On the surface, by the title, I wondered why this was on TED. But as usual, Mr. Rosling brings a unique POV to the topic and evokes deep thought.
There are four major devisions in the world's population of 7 billion. The people of fire, bulb, wash, and air. And their energy requirements will only increase as they shift up the scale.
There are some environmentalists that proudly do not drive cars, but how many of them do not use a washing machine?
What's the real gift of the washing machine? The time to read books.
Showing posts with label ted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ted. Show all posts
Monday, March 21, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Denis Dutton discusses his Theory of Darwinian Beauty
Denis Dutton proposes some compelling ideas about how and why we define beauty as we (modern Humans) do. He's looking for a definition that explains the frequently universal appreciation of certain forms of beauty that trancend cultures, countries, and time. He attempts to do so using a Darwinian approach.
"Beauty is an adaptive effect which we extend and intensify in the creation and enjoyment of works of art and entertainment." - Dutton
Evolution has two general arms: natural selection (environmental) and sexual selection (reproductive preference).
Most of Dutton's Darwinian Beauty argument stems from the sexual selection side. He mentions the proof of reproductive fitness argument for the reason Peacocks have such large and colorful rear-end plumage. I think everyone can buy that, in the bird world, as you know, the male must attract and woo the female. There are several ways of accomplishing this, building ornate nests, complicated dances, collecting blue items, and of course singing, but the most common is dazzling the ladies with colorful plumage.
The drawback is that this makes the male much more obvious to predators and lowers his overall chances for reproducing - and raises his chances of being a pretty garnish for lunch.
"Waiter, there are feathers in my soup!"
I appreciate his goal - he wants to get near a definition of the human experience of beauty. Why one thing is and the other isn't, even though he doesn't really address what isn't. He also is looking at the question from a place that is beyond Plato and Aristotle. That is refreshing and a little uneasy for me - I am most comfortable with the old Greek mindset. But philosophical comfort is boring and too close to religion, so watch the embedded video and below it let's consider a couple of points from the lecture.
Watch the video on the TED.com site
One of his more provocative statements, "The experience of beauty is one of the ways that evolution has of arousing and sustaining interest or fascination, even obsession in order to encourage us toward making the most adapted decision for survival and reproduction." He then sums up this statement a bit more succently by saying, "Beauty is Nature's way of acting at a distance." (I'm assuming the capital "N" there.)
I'm not comfortable with the idea that evolution is a driving force unto itself. I prefer to think of it as a survival tool of DNA, chromosomes, and genes. Evolution is a way for our reproduction to continually adapt to the changing environment. There is no ultimate, perfect creature that evolution is driving us forward to; there is no ideal form at the end of the evolutionary tunnel. Living things change from generation to generation sometimes randomly (usually doesn't work out), but more often in a reactionary, adaptive way to the environment in which they live. The environment changes, living things change in order to continue to live in the new environment; it's really kinda simple.
Life begins and ends with reproduction, right? It's the reason for life and the result of life. I'm willing to examine misstatements about the motives of evolution further, but not in this post.
On the idea of representative beauty. Dutton brings up the idea that there is a universal beauty to a certain style of landscape (at 6:57min into video) because it is the vista that all of our ancient ancestors saw when they were first becoming Humans in Africa. It is a open grassy area, with hills, a few trees, water, and a path that goes into the distance.
I think that the perfect landscape is a result of artistic sensibilities related to interesting focal points and subject matter. Artists seem to have an innate sense of beauty, but consider that they study their craft closely (well, if they're any good they do). Imagine that you want to paint a landscape. You could start with a straight line, but hills are more interesting. Then a few trees and maybe a water feature. They are just adding in as many different elements as they can, so long as they make sense. Some mountains in the distance and maybe a path that let the view place themselves in the scene. An ancient collective memory of our first 'happy place' seems difficult to believe. Humans have lived in every environmental situation on the planet for thousands of years - desert, savanna, forest, mountains. Maybe it's because the scene contains at least one element from most environments, and that is the familiar thing that everyone reacts to.
Beauty has a close relation to visually perceived symmetry. Consider the human face; we think we like a certain color of hair or eyes, or a particularly shaped nose, but what we are really reacting to is the symmetry of the face. The closer the face is to perfect vertical symmetry [Rhodes, G] and the one-third ratio rule (of eyebrows to chin -[Reynolds, R] I will try to find a better reference for this) the more beautiful it is perceived to be. This could be related to our assessment of reproductive fitness, as long as health is related to symmetry.
