From PZ Meyers. My jaw dropped. Some info about Jehovah's Witnesses views of cats...
Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
also, echoing Dr. Nick's "you can't prove it's not true" logic:
The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Something I don't get
... and would appreciate an explanation, if one is available. The justice department reports to the executive branch, which is separate from the legislative and judicial branches. Legislative makes the laws, executive enforces them and judicial adjucates them.
Got that.
Congress can subpoena testimony and charge people with contempt and lying to congress. We had a valuable lesson in that 10 years ago.
However,
isn't it up to the justice department to charge and prosecute the people congress charges? If members of the president's administration get charged for lying to congress or refusing a subpoena, isn't it ultimately up to the president himself to have those charges enforced? Given that this whole thing is centered around the charge that the justice department was making political decisions, it seems likely the president would refuse to press charges against his administration.
I know Congress can chose to hold it's own trial on charges, but again, other than impeachment, is there anything they can do assuming a guilty verdict? Is there a congressional prison somewhere?(If so, I expected it is lavishly appointed and comes with franking privileges...)
Seems like the president holds the trump cards.
Edit: Some info from the heads at Volohk:
Congress has independent standing to seek a judicial order enforcing its subpoenas. They simply have a committee staff lawyer draft up a motion for an order to show cause and file it with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court will issue an order setting out a briefing and argument schedule, and it will go forward like any other case. Subpoena enforcement is not that hard, either in concept or execution.
Got that.
Congress can subpoena testimony and charge people with contempt and lying to congress. We had a valuable lesson in that 10 years ago.
However,
isn't it up to the justice department to charge and prosecute the people congress charges? If members of the president's administration get charged for lying to congress or refusing a subpoena, isn't it ultimately up to the president himself to have those charges enforced? Given that this whole thing is centered around the charge that the justice department was making political decisions, it seems likely the president would refuse to press charges against his administration.
I know Congress can chose to hold it's own trial on charges, but again, other than impeachment, is there anything they can do assuming a guilty verdict? Is there a congressional prison somewhere?(If so, I expected it is lavishly appointed and comes with franking privileges...)
Seems like the president holds the trump cards.
Edit: Some info from the heads at Volohk:
Congress has independent standing to seek a judicial order enforcing its subpoenas. They simply have a committee staff lawyer draft up a motion for an order to show cause and file it with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Court will issue an order setting out a briefing and argument schedule, and it will go forward like any other case. Subpoena enforcement is not that hard, either in concept or execution.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Horse Humor
Ted and Ed were racehorses, but more than that, they were best friends. They would spend long hours strolling through sunlit glades with the stable dog bouncing happily through the dandelions at their hooves. As best friends, they would talk about past races or maybe about the latest stable gossip. Sometimes they would stand quietly for long hours, enjoying the shade and eating the tall grasses in the meadows.One day, the stable boy rushed in to the stable with exciting news.
“Ted! Ed! You guys are going to race!”
Ed cast a sidelong glace at Ted and snickered, “Imagine that – the two fastest racehorses… racing.”
Ted whinnied and shook his head.“No, no,” said the stable boy, “You don’t understand! You’re racing against each other in three races this week!”
Ted and Ed looked at each other. In all their long years of friendship, the two had never once raced against each other. Ted was the first to speak, “This is interesting. Let’s go for a walk and figure this out.”
“Good idea,” said Ed.
They walked in silence for a long time, both secretly wondering if their friendship could hold up against the competition. Maybe they were only friends because they had never raced. Maybe two racehorses could never really be friends. Ed broke the silence that had settled in the pastoral glade, “Ted, this could tear us apart. I really treasure your friendship, and I never want anything to get in the way of that.”
“Oh God,” said Ted, “That’s exactly what I was thinking. No stupid race should ever come between us. I mean, we're best friends!”
Ed spoke slowly and sadly, “So what do we do?”
Again silence set into the meadow. At last Ted let out a blow, and said “I got it! You said it yourself; we’re the two fastest racehorses, right? So no matter what, we’re going to take first and second place. Why don’t we just agree to let you win the first race, I’ll win the second race, and we’ll figure out the third when we get to it!”
“Well,” said Ed, “I’ve never given anything less than a hundred percent out there on the track, but if this is what it takes to keep my best friend, I’ll do it!”
Soon it was the big day of the first race. Ted and Ed were lined up at the gate, and gave each other little winks. The gates flew open and out charged the horses. Ed was right, they were the two fastest horses, and they easily sprinted out ahead of the other horses. In the lead, Ed raced hard, but he knew his best friend wouldn’t challenge him, so he fell into his stride and charged ahead for the finish. As he came to the home stretch, he turned to give Ted a wink, but something was wrong. Ted’s eyes had glossed over and gone fiery red. The gentle horse Ed knew was gone. Ted charged forward, speeding up behind Ed and then passing him right before the finish. Ted had won the race.
Back at the stable, Ted shyly approached his best friend. “Ed?”
“So that’s your plan? Convince me I won’t have to fight for it then beat me before I can do anything about it? Some friend you are.”
“No Ed,” Ted pleaded, “It’s not like that at all. I feel awful. You’re my best friend, and I would never lie to you or mislead you. I can’t explain it. When I got close to the finish, it was like… I don’t know. I couldn’t control myself. It was like I was possessed. I really feel horrible.” Tears were streaming down Ted’s long face. “Won’t you please accept my apology? Please? You can win both of the next races, I promise. I don’t want to lose my best friend.” Ed couldn’t stand to see his best friend crying, and he felt tears on his own face.
