all those sources still require me to specify an executor. Now I know this is a very strange reason to have children, and probably it isnt a reason to have children or your own, but I would hope other people who feel the same way about the future of the world dont make the same mistake as me and get themselves involved somehow with a family who can help before they reach my age, and thats the only reason I bring it up.

well Im 60, lol, so adopting is not sensible, and I cant leave my estate to anyone because I cant find an attorney to make the trust. I tried churches, and they wouldnt reply to my requests for help either, and I tried finding college kids to finish helping through school, and they were unable to see their needs beyond next months bills so I rather had to give up. So it just goes to the state.

Im sorry this is a totally unrelated post, but on the question posed, I do have some personal experience to share. When I was a child in ther 1960s I was already very concerned about the environment before the whole global warming thing became fashionable, we had other names for it back then, but the projections convinced me the next 60 years or so are going to be very unpleasant and I chose not to have children.

While that was a sensible choice for them not to have been conceived, it appears now at least, it leaves me in the bizarre situation of having no family (all my family reached the same conclusion and are dead) and no one to inherit from me. This has become the biggest problem for me in my life, and I still dont have a resolution to it after years of trying to figure out what to do about it. Currently my life savings just default to whatever the state decides to do with them, I could find no better choice, because lawyers, on learning I have no blood heir, dont want to be responsible for managing my estate when I die. I didnt think this was going to be such a big problem, I thought, eventually I could find a lawyer, but aftertrying for a very long time, then covid happening and trying even harder, I still havent found one. It was rather unexpected.

well, there are people who believe it is comprehensible, but to me, I accept the limits of comprehension I am given and just think of it as a model which doesn't need to be 'visualized' per se, because its already exceeded our normal senses to say the present is the past in the first place lol. I dont think we have the ability to comprehend time and space as it really is, and trying to force fit it into something natural to our perception is a misguided effort. We can make mathematical models of the apparent observable world, some of which are easier to describe in terms accessible to us and some are not. There's no necessity that there should exist a better explanation in scientific terms.

That's the scientific model as it exists now. So I personally dont feel there is an explanation in our terms of Euclidean space as to what is actually happening, because it means, whatever direction we look as far as possible, we are seeing a small point.

I dont know about 'looking through itself' but at galactic scales we are 'looking into the past' as conventionally stated. It would be more accurate to say 'the past is the present' at greater distances. So if you look as far as possible in any direction, the past we see, which is the present to us, is the moments after the big bang.

Well thanks, I didnt really know anything about the 'neo Darwinists let alone the 'anti' ones. Im still on Mivart, lol.

That really freaked me out. I got a job after college drilling holes in animal brains and seeing how it changed their behavior. After a while I noticed their most frequent behavior when I was in the lab. Looking at me. After a while I got the screamy meamies like they did if I opened their cages.

Of course those experiments were in the cortex, and this is in the cerebellum for motor control but just being reminded of it still freaks me out.

hear hear )

they are equivalent transformations. In the case of changing the speed of light, calculus can easily create an imaginary term to make the speed of light change by a differentiation method. We can't assume such terms don't actually exist, even if the result appears to use to be constant as we choose to consider it, it's still only a property of a model with equivalent mathematical alternatives.

oh I better go do some other things anyway, good night, thanks for chat )

That's true. Epistemologically speaking, it is actually unknowable what the state of the coin is because we perceive light as a finite limiting factor. Putting aside debates of whether a being could actually have a better perception of time, it remains for us to resolve how to consider the state of the coin when the event has already occurred, but its state is unknowable.Late Wittgensteinians would hold the coin has no state until it is observed, because all that actually exists is the language we use to describe the world.

well the fact is, you've presented the dilemma in words that make it a very old act-utilitarian conflict that Putnam rephrased and generally get credit for these days, and it has been argued for hundreds of years.

In the 1800s it was phrased as a vigilante question that became popularly approved of after Clint Eastwood movies on the issue. What is the necessary threshold of another man's faults to warrant taking his life without government authority to do so? In this case, the fat man hardly jammed himself in the hole on purpose.

Without intent, most of the arguments against vigilantism apply with stronger force. The individual taking another's life assumes that events will transpire such that the person causing problems will not otherwise be taken care of by authorities, chance events, or as a direct consequence of his own actions.

That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations.

well, not considering the hope for rescue makes a fun discussion, but its also made at least one person write rather trite utilitarian arguments as to why one should murder, lol.

Most scientists said the same thing when Gamow proposed an alternative to the periodic table. Gamow have a very hard time of it being a Popperian, as have all Popperians in the last few decades.

Well, first off, a person who calls himself Ciceronius would disagree. As a legal positivist, he would have to argue that upon Socrates' death, profit earned on stock investments should start accruing to his wife immediately, faster than the speed of light.

On the other hand, a realist accountant would say that's impossible if she is on Mars, because the event of his death cannot reach Mars faster than the speed of light, and that profit for the interim duration would still be taxable to Socrates in his last tax filing.

Well that's the problem, Banno, its only constant to our, or in this case, your, limited comnprehension. If the equations are equivalent, they produce the same results. They are indistinguishable. Its called a function TRANSFORMATION, actually, not translation. To us both, time appears one dimensional and unidirectional, which also may be an artifact of our consciousness. You have a nice day there.

well thats pretty much what 2nd-amendment nuts say, as do people conscripted to fight in wars. I refuse to fight, and you have no moral right to say Im wrong. Now pester someone else.

The problem is, Javi, the way you phrase the question, there is no other outcome. In real life, you know you could also be rescued, however remote that possibility is, you know other people want to do that.

