bascule

I'd ask anyone advocating the conspiracy (Glider, you might want to pass this on to your friend) to take a look at the counterpoint to their argument. I have certainly familiarized myself with the arguments of the "9/11 truth movement", watched Loose Change, and read quite a bit on the matter in general. For starters, there's Screw Loose Change, a fact-checked version of the original movie: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ There's also Popular Mechanics issue on debunking 9/11 myths: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html And debunking911.com Specifically regarding WTC7 and the NIST report, the lack of a definitive theory of the building's collapse has been used by the 9/11 truth movement to argue a conspiracy. It's not acceptable that NIST did not put forward a theory because they did not feel they had sufficient evidence or research time to formulate one. This video demonstrates the central argument of the NIST report, which was a prolonged structural collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3132857754400064872 Here the collapse of a mechanical penthouse (demonstrating an internal structural failure) can be seen to occur a few seconds before the rest of the building collapses. We also see a second mechanical penthouse begin collapsing instants before the rest of the building. We do know WTC7 was hit by large chunks of extremely hot, high velocity debris. This resulted in a fire which NIST argues subsequently resulted in the collapse of the building. The extent of the structural damaged caused by the debris and the exact role of the fire are not known with any degree of certainty. Arguments that the collapse involved with explosives seem to hinge around the argument that no steel frame building in history has ever collapsed due to fire alone, therefore controlled explosives are needed to bring down WTC7. This is not only an argument from incredulity, but a strawman as no one is arguing that WTC7 collapsed due to fire alone. The NIST argument is that the building collapsed due to a combination of fire and structural damage from debris resulting from the nearby collapse of two monumental skyscrapers.

Can you detail more specifically how you think Dawkins misrepresents science? There's quite an interesting little passage in this program where he talks specifically about how he views the supernatural. He makes quite clear that the supernatural is not ruled out by science, and he does not know whether or not it actually exists. But then he juxtaposes the reasons for believing in the supernatural with the reasons for trusting science. He describes the mutually supporting evidence structure upon which science is based, and suggests this represents a well-reasoned approach to understanding the world.

I'm talking about completely removing everything from the guitar body and replacing it all with the guitar hero components, sans the stupid gimpy switch, and replacing that with a piezo mounted on a metal plate covered with a rubber pad

Actually, the release of the code is... to foster a community around the code (which he intends to commercialize for solving general intelligence problems, like the kind people are farming off on Amazon's Mechanical Turk). His book "On Intelligence" was to advertise and lure people into the theory. You might want to watch the video. He's presenting before a panel of mostly neuroscientists, and he responds to them at the end: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2500845581503718756

So, what defines an "Artificial Intelligence guru?" Does Minsky qualify? Does Hofstadter? Also, why is this under "Engineering"?

Dawkins had something awesome to say on this matter: "We must favor verifiable evidence over private feeling. Otherwise, we favor those who would obscure the truth"

Dawkins has a new television program out, called "The Enemies of Reason". He attacks new agers, charlatans, and other purveyors of pseudoscience: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8669488783707640763 (note: this is a legitimate Channel 4 release on Google Video. It has been uploaded by the original content creator and is therefore not pirated)

Perhaps I should bring up 250 dead today in what may be the deadliest attack since the war in Iraq began. You accused me of not looking at this long term enough, and I was also recently accused of presenting out-of-date information. Statistics cited a mere 2 days ago showed a momentary lull in Iraqi deaths. By a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy the surge must be working! Oh wait, 2 days later at least 400 people are dead from insurgent bombings. Doesn't exactly fit the "surge is working" assertion, does it? If anything the situation is volatile, but as the graphs I linked show violence and death have been progressively on the rise in the years following the war. There is a long-term pattern, and it's not one that bodes well for those who assert the situation will improve.

Jeff Hawkins, creator of the Palm Pilot and founder of the Redwood Neuroscience Institute presents an hour long discussion on how the human neocortex and thalamocortical loops work: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2500845581503718756 He's also implemented this in software (see my other thread)

Actually, I addressed his point about how WMDs changed the situation, namely by (vicariously) articulating how sources including the State Department, Department of Energy, and Joseph Wilson thought the (multitude of sketchy) claim(s) was baseless, then all of the above combined with the reasons Dick Cheney gave for not marching on Baghdad... Cheney's response: "Look what's happened since then. We had 9/11" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogbPosUQA9M

175 dead in Iraq today due to suicide bombings The surge is working like a charm!

What's the source on that graph? Here's another: This is from: Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres (2003). "Global, Regional, and National CO2 Emissions" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy.

