201. 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.

202. 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.

203. 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.

204. 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.

205. 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.

206. 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 ;-)

207. 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 !

208. 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.

209. 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.)

210. 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.

211. 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.

212. 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.

213. 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.

214. 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.

215. 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.

216. 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.

217. 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.

218. 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?

219. 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."

220. 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!

221. 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.

222. 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.

223. 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!

224. 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! :)

225. 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.

226. 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.

227. 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!"

228. 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.

229. 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.

230. 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).

231. 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!!

232. US scientists close to creating artificial life: study

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

Way cool.

233. 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!

234. 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.......

235. Life-Forming Chemicals Found in Distant Galaxy

Comment #114791 by Rational_G on January 22, 2008 at 8:17 pm

To infer life on extrasolar planets you want to look for certain absorption lines in the planet's atmospheric spectrum. The Kepler mission is a space based telescope designed to do this. it looks at the the visible light portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

See http://kepler.nasa.gov/

See also Europe's Corot mission, which is in orbit now.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/COROT/index.html

236. The New Theology

Comment #113522 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Science is a great adventure and it is an honest one. We just look around and use our brains to try to figure things out. And go where the data leads us. No talking about what "should be" just figuring out what "is". And what wonderful things we find. Like our REAL connection to the universe, ie the iron in our blood and the calcium in our bones forged inside stars. Our DNA revealing our interrelatedness with all other living things on earth - the list goes on and on.

Religion isn't just wrong - it's irrelevant.

237. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113456 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Someone's lost their mind.....

238. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113439 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Paula Kirby - You're my hero, too.

239. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113415 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Diacanu -

You're my hero.

240. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113412 by Rational_G on January 19, 2008 at 2:14 pm

"New Findings Confirm Newton's Theory - Gravitational Force Inversely Proportional to the Square of the Distance"

241. The Moral Instinct

Comment #110823 by Rational_G on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 pm

The winner is......

Norman Borlaug

242. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #110633 by Rational_G on January 11, 2008 at 4:54 pm

As far as I know, the 3 body problem is not solvable.

Also, I recommend the book "A Different Universe - Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" by Robert B Laughlin. Mr Laughlin shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1998 for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect. It's a great read, and in it he will make you re-think about which laws are truly fundamental. He argues that collective behavior doesn't follow from a law, rather the law follows from the collective behavior!
Read it!

243. Researchers use neuroimaging to study ESP

Comment #107995 by Rational_G on January 5, 2008 at 7:39 pm

ESP = Complete Bullshit

244. Sam Harris debate with Rabbi David Wolpe

Comment #107508 by Rational_G on January 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm

This was a very good debate. Usually the religious guy is a complete buffoon but I must admit the rabbi did a good job. Of course I'm on Sam's side but at least the rabbi was eloquent and intelligent. It's nice to see a well behaved debate for once.

245. A War On Science

Comment #105430 by Rational_G on December 31, 2007 at 2:27 pm

I'll bet I'm not the only one who skips the parts where the ID'ers talk because I can't stand to listen to obvious lies they are spewing.

246. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity?

Comment #105101 by Rational_G on December 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Steve Zara -

Loved your phrase:

"Stop talking....and start measuring"

Music to my engineering ears!

Excellent!

247. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #105088 by Rational_G on December 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

I've been a Carl Sagan fan since I bought a paperback copy of "The Cosmic Connection" back in 1975 for $1.75! I was always impressed by his ability to sift out the best images from planetary spacecraft. If you look at his books, you'll find that the images he used were often not the typical ones. He chose the ones that in my mind were the most compelling, like drainage channels on Mars long before anybody else really focused on them. Plus he was among the first to take seriously the search for life in the universe and to take a multidisciplinary approach, often enduring professional ridicule in the process. He also framed planetary exploration with the rise of the Enlightenment and how exploration, science, and the arts thrive in a rational, secular, tolerant society (eg. Holland in the 17th century).

Also bought his book (with Shklovskii) on "Intelligent Life in the Universe" my first exposure to SETI. Tellingly, Sagan dedicated this book to the biologist J.B.S Haldane, also a hero of Richard Dawkins, way back in 1966.

I lose count of all the Sagan books on my bookshelves - They're all good.

I recommend the biography "Carl Sagan - A Life", a very fair treatment by the science writer Keay Davidson.

In my opinion, Sagan's books are better than the Cosmos series. The Cosmos production is a bit tacky and over the top sometimes, but these are minor squabbles on my part. Better to be a little tacky yet inspire millions to science and reason. I certainly was inspired, before and after Cosmos. Good to see it being shown again, hopefully to inspire millions more. I still look at my copy of Cosmos (the book), open it up to any page - still a good read.

I agree that science shows today, even the good ones, are dumbed down and fluffy. They really don't have to be.

Speaking of not dumbing down, I had the pleasure of seeing the astronaut Story Musgrave (the one who installed the optical fix to the Hubble Space Telescope) give a talk at a local elementary school. When I arrived for the talk the place was filled with boy scout troops and soccer moms. Oh no, I thought, this is going to be a golly, gee whiz dumb down talk to a bunch of ten year olds!

Thankfully, I was totally wrong. Mr. Musgrave gave a talk that was inspirational, intelligent and mature. He talked about the Shuttle, Hubble, exploration, humanity's future - technical yet accessible to all! It moved me, the kids, and the soccer moms equally. He didn't dumb it down. I was most impressed by that.

Just goes to show you don't have to dumb it down.

To me, Richard Dawkins is wonderfully filling the void left by Carl Sagan's death when it comes to educating the public on science and reason. This web site is the proof!

248. Interview with Richard Dawkins: On Christmas

Comment #103262 by Rational_G on December 24, 2007 at 7:43 pm

I guess the setting is important. Singing carols out in the snow seems harmless (though I would never do it) but singing them in Church, surrounded by faith heads---yuk. I couldn't stand it for a minute. Actually I couldn't stand it for a minute out in the snow either, so Richard Dawkins, don't do it! Go to the pub instead! Sing limericks!

249. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101678 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Hey Reverend.

Thanks for that astronomy tip about the stars.

Been wonderin' about that.

Can always count on religion to set you straight, cosmology wise.

Just ask Galileo.

250. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101676 by Rational_G on December 20, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Gotcha, Reverend.

Now how 'bout that Resurrection thing?