The parts of Dennett where he collects evidence and documents history is very good. I especially like how he talk about the “evolution of evolution” – putting evolution itself to its own test. But then, when he gets into Words, Memes, “cultural evolution”, and using illusions to prove things, well, he loses me. He leaves the world of hard physicalism where he does a fine job and moves into the area of “say anything just sound believable” and it’s all paper-thin in that zone.

The parts of Dennett
[read full article]
 

You could argue differences in the history of slavery, sure. Wasn’t creepy or scary though. It was out of character for this group. The racist faces (that’s not an bad-hurt-insult word for you to feels bad – those are literally actually simply racist portrayals) didn’t fit here. And, you could see why by the responses; did a discussion ensue about slavery? No. It was about the tacky racist meme. A 1000 better ways to bring it up and you picked that. If it’s an important topic for you, bring it up another way. I think you tested the limits of your powers and hit a brick wall here. So, lesson learned.

You could argue differences
[read full article]
 

I’ve been fascinated by hysteresis on and off for years: “Hysteresis is the dependence of the state of a system on its history. For example, a magnet may have more than one possible magnetic moment in a given magnetic field, depending on how the field changed in the past.” So the field affects itself based upon its own past. It’s pretty close to as rudimentary as I can think of

 I’ve been fascinated by
[read full article]
 

So, why does anesthesia work on plants? “The reason why anesthetics work on plants, animals, and bacteria is because we all use a lot of the same processes to send signals. There’s only so many ways to send those signals, and the stuff plants and animals use to quickly send signals to distant regions of the body evolved early in evolutionary history. They worked pretty well, so everyone just kind of kept using the same proteins to do the same jobs even as the cells and bodies of these organisms went through drastic evolutionary changes.” https://askentomologists.com/2021/01/01/so-why-does-anesthesia-work-on-plants/

So, why does anesthesia
[read full article]
 

“The findings of greater attentional capture with greater changes in direction and speed support the notion that perceptual animacy captures attention, because greater changes in direction and speed are associated with stronger perceptions of animacy (Tremoulet & Feldman, 2000, 2006). As before, in a postexperiment interview, the subjects gave no indication that they were aware of the animate motion.” — It’s Alive!: Animate Motion Captures Visual Attention Across humans’ evolutionary history, detecting animate entities in the visual field (such as prey and predators) has been critical for survival. One of the defining features of animals is their motion—self-propelled and self-directed. Does such animate motion capture visual attention? To answer this question, we compared the time to detect targets involving objects that were moving predictably as a result of collisions (inanimate motion) with the time to detect targets involving objects that were moving unpredictably, having been in no such collisions (animate motion). Across six experiments, we consistently found that targets involving objects that underwent animate motion were responded to more quickly than targets involving objects that underwent inanimate motion. Moreover, these speeded responses appeared to be due to the perceived animacy of the objects, rather than due to their uniqueness in the display or involvement of a top-down strategy. We conclude that animate motion does indeed capture visual attention.

The findings of
[read full article]
 

Complementary Academic Instructional Programs (XREF / Cross References) extracted from Classification for Instructional Programs (CIP 2020) 415 XREF in total.

Complementary Academic Instructional Programs
[read full article]