“Okay, Ted. I still feel betrayed, but we can work through this.”
The next day they were back at the starting gates. Ed looked over at Ted, but Ted was so guilt-ridden he couldn’t look his friend in the eye. The gates flew open.None of the other horses compared to Ed and Ted, and soon enough they led the rest by a dozen lengths. As they raced, Ted yelled over the roar of the crowds, “All right, Ed, this one is all yours. I really am sorry about that last race.”
Ed spoke back to his friend, “I know, Ted. You got caught up in the moment or something. We’re racehorses after all.” They were on the home stretch, and Ed raced for the finish with ease.
“No racehorse likes to lose, right Ted? Ted? Ted!”
Ted’s eyes once again had gone fiery red, and his nostrils flared as he charged past Ed and crossed the finish line in first place. Later, Ted slowly walked to Ed’s stall in the stable, his head hanging low. When he looked up he saw that Ed wasn’t there. Feeling horrible, Ted walked around the other stalls, dragging his hooves and asking the other horses if they’d seen Ed. He finally found Ed behind the stable, alone and crying.Ted called out softly, “Ed. I feel so bad for what…”
“Shut up!” said Ed. “What kind of a friend are you?”
“Look, Ed, I know there’s no excuse for what I did. And I can’t stand that I’ve betrayed your trust twice now.” They were both sobbing uncontrollably now. Ted went on, “What kind of monster am I that I could do that to my best friend? I’ve never felt so bad in my entire life. I want to go back in time and do it all over, and do it right. There’s no excuse. I can’t even trust myself now, so there’s no way I could expect you to trust me.”
“You're damn right I can’t trust you,” said Ed. “I thought we were best friends!”
Ted sniffled and blinked away some tears. “We were. I mean, we ARE. I am so, so sorry for everything. At tomorrow’s race, I’m going to come in last place. I’m going to be so far back that I won’t even have a chance of losing control.”
“You’d do that for me?” sobbed Ed. “You'd come in last place?”
“Of course I would, Ed, You’re my best friend and I intend to keep it that way.”
“Oh Ted, I just don’t understand. I knew this would be tough, but I never thought it would be this tough.”
“And it’s all my fault, Ed. I understand if you don’t want to be my friend any more.”
Ed sniffled and shook his head. “I have to forgive you. You’re my best friend.”
The next day Ted and Ed were at the gate for the last race. Ted looked over at Ed and bowed solemnly. He was going to throw the race and put his entire career in jeopardy for his friend. When the gates flew open, Ed charged out ahead of the other horses, and Ted slowly followed behind them all. Ed looked back to see if he could trust his friend, and sure enough Ted was far behind the other horses. Though Ed couldn’t be sure, it looked as if Ted was crying.As Ed made his final sprint for the finish, he heard the crowd roar to life. Was this for him? Ed had always been a crowd favorite, but the love he felt in those cheers was… No! Ted was charging up from behind, spitting and wild. Ted’s eyes glowed like a furnace as he dashed past the other horses.
“Not this time,” said Ed. As Ted approached, Ed gave it everything he had and sped like a demon for the finish. But Ted was wild-eyed and unstoppable, and charged past him to win by a nose.
Walking back to the stable, Ted knew he had lost the best friend he could ever have. In the past few days, he had grown accustomed to feeling guilt and shame, but this was an entirely new low. He had to apologize, even though he understood that Ed probably wouldn’t ever forgive him. Ed’s stall was empty and he wasn’t behind the stables either. Ted found the stable boy and asked him if he’d seen Ed.
“I saw him, all right,” said the stable boy. “Just a few minutes ago I saw him heading up the path to the cliffs.”
The cliffs! A new wave of guilt hit Ted as he dashed for the path. Never in all his years of racing did he run as fast as he did up that path. Nothing from the last three races even compared to the fury with which he charged to his friend. As he reached the top of the cliffs, he found Ed with one hoof over the edge, about to take the final step.
“Noooo!” screamed Ted. “This is all my fault. You can’t do this because I’m such a horrible friend! It should be me jumping off the cliff!”
“Great. Just great! If it isn’t the worst friend a horse could ever have.”
“I don’t know much,” said Ted, “but I do know that I can’t live with myself for what I’ve done to you, my best friend.”Ed was crying hysterically.
“Its bad enough getting beat in the races where I thought you’d let me win, but I also got beat when I was trying my hardest. And all along you just kept lying to me! My mind is made up. I’m going to jump and end it all.”
“Then I’m jumping too,” said Ted. “I won’t let my best friend die alone.”
“Yeah right!” said Ed.Ted was crying uncontrollably now too.
“I’m serious. If you’re going to go, I’m going with you. Whether you like it or not, you’re my best friend, and I’ll do whatever it takes to be there for you always.”
“Well you’re not stopping me,” said Ed.
“Then we’ll go together.”
Ted walked up beside Ed and the two horses looked over the edge. Both were crying as they lifted their hooves up and prepared to take that first, and last, step off the cliff.“
Wait! Don’t do it!” cried the stable dog, running up the path toward them. “You can’t do this! You’re best friends!” Ted and Ed paused as the dog ran up to the edge. “Don’t you see? There’s nothing worse then losing friendship, and if you two jump, you’ll never have a chance to be friends again! Don’t you remember the long hours you’d spend with each other in the meadows? All the good times you’ve had? All the happiness you two once shared? Doesn’t that count for anything?”
Ed looked up from the dog, turned to his friend, and said...
“Hey look, a talking dog.”
