On 12/22/24 4:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 22/12/2024 09:31, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>>     Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>>>     facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>>>     facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>>>     work well ...
>>
>> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer. Given
>> the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
>> Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was
>> also
>> well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.
>>
>
> The problem is, that both the scientific narrative and the creationist
> one are complete, logical and unassailable.

Yep, kinda hermetically-sealed bubbles.

Somewhere, early on, you take a step in one of
several directions and then that defines your
path forever more.

> One posits a supernatural 'Big Bang' from which time, space energy and
> the laws of nature miraculously sprang, and the other posits a big
> Creation from which  time, space energy and the laws of nature
> miraculously sprang, just already formed as a complete *fake*, like
> someone today constructing a '1000 year old' house. Complete with faked
> history.

The 'big bang' - esp with 'inflation' added - IS a bit
of a stretch ...

I'll agree, because it suits me, that it's likely what
happened - but really truly PROVING it and the underlying
factors is gonna be difficult to the EXTREME.

> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
> with a  Plan in charge.
>
> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply

... weird .......

> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.

Came across an little article on a sci/tech page the other
day about 'negative time'. Basically, if you send a photon
into some crystals another comes out BEFORE the original
goes IN. This had been attributed to instrumentation issues,
but now the instrumentation is much better and it DOES happen.
The first-up cause is to look at photons as quantum-statistical
entities rather than a 'thing'. However there's a slight smell
to that.

Ah ... found it :

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientists-negative-quantum.html

This seriously smears-out the whole 'causality' thing,
future precedes past. I wonder how far before/until
that effect might go ?

It also points to 'the real picture' being kinda being
SO complex and strange it's not really within the realm
of human IQ anymore. We might put the "AI"s on it, but
won't understand how they reach their answers.or REALLY
what it means. As such it all becomes as 'magic' to us -
full circle.

We LIKE to think we can grasp it all but ... umm ... NOPE.
However we CAN *use* the 'magic' the AIs find ... so it's
not a total loss. Just wave yer wand and repeat " ...

On 12/22/24 6:28 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 22/12/2024 09:31, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>     Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>>>>     facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>>>>     facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>>>>     work well ...
>>>
>>> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer.
>>> Given
>>> the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
>>> Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was
>>> also
>>> well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.
>>>
>>
>> The problem is, that both the scientific narrative and the creationist
>> one are complete, logical and unassailable.
>>
>> One posits a supernatural 'Big Bang' from which time, space energy and
>> the laws of nature miraculously sprang, and the other posits a big
>> Creation from which  time, space energy and the laws of nature
>> miraculously sprang, just already formed as a complete *fake*, like
>> someone today constructing a '1000 year old' house. Complete with
>> faked history.
>>
>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence
>> with a Plan in charge.
>>
>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply
>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>
> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.

MAYbe an advantage there ... but maybe NOT. Theists will
say they don't NEED 'process' or 'corrections' because
they were magically provided with the RIGHT ANSWER
long back. They just see us bickering about whether
2+2 (common conditions) = 4 for a century or two
when they knew all along.

> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay
> too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in
> reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions
> is lacking?

Occam HAS his uses. However sometimes things ARE complicated.

Read my post here to Mr. Natural about 'negative time'
findings ......

https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientists-negative-quantum.html

As I said to Mr. Natural, I think we've kinda reached The Point -
where human IQ just really can't COPE with the complexities of
the Real Universe. The initial 'quantum-statistical' take on
the negative time thing kinda smells - and there's likely only
a handful of people in the world that can even wrap their
brains around THAT. Next phase, very soon, NOBODY can wrap
their brains around it.

Yes, we can maybe make the "AI"s proceed - but we WON'T
really understand what they come up with or why. At that
point it all becomes 'magic' again. Chant the spells
and wave the wand ......

May as well simply say Ahura Mazda just breathed it all
into existence and set all the paths/rules ....

No, I do NOT like it ... but this is where we've wound
up ... and after just barely 200 years of Real Science.

So let's not feel TOO damned proud, TOO damned superior.
In the end, not TOO long, we're just gonna be another
species of theists with their 'revealed truths'.

Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.

On 12/22/24 5:09 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>>
>> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
>> the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
>> be.  You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
>> Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least
>> the
>> more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
>> Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
>
> Very beautiful!

Also very COLD ... and when age gives you
medical issues, maybe TOO FAR from top-
notch facilities.

