SGU Episode 471 - Revision history

Rwh86: /* Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:19:51) */ proofed; all proofing complete

2014-08-19T11:12:02Z

Skeptical Quote of the Week (1:19:51): proofed; all proofing complete

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 19 August 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	i

	~~h{{Editing required~~
	~~\|transcription =~~
	~~\|proof-reading = y <!please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present -->~~
	~~\|time-stamps =~~
	~~\|formatting =~~
	~~\|links =~~
	~~\|Today I Learned list =~~
	~~\|categories =~~
	~~\|segment redirects = <!-- redirect pages for segments with head-line type titles -->~~
	~~\|}}~~
	{{InfoBox		{{InfoBox
	\|episodeNum = 471		\|episodeNum = 471

Rwh86: /* Science or Fiction (1:05:25) */ proofed

2014-08-19T11:09:53Z

Science or Fiction (1:05:25): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:09, 19 August 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Editing required		i

			h{{Editing required
	\|transcription =		\|transcription =
	\|proof-reading = y <!please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present -->		\|proof-reading = y <!please remove commenting mark-up when some transcription is present -->
Line 955:		Line 957:
	A: Okay.		A: Okay.

	S: We're gonna go from Bob, down, ~~and~~ Bob loves that. So, here we go! The three items. The 1st item is, "Neuroscientists have discovered a single brain stem neuron that, when stimulated, can render a subject unconscious." Item number 2: "Dophin brains have 61 billion neurons, almost as many as humans at 86 billion. And much more than chimps, who only have 7 billion." And item number 3: "The {{w\|American Psychological Association}}, after thorough evaluation, deemed [ http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html brainwashing] to be without scientific merit."		S: We're gonna go from Bob on down, I know Bob loves that. So, here we go! The three items. The 1st item is, "Neuroscientists have discovered a single brain stem neuron that, when stimulated, can render a subject unconscious." Item number 2: "Dophin brains have 61 billion neurons, almost as many as humans at 86 billion. And much more than chimps, who only have 7 billion." And item number 3: "The {{w\|American Psychological Association}}, after thorough evaluation, deemed [http://www.skepdic.com/mindcont.html brainwashing] to be without scientific merit."

	Okay, so you're gonna vote for the one that you think is fiction. So, if you think that the single neuron that could render a person unconscious is fiction, applaud. (Mild applause) If you think the number of neurons in the dolphin, human, and chimp are fiction, then applaud. (Mild applause) And if you think the one about brainwashing is fiction, applaud. (Mild applause) I don't think everyone applauded!		Okay, so you're gonna vote for the one that you think is fiction. So, if you think that the single neuron that could render a person unconscious is fiction, applaud. (Mild applause) If you think the number of neurons in the dolphin, human, and chimp are fiction, then applaud. (Mild applause) And if you think the one about brainwashing is fiction, applaud. (Mild applause) I don't think everyone applauded!
Line 1,037:		Line 1,039:
	Ba: They're denser?		Ba: They're denser?

	S: No, no, our brains are denser. So, it's really interesting. When you try to figure out, how big a brain does an animal have? Scientists use something called, "The encephalization quotient." Which is essentially how far above or below the line you are, the curve that describes the relationship between body weight and brain weight. So, the curve is not linear. So you can't just do a linear relationship. You have to actually look at the curve, and say, "Are you above or below the line?" So, humans have far and away the greatest encephalization quotient. We're like 7.1. And chimps are at, like, 2 and a half. So, we're way above even the next closest animal.		S: No, no, our brains are denser. So, it's really interesting. When you try to figure out, how big a brain does an animal have? Scientists use something called, "The encephalization quotient." Which is essentially how far above or below the line you are, the curve that describes the relationship between body weight and brain weight. So, the curve is not linear. So you can't just do a linear relationship. You have to actually look at the curve, and say, "Are you above or below the line?" So, humans have far and away the greatest encephalization quotient. We're like 7.1. And chimps are at, like 2, 2 and a half. So, we're way above even the next closest animal.

	Dolphins have a bigger brain than chimps because they're physically bigger, but they also have a higher encephalization quotient. But their brains are just really organized very differently. They have a lot more white matter than we do compared to grey matter. And scientists think that's because they have a lot of their brain's processing is dedicated to processing their sonar signals. So it's not necessarily all thinking processing, the way we have or chimps have.		Dolphins have a bigger brain than chimps because they're physically bigger, but they also have a higher encephalization quotient. But their brains are just really organized very differently. They have a lot more white matter than we do compared to grey matter. And scientists think that's because they have a lot of their brain's processing is dedicated to processing their sonar signals. So it's not necessarily all thinking processing, the way we have or chimps have.
Line 1,099:		Line 1,101:
	J: Doesn't help.		J: Doesn't help.

