Apr 25, 2006

Evolutionary Psychology


Introducing Evolutionary Psychology, by Dylan Evans and Oscar Zarate, is a required reading for Keanu Reeves, the actor of Neo in the Matrix Trilogy, before he opened up the script. It is a book with illustrations on every page; reading it is fun.

Evolutionary Psychology (EP) is the discipline that explains the mental processes, the cause of human behaviors, in the light of the idea that these mental processes are adaptations of the environment human ancestors live 100,000 years ago. It combines cognitive psychology and evolutionary biology. From cognitive psychology, it adopts the idea that human behaviors are caused by mental processes and the idea that the mind is a computer, by which the cognitive psychologists mean a set of operations for processing information. From evolutionary biology, it adopts the idea of evolution and extends evolution to the formation of human mind.

Evolutionary psychologists call the special-purpose programs in human mind, modules, which collectively constitute the mind. Examples of these special purpose programs include vision, hearing, and memory. Other interesting examples, which are usually controversial, include language acquisition module, alliance-formation module and mate selection module. It is fascinating to learn enlightening ideas that our mind is preprogrammed to learn language and that logic is a byproduct of the cheat-detecting function of the mind. But it is a bit sad to learn that nepotism is a phenomenon due to human nature.

At the end of the book, the author warns that EP does not justify status quo: it "describes what human nature is -- it does not prescribe what human should do". Knowing what human nature is will, on the one hand, help us "know ourselves" better so as to make improvements, and, on the other hand, help us understand the fallible nature of human being so as to be tolerant to each other's faults.

Apr 21, 2006

Google in China: The Big Disconnect

Google in China: The Big Disconnect: "While Baidu appealed to young MP3 hunters, Google became popular with a different set: white-collar urban professionals in the major Chinese cities, aspirational types who follow Western styles and sprinkle English words into conversation, a class that prides itself on being cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic."

By contrasting with "cosmopolitan", the author probably uses the negative meaning of the word nationalism --"The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals" (From American Heritage Dictionary). I wonder, however, whether it is possible for one to be cosmopolitan and nationalistic at the same time. The neutral meaning of nationalism-- "Devotion to the interests or culture of a particular nation--provides such a possibility. So if one who has a global view devotes to the interests or culture of a particular nation, one is possible to achieve a balance between being cosmopolitan and nationalistic.

Apr 19, 2006

A Collision Between The Milky Way And The Andromeda Galaxy


"Current measurements suggest that, in about five billion years, the Milky Way and Andromeda may collide! What will happen? " See A Collision Between The Milky Way And The Andromeda Galaxy!!

Apr 12, 2006

Level 10


When having the dinner today, Jason told to me about a kind of Gongfu that seldem can anyone reach the 10th level, for the final level is obtained only when all the ligaments are broken and then rebuilt. Another friend, Yitao, wrote to me once that it is only when you lost everything that you are free to do anything.

Both sayings are related, in some ways, to the living pattern of phoenix, reborn. I like it.

Apr 9, 2006

What is knowledge? : Internal justification


Philosophers say that in order for one to KNOW a proposition, three conditions have to be met: a) the proposition is true, b) one believes the proposition, and c) you are justified in believing the proposition. This analysis of knowledge is referred to as the JTB account: knowledge as justified true belief. What interests me most is that philosophers disagree in ALL three conditions. The last condition seems to be the philosophers' s favorite topic. I device two example to show the disagreement between philosophers known as internalists and those known as externalists.

First, suppose John has a dog. Every evening when John comes home, he opens the door and finds the little dog already sitting besides him. The dog smells the usual odor of John before the door is open. Intuitively, we will not refuse to admit that the dog knows John is back. In this case, we attribute knowledge to animals.