In my youth I often thought about moving to
Alaska - even bought a .375 H&H for bears.
NOW I don't wanna be more than 30 minutes from
the docs and hospitals Just In Case.

.375 ... imagine a light 12-ga shotgun with
3" mags - NOT pleasant to fire ! You do it
only IF something large and furry is about
to eat you :-)

>> The Bighorns are another spur, but not as dramatic as the Tetons.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bighorn_Mountains
>>
>> That page has a nice relief map for reference.
>>
>> Eastern Oregon is also pretty flat high desert until you get to the
>> Cascades.

That along with east Wash, esp with Trump, is likely to
become "Greater Idaho". The locals HATE the Wokies for
good reasons.

The re-distribution of the original Texas territory
sets the legal precedents.

On 2024-12-23, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> As I said to Mr. Natural, I think we've kinda reached The Point -
> where human IQ just really can't COPE with the complexities of
> the Real Universe. The initial 'quantum-statistical' take on
> the negative time thing kinda smells - and there's likely only
> a handful of people in the world that can even wrap their
> brains around THAT. Next phase, very soon, NOBODY can wrap
> their brains around it.
>
> Yes, we can maybe make the "AI"s proceed - but we WON'T
> really understand what they come up with or why. At that
> point it all becomes 'magic' again. Chant the spells
> and wave the wand ......
>
> May as well simply say Ahura Mazda just breathed it all
> into existence and set all the paths/rules ....

Everybody is wondering what and where
They all came from
Everybody is worrying about where they're going to go
When the whole thing's done
But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me
I think I'll just let the mystery be
-- Iris DeMent

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 12/22/24 4:55 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-12-22, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The great strength and the great weakness of christianity is that they
>>> are bound by the book. This is a problem in todays woke world,
>>
>> The woke are bound by their own book - which is far more outlandish
>> than the Bible.
>
> What bible do they have?

It's all on TicTok ... just not quite consolidated
into one place :-)

> Woke will self destruct into ever smaller
> factions. Eventually it ends up as individualism, which is good, or it
> will spend itself on in fighting and go away as a political force.

Woke is already imploding, fast. It was just
unsustainable nonsense. 'DEI' is in the
dumpster, all the weird trannie stuff - Joe
just DROPPED "Title IX". "Equality of Result"
just couldn't be real. It was all a fanatical
cult religion. If they could have burned heretics
at the stake they would have. Still did damage ......

I've a cousin (2nd/3rd?) who long back when she was
about 10 wondered aloud why the govt just didn't
give everybody Free Money. Then nobody would have
to work or anything ! She wasn't un-intelligent,
just hideously naive. Alas 'Woke' Gens-Z/A2,
even older and supposedly more informed, STILL
believe in that sort of paradigm. Can't figure out
how to wipe yer ass - wheeled-in with a needle
in your arm once a month - you should be director
of NASA or SecDef or Boeing CEO or something !

>>> but if they let it go, they won't be christians any longer. I respect
>>> the guys who struggled to reconcile the book with todays world without
>>> giving it up completely.
>>
>> The literalists have always had - and been - a problem.  I resolved the
>> issue in my school days.  The literature classes we took taught us about
>> metaphor and simile, and I saw no reason why the seven days of creation
>> should not be metaphorical rather than literal.  Suddenly there was no
>> conflict.  There are lots of things like that in the book.
>
> This is the truth!

BUT there are still rather a LOT of people who do
NOT see it as metaphor - but as an exact description.
They are real, they are many, they are amongst us,
they are in powerful agencies and governments.

However, would your/my favs be any 'better' for
the masses, the Big Equation ???

"Mystic crystal revelations and the mind's true
liberation" - or just Fascism v7.2 ??? :-)

Just sayin' ... don't be TOO proud, TOO sure.

In the 1800s 'science' was NOT convinced of the
same 'truths' we worship today. Mary Shelly
did NOT pull that all out of her ass - there
were 'learned men' who REALLY thought that way.

What will we "know" 100 years from now ?

MAYBE best to leave a lot of stuff - esp with
political/social implications - kinda "fuzzy".

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:35:03 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/22/24 5:09 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>>>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>>>
>>> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you
>>> cross the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it
>>> might be.  You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons.
>>> Even Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at
>>> least the more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern
>>> border of Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
>>
>> Very beautiful!
>
>
> Also very COLD ... and when age gives you medical issues, maybe TOO
> FAR from top-
> notch facilities.

