What I see in your entire post (correct me if I am wrong) is that humans are humans; that humans are stuck being human. I can agree with that. But that does not transmogrify us into the measure of all that we measure. — James Riley

Never, never say "correct me if I am wrong" in a response to me. Surprisingly enough, yes, you are wrong. Well, let's just say I disagree with you. We didn't "transmogrify" into the measure of all things. We invented measurement. Measurement is human enterprise. Why else would we care about measurement except as it applies to ourselves? What would we ever measure except things that have an effect on our lives?

By my calculation, I am a bit less than 2 ^10-16 light years tall. That's about 2,000,000,000 nanometers. Please don't check my math.

I did not make man the measure of all things when I said I found a blob of clay to be good. I am not the measure of all things, nor do I speak for All. — James Riley

Whether I am the measure of all things, it is a fundamental assumption of my philosophy that humanity is. Basic units for measurement are at human scale. We measure things in feet, horses in hands. Of course, we measure power in horsepower, so maybe humanity and equinity are the measures of all things. If you don't believe in an absolute moral standards, as I don't, human value is a product of human thinking and feeling. As I noted in posts earlier today in another thread, established science indicates that humans develop a moral sense at a very early age, as early as three months. This indicates that, to a large extent, our moral thinking and behavior is inborn. Something similar is also true of language and maybe number.

Beyond that, it makes sense to me that our understanding of the world, reality itself, is a function of our particular human nervous system and perceptual organs. I'm not ready to defend that position at this point.

We are so constituted that there probably IS a moral inclination at birth -- not a preference for moral vs. immoral, but rather a brain structure (and species habit) that will lead to people having fear, guilt, and comfort connected to their behavior. How does this work? — Bitter Crank

As I noted in a previous post on this thread, there is strong evidence that babies as young as three months can make clear choices that it makes sense to call "moral," and others that it makes sense to call "biased." I think that shows that human moral judgements are strongly built-in. That doesn't negate the importance of learning and socialization as children grow older.

You didn’t come close to understanding what I wrote. — Xtrix

You were straight-forward and clear in what you had to say. I've complimented the clarity of your writing before.

it should come as no surprise that people with terrible judgment and delusions of grandeur are attracted to such claims— it further supports the self-serving picture they’ve created for themselves of being “contrarian.” — Xtrix

This is baloney - self-righteous, passive-aggressive crap. I agree with you that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong and wrong-headed. At the same time, I've known smart, perceptive people who believe some of them. They're just wrong. Questioning their judgement on this particular issue is reasonable, questioning their psychological motivation is irrelevant. Argue the question.

Nice response - common sense defended. The National Enquirer magazine's slogan used to be, 'Enquiring minds want to know.' Dressing up yellow journalism as a virtue. Having known a lot of folks who enjoy a conspiracy theory (and I think this the right verb), a lot of blarney is wrapped up in the old, "I'm just asking questions here." — Tom Storm

I have been thinking about starting a discussion on how, sometimes, it makes more sense to pay attention to the questions people ask than to the answers they give. That's you're most likely to find where bias, prejudice, and goofy thinking are hiding. So far, I haven't been able to get an intellectual handle on how to think about it.

space lasers — Xtrix

You forgot - that's Jewish space lasers.

A good well-thought out response.

I would contend that at birth there are no moral inclinations. What ever our moral values become are a result of environment and personal development- of which a newborn has little. — Proximate1

That may be so. However, it doesn't mean that "at birth there are no moral inclinations". A new-born lion cub may look cute and cuddly and inclined to do only good, but deep inside it may already dream of the day it is big and strong enough to have you for breakfast. The inclinations may be already present at birth in latent form. — Apollodorus

There are studies that show that human children start making what we would call "moral" distinctions at a very early age - two or three months. Here's a link to an episode of 60 Minutes. It's about 13 minutes long with 2 minutes of ads. I've never seen a psychological study that impresses me or has influenced my views of human nature more. I always think of this when someone disparages psychology as a science. What could be more important than this?

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/msGw1iFHLOXlVdeZtfO9KBW9Kffq3VUl/born-good-babies-help-unlock-the-origins-of-morality/

Well, by all means, get back to me when you think of something to say. — synthesis

I feel bad about being so harsh in my response. That's why I decided to stop.

You don't believe there is self-censorship going-on now? Or that it was the worst part of The Cultural Revolution (being a precursor to what would follow)? — synthesis

You and I are not going to agree on this. I can't think of any more responses beyond what I've already written.

What does that mean? — synthesis

It's a strongly-worded statement of disagreement.

Again -- when it comes to science, and I'm neither an expert nor have time to reach an even intermediate level of knowledge, I go with the consensus view. — Xtrix

I agree with you that consensus is what's important. I sometimes say that truth is what you can convince people of. That's not quite right. It's more that truth is useless unless you can convince the people who are making real-life decisions. In situations like that, the scientific consensus reinforced by an understanding of uncertainty and the consequences of failure is the best we can do.

