reading Jan 19 2022

reading, started reading, will I be able to get to the end ? Better save it:

It from Qubit,, reading Preskill on Twitter he said this is the most interesting physics problem and I found Devid Deutsch on google

(BTW finished today, Deutsch writes that the human brain is surely a classical computer, not quantum. And even if we were living in a computer simulation we could not possibily know so why not revert to the sex quarrels of Greek gods)

Murray Bookchin group on Facebook, I clicked on it “Sociobiology or social ecology?” Bookchin is on my reading list longtime, I also have some curiosity for OE WIlson who just died, founder of sociobiology

tbh Taleb got me curious about WIlson, when Scientific American published that offensive obituary on him. This is a quote by Taleb:

“gene plays a role, are quite tractable, but anything entailing higher dimensionality falls apart. Understanding the genetic makeup of a unit will never allow us to understand the behavior of the unit itself. A reminder that what I am writing here isn’t an opinion. It is a straightforward mathematical property. The mean-field approach is when one uses the average interaction between, say, two people, and generalizes to the group—it is only possible if there are no asymmetries. For instance, Yaneer Bar-Yam has applied the failure of mean-field to evolutionary theory of the selfish-gene narrative trumpeted by such aggressive journalistic minds as Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, with more mastery of English than probability theory. He shows that local properties fail and the so-called mathematics used to prove the selfish gene are woefully naive and misplaced. There has been a storm around work by Martin Nowack and his colleagues (which include the biologist E. O. Wilson) about the terminal flaws in the selfish gene theory”

― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Skin in the Game: Hidden Asymmetries in Daily Life

and today I found in my inbox Razib Kahn rebuttal to Scientific American “Setting the record straight: open letter on E.O. Wilson’s legacy”

Sunday reading 21 11 2021

Antropology, Anarchism by Graeber, mailing list on the Dawn of Everything, and I am on “beyond the Monastic Self” where Graeber talks about the 7-second conscience span and send the reader to Maurice Bloch for more neurological basis to this. SO it’s the paragrpah “A theory of Mind” on chapter 7 of Bloch’s book “In and Out of Each Other’s Bodies: Theory of Mind, Evolution, Truth, and the Nature of the Social” – Fake belef task experiment

7 seconds consciousness, Graeber quotes geographer Nigel Thrift, who quotes philosopher Mervin Donald

Looking for sources in Google I found this “Decades of timing research supports a “minimally sufficient” duration for time consciousness somewhere in the seconds’ range (Fraisse 1984; Pöppel 1989, 1997; Varela 1999; Wittmann 2011; Kent 2019), but most theories and methodologies in consciousness science only focus on the hundreds-of-milliseconds’ range (Northoff and Lamme 2020)” but I do not know this is the same thing Graebr mentions

reading oct 13th 2021

paleogenetics: in 2000 the story as, there’s a long line of devlopement, Neanderthal lost, we are at the top. Today with paleogenetics, 100k years all sorts of different human species, a bottleneck 60k years ago

Uno studente di Graeber racconta la persona e le sue idee. Titoli che non ha usato “come fossimo già liberi” e “We ve neve been stupid” meglio di “The Dawn of Everything”

found again an old Franzen on climate hange, now that I am reading Crossroads “Call me a pessimist or call me a humanist, but I don’t see human nature fundamentally changing anytime soon. I can run ten thousand scenarios through my model, and in not one of them do I see the two-degree target being met.”