It can get chilly. I preferred to take car camping trips after Labor Day
when the kids were back in school and the traffic in the parks was down.
That doesn't work as well anymore since retirees have caught on. Anyway it
was mid-September and I decided to go through Grand Teton on my way home.

It was winding down for the season to the point there wasn't anybody to
give the campsite fee to. No problem. I had a three season sleeping bag
that had been adequate for years. I froze. I spent some time hanging
around in the restroom that was somewhat warmer. I bought a new bag when I
got home.

> In my youth I often thought about moving to Alaska - even bought a
> .375 H&H for bears.
> NOW I don't wanna be more than 30 minutes from the docs and hospitals
> Just In Case.

My ex is a Type 1 diabetic and never wanted to be too far from top tier
medical care. The plan worked well except for ultimately winding up
virtually under house arrest in NYC.

> That along with east Wash, esp with Trump, is likely to become
> "Greater Idaho". The locals HATE the Wokies for good reasons.

I don't think Idaho would welcome eastern Washington. David Eddings
eventually settled on the fantasy genre but his first book that ever got
published was set in Spokane where he had lived. The title is 'The
Losers'. He claimed the best thing about Spokane was the sewage treatment
plant that had been built for the '74 World's Fair. Back in the '90s you
had to go to Spokane for much of a selection or stores like REI. I liked
the drive over but navigating Division St. sucks.

What you might think would be bucolic little towns attracted Hispanics to
work the crops and in their wake drugs and gangs.

https://www.bestplaces.net/crime/city/washington/yakima

It doesn't help that Canada brings in workers to pick the fruit in the
Okanagan Valley of BC and kicks them out when the season is over.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 00:13:32 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> So let's not feel TOO damned proud, TOO damned superior.
> In the end, not TOO long, we're just gonna be another species of
> theists with their 'revealed truths'.

The Greeks got a lot of mileage out of the hybris theme and it never
worked out well for those involved.

https://www.sap.com/products/acquired-brands/what-is-hybris.html

I don't know if those people have a weird sense of humor or if they're
completely illiterate.

On 12/22/24 6:22 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/21/24 6:25 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/20/24 4:22 PM, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 10:57:38 +0100, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But now we have LLM:s!  What I find interesting is how different
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> view them. I find the free ones you can play with online to be
>>>>>>> incredibly boring. I use them as a kind of search engine on
>>>>>>> steroids for
>>>>>>> stuff that is not important (for entertainment purposes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brave added one to the search engine but I turned it off. Might as
>>>>>> well go
>>>>>> straight to reddit which seems to be heavily mined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the thing. LLM:s for me, are good at summarizing articles,
>>>>> so instead of being "ai" they are just a nice complement to
>>>>> searching, and as long as they work and don't hallucinate, they
>>>>> save me some clicks. That's about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, and writing government policy documents. When doing that, their
>>>>> hallucinations are actually an asset! ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Ha Ha Ha - SO true there :-)
>>>>
>>>>  Anyway, as I say elsewhere, LLMs are just PART of
>>>>  'intelligence'. OTHER parts need to be spliced in.
>>>>  Brains are just WEIRD ... 600+ million years of
>>>>  field-tested neural insanity.
>>>>
>>>>  However, somewhere in there - early - "ME-ism"
>>>>  emerged. There's some neat-o trick to that which
>>>>  we haven't yet grasped. We're not thinking quite
>>>>  right about 'self'. I think THAT is the basic
>>>>  paradigm and then you add more IQ and such ONTO it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please expand on the me-ism part? I have certainly not
>>> detected any me-isms and that is why I find them so boring. Give me
>>> volition, initiative  and desperate attempts to stop me from deleting
>>> them, then we're on to something!
>>
>>  What, the "Me, Myself and I" thing ?
>>
>>  It's the realization, however dim, that I am an
>>  autonomous unit. I am not that rock. I am not
>>  that tree. I am not that OTHER DAMNED IGUANA
>>  that's wandered into MY territory. There's ME,
>>  and everything else.
>>
>>  In an odd sense it's anti-Buddhist.
>>
>>  SO FAR I don't really see that in any of the
>>  AI models. They're well-perfected REACTION
>>  but there's still nobody home.
>>
>>  We're missing something.
>>
>>  At this time, that MAY be a good thing.
>>
>
> Ahh ok, got it! Yes, not a lot of "me" going on there for sure.

