Freaky optical illusion

Stare at the center of this moving spiral optical illusion for about 30 seconds, then look at your hand.

The power of the unexpected

The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Obedience to Authority

This is yet another classical psychology experiment. It shows how far most poeple are ready to go when they are in a situation where authority exists. They feel easily relieved of their moral responsability and become able to perform the worst acts. 

The Standford Prison Experiment

For those of you who haven't seen this video yet, it is a must see to get an glimpse at the dark side of our human nature.

Electronic Voting without the risk of fraud!

I do not like electronic voting because it lacks the possibility of democratic control. Who understands how the computer and software used to collect and analyse the votes works? How can we be sure that everything goes well, without clever fraud? Until recently I was against it but not anymore after having seen the following video:

Good ideas exists to make electronic voting safe, anonymous and transparent

Démocratie 2.0 (Democracy 2.0)

L’idée derrière le mot « démocratie » est de donner au peuple la possibilité de choisir la politique menée par sa patrie. Donner la possibilité à chaque citoyen de voter chaque élément de ladite politique serait selon moi le système collant le plus fidèlement possible à l’idéal démocratique. Utopique ? Jusqu’il y a seulement encore dix ou quinze ans, oui, un tel système aurait put paraître utopique mais internet à changé la donne. La possibilité de permettre à chaque citoyen de s’exprimer directement sur chaque proposition de loi existe bel et bien. Un site web et un accès sécurisé à l’aide de notre carte d’identité électronique est tout ce qui est nécessaire pour rendre un tel système possible. C’est techniquement faisable. Souhaitable ? Un tel système n’est pas sans problèmes potentiels. En Belgique par exemple ou il existe en fait deux communautés assez polarisés, il est clair que la plus importante en nombre aurait vite fait d’imposer ses idées à la minorité. De plus, les hommes politiques ayant pas mal de pouvoir y perdre, aucune chance de voir un jour un parti prônant la fin de la démocratie représentative et le début de la démocratie directe. Par contre, il me semble inévitable de voir un jour l’apparition d’un parti dont le programme serait le direct résultat de l’opinion de ses membres. Non, pas un programme concocté par un petit groupe, programme que les membres du parti doivent accepter ou rejeter dans son entièreté, mais bien un programme dont chaque point serait le résultat d’un vote. Pour prendre un exemple concret, imaginez la situation suivante : Le parti poste sur son site web un referendum demandant à ses membres de s’exprimer sur la question suivante : êtes-vous pour ou contre l’interdiction de fumer dans les lieux publics ? Chaque membre du parti pourrait alors votés, confortablement de chez lui, et ainsi avoir un impact direct sur la politique du parti dont il est membre. Les candidats d’un tel parti serait élu ou non en fonctions de leur capacité à représenter et à défendre l’opinion des membres. Le site web du parti pourrait présenter des argumentaires pour et contre, pourrait informer ses membres des enjeux et proposer des forums de discussion sur les points du programme ouvert ou bientôt ouvert au vote. Personnellement, cela m’intéresserait déjà beaucoup plus à la politique. Je pense également qu’un tel parti ferait un carton. Ce serait la démocratie 2.0. Alors, qui se lance ? 

    

