MSC

Some have said that the universe appears to have been designed intelligently and this has been cited as an argument in favour of a divine creator. Arguments have gone something along the lines of "Take the complexity of the human eye, whether it came into being 6000 years ago or evolved over millions upon millions of years, it looks kind of like how we would design a camera." There is a reason this argument falls flat on it's face. The same reason an argument in favour of the chicken coming before the egg would fall flat on it's face. There is a temporal bias at play wherein you see how we have designed things first and you see those same patterns in nature around you second; there lies the mistake because those patterns came first and are the basis of how we design things intelligently. The universe is not modelled after intelligence, rather our intelligence is modelled after the universe. If you stumble upon a watch that may prove there is a watch maker but without time and space and the nature of those things being what they are, neither the watch or the watch maker would exist. Intelligence wouldn't exist. The universe was not designed intelligently, the universe designs intelligence. I am purely agnostic when it comes to the existence of the divine or some kind of creation. If something comes down from the sky with seemingly god like powers I'll be assuming technology that I don't understand before "This can only be a god." The Teleological argument has just never sat right with me due to this strange temporal bias at play within the minds of the religious and the spiritual. I'm open to hearing better arguments in favour of the existence of some kind of cosmic entity that actively cares about me as an individual but intelligent design just is not one of them. It would be like building a model of the golden gate bridge and then claiming the architect of golden gate bridge used your model. Unless you have a time machine it just doesn't make much sense.

How many people are actually going to hear about this? Didn't come up in my newsfeed and I'm pretty anti-trump. Kind of freaks me tf out. Agreed, I relate it more to dogmatism and sociogenic factors (ain't peer pressure the worst?) more than anything else. Will have to give this book a read myself. It sounds like it scratches the surface of the creative uses of language that tend to go hand in hand with cults. Language creation is probably the biggest part. Creating thick concepts through demonisation especially. At this point, me and you can say "liberal" in the personal context to each other, with an agreed upon definition in language that a liberal is someone who supports liberal public policy and philosophies. In Trump speak it is no different in definition to "evil asshole" and is as thick of a concept as the word "slut". In terms of cult studies, the cult of personality around Donald Trump is far more public than standard cults who tend to try to hide their worst behaviours from the public eye. Normally by the time people realise there is a serious cult in their midst or nearby, the members of that cult are highly indoctrinated and are essentially speaking their own language. I wouldn't call it their own dialect because we are talking layers upon layers of redefining terms and definitions laced into a constantly evolving narrative of victimhood and imminent danger. Trump supporters may sound like they are speaking English, but it isn't, it's Trump speak. The way we define and conceptualize corruption isn't the same as the way Trump defines and conceptualizes it. The fall into a cult is quiet and subtle. Sure the charismatic leader is always loud and bombastic but there is a gradual escalation in the rhetoric that takes advantage of a fear and anger cycle so that in the followers mind there is a slow snowball effect of thinking about the fears in the leaders terms, what to do about them and the anger the leader brings out in them because the enemy/outside/fear agitator is always personally attacking every individual follower of the leader. The thing is, from a certain perspective the process isn't very different from how social movements in general work. The differences being whether or not a single person is at the center or an idea/cause is leading a group, the second difference is that beneficial social movements are reactions to true reality but cult movements are reactions to a false/warped reality brought on by how they newly adapt their use and conceptualization of language over time within the rhetorical indoctrination process. That isn't an exhaustive list of differences but the most relevant two in my mind. I suspect the quiet rule when it comes to Trumps cultlike following has a method of action similar to how people react when people who speak a language you don't know are speaking around you or to you. Sorry went on a bit of a tangent. I do feel it is important though for people to internalise that Trump supporters should be thought of as speaking another language just for practical reasons if you happen to need to talk to any of them (friends, family etc) And definitely show them the Reich thing! That needs to be made known everywhere. They said the quiet part out loud this time. Brazen mfs. And they won't sue him most likely. People know what they are donating to Trump for at this point but they see it as trying to save Jesus from crucifixion. A big ugly orange and blond Jesus. That poor Crucifex.. I have a prediction, If Trump is convicted, he'll give some "cut the tall trees" style public remarks and we'll see a rapid escalation in co-ordinated violent crime across the USA. 😕 hope I'm wrong.

