Yes. Incredible. With Cosmos, Carl Sagan opened my mind up to the incredible wonders of space and what's out there a few years ago. It's up there with Planet Earth on the scale of seriously remarkable television series. Seeing this continue with none other than Ann Druyan and Steven Soter themselves gets a resounding hell yeah from me.
Disagree. Neil is an amazing speaker and educator on science. I'd say the best since Carl Sagan. Like Carl, I'd be willing to sit down and listen to him talk about anything he wanted, for hours and hours, with the same sense of wonder and inspiration.
I have mixed feelings about Neil. He certainly have the credentials and I like him, although he's never serious enough for me. I just watched the Youtube video that you pointed to, and there he sounds like a religious preacher. I found very weak points in his arguments, easily refutable.
I hope that the sequel also targets a sophisticated audience: those of us that loved the original when we were kids and have continued evolving our brains for decades.
To me, Neil always seems like he's talking to children.
This is great for children. But as an adult who already knows 95% of what he's talking about it comes across as a bit grating.
Carl Sagan could tell you what you already knew, and you'd still be happy to hear it, because he'd just remind you how awesome this stuff you already know actually is.
You know information is never truly destroyed. Bringing Dr. Sagan back will probably remain too difficult for a couple generations, but, eventually, we'll figure that one out.
Information is always destroyed, and the universe uniformly has less net information now than it did a second ago; that's the second law of thermodynamics.
Even if you collected all the atoms that made up a person's brain, the most important information is lost. For starters, how would you know how those atoms were configured?
Given sufficiently god-like technology, you could run a simulation of the entire world repeatedly, modifying variables until you get a world with a copy of Sagan who fits exactly all the historical information available with him. Something like this is implied to be happening towards the end of Stross's Accelerando, which I highly recommend (there's a free ebook edition).
However, note my use of the term "god-like". Anything capable of doing this is so close to being a god that it makes very little difference from our point of view. There's also the theory that our universe is a simulation run by such an entity - the argument is something like "if it is possible to run a simulation of the universe, it is statistically far more likely that we're in such a simulation." Sort of makes sense, if you have the right mind-set or tilt your head and squint.
The prevailing theory is that it is truly random. Check out the Wikipedia entry on theories that aimed to eliminate that randomness, called hidden variable theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
That's the information part. I really don't need his own atoms, just the precise pattern they were arranged on a given moment in time. Unless we can find differences between individual atoms of a given isotope, any atom of the right kind will do. Or, if we want to reconstruct just a digital model, we can forgo the atoms and run the simulation on the state representation.
But, like I said, it's a problem to be solved by our smarter successors, not for us.
You don't need to recreate his brain. Collect all the recordings of his voice and photos of his body. Model his body, particularly his chest, throat, and head, until you can accurately reproduce his voice. Then model his speech pattern based on the recordings of his speech, and all you've got left is to hire a few good writers and scientists to write the script.
I'm a huge Sagan fan, and while I agree that Tyson doesn't have quite the same charisma, he does have a charisma of his own.
The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul, will the show be able to take the same stance on religion as its original incarnation. Will Tyson be allowed to refer to religion as, "a reassuring fable?"
For the sake of the integrity of a successor to Cosmos, I certainly hope so.
Tyson tweeted out yesterday: "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX."
It's being written by the same writers (aside from Carl) as the first one, and produced by Seth MacFarlane, someone who doesn't take shit from FOX. Tyson also doesn't seem like a guy who would corrupt his morals, he knows the value of scientific passion.
FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least.
FOX isn't Fox News, so don't worry too much. I'm not, at least.
What people don't realize is that Fox News serves a commercial rather than an ideological agenda. The rest of the news media (especially when Fox News started) has a slightly liberal bias, which means the big business opportunity for Fox was right-wing news. It's not that they have a political agenda, they're just giving people what they want--news coverage that aligns to their political bias. As the TV viewing population has skewed older, Fox News has pushed even further to the right to match their target market. Likewise, the business opportunity for the Fox network was young adults. (And for The Sun in 1970, the target market was presumably working class British males who wanted to see topless girls in their tabloids.)
Ailes is an advocate for his political views, and business is just the latest way he advances them. Even if he's somehow uninvolved in content direction, Fox News doesn't get a free pass with "it's just business." A lot of destructive things have been done in the name of profit, and poisoning the national discourse is no different.
Ailes is a means to an end. If right wing news is the business opportunity you want to pursue, you hire Ailes. I'm speaking from the perspective of Murdoch here.
