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
Epistemology tautology 1a: corrections 21 Aug 2009 So Gary Nelson reminded me of his paper on “The Two Wallaces” (2009) in which he points out that Wallace used the tautology argument himself, and responded to criticisms as early as 1873. Wallace also used the term “fitness” in a general sense. Read More
Evolution Larson on FAPP 15 Apr 2010 Ed Larson, an excellent historian of biology, takes Fodor and Piattelli- Palmarini to task for their ahistorical setting up of a strawman “Darwinism” in the Wilson Quarterly. Recommended reading. Read More
Evolution Could God Have Set Up Darwinian Accidents? 9 Jul 20119 Jul 2011 I have a paper forthcoming in the Theology and Philosophy journal Zygon, that I thought some of the readers of this blog might find interesting. Here’s the PhilPapers entry: John S. Wilkins (forthcoming). Could God Have Set Up Darwinian Accidents? Zygon. Charles Darwin, in his discussions with Asa Gray and in… 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.