A talk on understanding 27 Jun 2019 I will be presenting this one at ISHPSSSB in Oslo in a couple of weeks. Comments and objections received with the usual ill grace… [embeddoc url=”https://evolvingthoughts.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Comprehension.pdf” width=”100%” download=”all” viewer=”google”] Epistemology Philosophy Theories
Evolution On the problem of the problem of evil and Darwin 15 Mar 2011 In yet another essay reprising his argument that theists can be good Darwinians (a position I concur with, incidentally), Michael Ruse makes the following comment, based on a book by Karl Giberson and Francis Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions: Where I do want… Read More
Chocosophy Chocolate causes Nobel Laureates 12 Oct 20126 Feb 2013 My research associate, Dr Malte Ebach, has brought to my attention an inadvertent proof of the truth of chocoholism. The New England Journal of Medicine, a most prestigious and scientific journal, has published a paper by Franz H. Messerli, M.D, which shows a strong correlation between the annualised national consumption of chocolate… Read More
Evolution Evolution quotes 1 May 2010 To understand evolution we must first understand the historical development of ideas on evolution. But to understand its history, we must first understand evolution. – Donald Forsdyke [H/T Piers Hale] Read More
Schmidhuber (LSTM etc) https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360; Friston etc Where this might have a difficulty is when one discusses mathematical understanding. This comes up with computer generated proofs, and in mathematical education. It is objective, but a property of a learner (one can explain a proof, one can generate a new theorem, one can apply a particular method to a new area or recognise a dual). This obviously overlaps a lot of modern physics, and partly addresses de Regt’s problem about simplified “false” models that are actually deeper mathematically, though it does ring with his description of understanding as a skill. But no equivalent to causality, ISTM, especially if one is a constructivist in these matters. In the example of population genetics, I think it is the “higher” level where selection etc is happening – the molecular genetics is too “low”. It is the coarsening of the description that allows one to see what is really going on (sim thermodynamics, QM) in a complex system.
I don’t know Hempel, no idea who he is or the context. I don’t think i want to know any more about him. It conjures the image of a man sitting on a spike or a Dalek.