A science nerd thread.

[Cypher]

MOOCs - massive open online courses. You can find a list of 800 starting right about now here... http://www.openculture.com/free_certificate_courses

These are run by some of the best unis in the world.

I've gone a bit crazy and signed up for a few too many than I can handle: 4!

* Childhood nutrition (Standford via coursera - 5 weeks)
* Databases (Standford direct - 12 weeks)
* Calculus (Coursera which I will drop)
* Financial markets (we'll see if I make it. Starts in Feb. Yale via Coursera)

Most of the MOOC platforms have iOS or Android apps to help you access from whereever (although watching YouTube from my phone is not really satisfying - the screen is too small). You get the lectures and watch YouTube

Try this one: https://www.coursera.org/course/maththink

Introduction to mathematical thinking

 

[driftking]

Thanks all, any other recommendations are still welcome. Big help.

In the mean time, what do you think about my previous link of https://www.khanacademy.org/

Ill get onto those books and those websites mentioned. Much appreciated.

 

[driftking]

So after watching a documentary on the area of gene manipulation and understanding it got me thinking about bringing the debate up here.
Where do you all sit on gene manipulation.

For me I think its a brilliant prospect for preventing and eradicating disease within our community, I'm not too worried about the concept of changing something that having it back fire massively although that is a massive issue that needs to be controlled to prevent a Frankenstein situation, im mostly not worried because we tend to be very controlled these days although the risk is still there.

For me where I run into an issue is the manipulation to change characteristics that don't need changing, the most recent been the controversy of choosing a babies sex. It is evident that we have the future potential to change hundreds of genes from simple things like choosing hair colour to height, muscle mass, body structure and athletic performance to more complex genes. We are essentially creating what we want without any thought to the person we are creating, further more the development of this means sport would become odd, creating perfect human beings for a particular sport would really kill off sport, although on the flip it would mean that natural talent would be a flat field and work will be what matters, however the issue is we has humans have a personality or soul depending on how you look at it, and in that if the child will grow up with inspiration that may not match their essentially design. This puts pressure and expectations on people immediately while cutting out the potential to really have a chance at another sport. Are we focusing too much on the numbers and not enough on the humanity of what we are doing?

Are we then designing humans perfect for task A therefore we are just creating living robots with one purpose in life. (future armor anyone? they get the chip and have to live out that job)

We could create super intelligent humans, we are already making head way in the linking between artificial intelligence and humans, at some point you could potentially look down the line to literally robots taking over, in the aspect of computers don't have morals (irobot comes to mind) in where programing logic makes bad decisions.

Now of course most of this is a while away and the robot invasion is more than likely never going to happen however it got me thinking where do you all sit on the gene manipulation and are we on the verge of becoming out of control of our world, the internet is a clear example where we have lost control and we have seen animals go crazy cane toads in qld example. We are now on the verge of designing humans and also linking computers into the human system.

Are we walking a fine line between whats right and whats wrong here or whats safe and whats dangerous?

By extension the issue of preventing and eradicating disease is one that is interesting on a economic scale we would see population soar which brings is own massive issues while potentially seeing medication and big ticket items for government revenue decline. Now I would never suggest we keep illness around by no means would I suggest that (although maybe some pharmaceutical powers might want that to happen) but this is something that comes into play so its worth talking about.

 

[Minlak]

Heard this / read this somewhere:- we are so busy with could we don't always stop and think about should. The world is not ready for this technology. Government super soldiers? How are we going to care for and feed our already ageing population? How are we going to survive with a population that doesn't age or get sick or die? This is a very complex debate that I don't have the answer too and frankly I am scared of what answers the powers that be come up with when self interest starts to play a part in the decision makers process.

Fresh debate has started in the last week or so about means testing Medicare or forcing high risk groups to pay for treatment like smokers or the obese. I just don't know where the food / money / jobs etc will come from.

Sadly I don't have much to add except concern.

 

[thecat]

S

Are we then designing humans perfect for task A therefore we are just creating living robots with one purpose in life. (future armor anyone? they get the chip and have to live out that job)
.

Thats the scary brave new world aspect of it. If you do design babies perfect for a task what happens to free will? Lets say we clone 5 Michael Jordans to create the greatest basket ball team ever. What happens when MJ 3 wants to be a scientist or a swimmer or violin player?