Democracy 2.0
The idea behind the word "democracy" is to give the people the opportunity to choose the policy of their country. To provide an opportunity for every citizen to vote each element of that policy would be in my opinion sticking as closely as possible to the democratic ideal. Utopian? Ten of fifteen years ago, yes, such a system could have seemed utopian but the internet has changed it all. The ability to enable every citizen to express his views directly for each political topic does exist. A website and secure access using an electronic identity card (as already available in Belgium) is all what is needed to make such a system possible. It is technically feasible. Desirable? Such a system is not without potential problems. In Belgium, for example, where there are actually two communities quite polarized, it is clear that the largest number would soon impose its ideas on the minority. In addition, politicians have a lot of power to lose with such a system and it is not tomorrow that we will see a party advocating the end of representative democracy and the beginning of direct democracy. By cons, it seems inevitable that one day a party will be created whose agenda would be the direct result of the opinions of its members. No, not a program written by a small group that members of the party must accept or reject in its entirety, but a program in which each point is the result of a vote. To take a concrete example, imagine the following situation: The party post on its website a referendum asking its members to speak on the following question: Are you in favor or against the ban on smoking in public places? Each party member would then cast votes, comfortably from home, and thus have a direct impact on the party policy to which he belongs. Candidates for such a party would be elected on basis of their ability to represent and defend the members' choices. The party's website could present arguments in favor and against any topic on the agenda, could inform its members of issues and provide forums for discussion. Personally, I would be interested by such a system. I also think that such a party would do a buzz. This would be democracy 2.0. So who starts?

  

Joke of the day. I mean the year. I mean of the last 14 billion years!

Do you know why I call my wife "Miss Universe" ?






Because she just keeps on expending!

(just joking sweety! You are just perfect and age has no effect on you!)

Hans Rosling's new insights on poverty | Video on TED.com

Here is an excellent way to visualize the situation::


Hans Rosling's new insights on poverty Video on TED.com

After having seen this video, you might want to play yourselve with his tools:

http://www.gapminder.org/

Die Antwoord: Enter The Ninja

I like the butterfly who needs my protection ;-)

Halal meat

We in Belgium can be proud of our tolerance. Halal food is clearly a progress. We are still lucky that we do not have Aztecs in our country otherwise we would soon tolerate ritual human sacrifices or wouldn't we? Muslim friends, are you sure that Muhammad would not have used the stunner if it was available to him at that time?
It seems that for some religious people, once things have been put on paper in holly scripture, it cannot be altered anymore. Doesn't that represent a serious hindrance for any progress? Why do you think Allah would be unhappy if he did not get his service of animal suffering?
Am I missing something?

There was also recently news of a new halal kriek "sultane". Since nobody suffers unnecessarily in the process (and since I actually like better alcohol-free beers ;-) ), I say why not.

Book Review: Consciousness Explained (Daniel C. Dennet) (Part III: his method)

This is a continuation of part II

In his book, Dennett decides to rely only on what can be observed and recorded by an external observer of the conscious being. He does not wish to rely on introspection at all. Why this? Because he thinks (rightly to my opinion) that we are much less knowledgeable about our inner world than we think.

When asked, people will tend to think that their visual field is uniformly detailed and focused from the centre out to the boundaries. The following experience demonstrates otherwise:

Take a deck of playing cards and remove one card in such a way that you do not know what is on the card. Now close your eyes, turn the card so that it faces in your direction and place the card at the left periphery of your visual field. Now, when you will open your eyes, keep your focus on a point situated straight in front of you. Now open your eyes and, without stopping to stare at said point, try to guess which card it is. The amazing thing is that you cannot even say if it is a red or a black card! However, you can very well see that there is something there and if you move your hand a bit, you are totally seeing said something moving too. Now start slowly moving the card toward the centre of your visual field while keeping you gaze fixed right in front of you. You will be amazed to notice that the card really need to be damned close to the centre of your visual field before that you can even tell its colour or if it is a queen or king!

The Known Universe

Awesome video. Thanks to http://logideauniversity.blogspot.com/ for the link.

For all people with a brain between two ears!

Wanna listen to something interesting in your car on your way to work? Wanna know about the last news in brain science? Then visist the brain science podcast!

Book review: Consciousness Explained (Daniel C. Dennett) (part II: A party game called psychoanalysis)

I continue here my review started earlier.

This book is well worthreading can be obtained here.

  

3. A party game called psychoanalysis

Here, Dennett introduces us to a funny party game and argues that perception mights have the structure of this game.

