151. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

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

2029 indeed. What month?

I think the guy is kinda looney.

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

I think he's afraid of death.

152. Potentially Habitable Planets Are Common, Study Says

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

1. The anthropic principle doesn't explain anything.

2. SETI searches are worth doing.

3. Planets are ubiquitous.

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

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

Ben Stein = pompous ignorant fool.

154. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

mesomodel:

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

155. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

mesomodel:

Thanks for the info.

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

Europa or bust!

156. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

mesomodel:

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

Good points.

157. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

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

158. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

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

159. Smaller Version of the Solar System Is Discovered

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

Come on, warp drive?

Please......

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

160. New meat-eating dinos identified

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

Did these dinosaurs eat meat on Friday?

161. Feb 12th: Happy Darwin Day!

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

Chucky D rules!

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

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

OK, not stupid - but still worthy of ridicule.

163. Why Darwin matters

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

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

164. Christopher Hitchens on Books & Ideas

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

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

Check that - a pale ale! More free will!

165. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

166. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

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

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

167. Dusty Clues: Study suggests no dearth of Earths

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

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

We live in interesting times.

168. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

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

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

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

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

169. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

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

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

170. Exploding black holes could expose hidden dimensions

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

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

171. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

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

172. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

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


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

173. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

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

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

174. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

Righton:

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

1, Descartes' Error

2. The Feeling of What Happens

3. Looking for Spinoza.

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

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

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

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

175. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

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

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

176. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

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

177. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

Hi Steve -

Really impressed by all your posts.

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

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

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

Cheers.

178. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

fernaoorphaoo:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers.

179. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

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

c4chaos:

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

Cheers.

180. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120762 by Rational_G on February 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm

c4chaos:

Sorry to differ but I think Jonah Lehrer's arguments are weak. Consider these reviews:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178584/

http://www.salon.com/books/review/2007/11/20/proust_neuroscientist/

I'm all for integrating art and science but I smell cultural relativism in Lehrer's case.

I think the techniques of electrical engineering and systems engineering when applied to the brain and consciousness are quite successful and not strictly reductionist. Neural networks and maps do not concern themselves with the behavior of a single neuron, but rather a system of neurons, acting in concert -one might say emergent behavior. One can tackle emotion and feeling as a scientific problem without sacrificing beauty, awe, wonder. etc.

See Antonio Damasio's book "Looking for Spinoza" for example.

Cheers.

181. Richard Dawkins on The Big Debate

Comment #120725 by Rational_G on February 2, 2008 at 11:50 am

Wow. A calm, considered, intelligent debate on religious education. Impossible on US television, I'm afraid. Everyone would be shouting at each other with a ticker tape at the bottom of the screen repeating what someone said 15 seconds earlier.

182. What should a scientist think about religion?

Comment #120514 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 9:45 pm

What should a scientist think about religion?

That it's complete nonsense and the enemy of reason, truth, progress and happiness.

183. There Are No Ghosts in Your Brain

Comment #120480 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Neuroscience research will show that the brain and consciousness are natural processes, requiring no supernatural explanation.

184. Pope says some science shatters human dignity

Comment #120479 by Rational_G on February 1, 2008 at 6:51 pm

The pope is an ass - a speed bump on the road to progress and happiness.

The Church says humans are wretched sinners that need saving - how's that for promoting human dignity?

185. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116843 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Robert Laughlin also takes the "observer effect" to task in his book "A Different Universe". To quote him:

"A thing cannot be deterministic only when people are not looking at it."

186. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116827 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Inflation: (from the guy who invented it)

http://web.mit.edu/physics/alumniandfriends/physicsjournal_fall_02_cosmology.pdf

String Theory: (from Brian Greene- leading string theorist)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

Enjoy!

187. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116774 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

Inflation makes predictions that can be tested. String theory doesn't. Until string theory can make falsifiable predictions it is just a mathematical model, albeit a very interesting one.

188. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116769 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:07 am

Liz Green did a fine job - I've heard much worse. And RD did a great job of getting the salient points across in the time alloted. That's all you can really hope for.

189. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116751 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am

RickM -

I agree - plenty of uncertainty to go around. At least inflation makes some claims that can be tested. I too hope they get the LHC running soon. Should be interesting!

190. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116731 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 9:29 am

John needs to hang with Lewis Black. He always carries a couple of fossils in his pocket for guys like John! :)

191. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116538 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm

LorienRyan - Big bang theory has not been "disproven". Best theory we have for describing the early universe. Cosmic background "electromagnetic " radiation discovered in 1965 reveals early universe "plasma" in thermodynamic equilibrium and adds weight to big bang theory. LHC will address legitimate questions on elementary particle physics, regardless of correctness of string theory.

Hope that helps.

192. Secrets of bird flight revealed

Comment #116507 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:12 pm

News Flash! Birds extend wings into moving air - achieve lift.

193. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116472 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Heisenburg is stopped by a cop for speeding.

The cop asks "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Heisenburg replies, "No, but I know exactly where I am!"

194. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #116456 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 2:24 pm

RD is awesome. Cuts to the chase in one or two sentences.

195. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116446 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

What Steve Zara says is true (no surprise there). There's a lot of skepticism about string theory and supersymmetric particles - since these theories make no claim that be proven false. They can always "adjust" their theory to fit the evidence. Doesn't seem right. A good theory should make a definitive prediction -like Einstein's prediction on how much starlight is bent when passing near the sun.

Nevertheless, probing nature at new energy levels is exciting in and of itself. I look forward to the results.

196. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116419 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm

"The only way to uncover the secrets of the universe is to go and look." - Dr. Brian Cox

Amen (if you'll pardon the expression).

197. The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

Comment #116418 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Great stuff. Thanks for the post!

Three cheers for The Enlightenment!!

198. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

Comment #115779 by Rational_G on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Way cool.

199. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115263 by Rational_G on January 23, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Serious -

Good point - Less fools! More bimbos!

200. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115259 by Rational_G on January 23, 2008 at 8:09 pm

This man is a fool. He should have spent more time keeping Bill away from bimbos.......