|
| Wow, it's been an entire year since I posted anything here. I guess I could give an update. I'm currently reading an awesome book Evolution of the Insects by David Grimaldi and Michael S. Engel. It is easily the most technical book I have ever read: it hasn't been dumbed down at all. So far I've been through the early insects (eg silverfish), the pterygota (eg mayflies, dragonflies, and the awesome, and extinct, huge griffinflies, aka giant dragonflies), and now I reading about polyneoptera, which is a huge group that includes stoneflies, grasshoppers and crickets, walking stick, roaches, termites, mantids and many extinct or not well known groups (I've just started the section on termites). So I'm sure you can guess that I have quite a way to go since I haven't even gotten to the beetles (Coleoptera) which is the largest order. Not only are the insects themselves interesting, but it does discuss some of the disputes. When the general public is presented with science on the news, or even most websites, they get the message that such and such is cut and dry, but really there are many disputes behind the scenes. Facts, especially when dealing with paleontology, are rarely perfectly clear: one can draw different conclusion based on the evidence. This is why parsimony is used, since it is best, when faced with too little information to reach an obvious conclusion, to stick with the simplest conclusion until more information is obtained. But even the most parsimonious conclusion can be contentious. This is why all conclusions in science aren't set in stone. Insect evolution doesn't get much attention (the only mention I can think of is some IDiot tried to claim that the bombardier beetle was an example of irreducible complexity), but it is very interesting. Considering just how many insects there are, one may initially be disappointed with how "small" the fossil record is, but insects don't have large, hard bones to leave behind, so I am actually somewhat amazed at just how much we have been able to find. And how many other full specimens of other animals have been found? Not many (although there is the relatively recent hadrosaur find)? That is one advantage insects (and such smaller creatures) have over the big, more famous ones. I guess one big reason insect finds don't make the news is that people think “bugs” are “icky” and “creepy.” I obviously don't agree. All my life I have been interested in insects (not spiders as much, but they are interesting too), and my dad keeps telling me that I'm probably destined to become an entomologist, but I'm not so sure. I do find it interesting but I'm not sure I have the memory. I'm also unsure what I would do since I have a more general interest and I don't really find any one field more interesting than any other. | | |
|
I'm finishing up an interesting book titled Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life ( on Amazon.com)
by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb. And I just noticed that it now has
some reviews which it didn't before, which isn't surprising since it
just came out (I had it pre-ordered). Having glanced through them, I
recommend reading the reviews. This book may be representative
of an important shift in evolutionary thought. While I enjoy Dawkins's
books, his simplifications leave me wanting more information and
somewhat frustrated. His books seem to ignore many other factors, which
this book actually goes into. This takes a sort of middle of the
road approach, which usually draws my attention. For example, it never
claims that genes aren't important, or even not very important. To the
contrary, epigenetics seems to punctuate the importance of the genome
because their affects are only felt through genes. I also think that a
middle of the road path is the most sensible when we haven't done much
research and therefore don't have a lot of data to base conclusions on. I
do disagree with John E. Mack (see the reviews on Amazon above) in that
I think it is good that they spent time on the behavioral and symbolic
affects on evolution. I do agree that they are pretty obvious, but this
just means that they don't get talked about, and sometimes it seems
they are forgotten. Any time there is inheritable variation natural
selection can (does?) occur. So let's not forget informational and
symbolic evolution, and also how they can affect genes via such things
as niche creation. This seems to be a more integral approach to
evolution, and one that I think at least deserves more research to
either confirm, reject or modify.
| | |
| Sorry about bailing on this blog. I doubt that it really had any effect on anyone, but I do feel a bit guilty for my disappearance.
I'm not sure if I'm going to ever get around to writing about perception. Maybe some day, but it is especially tough because I don't really feel like writing about it right now. I'm sure you know how hard it can be to write about subjects when you don't want to.
I am going (to try) to start writing here again, and as usual I'm going to focus on what science or philosophy I am reading online and in the real world (e.g. books). And I am open to suggestions for topics, but I don't guarantee that I will write about what people suggest. If you see anything that you think I should read, just let me know. In fact, that is probably the best way to get me to discuss a subject you want to discuss with me.
Wow, that sounds pretty conceited, as if I'm so friggin' awesome that everyone wants to talk to me. That is obviously not true as demonstrated by a lack of many comments. Oh well.
| | |
| I don't know how many people actually read this, be here goes.
I don't know what to write about, so what do you guys want to hear my opinion/thoughts on?
Peace, scitso | | |
| Sorry about the delay, sometimes procrastination gets the better of me. I don't think I'm totally done, but done enough.
Self
What is the "self"? This is a question that I have posed not only here, but elsewhere as well. I had learned from experience that just asking "what is the self" usually leads to confusion, so here I also allowed people to answer "what makes you you?" It is interesting that everyone automatically assumes that these two questions are asking the same thing. Equally interesting are the people that answer the first question with the second question (you are yourself). Both of these questions are deceptively difficult for most anyone who is totally honest with themselves (not that if it isn't difficult you aren't being honest, but for most it is difficult). Why is this difficult? One reason may be that we live our lives with the feeling of separation from everybody and everything else, and we never question this separation. But once we do, we find it hard to articulate, or possibly even know where we end and everything else begins.
Humans understand the universe by splitting it up into groups (eg stars, planets, animals, plants). But we forget that our divisions are exactly that, our divisions. Every time we create a group, we are creating a boundary that is splitting up the true whole into false wholes: one group containing the subject of our grouping, one containing everything else. But the Universe contains no such separations, but we forget this and we get lost in our own boundaries.
One place this is very obvious is with the self. We split "self" into "ourself" and "yourself," but like all other boundaries, this is illusionary. Without "yourself" there would be no "ourself." As Chris pointed out when he answered my question, we define ourselves only in relation to others. So the "self" dilema is the same as the subject-object relationship (or observer-observed relationship). We consider "ourselves" as the observer and "yourself" as the observed. But these cannot exist without the other: no observer can exist without something to observe, and nothing is observed without an observer. So "ourself" has no identity separated from "yourself." So "self" contains both "ourself" and "yourself" which has obvious implications, not the least of which is that you and I are both part of the same "self."
To find what "self" is, we need at least a tentative definition to test. I define "self" as that which has an identity unto itself, ie is not defined in relation to something else. This seems simple enough, but it really isn't. You may automatically think that "you" or "I" are self defining, but they are not, "you" does not exist without "I" and vice versa. Not even "IS" is defined only by itself, it exists only in relation to "IS NOT." So "self" has to be that which contains all as well as not-all. In summation, "self" contains all duality.
Peace, scitso | | |
|
