Kevin's Watch

peter wrote:Reductionism may indeed be a poor tool in dealing with something as complex as the brain/mind relationship....but it may be the best we have got. It is difficult to see how else to approach the problem [and in fairness it has by and large serves science pretty well to date].

Re: "best we've got." We don't know, because we haven't devoted much effort to bottom-up tech. But there have been attempts at doing this, even with AI and robotics. The results have been widely successful in some respects, and lacking in others.

Both approaches might be the key.

However, we've seen progress in philosophy by loosening our grip on reductionism. If it can solve metaphysical puzzles, perhaps it can solve physical ones, too.

Peter wrote:I was interested in Z.'s comment about drilling into all students the relationship between delayed gratification and likely future sucess. Would this still work? Is this just not an indicator of, rather than a tecnique for increasing sucess chances. If the ability to spot the bennefits of the delayed gratification approach were not already intrinsic to the individual is it likely that their sucess chances would be effected by adoption of it in the same way [which of course is not to discount the simple bennefits that will naturally follow from such a policy. But then perhaps the simple bennefits ARE the increased sucess chances. Hmmm...]

Man, we can teach delayed gratification to dogs. I'm sure we can teach it to kids. And I'm sure they will benefit, even if it feels like it's "against their nature." It's against all our natures. We all have this natural inertia. For instance, we might all like to sit on the couch and eat ice cream all the time (or drink homebrew, or eat BBQ ... those are just my weaknesses ). But if we delayed our gratification so that we didn't indulge all the time, we'd all see demonstrable results, even those of us for whom such behavior didn't come "naturally." Everyone could benefit.

[Off topic thought] Why do I assume Z.'s homebrew would be of a nature such that it's safest method of consumption would be via an eyedropper?

Do you mean a small bottle because they're strong? Or am I missing something?

I primarily make very hoppy IPAs in the 6%-9% ABV range ... strong by mass produced pseudo-pilsner standards, but typical for the styles I like: Rye IPA, Black IPA, West Coast IPA, Double IPA. I like hops. Hops are great.

Zarathustra wrote: Do you mean a small bottle because they're strong? Or am I missing something?

I primarily make very hoppy IPAs in the 6%-9% ABV range ... strong by mass produced pseudo-pilsner standards, but typical for the styles I like: Rye IPA, Black IPA, West Coast IPA, Double IPA. I like hops. Hops are great.

Why did I think you made them higher than that??
Maybe I'm confusing it with something you replied to someone about how honey is a known and common ABV-raising technique.


Further on delayed gratification:
We CAN teach it...within limits...to dogs.
But there is a reason that real trainers won't try working those methods on a dog that is HUNGRY.
[[and tangentially why starvation is a tool for fight-dog killers]].

6%-9% is a very respectable strength for an ale [yes - it was the strength I was refering to; somehow I didn't imagine you'd be into brewing low strength beers Z! ]. Funnily enough, I had my first glass of IPA for what, 30 years the other day, just because the shop had a delivery of promotional stock selling at about one third normal price [£1 a bottle]. I'd forgotten just how good it is!

In the vets I was constantly getting people coming in saying 'My puppy growls at me when I try to take it's food away from it'
My answer was a stock one. 'Well stop doing it then.'