有一個基督教網站整理了現在網路上既有的神學與哲學課程:
http://www.christiancolleges.com/blog/2009/top-100-open-coursware-links-on-theology-and-philosophy/
大家寒假在家裡嗑瓜子時可以參考參考
另外附上一些好站連結:
Experimental Philosophy
David Chalmer's Blog
Cognitive Daily
Thoughts, arguments, and rants
Philosophy of brains
然後我剛剛才發現原來Alva Noe是 Daniel Dennett的學生
這次申請學校都沒甚麼在看老師只在看學校，似乎忽略了一個很重要的名師出高徒的問題...
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
達爾文200讀書會 第一場
原文：http://philobio.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/darwin-200%EF%BC%9A-darwins-legacy/
各位有參加沒有參加到的朋友們，今天我們做了第一次的Darwin 200 reading聚會。今天的參加者有佳樺、龐皓、映彤、凌峰和我。
先是對時間調動上沒有即時參加到的朋友們感到抱歉，今天我們約了週四晚上再度相聚，不新增paper，希望你們有空來跟我們再度喝咖啡談達爾文！
主題可能會在以下這個含糊的範圍內：「演化論究竟是怎麼樣的理論？」他是如物理定律般的自然法則還是一 種對生物現象歷史的描述？演化論究竟跟神創論打的戰是在哪個點？沒有神創論枷鎖的我們東方人，怎麼看待演化論？
今天我們討論的是Darwin's enduring legacy這篇，補充材料是15 evolutionary gems。
一開始花了很多時間在討論演化論是什麼（大家都接受Dennett分析出的三步驟公式為演化論的本質：變異、選擇、遺傳）以及演化論的事實是否可以 推 論倫理道德上應該怎麼作（is是否可以推論ought)，我們是否可以從天擇這個「被動」的歷程推出人可以「主動的」決定我們「應該」篩選何種孩子出生 （就像前幾周新聞中提到的無癌症基因小孩）或者何種種族優秀（如希特勒）。
基本上大家的共識是達爾文他做的是一個形上學的生物演化機制主張，而非倫理學應當如何如何。對 於從科學推論到倫理學，我們的共識採取一種更激進的主張，認為沒有所謂的客觀的ought存在，人類沒有所謂應該或者不應該做什麼，自然而然就產生了 ought的句子來，不管產生的原因是為了社會的安定和諧還是什麼，總之就是不同的ought互相競爭支持者與信徒，社會就這麼演變下去。所以或許有一群 人認為應該要有嬰兒基因篩檢，有些人認為不應該，但戰下去總有一方會勝利或者得到某種妥協，社會就這麼運作去了。所以或許有人認為達爾文的主張可以拿來作 社會的行為標準，而我基於我的理由認為不行（因為沒有人可以真的確認哪種性狀叫做「好」、哪種基因是「好基因」，甚至基因是否能夠完全決定性狀（顯然不 能）），但沒有誰是真理，我們就這樣戰吧，看誰贏得最多的支持者，誰的思想勝出。
回到文本去...因為時間的關係我們沒有討論完每一個達爾文演化論的科學貢獻，但是我的導讀依循Ernst Mayr的
- Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
- Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
- Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
- Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
- Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.
Nature該篇文章列了十點達爾文的科學貢獻（並非如同Mayr認同達爾文的有以下不同的主張，而是說有了以下的幾項貢獻）：
- Natural Selection
- One tree of life (common descent)
- Genealogical classification
- Selective Extinction
- Deep Time
- Coevolution
- Gradual Change
- Sexual Selection
- Biogeographical distribution
- Economy of nature (ecology)
說實在話，這些想法雖然是在基督教社會中引起很大的衝擊，在後來的科學驗證中反應出了事實及有可能的真相，但是對於台灣以及華人社會而言，這些想法是不是一個衝擊？還是說大家上完演化論的課後就「啊廢話生物本來就會變」「不然咧？不就是基因突變然後天擇」當真理吃下了？
沒有衝擊點地直接進食任何的科學理論（在此包括生化、細胞、生理等其他生命科學領域），對於我們是否有可能發展出生物學的突破性實驗或思想是否會有困境產生？
雖然現今的美國知識界正憂心基督信仰造成的科學衝擊，但是基督教思想畢竟有一套對世界真理有所闡釋的形上學理論。所以西方的重大科學突破與發現，都 是在形上學上與宗教相衝突的過程中出現的。然而華人下的我們，卻只會「天行健，君子以自強不息」，在科學的發展上只作「應用」和「觀察」，完全沒有形上學 主張，自然沒有這方面的衝擊，在接受其他人的主張時，也只把他當成可以應用的原始材料和觀察的結果來看待，沒有認真的採信其背後預設的自然世界本質。
所以今天才會聊到說，不論台大與陽明，生命科學系所重視的就是那些癌症、老化等應用專題以及生態分類和野地觀察的巨觀研究。所以台大生科的老師才會講得出這種不可思議的話：「為什麼要去國外念演化？那只是在幫人家作不屬於台灣物種的分類和觀察而已！」
上星期在野草莓主播組的聚會中，有人對台灣人作分析哲學提出嚴峻的批判：「沒有文化傳統，沒有搞頭！」基本上我部份贊同：確實沒有一個文化的基礎下，我們只能作應用和觀察是真的沒有什麼搞頭，但是一來這不只是分析哲學的問題，也是整個科學的問題，二來沒有文化，就要來搞出個有形上學主張的文化傳統來啊！難道要繼續這麼作世界的代工廠、玩政治的角力才叫做有搞頭嗎？
----
歡迎到我的部落格討論：
http://philobio.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/darwin-200%EF%BC%9A-darwins-legacy/
歡迎在心哲所版上討論：
http://gsapmc.blogspot.com/
------
既然聊到宗教和科學的對立...來看的dawkings rap:
既然講到宗教與科學的衝突...來看個richard dawkin rap吧！
Friday, January 16, 2009
Maybe this is what some (or all) of us need!
