Comments by Steve Zara

1601. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287996 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #287993 by Quetzalcoatl

I guess this is almost relevant to the thread - we are talking about "neighbours" after all...

1602. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287991 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #287981 by decius

I wonder how "Islam" feels about that?

1603. Bush set to relax endangered species rules

Comment #287989 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #287988 by JanChan

Excuse me, people, but I am going to save to say this:

JanChan, you really are a twit.

1604. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287986 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2008 at 4:43 am

Comment #287979 by Quetzalcoatl

Thus far.

If there was any technological spacefaring civilisation, it would have left its mark. Life is not shy. We should not have to hunt down faint signals.

We have looked at the stars in our galaxy, and in nearby galaxies and there is not the slightest sign of any harvesting of their energies. And there should be. Why would civilizations not use that source of power, and why would they try and hide it?

No, I am convinced we are alone, at least within a few hundred million light years. Not necessarily in terms of intelligence, but in terms of technological civilizations.

1605. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287976 by Steve Zara on November 21, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #287793 by Wosret

I know this sounds odd, but in our galaxy, space really isn't that big compared to time.

Also, colonisation and exploration can proceed exponentially.

Don't think of a few starships flitting from solar system to solar system, think of a colony of cells replicating.

In four dimensions our galaxy is a very narrow "triangle" - the spatial width is at most 100,000 light-years across. The temporal "depth" is billions and billions of "light" years. That means that even with replicating probes or colonies travelling at an average of a tiny fraction of the speed of light, the entire galaxy could have been colonized from a single source hundreds if not thousands of times over.

This is why I personally think SETI is pointless. If there were any technological cilizations out there they would not just have have probes already here, but they would be manipulating the stars to collect energy. We see an untouched sky.

1606. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287778 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #287768 by Wosret

Indeed. Two things you can never learn enough about:

Mathematics and cooking.

1607. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287766 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Comment #287761 by j.mills

Wonderful...
And Laurie, I am not maudlin, or an old fogey. There so so much more I expect to see.

1608. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287765 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Comment #287760 by zoltix

Yes, I have thought it through. It is my conclusion from decades of experience of different governments, and it is not a simple conclusion.

1609. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287753 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Ty90-

As decius says, Richard Dawkins is a wonderful role model. There can be no better scientist than someone like him who promotes his ideas with passion, but when he finds out he is wrong, he celebrates it and points this out in his books, and finds it exciting.

Emulate Dawkins. Be passionate about your ideas, but also be that rare person - someone who, when they find they are wrong, treat it positively as part of your education.

I think there are few greater and more satisfying things than intense intelligent debate between people who disagree, but respect each other.

1610. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287742 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Comment #287738 by Goldy

Mobile phones like a brick were enough for me. I don't understand why people wanted more.

1611. I'm Not One Of Those 'Love Thy Neighbor' Christians

Comment #287736 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Comment #287732 by ty90

Keep on learning, and stay skeptical. Every decade of your life, there will be major discoveries that will make some of the science you learn in the previous decade look outdated.

I have seen things in my life that I only dreamed of when I was your age - pictures of solar systems, of atoms, and from the surface of a moon of Saturn. You have an exciting life ahead.

Edit: Ignore Eshto!

Forums are anarchic, and go their own way. Enjoy the freedom!

1612. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287703 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Comment #287699 by DarwinsPitbull

I want to give politicians power because I want my vote to have power. Politicians are my defence against the power of money, of big business. Politicians have to face re-election, and so must deal with issues that the majority care about. Big business only cares about what the majority buys.

I say give politicians power because I have some ethical positions about society. Unlike you. Big Government is my defence against you. Against ignorance and self-interest. I think I need that defence.

1613. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287694 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Comment #287692 by Goldy

Have you ever tried South London Bangladeshi curries? They are amazing.

people start to talk about physics and the like, which makes me feel all stupid, like.

