アインシュタイン（E）はベルクソン（B）の哲学について「心的時間を客観化したい…のか？」と気づくもそれ以上理解しなかった。僕自身、Bがon to something important（とくに記憶の脳科学にとって）なことだけ直観しているが、その理解度はE程度。青山著は、B海域への入水路になってくれる気がする。
バートランド・ラッセルのベルクソン批判（1912年）「彼の哲学は『単なる言葉遊び(a mere play of words)』に基づく。それは『知性よりも審美眼によって評価されるべき想像力のたまもの』である。つまり、それは『詩的な営み(poetic effort)』にすぎない〔とラッセルはいう〕。」(Canales 2016, p184)
Those of us who like to think had better think hard, as though this was the last day we ever get to think, since the earth is warming, our neurons are degrading, the economy is collapsing, and there may never be a tomorrow to think our thoughts.
Scientist-turned-philosophers (or historians) are too often dismissed as 'failed scientists', even though such conversion is not so much about competence as about the direction of intellectual passion. To counter this dismissal, maybe we need more philosopher-turned-scientists.
「哲学も宗教も科学も、揃って時間切れになりつつある。人は何千年にもわたって人生の意味を論じてきたが、この議論を果てしなく続けるわけにはいかない。迫りくる生態系の危機や、増大する大量破壊兵器の脅威、台頭する破壊的技術がそれを許さないだろう。」Y. N. ハラリhttp://web.kawade.co.jp/bungei/2950/
For almost a week two English words were on the tip of my tongue but couldn't quite recall. This morning, all of a sudden, I realized they are "oxymoron" and "gerrymandering". Way to go my semantic memory.
I often get accused of being absent-minded. But in a world many things happen in vastly varying spacial and temporal scales, being mindful of one scale means ignoring others. Flexible mental switching between scales is a challenge for me and for all of us.
There! I spelled it out. This is my world view, and pretty much all that I care about. Hopelessly simplistic? Maybe. But sorry, I can't think larger than this.
The more you put your thought on climate crisis, the more absurd it seems to pretend you're sane and can conform to the commonsensical-business-as-usual. In a world where society as a whole is insane and business-as-usual is a suicide, you should conform to nothing.
3) History and Philosophy of Science is highly competent in giving us conceptual tools to think about these issues. 3') ...but are unjustly underappreciated (at least in Japan). (2/2)
3 observations on the current state of science in general: 1) Multiple fields are stumbling upon the same type of questions: "What should we understand and how?", "What count as a valid explanation?" 2) This is by no means unprecedented; past scientists asked them too. (1/2)
"Henk W. de Regt (Amsterdam) gives a talk at MCMP titled "Science, Metaphysics, and Understanding". This talk addresses the question of whether there are limits to scientific understanding. " https://youtu.be/06gb_5x2xNY
To this I say no. Because this maybe humanity's last chance to deepen our understanding of the brain, precisely due to the climate crisis. We should be doing every science as if it's our last try, including the fight agaist the climate change. https://x.com/KordingLab/status/1166025139135365120
For the last few months I've been reading sporadically about several topics that caught my attention. It was a worthwhile detour, but it's time to get back to my main line of inquiry. And I'm excited about that.
Spent the whole day at home with our feverish two year old. Tiresome day with no 'progress', but if I live long to be like sixty or seventy, I might be ready to give anything, even a full year worth of lifetime, just to have a single day like the one I had today.
In my teens, I was bombarded by the doomsday scenario on climate crisis. I took it seriously, and felt guilty for every carbon footprint I left. Now my despair is two fold: it all came true, and all regardless of my anxiety. We need to face this, without fear and sense of guilt.
At first glance, the brain of a person with DID makes up many ficticious personalities. But how do we know that our typical identity is not equally ficticious? And that it is really singular?
Why is it that we don't read much about DID (dissociative identity disorders) in popular brain science books, compared to, say, split-brain patients? That different 'personality parts' can inhabit a single brain is to me a remarkable fact that calls for neuroscientific inquiry.
Watching "Ex Libris" is such a joyful experience, reassuring us that world is still a place worth living in...only until you realize that the filming took place just before the 2016 election. I can only hope that Trump's effect was minimal.
When there are multiple systems of scientific practice (A and B), what is the point of preserving both? From Hasok Chang (2012) “Is Water H2O?”, Ch.5. The case for scientific pluralism, illustrated. https://t.co/M0ogHdpTnU
Got the chance to watch "Ex Libris – The New York Public Library". To me the film depicts the best part of America or especially New York: tolerance for diversity, respect for academic knowledge and art, strongly goal-oriented minds toward shared values. Almost made me cry.