“Ted! Ed! You guys are going to race!”
Ed cast a sidelong glace at Ted and snickered, “Imagine that – the two fastest racehorses… racing.”
Ted whinnied and shook his head.“No, no,” said the stable boy, “You don’t understand! You’re racing against each other in three races this week!”
Ted and Ed looked at each other. In all their long years of friendship, the two had never once raced against each other. Ted was the first to speak, “This is interesting. Let’s go for a walk and figure this out.”
“Good idea,” said Ed.
They walked in silence for a long time, both secretly wondering if their friendship could hold up against the competition. Maybe they were only friends because they had never raced. Maybe two racehorses could never really be friends. Ed broke the silence that had settled in the pastoral glade, “Ted, this could tear us apart. I really treasure your friendship, and I never want anything to get in the way of that.”
“Oh God,” said Ted, “That’s exactly what I was thinking. No stupid race should ever come between us. I mean, we're best friends!”
Ed spoke slowly and sadly, “So what do we do?”
Again silence set into the meadow. At last Ted let out a blow, and said “I got it! You said it yourself; we’re the two fastest racehorses, right? So no matter what, we’re going to take first and second place. Why don’t we just agree to let you win the first race, I’ll win the second race, and we’ll figure out the third when we get to it!”
“Well,” said Ed, “I’ve never given anything less than a hundred percent out there on the track, but if this is what it takes to keep my best friend, I’ll do it!”
Soon it was the big day of the first race. Ted and Ed were lined up at the gate, and gave each other little winks. The gates flew open and out charged the horses. Ed was right, they were the two fastest horses, and they easily sprinted out ahead of the other horses. In the lead, Ed raced hard, but he knew his best friend wouldn’t challenge him, so he fell into his stride and charged ahead for the finish. As he came to the home stretch, he turned to give Ted a wink, but something was wrong. Ted’s eyes had glossed over and gone fiery red. The gentle horse Ed knew was gone. Ted charged forward, speeding up behind Ed and then passing him right before the finish. Ted had won the race.
Back at the stable, Ted shyly approached his best friend. “Ed?”
“So that’s your plan? Convince me I won’t have to fight for it then beat me before I can do anything about it? Some friend you are.”
“No Ed,” Ted pleaded, “It’s not like that at all. I feel awful. You’re my best friend, and I would never lie to you or mislead you. I can’t explain it. When I got close to the finish, it was like… I don’t know. I couldn’t control myself. It was like I was possessed. I really feel horrible.” Tears were streaming down Ted’s long face. “Won’t you please accept my apology? Please? You can win both of the next races, I promise. I don’t want to lose my best friend.” Ed couldn’t stand to see his best friend crying, and he felt tears on his own face.
“Okay, Ted. I still feel betrayed, but we can work through this.”
The next day they were back at the starting gates. Ed looked over at Ted, but Ted was so guilt-ridden he couldn’t look his friend in the eye. The gates flew open.None of the other horses compared to Ed and Ted, and soon enough they led the rest by a dozen lengths. As they raced, Ted yelled over the roar of the crowds, “All right, Ed, this one is all yours. I really am sorry about that last race.”
Ed spoke back to his friend, “I know, Ted. You got caught up in the moment or something. We’re racehorses after all.” They were on the home stretch, and Ed raced for the finish with ease.
“No racehorse likes to lose, right Ted? Ted? Ted!”
Ted’s eyes once again had gone fiery red, and his nostrils flared as he charged past Ed and crossed the finish line in first place. Later, Ted slowly walked to Ed’s stall in the stable, his head hanging low. When he looked up he saw that Ed wasn’t there. Feeling horrible, Ted walked around the other stalls, dragging his hooves and asking the other horses if they’d seen Ed. He finally found Ed behind the stable, alone and crying.Ted called out softly, “Ed. I feel so bad for what…”
“Shut up!” said Ed. “What kind of a friend are you?”
“Look, Ed, I know there’s no excuse for what I did. And I can’t stand that I’ve betrayed your trust twice now.” They were both sobbing uncontrollably now. Ted went on, “What kind of monster am I that I could do that to my best friend? I’ve never felt so bad in my entire life. I want to go back in time and do it all over, and do it right. There’s no excuse. I can’t even trust myself now, so there’s no way I could expect you to trust me.”
“You're damn right I can’t trust you,” said Ed. “I thought we were best friends!”
Ted sniffled and blinked away some tears. “We were. I mean, we ARE. I am so, so sorry for everything. At tomorrow’s race, I’m going to come in last place. I’m going to be so far back that I won’t even have a chance of losing control.”
“You’d do that for me?” sobbed Ed. “You'd come in last place?”
“Of course I would, Ed, You’re my best friend and I intend to keep it that way.”
“Oh Ted, I just don’t understand. I knew this would be tough, but I never thought it would be this tough.”
“And it’s all my fault, Ed. I understand if you don’t want to be my friend any more.”
Ed sniffled and shook his head. “I have to forgive you. You’re my best friend.”
The next day Ted and Ed were at the gate for the last race. Ted looked over at Ed and bowed solemnly. He was going to throw the race and put his entire career in jeopardy for his friend. When the gates flew open, Ed charged out ahead of the other horses, and Ted slowly followed behind them all. Ed looked back to see if he could trust his friend, and sure enough Ted was far behind the other horses. Though Ed couldn’t be sure, it looked as if Ted was crying.As Ed made his final sprint for the finish, he heard the crowd roar to life. Was this for him? Ed had always been a crowd favorite, but the love he felt in those cheers was… No! Ted was charging up from behind, spitting and wild. Ted’s eyes glowed like a furnace as he dashed past the other horses.
