bascule

Yes, I saw that several years ago, shortly after What the Bleep came out. Made by the same people, and they were collaborators with Penrose, particularly on the What the Bleep book, which also featured Penrose's ideas. Consciousness had nothing to do this. Waveform collapse was initiated by the structure of the system, not a conscious agent. Granted this behavior plays an important role in the relationship between the observer and the observed when studying quantum behavior (and the inability of the experimenter to separate themselves from the experiment). The problem of the observer being in the same system as the observed has immense ramifications for how modern theory is approached and reasoned about. It has nothing metaphysical to say about consciousness and quantum waveform collapse. As far as quantum theory is concerned consciousness doesn't exist. There's no "consciousness field" which can interact with the other forces. I espouse Dennett's compatibilism as advocated in his book Freedom Evolves. This thoroughly rules out any form of freedom from causality. Instead, identity, which is shaped by our life experiences, serves as executor of our will. Penrose doesn't have a theory. If he did he'd publish it in a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Instead, he wrote a book. He did make a number of arguments in his book, but the subsequent "peer review" that occurred when people scrutinized his book completely discredited the idea. Penrose has a hypothesis, and every attempt to put it on scientific footing has been met with contradictory evidence or the discovery of logic errors. Can you point to one argument for putting quantum cosnciousness on scientific footing which has not been discredited?

It's better to treat anything with wires sticking out as if it's a bomb by default? Plastic explosives let you disguise a bomb as anything, so why not treat everything as a bomb by default? You're a security guard. A guy walks up to you in the airport with a ticking suitcase... I'm just curious: does this device not have a benign appearance? Does it really look scary to some of you? I mean, I guess I'm just speaking as someone who owned a breadboard virtually identical to that one as a child, and it's not exactly inspiring a lot of fear

So nice to see quantum mind discussions where they belong: in the pseudoscience forum

I'm still trying to understand this wires -> bomb -> hoax progression. Apparently anytime something is mistaken for a bomb (at least in Boston), it's instantly labeled a hoax by the media. You know what would've made it a hoax? If she somehow purported it was a bomb. Here's the "hoax device" in question. Looks like a breadboard with some LEDs and a 9V battery. http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/09/21/star_simpson/index.html

From the titular concept of Smolin's book (you know, the one everyone forgot about after TwP) there are three ways to approach the development of a quantum theory of gravity: 1. Start with general relativity and find ways to unite it with quantum mechanics (the loop quantum gravity approach) 2. Start with quantum mechanics and find ways to unite it with general relativity (the string theory approach) 3. Something completely different I was wondering what the opinions around here were on these approaches

The Senate split the way it is (effectively 50/50, especially considering Lieberman the "Democratic Independent"'s recent voting record) the Republicans can certainly obstruct whatever they want to their heart's content, and if that doesn't work Bush can just veto it. It's kind of a stalemate, don't you think?

I've just heard Flemish separatists are on the uprise and know little beyond that. But I live in America and we're renowned for not paying attention to the rest of the world.

I think the much ado about nothing approach which Fox has pursued, with CNN, MSNBC, etc. immediately following suit has done a great job distracting from real issues and drawing attention to total red herrings and distractions. In context the MoveOn ad had some poignant criticisms of Petraeus's honesty, even if the "hook" was f*cking retarded. Calling for people to condemn it based on the hook and not the content is both dishonest and distracting from real issues. For example, why was it the Republicans unanimously backed the resolution to condemn the MoveOn.org advertisement, but only a handful backed the restoration of habeas corpus? What am I supposed to take from this besides Republican Senators hate free speech and habeas corpus?

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20070422222547data_trunc_sys.shtml Insane!

Sadly enough, the Senate just passed an amendment to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act 72 to 25 which condemns "any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org." http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1663424,00.html Is mock outrage hurting American politics? This post is missing my opinion bacause I forgot to put it in here. Thanks for pointing that out, Pangloss!

