Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Psychotic or Logical
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/12/2013 4:31:59 PM
csam,

Pathology is the study of disease, whereby a patient condition is distressing to the patient (from pathos meaning suffering).

Concise definition of psychopathy, coined in the mid-19th century is disease of the mind.
As a medical diagnoses the assertion was that a treatable biological or genetic condition was directly resulting aberrant behaviour, the corroberative assertion that descriptors include the patient's lack of an innate facility for empathy and other "normal social behaviour" but this was never a definition of psychopathy as tickle_me_pank posted in his ignorant tirade competing with my earlier clarification of terms, it was just a presumption so used by psychotherapists like Freud as a descriptor or "symptom".

Concise definition of sociopathy is social illness, of which antisocial personality disorder is a condition. It is the assertion that pathological criminal or violent behaviour is wilfully endeavoured by the patient usings means of creative self justification, primarily by blaming his victims for his behaviour towards them.

As I mentioned earlier, in medical science sociopathy has largely replaced psychopathy as the behavioural condition behind criminal insanity. However in criminal psychology things are still a little more old school.
In either case much in terms of physical evidence relating to behavioural and psychological conditions are a chicken and egg argument. Changes in brain activity maybe due to the behavioural condition, or may have caused the condition, however current neurological research shows that brain activity is amorphous and adaptive so it is most likely that when a person exercises antisocial behaviour for an extended period, their brain activity changes to suit, not the other way around. Thus sociopathy is more likely than psychopathy for the same conditions.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
downgrading to lower education or profession on profile
Posted: 4/12/2013 2:54:58 AM
Well everything changes depending where you stand doesn't it?

You might be surprised to discover many "self made people" with higher education and professional, high income earning employment were facilitated by socio-economic background, despite claims of "doing it on my own" it's just not the same thing as being born under an overpass to primary authorities/caregivers that have the IQ of autistic children and the demeanour of silverback gorillas to impress their world views on kids now is it? So no it doesn't come down to how bright that kid is.

And then there is one plain disparity in an industrialist democracy clearly shown flagrantly in commercial media/marketing whereby it is far more uncommon for men to have the present choice of sexualisation opportunities as enhanced tool usage or construction to achieve personal goals. Being flirty at work is far more likely to get you up on charges than it is to put your boss in a good mood everytime you walk into the room. Acting stupid just inspires people to call you an ***hole, not take care of whatever you don't want to do for you.

Then you have competitive social cultural memes in americanised communities whereby confidence is more highly valued than perceived vulnerability, self image more highly valued than interdependence, pandering more highly valued than cooperative responsibility.

So in some cases what you wind up with is "educated, professional women" which think they're intimidating. People don't walk away from intimidating, all the badboy and trashy girl relationships in the universe should tell you that. They walk away from people they think are ***holes, but can't be bothered rowing in a barbed wire canoe to explain how and why said person is an ***hole.

If you're successful, the most important character trait you can have is humility, not arrogance. And that doesn't mean giving to amnesty international, it means how you treat the guy in the corner store, in fact how you think of him which although you can't see it, determines how he feels treated.

When someone walks away from you don't think "I'm intimidating" try "wonder if I seemed offensive to them?" Like when you hear hooves, don't think zebras, think horsies.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Bipolar: Detectable During Dating?
Posted: 4/11/2013 2:28:00 AM
By definition a psychological condition is a pathological variation from normal (subjective) behaviour, and therein lay the rub. The life of clinicians is particularly difficult with behavioural disorders, the primary determining factor as listed among internationally recognised swiss conventions of mental competency of a physical nature is patient distress.
Let me say that again, the primary determining factor of a psychiatric condition, psychological or behavioural disorder is patient distress. It is prelimenary to all other qualifiers of any kind, it is the difference between eccentric and pathological.

Here is where mundane sociology and clinical psychology clash head to head. On the one hand why would one assume a variation of normal behaviour would be normally encountered, it's a logical fallacy. On the other hand neuroses is a valid condition whereby you don't have a condition but act like you do. How's that for a logical fallacy. And ultimately the wont, desire, belief or need to have a condition is the primary qualifier that one exists in strictest medical terms. Biochemistry and brain function are wholly subjective and a chicken and egg argument in neuroscience.

It is logically sound to assert that any regional culture which attains a common pro rata behavioural variation redefines normalcy in medical terms.

