Meta: Idea: Have a list of contents at the top of each date. Each listing to be the text of a heading, or if not then at least some form of anchoring as repeated in the body. I follow now with an exemplar instance of this idea:
- NOTES on my reading of KANT’s Prolegomena.
- Dear DIARY.
- SCIENCE or JOURNAL CLUB on studying NEURONAL COMPLEXITY.
Meta: The (mere) fact that I have more to write about all of these entries, or in other words that each of these is incomplete, a start of something that could be so much more, is a fact also of life. It is to be acknowledged but not mourned. To be admitted, but not dwelt on, although it may be pondered and perhaps even dealt with.
NOTES ON KANT:
Having finished reading the Prolegomena I have the intention to complete some form of synthesis. Either/or a mere summary that might provide a future reference, to which I would better yet add some form of original perception of my reading. The latter I might rephrase, “My meditations, inspired by my reading.” I have already begun the former (i.e. summary) in previous days, and wish to complete and bring into a complete form that particular effort. The latter too remains to be achieved. But right now, I am interested in providing an “introduction” (that particular title is arbitrary and to be taken as a mere placeholder) in the form that I would communicate to another. Right now ‘Joemar’ {is that a code? what or why?} is on my mind – this I note as a matter of fact, although it might also act as an explanation or key or something other.
The very first thing I would say about Kant is that he is the greatest philosopher of which I am aware. As I defend that title, keep in mind that anything I say about him at this level of discussion must be reduced over and over, so that every statement or sentence could as easily be extended and explained into paragraph upon paragraph at least.
Kant came along about 300 years ago and did two things to deserve his fame. First, he explained why everyone before him was wrong! Second, he corrected them! He started this project about half-way through his life, essentially rewriting all of philosophy! I wouldn’t bother or presume to provide a summary of all that he did, but due to sheer admiration, I would be more than eager to present to you something of what I consider his greatest idea.
Kant explained that the world is determined by the conditions of experience. Or: The mind creates the properties of reality. Those pithy one-liners are my attempt at summarizing a metaphysics about which entire library shelves have been written. To you it might sound a little Buddhist, and if I haven’t bastardized it too much, I know that you’re smart enough to understand it (if you don’t, the fault is all mine, a lacking I would be more than happy to remedy, you’ve no doubt too I’m sure).
Enough said on that front.
If that were all he did, Kant would still be a great star in philosophy’s constellation. But it wasn’t. He went on to write about, all in an incredibly intelligent and original manner, about almost everything else in philosophy. He wrote about morality. He wrote about life, and beauty, and politics (internal and international); he had a theory of mind and of biology. Maybe less interesting, but still adding to his list, he wrote about sociology and religion, about cosmology (formation of galaxies), how science works, and also mathematics. In all this, he was original and also brilliant.
A useful comparison: He was the Einstein of philosophy. (By the way: Einstein had read Kant by his early teens!)
He was a break in the timeline of philosophy. He made everything before him redundant, and no one could contribute after him without writing in his wake and influence. (This is why I look down on those who presume to read – an example for instance! – a single book of Nietzsche again and again and presume to understand anything! I am undoubtedly an extremist and in the minority on this point, but I would argue that even Nietzsche is misunderstood without Kant. In any case, the counter-argument to my own would be to say that you don’t have to read Kant because Nietzsche contains him inevitably!)
So, as I was saying: Kant is the greatest. Thus he is also my favourite.
DEAR DIARY (of sorts):
In the first place (as you’ll see): Dear diary, There are a number of reasons for this particular task – and I am referring in the loosest terms to that of keeping a diary. All these reasons I would emphasize are best reworded as benefits. To understand this task, namely the one I have made sure to only refer to in the loosest terms (!), I can attempt by collating its properties. I won’t do so now, for in any case, this was all a prelude to mentioning a single property: honesty. Looking through the thesaurus, and choosing only the most apt and those I most favour: faithfulness, honour, trustworthiness, fidelity, openness, straightforwardness, self-respect, sincerity, veracity, genuineness, principle. I’ll also add just a few others, mentioned as being “other adjectives similar to honesty: candid, deserving, constancy, love, truthfulness, integrity, duty, pledge. You’ll excuse that little exercise, amongst other reasons (aka benefits), I find it inspiring, inspiring towards my purpose. With the last word of the last sentence in mind {mustn’t I say it?}, I’ll continue by explaining that I wish to improve my communication. And lest it be foolish to declare my heart, which is not just stuck in space – its cage of ribs, and body with which it shares its life; my heart is stuck (too) in time: a period infinitely less than a second, so fleeting and fast that it has never been caught although it is always at hand: now. I only introduce the passing of time because I am afraid; my fear rides the scales against love; I love her so; right here and right now I love her I love her I love her I lover her love love love love love love love. Therefore, QED.
This allows me to continue to my intended destination. Dear Love, Today I lived – I only mention this because it is this life which I wish to share with you, you alone; to be alone but never alone.
JOURNAL CLUB re. NEURONAL COMPLEXITY AND ITS STUDY:
This journal club is on the article “Challenges of understanding brain function by selective modulation of neuronal subpopulations” from “Trends in Neuroscience” October 2013.
Some of what I enjoyed in this reading are facts, many of which illustrate the eponymous complexity, the scale of which is awesome.
- There are 10^11 neurons with 10^15 connections.
- At the very least in any network that is not the very simplest imaginable, the number of permutations that must be studied (e.g. modulating bits of the network) is defined by formula whose relationship to the number of parts is greater than exponential. Thus:
- With 5 “bits”, the number of permutations is 52.
- With 6 “bits” it is 203.
- With 10 “bits” it is 115,975
- And for the record and reference, 6 is the the very minimum needed to study thalamocortical interactions, although it should also be noted (for the record and reference!) that to treat networks in that way (by which I mean, to define a “very minimum” in such a way, for example studying the five layers of the neocortical column as being a network of five bits) is a gross gross gross oversimplification for a huge number of reasons! To this caveat I quote:
- “This combinatorial problem becomes even more intractable when nodes interact in a non-linear fashion … or when couplings are dynamic and activity-dependent.”
This brings me to my current point of reading, which is the mechanism behind this: “To be continued.”