Back to the idea of reproductive fitness and beauty. Dutton mentions (at 9:40min into the video) finely carved (actually chipped using the break and flake method) leaf-shaped Acheulean handaxes (an image of one) that were produced millions of years ago (some have been dated as old as 3 millions years ago). He thinks that some (thousands) were only made as examples - as objects of art. The quality of these handaxes were to show the hunting prowess of the creator and therefore demonstrating a personal fitness and a superior ability to provide food and care.
He gives four reasons:
References:
Reynolds, R., How to Sketch a Human Face
Rhodes, G., Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty
"Beauty is an adaptive effect which we extend and intensify in the creation and enjoyment of works of art and entertainment." - Dutton
Evolution has two general arms: natural selection (environmental) and sexual selection (reproductive preference).
Most of Dutton's Darwinian Beauty argument stems from the sexual selection side. He mentions the proof of reproductive fitness argument for the reason Peacocks have such large and colorful rear-end plumage. I think everyone can buy that, in the bird world, as you know, the male must attract and woo the female. There are several ways of accomplishing this, building ornate nests, complicated dances, collecting blue items, and of course singing, but the most common is dazzling the ladies with colorful plumage.
The drawback is that this makes the male much more obvious to predators and lowers his overall chances for reproducing - and raises his chances of being a pretty garnish for lunch.
"Waiter, there are feathers in my soup!"
I appreciate his goal - he wants to get near a definition of the human experience of beauty. Why one thing is and the other isn't, even though he doesn't really address what isn't. He also is looking at the question from a place that is beyond Plato and Aristotle. That is refreshing and a little uneasy for me - I am most comfortable with the old Greek mindset. But philosophical comfort is boring and too close to religion, so watch the embedded video and below it let's consider a couple of points from the lecture.
Watch the video on the TED.com site
One of his more provocative statements, "The experience of beauty is one of the ways that evolution has of arousing and sustaining interest or fascination, even obsession in order to encourage us toward making the most adapted decision for survival and reproduction." He then sums up this statement a bit more succently by saying, "Beauty is Nature's way of acting at a distance." (I'm assuming the capital "N" there.)
I'm not comfortable with the idea that evolution is a driving force unto itself. I prefer to think of it as a survival tool of DNA, chromosomes, and genes. Evolution is a way for our reproduction to continually adapt to the changing environment. There is no ultimate, perfect creature that evolution is driving us forward to; there is no ideal form at the end of the evolutionary tunnel. Living things change from generation to generation sometimes randomly (usually doesn't work out), but more often in a reactionary, adaptive way to the environment in which they live. The environment changes, living things change in order to continue to live in the new environment; it's really kinda simple.
Life begins and ends with reproduction, right? It's the reason for life and the result of life. I'm willing to examine misstatements about the motives of evolution further, but not in this post.
On the idea of representative beauty. Dutton brings up the idea that there is a universal beauty to a certain style of landscape (at 6:57min into video) because it is the vista that all of our ancient ancestors saw when they were first becoming Humans in Africa. It is a open grassy area, with hills, a few trees, water, and a path that goes into the distance.
I think that the perfect landscape is a result of artistic sensibilities related to interesting focal points and subject matter. Artists seem to have an innate sense of beauty, but consider that they study their craft closely (well, if they're any good they do). Imagine that you want to paint a landscape. You could start with a straight line, but hills are more interesting. Then a few trees and maybe a water feature. They are just adding in as many different elements as they can, so long as they make sense. Some mountains in the distance and maybe a path that let the view place themselves in the scene. An ancient collective memory of our first 'happy place' seems difficult to believe. Humans have lived in every environmental situation on the planet for thousands of years - desert, savanna, forest, mountains. Maybe it's because the scene contains at least one element from most environments, and that is the familiar thing that everyone reacts to.
Beauty has a close relation to visually perceived symmetry. Consider the human face; we think we like a certain color of hair or eyes, or a particularly shaped nose, but what we are really reacting to is the symmetry of the face. The closer the face is to perfect vertical symmetry [Rhodes, G] and the one-third ratio rule (of eyebrows to chin -[Reynolds, R] I will try to find a better reference for this) the more beautiful it is perceived to be. This could be related to our assessment of reproductive fitness, as long as health is related to symmetry.
Back to the idea of reproductive fitness and beauty. Dutton mentions (at 9:40min into the video) finely carved (actually chipped using the break and flake method) leaf-shaped Acheulean handaxes (an image of one) that were produced millions of years ago (some have been dated as old as 3 millions years ago). He thinks that some (thousands) were only made as examples - as objects of art. The quality of these handaxes were to show the hunting prowess of the creator and therefore demonstrating a personal fitness and a superior ability to provide food and care.