Just googled. My god... Yeah no tears shed here but it looks like you could throw a stone in Iran and hit someone with motive to assassinate him. If that is the case, I hope they never find them.

Agreed, if DJT had still been in office I'd have said "No he really may be that stupid" but I definitely don't see Biden ordering something like that, especially not now and for the most part Israel is busy in Palestine and has enough bad PR with that mess as it is. Do we think there is any chance of internal assassination orchestration within Iran itself? I don't know enough about their internal politics to guage either way.

I agree that an accident is more likely, that said if Israel or the USA wanted to plan an assassination but wanted a situation where they could cast blame on something else to create plausible deniability, knowing the Iranian president was going to be on a route known for bad weather conditions, add in that the fog could conceal the activity of assassin's, it might have been an opportunity too good to pass up. But yeah, I'll assume accident until proven otherwise.

The scary thing in this day and age is it doesn't have to be an assassination for enough people to believe it is and still arrive at more bloodshed.

Facts on the ground. It seems that Russia is lending 50 professional mountaineers to aid in the search but also investigate the cause of the crash. Based on the fact that the weather has worsened to 5 meter visibility it is safe to assume the weather was already bad enough to cause an accidental helicopter crash of an old Russian helicopter. No doubt Russias motivations are fueled by speculative paranoia over western involvement and their need to blame everything on the west as an assault on them. Probing for pretext.

Firstly, I loved the two videos you shared! They were a lot of fun. Now the reason I honed in on this particular question of yours; it's most definitely both. Due to research in consume psychology, a lot of our devices and the software that runs them, are designed to take advantage of human psychology via dopamine feedback loops. From the way notifications work to the sounds the UI makes etc, then layer on top of that search algorithms. These devices are essentially like a button that you can press to give yourself a dopamine fix or if dopamine isn't your cup of tea and you're more of a stress addict, you can access cortisol whenever you want with these devices too. How humans are is what gave rise to the problem of how powerful these devices are, but serious consideration has been made with these design choices to maximize profit over human betterment or improving quality of life. The devices can still do that, but you have to wade through all the manipulation and avoid all the distractions in the process. The internet especially is the quintessential field of pig shit that someone dropped a few precious gems into at this point. Sure the gems are there, but how much pig shit can a person wade through to find them? And what do you do about all the people around you in the field who think they've found a gem and are holding up a turd? Yeah it sounds like you have a lot of reading up to do on anti-fascism but it is a core principle of a functioning democracy, complete or representative. It isn't a group or a movement it's a response to the threat of authoritarian dictatorships who would silence public dessent with violent suppression to create a centralized autocracy under them.

And I think the key thing is that he's versed in a lay way enough with those subjects enough to just give some choice keywords for people to know where to dig but since it's not his field, he may have read about it once or twice, but not with the same rigour or depth as within his own field of study and active areas of personal passionate interest. I still think he probably should only respond to mass shootings with compassion or not at all but I'm curious as to why @Otto Kretschmer thinks NDGT isn't a scientist just because he hasn't published as much as other scientists or what exactly the bar is supposed to be to maintain status with something that is as much an outlook as it is a profession. Science or the scientific method is just natural philosophy all grown up in some sense. Wittgenstein in some circles was considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century and he barely published anything. 1 book while he was alive, Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus, 1 book after his death called Philosophical Investigationsand 1 book comprised entirely of his notes called On Certainty released in 1969. Decades after his death. In the end because of his public profile he is in a spotlight few scientists are in. That's always going to invite more people scrutinizing him. How would we all come up if under the same spotlight? Absent mistakes, foot in mouth moments, total cock ups etc? I've had brain farts and temper flares here I wouldn't want the public to scrutinize absent context or explanation or maybe just a bit of forgiveness for a bad day that we all have sometimes.