I never intend to justify Fox News, only explain it.
The big question I have is, being on a major network owned by a well-known conservative mogul
Murdoch is Australian, and conservatism and Christianity don't have nearly as much overlap as they do in America.
I would be extremely surprised if Murdoch himself were anything other than agnostic/atheist.
Incidentally, I've never been sure why anyone ever thought that religion was supposed to be "reassuring". I was raised Catholic, and all I got from religion was the assurance that God was going to torture me for all eternity if I didn't correctly obey a set of impossible, largely contradictory and incredibly vague rules. That's the least fucking reassuring thing you can tell someone.
I've heard it wasn't always that way in the US. Goldwater started it from the right, and the hippies started from the left. I've heard that until then, the Democrats were the big-government social conservatives, and the republicans were the more socially liberal big-business northerners. The whole "religious right" thing is kinda new. That said, Murdoch isn't a new conservative, by any stretch of the imagination.
I would disagree with your statement about religion, on the grounds that Cosmos itself is inherently religious. The word religion just means the search for our origins, which is exactly what Cosmos (and science in general) is all about. There is nothing supernatural or mythological implied, and the failure of rational, scientifically-oriented people to embrace the term only further encourages its abuse by extremists.
I refuse to get dragged into a silly debate about semantics; the context of my use of the word religion is quite clear and is well-accepted meaning as the word relates to organized religions which believe in the mythological.
This is one of the things that bothers me about HN. 'silly debate about semantics'. The meaning of words are important. Especially here on HN and on the internet in general where the meaning of words is all we have.
The religion v science dichotomy is quite prevalent here. Your suggestion that 'science' isn't belief in the mythological might not hold up so well given that 'science' today means expecting what comes from 'scientists' and bears little resemblance to classical science where anyone could reproduce the results.
Science has become so specialized, so expensive that you have to accept on faith that studies are true, or accept on faith the studies supporting the original or refuting it. Almost no one has the actual means to verify what we call science now.
If religion is based on faith, then it is hard to argue that science hasn't become a religion.
Sure Science has become where spezialized and you personally can't reproduce every result from every sientist but what we can do is WAY WAY WAY better than just accepting it on faith the same way some people accept that god created earth in 7 days. What I mean is that we have to use the same word for both things but that does not mean that the two things are the same.
I understood what you meant. That said, there are good reasons for why most contemporary religious scholars don't use the word that way. Besides the political reasons I mentioned, it also prevents one from understanding the majority of the world's religious traditions and modern religious movements. To think about the word the wrong way leads one to completely misunderstand (or worse, ignore) large swaths of the human experience, and some very important parts at that. (E.g. rock concerts, festival culture, entheogenic drug use, etc.)
I know you can get away with it on HN because most people don't actually care, but there legitimate reasons for why it actually matters.
I dunno, I have seen him several times on Real Time with Bill Mahr and he does a fine job of holding his own on the panel. He even gave a couple of passionate rants that had the audience cheering last night.
I met him in NYC at the Union Square Barnes and Noble when he was promoting his book. He has a more whimsical tone to his charisma than Sagan. Sagan's was more reflective and focused. Both passionate about science and Cosmology.
I think Sagan's approach was fitting. I only worry that Neil's wit could be misinterpreted as arrogance by those who could benefit from a deeper appreciation of science and existence. Either way, I look forward to an updated reflection on what we've learned and seek to learn in the very near future.
What makes Carl Sagan so good is that he has an extraordinary amount of love for the audience. It's pretty clear that this stems from his use of empathogenic drugs like cannabis. (Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be able to project that much love and empathy for others without the use of psychedelics or empathogens, at least in western society.)
edit: I would define charisma more as the ability to make yourself loveable, which is basically the opposite of what Sagan does so well.
I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used. There are people who are born musicians or engineers (like me). He was born a teacher.
I watched Cosmos on my teens, late at night (actually, past midnight on Fridays, which made my early Saturday classes painful, but that's another story) on a TV station not particularly known for their love of science or reality. A couple posts back, there was a discussion opposing science and religion. Both are quests for ultimate truths opposed only by the methods of their search.
When I look deep in the sky, when I contemplate the mindboggingly vast emptiness punctuated by countless whirlpools of countless stars being violently born and evolving during the ages to their fiery (or cold) deaths, of which we only see an infinitesimal fraction, or the extremely small and quick, the things we cannot see, that we can barely measure and that are so faint that border non-existence, or the irrelevance of existence of pure math, it it's impossible not to feel the same deep wonder that's associated with religious experience. Science is humbling.
