On 07/12/2024 15:15, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 10:26, D wrote:
>>> do like opensuse, but their way of acting towards non-woke people, as
>>> reported on by Lunduke, really makes me want to stop supporting them.
>>
>> Go woke, go broke.
>
> Woke derangement syndrome. Is one deranged for:
>
> 1 Completely altering the original, native meaning of the word?
Dunno. Ask a 'gay'.

> 2 Wanting to change now-loaded words used in technical contexts,
> such as "master" and "slave"?
Oh yes, definitely.

> 3 Whining about item 2?
>
No.

>> The Marxist termites have been burrowing through the fabric of society
>> on the 'long march through the institutions' since 1967.
>
> LOL at the "Marxist termites". Wotta drama queen!

I guess you are one after all.

>
>> Now they control them the inevitable collapse towards anarchy or
>> idiocracy begins.
>
> Are you saying the "go woke go broke" people are anarchists or idiocrats?

Idiocrats *and* anarchists

>
>> Inevitably people who combine into less stupid and idealistic cohesions
>> will take over.
>>
>> Possibly without any evident democracy. Hey ho, Twas ever thus...
>
> Well, the pendulum does often swing... as in the Edgar Allen Poe story.
>
And its the Left who are going to get sliced into bacon.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 07/12/2024 15:18, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 02:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>>
>>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
>>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>>
>>> Interesting. I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>>> at least for me. This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>>>
>> Oh gawd. I hope it works out. I hate to say it, but IME around 50% of
>> knee operations fail.
>>
>> Sometimes fatally
>
> How so? Infection?
>
Mainly as I understand it, yes.

> I've had two hip replacements and have 3 plates holding up my neck.
>
Hips are far more successful, >95% no problems at all

> I had one cervical plate put in years ago, and play soccer, often as
> goalkeeper. The hits to the head apparently lead to removal of the first plate
> and the installation of 3.
>
Again, not problematic.

--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 07:41, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> On 12/6/24 12:12 PM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>>>> Science does not include them
>>>>>
>>>>>    The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>>>>>    entirely our own inventions.
>>>>>
>>>>>    And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>>>>
>>>> More Kant-ian.
>>>>
>>>> His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself'
>>>> and how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it into
>>>> are not actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we
>>>> describe it to ourselves and to others.
>>>>
>>>> Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship
>>>> doesn't exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits
>>>> of wood.
>>>>
>>>> (The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and a
>>>> common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object
>>>> after having all of its original components replaced over time, typically
>>>> one after the other.
>>>>
>>>> In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens,
>>>> rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the Minotaur
>>>> and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians
>>>> would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to
>>>> honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After
>>>> several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece of the
>>>> Ship of Theseus were replaced, one after the other, was it still the same
>>>> ship? )
>>>>
>>>> Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If you
>>>> are a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem because
>>>> you believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in reality.
>>>
>>> I would argue that the ones who most certainly do not have a problem with
>>> this are materialists. It's a bunch of atoms, and we can then make up
>>> labels. The problem guys are the platonists with their ideal heavens,
>>> concepts etc. which are forever beyond proof. The ding an sich is an
>>> absurd konzept an sich. If you postulate something which can never be
>>> known, it is kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a postulated
>>> first mover etc.
>>>
>>>> Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it
>>>> refers to. Meta data. A pointer.
>>
>>
>>   Kant ?
>>
>>   Try Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" tome.
>>
>>   OK ... you'll go brain-dead after just a few
>>   chapters ..... and it's like 1000 pages ......
>>
>>   BUT, he kinda DID prove that our "physics" can be
>>   an emergent property of ultra-zillions of 'strings'
>>   humming along with simple interaction rules -
>>   cellular automata math.
>>
>>   Ultimately, all 'materialistic'.
>>
>>   But what WE make of it all, how we LIVE in it all ...
>
> Well I don't apply the term materialistic as strictly to that kind of view.
>
> Although he is still stuck with 'objects and events in space time linked by
> causality' .
>
> He hasn't really changed his metaphysics at all, merely made it increasingly
> remote with yet more dimensions to explain why it seems to be the way it
> seems to be.
>
> (Epicycles versus heliocentrism. You CAN do it all with epicycles, but
> sticking the sun in the middle is a co-ordinate transform that really makes
> it less shitty to calculate, as the Church accepted. What they didn't like
> was Galileo claiming it was 'true'. Because it isn't. It just works.)
>
> And hasn't gone as far as seeing that all of the above are in fact emergent
> properties of the consciousness that uses them as foundations for its
> thinking to map what really is, into a digestible form.
>
> Or rather that is in fact a far simpler way to arrive at a metaphysics that
> *works*.
>
> Bohm did all that with his theory on an 'implicate order' behind quantum
> physics. Showing that if you postulated another realm, quantum effects could
> be the emergent properties of that.
>
> And then testing the Bell inequality showed that at least that couldn't be
> the case for *local* variables.
>
> Physicists and mathematicians have all been trying to 'save materialism' from
> the onslaught of the Quantum world. Until recently are they beginning to
> think 'let's say we scrap materialism and think of it as an emergent
> property...what then could be the underlying reality and why do we see it as
> other than it probably is'?
>
> They are slowly getting there.
>
> I can't find a very interesting talk held in an annex before a big physical
> society conference on you tube any more . I suspect it simply hasn't had
> enough you tube views because no one understood it. I almost did. Enough to
> stay the course.
>
> Suffice to say the three participants were starting to think outside the
> materialistic box to find a solution to 'what quantum physics has to mean'
> etc.
>
> Also Sean Carroll is a very good presenter of ideas in this area. Worth a
> listen to.
>
> I think we are probably sue for a Kuhnian 'paradigm shift'

The thing is... there's always the "shut up and calculate" interpretation.
At the end of the day, the pragmatic effects in the world is all we can
relate to. Formulas point to nrs, those nrs we then try to "reverse
engineer" into verbal descriptions. Since we are dealing with levels and
phenomena so far from our ordinary experience, we gets many wonderful
and/or nonsensical interpretation such as the many worlds one, and many
others.

