Cameras were not allowed on the trip, but even if they were, I am not sure I could do justice to the unbelievable feeling of kayaking through water that lit up like a glow stick on contact. The cool blue color was not only breath taking, but it evoked a feeling of true astonishment. This giddy feeling of awe and wonder is something that Edit Widder has experienced more than her fair share of.
Oh, and the best part about our kayaking trip? No need for a submersible.
Human muscles are made up of two types of fibers - called slow twitch (Type I, and fast twitch (Type II) muscle fibers. Both set of fibers work exactly as they sound. Slow twitch fibers are slow - but they can work for long periods. They do this by burning fuel aerobically, with enough oxygen. Since the process is inherently slow, it is not nice to expect slow twitch fibers to be quick.
The exact opposite are fast twitch fibers. Fast twitch fibers deliver speed, by quickly burning whatever fuel it can find even without oxygen - anaerobically. The problem is anaerobic fuel burning is not sustainable. So the fast twitchies, they a good to get you going but do not last long.
I had known this instinctively for a while because I had, for all intents, no slow twitch fibers in my muscles. I had always been able to do the sprint - the 100m. I was second fastest in school. But increase the length to 200m, I was fourth fastest. Anything beyond that, I was not interested.
So, I had resigned myself to never being able to pound the treadmill. Then I came across that pink image up top (click to expand). This is a version of the couch to 5k program. And the best part is it works! I am currently in week 6, having run continuously for 21 minutes last week. Which for someone who can barely do 400m is unbelievable.
TED, of course, takes it to a new level. Apparently what I am doing is not unbelievable, merely something that all of us are inherently capable of. A friend sent across this timely TED video. Enjoy.
There is nothing like string theory and coffee to wake you up on a Sunday morning. I have been wanting to post this for a while, but never quite got the right angle to talk about. Until this morning, when I read this.
The article is a classic compilation of the anthropomorphic arguments for the structure of the universe. Notwithstanding the scary look of the word, the argument basically is that our world is the way it is, because we are in it. In other words, we are not living in a unique world, the world is unique because we evolved at the end of it.
The article from io9 essentially tackles the idea that any combination other than the 3+1 dimensions (three space dimensions and one time dimension) would be illogical. Having only two space dimensions would, for example, would result in the alimentary canal splitting your body into two. Having four dimensions would cause the laws of physics to produce an unstable world with electrons collapsing into the nucleus and the planets into stars. Similarly having a two-dimensions time would make it absolutely painful to meet anyone - even being in the same place you could be in completely different times and never manage to keep a date.
Anthropomorphic arguments are inherently persuasive, but dangerous. They tend to limit choices and directly impact analytical rigor. For the most part, I tend to stay away from them, unless it came to the interpretation of mathematical constructs. And in that, these argument present a layer of abstraction that has the power to raise fundamental psychological questions about ourselves and our universe.
Consider the perception of time for example. Persistence of vision dictates that the image we see persists for about 1/25th of a second. In a world without high-speed cameras, this would mean that all phenomena that occurred quicker than this limit would essentially be invisible to us. If you asked the question - why is the limit for persistence of vision that number, you are thinking about it incorrectly. Instead the anthropomorphic answer is more logical. We developed in a world where anything quicker than the persistence of vision would essentially be inconsequential to us, and therefore "invisible".
How better to close a discussion around physics and dimensions than to embed a TED talk on the subject by Brian Greene. After the break.
Michael Shermer is the founder of a fun little magazine Skeptic. Skeptic magazine espouses skepticism towards ideas not supported by science and reason. The following snippet from the site says it best...
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
The video after the break presented at TED, talks about the brain's pre-disposition towards survival, that is the root of all superstition and nonscientific attitudes. In essence it boils down to two things:
A tendency to incorrectly find or ignore patterns in natural or random phenomena. Michael calls it “Patternicity”.
A tendency to infuse patterns with a causation agency, often invisible beings from top down. Michael calls it “Agenticity”.
With these two ideas, Michael attempts to explain the need for the unexplained - Conspiracy theories, souls, spirits, ghosts and God. While you may not agree with either the precept or his interpretation, you cannot ignore the idea of linking the brain's evolution to the need for our own belief system.
Who doesn't know moot? Christopher Poole, also known as m00t, is the founder of 4chan, an internet board that both anonymous and non-persistent.
If you did not know moot or 4chan, you would most certainly have heard of him when the latter decided that the former had to win the title of Time's World's Most Influential Person. They not only rigged the online poll for the winner, but ensured that the first letters of the top 21 read - mARBLE CAKE ALSO THE GAME.
Well moot got an opportunity to speak at TED and pitch the case for online anonymity. It was a short speech, with a longish Q&A after. It was a good overview of the pluses and minuses of 4chan and anonymity, but it was also missing a core message that drove the need to limit privacy intrusion online. A fun watch, but maybe a missed opportunity as well.
When I first posted about Wolfram|Alpha, I was kicked by the capabilities offered by the new search engine. Despite its limitations, it looked like the beginnings of something great. Considering it was just in alpha...
