Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

  • The Rules of the Game

    The Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has published a report: The Rules of the Game: Terrorism, Community and Human Rights. It looks to be worth reading, and is already attracting attention from mainstream media and bloggers. Not Saussure quotes the following passage from the report:
    Tony Blair talks of ‘rebalancing between the rights of the suspect and the rights of the law-abiding majority’. John Reid declared to the Labour party conference , ‘It cannot be right that the rights of an individual suspected terrorist be placed above the rights, the life and limb of the rest of the British people. It cannot be right – it is wrong, no ifs, no buts, it’s just plain wrong.’ But these are false dichotomies: ‘suspects’ are members of the ‘majority’. They are innocent until proved guilty, their rights and those of the majority hang together. (It is a miserable fact, however, that thanks to its constant use, the word ‘suspect’ is now charged with the presumption of guilt – so much that the Guardian recently wrote of ‘alleged terrorist suspects’.) (p 42) 
    I find it really worrying that British politicians are using rhetoric such as that quoted above. They seem to be intent on making things worse.

    Leave a comment

  • No Utilitarian Value…

    …So says the maker of his self-assembling chair. The video’s rather fascinating, though…

    Leave a comment

  • Running Repairs

    I leave my computer running 24 hours a day. My excuse for this non-green waste of resources is that it’s running the BBC’s Climate Change Experiment. One night last week, the computer shut itself down. Checking the event log, I found that the graphics card had overheated. The inside of the PC seemed to be dustfree, but I cleaned everything anyway. I also kept an eye on the temperature of the graphics card. Sure enough, it did seem to be wildly fluctuating – mostly about 80º C, but occasionally shooting up to the mid-nineties. After several more forced shutdowns, I identified the cause of the problem – the fan on the graphics card wasn’t running efficiently – its bearing was shot.
     
    So off to the local computer shop to see what could be done. The best shop locally is Hecosys, in Silvolde. A veritable Aladdin’s cave for computers. They recommended simply replacing the fan with a third-party cooling product, rather than replacing the entire card. So that’s what I did, at a tenth of the price of a new graphics card. I bought a Zalman fan (a VF700-Cu) from them, and now the card is running at 50º C – and I can’t hear the fan at all. I’m a happy bunny again.

    Leave a comment

  • Monckton’s Mockery

    Apparently, the Sunday Telegraph has published a two-part article by Christopher Monckton on climate change, in which he accuses scientists and the UN of distorting the facts about global warming. I didn’t read it myself (I don’t often dip into the Telegraph’s pages). However, I see that today’s Guardian carries an article by George Monbiot that thoroughly shreds the "facts" presented by Monckton. It’s a pretty good demolition job – and, following the article, the first comment by "rashers101" is rather good and somewhat sobering.

    Leave a comment

  • An Inspissated Gloaming

    And following on from my mention of the Archbishop, his pals, the Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster, were doing something similar at the launch of a new religious think-tank, Theos. Supressing my instant thought that the phrase "religious think-tank" sounds too much like an oxymoron, I turned instead to the piece by A. C. Grayling commenting on the development. As expected, Grayling brings in a few home truths:
    We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, so a simple lesson in semantics might help to clear the air for them on the meanings of "secular", "humanist" and "atheist". Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply "faith" in anything, and that it is not possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to any of them. 
    "An inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation" Doncha just love the English language? Mind you, I did have to look up the meaning of inspissate – it’s not a word that I often use. Well, alright then – I’ve never used it. But now I’ll certainly have to try to find the right occasion to produce it in a verbal flourish.
    People who do not believe in supernatural entities do not have a "faith" in "the non-existence of X" (where X is "fairies" or "goblins" or "gods"); what they have is a reliance on reason and observation, and a concomitant preparedness to accept the judgment of both on the principles and theories that premise their actions. The views they take about things are proportional to the evidence supporting them, and are always subject to change in the light of new or better evidence.
    Well, exactly. Why don’t the archbishops grasp this simple fact?
    "Faith" – specifically and precisely: the commitment to a belief in the absence of evidence supporting that belief, or even (to the greater merit of the believer) in the very teeth of evidence contrary to that belief – is a far different thing, which is why the phrase "religious thinktank" has a certain comic quality to it: for faith at its quickly-reached limit is the negation of thought.  
    Well, quite, it’s that oxymoron again. Anyway, go and read the rest of Grayling’s article. It’s good.