The thing is... should we ever prove any of it, which is not done, it will
all just be added to our concept of the "material world" (caveat emptor,
and definitions aside) and expand it and enrich our model of it.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:52, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/24 12:12 PM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/12/2024 06:48, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/5/24 4:36 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>>>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>>>>> Science does not include them
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The Real World exists. What any of that MEANS,
>>>>>>    entirely our own inventions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    And those inventions tend to CHANGE over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Yea, kinda Nietzsche-esque ...
>>>>>
>>>>> More Kant-ian.
>>>>>
>>>>> His metaphysics draws a clear distinction between the 'world-in-itself'
>>>>> and how we perceive it. His point being that the objects we reify it
>>>>> into are not actually there as discrete entities, they are simply how we
>>>>> describe it to ourselves and to others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which immediately solves the 'Theseus' ship' paradox*, as such a ship
>>>>> doesn't exist, it is merely how we refer to a collection of rotting bits
>>>>> of wood.
>>>>>
>>>>> (The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a paradox and
>>>>> a common thought experiment about whether an object is the same object
>>>>> after having all of its original components replaced over time,
>>>>> typically one after the other.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Greek mythology, Theseus, the mythical king of the city of Athens,
>>>>> rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the
>>>>> Minotaur and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the
>>>>> Athenians would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to
>>>>> Delos to honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers:
>>>>> After several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece
>>>>> of the Ship of Theseus were replaced, one after the other, was it still
>>>>> the same ship? )
>>>>>
>>>>> Modern philosophers still get their knickers in a twist over this. If
>>>>> you are a died in the wool realist and materialist it is a problem
>>>>> because you believe there exists such a thing as 'Theseus' Ship' in
>>>>> reality.
>>>>
>>>> I would argue that the ones who most certainly do not have a problem with
>>>> this are materialists. It's a bunch of atoms, and we can then make up
>>>> labels. The problem guys are the platonists with their ideal heavens,
>>>> concepts etc. which are forever beyond proof. The ding an sich is an
>>>> absurd konzept an sich. If you postulate something which can never be
>>>> known, it is kind of useless. It goes the same way as god, or a
>>>> postulated first mover etc.
>>>>
>>>>> Kantians say that it's just a label: Distinct from the object that it
>>>>> refers to. Meta data. A pointer.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Kant ?
>>>
>>>  Try Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" tome.
>>>
>>>  OK ... you'll go brain-dead after just a few
>>>  chapters ..... and it's like 1000 pages ......
>>>
>>>  BUT, he kinda DID prove that our "physics" can be
>>>  an emergent property of ultra-zillions of 'strings'
>>>  humming along with simple interaction rules -
>>>  cellular automata math.
>>>
>>>  Ultimately, all 'materialistic'.
>>>
>>>  But what WE make of it all, how we LIVE in it all ...
>>>
>>
>> If he proved it, how come there has been so little talk about him in
>> scientific circles?
>
> Read 186282@ud0s4.net's exact words.
>
> "prove that our "physics" *can* be"...
>
> ...Anything.
>
> It's a bit like 'With enough terms in a polynomial I can draw an elephant'.
> True, but moderately useless.
>
> The first point that is relevant is the linkage between facts, and theories.
> Science *presupposes* that invisible eternal and immutable Laws of Nature
> (more digestible than Gods Demons or Elohim) guide events to inevitable
> conclusions, given the exact starting points. And the business of science is
> to 'discover' what those laws are.
>
> Or at least that was roughly the Newtonian worldview.
>
> It came under attack beginning with a clearer exposition of a logical flaw in
> how we arrived at these theories.
>
> Hume expressed it as the 'problem of induction' . That is the inability to
> derive general rules from specific instances. The sun rose today. It always
> has, but does that mean it always will?
>
> And we can extend that uncertainty into general rules of inference by stating
> categorically that in the case of certain events happening, there are both an
> infinite number of *possible* 'causes' as well as an infinite number of
> *impossible* ones.
>
> And science is a collection of possible ones. Not as most people think, of
> *facts*.
>
> And what is deemed possible is subjective. To some people the idea of
> injecting microchips into your brain to control your thinking is plausible.
>
> So the fact that some one 'proved something' *could* be *possible*, means
> absolutely nothing.
>
> If the something is vague enough and untestable it's basically pseudo
> scientific bullshit.
>
> What a theory has to do is to explain something in a testable way that
> differs from how it was explained before, and is more accurate in describing
> the world.
>
> Then scientists get interested. Einstein's theories accounted for gravity as
> we then understood it but gave corrections to things we had measured that
> didn't quite fit, as well. It worked better than Newtonian but it was
> radically and shockingly different.
>
> And a great loosening of the conviction that theories uncovered truths, to an
> understanding that they were *plausible constructions that worked*, only.
>
> And a better understanding of Occam in that the simplest idea no longer
> represented the truth, it was just that , in an infinity of possibilities,
> inventing complicated ones where simple ones were just as good, was mere
> posturing and intellectual flatulence.
>
> And that is the problem with string theory. It could be right but it brings
> nothing to the party. So why bother?

