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
Book Books I am reading/reviewing 6 Feb 20148 Feb 2014 Despite marking scores of essays, after having taught a subject intensive, and preparing various papers, I get to review some books. This means reading them, familiarising myself with the technical literature, and so on. So I thought I’d do a brief summary of them for you now: The first is… Read More
Epistemology My latest paper 15 Feb 2013 Science & Education, February 2013, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 221-240 Biological Essentialism and the Tidal Change of Natural Kinds John S. Wilkins Abstract The vision of natural kinds that is most common in the modern philosophy of biology, particularly with respect to the question whether species and other taxa are natural kinds, is… Read More
Epistemology Will brains be downloaded? Of course not! 26 Sep 201327 Sep 2013 Every so often somebody or other will assert that one day we will achieve immortality by downloading our brains into computers (this week it is Stephen Hawking). What happens when tech support tells the sysadmins to reboot the computers is unclear, from a perspective of personal identity, but I want… 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.