He gives four reasons:
- because they show "no sign of wear on their delicate blade edges"
- that so many [thousands] have been found unused
- some found were simple too heavy and large to be useful
- that visually the symmetry, quality of workmanship, and shape of a tear-drop leaf are unlike any other tools of the same period
- has anyone found cut or gouge marks on fossilized bones of that time period that correspond to similar tools?
- maybe the unused ones were 'backups'. Consider the situation, you would want to keep several backups on hand because siliceous rocks are brittle and would break frequently and depending on the break could be instantly useless. So you'd want to have more than one at all times.
- the large and heavy ones could have been for taking the meat to, or even for cutting extra large kills. The weight of the handaxe could aid in the cutting force.
- perhaps the visual appearance was a result of experience - what works best (a pointy end for stabbing and a rounded end for skinning - I'm just guessing here) or what fits in the hand the best.
References:
Reynolds, R., How to Sketch a Human Face
Rhodes, G., Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty
Monday, April 12, 2010
Michael Specter: The Danger of Science Denial
If you had access to a time machine, would you go forward or backward in time? Forward absolutely - gimme the good stuff. A lot of people would like to go back - see some dinosaurs, Cleopatra, crap like that. I too have some times and places I'd like to experience - ancient Greece and learn from Aristotle, even more ancient China and talk with the Buddha, experience a Jimmi Hendrix concert live at his peak - you know the greats!
Right now, even though we are at an all time high of technology and knowledge, it seems we are at the precipice of a great back slide - a new intellectual dark age where people no longer believe that science is factual. Where ancient homeopathic cures are more trusted than modern medicine because they are deemed 'natural' therefore better and because the ancients knew something that we don't today. Yes, it is true that aspirin is derived from the bark of a willow tree. But, it took chemists to distill out the curative chemicals and concentrate them so we can take two small pills and don't have to boil down large quantities of bark to make a bitter liquid (of an uncontrolled and unknown concentration) to drink.
Here's the problem, an easily grasped belief seems more true and real to a lot of people than real science, that is very difficult to understand. I don't pretend to understand all of the science I believe in. To a large degree I am taking the word of the scientists that they are conducting their experiments correctly and are reporting the results correctly. However, what I do have over a concocted belief is the all mighty Scientific Method. Test your beliefs against the scientific method and see if they hold up - then I will believe.
Genetically Modified foods create mutant monsters?! Tested false. There are some concerns, but let's not dismiss them without knowing the facts. GM foods on my plate? Yes, a second helping please. Do you realize that without GM foods we'd never be able to feed the billions on this planet? Plant disease resistance, drought tolerance, vitamin enrichment are not bad qualities. So GM foods or vast famine; don't trust me, do your own research. Or just go eat a petroleum-based cream filled, yellow dye colored artificial sponge cake and be quiet.
Vaccines will give children autism and a host of other nasty diseases? What you believed was wrong. Tested false. Vaccines against disease? Yes, please. If I never get the flu again, I buying my doctor a gold-plated putter for his short game. Vaccines have been proven over and over to not cause autism, however they DO prevent or polio, rubella, and other crippling and debilitating diseases; once again don't trust me, look it ups on your own. And don't trust an entertainment celebrity as an authority, go to the people who do research and have professional degrees and careers established on science. Or you could dig out the leg braces that your great grandfather wore because of his brush with polio and oil the hinges because your child might need them.
Because, let me tell you people, prayer and placebos did not make your vitamin enriched breakfast cereal, your pasteurized milk and your smart phone - science did.
Placebos are fine until belief replaces science, then people die. And it is a slippery slope once your beliefs start to replace fact. Did bleeding ever cure anyone? Can acupuncture cure cancer?
And now a short video...
For some unrelated amusement on this topic listen to Brian Dunning of the podcast Skeptoid sing "Buy It!"
Right now, even though we are at an all time high of technology and knowledge, it seems we are at the precipice of a great back slide - a new intellectual dark age where people no longer believe that science is factual. Where ancient homeopathic cures are more trusted than modern medicine because they are deemed 'natural' therefore better and because the ancients knew something that we don't today. Yes, it is true that aspirin is derived from the bark of a willow tree. But, it took chemists to distill out the curative chemicals and concentrate them so we can take two small pills and don't have to boil down large quantities of bark to make a bitter liquid (of an uncontrolled and unknown concentration) to drink.
Here's the problem, an easily grasped belief seems more true and real to a lot of people than real science, that is very difficult to understand. I don't pretend to understand all of the science I believe in. To a large degree I am taking the word of the scientists that they are conducting their experiments correctly and are reporting the results correctly. However, what I do have over a concocted belief is the all mighty Scientific Method. Test your beliefs against the scientific method and see if they hold up - then I will believe.