Birds possess a structure similar to the mammalian neocortex which can evolve to abstractly process symbolic information. I think this is a case of convergent evolution (that's what the article is asserting anyway) To a certain degree, birds are conscious in a similar fashion to mammals I don't know what to make of tales of animals sensing imminent danger and fleeing, while us stupid humans stay behind until the danger is visible. I believe I read an article at some point that these claims were all anecdotal and not really scientifically substantiated. If any biologists/ethologists have researched this alleged aspect of animal behavior I'd certainly like to read their papers.

Okay, not really, but this is sure a big step forward in intelligence research: http://numenta.com/ Numenta, a startup company founded by On Intelligence author and Redwood Neuroscience Founder Jeff Hawkins has released both binaries and source code for their general intelligence algorithm, known as Hierarchical Temporal Memory. This software is based on the behavior of hierarchical networks of neocortical columns in the brain, which Hawkins theorizes provide the foundational components of human consciousness.

Hydrogen Fuel Injection is a proven technology. Vehicles equipped with it produce hydrogen using electrolysis powered by the vehicle's fuel system, then injected into the air intake. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency. If "Brown's gas"/"HHO gas" is what it appears to be, that is to say HYDROGEN, then yes, you'll get the same effect.

I addressed the reasons (or lack thereof) for invading above. Don't you think your post is a bit of a strawman?

His opinions of the negative consequences of invading Baghdad were quite apt in 1994... also: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

There is an entire science concerning the study of consciousness (cognitive science), which can be empirical by studying people's observation of different types of phenomena. There's been a few attempts at comprehensive theories of consciousness. Perhaps the foremost in my mind is Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence, a bottom-up approach to the problem. There is also Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, a top-down approach to the problem. Neither of these theories really provide any answers regarding the most complex aspect of the philosophy of mind: the so-called mind/body problem. While cognitive scientists can study how mind perceives they still have no real answer as to what it is and what separates the mind from the brain. The prevailing opinion is that mind is a (system of) self-referential feedback loop(s)

I'm reminded of 9/11 used to build a broader, more comprehensive picture of a national problem which had until then been largely ignored by the public at large. The difference is that the Democrats are actually going to use money to fund a solution to this problem, whereas Bush (via OMB/veto power) and the Republicans decided to fund their "solution" with debt, enough to drive down the value of the dollar in the international marketplace.

Well, that's my view! It's the latest in the dog and pony shows the administration has trotted out in attempts to draw attention away from the enormous clusterf*ck that is the invasion of Iraq, the removal of its power structure, and the subsequent (primarily) US occupation which has remained in hopes that a new, democratic power structure actually able to keep control would materialize in its place, and be able to resolve sectarian conflicts between the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. According to some news outlets, the latest dog and pony show is... a dog an pony show, with no real effect, and jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of US soldiers! Here's the evidence from my previous post with whatever objectionable opinion I placed alongside it removed! http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632751,00.html?xid=rss-world http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/13/AR2007061302357.html?nav=rss_nation/special

As told through a particularly unbiased source... DICK CHENEY! "It would've been a US occupation, none of the Arab forces... would've been willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, what are you going to put in Saddam's place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down Saddam's government, parts of it are going to fly off..." I don't think I've ever agreed with Dick Cheney so much ever before. What happened? Why the about face? Why support such a stupid war now? Halliburton? PNAC? Not having to answer to an older, smarter Bush?

The change in regional mean surface temperature (for the US) was less than 1% The change in global mean surface temperature is not even worth noting (less than thousandths of a percent)

Some things to consider: First, the original blog providing the information, not the DailyTech (huh, "DailyTech" is an authority on climate science?) http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html Next, here's RealClimate's take on the matter: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/ Contrast this with DailyTech's "silently updated" allegations... The end result for US climactic data? The end result for global climactic data? The change in the global mean surface temperature is not 1-2%. The change in the global mean surface temperature is statistically negligible. Move on folks, nothing to see here...

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a great book and one which sort of kickstarted my love of philosophy, and yes, it's a semi-autobiographical first person narrative, but that's about where the similarities end.

You seem to be looking for some sort of quick categorical label to file it under. Rather bluntly it's "stream of consciousness", but used in a way I've never seen from other authors who write in the stream-of-consciousness form. Perhaps the most concisely I can describe it is "memory evocation-driven stream of consciousness" I was using "compares" in the sense that RoTP/ISoLT is a unique work which, to my knowledge, there exists nothing that compares. If anything, it's a study of how the evocation of memory shapes our identity. Proust quite likely could've written about the same thing in the context of a non-fiction philosophical book, but it wouldn't have the same effect. By doing it in narrative form, Proust builds up the memories he evokes through a bombardment of intense imagery. The reader is expected to take in this imagery, synthesize it into an internal picture, then allow it to be invoked at later parts of the story. In order to do this, yes, the work had to be quite long, and it also depends on the reader to visualize and synthesize what's being expressed into a grander picture of the narrator's life, so that the process of memory evocation actually works. Has anyone else done this? I'd sure like to know...