How to make sense of the world….

As I do most weekends, I phoned my mother in Oxford today. After exchanging family news, the subject turned to my philosophy course. “I just caught a story on BBC Oxford about a new philosophy group here,” she said. “Of course wasn’t able to read about it in the paper,” [because of her blindness] “but I think it was about the study of consciousness.” As we spoke, I quickly searched and came up with the obvious hit. “Are you talking about the Oxford Centre for Science of the Mind,” I asked. “The project that Susan Greenfield… sorry, Baroness Susan Greenfield is heading up? This led to a short digression about Tony Blair’s habit of handing out life peerages like school prizes, and then discussing our disappointment at the lack of rigour in many of Greenfield’s publications. After that, I told my mother about OXCSOM’s approach:

Initially there will be eight academics on the payroll of the Centre from six different departments: Anatomy, Pharmacology, Philosophy, Physiology, the Ian Ramsey Centre (Theology), and the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics. The researchers will employ a wide range of techniques, including functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

“I wonder how the theologians will get on with fMRI,” I mused, and my mother assured me that that as Oxford theologians they would embrace it enthusiastically. “By the way,” I said, “do you know where OXCSOM is getting its money? It’s hosted by the IAN RAMSEY CENTRE [studying the relationship of religious belief and science], and funded by the John Templeton Foundation.” Both of us vaguely recognized the name – something about underwriting a scientific study of prayer. [Turns out he’s a Tennessee-born investment manager.]

As we talked, I clicked on a few links… and then I couldn’t contain myself any more. “So, let me tell you about another Templeton project I’ve just come across. It’s called The Institute for Research on Unlimited Love.” “What on earth do they mean by ‘unlimited love’, and how do you do research in it?” said my mother. “It all sounds very flakey.” I clicked the About us link. “No problem,” I said. “They’ve got all that covered. By ‘unlimited love’, they mean ‘love for all humanity without exception’. And as for research, ‘Just as we investigate the force of gravity or the energy of the atom, we can scientifically examine the power of unlimited love in human moral and spiritual experience.’ Easy.”

My mother sighed. “You know, a friend of mine, a newspaper columnist, told me that he was giving up on satire,” she said. “He feels that nothing he can write matches up to the reality of today’s world.” And we agreed that satire is dead, and set a time for our next conversation.

The First Day of Spring

Today is the Spring Equinox, the first day of Spring*. It’s the season when people have honoured various deities: Aphrodite from Cyprus, Hathor from Egypt, Ostara of Scandinavia, and others. Here in Brookline, Massachusetts it’s a beautiful, sunny day, around 48°F or 9°C. It’s really bright out, in part because the sun is reflected off the high banks of snow left by the snowploughs. In such circumstances, it seems almost churlish to note that the weather forecast for tonight and tomorrow calls for snow….
snowsad.jpg
Oh no, not MORE bloody snow!!!
OK, I’ll stop whining. I really will. It’s a beautiful day, and the snow won’t amount to anything, and the first robins have appeared…. **
* However when I was growing up, I was taught to reckon these things by the month. So winter was December, January and February, while spring included March, April and May. C’est la vie.
** Robins. That’s another thing that’s hard to wrap my head around. Back in England, robins were these cute (yet fierce) little birds that were resident the year round; many Christmas cards included pictures of “robin red-breast” in the snow. (Obvious religious connotations.) Here in the US, robins are simply a variety of thrush, with vaguely rust-coloured breasts, and they’re wimps when it comes to severe weather. I find it hard to think of them as robins. Hmmm: perhaps this was all part of a fiendish plan by the first professors of Philosophy at Harvard back in the 17th century: they wanted to set up an ambiguous referential situation for their lectures on cognition. “Consider the mental representation robin. In England, this refers to…”. Cue Jerry Fodor (closely followed by Dan Dennett).

Creative accounting at Microsoft

Tim Bray has been reading Brad’s analysis of Microsoft’s numbers. While Brad is bemused by the R&D (where’s the beef ROI?), Tim is shaking his head over the SG&A, which seems to be out of control. (From FY2000 to FY2003, revenue rose 45%, R&D rose 77%, and SG&A zoomed 131%.)
My theory is that most of it is going in “special promotionsto try to prevent large-scale defections. (You may choose different terms; I’ll stick to my euphemisms.) Beyond that, MSFT is clearly doing everything it can to keep the bottom-line income number down, to (1) resist shareholder pressure for even higher dividends, and (2) avoid further (mostly Euro) anti-trust challenges. However they don’t seem to be too successful….