“Not this time,” said Ed. As Ted approached, Ed gave it everything he had and sped like a demon for the finish. But Ted was wild-eyed and unstoppable, and charged past him to win by a nose.
Walking back to the stable, Ted knew he had lost the best friend he could ever have. In the past few days, he had grown accustomed to feeling guilt and shame, but this was an entirely new low. He had to apologize, even though he understood that Ed probably wouldn’t ever forgive him. Ed’s stall was empty and he wasn’t behind the stables either. Ted found the stable boy and asked him if he’d seen Ed.
“I saw him, all right,” said the stable boy. “Just a few minutes ago I saw him heading up the path to the cliffs.”
The cliffs! A new wave of guilt hit Ted as he dashed for the path. Never in all his years of racing did he run as fast as he did up that path. Nothing from the last three races even compared to the fury with which he charged to his friend. As he reached the top of the cliffs, he found Ed with one hoof over the edge, about to take the final step.
“Noooo!” screamed Ted. “This is all my fault. You can’t do this because I’m such a horrible friend! It should be me jumping off the cliff!”
“Great. Just great! If it isn’t the worst friend a horse could ever have.”
“I don’t know much,” said Ted, “but I do know that I can’t live with myself for what I’ve done to you, my best friend.”Ed was crying hysterically.
“Its bad enough getting beat in the races where I thought you’d let me win, but I also got beat when I was trying my hardest. And all along you just kept lying to me! My mind is made up. I’m going to jump and end it all.”
“Then I’m jumping too,” said Ted. “I won’t let my best friend die alone.”
“Yeah right!” said Ed.Ted was crying uncontrollably now too.
“I’m serious. If you’re going to go, I’m going with you. Whether you like it or not, you’re my best friend, and I’ll do whatever it takes to be there for you always.”
“Well you’re not stopping me,” said Ed.
“Then we’ll go together.”
Ted walked up beside Ed and the two horses looked over the edge. Both were crying as they lifted their hooves up and prepared to take that first, and last, step off the cliff.“
Wait! Don’t do it!” cried the stable dog, running up the path toward them. “You can’t do this! You’re best friends!” Ted and Ed paused as the dog ran up to the edge. “Don’t you see? There’s nothing worse then losing friendship, and if you two jump, you’ll never have a chance to be friends again! Don’t you remember the long hours you’d spend with each other in the meadows? All the good times you’ve had? All the happiness you two once shared? Doesn’t that count for anything?”
Ed looked up from the dog, turned to his friend, and said...
“Hey look, a talking dog.”
Lightning Produces Gamma Rays
Weird huh? I read this as an aside in a book and chased it down this morning. My first thought was that this was either a) some kind of synchotron radiation produced by a variation of the Tademaru Effect or b) pair production (!)!
Their report suggested that runaway breakdown at a much lower altitude, created within "strong fields in or just above the thundercloud," could have triggered the TGFs instead. "It still almost certainly has to be runaway breakdown that's creating these," Cummer said. "The only real possibility is that it's much closer to the cloud top, and linked to something else happening inside the cloud." The detailed Duke-led analysis also disclosed that, on average, TGFs occurred 1.24 milliseconds before their associated lightning strokes. "That was something we absolutely were not expecting," Cummer said. "But the coincidence between the lightning and the TGFs we found is too good to be random. So, even if the TGFs precede the lightning, they are in some way connected." Their paper suggests one possibility for such a negative cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps "TGFs are produced by a process associated with the development of the observed lightning stroke, but that actually occurs about 1 millisecond before the stroke itself," the authors wrote.
I'm wondering if there is a spectrum of low-frequency microwaves near (but not necessarily colocated with )the source before the gamma burst. The Tademaru Effect could explain it, i.e. the microwaves could produce a few relativistic electrons which then crash and dump their energy in the form of gamma. There would be a characteristic gamma spectrum if this were true, so it's testable.
Their report suggested that runaway breakdown at a much lower altitude, created within "strong fields in or just above the thundercloud," could have triggered the TGFs instead. "It still almost certainly has to be runaway breakdown that's creating these," Cummer said. "The only real possibility is that it's much closer to the cloud top, and linked to something else happening inside the cloud." The detailed Duke-led analysis also disclosed that, on average, TGFs occurred 1.24 milliseconds before their associated lightning strokes. "That was something we absolutely were not expecting," Cummer said. "But the coincidence between the lightning and the TGFs we found is too good to be random. So, even if the TGFs precede the lightning, they are in some way connected." Their paper suggests one possibility for such a negative cause-and-effect relationship. Perhaps "TGFs are produced by a process associated with the development of the observed lightning stroke, but that actually occurs about 1 millisecond before the stroke itself," the authors wrote.
I'm wondering if there is a spectrum of low-frequency microwaves near (but not necessarily colocated with )the source before the gamma burst. The Tademaru Effect could explain it, i.e. the microwaves could produce a few relativistic electrons which then crash and dump their energy in the form of gamma. There would be a characteristic gamma spectrum if this were true, so it's testable.
Fermi Condensate
For me, Statistical Mechanics was the hardest class in physics in grad school. It's difficult, complicated and the math is nearly impenetrable. To date, there are really only 2 major things I remember out of StatMech, 1) how the equations differ from bosons and fermions, and b) the mathematics of Bose Condensates. I remember this as "Bosons are gregarious", i.e. you can get an arbitrary number of bosons into the same state, as opposed to fermions (of which all the matter you're familiar with is composed) which is subject to the Pauli Exclusion principle.