If so many americans have ADHD and bipolar disorder, they are no longer disorders but cultural memes.
So maybe weening out people which are prone to psychological conditions is as easy as determining how easily they are led by the nose with popular media as opposed to being intellectually competent.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Psychotic or Logical
Posted: 4/10/2013 3:09:08 PM
I don't know if you're a psychopath, but you certainly show all the symptoms of a person who is used to solving problems in a sterile environment based solely on numbers and binary logic.


Well actually first of all the clinical world is firmly in two camps regarding "psychopathy", an inherited or physiologically aberrant behavioural disposition. Many have replaced the term with the more contemporary one "sociopathy", which is the disassociation of behavioural responsibility to that of the victim. In terms of associated behavioural instances (eg. eating babies) the terms are interchangeable and depend entirely on which camp the clinician or criminal psychologist personally leans towards.

ie. it is no longer presumed the stereotypical serial killer grew up with an innate desire to torture animals for example, but that as a violent criminal he pathologically holds his victims responsible for his desire to cause them harm.

And as it turns out it is much easier to understand a sociopathic rationale than it is to comprehend the very concept of the psychopathic one, which of itself infers the latter is an old world fiction (with its roots in the days of psychiatry when lobotomies were lawfully practised medical treatment).



As to the question/exercise it is a thoroughly subjective social sciences tool with no relevance to clinical neuroscience and very arguable value of any kind. In the hopeless either/or argument both answers are objectively amoral and both are subjectively moral, but there is no immoral response and no objectively moral response from the limited choices given.

The protagonist is not directly responsible for the impending accident nor any possible result, but they are directly responsible for deaths only if they elect to intervene, however this responsibility results in a lesser collatoral than inaction.
Since either choice is inherently amoral, if viewed as a train driver company policy and lawful action are an employment duty under the condition, which is to cause the least amount of collatoral from the bad choices.
When viewed as a passenger or a bystander however, the lawful action is to act lawfully, ie. it is illegal to commit murder even if you personally believe it will result in a lesser harm than failing to commit murder.

So the two scenarios are different. One is a train driver amorally performing his lawful duties to cause less collatoral with few choices. The second is a bystander amorally performing his citizenship responsibilities of remaining lawful rather than personally deciding when it is okay to be a violent criminal.

Thus the logical fallacy of psychopathy as a clinical diagnosis is shown: the goalposts are set by regional legal culture and not by physical medical evidence even where some neurological condition maybe observed in violent criminals (a chicken and egg argument that doesn't support genetic predisposition).
No "psychopathy gene" has ever been identified, the assertion is unfounded but sociopathy is clearly understood rationale.

And in either scenario if you just do what is lawfully required, you do not qualify as a sociopath by definition.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Clingy?
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:41:41 PM
*mental note: stop messaging women that you want to sniff their hair*
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Bacon Hater! Worst/funniest date evah!
Posted: 4/8/2013 11:29:04 PM
OP, how did you miss all the regular sane guys in the world who'd be moved and appreciative of just some time with a lady and her kind smile and perhaps innocuous touch, in order to go on a date with an obnoxious arsehole? Do you find it difficult to identify one from the other at a glance? Pretty much anyone could give some pointers...

So I don't get it. That's clearly what you wanted if you sought and found it when there is so much else available all the time anywhere.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 139 (view)
 
Speculating on the edge of Cosmology/Quantum Theory
Posted: 4/6/2013 10:32:58 PM

Concerning matter (as opposed to but not excluding energy), everything is made of the different elements. The different kinds of atoms. An element is according to what atom it is. An atom is made of subatomic particles. Protons, neutrons, and electrons. They are defined by different configurations of these subatomic particles. These particles are in turn made of quarks. It's a proton, neutron, or electron depending on the configuration of quarks. All the different elements/atoms, except one kind, were/are manufactured within stars. That one element is, was, hydrogen. The first stars were nothing but. And at that time there were no other elements, until stars began making them through nuclear fusion. I think that the best way to think about this is that hydrogen is just the default configuration that subatomic particles come together as, before and without anything affecting things otherwise. But so, what might be beyond this, beyond quarks, and "where" might it all "come from"?


