Another journal entry, made too late at night..I'm working on revising my Psych term paper.. well, probablyfinished with that for tonight. The rough draft got a much bettergrade than I thought it deserved, but I'm hoping to actually get it to thestate where I'm willing to call it decent quality before I turn it in.I'm supposed to present it on Tuesday (although final draft isn't due then),and so I hope to have it completely done then, so I can devote my fullnon-work attention to my Philosophy term paper, which I have a topic for(albeit not a very interesting one -- a comparitive review of notions ofconfirmation.. I need to figure out a way to say something interestingin that vein, or it'll be a dog to write).
Today (today meaning since I woke up on Sunday), I took a short run..It was enjoyable, although I should've checked the weather so I wouldn't'veworn a coat (it could've been a longer run then). Surprisingly, my knee,which often hurts at night if I shift onto it at bad angles, doesn't seemto take badly to running at all. I am disappointed that my knee isn't backto normal, but at least the only time it reminds me that it's not fine iswhile in the odd positions involved in sleep. Hmm.
This weekend has pretty much been a weekend for work and school, with avery small amount of play mixed in. I spent a lot of time getting a systemredone, and at least a bit of time getting involved in putting outfires regarding some malfunctioning hardware on another box. Apart fromreading a little bit of one of the books that was sent to PUSH, I've beenplaying a bit of the old SNES game, Final Fantasy 3, on an emulator.It's kind of sad -- I actually have the cartrage here, but haven't had aSNES for ages, so this is the best I can do. On the upside, at least thisway I can speed up the game for the boring parts. An hour and a half of thatwas a nice break from the brainstorming... and I guess the brain can only takeso much serious stuff without a break. One frustration I have with the paper isthat the assignment suggests breaking the analysis of Autism into threedifferent aspects of mental function, with a few sample aspects beingproblem solving, memory, attention, perception, .. That's good as anoutline, but often a good analysis of a particular aspect of the illnesscrosses over more than one of those categories, and when I got my rough draftback, one of the analyses that I liked was marked as being such a mix.I'm not saying they're bad categories -- some kind of organization is neededfor these things, and this is a pretty good one, but it seems to me thatit often makes a lot of sense to analyze things that don't fit the categoriesvery well. Oh well :)
It turns out that Bad Religion has authorized a lotof downloads of various pieces of their music, and that the music videos Ihad downloaded earlier of theirs were actually legal. Interesting... I thinkit's interesting how their sound has changed over time -- their older stuffwas more traditionally punk, while their more recent stuff is closer topop-punk (compare supersonic or sorrow, both recent songs, to infected orthe new america, both older songs). There still is a spectrum, but thelater songs are more harmonic and 'sweet', where the older songs are moreexuberant. (Sidenote -- the logo of this dictionaryis really cute, in a very Japan kind of way)
I've been chewing on a thought partially inspired by a recent discussion withmy Philosophy prof -- is philosophical naturalism a sell-out? In sum, it claimsthat we don't need (or get)A Priori anything, and base everything off ofwhat works. In its framework, math, the scientific method, and basicallyanything that's 'softer than the nature of things' is the result of pragmatism,and doesn't need any explanation. It claims that scientific investigationinto these fields cannot, in principle, produce well-founded results. The positive side of the theory, of course, seems less objectionable than thenegative -- that we learn the processes of science by experimentation, andof course looking at the history of science, the invention of the double-blind,and similar additions to an experimenter's toolchest, and that we didn't use orneed a priori to get there.. in fact, can observe the people whoexpect everything to be founded on what they consider philosophicallyrigid ground scurry rapidly where new tools are built to tie them somehowdown to their first principles so it looks like they're natural outcomes oflogic.. What naturalism suggests we're doing seems ok, it's what it suggestswe can't do that seems problematic. Specifically, it seems to limitphilosophical inquiry, in a way, by suggesting that the tools of science are'mere data', and not part of an examinable pattern, in fact, that no suchunderlying pattern can exist.. It at least wants to rule out that a priori]will get you anywhere.. This is, of course, an interesting problem for peoplewho want to consider things like game theory or statistics to prove to beanything but finely-tuned heuristics for understanding. We're used toconsider some of the things suggested by game theory and statistics tobe heuristics, but not the entire disciplines themselves. We tend to trustMathematics, Logic, and the rest of these tools implicitly.. how shouldwe think of them?
I'll comment on the news later. I'm tired.