Thursday, May 26, 2016
Buried within the story - the part the Republicans won't want to talk about
Hillary Clinton Is Criticized for Private Emails in State Dept. Review - The New York Times: The report found that while dozens of State Department employees used personal email accounts periodically over the years, only three officials were found to have used it “exclusively” for day-to-day operations: Mrs. Clinton; Colin Powell, the secretary of state under President George W. Bush; and Scott Gration, the ambassador to Kenya from 2011 to 2012.
While State Department officials never directly told Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Powell that they needed to end their use of personal email, the report found, they did do so with Mr. Gration, a lower-level diplomat who did not have the same political clout.
So I'm more Marxist than I knew?
I don't always find Yanis Varoufakis that good in interviews: I sometimes find his economic advice a bit hard to follow.
But here in an article that shows us The Guardian as the wild mix of the silly and the sensible that it is (see my previous post), Varoufakis calls himself an "erratic Marxist" and seems to me to make much sense. (I thought Jason Soon respected his views - but I hadn't realised what a polar opposite of a small government proponent he is.) Take this paragraph, for example:
I like him more than I realised.
But here in an article that shows us The Guardian as the wild mix of the silly and the sensible that it is (see my previous post), Varoufakis calls himself an "erratic Marxist" and seems to me to make much sense. (I thought Jason Soon respected his views - but I hadn't realised what a polar opposite of a small government proponent he is.) Take this paragraph, for example:
“Because what Australians do not understand is that there is a major disconnect between the United States’ official ideology and its practice. The ideology is one of free market, but the practice is one of a state that is extremely activist, and is investing very heavily in whole networks of innovation and production: the military industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, even the prison industrial complex. They are investing heavily through the state to create networks of value creation, and actually producing things. And Australia is moving very rapidly into divesting itself of actual production.”And how about this paragraph (which would mark him in the mind of Sinclair Davidson and the IPA as the economic Anti-Christ):
The idea that individuals create wealth and that all governments do is come along and tax them is what Varoufakis calls “a preposterous reversal of the truth”.He sounds also as if he would be completely in favour of the Labor policy on negative gearing.
“There is an amazing myth in our enterprise culture that wealth is created individually and then appropriated by the state to be distributed.
“We are conceptualising what is happening in society as if we are an archipelago of Robinson Crusoes, everybody on an island, creating our own thing individually and then a boat comes along and collects it and redistributes it. It’s not true. We are not individual producers, we produce things collectively.”
I like him more than I realised.
Every time you think we've reached "Peak Guardian", it turns out wrong
Look, I'm a bit reluctant to give this publicity, but the reason the article is a new "peak Guardian" is not so much that it appears on their site per se, but the way the opening paragraph invites sympathetic understanding:
It’s easy to laugh at a grown man in a rubber dog suit chewing on a squeaky toy. Maybe too easy, in fact, because to laugh is to dismiss it, denigrate it – ignore the fact that many of us have found comfort and joy in pretending to be animals at some point in our lives.As you might expect, though, the comments thread is very active, and very mocking.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Quantum saves free will - again?
New Age-ish books on quantum physics in the 70's and 80's, as well as the quantum mind theory of Penrose and Hameroff,* seemed to provide grounds to argue that, in one way or another, quantum effects could be key to consciousness, and even free will.
This likeable use of quantum theory (well, for those of us who think the concept of free will is important) has become unpopular with modern physicists and hard nosed, atheistic, philosophers, with the likes of Sean Carroll, Sabine Hossenfelder, Sam Harris and a host of others arguing that, basically, you're a doofus who doesn't understand science properly if you think there could possibly be true free will, or "downwards causation" by the mind.
[And, by the way - I have my doubts that they are being consistent - or honest - when they argue that the lack of true free will does not mean you have to give up on notions of morality and socially important things like punishment for crime. But that should be a matter for another post.]
Anyhow, this is all preamble to a link to a paper on arXiv which, as papers at that site go, is understandable for quite large sections, and argues that, properly understood, quantum mechanics does indeed mean there are emergent new properties, and "downward causation".
