Having thought about it I have realised that the "god-spot" is not incompatible with the "god-net". I actually take issue with the study that was done with the nuns (I'm reffering to the live science article in my last post) but even if we assume that it is correct, what I said still stands, and may even be more probable.
According to this study, the whole brain is responsible for the religious experience. However, the God-spot does in fact produce the results that were in my original post. A single spot can easily affect how the system works, which provides more than reasonable compatibility between the 2 findings.
The reason that this makes what I said is more probable is part of the basic workings of evolution: adaption of existing resources to do something new. It is more likely that these parts of the brain would evolve to contribute to a single event than that a whole separate part of the brain would be created.
Evolution deniers (and that IS what they are) always point at "irreducible complexity" as evidence against evolution. How ironic that the very mechanism which they refuse to accept is responsible for the religious fervour that drives virtually all of them.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
God Spot Ammendment
http://www.livescience.com/health/060829_god_spot.html
I mentioned the godspot in a previous post. I found this while looking for more information on it. This is old news, so I can't really defend myself, but the source I got it from was only about a year and a half old, so I felt it was timely enough. Guess not. I sincerely apologise, I don't pretend to be a neurologist and my data is sometimes wrong. sorry. I'll try and re-analyse the topic in another post.
Remember, this blog is for IDEAS. I try to stick with facts, but don't take anything I say as definitely true. I mean, I wrote about speeding up computers with black holes. seriously.
I mentioned the godspot in a previous post. I found this while looking for more information on it. This is old news, so I can't really defend myself, but the source I got it from was only about a year and a half old, so I felt it was timely enough. Guess not. I sincerely apologise, I don't pretend to be a neurologist and my data is sometimes wrong. sorry. I'll try and re-analyse the topic in another post.
Remember, this blog is for IDEAS. I try to stick with facts, but don't take anything I say as definitely true. I mean, I wrote about speeding up computers with black holes. seriously.
New Study for Judging Human Ability to Improve Multi-Tasking Skills
lets say we get 500 people as our study group. We'll split them into 5 groups. The study will be carried out over a 3 month period.
Group 1:Is given an audio recording on a topic (a podcast for example). They are also given reading material on the same topic.
Group 2:Is given the same material, but the reading material is on a different topic than the audio.
Group 3:Is given the audio material and a copy of Tetris.
Group 4:Is given music and reading material.
Group 5:Is given nothing.
Group 5 is given a test. They have a 5 minute recording on a topic as well as reading material on the same topic, but which contains different information. They have 5 minutes to listen to the recording while reading the information. After this time they are given a test which requires knowledge of both items.
These tests are stored away until the end of the study WITHOUT BEING SCORED (in order to maintain blindness on the part of the experimenters). The other groups spend 1 hour a day listening to their audio while reading the material they were given, or playing Tetris. After 3 months of doing this, they write the same test that group 5 wrote. The tests are scored and results compared.
The point of this study is to determine whether or not people are capable of learning to take in 2 streams of data.
"Why do you continue to
change the subject and break my concentration
As I dump the bottle out and count the Advil up again!"
-They Might Be Giants
Group 1:Is given an audio recording on a topic (a podcast for example). They are also given reading material on the same topic.
Group 2:Is given the same material, but the reading material is on a different topic than the audio.
Group 3:Is given the audio material and a copy of Tetris.
Group 4:Is given music and reading material.
Group 5:Is given nothing.
Group 5 is given a test. They have a 5 minute recording on a topic as well as reading material on the same topic, but which contains different information. They have 5 minutes to listen to the recording while reading the information. After this time they are given a test which requires knowledge of both items.
These tests are stored away until the end of the study WITHOUT BEING SCORED (in order to maintain blindness on the part of the experimenters). The other groups spend 1 hour a day listening to their audio while reading the material they were given, or playing Tetris. After 3 months of doing this, they write the same test that group 5 wrote. The tests are scored and results compared.
The point of this study is to determine whether or not people are capable of learning to take in 2 streams of data.
"Why do you continue to
change the subject and break my concentration
As I dump the bottle out and count the Advil up again!"
-They Might Be Giants
Thursday, January 17, 2008
I just found this...
NONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!
This is so wrong! I can't deal with it. It's just not right. This sucks. I mean, yeah it's Coldplay. They are sell-outs anyway. But...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The precedent this sets is vile. I may be forced to lead a musical revolution of some sort.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
"And blind acceptance is a sign!
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like EMI!!!!!!"
-Sex Pistols
NONONONONONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!
This is so wrong! I can't deal with it. It's just not right. This sucks. I mean, yeah it's Coldplay. They are sell-outs anyway. But...NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The precedent this sets is vile. I may be forced to lead a musical revolution of some sort.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
"And blind acceptance is a sign!
