<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Two Views of the Universe</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rabe.org/two-views-the-universe/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rabe.org/two-views-the-universe/</link>
	<description>Sharing ideas and provocations on living single while happy. Reflecting on the social psychology of stereotypes and other cultural phenomena.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://www.rabe.org/two-views-the-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-480</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rabe.org/?p=143#comment-480</guid>
		<description>I recently attended a book talk by Gary Marcus about his new book &lt;a href=&quot;http://klugethebook.com/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Kluge&lt;/a&gt;.  Kluge is an engineering term for something that is put together for functionality but doesn&#039;t (necessarily) look pretty or does what it does in the most efficient way. Marcus argues that this is a good description of our mind... Most evolved things seem to fall in this category: The human eye works well enough for what it is used but it could certainly be better (if it had been designed...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently attended a book talk by Gary Marcus about his new book <a href="http://klugethebook.com/" rel="nofollow">Kluge</a>.  Kluge is an engineering term for something that is put together for functionality but doesn&#8217;t (necessarily) look pretty or does what it does in the most efficient way. Marcus argues that this is a good description of our mind&#8230; Most evolved things seem to fall in this category: The human eye works well enough for what it is used but it could certainly be better (if it had been designed&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samuel Skinner</title>
		<link>http://www.rabe.org/two-views-the-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-478</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel Skinner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rabe.org/?p=143#comment-478</guid>
		<description>Reminds me some of the older fiction books I read. Magic the characters found impressive, but technology- that stuff always worked! Why you just put it to your eyes and far away jumps near by...

Sometimes (and this is one of the cases) the mundane explanations are better than the fantastic. All the neat stuff we see are emergent properties of the basic nature of reality. Apparently it tends towards self organized patterns- stars, galaxies, planets and, of course life.

The alternative is to say it was put together like a tinker toy kit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reminds me some of the older fiction books I read. Magic the characters found impressive, but technology- that stuff always worked! Why you just put it to your eyes and far away jumps near by&#8230;</p>
<p>Sometimes (and this is one of the cases) the mundane explanations are better than the fantastic. All the neat stuff we see are emergent properties of the basic nature of reality. Apparently it tends towards self organized patterns- stars, galaxies, planets and, of course life.</p>
<p>The alternative is to say it was put together like a tinker toy kit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