Now, I have read it through once, and do not understand every point. Or perhaps even the key point, properly.
But it doesn't sound nutty - much of what they cover I have read enough to know is not nonsense - and it seems that the authors promise another paper specifically on free will.
I have to say this paper appeals strongly to me because of the frequent reaction I have to the anti free will physicists: it's very odd that they are perfectly willing to ask me to swallow logs of intuitive nonsense (such as it being quite possible that there are continually created versions of me wandering off into non accessible multiple universes of the Many Worlds Theory) while at the same time calling me an idiot for believing the speck that is most naturally intuitive thing in the world - that I am free to choose whether to write this post, or not. And yes, although it sounds paradoxical at first, but the wildly non intuitive results of quantum theory does seem to be the "natural" place where one might find something that feels intuitive, but on paper isn't supposed to be there.
Am I making sense? (I wondered the other day, incidentally, whether the idea of the entire universe "downward causing" itself in a giant time loop that future intelligence creates - I am still fond of Tipler's Omega Point ideas - might have some implication for believing in more localised downward causation.)
Who knows: this might be an important paper for the rehabilitation of free will amongst physicists, and those who doubt their own experience of life.
Here's the abstract:
* Their microtubules and quantum effects theory is not, by the way, entirely dead yet. See this report from 2014.
This likeable use of quantum theory (well, for those of us who think the concept of free will is important) has become unpopular with modern physicists and hard nosed, atheistic, philosophers, with the likes of Sean Carroll, Sabine Hossenfelder, Sam Harris and a host of others arguing that, basically, you're a doofus who doesn't understand science properly if you think there could possibly be true free will, or "downwards causation" by the mind.
[And, by the way - I have my doubts that they are being consistent - or honest - when they argue that the lack of true free will does not mean you have to give up on notions of morality and socially important things like punishment for crime. But that should be a matter for another post.]
Anyhow, this is all preamble to a link to a paper on arXiv which, as papers at that site go, is understandable for quite large sections, and argues that, properly understood, quantum mechanics does indeed mean there are emergent new properties, and "downward causation".
Now, I have read it through once, and do not understand every point. Or perhaps even the key point, properly.
But it doesn't sound nutty - much of what they cover I have read enough to know is not nonsense - and it seems that the authors promise another paper specifically on free will.
I have to say this paper appeals strongly to me because of the frequent reaction I have to the anti free will physicists: it's very odd that they are perfectly willing to ask me to swallow logs of intuitive nonsense (such as it being quite possible that there are continually created versions of me wandering off into non accessible multiple universes of the Many Worlds Theory) while at the same time calling me an idiot for believing the speck that is most naturally intuitive thing in the world - that I am free to choose whether to write this post, or not. And yes, although it sounds paradoxical at first, but the wildly non intuitive results of quantum theory does seem to be the "natural" place where one might find something that feels intuitive, but on paper isn't supposed to be there.
Am I making sense? (I wondered the other day, incidentally, whether the idea of the entire universe "downward causing" itself in a giant time loop that future intelligence creates - I am still fond of Tipler's Omega Point ideas - might have some implication for believing in more localised downward causation.)
Who knows: this might be an important paper for the rehabilitation of free will amongst physicists, and those who doubt their own experience of life.
Here's the abstract:
We show that several interpretations of quantum mechanics admit an ontology of objects and events. This ontology reduces the breach between mind and matter. When humans act, their actions do not appear explainable in mechanical terms but through mental activity: motives, desires or needs that propel them to action. These are examples of what in the last few decades have come to be called "downward causation". Basically, downward causation is present when the disposition of the whole to behave in a certain way cannot be predicted from the dispositions of the parts. The event ontology of quantum mechanics allow us to show that systems in entangled states present emergent new properties and downward causation.Now, I should re-read it to see if more sinks in...
* Their microtubules and quantum effects theory is not, by the way, entirely dead yet. See this report from 2014.