It is in the most important way...self-censorship. — synthesis

I would accuse you of a lack of perspective, but that does not seem nearly strong enough a statement. You've moved beyond that and are crossing the border into obscenity.

From what I've seen of your own discussions and you participation in other people's, you and I share an interest in some of the same kinds of issues, although you have a very different perspective and focus than I do. I wanted you to know that I really enjoy your ideas, even though I often don't have much to offer in response, given our differences. It's fun to watch you searching and digging for what you want to understand. Maybe that's the biggest thing you and I have in common.

So, why is it that people multiple entities beyond their necessity and say that all actions need to be related to some desire or disposition for us to be able to act? Such a statement cannot be established as a relation of ideas, nor a matter of fact. — Marty

The science is pretty strong on this issue. Here is a link to an article about decision making in people with a certain kind of brain damage.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15134841/

The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. Lesions of the ventromedial (which includes the orbitofrontal) sector of the prefrontal cortex interfere with the normal processing of "somatic" or emotional signals, while sparing most basic cognitive functions. Such damage leads to impairments in the decision-making process, which seriously compromise the quality of decisions in daily life.

Beyond that, I can speak from personal experience. I try to be self-aware of my mental processes relating to motivation and decision making. For me, the process is not rational at all, at least not at the basic level. For me, motivation arises from within. I picture it as a spring bubbling up from underground. As I said, it's not rational, but it's not irrational either. It's non-rational. Rationality comes in later and acts more as a brake than a driver. It may stop an action or at least mold it to the requirements of responsible behavior. Then again, it may not. Later I might wish that it had.

I recognize that different people experience this differently.

No you won't! — James Riley

I agree.

I'm interested in this discussion, but I'm feeling guilty. We're way off subject. Start a thread and I'll participate. You've obviously thought about this more than I have.

To clarify, I mean that the term is snidely thrown around by right-wingers, moderates, etc. to refer to anything left-of-center that requires thought terminating dismissal (i.e. "whatever vague leftist meaning is needed) detached from the original usage by Black Americans. — Maw

I misunderstood, but then again, I'll argue with anyone, even people I agree with.

Same narrator! — Wayfarer

I'd forgotten the book and Baggett. What can I say. I was much younger then.

And there can't be an empirical method to decide on the differing interpretations - because they're interpretations! — Wayfarer

As I noted, there are physicists who believe there may be testable differences. We'll see.

I don't see it like that. The cosmos is the stage on which physics plays out - provided you confine physics to the observable, which I think is proper. Metaphysics considers the implications of physics in terms of what must be the case in light of certain observations.

I think the question of the nature of the wave-function is a metaphysical question, or even THE metaphysical question implied by modern physics. A lot of the controversies revolve around that point. — Wayfarer

Disagree, but that's a different discussion.

I'm glad you asked me to respond. I enjoyed putting what I think about this issue in writing.

I love the discourse around "Woke". Clown's performing semantic juggling so that the term can acquire whatever vague leftist meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means equality of outcome (an abstraction rejected by Marx and Engels). — Maw

In my experience "woke" is primarily a disparaging term used by conservatives which acquires whatever vague right-wing meaning is needed. I guess in this sense it means everything is fine the way it is.

not trying to burden you with work. :yikes: Besides, it’s bookmarked to the specific topic I’m referring to and that section about <10 minutes. — Wayfarer

I started out watching the first five minutes. Then, at your suggestion, I forwarded to the section on Bell's inequality and watched through the end. Let me say first off that the part that always amazes me the most is the technology that allows these types of experiments to be performed. For example, in this video, a light source that allows you to shoot out one photon at a time, the camera that allows you to record one photon at a time, or, most of all, the clocks that allow you to measure the incredibly short periods of time. Another example is the gravity wave detection in the LIGO experiments. The detectors allow measurement of distortions of space by gravity waves much less than the diameter of a proton. How is that possible?

Back to the question at hand. I've read about Bell's equality and entanglement before. I have a real hard time understanding the geometry and statistics of the experiments. Sometimes I can grasp them for a second, but when I stop concentrating, I lose it. Upshot - I trust what the physicists say and leave it at that. I joke and say "I understand quantum mechanics completely - it's just the way things are."

Actually, I don't think that's really a joke. I think that's what they mean when they describe the Copenhagen Interpretation. Don't ask why or what it means, just ask how the world behaves. Shut up and calculate. The narrator calls that the anti-realist position, but I don't see it that way. I think, at bottom, none of our science tells us why. It just tells us how.