    16 responses to “An Inspissated Gloaming”

    1. Brian Avatar
      Brian

      I don’t agree that faith is the negation of thought, nor that it achieves a quickly reached limit.  Faith, rather, is an imperative of thought as, given that faith has no ground in the empirical, it thus demands that we use reason as well as belief in its nurture and development.  Religious ThinkTank thus suits faith down to the ground.  Furthermore, because faith holds no certainty, it must be defended very rigorously against those very forces that claim it as an absolute and those who claim to have the last word of God.  By its very nature, faith is a journey and is rendered impotent by those who claim absolutism in the name of God.  If faith is to stay alive, it must always be researched, questioned, uncertain, argued, and inspected.  There is no parameter to faith and to claim so risks apostacy.   

      Reply
    2. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Coboró, then I think you are selecting your definition of the word "faith". In particular, you seem to be ignoring the definition given by Grayling, which, as he says, he gives "specifically and precisely". It is the definition of faith as "spiritual apprehension or voluntary acceptance of divine revelation apart from absolute proof" – the definition used in my dictionary. It seems as though your answer to the question: "Do you draw a distinction between blind faith and reasonable faith?" might be a "yes". My answer would be a "no".

      Reply
    3. Brian Avatar
      Brian

      I don’t see where Grayling’s definition differs greatly from mine, but then Grayling contradicts himself in his references to humanists, secularists and especially atheists.  Our respective approaches to faith both involve embracing belief in the absence of proof.  Atheists equally state their belief in the lack of a God whose existence they cannot disprove.  Secularists and humanists likewhise choose and embrace paths laid by certain belief systems.  Where Grayling does a disservice in his argument is to lump faeries, the Japanese Emperor, goblins and gods in the same bin and wouldn’t we all get along better if all that went away.  In the first instance, he cites but ignores the impact of the cultural underpinning of belief systems because secondly, and he does this at the peril of his intellectual integrity, he deliberately conflates faith with religion and advocates throwing the baby out because he disagrees with the bathwater.  I don’t think this is honest. 

      Reply
    4. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      I have to say I find: ‘We understand that the faithful live in an inspissated gloaming of incense and obfuscation, through the swirls of which it is hard to see anything clearly, ‘ to be rather sweeping and determinedly antagonistic. I suppose I, as a Christian, though by no means a ‘typical ‘ type, should be included in ‘the faithful’ yet I certainly do not live in a gloaming of either incense or obfuscation, inspissated or not. Nor do I take the idea that its only those who do not believe in a God that rely on reason and observation, since I certainly do require those two things on all levels. Where they seem to fly in the face of my experience, I deal with that experience on the same level, and I find that my reasons for belief are not ‘blind’ nor wishful, nor do I think that all ‘religious think tanks’ to be oxymoronic nor amusing, since I have had some of the deepest and most searching conversations with religious people. Like any other group, they contain all the elements. I suppose I’m just against sweeping generalisations or blanket dismissals.
       
       …’proportional to the evidence supporting them, and are always subject to change in the light of new or better evidence. ‘ – yes, me too. I don’t claim to have empirical evidence that I can put before you or anyone else, yet my belief is not based on reasonless, proofless things, but on long standing and repeated ‘proofs’, which though it may seem ‘subjective’ is, I can assure you, sound, and subject to the above requirement. I have found during my life that there are many things that don’t fit neatly into all the boxes, but I am always utterly open to question. I did away with the goblins and fairies a long time ago, because I never found they showed me any teeth. I’ve not found that where spiritual matters are concerned – yet. I sometimes find that atheists of a certain flavour can be as determined and sweeping in their generalisations as any raving fundie of the religious order, and that both therefore run the risk of missing a great deal of interest from both sides. 

      Reply
    5. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Coboró,you say: "Atheists equally state their belief in the lack of a God whose existence they cannot disprove". There are two parts to your statement. The first is that atheists ‘believe’ there is no God, and the second is that they cannot disprove the existence of a God.
       
      Let’s take them in turn. For the first, you may think it is merely semantics, but I assure you that, from where I stand, absence of belief is not the same thing of having a belief. Being bald is not a hair colour, to paraphrase Don Hirschberg.
       
      For the second, as Dawkins says: "what matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn’t), but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of possibilities". Dawkins goes on to use this idea of a spectrum to place human judgements about the existence of God along it and chooses, for the sake of argument, to illustrate the continuous spectrum at seven points:
      1 Strong theist. 100 percent probability of God. C. G. Jung: ‘I do not believe, I know.’2 Very high probability, but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that her is there.’3 Higher than fifty percent, but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’4 Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’5 Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’7 Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.’
       