Will it last?
As more states legalize marijuana, adolescents' problems with pot decline: Fewer adolescents also report using marijuana -- ScienceDaily
Interesting to read that marijuana use amongst teens in America overall seems to have declined a bit from 2002 to 2013. Is there a reason it has become not so cool to try or use it?
In any event, with the high profile change in State law in Colorado taking effect only in late 2013, and with other States following, it will be interesting to see if this holds up.
Interesting to read that marijuana use amongst teens in America overall seems to have declined a bit from 2002 to 2013. Is there a reason it has become not so cool to try or use it?
In any event, with the high profile change in State law in Colorado taking effect only in late 2013, and with other States following, it will be interesting to see if this holds up.
Oooooh
Spielberg to speak at 365th Commencement | Harvard Gazette
I'll be looking out for the Youtube of that...
Update: and to further bolster my belief that he is a genuinely nice guy, as well as being the most talented director who has ever lived, a comment from actor Mark Rylance, who has worked with him twice now:
I'll be looking out for the Youtube of that...
Update: and to further bolster my belief that he is a genuinely nice guy, as well as being the most talented director who has ever lived, a comment from actor Mark Rylance, who has worked with him twice now:
Sex and the law
I take it from this article that, with reform of Queensland laws, the effective age of consent in all Australian states will be 16, regardless of the type of sex involved. No, wait a minute, it's still basically 17 in South Australia, apparently. And Tasmania.
I see that some Australian States do have the sense to also have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which provide a defence if the age difference is not more than 2 (or 3, or even 5[?!]) years. (In fact, it is Tasmania with the high age of 17 that has laws allowing a defence if up to 5 years age difference. Odd.)
Queensland doesn't, though. Wouldn't that seem a sensible reform? If even Texas has it, can't we?
On a related issue, I did feel sorry for the old guys who appeared in the report on 7.30 last night who attended the Victorian government's apology for past governments having criminalised homosexual sex. From this point in history, it is a little hard to understand the intense interest in policing such activities in the mid 20th century. I guess part of it may have to do with people hating the idea of public sexual activity, which is something still to be disdained; but the irony is, I suppose, that making it a crime even in private almost certainly encouraged secretive and opportunistic liaisons in public.
I see that some Australian States do have the sense to also have "Romeo and Juliet" laws, which provide a defence if the age difference is not more than 2 (or 3, or even 5[?!]) years. (In fact, it is Tasmania with the high age of 17 that has laws allowing a defence if up to 5 years age difference. Odd.)
Queensland doesn't, though. Wouldn't that seem a sensible reform? If even Texas has it, can't we?
On a related issue, I did feel sorry for the old guys who appeared in the report on 7.30 last night who attended the Victorian government's apology for past governments having criminalised homosexual sex. From this point in history, it is a little hard to understand the intense interest in policing such activities in the mid 20th century. I guess part of it may have to do with people hating the idea of public sexual activity, which is something still to be disdained; but the irony is, I suppose, that making it a crime even in private almost certainly encouraged secretive and opportunistic liaisons in public.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Stop paying attention
My feeling is that there are way too many words being written about Donald Trump.
He's a joke who was helped to get where he is with minimal spend because of the fascination of the media with how far a joke campaigner could go. Now the media is full of "maybe he's not a joke after all!" semi-panicked writing from all and sundry, on the basis of a polling boost from winning the nomination. (Even though American polling is fraught with complications and a post nomination boost is not unusual.)
All this attention gives him a de facto credibility he doesn't deserve. Not only that, it feeds his attention seeking bad behaviour.
I would suggest pundits ignore him til the Democrats stop squabbling and settle on Clinton; perhaps even longer, to see how he performs in a head to head debate with her.
I remain very calm that there is no way he will become President.
He's a joke who was helped to get where he is with minimal spend because of the fascination of the media with how far a joke campaigner could go. Now the media is full of "maybe he's not a joke after all!" semi-panicked writing from all and sundry, on the basis of a polling boost from winning the nomination. (Even though American polling is fraught with complications and a post nomination boost is not unusual.)
