This is certainly important, but we must be careful to take into account that while our concept of space includes infinite divisibility, the actual inhabitants, and therefore bearers of that information must have finite length - so there must be a 'tiniest existing information-bearer'.

Surely there's a lot of space between the nucleus and the electrons, although when we postulate them as probabilistic distributions of mass and charge in orbit around the nucleus, the space 'in between' is not entirely empty, but only probably highly probably empty.

Isn't it true that the tiniest particles, information bearers we know of are quarks and leptons? If we could actually use these as information bearers in technology, that would be incredible indeed, an would probably revolutionize artificial computation (among other things). But of course the smaller we get, the more we have to deal with Heisenberg-uncertainty and the closer together functional elements in technology are, the more we have to worry about interference. Even the current 45nm technology faces these problems. We will most probably expand even further inwards - but while speculating about possible future technology based on actual physics is useful, speculating about possible future physics is idle.

We might be like the Romans looking at the moon, or we might indeed have gained knowledge of certain limits which actually are insurmountable, although we most probably haven't reached them yet.

Anyways - I expect many great new technological inventions. Working brain-computer interfaces on a much higher level and artificial intellegence, even personality are among them, though I wouldn't want to speculate about timeframes. The past estimates in the times of Turing and von Neumann have proven drastically over-confident.

1472. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128790 by MPhil on February 18, 2008 at 12:01 am

Fair points, Steve.

Not sure that they are conclusive, but they shift my assesments of probability to some extent.

1473. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128769 by MPhil on February 17, 2008 at 11:08 pm

I have been researching this issue, albeit purely as an amateur, for decades. I just don't think that the "size of space" argument works, as it is overcome by the "size of time".

Hmm... but the earth is pretty old, and life could have come about on much younger planets - and it might have taken longer for civilization to arise.

Space travel for an individual is very difficult. But we could probably even now, if we wished, build a generational ship that could colonize a nearby solar system.

Suppose a cilivization did this, and sent out a couple of ships. Then waited a millenium or so. The each colony sent out another few ships. Even travelling at far below the speed of light, this civilization could fill the galaxy on a scale of tens or hundreds of millions of years, which is a small fraction of the time the galaxy has existed.

I don't think that's a convincing argument, because we would have to assume that the civilation has decided to do this, has managed to start the project that it worked flawlessly. Furthermore - it applies only to our own galaxy - where we might be alone, but the larger the scale, the higher the probability.

Suppose this never happens, and instead a civilization stays at home and harvests the energy of its star, perhaps in the manner of a Dyson sphere. We could see it! There would be anomalous infrared emission from a dark source. And as for signals, the Arecibo telescope could pick up signals from far across our galaxy, so, again, space is not an issue.

But we don't have to assume that civilations must do either, they could be on the brink of extinction (or some could have already gone extinct), or they could be younger, or not much older than ours, or they could have decided to do neither, because they didn't have the need until now, their star could have even longer to go than our own.

And the telescope doesn't monitor all of space all the time, but merely a tiny fraction of space for a tiny fraction of time. And since the information the telescopes reveice get older and older the farther we look, even if a society had produced observable phenomena a million years ago, we wouldn't have been able to observe that if they were more than a million light years away - even given we looked at the right miniscule spot and the source was strong enough to be detected.

1474. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128754 by MPhil on February 17, 2008 at 10:23 pm

I don't think that Fermi's paradox is resolved only by postulating that we are alone. In our solar-sytem, yes. But there's no reason to assume we must be alone in the milky-way or even the entire universe. Other civilisations might not have become 'visible' as of yet because they are too far away, or haven't developed strong enough radio-signals to travel the distance, or haven't developed interstellar travel, or the signals are still too far away or or or... only a miniscule fraction of the stars and planets in universe have been observed by us.

Just saying given the extrapolations on the probability of, taking into account the extrapolotions concerning the numbers of stars and planets in the universe... I'd say the probability is far from zero that intelligent, culture-forming life-forms have evolved somewhere else - even given that we have as of yet not seen evidence (other than our probabilistic extrapolations) of them.

