threebeornothreebe

Even if we are not synesthete nor have perfect pitch, it is possible to learn (for a while, for a long time actually) to be synesthete: obvious example: the alphabet. If I see an A, I have trouble not thinking about the sound "A".  It is even possible to prove that the same way we prove syntesthetes have trouble sometimes because of the interference of symbols, for instance by writing BLUE in red - it takes more time to read it. Now, come the interesting idea: why do we use only black and white and SHAPES to create this sound-to-shape synesthesia? Because it is obvious that producing different colors was more difficult than creating different shapes; but now, we could easily control, say, an RGB light by, say, waving a magic stick like the sony controller in the air and exploring the RGB or VHS space.  Then, the question is: could we create a solid color-to-sound synesthesia, and more particularly, a colour to LETTER or syllabe synesthesia? that would mean we could

En 100 anos (y seguramente en mucho menos), cuando la tecnología haya avanzado lo suficiente, no tendremos ninguna excusa para hacer las cosas mal o sin ganas, pero tampoco ninguna responsabilidad en nada .  Si me agarro una cirrosis por tomar demasiado, se podra trazar el camino de las culpas, hasta llegar a alguien o algo que no sea yo mismo - algo molecular, despersonalizado.  Y condenarlo, y corregirlo.  Bueno o malo, este futuro de (i)responsabilidad infinitamente compartida no deja de ser perturbador.

Question: assuming one day we know the exact laws of the physical universe, and assuming we have enough computing power, is it possible to simulate a part of the universe (even a tiny one like a molecule) with perfect accuracy (i.e, indistinguishable form the real thing for EVERY experiment we can imagine) but faster than the real process?  Or does a perfect simulation require at least exactly the same duration (and/or physical space, energy, etc)?  The question may seem stupid but it's more complicated that it appears at first thought. Think about this: assuming a classical, newtonian universe, and a perfectly isolated particle, we can easily compute at any time, say, the position by using a simple mathematical formula. Then the "simulation" does not need approximating the behavior of the system using any sort of time step: the computation time may be much less than the time required by the real particle to actually reach the position. But as soon as we introduce r

 Cuando uno se emborracha o se divierte demasiado y mal y sin cuidado, gastando asi una energía preciosa, acortando el tiempo de vida; cuando uno se envicia y no piensa en el futuro y fuma un puro o lo que sea; cuando alguien hace eso nos sentimos mal, algo esta mal, el que lo hace se siente muchas veces culpable.  Pero de que se trata? se trata de lograr un estado de felicidad inmediato, el pecado es ser impaciente. Se trata de robarle al mundo un poco de felicidad, a costa de la salud. Pero la salud esta para que? para disfrutarla? Vivir, incluso no haciendo nada o lo mínimo, sin ningún tipo de placer nos consumiria igual - envejecemos.  Cualquier movimiento que hagamos, incluso no muy exagerado gasta energías, vuelve romos los ángulos de las moléculas y produce desechos que al final terminan destruyendo a toda la maquinaria. Asi que no hay diferencia, o mas bien solo de grado.  Vivir es un vicio : si quedes dejarlo, congelate al cero absoluto. Pero si abres los ojos, estaras

This may be obvious to a evolutionary scientist, but the other day I was thinking that perhaps evolution is not just about random mutations that are "selected" by environmental pressure: perhaps a mutation provides only a slight phenotypical advantage, but this mutation may have other  phenotypical  effects, perhaps visible but not providing any advantage (or disadvantage).  Now, the interesting thing is this: such phenotypical expression may end up being associated (in the minds of the animals) to the fact that the individual does have a true  phenotypical  advantage. Then, an unrelated expression will effectively have some reproductive advantage, and genes that enhance this feature (even if these are not the ones providing a direct advantage) will end up being selected for.  I am thinking for instance about the colored shapes of a peackok's tail... to generate a form in the shape of an "eye", there must be a complex process of diffusion during the emb