Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Sorry, didn't realize there was a paywall:
WSJ (Charlotte Allen) Excerpts:
" A massive academic hoax has taken a surprising twist. Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy, faces disciplinary action at Oregon’s Portland State University."
"They concocted 20 pseudonymous “academic papers,” complete with fake data, and submitted them to leading peer-reviewed scholarly journals in fields like “queer studies” and “fat studies.” "
“It had to be done,” Mr. Boghossian tells me. “We saw what was happening in these fields, and we were horrified at the faulty epistemology that these people were using to credential themselves and teach others.”
"He quickly came under fire from Portland State colleagues—one of whom, social-work professor Stéphanie Wahab, is a co-editor of Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, which accepted an article titled “Our Struggle Is My Struggle.” It consisted in part of a chapter of “Mein Kampf” with feminist buzzwords swapped in for Hitler’s anti-Semitisms."
-----------------------------------------
Although "peer reviews" are fundamental in academic publications, there are certainly problems. My observations in mathematics have been a mixed bag. Whereas significant breakthroughs in well-known areas are scrutinized carefully, the same cannot always be said of papers of lesser importance. Since my contributions have been in the latter category, I can speak from personal experience. Once a researcher has attained a certain level of competence and acceptance in the mathematics community, some reviewers are a bit more relaxed, and make occasional mistakes.
It has long been the practice to send papers to be reviewed to academics thought to be familiar with an author's specialties, and for those individuals to devote time and energy fulfilling an accepted role in the community, uncompensated, although putatively given time by their institutions to do the work. Then the journal requires payment from one's institution to cover publication costs.
In the new era of electronic journals this amounts to considerable profits for the publishers. At least as far as I am aware. Maybe not, I haven't kept up for the last twenty years. Yanqui, MikeL, Ed, and Jan may have different opinions about the process.
Not really "What is Mind". Apologies.
MikeL: "Empty awareness is not a thing. It’s not even a state of consciousness, imo."
Does that imply one is not conscious when experiencing empty awareness? How is that possible?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
we were horrified at the faulty epistemology that these people were using
Just like here with these so-called modern scientist "experts" commenting on "What is Mind".
The gross materialists have sooo muuch bunk and so little time .....
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Jan, you and DMT have made me rethink my stance on whether evolution is still relevant in humans. Now I would say, of course it is, but selection pressures do wax and wane, and sexual selection is far more important in the developed world.
Any search on the internet for "Are humans still evolving?" will give you a whole bunch of, "of course it is, you idiot!" It turns out we have been evolving like crazy since the agricultural revolution. This is the part that I did not fully appreciate that now I think I do.
My thesis is that between the beginning of the agricultural revolution and the beginning of the 20th century is this period that is distinct from what came before and what came after with respect to selection pressures. During this period, evolution actually sped-up -- spectacularly. Look at what it had going for it.
• Large families could now be supported because of the dependable food supply (relative to hunter-gatherers)
• Larger populations mean more total mutations in the collective genome (relative to hunter-gatherers)
• Because there was no real medicine, a high percentage of children died in childbirth (relative to the 20th century)
• Because there was no real medicine, diseases like the Black Death could cull large percentages of the population (relative to the 20th century)
• Your chances of dying by the hands of other humans were high as civilizations conquered other civilizations (relative to the 20th century in the United States)
These factors are the factors of selection pressure. The biggest single factor demarcating the 20th century from what came before is medicine. Once every African is inoculated for Malaria, there is no more benefit for “natural” Malaria-defense evolution. You basically stop this evolution in its tracks because you’ve altered the selection pressure.
So, when you read about how humans are evolving, I would say that there is not generally an appreciation of the demarcation between essentially going forward from now and what happened since the agricultural revolution. If somehow the whole world could live like the western world, then evolution would slow down dramatically in humans as whole. That does leave sexual selection. It fills in for natural selection. The success of blondness is a good example of a sexual selection winner.
The other thing that I want to make clear is that the slowdown in evolution that I am proposing going forward is only germane for the developed world. Because most of the world does not fit this bill, it seems obviously (to me now) wrong to assume that the developed world is the appropriate default to use for projecting into the future.
By the way, Jan, I don't know all that much about autism, but I don't think that it's apparent increase has anything to do with evolution per se.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Just see the thread is dead stone.
The gross materialists lost.
They remain ultimately clueless with only post dated check type mental speculations.