Self-help books are sometimes helpful but seem to be over supplied. Much in need may be "world-help" or "humanity-help" books. (I count "Factfulness" as one.)
When editing a book, you must not get distracted by a third-person opinion whose sole purpose is to hedge risks; that can be a force towards mediocrity. Think how you can best present what you love about the manuscript and the author, how you can do justice to them.
翻訳とは何か？については、"Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything"（by David Bellos）という本が目から鱗だった。2012年の本なので、翻訳は難しいだろうか。http://rmaruy.blog.fc2.com/blog-entry-18.html
ただ、10年前と今とで違うのは、「理解」を「真理への接近」の意味で捉えなくなったこと。科学のゴールは一つでないし、科学は真理への接近可能性や真理そのものを想定せずとも営めるし、理解の仕方は人によって違ってよいと思っています。（Hasok Chang "Is Water H2O?"、第4章などの影響で）
I (like everyone else) came across this machine translation engine "Mirai translator", and it's quite impressive. At first sight the performance is human level, but not quite. This remaining subtle awkwardness helpes us think deep about what "understanding" really is.
The current state of neuroscience is often likened to "pre-Newtonian physics" (lots of observation, no real theory), but maybe "pre-Daltonian chemistry" is a better analogy.
"The Brain from Inside Out explains why our brain is not an information-absorbing coding device, ..., but a venture-seeking explorer constantly controlling the body to test hypotheses. Our brain does not process information: it creates it." https://buzsakilab.com/wp/2019/02/06/the-brain-from-inside-out-by-buzsaki-g/
It is not just that science tells us some unexpected aspect about reality. Rather, it tells us that reality 'can' be drastically different from what we think we know. This capability to open up a counter-factual imagination is where poetry resides in science.
Science can be poetic. That is most true when an epistemological revolution occurs due to some new theory or observation. Like when people realized that earth rotates, or that species evolve, or that a blackhole in a far away galaxy can be detected.
A Possible Alzheimer’s Treatment With Clicks and Flashes? It Worked on Mice https://nyti.ms/2VUAUUs マウスにて、40Hzの音と光で脳のガンマ波を誘発すると、アルツハイマーの症状が緩和したとのこと。すごくない？ どうなっているんだろう。@ZooMarker
In times of big data science, we often hear that 'understanding’ is no longer attainable and that we should aim for successful prediction/intervention. I still think the former is necessary, for only new 'understanding' can create a novel 'question' that drives science forward.
I've come to realize that life is short, so I made a list of people I've always wanted to meet and made it my priority to email them one by one asking for an appointment. So far I've had 5 such encounters in the last 3 months, all of which were so rewarding.
http://www.nikkei-science.com/201905_042.html 「現在、数十人の科学者が修正重力理論を研究している一方、数千人が暗黒物質粒子を探している。修正重力理論は間違っているかもしれないが、科学界はそれを誠実に確かめる努力を怠っているといえるだろう。」Hossenfelder & McGaugh 日経サイエンス（201905）所収
Pursuing academic interests while staying outside of academia is only fun, because one is free from the obligation to write papers or grant proposals. It will be really nice if I can give something back someday, but in the meanwhile I will continue to free-ride.
Yesterday I encountered two undergraduate students of philosophy of science. How they talked confidently about their own field impressed me. Looking back, the contrast is shocking; we physics undergraduates were (rightly) treated like babies who barely knew how to walk or talk.
These days, after reading some academic books or papers, I hear imaginary voice from those authors: "Hey, I've done my work. It's your turn. Where are you gonna go from here? How would you contribute?"
Last week I came across a philosopher on Twitter, and our conversation developed into a serious discussion on something I deeply care about. Never dreamed this could happen in my life. 10 years ago podcasts saved me from my academic solitude; now SNS has saved me.
I'm working on an article and it's only 10 pages long. But it's enough to remind me that writing from scratch takes a hundred times more effort than editing a draft.
I'm working on my next blog post with my friend. Every night we share ideas through Google document; it's amazing how deep we can go by mutual feedback. This must be the kind of joy Kahneman and Tversky felt when they were coauthoring papers.
It's a rather technical book tackling a specific research problem. Yet Marr states and defends his "philosophy" and "approach" in the first and last chapters, and this makes the book worth read by those outside the field. If only every academic book is written this way.