The rich are always immoral - according to Jean

140404

A friend, Jean Bosco Walsh posted the "Money is the root of evils" (see below) article from "Upworthy".

http://www.upworthy.com/take-two-normal-people-add-money-to-just-one-of-them-and-watch-what-happens-next?c=ufb3

I commented on her Facebook:

"Wow! Should we tell our children to quit school, advise them to take hard drugs, drink at a young age, live in ghetto or on the streets, get in and out of jail, be dirt-poor and subsist on welfare... so that they will somehow and automatically be more honest? This kind of "studies" is junk, anecdotal and lacking of statistical understanding. These sloppy "experiments" with problematic sample size and population, incorrect inference and poor regression analysis imply ludicrously that an indigent person is (always or most probably) more honest than a "Bill Gates"! Correlation does not imply causation: a BMW driver who did not stop for pedestrians could be a teenager jerk and not because he/she is rich!!!"

Jean Bosco Walsh I wonder if you saw the monopoly game part of the video? your way jumping in correlation. ... not this study...

7 hours ago 

Michael Wyn " I watched the entire video. The monopoly game had too many variables (age, gender, population, sample size, location...) to be statistically significant. Several years ago a study claimed an increase of cancer incidents of children living under or nearpower line. Regression analysis identified the flawed methodology: most of the subjects in the study were poor, unhealthy children who also were living near or under power lines. Being poor does not make you virtuous."

Jean Bosco Walsh 30 studies on thousands......?? There are many flawed research studies to point to... just not sure it is relevant with this.... Let's play the rigged monopoly game , I bet we would both change given some time in our positions.... human nature....

Michael Wyn "Power line causes cancer. Vaccinations trigger autism. UFO's in Area 51. Flat earth. Fake moon landing. Money brings immorality. Conspiracies...: all have been soundly discredited. Human morality is not formed by how much money we have or have not. It is instilled by our upbringing, our family, friends and peers we have, inner strength to know right from wrong and our continuing daily assessment of our life. Throughout history there have been lots of noble wealthy folks and absolutely horrible poverty-stricken despicable characters."

Wealth and high morality can go hand in hand.  http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_and_melinda_gates_why_giving_away_our_wealth_has_been_the_most_satisfying_thing_we_ve_done?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2014-04-05&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=top_left_image

Jean Bosco Walsh I know there are a lot of rich people who do good things with their money... got it.(And the video even showed some who made the pledge..... point of the study is the title..... "Take two normal....." Have you read the book "Only the super rich can save us" by Ralph Nader? It's a novel ... so don't start arguing facts with me!.

Michael Wyn I am glad that you agree with me and that you don't like facts!  There are many sensational one-liners and sound bites which are misleading and wrong. Who and what are two "normal" people? Are these mathematically average or median? Where do we find them? Are they randomly picked from (name your favorite town/locale: ghettos, Beverly Hills, rural or Harvard university, ... )? re. Ralph Nader: Isn't he a bit anachronistic?

Science and faith

Notes from last several months. 

I have been engaging in a short online discussion with several young physicians (friends of Amy) who believe that God can be found through logic and intellectual inquiry. I believe that is not possible. Saying that I don't like/want to eat broccoli is not a matter for

scientific inquiry. Faith is believing and from some other reference frame it can

look quite illogical, unscientific and maddening. The Bible is not a history nor scientific

book. Folks who try to fit it into an engineering/scientific framework do not

understand science nor Faith. There have been attempts to make religion more

"respectable" by cover it under a scientific/intellectual facade. A famous quote:

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

These young physicians sent me this link:

http://www.spiritscienceandmetaphysics.com/scientists-claim-that-quantum-theory-proves-consciousness-moves-to-another-universe-at-death/

My response: 

This is not science. It is speculation. There is no evidence of life after death. Quantum physics says nothing about "consciousness moves to another Universe at death"! Please see http://www.skepdic.com/nde.html (and many reputable other sources) in which "....(scientists) attribute the feelings of extreme peacefulness of the NDE to the release of endorphins in response to the extreme stress of the situation. The buzzing or ringing sound is attributed to cerebral anoxia and consequent effects upon the connections between brain cells (op. cit., 64).

Dr. Karl Jansen has reproduced NDEs with ketamine, a short-acting hallucinogenic, dissociative anesthetic.

