Housekeeping 24 Feb 2011 So, I’m back online. I have lots of ideas but little to show for them, so instead of saying much, I’ll note that Tam Hunt is continuing his panpsychism at his own blog, and that I remain unconvinced. Also, I think that I can take an aspect of systematics and apply it in a limited manner to the Problem of the Criterion, which is interesting. I may blog this later… I now have the use of an iPad, which is cool, and means I can work while commuting. So this is my first iPaddery… Metaphysics Systematics
Biology Does life exist? 11 Jan 2014 Life, I believe, is what physics does on one particular planet on a Wednesday. More exactly, it is a series of chemical and physical dynamics that occurs between 3.85 billion years ago and now on this planet. Ferris Jabr, an editor at the Scientific American site, has a piece entitled “Why… Read More
Epistemology Metaphysical determinism 20 May 201227 Aug 2012 There is a hypothesis called the Sapir-Whorf Thesis (also known as linguistic relativity) in language that one can only think what one’s language permits you to think, and indeed forces you to think. This idea that some conceptual scheme can determine how you think is widely held. It appears again… Read More
Biology Henry Gee’s book “The Accidental Species” 9 Oct 20139 Oct 2013 I have three rules in life. One is, Never get into a land war in Asia. The second is, Locate the nearest exit. The third and most important is: When Henry Gee writes something, believe it. I first encountered Henry through his book In Search of Deep Time, which covered… Read More
iPad sounds nice. I just got a new iPod Touch that I like very much. So far, just using it for audio books.
I have a 1st gen Touch which I still think is cool although its showing its age compared with the later generations. I use it for music, videos and the Net when I’m in a WiFi hotspot. It’s a little slow but the screen is really good, although I wouldn’t want to go any smaller, and it handles video really smoothly. Of course, it’s not an iPad…not that I’m jealous or anything…
I now have the use of an iPad, which is cool, and means I can work while commuting. Not on a motorcycle, I trust.
I can’t ride a motorcycle any more. I had to sell the Beast. My neck/ankylosing spondylitis factory can no longer support a helmet.
That’s a bummer, I’m sorry. Years back I had a bike. It was only a little Honda CB175 but it was great fun. In the end, though, it had to go in the interests of a more practical from of transport.
Seems to me that Tam Hunt is confused about the nature of definitions. Statements like “Natural selection = differential reproduction” define the terms. Yes, they’re tautologies. So is the statement “red is a form of light with wavelength 400–484 THz.” The measurement is concrete enough, by why is red 400-484 THz, not 400-500? Well, because 484 to 500 are orange and orange isn’t red. Why not? And so forth. Circular, you might say, or even content free, but that wouldn’t be saying anything useful. Definitions are tautologies that teach us about words and ideas so we can use them well. The idea of natural selection, defined, helps a person ask questions that help us understand the world around us. It explains the standard by which to measure the success or failure of genes and organisms. It helps us frame questions about why animals and plants, etc., are the way they are. Those questions, and their answers, involve very non-tautological matters of color, size, bone lengths or strengths, hairiness, and the million other traits of organisms, and how those variations help or hinder the organisms, in terms of their survival and reproduction, and the reproduction of their close relatives. True, natural selection isn’t the only process by which organisms change — the diverse processes we lump together as “genetic drift” can produce effects we humans can consider wonderfully creative. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the process we define as natural selection is wonderful. We have no need to look around for vague forces for complexity inherent in all matter. By the way, as a botanist, I find the idea that evolution leads inexorably to increases in perception . . . laughable.