Thursday, 20 October 2011

The Scribblings File - Starting from the Top - This is Nr. 1

Scribblings From the Internet

Scribblings that are made by myself. I've just added these because I find great joy and pride in rereading and rediscovering what I write. These writings are all kinds of things and rated below Philosophical Notes and Issues From the Internet.
This whole (web-)page of my writings belongs to my person, i.e., © Terje Lea / Terje L. F. Olsnes-Lea 2010 - 2011, but also as indicated by the writings themselves (2009 - 2011?). Make no mistake about it!

Post subject: Re: On Psychiatric Diagnoses PostPosted: Mon May 16, 2011 9:45 pm

I agree with "Megalomania, god complex" and "Erotomania(?), obsessive love, M√ľnchausen by Proxy, self mutilation(?), sadism, machochism(?)"! Well done, HexHammer [a user by Philosophy Now forum]!
Now, which of the two categories do they go into? And how do they relate to in the spectrum of these 2 categories?
For now, self mutilation is a sympton, I believe, not a mental disorder by itself.
Machochism is not either a defined mental disorder! It may just be the worship of being man by men or the man himself. There's nothing wrong in this. (I.e., they are not sexists just by machochism and machochism is not contradictory to an equal partnership with a woman, I believe.)

Post subject: Re: On Psychiatric Diagnoses PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 6:41 pm

Besides, this thread really relates to this:
The billowing "millions" of mentally ill people by diagnosis, but mentally healthy in the functional respects
(that is, there is no unifying guidelines to how the mental health industry is to behave, I reckon)
and this
The Philosophy of Psychiatry edited by Jennifer Radden,
http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780195313277.do?keyword=jennifer+radden&sortby=bestMatches
It says in the review of Psychiatry in the Scientific Image by Dominic Murphy in BJPS, Vol. 60, nr. 3, 2009, p. 676, that "(5) Finally, Chapters 9 and 10 reach the book's goal with an account of Murphy's vision of a future etiology-based classification in psychiatry." While the author speaks much about biology and neuroscience (by concrete traces in the brain), I think it may be rewarding to also, or by higher priority, look to patterns of thinking to causes of insanity. This means in actual terms that a kind of "psychology of moralism/ethics" lies as the foundation for how one may develop paths of pathologies, even outside the usual psychiatric spectrum. As I've written then, if you go outside the normative ethics, strange stuff can happen to your life and that this is the start of such a line, but also made objective by the metabolism test of the blood.
The last I've read about psychiatry is that one is unclear, in terms of phil. of science, what is actually in the medical discipline of psychiatry and that this topic is meant to address this.
[Edit:] ...by diagnosis... Sorry.
[Edit2:] Added a few words from BJPS, Vol. 60, nr. 3, 2009. Psychiatry in the Scientific Image by Dominic Murphy

Post subject: Re: A "cute" (NO!!!!) little notice on Google-> PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 11:07 am

I have some good news people!!!
Here is the list of search engines around the world: http://www.thesearchenginelist.com/.
What is so striking about it now, is that the list has grown enormously!!!!!!
So for world democracy, I recommend:
http://eu.ixquick.com/uk/
http://www.metacrawler.com/
http://www.exlibrisgroup.com/category/MetaLibOverview
http://www.info.com/
These are only a few! The conclusion is clear: F*ck the idiots!!! (And to the extent that USA is subversive to the world, f*ck USA as well, with the menace of the way they are doing business on a multi-level, i.e., by use of various and all sorts of business "methods", not always legal (by understatement), I suspect!!!)
Yes, Google is not the world's Jesus Christ! That is, Google is not the salvation for the world (alone)!!!
[Edit:] PS: Another list of search engines that you may want to follow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines! It has all the categories! It's very nice!

Post subject: Re: ENGLAND'S PRIDE PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 6:54 am

First of all, it's worth noting that multiculturalism has brought us closer as a human kind globally than ever before! As such, I find it hard to "refute" or discredit! No, I say "multiculturalism forever!"

Post subject: Notice on Facebook/Google/Yahoo by Wikileaks PostPosted: Wed May 04, 2011 3:04 pm

I just like to give you the notice on how powerful the idiot USA can get in building power over people everywhere.
CIA is especially mentioned.
http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2011/05/02/wikileaks-founder-facebook-is-the-most-appalling-spy-machine-that-has-ever-been-invented/
So, make no mistake about it, please! Again, I support Wikileaks (by Assange) in their assertions in the above interview that you can download. It may very well be that some of these aspects should face harder legislation on privacy issues in the World (exc. USA)!!!
I must also say that these notions run very well with my own growing scepticism of USA and what a "monster" that may hide inside there. [Links?]
Not that I recommend people to quit using Facebook, but I encourage people, especially outside USA, to be careful with the information they put in there!

Post subject: Informally, U.S. Americans and Nuclear War! PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:28 pm

I want to speculate on the reason why U.S. Americans never really can press the "Nuke the World"-button!
First of all, would the U.S. Americans be able to live with the controversy aftermath considering their very mixed society/societies, with all the ethnicities?
Secondly, are U.S. Americans now dependent on the good "energies" of foreigners now to sustain themselves?
Thirdly, there would be vast environmental impacts and would USA be able to live with this in retrospect? The full nuclear holocaust would destroy vast areas of surface terrain on land and would destroy a vast number of species in addition to the humans.
So I bet that the U.S. Americans are playing with the button in the sense that the great Atlantic and the Pacific will protect them from any aftermath effects and that they are self-sufficient with food capacities and most other minerals and mines and what have you. In theory, there might be a chance then "to create a self-delusion" to self-justify the nuclear destruction to the rest of the world, pending South America in consideration, i.e., how much of our Southies to preserve?
This is of course not entirely serious. I just want to entertain the thought with you and inform people of this notion.
I must also say that this is probably the most cynical thought you may ever get from the U.S. Americans!!! If this thought is utterly removed, the world will have nudged forward a little toward (emotional) world peace (in everyone).