The game works as follow:

1. Explain to the group that one person (the victim) will have to leave the group while another person (the dreamer) will have to explain his last dream to the rest of the group. Upon his return the dreamer will have to ask questions to guess what was the dream and who was the dreamer
2. Ask the victim to leave the room,
3. To the others, explain that the dreamer will have to answer all questions of the victim only by yes or no and according to a pre-defined scheme; for instance, the dreamer should answer "yes" if the question finishes with a vowel and "no" if it finishes with a consonent (or any other such arbitrary rule). Introduce also a rule, overruling the first one, imposing that the dreamer may not contradict himself,
4. Ask the victim to come back in the group and let him start asking his questions,
5. Once the victim "found" the dream (e.g. the dream was about a jaleous elephant with PZ Myers on its back entering the bedroom of the dreamer while he was playing monopoly with god) and guessed who had the dream, explain him how the dream was generated and explain him that said dream was actually purely the product of his (the victim) own brain and of a random process. Hence, joke that it is actually the reflection of the victim's own subconscient.

Dennett proposes the following parrallel between this game and the brain:

A part of the brain asks questions and these questions are answered on the basis of the data collected (by the eye for instance). By going back and forth in this process, the perception is refined, objects are identified, recognized, categorized.

For an hallucination to happen, all we need is to have the question asking part of the mind performing normally and to have a random or disorder or arbitrary sequence of yes and no as answers.

In the game, the questions asked by the victim's mind was supposed to reflect his current expectations, obsessions, worries,... Hallucinations are usually related in their content to the current concerns of the victim.

Hallucinations are the normal result of prolonged sensory deprivation. Indeed, the mind keep asking questions to the senses but get no answers, no input above the usual threshold for a nerve signal to be considered a valid input. As a result, the mind starts to lower the treshold until he gets some inputs. However, since there is no input at all but only the background noise, the mind need to lower the treshold so much that he ends up receiving said background noise. Hence, the brain recieves random answers to his questions.

These hallucinations start weak and grow stronger. This could also explain the origin of dreams...

What Freud´s theory of dreams says is that “something” in our mind is composing a dream for the benefits of our ego but disguises the true meaning of it. This, according to Dennett (and to me) is pure bullshit.

Skeptic's annoted holly books

The skeptic's annoted bible and coran and book of mormons is a unique very well organized source to find easily the best and more often the worst of these "holly" books. Enjooy!

How to study efficiently? All the relevant science here!

For all learners, teachers and parents out there! The learning strategies database is a great website to optimize your learning/teaching!

Book review: Consciousness Explained (Daniel C. Dennett) (part I: The brain in the vat)

Daniel C. Dennett is a proponent of consilience. He is trained as a philosopher and is the director of the center for cognitive studies at Tufts University. He is an interesting fellow because he is very knowledgable in sciences like biology or computer sciences and he applies his scientific knowledge and methods to the unraveling of the deepest mysteries such as ...in this book...consciouness. Not less!

I am only half through the book but I think that it can only do me good to summarize what I thought interesting so far.




Prelude: How are hallucinations possible?
1.The brain in the vat and 2. pranksters in the brain

If you have seen "The matrix", you know what is meant by "brain in the vat". Some philosophers have argued that it is not possible to tell whether we are really out there interacting with the real world or if we are just brains in a bocal filled with nutritive fluid and fed with inputs simulating a world.

Dennet expresses the view that we could be brains in a vat only if we were not given exploratory power. Give us exploratory power, even very limited, and the number of possible worlds that the vat master must generate for us to still believe in the illusion of a real life becomes enormous. Literally, it is a combinatorial explosion. In a nutshell, to get the feeling of the real world, you NEED the real world if you have exploratory power.

à we are not brains in vats

àstrong hallucinations are impossible (they are similar also simulations of a world we really believe in).

The credibility of an hallucination is inversely proportional to the strength of an hallucination.

Nevertheless, convincing, multimodal hallucinations are frequently experienced.