First of all, your attitude is insulting.

If you might die later because you are out of food, and I eat food you could need to eat later to stay alive, doesn't give you any right to kill me now.

From your attitude, you're just inventing excuses because you like to kill. I heard alot of you fancy justificationists when I was working in gun control, loi, and I know you people exist now, so your fancy arguments for why your opinion is so superior that you need to be so rude don't impress me.

I simply hold they cannot morally kill the fat man without his permission.

it it weren't a matter of killing him, I probably wouldnt be. lol.

I agree, and there are many social connections to color, for example red meaning stop, or santa claus. I was merely saying that color itself is not learned. Children do not need to have it explained to them that colors which look different in different lighting conditions do not mean the object's color has changed. We have an innnate sense of color permanence, like object permanence, that precedes learning.

I would have to defend the fat man and hope he changes his mind. lol.

As it is a choice of life, Javi, and I hold right to life the most ineffable right, it could only be with the fat man's permission. But in less extreme cases, we've all given permission ourselves in similar situations, or we are not human. 'Fessing up at school to stop other schoolmates being punished comes to mind.

it could depend on what the fat man wants, or not, depending on the beliefs of the group, so there is no one answer.

i dunno, one sees alot of them wandering around in Chico, particularly since the city started bussing more homeless in so it could get larger federal grants. Perhaps I meet too many of them as it is to give you a good answer :D

well Ill need to make a major change in my brain to think about that more, Id been thinking about the philosophy of science for the last month, which has become an increasingly depressing topic since Trump took power, and I am ready for a change. lol.

well thats alot to share all at once, lol, I thought I was long winded.

My first reaction is that you will get objections from legal positivists for advancing Kantian ideas of practical reason into justice. They will hold that there is no way for ethics to make a statement about what is legally right or wrong, and that it is only defined by what I think you could normative convention.

On your last post, rule utilitarianism defines social conventions which maximize happiness by sacrificing a small amount of liberty, for example, driving on one side of the road. If you consider the benefits of such conventions worthwhile, then 'a maximally libertarian society' might find many such conventions that change its emphasis from liberty to some other goal, which utilitarians call happiness but don't define. Legal positivists lay claim to laws restricting liberty in this manner as they derive legal positivism from the utilitarian method.

that's very a very beautiful meditation, thank you for sharing

The color red is innate to people with normal color vision, calling it red is a learned cultural convention. — magritte

it is not such a simple learned cultural convention. 3D rendering of 'red' objects encounters many issues, including different absorption, reflection, diffuse, and opacity spectra under different lighting conditions, and at different distances with different neighboring colors, both when seen during the day with the three rods and cones, and at night with visual purple when only the saturation is knowable and not the hue. We make an innate assumption of what 'color' an object is under 'typical daylight conditions,' which also vary geographically, and it's difficult to claim all that visual processing is purely learned, but rather a pre-existent part of the visual cortex. I'd also note that the visual spectra for color vision are centered on the color of plants, not blood, so the apparatus to see the colors we enjoy has been evolving for a very long time.

That reminds me, this book arrived from Amazon. I better go and get it from my mailbox when its daylight. Good night )

[url=http://]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1107641772/[/url]

I suppose the gist is, in the context, you can abandon hope without leaving. — Wayfarer

Id see it a different way. I just got confronted by more Trump tweets and picked up the girl.

That's where Hofstadter might have gotten the story then. If he acknowledged it, it would be in the bibliography, but he didn't cite sources for his anecdotes in the main text.

Hofstatder, right? :D

[url=http://]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach[/url]

Well there've been other reasons Twitter and the government have basically acted in complicity to stop cases about Twitter getting into the Supreme Court, and it was generally felt the Supreme Court would even deny making a ruling on any case at all regarding Facebook and Twitter, for reasons you can suppose yourself.

But Justice Thomas is allied with Chief Justice Roberts in a GOP majority control of the Supreme Court.

So Justice Thomas basically said, if Trump took his ban from Twitter to court, Trump would win. Trump obviously will now, and the result is a foregone conclusion. More Trump tweets by 2024.

I don't even want to know what happens in Trump vs. Twitter in the Supreme Court. I have stopped watching U.S. news. It's your problem now, lol, you know what I think of the issue.

I wish one day we can turn back to these days. — javi2541997

One can find little hard-to-reach pockets of them, where the visitor traffic is constrained, but they've had to make concessions even so. For example, Patmos makes most its tourist money from monks and nuns visiting the monastery, but the locals let them stay in the hotels for free, if no paying tourists want the room.

thanks, but as I cant fly for health reasons, the earliest I could get passage booked was Dec 3 from NYC to Southampton.

Well I am thinking of Patmos in Greece, but my reasons are not conventional. It's only 5000 people, but it has operated much as an independent city state for ~1500 years due to it being the location of the cave where St. John the Divine wrote revelations. It was heavily fortified in the 700s against Turk invasion which was turned into a monastery in 1100AD, so it has mostly been left totally alone. The last attempt to change its affairs was when Athens tried to increase tourism there by putting a giant nude statue of Poseidon in the harbor. Within a week the locals got up at night and pushed it to the bottom of the harbor. Although it would've been easier to load it onto a ship from there, Athens did not try to retrieve it, and then, Athens did not try increasing tourist taxes too as it did in other places. So it seems a sensible choice. The local kids look like Alexander the Great and Helen of Troy. Rent is less the USA, it has broadband but expensive, and nice beaches. I dont know about its attitude to science, lol, maybe I can help with it, but there are other reasons in its favor. Maybe I can start a little aquarium or something there.