Post subject: Re: On Operating Systems and Processors Competition PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 12:50 am

I can only point to the high seas of the currencies before the Euro entered on how we should proceed.
Before, we were easily at war with one another, but now we have grown into a more coherent whole and I think we should continue this. As such, we leave room to one another to take charge of one's space, the state/nation, while thinking of keeping together region-wise, EU/Europe, and to progress the democratic development of the world as well.
I even think we have the virtues to do better in this than USA despite their smiles and hovering.
So it's just this: keep the history of the currencies fresh and I think you'll get the point. It's not so easy to answer now to 501 million in that downward manner as it used to be when talking to each nation/state on their own. Also, the other good European countries now enjoy the fortunate shade of the big brother EU to the same effect.
Conclusion: Europe is now a collected head with a path to the future going straight ahead!!!

Post subject: Re: Denoting These "Americans"! PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:53 am

Some more on "race" or "skin colour":
"Brown" people, "am I eating cocoa in my sleep, daddy, so that I'm brown?" or "am I brown because I'm like poo, daddy?"
"Yellow" people, "am I eating too much oranges, daddy?" or "am I yellow because yellow is my favourite colour, daddy, or all of us Asians?"
No you, good people, it's just the sun tan and the life pattern of your family tree down the generations! Look to Japan and ask of their Southies as opposed to their Northies and I think you'll see differences.
Heck, even compare the "brown" Spaniards and Italians and compare them with the "white" Scandinavians! So are we Scandinavians in love with vanilla ice cream. No, of course not!
Just take the relative sun tan and the life pattern of your family tree down the generations and combine it with your life pattern now (outdoor life, beaches, agricultural work, work in the sun) and other factors, like the personal aesthetics of epi-genetics and possibly diet. Then you have it! This is your skin colour now! Great or what?
I've been sharing these thoughts with a number of people for quite a while and some good descriptions are probably underway in this respect!

Post subject: Re: That's Why I Love Mankind... PostPosted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 7:17 am

I note that this thread [has been placed] in the Religion section because I too love the people who aspire to go "to Heaven"!
(Or perhaps you're being ironic about it.)
At least, there are reasons to be worried over mankind/humanity too. Recently, the Hyena-theory has been launched by a psychologist as a kind of justification for who "we are", i.e., all the Ted Bundys and the rest, that is, random/ignorant humanistic conduct.
I for one see massive corruption, a constant fight for even speaking against a constant world slavery/poverty, common place crime, heck even the conflict in Afghanistan seems to preserve the drugs-argument, i.e., the drugs should run free.
To this, the top characteristic of humanity, rationality/intelligence, has failed! I sometimes think even the animals would shake their heads over us! Addressing the best of society, wherever it is, has become a demonstration of power and a type of cronyism/despotism.
Conclusion, one can surely "head for Heaven with a good heart and peace in mind" because most of today's humanity seems destined "for Hell"!
[Edit:] Added rationality/intelligence and I also think it's given that ethical sense derives of this, but this is an implicit point that I don't bother to add in the plain text. [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Over the Business Section of the BBC World PostPosted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:40 am

I know, but we can to greater degrees become more used to translation tools for our software!
Thus, very ignorant to the U.S. Americans, normatively probably, we should have guidelines on how to make translation available in all software (where useful) and perhaps to greater extents use translators by mobile phones as a household item, especially for people who may have interests to that end. We should also work toward lowering the threshold of making contact through these translation tools!
Conclusion: we need to overcome obstacles of getting in contact with one another over language differences by the use of technology! F.x.: Germans should travel more to France and make use of these translation tools to the French and the French should be smiling to the well-meaning German to this end. Even the Greek on the fine sun spots for summer holidays should become attractive language wise! We should get out more and meet one another, by use of technology!
Our aim should be to unite our "Oregon" with our "Texas" and "Florida", i.e., Greece, Sweden and Britain/England together or Bulgaria, Finland and France! Not that they are apart, but I'd like people to view these countries closer together than I think they are viewed today!

Post subject: Re: On the Definition of a Black Hole PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:23 pm

My answer is that Black Holes are sufficiently defined (by their "circles", where the Black Holes start to be black, the rims of them) to consider them defined (as opposed to tacky).
This is in relation to an ongoing discussion that has encumbered my brain for a while now. I'm not sure what the latest is from the Physicists.
The importance of this discussion hinges on what the nature of Black Holes is and thus how this nature has implication on a tacky or defined edge! So the nature of the edge of a Black Hole is really a discussion of the nature of the Black Hole.
(Just this notice. I've also edited this writing once now, 21.04.2011.)

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 12:23 am UTC + 1 hour

I'm only interested in giving "telepathy" a representation in physics insofar as it exists. Its existence will not be discussed in this topic by myself, at least!
Either way, your reply reminds me of this by Bladerunner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiuAI-GuOOc
By Bladerunner, it says:
Replicant: Tortoise? What's that?
Mr. Holden: You know what a turtle is?
Replicant: Of course!
Mr. Holden: Same thing!
Replicant: I've never seen a turtle!
By Bladerunner [further in by the scene], it says:
Mr Holden: But it can't! Not without your help! But you're not helping!
Replicant: What do you mean I'm not helping?
Mr. Holden: I mean you're not helping!
It's somewhat similar with telepathy, if you're not interested in being open towards it, I couldn't give a damn! I'm not some telepathy-evangelist, hammering telepathy into people's minds! No, I'm all ignorant about it except for bringing out information that may bring telepathy to a greater range/number of people and in turn increase their own joy of life! If you don't care, so be it! It's that simple!!!
It's somewhat similar with telepathy, if you're not interested in being open towards it, I couldn't give a damn! I'm not some telepathy-evangelist, hammering telepathy into people's minds! No, I'm all ignorant about it except for bringing out information that may bring telepathy to a greater range/number of people and in turn increase their own joy of life! If you don't care, so be it! It's that simple!!!
If you master/know about telepathy, then implicitly, you do understand more to your life than before and even so, your consciousness has increased because you know about it. I also hold that your rationality has increased because you remove all those subtle signals that you now are aware of! In fact, I think you've become a better human!
[Edit, 04.05.2011:] Added some extra lines from the Bladerunner movie in this interview situation! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:20 am

