Strange

I don't think that ("letting them off the hook") is the point at all. The point I (and, I think, others) was making is that the fact that people blame themselves doesn't mean they have any blame. They may feel they could or should have done something different, but probably they couldn't (I wish I hadn't left the car unlocked - but I had no way of knowing it wasn't locked so its a pointless wish). All the things we wish we had done differently are with the benefit of hindsight. How often have you heard people say, after the event, "Oh I thought he looked suspicious". Really? Or are they just projecting their knowledge back and altering their perceptions at the time. To put it another way, I don't think the subjective feeling of guilt or regret has any relevance to the facts of the case. If I had known the car was unlocked and left it anyway, then I would have a reason for feeling guilty and stupid. And then we could argue about whether or not I should share some blame/responsibility for the theft. But I didn't and couldn't, and therefore I cannot be ascribed any blame or responsibility, no matter how much I might regret my actions and blame myself.

Unless you want to end up millions of miles away!

Sigh. Then AGAIN, please quote the relevant text and/or mathematics from this paper that show that increasing intelligence resulted in improvements in increasing entropy. So far the only example of a "cognitive task" that you have provided is "reading". Does the paper you linked mention reading? No. How does reading improve entropy? How does "optimising" reading further improve entropy? What does it mean to "optimise reading"? Can you either answer these questions or provide some relevant examples of cognitive tasks, and explain how they act to increase entropy. And, in case it isn't clear: I am asking these questions because I don't understand what you are saying. I don't understand what you are saying because you refuse to explain. So another question: why do you refuse to clarify your idea?

That doesn't seem a very logical argument. (In general. If you were talking about a specific singer then maybe it could be justified. But you obviously aren't.) There is no reason why a singer shouldn't be qualified for politics, in general, or the presidency, in particular. You might as well argue that an actor isn't qualified. Was Sonny Bono a bad politician? (I really have no idea!) Or Condoleeza Rice? Youssou N'Dour seems to have been fairly successful. And Martha Reeves and Gilberto Gil had brief stints in politics. I'm sure there are loads more. But we probably shouldn't mention Screaming Lord Sutch.

I don't think it is as simple as that. For example, there are many hormones that affect how we feel and, hence, how we think. Some recent work suggest that even the bacteria in the gut can change the brain function (for example, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mental-health-may-depend-on-creatures-in-the-gut/). And then there are things like phantom limb syndrome and associated pain. So the brain might function in isolation but it isn't clear how well. I imagine it could be a pretty horrific experience.

This thread has gone all over the place, but I thought you might be interested in this: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/direct-collapse-black-holes-may-explain-our-universe-s-mysterious-quasars-5b90c21a8bd4

If they "demonstrably" got better, you should be able to provide evidence of, or a reference to, such a demonstration. Otherwise it is just another unsupported assertion. Agan, some evidence supporting this would be nice. Can you provide some examples? Because the only example so far is "reading" and I don't see how that is a better way to maximise entropy.

I think that is a normal human reaction to any bad event. When I have been robbed, or had an accident, or dropped something fragile I always spend some time thinking, "if only I had ..." The more serious the consequences, the more time you will spend on those thoughts. I think it partly an attempt to come to terms with it, partly an attempt to "turn back the clock" and undo events. Even if what you say is true for the cases when the victim had drunk too much or made some poor decision, it is irrelevant in the more general context of the thread (abuse of power in a sexual context). I don't think there is anything much the victims could do in most cases. Rape is obviously a serious problem. But I think it is also very important not to overlook the continuous, everyday sexism and abuse that nearly all women have to put up with at work, in shops, at home, on the bus, etc. I think the fact that this exists is also part of the reason that women are not taken seriously when they complain.

Great. An example. Finally. It's only taken 3 pages. So, how does reading increase entropy? How would reading be further optimised by evolution? How will reading be further optimised by AIs? For example, does reading faster increase entropy more than reading slowly? Or is there some other aspects of reading that should be optimised?

So, if they are a problem, what aren't they part of the "rape culture" (whatever that is)? With this level of straw manning, there probably isn't much hope for this thread. That was the original context the thread. But never mind.

That's news to me. And why aren't the other 70% part of this "rape culture"? And what about the more general problem of abuse of power that we could/should be discussing?

He seems to have taken to down voting everyone who is attempting to understand his idea.

Oh. Why do you think I keep asking for more detail? As it wasn't obvious, let me be clear: I don't understand your vague, generic lists that you keep repeatedly posting. That is why I (and others) have asked for details, examples, some expansion of your ideas, specific quotations from the references you cite, etc. I thought it was bloody obvious that it was because I didn't understand. I am sorry if you thought I was just asking to be awkward. I mean, I can see that that would be really annoying. HOW are they biased to maximise entropy exactly? Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying. WHAT "pressures of nature" specifically? Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying. WHAT "cognitive tasks" specifically? Can you provide an explanation or some examples because I don't understand what you are saying. That doesn't answer the question (or I haven't understood your answer). Let me try and phrase it more explicitly: Humans breath. They eat. They reproduce. They tell stories. They sing songs. They build cities. They kill one another. They play games. And, according to your thesis, they also maximise entropy. Why do you go from "maximising entropy" being a thing that humans do, to it being the purpose of humans? Why isn't singing songs or killing each other the "purpose" of humans?

But this is (largely) irrelevant. These sorts of things are not a factor in the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse. In other words, if people didn't do them, it wouldn't make much difference. (And most people wouldn't do it anyway.)

Light can also be polarised by passing through certain types of crystals or other materials (e.g. a polarising filter as used in sunglasses).

Perhaps you could explain how equations 2 and 3 in that paper relate to your idea? If people didn't understand your summary there is no point just repeating it. It might mean you need to expand on it a bit. For example, you could: provide some specific examples of how intelligence increases entropy, provide some specific examples of how evolution optimises this, explain precisely what you mean by "crispr like routines", explain the logical leap from "this is one thing that humans do" to "this is the purpose of humans" and so on. But feel free to just cut and paste the same vague list again. I'm sure it will help a lot.

Maybe it is in your head. When you read about Weinstein, was your immediate thought "ooh, it must be nice to have that much power, I wonder if I would have been able to resist ..." Or was it: "how could ... but ... that's just disgusting ... nooo ... I can't even imagine ... what is wrong with him?"

And the evidence for this is where, exactly? There is a point but you don't think it will work? So what is the point?

You said this was "most men" earlier. And that there was little point trying to stop them.

Is it? I must have missed the bit where you provided the evidence of this "fact".

It is not at all helpful to just repeat the same vague comments. Details, please DETAILS. The problem is, when asked for details you either avoid the question, link to an article with no apparent relevance, or link to an extremely technical article that you are unable to talk about. Which leads me to believe that you don't understand it - but it has some of you buzzwords in it. Feel free to prove me wrong and tell me what the paper actually says. What parts of their mathematical model are relevant to your claims? Which examples from the paper are most relevant to your argument?

In four dimensions you can create a Klein bottle, which is analogous to a sphere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle (it is a bit like rolling a Mobius strip uptown forma cylinder) I don't think that requires motion; you can just think of it as having a single side (and a single edge).

Why would it?

As with the previous comments about minimising risks or avoiding situations, the problem is defining what these "safety precautions" should be. The biggest risk factor is simply "being female". The problem is not that women engage in risky behaviour or expose themselves to hazardous situations. Unless you think that going to work, walking down the road or getting on public transport are situations to be avoided. Boys will be boys, eh. This attitude is part of the problem.

Any chance you could summarise the main points in your own words?