What does this mean? It means you can walk through a beam of light, but you cannot walk through a wall.
Via Dr. Nick, and interesting bit of news:
Ice Created In Nanoseconds By Sandia’s Z MachineScience Daily — Sandia’s huge Z machine, which generates temperatures hotter than the sun, has turned water to ice in nanoseconds. However, don’t expect anything commercial just yet: the ice is hotter than the boiling point of water. “The three phases of water as we know them — cold ice, room temperature liquid, and hot vapor — are actually only a small part of water’s repertory of states,” says Sandia researcher Daniel Dolan. “Compressing water customarily heats it. But under extreme compression, it is easier for dense water to enter its solid phase [ice] than maintain the more energetic liquid phase [water].”
The physical properties of fermi condensates are very complicated and water especially so. Hot ice, rubber that shrinks when you heat it ... those crazy fermions!
While I don't beleive in god, if I did, I'd be convinced that the water molecule was her signature on the universe.
What does this mean? It means you can walk through a beam of light, but you cannot walk through a wall.
Via Dr. Nick, and interesting bit of news:
Ice Created In Nanoseconds By Sandia’s Z MachineScience Daily — Sandia’s huge Z machine, which generates temperatures hotter than the sun, has turned water to ice in nanoseconds. However, don’t expect anything commercial just yet: the ice is hotter than the boiling point of water. “The three phases of water as we know them — cold ice, room temperature liquid, and hot vapor — are actually only a small part of water’s repertory of states,” says Sandia researcher Daniel Dolan. “Compressing water customarily heats it. But under extreme compression, it is easier for dense water to enter its solid phase [ice] than maintain the more energetic liquid phase [water].”
The physical properties of fermi condensates are very complicated and water especially so. Hot ice, rubber that shrinks when you heat it ... those crazy fermions!
While I don't beleive in god, if I did, I'd be convinced that the water molecule was her signature on the universe.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Metaphysicist
Looks like mind reading machines will be a reality sooner rather than later.
Where will the soul hide once we have the brain mapped?
Until this experiment, which was reported last month in Current Biology, nobody had ever tried to take a picture of free will. One reason is that fMRI is too crude to distinguish one abstract choice from another. It can only show which parts of the brain are demanding blood oxygen. That's too coarse to distinguish the configuration of cells that signifies addition from the configuration that signifies subtraction. So, Haynes used software to help the computer recognize complex patterns in the data. To dissect human thought, the computer had to emulate it.
I once had a telling argument with TJIC about neurobiology and the soul. He’s a firm believer in the latter, so I kept pushing his understanding of the boundary between which decisions were based on neurology and which were "free will" and therefore subject to "sin". It’s completely demonstrable that you can injure a brain and affect behavior, even predictably. If the brain, an analog computer subject to bugginess, can adversely affect consciousness, where does the soul and free will begin and end?
It was an interesting argument and he created a model which was neither biblical nor scientific but he used to highlight the difference. He analogized the brain as a radio and the soul a broadcast station in heaven which sent signals to the brain about decisions. In this model, neurological damage detuned the radio so the reception was imperfect and the brain did things the "soul" didn't intend. It's an elaborate, fascinating model without a shred of doctrinal or scientific evidence to support it, but I suspect if mind-reading machines come into widespread use you'll see some version of this to explain the soul, continuing to tuck the mystery away in the gaps. I did have an opportunity to ask a (non-catholic)priest about this particular model, he pointed out that it causes all sorts of problems around redemption and sin and isn’t a “remotely defensible position”. His position was along the lines that “God knows what’s actually going on” and makes the right decisions about the disposition of souls.
Personally, I think Occum’s Razor still holds.
Where will the soul hide once we have the brain mapped?
Until this experiment, which was reported last month in Current Biology, nobody had ever tried to take a picture of free will. One reason is that fMRI is too crude to distinguish one abstract choice from another. It can only show which parts of the brain are demanding blood oxygen. That's too coarse to distinguish the configuration of cells that signifies addition from the configuration that signifies subtraction. So, Haynes used software to help the computer recognize complex patterns in the data. To dissect human thought, the computer had to emulate it.
I once had a telling argument with TJIC about neurobiology and the soul. He’s a firm believer in the latter, so I kept pushing his understanding of the boundary between which decisions were based on neurology and which were "free will" and therefore subject to "sin". It’s completely demonstrable that you can injure a brain and affect behavior, even predictably. If the brain, an analog computer subject to bugginess, can adversely affect consciousness, where does the soul and free will begin and end?
It was an interesting argument and he created a model which was neither biblical nor scientific but he used to highlight the difference. He analogized the brain as a radio and the soul a broadcast station in heaven which sent signals to the brain about decisions. In this model, neurological damage detuned the radio so the reception was imperfect and the brain did things the "soul" didn't intend. It's an elaborate, fascinating model without a shred of doctrinal or scientific evidence to support it, but I suspect if mind-reading machines come into widespread use you'll see some version of this to explain the soul, continuing to tuck the mystery away in the gaps. I did have an opportunity to ask a (non-catholic)priest about this particular model, he pointed out that it causes all sorts of problems around redemption and sin and isn’t a “remotely defensible position”. His position was along the lines that “God knows what’s actually going on” and makes the right decisions about the disposition of souls.
Personally, I think Occum’s Razor still holds.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Something Familiar About That Ship
Saw the first panel of this and thought... could it be....??? !!!!