Have you heard the latest ideas about force unification? It is suggested that our low-energy experiments may never reveal the true nature of the fundamental forces.

1614. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287689 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Comment #287686 by Goldy

Brummie Balti houses produce some of the greatest food in the UK. Seriously.

1615. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287684 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Comment #287672 by decius

You should hear the Coventry accent. It is like Brummie but without the subtleties of tone.

It is to accents what DP is to intellectual discussion.

1616. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287669 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #287660 by Goldy

I started off in Sussex (pronouncing "milk" as "miouwk"), and then went to university South West of London, and have recently moved to the midlands (close to "Brum"). My husband has speech that is a combination of Yorkshire, Newcastle and Brummie.

It took some time for us to learn to communicate verbally.

My current speech is sort of a vague dialect, combined with what Terry Pratchett says about his own speech - a series of speech impediments all fighting together.

1617. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287655 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #287652 by Goldy

There is a long-running North/South battle in England about the use of the vowel 'a'.

My husband (a Northerner) says "bath"... I (a Southerner) say "Baahth". I have had long-running debates about appropriate pronunciation with him and my mother-in-law. When it reaches a certain level, I just mention "cough" and "plough" and walk away.

1618. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287650 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #287644 by Roger Stanyard

There was a recent debate involving Chris Hitchens reported here, and posters were reprimanding him a bit for not coming back with immediate attacks on false scientific statements from his opponent.

I had a sudden realisation what Hitchens was up to, and why I think his contribution to the fight against unreason is important. I realised this after reading a comment from Victor Stenger about Lane Craig, and his continued repeating of scientific arguments that he should know are invalid. I wondered how Lane Craig could justify his position.

I realised that many religious people consider science to be just a story. It is a book that can be picked up off the shelf like any other, alongside the bible. They don't consider science or reason to have any particular merit. In fact, they consider science to be an immoral story, which takes the human soul out of the plot.

So, one way to deal with this, as Hitchens does, is not to defend the scientific "story", but to go on the attack against the religious equivalent - to show that the Christian story is immoral, and that it paints God as lacking in even basic ethical values.

This, I think, is a wonderful technique. It attacks religion on its own ground, using its own rules.

We need both Dawkins and Hitchens - Richard defends the scientific, rational territory and Christopher goes on the attack against religion on its own terms.

1619. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287643 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Comment #287636 by rod-the-farmer

This is another watershed case. Once you get the ID side to commit in writing their beliefs, so that anyone can read it AND the rebuttal, we have them by the short & curlies, to be frank.

I wish that were the case, but I think you are too optimistic. You can't win a battle using reason with people who won't accept reason.

1620. The battle rages on in Texas

Comment #287624 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #287561 by rod-the-farmer

Unfortunately, Roger and others are right. There is no point arguing with fundamentalists regarding evidence. I have recently realised what Christopher Hitchens is up to in his debates with the religious - he cuts back on the science, because they simply won't accept it. Many religious, and particularly fundamentalists, believe that science is simply the wrong way to interpret reality, so no amount of scientific argument will have any effect. This is why Hitchens uses moral and aesthetic arguments - those may have some chance of influencing the individuals you are debating, as against a viewing audience.

1621. God enough

Comment #287546 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 10:27 am

aquilacane -

but I let a negative comment slip that was more from the surprise of actually seeing gay content on the TV than any real disgust at what I was seeing.

Yeah, I know. We gays can be seem quite disgusting if you aren't used to us.

1622. God enough

Comment #287511 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 9:41 am

Comment #287496 by aquilacane

this reminds me of a girl I knew. She was convinced that she was "ok" with herself and didn't care at all what anyone else thought of her. In good fun (my type of fun) I said she did, and offered a $50 bet to prove it. She accepted saying this would be the easiest $50 she ever made, until I pointed out that she cared enough about what I thought of her to wager $50 to prove me wrong. Had she been fine with what people thought of her, she would have refused the bet and not cared about my opinion.

