TheVat

I'm just glad that no one is keeping him away from cheeseburgers. Though any 25th Amendment scenario could be scary if TFG chooses Nikki as a Veep. She strikes me a Right Wing shapeshifter posing as a reasonable conservative centrist.

Cousins marrying is not uncommon in many societies. Einstein married his first cousin, Elsa, and no one called it incest. Wisely, they did not have children. I have wondered if blue eyes were co-selected, due to the complexity of pigmentation as @CharonY mentioned. Lesser pigmentation in the skin certainly had a strong selective advantage in the north, in getting sufficient vitamin D. Blue peepers could be like blonde hair, a trait that piggybacks on that adaptive train of lower melanin, but then also does have a slight sexual advantage - anthropologists sometimes refer to an overall set of traits that simply make someone more noticeable. In a group of brunette girls, male suitors might take more notice of the blonde blue-eyed cutie. Like Van Morrison, I've always had a soft spot for brown eyes. Yes, for a few generations there would be the novelty factor and so a temporary sexual selection. Have also wondered if an element of tender feelings about babies was in play, too. Pale hair and blue eyes are prevalent in infants, so when those phenotypes start to emerge in a group, there would be the novelty of attractive "babes." (sorry - this is a bit tongue-in-cheek)

Wait, didn't Lao-tzu say "the Tao that can be spoken of is not the true Tao" - ? I wonder if Pooh spiked the honey jar.

In Maine a SoS ruling has no force until it undergoes court review, so Trump is not booted off yet. As for the probability that SCOTUS will allow any ballot exclusions, my Bayesian inference is p = 0. My Bayesian beliefs on the viability of snowballs in Hell are rationally updated every day by the antics of Trump, the number of motions filed in federal courts, and the so-called Supreme Court.

I think of genetic drift and gene flow as sort of the yin and yang of evolution, with gene flow increasing adaptive diversity while drift tends to reduce it with alleles sometimes dropping out completely, as in bottlenecks and founder effects. I think of the Afrikaaners who have a terribly high rate of Huntington's, the infamous "sampling error" of the founder group in South Africa. Due to cultural forces of isolation, the Afrikaaners couldn't benefit from a compensatory gene flow from other African populations that would have greatly reduced the incidence of the Huntington alleles. Another thought - drift, when filtered through natural selection, can sometimes give the illusion of an adaptive effect. I think of my college days and being fairly gobsmacked by SJ Gould's spandrels, in this context. If I recall rightly, polar bears were implicated. Ursine albinism was a fairly neutral mutation and stayed at some consistent level in the bear population as it was a "spandrel" trait that piggybacked on some other trait that was adaptive. Then a group that has a large and non-random sample of the albino alleles gets pushed northward and becomes a founder group in the land of endless snow. So this group serendipitously finds that all those individuals who blend well on white backgrounds are better able to sneak up on seal pups. The evolutionary form of dumb luck. Dumb luck that looked adaptive.

What do the opinions of businessmen have to do with a scientific question at all? On the subject of hair loss, it seems reasonable to consider that both genes and environment will have some effect. The genetic factor of follicle lifespan is certainly there, but there are also factors like diet, smoking, lifestyle that may affect blood circulation to the scalp and follicular viability. Might be interesting to look for studies of MPB that compare smokers and nonsmokers, for example, given the effects of smoking on narrowing dermal capillaries.

A mention of externalism, among other theories of mind, in a New Yorker book review from about four years ago, caught my attention recently. It relates somewhat to the seminal (for this thread) Aeon paper by Epstein, in regard to models of cognition that do not use the information processor metaphor. https://www.newyorker.com/books/under-review/do-we-have-minds-of-our-own Manzotti, who has become famous for appearing in panels and lecture halls with his favorite prop, an apple, counts himself among the “externalists,” a group of thinkers that includes David Chalmers and the English philosopher and neuroscientist Andy Clark. The externalists believe that consciousness does not exist solely in the brain or in the nervous system but depends, to various degrees, on objects outside the body—such as an apple. According to Manzotti’s version of externalism, spread-mind theory, which Parks is rather taken with, consciousness resides in the interaction between the body of the perceiver and what that perceiver is perceiving: when we look at an apple, we do not merely experience a representation of the apple inside our mind; we are, in some sense, identical with the apple. As Parks puts it, “Simply, the world is what you see. That is conscious experience.” Like Koch’s panpsychism, spread-mind theory attempts to recuperate the centrality of consciousness within the restrictions of materialism. Manzotti contends that we got off to a bad start, scientifically, back in the seventeenth century, when all mental phenomena were relegated to the subjective realm. This introduced the false dichotomy of subject and object and imagined humans as the sole perceiving agents in a universe of inert matter. The article looks at Tim Parks book, “Out of My Head: On the Trail of Consciousness," and may be of interest here. Parks explores several theories which depart from the computational model of mind. I also found a good summary piece on these issues in MIT Technology Review.... https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1030861/is-human-brain-computer/ Has a nice pro and con exchange on the legitimacy of the IP model of mind.

The study of alignments of random points in a plane seeks to discover subsets of points that occupy an approximately straight line within a larger set of points that are randomly placed in a planar region. Studies have shown that such near-alignments occur by chance with greater frequency than one might intuitively expect.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignments_of_random_points

I have heard the US military has fairly robust Faraday shielding on its systems. Probably also the case with Big Tech - server farms, etc. At the residential level, there's the sealed metal box as a basic Faraday Cage (with padding so that the protected device is not in contact with the metal exterior). In a last-minute situation where you know an attack is coming, you can toss stuff like backup drives in the microwave (probably would be a good idea to chop off the plug and power cord so it doesn't conduct a powerful EMP into the interior). Also seems like a metal trash can with a snug-fitting lid would work, if you had bulkier electronics (again, padded). I am also wondering if a box type FC would benefit from a grounding wire. The trash can, I guess, one could just set on soil for a crude grounding? As far as empirical testing of my crude residential solutions, I expect the standard test of a FC would be to put a cellphone in there then call it.