The greatest video game ever made! Really!
I am *dancing* with the *sauce*!
The greatest video game ever made! Really!
I am *dancing* with the *sauce*!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
The Mullah at Home
Andrew Sullivan does a good job on unpacking Dinesh D'Souza's new book, The Enemy at Home:The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. It is terrifying, at least to those of us who believe that America is about invidualism and the freedom of the marketplace of ideas.
Read the full review, it seems pretty damning and, unfortunately, consistent with other reviews from the Right I have read on the same book. I was kind of hoping AS was being hysterical, but it seems he's on the money.
What is that path? At its core is a deepening rejection of cultural and philosophical modernity. D'Souza believes that the defining new distinction in American politics is no longer between the economic right and the economic left. The size of government and its role as a guardian of the public welfare are increasingly dead issues, or issues where no vital energy crackles. D'Souza rightly holds that the real divide in the new century is between authority and autonomy, between faith-based politics and individual freedom. And in this struggle at the level of first principles, D'Souza chooses his own side. He is at war with the modern West. If forced to choose between a theocratic order that upheld traditional morality and a secular order that saw such morality marginalized, D'Souza is with the former. He puts it more graphically himself: "Yes, I would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Michael Moore than with the grand mufti of Egypt. But when it comes to core beliefs, I'd have to confess that I'm closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap."
Micheal Moore is the Right's boogy man in the same way that Ann Coulter is the Left's, so double props to DD for this construction.
Also,
One has to admire at least the frankness with which this secessionist strategy for conservatism is laid out. "How can we use the war on terror to win the culture war?" D'Souza asks in a final chapter called "Battle Plan for the Right." Notice here that defeating the forces of Islamist terror is merely instrumental to the deeper struggle to defeat modern individualism and autonomy. The idea of a common American commitment to the Constitution's guarantees of individual freedom and autonomy is secondary to the global battle for the "external moral order." Loyalty is not to country, but to a worldwide theoconservative ideology. Like the Marxists of old, the theoconservatives see their movement increasingly as global, resting on eternal truths, and not compatible with the "liberal morality" of their autonomous bourgeois fellow Westerners.
No wonder the libertarians on the Right are upset with their party. I certainly am.
Read the full review, it seems pretty damning and, unfortunately, consistent with other reviews from the Right I have read on the same book. I was kind of hoping AS was being hysterical, but it seems he's on the money.
What is that path? At its core is a deepening rejection of cultural and philosophical modernity. D'Souza believes that the defining new distinction in American politics is no longer between the economic right and the economic left. The size of government and its role as a guardian of the public welfare are increasingly dead issues, or issues where no vital energy crackles. D'Souza rightly holds that the real divide in the new century is between authority and autonomy, between faith-based politics and individual freedom. And in this struggle at the level of first principles, D'Souza chooses his own side. He is at war with the modern West. If forced to choose between a theocratic order that upheld traditional morality and a secular order that saw such morality marginalized, D'Souza is with the former. He puts it more graphically himself: "Yes, I would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Michael Moore than with the grand mufti of Egypt. But when it comes to core beliefs, I'd have to confess that I'm closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap."
Micheal Moore is the Right's boogy man in the same way that Ann Coulter is the Left's, so double props to DD for this construction.
Also,
One has to admire at least the frankness with which this secessionist strategy for conservatism is laid out. "How can we use the war on terror to win the culture war?" D'Souza asks in a final chapter called "Battle Plan for the Right." Notice here that defeating the forces of Islamist terror is merely instrumental to the deeper struggle to defeat modern individualism and autonomy. The idea of a common American commitment to the Constitution's guarantees of individual freedom and autonomy is secondary to the global battle for the "external moral order." Loyalty is not to country, but to a worldwide theoconservative ideology. Like the Marxists of old, the theoconservatives see their movement increasingly as global, resting on eternal truths, and not compatible with the "liberal morality" of their autonomous bourgeois fellow Westerners.
No wonder the libertarians on the Right are upset with their party. I certainly am.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years
(via) and News Blog and PZ Meyers
The thing to do here is bold the ones you've read and italicize the one's you started but never finished. Green are, IMHO, extra awesome.
It can't be a very good list though, where's Eragon?
The thing to do here is bold the ones you've read and italicize the one's you started but never finished. Green are, IMHO, extra awesome.
It can't be a very good list though, where's Eragon?
The Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years, 1953-2002
The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien
The Foundation Trilogy, Isaac Asimov
Dune, Frank Herbert
Stranger in a Strange Land, Robert A. Heinlein
A Wizard of Earthsea, Ursula K. Le Guin
Neuromancer, William Gibson
Childhood's End, Arthur C. Clarke
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick
The Mists of Avalon, Marion Zimmer Bradley
Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury
The Book of the New Sun, Gene Wolfe
A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter M. Miller, Jr.