	S: Yeah, so that, what's interesting about that little sheet of neurons is that it massively connects to the rest of the cortex. It's like a relay station communicating lots of different parts of the cortex to other different parts of the cortex. So, what they did was they stimulated the claustrum in this one patient, and as soon as they turned the current on, like flipping a switch, she would completely lose consciousness. ~~You~~ wouldn't fall asleep. So, her eyes would be open. She would be awake, but she would have absolutely no awareness, no ability to interact.		S: Yeah, so that, what's interesting about that little sheet of neurons is that it massively connects to the rest of the cortex. It's like a relay station communicating lots of different parts of the cortex to other different parts of the cortex. So, what they did was they stimulated the claustrum in this one patient, and as soon as they turned the current on, like flipping a switch, she would completely lose consciousness. She wouldn't fall asleep. So, her eyes would be open. She would be awake, but she would have absolutely no awareness, no ability to interact.

	J: Is that dangerous to do?		J: Is that dangerous to do?
Line 1,107:		Line 1,109:
	J: So why don't they use that instead of giving people dangerous drugs ...		J: So why don't they use that instead of giving people dangerous drugs ...

	S: Because they just discovered it in one patient. That's why they don't do it. (Bob laughs) So – it's a good question, Jay. It's possible in the future. I thought of that. I'm like, "Hey, I wonder if 10, 20 years from now, instead of getting anesthesia, they'll just put a stimulator on you, and just stimulate your claustrum, and you go away. And then they turn you back on at the end of the surgery." That's totally plausible.		S: Because they just discovered it in one patient. That's why they don't do that. (Bob laughs) So – it's a good question, Jay. It's possible in the future. I thought of that. I'm like, "Hey, I wonder if 10, 20 years from now, instead of getting anesthesia, they'll just put a stimulator on you, and just stimulate your claustrum, and you go away. And then they turn you back on at the end of the surgery." That's totally plausible.

	Ba: So, if they've done it in one patient, how do we know it works in everybody?		Ba: So, if they've done it in one patient, how do we know it works in everybody?
Line 1,143:		Line 1,145:
	B: Baloney. I'm Not buying it.		B: Baloney. I'm Not buying it.

	S: The head of the study was {{w\|Margaret Singer}}. Margaret Singer, who's a popularizer of lots of ideas of brainwashing, and thought control, etcetera. And she actually popularized this idea, of brainwashing. And that's probably why you all think that there's some ~~error~~ here. But the APA evaluated her research, and said it was scientifically absurd. That was how they characterized her premises, and and the conclusions that she came to. They completely reject her conclusions, and they said that brainwashing is completely without scientific merit.		S: The head of the study was {{w\|Margaret Singer}}. Margaret Singer, who's a popularizer of lots of ideas of brainwashing, and thought control, etcetera. And she actually popularized this idea, of brainwashing. And that's probably why you all think that there's some merit here. But the APA evaluated her research, and said it was scientifically absurd. That was how they characterized her premises, and and the conclusions that she came to. They completely reject her conclusions, and they said that brainwashing is completely without scientific merit.

	Ba: What was their definition of brainwashing?		Ba: What was their definition of brainwashing?
Line 1,151:		Line 1,153:
	Ba: Their definition of brainwashing?		Ba: Their definition of brainwashing?

	S: So, that would be using some kind of technique to change somebody's fundamental beliefs or personality, which is pretty reasonable defnition. But that was the definition. And it is like the Manchurian Candidate kind of brainwashing. ~~Not~~ that you can't influence people by their situation. But that sort of fundamentally changing their beliefs, or their personality through some kind of system, they said there's no evidence for it.		S: So, that would be using some kind of technique to change somebody's fundamental beliefs or personality, which is pretty reasonable defnition. But that was the definition. And it is like the Manchurian Candidate kind of brainwashing. So, not that you can't influence people by their situation. But that sort of fundamentally changing their beliefs, or their personality through some kind of system, they said there's no evidence for it.

	Not the same thing as saying that it's proven it's impossible or anything. But what their analysis showed, it's "without scientific merit" was the exact terms that they used. Okay, so congratulations to the audience.		Not the same thing as saying that it's proven it's impossible or anything. But what their analysis showed, it's "without scientific merit" was the exact terms that they used. Okay, so congratulations to the audience.

Rwh86: /* Interview with James Randi and Massimo Polidoro (42:27) */

2014-08-19T10:47:04Z

Interview with James Randi and Massimo Polidoro (42:27)