Just a note, people. There is indeed a common explanation in physics that can be used in this relation and it's called Twin Spin. I don't know where it's from or what evidence/experiments that are underlying this term. You can search a little too if you want.
I think it goes: let's say a person somehow sends one's thoughts through the air/space (by particles/photons or such) and these carry with them "signals" that are transferred to particles such that telepathy obtains and these particles display thus this "twin spin"! Good?
I hope you like this little addition. I must say that "twin spin" has been out in the world of physics for quite a while now (10 -15 year?) and that I'm not attempting to write something new. "Twin Spin" is not my invention!

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:45 am

Just because some people support the short-sight doesn't mean that this topic has been successfully discussed, the case of telepathy.
Just as me, you haven't made much academic references yourself.
I don't blame you (the repliers to this topic) for this, but it doesn't make your case stronger either.
Conclusion: I recognise that I've been airing some views on the physics foundation of telepathy in terms of serious reductionism that I really believe in. I also see that more literature-research is to necessary to determine the most plausible argument of this telepathy phenomenon. As such, I deem this CASE still OPEN!!! I probably won't add more to this topic, but you are, of course, welcome to add the whole world to this topic if you want to!
To your help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_investigation_of_telepathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment
http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/science/06esp.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=esp&st=cse
By NYTimes, quote:
"One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense future events."
"The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000 subjects."
My underlining.
Thus, Daryl J. Bem, Cornell University is the man to look up for. I stick with him as I find it definite too or "statistically significant" as it's otherwise expressed!

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:11 am

First of all, people should cite properly! And the same people should credits (that we know of) to deem significant research vs. insignificant research (to which I favour prof. Bem's judgment)!!!
Moreover, such an off-hand remark over the "thousands of failed experiments" carries no weight as 1. they are not referenced and 2. they are taken out of thin air where they are uttered by people who have no literature study to show for!
Otherwise, all I've been saying is that this case is still open to which I lay down these links (see above).

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:35 pm

Let me add another point.
Just because people have had "farm machines" and use these to prove that the Neutron exists and they've failed at it many thousands of times, doesn't mean that the Neutron doesn't exist because it does exist! And it has been proven by people who used the proper equipment and apparatus. So number is not equal to authority or truth value as in number of experiments or so.
[Edit2:] I've forgotten to mention that it has been published in a renowned journal which may indicate a certain prestige or weight of both the professor and this particular kind of research. [End of edit.]
[Edit:] A little thing. An analogy may be that some people who have invested time and serious interest and found telepathy are matched with "morons" who are even refusing to see the possibility for it. It's hard, therefore, to show for anything else than correlation to these people who don't know. [End of edit.]
Point 2. I support James Randi and he's been effective in removing idiot science (thus pseudo-science) out of the serious picture. I also think that he has made a prize for a special kind of the ESP and that his description of a certain aspect of ESP doesn't really entail telepathy.

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:51 pm

[Edit:]
Also, you fail to recognise that there are 9, nine, different set-ups and you, by your mistake, reason consequently that the whole research is just crap despite the 10, ten, years of continuous efforts! Considering your sloppy approach, I don't think you need to investigate this further. No, leave it to able people, like prof. Bem!
Besides, I've noted before that I really support the best experiment (set-up) to determine Telepathy and this is to my knowledge the "ganzfeld experiment" set-up. Also, one may do well to separate initially those who are positive to such an experiment/phenomenon and those who are negative because the negative people do mostly represent a drag that's not useful!
[End of edit.]
But this doesn't take away my point, regardless!

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm

Some more on the telepathy issue:
First of all, I'd like to make the note that prof. Bem seems to have emphasised the harder parts of ESP and not the easier part that's telepathy. I find this dubious! Secondly, I think their data-set has been fixed so that 53% is 53% and not the much clearer rate with the much more able people of about 80%. People are thus inclined to think that this investigation by prof. Bem is only at this slim level. That the results are not significant when it can easily show that actually are by making a clearer correlation by the more able people!!!
I also happen to believe that USA thinks of telepathy as "high" (or "highest" by word of a woman in USA) as in having a high standing, you know, as skill or importance of a mindful faculty. It's therefore my "damn" recommendation that the rest of the world comes to grips with this and makes it "high" in their society as well. I easily think that the schizophrenic's story of being possessed with a person can be transferred to being a kind of political science where USA more or less regulates the world based on personality type put into a larger system of parts to play in dominating the world. That is, the subversive types to operate against all foreign issues and the constructive types to work on domestic issues. I loathe to sound like this theorist of conspiracy, but this is actually a story!!! Your ignorance to telepathy may get costly!!!
I think also that prof. Bem knows that projecting faculties of the mind can more easily cause anxiety and chaos rather than the more pleasant telepathy, that when privacy is maintained, it creates a very positive role in people's lives in that it reinforces people's connections and makes life seem more lively and colourful! So in reading about this future event reading, take a step back, and rather pursue telepathy first since it's more basic in my opinion.
1. conclusion: I think prof. Bem has made a deliberately "weak" case for himself and that there is more in this than commoners know. I also think he's been dishonest in keeping telepathy back-hand, a kind of sleight of hand trick to the world, a statement, perhaps. Beware of this, please! And I can only recommend the thoroughest evaluation of his research, including definite knowledge of the underlying data and all else!!!
[Edit:] I also like to add that I suspect that USA has been going at this for 150 years or so and enabling this special view to the rest of the world, setting up a kind of political science of control! The rest is for you to discover! [End of edit.]
[Edit2:] In an old writing from 2004 (the old forum), I've connected projecting faculties of the mind with reports I've read on the amagdyla and it's role in this. You may want to add this to your inquiry! The amagdyla from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala! I'll try to locate it even! :-) [End of edit.]
Good? Cheers! :)
[Edit, 30.04.2011:] I've added a small note on "highest". [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: A Possible Explanation to the Phenomenon of "Telepathy" PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:07 pm