The anesthesia is the result of the patient being so 'dissociated' and 'removed from their body' that it is possible to carry out surgical procedures. This is wholly different from the 'unconsciousness' produced by conventional anesthetics, although ketamine is also an excellent analgesic (pain killer) by a different route (i.e. not due to dissociation). Ketamine is related to phencyclidine (PCP). Both drugs are arylcyclohexylamines - they are not opioids and are not related to LSD. In contrast to PCP, ketamine is relatively safe, is much shorter acting, is an uncontrolled drug in most countries, and remains in use as an anaesthetic for children in industrialised countries and all ages in the third world as it is cheap and easy to use. Anaesthetists prevent patients from having NDE's ('emergence phenomena') by the co-administration of sedatives which produce 'true' unconsciousness rather than dissociation.* 

According to Dr. Jansen, ketamine can reproduce all the main features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into the light, the feeling that one is dead, communing with some god,..."

• Michael Wyn I share your hope and wish that there is life after death. But as far as we know now the prospect does not look too good. I am more a skeptic and would like to see better evidence... before believing...

  January 23 at 11:43am · Edited · Like
• 

  Radeyah Sos you're so smart

  January 23 at 12:16pm · Like
• 

  Amy Marcos if you mean Michael Wyn, he has to be heading a tech company !

  January 23 at 2:03pm · Like
• 

  Alvro Ramoz That's one informed fella.

  January 23 at 2:45pm · Like
• 

  David Ramos Michael interesting stuff. If you haven't already, you should look into DMT / dimethyltryptamine - it takes what you've described with Dr. Jansen to a much more profound level that dwarfs the outer body effects of those ketamine derivatives ... Science does not trump such speculation nor rule out the possibility of life after death - science has no greater weight than speculation when it comes to arguing over these grand questions of life / death. In my humble opinion, science as we know it is much speculation, especially when you're talking all this quantum physics stuff and are trying to understand reality, the universe, etc on that deep, relatively unknown level of research and science. If anything, the effects of the substances / drugs you've described, coupled with the sheer power of the brain, the mind, and how very little we know about it all, leads me to lean towards the supernatural rather than nothingness.

  January 23 at 8:52pm · Like
• 

  Michael Wyn Hi David: Thanks for your note. Science is based upon careful observations, empirical evidences and rigorous testings, typically across many disciplines by separate, independent and unbiased observers/scientists. The purpose of scientific study is to discover principle, rule(s) to support or contradict a theory. Science does not rely upon speculation. Bertrand Russell's teapot is the analogy to demand burden of proof upon speculation. Carl Sagan paraphrased as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Quantum physics is not speculative: in my work we have to adjust satellite atomic clocks regularly thanks to quantum effects and relativity; laser light demonstrates the quanta property of electromagnetic radiation, tunnel diodes are real.... Science cannot argue the possibility of life after death because proving a negative (example: prove that unicorns do not exist) is not possible nor is a scientific method. Science is "organic" meaning if there is evidence/discovery identifying a certain principle violating current understanding science will change. Anyone who identifies a person returning from real death will probably get an immediate Nobel prize in Medicine.

  January 23 at 10:54pm · Like
• 

  Amy Marcos Hold on ! let's bring a TED forum in here before we continue this thread 

Thoughtful Roger Ebert excerpt on death

Roger Ebert, film critic

"I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. I am grateful for the gifts of intelligence, love, wonder and laughter. You can’t say it wasn’t interesting. My lifetime’s memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

Still, illness led me resolutely toward the contemplation of death. That led me to the subject of evolution, that most consoling of all the sciences, and I became engulfed on my blog in unforeseen discussions about God, the afterlife, religion, theory of evolution, intelligent design, reincarnation, the nature of reality, what came before the big bang, what waits after the end, the nature of intelligence, the reality of the self, death, death, death.

Many readers have informed me that it is a tragic and dreary business to go into death without faith. I don’t feel that way. “Faith” is neutral. All depends on what is believed in. I have no desire to live forever. The concept frightens me. I am 69, have had cancer, will die sooner than most of those reading this. That is in the nature of things. In my plans for life after death, I say, again with Whitman:

I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I love,

If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles.

And with Will, the brother in Saul Bellow’s 'Herzog,' I say, 'Look for me in the weather reports.'

One of these days I will encounter what Henry James called on his deathbed “the distinguished thing.” I will not be conscious of the moment of passing."