Another Grand Prix… but this time I'll sleep on it

The Malaysian Grand Prix takes place this weekend, and reports from the first qualifying session suggest that it’s going to be a very interesting race. Once again the Ferraris seem to be out of contention. (Sadly, so is my man DC – though at least he was faster than Michael Schumacher.) However I think I’m going to put common-sense ahead of enthusiasm, and let the VCR watch this one for me – the TV coverage runs from 1:30am to 4am here in Boston….

SXSW Music

Steve turned me on to the massive BitTorrent download of new music sponsored by the south by southwest festival. Although I’m not a regular BT user, I cranked it up and downloaded all 2.75GB. It took three days. (And yes, I left BT running to share nicely.)
This morning I dragged it all into iTunes. 714 songs, 1.9 days playing time! Who’s got time to listen to all of that? However, over (extended) breakfast and (several cups of) coffee, I managed to scan most of it. (I know it can be unfair to judge on the basis of the first few seconds, but when you also consider the artist’s name, the song title, and genre….) I kept a window open to the SXSW Showcase page so I could follow up on particularly interesting artists.
From that vast collection, here are the 20 songs that caught my attention. If it looks as if I was biased… well, yes: the women singer-songwriters in this collection were very strong; the “pop”, “rock”, and “punk” offerings (though frequently mis-classified) were less distinctive. But there’s all sorts of music here – you might be surprised. Enjoy:
“Betty” by The Lascivious Biddies
“Moving Pictures, Silent Films” by the Great Lake Swimmers
“I Do Dream You” by Jennifer Gentle
“Silver Screen Demos” by Jesca Hoop
“Move On” by Jessie and Layla
“Old Fashion Morphine” by Jolie Holland
“Not Going Anywhere” by Keren Ann
“Nutopia” by Meg Lee Chin
“mudpies and gasoline” by Patricia Vonne
“Take the Long Way” by Po’ Girl
“Into My Heart” by Rachel Fuller
“Television” by Robyn Hitchcock
“Anonyme” by Samadha
“hard road” by The Shore
“Building a Road” by Spottiswoode and His Enemies
“I’m On My Way” by Theresa Andersson
“lie in the sound” by Trespassers William
“Beautiful Dawn” by The Wailin’ Jennys
“The Ghost of the Girl in the Well” by the Willard Grant Conspiracy
“Mannequin” by The Witnesses
(You can also stream or download individual tracks from SXSW.)

AOL responds

AOL reacted pretty quickly to all the negative publicity about their AIM Terms of Service. The new language is much better. The power of the web, eh?

The new text (with my emphases):“You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to public areas of any AIM Product. However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the ‘Rate-A-Buddy’ feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products.”

AIM Terms of Service

Welcome to the revised AIM Terms of Service from AOL. The interesting thing is that AOL wants the benefits of being a common carrier (e.g. they disclaim all responsibility for what passes through their system) while at the same time gaining full rights over that content. Would you use a VoIP service from somebody that reserved the right to record your conversations and publish them? If these various communications media (POTS, VoIP, IM, email, etc.) are really converging, let’s make sure that AOL doesn’t set the standard for privacy:

“Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL… the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.”

(Via BoingBoing.)

Snow and zombies

Yet another snowstorm this weekend, bringing us to over 90 inches for the season. It snowed most of Saturday: big, wet flakes that stuck to all the trees and left inches of slushy stuff on the driveway. Very pretty… now go away!
Rather than venture out, I spent most of the weekend curled up with philosophy. Not only do I have a mid-term paper due in a couple of weeks, and my regular reading to do for class; I also received the new Dennett book, Sweet Dreams, on Saturday. (Amazon.com is hopelessly confused about this book: in some places it says that it’s coming on April 1, in others that it’s available now, shipping in 24 hours.)
Back in November, I blogged about David Chalmers and his obsession with zombies (philosophical and otherwise). In Sweet Dreams, Dennett discusses what he calls the Zombic Hunch: the intuitive idea that there might conceivably be zombie-like creatures that are EXACTLY LIKE ORDINARY PEOPLE except that they don’t have consciousness. Personally I find the notion of zombies incoherent – even in principle – but apparently a lot of people take them seriously. Like Dennett, I find the idea of philosophers arguing about the number of zombies that can fit on the head of a pin to be slightly unedifying. Oh well. If you want to get a feel for the issue without buying Dennett’s or Chalmers’ books, you can read this account of their debate.
And now I have to finish my notes on Searle’s infuriating Chinese Room. There are some interesting issues in this famous thought experiment, but ever since I first read it in The Mind’s I (over 20 years ago) I’ve been frustrated by the blatant equivocation and contradiction in the way Searle presents it. Perhaps it’s a useful discipline for me: learning to concentrate on [the important bits of] the message without being distracted by the lousy medium.