Procrastinating Again? How to Kick the Habit
Scientific American Mind: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=procrastinating-again
註冊conference paper submission system帳號
Are you reading this article? Register an account NOW!
https://sbs.arizona.edu/project/consciousness/index.php
ASSC13
http://assc13.confmaster.net/pages/login.php?Conf=ASSC13
Interdisciplinary Graduate Conference on Consciousness
How to submit a paper? http://www.bu.edu/conscious/
Evolution of the Mind: 4 Fallacies of Psychology: Scientific American
Evolution of the Mind: 4 Fallacies of Psychology: Scientific American
Some evolutionary psychologists have made widely popularized claims about how the human mind evolved, but other scholars argue that the grand claims lack solid evidence
By David J. Buller
Key Concepts
Charles Darwin wasted no time applying his theory of evolution to human psychology, following On the Origin of Species (1859) with The Descent of Man (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Ever since, the issue hasn’t been whether evolutionary theory can illuminate the study of psychology but how it will do so. Still, a concerted effort to explain how evolution has affected human behavior began only in the 1970s with the emergence of sociobiology. The core idea of sociobiology was simple: behavior has evolved under natural and sexual selection (in response to competition for survival and reproduction, respectively), just as organic form has. Sociobiology thereby extended the study of adaptation to include human behavior.
In his 1985 critique of sociobiology, Vaulting Ambition, philosopher Philip Kitcher noted that, whereas some sociobiology backed modest claims with careful empirical research, the theoretical reach of the dominant program greatly exceeded its evidential grasp. Kitcher called this program “pop sociobiology” because it employed evolutionary principles “to advance grand claims about human nature and human social institutions” and was “deliberately designed to command popular attention.”
全文：http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies
Some evolutionary psychologists have made widely popularized claims about how the human mind evolved, but other scholars argue that the grand claims lack solid evidence
By David J. Buller
Key Concepts
- Among Charles Darwin’s lasting legacies is our knowledge that the human mind evolved by some adaptive process.
- A major, widely discussed branch of evolutionary psychology—Pop EP—holds that the human brain has many specialized mechanisms that evolved to solve the adaptive problems of our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
- The author and several other scholars suggest that some assumptions of Pop EP are flawed: that we can know the psychology of our Stone Age ancestors, that we can thereby figure out how distinctively human traits evolved, that our minds have not evolved much since the Stone Age, and that standard psychological questionnaires yield clear evidence of the adaptations.
Charles Darwin wasted no time applying his theory of evolution to human psychology, following On the Origin of Species (1859) with The Descent of Man (1871) and The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872). Ever since, the issue hasn’t been whether evolutionary theory can illuminate the study of psychology but how it will do so. Still, a concerted effort to explain how evolution has affected human behavior began only in the 1970s with the emergence of sociobiology. The core idea of sociobiology was simple: behavior has evolved under natural and sexual selection (in response to competition for survival and reproduction, respectively), just as organic form has. Sociobiology thereby extended the study of adaptation to include human behavior.
In his 1985 critique of sociobiology, Vaulting Ambition, philosopher Philip Kitcher noted that, whereas some sociobiology backed modest claims with careful empirical research, the theoretical reach of the dominant program greatly exceeded its evidential grasp. Kitcher called this program “pop sociobiology” because it employed evolutionary principles “to advance grand claims about human nature and human social institutions” and was “deliberately designed to command popular attention.”
全文：http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=four-fallacies
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Fall 2008 認知神經科學導論作業題目
Ch5 Sensation & Perception
1. Define the physiological concepts of receptive field and visual area. How is the receptive field of a cell established? How are the boundaries between visual areas identified? Can either receptive fields or visual areas be studied noninvasively in humans? (p. 206)
Ch 6 Object Recognition
1. What are some of the differences between processing in the dorsal and ventral visual pathways? In what ways are these differences useful? In what ways is it misleading to imply a functional dichotomy of two distinct visual pathways? (p.256)
2. As part of a debating team, you are assigned the task of defending the hypothesis that the brain has evolved a specialized system for perceiving faces. What arguments will you use to make your case? Now change sides. Defend the argument that face perception reflects the operation of a highly experienced system that is good at making the discriminations.
Ch7 The control of action
1. (舊版第一題) (請有舊版的人提供題目，謝謝！)
2. What is the difference between the pyramidal and extrapyramidal motor pathways? What type of movement disorder would you expect to see if the pyramidal tract were damaged? How would extrapyramidal damage differ? (p.311)
3. Why do people with Parkinson’s disease have difficulty moving? Provide an explanation based on the physiological properties of the basal ganglia. Why does dopamine replacement therapy improve their condition?
Ch8 Learning and Memory
1. Patient H.M. and others with damage to the medial temporal lop develop amnesia. What form of amnesia do they develop? For example, is it like the amnesia most often shown in Hollywood movies? What information can such amnesia patients retain, what can they learn, and what does this tell us about how memories are encoded in the brain? (p.362)
2. Can you ride a bike? Do you remember learning to ride a two-wheeler? Can you describe to others the principles of riding a bike? Do you think that, if you gave a detailed set of instructions to another person who had never ridden a bike, he or she could carefully study your instructions and then hop on a bike and ride happily off into the sunset? If not, why not?
3. Relate models of long-term potentiation (LTP) to changing weights in connectionist networks. What constrains do cognitive neuroscience findings place on connectionist model of memory?
Ch10
1. How might the mental lexicon be organized in the brain? Would we expect to find it localized in a particular spot in the context? If not, why not?
2. What evidence exists for the role of the right hemisphere in language processing? If the right hemisphere has a role in language, what might that role be?
Ch 12 Attention and Consciousness
1. Do we perceive everything that strikes the retina? If not, does something interfere with vision? What might be the fate of stimuli that we do not perceive but that nonetheless stimulate our sensory receptor?
2. Are the same brain mechanisms involved when we focus our intention voluntarily as when our attention is captured by a sensory event, such as a flash of light?
1. Define the physiological concepts of receptive field and visual area. How is the receptive field of a cell established? How are the boundaries between visual areas identified? Can either receptive fields or visual areas be studied noninvasively in humans? (p. 206)
Ch 6 Object Recognition
1. What are some of the differences between processing in the dorsal and ventral visual pathways? In what ways are these differences useful? In what ways is it misleading to imply a functional dichotomy of two distinct visual pathways? (p.256)
2. As part of a debating team, you are assigned the task of defending the hypothesis that the brain has evolved a specialized system for perceiving faces. What arguments will you use to make your case? Now change sides. Defend the argument that face perception reflects the operation of a highly experienced system that is good at making the discriminations.
Ch7 The control of action
1. (舊版第一題) (請有舊版的人提供題目，謝謝！)
2. What is the difference between the pyramidal and extrapyramidal motor pathways? What type of movement disorder would you expect to see if the pyramidal tract were damaged? How would extrapyramidal damage differ? (p.311)
3. Why do people with Parkinson’s disease have difficulty moving? Provide an explanation based on the physiological properties of the basal ganglia. Why does dopamine replacement therapy improve their condition?
