Is the Universe a conscious mind? | Aeon Essays

Source: Is the Universe a conscious mind? | Aeon Essays, by Nigel Warburton

The subject matter of physics are the basic properties of the physics world: mass, charge, spin, distance, force. But the equations of physics do not explain what these properties are. They simply name them in order to assert equations between them. … physics is a tool for prediction.

Reflecting on the limitations of physics in The Nature of the Physical World (1928), Eddington argued that the only thing we really know about the nature of matter is that some of it has consciousness; we know this because we are directly aware of the consciousness of our own brains. … We have no direct access to the nature of matter outside of brains. But the most reasonable speculation, according to Eddington, is that the nature of matter outside of brains is continuous with the nature of matter inside of brains.

panpsychism: the view that all matter has a consciousness-involving nature.

There are two ways of developing the basic panpsychist position. One is micropsychism, the view that the smallest parts of the physical world have consciousness.

However, a number of scientists and philosophers of science have recently argued that this kind of ‘bottom-up’ picture of the Universe is outdated, and that contemporary physics suggests that in fact we live in a ‘top-down’ – or ‘holist’ – Universe, in which complex wholes are more fundamental than their parts.

If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself.

The Crisis of American Forensics | The Nation

Source: The Crisis of American Forensics | The Nation, by Meehan Crist and Tim Requarth

Jimmy Genrich, and thousands of others, have been imprisoned for decades because of untested “science.” … By adopting the trappings of science, the forensic disciplines co-opted science’s authority while abandoning its methods.

“The legal concept of newly discovered evidence including a change in science,” says Chris Fabricant of the Innocence Project, who is litigating Genrich’s case, “is in my view a no-brainer. It was presented to a jury as infallible, and today we know it’s not. There is an obligation—an ethical, a legal, and a moral obligation—to go back and correct the record where exaggerated claims may have led to a miscarriage of justice.”

“We were really focused on ‘this isn’t a science.’ I can tell you from doing triple-digit jury trials, the jurors really want concrete evidence. Because it’s a very hard decision to make. And that’s why scientific evidence is so dangerous when it’s not a real science, because it is persuasive.”

Brainjunk and the killing of the internet mind | TechCrunch

Source: Brainjunk and the killing of the internet mind | TechCrunch, by Danny Crichton

Michael Pollan, the best-selling author of food books including the The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Food Rules, summarized his philosophy of eating quite simply. “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” The idea was to spend more on quality, and avoid the sorts of junk food that are deeply unhealthy for our physical bodies.

I think it’s well past time to borrow that philosophy for our brains. … So let me propose a little framework: “Enjoy content. Not too much. Mostly paid”.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Performance | Random ASCII

Source: What We Talk About When We Talk About Performance | Random ASCII, by Bruce Dawson

Describing performance improvements exists at the intersection of mathematics and linguistics. It is quite common to use incorrect math to describe performance improvements, and it is possible to use incorrect, misleading, or just sub-optimal rhetoric to describe your math.

It’s quite easy to find examples of this rhetorical error. A google search for “90% faster” (with the quotes) almost exclusively finds articles talking about reductions in elapsed time of 90% or more, where the new process is actually at least 900% faster.

Therefore, when you reduce how long a task takes – any task – you should calculate the speedup factor as NewSpeed / OldSpeed and use that speedup to describe your achievement. You should also share your before/after numbers so readers can check your math.

US startups don’t want to go public anymore. That’s bad news for Americans – Quartz

Source: US startups don’t want to go public anymore. That’s bad news for Americans – Quartz, by Gwynn Guilford

The upside of public listing is that it lets companies raise huge sums of capital, issue more shares, issue debt with relative ease, and use equity to fund acquisitions. But because of the ways the American economy has evolved, those advantages are less important than they once were.

The problem is, two features of public listings—disclosure and accounting standards—make things tough on companies with more intangible assets.