« February 2019 | Main | April 2019 »

Haiti's apparel exports seen rising despite turmoil

Haiti's apparel exports seen rising despite turmoil

| | Comments (0)

小鹿野

わらじカツ丼の元祖「秩父小鹿野の安田屋」
モーターサイクル(小鹿神社(バイク神社))
野球独立リーグBCリーグ小鹿野総合運動公園野球場(小鹿野球場)
歌舞伎(演劇界2018年4月)関連して「農村歌舞伎

小鹿野×アニメだとこれ

| | Comments (0)

Mario Vargas LLosa on liberty

Foreign Policy piece. 2009


"Rather, true identity springs from the capacity of human beings to resist these influences and counter them with free acts of their own invention."


 


Cultura de la libertad y libertad de la cultura


1985

| | Comments (0)

ラジャン、Rajan、コリアー、Collier、and what?

ラジャン(経済学者、前インド中銀総裁、世間的には2008の金融危機を予知したone of the few)がコミュニティを第三軸として推す本を書き(添付は関連してタイラー・コーエンとのポッドキャスト)、はたまたコリアー(アフリカ経済が専門だったがbottom of the billionで一挙にスター経済学者に)が新著The Future of Capitalismでコミュニタリアンな倫理を勧めているのを観て(サンデル推奨は納得だが、アカロフ激賞、ロドリックも推奨)、腕を組む。尻馬に乗る前に最低、a.速水先生の分析との比較、b.リバタリアニズムとの比較が付け馬よろしくついて来るだけにまだ積ん読か。もう一本不足。なので当面メモ書き。

| | Comments (0)

経済学原論テキスト

マンキューからALLもしくはCOREへ。

ALL = Acemoglu, Laibson & List
ノア・スミスのコラム

| | Comments (0)

サイエンス・フィクション、歌舞伎、経済学

サイエンス・フィクション、歌舞伎、経済学

1)サイエンス・フィクション、歌舞伎
「世界」で話が決まる。例:ステファニー・メイヤー『ホスト』。 
2)サイエンス・フィクション、経済学
Very Short Introductions, SFの定義。モデル。
3)歌舞伎、経済学
自己訓練かしら、、、?

| | Comments (0)

The Evolutionary Foundation of Modern Economy 現代経済の進化論的基礎

The Evolutionary Foundation of Modern Economy 現代経済の進化論的基礎

別題: Foundation of Institutional Comparative Economics
書評を通じて、現代経済の進化論的基礎を理解することに貢献する。
  1. デネット『心の進化を解明する』
  2. Henrich, Secret of Our Success
  3. シーブライト『殺人猿・・・』
  4. 『制度を考える』
  5. 行動経済学
The Evolutionary Foundation of Economicsという本があって、Herbert Simonが利他主義について一章を書いている。おそらく、これは各論として大事。

| | Comments (0)