1475. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128739 by MPhil on February 17, 2008 at 9:18 pm

I second that, Steve.

We already have artificial retina's for blind people, as of yet, they don't provide very accurate vision, but it enables the carrier to navigate a room visually. And we can already move a cursor on a screen and click at items just through externally measured brain-waves. Just think what we could achieve with nanotechnological implants that can measure neural activity far more directly and precisely.


___________
P.S.: Steve, just sent you another PM on the Bnonn debate.

1476. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128425 by MPhil on February 17, 2008 at 1:36 am

The human body only ages and eventually dies because it's genetically programmed to do so. A species with a very long lifespan does not evolve as quickly because its gene pool is crowded with too many generations; hence, having a fixed lifespan is actually something of a survival advantage, since it aids adaptability. That's why all animals have evolved to die after a certain period of time.

I'm afraid I can't let that pass. Biogerontology is much more complicated. Aging and dying are effects of a lot of causes. Free radicals - somatic mutation are a prominent cause, as is the degradation of telomeres in every cell cycle. This cannot be selected for for several reasons. i) these processes are not genetically coded ii)they are inevitable.
Certainly, specific mutations might strengthen the defenses against free radicals, against certain natural poisons etc... but that's only a tiny part of the puzzle.

1477. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128396 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 10:57 pm

It's actually 8 or 9 %, depending on federal state. It's part of the process of tax-collection, so its neither before nor after.

I guess most people either don't know that they can opt out of paying that 8-9% or don't want to take that big step of officially renouncing membership of their church. This is probably especially true for catholics, as the Vatican sees baptism as final, and the act of officially renouncing membership of the church (the one and only way to opt out of paying this 'tithe') is considered a crime, namely 'apostasy', 'heresy' or 'schism', and is punished by excommunication.


But the really disgusting part is this:
Most people don't enter the church consciously and willingly, but through infant baptism. At that point they are registered as members of their church. To later opt out of paying that tax (or even just to renounce official church membership), you have to pay an 'administrative fee' of up to 41 Euro! to the official state (city) institution in charge of registering church membership, place of residence, occupation etc.

So you have to pay to leave an organisation you never willingly entered.

Ain't it great?

1478. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128372 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 9:15 pm

quill,

that's not what I said at all - or at least not what I meant to say. Of course there's a semantic difficulty with 'importance'.
Definitely the artistic, technological and scientific advances from the US are of tremendous importance in our lives. But then US culture is based upon European culture (in virtue of most of the people that contributed substantially to the creation of cultural artifacts in America having either come from Europe directly or being the descendantsof people who came from there... in both cases thus coming from within a framework of European culture, either because they have been brought up within in or because their ancestors having been shaped by European culture and having brought with them its artifacts).

I don't really care about national boundaries or countries of origin. I think there is very sophisticated culture nowadays in the US and in Europe (and almost everywhere else). But for various reasons, I happen to think that eg the music of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn and others is unparalleled when it comes to being 'high-brow' culture. That's more a matter of epoches and cultural heritage to build on than of country of origin. When these people were composing their works - the US was still very very young, with almost no infrastructure and own cultural artifacts.

As I said, I wasn't really talking about importance... I don't know to call it without inviting misreadings... more about 'sophistication', 'high-brow-ness', 'depth' or something along those lines. And I specifically stated that I do think that art with such qualities has been and is still produced in many countries. It's that, for historical reasons, the cultural heritage comes largely from central Europe. And for the same simple reason of having had more time, thus more background - and a further developed 'own' cultural, economic, social, political and physical (roads, population-density etc) infrastructure since the end of the middle-ages until the late 19th century - there are quantitatively more such cultural artifacts in European history than in American history.

...hope that clarifies my view.

1479. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128356 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 8:16 pm

A case of hurt feelings because of irrational identification with an area of land with a name and unjustifiably taking pride in things one had nothing to do with? Ie patriotism?

I agree that the jokes about 'lets annihilate the US' are bad taste and uncalled for. But I doubt there are more than a handful of people here that would say that there's nothing good about the US... actually, I doubt anyone would say that.

