Archives de la catégorie: Science

Mes pensées sur les sciences non-physique — comme la biologie évolutive, neurosciences cognitives etc.

Autres complots connus

Une théorie du complot reste une théorie et de fourrage pour des cinglés jusqu'à ce qu'il soit soufflé grande ouverte. À ce moment, les cinglés deviennent primés journalistes et les dirigeants qui étaient considérés comme des héros nationaux deviennent des criminels sociopathes. Telle est la versatilité de l'opinion populaire, et donc ce sera avec le 9/11 complot quand il devient largement connue (si elle ne fait jamais) qu'il était un complot.

Continuer la lecture

9/11 Debunkers

Personnellement, one of the main reasons I started taking the conspiracy theories about 9/11 seriously is the ardor and certainty of the so-called debunkers. They are so sure of their views and so ready with their explanations that they seem rehearsed, coached or even incentivized. Looking at the fire-induced, symmetric, and free-fall collapse of WTC7, how can anyone with any level of scientific background be so certain? The best a debunker could say would be something like, “Oui, the free-fall and the symmetry aspects of the collapse do look quite strange. But the official explanation seems plausible. Au moins, it is more plausible than a wild conspiracy by the government to kill 3000 of our own citizens.” But that is not at all the way they put it. They laugh at the conspiracy theories, make emotional statements about the technical claims, and ignore the questions that they cannot explain away. They toe the official line even when it is clearly unscientific. They try to attack the credibility of the conspiracy camp despite the obvious fact that it has the support of many seasoned professionals, like architects, physics teachers, structural engineers and university professors.

Continuer la lecture

9/11 – Motives for Mass Murder

In the first post in this series, we saw that 7 World Trade Center building was the smoking gun of a possible conspiracy behind the 9/11 attack. The manner in which it collapsed and the way the collapse was investigated are strong indications of a conspiracy and a cover up. Cependant, when I first heard of the conspiracy theory in any serious form, the first question I asked myself was why – what possible motive could any person or organization have to commit mass murder at this scale? I honestly couldn’t see any, and as long as you don’t see one, you cannot take these conspiracy theories seriously. Bien sûr, if you buy the official story that the conspiracy actually originated in Afghanistan among terrorist monsters, you don’t need to look for any rational motives.

Continuer la lecture

9/11 Conspiracy

Some people are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than others. I am one of them. But even to me, la 9/11 conspiracy theories sounded ludicrous at first. I couldn’t see any possible motivation for anyone to go and murder 3000 personnes, nor any possible way of getting away with it. But there were things that could not be explained in the way the buildings came down, especially the World Trade Center Building 7, WTC7. So I went through as much of the conspiracy literature, and their debunking as I could. After a month or so of casual research, I have to say that a conspiracy is plausible, and even likely. I thought I would share my thoughts here, with apologies to anyone who might find this line of thinking offensive.

Continuer la lecture

Autisme et Genius

La plupart des choses dans la vie sont distribués normalement, ce qui signifie qu'ils montrent tous une courbe en cloche quand quantifié en utilisant une mesure raisonnable. Par exemple, les marques marqués par un assez grand nombre d'étudiants a une distribution normale, avec très peu de notation proche de zéro ou proche de 100%, et plus groupage autour de la moyenne de la classe. Cette répartition est à la base de la lettre classement. Bien sûr, ce qui suppose un test raisonnable - si le test est trop facile (comme un test de l'école primaire donnée aux étudiants universitaires), tout le monde serait proche de marquer 100% et il n'y aurait pas de courbe de cloche, ni aucun moyen raisonnable de lettre-titrant les résultats.

Si nous pouvions raisonnablement quantifier traits comme l'intelligence, folie, autisme, athlétisme, aptitude musicale etc, ils devraient tous faire des distributions gaussiennes normales. Lorsque vous vous trouvez sur la courbe est une question de chance. Si vous êtes chanceux, vous tombez sur le côté droit de la distribution à proximité de la queue, et si vous êtes malchanceux, vous vous trouverez à proximité du mauvais côté. Mais cette affirmation est un peu trop simpliste. Rien dans la vie est tout à fait que straight-forward. Les différentes distributions ont corrélations étranges. Même en l'absence de corrélations, considérations purement mathématiques seront indiquent que la probabilité de se trouver dans l'extrémité droite de multiples traits désirables est mince. C'est-à-dire, si vous êtes dans le top 0.1% de votre cohorte scolaire, et en termes de vos regards, et dans l'athlétisme, vous êtes déjà un sur un milliard — qui est la raison pour laquelle vous ne trouvez pas beaucoup de physiciens théoriques étonnamment beaux qui sont également classés les joueurs de tennis.

