Carl Sagan: Underappreciated Genius

[QUOTE=RidonKs]you're absolutely chalkful of insanity. so because lebron and mike excel...[/QUOTE]
heh... i like your "chalkful" comment. a style or two insult point there.

your basic fixation is that two interesting geniuses across history are so much better having lived in the same time and having played off of each other for the public's benefit. this has been true already in many cases already (newton vs. leibniz, davinci vs. michelangelo, even roman gladiator v/s gladiator) and can be imagined in many other cases. all i am really saying is that since we rarely get to see the direct matchup, we are left to surmise upon the clues both emit and might as well be realistic about the situation. and we are left to ponder what their individual might is versus their teaching ability. that is the whole key.

and i don't disagree with anything you've said, i just try to look at the whole situation more pragmatically.

[quote]i have no idea where this came from, but i wouldn't mind hearing you elaborate.[/quote]
think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.

i know what you're saying now.

ready for my rebuttal? wishing that a dead guy and an alive guy could have a cool conversation about nerdy stuff like physics isn't pragmatic. its idealistic fantasy. so looking at it on pragmatic terms? yeah, that's not going to work well. i'm aware.

my off-hand comment, which i have a feeling you read just a wee bit too far into, was that it would be fun - FUN - to conceive of a hypothetical scenario consisting of one dead guy and one living guy discussing their passions with one another in their easily accessible fashion for which they have both become so renowned. thats it. nothing else. i don't want to undo history, and i don't want to pit these two against one another to see who is really the 'better' scientist. just want to hear the conversation.

lol

[QUOTE]think about it, ridonks, and imagine how human history went. imagine how the history of teaching and betterment went and why we long-ago arrived at the jungian archetype of the teacher needing to die before the pupil can really progress. you'll find that dynamic across all cultures, all religions, all civilisations. it's the same reason why comparing players across the decades or centuries is fruitless and is left to only our childish natures.
[/QUOTE]
this makes sense. but it doesn't necessarily follow this:
[QUOTE]remove yourself from the video / technology age and you have to deal with the fact that only one guru is generally available at a time.[/QUOTE]
which is just way too bold.

we're on the same general page though.

you're a good man, understand much, and i'm someone who generally only drops by this section when i'm half-drunk, bored, and not in the mood to fully elaborate the vagaries of my ramblings, however accurate or inaccurate they may be.

if we happen to tango again across the dimension of ISH then i, for one, would not complain.

Nice convo, fellas. Glad to see this thread is still alive and kicking. Good sh#t from both of you. :cheers:

I sent my mom the video of Sagan's 'A Glorious Dawn' mashup and she let me know that she has the entire seven DVD set of Cosmos. I went and picked them up today... I'm about to dive into Disc 1. It has been a long time (and it isn't the same watching it streaming online when compared to watching it on a 50" plasma as much as I appreciate Hulu's efforts).

Btw, have you guys looked into the Kepler Telescope, which will scan the horizon looking at suns and planets outside of our own solar system in search of Earth-like habitats? Crazy sh#t. I can't help but to think that Carl would be all over this.

[url]http://www.space.com/searchforlife/090409-kepler-dust-cover.html[/url]

:cheers: gigantes. pretty sure i've screamed at you once or twice for your condescending nature, but i'd rather deal with that than an uninformed idiot. ;)



i just finished the third episode of cosmos. i sort of wish carl hadn't dedicated a full quarter of the episode to explaining why newspaper horoscopes are phony bologna, but whatever. at least he maintained his eloquent manner. lol

i hadn't, but i just checked it out. let me see if i've got this right - they use a photometer to measure the luminosity of some 100,000 stars around the universe, at intervals of 30 minutes. as planets orbit the stars, the apparent brightness from our angle will get slightly dimmer, and that in turn will allow us to determine the size of the planet - based on the size and composition of the star. does the star appear less luminous because the planet of interest has come between us and the star, or is it some strange shadow effect that i can't wrap my head around right now?



this is a little older, but i just saw it yesterday - awesome step by step to imagining dimensions beyond ours:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o"]Part 1[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA&feature=related"]Part 2[/URL]

he's got some other cool videos too. in one he compares our inability to properly envision the higher dimensions with plato's allegory of the cave.

i don't think it has been said yet - the music in cosmos is top notch. beautiful stuff to go with the jawdropping images.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk"]another one for you rba[/URL]

its no glorious dawn, but still pretty falking epic.

"the cosmos is also within us - we're made of star stuff. we are a way the cosmos can know itself"

one of the most beautiful quotes i've ever heard. incredible.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i don't think it has been said yet - the music in cosmos is top notch. beautiful stuff to go with the jawdropping images.[/QUOTE]
Yeah... I was actually thinking about this the other night when I was watching Disc 1. That main piano piece that they use throughout really suits it well.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSZ55X3X4pk"]Here[/URL] is a link to all of the music from Cosmos. The piece I'm talking about starts around 6:30.

[QUOTE=RidonKs][URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk"]another one for you rba[/URL]

its no glorious dawn, but still pretty falking epic.[/QUOTE]

Good sh#t. Nice to see deGrasse making his melodysheep debut. No one's voice works with the autotune like Sagan, though. I think his propensity to really enunciate every syllable helps. It also doesn't hurt that he has some of the most beautiful, riveting quotations in human history. They seem literally made for being a hook in a song.

MelodySheep deserves serious recognition for these two efforts. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=RidonKs]"the cosmos is also within us - we're made of star stuff. we are a way the cosmos can know itself"

one of the most beautiful quotes i've ever heard. incredible.[/QUOTE]

[I]We wish to pursue the truth no matter where it leads. But to find the truth, we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact. The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths; of exquisite interrelationships; of the awesome machinery of nature.[/I]

...I love that imagery of the 'awesome machinery of nature.' Such a perfect phrase...

[QUOTE]Yeah... I was actually thinking about this the other night when I was watching Disc 1. That main piano piece that they use throughout really suits it well. [/QUOTE]
that main theme is definitely gorgeous. i was actually checking out some other vangelis sh[COLOR="Black"]it[/COLOR] the other night - i liked most of what i heard. some of it was a little avant garde for my taste, but i might phone a few record stores around town and see if they have anything by him. he had to be one of the very first true electronica artists producing music back then.

there are two segments in the second episode of cosmos that i've probably watched a good half dozen times each - they use the same riveting score, probably the most epic piece i've heard so far in the series. i know you have the dvds, in the first segment carl describes the origins of life beginning with the forming of DNA and the nucleotides, and in the second segment he describes his hypothesis of the sinkers/floaters life on jupiter.

actually hang on, i'll see if i can find it on youtube.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAZW1Ayh68&feature=related"]here we go - first part on origins of life[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3rfS2MBqUg&feature=related"]second part starting around 1:45 on jupiter's potential for life[/URL]

:bowdown: that build-up. i could watch those dozens of times in a row.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]that main theme is definitely gorgeous. i was actually checking out some other vangelis sh[COLOR="Black"]it[/COLOR] the other night - i liked most of what i heard. some of it was a little avant garde for my taste, but i might phone a few record stores around town and see if they have anything by him. he had to be one of the very first true electronica artists producing music back then.

there are two segments in the second episode of cosmos that i've probably watched a good half dozen times each - they use the same riveting score, probably the most epic piece i've heard so far in the series. i know you have the dvds, in the first segment carl describes the origins of life beginning with the forming of DNA and the nucleotides, and in the second segment he describes his hypothesis of the sinkers/floaters life on jupiter.

actually hang on, i'll see if i can find it on youtube.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTAZW1Ayh68&feature=related"]here we go - first part on origins of life[/URL]
[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3rfS2MBqUg&feature=related"]second part starting around 1:45 on jupiter's potential for life[/URL]

:bowdown: that build-up. i could watch those dozens of times in a row.[/QUOTE]

Definitely great stuff. I love the theory of floaters, sinkers and hunters. It might be somewhat wild speculation, but it sort of makes sense when you think about it. There are all of these life-building molecules floating around in all directions of space. Chemical reactions that could spawn such beings seem inevitable... Maybe even common.

That animation at the end of the Episode 2, Part 3 is also killer. One thing that amazes me about this series is that, even though it was created 30 years ago, the computer graphics and special effects used still look good. That is a credit to the creators of the show, who had the foresight not to overdo it with tons of graphics that would certainly look way out-of-date today. They used the minimum and the result is something that stands the test of time.

I'm going to check out some Vangelis stuff. He did the Chariots of Fire soundtrack, right?

Did you give the Benn Jordan's tribue album to Carl Sagan, [I]Pale Blue Dot[/I], a listen yet? I linked it in the OP of this thread. It is really excellent and I think you would dig it. I've put it on while reading Carl and it helps bring the words to life. Good sh#t.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjqBq8J1n-E&feature=related"]Pale Blue Dot Teaser[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENN285XSw"]Leaving Earth[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AN2K3GZ1Wk&feature=related"]Ascent[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5UZz0nxALU&feature=related"]Floating Vacuum[/URL]

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXpCuE5vjMY&feature=related"]Safe Landing[/URL]

i have a feeling it'll be right up my alley. i just peeped 'leaving earth' and 'ascent' as testers, and got the immediate feeling that the entire album would flow together, with a total downplay for song transitions. i'ma check it out soon. it'd be great if a talented poet took time to record some sagan-esque lyrics over top of the sounds, assuming the entire album is purely instrumental.

he did 'chariots of fire' and 'blade runner' - neither of which i've seen - along with a few other soundtracks here and there. apparently all of 'earth' (the third movement from that album is where the cosmos theme is taken from) is supposed to be pretty incredible.

ha, i watched that animated 40 second clip for the first time stoned off my ass, and was in awe. truly incredible. i didn't realize that the conclusive understanding of what really killed the dinosaurs had been discovered so recently, until sagan admitted that the scientific community was unaware how the mass extinction had actually occurred. then he comes on at the end of the dvd and explains (10 years after the filming i believe) what really happened. although i suppose its still not 100% conclusive that it was a meteor - theres basically a consensus on the matter.

i still ****ing love that cosmic calendar. what a perspective. all of written human history can be date stamped to the last few seconds of december 31st. :eek:

Haven't been into Sagan much, though I do have a copy of "Cosmos" that I bought a couple of years ago. This thread reminds me to read it soon, probably next month when I have some free time. Is that right book to start reading Sagan? I'll review it if this thread is still around.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i have a feeling it'll be right up my alley. i just peeped 'leaving earth' and 'ascent' as testers, and got the immediate feeling that the entire album would flow together, with a total downplay for song transitions. i'ma check it out soon. it'd be great if a talented poet took time to record some sagan-esque lyrics over top of the sounds, assuming the entire album is purely instrumental.[/quote]
Yes... The whole album is instrumental. All of Jordan's stuff (he also goes by 'Flashbulb') is instrumental. He is a virtuoso guitarist that creates all of these things single-handidly.

On the album, it actually goes from Ascent into Leaving Earth. If you play them back-to-back on Youtube, you can hear how it flows together. Absolutely brilliant atmospheric music.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]he did 'chariots of fire' and 'blade runner' - neither of which i've seen - along with a few other soundtracks here and there. apparently all of 'earth' (the third movement from that album is where the cosmos theme is taken from) is supposed to be pretty incredible.[/quote]

Yeah... That Chariots of Fire soundtrack is one of the most famous in film history.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJzcUvS_NU[/url]

It might be a bit overused, but when it first came out, that was one of the most epic songs in the history of Hollywood. I'd say the producers of Cosmos made a good decision with Vangelis.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]ha, i watched that animated 40 second clip for the first time stoned off my ass, and was in awe. truly incredible. i didn't realize that the conclusive understanding of what really killed the dinosaurs had been discovered so recently, until sagan admitted that the scientific community was unaware how the mass extinction had actually occurred. then he comes on at the end of the dvd and explains (10 years after the filming i believe) what really happened. although i suppose its still not 100% conclusive that it was a meteor - theres basically a consensus on the matter.[/quote]

As Carl said...

[I]In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [/I]

But, yeah... A meteor seems the most logical answer and there is a fair amount of evidence to back it up. I'm not sure if we will ever know for absolute certain what happened, but we are pretty close, atm.

I thought the same thing about the updated information on the dinosaurs in Cosmos. It boggled my mind that the meteor hypothesis hadn't been the scientific consensus in the early-80s. I guess since we are young enough that dinosaurs have always been known to us as having been taken out by the meteor, it comes as second nature.

[QUOTE=RidonKs] i still ****ing love that cosmic calendar. what a perspective. all of written human history can be date stamped to the last few seconds of december 31st. :eek:[/QUOTE]

The ideas that the cosmic calendar presents are a total mind-f#ck. It makes the human advancement in so many areas that much more staggering. Our presence has encompassed such a tiny fraction of the history of this planet, yet look around... And then imagine how far we will have advanced when we are a few days in on the cosmic calendar.

That is, if we can avoid destroying ourselves and the planet in the process...

[QUOTE=Fatal9]Haven't been into Sagan much, though I do have a copy of "Cosmos" that I bought a couple of years ago. This thread reminds me to read it soon, probably next month when I have some free time. Is that right book to start reading Sagan? I'll review it if this thread is still around.[/QUOTE]

Reading your thoughts on Newton, Galileo, Aristotle, etc. on the other thread, I'm surprised to hear that you have not been introduced to Sagan yet. I guess that goes back to my initial point of him being undervalued in the grand scheme. He may not have had the discoveries of the other 'big names' in the history of the field, but he was just as valuable, imo.

Where to start?

Well... There is really no wrong place to start with Sagan. [I]Cosmos [/I]is the place that most people like to begin, I guess. It is a tremendous read, though a few of the ideas presented aren't entirely up-to-date (the dinosaurs' extinction is a good example). But, Sagan had a way with words that makes it well worth your time.

I would also highly recommend [I]Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space[/I]. It is filled with great stuff.... There is a lot of philosophical points made in there, too. That is one of the greatest areas for Sagan, to me. He was absolutely a true, modern day philosopher.

If you have any interest in science fiction, [I]Contact [/I]is an absolute [B]must [/B]read. It is the single greatest sci-fi novel that I have ever had the pleasure of reading. In fact, I'm thinking of re-opening it when I have some time and plowing through it on a slow weekend.

You probably have seen the movie... While it did a good job by Hollywood standards of presenting the cliff notes of the book, they totally botched the ending. Even if you aren't into sci-fi, you should give the book a try. It's foundation is in true scientific theory of what may happen in the future... Not simply wild stories that will likely never happen.

Other excellent reads...

[I]Billions & Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium[/I]

[I]The Dragons of Eden: Speculations on the Evolution of Human Intelligence[/I]

[I]The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark [/I]

I need to give [I]Demon-Haunted World[/I] another look. It was a little over my head when I initially read it as a youngster. You can really start with any of these. It all depends on what you feel like reading about. They all offer something different.

Chariots of Fire and Cosmos were epic but let's not forget Blade Runner :pimp:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izoNWi3TJd8[/url]

want to see something truly mind-blowing?

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lFQOmb6mVs"]i can barely believe this[/URL]

can't. fit. in. the. known. universe.

the numbers are on wiki, to back up the statement too. and even upon seeing the numbers (which, to me and my fairly unrefined mathematical background, mean little) - i remain in disbelief. such a number hurts my brain.

here's another one: if you began at the estimated big bang event - some 14 billion years ago - and tried to write googolplex at approximately 2 zeroes per second... you wouldn't have finished yet up until right now.

that's a fact. there are twice as many zeroes in the number googolplex than there have been seconds since the beginning of space and time.

:eek:

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vioZf4TjoUI"]bumpage for the third 'symphony of science' music video[/URL]

[IMG]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/sagan-man.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RidonKs]want to see something truly mind-blowing?

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lFQOmb6mVs"]i can barely believe this[/URL]

can't. fit. in. the. known. universe.

the numbers are on wiki, to back up the statement too. and even upon seeing the numbers (which, to me and my fairly unrefined mathematical background, mean little) - i remain in disbelief. such a number hurts my brain.

here's another one: if you began at the estimated big bang event - some 14 billion years ago - and tried to write googolplex at approximately 2 zeroes per second... you wouldn't have finished yet up until right now.

that's a fact. there are twice as many zeroes in the number googolplex than there have been seconds since the beginning of space and time.

:eek:[/QUOTE]

That is ****ing crazy.

From wiki:

[QUOTE]Thinking of this another way, consider printing the digits of a googolplex in unreadable, one-point font. TeX one-point font is 0.35145989 mm per digit,[3] so it would take about 3.5

bump

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU[/url]
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]bump

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU[/url]
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century[/QUOTE]
I've seen this... Good stuff. It is especially interesting in light of current religious fundamentalists in America flexing their collective muscle and trying to stunt the growth of science.

The Middle East was the epicenter of scientific discovery for hundreds of years before the fundamentalists took over. It should be a lesson to everyone, whether you are christian or agnostic.

Tyson certainly has a way with words. He is the closest thing to Sagan that we have today.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]
Tyson certainly has a way with words. He is the closest thing to Sagan that we have today.[/QUOTE]


What about Michio Kaku??

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]bump

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIMifWU5ucU[/url]
Niel deGrasse Tyson - The Effect of Islam on Science in the Middle East - 9th-12th Century[/QUOTE]
wildly fascinating, but still probably the low point of that particular speech. i've watched the 15 minute 'god of the gaps' lecture right before that part more times than i care to remember, and then after the arabic bit he dives into his 'stupid design', which i quite enjoy.

[QUOTE]we have an entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system!
[/QUOTE]:oldlol:

still gotta love neil. so much excitement. f*ckin al-ghazali. lol

[QUOTE=Heilige]What about Michio Kaku??[/QUOTE]
Kaku is obviously a brilliant man, but the only times that I have seen him speak, it involves extra terrestrials, which isn't the area of astronomy which interests me most. I'm sure he has other content out there that I just haven't seen, so I will just say that I am more schooled on Tyson than I am Kaku.

Feel free to present your favorite Kaku links. I'd be interested in watching.

kaku has a whole pile of sh*t on string theory all over youtube that i've been meaning to watch. i'm not sure he's got the presence of tyson or sagan (each in their unique way, of course), but he certainly has the intellect.

[QUOTE=Heilige]What about Michio Kaku??[/QUOTE]

While I love Michio, most of the stuff I see him talking about fall into hypotheticals (he [I]is[/I] a theoretical physicist after all lol)

I personally respond more strongly to biologists, cosmologists, astronomers, etc.

That being said though, I love his new Sci-Fi Science series on the Science Channel. Great stuff.

EDIT: ^^oooh...string theory does give me a hard on though. i'll have to check those out.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hUNBhRiKCI"]btw, i'm posting this here instead of making a new thread - i can't stop watching it[/URL]

[QUOTE]EDIT: ^^oooh...string theory does give me a hard on though. i'll have to check those out.[/QUOTE]
i know very very little about it. have you heard tyson's, err, criticisms?

[QUOTE=RidonKs]wildly fascinating, but still probably the low point of that particular speech. i've watched the 15 minute 'god of the gaps' lecture right before that part more times than i care to remember, and then after the arabic bit he dives into his 'stupid design', which i quite enjoy.

:oldlol:

still gotta love neil. so much excitement. f*ckin al-ghazali. lol[/QUOTE]
Yep... God of the Gaps is incredibly interesting... Isaac Newton invoking intelligent design? Who would have thought possibly the greatest scientific genius to ever live would do such a thing?

It is an interesting commentary on the human mind reaching its capacity... Even the greatest human minds.

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Kaku is obviously a brilliant man, but the only times that I have seen him speak, it involves extra terrestrials, which isn't the area of astronomy which interests me most. I'm sure he has other content out there that I just haven't seen, so I will just say that I am more schooled on Tyson than I am Kaku.

Feel free to present your favorite Kaku links. I'd be interested in watching.[/QUOTE]


No problem. This is probably my favorite. This lecture is 4 parts. Enjoy! :cheers:

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5UcJt6RoIs&feature=player_embedded#[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m22wDMZzcuc&feature=channel[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Llt4GhGnRk&feature=channel[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to9Ht2NRQ3o&feature=channel[/url]

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Yep... God of the Gaps is incredibly interesting... Isaac Newton invoking intelligent design? Who would have thought possibly the greatest scientific genius to ever live would do such a thing?

It is an interesting commentary on the human mind reaching its capacity... Even the greatest human minds.[/QUOTE]
i like it because it phrases an argument that everybody already knows in a more... persuasive and documented fashion. i mean, we've all employed the "well everybody used to believe that the world was flat" and the "why is religion slowly declining in popularity" arguments. the fact that everybody, even the great scientists, used to believe vehemently in a high power isn't really a secret. but to actually hear the quotes, and then to hear tyson phrase it the way he does - very eye opening.

although when he makes his major point by screaming "why isn't this number zero", you can kind of spin it two ways. i didn't fully understand his point until i had watched the lecture twice.

should brilliant scientists accept a personal god, because that's what every famous scientist has done in history? or should they reject a personal god, because of the full knowledge that the personal god accepted by every famous scientist throughout history has chronologically been used to explain less and less as man has understood more and more?

clearly his point is the latter, but the quote is:

[QUOTE]85% of the scientists reject a personal god. but they missed the story - the real story is, why isn't this number 0%?[/QUOTE]
i have a feeling he just misspoke here, and meant "why isnt the number of scientists who accept a personal god 0%".




that brings up a really interesting point that i only recently stumbled upon though. guys like hawking and sagan and even einstein all believed in a 'god', but that god was nothing more than the cumulation of physical laws which explained the universe. since the term 'god' is used to explain the universe, and we're steadily understanding more and more about the universe, then eventually when we DO fully understand it (hawking thinks within the next 50 years or so) - we can just call THAT understand 'god'.

hawking also brought up an interesting point. if there is a quantum theory of gravity which can essentially 'explain' the cosmos, or at least the mechanisms which drive action in the cosmos, what if a major aspect of that theory is that it leads humanity (or just general intelligent life) AWAY from the truth? then you've got a paradox in which our search for a full descriptive theory is a PART of that very full descriptive theory! and then you shoot yourself in the head.

[QUOTE]No problem. This is probably my favorite. This lecture is 4 parts. Enjoy!
[/QUOTE]
thanks for the links. definitely going to check these out over winter break.

I just read Demon-Haunted World and that NEEDS to be required high school reading. I have run into too many fellow students that are graduating college as I am that have simply never learned what they should have and havent dropped the silly things they never should have taken as truth in the first place.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i like it because it phrases an argument that everybody already knows in a more... persuasive and documented fashion. i mean, we've all employed the "well everybody used to believe that the world was flat" and the "why is religion slowly declining in popularity" arguments. the fact that everybody, even the great scientists, used to believe vehemently in a high power isn't really a secret. but to actually hear the quotes, and then to hear tyson phrase it the way he does - very eye opening.

although when he makes his major point by screaming "why isn't this number zero", you can kind of spin it two ways. i didn't fully understand his point until i had watched the lecture twice.[/quote]

I took it as, it is proven throughout human history that the greatest scientific minds will invoke 'god' when they reach the absolute limit of their knowledge. That is, unless you develop a new kind of math or a new way of thinking, you aren't going to go any further. Thus, the fact that the number is not zero indicates that there are scientists out there who have come to that point... Maybe the modern world's greatest scientists, if history is a judge?

If you have exhausted every theory and it still doesn't explain the point you have reached, 'god' becomes the only logical answer... Until, generations later, when the unexplained occurrences that were attributed to 'god' become explainable.

That is where I thought he might be going, although I was also a bit unsure... Would the belief in 'god' for our modern scientists exhibit the fact that we have, in fact, reached our limit?

[QUOTE=RidonKs]that brings up a really interesting point that i only recently stumbled upon though. guys like hawking and sagan and even einstein all believed in a 'god', but that god was nothing more than the cumulation of physical laws which explained the universe. since the term 'god' is used to explain the universe, and we're steadily understanding more and more about the universe, then eventually when we DO fully understand it (hawking thinks within the next 50 years or so) - we can just call THAT understand 'god'.

hawking also brought up an interesting point. if there is a quantum theory of gravity which can essentially 'explain' the cosmos, or at least the mechanisms which drive action in the cosmos, what if a major aspect of that theory is that it leads humanity (or just general intelligent life) AWAY from the truth? then you've got a paradox in which our search for a full descriptive theory is a PART of that very full descriptive theory! and then you shoot yourself in the head.[/QUOTE]

It isn't as if there are no examples of this happening throughout human history. There are theories that were believed and generally accepted as fact (the sun revolves around the earth) for hundreds of years. They were based on what was understood at the time as full-proof scientific theories developed by the world's greatest minds.

Yet, totally false and leading us in the opposite direction of the real answer to how our solar system works and our place in it. Now, we look back on those poor souls as unevolved hacks... Will our ancestors 500 years from now look back upon Hawking the same way? A great scientist that was simply incapable of understanding the true nature of humanity and our place in the galaxy?

Time will tell and we won't be around to see it, but it is certainly interesting to think about.

[QUOTE]have simply never learned what they should have and havent dropped the silly things they never should have taken as truth in the first place.[/QUOTE]
that came off like you had specific examples. care to share, or were you in fact just speaking generally?

oh f*ck, i forgot to mention - last night i had a few puffs and finally downloaded 'pale blue dot'. well worth it and fantastic recommendation rba. i didn't get through the whole thing (listened to the first half once, started it again while lying in bed, and fell asleep halfway through), but i can't imagine the second half being a letdown compared to the first half. some of those tracks really do conjure images of space when you close your eyes though. quite an achievement.

[URL="http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html"]btw[/URL]

[QUOTE=RidonKs]oh f*ck, i forgot to mention - last night i had a few puffs and finally downloaded 'pale blue dot'. well worth it and fantastic recommendation rba. i didn't get through the whole thing (listened to the first half once, started it again while lying in bed, and fell asleep halfway through), but i can't imagine the second half being a letdown compared to the first half. some of those tracks really do conjure images of space when you close your eyes though. quite an achievement.

[URL="http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html"]btw[/URL][/QUOTE]
Glad to hear that you got around to it. The second half is much more dissonant, but as you would have guessed, it is all an effort to achieve a great climax with the last three tracks.

I know that Sagan was big into the marijuana cause and legalization. I wonder if he had the old 60s dirt weed or some government strength, cutting edge buds?

Let's face it... The older generations have a hard time with the potency of our weed. I've smoked up some older cats on many an occasion and it usually results in stonage to a degree for which they hadn't bargained (not always, but usually).

So... My heart says Carl had High Times quality herb with some nice glass pieces... My head says probably dirt with an old metal pipe that gives you a headache. :confusedshrug:

[QUOTE=RidonKs]that came off like you had specific examples. care to share, or were you in fact just speaking generally?[/QUOTE]

Well the book is essentially a knock on the pseudosciences of the world. These can be crop circles, big foot or whatever and my statement was meant generally, if not a slight jab at organized religion.. he teaches you how to understand real science and use it yourself to battle the "imitation science" that unfortunately runs wild in political and religious circles.. which people tend to believe.

On a lighter note...

Terry Pratchett on religion: 'I'd rather be a rising ape than a fallen angel'
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/video/2009/dec/19/terry-pratchett-religion[/url]

bump

Does Neil Tyson think we are alone in the universe?
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Re66MWWl8q8[/url]