Aetixintro by the old Philosophy Now forum writes:
"Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: is telepathy possible?"
"Hi
I would like to defend the position that Telepathy exists.
First, the existence of telepathy in science is based on particle physics, namely quantum mechanics and the phenomenon of twin particles. Instances where 2 particles have the same condition or the same spin of up to great distances apart.
Secondly, it is referred to the Amygdala-area in the brain where a plain scientific test pinpointed the active braincells while in 'telepathic' state or where the subject is experiencing telepathy.
Thirdly, telepathic witnesses to crimes have been used with great success in aiding the police detectives. An experienced police-detective said he would not hesitate to recommend psychics in aiding the police to solve serious crime. There are plenty of the series, just watch Discovery Channel.
Fourthly, telepathy has been connected to the ability to foresee events. That is when one is thinking of the future, the ability is somewhat similar to projecting what is going to happen. Same again with amygdala-related tasks.
Fifthly, I recall something from the BBC News just recently where one is to review the position one has on people hearing voices, not only those mentally ill. This is all I have to say for now. Science will probably teach us all what there is to it in some time, but for now I believe in telepathy and many with me."

Post subject: Re: Law-enforcing buddies or plain bullies? PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:37 pm

At least, I add my voice to this topic because something is totally out of line! I think this applies to Police around the world and that the world is quite crazy... :-|
I wonder what makes Police so "above" the rest of society beyond their own salary! They have indeed accepted the "package" that comes with police work and they have a duty to comply with job requirements and generally show good behaviour toward society even outside of work! (This used to be an addition to the perpetrator (of former Police force) from the Judge some time ago.)
From their own psychology: it may be useful to see the Police enforcers as "Kings [and Queens] (of metal) of Society"! They are "that good"! :)
Just a tip: approach the Police with scepticism and and be hard on "routines" and "safety measures" in case something abrupt is to happen. Also, I think it's a duty (to society) to file a complaint if there is such grounding. Stay alert, people!

Post subject: Re: The third side of the abortion issue. PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:56 pm

You don't mention the likely cognition of this dead fetus. A fetus of 4.5 (4 and a half) months has a memory of less than a minute, I think, and the emotional maturity of 0, that is, ZERO! The fetus has no clue of what is going on and is merely "set-up" by automatic responses, by automatic bio-feedback. So to "abort" such a fetus by bringing it into a separate room, into a decapitation machine of kind that grinds it after it has become two parts and flushes it to the special waste container should not be a problem!

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:36 pm

My theory is that the (standard object by 1 kg of) iron will as you say, very correctly radiate infra-red waves and thus release photons of this kind in return, but that's only half the story. You can measure this by several detectors. One (set of) detector(s) that can give a number on "escaped" photons. One ampere-meter that keeps track on electricity to fuel the light source onto the iron of ours. Iron in vacuumed chamber, vacuumed chamber measured before and after the iron is inserted, in its vacuumed state. Also, a dark room/chamber should be used to this end, containing the experiement, i.e., making up the laboratory. Once the experiment is set, you can instrument it so that no "idiot" needs to enter the room. Everything is set up so that the data from the experiment is transferred to a computer somewhere else.
I guess this goes for description nr. 2.

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:41 am

I think my new concept lies first and foremost in description. How one wants to balance out the numbers of strong/weak interactions for making a credible calculation of the new "gravity" is of less importance I think, because the world stays the same and gravity also stays the same, at appx. g=9,81 m/s^2. The job is how one can match these numbers and appear credible while doing so!
Published? I guess you mean Nature or something. No, not anytime soon! You should, though, note that it's already published by myself and thus is regulated under intellectual property!

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:15 pm

If I'm able to formulate laws of nature expressed in formulas? YES!
Clearly, the convention of physics says 4 forces of nature: Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electro-Magnetism and Gravity.
I say: Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electro-Magnetism and by either or combination of Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction implies "Gravity". So gravity goes out as an own concept and is, by myself at least, only to be known in the future as a cascading effect of either or combination of Strong Interaction and Weak Interaction!
You should note that in light of this view from Smolin, he is also saying that the road ahead should be supported by (empirical) evidence!

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:58 pm

Some more words on my "Opinions on Physics": My angle to solving or providing a better explanation of gravity can be considered Cascading Effects of Weak and Strong or either of them as purely magnetic force (thus constituting gravity) and holding off Electromagnetic force to itself (by the property of electrons and possibly others). I'm also to enter this into the OP.

Post subject: Re: Reason for ethical/moral behavior PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:36 pm

Let me insert, please, that John Nash's (non-) game theory that people who are in conflict are better off with working by themselves than taking part in game of every one type. Thus this is a kind of "in the interest of each person's end (and therefore not in conflict with one another).

