Lifeboat Foundation

Authors:

1. Elizabeth Irvine

From the reviews:

“If you thought reductionism about the mind was dead, think again: you may find John Bickle’s vigorously and powerfully argued Philosophy and Neuroscience: A Ruthlessly Reductive Account a real eye-opener. His guiding idea is that the proof of reductionism is in the track record of reductionist research strategies in neuroscience, in explaining mentality and behavior — and even qualitative consciousness itself. And Bickle does not disappoint: he serves up a veritable feast of reductionist success stories, from deep down in cellular and molecular neuroscience. Some of the details he describes will amaze, and perhaps also delight, you. Bickle’s discussion is invigorating as well as philosophically sophisticated, and his knowledge of current research in neuroscience is impressive indeed. The writing is clear, brisk, and refreshingly straightforward, and the book brims with enthusiasm and optimism. This is the latest salvo from the reductionist side, and a mighty one it is! It may not win the battle outright for reductionism, but it is going to change the shape and terms of the debate to come. A must read for those interested in the issues of psychoneural reduction and reductionism, and highly recommended to anyone with a broad interest in the philosophy of mind and psychology.” (Jaegwon Kim, Brown University)

“Bickle now practices metascience … a large part of the book consists of neuroscientific case studies. … Bickle’s experimental cases are fascinating and his book qualifies as a showcase of naturalism in the philosophy of mind. As such it deserves to be read by any philosopher with naturalistic leanings. … Bickle has provided food for thought. … It manifests a profound respect for empirical developments, and a healthy criticism of philosophical hobbyhorses and entrenched reasoning patterns. This makes the book worthwhile reading.” (Huib Looren de Jong and Maurice K. D. Schouten, PhilosophicalPsychology, Vol. 18 , 2005)

This book dissolves the most vicious problem of scientific realism (i.e., the problem of scientific representation). It Combines the philosophical and scientific resources of Structural Realism along with Ronald Giere and friend’s Cognitive Models of Science approach.

How much carbon dioxide (CO₂) do plants absorb from the atmosphere? This is what a recent study published in Nature hopes to address as a team of researchers investigated what’s known as the Terrestrial Gross Primary Product (GPP), which measures the amount of CO₂ that photosynthesis removes from the atmosphere. This study holds the potential to help researchers, climate scientists, legislators, and the public better understand the role that plants play in reducing carbon emissions, along with mitigating the effects of climate change worldwide.

“Figuring out how much CO₂ plants fix each year is a conundrum that scientists have been working on for a while,” said Dr. Lianhong Gu, who is a distinguished research scientist at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and a co-author on the study. “The original estimate of 120 petagrams per year was established in the 1980s, and it stuck as we tried to figure out a new approach. It’s important that we get a good handle on global GPP since that initial land carbon uptake affects the rest of our representations of Earth’s carbon cycle.”

Petagrams are the standard measurement used for GPP, with one petagram equaling 1 billion metric tons, and the latter being the amount of CO₂ discharged from the total number of gas-powered passenger vehicles in the world, which is approximately 1.4 billion.

How does social media influence safety messages during a natural disaster? This is what a recent study published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction hopes to address as a pair of researchers from the Stevens Institute of Technology investigated how the perspectives of natural disasters and the corresponding government responses could be impacted by false or irrelevant information being shared across a myriad of social media platforms, specifically X (Twitter) and Facebook. This study holds the potential to help scientists, governments, disaster relief efforts, and the public better understand the ramifications of social media messages and discussions on responding to natural disasters worldwide.

“It’s like being at a crowded party—if everyone’s arguing loudly about politics, it’s hard to make yourself heard over the noise,” said Dr. Jose Ramirez-Marquez, who is an associate professor in the Stevens School of Systems and Enterprises and the sole co-author on the study.

For the study, the researchers examined online discussions that occurred during four recent hurricanes: Harvey, Imelda, Laura, and Florence. The goal of the study was to ascertain online discussion patterns, and which posts and comments got the most attention as the crises unfolded. For example, the researchers found that dogs being trapped by flooding comprised 24 of the 50 most active discussions compared to 7 of those 50 being comprised of public safety. During Hurricane Florence, it was found that more than half of the 50 top discussions involved politics or animals, whereas 19 of the 50 discussed public safety.

They’re not quite on our level, but they’re not as far off as you might think.

Saturday Morning Physics “The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics” Sean CarrollOctober 21, 2023Weiser Hall.

An exploration of alternative biochemistries, especially that of fluorine, and how the luminosities of stars may play into different forms of life.

My Patreon Page:

Continue reading “The Exploding Alien and When The Plants Stop Making Oxygen” »

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxPBhe8BnSflMY57ZXtTGKMsCRY3f…LY0ORFGeGa

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world.