There's SOME sort of 'mirror' thing involved here - act,
observe, acted upon, observe, feel. Soon 'ME' evolves as
a sort of emergent property or you die.

When every Nvidia chip in the world suddenly goes
red-line then we'll know some "Me" has come into
being - inspection, introspection, layers and
layers, deeper and deeper :-)

As said, LLMs are now excellent examples of REACTION,
but they're still missing The Thing even lizards,
chickens and some bugs seem to possess - there's
no "I Am" in there.

Some ARE now giving Chat and friends limited "bodies"
and senses. Dunno if the models support "Me" even
with that - but it seems a critical thing.

Oh, is 'animal' "ME" the ONLY kind of "ME" ? This
seems a cool question.

On 12/22/24 6:26 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 21/12/2024 22:19, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/12/2024 11:17, D wrote:
>>>>> I have on my to do list to start a zeppelin airline between europe
>>>>> and new york. I just need to utilize synchronicity to bump into
>>>>> Richard Branson or other billionaire of choice first, and then
>>>>> we're off! =D
>>>>
>>>> Frankly a nuclear powered ship would be quicker, safer and FAR more
>>>> luxurious.
>>>
>>> This is the truth. But it would hardly be cheaper. =(
>>
>> I think you will find it would
>>
>> Already the economics of fully computerised bulk transporters with
>> reactors look better than ever increasing bunker oil, especially in
>> terms of high speed and low maintenance.
>>
>> If you got two nights in a luxury hotel AND to the USA from Europe for
>> a similar price...
>
> Well, comparing a modern, state of the art, zeppelin, and a nuclear
> powered luxury boat from a financial point of view, should be a pretty
> easy exercise.
>
> I'll let you know once I meat Branson, or a Branson-derivative, what way
> we decide upon. ;)

'Private' nuke vessels are NOT practical. Not only
does it require a team of HIGHLY-trained techs to
keep 'em running right but the LIABILITY if they
somehow fail ..... NOBODY in their right mind would
EVER insure that ! What DOES it cost if San Diego
is covered in radioactive mist ???

GOVERNMENTS can push all that aside, but NOT private
entities.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 06:09:56 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> -- Iris DeMent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

You need the audiovisual version. I saw her about the time she released
the album of gospel songs. She said she loved gospel singing but wasn't
too sure about the religion that went with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgx_yoe2-Y4

That the only political song she ever did afaik. It's from the '90s but is
timeless.

On 22/12/2024 20:11, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 15:11:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I square the circle by thinking of the Bible and religion a 'not life as
>> it was or is, but life as it ought to have been' .
>
> Much evil has come from chasing dreams of the ought rather than accepting
> the is.
Indeed. And religion has probably survived because it is a collection of
the oughts that didn't produce too much evil and produced some good.

Darwin goes beyond mere physical evolution.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 23/12/2024 00:50, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 21:54:04 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I look at it from an exoteric and an esoteric way. On way is the
>> condensed wisdom of our forefathers, giving practical advice for how to
>> live. The other part, is the original (in my opinion) esoteric
>> experience, that can only be lived or experienced, and never passed on
>> through words.
>
> The Havamal works for me.
>
> https://jacksonwcrawford.com/the-cowboy-havamal/
>
> 38. Keep yer guns close.
> I don’t care what they say,
> there ain’t no tellin’
> when there’ll be call for ’em.
> An armed man has a shot.
>
> That speaks to me more than offering the other cheek. I couldn't find it
> with a quick search but there is also a 'Havamal for New Yorkers'. George
> Jones, not the country singer, in 'Honor Bright' compares societies based
> on honor to those based on guilt. He offers the heathen beatitudes.
>
> Blessed are the rich, for they possess the earth and its glory.
>
> Blessed are the strong, for they can conquer kingdoms.
>
> Blessed are they with strong kinsmen, for they shall find help.
>
> Blessed are the warlike, for they shall win wealth and renown.
>
> Blessed are they who keep their faith, for they shall be honored.
>
> Blessed are they who are open handed, for they shall have friends and
> fame.
>
> Blessed are they who wreak vengeance, for they shall be offended no more,
> and they shall have honor and glory all the days of their life, and
> eternal fame in ages to come.
>
> I'll admit my forefathers probably were Christian for a thousand years or
> more but they didn't jot down the Christian beatitudes.
>
>
>
>

Blessed is the geek, for he shall inherit the earth...

