1. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187421 by AKirkland on June 2, 2008 at 6:03 am

In response to the last comment, a question - do ALL people who take NSAID form this phenomenon? My point being that even if the supposed new intestinal structure is a result of an existing effect, if it now offers an advantage then we will still see a significant change in the proportion of the population who have this affliction. I actually find this idea fascinating in this case - it could have been the result of a random mutation which lay dormant for a long time until it became useful all of a sudden, and then the scaffolding which supported it (i.e. the cause, such as the strange diet) has been removed and they may still retain the trait if they were fed differently. I hope the scientists investigate the idea.

2. 'Uncontacted tribe' sighted in Amazon

Comment #186946 by AKirkland on May 31, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Hmm, this is actually really interesting. I wouldn't have thought that there would be so many undiscovered tribes still out there.

As for why we shouldn't leave them alone, what about modern technology and medical science? Entertainment? Education? We live in (comparatively) wonderful times, and denying these people access to a 21st century life should be unthinkable. I mean, what do you think their life expectancy is? 30, maybe? Tops?

The only legitimate arguments that I can see regarding leaving them alone are that we should be very careful not to wipe them out with unfamiliar diseases, and (to a lesser extent) that they could provide a rare insight into certain aspects of psychology and anthropology. But leaving these people out of the modern age simply for the sake of psychological science seems extremely cold, and I don't know if I'm comfortable with the idea.

As for preserving their culture, yes, we should make every effort to preserve their culture, but not at the cost of leaving them out of the human golden age simply because we find them interesting to view from a distance.

3. Computer game's high score could earn the Nobel Prize in medicine

Comment #179280 by AKirkland on May 13, 2008 at 2:56 am

Hey, this relates directly to something I was thinking about earlier. The real trick to solving a lot of these problems lies in making the training/solving fun and letting people play it as a game. Take neural net training, for instance. Normally this is a lengthy and tedious process, but the folks at 20Q have turned it into a game and as a result they have a truly amazing piece of software. I'm currently studying a degree in games-related graphical programming, and I was actually thinking about how you could use this people power to help develop evolutionary algorithms. If you can make it fun to "evolve" an algorithm or program, to train it at a certain puzzle or task, then you simply put it out on the net and you draw upon the power of millions of bored people with computers! I think I'll give it a shot, one day!

On the subject of this particular game, though, it's an amazing project (if it really works - that is, if the results of the gamers really do produce usable data) and hopefully it will really help with the science!

And about the Nobel Prize... I've noticed in the past that it often isn't the method that earns you the prize, but the result... if this really does solve the protein folding problem, then they may well get the prize!

4. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175732 by AKirkland on May 6, 2008 at 12:11 am

This article reminds me why I think Sam Harris presents the most articulate critique of religion out of all the big guys in the biz today. Superbly worded, Sam, well done!

5. What really goes on at the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #175700 by AKirkland on May 5, 2008 at 10:43 pm

Hey, isn't this the guy who worked on that movie Sunshine? Pretty sure it is.

Quite a good speaker, and an engaging talk. Here's hoping it all works properly when they turn it on! I see that this was filmed in March, however - have they turned it on yet, and if so, did it work? I doubt we'll get published results for quite some time.

Comment #175667 by Rtambree on May 5, 2008 at 8:27 pm
"Take about hype. The LHC is being talked up like Deep Thought in Hitchhikers - the answer to everything, will solve all problems! What isn't it going to find? Supersymmetry? Dark matter? Higgs bosons? Mini black holes? Evidence of string theory? Other dimensions? My missing favourite sock?"

Well, it has been hyped up a bit, but with good reason! Did you see the size of that thing? It's massive! Even if they found nothing, it's still a terrific feat of engineering and yet another sterling tribute to the genius of the human mind. But there's no need to be cynical before they even turn it on! And besides, nothing like this has ever been tried before, so fatuous comparisons to totally different projects in different areas of science cannot justify a lack of faith (word chosen carefully!) in some of the world's most intelligent and ingenious men and women!

EDIT:
Another point to remember is that this project won't necessarily make us robot servants, or AI computers... to use Richard's phrase, it isn't "non-stick fryingpan" science. Even if we were to discover a theory of everything tomorrow, there's no assurance that it would lead to a new wave of technological genius, because there's such a big leap from understanding the theory, and understanding its consequences. This is where chaos theory screws us all over. Rather, this project is for a greater and nobler cause than fryingpans... it is to understand the very nature of the universe at its most fundamental level. Don't you think that's rather worth getting excited about? I mean, if that presentation didn't send shivers down your spine then that's a monumental failure of your imagination!

6. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161354 by AKirkland on April 15, 2008 at 7:45 am

There isn't really much I can say about this that hasn't been said, but it has further convinced me that I don't give a toss if some cultural traditions sod off and die.

And do you ever wish you'd joined in on a conversation much earlier in a thread? There was a (bit of a troll) bloke earlier who was arguing some of the most frustratingly flawed semi-philosophical stuff earlier and I wish I'd had a chance to rebut him, but the moment appears to have passed.

Edit: Henri, that was the name. The moment may have passed, but here I go anyway: His "replace human rights with Christianity to see the fallacy" argument was total rubbish, because there is actually biological evidence for a common basis to at least some areas of human morality (and morality of other species too). If we try to abstract above the biological base and establish a system of rights based upon common consensus then why is that not (far) more valid than the leap of faith of religion?

7. The Atheist Apocalypse

Comment #153830 by AKirkland on April 2, 2008 at 6:19 am

Anyone else think that Daniel Dennett looked like Gary Gygax in that armour?

8. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153827 by AKirkland on April 2, 2008 at 6:10 am

The idea that religion fulfils a universal need that everyone except the claimer of this fallacy has is quite patronising I find, and so I too condemn the idea.

However, in his defence, he is trying to start a discussion with a Christian Bishop who has already revealed himself as a bit of a nutter, so the author could simply be trying to avoid being too "strident" to the man in order to encourage a decent response.

9. Who wants to kill the elderly?

Comment #153752 by AKirkland on April 2, 2008 at 1:52 am

Teratornis, you actually make a really good point. Although it's not a perfect analogy (which, as you pointed out, is what makes it an analogy and not an identity) there are a lot of similarities here, and one of them is that people are getting "offended" and defensive when you try to push your point. The reactions that a lot of people are having here to the alcohol/religion analogy is similar to the reaction that Christians have when you try to point out the inconsistencies in their position. It's true that alcohol is a legal drug (being much more dangerous than cannabis, and not just because it's more popular) simply because it is embedded in our culture and is supported by a majority of "moderate" drinkers who would never drink and drive (or blow up abortion clinics...).

Personally, I justify my moderate drinking by only buying top-shelf stuff from independant boutique brewers and distilleries... that way I'm not supporting the big corporations. It's a bit of a cop-out, but hey, I like the taste!

10. EXPELLED!

Comment #147534 by AKirkland on March 20, 2008 at 9:21 pm

... There's nothing I can say that will make this funnier. I just hope Richard posts an article reviewing the movie - that could also provide belly laughs.

Dark, rich, gooey, delicious irony. Treacle irony!

[edit] Wow, this was posted pretty damn fast. As I write this, Richard is probably still in there. I wonder if some creationist could read this, ring the theatre owner and then try to get him kicked out mid-movie?

There's actually something horribly disturbing about the idea of being able to select the sort of people who watch a movie. I know it's well within their rights as the theatre is a private institution, but all the same...

11. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147170 by AKirkland on March 20, 2008 at 1:29 am

Quote: I think this might be properly termed "atheist extremism" and has all the failings and dangers of other kinds of extremism, and not much to recommend it. (end quote)

The "atheist extremists" arguement gets on my tits like no other. There is a big difference between an extremist who happens to be atheist, and an extremist who conducts his most extreme actions based purely on his atheism. Stalin, to use a tired example, was an atheist "extremist", not an "atheist extremist". And in any case, the failings and dangers of Islamic extremism (and to a lesser degree that of other religions) trump any and all, including the so-called "atheist extremists". Do you know anyone who would pilot a jet into a packed building in the name of atheism?

I know this probably wasn't your original point, but any mention of the arguement depicting prominent atheists as "extremists" who frame our debate by providing a counter balance to the religious extremists really pisses me off.

12. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #144001 by AKirkland on March 14, 2008 at 8:49 pm

I thought at first that he was being a little bit harsh/abrasive when at the start he claimed that no intelligent person could surely believe in God, which must be fairly insulting for the 85% or so Americans who believe in God... but the more guests they had on, the more I came to think that it described them perfectly :).

Good listening, although it would have been nice if they'd taken the ads out.

13. Out of the Blue

Comment #140857 by AKirkland on March 8, 2008 at 10:44 pm

Sorry if someone already mentioned this.

The main website of the project states explicitly that this is *not* an AI project, and rather seeks to model/emulate/simulate a brain (not necessarily a human one, though this would be ideal) for biomedical purposes. So, they don't need to worry about the ethical worries just yet! However, even when they have the required hardware, neural networks need a lot of training before they become truly effective, and I shudder to think at the amount of training a whole human brain would need! There's no reason to suppose that the brain would turn out anything like a real human (emotions, drives, etc) unless we train it to.