This was interesting: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49238 Traditional coal plants have 30-35% efficiency Supercritical coal plants have ~45% Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) coal plants have 60% efficiency Transmission has a 6-8% loss

There's more to take into account than just death. There's also debilitating injuries and chronic illness, i.e. suffering.

I guess I'm biased being a Unix junkie. I've done my fair share of development with the Win32 API which does have a lot of nice features that many environments are just catching up on. To a certain extent I like the .NET CLR as a platform (particularly since it has multiple viable implementations with Mono, and Mono is free software) I've also been a reluctant proponent of certain Microsoft tools. I've maintained ActiveDirectory-based networks of Windows machines and administered Exchange. All that said: I hate Microsoft shops. I hate the mentality. The software development approaches are rather old, the tools have the "too many cooks" feeling, the interfaces all reek of design by committee, and all in all everything has the feel of too much needless complexity aimed at larger teams of stupider people. It's similar to what you get in Java communities, although I feel that Microsoft in general does a better job (but locks you into their platform) I'm a big fan of community developed software that begins with a coherent central concept advocated by a single person or small group of core contributors and goes from there. I'm a fan of small, smart teams which are willing to learn a more abstract platform with a steep learning curve that lets them get stuff done more quickly. I also feel out of place outside a *IX environment and hate complex IDEs. The editors I use are TextMate, vim, and emacs, all of which give you many of the same features as IDEs (especially emacs) without the obtrusiveness and a central focus on being a good text editor. These tools all echo what I said above: they all have steeper learning curves (with the exception of TextMate) than most editors but allow you to be more productive. If I were you, I'd investigate *IX and open, community-developed platforms, APIs, and standards, and see if you think those fit you better than Microsoft blub. It sounds like you're already expressing some discomfort with Microsoft's dogfood, which may be an indicator you're ready to move on to something better.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP ALREADY

This one:

One of the most striking things I noticed in this was how much energy the power grid wastes... it's only 31% efficient! Aren't there technologies like HVDC that could improve the efficiency of the power grid above this paltry level?

Maybe the rest of the system realizes that suspension of habeas corpus is f*cking retarded given present circumstances, even if (most) Senate Republicans don't Props to my man Dick Lugar, as well as Arlen Specter, Gordon Smith, and Olympia Snowe, as well as Senator Chuck "Betrayus" Hagel

December 21st, 2012 is the end of the 13th Baktun of Mayan calendar, which as far as the Mayans were concerned (they believed time was cyclical) meant the end of this age and the beginning of the new one. If you believe the Mayans, then the universe began on August 11th, 3113 BCE 2012 is the subject of a number of different newage (rhymes with "sewage") beliefs which stem directly from the Mayan calendar but claim not to, including Terrence McKenna's Timewave theory. Go to Burning Man and ask a random deluded insane hippie and I'm sure they can tell you the significance of 2012.

Let me give my own totally unscientific opinion on liberal versus conservative intellectuals: Conservative intellectuals tend to be diabolically evil (e.g. Milton Friedman) Liberal intellectuals tend to be unrealistic blowhards (e.g. Noam Chomsky)

This is not encouraging... (cloture vote on the restoration of habeas corpus rejected by the Senate Republicans, with a few breaking ranks) I'll wait until Bush has the Capitol burned or orders then anschluss of Canada before declaring the US fascist, however it's arguable America is presently under the most authoritarian presidential leadership it's ever seen.

Most seem to think of free will in terms of freedom from causality. I certainly believe this is not the case.

No, because most of the time there is no consumer choice. Most Americans are saddled with the insurance their employer provides and see only in-network care providers and specialists. Either that or they're on the way to the emergency room, at which point they usually don't pick the hospital who will give them care.

R is excellent and also a powerful language with lazy evaluation (which I'm sure Aeternus the resident Haskellist can appreciate), great for statistical analysis

The problem with a free market healthcare system is that it's in the system's best interest to keep costs on the rise, hence America's healthcare system being the most expensive in the world as a percentage of GDP. This doesn't improve the quality of care but it certainly improves how much money health insurance CEOs get to pocket.