Just a minor correction I'd make here, more of a clarification really not in any way contradicting the general points.
When using this particular context (cosmological modelling) it's best not to think of subatomic particles as particles or even refer to them as such. Best referred to in this context specifically, as wavefunctions or wave-particle duality for prosperity sake. They act like a wave and function like a particle, in reality they don't really exist as classical-but-very-small-objects themselves as the pre-QM models supposed, the disparity between quantum and macroscopic scales in theoretical physics is bound in this essence.
They are for all intents and purposes, infitesimal properties without substance but nevertheless may define substance by imposition of mass and the various quantized fields (EM, strong force, weak force).

If you have a bunch of nothing and you could impose an infitesimal variation of this nothing, by definition some kind of charge or quark, property values and not particle descriptions, just a variation of uniformity (brownian motion), then by definition you have the composition of "subatomic particles" or quantized wavefunctions, which themselves are just measurements within a field, given of course there is something to measure in the field, like some mass-energy (the very progenator of spacetime itself).


Might it be that when and where conditions are right in a given region of space, when it's more truly a vacuum, so lacking of any matter or any kind of energy, forces, or energy transduction of any kind, that matter is allowed to 'fizzle' into existence?


Essentially this is what happens if you take Expansion Hypothesis, the Current Model of cosmology (ie. "Big Bang theory"), all the way to a creation story instead of just a cosmological modelling, what you wind up with is what you've arrived at here, referred to as the Black Hole Universe model.
It's reverse engineered by heading the other way to arrive at the beginning. If you follow the math and let the universe die a "heat death" in entropy as an infinite, open, curved spacetime then eventually you have total nothing...except there's a logical fallacy with this.

Because there was something before heat death there remains the potential for something in the intrinsic state of whatever is left of the universe following heat death, it's just the laws of thermodynamics since the universe represents the absolute (open) system of work regarding energy so cannot lose or gain any energy in total, and the very term "universe" means everything, not talking M-branes or other dimensions or anything like this, just plain old classical GR and one universe.

What this translates to in theoretical physics is the virtual particle field, meaning a field which has absolutely nothing but the latent potential for something, or the assertion that virtual particles and antiparticle pairings constantly pop into existence as a default state of the universe and annihilate each other instantly. Just a QM way of saying "nothing, but something is not prohibited by absolutist nothing as some kind of restriction." Even as nothing it is still a field because it once had something, and those somethings are latent in the field, like I said simple thermodynamics.

Okay well here's the thing. If this is true and according to current modelling it must be...but is an unfalsifiable hypothesis so is not dealt with and remains within the realm of philosophy and banter, anyways if this is true then Brownian motion must apply. Brownian motion is an observed phenomenon whereby any uniform field necessarily experiences extreme variation, which at first glance appears to challenge the third law of thermodynamics but in fact adheres to the second law because of the virtual particle field or "information potential" inherently contained in a universe which once at any time contained anything ever in the past. That is not strictly speaking an objective thermodynamic equilibrium, so the second law still applies. Brownian motion does apply.
Thing about Brownian motion is any extreme variation in a field of virtual particles is by definition a particle and antiparticle mismatch, one is created with higher value than the other, spontaneous something from nothing because the information potential is still there. Or, because once was, always must be when talking everything everywhere (1st law thermodynamics).

Now toss in GR. If you have a big nothing and you create anything in it, any kind of significant variation whatsoever you literally define mass-energy, no matter how infitesimal. The GR result, in the absence of any other mass-energy to hold up any shape of spacetime, is a singularity of spacetime folding around the sudden mass-energy...

Big Bang.

Over and over, trillions of years between.
Because when you use the term universe as opposed to multiverse as your model, you're referring to everything everywhere, full stop. So classical mechanics apply. And they work. But again this is unfalsifiable due to the photon veil so it's all just philosophising.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
If you were the other woman - would you want to know?
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:57:56 PM
A lie of omission is one whereby you don't just speak freely or as your conscience dictates, thus you have something to hide.
So if somebody else and not you cheated, why would you have something to hide about it?

If you feel inspired to contact his poontang-on-the-side and inform her, go right ahead. The only adult response for him is to wear the responsibility of his actions and take it in stride. If he couldn't handle getting caught his life lesson is don't do it.
Any other response from him is infantile and can be treated like a child throwing a tantrum. If he gives you any grief make fun of him for being a baby.

