Activity is falling on my blogs, for multiple reasons: 1) I now post links and quotes other places than on my blogs, in general. Catch me on Google+. 2) I have started talking more filosofy, wich causes my desire to rite filosofy to decreas a bit. 3) I am currently reading non-filosofy literature, and it isn’t an area wher i hav much to add (i am reading evo. psych.).

Read this exchange.

Calculating in non-base 10 is so very hard, even for bright individuals. However, it has not always been like this.

I think that I will rite a computer program (in free pascal) that can calculate different bases, just to train me to think in a non-standard way.

“Some research has explicitly evaluated the effects of phenotypic similarity. DeBruine (2002) tested subjects in a two-stage trust game, where they had an opportunity  to win larger rewards but also risked being cheated, if and only if they trusted their partner in the first stage. Computer morphing techniques were used to  create different facial images of “partners” for 16 such two-stage games. For each subject, one-half of these facial morphs blended two stranger faces, but the other half blended the subject’s own face with a stranger’s. Subjects were significantly more likely to trust their self-morph partners. Controls ruled out differential  attractiveness  and familiarity as explanations for these results. Studies by Platek and colleagues (reviewed in later section) demonstrate an effect of phenotypic similarity on male investment decisions.” (David M. Buss, HoEP p. 487 in pdf)

Gives a hole new connotation to “trust thyself” eh? :D

“Most importantly, Galton and all other eugenicists prior to the 1970s made the fundamental
error of believing that heredity is a means by which nature reproduces organisms. Today we
know that fundamentally the truth of heredity is the exact opposite of this apparently obvious
situation: organisms evolve to reproduce their DNA (the organic polymer that is the
biochemical basis of heredity), not DNA to reproduce the organism. The consequence is that
human males, for example, die more readily than females at all ages thanks mainly to the
effects of testosterone: a sex hormone which reduces ‘fitness’ in the sense of shortening life
expectancy by suppressing the immune system and increasing risky and aggressive behavior
but which is also a key element in promoting true Darwinian fitness: the reproductive success
of the individual’s genes. Males without testes live longer, but cannot reproduce, and so are
of no use to evolution!” (Christopher Badcock, Eugenics)

Put it quite nicely even tho it is an exaggeration. Organisms that cannot reproduce are not entirely useless to evolution. The obvious examples being worker ants. In humans, it would be (strict) homosexual males, even tho they sometimes reproduce (a friend i had in primarily school had his father come out as homosexual when the father was around 40 years old), and infertile people. These people can still help other people some of which may be fertile. They can help in various ways that in the end increases the fitness of those they help. For instance, grandparents may help their grandchildren with school, and thus the children received better grades and wanted to do well in school. This eventually resulted in that the children got good educations which helped them acquire a good mate.