Don't play the hurt feelings and 'you're no better either' card when the internationally most influential country is the center of attention.

I really think the point of this article was the economical one I was paraphrasing in my first comment. As for the statistics... they're clear. Why moan about criticism where it is due?

...just to reiterate: this is coming from someone who greatly values the positive cultural, technological and scientific contributions that came and still are coming from the US.

1480. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128346 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Diacanu,
Of course, TNG was the best by far... with Picard as the metaphorical 'philosopher king', but I didn't bail out because there were still some good ideas, stories and characters afterwards. :)


On the matter of the US 'making up for in quality what it doesn't in quantity'... err, I don't want to start a debate here, and don't get me wrong... there are a lot of good things about the US... great poets, novellists, inventors, scientists, political figures. But concerning the cultural aspect... the greatest composers by and large hailed from central and western Europe, the greatest novellists and philosophers as well (including the UK)...

There are of course very notable and incredibly great figures in these areas from the US (in some areas more than in others)... but by and large... I don't think you're correct.

As I said, don't get me wrong... I am an 'americophile' as well as 'anglophile'. I love Kubrick, Jarmush, Zappa, Poe, Auster, Rawls, Churchland, Dennett and many many others. I have nothing but immense respect for them. But to compare those to Lang, Bach, Goethe, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and others... well... that's a different matter.

1481. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128340 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Quill,... you've got a point there.

I live in Germany, and while there is no state-religion, and the constitution nominally grants both positive and negative religious freedom as well as freedom of expression (which, just like every other political liberty has to have its boundaries... think of screaming political propaganda through a megaphone right across the balcony into your neighbour's flat for 4 hours a day and things like that) this is undermined by several other laws.

Tax-money pays for theology-courses of studies at public universities and religious educations (confessionally divided) at public schools from first grade until you finish - that is except you specifically opt out and take 'Ethics' or 'Philosophy' instead, there's a law against "slandering religious convictions where it could disturb the peace", no loud music may be played on high christian holidays, and the state collects the tithe for the churches from any tax-payer who is a registered member of either the roman catholic or lutherean protestant church.


Strangely, most people (including the religious) would be offended by a political candidate invoking God or the Bible (or any other deity or 'holy' book) for political decisions.

On the other hand, I live in Bavaria... and things are a little different in this catholic stronghold, where the Bavarian Constitution says that the highest goal of education is "reverence for God"
Only about 10 years ago the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the Bavarian practice of having a cross in every classroom and mandatory prayer was unconstitutional... now the crosses have to be taken down if a parent doesn't want it there (of course its a long and tedious process... not worth the time and trouble for most people - and in a few small towns you would immediately be a social outcast) and the prayer is optional.

So, the situation is very strange indeed. The laws are much more religion-friendly here in Europe, while the people are much more open-minded and enlightened in general(think public acceptance of evolution vs YEC and ID) and would be offended by the mixing of politics and religion that is commonplace in the US.

Some people think (and I tend to agree) that this is because religion is not 'free enterprise' in Europe, and thus isn't hyped, sold and advertised to fervently.

1482. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128326 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:37 pm

Diacanu,

strange... I'm a huge Star Trek fan... I think the Borg were an excellent part of sci-fi television... the technology, the criticism of collective, uncritical thinking with the total negation of the needs and rights of the individual - the value of individuality etc...

Never crossed my mind to think that nanotechnology is something bad because a villain in a TV-show uses it prominently.

And, after all - just think how often Seven's nanobots saved someone elses life...


;)

1483. Study: Religion colors Americans' views of nanotechnology

Comment #128317 by MPhil on February 16, 2008 at 6:31 pm

In response to robotaholic et al...


Worst case scenario:
Since concerning high-cost, high-tech products the US market practically determines what gets produced and marketed and what doesn't, it might be that because of the huge religious opposition, the technology will not get further researched and then produced. If two thirds of the potential consumers in the US see it as morally problematic or even 'evil', this will be an incitive to stop researching practical applications. And this might lead to the development of potential treatments of serious illnesses and other things being hindered or even stopped.

