December 20, 2010
Will Cards trade Carp?
Without Uncle Cliffy Lee in hand, Yahoo's Tim Brown says the Gotham Pinstripers might be interested in Chris Carpenter.
Xns shooting selves in foot with 'War on Xmas'?
When I saw the title for Ross Douthat's latest op-ed column, I thought he had become the latest Bill O'Lielly/Faux News surrogate.
But, I read on, and was surprised, at least partially pleasantly. Especially in the latter part of the column, with this:
That said, Hunter is, as Douthat notes, a social conservative.
Douthat then adds that
The bottom line?
Douthat, of course, laments that. I welcome it.
He does add a coda:
That said, he's ignorant of the history of Christian development and evolution, and ignorant of how battles over orthodoxy in those days made today's American Religious Right look like pussycats at times.
And, beyond that, Douthat does not seem cognizant that the mindset of the modern Religious Right simply isn't amenable to change.
But, I read on, and was surprised, at least partially pleasantly. Especially in the latter part of the column, with this:
Having popularized the term “culture war” two decades ago, (University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter) now argues that the “war” footing has led American Christians into a cul-de-sac. It has encouraged both conservative and liberal believers to frame their mission primarily in terms of conflict, and to express themselves almost exclusively in the “language of loss, disappointment, anger, antipathy, resentment and desire for conquest.”
That said, Hunter is, as Douthat notes, a social conservative.
Douthat then adds that
Harvard’s Robert Putnam (of “Bowling Alone” fame) and Notre Dame’s David Campbell ... argue ... institutional Christianity ... seems to be gradually losing its appeal.
The bottom line?
Putnam and Campbell are quantitative, liberal, and upbeat; Hunter is qualitative, conservative and conflicted. But both books come around to a similar argument: this month’s ubiquitous carols and crèches notwithstanding, believing Christians are no longer what they once were — an overwhelming majority in a self-consciously Christian nation.
Douthat, of course, laments that. I welcome it.
He does add a coda:
Or to put it another way, Christians need to find a way to thrive in a society that looks less and less like any sort of Christendom — and more and more like the diverse and complicated Roman Empire where their religion had its beginning, 2,000 years ago this week.
That said, he's ignorant of the history of Christian development and evolution, and ignorant of how battles over orthodoxy in those days made today's American Religious Right look like pussycats at times.
And, beyond that, Douthat does not seem cognizant that the mindset of the modern Religious Right simply isn't amenable to change.
December 19, 2010
Free will not so free? And not so human-specific
I've long been of the opinion that "free will" vs. "determinism" is, if not a false dilemma, at least something close — a pair of false polarities, rather than something on a continuum.
(I've also been of the opinion, taking Dan Dennett's stance on consciousnesss that there's no "Cartesian meaner" to its logical conclusion — as does Daniel Wegner and others, I'm not alone — that there's no conscious, central, controlled location for free will in humans, as well. That is, there's no "Cartesian free willer" either. But, I digress.)
There's a German-based neuroscientist who agrees with me on the "polarities" angle. But, that's not all.
Bjoern Brembs also says that this free will — free will within constraints — is exhibited by animals, too.
Personally, I actually don't see this as that big of a deal. Given that consciousness itself is understood as being on some sort of continuum, rather than "we conscious humans" vs. "you unconscious animals," how could a will, and a will that is partially free, also not exist, and again, on a continuum?
That then said, I do find it a bit more questionable to extend some degree of free will, as Brembs does, all the way down to the level of flies, just as I would find it questionable to attribute consciousness to an animal with so few neurons.
To talk about a dog, or the old laboratory vertebrate standby, the lab rat, as having some degree or type of free will? Yes. The laboratory insect standby, a fruit fly? Per Carl Sagan, that's an extraordinary claim. I expect more evidence.
I'll stand by for more research; this is surely going to be a hot topic not just for months but for years.
(I've also been of the opinion, taking Dan Dennett's stance on consciousnesss that there's no "Cartesian meaner" to its logical conclusion — as does Daniel Wegner and others, I'm not alone — that there's no conscious, central, controlled location for free will in humans, as well. That is, there's no "Cartesian free willer" either. But, I digress.)
There's a German-based neuroscientist who agrees with me on the "polarities" angle. But, that's not all.
Bjoern Brembs also says that this free will — free will within constraints — is exhibited by animals, too.
Brembs and others have used mathematical models to simulate brain activity on a computer, finding that what worked best was a combination of deterministic behaviour and what is known as stochastic behaviour - which may look random but actually, in time, follows a defined set of probabilities.
Personally, I actually don't see this as that big of a deal. Given that consciousness itself is understood as being on some sort of continuum, rather than "we conscious humans" vs. "you unconscious animals," how could a will, and a will that is partially free, also not exist, and again, on a continuum?