Ch8 Learning and Memory
1. Patient H.M. and others with damage to the medial temporal lop develop amnesia. What form of amnesia do they develop? For example, is it like the amnesia most often shown in Hollywood movies? What information can such amnesia patients retain, what can they learn, and what does this tell us about how memories are encoded in the brain? (p.362)
2. Can you ride a bike? Do you remember learning to ride a two-wheeler? Can you describe to others the principles of riding a bike? Do you think that, if you gave a detailed set of instructions to another person who had never ridden a bike, he or she could carefully study your instructions and then hop on a bike and ride happily off into the sunset? If not, why not?
3. Relate models of long-term potentiation (LTP) to changing weights in connectionist networks. What constrains do cognitive neuroscience findings place on connectionist model of memory?
Ch10
1. How might the mental lexicon be organized in the brain? Would we expect to find it localized in a particular spot in the context? If not, why not?
2. What evidence exists for the role of the right hemisphere in language processing? If the right hemisphere has a role in language, what might that role be?
Ch 12 Attention and Consciousness
1. Do we perceive everything that strikes the retina? If not, does something interfere with vision? What might be the fate of stimuli that we do not perceive but that nonetheless stimulate our sensory receptor?
2. Are the same brain mechanisms involved when we focus our intention voluntarily as when our attention is captured by a sensory event, such as a flash of light?
Are We Killing The Planet One Google Search At A Time?
Washington Post
Jason Kincaid
Sunday, January 11, 2009; 11:30 AM
Right now the top stories on Techmeme revolve around a new piece in The Times of London that focuses on The Environmental Impact of Google Searches. In it, physicist Alex Wissner-Gross (a star MIT graduate who is now at Harvard) posits that a single Google search generates 7g of CO2, versus around 15g for a tea kettle - something he calls a "definite environmental impact."
That sounds bad, right?
There's no doubt that Google consumes a massive amount of energy, with hundreds of millions of searches conducted every day and data centers scattered across the globe. But let's try to shed a little perspective on things.
A single book runs around 2,500 grams of CO2, or more than 350 times a Google search. By some estimates, a single cheeseburger has a carbon footprint of around 3,600 grams - over 500 times larger than a Google search. Granted, meat in general has a notoriously large carbon footprint, but if you're genuinely concerned about your environmental impact then try cutting a burger from your diet every week and search guilt-free (you may even lose a few pounds).
And isn't it possible that Google may actually be helping the environment in some ways? I can't count how many times I've been able to use Google in lieu of driving to the library to look up a fact (each car trip would have had carbon costs orders of magnitude larger than that Google search). I've used Google Transit dozens of times to figure out train and bus schedules so that I wouldn't have to drive my car. And surely the search engine has helped countless green-minded folk find a website where they could purchase carbon credits.
My issue with the article isn't that it is factually incorrect - it's that it paints Google as a malevolent force shrouded in secrecy, and that every time you use it (or one of the other mentioned companies like Twitter), you're adding to the problem. In a word, it's alarmist. Google could probably become more energy efficient, but I fear that articles like this will lead people to shy away from the Internet. Unlike gas guzzling SUVs, the web helps connect and enrich humanity. By all means encourage web companies to become as carbon neutral as possible, but don't make energy-conscious consumers afraid of their browsers.
And finally, one last bit that is more concerned with the journalistic practices of The Times than Google. Alex Wissner-Gross co-founded an interesting startup called CO2Stats that we've covered a few times in the past (it was also a finalist in The Crunchies). The site helps websites stay as green as possible by offering carbon credits as well as badges to help promote the cause. The Times article only mentions the site in passing, and fails to acknowledge that CO2Stats is a company that earns money, not just an informative website. I sincerely doubt there is anything sinister going on, but such a major potential source of bias seems worthy of more than just a mention.
Update: Google has responded to The Times article, stating that a single search is actually equivalent to a mere 0.2 grams of CO2. The blog post also details some of Google's efforts to further green technology as well as the energy efficiency of its own data centers.
Alex Wissner-Gross已將其研究成果提交「美國電力及電機工程師研究所」，準備公開發表，同時還刊於www.CO2stats.com網站；他表示，Google效率極高，但公司最關心的是讓搜尋變快，即使這意味有很多消耗電力的額外產能。
Alex Wissner-Gross另計算出個人使用網際網路時釋出的二氧化碳 量：瀏覽一個簡單的網頁，每秒鐘約產生0.02克，而觀看複雜的網站，有圖像、動畫或影片，那麼會驟增十倍，每秒鐘為0.2克。
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
希望有越多有關間接污染的研究。
雖然我不反對太陽能、風力能源、甚至節約用紙...等環保途徑
只是關心開發新的「再生能源」是不是只是換一種污染方式，鼓勵另一個隱藏在環保糖衣裡的惡魔？
Monday, January 12, 2009
the latest, the hottest, it's system biology!
*原文刊登於http://philobio.wordpress.com *
生物哲學一直在打神創論，而只重視演化生物學，有沒有讓你心煩意亂？
「曾幾何時，我們不再對生物本質感到興趣？為何一直問他如何來，卻不問他究竟是什麼？為什麼～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～？？？（仰天長嘯）」
此時生物哲學大師溫柔的聲音從天而降。
「孩子，」Sober道「你難道不知道，在西方世界要先打贏神創論這個大魔王才能夠去撼動到神的創造物嗎？這就是為什麼我的書雖然貼著philosophy of biology, 但是我都在討論演化論啊！」
「傻孩子，」Ruse道「你難道不知道，解決了演化就是解決了生物本質的問題嗎？你瞧瞧，生物的功能如果不需要神就能解釋、生物的分類有其自然意義、生物改變的過程都有自然化的解釋，那不就解釋了生命是什麼了？」
＊註：以上可能有誤導之處，請不要打我＊
生為基督教派國家的美國人真辛苦。
坐在板凳上無聊地看著又一部美國英雄跟神的戰天使戰鬥片
隔壁桌的歡笑聲吸引了我。
一個南非人、三個荷蘭人，正在圍桌打麻將。
打牌不是重點，他們說的話才是重點。
南非人：「A philosophy of systems biology is lacking but needed!」（所有人抬頭）
荷蘭人一號：「Experimental biologists may not care much about philosophy...」（"Screw them!" 南非人說。 "Yeah!" 荷蘭人說。）
「 while philosophers of biology deal predominantly with evolutionary biology, 」（點頭）「and to a lesser extent, with molecular biology,」（猛點頭）「 and importantly, not at all with systems approaches too biology.」（所有人看美國英雄那邊，歎一口氣。）
荷蘭人二號：「The existing philosophy of biology fails to address the rather profound issue of what distinguishes the living form the nonliving, expect to say that something lives because its ancestors lived.」（"Right on!"荷蘭人三號說。"這算啥解釋啊！"荷蘭人一號說。"下台下台！"南非人說。）
荷蘭人三號：「In it's current state, 」（抽一口煙）「the philosophy of biology does not have the wherewithal to consider a single organism as an integrated, functionally organized system that can be understood per se, independent of its evolutionary history! 我胡了！！！」
一滴淚，緩緩的流下我的臉頰。
幹，這不正是說中我的心聲嗎？
這四位仁兄就是Fred C. Boogerd, Frank J. Bruggeman, Jan-Hendrik S. Hofmeyr and Hans V. Westerhoff.