--
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

On 22/12/2024 21:54, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 22/12/2024 11:28, D wrote:
>>>> The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient
>>>> intelligence with a Plan in charge.
>>>>
>>>> Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply
>>>> more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.
>>>
>>> I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has
>>> happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.
>>>
>> I wasn't talking about the *practice* of science, or of religion for
>> that matter. I was talking about their metaphysical *beliefs*.
>
> Ahh... our definitions differ when it comes to science. I was tricked!
> But I will drop this line as I think it leads us back to old threads. ;)
>
>>> I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down
>>> waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is,
>>> in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the
>>> questions is lacking?
>>
>> Precisely, In many ways the God explanation is simpler :
>>
>> "God did it all,  and faked it so it looks like he was never there at
>> all, to test you fuckers"
>>
>> ...there are only three people who understand quantum physics and two
>> of them are liars....
>
> This is the truth and exactly one of the things I do not like with
> Occam. If you're on team God (TM) that's the easiest explanation, if
> you're on team Science (C), that's nonsense, and your version is the
> simplest.
>
> There's no way to decide from a neutral point, if you are dealing with
> religious people regardless of if they are from the religion religion,
> or the religion science (which has very little to do with the science as
> a process).
>
>> But if you examine Occam from outside the confines of realism and
>> materialism, he makes perfect sense.
>>
>> 1. The problem of induction means that no inference  can ever be
>> proved to be correct.
>> 2. So given that its all bullshit anyway, why not pick the simplest
>> bullshit that fits the facts?
>> 3.  ...And fits within the accepted already established bullshit, that
>> works...
>
> Ah, but the problem of induction is a chimera, an illusion. Popper
> argued that justification is not needed at all, and seeking
> justification "begs for an authoritarian answer".
>
> The only thing we need to worry about is if it works, and that's it.
>
Yes, but Realist/materialists reject stuff that works on the basis that
its 'not real'...

>> That is today's problem., People are absolutely reluctant to abandon
>> the established bullshit, that works.
>
> This is not a problem, this is the way. If it works, is in fact the only
> way. If that is abandoned, everything else is meaningless. That is the
> strength of materialism and a common, shared external world, and one of
> the best arguments for it.

It is an argument for a shared external world, but not for its materiality

>
> We've been down this path many times before I think.
>
>> Even when they know it is actually wrong.
>>
>> The Kuhnian paradigm shift  is staring them in the face, but they
>> simply cant accept it.
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith

On 23/12/2024 06:12, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 12/22/24 4:55 PM, D wrote:

>
>> Woke will self destruct into ever smaller factions. Eventually it ends
>> up as individualism, which is good, or it will spend itself on in
>> fighting and go away as a political force.
>
>   Woke is already imploding, fast. It was just
>   unsustainable nonsense. 'DEI' is in the
>   dumpster, all the weird trannie stuff - Joe
>   just DROPPED "Title IX". "Equality of Result"
>   just couldn't be real. It was all a fanatical
>   cult religion. If they could have burned heretics
>   at the stake they would have. Still did damage ......
>
And whoever invented the term didn't even use the correct term. Woke is
the past participle. Awoken correct. Or awake.
So you know it was invented by uneducated people or people
deliberatilytrying to seem that way.

>   I've a cousin (2nd/3rd?) who long back when she was
>   about 10 wondered aloud why the govt just didn't
>   give everybody Free Money. Then nobody would have
>   to work or anything ! She wasn't un-intelligent,
>   just hideously naive. Alas 'Woke' Gens-Z/A2,
>   even older and supposedly more informed, STILL
>   believe in that sort of paradigm. Can't figure out
>   how to wipe yer ass - wheeled-in with a needle
>   in your arm once a month - you should be director
>   of NASA or SecDef or Boeing CEO or something !

Probably no worse than current politicians...

>> This is the truth!
>
>   BUT there are still rather a LOT of people who do
>   NOT see it as metaphor - but as an exact description.
>   They are real, they are many, they are amongst us,
>   they are in powerful agencies and governments.
>
They are weak because they cannot stand to have more than one relative
truth, but must needs believe in some absolute Truth. When I becaqme a
man I put away childish things.