Someday I will no longer call out, and there will be no heartbeat. I will be dead. What happens then? From my point of view, nothing. Absolutely nothing. All the same, as I wrote to Monica Eng, whom I have known since she was six, “You’d better cry at my memorial service.” I correspond with a dear friend, the wise and gentle Australian director Paul Cox. Our subject sometimes turns to death. In 2010 he came very close to dying before receiving a liver transplant. In 1988 he made a documentary named 'Vincent: The Life and Death of Vincent van Gogh.'  Paul told me that in those days, Vincent wrote:

Looking at the stars always makes me dream, as simply as I dream over the black dots representing towns and villages on a map.

Why, I ask myself, shouldn’t the shining dots of the sky be as accessible as the black dots on the map of France?

Just as we take a train to get to Tarascon or Rouen, we take death to reach a star. We cannot get to a star while we are alive any more than we can take the train when we are dead. So to me it seems possible that cholera, tuberculosis and cancer are the celestial means of locomotion. Just as steamboats, buses and railways are the terrestrial means.

To die quietly of old age would be to go there on foot."

Nostalgia

It snows outside. The house is almost quiet except for soft whispers of the fire in the fireplace. For a while I sat in silence watching the snow outside the window gently falls onto the ground... I started and listened to  the sensual music of Dusty Springfield then Marianne Faithful... "If you go away", "You don't have to say you love me"  Dusty Springfield then Marianne Faithful's "As tears go by" brought much nostalgia; a gentle sadness came to me.

10am. Watched the rituals of the Catholic Church Conclave. It is filled with solemnity, unworldly beauty, ancient process, music and prayers in Latin. An incredibly picturesque pageantry with colorful Swiss guards, Michelangelo magnificent frescos in the Sistine Chapel.  No woman, though.

For a happier life

Yesterday evening we saw “Happiness”, an excellent PBS special.

Dr. Tal Ben Shabar is a Harvard professor teaching class about happiness. His thesis of ingredients for a happy life includes:

Simplification of life. The many choices that we have bring confusion and chaos. He proposes that we ought to simplify our life with simple pleasures; perform less multi-tasking activities; take time out to recover from stress.

Positive acceptance. This is not passivity. Positive acceptance means to make choice based upon available information; learning from mistakes and move on.

Exercise. Referenced many medical studies, Tal Ben Shabar posits that regular physical exercise reduces stress, disease risks, … which will lead to a happier, healthier life.

Happiness can be learned.

Mindful meditation. The simplest daily exercise is the deep breathing method. More advanced mindful meditation will further relaxation, stress-reduction and many other benefits.

Focus on the positives. An attitude of gratitude concentrating upon all the good things in our life is an important element for a happy life.

Tal Ben Shabar has written several best-sellers including “Happier” and “Pursuit of Perfect”.

Books...

I have been reading quite a bit. I have a Nook and a Kindle Fire
so it's quite handy to take books with us while traveling. The most 
recent books I enjoy are:

1. "Steve Jobs" by Walter Isaacson: A compelling story of a complex 
    human being.

2. "The Swerve: How the World Became Modern" by Stephen Greenblatt:
    An amazing story-telling of Western civilization to the Renaissance
    and Enlightenment.

3. "Knocking on Heaven's Door: How physics and Scientific Thinking illuminate
     the Universe and Modern World" by Lisa Randall. An explanation of
     the complex universe [or multi-verse] we live in from quantum physics
     to the cosmos. Highly recommended.


I really enjoy the free time to re-educate myself with books,
Netflix, magazines, newspapers, online Wikipedia,...

The difference I find that books [those I mentioned before] are much
more complex and are difficult to present in a different media such as
TV. I don't deny the power of visual presentations; we were quite
impressed with Netflix's "Downton Abbey" series and other
science programs from PBS. "Mao's last dancer" movie on Netflix
was also quite a powerful message. But it is not easy to present
ideas from "The Swerve" or Lisa Randall's "Touching Heaven's..."
books in video format.

An agnostic Epicurean

Many believe organized religions have done much more harm throughout history
than good. One just has to be reminded of four centuries of the
Catholic Church's savage Medieval Inquisition and its ill-gotten wealth to this day, the brutal
oppression of women and people of other faith by Islam and the ludicrous
promise - preventing oppressed, poor, less educated/fortunate people to make
change to their present life - of the "next life" by Buddhism. Or their Hindu
misfortune is due to their previous life's bad Karma. In addition, many core
tenets of religious belief systems fail utterly under scientific and
philosophical examinations.