Le récent champion du monde d'échecs, Magnus Carlsen, est aussi un modèle de mode, qui est nouvelles, précisément parce qu'elle est l'exception qui confirme la règle. Au fait, Je viens de comprendre ce que cette expression mystérieuse «exception qui confirme la règle" signifie en réalité - quelque chose ressemble à une seule exception, car en règle générale, il n'existe pas ou n'arrive, ce qui prouve qu'il n'y est une règle.

Pour en revenir à notre thème, en plus de la probabilité infime pour le génie tel que prescrit par les mathématiques, nous trouvons aussi des corrélations entre le génie et les pathologies comportementales comme la folie et l'autisme. Un cerveau de génie est probablement câblé différemment. Quelque chose de différent de la norme est également, bien, anormal. Comportement anormal lorsque jugé contre les règles de la société est la définition de la folie. Donc, il ya une seule une fine ligne qui sépare la folie de vrai génie, Je crois. La vie personnelle de nombreux génies font à cette conclusion. Einstein avait des relations personnelles étranges, et un fils qui était cliniquement fou. Beaucoup de génies effectivement fini à la poubelle looney. Et certains affligés avec des cadeaux étonnants autisme montrent comme la mémoire photographique, prouesse mathématique etc. Prenez par exemple, le cas des autistes savants. Ou examiner les cas comme Sheldon Cooper de The Big Bang Theory, qui n'est que légèrement meilleure que (ou différent de) le Rain Man.

Je crois que la raison de la corrélation est le fait que les mêmes légères anomalies dans le cerveau peuvent souvent se manifester comme talents ou génie sur le côté positif, ou des cadeaux comme douteuses sur le côté négatif. Je pense que mon message est que tout le monde loin de la moyenne dans toutes les distributions, que ce soit la brillance ou la folie, devrait prendre avec ni orgueil ni rancune. Il s'agit simplement d'une fluctuation statistique. Je sais que ce poste ne sera pas soulager la douleur de ceux qui sont affligés du côté négatif, ou éliminer l'arrogance de ceux sur le côté positif. Mais voici en espérant que ce sera au moins diminuer l'intensité de ces sentiments…
Photo par Arturo de Albornoz

Voir et Croire

Quand nous ouvrons nos yeux et regarde quelque chose, nous voyons que fichue chose. Quoi de plus évident que, droit? Disons que vous êtes à la recherche de votre chien. Ce que vous voyez est vraiment votre chien, parce que, si vous voulez, vous pouvez atteindre et toucher. Il aboie, et vous pouvez entendre la trame. Si ça pue un peu, vous pouvez sentir. Tous ces indices de perception supplémentaires corroborent votre conviction que ce que vous voyez est votre chien. Directement. Pas de questions posées.

Bien sûr, mon travail sur ce blog est de poser des questions, et jeté des doutes. Tout d'abord, voir et toucher semble être un peu différente de l'ouïe et l'odorat. Vous n'entendez pas strictement votre chien aboyer, vous entendez le son. De même, vous ne sentez pas directement, vous sentez l'odeur, la piste chimique, le chien a laissé dans l'air. Audition et odeur sont trois lieux perceptions — le chien génère son / odeur, le son / odeur se déplace pour vous, vous percevez le bruit / odeur.

Mais en voyant (ou toucher) est une deux places chose — le chien y, et vous ici percevoir directement. Pourquoi donc? Pourquoi nous sentons-nous que lorsque nous voyons ou touchons quelque chose, nous sentons directement? Cette croyance en la véracité de la perception de ce que nous voyons est appelé réalisme naïf. Nous savons bien sûr que de voir implique la lumière (il en va de toucher, mais d'une manière beaucoup plus compliqué), ce que nous voyons est la lumière réfléchie par un objet et ainsi de suite. Il est, en fait, ne diffère pas de quelque chose de l'audition. Mais cette connaissance du mécanisme de la vision ne modifie pas notre naturel, vue de bon sens que ce que nous voyons est ce qui existe. Voir c'est croire.