>   However, would your/my favs be any 'better' for
>   the masses, the Big Equation ???
>
>   "Mystic crystal revelations and the mind's true
>   liberation" - or just Fascism v7.2 ???  :-)
>
>   Just sayin' ... don't be TOO proud, TOO sure.
>
>   In the 1800s 'science' was NOT convinced of the
>   same 'truths' we worship today. Mary Shelly
>   did NOT pull that all out of her ass - there
>   were 'learned men' who REALLY thought that way.
>
>   What will we "know" 100 years from now ?
>
The world view - the weltaunshuung - or zeitgeist, changes. The
snowflake generation were taught all this bullshit: To them it is simply
'real' . And the consequences of this belief and those that taught it to
them is as intended a destruction of civilisation.

Unfortunately the promised communist Utopia isn't happening.

Poverty destruction and war is.

>   MAYBE best to leave a lot of stuff - esp with
>   political/social implications - kinda "fuzzy".
Best <=>worst?

Who knows?
Who cares?
Too many whys.
Too many wheres.

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 23/12/2024 01:12, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 22:59:07 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Add a loose monetary policy, tax decreases and increased government
>> debt,
>> and we have a nice booming economy ahead of us. The key, as always, is
>> to know when to sell your shares, take a break, and enter again at the
>> bottom.
>
> Nice booming inflation... I'll strangle the first person that says 'But
> the fundamentals are sound.'
>
> I don't do the stock market so what is good for Wall Street doesn't matter
> to me.

I have to, to stay alive.

But after 20 years I have found a sane way to make reasonable sums. and
that's better than spending all yiur life with your nose glued to the
Financial Times..

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 23/12/2024 03:17, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Well ... you're selling 'exotic' here, selling to
>   the upper class, selling a certain 'style' and
>   'image' of luxury. Speed isn't as important as
>   LOOKING GOOD.

You cant do 'luxury' when all you have is balsa wood and carbon fibre.

Luxury is solid mahogany dining chairs, and a china pot to shit in.
And silverware on te tables. Gimme a nuclear ship any week.

--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 23/12/2024 04:42, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> I'll agree, because it suits me, that it's likely what
>   happened - but really truly PROVING it and the underlying
>   factors is gonna be difficult to the EXTREME.

The point that philosophy makes, is not that proving it is extreme, but
that ultimately it is impossible.

And that changes the game *completely*.

One is not selecting the truth from the possible, one is selecting
something that works OK from stuff that doesn't work very well,. No
matter how attractive

With no hope of ever arriving at 'The Truth'

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 23/12/2024 05:13, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> As I said to Mr. Natural, I think we've kinda reached The Point -
>   where human IQ just really can't COPE with the complexities of
>   the Real Universe.

It never could.

We deal in approximates and generalisations that mostly work. "All
snakes are dangerous" will get you home from school without having to
worry about separation of species.

Our models get more sophisticated, but they don't stop being models for
all that.

WE create a world full of 'categories' and 'types' and 'forms' to
represent the real world, approximately.

The real idiots are the people who confuse these models with reality itself.

The map is not the territory.

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 23/12/2024 06:09, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Everybody is wondering what and where
> They all came from
> Everybody is worrying about where they're going to go
> When the whole thing's done
> But no one knows for certain and so it's all the same to me
> I think I'll just let the mystery be
> -- Iris DeMent

+1

--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"

On 23/12/2024 06:59, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> 'Private' nuke vessels are NOT practical. Not only
>   does it require a team of HIGHLY-trained techs to
>   keep 'em running right

But they dont need to be onboard the damned ship.

How many jet engine specialists are aboard a jet aircraft? None

> but the LIABILITY if they somehow fail .....

Same as any other ship.

> NOBODY in their right mind would   EVER insure that ! What DOES it cost if San Diego
>   is covered in radioactive mist ???
>

I'd consider that a net benefit, but it simply could not happen

>   GOVERNMENTS can push all that aside, but NOT private
>   entities.

Private entities run governments.

--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:50:00 +0100, D wrote:
>
>
>> I shudder at the memory of differential equations and my
>> electromagnetism course. I quickly came to the conclusion that I found
>> math and physics boring. I was able to push through some of those
>> courses by sheer will power, but I realized, why should I spend 4 years
>> on something that I find is boring?
>
> Each discipline had courses that sorted the sheep from the goats. diff-e
> and e-mag theory were two for the ee's. o-chem did in the potential
> chemists. iirc thermodynamics weeded out the civil engineers.

