Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science. Show all posts

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Poison

So a bit of googling and calculating brings me this result; if my cat of 3kg did any of these:
  • ate 220g milk chocolate (as a reference, one bar is usually around 200g)
  • drank 12 cans of normal coke (or 8 half-liter bottles, or 2 big 2-liter bottles) 
  • drank one 50ml cup of Starbucks coffee (pure, not some latte shit) 
  • ate 28g of dark, unsweetened baking chocolate
he would most likely die. I strongly, very strongly, doubt he could fit 4l of coke, or 220g choclate, in his tiny stomach, or that he'd venture to drink strong, black coffee, but the baking chocolate could be a possible scenario I guess. Also he would get kinda sick before it got lethal. This is in one quick dose, but that doesn't mean it's fully safe eating smaller amounts. If it's done often it can also be dangerous since cats take up things again automatically from their own urine and so the poison could stay for a long time in their bodies and build up.

(As a side note, poisonous doses are almost always based on weight, and that's the case in this case. So dogs would have to eat a whole lot more to get sick. An adult, average German shepherd weighs about 11-13 times as much as my cat; that's 11-13 bars of chocolate. I don't know if they do the whole taking up nutrients from their own urine thing, because if they don't the poison also leaves their bodies faster.)

I also found out that the reason cats hate, and I mean *hate*, the smell of citrus fruits is because eating them makes them vomit.  They'd have to eat a damned lot of citrus fruit for it to get dangerous, and most likely they'd have thrown up long before that. Unfortunately for them they can't smell the poison (it's not just the caffeine) in coffee, tea or chocolate, that's actually more dangerous, and they don't always vomit it up if they eat enough to get seriously sick either.

So keep the baking chocolate away from the cat, or the cat away from the chocolate. Considering the nature of cats, I strongly suspect the first is easier.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

A static pattern of infinite variation

Christmas day and lazily watching television. Something sciency. I was paying half attention while carefully dissecting a chocolate Santa. They were talking about chaos. The idea that began with/spawned the saying about the butterfly and the tornado. I was thinking, boring, idiots, how couldn't you see? I've known, somewhere deep inside, always. The tiny details that tip the scales, creates tidal waves, that somehow fit into a greater pattern that yet still cannot predict the wave. I got interested at first because it amazed me that generations of great mathematicians seemed to have been baffled at the realization. The idea that chaos in the general sense is something that doesn't truly exist; it's simply another form of order.

But as they went on...

Not even nature can keep track of all the details. Micromanaging has never been the way to win a war. It's about initiating very simple patterns, that will lay the land for the winning strike, although you can never be sure when or how it will happen. Like a tree that repeats itself, smaller and smaller into branches, like our blood vessels, like river streams. Suddenly I saw the connection from math - to fractals - to nature - to the patterns of humanity and the world - back to the math that we spawned because of it. Feedback; an infinite, clever loop based on a very simple concept. A single pulse of the bat sonar, and another shard of clarity taken away from it.

Perhaps there is no need to know the details, perhaps no need to understand the small things, only to know the simple premises and how they build on each other? A difficult thing for me to accept, because it turns my beliefs about science upside down. Is it possible for humanity to understand the world we live in? An hour ago I would have said no, never, absolutely not. But maybe understanding it does not mean to know exactly where lightning will strike; rather to know the premises under which lightning will surely strike - sometime, somewhere.

It strikes me that it might be what my knowledge of people builds upon. As I get to know a person, a simple equation takes shape that will explain all behavior - but not predict it. I have always known that I'll never be able to predict. Too many small variables for a human brain to compute, probably also for a supercomputer. Bigger patterns of behavior are much easier to predict, but the actions of a single individual may also change the course of that behavior so drastically that predictions will always be just predictions; guesses.

Perhaps I even believe in evolution now, although that's a bit trickier. It means progress requires small mutations in all systems, which again removes the capacity to ever understand anything, because the tiniest change in the premise of the pattern can drastically change the outcome. Butterfly and all that.

Which brings me back to the idea that a system in motion, one that contains living, growing, evolving things can never be accurately understood or described, especially not by those inside of it.

Fractals have taken us closer to a math of nature than I previously understood. But can humanity ever understand everything? No, never, absolutely not.

But clearly there are underlaying, static patters that create a world of infinite variation. Can those be found and understood? Maybe. Maybe.

Friday, June 18, 2010

b.o.r.e.d

There are so many things I would want to do in the name of science.

Raise kids in all possible ways to see how it affects them. Like, studies say most homosexual people have older parents than non-homosexual, I want to try it. And raise some kids with only violent video-games and some completely without any contact with violence and then let them out into the "real world" and see what happened.

Or cut electricity in the entire world. Or see how outreageous I could make the laws of Sweden before people took action. Or kill someone, to see if I'd be all whimpy and throw up and have conscience-hangover or not.

Or kill everyone but me to see if I would survive. I would probably miss people, but *how much*?

Ahhh science...

but if I'd have to write a formal report on any one of those, then no thanks.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Artificial Intelligence

There are so many things I wonder that begin something like this:

I wonder what people would do if X happened,
or
I wonder if it would be possible to make people do X if you did X
,
or
I wonder if Love's school politics would actually work on kids,

and many more like it. But human experiments, aside from being a tad bit difficult to organize without time, money and say, expertise, are highly immoral and make people upset. And I see the sense of this.

But! If we actually manage to create artificial intelligence on the same level as the human mind, then we can do all these experiments and finally find out what...

... wait.

Dammit.