Of stupid fools who stand in line
Like EMI!!!!!!"
-Sex Pistols
EPIC
This is the trailer for a video that we did before I left Nova Scotia. The film is intended to be part 1 of a 5 part series about music.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Social Evidence For Evolution
*note: Religious people may be offended by part of this post.
evolution is pretty much the most proven theory there is. We have DNA evidence and fossil evidence. We also observe very different creatures that use different solutions to the same problem (bats and birds have totally different wing structure). On the other side, there are similar creatures that use the same solution (all birds use essentially the same wing design, with minor variations). On top of this, I think there is another layer of evidence in the way we behave. I have a list of things that clearly show that we function in ways that allow our DNA to be passed on.
1.Family
We want to defend our families, because they contain our DNA. If we didn't defend our families then they probably wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce.
2.Racism
Ok, This isn't a pretty one but it works. We naturally want DNA that is similar to ours to be passed on. A genetic mutation that helps itself in other copies is more likely to survive. In this way, someone who appears to be genetically different from us is naturally repressed. Part of the reason racism has lessened is that we live in a global society, and people who can function with anybody are more likely to be successful. It's a social evolution that's happening right in front of us.
3.Homophobia
As much as we want to promote our own DNA, survival of the species takes precedence. So when we meet someone with no interest in pro-creation we have a negative reaction. I think that this attitude is going to go the same way as racism because we can support a gay community (the world is OVER-populated!) and our society has been moving in a liberal direction for the last 4000 years. Therefore it will be advantageous socially to be tolerant of gays.
4.Religion
There is a part of the brain, often referred to as the god spot (g-spot), that causes a religious experience when manipulated (people who have seizures in this part of the brain have an illness called "hyper-religiosity"). So what possible function could this serve? Well, it's responsible for belief in god. The odd thing is that the evolutionary advantage of this is not immediately obvious. I have a few theories, all of which probably play a contributing role:
We have developed the ability to question the universe. So when we come across the big "where are we going" issue, ancient man had no answer. Religion gave them one, avoiding suicide, depression and all other sorts of things. Now that we can explain so much of our universe and know how to find out other things about it, i think that the situation has changed significantly. It is hard to identify with someone who knows nothing but survival.
Religion provides alot of certainty, which can help immensely when trying to motivate others. Motivation and leadership increase appeal when seeking mates.
Once religion took hold, non-religious people pretty persecuted for a few thousand years. That would be social selection and is pretty much identical to natural selection.
5.sex is fun!
If you enjoy sex you want more of it. If you have more sex, you have more kids. If you have more surviving kids they pass on your DNA. QED.
Interestingly, the god-spot actually plays a part in orgasms, tying sex and religion together. neato!
"He's an or-gasm addict!"
-The Buzzcocks
evolution is pretty much the most proven theory there is. We have DNA evidence and fossil evidence. We also observe very different creatures that use different solutions to the same problem (bats and birds have totally different wing structure). On the other side, there are similar creatures that use the same solution (all birds use essentially the same wing design, with minor variations). On top of this, I think there is another layer of evidence in the way we behave. I have a list of things that clearly show that we function in ways that allow our DNA to be passed on.
1.Family
We want to defend our families, because they contain our DNA. If we didn't defend our families then they probably wouldn't survive long enough to reproduce.
2.Racism
Ok, This isn't a pretty one but it works. We naturally want DNA that is similar to ours to be passed on. A genetic mutation that helps itself in other copies is more likely to survive. In this way, someone who appears to be genetically different from us is naturally repressed. Part of the reason racism has lessened is that we live in a global society, and people who can function with anybody are more likely to be successful. It's a social evolution that's happening right in front of us.
3.Homophobia
As much as we want to promote our own DNA, survival of the species takes precedence. So when we meet someone with no interest in pro-creation we have a negative reaction. I think that this attitude is going to go the same way as racism because we can support a gay community (the world is OVER-populated!) and our society has been moving in a liberal direction for the last 4000 years. Therefore it will be advantageous socially to be tolerant of gays.
4.Religion
There is a part of the brain, often referred to as the god spot (g-spot), that causes a religious experience when manipulated (people who have seizures in this part of the brain have an illness called "hyper-religiosity"). So what possible function could this serve? Well, it's responsible for belief in god. The odd thing is that the evolutionary advantage of this is not immediately obvious. I have a few theories, all of which probably play a contributing role:
We have developed the ability to question the universe. So when we come across the big "where are we going" issue, ancient man had no answer. Religion gave them one, avoiding suicide, depression and all other sorts of things. Now that we can explain so much of our universe and know how to find out other things about it, i think that the situation has changed significantly. It is hard to identify with someone who knows nothing but survival.