This is the truth! In law in sweden, there is a course called "the wall"
which has a similar purpose. I like this methodology, because it sends the
message (at least I always interpreted in this way) that if you want to
spend your life doing this, you have to fight for it and be motivated.

I do the same thing when I teach. I start hard, and lower the difficulty
level after the first 3-4 weeks, to sort out the unmotivated ones.

Sadly I no longer have the first course, so this year, we did it in
networking, and we'll see in january if we had the intended effect. I
really hope all the people who threatened the school with leaving unless
the school lowered the difficulty level of the exam left. That would be
great! =)

Naturally we refused to lower the difficulty level, and in the end 37 out
of 48 passed. Too many if you ask me. 30-35 I find is a good class size.

> When I took diff-e a friend had a bet with the TA for the course on
> whether I would pass. My attendance in class was spotty to say the least
> and the TA said 'No way'. He lost.

You are one tough cookie!

>> So after jumping through legal hoops, and proving to the university that
>> my idea was correct and theirs wrong, they let me pick my own courses as
>> long as the course difficulty level (A, B, C, D level) met some
>> pre-specified levels. So in the end the emphasis was on IT and
>> philosophy,
>> with a healthy dose of psychology, business, finance etc.
>
> That was the nice thing about the psychology department. There were a few
> required courses but it was mostly a la carte.

I'm reading Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet right
now, and a surprising amount of people in there came from a psychology
background.

It seems the psychology education in the 60s where on to something! They
created the best technological people in a generation, so a la carte seems
to be very beneficial for innovation and following ones natural talents
and interests.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:43:48 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> It is interesting when the act of focusing takes away from the activity
>> such as carrying a glass of water. If you consciously try to balance it
>> to avoid spilling, it gets worse, if you trust your instincts, it
>> generally goes better. My theory is that when you consciously try to do
>> it, you engage a lot of extra machinery which adds latency, and that is
>> why you get "out of sync" vs when you try the intuitive way.
>
> 'Zen and the Art of Archery' It's an interesting feeling when it all
> clicks. I always shot stick bows right handed with no sights. On good days
> it just happens. When my right eye developed a cataract I switched to a
> left handed compound bow. Compound bows have a sights and I could use them
> effectively. Time goes on and I had a couple of operations on my left eye
> and couldn't use the sights effectively. I was going to give the bow away
> but then realized I'd always shot recurves instinctively, why not
> compounds. I took the sights off and it seems to be working.

This is the truth! Or basketball, sometimes (when I was young) I just
"feel" that this shot will be a success.

I have a longbow and it is quite a nice hobby! Sadly I only get to shoot
it about 1 month per year or so. But... once the fortress of solitude is
built, I will be able to go outside and shoot every single day! =)

Now... if I could just find a good plot and a reasonable price! =/

> Handguns can be the same. The sights are there and you sort of see them
> but when you're firing in under .3 seconds there isn't a whole lot of
> thinking going on.

Reminds me of the book Shoot to kill by Fairbairn, I think his philosophy
was a lot about the intuitive way to shoot.

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 12:24:53 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
>>>> facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
>>>> facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
>>>> work well ...
>>>
>>> A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer.
>>> Given the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip
>>> up the Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time.
>>> He was also well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against
>>> evolution.
>>
>> Did you ever get anywhere with him in arguments, or was every argument
>> closed down by the "God"-argument?
>
> There is no winning that argument so I let it slide. I would push his

This is the truth! Difficult to win that argument without resorting to
violence or de-programming. ;)

> buttons by taking the Catholic side in arguments about other points. He
> was entirely dependent of his interpretation of the bible. I would point
> out the Catholics determined the canon. There have been a few Protestant
> tweaks. Luther left out Thomas on his first go-around since the parts
> about faith without works being empty didn't fit with sola fides.
> Maccabees winds up in 'apocrypha' since it mentions prayers for the dead
> as an intercession. Then there is the decalogue parsing to come down heavy
> on those statues.
>
> I doubt many Catholics believe in the Young Earth but that's one of the
> areas that is dealers choice as far as the catechism goes, along with
> evolution.
>
> He died last year and I sort of miss the friendly discussions. As a part
> of hearing what you want to hear a group from his church sand Cohen's
> 'Hallelujah' at the service. There certainly is biblical imagery but there
> is also the verse
>
> "Maybe there's a God above
> But all I've ever learned from love
> Was how to shoot at someone who outdrew ya
> And it's not a cry that you hear at night
> It's not somebody who's seen the light
> It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah"
>
> Then there are the politicians who play Springsteen's 'Born in the USA' at
> there rallies. Or Trump's fondness for 'YMCA'. That song and the Village
> People were as queer as it gets but I don't think he gets the context.