Show changes

Rwh86: /* BBC Ditches False Balance (38:45) */ proofed

2014-08-19T09:27:24Z

BBC Ditches False Balance (38:45): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 19 August 2014
Line 626:		Line 626:
	=== BBC Ditches False Balance <small>(38:45)</small> ===		=== BBC Ditches False Balance <small>(38:45)</small> ===
	* http://www.theskepticsguide.org/bbc-ditches-false-balance		* http://www.theskepticsguide.org/bbc-ditches-false-balance
	S: ~~Alirght~~, very quickly, last news item: The BBC Trust came out with a new statement; and they're teaching their journalists specifically to avoid false balance. Which we had to mention because it's something that we talk about often. False balance is when you're covering a scientific topic, and journalists are trained, "You have to cover both sides. You have to cover all sides of the issue." So they said, "Okay, so we have scientists telling us that global warming is real. We need to find somebody who tells us that it's not real. Even though 97, 98 whatever percent of scientists believe that it's real." Or, we have scientists who tell us that this fossil tells us about the evolutionary history of this animal. We need to find somebody to come on to say that "Evolution isn't real." That 's false balance.		S: Alright, very quickly, last news item: The BBC Trust came out with a new statement; and they're teaching their journalists specifically to avoid false balance. Which we had to mention because it's something that we talk about often. False balance is when you're covering a scientific topic, and journalists are trained, "You have to cover both sides. You have to cover all sides of the issue." So they said, "Okay, so we have scientists telling us that global warming is real. We need to find somebody who tells us that it's not real." Even though 97, 98 whatever percent of scientists believe that it's real. Or, we have scientists who tell us that this fossil tells us about the evolutionary history of this animal. We need to find somebody to come on to say that "Evolution isn't real." That's false balance.

	So, the BBC was criticized for that specifically in their coverage of the global warming issue, so their response to that was very good. They studied it; the Trust put out a paper saying, "False balance is out when you're dealing with scientific issues. We want proportional representation. If 98% of the scientific community believes it, that's what you go with." (Applause) And they're training their journalists to do this. This is absolutely a step in the right direction. We hope this gets replicated throughout the world in terms of journalism.		So, the BBC was criticized for that specifically in their coverage of the global warming issue, so their response to that was very good. They studied it; the Trust put out a paper saying, False balance is out when you're dealing with scientific issues. We want proportional representation. If 98% of the scientific community believes it, that's what you go with. (Applause) And they're training their journalists to do this. This is absolutely a step in the right direction. We hope this gets replicated throughout the world in terms of journalism.

	J: Steve, can I make a quick comment?		J: Steve, can I make a quick comment?
Line 640:		Line 640:
	J: Yeah.		J: Yeah.

	S: Ba-a-d. And that's it.		S: Ba-a. And that's it.

	J: So my point is, I think it's the absolute flip!		J: So my point is, I think it's the absolute flip!

Rwh86: /* James Randi's Comments (35:31) */ proofed

2014-08-19T09:20:49Z

James Randi's Comments (35:31): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 19 August 2014
Line 600:		Line 600:
	G: If anyone is allowed to stop the show, I think Randi's allowed to stop the show.		G: If anyone is allowed to stop the show, I think Randi's allowed to stop the show.

	JR: I have to apologize. I'm very sorry. I got in late in this discussion, and I'm fascinated by it. But I had a couple of comments. If they've already been discussed, then I look like an awful fool, and I'll just slink off. Try not to notice me. Edgar Mitchell, you mentioned J. Edgar Mitchell. Did you mention anything about his fascination with {{w\|Uri Geller\|Geller}}?		JR: I have to apologize. I'm very sorry. I got in late in this discussion, and I'm fascinated by it. But I had a couple of comments. If they've already been discussed, then I look like an awful fool, and I'll just slink off. Try not to notice me. Edgar Mitchell, you mentioned Edgar Mitchell. Did you mention anything about his fascination with {{w\|Uri Geller\|Geller}}?

	S: No.		S: No.
Line 606:		Line 606:
	JR: He is a total believer in Geller. Declared himself absolutely no question of it, Uri Geller bent spoons before my very eyes and such. Was totally dedicated to Geller, and endorsed him in every way possible. And of course, Geller wasn't shy about using those statements in his publicity campaign, of course. So, that might give you some background into Edgar Mitchell, and his acceptance of woo-woo.		JR: He is a total believer in Geller. Declared himself absolutely no question of it, Uri Geller bent spoons before my very eyes and such. Was totally dedicated to Geller, and endorsed him in every way possible. And of course, Geller wasn't shy about using those statements in his publicity campaign, of course. So, that might give you some background into Edgar Mitchell, and his acceptance of woo-woo.

	The other thing is, you mentioned extremophiles, or you didn't. Maybe that's just the note that I made here. But what I'm talking about is, at normal temperature and pressure, we know what that is, generally speaking. There are animals on Earth alone, let alone out in space, that live under the most extreme conditions. Boiling sulphuric acid at depths that would crush anything. You can't possibly salvage these things and take them up to the surface; they explode – rather dramatically, I'm told. I wouldn't mind seeing that. But, I don't think it'd be kind.		The other thing is, you mentioned extremophiles somewhere along the line, or you didn't. Maybe that's just the note that I made here. But what I'm talking about is, at normal temperature and pressure, we know what that is, generally speaking. There are animals on Earth alone, let alone out in space, that live under the most extreme conditions. Boiling sulphuric acid at depths that would crush anything. You can't possibly salvage these things and take them up to the surface; they explode – rather dramatically, I'm told. I wouldn't mind seeing that. But, I don't think it'd be kind.