Genetically Modified foods create mutant monsters?! Tested false. There are some concerns, but let's not dismiss them without knowing the facts. GM foods on my plate? Yes, a second helping please. Do you realize that without GM foods we'd never be able to feed the billions on this planet? Plant disease resistance, drought tolerance, vitamin enrichment are not bad qualities. So GM foods or vast famine; don't trust me, do your own research. Or just go eat a petroleum-based cream filled, yellow dye colored artificial sponge cake and be quiet.
Vaccines will give children autism and a host of other nasty diseases? What you believed was wrong. Tested false. Vaccines against disease? Yes, please. If I never get the flu again, I buying my doctor a gold-plated putter for his short game. Vaccines have been proven over and over to not cause autism, however they DO prevent or polio, rubella, and other crippling and debilitating diseases; once again don't trust me, look it ups on your own. And don't trust an entertainment celebrity as an authority, go to the people who do research and have professional degrees and careers established on science. Or you could dig out the leg braces that your great grandfather wore because of his brush with polio and oil the hinges because your child might need them.
Because, let me tell you people, prayer and placebos did not make your vitamin enriched breakfast cereal, your pasteurized milk and your smart phone - science did.
Placebos are fine until belief replaces science, then people die. And it is a slippery slope once your beliefs start to replace fact. Did bleeding ever cure anyone? Can acupuncture cure cancer?
And now a short video...
For some unrelated amusement on this topic listen to Brian Dunning of the podcast Skeptoid sing "Buy It!"
Monday, February 1, 2010
Monday, August 3, 2009
Hold your breath for micro-sculpture
Willard Wigan: Hold your breath for micro-sculpture from Ted Talks. You might think that you've seen small sculpture before, but no. No you haven't.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Jonny Lee and Wii
Let's all go to RadioShack! Watch Johnny Lee's Ted Talk presentation and you'll know why.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Sixth Sense Device
"This demo -- from Pattie Maes' lab at MIT, spearheaded by Pranav Mistry -- was the buzz of TED. It's a wearable device with a projector that paves the way for profound interaction with our environment." -TED
The URL http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
The URL http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/pattie_maes_demos_the_sixth_sense.html
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things
Micheal Shermer from Ted Talks. Enjoy. The last bit about the auditory patterns is great!
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Adam Savage, Dodo Skeletons, and the Maltese Falcon
How do all of those things relate? Two are obsessions of one, and two are unaware of the other two...
No really. Adam Savage (of Mythbusters) gives a high-speed talk about his personal artistic obsession.
Ted Talks, I love this site. Okay, so now I want to make my own Dodo skeleton with the skull of a monkey...
No really. Adam Savage (of Mythbusters) gives a high-speed talk about his personal artistic obsession.
Ted Talks, I love this site. Okay, so now I want to make my own Dodo skeleton with the skull of a monkey...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Educause 2008 Ramachandran talk URL
http://hosted.mediasite.com/hosted5/Viewer/?peid=d45a2cd8e48346daaba953453f3b1c56#
I was having a little trouble viewing the video, but that could be the million and one geeks on the wireless network here ;)
I was having a little trouble viewing the video, but that could be the million and one geeks on the wireless network here ;)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Vilayanur Ramachandran talking at Educause 2008
Vilayanur Ramachandran is giving a talk similar to this TED Talk, on Wednesday morning at Educause this year in Orlando, Fl. I get to go, and I'm so excited; this doc is an awesome presenter and studies fantastic anomalies of the human brain.
Sweet! I'll try to post after the talk...so I can gloat about how amazing it was.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
Art of Creatures
Theo Jansen is an amazing Dutch artist. He creates creatures out of wood and twine of the like you've not see unless you are familiar with his work.
He gave a TED talk March 2007
He gave a TED talk March 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Dan Dennett speaks of memes
This talk is from TED. If you do not know about TED please inform yourself here. It is a forum for the best and brightest to share ideas. I found the podcasts on iTunes, but this is the website (www.ted.com) with much, much more.
Memes are contagious ideas. Dennett's biological attack metaphor and how other cultures want to protect themselves from what we are immune to (our immunity gives us the mentality of "what's the big deal?") was very interesting to me. View for yourself and post what you think.
Dan Dennett's bio. Read that and you'll know why you should listen to what he says.
Memes are contagious ideas. Dennett's biological attack metaphor and how other cultures want to protect themselves from what we are immune to (our immunity gives us the mentality of "what's the big deal?") was very interesting to me. View for yourself and post what you think.
Dan Dennett's bio. Read that and you'll know why you should listen to what he says.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)