Next is a scene depicted in the movie, Minority Report. Imagine a girl who is constantly haunted by terrible dreams about murder at night. What she sees in her dream is real murder in near future, although she does not recognize her psychic ability at that time. Later a scientist proves that those murders really happen after the girl dreamed about them. And according to predictions of the girl and two other boys who also have the psychic ability, the police build a system called precrime to prevent possible murder, which the movie is all about. Do you think she kNOWS the murder before the scientist proves her psychic ability?

Here we meet a controversy. The dog does not have the idea that its senses are reliable. Neither does the girl had the idea whether her sense, the psychic ability, is reliable. But we attribute knowledge to the dog, but not to the girl. Why? Is it because the psychic ability is something not as common as ordinary senses like taste, smell, or sight? If so, let us view the case just as a thought experiment. So it suggest that in order to know, one should recognize the reliability of the senses. On the other hand, the example of the dog suggests that such a recognizability is not necessary for knowledge. Senses is one common source of our knowledge; the recognizability of their reliability is one example of the direct recognizability of justification -- what the internal justification is.

So the fundamental question is whether the internal justification is necessary for knowledge?

Apr 8, 2006

Pacific ocean current

This Ocean current animation shows that the Ocean currents on the sea surface is opposite in direction to those currents under the surface. It lets me remind the geography class in high school. Geography, one of my favorite courses, and it still is!

What is knowledge? : Do not show off the "knowledge", especially when nothing is known.

When I was about 14, I showed off in front of my classmates what I read from a popular public science book, A Brief History of Time. That book is about the images of space and time. Now, after taking physics courses in college, I can understand a few of the physical concepts in that book, and I can actually "know" some, but not all, physical images described in that book. The physical images I learned from that book at the age of 14 were, in a sense, epistemic luck for me, for I was not able to give reasons or justifications when facing the question--"How do you know?". So, strictly speaking, I knew nothing written in the book at 14.

To show off only brought me a satisfaction coming from the delusion that I seemed to "know" more than others. Though such a desire might be a stimulus for me to read when I was a child, its superficial nature makes it impossible to sustain any extensive involvement in a subject. It might also blind me from the true impulse of learning--curiosity. It can kill an inquisitive mind.

Apr 6, 2006

What is knowledge? : Epistemic Luck is NOT knowledge


John and Sandy were carrying bags of salt across a desert. One night John threw a small handful of salt into the campfire; the salt makes a cracking sound. John then said that they should not go tomorrow, because it was going to rain. Sandy did not believe it. Next morning, there was no sign of rain in the sky, so Sandy continued the trip alone. Shortly after Sandy left, a rain began; it washes away all the salt Sandy carried.

At the end of the story--as most stories for child under ten always do-- it tells the reader why the sound of the salt predicts a rain: the high humidity in the air, an indication of the coming rain, makes the salt wet, and the wet salt makes a cracking sound in the fire.

If I were Sandy, I wouldn’t believe John's words either. For me, the sound of the salt in the fire is just like the image on the crystal ball that a wizard sees. I would also deny that Sandy knew the rain, for it seems to me a random luck for John to correctly predict the weather considering that even now weather forecast is often inaccurate.

From an epistemic perspective, philosophers would also deny that John knew the rain. They would claim that at that night John only had the belief that the rain would come, and the rainfall next day turns John's belief to be true. But a belief's turning out to be true can be just due to luck, which epistemologists refer as the epistemic luck. In order for a true belief to amount to knowledge, justification is required. Though it is uncontroversial that an epistemic luck is incompatible with knowledge, there is a huge disagreement over the nature of justification and consequently over the nature of knowledge. Let us simply conclude that without justification, what one can have is only a belief, and an instance of the belief turning to be true is an epistemic luck.

We therefore exclude a considerable amount of information in our head from the range of what we know. Religious beliefs are not knowledge. Most daily predictions, most sayings about human nature, and understanding of abstract concepts that has no exact definitions, such as love, life, and success, are better to be classified as beliefs.

The fact that one mistakes belief for knowledge alone does not matter too much; what matters is the feeling attached with "one knows", when, in fact, he does not.