- No Recommendations yet - go add some!
- @Sidola I actually saw that as an answer in a quiz in a math book I read through some years ago.
- Auggh... the quote at the end, "And we've got our programming, which is that we'll stare anything right in the eyes and say 'Hey! Let's connect, even if what's behind those eyes is a camera or a chip." couldn't be more true. I've been talking to Cleverbot to pass the time lately, and I can confirm that a lot of what it says is gibberish, but nonetheless I always rate it highly when the pop-up comes up just for the few times that it seems i'm talking to a person, because those few times are pretty incredible.
- The thing is so small... how do you make it perform such complex tasks? I mean, gears can only get so small. What I really find cool is not only did the clockmaker make the figurine move with such semi-lifelike movements, but he performed a sequence of actions. How can you program that into a space so small with the technology of the day? That monk really was a miracle.
- This is another case where the science provided by Radiolab blows my mind. In both parts of this segment. The seemingly random affects of molecule flipping, and the psychology of faces. The latter, I think, is a real puzzle, and there are as many explanations for it as there are people trying to explain it. One explanation that I thought of is that a person may read someone's face like a book (left to right) and we therefore pay attention more to the left side if we just glance at someone's face like we would every day. A careless glance at a face could be subconsciously biased towards the left side, since we never really have enough time to observe the face in detail. Or, even if we do concentrate on a face, we may still be biased towards the left. And it may be that a hair part trumps hair all the way across in subconscious appeal. Granted, there were a lot of maybes in my explanation, but the theory is backed up, if nothing else, by Scott Higgins's observation about Abe's face being deformed on the right. If you look at his face, you can see that the right side is more lumpy and ugly-looking, but it really doesn't matter until we see Abe flipped. Again, just a theory.
- I would like to just point out that this segment made it sound like it was the park ranger's suggestion that lead to his cutting down of the tree... shouldn't they take some of the blame? Also, I think Katie's question should also be drawn to attention here as another sign of overly harsh accusations toward him. I think the story may have been just a tad blown up.
- I listened to the Reggie Watts segment over and over... it's just hilarious.
- @HunterJE The show IS about science. Science is an exploration of truth. While I do believe that the forces discussed in this segment weren't real, science is about the exploration of truth, and therefore addressing the possibility that something is real, truthful and what not. However, having written stories for school projects, I can see how one could be convinced that this is real and how it could work, though i also think it's wrong. I think the notion should be treated like how Sherry explains in the "Talking to Machines" episode: "Knowing it was a machine, but using it as an occasion to breathe life into it in order to get their feelings out." However, in this situation you have "Knowing it's not real, but using it as an occasion to breathe truth into it in order to get the words out." That way, a writer can live between the two worlds and the two thoughts.
- In the philosophical argument towards the end of the Furbie segment, I side with Caleb for the same reasons. I don't like how Jad explained the deal though, so here are the aforementioned reasons in my own words:
First, think about computers. Silicon chips on circuit boards sending pulses of electricity through wires and minuscule transistors. Then, think about brains. Throbbing clumps of tissue sending chemical and electrical signals through intricate webs of neurons. The human brain may be more complicated than a computer, but silicon or carbon, they both run on the same principle; manipulating matter and energy to solve problems and perform tasks. How, then, can one be more limited? As much as we might think (or wish) so, emotions, feelings, personalities and thoughts are not some mystical substance or entity that can only emerge out of an authentic and "truly alive" mind. Emotions and thoughts are simply complex chemical and electrical signals transmitted throughout the neurons in our head. Computers can do that, no matter how complex. He's not saying that "If it's simulated well enough, it's something like love," rather that if it's simulated well enough, if you think about it logically and scientifically, it is undeniably no different from love.