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:49 am

Every measurement happens in the present, thus a neutron can't be measured "from the future". And as we measure, the very signal of this measurement still carries with it the present, even though you like to write "the past". Just this. I'm not interested in making points/"points" in this for the time being. (Also, partly, because of limited knowledge of (absurd) "thoughts"/thoughts on QM or what is the consensus or best view on QM now!

Post subject: Re: Opinions on Physics - Puzzles, mysteries, that sort... PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:35 am

Let me remind you that a point is indeed without extension no matter what. Indeed, per definition it is without any dimensions whatsoever!
Thus, as a point in time is "now", it's equally without any extension in the split/distinction between past and future! Conclusion: one is certain in saying that "now" is definitely without any possibility whatsoever! Try to contend me on this!

Post subject: Informally, Views on Lung Emphysema and Eye Sight Distortion PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:42 pm

Can it be (rather humourously): that Lung emphysema is caused by stress (possibly including other factors) and that reduction of eye-sight (away from 20/20 vision) is caused purely by bacteria in the eye-apples around the eye-lenses, the biological ones? That is, zapping bacteria in the eyes (with lasers) can restore eye-sight just as well as adjusting the eye-lenses themselves (with lasers). What do you think?
I'm just airing some ideas here. Don't shoot me for them and they are not entirely seriously put forward by myself.

Post subject: Re: Japan PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:30 pm

I have two new inquiries today: what happens when you "pull" out a rod/radioactive material out of the "bath"? And to what degree can the container room/vessel room take any increased heat in case there is such heat from pulling out the radioactive material? Any operating manual, anyone, please? It may be that one may have just switched of the electrical power to the reactors, emptying the "baths"/vessels and let the vessels take the (rel. little) heat from this process, even enduring the "remains" to meltdown on the bottom of the vessels. That is, if such a "small" meltdown, having no (major) reaction possibility, can be endured, that is off with the tops and in with new vessels after having been "used" for one "controlled" meltdown. What do you think?
Hence shutdowns/"controlled" meltdowns in the event of the Kobe quake or any such thereof. Investigate? Yes! I'm now also waiting for the aftermath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_earthquake

Post subject: Re: Japan PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:29 am

Apart from the crisis as such and rather a nuclear technology question: does anyone know whether it's right to lift the radioactive material out of the water or if it's the right thing to submerge the radioactive material with water/seawater? I may think they may be doing the wrong thing, that the right procedure is to get the rods/radioactive material out of water, either carefully one "section" at the time or several at once! What do you think? (Are the Japanese technicians out of their minds?) (Not that I accuse them as such.) It turns out the Japanese have been following conventional emergency procedures in this crisis with these nuclear reactors which is good. I suspect that Nuclear Power as such has proven a decent face despite being hit hard by disaster of a major tsunami by an 8,9 Richter's earthquake outside the coast of Japan.
[Edit:] This is in context with a Discovery documentary on Chernobyl and this information from Japan that they flood the rods with water/seawater. Should the future rather be Pellet-nuclear reactors for nuclear power? I also like to remind people that France hasn't had a single severe accident with their nuclear power plants. Analogy: Norway hasn't had a single (very) severe oil related accident despite its off-shore technology and in contrast to the recent BP disaster in The Gulf of Mexico. Finally, it may also be that the Japanese technicians want to burn out the radioactive fuel left in the reactors possibly being also a kind of a rational procedure in the face of immediate disaster, left with no other good alternatives... Concerning "pellet based nuclear power", South Africa has two of this type!
(You can perhaps consider the Alexander Kielland disaster, but this was a construction failure, not an operating failure.)
(You can also include the Bravo blowout on the Ekofisk complex by Phillips Petroleum, but this was in the 70s (1977) and not within the latest 30 years when industry standards have been firmly laid down.)
[Edit2, 15.03.2011:]
Japanese legal level of radiation: 0,5 Sv (1 Sv causes nausea) On radiation SI-units again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSv.
I realise that the method of the Japanese at the Fukushima plant has been named "Feed and Bleed" by some of the media! [End of edit.]
[Edit, 15.03.2011:] I withdraw on every allegation of Japanese "insanity" with the nuclear plant operators. They've been doing well!
[Edit3, 15.03.2011:] Added note on the Bravo blowout in 1977.

Post subject: Re: Japan PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:33 pm

I think indeed that Chernobyl is the worst that has the possibility to happen and that we are now seeing nuclear power plants that has a much more efficient safety/security policy and that the amounts of radioactive material (beyond what is merely present in the reactors) is nicely controlled so that it has little or NO chance to contribute to any meltdown! Thus Geenpeace nuclear power paranoia is thwarted for all future to come!
[Edit, unsp.:] It should also be noted that I have information from a VERY informing Discovery documentary of the Chernobyl accident some time ago. I've also seen other documentaries both before and after, but with higher "emotional" content!
[Edit2, unsp.:] I've added "...(beyond what is...)..." for separating reactive content in direct danger and the reactive content in indirect danger, but possibly contributing to any meltdown.

Post subject: Against "The Best is Not Consistent With Good (Only)" PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:50 am

I'm going to write against the notion of this: "The Best is Not Consistent With Good (Only)". I think it stems from French that says: "le meilleur n'est pas compatible avec le bon" - please correct me if I'm wrong!

Post subject: Re: The EU is still a US-vassal PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:27 am

I just want to vote for the good intention of this thread because I also think that USA isn't so silent/nice that it pretends to be and in case they want some information they should damn well say why they want it. F.x. if they call a bank to ask for information, they should supply a GOOD reason for this otherwise Europeans are sitting ducks for some paid thugs hired by Facebook (just a hypothetical example) to make Hell out of the lives of good Europeans who plan to compete with Facebook (in this example) when they are indeed transferring money to and from investors and venture capitalists. I'd like to warn people, though, that one should keep this information loosely in the back of the head, otherwise Paranoia is going to take over your life in terms of, at least, time consumption and energy drain (from worries)!
[Edit:] Please take note of the Fortune's Richest People list. Europe has its share for sure.
http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires. It seems to have been published 9th March, yesterday that is, for 2011. [End of edit.]

