A special class of tiny gold particles can easily slip through cell membranes, making them good candidates to deliver drugs directly to target cells.

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/gold-nanoparticles-may-be-useful-for-delivering-drugs-0721#.U9EzQvmpmi0.google_plusone_share

Read moreShow less

More than glitter

newsoffice.mit.edu

Scientists explain how gold nanoparticles easily penetrate cells, making them useful for delivering drugs.

Not a bad overview.  One problem, for me:  he points out Dennett's "consciousness is an illusion" approach, without asking the obvious question,  "But what's experiencing the illusion?"  He does make a postulate I agree with, however:  not consciousness per se, but the sentience which I call "the experiencer" exists as something fundamental in the universe, permeating all mass-energy (and probably space-time), but only "emerging" in situations where information content and processing (brains of any sort) is complex enough.Read moreShow less

Russ Abbott originally shared:

 

David Chalmers on consciousness.

This was a surprisingly disappointing talk. Chalmers created the notion of the "hard problem of consciousness" -- what subjective experience is and how it comes about.  In this talk, though, he goes off in strange directions. He starts by talking about consciousness as a movie playing in your head. But for a movie to be of any value, there must be a viewer of the movie. I'm sure Chalmers is not endorsing a homunculus theory of consciousness, but his analogy is. The problem, of course, is that if there were a homunculus watching the movie in your brain, what explains its experience of the movie.

Chalmers then went on to say that the real problem with the study of consciousness is that we don't know why it exists. Why aren't we all robots, he asked. That my be a useful question, but it's not the hard problem of consciousness, which is how consciousness comes about, not why it exists. He asks the "why" question again when he talks about the weakness of work studying the correlation between experience and brain components. Why does this component lead to this experience. Again, the question isn't why; it's how -- although in this case one might assume that that's what he meant.

Chalmers goes on to criticize the view that we may understand consciousness after more research, that it will be an "emergent phenomenon" like a traffic jam. His criticism is that all emergent phenomenon are about behavior and that consciousness is not about behavior. Problems with this argument are (a) emergence isn't just about behavior and (b) saying that something is "emergent" is saying much at all.  It's not clear to me that this digression on emergence amounted to anything. Chalmers then goes back to asking the "why" question, which again, is off track.

Chalmers says is a scientific materialist and that he spent a long time looking for a scientific explanation of consciousness. He has concluded that there will be no scientific explanation. He argues that this failure of science means requires that we must consider radical ideas. He then goes on to discuss what he calls two crazy ideas.

The two ideas are that consciousness is fundamental and that everything has some aspect of consciousness, i.e., panpsychism. I think this is worth considering. I wish he had something more informative to say about it though. His suggestion is that perhaps it's all related to information processing. Chalmers goes on to praise Tononi's phi theory, which has to do with the integration of information. For a discussion of Tononi, look at Aaronson's post here (http://goo.gl/ynW4xf), which also points to an earlier post.

Chalmers ends by suggesting a panpsychist perspective leads to questions about the ethics of turning off computer systems and whether groups such as countries are conscious. But then he backs away from those issues.

All-in-all a disappointing talk unless you've never heard of panpsychism. But in that case, it would have been better to make a stronger case for it or for consciousness being fundamental.

via +Lucas Glover 

Read more (58 lines)Show less

David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness?

 

Almost all dinosaurs were probably covered in feathers, Siberian fossils of a tufted, two-legged running dinosaur dating from roughly 160 million years ago suggest.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140724-feathered-siberia-dinosaur-scales-science/?utm_source=GooglePlus&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_gp20140724news-dinosaur-feathers&utm_campaign=Content

Siberian Discovery Suggests Almost All Dinosaurs Were Feathered

news.nationalgeographic.com

A Siberian fossil of a new dinosaur species suggests most were probably feathered.

A pastiche of cute kids:

 

Some 70,000 years or so ago, modern humans apparently made their pilgrimage out of Africa, eventually colonizing the entire world and becoming, well, us.  At about the same time, Mount Togo in the Philippines in a massive super-volcano eruption, perhaps reducing those modern humans to about 5000 survivors.  Or so the story goes.  Here's possible some real, direct evidence of what was happening at that time.

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/07/2014/70000-year-old-african-settlement-unearthed

Read moreShow less

70,000 year-old African settlement unearthed

pasthorizonspr.com

During ongoing excavations in northern Sudan, Polish archaeologists have discovered the remains of a settlement estimated to 70,000 years old

 

People who object to Obamacare (I'm not one of them) are often challenged to come up with a better alternative.  I found this as just one alternative.  Judge for yourselves.