That then said, I do find it a bit more questionable to extend some degree of free will, as Brembs does, all the way down to the level of flies, just as I would find it questionable to attribute consciousness to an animal with so few neurons.
To talk about a dog, or the old laboratory vertebrate standby, the lab rat, as having some degree or type of free will? Yes. The laboratory insect standby, a fruit fly? Per Carl Sagan, that's an extraordinary claim. I expect more evidence.
I'll stand by for more research; this is surely going to be a hot topic not just for months but for years.
More on the 'case' against Assange
First, I put "case" in scare quotes because, since charges haven't been filed, is this legally a "case" under Swedish law? I don't know.
Second, let's not forget point No. 1.
That said, there's new details about what's up.
OK, a couple of questions right there.
First, what Swedish lawyers? All we hear about and from is Mark Stephens, Assange’s British lawyer, from the “sex by surprise” comment on. So, who does Assange have working for him in Sweden? What’s their take on all of this? Why aren't they commenting?
That said, we are being told now, in this story, that Anna Ardin is “a left-wing activist.” We’ve heard Counterpunch describe her (via FiredogLake) as a tool of CIA front groups. We've heard The Age (Australia) note she's not even in Sweden now and describe her as generally being on the more liberal and activist side. If Counterpunch's story had any truth, it would seem she's either naive at times, or a bit flighty, which I'm thinking anyway.
And, per The Age, linked above, yet more questions:
If Ardin and Wilen don't know each other (and I don't know what level of "not knowing" is meant — not knowing each other at all? not knowing each other well? not knowing each other outside of the cyberworld?) how could they have known to have "compared notes"?
There's plenty still up in the air. Nate Silver of 538 will have to keep working on his Bayesian probabilities on this one.
That all then said, if half of what if alleged is true, Assange is a criminal. And stupid. If he is right, as I believe he is, that the United States imperialist government was looking for a chance to legally incarcerate him (before possibly stooping to illegal incarceration and detention?), then why did he — every sort of pun intended — expose himself like this, if he did?
Second, let's not forget point No. 1.
That said, there's new details about what's up.
Claes Borgstrom, the lawyer for the two Swedish women, who is Sweden’s former equal opportunities ombudsman (said) ... Assange’s statement that he has “heard no evidence whatsoever” to support the allegations was false, since the contents of the police report were made available to his Swedish lawyers weeks ago.
OK, a couple of questions right there.
First, what Swedish lawyers? All we hear about and from is Mark Stephens, Assange’s British lawyer, from the “sex by surprise” comment on. So, who does Assange have working for him in Sweden? What’s their take on all of this? Why aren't they commenting?
That said, we are being told now, in this story, that Anna Ardin is “a left-wing activist.” We’ve heard Counterpunch describe her (via FiredogLake) as a tool of CIA front groups. We've heard The Age (Australia) note she's not even in Sweden now and describe her as generally being on the more liberal and activist side. If Counterpunch's story had any truth, it would seem she's either naive at times, or a bit flighty, which I'm thinking anyway.
And, per The Age, linked above, yet more questions:
Assange was staying with Ardin, then he was with (Sofia) Wilen, and then later in the week he went back to a crayfish party at Ardin's place, pausing only to text Wilen. Ardin later threw him out, and at the end of the week, the two women - who did not know each other - had compared notes and gone to Klara police station in Stockholm to inquire about forcing Assange to take an STI test.
If Ardin and Wilen don't know each other (and I don't know what level of "not knowing" is meant — not knowing each other at all? not knowing each other well? not knowing each other outside of the cyberworld?) how could they have known to have "compared notes"?
There's plenty still up in the air. Nate Silver of 538 will have to keep working on his Bayesian probabilities on this one.
That all then said, if half of what if alleged is true, Assange is a criminal. And stupid. If he is right, as I believe he is, that the United States imperialist government was looking for a chance to legally incarcerate him (before possibly stooping to illegal incarceration and detention?), then why did he — every sort of pun intended — expose himself like this, if he did?
MoJo Dowd writes a sensible, serious column?
Yes, and the lunar eclipse tomorrow will be a blue moon.
Seriously she writes about wondering whether DADT repeal will have any significance for the possibility of a gay president.
She gets other insights, too, from other people.
You know, if she'd write something like this once every three months, even, people wouldn't call her out so much on all her crap.
But, she doesn't.
Seriously she writes about wondering whether DADT repeal will have any significance for the possibility of a gay president.
I called Barney Frank, assuming the gay pioneer would be optimistic. He wasn’t. “It’s one thing to have a gay person in the abstract,” he said. “It’s another to see that person as part of a living, breathing couple. How would a gay presidential candidate have a celebratory kiss with his partner after winning the New Hampshire primary? The sight of two women kissing has not been as distressful to people as the sight of two men kissing.”
She gets other insights, too, from other people.
You know, if she'd write something like this once every three months, even, people wouldn't call her out so much on all her crap.
But, she doesn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)