      I’m in category 6, BTW.
       
      I’m not clear as to why you feel Grayling is doing a disservice to his argument. I don’t think he’s conflating faith with religion, I think he’s arguing that (a) religion doesn’t own ethical systems, as some people believe, and that (b) religions have produced some pretty twisted aspects of humankind’s ethical systems. And along with that, I agree wholeheartedly with Grayling’s last paragraph. I’m not clear how you think that this position is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      Reply
    6. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, I’m sorry that you didn’t see the humour in Grayling’s "inspissated gloaming" jibe, but I’m not going to apologise for him. It raised a wry smile with me, anyway. I’m curious, on the Dawkins spectrum that I mentioned in my reply to Coboró, where would you place yourself? And while it would probably take too long for you to explain your reasons for belief or your proofs, I am curious about them. While I can understand people’s need for religion as a mechanism to assist with aspects of life such as explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration, finding myself in category 6 because of the absence of any (to me) worthwhile proofs, I deal with life’s aspects without the use of religious belief.

      Reply
    7. Brian Avatar
      Brian

      Absence of belief is not, I feel the issue any more than belief is.  If we wish to quantify the existence of God in mathematical terms (which is all probability is) then we may do that but it will not impinge on the certainty, or not, of God.  There may well be life outside our solar system and indeed probability may play a role in the assertion but neither belief or probability will bring it into existence or negate same.  The same is true of God.  An atheist can no more believe God out of existence is he is there than a believer can will him to be if he isn’t.  And that is the whole point of belief: it can not exist in certainty.  An atheists believes, just as a theist does.
       
      I don’t buy Dawkins’ arguments because I find them very facile and here I admit to only reading excerpts.  But I do find that Grayling is disingenous if not a little arrogant when he implies that people of faith can not rely on reason without being inconsistent.  Far greater minds than his have, Jung included.  He rightly cites the damage done by religion to the well-being of society over the centuries but religion is not the same as belief and he would abandon belief in the same manner.

      Reply
    8. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Coboró, either I’m sensing that you’re moving the goalposts, or we are playing on completely different fields, and probably completely different games. You define atheism as ‘belief in the lack of a god’, whereas I define atheism as ‘lack of belief in a god’. These are not the same thing. My definition is simply not-theism. Not "I don’t believe in a God". And I agree with you: the certainty of the existence or otherwise of a god or gods is irrelevant to my atheism. And I think that Grayling would also agree with you (he says "even some on my own side of the argument here make the mistake of thinking that the dispute about supernaturalistic beliefs is whether they are true or false"). 
       
      I also get the feeling that you are looking at "faith" or "belief" in far broader contexts that Grayling is considering, i.e. religious faith or beliefs. The point is, as Grayling says, if someone chooses to believe in ‘X’, when evidence contrary to ‘X’ exists, then that is being irrational. In such a case, Grayling would claim it would be better to abandon that particular belief. I don’t see how you get from that to saying that Grayling is abandoning "belief" (the mental act or operation of accepting a fact or proposition as true) in general.

      Reply
    9. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      I can get the humour, perhaps its just that I find it a little irksome that, because I believe, so many times I’m assumed to be incapable of rational thought and so on, when I am not. I guess on the scale, I’d be a one – I’d say I know for sure, but I am sensible enough to allow a little two in there…. I am fascinated by studies of the brain and its reaches, so I’m open to examination and critical self examination.
       
      This that you say: ‘While I can understand people’s need for religion as a mechanism to assist with aspects of life such as explanation, exhortation, consolation and inspiration’, I have to say are none of the reasons I believe. I can’t see the point of ‘feigning belief’ or of trying to believe, for those reasons, as the consolations would be empty ones. In fact, believing answers none of them for me. What I have experienced which makes me a believer has raised more questions (in the exploring further sense) than it has cosily replied to. I am considered a ‘heretic’ by a lot of the more fundamental believers, for my delight in the study of science, evolution, such things as my limited learning about string theory, multiverses etc. which to me illuminate rather than threaten what I believe. I think its so much bigger than some people make out. Great topic Geoff.
       
