Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
Rob said: Last I knew, Heroes was tracking within a week of original views here to over there. (As best I recall) I miss the days when we got Battlestar Galactica a long time ahead of the US. I was somewhat amused by the fury I heard expressed in some parts of the internet about that, as if it were against all the laws of God and Man. Of course, it was co-funded by a UK television company so... Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'Heroes': Five Ways to Fix a Series In Crisis
On 25/10/2008, at 8:10 PM, Richard Baker wrote: Rob said: Last I knew, Heroes was tracking within a week of original views here to over there. (As best I recall) I miss the days when we got Battlestar Galactica a long time ahead of the US. I was somewhat amused by the fury I heard expressed in some parts of the internet about that, as if it were against all the laws of God and Man. Of course, it was co-funded by a UK television company so... Babylon 5 too - we got the last few episodes of each season before the US. C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scotch Tape, Black Holes Supercollider's
On Oct 24, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Gary Nunn wrote: Gheeze, who knew (well apparently the Russians 50 years ago). I'm guessing that environmental groups will start petitioning the court to outlaw the use of scotch tape in a vacuum in case it creates a black hole that will instantly swallow the earth X-Rays Detected From Scotch Tape Scotch tape. It turns out that if you peel the popular adhesive tape off its roll in a vacuum chamber, it emits X-rays. The researchers even made an X-ray image of one of their fingers. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=6088719 Wouldn't have expected triboluminescence to emit anything that energetic .. I've seen bluish light from a roll of tape in a darkened room, but never suspected it went up to such short wavelengths. (I wonder if wintergreen candy emits anything that hard..) I'm guessing this is the publication (or a similar one) in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7216/abs/nature07378.html?lang=en Letter Nature 455, 1089-1092 (23 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07378; Received 30 December 2007; Accepted 27 August 2008 Correlation between nanosecond X-ray flashes and stick–slip friction in peeling tape Carlos G. Camara1,2, Juan V. Escobar1,2, Jonathan R. Hird1 Seth J. Putterman1 • Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095, USA • These authors contributed equally to this work. Correspondence to: Carlos G. Camara1,2Juan V. Escobar1,2 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to C.C. (Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]) or J.E. (Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). Topof page Relative motion between two contacting surfaces can produce visible light, called triboluminescence1. This concentration of diffuse mechanical energy into electromagnetic radiation has previously been observed to extend even to X-ray energies2. Here we report that peeling common adhesive tape in a moderate vacuum produces radio and visible emission3, 4, along with nanosecond, 100-mW X-ray pulses that are correlated with stick–slip peeling events. For the observed 15-keV peak in X-ray energy, various models5, 6 give a competing picture of the discharge process, with the length of the gap between the separating faces of the tape being 30 or 300 m at the moment of emission. The intensity of X-ray triboluminescence allowed us to use it as a source for X-ray imaging. The limits on energies and flash widths that can be achieved are beyond current theories of tribology. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Racial and Gender bigotry
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:05 AM, John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I completely agree with you Julia. The more that I think about it, and the more that I see in the world, indicates to me that Who You Know edges out What You Know. This is nothing new, which is shown by the fact that the phrase It's now what you know, but who you know exists. The 'old boy' network exists, and I don't know what to do about it. I think that is the basis for one rational argument for being proactive about appointing minorities to positions of power. Given the non-merit-based obstacles to breaking in from the bottom, so to speak, help people break in from the top. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
New Creationist Ploy
http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33 Creationists declare war over the brain • 22 October 2008 • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. • Amanda Gefter YOU cannot overestimate, thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about... how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it... I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality. His enthusiasm was met with much applause from the audience gathered at the UN's east Manhattan conference hall on 11 September for an international symposium called Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. Earlier Mario Beauregard, a researcher in neuroscience at the University of Montreal, Canada, and co-author of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul, told the audience that the battle between maverick scientists like himself and those who believe the mind is what the brain does is a cultural war. Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing non-material neuroscience movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the Scientific dissent from Darwinism petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-basedDiscovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution. Old hats Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ “Babies are born every day without an iPod. We will get there.” - Adam Sohn, the head of public relations for Microsoft's Zune division. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
