|
05-29-2013, 09:22 AM | #826 | ||
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $428919
|
Rationality, and why Spock is full of shit....
Why Spock is Not Rational Star Trek’s Mr. Spock is not the exemplar of logic and rationality you might think him to be. Instead, he is a “straw man” of rationality used to show (incorrectly) that human emotion and irrationality are better than logic. Here is a typical scene: MCCOY: Well, Mr. Spock, [the aliens] didn’t stay frightened very long, did they? SPOCK: A most illogical reaction. When we demonstrated our superior weapons, they should have fled. MCCOY: You mean they should have respected us? SPOCK: Of course! MCCOY: Mr. Spock, respect is a rational process. Did it ever occur to you that they might react emotionally, with anger? SPOCK: Doctor, I’m not responsible for their unpredictability. MCCOY: They were perfectly predictable, to anyone with feeling! You might as well admit it, Mr. Spock: your precious logic brought them down on us! Of course, there’s nothing logical about expecting non-logical beings to act logically. Spock had plenty of evidence that these aliens were emotional, so expecting them to behave rationally was downright irrational! I stole this example from Julia Galef’s talk “The Straw Vulcan.” Her second example of “straw man rationality,” or Hollywood Rationality, is the idea that you shouldn’t make a decision until you have all the information you need. This one shows up in Star Trek too. A giant space amoeba has appeared not far from the Enterprise, and Kirk asks Spock for his analysis. Spock replies, “I have no analysis due to insufficient information . . . The computers contain nothing on this phenomenon. It is beyond our experience, and the new information is not yet significant.” Sometimes it’s rational to seek more information before acting, but sometimes you need to just act on what you think you know. You have to weigh the cost of getting more information against the expected value of that information. Consider another example from Gerd Gigerenzer, about a man considering whom to marry: Quote:
Galef’s third example of Hollywood Rationality is the mistaken principle that “being rational means never relying on intuition.” For example, in one episode of Star Trek, Kirk and Spock are playing three-dimensional chess. When Kirk checkmates Spock, Spock says, “Your illogical approach to chess does have its advantages on occasion, Captain.” But something that causes you to win at chess can’t be irrational (from the perspective of winning at chess). If some method will cause you to win at chess, that’s the method a rational person would use. If intuition will give you better results than slow, deliberative reasoning, then rationally you should use intuition. And sometimes that’s the case, for example if you have developed good chess intuitions over thousands of games and you’re playing speed chess that won’t permit you to think through the implications of every possible move using deliberative reasoning. Galef’s fourth principle of Hollywood Rationality is that “being rational means [not having] emotions.” To be sure, emotions often ruin our attempts at rational thought and decision-making. When we’re anxious, we overestimate risks. When we feel vulnerable, we’re more likely to believe superstitions and conspiracy theories. But that doesn’t mean a rational person should try to destroy all their emotions. Emotions are what create many of our goals, and they can sometimes help us to achieve our goals, too. If you want to go for a run and burn some fat, and you know that listening to high-energy music puts you in an excited emotional state that makes you more likely to go for a run, then the rational thing to do is put on some high-energy music. Rationality done right is “systematized winning.” Epistemic rationality is about having the most probably true beliefs, and instrumental rationality is about making decisions that maximize your chances of getting the most of what you want. So, as Galef says, Quote:
__________________
|
||
Posts: 48,432
|
05-31-2013, 03:32 PM | #827 |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $428919
|
It's pretty amazing to think that not even 60 years ago, organ transplants were future medical fantasy...
__________________
|
Posts: 48,432
|
05-31-2013, 03:50 PM | #828 |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $428919
|
The nocebo effect. The placebo effect's evil twin brother. It's basically the phenomena that one's health can be negatively affected by strong beliefs, even when the subject is not actually physically affected in any way whatsoever.