Post subject: SCANDAL: Theory of St. Magnus' "Androids" PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:28 pm

Hear this! Hear this! Hear this! Hear this!
Has St. Albert Magnus by his "observations"/"experiments" of Androids (would they be little abused kids, predominently (choir) boys?) become ravingly mad? What was it about? What is the etymology behind St. Albert Magnus' Androids?
It's my theory that his descriptions concerning Androids were banned by the Catholic church because they were indeed ravingly mad and that the church is hiding them in the basement of the Vatican where the corruption continues to permeate Christianity!!! This can only be SCANDAL and is last signalised by the abrupt and deeply immoral behaviour by the Catholic priests when they abused "our" fine little (choir) boys!!! :tears: :tears: :tears: :cry: :cry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albertus_Magnus!!!
Now! Hear this too! It reads: Albertus is frequently mentioned by Dante, who made his doctrine of free will the basis of his ethical system. In his Divine Comedy, Dante places Albertus with his pupil Thomas Aquinas among the great lovers of wisdom (Spiriti Sapienti) in the Heaven of the Sun. Albertus is also mentioned, along with Agrippa and Paracelsus, in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, where his writings serve as an influence to a young Victor Frankenstein.
Can you believe it??? He is cited in the most abysmal work of horror of all time, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein!!! There is only one thing to say!!! Catholic church! I hereby call for world wide cleansing of the (Catholic) souls and for a NEW, great inquisition to take place!!! You know what needs to be done! God's ways are unmistakeable! I also (unfortunately) need to point out that the inquisition is "confined" by modern laws and needs to comply with them... Hint, hint, hint...
Uggghhh... scary... eh... cheers!

Post subject: Re: what about Ether? PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:00 pm

And it is also my point that gravity of the Earth by its magnetic field can be redefined as either a combination of strong and weak interactions/forces or either of them. To say Earth's gravity or Earth's gravity field or the magnetic gravity field of the Earth is only a matter of convention. How nice to make the magnetism of the Earth stand out, i_blame_blame, other than that, you're not doing anything else than reiterating my point, that Graviton is virtually dead and that a possible solution can be found in the redefinition.
[Edit:] You can consider Earth's gravity vs. the Sun's gravity that has no clearly defined north and south pole, I think. The Sun's magnetic field of gravity is quite hazy! [End of edit.]
[Edit2:] Added the missing "interactions/forces". [End of edit.]
[Edit3:] The point for me is to bridge gravity of the Sun to the gravity of the Earth to magnetism in general, even the little magnets on the fridge. In doing so, I envision how easy it should be to come up with a number for the magnetic force that is required for bending the light, that this is really only a matter of public education. You know, even NASA spells it out that bending the light by electro-magnets is impossible because photons have no charge. This must obviously be WRONG!!! [End of edit.]

Post subject: Re: Why we can not see the future? PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 9:55 pm

"Why we can (possibly) see the future?" By the projecting faculties of the mind in the mind AND not on the sky! Just the suggestion.

Post subject: Suggestion: (The Making of) The Carthage Connection! PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:51 am

I hereby suggest that we (in Europe) should reinvigorate Carthage as a city of the kind of Las Vegas and make it also to be the business promotion site and portal for European-African connections (of mostly business importance)!
I think such a project may be able to hold many good virtues! Let's do it!

Post subject: About the 3 Volumes of "Moral Psychology" by W. S.-A. PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:11 am

I have bought the 3 volumes work by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and I'd like to review it in some time to come!
However, there appears to be a deficiency in it:
when you are to inquire about morality of people, you don't need to put on the table very complex questionnaires. No, you only need to check for the (objective) simple rule-following of the type of (Neo-)Kantianism. And there is no need to adjust the inquiry to each one person. No, you put the same thing to everybody. This may get lost when you begin to read Moral Psychology that's edited by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
All in all, moral inquiry and moral psychology testing is about testing a person's views in relation to duties and rule-following.
A small note (of no particular importance): I have a feeling that the U.S. Americans are holding back on some of their best views when they are to put their views out to the world, although I'm not willing to stand by this or that "conspiracy" theory in this regard.
(There should be no need to emphasise research ethics and private people's rights, regardless of ethics or not!)

Post subject: On Einstein's "Only two things are infinite, the universe... PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:11 pm

Einstein is reported to have uttered or written that "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" and in case humanity is really stupid, i.e., becomes or is dominantly characterised than I'd like to write:
"If humanity proves to be stupid then I hope for humanity to be stupid in final terms, that is, thus providing hope and ethical character in opposition to the darkest statement I've seen, that is, this statement from Einstein. For humanity to be stupid like that and possibly to spread like virus is indeed the deepest and darkest possibility there is for human kind!"
I'd also like to throw in another quote from Einstein that should be very useful for those who wish to preserve their own chances of intelligence:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein

Post subject: Curriculum/recommended reading of Philosophy PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:23 pm

Half the expertise of philosophy (and the Ivy League) lies in guidance and enabling the students to become masters in their field. A key part of this is the curriculum. I present here some good advise on Philosophy books to read from the University of Oslo and I hope you can add others. Perhaps you like to comment on them as well. It follows:
Metaphysics and Philosophy of Mind: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1001/v11/pensumliste.xml
Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1002/h10/pensumliste.xml
Ethics: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1003/v11/pensumliste.xml
Logics and Philosophy of Language: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1004/v11/pensumliste.xml
History of Philosophy: http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ifikk/FIL1005/h10/pensumliste.xml
Don't be scared if you find Norwegian terms and words there and you can always use Google Translation, please.
The books are largely listed in English. This list is for the basics as noted by lower numbers, i.e., 1xxx rather than 2xxx or 3xxxx and so on. Enjoy! I'll add more later!