Of all 'first-wold' countries, the US have by far the largest percentage of people opposing science (evolution most prominently), supporting creationism, opposing same-sex marriage and environmentally friendly policies (mandatory filters for industrial plants, ecologically friendly cars, renewable energy-sources etc... after all, according to the Bible, the world is ours to exploit) and supporting the idea that religion has to play a major role in political and educational decisions and practices. Since the US is furthermore still dominating the world economy and is the most active global player when it comes to international conflicts... that's why the US need to be adressed first and foremost when it comes to the negatice consequences of the religious delusion (alongside the Vatican and its internationally effective policy concerning contraception).

1484. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127966 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Tooltroll,

of course beaming is possible... you just have to carefully adjust the Heisenberg-compensators :)

But seriously... beaming has been done, if not in the way Star Trek fans (such as myself) would have wanted it. The quantum state of a photon has been sucessfully 'copied' to another one, thus making it bear the exact same information. It has afaik even been done with electrons...

...that is if I remember all of this correctly. It's been a few years since I've heard of this.

1485. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

Comment #127962 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 7:57 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Casimir effect observed solely when two metal-plates in a high-vacuum are brought together very very close, so that between them, only virtual particles of certain cardinal-multiples of certain frequencies can form and annihilate, while outside of these plates these limitations do not apply, so that between these plates what you get 'negative pressure' from absolute vacuum?

Don't see how that could we could harvest that on a large scale - or even apply it.
Do scientists currently work on this?

1486. Map reveals extent of human damage to oceans

Comment #127684 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Yes, this is indeed a very sensitive issue. But I think Steve was being very considerate in using the phrase "sensible population controls".

Of course, there are countries where the rate of population growth is far, far higher than in any European country. So that would be where such measures would be most needed.

I think governmental permission to reproduce is not needed per se. Something like tax benefits for one-child families might do the trick.
Here in Germany it's a different matter. We have actually no population growth. Quite the opposite. In a few decades, ther will be more elderly than children and tax-paying adults together, which means that the economy is going to collapse, as these elderly, retired people need housing, food and a lot of other things that cost money... which will have to be provided by the tax-payers. What we are facing is a collapse of infrastructure, and a loss of 'own' culture (think Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Kant, Goethe, Schiller, Nietzsche etc) because the groups that will make up most of the population soon will be people from different cultures.

...just to mention the problems of too little population growth.

But in the end, a one-child-per-family-benefit might be just what is needed.

1487. Map reveals extent of human damage to oceans

Comment #127594 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Indeed, when the aerobic-anaerobic border rises in the oceans because of global warming - say good bye to the food-chain.

Not to mention the cutting off of the gulf-stream through the melting ice caps, possibly resulting in another ice-age.

1488. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127570 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Actually, I was very surprised to find out that most of my fellow students of philosophy at Munich university are actually not atheists, but some kind of mystic-obscure-theist-kinda-preestablished-harmy-sort-o-people. But then, this specific 'elite' course of studies in philosophy is from the 1st chair of philosophy at Munich University, which is a concordat-chair, meaning that the person holding it has to get an OK from the catholic church... it's a law in Germany (dating back to the reichs-concordat between Nazi-Germany and the Vatican) that there are several concardat-chairs in Germany.

To the credit of Professor Wilhelm Vossenkuhl, you don't notice it at all - he is very open, and several times when I criticized the history of the church(es), he agreed wholeheartedly. Never noticed any theistic input.

But hey, it's Bavaria, so what would you expect - the Bavarian constitution notes that the "highest goals of education are reverence for God, respect for religious belief and human dignity, self-control, sense of and interest in responsibility, helpfulness, openness for everything true, good and beautiful and a sense of responsibility for nature and environment."

...and that's not the only law favouring religion (specifically Christianity) in Germany and especially Bavaria.

It's so sad.

Furthermore, I think "openness for everything true" somehow excludes "reverance for god"...

