Goodbye Kitty

 Our cat, Kitty, died last Thursday.

Kitty has been a huge part of our lives since we first met her back in June of 2011, when we were living in China.  At the time I wrote about it here.

Kitty was a smart cat who could open doors by jumping up and pulling on the door handle.  She also loved getting up into high places.  She'd jump higher and further than our other cats, then look down on them comfortably smug.

Very quickly Kitty became part of the family, and when we moved to New Zealand in November of 2014 she came with us too.  Her trip took six months, as she had to social distance in managed isolation, first in Hong Kong and then in New Zealand.  She shared her quarantine hotel with Maggie, our other cat from China, and in that time they got extremely close; they'd often sleep on beds together, wrapped up tight around each other.

Kitty enjoyed her life here in New Zealand.  She'd climb onto the roof of our two-storied house and sleep in the sun, then meow at the top-floor window by my desk asking to be let in.  She figured out how to unlatch a window, and sometimes let herself out at night until we put in a more secure latch.  She was the only one of our three cats who learnt how to use our smart microchip-activated cat-flap.

We first realised something was wrong with Kitty in January, when we noticed her breathing much faster.  X-rays at the vet showed that she had cancer in her lungs, and there was nothing we could do.

As the cancer took over, Kitty climbed less and less, tiring quickly and easily.  For the past few months she stayed close to home, and during the Covid-19 lockdowns she was almost always with one or other of us, sleeping beside (or on) us as we did our thing at home.

We'll never know how old Kitty was.  We knew her for nine and a quarter years.  She was always a tiny little cat, and never grew in the time we knew her.

Kitty was a lovely, friendly, gentle cat.  We all miss her hugely, and it continues to feel strange her not being around the home with us.

Book review: The man who mistook his wife for a hat

Back at university, almost 25 years ago, one of my majors was psychology and in particular I took courses in neuroscience and abnormal psychology.

At some point in a class they must have mentioned Oliver Sacks, and out of interest at the time I read his 1985 book The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat.

Sacks, by the way, was a neurologist, and the book is a collection of chapters discussing some of his patents he got to know over the years.  The title of the book comes from the first chapter, and the man, Dr P, really did attempt to pick up his wife's head thinking that she was his hat.  He had visual agnosia which meant that he was unable to visually recognise faces or familiar objects.

Fast forward a bit, and a few months ago the children and I watched Awakenings, a Robin Williams and Robert De Niro movie based on Sacks' book of the same name.

(I highly recommend the movie, and the girls enjoyed it.)

Anyway, I thought Mulan might also enjoy reading The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat, so I requested it from the library.  I've just finished re-reading it, and have passed it on to Mulan.  (I don't expect Mulan to read all the neurological details, but I thought she might find the stories of the people interesting and thought-provoking.)

The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat is truly a fascinating read.

First and foremost, Sacks has a delightful storytelling style.  Sacks is incredibly good at humanising his patients -- they are decent, real, (mostly) normal people, who just happen to have had something happen to their brain (injury, illness, stroke, epilepsy, migraines, etc) and consequently they perceive or interact in the world differently than most people.

To me, what I find so fascinating is how our perception of the world is tied in so much with our physical brain.  A little bit of damage/change to this part of the brain, and suddenly one has a vastly different perception of the world.  Sometimes these differences are clear defects, but Sacks has a way of also opening our eyes to the ways in which these differences become a true part of who these people are.

And in doing this, as readers we are likewise prompted to re-consider who we are in ourselves.  In everyday life we often like to think of ourselves as whole and united, as individual selves in control of our interactions in the world.  These sorts of neurological case studies deeply question this perception of ourselves, and for that matter our perception of reality.

Mulan's athletics is off (again!)

 And Mulan's Interprovincials athletics competition is back off again.

A few weeks ago I wrote it was on again, but a few days ago we heard it was off again.  Too much Covid-19 uncertainty.

Mulan is grumpy!

Covid-19 lockdown again

 And we're back in lockdown again!

There was Covid-19 community transmission found in Auckland, and we immediately went into Alert Level 3 lockdown on Wednesday.  Makes sense.  As far as I can tell the response was fast, efficient, appropriate and reasonable.

Mulan's immediate response was to inform us that she's grumpy about it.  As homeschoolers, a big chunk of our life is spent outside the home, so lockdown means cancelling a lot of what we do in normal life.

But at least we weren't around during the Black Death, a world war, the Great Depression or one of the countless famines throughout history.  Lockdown, at least for most of us, is a pretty minor inconvenience in comparison to a lot of what people have had to face throughout history.