Religion provides alot of certainty, which can help immensely when trying to motivate others. Motivation and leadership increase appeal when seeking mates.
Once religion took hold, non-religious people pretty persecuted for a few thousand years. That would be social selection and is pretty much identical to natural selection.
5.sex is fun!
If you enjoy sex you want more of it. If you have more sex, you have more kids. If you have more surviving kids they pass on your DNA. QED.
Interestingly, the god-spot actually plays a part in orgasms, tying sex and religion together. neato!
"He's an or-gasm addict!"
-The Buzzcocks
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
How to use Physics to speed up your Computer!!!
There are 2 things that limit how fast any component of a computer can function: heat and error rates. Take for example a processor. No matter how much cooling you give it, you probably aren't going to overclock a 1.8 Ghz machine to 7 Ghz. Even if you have dealt with the cooling issue, the processor simply cannot handle that kind of information without making a huge number of errors.
Luckily, physics can help us deal with the error rate issue (and If you want cooling, just install some fans, or water cooling).
Step 1: Create a very small black hole.
Step 2: Put your computer in a place where the black hole is warping space time, but not so close that it passes the event horizon.
Step 3: Set the video output framerate to 30 hz, so that your monitor can keep up with the computer.
Step 4: bask in the glory of your now twice as fast computer!!!
The idea is that time is moving faster for the computer, so it appears to be running twice as fast. This doesn't deal with the heat issue, but it does allow for any number of processor cycles in a perceived second.
Unfortunately, even if we figured out how to do this games and movies would be out of the question. Each program would have to know how fast the computer was being "warpclocked" in order to compensate. On the other hand, things like servers that don't need to follow a specific time frame could benefit greatly. And of course a standardized game console would work too.
"ROAD RUNNER ROAD RUNNER!
GOIN' A THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
AH WITH THE RADIO ON!
Ah I Don't Fuckin' Know it..."
-Sex Pistols
Luckily, physics can help us deal with the error rate issue (and If you want cooling, just install some fans, or water cooling).
Step 1: Create a very small black hole.
Step 2: Put your computer in a place where the black hole is warping space time, but not so close that it passes the event horizon.
Step 3: Set the video output framerate to 30 hz, so that your monitor can keep up with the computer.
Step 4: bask in the glory of your now twice as fast computer!!!
The idea is that time is moving faster for the computer, so it appears to be running twice as fast. This doesn't deal with the heat issue, but it does allow for any number of processor cycles in a perceived second.
Unfortunately, even if we figured out how to do this games and movies would be out of the question. Each program would have to know how fast the computer was being "warpclocked" in order to compensate. On the other hand, things like servers that don't need to follow a specific time frame could benefit greatly. And of course a standardized game console would work too.
"ROAD RUNNER ROAD RUNNER!
GOIN' A THOUSAND MILES AN HOUR!
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!
AH WITH THE RADIO ON!
Ah I Don't Fuckin' Know it..."
-Sex Pistols
Monday, January 14, 2008
Pretentious, Meaningless Dribble and it's Effect on Science
The moon is not within walking distance.
That sentence doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing. There is nothing at all profound about that sentence. But I guarantee you that if you think about it long enough you can derive something from it.
So this is stupid. Or is it? Here's the thing: When we apply meaning were there is none intended, we create completely new ideas. I think that this is the real benefit that society gets from art. We create leaps over large gaps of logic and reason, which allow us to think in completely different ways. Usually this leads nowhere and a reasonable person can tell when they are going to down a false logical road. Occasionally, however, abstract thought brings to brilliant conclusions.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any specific examples of art influencing science (I'm sure they exist), but there are some insane things in science that standard logical rules probably wouldn't lead to. The biggest examples are Relativity and Quantum Physics. These were derived from math, but there are some huge logical gaps to jump before arriving at those theories. Of course evidence later confirmed these crazy ideas but they are proof of just how imaginative that we can be when confronted with seemingly meaningless information.
That sentence doesn't mean anything at all. Nothing. There is nothing at all profound about that sentence. But I guarantee you that if you think about it long enough you can derive something from it.
So this is stupid. Or is it? Here's the thing: When we apply meaning were there is none intended, we create completely new ideas. I think that this is the real benefit that society gets from art. We create leaps over large gaps of logic and reason, which allow us to think in completely different ways. Usually this leads nowhere and a reasonable person can tell when they are going to down a false logical road. Occasionally, however, abstract thought brings to brilliant conclusions.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any specific examples of art influencing science (I'm sure they exist), but there are some insane things in science that standard logical rules probably wouldn't lead to. The biggest examples are Relativity and Quantum Physics. These were derived from math, but there are some huge logical gaps to jump before arriving at those theories. Of course evidence later confirmed these crazy ideas but they are proof of just how imaginative that we can be when confronted with seemingly meaningless information.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Computers as a Description of Science
Want a cool (and nerdy) analogy to explain science? here you go.
