Argument or GTFO
Running water is one of the most amazing things in this world. Turn a knob, water flows.
But even here in America we are starting to have problems:
Soon enough we are all going to have to decide between water and power. What really worries me is I have no idea who is going to make that decision.
Permalink Comments off
3 Quarks Daily is putting up a grand for the best philosophy blog post of the last year; $300 and $200 for 2nd and 3rd places respectively. If any of you out there have written something good, or there is something you read that you really like, nominate it! [philosophy of science needs a better representation people]
I haven’t done a link roundup in a while, so be assured that all these links are awesome.
.
Animal of the Month: Immortal Jellyfish
‘Immortal’ jellyfish swarming across the world – Telegraph
.
In second place is: Giant meat-eating plants prefer to eat tree shrew poo - BBC – Earth News
.
.
[via Don't Panic > Magazine > Desire > THE BLACK HEART GANG]
.
Beautiful and depraved: “Absolutely amazing. Welcome back Massive Attack. And Mazzy Star. Two of the most iconic performers I’ve ever experienced. And then this woman. Wow.” Not safe for work. [if that link isn't working, the video is here too.]
.
.
“Perhaps nothing has been more influential in determining the popular perception of the Italian game than furbizia, the art of guile… The word ‘furbizia’ itself means guile, cunning or astuteness. It refers to a method which is often (and admittedly) rather sly, a not particularly by-the-book approach to the performative, tactical and psychological part of the game. Core to furbizia is that it is executed by means of stratagems which are available to all players on the pitch, not only to one team. What are these stratagems? Here are a few: tactical fouls, taking free kicks before the goalkeeper has finished positioning himself, time-wasting, physical or verbal provocation and all related psychological games, arguably even diving… Anyone can provoke an adversary, but it takes real guile (real furbizia) to find the weakest links in the other team’s psychology, then wear them out and bite them until something or someone gives in – all without ever breaking a single rule in the book of football.
…
Ultimately, these differences come from two irreconcilable visions of the game. The Spanish style understands football as something like a fencing match, a rapid and meticulous art of noble origins where honour is the brand of valour. To the Italians, football is more like an ancient battle, a primal and inclement bronze-age scenario where survival rules over honour.
But this just begs the question: why are the visions of the game so different in nations that are geographically and culturally so close?
Rajiv Sethi: Gamesmanship and Collective Reputation [via]
This is a post for Blog Action Day 09!
If the climate changes rapidly enough, the human race is finished. If the climate does not change quite that rapidly, we’ve got other problems.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that we are not beings in some religious pantheon, but are merely biological organisms of this Earth. If the climate changes, i.e. if nature as we know it no longer exists, then how are we to think of ourselves?
For our entire history we have lived within a climate that is amenable to us. Living in a new climate would be like living on an alien planet, without hope of returning to Earth. The problem is: we are not aliens, we’re Earthlings. If we are not Earthlings, what are we? Hence the problem of climate change is more than a problem of our survival, it is an existential problem of our species.
We don’t need any more existential problems, and since this is one preventable, lets do something about it.
For those readers of mine, I’d like to open up a small opportunity. Quite a bit of my time and effort has gone into revamping parts of the theory of evolution and I have previously mentioned here that I’ve taught myself to program and created a simulation. Well, this isn’t completely true.
The short version is that I’ve made computers try to survive the real world. By real world, I mean my program contains lots of little files that make decisions, and these decisions are about buying and selling stocks, based upon actual real-time data available on the internet. The decision engines (or ‘orgs’, as I like to call them) that correctly predict the movement of the stocks make money and eventually replicate. Those orgs that are unsuccessful at predicting stock movements lose money and die off. The replication process is governed by genetic algorithms that include various mutations.
The short short version is that the program is a cross between a stock market program and a tomagotchi (digital pet). You host a colony of organisms that survive by ‘eating’ (buy and selling) stocks; it acts as your own personal hedge fund.
Anyway, I could use a tester or two, so if anyone here wants to participate, send me an email. I’ll get around to writing up more details about the program soon too.
—————————————————————–
In other news, I’ve finally gotten around to updating the NYC Area Philosophy Calendar. Someone even sent me a nice email asking if I was still going to do it (before I got around to it.. busy busy) and another person even asked if they could start adding events.
Hmmm, interest in the calendar (it only took 2 years). An actual object (program) that came from studying philosophy (original theory of biology, 2004.). It’s taken some time but I feel like I must be moving up in the world.
… Another alternative would have been to give you what’s called a popular scientific lecture, that is a lecture intended to make you believe that you understand a thing which actually you don’t understand, and to gratify what I believe to be one of the lowest desires of modern people, namely the superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science.
