FrankThomas's New Writeupshttp://everything2.com/?node=New%20Writeups%20Atom%20Feed&foruser=FrankThomas2009-12-11T15:09:05ZPhilip Larkin (personal)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/Philip+LarkinFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2009-12-11T15:09:05Z2009-12-11T15:09:05Z<p>My first encounter with Philip Larkin was as a <a href="/title/freshman">fresher</a> in
October 1974. As university librarian it was Larkin's annual duty to
give an introductory lecture to the year's fresh intake. I recall
seeing this tall, portly man with bottle-top glasses in a bank
manager's suit. Not at all how I imagined a poet should look. (My Dad
had told me about Larkin when I first announced I'd chosen to
go to <a href="/title/Hull+University">Hull University</a>, otherwise I'm sure I'd have taken no notice at
all.) To this audience of several hundred 18-year olds - more
interested in eyeing each other for fanciableness than listening to
some bloke in a suit - Larkin declared with a plummy, resonant voice
and measured delivery, as if it was a line from <a href="/title/William+Shakespeare">Shakespeare</a>, "...educated people should know three things:
what words mean, where places are and when things happened".</p>
<p>My first encounter with his <a href="/title/poetry">poetry</a> was several months later. It
was a vacation and I was at home with Mum and Dad, younger sister and<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Surrogates (review)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/SurrogatesFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2009-12-08T21:11:39Z2009-12-08T21:11:39Z<p>Surrogates. Not a great movie* but satisfyingly <a href="/title/Gedankenexperiment">thought provoking</a> in a <i>possible-robot-futures</i>
kind of way. </p>
<p>The first thing that makes this movie interesting is that the
imagined robotic technology does <i>not</i> assume some incredible <a href="/title/Artificial+Intelligence">Artificial Intelligence</a>, unlike most robot sci-fi. In that sense, therefore, its fictional
future is more plausible than most robot movies. In the <i>Surrogates</i>
future humans put on a <a href="/title/skullcap">headset</a> that enables them to see
through their <a href="/title/surrogate">robot's</a> <a href="/title/eyes">cameras</a>, hear through its
<a href="/title/ears">microphones</a>,
(presumably) smell through its <a href="/title/nose">olfactory sensors</a> and control its
<a href="/title/body">motors</a>. The technology exists now in the form of either a
<a href="/title/Brain-Computer+Interface">Brain-Computer Interface</a> (BCI), or a <a href="/title/neuroprosthetic">neuroprosthetic</a> interface.
Arguably the most successful such interface to date is the <a href="/title/cochlear+implant">cochlear
implant</a> but non-invasive BCI is advancing rapidly; albeit<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…Human Consciousness could be Immortal (idea)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/Human+Consciousness+could+be+ImmortalFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2009-02-17T22:37:13Z2009-02-17T22:37:13Z<p>Our subjective experience of the <i>continuity</i> of <a href="/title/consciousness">consciousness</a> is
surely an <a href="/title/illusion">illusion</a>. But what makes that illusion and why is it so
compelling? That's a deep question but here are I think two fundamental
reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li><a href="/title/Embodiment">Embodiment</a>.
You are an embodied intelligence. It is a mistake to think of <a href="/title/mind">mind</a> and
<a href="/title/body">body</a> as somehow separate. Our conscious experience and its awakening as
a developing child is surely deeply rooted in our physical experience
of the world as mediated through our senses.</li>
<li>Environmental <a href="/title/continuity">continuity</a>.
Our experience of the world changes 'relatively' slowly. The word
relative is important here since I mean relative to the rate at which
our conscious experience updates itself. Of course we do experience the
discontinuity of going to sleep then waking to the changed world of a
new sunrise, but this is both deeply familiar and predictable.</li>
</ol>
<p>A word that<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…How to make a fool of yourself on national radio (thing)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/How+to+make+a+fool+of+yourself+on+national+radioFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2008-06-27T06:25:54Z2008-06-27T06:25:54Z<p>Being <a href="/title/interview">interviewed</a> live on national <a href="/title/radio">radio</a> is an interesting experience.</p>
<p>It's not so bad when you're in a studio face to face with the
interviewer. Then there's a proper sense of occasion, of being there
for a purpose, something to rise to.</p>
<p>But being interviewed by <a href="/title/telephone">telephone</a> is an altogether different and
more risky proposition. Why risky? Let me set the scene. You've agreed
to be interviewed by a national radio station that has, hitherto, never
blipped onto your cultural radar. The producer called and asked if you
would be able to comment, in the <a href="/title/science">science</a> slot of the breakfast show,
about a recent newspaper article listing the top 10 reasons that
mankind could be wiped out this century<sup>1</sup>. In particular the
one that predicts mankind will, within 40 years, build <a href="/title/artificial+intelligence">super-intelligent</a> <a href="/title/robot">robot</a>s who promptly (and
ungratefully) enslave their creators. Quickly passing over your
observation that said producer seems surprisingly<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…existence proof (thing)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/existence+proofFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2008-05-20T14:54:17Z2008-05-20T14:54:17Z<p>In <a href="/title/philosophical+theories+of+truth">philosophical discourse</a> an existence proof is simply an assertion that a thing <i>can</i> <a href="/title/exist">exist</a>, because it self-evidently <i>does</i> exist. It is not a <a href="/title/proof">proof</a> in any formal, <a href="/title/mathematical">mathematical</a> sense. It is, however, logically incontrovertible.</p>
<p>Is there any value in invoking an existence proof? Yes, existence proofs are typically used to make the point that something would be regarded as a laughably <a href="/title/fantastical">fantastical</a> notion were it not for the small but crucial fact that it already exists. A good example is <a href="/title/life">life</a> itself, which arguably contravenes the <a href="/title/second+law+of+thermodynamics">second law of thermodynamics</a> in the sense that life appears to be an instance of <a href="/title/negative+entropy">negative entropy</a> - <a href="/title/order">order</a> from <a href="/title/chaos">chaos</a>. The emergence of <a href="/title/organic">organic</a> <a href="/title/living">living</a> stuff from <a href="/title/inorganic">inorganic</a> non-living stuff is therefore an existence proof that such a thing can happen even if we don't understand how it happens.</p>How and why do we (humans) have culture? (essay)http://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas/writeups/How+and+why+do+we+%2528humans%2529+have+culture%253FFrankThomashttp://m.everything2.com/user/FrankThomas2008-05-13T11:01:20Z2008-05-13T11:01:20Z<p>Why,
among the myriad species of social <a href="/title/animals">animals</a> on this planet do we humans,
uniquely (as far as we know), have <a href="/title/culture">culture</a>? Half a million years ago early
<a href="/title/hominid+species">hominids</a> would have lived in social groups much as we observe higher
<a href="/title/primates">primates</a>, <a href="/title/chimpanzee">chimpanzee</a> in particular, now. Then something must have happened
to trigger the transition from social to cultural. What was that trigger and
what were the processes and mechanisms of the <a href="/title/transition">transition</a>? How did the
earliest <a href="/title/proto">proto</a>-cultural behaviours emerge and take hold, and what were
those behaviours?</p>
<p>These
are deep questions that are extremely difficult to answer, not least because
the <a href="/title/archaeology">archaeological</a> record tells us almost nothing of the
<a href="/title/process">process</a>es and <a href="/title/mechanism">mechanism</a>s of the <a href="/title/emergence">emergence</a> of culture. But <em>why and how do we
have culture? </em>is surely a Big Question. A question that notably transcends<!-- close unclosed tag --></p>…