他們編的書叫做 Systems biology: Philosophical Foundations
套一句我念國中的弟弟國文老師，在請班上有看囧男孩的同學站起來
看到全班只有我弟站起來的那一刻，哽咽地說得一句話：
「各位同學。」老師的眼眶泛紅。「要嫁，就要嫁這種文藝青年。」
要作，就要作systems biology.
演講訊息: Causality and the perception of Time
星期四下午一點 Dr. Marc Buehner 在圖資大樓839有一場演講，主題和摘要如下:
Title: "Causality and the perception of Time"
Title: "Causality and the perception of Time"
Abstract:
From working out questions such as "Will there still be a crop yield
this year -- it seems awfully late in the season?" to synchronizing
perceptual input from multiple modalities (which process information
at different speeds, and the information itself arrives not
necessarily at the same time, e.g. vision and sound), people are
constantly faced with solving timing problems. More specifically,
having and maintaining a sense of how much time has passed between one
event and another is of fundamental importance to adaptive cognition.
this year -- it seems awfully late in the season?" to synchronizing
perceptual input from multiple modalities (which process information
at different speeds, and the information itself arrives not
necessarily at the same time, e.g. vision and sound), people are
constantly faced with solving timing problems. More specifically,
having and maintaining a sense of how much time has passed between one
event and another is of fundamental importance to adaptive cognition.
Recent demonstrations of "intentional binding" (e.g. Haggard et al.,
2002) suggest that people experience a subjective shortening of time
between actions and their consequences relative to unrelated events.
In this talk I will present data that suggests that intentional
binding is a special form of 'causal binding' (Eagleman & Holcombe,
2002). In a reverse interpretation of Hume's principles of causality,
according to which temporal contiguity is a key to forming causal
associations, I shall argue that experienced causality warps our
perception of time in line with our expectations of natural timeframes.
2002) suggest that people experience a subjective shortening of time
between actions and their consequences relative to unrelated events.
In this talk I will present data that suggests that intentional
binding is a special form of 'causal binding' (Eagleman & Holcombe,
2002). In a reverse interpretation of Hume's principles of causality,
according to which temporal contiguity is a key to forming causal
associations, I shall argue that experienced causality warps our
perception of time in line with our expectations of natural timeframes.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
申請國外PhD 需要準備什麼?
我真不想說...只要有心人人都可以成為食神.....
但....申請學校確實就是如此。
新年快樂喔大家...
如果今年底你要申請的話...這是個人經驗整理出來的timeline.
我只能說...人算不如天算，祝福各位可以達成。
2009 applying for 2010 Fall
Jan 確定自己是否有要申請，開始準備TOEFL & GRE 以六月前考完兩者為目標
Feb 確定自己的大領域(phil. of mind, bio., sci., physics, logic etc.) 開始學校網站慢慢逛
Mar 鎖定約二十所學校 選定sample paper主題 開始討獎學金與公費留考等
Apr 給老師看過學校名單, sample paper主題跟老師討論, 請老師寫推薦信
May 寫sample paper 準備GRE TOEFL最後衝刺
Jun 考GRE和TOEFL 參加Tucson & ASSC13
Jul 寫sample paper 開始寫 SOP, CV 若發現GRE TOEFL考不好, 準備重考
Aug 寫sample paper, 寫SOP, 寫CV, 申請成績單, 獎狀, 確認國內獎學金,保證金*
Sep 刪減到大約5~10所學校, 確認需要備齊哪些資料**, 填寫網路報名, 寄送GRE, TOEFL成績
Oct sample paper, sop, cv給很多人看過改完, 重考GRE TOEFL(if necessary)
Nov 所有資料寄出
Dec 準備需要補寄的資料和確認獎學金相關資料送出
若今年底申請，請盡量在六月去參加兩個會議前就至少確認:
(1) 你要申請哪些學校
(2) 你的領域是什麼 你對哪些主題有興趣
這樣還可以在ASSC13 和 Tucson有機會拉近跟這些學校之間的關係
然後務必現在開始準備英文!! 聽到沒? 現在!現在!現在!現在!拿起你的單字本來，就是現在開始背!
我個人認為...這次還可以在九月開始動作 十月正式做英文考試以外的事情
夾雜著野草莓，心理系和心哲所的課業、助教、研究、報告以及中間家裡出事
還可以勉強寄得出申請資料...(雖然上的機會仍然渺茫啦)
是因為
(1) 老師人超好: 都願意在很緊急的狀況下趕出推薦信，說實在話這麼晚才講老師們真的大可不理
(2) 英文好: 不諱言...我真的省下了準備英文的時間、修改英文的時間，免去了面對不知道怎麼寫才通順才正確掙扎撞牆壁、寫到一半中文轉換不成英文而吐血的時間和痛苦...
如果我無法一次從頭打到尾只修改十個英文錯誤的sample paper和超快打字速度，根本就來不及!
(3) 遇到貴人: 修改英文的、修改內容的、給予CV, SOP寫法指導的人
還有老話一句
(4) 運氣超好
以及對現代文明的尊敬
(5) FedEx可以隔天送件! yes!!!!!!!! (仰天長嘯)
有問題再問我吧...(虛弱)
(好...我承認我在期末考前嚴重的procrastinating...更...念不完了還上來打這個.)