Thank you for the elaboration. Then it makes more sense to me.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 17:18, D wrote:
>>>
>>> Its not that the real world is not at some level most usefully regarded as
>>> a fact, it is that the more subtle question is whether what we *perceive*
>>> is in fact the real world *at all*. Or simply a construction in our own
>>> minds that maps what is *actually* there (maybe a probabilistic entangled
>>> quantum soup) into a recognisable world of objects and events linked in
>>> space time by natural law and causality.
>>
>> I'd say it is an obvious fact and not a subtle question if we look at the
>> limited spectrum of our senses, and our limited compute resources. I think
>> in terms of reality, it can be seen as a spectrum of probabilities about
>> things in the world. Many clever people cling to this, and think it means
>> that no world exists, or that nothing can be proven.
>
> Well the concept that no world exists is called Idealism. It's all in the
> mind. Mine alone [solipsism], Gods [monism], or some other arrangement. It
> explains everything but predicts nothing. Like Islam. Inshallah. If it is
> Gods Will. Great, But not very *helpful*.
>
> 'Nothing can be proven' is in fact the case, and the whole problem and the
> disjunct between the mind of the ordinary person and that of philosophers.
>
> Only deductive logic is provable, But all science and everyday life rests on
> inductive logic and inference.
>
> On 'probable cause'.
>
> My late mother was convinced that people were coming in to her house and
> hiding her car keys. So she started putting them in places no one, including
> herself, would think to look.
>
> But with short term memory loss, she couldn't find them again, thus
> reinforcing the original belief.
>
> The neighbours were a plausible if somewhat paranoid explanation. For someone
> in her condition.
>
> It's the same with conspiracy theories. They are plausible to people without
> the background to reject them as extremely unlikely. How many people believed
> in WMD in Iraq?
>
> I reverse
>> that, and say that any proposed alternatives to the real world should be
>> proven, and if they are not, the real world is a perfectly reasonable
>> default assumption.
>
> The problem is that no alternatives can be *proven*, and indeed while the
> 'real world' is a perfectly reasonable *assumption*, it starts to crack a
> little under the strain of modern physics. And indeed some psychology and
> other pressures. It cannot be 'proven' *either*.
> It is as you correctly say a default *assumption*.

My great revelation is that it does not need to be proven, since we are
all in it, and seem to act as if it actually exists and works as it does.

That is why I'm very happy to dismiss idealists. I also agree that
idealists will have a hard time to prove their position or reason to it.
They have not stopped though, after millenia of trying, and they probably
won't.

>
> Left wing idealists would argue that the world is simply what you think it is
> and can be changed by 'magical thinking'. To them this is more than
> plausible, it is self evident *fact*.
>
> My point in advocating the philosophy of Kant et al, is that it solves
> problems that mere materialism does not.
>
> Neither can be proved correct, but in the context of modern life
> 'transcendental idealism' may prove to be (sic!) more *useful*.
>
> It accounts for the subjective element of experience. It allows time to pass
> differently for different observers.
>
> Pure materialism insist that time and space are immutable, they are there as
> the framework of all material existence. Einstein says that they are in fact
> relative to the observer.

I think I use materialism in a way more comprehensive and all encompassing
way, than might be customary. Maybe that is why there is confusion. As
long as the quantum guys continue to provide testable hypotheses, I'm all
for it. Where I at the moment get off the train, is when they get all
excited about many worlds & co, since that by definition can never be
tested, nor can it ever influence our world in any way. I like
Wittgensteins silence on that matter, have my concept of agnostic monism,
once our theories are starting to tear at the seams.

> Oh dear.
>
>
>

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 20:40, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:23:09 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I
>>>> mean,
>>>> a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of which
>>>> we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably, never
>>>> will)
>>>> determine the nature of it.
>>>
>>> It's all water.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense! Ether!
>
> Its all in the mind.
> Whose mind? I cancel that question! MY mind!

Or would that be just.... mind? ;)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 06/12/2024 17:24, D wrote:
>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to me
>>> Natures best laxative...
>>
>> Pear juice? Had no idea!
>
> Neither did I.
>
>> I do know though, that after enjoying fresh pressed apple juice, most, if
>> not all, store bought juice tastes awful.
>
> Yes. Fresh pressed juice contains nothing to stop it becoming cider.,
>
>> I am also not a fan of the filtered apple juice you get on planes, which
>> probably comes down to the previous statement.
>
> Store bought juice is simply another product...

This is the truth! The only store bought juice I drink occasionally, is
pomegrenade juice.

On 07/12/2024 16:39, D wrote:
> So therefore, metaphysics doesn't really exist, except as thought forms
> to make us feel better (if we need that), in which case it's just a
> bunch of nice stories.

Well you are starting to make clear a completely metaphysical position here.

What do you mean by 'really exist' ?

Do a persons hurt feelings 'really exist'? Or are they just pulling your
strings?

Metaphysics is the study of the assumptions we make about everything in
order to be able to describe and manipulate things.

If your metaphysics and your language doesn't have room for the 50 kinds
of snow that some arctic cultures can claim exists, do those types of
snow exist for you? No. Do they exist at all? Arguable. It's just 'snow'.

It is clear you have no idea what metaphysics means and are confusing it
with mysticism and religion.

Sure, religion is a form of metaphysics, but *so is science*.

Religion is the study of a world that includes a supernatural component.
Science is the study of one that does not.

The question of whether or not there is a supernatural component is
proved by neither. In the end you assume what you assume, have faith in
it and proceed to collect $200 and avoid going to jail, so to speak.

I have no intrinsic problem with 'materialism' apart from the fact that
like religion, it is a remarkably narrow and exclusive view and wholly
unsatisfactory in the limit, and like religion, insists it is the One
True Fact.

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:20, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:09:11 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
>>>> theme.  But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real world
>>>> as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true or
>>>> false.
>>>
>>> Buddhism has the concept of two truths, conventional and ultimate.
>>> Conventionally I went out this morning to feed two cats. Ultimately 'cat'
>>> is a construct I imposed and there aren't two of anything.
>>>
>>> https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf
>>>
>>> Nietzsche condensed into a couple of hundred Chinese ideograms...
>>
>> Buddha seems to have been far ahead of his time. I really like his position
>> on god, that instead of speculating, they should "shut up and meditate". ;)
>>
> There are states of mind that can be achieved that clarify why people
> started talking about gods and spirits and other realms in the first place.
>
>
>> On the other hand, I do not know if this is what he actually thought, or if
>> it is just hearsay.
>>
> Does it matter?
>
> The sound of one hand clapping is a phrase that seems to make sense, in that
> you understand all the words, but it points to an impossible or meaningless
> event.
>
> The intention is to guide the student away from a dependence on the reality
> of words to a reality beyond them.
>
>
>> I tried for a bit, to try and "distill" original buddhism, and although it
>> was difficult to find anything specific, my feeling was that original
>> buddhism was more about doing, rather than speculating, so heavily
>> meditation focused, and not very speculation focused.
>>
> Buddhism is what one bloke said after he had successfully stopped his mind
> from thinking but yet wasn't actually unconscious. And a set of instructions
> on how to copy his techniques.
>
> I met a guy once who spent a long time doing that, who had also taken LSD He
> claimed that 'the end result is the same, but the LSD is much easier, and a
> bit more dangerous'.
>
> :-)
>
>> Another thing I found out was also that original buddhism was heavily
>> adapted to the individual (naturally) where buddha tried to tailor the
>> techniques and teachings to the individual he was talking with, and that is
>> why it started to diverge over the millennia.
>
> Yes. If you regard the primary purpose as detaching the consciousness from
> the intricate entanglement with ordinary affairs, which as far as I am
> concerned is all that it is, then the method will differ for each individual
> since their involvements all differ.
>
> Stopping the incessant flow of internal conversation is the name of the game,
> and it's (meditation) not the only way to do that. Trauma does it.
> Isolation and asceticism does it. Self punishment (flagellation) allegedly
> does it. Even lack of sleep does it. Some drugs do it.

