Peterkin

I think the operative word there is "superficially". Both conditions are more complicated and involuted than a list of symptoms. Also, both conditions have a great deal of variation from patient to patient. Interesting idea. But apparently, on the wrong track. It seems to me that schizophrenia patients are too busy inside their own heads to deal effectively with external reality, including communication from other people. It's not necessarily lack of feeling for others so much as poor quality reception due to emotional static.

http://www.ikonet.com/en/visualdictionary/static/us/hormones

The DNA was always a herring. It takes days or weeks to get the lab results. Much the same with fibers and hairs: laboratory turnaround time precludes the use of physical evidence to prove guilt in time to justify torture. That decision has to be made fast, based on nothing that you can take to court. Except in a carefully scripted thought-experiment, guilt is not established at the outset. The people who torture know this; they're looking for a shortcut to the desired result, whether that's preventing a further crime, gaining information about the prisoner's accomplices or extracting a confession. Police are not always skilled at torture, and have no easy access to trained contractors, the way spy agencies and armies do. That partly accounts for 'accidental' deaths in custody and a high rate of wrongful convictions in the US. In non-modern, non-democratic, non-westernized countries, it's routine operating procedure for prisoners of military action - overt or covert - political dissidents, ethnic minorities, religious nonconformists and other suspected shit-disturbers. All this was covered in the first two pages.

That's rational. But not all cults are religious. It's possible to discuss rationally the nature of cults and their functions in a period of history in a particular society. Everything of which humans are aware and capable has some basis in reality as perceived by humans. An idea in which many humans invest their time and effort - and for which they are willing to risk their life - must be rooted in some aspect of some version of a reality they share. That's worth investigating. That's another assertion worth investigating. No, it isn't. However, if you have no interest in anthropology, sociology or psychology, there is no need for you to participate in those discussions.

Please explain: arbitrary constant on a scale of relativity Neither of those is an ideology. Cause and effect prevail throughout the universe, in all manner of interactions, processes and events. No person, entity or thing has any choice regarding the chain of causation; it proceeds regardless. The concept of good and evil is limited to human philosophies; they figure to some degree and in some form in all human philosophies. Jungles have no laws, except those physics, chemistry and biology. If any societies are organized on the basis of those "themes", please provide examples of each.

done

Thank you.

Sorry! It as the word "experiment" that snagged my attention, not the religious aspect. But now that the poster's identity has been further revealed, I'll not make that mistake again.

Not to eat, but I'm up for chasing the odd one.

What? How? Which church?

Couple of issues: I can't exactly trace the taxonomy of "tree" in Animalia. Trees are various in size and range in lifespan from shorter than a cat's to longer than the rise and fall of human empires. A short fat olive tree may be a 1000 years old, while a tall, majestic Lombardy poplar fizzles out in 15. And you did put humans, who live three times as long as bears, four times as long as a bison and five lifetimes of a musk-ox, far too low on the longevity scale.

This is incorrect. Domestic cats and dog have the same approximate life expectancy: 10-20 years, depending on breed. Bears and giraffes both have an average life expectancy between 20 and 30 years - the giraffe being on the lower side. Humans may live 70-100 years, given hospitable environment. "Fizzling out" is not, AFAIK, a scientific principle. A little more time at the drawing-board may be advisable.

For the mind-set required to initiate deliberate, systemmatic, prolonged infliction of pain on another sentient being? And to declare that ethical? Maybe there is, but it's already here and not in my purview to move.

I didn't feel that altered the little nudge I wanted to give the continuing, popular assumption that torture produces the desired results. This belief has been in effect, repeated in a thousand different contexts and guises, for thousands of years, and authorized by thousands of policy-makers who were all deemed, in their time, to be sane. Does this not cast a doubt on our concept of sanity?

hehe

Yes. (In fact, I thought that one of your most cogent posts. Just wanted to elaborate on it a little bit - on topic.)

You know Einstein wasn't a psychologist , right? And that there is no such medically recognized condition as 'insanity'? And that the attitude described in the little poster is routinely exhibited by duly (democratically or otherwise) elected heads of state? Does that tell us anything about the efficacy of torture as a law-enforcement or crisis management procedure?

With regard to public transit, it's not a this-or-that proposition; it's more like this+that+those+these+the others(s). At least, that's how it works in Toronto, and I'm pretty sure other cities do likewise. The subway runs entirely underground - under the busiest streets - in the dense urban core and most of the older boroughs. Where it was feasible, they put the rails in a little canyon, fenced off from pedestrians, so you can see daylight and vegetation from the windows, but not landmarks. (whole lot cheaper than digging tunnels!) A recording (in my memory, a pleasant mezzo voice) announces the next station in good time to get to the door. In the less dense suburbs, they have an elevated train, which is very quiet and smooth, with nice scenery. On the surface are streetcars, trolleys and buses (diesel, hybrid and electric), as well as shuttles to the airport and other high-demand destinations. One of these is the ferry terminal, where you can ride boats to the islands. Between the city center and the outer suburbs and not too distant 'bedroom communities', there is a fast commuter train, above ground, which has recently been extended to provide regular service to more distant places in the Golden Horseshoe area. Cities and their transportation systems are not usually planned: they grow, adapt, branch out, diversify, upgrade, evolve. I just read that they're putting in a maglev train o replace the monorail in the zoo. And I forgot to mention the bike trials. Overall, and okay city, except for the odd shooting. https://www.marsdd.com/news/10-toronto-green-projects-to-enjoy-when-the-pandemic-is-over/

That you contradicted yourself. But that's okay, as long as you're sure.

So, which is it? Consequences or hoped-for outcome? Those are two different sets of consequences.

Right. If you get the desired results (assuming your society still desires those same results by the time you do get them) you did the right thing. If you fail to get the desired results, you did the wrong thing. You can, therefore, never choose a course of action according to your own moral compass, but rather according to a statistical calculation of the odds for and against the desired outcome. As long as all the variables in a situation are given in a thought-experiment format, you should do just fine.

I'm glad you're here now! I'll try to damp the static down this month.

No. Scratch doesn't contain enough DNA, let alone stainless steel.

The sad thing is, those first two monoliths (not unlike the late World Trade Center) are all from a single, futile - if sometimes heated - conversation, while neither of us contributed much to any science subject.

Well, he might have become a little slow on the uptake - you can't fake deadish! - but his music is electrifying.