Zoom is back to being the norm.  This morning, Miya was upstairs on my computer having her Zoom clarinet lesson, while Mulan was downstairs in the dining area having her Zoom ballet lesson on the iPad, and Mama was in the schoolroom teaching her Zoom Chinese lessons on her computer.  I was pushed outside with the cats -- a lovely, warm blue-sky day.  I was chatting on my mobile with my Big Sis when our food delivery package arrived.

On Tuesday, just hours before hearing about the Covid-19 outbreak, we bought Mulan a new bike.  We had a family lockdown bike ride on Wednesday.  Mulan was just a speck way ahead in the distance, proving that she's now got the best bike in the family.

Mulan's athletics

 Yesterday, Mulan's athletics team training restarted.

This is the Auckland team for the New Zealand Interprovincials (IP) competition, that was on, then off, then on, then off, then on-ish.

Huh??

So, the Interprovincial competition was supposed to be held over Easter, but Covid happened.  We heard it might be postponed until October, but some provinces pulled out and the competition was cancelled.

Finally, it's been decided that a similar-but-different competition will be held over the first weekend of October.  Not all provinces will attend, but many will (mostly North Island, I hear).  Auckland is involved, and Mulan is part of the Auckland team.

So, team training is back on, and Mulan had an excellent sprint session yesterday.

Mulan has decided that she wants to focus on athletics this coming season (more precisely, it's now her number two activity behind ballet).  She wants to prepare well and do the best she can in October, and then the next aim is to be selected again for the 2021 Interprovincials next Easter.

Book review: I don't have enough faith to be an atheist

When I write my book reviews, or my more serious thoughts, I generally try to explain my reasoning as clearly as I can.  I try to understand the writers, and feel the views as charitably and accurately as I can.

This is partly for you, my readers, but honestly, it's mostly for me.  Spending time putting my thoughts in writing really helps me to get clear in my own head how I see things.  Until I write it out, I frequently have only a general and vague sense of my position on things.  And in writing it down I sometimes change my own views.

But there are exceptions to this.  And this is one.

In this post I'm not going to give my reasons.  I'm merely going to give my conclusions (with a bit of biographical background).  I'm not arguing; I'm merely stating.

It's not that I couldn't give my reasons.  It's just that I have no interest to take the time to do so.  In this particular situation, writing it down won't help me to get any clearer on how I see things.  And to be honest, it kinda bores me.

So, take what you will of what follows.

One of my nieces is in school year 13, and she is hugely busy with book work, getting up enough credits to go on to university or whatever.  Good on her!

The required reading for one of her courses is Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek's 2004 book I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.

My Big Sis, Gugu, and I chatted about this, and consequently I requested the Geisler/Turek book from the library.

The main claim of the book is that the evidence points in favour of Christianity, and so atheists are actually required to have more faith than Christians.

Gugu and I grew up in a Christian family, and since teenagers we have often had long and enjoyable conversations about religion, science and other deep matters.  A big chunk of my masters degree was on the philosophy of religion, and for a couple of years I was the tutor for the 2nd/3rd year undergraduate philosophy of religion course at Auckland Uni.

So, while my background is not enough to be considered a professional expert, I think it is enough to say that I am competent to evaluate good versus bad contributions to the subject.

And in my opinion, Geisler and Turek's contribution is in the bad category.  It is not worth reading, and should definitely not be used as the required reading for secondary school students.  It is a serious failing in New Zealand's education system that this is part of a course that gives university entrance credits.

As I was reading it, I was often finding multiple errors on each page.  There are far too many logical missteps, factual errors and misrepresentations of others' views.  Repeatedly, Geisler/Turek committed the fallacies of false alternatives and strawperson.  Repeatedly they made the mistake of being uncharitable to their opponents views, imagining that they had dismissed, in a few lines, the ideas of people who had spent decades on these complex issues; in reality all that Geisler/Turek did was dismiss cartoon versions that few take seriously anyway.  There was an overall sense of the authors not quite "getting" the ideas they were trying to present, but alongside that there was a kind of blissful, contented arrogance from them that they had got it right.  If I had to describe this book in a word, I'd say it was clumsy.

I want to be clear, this is not about religion.  It is about facts, logic and evidence.  Geisler/Turek made claims about where the evidence points, but repeatedly got the facts, logic and evidence wrong.  That they happen to be arguing against atheism, and for their version of Christianity, is irrelevant.  I have also said similar things about badly written pro-atheism books (eg, several years ago I read a bit of work by Sam Harris; in my opinion he's the atheistic scholarly equivalent of Geisler/Turek).

Unless my niece wants to go through any specific pages with me, that's all I feel the need to say.

Freedom to not wear a mask?

P Z Myers posted this.  It's too good to not re-post it here.