Dennet goes on to explain that triggering the optic nerve anywhere between the eyeball and the brain could produce an hallucination and that people having an hallucination are often very passive in the face of the hallucination.

To give the person the illusion of being active, the "illusionist" (e.g. the vat master) must know in advance the exploratory intentions and decisions of the victim or induce them.

Here stop my review of the beginning of Dennett's book. The following interesting guy seems to think that strong hallucinations are commonplace:

Science can answer moral questions!

I fully agree with the idea that science has its word in morality. Science is the best guide we have. I however do not agree with Sam Harris's idea that we should strive to maximize sentient beings wellbeing or reduce sentient beings suffering. In my view, maximizing human wellbeing and reducing human beings suffering is a more proper goal but I am still quite open to debate this of course.

One of my favorite song ever: The rime of the ancient mariner (Iron Maiden)

A diet that works!

The following diet is easy to follow and is really working. It shall make you loose weight (if you are overweighted), increase your general fitness and make you live longer.

It is composed of an actual diat and of some physical exercices. Both have a synergetical effect and needs to be combined for optimal results althought one of both component alone would already benefit you.

Where did I get it from? It is largely inspired from the scientific litterature on the subject and from various books I read.

Why does it work? Because it mimiks the livestyle of hunter-gatherers.

 

These poeple are modern hunter-gatherers.  I.e. poeple living like we lived 10.000 + years ago, before agriculture. Do they look fat? Do they look weak?

We are the result of a darwinian evolution that extends back a billion year and hominids were living like hunter-gatheres for millions of years. Only recently did our diet and habits start to change. Our bodies and especially our metabolism did not have the time to adapt much at all! Only VERY recently did we not need to move anymore to make a living (the widespread use of cars is not much older thatn 60 years old). Only VERY recently did we start to eat refined sugar (present in Europe only since the crusaders brought it from Arabia in the 12th century) and only since less than 50 years do we eat that much sugar!

The actual diet:

1/physical exercices

You need to make sport a minimum of 4 times 30 minutes per week in order for your body to work in a "fat burning regime". Preferably, you should make sport 7 times 30 minutes per week. Which sport? If you are young and not overly overweighted (BMI* below 25), jogging is perfect. Have you ever seen a fat long distance runner? If you are older (50+) or overly overweighted you can start by walking fast.
The idea is to maintain yourself around a certain heartbeat which assures you that you sufficiently exercice your body but that you remain in a aerobic regime.
For this purpose, make the following test: run 10 minutes on a flat road making three steps/breath, then measure your heartbeat. This is the heartbeat you should try to maintain for 30 minutes.
Endurence weightlifting can replace running. For instance, make 6 series of 8 different exercices with 1 minute of rest between each series. The weights should be light enough for you to stand the complete 6 series.

2/actual diet

Eat whenever you want and as much as you want (no kidding), however: better to stick to three meals and to stop when you are not hungry anymore.
AVOID FAST SUGAR (and especially fructose contained a.o. in sucrose and high fructose syrop).

When you eat glucose, your brain can use part of it as fuel, your body can use it easily, your feeling of hunger diminish and if you eat too much of it (that is VERY quickly the case), your body produces the insuline necessary to bring you blood concentration in sugar back to BELOW the normal. That's why you feel so weak after sweets.
Around 20% of your calorie intakes from glucose will become FAT.

When you eat fructose, your brain cannot use it, your feeling of hunger is not diminished, your insuline protectino system is not triggered and 90% of your calorie intakes from fructose will become FAT.

Sucrose (i.e. common table sugar) contains 50% fructose and 50% glucose. The fat you make by eating sugar can only get rid off by physical exercises.

Avoid excess of fat, especially saturated fats. Try to eat wild animal which have a better balance omega3/omega6.

