1. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31598 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Bonzai, I really agree. It's just that most people invoking Einstein do it as a bat, to bat down on the other side. Not many people refer to him as the previous century greatest thinker. This makes me sad, and somewhat angry. You should not use that "icon" to promote your own flimsy thoughts.

2. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31582 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 11:04 am

Audio books, in general, not this one particularly, I can't stand them. How can anyone listen to it?
How do you regulate the pace of the "reading", make it go as fast or slow as you want? how do you skip forward and backward? how do you omit things you already know or feel is just filling. This audio book invention must be for the laziest of lazy nonthinking lazily people accepting whatever (minister speaking to congregation comes to mind).

3. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31579 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 10:48 am

How does it matter if Einstein was a believer and what he believed? Isn't that now just an argument bat for both sides wanting beat each other on the head with it in an impossible to win argument.

4. How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive

Comment #31577 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 10:43 am

The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

5. T. rex tissue shows they are related to chickens

Comment #31556 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 8:34 am

Wow! I'm thinking barbecue. With a little DNA tinkering we might just bring one of them chickens to life. yummy!

6. 'The Evolution of Homer' Intro

Comment #28797 by karlJ on March 31, 2007 at 12:40 am

I wonder what it is with that Simpson cartoon. I frequently find myself rather choose watching an old episode that I have seen several times before over the news or some other "important" informative program.

7. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27565 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 10:06 am

DavidMcC, that was a very interesting article.
And I think it is evedent that the tetrachromats can make use of the new color ability, so the brain must be preprogrammed for all eventualities, that is, it handles all input alike and learns what is what during its first active periode.

8. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27563 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

Well, the link still works for me when i click on it.
http://www.science-writer.co.uk/award_winners/16-19_years/2004/winner.html
http://aris.ss.uci.edu/cogsci/personnel/kjameson/JHW2001.pdf
Added a new link, popular interpretation.

9. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27498 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 3:21 am

http://aris.ss.uci.edu/cogsci/personnel/kjameson/JHW2001.pdf

10. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27494 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 3:04 am

While browsing on the subject I found out that there are actually tetrachromat people out there, mainly females.

"..For example when looking at a rainbow, tetrachromat females can segment it into, on average, 10 different colours, whereas their trichromat brothers and sisters can see only seven.."

I find this totally astonishing.

Damn it, I wanna see them colors to!

11. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27487 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 1:08 am

Wow! That link is totally fascinating, I will surely need some time to ponder that.

I now also remember that RD with Yan Wong wrote about "The new world monkeys" in the "The ancestor's Tale". We are catarrhine apes with trichromatic vision that during evolution lost it, to be dichromatic, and then regained it back to trichromatic vision. Most vertebrates are tri or more, which I think, suggests that the machinery that generates the experience is able to handle any number of color input. RD says in the book that the only plausible possibility to handle mutations this way (suddenly goes from di to tri) is that the brain learns to differentiate the colors.

Though it still does not explain the experience of color. Are we confined to the color wheel, or can the brain make up new colors if new inputs are created.

12. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27437 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

ridelo, yes I would think so on the basis of the mice experiment. You only need some new receptors in your eyes and some practice time to use them. If you get them, please report back, I'm most interested in the result.

13. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27436 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 3:07 pm

I just wrote a long reply to you all but it disappeared in the digital void, so now we will never know what it was.......Sorry

14. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27396 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 11:29 am

You forgot the taste umami:)

15. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27395 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 11:19 am

davyB, this is quite interesting, to view our sense of vision from a three dimensional point of view.

But what if it was four dimensional. What would the experience be then, would we see colours that no human have ever seen before or would we just see(feel) another dimension to the colours we already see.

What I'm driving at, put in another way: Is the color wheel fixed, and new neuronal input just slotted into the existing framework or does the addition of different neuronal input create a new experience of the sense of vision? The color yougenta?

Or:

Is the machinery that creates the sensation of color fixed, or does the addition of new sense dimensions automatically add a new experience of the sense, a new color, sound, feeling, or whatever?

The poor mice obviously could do better with their new photoreceptors. So how did they experience that different from unaltered mice?

Did the addition of new sensory input automatically expand the mices model of reality that the brain of the mice produce for the mice?

16. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27386 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 10:22 am

VanYoungman, the mice did not get a hearing aid, they where genetically modified and got new photoreceptors.
What I mentioned as an example was that people with severe impaired hearing can get electronic implants that stimulates the nerves so that they can start experience hearing. At first they experience a lot of incoherent noice, but after a while the mind has reprogrammed itself so they(some at least) experience sounds good enough to play the piano and have a conversation.

17. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27375 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 9:22 am

Yes, of course, I didn't dispute that at all. I only saw a follow up question that I would like to have answered.

For instance people can learn to hear with electronic implants, and recently blind people have learned to see with a crude electronic implant(experimental). I assume that the internal machinery somehow is reprogrammed to make sense of the new input to create the impression of the senses that we all experience.

But my question is related to what we experience. For instance, we see(experience) the colour spectrum from deep read, orange, yellow, green, blue to purple. What I'm asking is: If we got another set of neuronal input, would we still see the same colours, but be able to distinguish them more detailed, or would we experience a completely new colour that no human has never before experienced.

Now, one can argue that, if we or the mice are able to discerne more colours there must be a new sensation never experienced before. I think that would be really neat. Then if that is true, what is the limit of the mind? How much can we expand it with new impressions?

18. New evidence of 'human' culture among primates

Comment #27345 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 7:17 am

Well, if they learn to throw stones at their enemies they will be almost human.

19. New clues to why we see red

Comment #27342 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 6:55 am

Very interesting! An immediate question that occur to me is if the mice then experience the new colour as a new colour never seen before by ordinary mice or if the machinery in the brain that produces the experience just compress the original colour experience and inserts the new colour at the end as a part of what can be experienced by a mouse, that is, the modified mouse experience what normal mice do with regard to colour, but has the ability to discerne more in detail between colours.

20. Sea floor records ancient Earth

Comment #27322 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 1:26 am

The fundamentalist selective mind will focus on some insignificant detail, misconstrue it, and conclude that it's proof of their views.
The pictures obviously shows that the earth is flat. Well mostly flat, only some small bumps can be seen. And if so, how could there ever have been water up to the top of the mountain. The water must very quickly have flowed over the edge of the earth.

21. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27192 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I feel I have to rebuke some of you,

Since 20 years or more I've been working as a software engineer. I think that I have some saying: Firstly, you don't learn it by studying(at least not the finer details of it) and getting degrees, you have to like it, then you have to have a faculty of logic and organization that most folks don't have, geeks comes to mind.

22. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27170 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:43 am

Well, the "why" question is typical of religious nature. That is, a question that is quite easy to ask, but when you examine it closer it doesn't really mean anything. "why am I here", "whats the purpose of life",etc. They all include a prerequisite that the question is valid. And if so there must be something outside myself that has a plan for me. Voila! religion. Then if you accept the question without analysis you can spend the remainder of your life trying to answering it, digging deeper and deeper into fiction as you go along until you finally convince yourself that the fiction you have dreamed up is the thruth.

23. If only gay sex caused global warming

Comment #27167 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:33 am

What a shrouded way to disguise an environmental article! I was almost about to fire away at it before I read it contents. But now I can only agree that he human mind is an exceptional device, capable of many things, just not very good at those things that require more than a small portion of a typical lifetime to consider.

24. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27164 by karlJ on March 23, 2007 at 10:25 am

It can be illuminating for the subject to be evaluated by the arbitrary rules of religion.
However, I think that it is a disgrace, a total failure for the judicial system.

The judge should be fired promptly!

25. Chimpanzees 'hunt using spears'

Comment #26242 by karlJ on March 18, 2007 at 2:09 am

Poor chimps! Having to eat their meat raw. Someone should teach them how to cook. Nigella are you there..?

26. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26185 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm

MAS2007.
The original title was:
" Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"
I'm just switching the "gay" in the original question to show that the question is wrongly stated, as a provocation to the "righteous" ones, really.

27. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26167 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 11:12 am

scooternyc, do I understand it that you have not been qouted correctly? So whats new? If you open up to the media they will eat you. Though I really admire the ones that do and takes the heat.

28. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26166 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 11:02 am

You scooternyc, you really got a shitload off your chest there!
I concur.

29. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26146 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 8:07 am

One thing that hasnt been mentioned so far is another answer to the question: What If You Could Do Something About It?
Like abortion.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if some fundies went for this option as the lesser of two evils.

30. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26130 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 5:52 am

Is Your Baby a Conservative Christian? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

31. God's dupes

Comment #26060 by karlJ on March 16, 2007 at 11:27 am

This is so very tiresome! I can't read anymore of this religious fantasy crap mumbo jumbo . I give up, I'll join anyone that knocks on the door next. Last time is was a fat woman from some group that would reveal the inner order of things, rosen something....I hope it's not her the next time...

32. Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics

Comment #26059 by karlJ on March 16, 2007 at 11:19 am

I thought that species evolved as a response to something external in the environment. So, Maybe its the challenging environment in a nordic environment that forces the species to evolve.
On the other hand one can argue that we as a species evolved to what we are before we got out of Africa(at least that's what is said in the popular press), and if so, the statement can only be valid for some species.
But as usual news articles usually has a twist to make them more interesting.

33. 'Don't discuss polar bears': memo to scientists

Comment #25057 by karlJ on March 10, 2007 at 12:21 am

Damn it! Are the polar bears going?
Aaw... I've always wanted me som polar bear pants. Gotta go there real quick and shoot me some before they are gone.

34. The Archbishop whose words came from same hymnsheet as a Marxist

Comment #25055 by karlJ on March 10, 2007 at 12:09 am

Arch-my-ass!
Look at the picture!
Isn't he doing that hard rock devil sign with his index and little finger? I'm sure he would be head banging next if it was moving pictures. This is clearly from a rock concert for older gents. Guessing the stones..

35. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24987 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm

>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

36. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24983 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I agree FXR,
In Science you have to be able to independently repeat an experiment or verify a thesis. For the Jew thing, I cannot see that it has anything to do with science. Seems its more a thing of religion. A religion of the rulers of the time.

37. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24978 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Ooh Zappi, if we followed the good book or some other fundamentalistic writing, the bloodshed would probably be Biblical!

38. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24971 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:43 pm

I tend to agree with briancoughlanworldcitizen.
You really got to the point!

39. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24966 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:35 pm

The selective mind of the religious is completely astonishing!

How can anyone live in this world and denounce science. Its completely bizzarre. Everything around us is "thanks" to science: Electricity, computers, mobile phones, kitchen appliances, stereos, tv, radio, X-ray, Cars, in fact anything more complicated than a stone.

Shame on you!

40. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #24964 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

well,

The best of religion is as bad as the worst of science. Though the worst of science gets exposed as fraud sooner or later. Now, the best of religion thinks they are better than the worst of science and can never be debunked however false.

So what is the worst of science?
Well, maybe cell phones. No, can't be it! most people really wants one. So what's the problem? It seems this guy thinks that people in general is the problem, and that people have failed their God. Maybe he doesn't use computers, television, or cars. I bet he does. Can any of these be created whitout science?

Well, HiHooo, God does not exist! How about that!
.

41. Academy denies claims from job candidate

Comment #24957 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I'm appalled!

This is the worst crime! (If its true). To prevent a "minister"(sorry about that) of science to speek out and share his insights of the world.

Oh, what can we expect next? The Bible(observe the capital B) as the truth? How can anybody take anything of the bible as the truth?

We have a smorgosboard of master religions to choose from, why the bible. Why not the poethic Icelandish edda, the kabbalah, the asa-tro, or anything else. There are so much to choose from. Or why not invent a new religion?

The answer is of course that most people don't need a religion. Sentient people don't believe in superstition or fairy tales.

42. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24954 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 1:27 pm

How funny some people are....
The one thing we can all be completely aware of is that we dont know much. So, how can anyone claim to know anything about anything going on on other planets. We know they exist, yes, but how can any intelligent being say anything about what is going on there?

Perhaps God(observe the capital g) is experimenting with dinosaurs, or perhaps (S)he(observe the capital S) is experimenting with other life forms, and ooops spilled her drink... Sorry earth and all the peopl....

43. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24931 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 10:52 am

I still stick to my theory!