There are many psychological studies showing that reincarnation and stories
of past life are just "false memories". At worst, the invented
reincarnation stories - mostly from poor, less educated communities in India - are scams allowing children of the poorer Hindu caste to gain entrance into the higher
caste. [Note: boys claimed to be the reincarnated [dead] husband of wealthy land-owner's
daughter. In fact, the barbaric practice to burn alive widows came from the
needs to preserve family's wealth.]

A writer in our today's local newspaper explains himself very well below.

"Consider Russell's Teapot, an idea first proposed by Bertrand
Russell, who postulated that if he were to claim that a teapot were orbiting the sun somewhere
between Earth and Mars, the burden of proof of the teapot's existence would be his, not those who doubted his claim. I assume that most people who believe in God would
claim that a teapot orbiting the sun was preposterous, and they wouldn't feel
obligated in any way to prove that it didn't exist.

Personally I think a teapot orbiting the sun is highly unlikely, but
not impossible. It doesn't violate any laws of physics that I am aware of. I also
don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny, although I concede that there might be one chance in a quadrillion that they exist."

Words of [some] wisdom

1. Never say ‘I am aged': There are three ages, chronological, biological, and psychological. The first is calculated based on our date of birth; the second is determined by the health conditions and the third is how old you feel you are. While we don't have control over the first, we can take care of our health with good diet, exercise and a cheerful attitude. A positive attitude and optimistic thinking can reverse the third age. 2. Health is wealth: If you really love your kids and kin, taking care of yourself and your health should be your priority. Thus, you will not be a burden to them. Have an annual health check-up and take the prescribed medicines regularly. Do take health insurance cover. 3. Money is important: Money is essential for meeting the basic necessities of life, keeping good health andearning family respect and security. Don't spend beyond your means even for your children. You have lived for them all through and it is time you enjoyed a harmonious life with your spouse. If your children are grateful and they take care of you, you are blessed.But never take it for granted. 4. Relaxation and recreation: The most relaxing and recreating forces are a healthy attitude, good sleep, music and laughter. Have faith, learn to sleep well, love good music and see the funny side of life. 5. Time is precious: It is almost like holding a horse's reins. When they are in your hands, you can control them. Imagine that every day you are born again. Yesterday is a cancelled cheque. Tomorrow is a promissory note. Today is ready cash — use it profitably. Live this moment. 6. Change is the only permanent thing: We should accept change — it is inevitable. The only way to make sense out of change is to join the dance. Change has brought about many pleasant things. We should be happy that our children are blessed. 7. Enlightened selfishness: All of us are basically selfish. Whatever we do, we expect something in return. We should definitely be grateful to those who stood by us. But our focus should be on the internal satisfaction and happiness we derive by doing good to others, without expecting anything in return. 8. Forget and forgive: Don't be bothered too much about others' mistakes. We are not spiritual enough to show our other cheek when we are slapped in one. But for the sake of our own health and happiness, let us forgive and forget them. Otherwise, we will be only increasing our BP. 9. Everything has a reason. A purpose: Take life as it comes. Accept yourself as you are and also accept others for what they are. Everybody is unique and right in his own way. \ 10. Overcome the fear of death: We all know that one day we have to leave this world. Still we are afraid of death. We think that our spouse and children will be unable to withstand our loss. But the truth is no one is going to die for you; they may be depressed for some time. Time heals everything and they will carry on.

Regardless How Far The Journey Is OR How Capable We Are, We Do Our Best To Reach Our Goal. This Is Perseverance At Its Best ...—Anonymous

Re: Syria and the Middle East

Syria: It is quite complicated. Look at Egypt now.
The Islamists and radicals are taking over the country.
It is reported that many intellectuals - many of whom
were in the Arab Spring front line hoping for democracy -
are very discouraged and wanting to emigrate to
the US and other countries. Unfortunately, the news from
Syria is not all good. The Arab unrest there may unleash
a theocratic tyranny/dictatorship worse than Bashar al-Assad.

US/France/GB is turning their back on someone whom
they've been courting for years. At the same time, Russia
is drawing a line in the sand against the West by continuing
supporting al-Assad. Iran is arming to the teeth including
possible nuclear weapon development,
playing chicken with our Navy and threatens the
Strait of Hormuz.

It'll be a rough ride for all of us...