The Caves of Steel, Isaac Asimov
Children of the Atom, Wilmar Shiras
Cities in Flight, James Blish
The Colour of Magic, Terry Pratchett
Dangerous Visions, edited by Harlan Ellison
Deathbird Stories, Harlan Ellison
The Demolished Man, Alfred Bester
Dhalgren, Samuel R. Delany
Dragonflight, Anne McCaffrey
Ender's Game, Orson Scott Card
The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, Stephen R. Donaldson
The Forever War, Joe Haldeman
Gateway, Frederik Pohl
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, J.K. Rowling
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams
I Am Legend, Richard Matheson
Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice
The Left Hand of Darkness, Ursula K. Le Guin
Little, Big, John Crowley
Lord of Light, Roger Zelazny
The Man in the High Castle, Philip K. Dick
Mission of Gravity, Hal Clement
More Than Human, Theodore Sturgeon
The Rediscovery of Man, Cordwainer Smith
On the Beach, Nevil Shute
Rendezvous with Rama, Arthur C. Clarke
Ringworld, Larry Niven
Rogue Moon, Algis Budrys
The Silmarillion, J.R.R. Tolkien
Slaughterhouse-5, Kurt Vonnegut
Snow Crash, Neal Stephenson
Stand on Zanzibar, John Brunner
The Stars My Destination, Alfred Bester
Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein
Stormbringer, Michael Moorcock
The Sword of Shannara, Terry Brooks
Timescape, Gregory Benford
To Your Scattered Bodies Go, Philip Jose Farmer
Seems I have some reading to do...
Friday, March 09, 2007
Get This Message to Obi Wan! Hurry!
Monday, March 05, 2007
Actaully, It Could Be Any One of the Three
| You'll die from a Heart Attack during Sex. | ||||
| Your a lover not a fighter but sadly, in the act of making love your heart will stop. But what a way to go. | ||||
| ||||
| 'How will you die?' at QuizGalaxy.com |
Seems like I am at a Triple Point, but I'll take what I can get.
"The Secret"
The latest in New Age religious scams, the Secret!
When I discovered 'The Secret' I made a decision that I would not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, because it did not make me feel good," and, "How does it work? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don't, do you?"
When I discovered 'The Secret' I made a decision that I would not watch the news or read newspapers anymore, because it did not make me feel good," and, "How does it work? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows how electricity works. I don't, do you?"
Why Gods Exist for Some, but Not Others
I have, like many folks, often wondered about the evolutionary basis for a belief in gods. Human brains seem to have coded for this rather strongly, overwriting all kinds of higher reasoning and leading to kinds of logic that, while tolerated for god arguments, would never be tolerated for any other kind, e.g. prove god doesn't exist.
Also:
Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?
In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?
Long article in the NYT, worth a read.
Also:
Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?
In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?
Long article in the NYT, worth a read.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Department of If You Keep Making Faces, It Will Stick That Way
From the Wiki entry on Yahoo Serious:
Prior to making "Young Einstein," Yahoo Serious officially changed his name to garner publicity for the film. After the success of the movie, he attempted to change his name back to his given name, however, Australian law only allows one name change in a person's lifetime. As a result, Yahoo Serious is stuck with this name for life.
Prior to making "Young Einstein," Yahoo Serious officially changed his name to garner publicity for the film. After the success of the movie, he attempted to change his name back to his given name, however, Australian law only allows one name change in a person's lifetime. As a result, Yahoo Serious is stuck with this name for life.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Science porn!
I had seen the photo last year, but of course PZ has *all* the salacious details!
Imaging was first done in a 1.5 Tesla Philips magnet system (Gyroscan S15) and later in a 1.5 Tesla magnet system from Siemens Vision. To increase the space in the tube, the table was removed: the internal diameter of the tube is then 50 cm. The participants were asked to lie with pelvises near the marked centre of the tube and not to move during imaging. After a preview, 10 mm thick sagittal images were taken with a half-Fourier acquisition single shot turbo SE T2 weighted pulse sequence (HASTE). The echo time was 64 ms, with a repetition time of 4.4 ms. With this fast acquisition technique, 11 slices of relatively good quality were obtained within 14 seconds.
I.. I may need a moment..
Imaging was first done in a 1.5 Tesla Philips magnet system (Gyroscan S15) and later in a 1.5 Tesla magnet system from Siemens Vision. To increase the space in the tube, the table was removed: the internal diameter of the tube is then 50 cm. The participants were asked to lie with pelvises near the marked centre of the tube and not to move during imaging. After a preview, 10 mm thick sagittal images were taken with a half-Fourier acquisition single shot turbo SE T2 weighted pulse sequence (HASTE). The echo time was 64 ms, with a repetition time of 4.4 ms. With this fast acquisition technique, 11 slices of relatively good quality were obtained within 14 seconds.
I.. I may need a moment..
Something Said Well
There is a kernal of truth in this, and it makes at least one point I tried to make recently in a debate with a reader in my comments section:
(via)
I would suggest that it is not the philosophy of Christ's teachings that is the source of the friction, it is the institutional practices of the religion He never wished to found. One can indeed be a Christian and at the same time not be a Christian in the formal, institutionalized sense (and certainly not a "Christianist", a term I have great fondness for). One can follow the teachings of Christ in the everyday routine and still believe that there was no Resurrection. His teachings are universal. It is far more important to me that I attempt in my own fallible way to follow His (and I capitalize out of respect for others, a most Christian attitude) teachings than it is to believe in His divinity.
I truly believe, and of course I may be completely wrong, wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, that daily interaction with others, whether they be individuals or nations, in accordance with Christ's teachings, has a more positive and reaching effect. The debate should not be science vs. religion; it should be science vs. philosophy, and in that there should be no discord. Religion as philosophy, science and rational thought can always live comfortably together. One must simply decide whether the teachings or the institutions are more important.
I agree with parts of this, i.e. while I don't believe in god or in the divinity of christ, I do think the philosophical message underpinning the stories about Jesus are generally worthwhile and quite revolutionary. It has always surprised me that his followers are quick to "yeah, yeah" the message and then tear right into rational thought.
Surprise is the wrong word. Disappoint is closer to the mark.