*有些學校竟然會提早要保證金...也就是要提出你的財產證明和國內獎學金證明
有就拿出來吧...沒有就想辦法生一 些吧...雖然沒有不會怎樣 但是有了對他們而言是減輕點負擔
** 這些資料真的很煩...
請準備一個list:
(1) 大學&研究所 GPA 主修GPA credit總數
(2) 入學/畢業/學位拿到或預期拿到年月日
(3) 可以收件的地址/永久地址
(4) GRE/TOEFL成績和百分比
(5) 推薦信老師的英文名字、單位、地址、電話、email
(6) 找到每個學校的financial statement(如果有的話) 和確認推薦信是紙本還是線上作業
(7) 確認每個學校sample paper頁數多少，是否有行距限制
(8) 檢查是否學校有幫你準備cover letter, 是否要在信封上面註明資料, 是否在所有資料上要註明生日等資訊
然後買Letter size的紙，所有東西都用letter size的紙去印!!
X的 ...還沒完咧
關於郵寄
1. ups and fedex 送件點有哪些?投遞站哪幾天有開？收件是否就代表送件？
2. 美東與美西各自的收件時間為何? (這次美東是4:00 美西是7:00 PM)
3. 不同的投遞點能夠寄送的種類不同, 請確認你要投的那個點最快到的時間是幾天後?
4. 最重要的是...你的學校能不能夠收快遞?
有些學校竟然寫POBox而fedex等快遞是不能送PObOx的!
5. 收據留下來，天天用tracking number check你的東西到了沒!
關於信用卡
1. 準備兩張信用卡，萬一一張刷不了還有第二張可以緊急使用(尤其是夜深人靜的deadline前幾個小時，他X的發現信用卡不能刷的時候，找誰?!)
2. 刷卡時網路務必穩定!
3. 準備好信用卡地址的英文
(累)...我怎麼整篇髒話連連...更...我莫非定律的實踐者邱千蕙，忘記期中考的邱千蕙
怎麼可能會事先就把這些都安排好了？
當然上述每一點每一滴，全部都是我個人錯誤累積出來的真理啊！！！
請想像這幾個月來我戲劇性的生活....
時間：Duke deadline前一天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「什麼？！你們不能送POBox？！在deadline前一天跟我說我寄不出去？！」
時間：Maryland & NYU deadline前兩天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「什麼叫做你們只收不送？！因為今天政府補假？！」
時間：Rutgers deadline當天
地點：電腦前
「媽！！！！快起床！！！幫我用你的信用卡刷...我的卡突然不能刷了！！！」
時間：Missouri deadline前兩天
「幹！Missouri原來不接受線上推薦信！要叫老師手寫？！那給我線上系統幹麼？」
時間：Utah deadline前兩天
「幹！幹！Utah連推薦信格式都沒有，現在要叫老師自己生出來？！」
時間：Chicago deadline 前一天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「你們不是七點才截止收件嗎？什麼？！美東美西時間不一樣？美東四點就收了？！明天才能送？！阿哩哩哩哩哩」
時間：Toronto deadline 前一天
地點：電腦前
「什麼，老師的信箱只能接受.edu的，現在來得及跟老師要.edu的嗎><」
時間：Maryland deadline當天
第點：銀行
「竟然要我現在就生出一百萬的財產證明...案...要不是保險金我怎麼拿得出來啊」
時間：Pittsburgh deadline前一天
地點：我家
「影印店今天沒開！！！！印表機壞掉了！！！！！Letter size的紙用完了！！！！」
...............請笑納我的血淚吧
但....申請學校確實就是如此。
新年快樂喔大家...
如果今年底你要申請的話...這是個人經驗整理出來的timeline.
我只能說...人算不如天算，祝福各位可以達成。
2009 applying for 2010 Fall
Jan 確定自己是否有要申請，開始準備TOEFL & GRE 以六月前考完兩者為目標
Feb 確定自己的大領域(phil. of mind, bio., sci., physics, logic etc.) 開始學校網站慢慢逛
Mar 鎖定約二十所學校 選定sample paper主題 開始討獎學金與公費留考等
Apr 給老師看過學校名單, sample paper主題跟老師討論, 請老師寫推薦信
May 寫sample paper 準備GRE TOEFL最後衝刺
Jun 考GRE和TOEFL 參加Tucson & ASSC13
Jul 寫sample paper 開始寫 SOP, CV 若發現GRE TOEFL考不好, 準備重考
Aug 寫sample paper, 寫SOP, 寫CV, 申請成績單, 獎狀, 確認國內獎學金,保證金*
Sep 刪減到大約5~10所學校, 確認需要備齊哪些資料**, 填寫網路報名, 寄送GRE, TOEFL成績
Oct sample paper, sop, cv給很多人看過改完, 重考GRE TOEFL(if necessary)
Nov 所有資料寄出
Dec 準備需要補寄的資料和確認獎學金相關資料送出
若今年底申請，請盡量在六月去參加兩個會議前就至少確認:
(1) 你要申請哪些學校
(2) 你的領域是什麼 你對哪些主題有興趣
這樣還可以在ASSC13 和 Tucson有機會拉近跟這些學校之間的關係
然後務必現在開始準備英文!! 聽到沒? 現在!現在!現在!現在!拿起你的單字本來，就是現在開始背!
我個人認為...這次還可以在九月開始動作 十月正式做英文考試以外的事情
夾雜著野草莓，心理系和心哲所的課業、助教、研究、報告以及中間家裡出事
還可以勉強寄得出申請資料...(雖然上的機會仍然渺茫啦)
是因為
(1) 老師人超好: 都願意在很緊急的狀況下趕出推薦信，說實在話這麼晚才講老師們真的大可不理
(2) 英文好: 不諱言...我真的省下了準備英文的時間、修改英文的時間，免去了面對不知道怎麼寫才通順才正確掙扎撞牆壁、寫到一半中文轉換不成英文而吐血的時間和痛苦...
如果我無法一次從頭打到尾只修改十個英文錯誤的sample paper和超快打字速度，根本就來不及!
(3) 遇到貴人: 修改英文的、修改內容的、給予CV, SOP寫法指導的人
還有老話一句
(4) 運氣超好
以及對現代文明的尊敬
(5) FedEx可以隔天送件! yes!!!!!!!! (仰天長嘯)
有問題再問我吧...(虛弱)
(好...我承認我在期末考前嚴重的procrastinating...更...念不完了還上來打這個.)