I think it can even happen spontaneously, and then there's near death
experiences as well.

That brings me to the thought, since psylocybin and other mushrooms are
now starting to become so common, if there's something to be gained by
doing it the natural way instead of "shocking" the mind with external
drugs?

The reason I'm thinking about it is that I 've read about
underground trip-clinics where people get "hooked" on the spiritual
experience of merging with the universe. They want to experience it again
and again.

Contrast that with a buddhist monk who trained meditation for decades, and
then has his realization. He might be a kind and loving man, with enormous
compassion, continuing with his meditation and helping people.

The young man in the trip-clinic, goes there once a week to get his dose
of spirituality.

Is this good or bad? Is there a component that favours one or the other
method?

I have a business colleague who is afraid of death. He went to an
underground clinic and took a trip, and for a week or two afterwards he
felt more in tune with the world and more spiritual and even hesitated to
kill mosquitoes out of compassion. But then the effect started to wear off
as life came back.

I don't know if it did anything long term, about his fear of death.

For me, the tetrapharmakon is as good a treatment as any! =)

On 07/12/2024 16:42, D wrote:
> The thing is... should we ever prove any of it, which is not done, it
> will all just be added to our concept of the "material world" (caveat
> emptor, and definitions aside) and expand it and enrich our model of it.

That is your credo - your religion.
I do not ascribe to it.

Already quantum physics makes the 'material world' some sort of emergent
property of a natural dice throwing quagmire of sub atomicity. To the
point where calling it a 'material world' seems a bit impertinent.

I merely say that to consider that the material world is just an
emergent property of quantum soup *and* human consciousness, is more
flexible and useful..

I don't 'believe it to be 'true' because I cant believe *anything* to be
true.

It's models, not turtles, all the way down. Models whose sole
justification is that they work well enough for us to think them and not
die prematurely.

That the models are the transform - the map - of some underlying
externality (your material world) is simply our way of representing
some of the orderliness in our perceptions that they produce.

"The world is everything that is the case" was Wittgenstein's 'final
solution;' But of course he was no scientist, and a bit of a twat anyway.

Suppose the world is whatever *might* be the case. And in fact why
restrict yourself to one world?

Quantum physicists don't. Strings, many worlds, probabilistic fields
creating emergent realities once observed...

I understand your need for security, but don't let it limit your thinking.

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:26, D wrote:
>> do like opensuse, but their way of acting towards non-woke people, as
>> reported on by Lunduke, really makes me want to stop supporting them.
>
> Go woke, go broke.
>
> The Marxist termites have been burrowing through the fabric of society on the
> 'long march through the institutions' since 1967.
>
> Now they control them the inevitable collapse towards anarchy or idiocracy
> begins.
>
> Inevitably people who combine into less stupid and idealistic cohesions will
> take over.
>
> Possibly without any evident democracy. Hey ho, Twas ever thus...

I don't know. By nature I'm very long term optimistic. It would hardly be
the first time in human history that we go through some kind of dark age,
only to come out of it and eventually pick up speed towards new highs.

I think perhaps the future consists of multi-polar, virtual communities,
hiding in plain sight. The wokists do their thing, crash a society or two,
get thrown out, things start to improve, until the next group comes along,
generating an anti-group and so on.

Meanwhile, in cyberspace, all the cool kids gather, learn, help each other
out.

Of course, since we have about 190+ countries or so, some will be more
successful than others, and the interesting thing there is if they will be
pressured by the failing ones to submit and share their wealth or if they
will manage to somehow stay independent. I think the size of them would
determine the outcome. Monaco and Liechtenstein have been able to survive
longer than some modern european democracies, so it is not impossible,
although difficult.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:27, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>>
>>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
>>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>>
>>> Interesting.  I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>>> at least for me.  This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>>>
>>
>> Knee replacememt? I have heard of hip joint replacement, but had no idea
>> they do it with knees as well! In truth, science is mighty!
>
> A friend had it. She was an overweight NHS nurse, After 4 further operations
> to try and clear infection, she said when she contracted pneumonia 'don't
> revive me. I've had enough of pain'.
>
> I went to her funeral.
>
> Other people end up with amputations.
>
> Hip replacements are very successful though.
>
> Its something to do with the ability or inability to deliver antibiotics to
> the wound site

Ouch! We must pray hard for success! In terms of pain and quality of life,
my mother was pretty relieved to finally let go after having struggled
with very painful cancer treatment for several years.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:43, D wrote:
>> This sounds plausible. I predict 4 difficult years with Starmer and
>> socialism.
>> After that, if the Tories have bright and flexible minds, there will be a
>> coalition between Tories and Farage, and UK will be where sweden is now
>> with a center government supported by the nationalist sweden democrats.
>
> I pretty much agree with that.
> The tories had forgot to be conservative, and so they got kicked out. The
> socialists are predictably beyond incompetence, and in 4 years time they will
> go.
>
> I am not sure what the outcome will be but the country needs, wants, and will
> ultimately vote for, an end to wokeness and political ideology and a return
> to some sort of competent management...
>
> Kemi Badenoch is making all the right noises for the Tories, but can she
> repair the damage?