They've given up and gone to drinking beer and drooling in front of Television watching soap operas reruns of Charles Darwin and his merry mental speculators .......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I think you underestimate malaria and disease in general. Nature abhors a vacuum.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Ed: isn't empty awareness just a state of "real-time" sensory flow? just letting that happen without any interpretive narrative?
We’re talking about a concept here, I think. That's a description or definition of a concept. Conventionally, I’d say your description is fair. But note, it’s an interpretation of a state of non-interpretation. In that, there is a stipulation of a thing.
Getting a handle on such things can be maddening and hypnotizing.
One of my challenges spiritually over the years that I came to grips with is that I became trapped or committed to emptiness. Spirituality can be the most ascetic, pure, dry, high, moralistic, and even intellectual practice of devotion that one can experience, imo. In that, spirit doesn’t “arise” as much as there is a commitment to being and acting spiritual. Chogyam Trungpa called it "spiritual materialism," and it's simply another expression of ego. Science, in my view, is similar. One feels it (spiritualism, science) is the right thing to do. For me, I began to experience everything as empty, nothing mattered, nothing was real, nothing couldn’t be undermined as unreal. It’s as if I became a vampire. Although I was dead, everywhere I looked I saw unending delusion and illusion. It was easy to see. Emptiness had become a thing for me. I could say emptiness was truthful and undeniable.
But then life was no longer life (the vampire thing). At some place or point, one must come back to normal everyday life with the understanding (and seeing) how everything is empty yet still or at the same time regular life and somehow more.
I think I should be most grateful to my wife for bringing this up for me to see, in her own inimitable way. Ahem. :-)
Jogill: Does that imply one is not conscious when experiencing empty awareness? How is that possible?
It presents a conundrum of sorts. I think some masters say that to be conscious implies three things simultaneously: a perceiver, perception, and that which is being perceived. If all three are present, you have consciousness. If one is absent, then the rest might be also absent or . . . something else. Some people will claim that there is awareness in deep sleep, but that the sleeper is not conscious of it, per se. When you wake up in the morning, for example, you don’t tend to think you were just born or that you were truly dead while sleeping. In various states or stages of sleep there appear to be images, feelings, and er, . . . “things” that we cannot begin to articulate. Some have claimed that the awareness of cellular demands in the body are “known” but not in any describable way (“I need food”). It might be known in more of an “imperative way.” We have imperatives arise in us that we are unaware of consciously . . . yet we are aware.
I can’t answer these questions, my friends. I know what you want, and I’m unable to provide it for you. Apologies.
BTW, John, in the places where I worked, reviewing *was* taken into consideration when it came time for tenure and promotion. As for open source journals or electronic journals, T&P is likely to change, I suppose. The internet is destroying traditionally structured industries left and right. Evolution, eh?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
But then life was no longer life (the vampire thing). At some place or point, one must come back to normal everyday life
acintya bheda-abheda-tattva - simultaneous oneness and difference.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
Folks, sorry I have not been able to keep up with the conversation here, but here's some insight on the Four Desires according to Bertrand Russell.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
Thanks for the reply, Mike.
I've been looking over mathematical modeling for evolution (Re Greg), but haven't found anything illuminating yet.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And you won't either because it is NOT mathematical .....
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
MikeL, from what I've read that was a huge breakthrough you had concerning emptiness and everyday life. I think the final version of it is to do away with the desire for enlightenment itself in order for it to actually happen. So I read.
As for autism and evolution. Some have theorized that it is a change in the brain which will serve humans well in our technological future as the autistic person thrives on working alone at repetitive tasks and very minimal human contact. Personally I think robots will do a better job.
Of course we do not know the causes yet or the results, but it's easy to speculate that they are related to chemicals we are putting into our environment that some can tolerate and others can not. If autistics don't reproduce, they will gradually die out. If they do reproduce, then they will affect evolution - for better or worse.
In general, the biological quality of the human race is deteriorating as more survive with more genetic problems and pass them on. Biologists refer to this as "the genetic load". Along with the importance of sexual selection however, is another important factor affecting our current evolution. The more intelligent, educated, and better nourished members of our species increasingly have few or no children - a global phenomenon. Meanwhile, the poor, illiterate and badly nourished have many. After some centuries that will have an effect.