Though... I'm not a scientist, not even a dentist. Much better, I drive the garbage truck, which you all could not be without!

44. Public Acceptance of Evolution

Comment #24929 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 10:43 am

Dear Rodey, I have a theory:
The ones that went to America was the gullible adventurous part of the populations that could be tricked to buy the ticket to the new promised land with honey and etc.... Now they represent a certain subset of humankind, carrying a selected set of gullible and adventuring proned geenes that makes them want to convince themselves and the rest of the world of their excellence.

45. You can't trust science!

Comment #24928 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 10:30 am

Damn Liberals!
Of course the earth is flat! Just look out the window and see for yourselves!
Well, at least flattish, sort of.... I see a bump some distance away, but I'm sure the rest is really flat.

46. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24926 by karlJ on March 9, 2007 at 10:23 am

Well of course!
How can we not be the crown of the universe!
We who know so much. We have even seen that there are other stars with other planets, and fantastically enough, other galaxies with perhaps other planets. Maybe hundreds of billions times hundreds of billions of them. Yes I'm totally for the conclusion that we are the crown. How could there be other life on any other place than earth? Completely ridiculous!

47. Pope is warned of a green Antichrist

Comment #23902 by karlJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Oh anticrist, I would like to see him cope in this world. He would probably end up begging in the subway.

By the way, Isn't devlish colours blackish, sort of?
Green seems not like a good colour to condemn.

Ohh! lets condemn green, the colour of the devil. Chop down all the rain forest , the taiga, and poison the grass. Then let us meet our maker, when we are dead of starvation.

Now, lets get real. How can this clown get media coverage? Well, he is a cardinal! Ohh yes, of course, listen to him, he must be telling the truth because he is a cardinal and so old!

My grandpa was also senile at 78 and had a lot of strange ideas, but he didn´t get any media intrest.

Cannot agree more with Yorker that this pope thing is an insult to any intellect!!

48. Senator calls for answer on creation of universe

Comment #23899 by karlJ on March 3, 2007 at 1:09 pm

This is really scary!!

The folly of American leaders never cease to astonish me!

One can only hope that this figure do not reach any level of real influence. Though you may argue that it is not probable that this character will ever reach a level of real influence as long as he does not conform to the business standards that drives the Americas, it doesn't feel real safe.

If this caracter ever reaches to a certain level of influence it may very well be the most dangerous threat the world has seen so far.

On the bright side, he is asking a question that can actually be processed in the context of science, though he might not like the anwer.

49. Pope speaks out against 'designer babies'

Comment #23889 by karlJ on March 3, 2007 at 11:35 am

Lets face it, there is no turning back!
Once embarked on the scientific journey things will change, and religion will have to follow to survive (though I think it will eventually have to die off).
What we think of with suspicion today will be quite normal tomorrow. Desiger baibies! What a laugh. What is the purpose of choosing something that is less good or faulty? suffering?
Naturally there will soon be standard procedures to select wanted properties. The problem is that people somehow interprets that as that their children already born would be unborn. If they on the other hand had selected from the beginning the children they give birth to, it would be the only ones they know (and love), and there would be no problem.
Eventually, if we are lucky enough to experience a continous development without hazardous environmental hickups, we will probably, extrapolating the scientific advances, be something quite different from now in the near
(100 years or so) future. In any event we will not persist in our present form. Thats my almost atheistic religous beliefe.

50. The return of God?

Comment #23876 by karlJ on March 3, 2007 at 9:59 am

"# God created the universe."
also i implies facts about the universe in which god created our universe. For instance, it includes time, which is a physics definition in our universe, or it is experienced mentally as a succession of internal and external events. Basically we do not, and cannot, know anything about any universe external to our own (not yet anyway). Time and other basic properties we know of is only valid in the universe we live in and know. Therefore the statement must be false.

As a thought experiment you can imagine that you devise an experiment where you let a creation take place in a software environment, watching how different creatures evolve in the simulated environment. Such a simulated creature cannot have any clue whatsoever about the outside world in which the simulation physically takes place. Maybe it is similar to the simulation, or maybe it is totally incomprihensible for the simulated creature. And, the bottom line is that, at the lowest level our world and any world is just a matter of processing data.