Recent Comments

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Brian

The point I was making to Larry was that the argument "everything is made by someone" is self-defeating. Either it is true, in which case there are infinitely many layers of creation, or it is not, in which case you cannot use it to demonstrate that even this universe had a creator. Saying that you'd have to ask God if he was made doesn't help the situation. The logic is a priori - it implies either a logical contradiction or an infinite regress.

Regarding Occam's razor, it is a great rule of thumb, but the definition of 'simple' is a topic of much discussion. That aside I've attempted to demonstrate that God does nothing but overcomplicate the questions of our universe; the exact same questions of origin apply to him, except that we can't even begin to theorise about the answers because he is completely unknown. It begs countless questions and answers none.

Not to mention the distasteful idea of a God who allows children to get leukaemia, and violent thugs to win the lottery. In a naturalistic worldview, these moral problems are not problems at all. Ask a theist why a tsunami engulfed the coastline in the Far East and you will hear nothing but emotional vagary (watch Tom Honey's talk on this site, if you haven't already). Ask an atheist and she need go no further than plate tectonics. This, IMHO, is a shining example of Occam's razor in action.

Talk: Michael Shermer on believing strange things – January 6, 2009

What a weiner.

He says nothing of any value here, just makes fun of naive people.

Maybe some day he'll grow a pair and find something to say.

Talk: Dan Gilbert asks, Why are we happy? – January 6, 2009

If I had to choose between something of actual personal value, let's say an Yoshitaka Amano print and a r. crumb print, and circumstances forced me to pick the r. crumb print I would be continually upset with the choice.

So, basically what I am saying is that he is ignoring internal symbolic values, or rather he is saying that they are irrelevant.

Maybe in his farcical economic constructs they are irrelevant. Not in the real world.

Talk: Chris Abani muses on humanity – January 6, 2009

What a treat! He took me from laughing at my hardest to crying from a broken heart. I felt ignited to keep on with my/our message of compassion. Thank you Chris, thank you TED. Means so much to know this is available to us all.

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Hi Larry,
After much reflection on this, I think where this whole debate went sideways for you was the assumption of the others that God adds a level of complexity unnecessary to appease Occam's Razor - I believe the two solutions are mutually exclusive and that either could be considered the irreducible answer, the bottom line.

The basic premise of Occam's Razor (that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary) could be applied to either side: the cosmic stuff was always there, so why assume you need a Creator -or- The cosmic stuff had to come from somewhere, so someone must have made it.

Here's why I think those two arguments are mutually exclusive: If the universe always existed, then there would be no truth in Genesis and, therefor, God wouldn't (couldn't!) exist. If, however, God has existed forever and actually did create the heavens and the Earth from nothing, then there was a specific point in time when the universe suddenly existed where it hadn't previously, ruling out the possibility of an eternal universe.

Allowing for the possibility of an eternal universe gives room to allow for the possibility of an eternal God but not, I think, at the same time. It has to be either/or.

Is this too simplistic of a view?

Talk: Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes – January 6, 2009

Interesting. The definition of evil my friend and I developed in high school is, "Evil = The opposition of a will"

Interesting that he identifies that "heroic" people are often in opposition of the popular will, thus making them evil.

Of course terms like good and evil are human fabrications. I prefer to think of it as a conflict between "rational self interest" and "terminal self interest".

The anonymity stuff is also really interesting.

Talk: Richard Dawkins on militant atheism – January 6, 2009

Jose - You clearly already have already decided for me what my position is and I don't see the point in trying to correct you any further.
Why you think I should have the exact same opinion as Dawkins boggles my mind. I am not Richard Dawkins. I do agree with him on many fronts, probably on most, but not on all, and it's not clear to me why you think I should. If you are trying to engage in a discussion with me, please make an effort to understand what I am actually saying as opposed to what you think I ought to be saying. By the way, there is at least one difference between believers and non believers which should be blatantly obvious to you given the terms you've used.

Peter - I actually was not trying to caricature Christian Doctrine, I'm sorry if that how it came across. You expressed some contempt for the people who have killed Christ, I pointed out that according to your book it needed to happen to bring about our Salvation. Did he not die on the cross so that your sins may be forgiven? Is this not what the theologians say? If this is not the case, or if you see it differently, then please elaborate.

Talk: Deborah Scranton on her "War Tapes" – January 6, 2009

My intent was never to portray soldiers as 'ultimate heroes', but rather complex human beings just like everyone else.