 

[ajay]

Thats the scary brave new world aspect of it. If you do design babies perfect for a task what happens to free will? Lets say we clone 5 Michael Jordans to create the greatest basket ball team ever. What happens when MJ 3 wants to be a scientist or a swimmer or violin player?

Or what happens when they don't reach the expected potential? Like a greyhound, taken out the back and destroyed...

It get's pretty hairy, pretty quickly, but the other side of the coin is the quadriplegic who doesn't get his miracle cure because we're scared of where new technology might lead us.

 

[driftking]

Or what happens when they don't reach the expected potential? Like a greyhound, taken out the back and destroyed...

It get's pretty hairy, pretty quickly, but the other side of the coin is the quadriplegic who doesn't get his miracle cure because we're scared of where new technology might lead us.

A double edge sword for sure. I know there are clear control measures in place but For me anyway It sort of feels like we should use gene therapy in the eradication of disease and illness but id be against using it in a way to design someone to the point where it is improving for the sake of it.

I think the concept of "gene therapy to improve human condition" is too subject to variation, by that definition improving someones athletic performance would be improving their condition. I think we need to pursue these areas but there needs to be very very strict lines about what we do and don't use it for.

Its a scary prospect to think about the ramifications this can have on society there are so many sub issues and indirect effects.

 

[Bjorn]

I foresee a two tier society. Those who can afford it will engage in gene manipulation to give their offspring a better chance in life, while those who cannot will have shorter life expectancy and hereditary illnesses. On the plus side, even without genetic manipulation we as Australians have pretty good health.

 

[driftking]

I foresee a two tier society. Those who can afford it will engage in gene manipulation to give their offspring a better chance in life, while those who cannot will have shorter life expectancy and hereditary illnesses. On the plus side, even without genetic manipulation we as Australians have pretty good health.

That's something I never considered. I'd hypothesize if we get to that point and to the point where we continue to ignore people as humans and start seeing them only as figures and tools (which we already do I guess partly, consumers and service at the core and some bosses just see figures.), Would not those less humane high tier just eliminate the lower tier. They would say well why not just create better people to do out low end jobs, get rid of the low tier and we can have more land and better workers, ie more productivity, more money, they could theoretically manipulate the genes in a way that the people have low needs to survive.

equally with the introduction of 3d printing and the advancements in robots, would the low tier even be needed for jobs with more job becoming obsolete. Would the higher tier who only see numbers and money not see the low tier as just a drain on society.

The combination of advancements in technology and the reduction of workers in the potential future makes these prospects even scarier.

 

[thecat]

That's something I never considered. I'd hypothesis if we get to that point and to the point where we continue to ignore people as humans and start seeing them only as figures and tools (which we already do I guess partly, consumers and service at the core and some bosses just see figures.), Would not those less humane high tier just eliminate the lower tier.

It starts by offering hep benefits (but degenerate as is already happening to insurance companies refusing to cover some people based on their genetic)

Then it corrupts sport (peptides are just a start) as countries/big time teams begin to engineer athletes.

We welcome the spectacle of humans pushing through what was previously possible in the quest for higher, faster, stronger, more.

In the words of Robin Hobb's Fool "When it becomes acceptable for entertainment how much wiser to use it for profit..."

Shit, I think I just channeled bermshot...

 

[scuba05]

Had a discussion at work the other day with my fellow Engineers, the question being:

"Was mathematics invented or discovered".

Seems simple enough right?
My boss said mathematics has always been there, and is the only possible method to express the theories, thus it was discovered.

I argued that it was invented, as mathematics is merely a construct of humans to explain that (ie natural phenomenon) which has always been there. Another 'tool' to quantitatively describe laws and theories could be developed in order to explain it, and therefore mathematics was invented by a large number of mathematicians over the previous centuries, indeed decades.

I believe this was a subject that was bought up on one of 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' podcast, I cant remember where though.

So, what are the thoughts of fellow scientific burners?

 

[quin66]

It is an episode on The Infinite Monkey Cage titled To Infinity And Beyond. Sorry but I fell asleep while listening to that episode. Maths innit.

 

[fridgie]

The depths of despair give rise to the greatest accomplishments of our kind, engineering 'perfect' people seems wrong as in my mind it could eradicate the despair and therefore the drive to further ourselves and our brethren.
Humans are flawed, it is our flaws that separate us not our greatness.

I agree with the help for those less fortunate, disagree with engineering things out before birth. Without the disease, complications, death etc we may lose that ability to conquer, to struggle through and survival instincts.