       

      Reply
    10. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, when I used the example of the need for religion as a mechanism for coping, I didn’t mean to imply that people consciously adopt it in the sense of "feigning belief", or "trying to believe". I agree that that would be rather empty, simply acting, or going through the motions (though I have to wonder whether some parents in the UK are doing this in order to get their children in to a "good" school, which also happens to be a "faith-based" school). No, I do think that many people truly believe, and that then reflects back into those aspects of their lives that I mentioned. Why would it not?

      Reply
    11. Brian Avatar
      Brian

      Oh well, there’ll always be chocolate covered digestives, that’s the thing.

      Reply
    12. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      Hmmm. Why would it not? Why does it not. I think because that’s altogether too fluffy bunny. I have not found that my belief produces these effects. In many ways it makes life harder, more complicated, but also more fascinating. Life and the natural world is more fascinating the deeper you look into it, less animistically (is that a word?) cosy and safe. The same I have found with spirituality.
       
      Interesting part about monotheists being atheists towards all other Gods. I don’t think I even fit there. I think that all understandings and expressions of ‘Gods’ perhaps only reflect an experience given clothes and references appropriate to the time. That its the same experience of that is behind them all.
       
      Right now, I’d give anything for a chocolate biscuit and a nice cup of tea. That’s true comfort.

      Reply
    13. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, hmm, I would have thought that Bach’s deep religious belief was a major source of his inspiration (to take but one example), or that many people take comfort from their belief that their loved ones will be waiting for them on the other side, but perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree here.
       
      I think that some monotheists are atheists towards other gods, but not all. After all "though shalt have no other god before me" seems to imply that there are other gods knocking about, and then there’s that rather troubling Psalm 82, which talks of God amongst the gods. But then, to offset that, I would expect that followers of the Christian God are atheists towards, for example, Thor, Wotan or Zeus…
       
      Coboró, yup, I can accept that Chocolate Digestives are clear evidence of Intelligent Design. 🙂

      Reply
    14. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gaah – "thou" not "though"…

      Reply
    15. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Oh, and while I don’t agree with much of what Mark Vernon has written today in the Guardian’s Comment is Free piece, I am very grateful to him for bringing to my attention a wonderful quote from the great Dennis Potter: "the genius of religion is that it is the wound and the bandage". And there, I think, was another great artist who used his religious upbringing to magnificent effect in his work. The "wound and the bandage" is so evident in everything that he wrote.

      Reply
    16. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      The wound and the bandage – I like that. I like Potters work too. Yep, I’m sure God inspires many, I can only speak for myself. Told you I was a crap example! I just think ‘God/s’ is/are so much other than what we try and squash ‘him’ into. And if you want intelligent design, it has to be the jaffa cake – how else did the orangy bit get into the middle?

      Reply

    Leave a comment

  • Mind That Child

    Training Simulators come in all shapes and sizes. Here’s one: the RealCare Baby II-Plus, used to make young people aware of the fact that babies are not fashion accessories or toys, and that parenting is a demanding job. 
     
    It’s very realistic. Sometimes perhaps a little too realistic.

    Leave a comment

  • Oiling the Wheels of Industry

    Dr. Ben Goldacre writes a weekly column in The Guardian on the subject of "Bad Science".  He also has a blog of the same name. Recently, he’s been digging into a story about Durham Council introducing, at taxpayers’ expense, fish oil food supplements into the local schools. The council claims that the supplements have proven to be effective in improving the children’s performance at school.
     
    Goldacre has repeatedly asked to see the evidence for these claims, and surprise, surprise, the data has not been forthcoming. In fact, Durham Council have been stonewalling. One might almost think that they might have something to hide.
     

    Leave a comment

  • Eroding Values

    I see that, not to be outdone by Muslims, Christians are now leaping onto the bandwagon and trumpeting that illiberal atheists are to blame for society’s ills. The latest is the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu in a speech last Friday. I see that Alun Salt has sent a letter to the Archbishop by way of reply, and this excellent epistle shows up the speech to be the pile of twaddle that it is.  

    Leave a comment

  • The Prestige – Take Two

    Having mentioned the film The Prestige last month as something that sounds interesting, it’s now opening in Europe and the reviews are coming in. Despite a stinker of a review by Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian last Friday, today’s Observer (the Guardian’s sister paper) has an enthusiastic review by Philip French. I think I’ll go with French.
     
    Oh, and I see that the film has been made from a book of the same name by Christopher Priest. Something else to go on the book wishlist, I think.