Whoops there goes me repeating myself, my bad. I give those directions to a fair amount of people so you'll have to forgive me for forgetting you were one of them.

Seconded. If I may add to this, a good entry point is a YouTube channel called Crash course that has a philosophy course. I also found oxfords philosophical dictionary to be very useful. There is a Cambridge philosophical dictionary too and I've tended to find both in large public libraries@Genady I'd say the crash course is best for really enhancing an understanding of some of the hard to grasp concepts. Case and point; when I was first studying philosophy it took me a few months before I realized that my understanding of supervenience was completely back to front, so I literally thought someone was trying to say that the brain relies upon the mind for change and not the other way around.

You've hit on the underlying destruction of will and hogging of our time that is fundamental to the proto-psychology of these technologies. Manipulation for the sake of content engagement, which in turn gives them more data, which leads to more effective manipulation. People may be making whackadoodle conspiracy theories but the tech is pushing people toward it just to get them to look at the screen more. How do you combat that when disinformation seems to spread faster and further than truth and few can actually comprehend peer reviewed research to identify truth in it anyway?

For anyone to beat sense into me it would help if they've actually been to a boxing Gym for more than a few years because that is what it would take. Thank you genuinely to the mod that deleted my last comment. Lost my cool. Won't happen again.

I was responding to Ottos sincere question then Dim decided to have a go. Where was I being fucking childish MigL? Will be you I take into a boxing ring at this rate if you don't learn how to read the room and tell the difference between someone just trying to engage with the discussion and a shit stirring gobshite. One is childish, the other is just trying to discuss without attacking folk and I do not appreciate being charecterised as a child for not taking shit lying down. Go and just leave it alone like Swansont already asked. Like I literally wasn't even fucking talking to Dim and he just pipes up with the trolling because I won't agree with his nonsensical crap in another thread. Thank you!

I mean I know you're right absolutely, maybe it's some of the motivational psychology behind hunter gatherers that I really feel like we miss out on today. Not the tribalism stuff of course we still have that crap today but as a species we are so much more violent to each other than most other species on the planet are to each other. And I get it, military advancement has also spurred advancement of technologies that aid humanity instead of killing people. But was a military advancement always needed? Maybe really I'm just curious as to what out hunter gatherer ancestors would be doing after a decade of having modern technology and education.

I'm all good. Feel like we'd all just be repeating ourselves at this point

You've claimed lots, while explaining nothing. I don't think there is anything more to be gained by having this discussion with you. I don't understand enough about your metaethical I positions yet to know where our points of contention actually lies. This to me sounds like an admission that you're only here to troll and wind me up. I and @TheVathave repeatedly throughout the thread presented our cases. If you've forgotten you can go back and reread them. At this point I'd just be repeating myself for someone who isn't reading to comprehend but is reading to react. If I was soapboxing I'd be the OP. Context Dim. Although I think it's comical that being inclined to thinking more than skin deep for ethical problems has had a large number of thick concepts associated with it created by people who lack moral fiber. Virtue signalling, do-gooder, wokist etc are all thick concepts that put a negative connotation on trying as humans to A) be more considerate of the lives of others and B) try to convince others of the same. I also feel there is a massive difference between people who virtue signal as an aesthetic status symbol thing; and people who are actively engaged in the study of moral philosophy because it's legit their passion. I'm the latter and I consider myself to be an independent ethicist. Laugh at that all you want, but that's just me. I'm not going to change for you.

There it is. Descending into personal attacks. Classy. Leave me alone Dim. In what? Ethics or death statistics? I highly doubt the former and I don't tend to keep track of death statistics for the purposes of downplaying mass shootings. Fallacious appeals to authority aside, I'm not an astrophysicist but we aren't discussing astrophysics are we Dim?

