Time Heals All Wounds.. And Then Kills the Patient
<Previous Next>
Mon Nov 24 03:19:02 2003
Late Night Knees

Another journal entry, made too late at night.. I'm working on revising my Psych term paper.. well, probably finished with that for tonight. The rough draft got a much better grade than I thought it deserved, but I'm hoping to actually get it to the state where I'm willing to call it decent quality before I turn it in. I'm supposed to present it on Tuesday (although final draft isn't due then), and so I hope to have it completely done then, so I can devote my full non-work attention to my Philosophy term paper, which I have a topic for (albeit not a very interesting one -- a comparitive review of notions of confirmation.. I need to figure out a way to say something interesting in that vein, or it'll be a dog to write).

Today (today meaning since I woke up on Sunday), I took a short run.. It was enjoyable, although I should've checked the weather so I wouldn't've worn a coat (it could've been a longer run then). Surprisingly, my knee, which often hurts at night if I shift onto it at bad angles, doesn't seem to take badly to running at all. I am disappointed that my knee isn't back to normal, but at least the only time it reminds me that it's not fine is while in the odd positions involved in sleep. Hmm.

This weekend has pretty much been a weekend for work and school, with a very small amount of play mixed in. I spent a lot of time getting a system redone, and at least a bit of time getting involved in putting out fires regarding some malfunctioning hardware on another box. Apart from reading a little bit of one of the books that was sent to PUSH, I've been playing a bit of the old SNES game, Final Fantasy 3, on an emulator. It's kind of sad -- I actually have the cartrage here, but haven't had a SNES for ages, so this is the best I can do. On the upside, at least this way I can speed up the game for the boring parts. An hour and a half of that was a nice break from the brainstorming... and I guess the brain can only take so much serious stuff without a break. One frustration I have with the paper is that the assignment suggests breaking the analysis of Autism into three different aspects of mental function, with a few sample aspects being problem solving, memory, attention, perception, .. That's good as an outline, but often a good analysis of a particular aspect of the illness crosses over more than one of those categories, and when I got my rough draft back, one of the analyses that I liked was marked as being such a mix. I'm not saying they're bad categories -- some kind of organization is needed for these things, and this is a pretty good one, but it seems to me that it often makes a lot of sense to analyze things that don't fit the categories very well. Oh well :)

It turns out that Bad Religion has authorized a lot of downloads of various pieces of their music, and that the music videos I had downloaded earlier of theirs were actually legal. Interesting... I think it's interesting how their sound has changed over time -- their older stuff was more traditionally punk, while their more recent stuff is closer to pop-punk (compare supersonic or sorrow, both recent songs, to infected or the new america, both older songs). There still is a spectrum, but the later songs are more harmonic and 'sweet', where the older songs are more exuberant. (Sidenote -- the logo of this dictionary is really cute, in a very Japan kind of way)

I've been chewing on a thought partially inspired by a recent discussion with my Philosophy prof -- is philosophical naturalism a sell-out? In sum, it claims that we don't need (or get)A Priori anything, and base everything off of what works. In its framework, math, the scientific method, and basically anything that's 'softer than the nature of things' is the result of pragmatism, and doesn't need any explanation. It claims that scientific investigation into these fields cannot, in principle, produce well-founded results. The positive side of the theory, of course, seems less objectionable than the negative -- that we learn the processes of science by experimentation, and of course looking at the history of science, the invention of the double-blind, and similar additions to an experimenter's toolchest, and that we didn't use or need a priori to get there.. in fact, can observe the people who expect everything to be founded on what they consider philosophically rigid ground scurry rapidly where new tools are built to tie them somehow down to their first principles so it looks like they're natural outcomes of logic.. What naturalism suggests we're doing seems ok, it's what it suggests we can't do that seems problematic. Specifically, it seems to limit philosophical inquiry, in a way, by suggesting that the tools of science are 'mere data', and not part of an examinable pattern, in fact, that no such underlying pattern can exist.. It at least wants to rule out that a priori] will get you anywhere.. This is, of course, an interesting problem for people who want to consider things like game theory or statistics to prove to be anything but finely-tuned heuristics for understanding. We're used to consider some of the things suggested by game theory and statistics to be heuristics, but not the entire disciplines themselves. We tend to trust Mathematics, Logic, and the rest of these tools implicitly.. how should we think of them?

I'll comment on the news later. I'm tired.