“مولاي قد ملَّ من سقمي أطبّائي”
― ديوان الحلاج
― ديوان الحلاج
“Pattee explains there is a basic and extremely important distinction between laws and rules in nature.11 Laws are inexorable, meaning they are unchangeable, inescapable, and inevitable. We can never alter or evade laws of nature. The laws of nature dictate that a car will stay in motion either until an equal and opposite force stops it or it runs out of energy. That is not something we can change. Laws are incorporeal, meaning they do not need embodiments or structures to execute them: there is not a physics policeman enforcing the car’s halt when it runs out of energy. Laws are also universal: they hold at all times in all places. The laws of motion apply whether you are in Scotland or in Spain. On the other hand, rules are arbitrary and can be changed. In the British Isles, the driving rule is to drive on the left side of the road. Continental Europe’s driving rule is to drive on the right side of the road. Rules are dependent on some sort of structure or constraint to execute them. In this case that structure is a police force that fines those who break the rules by driving on the wrong side. Rules are local, meaning that they can exist only when and where there are physical structures to enforce them. If you live out in the middle of the Australian outback, you are in charge. Drive on either side. There is no structure in place to restrain you! Rules are local and changeable and breakable. A rule-governed symbol is selected from a range of competitors for doing a better job constraining the function of the system it belongs to, leading to the production of a more successful phenotype. Selection is flexible; Newton’s laws are not. In their informational role, symbols aren’t dependent on the physical laws that govern energy, time, and rates of change. They follow none of Newton’s laws. They are lawless rule-followers! What this is telling us is that symbols are not locked to their meanings.”
― The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind
― The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind
“A hunter-gatherer mother who is shifting camp can carry only one child, along with her few possessions. She cannot afford to bear her next child until the previous toddler can walk fast enough to keep up with the tribe and not hold it back. In practice, nomadic hunter-gatherers space their children about four years apart by means of lactational amenorrhea, sexual abstinence, infanticide, and abortion. By contrast, sedentary people, unconstrained by problems of carrying young children on treks, can bear and raise as many children as they can feed. The birth interval for many farm peoples is around two years, half that of hunter-gatherers. That higher birthrate of food producers, together with their ability to feed more people per acre, lets them achieve much higher population densities than hunter-gatherers.”
― Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
― Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
“people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A.”
― Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
― Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
“You would not infer causality at all. Not only do you not infer that your neighbor is angry because you left the gate open and her dog got out, you don’t infer that the dog got out because you left the gate open. You don’t infer that the car won’t start because you left the radio on. While you would be good at spatial relations, you would not grasp the causes and effects described by physics. You will not infer any unobserved causal forces, whether they be gravitational or spiritual. For example, you would not infer that a ball moved because a force was transferred to it when it was hit by another, yet because of your inability to draw inferences, you would do better in Vegas at the gaming tables. You would bet with the house and not try to infer any causal relationship between winning and losing other than chance. No lucky tie or socks or tilt of the head. You would not string out some cockamamy story about why you did something or felt some way, not because you aren’t capable of language, but again because you don’t infer cause and effect. You won’t be a hypocrite and rationalize your actions. You would also not infer the gist of anything, but would take everything literally. You would have no understanding of metaphors or abstract ideas. Without inference you would be free of prejudice, yet not inferring cause and effect would make learning more difficult. What processing comes bubbling up in your separate hemispheres determines what the contents of that hemisphere’s conscious experience will be.”
― The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind
― The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind
Ashraqat’s 2025 Year in Books
Take a look at Ashraqat’s Year in Books, including some fun facts about their reading.
More friends…
Favorite Genres
Biography, Business, Christian, Classics, Comics, Contemporary, Crime, Ebooks, Fantasy, Fiction, Graphic novels, Historical fiction, History, Horror, Humor and Comedy, Manga, Memoir, Music, Mystery, Non-fiction, Paranormal, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychology, Religion, Romance, Science, Science fiction, Self help, Suspense, Spirituality, Thriller, Travel, and Young-adult
Polls voted on by Ashraqat
Lists liked by Ashraqat



