Excuse me, but are you assuming there is some high-level emergent meaning associated with the sounds that came from the girl's mouth?

That sounds a bit supernatural to me, unless you can get that meaning by solving the Schrodinger wave equation.

1623. The Sea Turtle's Tale: Back to the sea, and back again to the land

Comment #287503 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 9:34 am

Comment #287492 by Cartomancer

Reminds me of a "Not the Nine O'Clock News" sketch, in which Pamela Stephenson parodied the BBC newsreader Angela Rippon with a pronunciation of "Zimbabwe" that had to be heard to be believed.

1624. God enough

Comment #287500 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #287496 by aquilacane

My world isn't very dull, I use metaphor all the time, but usually when I can't be bothered or am to ignorant to actually say what I mean, or I believe the person I'm talking with won't understand any other way.

But that is SO dull!

I would rather say "that chocolate cake is heavenly" than "my taste buds and smell receptors are signalling to my brain in a way that I experience (non-existent) pleasure qualia".

I hope that doesn't make me a dualist, or a believer in magic!

1625. Richard Dawkins: An Exclusive Profile

Comment #287466 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #287462 by gf ferre

Angry? Dealing with twits like you is fun.

Have you done the upload and link you promised yet?

1626. God enough

Comment #287446 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 7:43 am

Comment #287433 by aquilacane

Sorry, but I don't want to live in your dull world! A puritanistic world where metaphor is not allowed, else you get tapped on the shoulder by the rationalist thought police.

Relax a bit.

1627. God enough

Comment #287422 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 6:55 am

Comment #287418 by aquilacane

Entropy would never lead to water running up hill (at least not further than its momentum would permit), regardless of how disordered it may appear.

There is a lot of water "uphill" in clouds :)

Heat is not gained or lost from the water, it is borrowed from gravity and converted into erosion.

Water at the bottom of a waterfall will be heated because the kinetic energy it had when falling will be partly converted into heat.

1628. God enough

Comment #287375 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:59 am

Comment #287368 by Brian English

There is no meaning, we just invent it, like morality.

So inventions don't exist? Poor old Leonardo da Vinci!

1629. God enough

Comment #287359 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:21 am

Comment #287358 by Brian English

You respond to it by saying "evidence" as against "smerglish"

1630. God enough

Comment #287357 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:19 am

Comment #287356 by Brian English

Meaning doesn't have to be universally meaningful.

Our current discussion is meaningless, it won't do more than dissipate energy.

Yes, it does. Like everything I say, it creates order and structure in the brains of others.

1631. God enough

Comment #287354 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #287352 by Brian English

There is meaning. It is something we experience in our brains. To say there is no meaning is like saying there is no such think as pain, or happiness.

1632. God enough

Comment #287344 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:43 am

How can anyone possibly read this discussion and not be sure that the universe is full of deep meaning?

1633. God enough

Comment #287339 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:39 am

Comment #287334 by Brian English

Actually, I was kidding. But about what?

1634. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #287335 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:32 am

Comment #287333 by Roger Stanyard

I try and stay cheery... so I hope you are wrong.

1635. God enough

Comment #287332 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:30 am

Comment #287331 by Brian English

Rex Hamilton?

Do you mean Rex Harrison? The Englishman?

Mispelled or not, a native Englishman should be quite capable of an English accent.

Also, if you are talking about "My Fair Lady", then Audrey Hepburn did not speak. She mimed to the voice of Julie Andrews.

1636. God enough

Comment #287325 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:13 am

Comment #287322 by Quetzalcoatl

We surely aren't supporters of NOMA in terms of accents. We don't have to pander to them.

1637. God enough

Comment #287320 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 2:06 am

Comment #287319 by Quetzalcoatl

The Americans will probably do better than the Australians.

