I don’t quite understand. Perhaps “reasoning” got it worse than “tradition” did. Then people learned what was wrong. And now they still insist on doing it not according to “tradition”? How is it different at all from setting up a new tradition and not bothering anymore?
“Ticks” is a diverse group, but I agree they are strange. Like the occasional males in parthenogenetic species? I mean, why do it?..
And my own favorite, if we are permitted to name large groups (can’t say “taxa” here) will be, of course, Fungi Imperfecti. I know it’s a cop out, though, in many senses relative to the OP.
Asked an entomologist about “comparably weird invertebrates”; his version includes parasitic crustaceans, Strepsiptera, echinococci, Myxozoa, and Ascidiidae.
Given how little we know about even such a small subset as… insects… I would say that “weirdness” of some invertebrates is not yet a thing. We might come to appreciate it in the future, but not soon.
In tiny spheres of melted snow
Around the tips of mosses,
Where creatures dream, and freeze, and thaw,
And never count their losses;
In deepest oceans’ private wells,
Where life still crawls about,
Defying water’s crushing spells
Within just as without, -
Wherever people have cared to look,
They saw, and cheered, and cursed
The fighting claw, the winning hook,
The glorious eggshell burst.
Perhaps information hygiene. There are a lot of information sources which might be called parasitic. Suppose we have some “process” that allows us to somehow find ourselves where we had steered, truth-wise among other things. Biology says “it will be eaten, possibly gradually”.
I mean, in the natural way ofthings, the first outsiders to acknowledge rationality as a thing will be those who will swallow the practitioners. Until it happens, we may consider it to be nascent.
(in a way, I think about my twin as a strange gift, like if I died right now there would still be someone who would both know what I would say in a situation and what I would mean by it. Immortality today :) imperfect, of course.)
(I will need to think about it tomorrow, but are you effectively saying that the object of the experiment should be that thing Z which modifies what X+Y do?)
I don’t think it is quite safe to just “switch” to another mode, unless you plan to track digestion and other things on a much stricter schedule than people mostly do. SNS/PSNS have effects far beyond cognition.
seems like it would be easier to train yourself to sit down, or lie down if possible, and “set” your breathing patterns and the tension/relaxedness of your muscles from toes upwards, like yoga practitioners do. It’s not “real” in the sense that people can’t imagine separate muscles, rather muscle-filled space. And face muscles are difficult to interpret. But it gives you some time and a pattern to guide your attention, so in a way it works. Better after some physical work—it is easier to distinguish “I have worked” and “now I rest”.
Also, what you suggest is not enough to suspect that Y is needed in the first place. This is an assumption that has to be made based on something. In your model, it seems that in some rats even small “doses” of X in the experiment you suggest in the beginning will sometimes coincide with purple coloration. Doesn’t the experiment seem the more straightforward way?
As to the, uh, real systems, I agree that to many whys remain unnoticed, and observation should play a bigger role. That is a curse of a surveyor—you always wonder what you would have found if only you went just a hundred meters further...
Maybe it would be better to write something like X －＞ PP ＆ Y －＞ PP, because the way it is written it kind of reads to me like “if X is large but Y is not, than PP is not going to be large since it is produced in a reaction”.
If you lived in medieval Europe and people argued about such things, then I’d wager you would find it pretty much relevant.
Also, principles of classification (which later gave birth to biological systematics) went through the angels @ archangels stage, so—yes. Please don’t neglect the discourse :)
I would systematically destroy selected invasive species (like Ambrosia artemisiifolia or Heracleum sosnowskyi) in the localities I know, and seek out new localities, if ten more people pledged to do the same and at least one person accompanies me every time for safety reasons (and hopefully to dig along). The main effect would be educating local people, of course, since I know for a fact that some still *plant* Heracleum “because it is impressive”. Hopefully if such attitude to the species becomes more widespread, we could demand changes in local legislature which would make the relevant state agencies actually do something about the issue. There’s just no reason why we should have such dangerous aliens in our environment (Ambrosia produces lots of airborne allergenic pollen, while contact with Heracleum makes skin photosensitive, which in the worst case causes death from unhealing “chemical” burns.) There are, of course, many other invasive species, but I would target the worst threats.
However, I also expect to be looking for a job… or emigrate.
(EDIT: to be clear, systematic attempts to eradicate Ambrosia are already happening in some areas of my country, and some of them are citizens’ initiatives far more industrially scaled than anything I can afford. Which is admirable, but also not something most people can afford, too.)
Hmm, they must be rare. Most likely, shopping online and in English… one side of ambitiousness would be then ‘willingness to pay’, maybe even ‘willingness to pay to become known as such a person’.
Sorry, I often have this problem.
I mean that ‘ambitious’ people might be ‘just generally ambitious’ - I see some of them when they come to buy books on self-help or startups or esoteric things. They might be ‘ambitious, as in wanting to have power over other people’, & then they buy books on, say, romantic relationships or English for two-year-olds, or planners; but largely it’s also a hobby. Some of them do get to wield this power and are content with it. Some do collect thousands of likes on Facebook or Youtube, and are visible, and therefore counted ambitious by others.
And then there are people who want power over things, over events in the world. The least ‘personal’ example is a scientist, but the volunteer who sends winter clothes to families living on occupied land and the sniper who crouches on the roof above a demonstration, they also belong to this species. And I have yet to peg them down when they enter my bookstore. They are… invisible.
As Tracey Davis would say, that’s not true! And what’s it mean?
Seems like there’s power over others and power over things to happen. To become ambitious about the first kind, most people only need a chance to taste and realize what it is they’re tasting. The setting might be for the greater good, the reflection might discourage the pupil, but the option will be on the table.
As to the power over things to happen, it requires serious autonomy (an ability to pick the real dependencies between things and to keep a roof over one’s head meanwhile) and/or serious despair (as in people who might survive cancer).
I understand that, but the book must be available there. It would be awfully cool if you could read it too and share your impressions. For the next meetup, which we plan in a month, I hope to overcome the ancients.
What! That’s him?! I’ve been reading it for ages! You will like the book then :)
We met this Saturday in Kyiv. It’s my at workplace, so we get interrupted sometimes, but overall it works fine. We got about halfway into antiquity, got tired and turned to GPT 2. But why do you think it will be difficult? OTOH, there was only one other person ))
I didn’t know he had a blog, will seek it out.