    2 responses to “The Prestige – Take Two”

    1. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      I saw the Prestige, and thought it was a good film. I was disappointed that the ‘brilliant twist’ at the end was not a surprise to me, but it was to the people I went with, so maybe it was me. It made you think while watching, working out what was what, which is always fun, and the acting and atmosphere were great.  I heard a radio interview with the book’s author, and he was pleased with the adaptation, even saying that he wished he’d begun the book the way the film had. That an author is pleased is always a good sign I think.

      Reply
    2. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, thanks. I’ve tracked down a budget-priced copy of the book via Amazon Marketplace. I’m in two minds as to whether to read it after I’ve seen the film, or read it first. What would you do?

      Reply

    Leave a comment

  • The Terrorist Meme

    Interesting piece by Matthew Parris in The Times today. I find the idea of memes ("viruses of the mind") fascinating. Even if the meme hypothesis turns out to be false, some of the points that Parris makes are very valid. For example, while the vast majority of would-be terrorists are deluded and disaffected males dreaming their fantasies, we would do well to remember that hiding in amongst their number is the real thing. The trick is to be able to identify and isolate them from the false positives.

    Leave a comment

  • Dropping The Pilot

    Steve Bell is a political cartoonist par excellence. And although his style is often "in-yer-face", he can also be quite subtle. For example, when I saw this cartoon, about Bush getting rid of Rumsfeld, I thought it was quite good, but not one of his best.
     
    It turns out that it was my problem for not catching what was, in fact, a clever, and aposite, reference. What Bell has done is update a very famous political cartoon done in 1890 by Sir John Tenniel. "Dropping the pilot" illustrated the forced resignation of Bismarck by Kaiser Wilhelm. I love the fact (now) that Bell’s version shows that the whole ship has sunk, and that Kaiser Wilhelm’s crown has been replaced by a bird sitting on the Bushchimp (is it an albatross?).
     
    It’s not the first time that Tenniel’s cartoon has been used in this way. There’s apparently a long tradition of political cartoons based on it. Just goes to show that you’re never too old to learn. 

    2 responses to “Dropping The Pilot”

    1. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      Yeah. It wouldn’t let me see the cartoon it was taken from, but I have always been a fan of cartoons and cartoonists and have a fair collection.

      Reply
    2. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, have you seen this web site, devoted to the history of the political cartoon in Britain?

      Reply

    Leave a comment

  • Sledgehammers and Nuts

    Disappointing news that the Dutch government is moving towards a total ban on the niqab and burka. While I happen to think that the garments say more about the odd ways in which women are viewed by one religion (and gawd knows, it ain’t the only one), I don’t think that banning them is going to help one bit towards the avowed intent of integration into Dutch society. It’s more likely to drive the "us and them" wedge further into this society’s hearts and minds.

    2 responses to “Sledgehammers and Nuts”

    1. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      Absolutely. Nothing is more likely to make someone dig their heels in and decide a symbol is vital! than the threat to it. Also, where will it end? If the burkha, why not the turban, the cross, long hair, tattoos…… you and me…. why is it ordinary people can see these things coming, their failure, their likely trajectory, and the politicians can’t seem to?

      Reply
    2. Burka Ban | Geoff Coupe's Blog

      […] Five years ago, I thought that news that the Dutch government were considering a burka ban to be a very bad idea. […]

      Reply

    Leave a comment

  • Another Dose of Woo

    One thing that is guaranteed to get steam coming out of my ears is pseudoscience (or Woo-woo – to use the technical term). Alarm bells started to ring today when I read an entry on David Byrne’s Journal that quoted the following from an article in the New York Times:
    Studies suggest that people who speak in tongues rarely suffer from mental problems. A recent study of nearly 1,000 evangelical Christians in England found that those who engaged in the practice were more emotionally stable than those who did not. 
    That struck me as a somewhat counter-intuitive claim. So I went and read the original article. It describes some experiments done to measure brain activity while subjects are experiencing glossolalia – otherwise known as "speaking in tongues". Unfortunately, the NYT reporter (Benedict Carey) blows his credentials as a careful reporter with his opening paragraph:
    The passionate, sometimes rhythmic, language-like patter that pours forth from religious people who “speak in tongues” reflects a state of mental possession, many of them say. Now they have some neuroscience to back them up. 
    "Now they have some neuroscience to back them up". Er, hello, you mean that they are being mentally possessed? Er, no, the experiments don’t actually show anything of the sort. Mind you, the reporter was probably being led up the garden path by the experimenter, one Andrew Newberg. A clue might be gleaned from Mr. Carey’s report itself. The bit where he writes:
    Ms. Morgan, a co-author of the study, was also a research subject. She is a born-again Christian who says she considers the ability to speak in tongues a gift. “You’re aware of your surroundings,” she said. “You’re not really out of control. But you have no control over what’s happening. You’re just flowing. You’re in a realm of peace and comfort, and it’s a fantastic feeling.”
    This is clearly a carefully-controlled experiment, then. No danger of experimenter bias whatsoever. Gaah. Excuse me while I go and cool down. Feel free to carry on reading PZ Myers, who punctures this bit of woo with all the contempt that it deserves.
     