	I don't know if they have any feelings, and I don't care. (Laughter) The point is that, looking for extraterrestrial life, you've got to be very careful about what you say the limits are.		I don't know if they have any feelings, and I don't care. (Laughter) The point is that, looking for extraterrestrial life, you've got to be very careful about what you say the limits are.
Line 612:		Line 612:
	S: I agree, yeah.		S: I agree, yeah.

	JR: Because, in some of these moons of Jupiter, or whatever, it is quite possible that creatures are living under fantastic conditions, maybe breathing sand or something we don't know. So, you can't rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial life if you're gonna limit it to what we would accept as conditions.		JR: Because, in some of these moons of Jupiter, or whatever, it is quite possible that creatures are living under fantastic conditions, maybe breathing sand or something, we don't know. So, you can't rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial life if you're gonna limit it to what we would accept as conditions.

	S: Yeah, we talk about the Goldilocks Zone; that's for people. We could really broaden the range of what could support any kind of life. We don't know! Even if you're right, even if we take the limits of life on Earth, it's a much broader range than what would be comfortable for us. Yeah, absolutely.		S: Yeah, we talk about the Goldilocks Zone; that's for people. We could really broaden the range of what could support any kind of life. We don't know! Even if you're right, even if we take the limits of life on Earth, it's a much broader range than what would be comfortable for us. Yeah, absolutely.
Line 622:		Line 622:
	(Applause)		(Applause)

	S: And just, actually, to follow up on what James was saying about Edgar Mitchell, the reason that the UFO community loves astronauts is because it's an argument from authority. And as James nicely demonstrated, Edgar Mitchell is gullible! So, the fact that he's an astronaut means nothing about his credibility in terms of this whole issue.		S: And just, actually, to follow up on what James was saying about Edgar Mitchell, the reason that the UFO community loves astronauts is because it's an argument from authority. And as James nicely demonstrated, Edgar Mitchell is gullible! So, the fact that he's an astronaut means nothing about his credibility in terms of this whole issue.

	=== BBC Ditches False Balance <small>(38:45)</small> ===		=== BBC Ditches False Balance <small>(38:45)</small> ===

Rwh86: /* Alone with One's Thoughts (29:56) */ proofed

2014-08-19T09:08:49Z

Alone with One's Thoughts (29:56): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 19 August 2014
Line 509:		Line 509:
	(Laughter)		(Laughter)

	S: So, researchers have actually been asking the question, "How do people respond to being alone with their thoughts?" And they found some surprising things. What they found is that people would rather shock themselves than just sit there and be alone with their thoughts. So these were Timothy Wilson and colleagues at the {{w\|University of Virginia}}, at Harvard. They published a series of 11 studies. First, they established that if you bring subjects into your lab, and you say, "Alright, sit there, and do nothing for 10 minutes," people really don't like it. You're telling them, "Don't check your messages. Don't look at your phone. Don't listen to music."		S: So, researchers have actually been asking the question, "How do people respond to being alone with their thoughts?" And they found some surprising things. What they found is that people would rather shock themselves than just sit there and be alone with their thoughts. So these were Timothy Wilson and colleagues at the {{w\|University of Virginia}}, and Harvard. They published a series of 11 studies. First, they established that if you bring subjects into your lab, and you say, "Alright, sit there, and do nothing for 10 minutes," people really don't like it. You're telling them, "Don't check your messages. Don't look at your phone. Don't listen to music."

	B: Can you take a nap?		B: Can you take a nap?
Line 523:		Line 523:
	S: For no reason.		S: For no reason.

	J: They were bored? ~~And out of boredom, they just shocked themselves.~~		J: They were bored?

	S: One subject shocked himself 179 times.		S: Out of boredom. Out of boredom, they just shocked themselves. One subject shocked himself 179 times.

	B: Whoa! Steve, where were the leads attached, on the body?		B: Whoa! Steve, where were the leads attached, on the body?
Line 537:		Line 537:
	Ba: My understanding though, is that a large portion of these people were taken from churches and taken from charity, like, farmer's markets. So, they're extroverts, as opposed to choosing people that are not extroverts, people that aren't used to being around people, and are quite comfortable, like a farmer, maybe, sitting in that. So, these people, they're always around people. So, it could be bias, right?		Ba: My understanding though, is that a large portion of these people were taken from churches and taken from charity, like, farmer's markets. So, they're extroverts, as opposed to choosing people that are not extroverts, people that aren't used to being around people, and are quite comfortable, like a farmer, maybe, sitting in that. So, these people, they're always around people. So, it could be bias, right?

	S: Yeah, it could be that they chose people who would be most uncomfortable being alone with their thoughts. My reaction also, was, I have no problem sitting by myself and being in my head for long periods of time.		S: Yeah, it could be that they chose people who would be most uncomfortable being alone or being alone with their thoughts. My reaction also, was, I have no problem sitting by myself and being in my head for long periods of time.

	Ba: But I would shock myself just to see how powerful that shock is.		Ba: But I would shock myself just to see how powerful that shock is.

	B: But just once! Not 179 times!		E: But just once! Not 179 times!