All that said, there was one comment in the Harris/Sullivan debate that rang true and I keep rethinking it. One of them (SH I think) said that the difference between believers and non-believers was that non-believers were more comfortable with uncertainty. This is I think mostly true, or at least embeds a true concept. I'm trying to decide if it's completely true, or if non-believers simply couch their uncertainties in the process of science while believers hedge theirs with the authority of their clerics and holy books. It would explain, for example, while religionists constantly attack folks like Darwin, Copernicus etc. without really coping to the fact that science admits its knowledge is incomplete. Religious knowledge, in this model is complete and handed down through authority or revealed by the gods. it does explain why the extremists get so worried and why their attacks are seemingly so off target (at least to non-believers). I'm comfortable not knowing how the universe and reality got started in part because I know that eventually, if the process of science goes on long enough, the answer will pop out. I may be unfortunate in that I live in a time when the answer is not known, but that's just my bad luck. I throw my little portion of science on the pile and hope it helps.
I need to think about this more, but I think it's essentially correct for a large segment of the religious population. I have to think of a way to test this.
(via)
I would suggest that it is not the philosophy of Christ's teachings that is the source of the friction, it is the institutional practices of the religion He never wished to found. One can indeed be a Christian and at the same time not be a Christian in the formal, institutionalized sense (and certainly not a "Christianist", a term I have great fondness for). One can follow the teachings of Christ in the everyday routine and still believe that there was no Resurrection. His teachings are universal. It is far more important to me that I attempt in my own fallible way to follow His (and I capitalize out of respect for others, a most Christian attitude) teachings than it is to believe in His divinity.
I truly believe, and of course I may be completely wrong, wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last, that daily interaction with others, whether they be individuals or nations, in accordance with Christ's teachings, has a more positive and reaching effect. The debate should not be science vs. religion; it should be science vs. philosophy, and in that there should be no discord. Religion as philosophy, science and rational thought can always live comfortably together. One must simply decide whether the teachings or the institutions are more important.
I agree with parts of this, i.e. while I don't believe in god or in the divinity of christ, I do think the philosophical message underpinning the stories about Jesus are generally worthwhile and quite revolutionary. It has always surprised me that his followers are quick to "yeah, yeah" the message and then tear right into rational thought.
Surprise is the wrong word. Disappoint is closer to the mark.
All that said, there was one comment in the Harris/Sullivan debate that rang true and I keep rethinking it. One of them (SH I think) said that the difference between believers and non-believers was that non-believers were more comfortable with uncertainty. This is I think mostly true, or at least embeds a true concept. I'm trying to decide if it's completely true, or if non-believers simply couch their uncertainties in the process of science while believers hedge theirs with the authority of their clerics and holy books. It would explain, for example, while religionists constantly attack folks like Darwin, Copernicus etc. without really coping to the fact that science admits its knowledge is incomplete. Religious knowledge, in this model is complete and handed down through authority or revealed by the gods. it does explain why the extremists get so worried and why their attacks are seemingly so off target (at least to non-believers). I'm comfortable not knowing how the universe and reality got started in part because I know that eventually, if the process of science goes on long enough, the answer will pop out. I may be unfortunate in that I live in a time when the answer is not known, but that's just my bad luck. I throw my little portion of science on the pile and hope it helps.
I need to think about this more, but I think it's essentially correct for a large segment of the religious population. I have to think of a way to test this.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Supreme Court Gives Gore’s Oscar to Bush
Stunning Reversal for Former Veep
Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead. For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of his Hollywood audience Sunday night, the high court’s decision to give his Oscar to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least. But in a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday morning, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Oscar because President Bush deserved it more. “It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. “But President Bush has actually helped create global warming.”
In another setback for the former vice president, a group of scientists meeting in Oslo, Norway today said that Mr. Gore was growing at an unsustainable rate. “The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but Al Gore is clearly expanding,” said Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo. The scientists concluded that if Mr. Gore continues to expand at his current rate, he could cause the earth to spin off its axis by 2010, sending it hurtling into the sun. “Here’s an inconvenient truth,” Dr. Kyosuke added. “Al’s got to stay away from those carbs.” Elsewhere, after foreigners received a record number of Academy Award nominations, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs proposed building a 12-foot high fence around the Kodak Theater.
via
Just days after former Vice President Al Gore received an Academy Award for his global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” the United States Supreme Court handed Mr. Gore a stunning reversal, stripping him of his Oscar and awarding it to President George W. Bush instead. For Mr. Gore, who basked in the adulation of his Hollywood audience Sunday night, the high court’s decision to give his Oscar to President Bush was a cruel twist of fate, to say the least. But in a 5-4 decision handed down Tuesday morning, the justices made it clear that they had taken the unprecedented step of stripping Mr. Gore of his Oscar because President Bush deserved it more. “It is true that Al Gore has done a lot of talking about global warming,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority. “But President Bush has actually helped create global warming.”
In another setback for the former vice president, a group of scientists meeting in Oslo, Norway today said that Mr. Gore was growing at an unsustainable rate. “The polar ice caps may be shrinking, but Al Gore is clearly expanding,” said Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke of the University of Tokyo. The scientists concluded that if Mr. Gore continues to expand at his current rate, he could cause the earth to spin off its axis by 2010, sending it hurtling into the sun. “Here’s an inconvenient truth,” Dr. Kyosuke added. “Al’s got to stay away from those carbs.” Elsewhere, after foreigners received a record number of Academy Award nominations, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs proposed building a 12-foot high fence around the Kodak Theater.
via
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)