Research is starting to show some really startling conclusions due to this effect. And today's awful and dishonest media is causing a great deal of it. Pseudo science contributes a great deal to the nocebo effect, making people believe they're sick and in need of some magic pill, when they actually aren't. And it's much easier to prove than you'd imagine.... How to Convince People WiFi Is Making Them Sick All it takes is an antenna on a headband. If you've got a breathless video report on the dangers of wireless internet connections, that will help your case. It doesn't take much, though, to turn an ominous hint into a real headache. Some people consider themselves sensitive to electromagnetic fields. They report symptoms such as burning skin, tingling, nausea, dizziness, or chest pain, and they blame their malaise on nearby power lines, cell phones, or WiFi networks. A recent Slate article described such people moving to a remote West Virginia town where radio-frequency signals are banned. (The town is within the U.S. National Radio Quiet Zone, an area that's enforced to keep signals from interfering with radio telescopes there—telescopes that work because they receive the radio-frequency signals constantly hitting our planet from space.) There's no known scientific reason why a wireless signal might cause physical harm. And studies have found that even people who claim to be sensitive to electromagnetic fields can't actually sense them. Their symptoms are more likely due to nocebo, the evil twin of the placebo effect. The power of our expectation can cause real physical illness. In clinical drug trials, for example, subjects who take sugar pills report side effects ranging from an upset stomach to sexual dysfunction. Psychologists Michael Witthöft and G. James Rubin of King's College London explored whether frightening TV reports can encourage a nocebo effect. They recruited a group of subjects and showed half of them a clip from a BBC documentary about the potential dangers of wireless internet. (The BBC later acknowledged that the 2007 program was "misleading.") The remaining subjects watched a video about the security of data transmissions over mobile phones. After watching the videos, subjects put on headband-mounted antennas. They were told that the researchers were testing a "new kind of WiFi," and that once the signal started they should carefully monitor any symptoms in their bodies. Then the researchers left the room. For 15 minutes, the subjects watched a WiFi symbol flash on a laptop screen. In reality, there was no WiFi switched on during the experiment, and the headband antenna was a sham. Yet 82 of the 147 subjects—more than half—reported symptoms. Two even asked for the experiment to be stopped early because the effects were too severe to stand. Witthöft says he expected to see a greater effect in people who had watched the frightening documentary. This wasn't the case overall. Instead, the movie mainly increased symptoms in subjects who described themselves beforehand as more anxious. "It suggests that sensational media reports especially in combination with personality factors (in this case anxiety) increase the likelihood for symptom reports," Witthöft says. Plenty of symptoms were reported without the sensationalist TV show, though. The antenna on the head, the researchers' allusion to a "new kind of WiFi," and the instructions to monitor their bodies closely were enough to trigger symptoms in many people who watched the other video. Witthöft points out that his study would have been stronger if there were a third group of subjects who didn't wear the "WiFi" headband at all, but were simply told to pay attention to their bodies for 15 minutes. This kind of attentiveness might trigger symptoms on its own. Still, Witthöft says, "I think the high percentage of symptom reports nicely shows how powerful nocebo effects are." Though the researchers set out to show how irresponsible reports in the media can trigger a nocebo effect, they ended up showing how easy it is to make a person feel sick with just a a prop and a few choice words. Even a National Radio Quiet Zone can't protect against that.
__________________
|
Posts: 48,432
|
05-31-2013, 09:52 PM | #829 |
Grand champ
Join Date: Sep 2007
Casino cash: $202369
|
I was waiting on her to show her tits the entire video before I realized this wasn't posted in the Pictures forum.
|
Posts: 45,533
|
05-31-2013, 10:45 PM | #830 |
▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓
Join Date: Jan 2009
Casino cash: $605743
|
We get an erection every hour during sleep?
Interesting...
__________________
🏁 |
Posts: 64,445
|
06-01-2013, 10:46 AM | #831 |
Superhero
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Secret Location
Casino cash: $10115080
|
NASA’s Actual Plan to Deflect an Approaching Asteroid
Asteroids are frightening things. With the approach of QE2, a big one that would end civilization, the galaxy briefly put Earth on notice. Thankfully, QE2 is slated to miss the planet tonight. “Scientists have concluded that the asteroid poses no threat to planet Earth,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters on Friday, reassuring mankind it will live another day. ”I never really thought I’d be standing up here saying that, but I guess I am.” But what if an asteroid were headed straight for Earth? NASA evidently has us covered. In 2005, in a bill authorizing space-program funds, Congress asked NASA for a plan to identify, track and deflect – yes, deflect – all manner of PHOs (potentially harmful objects) that could pose a threat. The directive, according to NASA, is known as the George E. Brown Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act, named after the late Democratic chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, who died in 1999 and didn’t live to see NASA’s asteroid plan on paper. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., successfully included it in the 2005 bill. With that congressional prompt, NASA considered many science-reality options, including some that bore resemblance to film plots. Among the solutions NASA studied were firing a nuclear missile at the asteroid, landing a nuclear bomb on the surface, drilling into the great space rock and exploding a nuclear bomb there (which Bruce Willis attempted to do in the film, “Armageddon”), and all those same strategies with conventional bombs. The scientists also gamed out some weirder possibilities designed with more warning time in mind. Those included flying a spacecraft near the asteroid for a long time to act as a “gravity tractor” and pull it off course (deemed ineffective, unsurprisingly); using a large mirror to focus sunlight and “boil off” some material from the asteroid; a spacecraft “rendezvous” with the asteroid to “boil off” some material using a “pulse laser”; landing on the asteroid, drilling into it, and “eject[ing] material from PHO at high velocity”; “attach[ing]” a spacecraft to the asteroid and pushing it out of the way; and what NASA called the “Enhanced Yarkovsky Effect” – altering the reflectiveness of a rotating asteroid and counting on the “radiation from sunheated material” to push the asteroid off course. NASA charted how effectively each method could push a gigantic space rock off course. The blue horizontal lines show different scenarios and the momentum change needed to deflect them. The top line (F) shows the amount of momentum change needed to deflect a comet with short (nine to 24 months) warning. The bottom lines, A1 and A2, show two scenarios for “[t]he 330 meter asteroid, Apophis, before its close approach to Earth in 2029.” The winner: nuclear bomb. For a fast-approaching comet, the only recourse may be drilling into it and detonating a nuclear bomb, as the top line in the top graph shows. But, in general, NASA favored simply firing a missile at a space rock and detonating it nearby. Landing on the asteroid, or drilling into it, would make for a better explosion, but NASA was wary of fragmenting the big rock. Unfortunately, nuclear explosions in space are banned under a 1967 U.N. space treaty, so other nations would have to sign off on the plan. From the 2007 NASA report to Congress: In the impulsive category, the use of a nuclear device was found to be the most effective means to deflect a PHO. Because of the large amount of energy delivered, nuclear devices would require the least amount of detailed information about the threatening object, reducing the need for detailed characterization. While detonation of a nuclear device on or below the surface of a threatening object was found to be 10-100 times more efficient than detonating a nuclear device above the surface, the standoff detonation would be less likely to fragment the target. A nuclear standoff mission could be designed knowing only the orbit and approximate mass of the threat, and missions could be carried out incrementally to reach the required amount of deflection. Additional information about the object’s mass and physical properties would perhaps increase the effectiveness, but likely would not be required to accomplish the goal. It should be noted that because of restrictions found in Article IV of the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, use of a nuclear device would likely require prior international coordination. The study team also examined conventional explosives, but found they were ineffective against most threats. So there you have it: The government’s plan if an asteroid approaches is to shoot a nuclear missile at it. The planet has George E. Brown, Dana Rohrabacher and NASA to thank. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...hing-asteroid/
__________________
|
Posts: 2,243
|
06-01-2013, 12:57 PM | #832 | |
Supporter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Casino cash: $8298275
|
Quote:
Save the World!!!
__________________
We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics - E.W. |
|
Posts: 95,642
|
06-01-2013, 06:11 PM | #833 |
MVP
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Casino cash: $6038501
|
|
Posts: 13,754
|
06-07-2013, 12:27 PM | #834 |
Gargling the sweet EZ nectar
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Along the Interurban
Casino cash: $111852
|
First ever footage of an oarfish in the wild.
http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/natur...h-in-the-wild/ skip to 7:00
__________________
KC CHIEFS SB IV LIV LVII LVIII CHAMPIONS "65 Toss Power Trap!" "Triple Gun Trey Right 3 Jet Chip Wasp Y Funnel" "Orange You, Duo Left 30 XL 35 Y Corn Dog" "Trips Right Bunch F Shuttle, Tom&Jerry Right Yellow. Orange, Let's GO!!" |
Posts: 8,113
|
06-07-2013, 01:23 PM | #835 | |
Captain Kick Ass
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Kansas
Casino cash: $9305197
|
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor |
|
Posts: 5,781
|
06-07-2013, 07:37 PM | #836 |
Supporter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Casino cash: $2931956
|
I can ID everyone in this pic except the guy who looks like the dad from Family Guy, the GIANT mustache guy, and the person who pops in between Hawking and Teller. CP HELP ME |
Posts: 10,689
|
06-07-2013, 07:48 PM | #837 |
Supporter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Casino cash: $2931956
|
The guy between Hawking and Teller could be Fry.
ohhh BILL NYE? Last edited by hometeam; 06-07-2013 at 07:57 PM.. |
Posts: 10,689
|
06-09-2013, 12:22 PM | #838 |
MVP
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Iowa
Casino cash: $9975811
|
I don't see anyone resembling Peter Griffin... Where do you see this guy?
|
Posts: 13,873
|
06-09-2013, 03:09 PM | #839 |
MVP
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: West of the Equator
Casino cash: $39901
|
The mustachioed guy could be Nikola Tesla.
|
Posts: 13,730
|
06-11-2013, 03:04 PM | #840 |
Ain't no relax!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $428919
|
Everyone is born an asshole. Some grow out of it...
__________________
|
Posts: 48,432
|
|
|