h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi,

I've bumped into you a couple of times around and about, and always enjoyed reading your comments, especially the POETRY CONVERSATION, of which, I have to admit, I am a serial
er.

I just thought I would add you to my friends list, and let you know I was doing so, in case you had any problems with that.

So, how (and more importantly; who) are you?

blub-blub

Hi blub-blub, I've seen you around too, and I'm really pleased that you've added me to your friends list. I'm adding you to mine straightaway

Jab

Great

Sorry the first journal of mine you will of recieved will be my recent rant. Yet I feel the subject matter is of grave and immediate importence.

So, I ask again, who are you?



b-b

Hello again,

Right, that's that done. If you have the patience, you can find out quite a bit about who I am from my PS Introduction, especially if you follow the numerous links, but yours is a bit less forthcoming. So I want to start by asking you first about yourself, where you live, what you do etc. Are you John Blub, with Anne Blub and un-Blub as your family or do you take turns or is the story of your intriguing name about something else entirely?

From reading your Intro, I am really into classical music, but I do like intelligent performers like David Bowie - I definitely agree with you there. I'm also fond of the Gormenghast Trilogy, especially Titus Groan, and Catcher, although I'm ashamed to say I haven't read the Huxley yet - I must do it some time

Look forward to this journal posting you've warned me about!

Jab

I've got to say, I love the links to the pictures from your PS. atm I'm thinking of replacing my PS with a very insightful readout from an internet test that LL gave me the link to.

As regards my name, I like to maintain the 'blub' in it so as to avoid confusion, and deform quotes so as to incorporate this. For example, my last name was 'The eyes of Dr. T.J. Ecklesblub', from the concept of the eyes of Dr. T.J Ecklesburg in the Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. My current name is a mangled version of the reported response of John Donne to the news of his impending imprisonment due to his 1601 marrige to Anne More (should it be two o's? ): "John Donne, Anne Donne, Undone".

Concerning musical tastes, I was recently described as an 'Indie Brat', and I'm afraid my classical music knowledge is extremely limited.

What else? You wanted to know who I am, but as a recent article I recently read highlighted, there is great difficulty in defining what 'I' actually is. I'll make a breif attempt. I am a 6th-former, so quite young for this site, in the run-up to university applications, where I'd absolutely love to study philosophy. You said you worked part-time lecturing in philosophy, I'd be very intrested if you could tell me about what specific area you specialise in?

I think that's all I have to say, ask if you want to know more.

So, who are you?

b-b

Right. Thanks for your kind words about my P.S.

That's a neat story about your name

Who am I? Well, it depends on what you mean (typical philosopher's move). Would you like to clarify your question? What epistemological context did you have in mind? For example in one context there's a football team called Arsenal, but in the context of physics there's no such thing.

I'm a research assistant really, I don't do that much lecturing. As such I'm a bit of a generalist. Want a seminar on Foucault? Jab'll do it. Quick lecture on ethics? Sociology? I did a short introductory guide on Heidegger for the Guide some time ago. It's at A656787 if you're interested.

My main subjects are epistemology and the philosophy/logic of science and social science. You obviously /are/ interested in philosophy. What interests you about it, what got you interested and how long have you been interested?

Jab

Philosophy, well, I'm not sure what got me intrested. I think most people confront questions regarding god/s at some point, and thats how I got started; I loved doing the basic philosophy of Hinduism back when I was doing GCSE's, and its about that time I started reading second-hand texts, introductions and criticisms and the like. Recently, for my history A-level, I've been reading alot about early C19th political philosophy, esp Malthus and Ricardo, but that dosn't esp intrest me. I really liked reading Descarte recently, and also John Locke, but my reading of first-hand texts is still limited. I'd like to read more analytical Philosophy, I've read a little Russell, but that's it. I think metaphysics and epistomology (sp?) are obviously intresting, and recently I've started to engage alot more in the philosophy underlying the physics I'm doing, I started asking around in SEx about that. That's rather alot of info really, sorry about that.

Regarding your PS, how often do you change the links? I'm sure the one to the pic of Sarah MG must be a new one, I seem to remember it being one of a lady in a dress sitting at a cafe before?

Anway to watch the apprentice now,

b-b

Not too much info at all. That was really interesting

Most scientists aren't interested in the philosophy of what they're doing, they're too busy doing it, so I don't know what sort of response you're getting from the SEx thread. Among scientists, interest in philosophy tends to be among the Einsteins and Bohrs and Heisenbergs rather than the day-to-day workmanlike practitioners. A generalisation, I admit. Wittgenstein started out as an engineering student.

I'm glad you're doing physics and history, not something pleasant but useless like media studies. Do you take your A Levels this year or next? Do you have a preference for university yet, or have you other plans?

Anyone who watches The Apprentice is all right in my book I didn't watch the first series, as I thought it was unlikely to be of interest to me, but the second series has me hooked, largely because I'm looking forward to when Syed gets fired.

About the links on my PS - I have to change them occasionally when they stop functioning. That other girl was sweet and pretty wasn't she - she was an Australian Miss World or Miss World contestant - but the link stopped working.

Jab

Do you mean this one: http://www.sseah.se/test_eng.htm ?

It was wildly inaccurate for me.

Jab

Yeah, the response on SEx was pretty much 'this is a question about the way the universe is, that's not science!'. I'd like to read Wittegenstein first-hand soon. atm, I'm reading some critical essasies about Descartes, some of which put his work in context, which makes his reasoning clearer, and others are about how his work affected different branches of philosophy.