Daniel C. Dennett: From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds

Home at last

This completes our journey from bacteria to Bach and back. It has been a long and complicated trek through difficult terrain, encountering regions seldom traveled by philosophers, and other regions beset by philosophers and typically shunned by scientists. I have invited you to take on board some distinctly counterintuitive ideas and tried to show you how they illuminate the journey. I would now like to provide a summary of the chief landmarks and remind you of why I found them necessary waypoints on the path.
We began with the problem of the mind and Descartes’s potent polarization of the issues. On one side, the sciences of matter and motion and energy and their support, thanks to evolution, of life; on the other side, the intimately familiar but at the same time utterly mysterious and private phenomena of consciousness. How can this dualist wound be healed? The first step in solving this problem, I argued, is Darwin’s strange inversion of reasoning, the revolutionary insight that all the design in the biosphere can be, must ultimately be, the product of blind, uncomprehending, purposeless processes of natural selection. No longer do we have to see Mind as the Cause of everything else.
Evolution by natural selection can mindlessly uncover the reasons without reasoners, the free-floating rationales that explain why the parts of living things are arranged as they are, answering both questions: How come? and What for? Darwin provided the first great instance of competence without comprehension in the process of natural selection itself. Then Turing’s strange inversion of reasoning provided an example, and a workbench for exploring the possibilities, of another variety of competence without comprehension: computers, which unlike the human agents for which they were named, do not have to understand the techniques they exploit so competently. There is so much that can be accomplished by competence with scant comprehension—think of termite castles and stotting antelopes—that we are faced with a new puzzle: What is comprehension for, and how could a human mind like Bach’s or Gaudí’s arise? Looking more closely at how computers are designed to use information to accomplish tasks heretofore reserved for comprehending human thinkers helped clarify the distinction between “bottom-up” design processes exhibited by termites—and by natural selection itself—and “top-down” intelligent design processes. This led to the idea of information as design worth stealing, or buying or copying in any case. Shannon’s excellent theory of information clarifies the basic idea—a difference that makes a difference—and provides it with a sound theoretical home, and ways of measuring information, but we need to look further afield to see why such differences are so valuable, so worth measuring in the first place.
The various processes of Darwinian evolution are not all the same, and some are “more Darwinian” than other processes that are just as real, and just as important in their own niches, so it is important to be a Darwinian about Darwinism. Godfrey-Smith’s Darwinian Spaces is a good thinking tool for helping us plot not only the relations between the way different species evolve but also the way evolution itself evolves, with some lineages exhibiting de-Darwinization over time. Returning to the puzzle about how brains made of billions of neurons without any top-down control system could ever develop into human-style minds, we explored the prospect of decentralized, distributed control by neurons equipped to fend for themselves, including as one possibility feral neurons, released from their previous role as docile, domesticated servants under the selection pressure created by a new environmental feature: cultural invaders. Words striving to reproduce, and other memes, would provoke adaptations, such as revisions in brain structure in coevolutionary response. Once cultural transmission was secured as the chief behavioral innovation of our species, it not only triggered important changes in neural architecture but also added novelty to the environment—in the form of thousands of Gibsonian affordances—that enriched the ontologies of human beings and provided in turn further selection pressure in favor of adaptations—thinking tools—for keeping track of all these new opportunities. Cultural evolution itself evolved away from undirected or “random” searches toward more effective design processes, foresighted and purposeful and dependent on the comprehension of agents: intelligent designers. For human comprehension, a huge array of thinking tools is required. Cultural evolution de-Darwinized itself with its own fruits.
This vantage point lets us see the manifest image, in Wilfrid Sellars’s useful terminology, as a special kind of artifact, partly genetically designed and partly culturally designed, a particularly effective user-illusion for helping time-pressured organisms move adroitly through life, availing themselves of (over)simplifications that create an image of the world we live in that is somewhat in tension with the scientific image to which we must revert in order to explain the emergence of the manifest image. Here we encounter yet another revolutionary inversion of reasoning, in David Hume’s account of our knowledge of causation. We can then see human consciousness as a user-illusion, not rendered in the Cartesian Theater (which does not exist) but constituted by the representational activities of the brain coupled with the appropriate reactions to those activities (“and then what happens?”).
This closes the gap, the Cartesian wound, but only a sketch of this all-important unification is clear at this time. The sketch has enough detail, however, to reveal that human minds, however intelligent and comprehending, are not the most powerful imaginable cognitive systems, and our intelligent designers have now made dramatic progress in creating machine learning systems that use bottom-up processes to demonstrate once again the truth of Orgel’s Second Rule: Evolution is cleverer than you are. Once we appreciate the universality of the Darwinian perspective, we realize that our current state, both individually and as societies, is both imperfect and impermanent. We may well someday return the planet to our bacterial cousins and their modest, bottom-up styles of design improvement. Or we may continue to thrive, in an environment we have created with the help of artifacts that do most of the heavy cognitive lifting their own way, in an age of post-intelligent design. There is not just coevolution between memes and genes; there is codependence between our minds’ top-down reasoning abilities and the bottom-up uncomprehending talents of our animal brains. And if our future follows the trajectory of our past—something that is partly in our control—our artificial intelligences will continue to be dependent on us even as we become more warily dependent on them.

| | Comments (0)

経営とリベラルアーツ

野中氏のインタビューはこちら

これについてFBで下記のようにコメントした。

以下は作業仮説です。間違っているかもしれませんので、そう思って読んでください。

リベラルアーツが(経営に)重要という議論に私がつきあいたくないのには三つの理由があります。第一、リベラルアーツは何かの為に学ぶという点を越えたそれ自体の「趣味」としての楽しみがあります。経営や行政や何かのために学ぶというのではリベラルアーツを卑小化する可能性があります。第二、リベラルアーツの習得にはかなりの膨大な時間がかかります。何かのためにというのではなく、それ自体が楽しくないとそれだけの時間は投入できないでしょう。第三に、リベラルアーツはすぐに体育および音楽に代表される芸術に関係してきます。なかなか掴み切れないのです。
科学的アプローチにおいて説明していないものは物語だという言明は最近の哲学、特に心(minds)の哲学の成果と対立するのではないかと思わせます。私のような半可通でもデネット『心の進化を解明する』を読んでみると、「物語」が「私たちがそこで生きる世界のイメージ」(コンピュータで言えばデスクトップのようなもの、ハードウェアやプログラム言語で書かれたプログラムではなく、クリックできるフォルダーやアイコンが存在する場)であること、そして、このイメージが、私たちは一生を通じ時間の制約に追われ続ける生物として俊敏に動くことを支援してくれる、ということを示唆してくれます。このイメージ、つまり外見的イメージは、部分的には遺伝によってデザインされ、部分的には文化的にデザインされています。この物語のなかでは、我々は登場人物である人や動物に過大にもしくは過剰に志向性(つまり意識)を求めてしまうのです。以上は科学的アプローチによる説明です。その意味でサイエンスと言ってもいいと思います。
20代の人がマネジメントを追い求めるのであれば、私の目下のアドバイスは、やはりサイエンスとしてのマネジメントだけでよい。そしてサイエンスの対象として物語を学ぶのが良いということになります。他方、マネジメントとは独立してリベラルアーツを学んで楽しめばよい。リベラルアーツにはそれだけの価値がある、ということになりましょうか。映画『スターウォーズ』を始める時に監督ルーカスが神話学の名作キャンベル『千の顔をもつ英雄』を参照したというのは有名なエピソードです。こういうエピソードの2.0や3.0をマネジメントで意識すればいいんじゃないかという気がします。確率の悪そうな「右手と左手をそれぞれに鍛えてから両手で真剣白刃取りを狙う」のではなくて、あくまでも一刀両断を目指すというイメージかしら。乱筆乱文失礼。

| | Comments (0)

« February 2019 | Main | April 2019 »