On Oct 25, 2008, at 1:25 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33 Creationists declare war over the brain • 22 October 2008 • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. • Amanda Gefter YOU cannot overestimate, thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about... how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it... I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality. His enthusiasm was met with much applause from the audience gathered at the UN's east Manhattan conference hall on 11 September for an international symposium called Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. Earlier Mario Beauregard, a researcher in neuroscience at the University of Montreal, Canada, and co-author of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul, told the audience that the battle between maverick scientists like himself and those who believe the mind is what the brain does is a cultural war. Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing non-material neuroscience movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the Scientific dissent from Darwinism petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-basedDiscovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution. Old hats Maru Kind of a non-issue for me on the creation/evolution debate (to the extent that the creationists believe there is a debate :D ) since to me, the existence or non-existence of a soul does not by itself prove or disprove the entire remainder of the creationist assertion that all life was directly created by their God-image. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the I that perceives is a purely physical phenomenon, and I'm much more convinced that there is indeed some form of mind/body duality and something analogous to a soul. Awareness and cognition seem to me to argue in favor of that interpretation. What that soul consists of, and how it functions, and whether it survives after physical death, etc. etc. are mostly in the realm of religion, but to me, mind/body duality seems to be less firmly decided (or at least the significance of awareness and cognition seem to me to be grossly underestimated in the debate) than other aspects of human biology -- it's often discounted as fringe science and denigrated as a back door to creationism, but to me it seems to deserve taking a bit more seriously. Strictly my $.02, and admittedly, not really a scientific position as it is non- disprovable and irreproducible on some levels, but I don't consider it entirely ruled out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, William T Goodall wrote: http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33 Creationists declare war over the brain • 22 October 2008 • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. Sweet. I've used the universal wishlist button to add this to my amazon wishlist, maybe someone will see fit to give it to me. (At least my husband will be aware that I want it.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Racial and Gender bigotry
On Behalf Of Jon Louis Mann Subject: Racial and Gender bigotry Welcome to the list and to America, Maree! I have travelled extensively in AUS and New Zed and would be curious to hear how different racial and gender bias is in America, compared to down under, and how it is dealt with in your educational system, and in families? American television is being exported all over the world, but not Fox News Network, yet... (although Rupert Murdouch is now an American citizen, I believe.~) We do have many television programs that do promote tolerance and sensitivity, many of which are spinoffs from European programs. If you pass by Santa Monica, CA in your travels please contact me. Jon Mann (310) 664-3712 Hi Jon and thank you for your kind words. Australians are as xenophobic as Americans in a generalist sense. It was only with the recent change in government that an apology for the treatment of our Aboriginal people was being formulated. The apology may have been made by now, but if that is the case I missed out on hearing about it over here. Although education is an essential part of the solution to the problem, there needs to be a broader response for this to work. This should IMHO include carefully monitored affirmative action programs. Positive role models in various positions in media also help mitigate bias. Community education projects can also help. Churches, and other institutions for social control and organisation, can have a great effect. We could also use are more activists like Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King. I am sure there are many other approaches that will work as well. My comment about broadening the solution came from my experience as a secondary school teacher. Over the years, whenever there is a societal problem the call goes out Get the schools to deal with it. Schools are instruments of social control and can be quite effective in that role. However, the more social programs foisted on schools the less time they have to devote to teaching thinking, researching, arguing, reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography and all the other important subjects that an educated person needs to know to effectively function in our society. It is a difficult job getting the balance correct and one that schools at home do amazingly well. I know so little about the system here in the US that I would not like to comment on how well things work here. Of course between you and me we can solve all the world's problems ;-). Regards, Maree Ludenia PS We are currently in Redding CA and moving south - Yosemite calls before it gets too cold. We may end up in the Santa Monica area and if we do I would love to catch up with you. ML ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the I that perceives is a purely physical phenomenon, and I'm much more convinced that there is indeed some form of mind/body duality and something analogous to a soul. The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, and modern science is showing him right. Olin - Original Message - From: Bruce Bostwickmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 12:04 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy On Oct 25, 2008, at 1:25 PM, William T Goodall wrote: http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33http://tinyurl.com/6o9w33 Creationists declare war over the brain • 22 October 2008 • From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues. • Amanda Gefter YOU cannot overestimate, thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about... how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it... I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality. His enthusiasm was met with much applause from the audience gathered at the UN's east Manhattan conference hall on 11 September for an international symposium called Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. Earlier Mario Beauregard, a researcher in neuroscience at the University of Montreal, Canada, and co-author of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul, told the audience that the battle between maverick scientists like himself and those who believe the mind is what the brain does is a cultural war. Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing non-material neuroscience movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the Scientific dissent from Darwinism petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-basedDiscovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution. Old hats Maru Kind of a non-issue for me on the creation/evolution debate (to the extent that the creationists believe there is a debate :D ) since to me, the existence or non-existence of a soul does not by itself prove or disprove the entire remainder of the creationist assertion that all life was directly created by their God-image. Personally, I find it hard to believe that the I that perceives is a purely physical phenomenon, and I'm much more convinced that there is indeed some form of mind/body duality and something analogous to a soul. Awareness and cognition seem to me to argue in favor of that interpretation. What that soul consists of, and how it functions, and whether it survives after physical death, etc. etc. are mostly in the realm of religion, but to me, mind/body duality seems to be less firmly decided (or at least the significance of awareness and cognition seem to me to be grossly underestimated in the debate) than other aspects of human biology -- it's often discounted as fringe science and denigrated as a back door to creationism, but to me it seems to deserve taking a bit more seriously. Strictly my $.02, and admittedly, not really a scientific position as it is non- disprovable and irreproducible on some levels, but I don't consider it entirely ruled out. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Undecided
Here's a bit of David Sedaris from this week's New Yorker... as he often does, he made me laugh out loud. To put them [the undecided voters] in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. Can I interest you in the chicken? she asks. Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it? To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
- Original Message - From: Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?and modern science is showing him right. Hi Olin, Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter is an illusion? Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real? What exactly does real mean? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Creationist Ploy
Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. Its real in the same way that a whirlpool is real -- it has a form and appears to be a thing even though the matter in it changes every second. It's a temporary pattern with no fixed or permanent substance. It's probably the result of a feedback loop -- all creatures, even single celled ones, can to some extent recognise patterns in their environment. At some level of development sufficiently complex creatures begin to turn that pattern recognition ability on themselves -- they can recognize patterns in their own behavior. Its what makes higher learning possible. But that also means that you're feeding the output of the system back into the system. That, I think, is a very simple description of what we call conciousness. It doesn't require anyting mystical or immaterial to explain it. To re-introduce those things is simply to try to hang on to some illusion that there is something special about us -- that we are somehow transcendet of the material universe. We're no t. We're matter arranged in very compelx patterns that were themselves the product of evolution. Real, in the context of science, means that it has consequences. If you posit the existence of some immaterial thing -- call it soul or whatever -- then you have to say, these are the consequences we can expect if this thing exists and this is how -- at least in principle -- we can test those consequence. A real scientific theory has to be falsifiable. There has to be some evidence that, if it were found, would disprove the idea. And the problem with non-material, invisible, undetectable soul stuff is that no matter what we find out about the brain, the believer will just say that we haven't learned to detect it yet. But the real clincher is that we don't need it. It's not necessary to explain conciousness or anthying else about humans -- its only necessary to make us feel special, like believing we were the center of the universe made us feel special. - Original Message - From: Wayne Eddymailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussionmailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 8:07 PM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy - Original Message - From: Olin Elliott [EMAIL PROTECTED]mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.commailto:brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: Re: New Creationist Ploy The I that perceives is not anything -- its an illusion, a trick of perception and memory. It doesn't exist -- there is not fixed self. Buddha knews that 2500 years ago, ?and modern science is showing him right. Hi Olin, Surely the I that perceives is something. Just because it can't exist outside a brain, doesn't mean it isn't real. If matter couldn't exist outside this universe, would that mean that matter is an illusion? Software can't run outside a computer, does that mean it's not real? What exactly does real mean? Regards, Wayne. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-lhttp://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
