Dinosaurs: Alive But Not Literally Kicking

Just went to the Science Centre yesterday, mainly to visit the Dinosaurs Alive! exhibition but also to check out other new exhibits.

In addition, it's an opportunity to exercise my creaky photography skills with ye olde camera; the former which has been accumulating rust, and the latter accumulating fungal invaders.

Warning: the following blog post contains stupid jokes, sexual innuendos and heinous thoughtcrime. It has absolutely no educational value whatsoever - please consult a real dino website for authentic information. It may also be inappropriate for people of all ages.

I know you'll love it.



















The first thing that greeted me outside the entrance is this huge, full-sized animatronic Tyrannosaurus rex.

Everybody knows that kids find dinosaurs cool.

Everybody knows that they find robots cool too.

Simply combine the two - robot dinosaurs - and voila! You've attain a form of emergent coolness that transcends the sum of its parts.

Like the kid in this photo, I stare transfixed at the massive, erect head of T. rex as it extended skywards and ejaculated an effusive roar.

Suddenly I feel so manly.

I have no idea why.














Here's a group of school kids admiring the big, brawny T. rex.

Which reminds me of the time when I was their age. Robot dinosaurs already exist at that time (then they were all made in Japan) but their movements were stiffer and the motor mechanism was noiser.

Also, the colour scheme has changed through the years; in the past dinosaurs were depicted sporting a single main colour, whereas nowadays predatory dinosaurs are shown with tiger-like stripes, camouflage splotches and other colourful patterns.

I doubt we will ever know for sure what their skin colour actually looked like. Painting them in tiger stripes feels really... pan-adaptationist.













After buying the ticket, I roamed the other halls first to check out other new exhibits, before going into the dinosaur exhibition hall.

I like to save the best for later. It's no fun to climax too early.

I took this photo in a new exhibition about living with viruses. The exhibits are informative and interactive and all, but there is something odd about it which I didn't realize until I got back home.

The thing is... did you notice that some of these cartoon viruses look female?

I can sort of understand why HIV is depicted as female, since most HIV positive individuals (at least in Singapore) are men who caught it from their female partners.

But why is HFMD and SARS also depicted as female? Are guys more vulnerable to these diseases?

Viruses obviously don't have any gender, and it is possible to depict them in cartoon form without any reference to gender (eg. smileys can be gender neutral).

However, since they are personified using human voices throughout the exhibition, I guess it wouldn't seem right to have male voices for all of them.










Another new exhibition deals with the pressing issue of climate change, again containing a plethora of fun and interactive gadgets.

What caught my attention is this slogan, stretched out above a panoramic display of scenery from around the world.

It reads: "Whatever you do will be insignificant. It is very important that you do it."

Now that sounds rather odd.

If whatever you do will be insignificant, why should you even try? Whether the outcome is important or not doesn't even enter into it.

Besides, that isn't true - conserving and recycling resources can already result in significant cost savings for the individual.

Perhaps the message it was trying to convey is "Your individual effort may be small, but together we must make a difference - our future depends on it."















And now: the dinosaur exhibition!

I'm not sure why, but all wildlife documentaries feature an arty close-up shot of the eyes of a predator.

So here's a big T. rex eyeball for you.

Am I an artist now? Am I?

Do I get to wear a beret?!??



















Ah, the Dildophosaurus Dilophosaurus.

Oops my spelling is a little shaky.

If you recall, Dilo was the dinosaur that was downsized and given a bogus neck frill and poison-spitting abilities by Michael Crichton/Steven Spielberg in the first Jurassic Park movie.

I'd have to say that this is my favourite dinosaur at the exhibition.

There's something about its slender limbs, elegant neck, black eye-shadow and lipstick that screams out "Supermodel".

You should have seen the coquettish way that it tilts its face slightly to make eyes at the visitors.















Just look at its flirty, dreamy eyes.

I'm not making this shit up, I have it all on video!

That is one sexed-up supermodel robot dinosaur.

Grrr.

















Next up is Allosaurus, the smaller and lighter ancestral form of the T. rex.

Boring.