Abstract
Obamacare moves American health care in the wrong direction by eroding the doctor–patient relationship, centralizing control, and increasing health costs. True health care reform would empower individuals, with their doctors, to make their own health care decisions free from government interference. Therefore, Obamacare should be stopped and fully repealed. Then Congress and the states should enact patient-centered, market-based reforms that better serve Americans.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/after-repeal-of-obamacare-moving-to-patient-centered-market-based-health-care

(From Michael Shermer on Facebook):

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity—particularly diversity of viewpoints—for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: 1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years; 2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike; 3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking; and 4) The underrepresentation of nonliberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

As a Hymenopteran lover, I've delighted this week to find honey, sweat, and bumble bees in our backyard, cicada killer wasps looking for mates, and especially this bald-faced hornet (they're really wasps) nest hanging from the porch.  What a summer!

Read moreShow less

Get it, or get out.  Just kidding.

And my revised edition of the 2'nd Amendment:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free nation, the right of the people to self defense by necessary means shall not be denied.  Congress and the states will cooperate to regulate and support such militia and their facilities."

Read moreShow less

David Strumfels's photos

 

The free market is not a moral mechanism, and was never seriously promoted as one by its founders. It is simply the best way to get competing/cooperating interests to work best to build the overall economy. But as a moral force, it is as devoid of life as Social Darwinism (or even true Darwinism at that) was, and using it that way just a rationalization for inhumanity. Even the preamble to the US Constitution declares "... to Provide for the Common Welfare ...". Of course, big government is not the preferred way to deal with needy and unfortunate in our society; but if we don't want to go that route we have to come up with better alternatives that will still (probably) involve government to some degree but allow market forces to work where appropriate. To me, I see Obamacare as just one attempt to do exactly that; and I'll back that position up by noting it's similarity to Republican plans (Romenycare in MA?) along the same lines.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/26/bill-maher-big-business-big-government_n_5623418.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000018&ir=Media

Read more (15 lines)Show less

'Big Business IS The New Big Government'

The Huffington Post

OK, I've been touting the coming solar energy revolution as a natural by-product of the computer revolution, in it's post but parallel emergence from materials science/chemistry/physics, both in converting raw solar to electricity and in storage technologies.  And I don't think I'm going to abandon that over one article, especially one that includes the same whopping big logical fallacy all solar-deniers (if I can use that term) make:  the fallacy that proclaims the computer revolution didn't happen because it's too expensive and difficult to keep changing those damned vacuum tubes.  But I've also learned that one ignores economists at one's peril.  So, without further introduction, here is ...

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21608646-wind-and-solar-power-are-even-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

Read more (11 lines)Show less

Sun, wind and drain

The Economist

SUBSIDIES for renewable energy are one of the most contested areas of public policy. Billions are spent nursing the infant solar- and wind-power industries in the...

 

A little more perspective.  Gaza is about 175 square miles and contains some 1.8 million inhabitants -- that's about 10,000 per square mile, the equal of any major city in the world in size and density.  It is also basically walled off and blockaded anywhere you turn.  In addition, it is heavily populated with people who have already provided rationalizations for violence.  I understand the reasons this was done, and Israel's security needs, but there is no way this is anything other than a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse.  All parties involved have to come up with something better.  Hamas, IDF -- unshoulder your weapons and deal with this impossible situation.  To my country (the US), the EU, and all surrounding nations:  all must be involved in unweaving this most interlocking and tangled of webs before catastrophe happens.

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html

Read more (11 lines)Show less

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1870148,00.html

One can talk of a Right to health care as stemming from the DOI rights to life and the pursuit of happiness.  At the same time, health care providers have the same right to liberty.  I am all in favor of using markets to meet these rights to the extent they can, but if that's all we have, too many fall through the cracks.  So I find the logic behind Obamacare sound, even if the applications of it need tweaking and revisiting.  Socialized healthcare (like socialized police and fire protection) has its merits, but might be too heavy-handed to work well in the US.  Gosh, I guess I'm admitting I really don't know.  But let's working on the problem.

Read moreShow less

Foundation for Economic Education originally shared:

 

"Talk of 'rights' is just a rhetorical game progressives play to get the policies they want (usually a single payer system). But talk of 'rights' does nothing for the goal of actually figuring out how to get people reasonable access to the healthcare they need. To do that, we have to deal directly with the problems of affordability (as in the United States) or with the perverse consequences of rationing (as in Canada). The disastrous rollout of Obamacare just might stimulate a serious, widespread discussion of these options for the first time."

Read moreShow less

#14 - Healthcare Is a Right : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

 

There's an old saw about how we need liberals to come up with new ideas and solutions to problems, but we need conservatives to make these ideas work in practice.  There used to be some truth in that.  I'm not sure there is anymore.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/26/conservatives-societal-change-comes-best-individuals-government/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Read moreShow less

Conservatives: Societal Change Comes Best From Individuals, Not Government

dailysignal.com

Pew Research released a study of Americans' political beliefs, dividing them into seven categories from "steadfast conservatives" to "solid liberals."