But don't contact her with vehement emotion or in a vindictive manner to cause trouble. It should be matter-of-factly purely to inform and then go your separate ways again, otherwise what you're really doing is attacking her, not shining a light on him and she will respond as such.

Of course sometimes the "other woman" is as big an infant as the kid in the cookie jar so it could just add to an annoying experience either way. But hey the trick is just be you in your life and do things as you would do them, then even if it works out bad at least you were being yourself so have no regrets.
It's acting angrier or in some way other than you are as a person normally that leads to regrets, not things working out bad or good but how you handled yourself when you look back.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Still nervous by the time you have the 3rd date??????
Posted: 4/6/2013 1:32:46 PM
I had a gf who was a conversational dependent and found it exhaustive and unrewarding. I found it was actually significant of her overall development in terms of assertive objectivity as opposed to whimsical subjectivity in world view, and problem solving techniques.

What's more the very same things which attracted her were also the things she despised when her mood is different. How do I make the video work when we're all lovey becomes stop telling me what to do when she's angry. It takes the kind of person who thinks that's how normal relationships should function to consider this a healthy one but I prefer peers to dependents.

What she needs is someone to be codependent with. Complementing each other doesn't mean you make up for her failings, that's one sided. It means her strengths are different but comparable to her spouse's. This isn't a complementary type of relationship for you, it's one where you carry the other person and eventually are the bad guy because you're responsible for all the ups and downs and will be held singly responsible for the downs.

We all need someone no more developed than ourselves, for conscience sake. Yet also as developed as ourselves, for humanity sake.
You're not entitled to relationships, they're not a currency you earn, being alone is actually your default state and anything more is a blessing to be appreciated, but must be honest.

So my contention is that you should ask yourself, in all honesty do you get the distinct impression as you're getting to know this woman that your role in a relationship with her will be carrying her through the relationship? Because those are the ones that typically involve losing your house and the kids later down the track, and thinking you really should've seen this coming from day one.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Pagan should be a religious choice! =)
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:11:54 AM
The issue at least in Commonwealth nations regarding formally recognised religions is a legislative one. Formal religions qualify for legislative exemptions regarding taxation and community organisation welfare and support groups, so state/regional parliaments are loathe to provide an open welcome mat for anyone who decides their little group of alien conspiracy theorists should qualify for significant tax exemptions and other legislative concessions designed for community welfare organisations, when they're just wackadoos dancing around shrubberies and talking with imaginary dragons on new moons.

Parliament will therefore convene and rule that community sectarian or cultlike organisation like the "church" of scientology or "children of god" are to be regarded as cults and sects so they cannot claim religious exemptions regarding the legislative rules they have to follow. If they operate as a business they must pay taxes as a business. If they function as a community organisation they must obey the same rules a scouting group or other organisation has to observe without claiming religious freedom to say, marry 12 year olds or engage in polygamy.

The US may have similar reasoning. By recognising a loose grouping as a formal religious organisation it maybe subject to certain lawful exemptions to the legislation regular community groups or private functionaries must on the basis of religious freedoms and liberties.

Becaues the rules are different in law, other formal organisations are compelled to call a spade a spade where religious claims are concerned, and an individual making religious claims is just a person saying some stuff, just because they say it is religious doesn't mean it is in a concise and legislatively defined manner. Could just mean you're mentally disturbed, or have an agenda.

And something like "pagan" as a religion is such a loose grouping dungeons and dragons gamers and pedophile rings could very well claim adherence in the argumentation of their personal reasoning. Australian parliaments did recently recognise Wicca as a formal religion, because it is a specific grouping with a coherent belief system which is common to all claimants. But the generalized term "pagan" can mean just about anything anyone says it does, which you kind of recognized in your definition of it in the opening post.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
One more thing
Posted: 4/2/2013 10:02:12 PM
The pages are sorted by most recent log in so you only need to view the first few pages, after that they may not even come to the site anymore but are just old accounts.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Well here I am
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:50:46 PM
Come to australia and I'll hang out with you dating as a friend, maybe hold hands because you're pretty and seem nice and I think I like you, I don't think you're anal at all but rather a lady, marriage is moving a bit quickly I think, don't you? And sex is really the last thing on my mind but that's because I'm really just picturing things like pulling out a chair for you at a nice place or kissing your hand and things like that.