Post subject: Re: Can Planned Parenthood be Trusted? PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:24 pm

Well, I think it can. There's a difference in killing a newborn (9 months old) child vs. killing the infant of only 4 (preferably, or less) months. I also think the emotional impact is smaller the younger the infant is (0 months vs. 7 months, by the extreme).
So I have this question for you: can you provide the "age" of the infant at the time the abortion took place and can you also note if chemical abortion was used, please? Can you also supply the age of the people who took abortion (from your data-set), please? There is a definite down-side by not choosing abortion and it stems from social conditions, your own child may even choose suicide which may become hard to swallow for some. I've read about 5 year olds who have committed suicide! Don't you contemplate this?

Post subject: Re: Good and evil PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:58 am

It's about moral character! You don't need the threat of punishment to choose good. You do it out of the inherent benefits, like a fluent and happy society where people thrive and make the world better.
However, if it's a point to make it clear, there is no direct, opposite explanation. To bend/give way for the evil/bad/ethically devious can never be justified ethically. You have no ethical alternative than to suffer it and have the respect for choosing to do so. Thus, hopefully, your suffering will be revered by your contemporaries and the future, very honourably, some will say!

Post subject: Re: Is Violence Against Women Wrong But O.K. Against Men? PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:27 am

I just like to support this topic and the author [Frank G. Sterle, Jr.] of it!
There is today a quite dangerous environment in the face of corruption and the rest, that leaves much weight on the men in facing various threats and being the armor of the family. Men are also most likely to enter the physical fights in light of these deficiencies (of the democracy), thus as a man you can expect to begin that weightlifting as soon as possible, probably from 14 or 15 yo. So indeed, there are more blows hitting the armor today and you, as a man, are expected to deal with it which you have to!
It's incredible! It feels like we live in the 21st century technology-wise, yet with the morality of 0 CE, the morality of the original man, summa summarum, society today.
As I say today, informally and cheeky, of my nation today, that it's despotic with a skin of democracy. This can get more real than you like when you enter that strange door of society where a man stands in the skin of another, rather bloody!
Eh... cheers...

Post subject: Re: How Can We Prove That Objects Are Not Conscious? PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:03 am

Consciousness is usually associated with organisms that have brains and even these are limited. We remain with the consciousness of people as sufficiently advanced to make meaning to us, unless you're this professional who is studying animals (with brains) and infer from their behaviour what they are thinking.
Now, possibly, enter some kind of telepathic connection (you can call it quantum entanglement or contextualism) then, possibly, enters the condition that you might/may "get some thoughts" from your interaction with stuff in nature that is not normally associated with consciousness, i.e., the planet, plants, trees, afar animals including sea-life and what have you. I must emphasise, though, that it is up to you to make sense of it and I don't guarantee a thing in this regard!

Post subject: Re: Government, Democracy, and Multicultural States PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:38 am

I agree with the OP to this extent: I think a confederation may be good too, in addition to a federation. Note that we also have a wide variety of international and bilateral agreements in place and that these to some extent remove the (definite) need for confederation or federation, please. Though, I wonder to what degree UN can play this unifying role to such an end. I'd also like to make the remark that ILO (Intern. Labour Org.) seems to be organised under the UN umbrella which I find to be almost "romantic".

Post subject: Terry Duffy and Olivier de Schutter on Global Food Prices PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:18 am

Funnily enough, Hardtalk and BBC manage to send this program again despite having broadcasted it some time ago (months?).
As much one likes to discuss food prices and speculation and possible corruption within the WFP (World Food Programme), I'd also like to point the constant need for making contraception (esp. contraception pills) available to the African population so that Africans don't need to feel over having a sex-life and also facing the fact of 7 children in crises ridden Chad, fx., like in a report I've seen. This concerns especially famines, of course.
So why is this? Why this constant haggle over the insignificant while no movement on the large issue of world-population?
You do indeed get richer if you get fewer, in some terms, especially per capita economy, that is, it leaves room for people, it increases the manpower demand, it divides more resources to each person and lastly, the infamous unemployment can become an unimportant question where one doesn't, anymore, bother to discuss money to the unemployed and how much one should be compensated for being unemployed.

Post subject: Remark on the Structure of Political Science PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:43 am

To me it seems that political science starts out broadly with learning all the political mechanisms and from there it's more or less descriptive until you arrive at the top where is only one argument left, the gun! This is the argument you can't refuse as the mob-soldiers say!
With the classical notions of science, one starts carefully with a simplified picture of science and ends in very complex apparatuses and theories.
Thus the (crudely) pyramids are reversed in relation to one another for the natural sciences as opposed to the political sciences!
[Edit, 14.02.2011:] I can, I guess, add that politics by and large builds on ethics, thoughts I possibly share with many other people. That is, out of the fundamentals of setting the morals straight by a set of rules, fx. by the 10 commandments, you begin a community, but when we are here now this may be lost out of sight as we have developed from this little, "crude" set of rules to a certain book of national laws/legislation (in Norway: Norges Lover, a red book of 800(?) pages or so, quite thick, containing both the constitution, i.e., the electives should be this and that and elected by the people so and so and by the (formally) King's approval, and then the actual laws follow). So this is it: politics is hinged on ethics (you can check with Habermas on this, keywords, symmetry, dialogue, understanding) and this can, possibly, yet not by any means by common understanding, be drawn down to my description of schizophrenia that may lead one to believe that ethics, incredibly enough, is part of nature on a fundamental level, i.e., as much as gravity, mass and time and space. Believe it or not! [End of edit.]