Extrapolée à partir de la version naïve est le réalisme scientifique, qui affirme que nos concepts scientifiques sont également réel, même si nous ne pouvons pas percevoir directement les. Donc atomes sont réels. Les électrons sont réels. Les quarks sont réels. La plupart de nos meilleurs scientifiques là-bas ont été sceptique à ce sujet extraploation à notre notion de ce qui est réel. Einstein, probablement le meilleur d'entre eux, soupçonnaient même espace et le temps pourraient ne pas être réel. Feynman et Gell-Mann, après avoir développé des théories sur les électrons et les quarks, exprimé leur point de vue que les électrons et les quarks peuvent être des constructions mathématiques plutôt que des entités réelles.

What I am inviting you to do here is to go beyond the skepticism of Feynman and Gell-Mann, and delve into Einstein’s words — space and time are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live. The sense of space is so real to us that we think of everything else as interactions taking place in the arena of space (and time). But space itself is the experience corresponding to the electrical signals generated by the light hitting your retina. It is a perceptual construct, much like the tonality of the sound you hear when air pressure waves hit your ear drums. Our adoption of naive realism results in our complete trust in the three dimensional space view. And since the world is created (in our brain as perceptual constructs) based on light, its speed becomes an all important constant in our world. And since speed mixes space and time, a better description is found in a four dimensional Minkowski geometry. But all these descriptions are based on perceptual experiences and therefore unreal in some sense.

I know the description above is highly circular — I talked about space being a mental construct created by light traveling through, get this, space. And when I speak of its speed, naturally, I’m talking about distance in space divided by time, and positing as the basis for the space-time mixing. This circularity makes my description less than clear and convincing. But the difficulty goes deeper than that. You see, all we have is this cognitive construct of space and time. We can describe objects and events only in terms of these constructs even when we know that they are only cognitive representations of sensory signals. Our language doesn’t go beyond that. Well, it does, but then we will be talking the language, for instance, of Advaita, calling the constructs Maya and the causes behind them Brahman, which stays unknowable. Or, we will be using some other parallel descriptions. These descriptions may be profound, wise and accurate. But ultimately, they are also useless.

But if philosophy is your thing, the discussions of cognitive constructs and unknown causations are not at all useless. Philosophy of physics happens to be my thing, and so I ask myself — what if I assume the unknown physical causes exist in a world similar to our perceptual construct? I could then propagate the causes through the process of perception and figure out what the construct should look like. I know, it sounds a bit complex, but it is something that we do all the time. We know, for instance, that the stars that we see in the night sky are not really there — we are seeing them the way they were a few (or a few million or billion) years ago because the light from them takes a long time to reach us. Physicists also know that the perceived motion of celestial objects also need to be corrected for these light-travel-time effects.

In fact, Einstein used the light travel time effects as the basis for deriving his special theory of relativity. He then stipulated that space and time behave the way we perceive them, derived using the said light-travel-time effects. This, of course, is based on his deep understanding that space and time are “the modes by which we think,” but also based on the assumption that the the causes behind the modes also are similar to the modes themselves. This depth of thinking is lost on the lesser scientists that came after him. The distinction between the modes of thinking and their causation is also lost, so that space and time have become entities that obey strange rules. Like bent spoons.

Photo by General Press1

Average Beauty

If you have migrated multiple times in your life, you may have noticed a strange thing. The first time you end up in a new place, most people around you look positively weird. Ugly even. But slowly, after a year or two, you begin to find them more attractive. This effect is more pronounced if the places you are migrating from and to have different racial predominance. For example, if you migrate from the US to Japan, or from India to China. As usual, I have a theory about this strange phenomenon. Well, actually, it is more than a theory. Let me begin at the beginning.

About fifteen years ago, I visited a Japanese research institute that did all kinds of strange studies. One of the researchers there showed me his study on averaging facial features. For this study, he took a large number of Japanese faces, and averaged them (which meant he normalized the image size and orientation, digitally took the mean on a pixel-by-pixel basis). So he had an average Japanese male face and an average Japanese female face. He even created a set of hybrids by making linear combinations of the two with different weighting factors. He then showed the results to a large number of people and recorded their preference in terms of the attractiveness of the face. The strange thing was that the average face looked more pleasant and attractive to the Japanese eye than any one of the individual ones. In fact, the most attractive male face was the one that had a bit of female features in it. That is to say, it was the one with 90% average male and 10% average female (or some such combination, I don’t remember the exact weights).