I'd say it depends on how much of a fighter she is. She needs to kick out
the old guard, and start afresh. She also needs to balance and respect the
wishes of Farage. the swedish coalition has lasted more than 2 years now,
and that coalition includes the swedish (socialist) liberal party who are
so afraid of losing their seats (and money) in a new election, that they
have been bullied to "shut up" by the nationalists. They have 2.8% and the
nationalists have about 20%, so they are always saying "let's do it, let's
have an election and see if you will last". This threat is remarkably
effective at stopping the (socialist) liberal party from toppling the
coalition.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 07/12/2024 10:50, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/24 4:11 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/5/24 7:17 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/12/2024 09:31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>> There is great good and great evil in man. That's what makes him so
>>>>>>>> fascinating and why fighting is such a necessary sport to give an
>>>>>>>> outlet for all that aggression.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only man creates the categories of good and evil.
>>>>>>> Science does not include them
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you know what I mean. In order to avoid nitpicking, let's say
>>>>>> creative and destructive energies.
>>>>>
>>>>>  To "Nature" ... I think it's all just superstrings hummin'
>>>>>
>>>>>  WE make of it all as we will.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Joe Alien ... he many have entirely different ideas ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know. Natural and I have discussed this violently and agreed to
>>>> disagree. I'm a huge fan of the material world. As for the ultimate
>>>> nature, laws and composition, I am agnostic, and we'll see how far
>>>> science will take us. I lean towards instrumentalism/cognitive
>>>> empiricism.
>>>
>>>
>>>  IMHO, 'material' owns it - 'reality'-wise anyhow.
>>>
>>>  However the Quality Of Life depends on what we DO with that.
>>>  It generally stops of short agreeing to the Nietzschean extreme.
>>>
>>>  Sci-tech will eventually take us All The Way insofar as
>>>  power over our environment. But, again, how do we FEEL
>>>  such power and insight be used ?
>>>
>>>  If it was easy they'd have resolved all this 25,000
>>>  years ago.
>>>
>>>  The Buddha understood there was a Real World - but
>>>  WE could never ever really see/perceive it because
>>>  of what we were, how nature put us together, our
>>>  native environment, our IQ range. We will always
>>>  have a key-hole view, seeing things through
>>>  "human-colored glasses".
>>>
>>>  Plato's "Allegory of the cave" kinda touched on the
>>>  same stuff - but, maybe for political reasons, left
>>>  off the last paragraph or two.
>>>
>>>  ANYWAY, at the cold cold root - it's just all
>>>  superstrings hummin' ... calculating a 'reality'
>>>  as WE can sorta perceive it. Wolfram seems to
>>>  have grasped this.
>>>
>>
>> I pretty much agree with you. Not much to add. Interesting that this is
>> your interpretation of Nietzsche. Mine is very similar. I would add, that
>> Nietzsches philosophy is his own attempt, and that every person needs to
>> make it "his own".
>>
>> Tying that to politics, I think it was Ludwig von Mises who wrote in his
>> classic "Liberalism" (and this is liberalism in its original meaning, not
>> the bastardized US meaning of the term, so think libertarianism),
>> somethings along the lines of...
>>
>> Liberalism [libertarianism] is nothing more than the scientific view and
>> method of how to structure society in such a way as to maximize material
>> wealth and quality of life. Beyond maximizing material wealth, it makes no
>> other claims or sets no other goals.
>>
>> So what you, as an individual, do with that wealth, if you use that to
>> purchase time (work less) and what you fill that time with, is entirely up
>> to you.
>>
>> I believe that this is why many people find libertarianism so scary. They
>> have no inherent sense of value or goals. They need the goals pushed on
>> them from the outside (equality, sustainability, be a cog wheel in the
>> machine of the nation, the prosperity and success of the race, etc.) in
>> order to feel meaning in their life.
>>
>> When they have an ism that does not push any form of value, but only wants
>> to create time for people to flourish, since they are not self directed
>> from within, they cannot make any sense at all of it, and it scares them at
>> a deep level.
>>
>> That is why I think that the human psychology is not really ready for
>> libertarianism, as long as the majority of humans are drawn to religions
>> and isms in order for an external person to supply them with goals and
>> values.
>
> I think this hits the nail on the head. Socialism now occupies the space left
> by the demise of Christianity.
>
> A sharp Jewish girlfriend of mine once observed that 'the people need to be
> told what is right and what is wrong, and how they should behave otherwise
> they simply don't know what to do'
>
> But they are increasingly realising that socialism too, has feet of clay.
> And I do not entirely agree that people cannot accept a reality without
> ideology.
>
> Libertarianism/pragmatism/conservatism can simply say that it deliberately
> restricts its activities to ensuring law, order, prosperity and social
> stability and is 'ultra vires' when it comes to determining moral behaviour.
>
> And leave that to religion or the BBC

Yes, let's hope that people will shed socialism, just like they once shed
christianity. I think it partly has already started, since socialism is
running out of weak groups to fire up against the rich. The richer we
become, the less of a grip socialism has on the lower classes.

That is why they are scrambling for new fronts such as the environment and
immigration (import a new lower class and start again from the 1800:s).