Well, at least the three-fingered Allo had the ability to pop a middle finger at its enemies, a skill which the two-fingered T. rex lost - in exchange for a thick, ginormous head that he can thrust at his enemies.

Maybe that's not such a great loss.















What gets to me about robot dinosaurs is all that incessant roaring.

ROAR! ROAR!

Don't understand what I mean?

OK picture this - you are a deadly predator, well camouflaged in the forest with your pretty tiger stripes.

You spot a nice, meaty prey that is unknowingly grazing closer and closer to your position.

So you decide to pounce at the right moment.

One... two... three...

ROAR! ROAR!

Immediately your prey bolts to safety like a gazelle on steroids.

That's just stupid.

Why would you go ROAR! ROAR?!?? Just approach quietly and kill the poor bastard before he even knew what hit him.

Besides, even if dinosaurs do occasionally roar, they probably used other sounds most of the time.

Perhaps they snickered after a successful hunt?

Like "Yee heh heh heh heh!"

I'll bet that long after human beings go extinct, some future intelligent species will make robot reconstructions of us humans and make them go "ARRRGH! ARRRGH!" like an Edvard Munch painting.



















Also, it seems customary to make the carnivorous dinosaurs sound louder than the herbivorous ones.

If anything, duck-billed Parasaurolophus here (pronounced Para-so-LOL-LOL-fers - it's a funny name) should be the loudest dinosaur of the lot.



















It has a huge crest on its head which could have been used to produce a deep, resonating sound similar to a woodwind instrument.

So it should have sounded like: "BWOOO! BWOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

Click this link to hear a possible Parasaurolophus call.

Instead, it only made some soft, moaning sounds.

"Leng Hiong... oh Leng Hiong... oh oh oh..."

Not that kind of moan.

















Moving along, we see the Baryonyx - a crocodile-like fish-eating dinosaur not to be confused with a certain class of subatomic particles.

Once again, Barry roars like the other meat-eaters.

But it has a dead fish in his mouth.

So it should actually sound like this:

"ROAR! RWOO... urk... cough cough... screw you guys I'm trying to eat! Go away! Chomp chomp chomp..."

I should add that Barry actually looks quite impressive at the scene, but despite many attempts I can't seem to find any shooting angle that makes it look good.

Maybe its stooped posture doesn't make it very photogenic.



















Speaking of photogenic, here's Triceratops, a perennial favourite among kids.

For me, Trixie doesn't look particularly pretty when presented as a complete animal like this.

However it has a very beautiful and powerful skeletal structure, especially the skull. I've seen fossil casts of this animal before and it has always impressed me.

You know, it's exactly like when I meet somebody for the first time, and he isn't especially good looking or anything, but his skull structure is so distinctive that I go:

"Wow, your face sucks but your skull has an amazing shape. Can I have it once you're done with it?"

And he goes: "FUCK YOU, ASSHOLE."

Happens all the time.













And finally, Apatosaurus, also popularly known as Brontosaurus or "long-neck".

It makes louder groaning sounds than Parasaurolophus.

Which I like. I prefer louder groans.

It's clearly not the full-sized version, since adults are over 20 metres long on average, and this one here isn't quite 10 metres.















Looking closer at Patty's face, I am amazed by how much it resembles a sock puppet.

In fact, if I didn't know better, I would have believed that there was a man in a dinosaur suit who was making its mouth move up and down.

A man with a three-metre-long arm, that is.
















In addition to the robot dinosaurs, there were a number of static displays and fossils.

Here is good ol' Stan, a T. rex skeleton cast that was also featured in the previous dino exhibition in Singapore two years ago.

This time though, he finally gets the full benefit of mood lighting and shows off his ferocious presence to the crowd.

You go Stan!

















After walking among the dinosaurs, I decided to check out one more exhibition.

It is aimed at educating the public about one of the deadliest chemicals known to man:

Dihydrogen monoxide, also known as Hydronium hydroxide.

Streams of this dangerous substance flow down onto unsuspecting visitors as they pass through the entrance gate.

You are thinking: "Dihydrogen monoxide... chay, it's just water only what."