Then I realized that the name of the tool itself was Alpha, not version Alpha of something big that was still come. Then, it was not a search engine at all, but a computation engine. Third, the data for the tool is not assembled by hyper-intelligent programs. Instead it depends teams of individuals to 'curate' data that can then be used by Alpha. What that means is that the extent of Alpha's knowledge base depends entirely on a validated data set provided to it by someone.
The coolest part of Alpha, therefore, seemed to be its natural language translation capability. The ability to translate speech into precise mathematical commands against a defined data set. It was still good, but far less impressive than a tool that was going to search the web, separate signal from noise, and perform massive computation against said signal.
The reason for the post is two-fold. First, I met folks from Wolfram|Alpha during a corporate event recently. When we started to look at the tool for internal use, I was struck by how the conversation seemed so very similar to the sales people of just another Business Intelligence (BI) tool; not magic whatsoever.
Then I saw the the video from TED (after the break), by Steven Wolfram. The talk is of course a pitch for Alpha, Mathematica and A New Kind of Science. But it slowly devolved into a made-up term-fest punctuated by too much I, and use of highly presumptuous language. Like the “co-evolution of users and machine” after the release of Wolfram|Alpha.
I guess I am put off from Alpha for the moment. Take a look and see if you agree.
Spent the day yesterday at the Academy of Accelerated Learning school, as part of the Junior Achievement program in our city. We spent the day with kids in the third grade, taking them through a course about Our City, talking through aspects of entrepreneurship, financial literacy and work readiness.
Junior Achievement has a unique way of presenting people from the workforce to students still in school. They allow volunteers to deliver curriculum in the schools while sharing their experiences with the students. Makes me want to do the same with my alma mater.
This being our first adventure of this kind, I had two key takeaways - first, teaching a class is fun, but is not easy. In between emails, meetings and deliverables I may be stretched in my day job, but that is not as emotionally sapping as having 30 pairs of eyes on you alternating between unforgiving scrutiny and inattentive boredom. Second schools of my time in India are very different and very similar at the same time to the schools in the US. While the rules, techniques and rooms are vastly different, the kids in the schools are the same the world over.
On a related note, here is a pertinent TED article that talks about creativity in our schools and the importance of creativity for the future of mankind. Check it out after the break.
A couple of really good videos, from TED. Repetitive, so you need not watch both. But what it boils down to is the ability to better integrate the natural world and the digital world. A combination of off the shelf camera and projector, with the processing power of a mobile phone gives the ability to project information on everyday objects and use natural motions to access and manipulate digital information. More after the break.
An interesting watch - for a variety of reasons. This is an issue that generally seems to be splitting a lot of educated people down the middle. While no one seems to deny the impact science has had on humans, few seem to want to trust science either.
Maybe it is all down the the definitions. As I grew up, my vision of a 'scientist' was someone in a lab, highly intelligent, educated and motivated, pursuing a topic with a single minded dedication. A scientist, I believed, did not have to deal with the worldly problems & pressures like the rest of us - as if they lived in a sterile environment, just like in their own experiments.
Unfortunately, this is seldom the case. Scientists, live in and share the same world as us. And there is no 'science' that stands alone, in unblemished purity. So when people attack science, or they think they are, they really are not. They are attacking a hybrid cabal of scientists, businessmen, government and media. The reason they are attacking this cabal, is because the cabal is advertising itself as 'science'. When we have scientifically proven face creams, that are more in-your-face than the lack of correlation between vaccines and autism - how can you really distinguish between the two.
I don't believe the intelligent disbeliever is directly questioning science as defined by the scientific method, but what is questionable is the cabal claiming indulgence in and of the scientific method. That is not to say there there will always be someone that will never believe, but instead want to take things to their illogical extreme conclusions. I guess they believe they are 'scientists' in their own right.
Have always been a fan of the TED website, and their collection of talks. Having just heard one of their videos, I was browsing the site, trying to learn a bit more about them - turns out, they actually encourage embedding and discussing their videos. Cue, glint in eye. So, here we are.
Morality, in the sense discussed in the video below is the definition of right and wrong, irrespective of what people think. Sam Harris, argues that, on the contrary to what many people assume, science is capable of reaching such definite answers on its own, based on facts, and can therefore complete eliminate the need for a morality-based declarations. Well thought and presented of course - but for me the crux of the matter lay in the Q&A at the end. When asked to prove the immorality of the Burqa, Sam scientifically fell back to the answer the basically said - we may not have a rigorous proof now, but given the rate of our scientific progress, we will eventually get there.
In his answer, I believe, Sam was absolutely correct and negligent. Yes, science will eventually get there, but people need an answer now - on what is correct and what is not. People have all been created with consciousness, but a varying degree of intellect. Waiting for an intellect-appealing morality, that may eventually get here is a very bad survival skill. Instead, society taking advantage of the common denominator, appealed to human consciousness. Turns out, morality is a lot like having immortal parents. Even if you replace parents with Man with beard in sky, things work just as well. True, such a replacement has side-effects, a lot of side-effects, but at least it kept humanity going till science would eventually evolve to appeal to the most intellectually-challenged among us.
