Daniel Dennett about what we should learn from religions

2011-01-26 21:26 (comments: 1)

(via richarddawkins.net)

Daniel Dennett shares his thoughts(37 min.) about something that was on my mind for quite some time already: exactly where does one put the balance when taking on criticizing religions, and more specifically what's in there to keep? And the answer was for me, as Dennett puts it, "we should ransack the toolhouse of organized religion of its best tools..." for building human happiness.

I do have a few reservations regarding the views of Dr. Dennett. Most importantly, there's a bit too much of idealism in some of his propositions. But I guess he would counter this given some more minutes of talk.

Listen to the wise man, he's very clear an convincing.

Numbers and common sense

2010-12-29 23:55 (comments: 0)

One has no choice but to approve Sam Harris' latest write-down of the current world state. He addresses the american situation specifically, but, with minor extrapolation, his lucid pin-down affirmations can be applied to any place/situation/social_group in this world. And to the world as a whole. Interesting reading.

I wouldn't need Googleearth either

2010-11-15 18:40 (comments: 0)


2010-11-14 11:46 (comments: 0)

My deepest fascination was always (and is) concentrated on the process of invention/creation. Having under our eyes (and being!) a species that nature evolved to be creative to the point that it starts to push nature's evolution to second place, makes us wonder about how this creation thing occurs and what is the limit (if any).

Perhaps some of the craziest examples of lack of limits on human creation are those related to Randall Munroe's xkcd. He is definitely a first hand dreamer and a sharp idea shooter. And a wonderful instigator. His imagination becomes astonishingly often reality. Like in the case of the wedding cake ("Useless"), or the ball robot ("New Pet"), or the junk buying bot ("Packages").And Randall materializes his ideas himself too!

Creation, what drives thee?

Persistent uselessness

2010-11-08 14:51 (comments: 0)

Warning, this entry is strongly computer oriented. Ever since my beginnings with Unix and Linux, I always was "offered" (read kindly imposed) the C shell as the traditionally better shell to use with my ubiquous terminals. Ever since, I was often frustrated by the difficulties I had in the use of this tool for writing the small scripts that we, programmers, often use in our developments. And this helped me gain a sort of insecurity and a feeling of uneasiness ("am I not good enough to learn this language properly?"). Well, I stand revenged! After reading Bruce Barnett's dissection of many of csh's idiosyncrasies or its plain stupid bugs'n'errors, I know that I was right when I decided to refuse to use csh anymore.