	Ba: Unless I do it the second time to see if it's stronger the second time.		Ba: Unless I do it the second time to see if it's stronger the second time.
Line 547:		Line 547:
	E: Morbid curiosity.		E: Morbid curiosity.

	S: ~~Part~~ of my job is to shock people, 'cause I do nerve conduction studies, and that involves shocking people. So, for the last 20 years, I've had weekly access to equipment where I could safely shock myself. I've never deliberately done it.		S: So, I work, part of my job is to shock people, 'cause I do nerve conduction studies, and that involves shocking people. So, for the last 20 years, I've had weekly access to equipment where I could safely shock myself. I've never deliberately done it.

	Ba: Never?		Ba: Never?
Line 565:		Line 565:
	E: Yes, what is the point?		E: Yes, what is the point?

	S: Yeah, it was just surprising how much people ~~just~~ don't like sitting there being alone with their thoughts.		S: Yeah, it was just surprising how much people don't like just sitting there being alone with their thoughts.

	B: I think it's a commentary on modern digital culture. There's so many distractions – your phone, TV, - when that's pulled away, it's weird! Damn, what am I gonna do?		B: I think it's a commentary on modern digital culture. There's so many distractions – your phone, TV, - that when that's pulled away, it's weird! Damn, what am I gonna do?

	S: People are willing to suffer pain for curiosity.		S: People are willing to suffer pain for curiosity.
Line 573:		Line 573:
	Ba: I have a chair. It's a chair, for magic, that actually shocks people. And there's different things you can do with it. And the first time I got it, I needed to know that it was going to work. So I asked my wife to sit in it, (laughter), and she said it hurt. So, I sat in it, just to see if it did hurt, and it did hurt. And then I sat in it again, just to make sure that I wasn't influenced by the fact that she said it hurt, that it hurt. So I shocked myself again.		Ba: I have a chair. It's a chair, for magic, that actually shocks people. And there's different things you can do with it. And the first time I got it, I needed to know that it was going to work. So I asked my wife to sit in it, (laughter), and she said it hurt. So, I sat in it, just to see if it did hurt, and it did hurt. And then I sat in it again, just to make sure that I wasn't influenced by the fact that she said it hurt, that it hurt. So I shocked myself again.

	E: You're part of ~~it too~~, then.		E: You're part of the two thirds, then.

	Ba: I am part of that group that would probably shock, myself.		Ba: Yeah exactly, I am part of that group that would probably shock myself.

	J: Did it hurt?		J: Did it hurt?

Rwh86: /* Buzz Aldrin UFO (25:15) */ proofed

2014-08-18T20:17:08Z

Buzz Aldrin UFO (25:15): proofed

Rwh86: /* Ex-Exoplanets (19:30) */ proofed

2014-08-18T20:10:21Z

Ex-Exoplanets (19:30): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 18 August 2014
Line 407:		Line 407:
	E: Just move past.		E: Just move past.

	B: Okay. So, the idea is that two of the most famous exoplanets that we've discovered have been determined to be non-existent. They're just not there. And it's interesting~~. They~~ think that the atmosphere of the star itself is actually the reason why we thought that there were planets there. So, yeah, this is very odd, because the list of exoplanets has been exploding for years now. Seems like there's a million of them, but I guess there's what, a thousand? They've discovered a thousand?		B: Okay. So, the idea is that two of the most famous exoplanets that we've discovered have been determined to be non-existent. They're just not there. And it's interesting, they think that the atmosphere of the star itself is actually the reason why we thought that there were planets there. So, yeah, this is very odd, because the list of exoplanets has been exploding for years now. Seems like there's a million of them, but I guess there's what, a thousand? They've discovered a thousand?

	But these two are kind of special because they're in this rarified group of exoplanets. They exist within the Goldilocks Zone in orbit around their parent star. It's not too hot, it's not too cold. Water is stable on these planets, apparently. At least, that's what they thought. And, of course, if water can exist on an exoplanet, then life can exist. And that makes it incredibly important.		But these two are kind of special because they're in this rarified group of exoplanets. They exist within the Goldilocks Zone in orbit around their parent star. It's not too hot, it's not too cold. Water is stable on these planets, apparently. At least, that's what they thought. And, of course, if water can exist on an exoplanet, then life can exist. And that makes it incredibly important.
Line 445:		Line 445:
	S: We've done it.		S: We've done it.

	B: We've done it, but it's incredibly difficult. Jay, imagine seeing a tiny planet next to a huge sun. It's incredibly difficult. So, no, that method isn't viable, at least for Gliese 581 a. So, the bottom line is that they reduce the signal-to-noise ratio. And when they did that, these two planets just disappear. And that kind of sucks when that happens. But, there's a positive effect of this. Because, by improving the signal-to-noise ratio, the other planets – B, C, and the other ones that they have – those signals really popped. They're clear and confident. So, they're not going anywhere.		B: We've done it, but it's incredibly difficult. Jay, imagine seeing a tiny planet next to a huge sun. It's incredibly difficult. So, no, that method isn't viable, at least for Gliese 581 a. So, the bottom line is that they reduce the noise, the signal-to-noise ratio. And when they did that, these two planets just disappear. And that kind of sucks when that happens. But, there's a positive effect of this. Because, by improving the signal-to-noise ratio, the other planets – B, C, and the other ones that they have – those signals really popped. They're clear and confident. So, they're not going anywhere.