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/6/24 9:30 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-06, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 01:13:40 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fedora still seems ok - as far as Fedora is OK. The
>>>>>>> Manjaro/Endeavour/Arch end is still OK. Never a fan of Slack, but,
>>>>>>> who knows ...... gotta keep evading suckitude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slack was my first distro. Download in pieces and copy to about 40
>>>>>> floppies.
>>>>
>>>> When I decided to try Linux I went to the local bookstore and
>>>> browsed the Linux books, comparing all the ones that came with an
>>>> install CD. I liked Patrick Volkerding's book best, so I wound up
>>>> starting out with Slackware 3.5. I continued with it for several
>>>> years (and upgrades), but the lack of a package manager required
>>>> lots of application builds from source, which grew tiresome.
>>>
>>>
>>> Slack IS very "raw". There's some good, but a lot of bad, in that.
>>> You kinda have to be an OS fanatic ...
>>>
>>> But I'm not 16 anymore.
>>
>> Thank you for the review. Then it is not for me. I don't mind
>> _some_ tinkering to improve things, but like you, I'm not 16 anymore
>> and I have a business to run, so this I will remove from the list of
>> my opensuse replacements.
>
> Don't take the word of our nymshift troll 100%. Yes, Slackware is more
> hands on than a full on "hold your hand, you are an idiot" distro such
> as Ubuntu. But it is a far cry better than it was back in the "50
> floppies to install days". A default install of slack 15, picking
> "everything" gives you in most cases on normal hardware a working
> useful system -- and if you leave KDE "on" in the list of "everything"
> even gets you a "hold your hand, you are an idiot" desktop environment
> too.
>
> Where Slackware is more 'raw' than a Unbuntu is that if you want to
> modify, say, your default name search path or default name server, you
> simply edit /etc/resolv.conf instead of launching whatever GUI
> 'configurator' it is that Ubuntu provides to poke at tabs and entries
> to make the change.

Ohh... but that is not "raw" in my book. I do that myself on opensuse and
I very seldom use yast. So basically, what you are saying is that it works
like... "linux"? ;)

Maybe I should add slackware back to the list then, since what you are
saying just sound exactly like how I like to manage my machines! =D

> And for that one, the install script asks you for the details as part
> of the install, so if you give the correct data at that time (same data
> you'd poke into the Ubuntu GUI configurator) then you don't even need
> to edit /etc/resolv.conf.
>
> There's an old quote that came about from the net long ago:
>
> Learn Ubuntu and you learn Ubuntu, learn Slackware and you learn Linux.

I'm happy I started as early with linux as I did. I teach the config file
way to my students, and am furious when I learned that the teacher who got
the job after me, taught the students how to manage linux with _only_ the
GUI tools. Revolting! Also causing them to miss out a lot about how the
system actually works, and how it was design to work. =(

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

>> LOL at the "Marxist termites". Wotta drama queen!
>
> I guess you are one after all.

You seem to come to conclusions based on little to no evidence.

>>> Now they control them the inevitable collapse towards anarchy or
>>> idiocracy begins.
>>
>> Are you saying the "go woke go broke" people are anarchists or idiocrats?
>
> Idiocrats *and* anarchists

Thank you for that admission.

> And its the Left who are going to get sliced into bacon.

How about centrists like myself?

You sure have a way with violent turns of phrase.

--
Being a BALD HERO is almost as FESTIVE as a TATTOOED KNOCKWURST.

The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On 07/12/2024 15:18, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>
>>> On 07/12/2024 02:30, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And unbeknownst to
>>>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>>>
>>>> Interesting. I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>>>> at least for me. This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>>>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>>>>
>>> Oh gawd. I hope it works out. I hate to say it, but IME around 50% of
>>> knee operations fail.
>>>
>>> Sometimes fatally
>>
>> How so? Infection?
>>
> Mainly as I understand it, yes.
>
>> I've had two hip replacements and have 3 plates holding up my neck.
>>
> Hips are far more successful, >95% no problems at all

Actually, mine were about 9 years ago. Apparently they've gotten a lot
less intrusive these days.

>> I had one cervical plate put in years ago, and play soccer, often as
>> goalkeeper. The hits to the head apparently lead to removal of the first plate
>> and the installation of 3.
>>
> Again, not problematic.

Mmmmkay. I had to spend about 6 months in an ungainly neck brace, while
wearing an electrical stimulator harness for four hours per day.
At least I could walk. Though once I trip and fell and thought, on the way
down, "this can't be good". Luckily, the only damage was blood streaming down
my knee. I kept walking.

--
Bumper sticker:
All the parts falling off this car are of the very finest
British manufacture.

On 07/12/2024 16:50, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2024 20:40, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 18:23:09 +0100, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I once experimented with the concept of agnostic monism, by which I
>>>>> mean,
>>>>> a unified underlying construction or explanation of the world (of
>>>>> which
>>>>> we are a part), but, that we cannot (at the moment, and probably,
>>>>> never
>>>>> will)
>>>>> determine the nature of it.
>>>>
>>>> It's all water.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense! Ether!
>>
>> Its all in the mind.
>> Whose mind? I cancel that question! MY mind!
>
> Or would that be just.... mind? ;)

Ah, that of course is another unprovable metaphysic: Monism. We are
all God and it's his/our/my imagination at work.

Jolly cute, but ultimately fucking useless.

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 07/12/2024 16:57, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 10:20, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:09:11 +0100, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Don't even go there. Natural and I had very lively discussions on that
>>>>> theme.  But yes, I'm in the camp of the people who accept the real
>>>>> world
>>>>> as a fact, and that without humans, there's no ethics, math, true or
>>>>> false.
>>>>
>>>> Buddhism has the concept of two truths, conventional and ultimate.
>>>> Conventionally I went out this morning to feed two cats. Ultimately
>>>> 'cat'
>>>> is a construct I imposed and there aren't two of anything.
>>>>
>>>> https://thebuddhistcentre.com/system/files/groups/files/heart_sutra.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Nietzsche condensed into a couple of hundred Chinese ideograms...
>>>
>>> Buddha seems to have been far ahead of his time. I really like his
>>> position on god, that instead of speculating, they should "shut up
>>> and meditate". ;)
>>>
>> There are states of mind that can be achieved that clarify  why people
>> started talking about gods and spirits and other realms in the first
>> place.
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, I do not know if this is what he actually thought,
>>> or if it is just hearsay.
>>>
>> Does it matter?
>>
>> The sound of one hand clapping is a phrase that seems to make sense,
>> in that you understand all the words, but it points to an impossible
>> or meaningless event.
>>
>> The intention is to guide the student away from a dependence on the
>> reality of words to a reality beyond them.
>>
>>
>>> I tried for a bit, to try and "distill" original buddhism, and
>>> although it was difficult to find anything specific, my feeling was
>>> that original buddhism was more about doing, rather than speculating,
>>> so heavily meditation focused, and not very speculation focused.
>>>
>> Buddhism is what one bloke said after he had successfully stopped his
>> mind from thinking but yet wasn't actually unconscious. And a set of
>> instructions on how to copy his techniques.
>>
>> I met a guy once who spent a long time doing that, who had also taken
>> LSD He claimed that 'the end result is the same, but the LSD is much
>> easier, and a bit more dangerous'.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> Another thing I found out was also that original buddhism was heavily
>>> adapted to the individual (naturally) where buddha tried to tailor
>>> the techniques and teachings to the individual he was talking with,
>>> and that is why it started to diverge over the millennia.
>>
>> Yes. If you regard the primary purpose as detaching the consciousness
>> from the intricate entanglement with ordinary affairs, which as far as
>> I am concerned is all that it is, then the method will differ for each
>> individual since their involvements all differ.
>>
>> Stopping the incessant flow of internal conversation is the name of
>> the game, and it's (meditation)  not the only way to do that. Trauma
>> does it. Isolation and asceticism does it. Self punishment
>> (flagellation) allegedly does it. Even lack of sleep does it. Some
>> drugs do it.
>
> I think it can even happen spontaneously, and then there's near death
> experiences as well.
>
The ultimate trauma...