Which brings us to what he calls the realist interpretations. For me, the big question, the only question, is whether or not there is an empirical method to determine which is correct even in theory. I believe that is a pretty controversial subject now. It is my understanding that no method for testing the interpretations have been developed. My intuition is that no testing is possible, although I can't justify that scientifically.

That means that there is no difference between the interpretations. That pleases me. I find the Copenhagen Interpretation very satisfying. As I said, it's consistent with how I see science in general. What we call reality is a story we tell ourselves. I think interpretations that can't be told apart even in theory are, I was going to say equivalent but that's not right. They are meaningless. Which is consistent with my preference for the Copenhagen Interpretation. It was always meaningless.

The narrator calls the differences between the interpretations "metaphysics," but I don't see it that way. For me, metaphysics is the stage we build on which physics plays out, the conventions we have established to allow us to talk about reality. I've written many lectures about that, so I won't go into that again.

One more problem, in the first five minutes, one of his basic graphics is wrong - the illustration of the two slit experiment at 3:40. There were others I thought might be wrong, but I was confused about what he was trying to show, so I'm not sure. Sloppy errors like hat undermine my confidence in the narrator.

I don't suppose you have any reflections on the actual topic in the video? — Wayfarer

Geez, now you're asking us to respond to the actual subject of the thread. That's pretty unreasonable.

I just looked at the video and I see it's an hour long. I will watch it, but it might be a bit before I respond. I'll try to do it tomorrow.

Chairman Mao's cultural revolution, which is very much like our wokester movement, lasted ten years. Fortunately Joe Biden is no Mao Zedong, and neither is Kamala. — fishfry

Yes. Of course. I agree. The current social justice movement is just exactly like the Cultural Revolution.



Just exactly the same.

He could have found the money in a storm drain for all I know. But people who have that kind of loot usually have a bevvy of brains around trying to keep them from losing it, and then to compound it. Even if it's blind luck, it doesn't take a lot of genius to know one is lucky, and to then hire hands that know what they are doing. — James Riley

Musk and SpaceX just won the contract to build a space ship to go back to the moon for $3 billion, although Jeff is making a stink. They just launched astronauts to the space station. In less than 10 years Tesla has revolutionized battery technology. He's doing real stuff. Also, his girlfriend is a famous odd musician.

Interesting that at thread on good physics so quickly became a thread on bad physics. — Banno

It's been a while since there has been much good physics on the forum. I'm thinking about starting a thread to prove that force does not really equal mass times acceleration. Or that Ursus Americanus don't urinate in forested areas. Or that people are mistaken about the Pontiff's religious affiliation.

And there's already pushback on this, you already see it. I don't think it's going to doom our society or destroy culture.

There are much more serious threats than this by far. — Manuel

Well put.

Being "pretty sure it won't work" doesn't constitute a response to the merits of my proposition. — James Riley

You're proposing a radical change in American federal and state policing and gun policy which you have acknowledged will lead to many deaths. The burden of proof that it will succeed rests with you.

It is a strange world we live in where the Bill of Rights is a pipe dream and a fantasy. — James Riley

Come on, you are being intentionally dense. I've said I support 2nd Amendment rights. I won't argue whether your planned gun-owning utopia is legal or constitutional. I'm pretty sure it won't work and that it will make things much, much worse.

Provocative? These woke people are complete morons by any yardstick. I am just trying to figure out how anybody could believe this non-sense. — synthesis

I don't doubt your sincerity or your anger. I even agree that a lot of what is called "woke" is destructive and counterproductive. I also think it is likely a temporary phase. Not sure about that.

Be that as it may - it is clear from your language that you intended to raise hackles. I responded in kind.

You are correct. Unless and until members of a community learn to take personal responsibility for their own actions, and treat each other with dignity and respect, there would most definitely be a thinning of the herd. — James Riley

But JR, you seemed like such a nice young man.

If crime rates did not drop and the foregoing "Wait, what?" communities did not start to mind their Ps and Qs, then yes, we go forward with the program. And yes, there would be a period of blood. But in the end, because good people (currently unarmed) outnumber the bad (currently armed), I think things would settle out to the point where people would stop carrying because it can be inconvenient for some folks, especially when there is no longer a need. We may even end up with Bobby's twirling their night sticks as they whistled down the sidewalk. — James Riley

This is the pipiest of all pipe dreams.

In my fantasy world, the education begins early and is cutting edge and includes a deep steeping in the Liberal Arts, reading, writing, languages, philosophy, logic, civics, history, political science, sociology, phycology, and etc. All, including the guns, voluntary, of course. — James Riley

Agreed. If we're gong to fantasize, we should definitely include education, especially the study of algae.