But one word of advice, don't seek to disassociate sexuality on the side of genuinely interested parties as an undesirable trait because you'll be shooting fish in a barrel. If a guy likes you that won't be far from the surface, if he's a sleaze and it's his only purpose it'll be foremost on his mind, but either way it'll be there so it's a mistake to focus on that as a disqualifier/inverse-qualifier, what you want to do is focus on how interested he is in spending platonic and personality time with you as well as possibly contribute to a little charm between you.

You'd be surprised how many women have stopped messaging with me simply because the conversation got interesting instead of flirty. But I like to think it weeded out the transients.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Female I met up with had a breakdown
Posted: 4/2/2013 9:32:05 PM
A nervous breakdown is essentially where information is passed in a confused manner through neurological structures due to stress, it's a perfectly healthy response in the same way sinuses protect the brain from damage by shutting it down when there's too much bloodflow. Under extreme stress biochemistry can similarly cause brain damage and so chemical information might be spread across a wider variety of neurological structures so that all sorts of perceptual responses to mundane stimuli are experienced. It sometimes resembles a psychosis in symptoms but is a perfectly healthy response under extreme stress to prevent physical damage. It is nevertheless very distressing to experience, not the least because you might think you've gone insane, where you're really quite healthy and simply under or have been in extreme stress.

The main thing the patient requires is reliable, consistent acceptance to give her time to relax on a subconscious level without feeling as though the experience has ruined her life or burned her bridges. We're not machines and as biological organisms we react to things whether we like it or not. It's just a passing thing and not in any way significant of a genetic aberrance or tendency to psychosis, any person given the right conditions will hallucinate and experience psychotic symptoms purely due to extreme stress. Anyone at all, and it is because they are healthy not because they are unhealthy.

Let her know she can say anything about it and it won't phase you or cause you to judge her. Let her know you empathize and sympathize and at worst her experience is an interesting conversation topic between you rather than an influence upon the way you perceive her as a personality and conscious mind.

It will subside and pass. She will be fine and no less for it, no different for it. Just something that happened once, like skinning a knee. It's really no big deal unless the listener is the one who can't handle it. Some people are paranoid about anything involving psychiatric health, and it's the main cause for stigma towards patients whom are in actual fact, no different than those whom are paranoid towards them.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
She is not satisfied with what I make. Should I continue this relationship?
Posted: 4/2/2013 8:53:36 PM
If I was you I'd rather hang around people with whom I tend to wonder how to come up with a funny remark, or fun venue to go or things to do, rather than someone who makes me wonder how I can be a bigger financial success or feel inadequate about my financial status. It's just depressing and eventually you just get sick of it, you're already unloading a bit here about her, eventually it'll turn into you actually arguing with her instead of complaining to the internet. Nobody likes to be around someone who makes them feel bad.

How you feel around a person is a thermometer of how compatable and appropriate you are together. Inadequacy and conceit doesn't seem real positive to me. The thoughts you've expressed about her on this subject seems to paint in bold strokes to me that she'll be on her way with the first wealthier guy who comes along and lays a sleazy line on her anyway.
She's just one of those people who're in love with money, which psychologically speaking means a narcissist using a proxy and disassociation. Such a person cannot love other people, they love money because they love power because they're possessed by an image in a pool of themselves.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Religion and morality. Hardwired in the Brain ?
Posted: 4/1/2013 6:54:15 PM
Aries you made an utterly nonsensical post. Clarify if you have a point but it looks like you're just beating your chest saying nothing at all.

That aside, here is scientific method: you must start with a falsifiable hypothesis, show testable results of reproducible experimentation and observation in nature, subject to peer review.
If you would like to make a scientific assertion simply follow the method. Nothing to do with me.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 43 (view)
 
Religion and morality. Hardwired in the Brain ?
Posted: 4/1/2013 6:34:27 PM
Firstly there is no such thing as a discipline of science called neurotheology. There is an academic discipline called theology (palaeo/anthropology) and a hard science called neurology (medicine), plus a social science called neuroscience (psychology).