	And the other benefit is that they could actually, now, with this method, they could find other exoplanets that are hidden in the noise that we haven't detected yet. So that's another benefit.		And the other benefit is that they could actually, now, with this method, they could find other exoplanets that are hidden in the noise that we haven't detected yet. So that's another benefit.

Rwh86: /* Guru Dead or Meditating (14:09) */ proofed

2014-08-18T15:30:08Z

Guru Dead or Meditating (14:09): proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 18 August 2014
Line 233:		Line 233:
	J: That's one way to put it!		J: That's one way to put it!

	Ba: He is pickelled.		S: Or he is pickelled.

	J: He's not pickelled. This is Indian guru Ashutosh Maharaj. And the quick one-two on this guy is that he is believed by his followers to be in a deep meditative state, and then a lot of other people think he's, you know, he's not alive; he's just dead. His followers ...		J: He's not pickelled. This is Indian guru Ashutosh Maharaj. And the quick one-two on this guy is that he is believed by his followers to be in a deep meditative state, and then a lot of other people think he's, you know, he's not alive; he's just dead. His followers ...
Line 250:		Line 250:

	Ba: It's true! Yes, I swear to god!		Ba: It's true! Yes, I swear to god!

			J: That's awesome.

	S: They put the "zen" in frozen, got it.		S: They put the "zen" in frozen, got it.
Line 301:		Line 303:
	J: No!		J: No!

	D: Do you know where India is?		D: Do you even know where India is?

	J: I know it's hot there!		J: I know it's hot there!
Line 311:		Line 313:
	D: Chicken Tikka Masala! Don't say "Chicken Tikkca Masala!" Chicken Tikka Masala is not Indian food! It is your American junk food! Goodness sake!		D: Chicken Tikka Masala! Don't say "Chicken Tikkca Masala!" Chicken Tikka Masala is not Indian food! It is your American junk food! Goodness sake!

	J: It's my favorite dish! I love Dal, monkey, call it Dal Munchie?		B: It's my favorite dish!

			J: I love Dal, monkey, call it Dal Munchie?

	D: Dal ~~Monkarotie~~?		D: Dal makhani?

	J: Rotie? Rotie is good.		J: Rotie? Rotie is good.
Line 361:		Line 365:
	J: Ah.		J: Ah.

	D: ~~(Very difficult to hear 18:35)~~ He likes ~~to take a massage~~. You know. No, no, no. We did not love. No. (Tsk!) Not on stage! They not allow me. But he likes ~~down at me~~, yeah. And ~~rodeos~~, yes. ~~(End of difficult part)~~ Okay. Okay! Here is your certificate. This is valid for ... oh, forever. You can – you're allowed to use the Indian accent forever more.		D: He likes chicken tikka masala. You know. No, no, no. We did not do the love thing. No. (Tsk!) Not on stage! They not allow me. But he likes dal makhani, yeah. And roti also, yes. Okay, okay. Okay! Here is your certificate. This is valid for ... oh, forever. You can – you're allowed to use the Indian accent forever more.

	(Applause)		(Applause)

	G: Doctor A.J. O'~~Pod~~. Thank you doctor! Go for it.		G: Doctor A.J. O'Podden. Thank you doctor! Go for it.

	S: Alright, Jay, I guess you can use the Indian accent. You got me on that one.		S: Alright, Jay, I guess you can use the Indian accent. You got me on that one.
Line 377:		Line 381:
	S: So, what you're saying is the guy's dead.		S: So, what you're saying is the guy's dead.

	J: He's dead.		J: He's dead. The guy's dead!

	S: ~~The guy's dead!~~ Alright.		S: Alright.

	=== Ex-Exoplanets <small>(19:30)</small> ===		=== Ex-Exoplanets <small>(19:30)</small> ===

Rwh86: /* News Items */ human brain project proofed

2014-08-18T15:19:32Z

News Items: human brain project proofed

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 18 August 2014
Line 179:		Line 179:
	There are 80 institutions involved; it's a 10-year project. However, recently – just about a week ago – an open letter was written to the commission signed by 180 scientific leaders in the neurosciences threatening to boycott the project unless they make major changes. The controversy's actually very interesting. There's really two levels to the conflict. One is, of course it all comes down to who gets the money, right? Because there's 1.2 billion Euros at stake and everybody thinks that they need to get funded. So that's what they're really fighting about, but what it comes down to is, should the money be spent entirely on creating the computer software?		There are 80 institutions involved; it's a 10-year project. However, recently – just about a week ago – an open letter was written to the commission signed by 180 scientific leaders in the neurosciences threatening to boycott the project unless they make major changes. The controversy's actually very interesting. There's really two levels to the conflict. One is, of course it all comes down to who gets the money, right? Because there's 1.2 billion Euros at stake and everybody thinks that they need to get funded. So that's what they're really fighting about, but what it comes down to is, should the money be spent entirely on creating the computer software?