On reading Epicurus

"Don’t fear god,

Don’t worry about death;

What is good is easy to get, and

What is terrible is easy to endure."

Philodemus, Greek Epicurean philosopher

Epicureanism

Epicurus (341 BCE - 270 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher, raised on Samos then returned to Athens in 307 BCE to practice philosophy and developed a school of philosophy called Epicureanism. He lived very simply and frugally. In many letters throughout his life, he himself said that he was quite content with just water and simple bread and lots of friends and expressed his gratitude to his parents, kindness to his brothers, and gentle kindness to all around him.

He wrote that there is nothing fearful in the absence of life. So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist. Therefore, it is relevant neither to the living nor to the dead, since it does not affect the former, and the latter do not exist. Epicurus wrote that "... a wise man neither rejects life nor fears death. For living does not offend him, nor does he believe not living to be something bad. And just as he does not unconditionally choose the largest amount of food but the most pleasant food, so he savors not the longest time but the most pleasant."

Epicurus, by his personal example and by his teaching and a lifetime of serenity and wisdom, revealed the path to redemption from unhappiness. He was revered by his followers as a divine sage who had answers to all the important questions of life. What attracted converts was the prospect of personal happiness, for which Epicurus offered clear philosophical advice. The fundamental obstacle to happiness, says Epicurus, is anxiety. No matter how rich or famous you are, you won’t be happy if you’re anxious to be richer or more famous. No matter how good your health is, you won’t be happy if you’re anxious about getting sick. You can’t be happy in this life if you’re worried about the next life. You can’t be happy as a human being if you’re worried about being punished or victimized by powerful divine beings. But you can be happy if you believe in the four basic truths of Epicureanism: there are no divine beings which threaten us; there is no next life; what we actually need is easy to get; what makes us suffer is easy to put up with.

Illness and pain are disagreeable, but nature has so constituted us that we need not suffer very much from them. Sickness is either brief or chronic, and either mild or intense, but discomfort that is both chronic and intense is very unusual; so there is no need to be concerned about the prospect of suffering. Know the limits of what you need, recognize the limits of what your body is likely to suffer, and enjoy the confidence that your life will be overwhelmingly pleasant, unless you poison it with anxiety. “Don’t worry about death.” While you are alive, you don’t have to deal with being dead, but when you are dead you don’t have to deal with it either, because you aren’t there to deal with it. “Death is nothing to us,” as Epicurus puts it, for “when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist.”

Worrying about death casts a general pall over the experience of living, either because people expect to exist after their deaths and are humbled and terrified into ingratiating themselves with the gods, who might well punish them for their misdeeds, or else because they are saddened and terrified by the prospect of not existing after their deaths. But there are no gods which threaten us, and, even if there were, we would not be there to be punished. Our souls are flimsy things which are dissipated when we die, and even if the stuff of which they were made were to survive intact, that would be nothing to us, because what matters to us is the continuity of our experience, which is severed by the parting of body and soul. It is not sensible to be afraid of ceasing to exist, since you already know what it is like not to exist; consider any time before your birth—was it disagreeable not to exist? And if there is nothing bad about not existing, then there is nothing bad for your friend when he ceases to exist, nor is there anything bad for you about being fated to cease to exist. It is a confusion to be worried by your mortality, and it is an ingratitude to resent the limitations of life, like some greedy dinner guest who expects an indefinite number of courses and refuses to leave the table.

“What’s good is easy to get.” We need food, water, shelter from the elements, and safety from hostile animals and people. All these things lie ready to hand and can be acquired with little effort or money. We don’t need extravagant foods, palaces, or bodyguards, which are expensive and difficult to acquire and keep. People who want more than they need are making a fundamental mistake, a mistake that reduces their chances of being satisfied and causes needless anxiety.

The discipline of Epicurean philosophy enables its followers to recognize how little they actually need, to enjoy possessing it, and to enjoy the confidence that they will continue to possess it. On the other hand, there is no reason not to enjoy occasional luxuries, if they happen to be easily available. There is nothing wrong with luxury in itself, but any dependence on luxuries is harmful to our happiness, as is every desire for unnecessary things.

To say that life is free is not to say that we don’t need to observe any moral constraints. It is a very bad plan to cheat on your friends or assault people in the street or do anything else that would cause you to worry about their reactions. Why is this a bad plan? Not because god has decreed that such things are ‘immoral’, but because it is stupid to do anything that would cause you to worry about anything.