1489. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127509 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 11:00 am

Epinephrine,

I know what you mean. I'm somewhat of a 'grammar Nazi' myself... though I dislike that term - I'm German. :)

1490. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127483 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 10:38 am

Epinephrine,

I think in this case you could technically use both. Of course, since we say something is 'far from true', the comparative form would be 'farther', but since it's not a physically measuarable distance, but a matter of degree of ascribing a property, I think 'further' could be technically permissible.

Still, I'd go with 'farther' for the sake of maintaining idiomatic expressions.

1491. Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

Comment #127453 by MPhil on February 15, 2008 at 10:00 am

Have a look at this and despair:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE&feature=related

...an excerpt:

-"Which country should we invade next in the war on terror?"
-"Uh... France."
-"Why would you say 'France'"?
-"Well, err, because there's some friction going on between France and the United States."

1492. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126397 by MPhil on February 13, 2008 at 6:38 am

al-rawandi...

I completely agree. Did it seem as though I was stating anything to the contrary? If so, you misinterpreted... I endorse the opinion expressed by your last post entirely without reservations.

1493. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126375 by MPhil on February 13, 2008 at 5:04 am

Quill,

first - I apologize for the confrontational, personal statements I made. Let's keep this on a civil level.

I can assure you that I haven't got my ethics mixed up. Actually, I study ethics and metaethics... and I think you're simplifying immensely. There are a lot of qualifications and nuances in my opinion. The most prominent being the level of immediacy and certainty of threat, the amount of harm to be avoided, the degree to which the action will help avert an undesirable outcome and the certainty of that.

The examples in my last post should provide sufficient clarifications, although even they (for the sake of brevity) still simplify matters.

Just crying "national defense" and staring to kill and torture is a foul. And in the way it was done by the US concerning Iraq, it definitely wasn't a good enough justification.

But I see that we're not going to resolve this difference of opinion. So I suggest that we leave it that, having stated our opinions.

1494. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126366 by MPhil on February 13, 2008 at 4:35 am

My main point was that torture isn't outlawed because of any ethical reasons. I really get tired of people, especially Europeans, claiming moral superiority by taking such a position. Oh, the US is so unethical, because they waterboard--Please! If it's ethically justifiable in war to shoot some poor fellow in the gut with a hollow-point bullet, or blow his or her arms and legs off, or explode his skull into tiny bits and fragments, or run him over with a tank, or drop bombs on his children, it's certainly justifiable to pour water over his head for a few seconds to make him think he's drowning. It's just not an effective means of interrogation.

...and I get tired of people accusing others who think torture is morally wrong and of arrogance in the course of arguing that there is no ethical problem with torture via a false example.

Of course there's something morally wrong with deliberate cruelty, of course there's something wrong with killing someone - whether in war or not. That sometimes it might really be the only way to survive or actually avert catastrophic events doesn't make it morally good. And please, don't be so simplistic - there's a difference between defening the boarders of your country when a hostile army is trying to invade or intervening in genocide, killing enemy combattants who are at that moment actively trying to kill you and waging a war of agression.

Inflicting deliberate cruelty on someone who poses no immediate threat is something entirely different.

Yes, if I knew there was a nuclear bomb about to be dropped on the country where I live and I knew for sure that I will definitely be able to avert this if and only if I inflict pain and fear on someone - I might be able to do that, and it might be the best possible course of action. Doesn't make it morally entirely unproblematic.

Furthermore - as far as we know this is not what happened, torture was used in far less serious circumstances. Because if there had really been a serious catastrophic attack averted, the government would have proclaimed the victory of averting it all over town.
Something similar happened in Germany recently - 4 guys with about 700 kilos of explosives were planning to detonate it in a crowded place. Standard, legal methods were employed (phone and internet-tapping after a judge approved it, the people were being watched covertly), the police got in one day when there was noone home, replaced the explosives with fakes, gathered conclusive evidence and arrested them later that day. No shot was fired.

Honestly, the nerve of being offended by people saying that torture is morally wrong and those who commit it are committing a crime... that's just too far out.

1495. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126362 by MPhil on February 13, 2008 at 4:17 am

Sounds like

Hey, we're a constitutional democracy - standing for liberty and justice for all... and we've only waterboarded three people so far! Officially, that is.