Heh, you're right - it is water.

But it does kill people.














There were a few interesting dioramas in the exhibition with animal models, but I was surprised to find some live animals too.

Here is a mudskipper hiding motionless under a wooden log. I haven't seen a real mudskipper before and I must say that its eyes look really colourful!



















Towards the end of the exhibition, there is this curious machine that uses pulses of water and strobe lights to make it look as if a stream of water droplets is defying gravity and slowly drifting back into the tap.

At first I tried to take a video of it, but it didn't look quite correct because the flashing lights and the frame rate of the video didn't sync.

Then suddenly some guy with a big ass pro-SLR spotted me trying to capture the droplets and also tried to shoot some stills with his humongous bazooka zoom lens.

I don't know if he succeeded or not but after firing a few bursts at the water contraption, he left.

So I switched my prosumer to manual mode and continued experimenting...










... until I got this.

Nifty.

I think that if you are one of those photography enthusiasts who really likes to take photos of water droplets for some reason, then this machine alone is well worth the ticket price of admission. Otherwise it will take quite a bit of time, effort and expertise in order to set up a rig like this.

Now all you need is a solid camera and a good flash unit - if your technique is good, imagine how much closer you can get to these sparkly-glowy droplets!

Hmm... good photo opportunities come from the strangest places.

After quenching my thirst for photography at the water exhibition, it's time to go.

Back to the entrance, which if I recall correctly is guarded by a big robot dinosaur.

Actually, I'm not 100% sure that it is a robot.

When you are up against a 6-tonne carnivore with 30-cm teeth, you don't screw around.

Perhaps it would be wiser to quietly sneak pass...

















... and if it makes any sudden move - RUN!

Before I forget... since we're on the topic of dinosaurs, here's another ferocious killer pretending to act all civilized and that:



Don't be fooled.

Counterintuitive Science: Importance Of Independent Verification

People like people who like them back.

As popular proverbs go: "A friend in need is a friend indeed", or "The best mirror is an old friend".

Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone you knew became a good friend?

No more hate, negativity, animosity and conflict.

Pure bliss? Not quite.

Actually, if that really happened, you would be utterly fucked.

Why?!??

Two words.

Confirmation. Bias.

You see, there are too many people who think like this:

Human senses are fallible. There are light wavelengths we can't see, sound wavelengths we can't hear, chemicals we can't taste or smell, and even our sense of touch can be highly inaccurate. On top of that, they can become garbled or even deliberately fooled under certain conditions.

Scientists insist on only believing in things that can be physically observed. But what is the basis for this trust in our own senses? Don't you need "faith" to believe that human senses or human logic can actually decipher the true nature of reality?

Since science already takes this leap of "faith", why not abandon our imperfect human senses and use our "hearts" to perceive the ultimate truth instead?

To support this stand, an often repeated claim is that "you can't convince a completely colour-blind person that colour exists."



















Sure you can.

Let the people who claim the existence of "colour" select some distinctly-coloured objects, say "red" and "green" apples, which is indistinguishable to the colour-blind individual.

Then get them to sort the apples by colour.

If different people from different places in the world consistently and repeatedly pick the same specific apples to be "red" and others to be "green", you're on to something.

If animals can also see this distinction, we know that colour is not limited to human senses alone.

If people can demonstrate that different coloured objects consistently reflect a corresponding wavelength of light, which can be perceived and measured by a machine, we know that colour is not limited to living systems alone.

Even better - if a pair of goggles can be made which will represent these colours as different checkerboard patterns, then the colour-blind individual can directly convince herself that colours really exist.

Using such a device, she would be able to sort out all coloured objects, not just apples, in exactly the same way that people who can see colour would.

Of course, this is same principle behind machines like IR goggles or X-ray machines or ultrasonic detectors or carbon monoxide detectors.

Our fallible human senses cannot perceive these stimuli unaided, but no sane person would dismiss their existence.

Let's say that you were tasked to decontaminate a radioactive room. Would you put your trust on a Geiger counter (which was constructed using all too fallible human senses and logic), or would you trust your "heart" that the room is safe?