All this attention gives him a de facto credibility he doesn't deserve. Not only that, it feeds his attention seeking bad behaviour.
I would suggest pundits ignore him til the Democrats stop squabbling and settle on Clinton; perhaps even longer, to see how he performs in a head to head debate with her.
I remain very calm that there is no way he will become President.
Not very encouraging
Chinese banks sitting on $1.7 trillion debt time bomb - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
At least, I suppose, in China you get a sense of active government involvement to head off any crisis. In the West, it seems you don't enough economists even recognising the possibility of a crisis (and hence no government action) until it happens.
At least, I suppose, in China you get a sense of active government involvement to head off any crisis. In the West, it seems you don't enough economists even recognising the possibility of a crisis (and hence no government action) until it happens.
The IPA seeking fools, and their money
I won't post the video directly, but here, you can view it on the IPA's virtual blog.
A few observations:
* does the IPA have some sort of grooming rules? They tend to do their PR with young, very well groomed, men and women, with nary a hair out of place. (Or, in the case of Sinclair Davidson, with nary a hair.) Chris Berg is perhaps the exception - his slightly shaggy "do" puts him a bit on the outer.
* I'd love to see the membership broken down by age - the video suggests a bit of a numbers gap in the middle age range. The organisation is either for young, foolish, idealists (sort like the way the libertarian movement in the US attracts some of the college set, with some rebelling against their parent's views, no doubt), or the over 60's cashed-up-too-old-to-be-idealists-but-defiantly-foolish-despite-their-age set.
* the video quite heavily promotes its credentials as a voice against climate change action. When might the media (and which means the ABC, by and large) start actively calling out the talking heads from that organisation for their involvement with an organisation that has spent years trying to persuade the public that climate change does not even exist?
I'm pretty sick of this: as I'm sure I have complained before, why let the affable Chris Berg off the hook when he wants to present as Mr Reasonable Dry Right on matters economic and political when he is working for an organisation that has a position that is already completely unreasonable, if not down right evil, in terms of promoting the interests of the mining sector over humanity's long term interests?
A few observations:
* does the IPA have some sort of grooming rules? They tend to do their PR with young, very well groomed, men and women, with nary a hair out of place. (Or, in the case of Sinclair Davidson, with nary a hair.) Chris Berg is perhaps the exception - his slightly shaggy "do" puts him a bit on the outer.
* I'd love to see the membership broken down by age - the video suggests a bit of a numbers gap in the middle age range. The organisation is either for young, foolish, idealists (sort like the way the libertarian movement in the US attracts some of the college set, with some rebelling against their parent's views, no doubt), or the over 60's cashed-up-too-old-to-be-idealists-but-defiantly-foolish-despite-their-age set.
* the video quite heavily promotes its credentials as a voice against climate change action. When might the media (and which means the ABC, by and large) start actively calling out the talking heads from that organisation for their involvement with an organisation that has spent years trying to persuade the public that climate change does not even exist?
I'm pretty sick of this: as I'm sure I have complained before, why let the affable Chris Berg off the hook when he wants to present as Mr Reasonable Dry Right on matters economic and political when he is working for an organisation that has a position that is already completely unreasonable, if not down right evil, in terms of promoting the interests of the mining sector over humanity's long term interests?
Rise of the Kraken
Cephalopods like it hot, apparently:
Gillanders noted that after the El Niño and La Niña phenomena of 1997-98, for instance, warm Pacific waters apparently affected whole populations of Humboldt squid (also known as jumbo flying squid): unusually large Humboldts were found in large numbers swimming off Mexico, Peru and Chile.
The squid, which live longer than most other squid (two years, rather than one), can grow to nearly 5ft: after El Niño, they were found weighing between 25lb and 88lb.
More than a decade later, the long-lived squid were found to have adapted to the 2009-10 El Niño by moving 100 miles north of their usual territory. Others moved into the open ocean and began breeding much earlier than normal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)