I just finished watching this great BBC documentary about swarm intelligence. Ignoring the presenter’s attempt to inspire fear in us mere humans, with ominous suggestions of a great red fire ant invasion, swarm intelligence is basically the notion that swarms of creatures (such as the aforementioned ant) work as a collective consciousness. It makes intuitive sense: more minds = more processing power. Of course, these species have been shaped by natural selection to function in this eusocial manner, although whether or not we’re discussing inclusive fitness, superorganisms or something else remains outside the programme’s scope. In fact, the term swarm intelligence doesn’t seem to be a conventional term amongst biologists; too many anthropomorphic connotations no doubt.
Sadly, it is was only available on the BBC until 21.39 GMT, today! yesterday. So get watching. Instead, I’ll leave you with the first youtube video I could find about swarm intelligence, which is actually nothing to do with animals and more to do with computing, networks and information management:
… shrill and strident, shrill and strident. Okay, Dawkins, we get the point: atheists are accused of being shrill and strident. If you’re too lazy to click the links, then you’ll probably be a bit baffled as to what I’m ranting about. Long story short: Dawkins is getting on my nerves with his repeated use of the adjectives ‘shrill’ and ‘strident’. Nearly every piece I’ve seen him in lately involves some moment where he takes the opportunity to say these words. His latest effort being in the brilliantly devised atheist bus campaign. I mean, come on, there are plenty of other adjectives available to negatively describe atheists, with Dawkins probably knowing more than most.
Still, the master of atheism isn’t alone in his campaign of continued repetition, as AC Grayling proves when he decides to wade in with absolutely nothing new to offer. Instead, we’re treated to a completely pointless recap about there probably being no fairies etc. Moan, moan, yawn.
Ariane Sherine on the other hand, well, she’s a breath of fresh air, and I congratulate her on a successful campaign. Her positive and jovial approach to atheism is a delightful contrast to the vast numbers of Dawks (my word for the unquestioning followers of Dawkins), who seem intent on dumbing down the debate. Still, having spent the previous two paragraphs bitching, I think it’d be a bit hypocritical of me to harp on about these virtues. Let’s just hope she can spearhead some more innovative thinking in the atheist movement, much in the same vein as the aforementioned bus campaign… But next time, give Dawkins something new to say, allow more airtime for Ariane and preferably no Polly ‘New Labour cheerleader’ Toynbee.
And just to reiterate the message: There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
I just read this article in BBC news about negative interest rates:
If the Bank of England cuts interest rates on Thursday could the interest paid on our savings fall below zero?
Negative interest rates, where the bank charges us to look after our savings, have been seen before.
In the 1970s Swiss banks charged foreign customers rather than paying them interest to hold their money.
I don’t think we’ll see negative interest rates in the UK, although it is technically possible, and has happened before. To use the hypothetical example offered by the BBC: if you place £10,000 in the bank, and the negative interest rate is at -1%, then at the end of the year you’d get a return of just £9,900 — essentially a £100 charge for the pleasure of banking. Great.
In the past few years there has been a recent spate of articles concerning orangutan intelligence. So, as I’m fairly bored, and in need of a break from university work, I’ve decided to write a bit of an essay on some of these finds.
Orangutans… They’re orange, right?
Correct; but Pongo pygmaeus abelii are so much more than just some arboreal orange ape that eats a lot of fruit. In fact, these great apes, the last surviving members of the genus Pongo, are highly resourceful and intelligent creatures, as evident in their ability to make and use tools, perform calculated reciprocity and even whistle a tune.
When exploring the etiology of schizophrenia, a feat that has mostly eluded understanding for over 100 years, a common denominator emerges in that associated deficiencies are rooted in cognitively demanding tasks. One suggestion is that, where schizophrenic individuals are involved, disorganised thoughts, abnormal speech, auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions are symptomatic consequences of our haphazardly evolved brains. It might not seem revelatory, nor is it a particularly new thought on the matter, yet this disorder clearly has ties with human-specific, recently evolved behaviours, such as language and social relationships. And it is here in which our problem emerges: we don’t even know how language or social relationships evolved. In fact, the evolution of the human brain is still very much an enigma, despite the whole host of literature having you believe otherwise. As Darwin put it: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge[…]”.
If you’re part of science blogging community, then you’ll probably know that my festive title relates to the Yellowstone Caldera; and how it’s going to cause our impending doom (date tbc). Basically, earthquake activity around Yellowstone has increased, as you can see for yourself, which may or may not be indicative of your death. After all, if we’re to believe the BBC docudrama of the aforementioned caldera, dramatically dubbed a supervolcano, things won’t be so rosy if the lava starts flowing and the dust begins to rise. Still, it would be slightly ironic, and even poetic, if there are still some of us around to appreciate things, that our end comes from something unrelated to greedy bankers and global warming.
As many of my friends will know, I’m quite a big fan of Richard Dawkins. But for some reason his website seems to spawn an army of what can only be described as mildly irritating atheists. A particular aspect I frequently bemoan is the necessity of some members to contort a fairly innocuous article into some anti-religious rant. Honestly, it’s unceasing. Take for example this article discussing Neanderthals. Just scroll down to the comments and you’ll be greeted with:
It all just gets you thinking about why the Neanderthals died out. I’ll theorize that their bigger brains found our ancestors’ ravings about our divine origins totally hysterical — and the resulting campaign of genocide simply took the poor buggers off guard.
Funny, yes? Well, no, not when the same joke/theme/structure is applied over and over again. I’ll throw out some more, as I don’t want to single out one individual:
I like to imagine science as a massive guillotine, with creationists frantically trying to stick objects to stop it’s progress. Science may be moving somewhat slowly, but nothing can really stop its progress. (From an article about RNA as a precursor for life on Earth.)
At least one commenter was honest enough to give up any pretence of being interested in the article itself:
When you look at the big picture, Obama has a tough road ahead of him and needs to harvest the support of everyone in America, even that large swath of intolerant, evangelical America, who are Americans none the less. I can’t say that I agree with the choice but I understand it. ( About, um, Quantum computing…)
Maybe it’s a running joke? Or perhaps it’s what you should expect from a website run by Richard Dawkins? Personally, I find these comments serve as an effective cure for insomnia: their repetitive nature will guarantee instant sleep, plus you’ll probably learn something new (from the articles at least). Oh, and one more thing, what’s with Dawkins’ dvd covers:
The option comes from culture secretary, Andy Burnhman, who envisions a future in which the Internet meets the high standards of decency embodied by British television – i.e. [feel free to insert your own witty remark equating some aspect of the BBC with this future internet]. Basically, the whole furore is over children (you know, that demographic unable to protect themselves) and their ability to use this internet thingy to view beheadings; and other material deemed not suitable for children. Burnhumans himself, had this to say:
This isn’t about turning back the clock. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways, but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around it.
Look, we can all see the good intentions behind these proposals. But we don’t need the government to help us navigate – googlemaps is quite capable of this task. Seriously though, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how we can go from protecting children to full net censorship. Television and radio are already hotspots for such intense adherence to authoritarian rules, even if channel four believes itself to be the rebellious child of British television. The great thing about the net is that it allows us to roam freely in these information fields, consisting of porn, search engines (for porn) and everything else. Good times.