Skip navigation

Tag Archives: circumstance

Um cérebro de macaco interpreta o mundo como macaquice. Isso significa que esse cérebro é primariamente uma peça de um quebra-cabeças que é um bando de macacos, e esse cérebro serve para descobrir quem é o chefão, quem é o otário, quem é inimigo, quem administra a comida, e assim por diante. Basicamente, uma série de «Quems». Dentro da cabeça, é um monte de macacos. Primatas são animais sociais e pra esse tipo de animal nada é mais importante que a hierarquia social. O mesmo cérebro também se encarrega de orientação espacial, dos modelos de causa-e-efeito, da crítica literária e assim por diante, mas isso tudo é secundário.

Essas outras coisas secundárias podem ser impressionantes, o que levanta a questão: “¿Como?”

A ciência, a arte, a pornografia, o K-Pop, a matemática, a culinária, as religiões, os engarrafamentos, o póstransmetamodernismo, a Burocracia, o SilkRoad7 — tudo isso (e muito mais) saiu de um cérebro de humano. Mas se o ser humano é um macaco e cérebros de macaco lidam primariamente com macaquices, se o cérebro de macaco é uma ferramenta especializada na política dos bandos de macacos, como é que todas essas outras coisas vêm à tona? Read More »

The relevance of thought must be obtained (and sometimes wrested) from the circumstance we exist in.

We could then best describe thought as distillation than as searching. To talk about the inner working of thought, we must deal in heuristics (as opposed to, say, universality or validation or platonic enlightenment). Heuristics are the mechanics of circumstances. Heuristics are circumstance-navigation. What does that say to us about knowledge? Read More »

Ursula K. Le Guin’s “The Dispossessed” goes around praising Einstein for not dabbling in relativism:

Ainsetain had known that; with endearing caution he had admitted that he believed his physics did, indeed, describe reality.

Which supposedly means words are all about truth and not about word games. All faith goes to truth. This even comes {facepalm} from a general-semanticist, someone who few pages latter will allude to the uselessness of quantifying direct experience.

Do Einstein’s Relativity describe reality? It does. So does Newton. And so does a Monet painting. Or a love letter. And Tolkien’s Lord of the Ring. Or brown-journalism. And lies. What’s special, at all, about this? Read More »

The understanding of human beings is vastly taken to be powerful, a source of power, the thing that makes us as a species “Kings over the Earth”. We are not kings. And to understand does not mean you can do anything. It just means that, if you could, you would be more likely to know you could.

Understanding is just a kind of familiarity. It just means you are used to something. You’ve done it times enough that you can reasonably expect to be able to cope with most of the outcomes.

There are some times, though, where different people, with different life histories, can compare their familiarity in matters where their experiences had little in common to one another. How exactly does this work? Read More »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 128 other followers