It sounds like Walter white downplaying the plane that crashed over Albuquerque because there had been bigger plane crashes in the past that killed more people.... Dear Neil; often people respond to what is in front of them. Not what is behind them. If you're pissed that different data was put in front of people then get into news publishing instead of selling overpriced planetary society gold plated pens or pins or whatever it was. Oh and one more thing; the insensitivity displayed could have been avoided by ending on a call to help reduce those deaths or a moment of silence but instead, snarky comments about emotions to death.

Has anyone ever read this series of books? Or even better, has anyone ever heard the amazing Sir Ian McKellen reading this on audiobook? This series has been on my mind a lot recently. It's set in pre-hunter gatherer times. Very primal. Sometimes makes me wonder if modern technology was a mistake.

Scars by Krizz Kaliko. My man's got a voice like red velvet cookies and cream lol Hip-hop is so underrated because the cream doesn't rise to the top that's where you find the shit instead.

Defining objective expertise on the matter is difficult as well. Take law degrees for example; You've got your Ruth Bader Ginsberg's and your Clarence Thomases. In Philosophy you've got people like Saul Kripke being published in peer reviewed journals before going to college and people with PhDs in some branch writing weird utilitarian arguments for why people should eat their babies, just for for the sake of being contentious. I'm at least an expert in following curiousity to the core root and how polymathy works, if nothing else. Yet I'm a highschool drop out who works on a farm. I mean you've got paid credentialed experts in most fields hired by some industry to downplay some messed up bullshit they are doing. Add to that algorithms kicking people toward what it thinks their preferences are anyway. I mean when you think about it, it's easy to understand why people either completely lack trust in or wholly believe whoever fits their idea of what an expert is. When you're online too it's hard to even know who to trust when they say they have college qualifications, behind a screen. so I've just gone with a mix of observing consensus, observing dialogical behaviour and fact checking when given keywords. And we all know some people lie about it. I've done it or been purposefully vague about my educational background. Not proud of lying about it in the past but I dunno, always regretted leaving school and was ashamed of being a drop out. Now I don't care who knows and life's too short for living with lies. I can't even always tell when threads get thrown into speculations because you've got high level physics debates raging in them so from my perspective someone is either crazy, too personally invested in their hypothesis or is actually ahead of their time and onto something I'd have no ability to understand or accept even if I had the PhD. Sorry for the tangents Charony. Just difficult to hide my despair and disappointment at how segregated everyone has become ideologically because of how the internet works now and my own lack of ability to really do jack shit about it other than do what I've always done. Learn stuff and work.

I second this; even outlining some suggestions for an experiment that would test the hypotheses would be a start. @Aetherwizard What research could be done to prove the validity of your claims in laymans terms?

So does that make RHS neutrinos WIMPs or when you say more massive than the LHS do you just maen relatively more massive but still not WIMPs? Are the states of the LHS and RHS correlating toward them being an entangled pair or does that just not come into it at all? Are some of the bigger colliders that are allegedly in the works going to be capable of detecting them?

Awesome video! Thanks for sharing, but there was one detail about it that bugged me. Go to 1.50 in the video and watch what happens to external time when camera time hits 3.15.20.0000 external time jumps to 99.99.99.9999. What's happening with the clock? @Mordred I've been thinking a little. If we have found sterile left spin neutrinos, what is so different about right spin that makes them much harder to detect? Dark matter is more abundant than baryonic matter from what I understand so unless dark matter is a non local phenomenon, why havent we detected it yet and come up with any hard answers about the stuff that makes up so much of the universe? Also what is meant by sterile in this context? Another question; kind of OT toward QFT, but could dark matter be the sum of all currently existing virtual particles, making dark energy the vacuum energy that arises from the mass of virtual particles that comes out of it? As I understand it virtual particles aren't massless, have energy and momentum and they tend to share characteristics of their real particle counterparts and don't all have the same lifespans. We can't detect them either so I don't know. Contender or does latice field theory effectively eliminate the need for virtual particles?