same is true of the Tolkien series.

After reading the Hobbit at age 10, I felt ready to read Carroll's Alice in Wonderland and after that, well, why not Melville?

>> ^Sagemind:

Not great comedy - but there is a point in there - Harry Potter is just that - a stepping stone to greater literature. Sure Harry Potter books introduced kids who never picked up a book before into the world of literature. (But) How many people people stepped down from a world of literature to read Harry Potter?
There are So many great books out there and kids everywhere just keep re-reading the same Harry Potter books or Twilight books and are stunted from ever moving on. My daughter has read the HP books a few times and the Twilight books perhaps 5-6 times each.
Move on already..., My daughter just finished reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy now so I'm hoping to get her moving on to other stuff - Many never will read another book series ...

Not great comedy - but there is a point in there - Harry Potter is just that - a stepping stone to greater literature. Sure Harry Potter books introduced kids who never picked up a book before into the world of literature. (But) How many people people stepped down from a world of literature to read Harry Potter?

There are So many great books out there and kids everywhere just keep re-reading the same Harry Potter books or Twilight books and are stunted from ever moving on. My daughter has read the HP books a few times and the Twilight books perhaps 5-6 times each.

Move on already..., My daughter just finished reading The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy now so I'm hoping to get her moving on to other stuff - Many never will read another book series ...

I admire beyond description the artists behind the camera who so wonderfully capture the everyday beauty of ordinary people.

Also, nerd highfive to the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' reference.

Me? I'd want hitchhikers guide to the galaxy.

Ahhh, reminds me of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".

Tags for this video have been changed from 'glimpse, you, are, here, infinately, small, Addams, Jones, hitchikers' to 'glimpse, you, are, here, infinitely, small, Douglas Adams, Jones, hitchhikers' - edited by demon_ix

I think his most suited role was Zaphod in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He really fit that character.

@lampishthing

Regarding the balance of evidence for or against religion, I've previously written:

We might have faith in the esential spiritual hypothesis, that there's an invisible spiritual material (soul, spirit, universal consciouss etc.) that invisibly perturbs neural circuits to make it look as if the brain is self-contained, but 1. modern history is a relentless chipping away of magical thinking like that, and 2. science will finish reverse engineering the human brain in 20-50 years, so I humbly don't recommend betting too much money on that hypothesis.
...
The neuroscience of religion basically shows mystical feelings are just turning off some neural circuits and over-activating others. For example, 'oneness with the universe' is just turning off the neural circuits we develop in infancy that allow us to distinguish between self and world, between where my hand stops and the table starts (one is "me" .. the other is not).

(Originally from: http://blog.videosift.com/dag/On-Atheism?loadcomm=1#comment-910402 )

When I was saying "God" I was speaking deliberately vaguely, trying not to specify any religion. I figure that way if we reach a conclusion we resolve the whole mess I suppose I mean "something higher" *waves hands slightly, making wooooh sounds*

I'm not sure the probability argument is relevant really. There's no probabilistic evident that there is or isn't a God as far as I know and I think if there were there would be as valid (ie not) arguments in the other direction. Ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? The thing about the babelfish leaves me in stitches everytime

I think you're confusing religious doctrine and the more general concept of religion. If a religion tries to state a fact about the observable world and is evidently wrong then it is simply wrong on the matter. That the incorrect assertion came from the religious source doesn't make it less likely that any of the religion's thoughts about the unobservable are true. I'd find it harder to trust 'em but intuition is where this started so that means nothing by the same argument. I don't think there's any real conflict between science and religion - I think they shouldn't overlap. Science should answer the answerable, religion should postulate for the unknowable.

Re the joke, I'm way over that and just enjoying the discussion at this stage >> ^chilaxe:



Questions in the sciences that aren't definitively resolvable at a given time are resolved by determining the balance of evidence and thinking probabilistically. People can answer for themselves what they think the probabilities are for any given mythological figure. In your statements, you simply said "god," so I'm not sure if you're referring to Allah, Vishnu, Ra, or whatever.
When there's a large gap between the likelihoods of two hypotheses, or when one hypothesis has enormous accepted evidence and the other side doesn't, the burden of proof can certainly be assigned to one party.
I understand that human intelligence falls along a bell curve, and maybe the masses are better off with religion, reincarnation, angels, fairies, and everything else that helps them cope, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't smash the boulder. However, on the internet, I believe people who advocate intelligence and complex cognition should probably be free to speak openly, even if that involves satirical jokes

I recall when I was younger and having a bad week, I used to think how great it would be to go off and live in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy universe. There was something appealing about living in a place that was totally nonsensical, but unlike my culture, doesn't have any pretenses of being otherwise. I also imagine that a certain amount of it came from the appeal of just up and leaving everything behind, which I could have perfectly well done in the real world of course, but nevertheless didn't.


I just saw Avatar earlier today as a matter of fact. I didn't really care for the 3D. It was cool in many ways, but something about it made it a little stressful to watch for such a long movie. I think the primary thing was that I would automatically try to focus my eyes on things that were not in focus on the film and this crossed wires in the old brain box.

It was a fun bit of pulp cinema though--neat effects, and there was cool stuff to look at in every frame (which only made the focus problem worse unfortunately).

Reminds me of the Powers of Ten video. Also, of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Total Perspective Vortex.

>> ^Throbbin:
In the middle of that cup stacking, she finally figured out who the smartest species on the planet was in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", ahead of Dolphins and Humans.


Ummm, isn't it mice?

In the middle of that cup stacking, she finally figured out who the smartest species on the planet was in "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", ahead of Dolphins and Humans.

>> ^brain:
Why are they speaking English?

Ah. Asked by generations of Star Trek, Stargate and Star Wars fans, not necessarily in that order.
The only SciFi that solved this to my liking is Farscape. And the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

A possible explanation here would be that the Na'vi are speaking their own language, and you hear English because American audiences can't handle subtitles. Then the only question is how does Sam Worthington's character speak Na'vi?

Love 'em. My favorite, here as a javascript emulator...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game_andrew.shtml