Your video, Kid uses grandmas voice box for auto tune, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This is sad, somewhere out there is a robot hooker who's missing her voice box.

My understanding is that he's a bit off on at least some of his biology. When it comes to the ear, I believe he's referring to otoacoustic emissions.. However, if you note from the abstract I linked, it doesn't quite work that way. Yes, homosexual or bisexual females tend to have patterns of otoacoustic emissions with more masculine characteristics, however the same is not true for homosexual or bisexual males. While the results are insignificant, I'm told that the trend is in the opposite direction (that is, homosexual males have slightly "hyper masculinized" cochlea). These changes are often sloppily attributed to "genetic" differences. However, many theories suggest that it may have something to do with testosterone exposure in utero or during early development (though genetic mechanisms are possible in many circumstances).

With regard to the voice box, I dunno. I stick to sensory systems.

>> ^Fantomas:

I too believe Neil puts too much emphasis on the 1% figure. It's true that this 1% has given us a reverse pelvis allowing us to walk on two legs, freeing our hands, and given us a relocated voice-box to allow us to vocalise language. But these are just biological tools, it's how we use them that is important. We are not born with a language built in or the ability to use our hands in a skilled way, these things must be taught and learned, which is what pushes us beyond this '1%'.


Actually, there has been an interview done with Chomsky in Discover magazine that would suggest that certain phonetic patterns similar to language are, in fact, inborn. There is evidence that there may be an instinct in humans to communicate through language with certain forms and rules common across all races and places. I thought that was a very interesting interview.

I too believe Neil puts too much emphasis on the 1% figure. It's true that this 1% has given us a reverse pelvis allowing us to walk on two legs, freeing our hands, and given us a relocated voice-box to allow us to vocalise language. But these are just biological tools, it's how we use them that is important. We are not born with a language built in or the ability to use our hands in a skilled way, these things must be taught and learned, which is what pushes us beyond this '1%'.

I meant exactly what I wrote; I was evoking the image of a priest being ordained in his robes.


Yeah, that sentence above doesn't parse right either. You can be ordained, and you can be in robes, but you don't really "ordain something in robes". You just don't. Maybe "shrouded in vestments"? Feel free to disagree with me on this, it obviously doesn't matter.

My point, continuing a previous conversation with gwiz, is that people put faith in science much as religious people put faith in religion.


I'd say they put way, way more faith in science than religion. And they're right to: science brings us all kinds of amazing things every day. When I get on a plane, I'm relying on all sorts of science and engineering that I don't fully understand. My three year old knows to put chocolate milk in the fridge or it will go bad. People have long histories of relying on science and things working out. They have long histories of seeing something amazing, having no idea how it works, but later using that science and technology in their own lives.

If people got anywhere near that level of positive feedback from their religions, religion wouldn't be slowly dying in the developed world.

There are no legitimate demonstrations of quantum levitation that highlighted some of the features present here...


Well, yes, there's more stuff happening here than in previous demonstrations - but that's what people are used to with science; a progression of more features.

If it steps over the line, even a micron, it becomes pseudo-science. Yet you are willing to suspend your disbelief based on other past results you may not understand.


Very few people are going to understand all of the science and technology they use. I don't know how my anti-lock brakes work, or fully understand even the (what I assume is simple) tech in an airbag (what's the gas it inflates with? I don't know). And I may one day rely on those things to save my life. Almost anyone getting medical treatment is relying on very, very shakey knowledge of how the medicine or procedure actually works, or why things are done a specific way.

And they're not fools to do so. With science and technology, you can build a web of trust based on demonstrable results in the past. I know that there's standards bodies that test airbags, and medical associations that understand and approve procedures; I don't have to confirm this kind of thing personally on a case-by-case basis, nor could any one person fully understand all the technology in their lives. Hawking has to hire some tech guy to fix his voice box.

But that doesn't mean that things aren't tested or that there's "blind faith" involved. There's faith backed by reason.

Back to this video in specific: people may have thought this video was real, but very few would have sent off a cheque to buy one without knowing a lot more, without seeing it reported on by someone they have some trust in. And look at how fast it was brought down. How many people still believed after reading all the comments? Similarly, when scientists emerge trumpeting some new unlikely discovery, they're treated by other scientists with very appropriate and high levels of skepticism until their results are independently validated.

Could you benefit from a medium-term, important scientific hoax? Yes, with some real effort. But history has a lot more examples of people seeing big success using science for their religious hoaxes (from Greek temples on down to scientology). Even if people have the "amazing science" in hand with which to try to trick, they recognize where people's real blindspots are and aim for those.

This guy is all sorts of awesome.

Also, grandma needs a new voice box.

I recognise Stephen Hawking's voice, but it doesn't sound like anything he'd actually say. Has his voice box caught a virus? Who's the hoe?

Has Ebert lost his lower jaw? Poor Roger.

I'm glad he can work the voice box and that the cancer is removed.

*quality

I hope they remember where he lives so they can go back and film "Indonesian 6 year old needs to hold artificial voice box to throat after throat cancer"

Oh God, that's a LOLer! I feel the Holy Spirit filling my voice box with laughter again and again. Hallelujah!

I absolutely agree.

It's not like this kid was alone and actually directing airplanes, he was saying into a microphone what a qualified air traffic controller was telling him to say.

Just like a cop letting a kid play with his car's siren or a firefighter letting a kid into the firetruck this guy was giving his kid a memory he'll likely cherish for the rest of his life. Give him a break.
>> ^jiyanibi:
Bad judgement? Maybe. But I just don't get the outrage I'm hearing from people today on this topic. In all likelihood, some air traffic controller let his kid sit on his lap and either read from a script or whispered to tell him what to say. I see no more harm done here than if the controller was speaking through a voice box to change his pitch to sound like a kid. The kid is just a vehicle for the message between the controller and the pilot. It's not like he's telling the kid how to perform brain surgery here. And, if anything, the pilots clearly displayed no outrage knowing that the parent wouldn't let the child do something if he thought there was any danger involved. Oh well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

Bad judgement? Maybe. But I just don't get the outrage I'm hearing from people today on this topic. In all likelihood, some air traffic controller let his kid sit on his lap and either read from a script or whispered to tell him what to say. I see no more harm done here than if the controller was speaking through a voice box to change his pitch to sound like a kid. The kid is just a vehicle for the message between the controller and the pilot. It's not like he's telling the kid how to perform brain surgery here. And, if anything, the pilots clearly displayed no outrage knowing that the parent wouldn't let the child do something if he thought there was any danger involved. Oh well, agree to disagree, I suppose.

Damn I love the TED lectures. Whenever I watch one I feel that my day has been enriched.

About the brain size thing - that's always bothered me. Having that big old head with all it's disadvantages (calorie consumption, child birth morality) and doing little more with it than making camp fires. One of Jared Diamond's hypothesises is that changes to the voice box around 40,000 years ago made complex speech possible. This dudes mirror neuron idea could be accurate too, though part of me thinks that huge amounts of evidence of past civilizations was lost when the seas rose 12,000 years ago. We always put major cities near water, usually the sea or failing that a major river near its exit to the sea. The sea jumping up 130m would erase a hug proportion of our cities today, and I kind of suspect it did then.

Not bad, but the 'actor' endorsements don't hold much weight in my opinion. Plenty of intellectuals have voiced a need to have a -real- 9/11 investigation. Far more than actors. While historically actors and musicians have their place in political discourse, their purpose is best served as voice box to express discontent and spread word. The intellectuals are what lend strong credibility to questioning the official 'story' on 9/11.