Without sadness you can't experience joy. Parents knowing their kid will be xyz won't experience the full joy of arrival encompassed with relief at a healthy bundle of joy.

Taking things further, I definitely agree on the soul/spirit of us all. A poor example is my siblings and I.

Same parents, same upbringing, same socio economic scale.

I am exactly like my brother yet completely the opposite. He went to uni, masters degree, high paying management position, completely useless in life skills, no mechanical aptitude. I was bored at school, left before finishing grade 12, pretty good mechanical aptitude, an deep understanding of not only how things work but why they work that way.
I can't do what he does, he can't do what I do. Yet everything says we should be extremely close in that regard. Why? It's our choices, our passions, our spirit.

 

[driftking]

Had a discussion at work the other day with my fellow Engineers, the question being:

"Was mathematics invented or discovered".

Seems simple enough right?
My boss said mathematics has always been there, and is the only possible method to express the theories, thus it was discovered.

I argued that it was invented, as mathematics is merely a construct of humans to explain that (ie natural phenomenon) which has always been there. Another 'tool' to quantitatively describe laws and theories could be developed in order to explain it, and therefore mathematics was invented by a large number of mathematicians over the previous centuries, indeed decades.

I believe this was a subject that was bought up on one of 'The Infinite Monkey Cage' podcast, I cant remember where though.

So, what are the thoughts of fellow scientific burners?

I think it is both
The values have always been there and the relationship has always existed. So maths no doubt has always existed and we had to discover the relationships.
However as you said we invented ways to interrupt them, we found formulas that were able to be used across the board and be applied to
the same thing consistently this has always been there. For Instance A=πr2 pi and r could have been different. we might have used different measures and therefore the numbers would be different. However the end result would need to be able to be applied across the board to all circles.

We invented ways to interrupt problems a meter is a meter but does it have to be? no, if it was something else our formulas would be different and we would have discovered a different way to work out problems. I think we invented ways to interrupt the data but that relationship and that existence of that method has always existed because it works.

 

[quin66]

^^ Maths innit? ^^

 

[driftking]

bringing this thread back for some discussion.

Carbon nanotubes

Will this technology ever make it to bikes and take over from carbon fiber? Will we eventually have stupid light bikes due to the improved strength qualities of carbon nanotubes?

We could further it I guess into any aspect of construction.

 

[Ivan]

3D printing of carbon fibre is likely to be the next revolution as far as CF manufacturing goes. There are some printers out there under development at the moment.

 

[bell.cameron]

3D printing of carbon fibre is likely to be the next revolution as far as CF manufacturing goes. There are some printers out there under development at the moment.

There are atom by atom printers being develop at the moment, though a long way away, this is the future. Download your toaster off the internet, buy a few cartridges, few days later wallah! you has toaster.

 

[thecat]

Had a discussion at work the other day with my fellow Engineers, the question being:

"Was mathematics invented or discovered".

Simple answer is, there isn't a simple answer.

Is the mathematics we use consistent through out the whole universe? Kinda. = Discovered
But the maths we use suits our purpose and perspective. = Invented

For example remember being taught that the angles of a triangle add up to 180°? Well that works great in Euclidean space, ie on a flat surface. Problem is there arn't too many flat surfaces in nature. On an outwardly curved surface like, say surface of the earth the angles add up to more than 180°. And each different curve will have a different answer. Of course unless you are looking at very big triangle the difference isn't going to matter too much.

You were probably also taught the shortest distance between two points was a straight line. Again, good on flat surfaces using pencils but lets say an intelligent race evolved under water in deep sea and relied on sonar more than vision. They'd have a law that said the shortest distance between two points was a curve that depended on water density and salinity....

We tend to make sense of what we observe using maths and after doing it for 9000 years or so we haven't found any inconsistencies whereby 1+1 doesn't always = 2 which suggests mathematics is a component of the universe itself, thus we discovered it. But we don't have any proofs for that and our entire mathematical construct relies on assumptions .

There is a quote that math geeks are Platonists (accepting with out proof that 1+1 always =2 therefor we simply discovered it) on a weekday when they have to do real work, and formalists (accepting that without proof you can't just assume 1+1 always =2 and it could all just be an invention of our mind) on weekends when they want to have a nerd debate

 

[driftking]

never mind I found what I was after.
any mod feel free to delete this post