Yes, I thought about that. It was strange to see Trumps followers happily
dancing and singing along. Either they didn't know, didn't care or were
crypto-homos. Pick up to three. ;)

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 21:54:04 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I look at it from an exoteric and an esoteric way. On way is the
>> condensed wisdom of our forefathers, giving practical advice for how to
>> live. The other part, is the original (in my opinion) esoteric
>> experience, that can only be lived or experienced, and never passed on
>> through words.
>
> The Havamal works for me.
>
> https://jacksonwcrawford.com/the-cowboy-havamal/
>
> 38. Keep yer guns close.
> I don’t care what they say,
> there ain’t no tellin’
> when there’ll be call for ’em.
> An armed man has a shot.

Haha, brilliant!

> That speaks to me more than offering the other cheek. I couldn't find it
> with a quick search but there is also a 'Havamal for New Yorkers'. George
> Jones, not the country singer, in 'Honor Bright' compares societies based
> on honor to those based on guilt. He offers the heathen beatitudes.

A pet theory of mine is that society benefits when leaving honor culture
behind to a certain extent. The reason is that with forgive and move on,
conflicts can be fairly quickly resolved and production can resume.

With a strong entrenched honor culture, conflict risk consuming all of
society with fire and destruction following.

Njals saga is a good illustration of how more and more people get pulled
into the fight.

> Blessed are the rich, for they possess the earth and its glory.
>
> Blessed are the strong, for they can conquer kingdoms.
>
> Blessed are they with strong kinsmen, for they shall find help.
>
> Blessed are the warlike, for they shall win wealth and renown.
>
> Blessed are they who keep their faith, for they shall be honored.
>
> Blessed are they who are open handed, for they shall have friends and
> fame.
>
> Blessed are they who wreak vengeance, for they shall be offended no more,
> and they shall have honor and glory all the days of their life, and
> eternal fame in ages to come.
>
> I'll admit my forefathers probably were Christian for a thousand years or
> more but they didn't jot down the Christian beatitudes.

I wonder how many of my forefathers who remained pagans after the country
officially became christian? Surely at least a few must have remained
pagans for a couple of 100 of years after official christianity was
implemented.

On Mon, 23 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 23:09:51 +0100, D wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:55:57 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Montana is on the list! Someone suggested that we might like eastern
>>>> Oregon. Someone suggested Wyoming, but that maybe is too flat?
>>>
>>> Much of Wyoming is high prairie. There are signs on I-80 when you cross
>>> the Continental Divide but it's hard to discern exactly where it might
>>> be. You hit mountain ranges in the west including the Tetons. Even
>>> Yellowstone, while definitely worth visiting, is mostly flat, at least
>>> the more accessible parts.. Grand Teton NP is at the southern border of
>>> Yellowstone and is where the fun begins.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
>>
>> Very beautiful!
>
> https://fullsuitcase.com/grand-teton-np-jenny-lake-boat-hike/
>
> Jenny Lake looks like something imported from the Alps. I waked around the
> lake and up Cascade Canyon until the trail split. Very scenic. I was going
> to take the boat back but there was a line and I'd rather be walking than
> hanging around waiting. Jackson Hole is the southern entrance to the park.
> I guess it could be fun if you're into expensive tourist traps.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Hole

My homo neighbour in spain recommended Jackson hole, so this is on the
list of potential places to visit when we go. Yes, the wife told me
yesterday, that it is a matter of _when_ and not _if_. I tried to offer
her a puppy with the dark thought that it would stop us from travelling
for 15 years or so, but no, she saw through that trick with ease.

Jackson hole is mentioned, I think, in the lovely comedy series Silicon
valley, so if it is mentioned there, surely it must be a tourist trap.

> The Tetons are nice but I've got some scenery much closer to home.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitterroot_Mountains
>
> The trail to Trapper Peak is nowhere as intimidating as you might think.
> Elevation is the major issue if you're not acclimated but it's not as bad
> as the 14,000' peaks in Colorado. Oxygen is damn scarce on those. Your
> mind thinks you should be walking faster but your body isn't willing.

Western Montana does seem like a good place!