    Oh, and that study of 1,000 evangelical Christians in England? Funny that, I can’t find any trace of it via Google. If you are able to track it down, please let me know. I’d be interested to read it. But it may be as real as the Loch Ness Monster for all I can tell.  

    3 responses to “Another Dose of Woo”

    1. Gelert Avatar
      Gelert

      Yeah. Right to be sceptical. Tongues was something I was always very wary of. Since I’ve got to know one or two christians who claim to ‘do it’ I’ve found it interesting to discuss it with them. I’ve heard it a couple of times myself, going on very quietly behind me in a church, and I spoke to a woman about it once, who said she’d had it happen to her while she was praying about something she was very unhappy about. She said she ran out of words to express what she was feeling, and found this ‘language’ just coming out of her.
       
      I dunno. I know the couple of people I’ve spoken to who experience it are not raving exhibitionists, what it is I don’t know. That study sounds very bogus to me, but the subject itself is quite interesting when looked at as a phenomenon that people definitely do experience. The mind and its functions interests me.

      Reply
    2. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Gelert, I’m not dismissing the phenomenom – it certainly exists. But the evidence for what causes it points to the workings of the brain itself, rather than any need to invoke an outside agency. I’ve mentioned it before, but V.S. Ramachandran’s book Phantoms In The Brain is well worth reading on the topic. He explores these and other odd happenings in the brain. He’s a sort of neurological Oliver Sacks…

      Reply
    3. Geoff Avatar
      Geoff

      Phenomenon – sorry. Must learn to type better.

      Reply

    Leave a comment

  • Pratt By Name…

    …Pratt by Nature. Physician, heal thyself. It’s a sad story, really. I feel sorry not only for the patient(s), but for the doctor as well. But the astounding thing appears to be that she is carrying on practicing medicine. She should be removed at once.

    Leave a comment

  • Photosynth Preview Available

    Microsoft Live Labs has announced the availability of the first preview of Photosynth. I think I’ll try and give it a whirl. But I probably need to take some more photos first…
     
    Update: At this stage, the preview only works with collections supplied by the developers. The capability to add your own collections is supposed to come along later. I have to say that the demo is pretty damned impressive. You’ll need a high-end graphics card on your PC if it is to work, though.
     
    If this stuff does turn into a product, and it can be coupled to online photo-repositories such as Flickr, then this is going to be very interesting indeed.

    Addendum: And of course Microsoft has now scrapped the Photosynth product and technology, so none of these links work anymore. It’s dead, Jim.

    Leave a comment

  • It’s Another World…

    And one where I don’t know whether to laugh at, or cry for, the people involved. On reflection, I find it ineffably sad. Thanks to Jill for the link, I think.

    Leave a comment

  • The World’s Greatest Bureaucracy

    Based on personal experience, I often think that The Netherlands must rank high as a leading contender to be the world’s greatest bureaucracy (we’re guaranteed to grind you down…). However, on reflection I think that the honour should probably be passed to India. After all, they’ve been taught by a master in the form of the British Raj. The evidence is here.

    Leave a comment

  • Quote of the Day

    President Bush at a press conference yesterday: "In my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with her [Pelosi] the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the the new drapes for her new offices."
     
    Er, hello? I think the President’s brain has gone AWOL again… Perhaps he’ll offer her an unwanted neck massage next, à la Angela Merkel.
     
    (hat tip to Bitch PhD.)

    Leave a comment

  • Jesus Loves Puns

    Leave a comment

  • Emotional Islands

    Teju Cole has another wonderful piece of writing up on his blog. The man’s a marvel.

    Leave a comment

Latest Posts

My Library

Flickr Photos

Categories

Favourite SF Authors

Favourite Gay Authors

Blogroll

Archive