Eat mainly proteins. Soy beans and linces are excellent. Lean meat is good too. Only eat what a hunter gatherer could find, i.e. no corn flakes (check the composition, you will be surprised of the sugar content of standard corn flakes), no cookies, well...no processed food in general. Eat meat, fish, grains, fruits and vegetables. Fructose from fruits is in low dose and couple with very useful fibers and vitamines, don't be afraid of it.

Use slow sugars as an energy source. You may eat them as much as you want/need but mostly the morning and for lunch. You do not need energy to go to bed!

In a nutshell: exercice, eat no fast sugars aside from fruits, eat less fat, eat more proteins and do not eat too much fast/slow sugar the evening.

*BMI = your weight (Kg) divided by the square of your height (meters)   

What I think about free will (EN free translation)

I think we are machines, just like a virus or a bacteria is a machine build with molecules. This machine is built according to a program (our DNA), which is more or less well executed during pregnancy and our first years. The way the program unfolds varies slightly depending on the physical / chemical / biological environment in which we find ourselves during the nine months of gestation and for the next twenty years or so. When our central nervous system reaches a sufficiently developed state, our senses relay inputs to our brain. The latter analyzes these inputs and produces outputs. Factors that may influence the outputs are: 1) the machine (primarily the result of our DNA and of how its program was run) and 2) our past and present environment at large. I see no other possible influences, and I therefore see no room for free will. That having been said, we can say that it is "us" that make each of our decisions because it is "the machine that we are" that decides (even if the decision is totally dependent on the physical state of the machine and the inputs it received). It's like a chess computer that analyzes and weights several options to finally make the move which received the highest weighting. In this case also it is the "computer" that plays. The fact that he is conscious or not when he plays his move is irrelevant here. The computer would not have been able to play something else than what he has played given its program, its physical state and inputs. So I think there is no way for us to make another decision than the decision we took at a particular time given our "biology" and the inputs received at and before that time. Now, if some events occurring in our nervous system are of stochastic nature, multiple possible outputs for a given configuration may exist but this does not imply "free will" because the result of the stochastic process is random, i;e. not controlled. (For guenuine "free will" to be recognised, I think  a gueniuine control, not determined by the machine should exist. If the machine is in control, the result of said control is determined by its genes and its environment. If the result is not "determined" but is stochastic, the machine is not in control. In both cases, no free will.) That's basically what I think about free will.

Giant Stinson Beach Bubbles (Canon 550D)

Nice!

The evolution of religions

Like always, Jared Diamond provides us with the finest analysis on his subject

Noir Désir - Marlène

Musical pause.

Free will - Libre arbitre

Un résumé de ma pensée sur le sujet. I will translate in English one of these days.

Je pense que nous sommes des machines, au même titre que l´est un virus ou une bactérie. Cette machine est construite suivant un programme (nos gènes), programme qui est plus ou moins bien exécuté pendant la gestation et nos premières années. L´exécution varie légèrement en fonction de l´environnement physique/chimique/biologique dans le quel nous nous trouvons pendant ces neufs mois là et pendant encore une vingtaine d´année après. Dès que notre système nerveux central atteint un stade de développement suffisant, nos sens relaye des inputs vers notre cerveau. Ce dernier traites ces inputs et éventuellement produits des outputs. Les facteurs qui peuvent influencer les outputs sont donc: 1) la machine (principalement nos gènes et la manière dont leur programme a été exécuté) et 2) notre environnement passé et présent au sens large. Je ne vois aucune autre influence possible et je ne vois donc aucune place pour un libre arbitre. Ceci dit on peut dire que c´est « nous » qui décidons car c´est bien la machine qui décide même si sa décision est totalement conditionnée par son état et les inputs reçus. C´est un peu comme un ordinateur d´échec qui analyse et pondère plusieurs options pour finalement jouer le coup qui a reçu la pondération la plus élevée. Dans ce cas la c´est bien l´ « ordinateur » qui joue. Le fait qu´il soit conscient ou pas au moment où il joue son coup est ici irrelevant. L´ordinateur n´aurait pas put jouer autre chose que ce qu´il a jouer au vu de son programme, de son état physique et des inputs. Je pense donc qu´il n´y a pas moyen pour nous de prendre une autre décision que la décision que nous avons prise `a un moment donné au vu de notre « biologie » et des inputs reçus à et avant ce moment là. Maintenant, si des événement stochastiques interviennent dans notre système nerveux, les outputs possibles pour une configuration donnée pourrait être multiples mais pas pour autant résultant de ce « free will » car non controllé. (pour qu´il y ai free will, je pense qu´il faut un contrôle non déterminé par la machine. Si la machine contrôle, le résultat du contrôle est déterminé par ses genes et son environnement. Si le résultat n´est pas déterminé mais stochastique, la machine ne contrôle pas. Dans les deux cas, pas de free-will.)
Voilà en gros ce que j´en pense.