The researcher went one step further, and created an average caucasian face as well. He then took the difference between that and an average Japanese face, and then superimposed the difference on an average face with exaggerated weights. The result was a grotesque caricature, which he postulated, was probably the way a Japanese person would see a caucasian for the first time.

This reminded me of the time when I visited my housemate’s farm in a small town in Pennsylvania – a town so small that the street in front the farm was named after him! I went with his parents to the local grocery store, and there was this little girl sitting in a shopping cart who went wide-eyed when she saw me. She couldn’t take her eyes off me after that. May be, seeing an Indian face for the first time in her life, she saw a similar caricature and got scared.

Anyway, my conjecture is that an averaging similar to what the Japanese researcher did happens in all of us when we migrate. First our minds see grotesque and exaggerated difference caricatures between the faces we encounter and the ones we were used to, in our previous land. Soon, our baseline average changes as we get more used to the faces around us. And the difference between what we see and our baseline ceases to be big, and we end up liking the faces more and more as they move progressively closer to the average, normal face.

Here are the average male and female faces by race or country. Notice how each one of them is a remarkably handsome or beautiful specimen. If you find some of them not so remarkable, you should move to that country and spend a few years there so that they also become remarkable! And, if you find the faces from a particular country especially attractive, with no prolonged expsosure to such faces, I would like to hear your thoughts. Please leave your comments.

[I couldn’t trace the original sources of these images. If you know them, please let me know — I would like to get copyright permissions and add attributions.]

There is more to this story than I outlined here. May be I will add my take on it as a comment below. However, the moral of the story is that if you consider yourself average, you are probably more attractive than you think you are. Than again, what do I know, I’m just an average guy. 🙂

If you found this post interesting, you may also enjoy:

  1. Why is seeing not quite believing?
  2. Sophistication

Do You Believe in God?

I got in trouble for asking this question once. The person I asked the question got angry because she felt that it was too personal. So I am not going to ask you whether you believe in God. Don’t tell me — I will tell you! I will also tell you a bit more about your personality later in this post.

Ok, here is the deal. You take the quiz below. It has over 40 true-or-false questions about your habits and mannerisms. Once you answer them, I will tell you whether you believe in God, and if so, how much. If you get bored after say 20 questions or so, it is okay, you can quit the quiz and get the Rate. But the more questions you answer, the more accurate my guess about your faith is going to be.


Once you have your Score (or Rate, if you didn’t finish the quiz), click on the button corresponding to it.

         

Here is how it works. There is a division of labor going on in our brain, according to the theory of hemispheric specialization of brain functions. In this theory, the left hemisphere of the brain is considered the origin of logical and analytical thinking, and the right hemisphere is the origin of creative and intuitive thinking. The so-called left-brain person is thought to be linear, logical, analytical, and unemotional; and the right-brained person is thought to be spatial, creative, mystical, intuitive, and emotional.

This notion of hemispheric specialization raises an interesting question: is atheism related to the logical hemisphere? Are atheists less emotional? I think so, and this test is based on that belief. The quiz tests whether you are “left-brain” person. If you score high, your left-brain is dominant, and you are likely to be more analytical and logical than intuitive or creative. And, according to my conjecture, you are likely to be an atheist. Did it work for you?

Well, even if it didn’t, now you know whether you are analytical or intuitive. Please leave a comment to let me know how it worked.

[This post is an edited excerpt from my book The Unreal Universe]

Photo by Waiting For The Word

Are You an Introvert?

Here is a simple 20-question quiz to see if you are an introvert or an extrovert. Introverts tend to agree with most of these statements. So if you get a score of close to 100%, you are a confirmed introvert, which is not a bad thing. You are likely to be a quiet, contemplative type with strong family ties and a generally balanced outlook in life. On the other hand, if you get close to 0%, congratulations, I see stock options in your future. And you are a party animal and believe that life is supposed to be wall-to-wall fun, which it will be for you. I’m not too sure of those in the middle though.

These questions are from Susan Cain’s best seller, Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, and a prelude to my review of it. The questions are copyrighted to Cain, and are reproduced here with the understanding that it constitutes “fair use.” If you have any concerns about it, feel free to contact me.