> That brings me to the thought, since psylocybin and other mushrooms are
> now starting to become so common, if there's something to be gained by
> doing it the natural way instead of "shocking" the mind with external
> drugs?
>
Depends on the person. Drugs are supremely violent and the moment or
revelations may well be too much for people to survive mentally intact...

There isn't much point in achieving enlightenment if you are then unable
to cope with daily life.

"Before enlightenment, chopping wood, fetching water: After
enlightenment chopping wood, fetching water"

:-)

> The reason I'm thinking about it is that I 've read about underground
> trip-clinics where people get "hooked" on the spiritual experience of
> merging with the universe. They want to experience it again and again.
>
Bliss junkies.

It inst an escape. They probably gave em fentanyl. They knocked me out
with that for my last operation. Wow!

> Contrast that with a buddhist monk who trained meditation for decades,
> and then has his realization. He might be a kind and loving man, with
> enormous compassion, continuing with his meditation and helping people.
>
Indeed.

> The young man in the trip-clinic, goes there once a week to get his dose
> of spirituality.
>
Or down the club for a bit of Ecstasy.

There is a reason psychedelics are no longer in vogue. They don't
guarantee a good time at all. In fact they can deliver a seriously bad
one. Hence Ecstasy - a cross between an amphetamine and a psychedelic.

> Is this good or bad? Is there a component that favours one or the other
> method?
>
Depends on the person. I think you need to be very strong to survive any
drug. But weak people are attracted.

> I have a business colleague who is afraid of death. He went to an
> underground clinic and took a trip, and for a week or two afterwards he
> felt more in tune with the world and more spiritual and even hesitated
> to kill mosquitoes out of compassion. But then the effect started to
> wear off as life came back.
>
Psychedelics destroy your current world view. You can then find
alternative ones, or end up with none at all, in a mental institution,
but your normal one is a deep groove to escape from...its like they are
a tool to modify the metaphysics. But they are no guarantee the
modification will hold.

This is the world we have to live in - unless we are extremely
permanently 'enlightened'

> I don't know if it did anything long term, about his fear of death.
>
> For me, the tetrapharmakon is as good a treatment as any! =)

"In my life, I have travelled many paths,
into the bush and out of it
But I am not anywhere.
For me there is only the travelling on paths with heart
On any path with heart
And their I travel looking breathlessly"

"But how can one know a path with heart?"

"Any fool can know that, the problem is that no one asks the question"

--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:52:04 +0100, D wrote:

> If he proved it, how come there has been so little talk about him in
> scientific circles?

I feel left out. The Wiki blurb said the Wolfram language was included on
the Raspberry Pi. As far as I can tell that applied to Raspian but not the
Raspberry Pi OS. I don't need another rabbit hole anyway.

D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>
>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Slack IS very "raw". There's some good, but a lot of bad, in
>>>> that. You kinda have to be an OS fanatic ...
>>>>
>>>> But I'm not 16 anymore.
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review. Then it is not for me. I don't mind
>>> _some_ tinkering to improve things, but like you, I'm not 16
>>> anymore and I have a business to run, so this I will remove from
>>> the list of my opensuse replacements.
>>
>> Don't take the word of our nymshift troll 100%. Yes, Slackware is
>> more hands on than a full on "hold your hand, you are an idiot"
>> distro such as Ubuntu. But it is a far cry better than it was back
>> in the "50 floppies to install days". A default install of slack
>> 15, picking "everything" gives you in most cases on normal hardware
>> a working useful system -- and if you leave KDE "on" in the list of
>> "everything" even gets you a "hold your hand, you are an idiot"
>> desktop environment too.
>>
>> Where Slackware is more 'raw' than a Unbuntu is that if you want to
>> modify, say, your default name search path or default name server, you
>> simply edit /etc/resolv.conf instead of launching whatever GUI
>> 'configurator' it is that Ubuntu provides to poke at tabs and entries
>> to make the change.
>
> Ohh... but that is not "raw" in my book. I do that myself on
> opensuse and I very seldom use yast. So basically, what you are
> saying is that it works like... "linux"? ;)

Yes. Slackware is the nearest to just being Linux of all the distros
(that install Linux, some of the FreeBSD's may be similar). If your
preference is to edit /etc/resolv.conf to adjust your default name
server, and edit /etc/init.d to change the default bootup, and so
forth, it is more what you may be looking for than the others (all of
which add varing levels a "you are an idiot, here let me hold your hand
via this custom GUI" system on top).

> Maybe I should add slackware back to the list then, since what you
> are saying just sound exactly like how I like to manage my machines!
> =D

Tis free to download, and you can install it into a VM if you wish to
'test out' at first (and don't have a spare machine to devote to
'testout').

It also is one of the few left that is systemd free. And instead of
the SYSV infinite field of symlinks for init, Slackware uses BSD style
rc.d scripts (actual scripts you can edit). The provenance of SYSV
sysmlink fields means it also will support those if you want, but the
default is actual scripts that execute other scripts.