People are a processor. like, everyone all together is a processor. On our hard-drive we have 3 files: Evidence.zip (which represents what we can observe), Logic.bat and Occam.duh (which are small).
So first we run Logic.bat (an unzipping protocol) on Occam.duh (which contains Occam's razor, "That solution which makes the least assumptions is probably the correct one"). We extract the folder "Rules of Evidence", which contains dlls representing all of our different specific rules for determining things. We also extract science.bat which references those dlls.
All of this should be pretty fast (but actually took thousands of years because the R3lg1on+StAt3 virus was eating up processor cycles). Now we have the long process: unzipping everything into the folder "Laws".
Science.bat extracts things from Evidence.zip. Unfortunately this compression protocol is self-manipulating. Sometimes data is uncompressed, but is later modified via inference from other data seen later on. However, this is self-correcting since that change is retro-actively applied to the other data. It's inefficient for the processor (the scientists), but it requires far less data on the hard-drive before de-compression
"Words are flowing out like endless rain inside a letterbox
Exiting and inviting me."
-The Beatles
People are a processor. like, everyone all together is a processor. On our hard-drive we have 3 files: Evidence.zip (which represents what we can observe), Logic.bat and Occam.duh (which are small).
So first we run Logic.bat (an unzipping protocol) on Occam.duh (which contains Occam's razor, "That solution which makes the least assumptions is probably the correct one"). We extract the folder "Rules of Evidence", which contains dlls representing all of our different specific rules for determining things. We also extract science.bat which references those dlls.
All of this should be pretty fast (but actually took thousands of years because the R3lg1on+StAt3 virus was eating up processor cycles). Now we have the long process: unzipping everything into the folder "Laws".
Science.bat extracts things from Evidence.zip. Unfortunately this compression protocol is self-manipulating. Sometimes data is uncompressed, but is later modified via inference from other data seen later on. However, this is self-correcting since that change is retro-actively applied to the other data. It's inefficient for the processor (the scientists), but it requires far less data on the hard-drive before de-compression
"Words are flowing out like endless rain inside a letterbox
Exiting and inviting me."
-The Beatles
Why I Hate Blogs
And Facebook and Myspace and Youtube. The sites themselves are perfectly reasonable (actually, I take issue with Facebook as a concept, but that's another article in itself) but people ruin them. As a bit of research for this post I looked at about 50 random blogs. 47 of them were a combination of the following:
Link farms
Spanish teenage girls
Japanese teenage girls
American teenage girls
About babies
The other 3 (the interesting ones) were the following:
A pretentious emo guy with very little to say, except for the obvious (things like money sucks).
A housewife trying to relieve the monotony of her life by analysing parts of her life, like movies she just watched or unusual things that she got for Christmas. Actually, she seemed kind of cool.
A guy who manages christian ministries for teens. Among other things, it included tips on how to take advantage of people's natural reasoning faculties in order to convert them. This one made me physically ill. I hate it when people use anything but the facts to convince people of things.
I think you get the idea. I recently read an article (that I can't find anymore) about Facebook relying on it's users to be "Beacons of Egoism" and I think that the same logic applies here. So now I feel like more of a jerk for writing this IN A BLOG!!!!! Still, I'm trying to use this blog to say something (or rather a collection of nothings). If I ever mention my personal life, it's in order to prove a point. And in it's purest form the internet is a catalyst for the free exchange of ideas.
Link farms
Spanish teenage girls
Japanese teenage girls
American teenage girls
About babies
The other 3 (the interesting ones) were the following:
A pretentious emo guy with very little to say, except for the obvious (things like money sucks).
A housewife trying to relieve the monotony of her life by analysing parts of her life, like movies she just watched or unusual things that she got for Christmas. Actually, she seemed kind of cool.
A guy who manages christian ministries for teens. Among other things, it included tips on how to take advantage of people's natural reasoning faculties in order to convert them. This one made me physically ill. I hate it when people use anything but the facts to convince people of things.
I think you get the idea. I recently read an article (that I can't find anymore) about Facebook relying on it's users to be "Beacons of Egoism" and I think that the same logic applies here. So now I feel like more of a jerk for writing this IN A BLOG!!!!! Still, I'm trying to use this blog to say something (or rather a collection of nothings). If I ever mention my personal life, it's in order to prove a point. And in it's purest form the internet is a catalyst for the free exchange of ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)