	So, the complaint there is that it's not really a neuroscience project; it's really an IT project. You're really just funding computer science, not neuroscience. But it is being promoted to the public as a neuroscience project.		So, the complaint there is that it's not really then a neuroscience project; it's really an IT project. You're really just funding computer science, not neuroscience. But it is being promoted to the public as a neuroscience project.

	J: But wouldn't they be working hand-in-hand with neurologists to do it?		J: But wouldn't they be working hand-in-hand with neurologists to do it?
Line 189:		Line 189:
	It's like, we want to cure disease X. Okay, so let's fund clinical trials to cure disease X. But we don't know enough about disease X to even tell you what clinical trials to do yet. So you end up wasting a lot of money doing clinical trials that go nowhere because we don't have the basic science to back them up. That's the exact same debate going on now.		It's like, we want to cure disease X. Okay, so let's fund clinical trials to cure disease X. But we don't know enough about disease X to even tell you what clinical trials to do yet. So you end up wasting a lot of money doing clinical trials that go nowhere because we don't have the basic science to back them up. That's the exact same debate going on now.

	J: ~~Couldn~~'t the computer modelling actually help the people that are programming the software to figure out mistakes and pitfalls that they're gonna run into. I actually think there needs to be a division of the money.		J: But couldn't the computer modelling actually help the people that are programming the software to figure out mistakes and pitfalls that they're gonna run into? I actually think there needs to be a division of the money.

	S: So, that's what I'm saying. I think that when you try to computer model the brain, that will teach us, 'cause then we have a model! We have a model of the brain, then we can use that to reverse-engineer the brain. And then when we do FMRI, and other studies to figure out how the brain connects up, that feeds back into the computer modelling. That's what's been happening. I think that's what should continue to happen. But that's exactly the nature of this complaint.		S: So, that's what I'm saying. I think that when you try to computer model the brain, that will teach us, 'cause then we have a model! We have a model of the brain, then we can use that to reverse-engineer the brain. And then when we do FMRI, and other studies to figure out how the brain connects up, that feeds back into the computer modelling. That's what's been happening. I think that's what should continue to happen. But that's exactly the nature of this complaint.

	The other nature of the complaint, which is a little more subtle scientifically, is whether or not they should be taking a top-down or bottom-up approach. So, right now they're taking mainly a bottom-up approach. Let's look at neurons, and how neurons are connected to each other, and go from there. But they're kind of specifically leaving out the cognitive neuroscientists, who are looking at the highest order functions of the brain, trying to figure out how our neocortex works. And they're saying, "Wait! Oh! You're leaving us out in the cold here. You need to fund our research because we need to know how the brain works, not just how neurons work." Does that make sense?		The other nature of the complaint, which is a little bit more subtle scientifically, is whether or not they should be taking a top-down or bottom-up approach. So, right now they're taking mainly a bottom-up approach. Let's look at neurons, and how neurons are connected to each other, and go from there. But they're kind of specifically leaving out the cognitive neuroscientists, who are looking at the highest-order functions of the brain, trying to figure out how our neocortex works. And they're saying, "Wait! Oh! You're leaving us out in the cold here. You need to fund our research because we need to know how the brain works, not just how neurons work." Does that make sense?

	~~So, the project is an IT project looking at really fundamental neuroscience rather than a neuroscience project trying to figure out how the whole brain works together and connects stuff together~~.		J: Yeah.

	J: So you're saying that neurons are at the lowest level common denominator; then there's layers upon layers upon layers of complexity with different parts of the brain talking to other parts of the brain. I read not too long ago they found out a new way that the brain communicates to other parts. The brain is actually talking to itself a lot more than we originally thought. So, that's the top stuff. That's the top layer?		So, the project is an IT project looking at really fundamental neuroscience rather than a neuroscience project trying to figure out how the whole brain works together and connects up together.

			J: So you're saying that neurons are at the lowest level common denominator; and then there's layers upon layers upon layers of complexity with different parts of the brain talking to other parts of the brain.

			S: Yeah, exactly.

			J: I read not too long ago they found out a new way that the brain communicates to other parts. The brain is actually talking to itself a lot more than we originally thought. So, that's the top stuff. That's the top layer?