*有些學校竟然會提早要保證金...也就是要提出你的財產證明和國內獎學金證明
有就拿出來吧...沒有就想辦法生一 些吧...雖然沒有不會怎樣 但是有了對他們而言是減輕點負擔
** 這些資料真的很煩...
請準備一個list:
(1) 大學&研究所 GPA 主修GPA credit總數
(2) 入學/畢業/學位拿到或預期拿到年月日
(3) 可以收件的地址/永久地址
(4) GRE/TOEFL成績和百分比
(5) 推薦信老師的英文名字、單位、地址、電話、email
(6) 找到每個學校的financial statement(如果有的話) 和確認推薦信是紙本還是線上作業
(7) 確認每個學校sample paper頁數多少，是否有行距限制
(8) 檢查是否學校有幫你準備cover letter, 是否要在信封上面註明資料, 是否在所有資料上要註明生日等資訊
然後買Letter size的紙，所有東西都用letter size的紙去印!!
X的 ...還沒完咧
關於郵寄
1. ups and fedex 送件點有哪些?投遞站哪幾天有開？收件是否就代表送件？
2. 美東與美西各自的收件時間為何? (這次美東是4:00 美西是7:00 PM)
3. 不同的投遞點能夠寄送的種類不同, 請確認你要投的那個點最快到的時間是幾天後?
4. 最重要的是...你的學校能不能夠收快遞?
有些學校竟然寫POBox而fedex等快遞是不能送PObOx的!
5. 收據留下來，天天用tracking number check你的東西到了沒!
關於信用卡
1. 準備兩張信用卡，萬一一張刷不了還有第二張可以緊急使用(尤其是夜深人靜的deadline前幾個小時，他X的發現信用卡不能刷的時候，找誰?!)
2. 刷卡時網路務必穩定!
3. 準備好信用卡地址的英文
(累)...我怎麼整篇髒話連連...更...我莫非定律的實踐者邱千蕙，忘記期中考的邱千蕙
怎麼可能會事先就把這些都安排好了？
當然上述每一點每一滴，全部都是我個人錯誤累積出來的真理啊！！！
請想像這幾個月來我戲劇性的生活....
時間：Duke deadline前一天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「什麼？！你們不能送POBox？！在deadline前一天跟我說我寄不出去？！」
時間：Maryland & NYU deadline前兩天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「什麼叫做你們只收不送？！因為今天政府補假？！」
時間：Rutgers deadline當天
地點：電腦前
「媽！！！！快起床！！！幫我用你的信用卡刷...我的卡突然不能刷了！！！」
時間：Missouri deadline前兩天
「幹！Missouri原來不接受線上推薦信！要叫老師手寫？！那給我線上系統幹麼？」
時間：Utah deadline前兩天
「幹！幹！Utah連推薦信格式都沒有，現在要叫老師自己生出來？！」
時間：Chicago deadline 前一天
地點：FedEx投遞站
「你們不是七點才截止收件嗎？什麼？！美東美西時間不一樣？美東四點就收了？！明天才能送？！阿哩哩哩哩哩」
時間：Toronto deadline 前一天
地點：電腦前
「什麼，老師的信箱只能接受.edu的，現在來得及跟老師要.edu的嗎><」
時間：Maryland deadline當天
第點：銀行
「竟然要我現在就生出一百萬的財產證明...案...要不是保險金我怎麼拿得出來啊」
時間：Pittsburgh deadline前一天
地點：我家
「影印店今天沒開！！！！印表機壞掉了！！！！！Letter size的紙用完了！！！！」
...............請笑納我的血淚吧
一個談論申請的UC Riverside教授的部落格
這是以前CRC的學長給的資訊。
給想要出國的大家參考看看...
我一開始看的時候是很絕望的，但是就看我今年申請的狀況如何囉...
如果有好消息，那麼大家就不用絕望了!
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com
大家可以從這裡開始看起:
給想要出國的大家參考看看...
我一開始看的時候是很絕望的，但是就看我今年申請的狀況如何囉...
如果有好消息，那麼大家就不用絕望了!
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com
大家可以從這裡開始看起:
Applying to Philosophy Ph.D. Programs, Part I: Should You Apply, and Where?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
哇靠！這天等了200年！達爾文讀書會
大家好，我終於等到一大批的演化資源侵入的一天了。
為了慶祝Darwin 200歲，我今年要讀達爾文。
志同道合之士歡迎加入，我這個讀書會相當隨意
沒有導讀沒有老師，但是有的是材料有的是熱情
材料：http://www.nature.com/news/specials/darwin/index.html
方法：每三天指定一篇文章閱讀，約在我家、陽明人社院或者台大心理所喝咖啡泡茶討論
結束後想寫得就請寫心得，不想寫得至少來了要付咖啡錢。
我家在石牌站，有光線不是非常亮的客廳和沙發！
時間：每三天晚上一個小時，時間大約定在晚上八點
第一次開始時間：下週四晚上（1/15）
召募對象：隨意，有興趣就來
主持人：意識研究中心+台大心理所邱千蕙
聯絡辦法：寄email給我吧 chiu.chienhui@gmail.com
為了慶祝Darwin 200歲，我今年要讀達爾文。
志同道合之士歡迎加入，我這個讀書會相當隨意
沒有導讀沒有老師，但是有的是材料有的是熱情
材料：http://www.nature.com/news/specials/darwin/index.html
方法：每三天指定一篇文章閱讀，約在我家、陽明人社院或者台大心理所喝咖啡泡茶討論
結束後想寫得就請寫心得，不想寫得至少來了要付咖啡錢。
我家在石牌站，有光線不是非常亮的客廳和沙發！
時間：每三天晚上一個小時，時間大約定在晚上八點
第一次開始時間：下週四晚上（1/15）
召募對象：隨意，有興趣就來
主持人：意識研究中心+台大心理所邱千蕙
聯絡辦法：寄email給我吧 chiu.chienhui@gmail.com
拉一拉，就變成你要的樣子了
*我換了新的blog來寫學術的東西：http://philobio.wordpress.com/*
今天看了這一系列研究方向的新進展。
你相信細胞會因為你怎麼「拉扯他」而發育成不同的細胞嗎？
2003年，Farge發現把果蠅的胚胎輕輕的用玻璃壓住，結果一個叫做twist的基因就這樣被啟動。Farge進一步發現，胚胎在扭曲形變的過程中，組織的壓迫會使得這個基因在腸子表現。
是基因啟動形狀還是形狀啟動基因?
我很喜歡的一本書是On Growth and Form, 挑戰「內在元素」決定生命型態的論點。然而作者是相當極端的外在論派，因此在基因發現之前寫的主張，就像Gibbens的極端心智外在論在認知神經科學發展的現在，被現視為舊時代的思想。
但是有了這樣的學說的洗禮，才有可能跳脫現金完全內在論的生命與心智世界。
Farge的研究推翻了型態完全由基因決定的說法，找到證據說明型態是如何啟動基因，兩者間是互相共同發展的，沒有誰先誰後。
"The genome must be aware at key stages of the shape it is in charge of developing." says Farge.
Farge認為這是tissue compression的基因與twist gene的控制基因（兩者會在不同的肌肉群中表現，因此原本不會有任何關係的）之間的間接互動方式，然而雖然Farge找到的互動例子是兩個基因所決定的性狀，事實上應該還要有非基因決定的物理條件會影響細胞的發展型態。
Ingber發現，細胞會對「物理的拉扯力」起反應而發展出不同的性狀。
"[Ingber's] findings are remarkable.Pull a stem cell in one way and it starts developing as a brain cell, stretch it in another, and a bone cell is its more likely fate. Change the mechanical stresses on cancer cells and they can start to behave more like healthy ones. "
我臉拉對方向就會變成美女嗎（>////<)？物理力的作用就在此呈現。然而...
物理力是透過什麼樣的機制去影響基因的？
Cytoskeleton是一個答案。
現在已經知道，cytoskeleton的組織會偵測細胞處在的extracellular matrix性質，這包括「堅硬的」、「有彈性的」、「充滿張力」或者「受傷」。根據這些不同的性質，幹細胞可以在沒有growth factor的情況下分化成不同的組織細胞。
"on a relatively soft base that resembled the sponginess of brain tissue, stem cells began to form the precursors of neurons; on stiffer, muscle like substrates the cell took steps toward froming muscle stem cells..."
而cytoskeleton本身是如何因應環境性質，面對不同物理環境所展現出來的張力、伸縮等結構力學改變，正是現在生物學正逐漸熱門的領域。
與2005年的連結...
2005年，我在生科系報告了一篇cell 經典文章:
Streuli CH, Bailey N and Bissell MJ (1991). Control of mammary epithelial differentiation: Basement membrane induces tissue-specific gene expression in the absence of cell-cell interaction and morphological polarity.
關於這篇我有在另一個文章裡談過。
有趣的是關於今天這個發現的連結。
"Mammary cells grown in soft gels organized themselves into structures characteristic of normal breat tissue, whereas cells grown in stilff 'cancerous' gels did not. "
Weaver與Bissell的差異是Bissell發現失去某些化學分子的extracellular matrix會導致細胞癌化與否，而那些化學分子反應的是細胞與細胞之間的互動關係使否正常。但是Weaver不一樣。他們改變的是gell本身的物理性質。
"They found that the stiff gels pulled more on the membraine-spanning integrins, and this boosted the activity of an integrin-conotrolled signalling pathway that regulates tension in the cytoskeleton."
酷吧。
醒醒吧molecular biologists...
"Then, as now, most cell biologists had little time for architecture and engineering. When they want to understand why a cell behaves the way that it does, they try to identify the genes, proteins and signalling molecules that are thought to exert control."
許多細胞學家不屑數學與物理對於生物學會有的幫助，只相信基因、蛋白質等分子控制細胞的能力。
Wilhelm His (1888) "to think that heredity will build organic beings without mechanical means is a piece of unscientific mysticism. Astronauts' bones get thinner when they escape gravity. Hefting weights inflicts physical damage on muscle cells that stimulates them to grow. But it was widely felt that the role of mechanical stress would be limited to these and other cell types that needed it in order to function normally."
Wilhelm在1888年就道破（雖然比on growth and form晚）這個迷思，現在這個領域已經火熱的在nature上討論著，台灣的科學家心態改變了嗎？
References:
Stretching the Imagination, Nature News Feature, 456, Dec. 2008
On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
Nature上有一系列的文章都在玩這概念，就附在這邊等我有空再讀囉。
Powell, K. Stem-cell niches: It's the ecology, stupid! Nature 435 (2005)
今天看了這一系列研究方向的新進展。
你相信細胞會因為你怎麼「拉扯他」而發育成不同的細胞嗎？
2003年，Farge發現把果蠅的胚胎輕輕的用玻璃壓住，結果一個叫做twist的基因就這樣被啟動。Farge進一步發現，胚胎在扭曲形變的過程中，組織的壓迫會使得這個基因在腸子表現。
是基因啟動形狀還是形狀啟動基因?
我很喜歡的一本書是On Growth and Form, 挑戰「內在元素」決定生命型態的論點。然而作者是相當極端的外在論派，因此在基因發現之前寫的主張，就像Gibbens的極端心智外在論在認知神經科學發展的現在，被現視為舊時代的思想。
但是有了這樣的學說的洗禮，才有可能跳脫現金完全內在論的生命與心智世界。
Farge的研究推翻了型態完全由基因決定的說法，找到證據說明型態是如何啟動基因，兩者間是互相共同發展的，沒有誰先誰後。
"The genome must be aware at key stages of the shape it is in charge of developing." says Farge.
Farge認為這是tissue compression的基因與twist gene的控制基因（兩者會在不同的肌肉群中表現，因此原本不會有任何關係的）之間的間接互動方式，然而雖然Farge找到的互動例子是兩個基因所決定的性狀，事實上應該還要有非基因決定的物理條件會影響細胞的發展型態。
Ingber發現，細胞會對「物理的拉扯力」起反應而發展出不同的性狀。
"[Ingber's] findings are remarkable.Pull a stem cell in one way and it starts developing as a brain cell, stretch it in another, and a bone cell is its more likely fate. Change the mechanical stresses on cancer cells and they can start to behave more like healthy ones. "
我臉拉對方向就會變成美女嗎（>////<)？物理力的作用就在此呈現。然而...
物理力是透過什麼樣的機制去影響基因的？
Cytoskeleton是一個答案。
現在已經知道，cytoskeleton的組織會偵測細胞處在的extracellular matrix性質，這包括「堅硬的」、「有彈性的」、「充滿張力」或者「受傷」。根據這些不同的性質，幹細胞可以在沒有growth factor的情況下分化成不同的組織細胞。
"on a relatively soft base that resembled the sponginess of brain tissue, stem cells began to form the precursors of neurons; on stiffer, muscle like substrates the cell took steps toward froming muscle stem cells..."