After WWII, 8 Japanese were sentenced to death for having waterboarded American Soldiers, because they actually did face a catastrophic event and were trying to avert it. Or does having two nuclear bombs dropped on you not qualify as a catastrophic event? So, the US viewed waterboarding as a crime worthy of capital punishment.

Oh, but of course. The US are the 'good guys'... so since the ends are good per definition, they justify the means. Abduction of foreign citizens in from their home countries, torturing at least three people by waterboarding only. Using sleep-deprivation and humiliation as psychological and physical torture. Nullifying basic constitutionally granted liberties.

...wait, how does a government like that (and the people who support these actions) still qualify as the 'good guys'? Beats me.

1496. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125199 by MPhil on February 11, 2008 at 4:03 am

I think a cognitive neuro-scientist would be the best option, as this is the youngest and most promising field of scientific inquiry. Barely existent for two decades, the cognitive neurosciences have given us insight into one of the last and deepest 'mysteries' (or rather 'puzzles') - the mind.

Consciousness should be raised that the mind is also a product of nature, it is the function of the brain.
Too many people still labour under the misapprehension that the mind is something 'magical'. Too little people know about the wonders of the human brain, the most complex, organized piece of matter known to humankind, and how it produces consciousness.

I think it is time for raising the public understanding specifically of the cognitive neurosciences.

1497. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125115 by MPhil on February 11, 2008 at 1:57 am

So, Prof. Dr. Dawkins is going to retreat from academia. This might be seen as a sad moment, for surely the academic world is going to lose one of its most prominent and productive members.
I doubt, however, that Prof. Dr. Dawkins will henceforth be entirely absent - and this thought makes me content.

His contributions will stand, and he can retire in the knowledge that the world is a better, more enlightened world that has had its consciousness raised - for his contributions.

For that, we should thank Prof. Dr. Dawkins - and I want to do this now myself: Thank you for over 30 years of wonderful books, lectures, debates and documentaries. Thank you for raising the collective consciousness of the world about the religious delusion. Thank you for giving us the 'selfish gene' interpretation. Thank you for giving us the 'extended phenotype' interpretation. Thank you for the wonderful prose poetry of "The Ancestor's Tale" and "Unweaving the Rainbow". Thank you for all your other wonderful books, papers and articles. Thank you also for the contribution you made to the thinking of the deeply missed Douglas Adams. Thank you for everything!

1498. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125013 by MPhil on February 10, 2008 at 5:35 pm

...that is, if it's supposed to be funny simply because these are 'shocking' statements - that's something I really do not understand. In that case it would be akin to a group of minors giggling about using swear-words or laughing about the stupid excrement-related 'gags' in various very low-brow movies.
But somehow I doubt that's all there is to Carlin's statements of this kind. His other stuff is sometimes quite insightful - that's why it puzzles me.

1499. Sharia fiasco

Comment #125012 by MPhil on February 10, 2008 at 5:28 pm

notsobad,

evidently.
Though I wasn't really being serious with the 'being scared'-part. I hope he's not being serious about himself for psychological reasons... and as for comedic value: I simply don't find such statements funny at all. Don't get me wrong - I love dark humor - sarcarsm, irony, cynicism. Doesn't seem like he's being sarcastic or simply ironic when he's saying such things though...
And other things he says (about religion eg) I wholeheartedly agree, and do find very funny.

Maybe I 'understand' it, but simply don't find it funny?

1500. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124998 by MPhil on February 10, 2008 at 4:10 pm

I do enjoy Bill Maher at times - but I think (don't want to sound arrogant, but that's how I feel) his comedy is a little low-brow at times. Sometimes he hits the nail right on the head, though.
I don't share his political views (Libertarianism is IMHO a bit deluded, I'm a classical European liberal/egalitarian). Steven Colbert is more my style - but generally, I prefer German 'high-brow' political comedy (we call it 'politisches Kabarett').

Carlin's "big man in the sky" speech is genius, I think... but the man scares me when get's all "don't you wish more people would die, - I give a shit about other people suffering and dying". Though I hope he's not being serious when he says such things.