1638. Is Obama the Antichrist?

Comment #287315 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:56 am

Comment #287311 by Roger Stanyard

I think you are being way too alarmist. The economic structures we have today will probably mean that no matter how bad things get, people will not suffer like in the 1930s. There are ways to fund government works to prevent mass unemployment.

Here in the UK, as the economic crisis becomes more apparent, the public seem to be switching more towards the left wing, not the extreme right.

1639. God enough

Comment #287313 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:46 am

Comment #287312 by Quetzalcoatl

Its called "heroin chic".

Mind you, all he is prepared to show is his hand...

1640. God enough

Comment #287309 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #287305 by Quetzalcoatl

You have completely ruined my self-image.

1641. God enough

Comment #287308 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:38 am

Comment #287304 by Enlightenme.

I read the orange 'complexity' book a couple of years ago, and recommend it, *we* know there is no skyhook, yes, but he's still 'up to no good' I reckon with all the blurring.

There is not the slightest sign anywhere that he is talking about a creator or higher power being involved in evolution or the origin of the universe. His ideas about emergence are entirely hard science.

So I think it is really unfair to talk about "blurring" and "sky-hooks".

He wants people to use the awesomeness of science and nature as a religion substitute, sure, but there is not the slightest sign of him involving any god in any way.

1642. God enough

Comment #287303 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:29 am

Comment #287299 by Philip1978

I'd like to know what this so-called "British accent" is. There is quite some difference between Stephen Fry and John Prescott in terms of accents.

1643. God enough

Comment #287301 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:26 am

Comment #287297 by Enlightenme..

There is no skyhook involved. What he is trying to do is provide a religion-substitute. I can't see it working.

I get the QM alert with him too.

Yeah, that is different. He has fallen for the "quantum weirdness" thing as something to do with consciousness.

1644. God enough

Comment #287295 by Steve Zara on November 20, 2008 at 1:11 am

Comment #287283 by Enlightenme..

This is not NOMA. Not in any way. If fact, it is working actively against supernaturalism. It is trying to position science as something that can provide the sense of the spiritual that religion provides for so many people. I think it is misguided, but it in no way is it NOMA.

1645. God enough

Comment #287069 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Comment #287066 by Brian English

That would be some impressive multi-barreled dart launcher you must have, as you would need to launch a dart every few nanoseconds.

It would take you several decades to load it, so I think I am probably safe.

1646. God enough

Comment #287064 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 5:52 pm

Comment #287063 by Brian English

Thusly, just because my brain is choatic,

Q.E.D.

1647. God enough

Comment #287062 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 5:48 pm

Comment #287061 by Brian English

How can we believe any argument you put - you recently put the case that your brain was chaotic :)

1648. God enough

Comment #287060 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 5:46 pm

Comment #287058 by splink

He is suggesting that for people who need meaning in the world we could be that meaning and it may eliminate the fear of an empty sky

Welcome, and what a good summing up.

1649. God enough

Comment #287057 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Comment #287056 by j.mills

I have a problem with Kauffman's use of language regarding "sacredness" too.

What is wrong is to attempt to smear him as some kind of supernaturalist because of this, and that is what I see people like Janus doing.

Kauffman's ideas about emergence in biology may be wrong, but they are respectable, hard science.

1650. God enough

Comment #287048 by Steve Zara on November 19, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Comment #287045 by InfuriatedSciTeacher

The concept of emergent properties as an intermediary to truly understanding something is certainly useful, I just don't agree that it's a place to rest... that seems nothing short of intellectually lazy.

Emergent properties aren't a temporary gap-filler until we know more about how things work. They are a fact.

I'll repeat what I said in a previous post:

Think of it like this. Some explanations are short (like the proof of the infinitude of primes), and some are long (like the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem). Some explanations are so long that they are effectively the same as the system they try to explain. When they get to that length, "explanation" and "running the system" become the same thing.

There are some properties of physical system that just can't be predicted in advance. This isn't a matter of incomplete data.