而cytoskeleton本身是如何因應環境性質，面對不同物理環境所展現出來的張力、伸縮等結構力學改變，正是現在生物學正逐漸熱門的領域。
與2005年的連結...
2005年，我在生科系報告了一篇cell 經典文章:
Streuli CH, Bailey N and Bissell MJ (1991). Control of mammary epithelial differentiation: Basement membrane induces tissue-specific gene expression in the absence of cell-cell interaction and morphological polarity.
關於這篇我有在另一個文章裡談過。
有趣的是關於今天這個發現的連結。
"Mammary cells grown in soft gels organized themselves into structures characteristic of normal breat tissue, whereas cells grown in stilff 'cancerous' gels did not. "
Weaver與Bissell的差異是Bissell發現失去某些化學分子的extracellular matrix會導致細胞癌化與否，而那些化學分子反應的是細胞與細胞之間的互動關係使否正常。但是Weaver不一樣。他們改變的是gell本身的物理性質。
"They found that the stiff gels pulled more on the membraine-spanning integrins, and this boosted the activity of an integrin-conotrolled signalling pathway that regulates tension in the cytoskeleton."
酷吧。
醒醒吧molecular biologists...
"Then, as now, most cell biologists had little time for architecture and engineering. When they want to understand why a cell behaves the way that it does, they try to identify the genes, proteins and signalling molecules that are thought to exert control."
許多細胞學家不屑數學與物理對於生物學會有的幫助，只相信基因、蛋白質等分子控制細胞的能力。
Wilhelm His (1888) "to think that heredity will build organic beings without mechanical means is a piece of unscientific mysticism. Astronauts' bones get thinner when they escape gravity. Hefting weights inflicts physical damage on muscle cells that stimulates them to grow. But it was widely felt that the role of mechanical stress would be limited to these and other cell types that needed it in order to function normally."
Wilhelm在1888年就道破（雖然比on growth and form晚）這個迷思，現在這個領域已經火熱的在nature上討論著，台灣的科學家心態改變了嗎？
References:
Stretching the Imagination, Nature News Feature, 456, Dec. 2008
On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson
Nature上有一系列的文章都在玩這概念，就附在這邊等我有空再讀囉。
Abbott, A. Cell culture: Biology's new dimension,Nature 424 (2003)
Powell, K. Stem-cell niches: It's the ecology, stupid! Nature 435 (2005)
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Dream school interaction part II!!
左到右：Owen, Ovid, Patricia, and Neil
自我感受：問了一個好問題，跟owen依舊保持好互動，但是問了Neil一個很爛的問題。
CRG參與者：
and me!我困惑的點在於，其他人咧？！
喂喂...
就算這不是在講意識，就算他不是在講知識論，就算他不是在講心哲，就算他不是在講邏輯
喂喂...
就算這不是在講意識，就算他不是在講知識論，就算他不是在講心哲，就算他不是在講邏輯
好歹也是台灣少有的有「好哲學家」存在的討論空間吧？錯過這個機會就...很難有下次囉？
昨天下午有課嗎？沒有啊。
昨天下午有報告嗎？沒有啊。
那你們在哪裡啊？！
有些人可能口渴什麼水都能喝，只要能活著就好，對這種人而言，水不是生活中很重要的東西。
但是一個開發水資源的人，會像個lock住target的hound一樣不斷追尋著更好的水資源，那是因為水對他而言是重要的。
當然從上面的if-then結構，邏輯上不追著水不代表水對某人不重要，但是看到在追著水的人，就可以推論出他就是個重視水的人。
今天照片裡的人，就是注重他們的目標者。不在的人不能說沒有，我也會給benefit of doubt, 不會覺得你們就沒有求進的動機，但是我想要看到的是，鄙視也好、不屑也好，告訴我們你不想去的理由吧，說不定你真的比他們更強，不屑與他們同在，但在我們健康的討論環境下，我相當歡迎這樣的言論啊XD
另外慎重警告，每錯過一個機會，就是實力距離的拉大，也就是loser心態惡性循環的開始。
什麼是loser惡性循環？
「他們在討論什麼？我沒參加所以看都看不懂，沒關係我回去看看再過來討論」
（兩星期的忙碌後）
「其實這些東西都可以自己讀吧...沒有讀討論也沒有意思...還要不要參加啊...」
（赫然發現原本跟自己程度相當的人變強了）
「我自己讀就好了，隨便他們」
（發現跟自己程度相當的人也有人跟自己一樣）
「沒差反正XXX也差不多，也叫他不要去好了」
（會議論文除了這群人以外都被錄取了）
「他們也沒什麼了不起，這會也沒什麼了不起，走走走我們跟他們道不同不相為謀，這地方也不怎麼樣，叫學弟妹別來了」
請問這樣的思維會帶你到哪裡去？
Monday, January 05, 2009
今天下午(翹課)跟佳樺一起去聽Flanagan, Churchland and Levy兩位哲學家和一位親哲學的科學家的「與學生座談」。
我第一個要說的是，問問題是一件很爽的事情。
全場只有大約三組人問問題，一組作類神經網路的在問他們實驗的問題，再來就是佳樺還有我了（除了我們以外還有一個單獨的問題在請Churchland解釋什麼是eliminative materialism）。雖然現場有大約二十人，但是等於是我們幾個和三位強者的單獨學術討論，爽哉爽哉。
更不用說前排空了好位置給我們入座，只能說雖然在台灣資源少，但是大部份人不問問題的個性就是給我們這些充滿問題的人舞台了。
再來是，好好參加ASSC是有用的，可以拿來電人（給Levy作反例）
（其實Levy那段用imitation作為人類特殊externalization能力的例子實在是很自掘墳墓）
今天的討論主題是「neuroscience對ethics究竟有何幫助？」
這三位都是naturalization派，認為ethical normative laws and behavior有其生理基礎
但是瞭解這基礎給我們什麼樣的工具與改變？
題外話：政大的這間座談室非常的舒服、設計週到又不失專業。
陽明大學相較之下真的沒有一絲毫的文化可言。
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Happy Year 2009!
大家新年快樂！
祝大家 term paper順利完成、投稿conferences順利被接受，今年一起去香港、柏林 (& maybe Boston)參加conference！
也祝申請中的Lynn申請到很棒的學校！祝要畢業的順利畢業！^_^
祝大家 term paper順利完成、投稿conferences順利被接受，今年一起去香港、柏林 (& maybe Boston)參加conference！
也祝申請中的Lynn申請到很棒的學校！祝要畢業的順利畢業！^_^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)