Charles Darwin (if anyone believes Jacob Bronowski and Richard Dawkins) was a Victorian-era gentleman who held the racial views of his time and culture. He clearly did not believe in equality of races, but then neither did Lincoln and virtually everyone else; only Darwin's co-discoverer of Evolution by Natural Selection, Alfred Russell Wallace, rejected the racist views of his day. Paradoxically, this caused him to reject Darwinism as a theory of human evolution, which is one of the reasons why he doesn't have the fame Darwin has acquired. If you enjoy historic irony (as I do), you will find this delightful.

ALL OF WHICH has nothing to do with Darwin's main theories, the discoveries in genetics made during his time (poor Mendel in his overlooked abbey) and after (de Vries in 1901 rediscovering Mendel and making him famous at last), or any of the truckloads of fossil and other evidence from other fields that prove Neo-Darwinism true beyond any rational doubt.Read more (14 lines)Show less

David Strumfels's photos

 

Oh when may reason and fact prevail?
It tries so hard, to no avail.
But fools use both bucket and pail
To provide all lies, both old and stale.

If peace is sought, it will succeed,
If not as swiftly as we need.
Both sides must join to stop the fight
Or there can never be right just might.

Lay down your arms, I beseech you all,
Or death will continue to appall,
Till one day you count up all your dead
And find not one whole heart or head.

Justice will only be for those who heed
The call for peace we desperately need.
Rockets, bombs, and guns shall cease,
And the day come we all want peace.

Read more (15 lines)Show less

David Strumfels's photos

Just over 90 years ago a discovery was made that started a fascinating journey exploring human evolution in Africa. The Broken Hill skull was the first early human fossil to be found in Africa and evidence suggests it probably represents the species that we, Homo sapiens, descended from.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-early-human-fossil-africa-debut.html#jCp

Read moreShow less

First early human fossil found in Africa makes debut

Phys.org

Interesting article.  We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power.  I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved).  Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism.  If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.

I can't agree with Figure II's details.  GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well.  This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.

Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam.  That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people.  And phrases like,  "global meltdown"  really are misleading

Interesting article.  We should not underestimate advances in CO2 sequestration, or modest increases in nuclear and hydroelectric power.  I'm more optimistic about renewable energies growth in the coming decades than the authors however (think computer revolution over the last 30 years; very similar science and technology are involved).  Add to this improvements in energy efficiency (as has been happening steadily for decades), substitution of natural gas (with sequestration) for coal, and there is yet more cause for optimism.  If we can meet a goal of keeping CO2 levels =< 500 PPM, a 1 - 1.5 temperature rise is within possibility.

I can't agree with Figure II's details.  GW will not only shift the temperature curve, but should broaden it as well.  This means extreme warm events will increase and the opposite decrease, but there will still be plenty (and more, albeit) of both.

Oh, please don't use pictures of cooling towers emitting plumes of steam.  That has nothing to do with CO2 or warming (even ST plants have them), and can only confuse people.  And phrases like,  "global meltdown"  really are misleading

Read more (16 lines)Show less

Ron Dobbs originally shared:

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/185336-carbon-neutrality-has-failed-now-our-only-way-out-of-global-warming-is-to-go-carbon-negative

Comments such as "global warming is adding four million Hiroshima bombs to the globe everyday" are so absurd they should deserve no comment.  But it's apparently necessary.  Contemplate how much total heat the atmosphere possesses; enough to rise it from -273C (absolute zero if there were no sun) to ~15C average today. That's 288 total degrees for the entire atmosphere, or (I'm neglecting phase changes, which add more energy to the equation).  Now, the addition of (0.8C/century)/(century/100 years)(year/365 days) = 2.192e-5C/day of the total atmospheric energy added to the planet every day.  If that's 4 million atomic bombs, then those four million (Hiroshima sized) bombs increases the atmosphere's energy only by 0.002192% each day.  Of course if a day is unusually hot, say 10C hotter, then that is (10.00/2.192e-5C) X 4 million bombs = 1.8 trillion Hiroshima bombs to produce that extra heat (far, far, far larger than the entire Earth's nuclear arsenals).  And that is nothing compared the heat of the whole atmosphere.

It's just a scare mechanism.  And putting it terms of nuclear weapons (which it has nothing to do with) just nails in the terror.  And worse, if anything, it has the opposite effect.  Global warming and climate change should be talked about -- to the public -- soberly, responsibly, and with as much scientific explanation as the public can handle.  The doubts and problems should be admitted.  PR campaigns, falsehoods, one-sided presentations, exaggerations, and ads like the above will only be seen as they are, leading to further resistance.