What, Why & How do we Know ?
Anyway, as you can see … broadband connection in the Duxton Hotel in Melbourne, means blogging OK from Oz today …
Finished Searle’s “Mind” and started “Bennett & Hacker” on the plane – see coupla blogs ago. Early days – first principles from Aristotle – a bit too destructively analytic so far. Dualism goes away if we stop referring to brain or mind and simply say “people” – no, sorry, doesn’t do it for me, yet. Word games so far.
Lovely leaf / tree / water / reflection image from qB at Frizzy Logic.
(Ditto the sunset on Lake Malawi – cliche or no.)
Robot Wisdom has fresh posts 22nd Feb 2005 !!!
What prompted the return ? Hunter S Thomson’s demise ? International Blog Action Day ? This amazing space-pic of Central Park ? Who knows, but it’s the usual mix and sources. Welcome back Jorn – after more than a year off-line.
Actually, the clue must be in his first new link, to “Rigorous Intuition” … what must be the ultimate conspiracy theory blog – everything from state sponsored terrorism to JFK theories – all the more scary for being well written by Canadian Jeff Wells. Perspicuous Jorn calls it. Unlike cock-up, conspiracy requires competence, I find. Makes Michael Moore look tame. Great collection of links to other writers too, but you have been warned – go there at your peril.
(Notice several other blogs spotted Jorn’s reposting within minutes, took me a day to spot it, though I did stumble into it first hand, it has to be said.)
Just in time for a little light reading on the long flight Amazon UK delivered this morning two books I ordered only on Saturday morning – ordinary letter post delivery too.
Susan Blackmore’s “Consciousness – An Introduction”, plus Bennett & Hacker’s “Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience”. The former from the author of “Meme Machine”, the latter got rave UK reviews – has an intriguing reversed title in the current climate of neuroscience claims for theories of consciousness – hope it’s not too heavy going.
Off to Oz this evening UK time, to Melbourne initially, then Perth. No idea when I’ll next get a connection – hopefully in one of the hotels.
Actually tomorrow is the “Free Mojtaba and Arash Day“. Don’t know enough about the circumstances of the individual Iranian bloggers to comment, but I guess I support blogging in principle, so happy to lend a voice.
What I don’t need is a “Bloggers Bill of Rights” or a “Committee to Protect Bloggers”. Free speech is always done in the context of prevailing governmental and business organisations – bloggers deserve no special priviledges.
Link from Christian Hauk to a Grauniad article, in response to my previous post about the blind guy hearing in colour.
(BTW, you need to link all your non-blog stuff to your new blog site, Christian)
I’ve been following a thread of many posts based on reading about what neurological and psychological abnormalities tell us about the reality of normal perception and consciousness. This Richard Johnson article about an autistic / epileptic savant adds to that thread. Unlike Kim Peak, the original Rain Man, Daniel Tammet can explain how he (believes he) executes his mental feats. Very interesting.
Rather than a bat, how about a ventriloquist’s dummy ? Steve Jones in todays UK Daily Telegraph writes on the opposite effect to the seeing through hearing post earlier. Using “Educating Archie”, successful ventiloquism on the radio, he is discussing the importance of visual clues in voice communication. Hearing through seeing. (See also all the Sacks posts earlier on perception abnormailities.)
Actually I believe the Archie example is more subtle and important than that. Archie worked because people already had “visual” schemata of a ventriloquist with his dummy, and could surely relate the audible timing, tone, body movement noise to the visual image in their heads – and believe Archie was a dummy. There’s more to spoken communication than sound, AND there’s more to audible communication than words – ask a bat.
Interesting story from Sheffield University study [via BBC] about people who can manipulate and apperently understand the semantics of mathematical (arithmetic)expressions but not other simple natural (english) language expressions.
Unless you have an axe to grind, not sure that actually says language comes after mathematics. Both cases are linguistic, just different languages ?