	S: Well, I don't know if it's the top layer, but you're definitely above the layer that they're dealing with with the project. For example – and Bob and I were just talking about this earlier – we've already mapped a cortical column. That's a fundamental unit of the cortex. It's basically just one column of neurons. And you multiply that by billions and you get a human brain. But, obviously, it's more complicated than that. You can't just build a hundred billion cortical columns and have a human brain. There's higher levels or organization. And we need to do the research to figure that out before this project becomes really meaningful.		S: Well, I don't know if it's the top layer, but you're definitely above the layer that they're dealing with with the project. For example – and Bob and I were just talking about this earlier – we've already mapped a cortical column. That's a fundamental unit of the cortex. It's basically just one column of neurons. And you multiply that by billions and you get a human brain. But, obviously, it's more complicated than that. You can't just build a hundred billion cortical columns and have a human brain. There's higher levels or organization. And we need to do the research to figure that out before this project becomes really meaningful.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 18 August 2014
Line 457:		Line 457:
	=== Buzz Aldrin UFO <small>(25:15)</small> ===		=== Buzz Aldrin UFO <small>(25:15)</small> ===
	* http://www.businessinsider.com/buzz-aldrins-apollo-11-ufo-encounter-2014-7		* http://www.businessinsider.com/buzz-aldrins-apollo-11-ufo-encounter-2014-7
	S: So, Buzz Aldrin is in the news again. We're in Vegas in July; and July is the anniversary of Apollo. So, we always ~~have to talk~~ about the Apollo missions when we're here, Evan.		S: So, Buzz Aldrin is in the news again. We're in Vegas in July; and July is the anniversary of Apollo. So, we always end up talking about the Apollo missions when we're here, Evan.

	E: Yeah. And it's the 45th year, so, nice sort of roundish number, which is kind of why it's in the headlines again. Buzz Aldrin took part in a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" very recently. And he has the UFO community all abuzz over the things he's been saying. Now, this is nothing new. We know that Buzz has talked about UFO's and Apollo 11 mission in the past; but because it is the 45th anniversary, and he's part of this whole Reddit thing, this is all being stirred up again.		E: Yeah. And it's the 45th year, so, nice sort of roundish number, which is kind of why it's in the headlines again. Buzz Aldrin took part in a Reddit "Ask Me Anything" very recently. And he has the UFO community all abuzz over the things he's been saying.

			S: Oh, all abuzz!

			E: Now, this is nothing new. We know that Buzz has talked about UFO's and Apollo 11 mission in the past; but because it is the 45th anniversary, and he's part of this whole Reddit thing, this is all being stirred up again.

	His mention of having witnessed the UFO, as I said, is nothing new; but when does that matter to the UFO believer crowd?		His mention of having witnessed the UFO, as I said, is nothing new; but when does that matter to the UFO believer crowd?
Line 467:		Line 471:
	Ba: This has been an ongoing thing with a lot of astronauts. You've got {{w\|Edgar Mitchell\|Ed Mitchell}}; you've got Slaytin; you've got Cooper; you've got all these people saying that the've seen UFO's. But in this case, with Buzz Aldrin, again, he's just saying he saw a UFO. He's not saying he saw an alien craft or anything, right?		Ba: This has been an ongoing thing with a lot of astronauts. You've got {{w\|Edgar Mitchell\|Ed Mitchell}}; you've got Slaytin; you've got Cooper; you've got all these people saying that the've seen UFO's. But in this case, with Buzz Aldrin, again, he's just saying he saw a UFO. He's not saying he saw an alien craft or anything, right?

	E: If they actually took two seconds to actually read what he actually said, they'd realize that this is what he said. "I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us. There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country, or another world. It was either the rocket we had separated from, or the four panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket. And we were nose to nose with the two space craft. So in the close vicinity, moving away, were four panels. And I feel absolutely convinced that we were looking at the sun reflected off one of the panels; which one, I don't know. So, technically, the definition could be unidentified."		E: That's right, if they actually took two seconds to actually read what he actually said, they'd realize that this is what he said. "I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us. There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country, or another world. It was either the rocket we had separated from, or the four panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket. And we were nose to nose with the two space craft. So in the close vicinity, moving away, were four panels. And I feel absolutely convinced that we were looking at the sun reflected off one of the panels; which one, I don't know. So, technically, the definition could be unidentified."

	So, that's it. All you have, is Buzz Aldrin said, "unidentified," and that's it. The UFO community is buzzing.		So, that's it. All you have, is Buzz Aldrin said, "unidentified," and that's it. The UFO community is buzzing.
Line 489:		Line 493:
	J: But having to go back to the Apollo missions, to say that some one saw a spacecraft. It's similar to the idea that cellphones and cameras are ubiquitous, right? So, there's billions of cameras floating around the Earth right now, in peoples' hands. Everybody's taking pictures. There's no real UFO pictures being taken.		J: But having to go back to the Apollo missions, to say that some one saw a spacecraft. It's similar to the idea that cellphones and cameras are ubiquitous, right? So, there's billions of cameras floating around the Earth right now, in peoples' hands. Everybody's taking pictures. There's no real UFO pictures being taken.

	Right now, we have people living in outer space with fricking big windows! They're constantly filming, looking, and everything. If Buzz Aldrin in a window of that big saw a ...		Right now, we have people living in outer space with fricking big windows! They're constantly filming, looking, and everything. If Buzz Aldrin in a window of that big saw a UFO ...

	Ba: You would think that at least on Hallowe'en, an alien would come up to the window and go, "Boo!" or something like that.		Ba: You would think that at least on Hallowe'en, an alien would come up to the window and go, "Boo!" or something like that.