Mr. Hassan, just as it is "important, not to lose sight of the pictures at Abu Ghareeb and Guantanamo bay" -- it is also important to remember that US Soldiers often do actions of good, kindness and compassion like Pink's squad did spending their entire day, at great risk to themselves of secondary attacks, outside the gate at Taji after a double VBIED struggling and saving Iraqi civilian lives, which more often than not never, ever gets reported or noticed.

Talk: Dan Dennett's response to Rick Warren – January 6, 2009

Remember that Religion is not Democracy.

Talk: John Maeda on his journey in design – January 6, 2009

John Maeda attributes design a new perspective I'm really drawn to here. The exposure of the vast possibilities the digital technology has offered the many mediums in which it has had a major impact is brilliantly given in the form of 'simple to follow' pin pointed characteristics of the computer in itself. This is the first time I have heard of Mr. Maeda's working ethos, and I was nonetheless really infused with ideas and insight into a field I poorly understand as of what it is --an artistic manifesto. It's a complex matter that sent me to research deeper as to read about Muriel Cooper and Dr. Negroponte's legacy to what it is today the computerized behemoth of the digital medium.

Thank you Ted.com for this involving subject, and thanks Mr. Maeda for your beautiful way of explaining something as interesting and fascinating as it is Digital Design.

(as you can read, I didn't fully understood what I received out of the 'talk' but believe me when I say this --it ignited something in me I am very eager to explore. Thanks)

Theme: Is There a God? – January 6, 2009

Brian,

Precisely the point I've been trying to make.

Talk: John Maeda on his journey in design – January 6, 2009

In spite of his interesting work (I particularly liked the stones on the beach) I felt the talk lacked the inspiration of other TED talks.

Talk: Ross Lovegrove shares organic designs – January 6, 2009

What terrifies me is that anyone might accidentally take his design ideas seriously, and create one of his frankly dangerous cars.

Talk: Richard Dawkins on militant atheism – January 6, 2009

It's funny to see how semantic landscapes differ and then intersect. While, for instance, on the one hand I completely agree with Dawkins that the Jahwe/God notion is not only naive, but in fact dangerous, it is precisely due to the awe and wonder in the face of the universe that I feel what must be called religious. On the other hand, the mainstream of "science" is not like Dawkins would like us to perceive it, namely, full of wonder, awe and respect towards the universe - especially not towards the sentient beings that inhabit it. Science, especially biology, is for the most part without respect, dull, dogmatic, materialistic and reductionistic. Scientific mainstream, on the whole, does not pause and reflect: "Which way should we go?" And scientific mainstream is just as merciless towards anybody that does not subscribe, for instance, to its "personal God" Darwin (or has certain reservations about it). The belief in a hard-boiled Darwinism is not any less dangerous than fundamentalist belief in Jahwe or Allah; the perverse high-point of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest", I would like to remind everybody, was the ramp at Auschwitz, because philosophising biologists had taught Darwinism as ultimate truth (which is, again, the same status as religion.) If scientific mainstream really talked like Dawkins (and walked their talk, too), we would finally stand a chance. So atheism, in my mind, is necessary, but it is not an end in itself. The only worthwhile end, for me, is to really perceive, see, feel and think the absolute glory of the universe - don't dream it, be it - which somehow comes full circle and has to do with religion (as I understand it).

Talk: Ross Lovegrove shares organic designs – January 6, 2009

This man is an artist. Not a designer. I'll admit, I quite like his art. But as products, they're useless and expensive.
It doesn't help that he's the single most arrogant man I have ever seen.

Talk: Ross Lovegrove shares organic designs – January 6, 2009

My favorite quotes-
His frequent claims to being "self-inspired", juxtaposed with his explicit dedication to copying forms he finds in nature. Does he really not see the contradiction there?

"[N]ature improves with ever greater purpose that which just existed." What? Do you believe in evolution or intelligent design? Nature has no purpose. Things only become fitter. Today's whales are not better or worse than previous whales, they're just more fit for their current surroundings.

"How you grow legs out of surface. I would love to build this one day and perhaps I'd love to build it also out of flour, sugar, polymer, wood chips, . . . , I don't know, uh, human hair, uh, I don't know, I'd uh, uh I'd have a go at that if- if I've just. . . got some time. That's the weird side coming out again, and a lot of companies don't understand that."
I don't think anyone understands that. What would be the *point* of building a table out of human hair? Stupid companies, with their failure to make tables out of human hair.

"Cars are all wrong." By what criteria? They're not weird enough?
In regards to his car: "[S]low, feminine, transparent. . ." Do tell. How do these things make the car better?