>> And for that one, the install script asks you for the details as
>> part of the install, so if you give the correct data at that time
>> (same data you'd poke into the Ubuntu GUI configurator) then you
>> don't even need to edit /etc/resolv.conf.
>>
>> There's an old quote that came about from the net long ago:
>>
>> Learn Ubuntu and you learn Ubuntu, learn Slackware and you learn Linux.
>
> I'm happy I started as early with linux as I did. I teach the config
> file way to my students, and am furious when I learned that the
> teacher who got the job after me, taught the students how to manage
> linux with _only_ the GUI tools. Revolting! Also causing them to
> miss out a lot about how the system actually works, and how it was
> design to work. =(

And that teacher is turning out students, much like the MSCE students,
who only "know Ubuntu" (assuming they used Ubuntu) and the "Ubuntu way"
and if tossed into a "non Ubuntu" system, become lost, because they
really did not learn how things worked behind the "lipstick on a pig
GUI".

On 07/12/2024 17:24, D wrote:
> It would hardly be the first time in human history that we go through
> some kind of dark age, only to come out of it and eventually pick up
> speed towards new highs.
>
> I think perhaps the future consists of multi-polar, virtual communities,
> hiding in plain sight. The wokists do their thing, crash a society or
> two, get thrown out, things start to improve, until the next group comes
> along, generating an anti-group and so on.

A quick glance at the 'iron law of oligarchy' is revealing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

>
> Meanwhile, in cyberspace, all the cool kids gather, learn, help each
> other out.
>
Or get cancelled because their views represent a threat to the
established elites.

> Of course, since we have about 190+ countries or so, some will be more
> successful than others, and the interesting thing there is if they will
> be pressured by the failing ones to submit and share their wealth or if
> they will manage to somehow stay independent. I think the size of them
> would determine the outcome. Monaco and Liechtenstein have been able to
> survive longer than some modern european democracies, so it is not
> impossible, although difficult.

One of the great reasons I dislike the European Union is precisely
because it seeks to impose, by force, a monolithic 'European culture'
whereas in times of crisis, the last thing you want is to be on a ship
with no watertight doors - if the ship gets holed, down we all go.

We don't know the right answers, we have to experiment. And some
experiments end in failure. Communism ended in failure.

But why then are we so keen to reintroduce it?

--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 07/12/2024 17:27, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 10:27, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-12-06, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was recovering from a tumour operation at that point and was on
>>>>> seriously concrete butt plugging pain relief.
>>>>>
>>>>> I drank a couple of points of pear juice. Delicious. And
>>>>> unbeknownst to
>>>>> me Natures best laxative...
>>>>
>>>> Interesting.  I've found that peanut butter acts as a mild laxative,
>>>> at least for me.  This is a Good Thing - I love peanut butter.
>>>> I had a knee replacement yesterday, so I'll get to test it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Knee replacememt? I have heard of hip joint replacement, but had no
>>> idea they do it with knees as well! In truth, science is mighty!
>>
>> A friend had it. She was an overweight NHS nurse, After 4 further
>> operations to try and clear infection, she said when she contracted
>> pneumonia 'don't revive me. I've had enough of pain'.
>>
>> I went to her funeral.
>>
>> Other people end up with amputations.
>>
>> Hip replacements are very successful though.
>>
>> Its something to do with the ability or inability to deliver
>> antibiotics to the wound site
>
> Ouch! We must pray hard for success! In terms of pain and quality of
> life, my mother was pretty relieved to finally let go after having
> struggled with very painful cancer treatment for several years.

Yes. I can appreciate that. Currently I have at least four chronic
incurable conditions that may kill me in the end. I take the pills and
keep going. Maybe I will die in a car crash instead.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 11:27:09 +0100, D wrote:

> Knee replacememt? I have heard of hip joint replacement, but had no idea
> they do it with knees as well! In truth, science is mighty!

https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/total-knee-replacement/

Pretty common. I know a couple of people who have had it. Not a
replacement but I have a gamma nail in my hip after a fall on ice a couple
of years ago. The rehab took a couple of months but I have not problem
hiking or doing my usual activities. It doesn't let me forget it's there
though.

When I was a kid my grandmother broke her hip. They might as well have
taken her out and shot her. The mechanical aspects of medical technology
have really made progress. I'm not sure about the drugs.

On 07/12/2024 17:30, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/2024 10:43, D wrote:
>>> This sounds plausible. I predict 4 difficult years with Starmer and
>>> socialism.
>>> After that, if the Tories have bright and flexible minds, there will
>>> be a
>>> coalition between Tories and Farage, and UK will be where sweden is
>>> now with a center government supported by the nationalist sweden
>>> democrats.
>>
>> I pretty much agree with that.
>> The tories had forgot to be conservative, and so they got kicked out.
>> The socialists are predictably beyond incompetence, and in 4 years
>> time they will go.
>>
>> I am not sure what the outcome will be but the country needs, wants,
>> and will ultimately vote for, an end to wokeness and political
>> ideology and a return to some sort of competent management...
>>
>> Kemi Badenoch is making all the right noises for the Tories, but can
>> she repair the damage?
>
> I'd say it depends on how much of a fighter she is.
Og she is tough. And at some level a software engineer too. I rather
like her.

> She needs to kick
> out the old guard, and start afresh. She also needs to balance and
> respect the wishes of Farage.

Farage is just a spokesman. He represents people he has talked to. He
has no wishes as such. And sadly, because I like the bloke, he is
drifting out of touch.

There is more wrong than uncontrolled immigration

> the swedish coalition has lasted more than
> 2 years now, and that coalition includes the swedish (socialist) liberal
> party who are so afraid of losing their seats (and money) in a new
> election, that they have been bullied to "shut up" by the nationalists.

Bullying socialists should be an Olympic sport.

> They have 2.8% and the nationalists have about 20%, so they are always
> saying "let's do it, let's have an election and see if you will last".
> This threat is remarkably effective at stopping the (socialist) liberal
> party from toppling the coalition.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson