Wrapping our minds around the pluriverse (1)
“In the eyes of the beholders” is one of the best articles that I have read in 快猫短视频. And, because it mentions information often, I am moved to write that the Greeks had at least two words for knowledge:
doxa and gnosis. Through doxa, we come to conclusions based upon information. Doxa can be rated (a doxa -rate?) and, through the careful study, evaluation and application of information, a doctorate can be acquired and a scientific career launched (21 March, p 28).
But an important point is made: “Growing evidence suggests we don’t experience the outside world directly, but as a personal and continually updated model, or prediction.” That seems an ideal case for
gnosis. Its fundamental is “Know thyself”. Gnosis is enabled by the ability to transcend the effects of doxa and to experience the ever-changing world that is in formation without the baggage of assumptions. Is that why some scientists experience personal “aha” moments, when they stop thinking about the work in hand?
Wrapping our minds around the pluriverse (2)
Your article on “the pluriverse” was interesting, but I’m not convinced. In particular, if Qbists and enactivists propose that the universe arises as a result of all the living or agentic observers in it, the question then is: what was going on before there were any? The article hints at extending the scope of agency to pre- and maybe even non-biotic entities to deal with this, but then we’re in a very fuzzy place bordering on paganism or shamanism, where everything 鈥� trees, rocks, rivers, stars 鈥� has its own agency or genius loci. At this point, “observer” loses all meaning, and so provides no testable utility.
Beware the convenience of robot butlers
Chris Stokel-Walker’s piece, “A very serious guide to buying a robot butler”, took me back to some research I carried out 12 years ago with some 80 pupils, who were about 12 years old, about their visions of what robots would do in the future. Domestic duties featured large in their responses, but on being asked about the implications of such activity, a significant number of the pupils suggested that this would encourage laziness, lead to humans becoming dependent on robots and to a lack of purpose in our lives. One pupil even suggested that as robots did more and more, humans would be unable to look after themselves and the human race would slowly die out. Given the current concerns about agentive artificial intelligence and how this could be embedded in domestic robots, the pupils’ concerns seem prescient (21 March, p 36).
Age-restricted devices are no quick fix (1)
Some readers suggest using age-restricted devices to enforce a social media ban. Such a measure can be easily circumvented by using a shared computer or buying an extra device to access social media. A cheap smartphone or tablet can be had for no more than the cost of a week’s lunch or a month’s vaping. An outdated or faulty second-hand smartphone that can still run apps can be even more affordable. On the other hand, such a measure will cost families lots of money and create a lot of e-waste, not only during the introduction of the measure, but also when the children grow up (Letters, 21 March).
Why we need to go inside the mind of an animal
Once again, the so-called hard problem of human consciousness raises its head in the piece “Unlocking consciousness”. But is there really a problem? Can we really say that a dog or an ape is not conscious in the way humans are? They feel fear, affection and grief, just as we do (28 March, p 30). They may not dwell on the meaning of their existence, as humans do (if they aren’t just using their intelligence to survive), but isn’t that just a reflection of our very large brain size, which gives us spare mental capacity?
The problem is that we humans are incapable of putting ourselves in the minds of animals. We cannot conceive of a dog having consciousness, just as we cannot conceive of eternity or infinity or our nonexistence.
Evolution due to climate change? Not so fast
Can species evolve fast enough to survive climate change? The answer is no! What has been observed by these researchers is an example of ecological genetics in action. The genetic polymorphism within the population means some individuals will already possess the necessary genes to enable them to survive climate change. The number of these individuals may be low, but they will soon become the dominant group. Natural selection takes place so individuals who don’t possess the necessary genes will die out. The best example of this is the peppered moth, which comes in pale and dark shades. Before the industrial revolution, tree trunks were pale, and the dark moths formed a small percentage of the population due to predation. The darkening of the trunks with industrialisation led to the darker moths becoming more “fit” and thus more dominant. The reverse occurred as pollution lessened and the trunks lightened (21 March, p 6)
Age-restricted devices are no quick fix (2)
I enjoyed Michael Le Page’s article about fast evolution in scarlet monkeyflowers. But I don’t think we should call this evolution. It risks giving people who deny the need to take action against climate change a further opportunity to misrepresent the science. The article also notes this may be temporary, as the emergence of drought resistance reduces genetic variation. So, I suggest short-term genetic advantage is a more appropriate term than calling it evolution.
It's time to rehabilitate the image of T. rex
I have appointed myself PR adviser to Tyrannosaurus. The name is rubbish. Tyrants are cruel, arrogant guys who make decent people’s life a misery 鈥� lots of them are still around, alas. There is zero evidence that
T. rex ever did that. All they ever wanted was breakfast, lunch and dinner, and some odd snacks (28 March, p 38).
For the record
Katia Moskvitch is at the firm Quantum Machines (28 March, p 12).