Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

I gather there was an important 2005 decision of the US Supreme Court regarding the internet. With my usual promptness I'm kind of catching up with it 14 years later/ Yes, the tech has changed a lot in 14 years, but the changes have made the decision more important, not less. They have raised issues such as how the decision applies to new unexpected variants of internet use. The gist of it is that the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, upheld a decision by the FCC that cable companies that sell broadband internet services do NOT provide a telecommunications service as defined by the Communications Act of 1934. [Mark THAT date.] I'm just laying down a marker. I'll have to come back to the subject. https://casetext.com/case/national-cable-telecommunications-assn-v-brand-x-internet-services-4

"Cautiously one can say this: The attempt to understand the quantum theoretical description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which immediately become unnecessary if one accepts the view that the description refers to the system as a whole and not to the individual system. The w hole approach to avoid 'physical-real' becomes superfluous. However, there is a simple physiological reason why this obvious interpretation is avoided. If statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe completely the individual system (and its temporal sequence), then it seems inevitable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual system. It would be clear from the start that the elements of such a description within the conceptual scheme of the statistical quantum theory would not be included. With this, one would admit that in principle this scheme can not serve as the basis of theoretical physics.” A. Einstein, Out of my

What would I mean by saying "John is sober now"? On one level, I mean "at the moment at which I am now speaking, an acquaintance of mine name 'John' is functioning unimpeded by alcohol." But that is almost certainly NOT all I mean when I use the phrase idiomatically. I might mean: 1) John, who is quite often drunk, is at a rare sober moment now. [So now may be a good time to talk to him about X.] or maybe, 2) John, a recovering drunk, is working on, and for some recent period has been successful at, maintaining sobriety. [Thank God for that 12 step program.] If neither (1) nor (2) is the case, then saying "John is sober now" of some random individual John who is usually sober, would generally be seen as defamatory, would it not? It would suggest to a third party that one or the other of those two idiomatic meanings is the case, and an acceptance of either of them as the truth can do harm.

One can read much of the book free, through the Google Books platform. I was curious what if anything Ball would have to say about Quantum Bayesianism (QB), which I have mentioned in this blog a time or two. The answer is that he treats it as one interpretation of quantum mechanics among many, alongside Copenhagen, many worlds, collapse models and pilot waves. QBism is, he sees, the culmination of the Copenhagen view. "Quantum mechanics generally assumes that quantum states exist in some meaningful sense, and that the math tells us what we can know about these states. But in QBism there are no objective states. Rather, according to Chris Fuchs, 'quantum states represent observers' personal information, expectation and degrees of belief'. " Bohr had said (outlining what is now called the Copenhagen view) that (in Ball's paraphrase), "the purpose of quantum mechanics is not to tell us about reality but to predict outcomes of measurements."

What is connectionism? is it something of the past or of the future? Connectionism, in the words of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is "an approach to the study of human cognition that utilizes mathematical models, known as connectionist networks or artificial neural networks. Often, these come in the form of highly interconnected, neuron-like processing units." I have mentioned it before in this blog, but only in passing. The point is to abstract from the actual functioning of the human brain to study a hypothetical brain that humans can model, in the way that a planetarium may suffice when the night sky is obscure. The IEP suggests that connectionism had a "heyday," in the late 20th century, but that the heyday is now past. This doesn't mean the approach turned out to be a dead end. Quite the contrary, IEP says that the idea has passed its heyday (few scientists call themselves by the label anymore) because its central insights have been

Gloria Vanderbilt passed away on June 17, of stomach cancer. She was of course one of THE Vanderbilts, a direct descendant of Cornelius (aka The Commodore) Vanderbilt, a man who built a business empire out of the new steam technologies -- he was one of the first to make effective use of the Fulton steamships, and later the first of the great Railroad barons. What was Gloria's connection? She was the Commodore's great-great-granddaughter: the daughter of Reginald Claypoole Vanderbilt who was the son of Cornelius Vanderbilt II, who (though his name might be misleading in this connection) was the son of William Henry Vanderbilt, who in turn was the son of Cornelius Vanderbilt the one and only. Moving forward in time rather than back, Gloria was the mother of Anderson Cooper (by her fourth husband, Wyatt Emory Cooper). And Anderson is now a prominent news anchor with CNN. Aside from the genealogy in either direction,  Gloria will be remembered as a woman who created a new

I'm writing today simple to express my awe about the courage of so many of the people of the city of Hong Kong, in regard especially to their resistance to the extradition bill that their Overlords attempted to force upon them. I'll do so with three Reuters links. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-extradition/hong-kong-vows-to-press-ahead-with-extradition-bill-despite-huge-protest-idUSKCN1TB08W They paralyzed a financial hub, not something that Beijing can ignore. They risked a Tiananmen-type event in hopes of winning a great victory for liberty. The treaty secured before Britain's withdrawal allowed the people of Hong Kong the continued benefits of a British style legal system. Those benefits will surely be lost as it becomes easier for Beijing to drage citizens of the supposedly autonomous region into the mainland and try them there.   https://www.reuters.tv/v/PQi0/2019/06/12/hong-kong-s-financial-hub-paralyzed-by-protests Over time, Beijing may y

"Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) on Monday began his new job as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a controversial appointment that could set up a showdown between the White House and Senate Republicans." I saw that recently and wondered at the name. It looked a bit familiar Cuccinelli  is Madonna's birth name?  [Note -- no, that turns out to be Ciccone.] Cuccinelli made a bit of a splash when he was state Attorney General for Virginia in the period 2010-14 under Governor Bob McDonnell. In that capacity, he investigated climate scientists, stating that they were arguably engaged in fraud by peddling this notion that CO2 emissions affect the planet in ways that might prove harmful to humans. I am happy to note that, at the very least, he did not misuse his position to bring any charges. My guess is that announcing an investigation was sufficient to get him what he wanted from it -- a blast of narcissistical

I think if the Democratic Party nominates Biden, they are looking at a loss. This election would end up looking like 1984. Biden has a lot in common with Walter Mondale, who of course defeated a large field of other primary candidates in the period 1983–84 and then lost in the fall as Reagan cruised to re-election. The Democratic Party’s best chance is for this cycle to end up looking NOT so much like ‘84, but more like ‘76. Remember, the Dems also had a large field in ’75 - ‘76. The candidate who emerged from that field was NOT an old familiar figure (not Muskie or Humphrey), but someone who had been utterly unknown to most of the country until the campaigning had gotten underway — Jimmy Carter. Who then defeated Gerald Ford in the general election. The Democrats need a fresh face to emerge from their large field, and then they need to come together behind that fresh face. Tulsi Gabbard (portrayed above) might pull off the Carter role.