The late Francis Crick (of the Watson-Crick DNA-structure-elucidation-duo) is said to have, in later life, been concerned with theoretical neurobiology, and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness.
Crick, by nature and education a classical physicist, was interested in two fundamental unsolved problems of biology: how molecules make the transition from the non-living to the living, and how the brain makes a conscious mind.
In recognition of the fact that we still know more or less sweet-F-A about this matter, I want to announce a composition event. I would like to invite you all to think about this problem that this thoughtful and great scientist never solved in his lifetime.
So, now then, it is time to try to crowd-source possible answers to these problems. Let us try to find out what individual thinking humans think about this matter, and let us start a discussion about how to move forward, and what kinds of things neurobiologists ought to be researching.
I invite submissions, in ordinary dissertation form, as follows:-
I think I’ll just send you to read this Christmas Story. It actually really rather scared me badly, and I had difficulty sleeping, thinking my car had been towed away in the night and without a tax disk or an MOT. (It comes to me often,, this dream, I being a Londoner, but this was worse.)
In the end, the GreeNazis are arguably the single or multiple-greatest threat that Humankind faces in the next 100-150 years.
It will probably take that long to (a) get rid of the effing bastards, all their “university departments” (that’s the simple bit – you just close them down) and – worse – have to cleanse educationally-speaking all their families and those associated with them that got tainted at the same time and cannot be “turned”, and (b) BURN ALL the books (happily mostly in British State Schools so it won’t take long) and delete all the websites (and there are lots, even in enemy-countries) that contain leftoStaliNazi AGW stuff, purporting to the the truth.
It’s a terrible pity really, and it didn’t need to come about, if we had been more vigilant in 1945.
By David Davis
(I’ll only front-page this for a few hours, honest, for I want to make people laugh a bit sometimes and cheer you all up, even if we’re all wearing sackcloth and ashes over the state of our country.)
I discussed with a good and old Catholic friend and some others, a little time ago, the concept of God. Various of us together consumed much wine and then port later, and we argued and got onto theology, as one does as a scientist arguing with his old mates who were literary and theological gents. I have always been the only scientist in our little company. We even argued about “whether God suffers Pain and Hurt”: we all fairly quickly decided that He Does, but we came to that conclusion from different angles. But then , we wondered what are “Any Three Things that God Doesn’t Know”.
We came to an agreement that…
(1) God probably doesn’t know how many orders of Nuns there are.
(2) He even possibly doesn’t know exactly how much money the Franciscans have. (We were not exactly certain of that one.)
(3) BUT for sure, He really really doesn’t know exactly _What Any Jesuit Is Really Thinking_ .
A Response to Matt Zwolinski’s “Libertarianism and Liberty” Essays on Libertarianism.org
J. C. Lester
Philosophical Notes No. 88
ISSN 0267-7091 (print)
ISSN 2042-2768 (online)
An occasional publication of the Libertarian Alliance,
Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, Mayfair, London W1J 6HL
© 2013: Libertarian Alliance; J.C. Lester
J. C. Lester is a Senior Fellow with the Libertarian Alliance.
He is a libertarian philosopher and author of Arguments for Liberty: a Libertarian Miscellany (University of Buckingham Press, 2011)
and Escape from Leviathan: Libertarianism Without Justificationism, paperback (University of Buckingham Press, 2012).
His magnum opus is A Dictionary of Anti-Politics: Liberty Expounded and Defended (forthcoming).
FOR LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY
Matt Zwolinski’s “libertarianism and liberty” essays are argued to have the following problems: taking libertarianism to be a “commitment” to the view that “liberty is the highest political value”; examining and rejecting the maximization of liberty without a libertarian theory of liberty; accepting a persuasive sense of “coercion”; misunderstanding liberty in the work place; conflating, to varying degrees, freedom of action and freedom from aggression and justice/rights/morals; focusing on logically possible clashes instead of practically possible congruence among utility, liberty, and justice—in particular, that “rule (preference-)utilitarianism” fits “rule libertarianism”; failing to distinguish liberty from license (and power) concerning slavery, and so-called “civil and democratic liberties” (and everything else); the idea that any coherent reference to a quantity of liberty requires precise cardinality; failing to see that the quantity of liberty has an inherently qualitative aspect; misunderstanding property as about limiting freedom; mistaking clashing Hobbesian freedom for non-clashing Lockean liberty; adopting G. A. Cohen’s confusion about freedom as the libertarian conception of freedom; assuming the—illogical—epistemology of “justification”; not realizing that both allowing and prohibiting pollution “aggresses” and so “aggressions” need to be minimized; the failure of all six of his reasons for rejecting the non-aggression principle. Read more
Genetic Codes: Private Property Versus Public Goods
Philosophical Notes No. 91
Published by the Libertarian Alliance, 2014
Ingemar Nordin is a professor of philosophy at the department of philosophy at Linköping university, Sweden, his field of research being political philosophy and the philosophy of science. Before that he did graduate studies in maths, physics and philosophy, gained a PhD in philosophy at the university of Lund in 1980, became Associate Professor in Philosophy of Science at the University of Umeå in 1986, and became professor at the department of Health and society in 2001.
The aim of the paper is to make a case for the protection of genetic codes. It is argued that within a property rights (or “libertarian”) approach this has to be accomplished through having a copyright to the physical body parts and biological tissues one owns. It is also argued that copyrights can only be upheld if biological material is transferred or exposed to others in a contractual situation. Therefore extra care has to be taken when things like hair and blood is thrown or given away. Read more