tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.comments2023-11-27T17:10:59.771+01:00The SmartS ClubCarsten Huchohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-37356733801206374492021-05-06T07:40:31.290+02:002021-05-06T07:40:31.290+02:00good post.good post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-66716305413004516212017-06-19T11:53:03.105+02:002017-06-19T11:53:03.105+02:00oh, just checked on his recent post.... and there ...oh, just checked on his recent post.... and there we go<br />"9 Steps to success"<br />it is magicCarsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-27993332041641885802016-01-09T11:38:34.821+01:002016-01-09T11:38:34.821+01:00I like your analogy of '... not smart enough t...I like your analogy of '... not smart enough to cross the street.' Those very smart people that make one feel like that are rare, at least in my circle. And it's not because I'm very very smart, it must just be my circle of people.Amaterasuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17945651502396397747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-91751266862370773942015-09-03T10:26:01.308+02:002015-09-03T10:26:01.308+02:00Interesting insight.Interesting insight.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00845329231369610719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-20316758479068174842015-05-20T20:40:15.534+02:002015-05-20T20:40:15.534+02:00My friend passed away April 27th. His family was w...My friend passed away April 27th. His family was with him. His brothers, his wife and kid. And a very good friend who did not know him but helped him on his difficult path.Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-20095445258335513782015-01-26T06:47:41.244+01:002015-01-26T06:47:41.244+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-77985498560620531412014-05-14T08:25:03.447+02:002014-05-14T08:25:03.447+02:00fantastic post - for *small* is smart (and beautif...fantastic post - for *small* is smart (and beautiful also, partially :-) ).Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-88325219039026842452013-05-18T09:14:41.649+02:002013-05-18T09:14:41.649+02:00I believe this fits into the wider debate over a p...I believe this fits into the wider debate over a possible 'paradigm shift' to Big Data.<br />Could it be that correlation too often is taken as a substitute for understanding? Producing big dataessentially means projecting observables onto another set of observables... possibly making the problem more accessible to scientific modelling. But there is this danger that modelling is reduced to describing.Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-26144369741352362602013-05-17T12:58:08.105+02:002013-05-17T12:58:08.105+02:00What? Simulating a brain does not require only the...What? Simulating a brain does not require only the understanding of consciousness. There's much that *is* understood and much more that will be learned: the visual system, motor control, etc. <br /><br />As for theory and do-ability: IBM Research actually won a Gordon Bell prize a few years ago for its modeling of the cat brains, focusing on the visual system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-61445481453303312242013-02-09T12:30:22.265+01:002013-02-09T12:30:22.265+01:00I somewhat agree from the comment made by The Lond...I somewhat agree from the comment made by The London School of Economics and Political Science. Blogging does wonders on someones vocabulary and writing style. It would be great to read more blog posts from people who specialize or who studies at the London School.Sean Rasmussenhttp://www.learnhowtoblog.com.aunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-38927808747006637092012-11-10T18:04:50.682+01:002012-11-10T18:04:50.682+01:00Robots, with future hard- and software plugged int...Robots, with future hard- and software plugged into their expansion slots, can almost count as human persons, Carsten! But as a loop, regarding resources, why not recur to oldie-but-goldie<br />100 REM Hallo<br />110 GOTO 100<br />120 END (for service-friendly docu.<br />;-) Good luck fighting.<br />I just know a certain program on wordpress.com (the hosting-incl. version of mine) is very eager and has high numbers of spam found...Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-9115078103983934532012-07-30T13:28:03.669+02:002012-07-30T13:28:03.669+02:00Thank you for the comments.
Even though any though...Thank you for the comments.<br />Even though any thought is appreciated, I believe a minimum knowledge of the scientific methods and tools is of great help.<br />It is not always possible to have 'an opinion' on a result.<br />Comments should of course always show respect of other commentators' input - and usually there should be no reason to post them anonymously.<br />Some remarks: Equations are part of the language used to describe physical phenomena - it is an language-extension (this is one reason why some physics-facts are not explainable in everyday language).<br />The base for special relativity is the assumption of a *real* upper limit of the speed of light - being constant in vacuum in any reference frame. It is not the limit of a measurement. ("got it?!")Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-21553291039581526302012-07-27T21:05:33.981+02:002012-07-27T21:05:33.981+02:00C'mon! equations are NOT physics!!!!