I do not envy the religious (or those who call themselves such) for they take a shortcut into a comforting notion of their Truth when it's not the destination that matters - it's the quest. I hope this new Cosmos puts more kids like me on the right path.
>I don't think Sagan's love for the audience could be the byproduct of the chemicals he used.
Here are Sagan's own words about how cannabis use has increased his own love and empathy for others:
"The cannabis experience has greatly improved my appreciation for art, a subject which I had never much appreciated before. The understanding of the intent of the artist which I can achieve when high sometimes carries over to when I’m down." [...]
"The heightened sensitivity in all areas gives me a feeling of communion with my surroundings, both animate and inanimate. Sometimes a kind of existential perception of the absurd comes over me and I see with awful certainty the hypocrisies and posturing of myself and my fellow men. And at other times, there is a different sense of the absurd, a playful and whimsical awareness. Both of these senses of the absurd can be communicated, and some of the most rewarding highs I’ve had have been in sharing talk and perceptions and humor. Cannabis brings us an awareness that we spend a lifetime being trained to overlook and forget and put out of our minds." [...]
"I find that most of the insights I achieve when high are into social issues, an area of creative scholarship very different from the one I am generally known for."
Just as alcohol will make aggressive people more aggressive and friendly people more friendly, cannabis will make aloof people more aloof and empathetic people more empathetic.
Or at least, it would be extremely rare for someone to be able to project that much love and empathy for others without the use of psychedelics or empathogens, at least in western society.
It's rare with or without drugs, let's be honest. I've known lots of stoners and they didn't seem particularly empathetic.
I don't think Mr. Rogers ever smoked weed, and he's the best example other than Sagan of a TV personality that projected a lot of love and empathy for the audience.
That's actually quite an interesting parallel you draw. I never considered Fred Rogers and Carl Sagan in the same thought, but despite being in some ways polar opposites, Sagan being a very liberal, science-minded individual, Rogers being a very conservative, faith-minded individual, they had almost more in common, given that these leanings both stemmed from a deep, gently- and eloquently-expressed love and concern for humanity.
i didn't find Planet Earth to be nearly as compelling as David Attenborough's Life of Mammals/Birds/Insects. the former was constantly trying to wow me with its photography (with narration reminding me to be wowed), while the latter had more profound things to say about ecology and evolution.
Y'know, I've never actually seen much of Cosmos, but I'd like to put in a plug for my favourite 80s documentary series, David Attenborough's Life On Earth.
Unless they get one big, honkin' corporate sponsor, any commercial-television follow-on to Cosmos will be broken up by commercials. Cosmos was done on PBS, which meant they could write for longer-duration episodes. 12-15 minute morsels will be more difficult to follow.
And if they assume that people's attention span are about that of house plants (which sums up Fox sports and the rapid-cut crap), it's going to be rather lightweight. If this is coupled with the "show rather than talk about" trend I've seen in Nova, it's going to fail as it'll take too much time to get the points across.
I think I'm most blown away by Seth MacFarlane's involvement in putting this together. I didn't know the guy had such a deep respect for science and a desire to impact our understanding of it.
That clip shows that he hates Christians, not that he loves science.
It's not even accurate (to the extent that any counterfactual can be considered accurate). If Christianity had never existed, would that have prevented the fall of the Roman Empire? Unlikely. Even if it had, were the Romans in the 3rd Century AD making huge strides in science before Christianity came along? Nope. And you'll note that when modern science did eventually arrive, it showed up in the Christian part of the world rather than the other 90%, which suggests Christianity can't be retarding scientific or technological progress that much.
Does it show that he hates Christians? I would say it indicates he is strongly critical of the role Christianity has had on the world. The strongest that you could say is that it shows that he hates Christianity.
Hating Christians though? That is an unfounded allegation. For example, I hate all religions, including but obviously not limited to Judaism. However, if you said that I hate Jews, that would be slander. It is incredibly untrue.
I only got around to seeing Cosmos when I was in graduate school, but I could see why it would inspire people to get into science. (For myself, I blame Isaac Asimov.)
One problem I have with a lot of science programs today is how they don't make it clear how we know what we know, or who figured it out. Science is presented as a bunch of facts rather than as something that was developed by people (who always have interesting stories). Carl Sagan didn't make that mistake, nor did Asimov, and I hope this new Cosmos sequel also takes the historical and human perspective.
If you haven't watched Cosmos already, I highly, highly suggest it. Start with Episode 1: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63317/cosmos-the-shores-of-the-cos...