This quote is from the beginning of Wittgenstein’s “A Lecture on Ethics” or whatever the untitled transcript of the talk he gave to The Heretics Society is called. I’ve seen this part of the lecture omitted; admittedly it has little to do with his later arguments. However, I always felt that this barb was something interesting.
The quote has little force as an argument: it is merely his opinion that a superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science is bad. No contradictions or other nonsense is pointed out, nor does it even evoke a parallel between those he is disparaging and some accepted foul thing.
But it is clear, concise and otherwise totally unlike everything else that Wittgenstein is known for, while touching upon the topics of belief, understanding, science, and desire. Odd, no?
What the quote is, is a smear; it is an insult: Calling something a lowest desire, without reason, is merely to insult it. What’s going on here?
Say I have a superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science. So what? If the latest scientific research has little to do with my profession, say I’m a restaurateur, then what harm is there in having a passing interest in what other smart people do? It might even be considered commendable that I make such an effort.
Now Wittgenstein is saying that my earnest effort is nowhere near commendable, but all the way at the bottom, the basest, of desire. Since he accusing “modern people” it is not just ‘me’, but everyone. This is insulting and unwarranted.
However, this isn’t exactly what Wittgenstein was after: he disliked superficial curiosity in scientific discoveries not because of the impulse of people to learn and take interest in others, but because it made people believe that they understood a thing which actually they didn’t understand. Understanding difficult things is an accomplishment, and scientific research is difficult. In enjoying a superficial curiosity about the latest discoveries of science, he is accusing us of feeling a sense of accomplishment when we have done nothing to merit it: he is accusing us of mental masturbation. Ouch.
We can also now understand why this criticism is “modern”. Before modern times, there was no way to have a “popular scientific lecture”: only in the last century or so have we had the communications technology and an available public which allows for such a thing. You couldn’t expect feudal peasants to leave their farms or be educated enough to appreciate such a lecture. But by November 1929, the date of this lecture, mass media was in full swing with the wide distribution of newspapers and books, and the start of national radio broadcasts. Only with widespread media distribution did the danger of popular science becoming a narcotic exist.
Wittgenstein saw that with the modern increase in information distribution capability came a danger of intellectual drugging of the population. It disgusted him that people would take pleasure from the feeling that they understood difficult theories with which they only had the most superficial engagement. Unfortunately he had no argument or solution to prevent this, and so he resorted, as we all do when we are out of good arguments, to insults.
One can only think that the internet has made this an even more pervasive problem. It blows our information distribution capability off the charts. And we are, unsurprisingly, completely addicted to it. It’s too bad dear Ludwig never really commented more on modernity, he seems to have been rather perceptive.
Although I seriously doubt anyone who reads this blog for philosophy of science doesn’t yet know about It’s Only a Theory, if this does apply to you, go check it out. It bills itself as “A Group Blog Devoted to General Philosophy of Science”.
Along the same lines Bryan over at Soul Physics has listed some of the few places to find philosophy of science on the net. Yours truly was pleasantly surprised to make the list.
It’s Only a Theory just asked whether the pure philosopher of science is going the way of the dodo. This question is of some interest to me because 1) I like philosophy of science but I have only a passing interest in any particular science, and 2) I’ve gone the way of the dodo:
I never thought I was going to be an academic and it became painfully obvious after a short stint in grad school that being an academic wasn’t for me (or at least the normal academic route isn’t). Now there are a few reasons for this, but one of them was that doing philosophy of science in the way I saw fit wasn’t going to happen. The details of physics or biology just aren’t what interest me: I care about what makes theories work and then downwardly applying any results to the sciences. So I could have been one of these pure phil-sci people, but from my perspective at the time, and apparently it still applies, this won’t get you ahead in academic philosophy.
… but at least my rss reader has some more interesting stuff nowadays, and hopefully yours will too.
Animal of the Month: The French (no insult intended). Anyone who would even consider having this as their national tourism logo is deserving of praise:
I don’t normally post anything that I’ve seen on Digg or Reddit, but this turns jaw dropping at around 1:28 [3:45]: moogaloop.swf
Industrial design:
Art:
————-
Graphical Art:
Fun:
Best for last: I watched this thing over and over.[1m] via
I’m not sure if it is the gorgeous priest (this is the first time I’ve had that thought), the overall beauty of it, or the love on their faces. check out this live performance of the song and realize how amazing a singer she is.
Permalink Comments off
Then, one of my teachers told me, “Make a suicide pact with ceramics.” So I took that advice to heart and made a “suicide pact with ceramics.”
That’s hardcore.
Really cool visualization break down of the elections.. |
….damn straight………………………….
(3:12) [via digg]
 |
 |
| Welcome.
Philosophy should induce fear. More About Me Contact 
Suscribe RSS/Email |
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us
·
XHTML
·
CSS
© :
Live free stats by StatCounter