Post subject: 4 U.S. American Authors I'd Like to Mention PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:25 am

I'm just very impressed by the consistent performance of writers like these 4:
Stephen King
Tom Clancy
John Grisham
William Gibson
(you can possibly add Dan Brown)
We have, of course, Joanne "Jo" "K." Rowling, the star on the European Heavens (among others, but most prominently for the time being).
These have at least inspired me greatly by popularising writing and fiction in the "young" sense, i.e., providing entertainment and thoughts as reflections of our human nature. That is, as fears from Stephen King or conspiracy from John Grisham.
I write "young", because it's not necessarily the very quality you find with the Nobel laureates, but rather explicating ideas and making great scenarios. Thus, they are mentioned for this: popularising writing (making it accessible) and making PROFITS from it (making the career of being an author attractive).
Also, this topic hasn't been made for its philosophical value, although it should be possible for talented philosophers to become widely read authors as well.

Post subject: Re: Is the Universe rotating??? PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:52 pm

I think one can clearly answer "NO!" to this question simply because one fails to give a credible account on how or why the Universe should be rotating with respect to physical forces (i.e., following Newton's laws, for instance, for these laws).
Another question arises: are some of the "objects"/clusters of galaxies rotating relatively to others? This is a harder question where, also, the appropriate and effecting physical forces need to be accounted for (i.e., remnants of super-nova explosions such and such a way for instance).
Thus the exciting new enterprise arises: how to fix the objects of the Universe onto a determinate "map"? That is, how are the objects of (outer) space relating to one another with the appropriate forces described? Now, this is probably already set, but it's not so clear on how the changes take place or that, if any, are reported to a satisfying degree by the current astronomers and the current astronomy!

Post subject: Re: abortion crime PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:32 pm

I think it's fair to say that abortion and all other means for not giving child births have removed some of the pressure on population overall and that giving birth now more or less follows the will of the mother (possibly also the father) and I think this in turn makes the (plausible) case for less crime since the (unwise) teenage mothers necessarily come down in numbers and that one looks to the population and finds it reasonable to have only two children rather than five.
A forced sex-with-child, i.e., sex necessarily implies giving birth to one or more children after, this pattern recurring, (and 5 more to this as an example) spurring uncontrolled population growth would surely see a world in chaos and with human values at stake as a consequence (because of all the conflicts over resources and the necessary declines and arises in population numbers).
PS: Remember that chemical abortions are available.

Post subject: Re: Death , Reason, and the afterlife PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:16 pm

Why should afterlife require God as the (estranged) Other? Why can't one just as easily see God as possibly the source of previous lives, temporary stop in Heaven, this life, temporary stop in Heaven, the future life and so on?
I stand critical to a God given a negative sense or relation. Why should the world have fallen (implying a faulty God)? Why can't it just be considered the test of character and the following determination of reward in Heaven or punishment in Hell?
I'm also (along with you probably) wondering a bit about this discrepancy between being a well-off business person in the civilised world and the African (just as an example from the World today) child who dies after hardship of famine and disease only to see the 8th birthday. My conclusion is this: the business person can more easily end up in "Hell" and suffer the punishment while the African child has no particular failed duties and dies in the grace of God and goes straight to "Heaven" (for simply being a good person and without being charitable to fulfilling a requirement to hear "God's word") where I see "Heaven" and "Hell" as two (entities/)conditions in a more lawful and natural sense without knowing or being able to describe exactly how this is supposed to follow.
My view from the conclusion has at least the Good God in it and doesn't necessarily see God as either "faulty" or "unjust"! Hardship just makes you earn your ticket to Heaven more easily and I think this is logical.

Post subject: Re: On Autism PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:49 am

I've been thinking about this myself and it's simply an anomaly to me as well. Genetic[/epigenetic disposition]? Genetic and environmental?
It's much easier to place DID, anorexia, bulimia and psychopathy on a spectrum roughly made up by the two main categories of Schizophrenia and Depression.
For you people to decide! But for the time being and with the mental health industry in the state that it's in, this mystery will endure for the next 200 years, I think, because it's not about medicine anymore, it's about social power and social scheming!

Post subject: Re: On Autism PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:47 am

To be honest, I think the doctors who are investigating it need to put on the table results of longitudinal investigations. That is, how the mental illness develops over the years. (Perhaps they have? Check it out.)
Secondly, I think they are a bit lousy on the description. I would have split the group into a kind of "traits" or common "properties".
Thirdly, how are they performing on the classic surveys and performance tests? What about the metabolism-results?
It may be a while longer until I buy a book on Autism, but seriousness is surely in demand if they are to get anywhere with it.
A parallel experience: I find out that there are hosts of unknown particles in Physics, yet you need to read a so-called advanced book by Penrose (Road to Reality) to find out. I think it's the same with this. There are just to many dishonest people around who don't care what it is as long as they have their "sh*ttyness" alive (and are staying in "power").

Post subject: Formally quenching Brains in Vats: Fallback to behind a... PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:18 am

Formally quenching Brains in Vats: Fallback to behind a veil/being a Brain in a Vat as a description for knowledge. Thus I have knowledge, at least subjective, as having these impressions of knowledge from within a Brain in a Vat, possibly along with other Brains in a Vat!

1 comment:

  1. It turns out The Scribblings File has produced 15 of these posts, thus nr. 1 is 1/15 and so on! Hold on to your hat and enjoy the reading/browsing if you like! Cheers! (Each post holds the equivalent of appx. 21 pages of a stnd. Word document except the last one that holds 25 pages equivalent. Good?)

    ReplyDelete