Daniel Matlock

Someone is shy

Daniel hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted 11 months ago
Parul Sehgal: An ode to envy
Wow. A child committing such a wrong, and you go straight to sociopath? Her talk was on Envy and Jealousy. Deep and interesting aspects to every person's character.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
Mark, Hats off. I could not have said it any better. I think you are pointing to an understanding of both science and philosophy that many people are not able to internalize. The two are not really separate, even if the dictionary definition allows for separation. The pure scientific view is an alley way of self confinement. Science is only a language of truth, not actual truth. A very difficult concept for many people, even very very very intelligent people to conceive. It just goes to show, there are many types of intelligence... and no one type is greater than the other. But it can make for very difficult discussions when equally gifted people, in different arenas, try to discuss a topic so deep. I love to read Keith's ideas. He is obviously well informed and off the charts clever. But I think you hit the target with a more complete view of things. I am sure I am out of my depth here, but I only wanted to add my 2cents))))
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Maria Bezaitis: The surprising need for strangeness
I was (still am) a bit confused. She seems to be hinting that there is something much bigger and better around the corner than Facebook that will provide some new level of connectedness. I did like the points she made about the benefits of being exposed to strangeness, and most other people's posts really focus on that aspect of her talk. But I thought her real point was about heretofore unheard of technologies for attaining this connectedness to strangeness. But I just didn't see what she meant by it. Or I should say, I think I see and I think I have some ideas of my own, but she didn't seem to finish that thought in her talk. I also want to mention how much I appreciate the TED community and what a pleasure it is to read such wonderful posts. So many people with such insight. Truly one of the benefits of connecting with strangers.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
One other thing that happened with this "divergence", is the extreme specialization of science. While it is necessary, I think these old school "philosophers" would quickly have seen the limitations that we overlook in a "purely scientific" view point. These people she points to where brilliant AND they where philosophically minded. Philosopher wasn't just a misused word to be replaced by scientist, it is a deeper understanding, study, and consideration of all things. Not just a study of empirical data and manipulation of accumulated data. Maybe it is time that we find a way to combine the efficiency of highly specialized study with the incredible creativity achieved by the polymath of old days.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
I think it helps to think of science as a language. People who get into science history and the philosophy of science can see that it is very cultural. So what we often think of as simple "truth" will later be seen as "culturally biased". So while our science is obviously more advanced than historical cultures, it isn't really fair to judge them on a simple "truth" scale. Just a thing to think about when doing comparisons.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
In reading your post, I have a similar but different idea. Philosophy was the beginning of science, and over 2000 years ago serious philosophizing allowed the human mind, unaided by technology, to conceive of the atom and space and light as a particle. I think that the "empirical" side of science is out of balance with the philosophical side (there is no philosophical side). I think you have a good point, that philosophy and spirituality (just other ways of viewing the single truth) are under utilized and finding a way to integrate them into the whole would be better. Maybe not faster, but better.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
Keith, while I understand your logic. I would ask that you consider this: nothing is impossible. Why can we accept that some scientific discovery can occur that will defy our imagination and prove everything we ever knew as wrong, but we can't allow people to maintain their faiths. First, science uncovers more unknowns than it does explains anything. Second, people are very complex and very different and not everyone is ready to shed their faith for an empirical viewpoint. And if you subscribe to the scientific concept of success through diversity, you might have some understanding (albeit patronizing) of people of faith.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
Richard, I don' know the details of the test. But I am thinking that it was not a religion vs. science test. Maybe her example opened her up to attack from a religious point of view. But I am guessing the test itself was probably well equipped to determine science literacy, not religious beliefs. I might be naive, but I am guessing she had no agenda to slam religion. There are plenty of other TED talks you can turn to for that))))
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Laura Snyder: The Philosophical Breakfast Club
To me it sounds as if you might both be saying the same thing. There is an intellectual separation between science and religion is natural because they are different ways of explaining and seeing the world. It is the world that is the single thing. Sight and sound are two different senses. They are different. The world they interpret is a single thing. I think what is the right balance is to allow for them both and balance them. I do want to say that I find both your comments very insightful. You make TED posts worth reading.
Noface
Daniel Matlock
Posted over 1 year ago
Elon Musk: The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity ...
To the nay sayers: "batteries can't do this yet", "Solar can't power the grid at night", "battery weight is so many % too much", "battery problems, battery problem!".... If you can't hear how you sound let me put it simply. Every great innovation has had those people who say the innovator is crazy. Then in retrospect the nay sayers are the ones who look crazy. "The automobile will never catch on". That is kind of how you sound... Of course you have some good data on your side. But just remember; that is what innovation is! If every Joe (sorry Joe) could see the obvious path forward, it wouldn't be innovation. And if he fails, I for one will be very sad. I would be very slow to say "I told him so." Because in my heart, and I expect in yours too, you do want him to succeed. And the reason I think he will (or someone who picks up where he left off), is because he is 100% right. Can anyone in their right mind see us NOT using solar power as the long range answer? Guys, I mean the "future" here. Maybe in 20 years, maybe in 50. But come on! It has to be solar in the end. OK, some form of atomic might be the other option. But solar will be there. So I guess I just want to chime in and say "cut the rich dreamer guy some slack")))) His track record has earned him that much.