I can only continue to suggest that green energy technologies are, perhaps deliberately insufficient to meet our needs going forward. I've run the numbers on wind, and I just don't see the UK building 15,000 windmills every 25 years, at a cost of £200m each, just to keep the lights on. — counterpunch

Say what you will. Costs for renewable and associated energy technologies; wind, solar, batteries; are approaching or surpassing those for fossil fuels. Most of this improvement has taken place in the last decade. Given the attention they are getting, I would expect things to continue to improve. Elon Musk and similar businessmen are kicking ass. You need to find someone like him to put a few billion down on your magma technology. The market.

Magma energy sidesteps all this by transcending the calculus of limits to growth. Because (I confidently predict that) magma energy is more than sufficient to meet our energy needs, it allows us to attack the problem from the supply side — counterpunch

I'm skeptical. Your confidence is not enough to change the course of energy policy. As I wrote before though, I do endorse your "Screw the libs, give them what they want" strategy.

What do NOT know — Thinking

I don't know just about everything. It might make more sense to ask what I need to know. I'm at an age when I don't really need to know anything more than I already do. If that's so, maybe the right question is what I want to know. I'm really curious, but curiosity isn't really about knowing anything, it's about finding out stuff. It's the process, not the endpoint. So, I want to find stuff out. Anything. Everything.

Looking at it another way, I've come to think that the most important aspect of my intellectual and spiritual life right now is awareness, becoming more aware. Is that the same as knowledge? Becoming more aware of; seeing, feeling, and experiencing; what's going on in my body, my mind, and physical and social reality.

Blacks, as a minority, would need their white compadres to back their hand, but the left seems to walk away from some of their delineated civil liberties (2ndA). Oh well. — James Riley

First off, I am offering my solutions as responses to Synthesis's intentionally provocative posts. My language was also intentionally provocative.

Second, I really don't think arming people is the right way to go. I think a lot more people will die.

Third, I'm liberal, but I think gun control is a bad sell for Democrats. I know conservative gun owners who have no objection to reasonable gun restrictions, but they won't trust Democrats to take their Second Amendment beliefs seriously. I wonder what the vote count in the presidential election would have been if gun control were taken off the Democratic platform.

That is the current "plan" - so that's a safe bet. Would you like to go double or nothing on "a bunch of different approaches" actually working to secure a sustainable future? — counterpunch

Just about all complex problems in a society as big as the US's and the world's get solved using "a bunch of different approaches." Not only that, you have to try a bunch of different ways to find out which ones work. VHS tapes won the battle against several other recording technologies back in the late 70s and early 80s. Your magma geothermal technology is innovative and not fully tested. It makes sense to aim our efforts in more than one direction. It would be irresponsible not to.

Thanks.

By virtue of physical facts, resources are a function of the energy available to create them. The energy is there - beneath our feet, limitless quantities of high grade power. As a consequence, there are no limits to resources, and the way to solve climate change is to power through. — counterpunch

I don't know whether your particular solution to the energy problem is the right one. Actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't the solution. Not that it won't work, I don't know about that. I just think the final solution will be a bunch of different approaches. Unless...

I'll define little "g" god. A god is the personification of existence or a portion of existence. It is a human act to personify - attribute human characteristics to non-human phenomena. We do it with dogs, cars, and countries, so why not everything all at once. Mother nature. Gaia. That works for immanent gods, but not for transcendent Gods like in Christianity or Islam.

am I missing something? — StreetlightX

No, I don't think so. @Banno raised the question and it set me thinking. I endorse a policy of toleration until it becomes intolerable. I think you're right, though - we should call out pseudoscience when we see it. Sometimes I do and sometimes I don't.

Thanks.

Any explanations? — Banno

I've been thinking about this more and I wanted to follow up on this more. I wrote:

Explanation #1 - Poor enforcement of the pseudo-science rules. — T Clark

First - a question for @fdrake and @StreetlightX, two moderators who have a strong knowledge of and interest in science. It seems to me that moderators are less likely to crack down on questionable science than in the past. Do you think that's true? Has there been a change in moderation policy? Maybe it's just one of those cyclic things.

Second - there used to be several pugnacious science types who tended to jump on science baloney. I'm thinking in particular of Timeline and Apokrisis, but there were others. TL exploded and Apo sleeps most of the time now.

I don't really mind our pseudoscientific members and their writing. It's fun for me to feel all superior. On the other hand, allowing bad science a place to speak is not this forum's job. It's here to provide bad philosophy a place to speak. They come here because they get smacked down and banned on science forums. You actually have to know something real to write there.

Apparently being blunt is sometimes interpreted as being condescending, as we see here. . — FrancisRay

Are you talking about this from above?

I don't know what your agenda is but it doesn't interest me. If you want to show me I'm missing the point then show me where the OP has made a complaint against Buddhism. Maybe I missed something,. — FrancisRay

I don't think that's particularly condescending. Or blunt for that matter. I guess I'd characterize it as rhetorical - casting doubt on the posters motive rather than the point at hand.