One of the remarkable features of Epicurus’ philosophy is that it can be understood at several levels of subtlety. You don’t need to be a philosophical genius to grasp the main points, which is why Epicurus coined slogans and maxims for ordinary people to memorize, to help them relieve their anxiety whenever it might arise.

Edited excerpts from "The Epicurus Reader" by D.S. Hutchinson

Interesting tidbits on intelligence and other subjects

From Scientific American online magazine, June 2011:

"Santiago Ramón y Cajal, the Spanish Nobel-winning biologist who mapped the neural anatomy of insects in the decades before World War I, likened the minute circuitry of their vision-processing neurons to an exquisite pocket watch. He likened that of mammals, by comparison, to a hollow-chested grandfather clock. Indeed, it is humbling to think that a honeybee, with its milligram-size brain, can perform tasks such as navigating mazes and landscapes on a par with mammals. A honeybee may be limited by having comparatively few neurons, but it surely seems to squeeze everything it can out of them.

At the other extreme, an elephant, with its five-million-fold larger brain, suffers the inefficiencies of a sprawling Mesopotamian empire. Signals take more than 100 times longer to travel between opposite sides of its brain—and also from its brain to its foot, forcing the beast to rely less on reflexes, to move more slowly, and to squander precious brain resources on planning each step.

• Human intelligence may be close to its evolutionary limit. Various lines of research suggest that most of the tweaks that could make us smarter would hit limits set by the laws of physics.
• Brain size, for instance, helps up to a point but carries diminishing returns: brains become energy-hungry and slow. Better “wiring” across the brain also would consume energy and take up a disproportionate amount of space.
• Making wires thinner would hit thermodynamic limitations similar to those that affect transistors in computer chips: communication would get noisy.
• Humans, however, might still achieve higher intelligence collectively. And technology, from writing to the Internet, enables us to expand our mind outside the confines of our body."

How Simple Photos Could Be Used as a Test for a Conscious Machine [Contest]

Join Scientific American's contest to show why conscious humans best unconscious computers and win a recently authored book by renowned neuroscientist Christof Koch

By Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi | Monday, June 13, 2011 | 14

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?: To judge that this image is incorrect, a machine would need to be conscious of many things about the world (unless programmed for just such a photograph). Image: Geof Kern

Advertisement

The mystery of human consciousness appears routinely as one of the greatest science problems of all time. One way to get a grip on this seemingly ineffable property would be to build a conscious machine. It may be many years before that happens. But the overriding question, when someone does try, will be: how will we know whether that machine is really conscious—and not merely faking it?

Probing a machine for consciousness need not require an elaborate mathematical construct. In fact, it might derive from something as simple as a street photo snapped with a cell phone camera, or you could use photo editing software to devise an image that just about any human would recognize is irrational or nonsensical, but that even today’s smartest computers might pass over as reasonable.

With that in mind, Scientific American invites you to create a photo (or two) for our Great Consciousness Contest that is based on a challenge set out by two leading neuroscientists, Christof Koch and Giulio Tononi, in the magazine’s June issue. The contest is looking for photos or images that depict a nonsensical scenario that could be perceived as sensible by any existing machine that attempts to imitate the conscious reasoning abilities of a human.

The authors define consciousness here as an ability to understand whether a photograph depicts an image that makes sense based on knowledge of the world that most people share—general knowledge that no present-day computer is capable of storing and processing in the way people do. A person, for instance, knows that a keyboard belongs in front of a computer screen, whereas a potted plant in that spot does not.

A computer might be able to win at Jeopardy, but it doesn’t have the basic common sense to understand that something is just plain wrong with the off-kilter juxtaposition of an iMac paired with a geranium. Koch and Tononi describe similar examples in their article, "A Test for Consciousness," available to readers free of charge. Even a six-year old, for instance, can pinpoint the fundamental improbability of an ice skater on the rug in the living room, a transparent cow or a cat chasing a dog. Yet a computer doesn’t "know” these things about the world.

These absurd yet simple images devised by the authors to illustrate this distinction between conscious human and unconscious computer led us to the idea of a contest in which readers could contribute their own examples of pictures that might fool a machine. Entries of digital images that display illogical imagery similar to what is described above can be submitted to ScientificAmerican.com for judging by Koch and Tononi and Scientific American editors (see the rules below). Koch and Tononi are the judges because unfortunately a real machine that could be used to carry out such a contest does not yet exist.