A gene for religion?

That our biology permits religion is obvious. The question of whether religion gives a Darwinian advantage to the individual having an hypothetical religious gene is a good question.
Gene-based Group selection is a very dubious idea. A gene which would be good for the group but bad for the individual would have troubles remaining in the gene pool since it would be competing against alleles that are superior to itself for a long time until it succeed to infect enough individuals to permit its group related advantage to show up.
I think it is better to first look at selection at the level of the individual/gene. Second, to look if a meme-based theory would be a good theory, and only last if some more exotic theory (like the group selection theory) would permit to explain what the more solid theories above could not explain.
First, it seems that everybody has genes that are compatible with religion. 200 years ago, virtually everybody was religious. In many countries, especially those where science education is not well developed, virtually everybody is religious. People succeeding to put their faith in doubt while being in a religious surrounding are very rare. Charles Darwin is one of them but it took him tenth of years of research and thinking. A luxury that most people could not afford at that time.
I think that the genes we have which enable religion are (i) genes for asking oneself questions and for looking for answers (I.e. genes promoting understanding of one’s surrounding. Those have obvious advantages at the individual level). (ii) genes for gullibleness in children (if you do not believe your father when he tells you that crocodiles are dangerous, you will die before to be able to reproduce). The first gene (i) is a powerful aid for the individual but it has limits in its power to reach the right explanations for what happens around us due to the lack of time that individual have to collect the right evidences. Most people are too busy trying to survive and reproduce. As a result, an individual with such a gene will understand some stuffs and have wrong hypothesis to explain other stuffs.
Now, coherent systems explaining what most people cannot (or could not) explain (love, death, the sun, the rain, disease, mental illness, …) will naturally grow due to (i) and will be passed on to the kids due to (ii). Additionally, some features of these explanatory systems are very self-reinforcing: it is not good to question the system (St-thomas story in the new testament) or it is not good not to follow the system (hell) and it is good to follow the system (heaven) and you should not mix with people not believing in the system (you should not associate with a non muslim, food interdiction that make sharing a meal with a member of another believe system difficult,…).
Hence such systems are good memes (survival of the idea for the mere sake of the survival of the idea itself) that can easily occupy individual’s minds.
Losing one’s religion may come with one or more of the following: scientific instruction (evidences), contact with non-religious individuals (incentive), probably a sufficient "IQ * time-to-think" product (necessary resources) and/or presence of good non-religious alternatives to typically religious advantageous features (such as the possibility to belong to a community) .
In a nutshell, I am not convinced that a religious gene evolved because it permitted to believe in god. I think it evolved despite its side effect of permitting to believe in god.

Sugar: The Bitter Truth

This guy makes a nice job explaining why sugar should be avoided in our meals.
Sugar: The Bitter Truth

Hello world!

In this blog I wish to share my thoughts on the subjects of natural and human sciences, philosophy and whatever crosses my mind and I consider worth sharing. Consilience is a word recently brought back in fashion by E.O. Wilson who proposes to unit knowledge by melding natural sciences with all other branches of knowledge. I find this enterprise just great!