As well as Physics and History, I'm studying Literature and Maths. I take 4 AS's this year, then get results and apply to university, then take 3 or 4 A2's (full a-levels) next year. Atm, I'm thinking of the London Universities, esp UC. Where was it you said you worked?

I like the apprentice, just to see how much it affects being on camera, noticeable in the contestants always, and the general public, esp in episodes where they have to buy things at the cheapest price. There should be an Apprentice thread somewhere in hootoo!.

I enjoy coming to your PS, I find something new everytime I come. Sometimes it crashes my comp though .

Thanks for the link, it was the one I was after. For me it was spot-on, really accurate. I guess must be chance, I mean it would be pretty extrodinary to produce accurate results evrytime.

So, have you always liked Alice, or is it something new? Is it a hobby, or more or less?

b-b

Hi,

You couldn't start at a better place than Descartes.He started off the whole of modern philosophy with that central question of his.

I'd rather not go into which university I work for - it might get me identified. Suffice to say it's up here and not in London.

Alice - Carroll taught logic and mathematics at Oxford. Not unadjacent to philosophy. His nonsense is logical nonsense on the whole - inverted logic, that's why I enjoy it. I'm not obsessed by it though - it's hardly a hobby - and I'm no expert on him.

There's something similar going on with Douglas Adams. For instance the joke that The Answer is 42, and that nobody knows the question.

You're doing some interesting subjects. I hope you do well. Do you have a preference for any subject at Uni yet? UC's an excellent choice, especially for philosophy (I tend to have a good idea of the reps of philosophy departments).

The test assumed that because I was highly logical I would be very well organised (conventional probably) and lack imagination. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am disorganised and lead a very unconventional life, being happy with part-time work and lots of time off. I also did the Hypnosis test which said I had an excellent imagination! The trouble with the results is not that they're random but that they're not very complicated, don't cope with enough variables. Still it is mainly for fun. If it's true for you, go with it - it'd be a good basis for your PS Intro, or at least could contribute enjoyably to it.

I've changed the link for scrumptious on my PS to a better one. Enjoy!

Jab

I don't understand why the new link looks so angry lol.

I like the woman into a bar joke, have you ever seen Bill Bailey?

"Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid...and the WHOLE scene unfolds with a tedieous inevitability"

He has a lot of good bar jokes like that.

At Uni I'd like to do Philosophy, or maybe joint honours Philosophy and Physics. UC seems perfect for me, good reputation, nice location, good/close halls, and the added bonus of JB preserved there. Do you mind me asking what reputation Warwick has for philosophy? its grade requirements are very high!

So, what other intrests do you have?

Going to play squash now!

b-b

Warwick's very strong at then moment, Take a look at their self-description under the graduate studies section. It's always worth looking there, because universities rarely bother with telling undergraduates about the department and its staff, but it's different with postgrads, they need to line up researchers with an appropriate supervisor (tip from a pro).

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/socialstudies/philosophy/

Nah, that's not angry, That's her sexy look!(Naomi Watts).

I've seen Bill Bailey do that joke...

I don't know how to tell you this...but JB doesn't do much teaching these days.

That's enough for now. More later.

Jab

btw, this is the question I posted in SEx, I just wondered what you thought.

Eletrical Fields: F2124165?thread=2746911

b-b

Briefly, I think Mu Beta in Post 10 gave you a pretty good answer. The trouble is, you haven't adequately defined what you mean by 'real'. As dpouglas Adams showed, with 42, you can't get satisfactory answers until you have a satisfactory question.You can try again with me, if you like, although I'm not a physicist.

Jab

You'll very probably find this extremely hard going, but you could try reading the short introduction and see if it helps:

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/existence/


Jab

Its hard to describe what I mean, its one of those cases where I have the concepts fixed in my mind, but its hard to convey them.

I remember the first time I ever heard from you was concerning what is meant my 'real' lol.

An electric field could be thought of in two ways (it can probably be thought of in more, but I'll stick to these two for now). In one way of thinking of it, the way in which it is 'real', it exists of itself as it were. It can be seen to exist as it has certain affects on other observable things, particles, it is the cause of the particles repulsion/attraction, which is the effect.
The other way of thinking of it that I have in mind, is that the particles behave in a certain way, are attracted/repulsed, and there is a relationship between this behaviour and factors such as proximity to other charged particles. These relationships are then described by humans using an invented concept; electromagnetic fields.

Not much clearer I'm afraid . Can you make any sense of that?

b-b

In the first sense your question is a tautology:

Are electrical forces real, i.e. simply having observable effects, or do they just have observable effects?

The second is clearer: Are electro-magnetic fields observably real, apart from their effects, or are they just hypostatised to aid our calculations, as in irrationals? Here you seem to be equating real with observable - yes?

Have a quick read and come back to me. I may not be here by then, but that shouldn't stop us.

Jab

"Here you seem to be equating real with observable - yes?"

Um, tricky . I wouldn't say only observable things are real, as an eletrical field could only be seen through its affect on other things.

Do eletrical fields cause effects in particles, or are they descriptions of these effects?
Is that a clearer question?


I took that brain test again so I could put the results on my PS. It asked different questions. The first time the results were slightly right, and fairly auditory. This time it was extremely left and fairly balanced. So it hasnt been that helpful!

oh, also, I've Jabified the bottom of my PS, I've listed the names I've used on this sight making each of them a link.

b-b

That's a much better question, albeit with its own problems - speaking of effects without cause in the second half, (though this could easily be fixed} and stretching 'description' beyond its normal usage (e.g. probably Wittgenstein would complain about this - tho you don't have to agree with him). Can you either defend these points or fix them?

We're making progress

Jab