Re: his stairs: "Cost me $250,000 to build this. . . incredibly complex, took about two years [WAIT FOR IT!] because I'm looking for fat-free design! Lean, efficient things. Healthy products. . . . You wouldn't want to have a fear of heights coming down that. There's virtually no handrail, it doesn't pass any standards."
OK let me get this straight: these stairs are many times more expensive than normal stairs, take far longer to create, could make visitors nauseous, and are unsafe. How are these stairs superior to normal stairs in any way?

Finally, my favorite quote: "I don't set out to make funky things, because I think that's an absolute disgrace."
By your own admission, your products have absolutely no benefits but looking funky.

Talk: Malcolm Gladwell on spaghetti sauce – January 6, 2009

Gladwell illustrates the ideal mindset for professional product managers in the global economy. With the "flatening" of our markets differentiation is critical to marketing success. WaterSalad is most likely x number of consumers' favorite drink.

Blog: What will change everything? Edge.org's annual question – January 6, 2009

Having read Jesse Berings' contribution to the Edge.org's annual question for 2009 and, in particular, his concluding statements:

"What will change everything? The looming consensus among those who take Occam's Razor seriously that the existence of God is a question for psychologists and not physicists."

...I wish to add, partly in agreement to his statements, that a still bigger pending change is a not yet achieved consensus on the radical psychological change that the genuine religious or mind maturing experience brings to the individual, because this experience is the way man favorably resolves "the God delusion", using his own mental capacities. In simpler terms, during this maturing experience, through a major reorganization of synapses (in the order of probably tens of millions, I guess), man puts permanently an end to his quest for proper behavioral pattern, freeing up his spontaneity, intuition, and creativity, previously blocked by his ego, and by externally originating delusions and influences. What he really gets in return is good, clear answers to what Professor Irvin Yalom has called the "four ultimate concerns, [...] germane to psychotherapy: death, isolation, meaning in life, and freedom". This transition of a believer's state of mind to a non-theist, man-centered, self-conscious state of mind, by resolving the concept of God through the maturing experience, in contrast to adopting an atheist state of mind, by rejecting the concept of God, is the paradox (rather than the fallacy) in man's life related to the divine. Before the resolution, the question is psychological; during and after the resolution it is all perceived as Physics, because the subject clearly realizes the reality of his prior delusion and the fact that this delusion is permanently broken through brain functions alone.

I have explained my views on the subject on February 22, 2008, and in subsequent comments, under the thematic question "Is There a God?"

Talk: Ross Lovegrove shares organic designs – January 6, 2009

Ross Lovegrove proves how loosely the word "design" can be used. While he has as much of a right to call himself a designer as a floral designer, ceramics designer, or fashion designer does, I watched this talk expecting the sort of "designer" that I'm accustomed to from TED. Someone who created products or modified the built environment in such a way so as to maximize efficiency, enjoyment, and utility, while minimizing cost, adverse effects, and disruption. What Lovegrove does is more commonly called "art". I don't really need to mock his abilities as a designer, he does it himself. He brags about how exorbitantly expensive his chair was, how his water bottle holds less water than similarly-sized bottles, how inconvenient his stair case is, and how few people appreciate his car design. Expensive, inefficient, and aesthetically displeasing to the people who would be expected to use it? Not what I would like to call design, but of course, since he did create those things with specific intention, he is, according to the dictionary, a designer. I just made myself a tuna sandwich for lunch. Oh hey, I'm a designer now! When do I give my TEDTalk?

Talk: Gever Tulley on 5 dangerous things for kids – January 6, 2009

I think in an over safety conscious world this is great. I teach risk assessment often to Fine Art students especially when I was in charge of a building and they are creating site specific artworks. I had an old building with lots of interesting nooks and crannies. However, the common mistake students made were basic common sense not thinking the implications through and the less access children have to make mistakes the less common sense they will have e.g. Yes if the artwork is strung across the corridor and head height it will be dangerous if need to exit in case of a fire, no you cannot remove the toilet seat and use toilet for your artwork much as you would love to, yes pour lots of balls out but make sure you contain them so don't become a danger.

My suggestions for your book from my childhood and teenage years
are:

Playing with Calcium Carbide and Water!
Chopping down a tree with an axe
Smashing down walls with a sledgehammer
Fruit picking climbing up 100 foot ladders
Glissading down steep grassy bank (OK Shallow wound and 5" scar but who cares)
Playing cricket near a barbed wire fence (Yes I caught the ball even though still have scars on front of thigh to prove it)
Playing mixed field hockey on Boxing Day (But at least the eye surgeon was on the sidelines to patch us up!)