Probably before then a world wide pandemic will have an even greater effect. Over half of Ebola suferers die, but 48% do not. That too is a kind of evolution and is most likely true of every disease.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
the final version of it is to do away with the desire for enlightenment itself in order for it to actually happen.
100% correct .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
As for autism and evolution.
maybe that should be "co-evolution",
google search "autism and gut biome"
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
A U.S. Senator:
“You figure your Scientific Method is the best technique you have for working things out, right? I tell you no.
Observe the facts, set up a hypothesis that accounts for them all, use it to predict other facts, check them out, and revise or scrap the original hypothesis if the new evidence doesn’t fit properly.
I find it workable.
Do Aristotle, Marx, or Kant have a better overall system?
Yes. The primary concern of philosophy is not truth. It is meaning. You don’t begin with assumptions and piece them together according to the rules…; you question their implications, and you question your questions, until nothing at all is certain. Then, maybe, you are getting close to meaning.
Macroscope
Piers Anthony
!969, Avon Books, p 84
everywhere I looked I saw unending delusion and illusion.
MikeL
SuperTopo What is “Mind?” Thread
3 Feb 2019
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Without the Absolute Truth ultimately there is no real meaning just more mental speculation.
Thus, philosophy by itself ultimately falls short ......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Good point Ed. I read the same article. The gut biome affects many things including the production of serotonin which is utilized by the brain. It seems some mental problems like depression which is widespread in the developed world, may be affected by it too. As far back as the 1960's American beef was not allowed in Europe because of all the hormones and antibiotics. That was my first indication that our American lifestyle might not be the healthiest.
As for speculating about evolution based on a couple of generations, we have to start somewhere. We now look back and know the lead plates the upper class Romans ate off of affected their health and fertility and finally the fate of the empire. Too bad they didn't think about what was new in their environment as they were suffering the problems. That particular case did not affect evolution but was important to immediate history nevertheless.
As for long term evolution, it's hard enough to convince people to think about global warming a hundred years from now when sea levels have already risen and extreme weather proliferated, yet we need climate scientists to do that - to think ahead beyond their lifetimes. In a culture that favors individual freedom above all, and given the history of eugenics, it is a tough sell, but for the sake of next generation individuals and the future of the human race, people with serious genetic diseases should not have children or be prepared to abort, another unpolular idea. Hence the number of mutations increases.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
I just want to say one last thing about this pace of human evolution sideshow topic. For evolution to amount to much, three things are required:
* a breeding population
* mutations
* selection pressure
It's the last item that is most germane to the pace of evolutionary change. The fact is, rapid evolution requires a lot of dying off. If two populations are otherwise the same with the exception that, because of environmental factors, 30 percent of the individuals die before they can become parents in the first population and only 2 percent die before they become parents in the second population, that first population will evolve faster. This is an example of selection pressure.
Think of a beneficial mutation that just came into existence. Maybe at first there are just two or three individuals with the mutation. How does it start proliferating in the population? Through differential survival and breeding relative to its competitors, that's how. The individuals with the mutation need to out-breed those without it. It doesn't just happen because it is beneficial.
A plausible scenario for how humans got their big brains was the selection pressures brought on by the dramatic climate fluctuations in the Pleistocene. Humans are no longer naturally increasing their brain size. It wouldn't surprise me if brain size was increasing through the much of human history, but it isn't any more. In fact, as Jan alluded to, there is every reason to believe that we are overall less smart than we have been in the past because of weaker selection pressures.
One would expect to see an inverse relationship between our relative technological advancement and the pace of our natural evolution. When everybody is having 2.1 kids and very few of them are dying of disease before parenting age, there is not much pressure to change or evolve (excepting sexual selection). Selection pressure is very much like voltage. If you don't understand selection pressure, you don't really understand evolution, IMO.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
In fact, as Jan alluded to, there is every reason to believe that we are overall less smart than we have been in the past because of weaker selection pressures.
I think this is a rather strange statement, that there are many more humans now than at any other time in history would lead one to guess that there are more smart people today, and even more smarter people than ever before.
As the population declines, there will be fewer.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
Well there's smart and there's smart. Defining intelligence is about like defining consciousness. I had a conversation just the other day with someone who was marveling that someone we know with a Ph.D. could make such foolish decisions about their practical life. Working in academia, I just laughed. I've always said that in a catastrophic situation I would bet on the tough old peasants of the world surviving while smart and educated people in the developed world would just curl up and die.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
And yep, it depends on your definition of smart.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!