It was sort of a joke regarding the way Republicans who appear non-committed will still back Trump after they've complained bitterly about his shortcomings. But maybe they will surprise me and dump him for real this time. For sure, demographics like suburban women seem poised to divorce him.

What is this rare cryptozoological phenomenon you speak of?

Agree that, as @iNow observed, Gorsuch will backpedal on his 2012 ruling. No doubt he will assert that Trump's conduct was in no way an insurrection and therefore Section 3 would not be applicable. Hell, the only time Section 3 worked was for a couple years during Reconstruction, and by 1874 the South had managed to elect dozens of representatives who had been prominent rebels. They should call Section 3 the Swiss Cheese Clause.

Maybe Nikki will pick up some primary wins after all. 😄

Thanks for zoom session report. So much to chew on there. Marcus has always struck me as a voice of reason in confronting some of the breathless claims for AI. Like his observations on what AI theorists call factuality, as deep learning programs can maintain no world model from which to build the kind of understanding that conscious beings do. Without world models, you are left with only syntax, and it's back to the old Chinese Room. And the problems of symbol grounding are something that cognitive scientists/linguists like Chomsky can really help sharpen our view of. Rich models of the world, innate pathways for meaning and semantics, deep structures that allow an instinctive grasp of a world out there...this is Chomsky territory. (and Chomsky is still exploring at age 95, still showing up for symposia and interviews, he's an amazing guy) There are places for both GOFAI and machine learning to shake hands in solving such problems. I would hope everyone here can keep focus on the many issues of AI, rather than on personalities. Leave the past burns behind.

Yep. Good essay. And comments from you. There is no morally tenable position that involves victimized groups claiming a basis to victimize another group. One would hope that functional adults could at some point own up to the Nakba and ensuing ghettoization. The process where people in a nation develop some historical self-awareness can happen, though it's often slow. In the US, for example, a huge majority now understand the American Nakba of indigenous people, and that the European settlers were culpable in acts of genocide and dispossession. At some point, we were able to shift from viewing Native Americans solely as terrorists to viewing them as brutally murdered and displaced peoples trying to keep some shred of their former lives, lands, and cultures. As with so many such situations, land is key. And displacement often is run on the principle that my people can make better use of that land than you do, we are better, more civilized, and some ancient text proves it!

I went back and read the Chomsky interview, at an MIT symposium about ten years ago, where he talks about cognitive science and AI. I think he has a lot to say to this thread. I will try to find a PW free screenshot if possible. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ Ah! Found a nice clean archive screenshot.... https://archive.is/2023.10.18-114835/https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/ This interview uncovers an important ongoing debate in the philosophy of science, as to how best to get at the deeper workings of things. I don't think you will regret reading it.

Hmmm, let me see, uh...North Dakota, South Dakota, aaannd Baja Dakota!

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-quantum-physicists-flipped-time-and-how-they-didnt-20230127/ Physicists have coaxed particles of light into undergoing opposite transformations simultaneously, like a human turning into a werewolf as the werewolf turns into a human. In carefully engineered circuits, the photons act as if time were flowing in a quantum combination of forward and backward. “For the first time ever, we kind of have a time-traveling machine going in both directions,” said Sonja Franke-Arnold, a quantum physicist at the University of Glasgow in Scotland who was not involved in the research. Regrettably for science fiction fans, the devices have nothing in common with a 1982 DeLorean. Throughout the experiments, which were conducted by two independent teams in China and Austria, laboratory clocks continued to tick steadily forward. Only the photons flitting through the circuitry experienced temporal shenanigans. And even for the photons, researchers debate whether the flipping of time’s arrow is real or simulated....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal's_tree_theorem Really large number.

It is if people use it that way. Using an upper case G is using it that way. You are wasting our time. And I sense Dimreepr is itching to post the Jehovah scene from Life of Brian.

God, as a monotheistic being, is capitalized for the same reason Allah is. It's being used as a proper name. If I refer to a "god" that could be any from a vast range of supernatural entities, and so it's a common noun. Grark, the god of rotten cashews. The god of small things. Children of a lesser god.

One of the more sad and horrible war stories I've heard, and that's saying something. It's the kind of story that sends me back to my core opinion on human aggression: you cannot trust humans with anything more lethal than a stick.

Buddhism does not posit a soul. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/20/buddhism-animals-souls-religion

Various errors, most notably your failure to take account of water vapor flux and its amplifier effect on CO2 as a GHG, as well as albedo change, CH4 effects, methane hydrates, and other feedback mechanisms, and research going back to Tyndall and Arrhenius, all suggest your knowledge of atmospheric physics is minimal. For this reason I suspect several posters here are simply passing by your posts. This is not a "religion" thing, but your straw man is duly noted. Net warming also occurs when there is overcast. Better check your work.

Well of course. That's why dualism remains the dominant philosophical position of most of humanity. The phenomenal aspect of existence, qualia, points us to a sense of self. Some kinds of dreaming or traumatic conditions, like ones where we leave our bodies, naturally lead to the notion of a soul or "astral body." I have had a couple such experiences myself, and am aware of both the dualistic mystical explanations and the neurological ones. I lean towards the latter, while remaining agnostic on the former. On litterbugs, I remain firm in the advocacy of public flogging. It's an offense I find less easy to understand than murder. 🙂 Swap God for a janitor, rot in a jar of dog paws! (one of my favorite palindromes)