There are...C'mon! equations are NOT physics!!!!<br />There are no infinite quantities in physics even if an equation predicts them. An imaginary mass have a perfectly understandable sense, all you have to do is to comprehend what an imaginary number is. Special relativity does not impose an upper limit to the speed of an object, it imposes an upper limit to the speed that I can measure of an object... for Newton's sake!!! it is not the same thing!!!, got it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-410639834352514872012-07-24T10:40:50.719+02:002012-07-24T10:40:50.719+02:00Ladies, gentlemen.
I thank you so much for your th...Ladies, gentlemen.<br />I thank you so much for your thoughts. I would ask you to consider, however, to approach scientific questions with scientific rigor and to approach questions of belief with adequate language. A mixup of 'feel, believe, infer, chatter' with a simulation or imitation of scientific terms - many of which you clearly have no understanding of - is of no use, if not for pure self-entertainment.<br />Please look into the mirror and ask yourself why it appears necessary for you to use a scientific debate as pretext to spill stultifying misappropriations of scientific terms.<br />This article asked for *theories* of consciousness - not for touchy-feely-opinions. We have enough of that. Opposite energies attract? Really? Do you have a clue what you are talking about? Nope, opposite energies do not attract. Energies do not attract at all. The fifth dimension? Try to find your path in 3 as a start.<br />'God particle' is a cool word for religioesque party-chatter, I know. But do you know where that phrase comes from?<br />No, you don't.<br />You see you are getting my pulse up. Not enough that you feel the urge to display complete ignorance of the field, approach or meaning of science. You also vulgarize religion and belief.<br />What for?<br />It looks extremely narcissistic and egocentric to me.Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-5582323295144931442012-07-23T19:29:00.772+02:002012-07-23T19:29:00.772+02:00NAIK SAYS - Well said- turn to Upanishads for clue...NAIK SAYS - Well said- turn to Upanishads for clues and answers. Conscious is universal, it should be not limited to this galaxy and therefore must be infinite in its existence in the matter, space or the so called god particle. Existence comes due to attraction of opposite energies. There must be a reason for this attraction of energies. Then there must be conscious in those energies. Well the 5th dimension conscious theories goes on to till the mind perceives it at its three dimensional level - July 23 2012 22:56 Hyderabad, IndiaSATYANARAYANA NAIKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10681526623811839942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-85313671427228464872012-07-19T22:21:03.059+02:002012-07-19T22:21:03.059+02:00is it possible to have a theory no one can come up...is it possible to have a theory no one can come up with on as yet. I think like this ... what am i ? A concious life form not like animals but intelligent. My body is made of the stuff of the Universe. The Universe grows of itself from the big bang creating itself. Ignoring how the Universe got here i say the Universe is creating itself so i must be created.Evolution is survival of the fittest and this does not apply to the Universe.Why should it apply to me? Conciousness is not explained by evolution man finds it a mystery. When we have a mystery we have an answer to it somewhere.I think conciousness is the reason the Universe came about and why we are here. Something Intelligent is creating more intelligence and when we see billions of Galaxies we see the purpose of our design is from this will.Why is the Universe so damn big? Whats the point? Also other life has to be out there otherwise intelligence of design is wasting space and time.You ask for a theory but the answer is a mystery. When will we know the answer is the question.We can only think of the answers that really count when we come to the end of our discoveries. Because we are at the pinnacle were we can go no more. Now we can only invent for the benefit of mankind.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08632411826580233894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-76747163434276576382012-07-07T15:32:31.298+02:002012-07-07T15:32:31.298+02:00Hi there, Carsten! Good post again...
"Chicke...Hi there, Carsten! Good post again...<br />"Chicken science" is great a word! And it pictures a threat by, amongst others, commercial expectations and pressures, but also relates to one's own assertive (and creative) "potential to dare" in one's work... it names the Anti-Vision; similar one perhaps could call it: Anti-Science (against the spirit, "Just don't make a wrong move"??), or "Bureaucratic Science" ;-) (including e.g. "Don't refer to or even integrate other disciplines - you'll not be able to handle that risk - which it is, of course).Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-45881880184494223862012-05-02T18:59:10.325+02:002012-05-02T18:59:10.325+02:00Hi Carsten, don't forget that if you test a hy...Hi Carsten, don't forget that if you test a hypothesis or generate one, you also have to have a theory if you don't want to measure something and then drawing speculative conclusions just driven by pure empiry. Theoretical background, the context of others' findings or at least a simple, but plaubible model why something happens empirically are needed to make results non-arbitrary in interpretation, leave alone to make some progress in knowledge.<br /><br />Well, your critique is plausible, while on the other hand, it might be science to start from such a vague, non-localised phenomenon as conscience in the criticised text IF this is appropriate to the research question or hypothesis, saying if something like that WOULD exist. Because it could be of sci interest for media research, reception theory etc. to get to know how that phenomenon works, functions, only - while a physician indeed would prefer to get to know WHERE in the human body this center of such phenomena is situated, e.g. to make invasive action, like with substances, possible...<br />Rests the interesting question: What is science (and not only looking at Popper)? What's different, better and weaker compared to other "methods" of gaining knowledge, usable knowledge, gratification etc. (see also essays, lyrics, literature, arts, journalism...)Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-71831094235887613432012-03-26T23:20:14.482+02:002012-03-26T23:20:14.482+02:00Mmh I think we drift into two separate topics: One...Mmh I think we drift into two separate topics: One, the role and use of metaphors for creating and mediating knowledge. Two, Selection. I first did not get what you meant with "old-fashioned" and "no, it's about selection", but now (hopefully) got, you mean this reading down. Well this of course is just one of many measures to speak to the audience (with the advantage of news value "personalisation", and with disadvantages). No, I wanted to stress the use of not-only-rationally-appealing metaphors. The other point is clear, more or less self-evident: that selection took place, and now has to take place, as I said, under conditions of exploding information quantity and quality. Yes, quality, too, (in absolute terms) albeit hidden in a much higher rise in quantity. So selection of course, the seduction and question in one we have to face is: How?<br />Because it is not only that in a kind of democratic publishing, there are amounts of accessible material you can use - even on your special field of knowledge - but: *there are also amounts of really good accessible material you can use! * And that makes it more difficult to select and more seductive to at least "take a look" for our procedures of looking out, exposure, selection, processing/evaluating (and consequent behaviour, if one likes). We have to adapt, of course by becoming stricter in our selection criteria, perhaps by rearranging these critera, or by a new way of handling the information plus, making it less time-consuming, but at the same time allowing for wider nets between information, topics, allowing for better comparison. So, it is not just: select, which already did the neandertalensis, but it is to adapt selection und really new conditions.Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-48427177095264995772012-03-26T17:17:46.979+02:002012-03-26T17:17:46.979+02:00'In principle yes'. A metaphor could do so...'In principle yes'. A metaphor could do so much to stimulate imagination. But in this case it sounds so familiar: the memories of the 'good old times', when things were supposedly so much better.<br />No, it is just a filter-mechanism. <br />In the past the filter was essentially: cost of publication. It simply cost you to publish a book and to spread your very personal nonsense. But did that warrant higher quality?<br />If you visit a library - do you really read everything that crosses your path? Don't you have your corners, your network of titles, authors, experts, jokers... that helps you through the chaos?<br />Today you can put anything out in the wild within seconds (some even demand 'every academic should be blogging' :P ).<br />But nobody will read it, seriously. The author has to put effort into being found, being read, being quoted.<br />It is simply not true that all the content out there is flooding us. It is a background-noise. Standing out might even be more difficult than before.<br />My recommendation to prevent obesity stands: don't swallow all!Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-4328005887615755452012-03-26T15:52:58.669+02:002012-03-26T15:52:58.669+02:00Well, as a pro for metaphors and their non-"c...Well, as a pro for metaphors and their non-"cute" ;-) but heuristic power of giving more *intense* insights (not solely narrowed on ratio as human perception ability): One could, first, also think of other aspects of that obesity image, like not only how many calories burnt - btw, you didn't tell at all what that means relating to information - but also which kind of information, which kind of food gives essential assets, nourishing to one while at the same time not turning you that fat... (quality side).<br />To go on further, let me transpose a striking extended metaphor from environmental economics / material and energy flow accounting (incl. energy inputs of a national economy, substance outputs to the environment (like CO2) and the flows between e.g. econ. branches.<br />This is also called "industrial metabolism", pointing at questions like: material inputs to industry always equals (sooner or later) the output masses, and if you consider permanent growth, you are tracking the problem...<br />What about now the fruitfulness (this is no rhethoric question) of an "information metabolism" - and sicknesses here of people because the offered "food" has quantitatively (qualitatively?) "exploded". Focus, selection is clearly needed (and ever was used), but HOW to? What are the new(?) or stricter criteria to select and process adequately, and what does it has to do with the *output* side of this metaphor (productivity? happiness? relating to specific *inputs*, qual. and quant.y?)<br />So, perhaps there is more in these metaphors than just a visual equivalent to the word's direct denotation, also, because powerful images with some more degrees of freedom for one's imagination may stir this (scientific etc.) imagination...Sandor Ragalyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02979522367492844008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-33645559946380840912012-03-19T08:33:59.420+01:002012-03-19T08:33:59.420+01:00I would rather go with the hamster. I still haven&...I would rather go with the hamster. I still haven't gotten over the stigma of a rat that ran through my feet when I was young.bed bug exterminatorhttp://www.eliminexpestcontrol.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-50793514191054299712012-03-14T11:48:04.455+01:002012-03-14T11:48:04.455+01:00"Know what you write", on the other hand..."Know what you write", on the other hand, is a very much correct (and sadly underestimated) principle, especially in science communication.Fischerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06059600037440742026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-36522634763441895082012-02-28T22:39:05.464+01:002012-02-28T22:39:05.464+01:00I regard the blog as a means to complement academi...I regard the blog as a means to complement academic communication, talking about certain things quicker, differently, more efficiently than I can do in most other academic forms of publication.<br /><br />Especially for social sciences, the borders between research and reality (i.e. the social environment outside the academic life) are very fluid - and a blog (for some content) or Twitter (for other content) are perfect means to cross the border forth and back or to help to translate from one side of the border to the other.Ronhttp://polscieu.ideasoneurope.eunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-331239124855707080.post-18822654879612797142012-02-28T17:50:16.006+01:002012-02-28T17:50:16.006+01:00Hi Josef,
you know that we agree widely in our vie...Hi Josef,<br />you know that we agree widely in our view on science-communication.<br />Does it look like I want to erect a wall between scientists and the public?! That should never happen!<br />Again, I am refering to that blog-post that I quote in the very beginning of my rant.<br />First of all I don't believe that communication *between scientists* via blogs and tweets is 'the new paradigm of research'. <br />Secondly the authors press the point that speed of communication is of essence - and they are willing to sacrifice quality for that. I would never do that. <br />Third - those are my final two paragraphs - science-communication (to the untrained public) has to be done very carefully, engaged, skilled. This needs quite some effort. Giving the impression that it is enough to be an academic, to do research, to fire up a wordpress blog and to type some tweets is wrong.<br />The more skilled people we have who engage in meaningful, complex science-communication the better. <br />But don't you agree that we see more scientoid babble in blogs than virtuous science-'translation'?<br />I still believe that is a good idea to have science-journalists who are trained in communication and trained in getting scientists to talk ( :-) ).Carsten Huchohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08861377889894216646noreply@blogger.com