More importantly, would you base your trust on the Geiger counter on "faith" just because someone in authority told you it works, or would you personally test its accuracy against some known radioactive samples first, before even stepping into the room?

The bottom line is: a single piece of information from one sensory modality is indeed suspect, but if multiple lines of evidence from multiple independent sources all align towards the same result, then the conclusion is highly trustworthy.

This not only forms the basis of science, but also the basis of the criminal justice system for all modern democracies.

In science, this is how we determined that gravity and biological evolution are real phenomena.

In both cases, multiple lines of evidence using numerous experimental techniques, performed by independent (sometimes adversarial) research groups over many years of work consistently converge towards the same conclusion.

No faith is necessary; indeed, disbelief in gravity or biological evolution has no effect on the reality of either process.

However, there is a caveat to this method of gaining knowledge.

The key term is "independent".

You can't trust multiple sources when they are too closely related to one other.

For instance, if my vision and hearing were conveyed into my brain on the same nerve, and I suddenly see and hear something odd at the same time, I cannot count these experiences as two independent sources of information.

That is the reason why there is potential for big trouble if you are completely surrounded by like-minded and mutually-dependent friends who share your ideals and goals.

I'll give you a vivid illustration of this.

Imagine you are an avid mountain climber on your first attempt to conquer Mount Everest. You embark on this arduous journey with a number of good friends all of whom, like you, deeply desire to scale the summit.

Not long after you leave the base camp, you start getting nauseous and tired. Your heart is beating disturbingly fast, and you are beginning to throw up often.

You don't feel so good.

But your friends insist that you are doing fine and that everyone is going through the same difficulties.

Why would they say that? Maybe they have no idea how much pain you are experiencing. Maybe they simply want to encourage you to keep going. Maybe they want you to share the joy of conquering the peak together.

Or maybe you play an important role in the team and they really need you to stick around in order to succeed.

Whatever the case, you reach a camp at the halfway mark with many climbers from other teams. Your friends congratulate you for your efforts.

But a complete stranger notices your physical condition and casually remarks:

"You look like shit. Better turn back now or you'll be the next body count this season."

And then you come across a veteran climber from another team who says:

"Whoa... take it easy, man. I haven't seen another person who is as messed up as you in three years. Maybe you should consider turning back... I know I would."

Who would you trust?

Your friends? Or a couple of unrelated strangers who have nothing to lose or gain from your triumph or demise?

I think you can see that it is unwise to surround yourself with too many friends or yes-men, because they do not represent truly independent sources of information.

Their fates have become too closely intertwined with yours to dare voice out any dissenting views, even if they reflect the reality of the situation.

This may not appear to be an immediate problem for huge social groups which have enough people and resources to craft their own social realities, for example through self-affirmation and self-fulfilling prophesies.

However, cocooned within this semblance of diversity, the group incorrectly assumes that a consensus was reached via multiple independent sources, gradually losing touch with the wider reality.

It may continue to believe that everything is hunky-dory even though many lines of evidence from disinterested parties indicate that major problems lie ahead.

I cannot emphasize enough that conclusions reached using evidence from multiple sources are only trustworthy if the sources are really independent. This strategy serves to compensate for the fallibility of any single mode of information.

You are thinking: "Well, since human senses are imperfect, who cares if it's one human sense or fifty human senses. Why not depend on a single, perfect heart?"

Just a tiny problem there.

Human "hearts" are also imperfect.

If you have ever been heartbroken before, you will know how wrong a "heart" can be.

Bzzzzzzzz!

The Fresh Brainz team is facing immense obstacles right now.

We would like to see the 2nd blogiversary of this little science shack, but this is becoming increasingly impossible.

Hope to be back.

Gone Left Away Passed Departed Exited Egressed

It is with great sadness that we mark the passing of comedic genius and social critic George Carlin, who died of heart failure on Sunday at the age of 71.





















Fresh Brainz salutes this wildly creative, keenly observant and straight talking comedic mind who is a key inspiration for the style of Fresh Brainz itself.

Farewell Frisbeetarian, may you rest on roof.

It's A Trap!

Wow.