Secondly CNN and other tabloid newsmedia does not qualify as any kind of documentary reference, they're not even serious journalism but entirely commercial enterprise and political agenda, what you need is peer reviewed journals like those you find at the science daily site or similar. Someone CNN or any commercial media house calls an "expert" is what qualified academicans usually refer to as pseudoscientists, melodramatic reactionaries and extremists. They are selected to fit the objectives of business owners in the business of influencing the general public for political and personal reasons, like say increasing stocks value they've purchased with public opinion during senate commitees on domestic and international policies.

Thirdly speculation of brain structure as related to modern theological belief structures is immediately falsified by the fact Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis necessarily had a markedly different brain structure due to shape of the brain cavity and yet actively practised religion millennia before we did, including altar construction, shamanism, animism and burial ceremonies clearly displayed in the archaeological record. They didn't have much of a frontal lobe so religion clearly played no balancing role in terms of brain structure.

Fourthly the very premise of regional brain structure as related to modern theological belief is falsified by current medical research findings that regional brain mapping is an obsolete social science unsupported with medical evidence to the contrary, in which variations between patients of regional brain stucture implicitly denotes amorphous neurological functions which are only likely to become located within common areas between individuals but may freely be formed elsewhere for any reason, including brain injury or varied developmental background. Asserting particular brain regions as "the speech centre" or "the area controlling musical appreciation" has been distinctly falsified by physical records among neurosurgical patients, the results published at German and Scottish medical research centres.

What happened was psychiatrists in the late 19th century used vivisection to identify and locate specific brain regional functionality based upon an abstract hypothesis that these would be common between all people. They are not. Regional brain functionality mapping is an old world science that just doesn't hold true with modern neurosurgery results, patients with severe brain trauma (including one German teenager who was literally born with a brain hemisphere missing) have recovered complete and full brain regional functionality because it freely forms nuerological structures as needed, not by any DNA plan for mapping.

So if your brain needed balancing between differing regions, it would form neurological structures to do so during development which don't have to include any self imposed theological dogma.

And finally the classical and ancient period scribes whom wrote the religious scripture we now create fandom and dogma surrounding did not think of the concepts in the same way we do today. We are in fact far more superstitious and inept regarding religious scripture than any ancient practise, which was largely political movement in lieu of modern policing and governing technologies which did not exist then.
It is shown clearly by qualified linguistics study of archaeological scriptural reference that terms used described mundane events and assertions, using period nomenclature of parable and allegory due quite simply to limited written language forms. For example old hebrew is a non-constructive language with a small vocabulary and cannot be used to describe complex ideas without using simplistic references and parables. If you wanted to say, "the road is dangerous ahead" you would have to use a limited set of runic characters and hope the allegory gets the point across, ie. "big stag stomps the ground above much death and gnashing of teeth". Because there's no characters for "road" or "dangerous" or "ahead" existing in the entire language.
And that's how scripture winds up sounding like fairy tales, not because anyone ever until the modern age of incredible ignorance ever thought it was literal.

So how on earth an historically inaccurate appreciation of religious systems could've developed to balance an amorphous regional brain structure when the reference is of one thing but the data proposes another, and the premise is falsified to begin with, is beyond me.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 75 (view)
 
Consciousness: How will we define it?
Posted: 4/1/2013 2:50:16 AM
seems pretty straight forward. In etymology the term was coined in colloquial to mean "inner knowledge" in the 17th century. In the 18th century it became a word unto itself meaning "state of being aware".

Thus as a defined word it must mean "self awareness" which is to demonstrably say, you can answer questions creatively (without reference of any kind). In its most rudimentary form the lie of a child is a great descriptor of consciousness. It maybe nonsensical to lie about clearly having your hand in a cookie jar to an adult, but to a small child it is terribly intelligent and ought to work.

A poster above back in 2010 was being a little too metaphysical about black holes btw. They're just a math model for an exotic stellar condition, being a density such that strong force is broken and the Standard Model no longer applies, in the absence of applicable math then a singularity is formed but it is only a mathematical expression. If it were a physical postulate you have a serious problem in the Reisner-Nordstrom solution whereby a spinning black hole forms a static field. When this happens you would have a naked singularity which is no different to talking about dragons. It's not gonna happen. The Standard Model is incomplete, that's what the black hole models/solutions tells us, not a lot more.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Chatting with a man that says he has been stalked a few times.
Posted: 4/1/2013 1:31:57 AM
How do I get a stalker? because my problem is kind of the opposite to making women go away.
*sadface*


and who in heck lets a homeless woman sleep in a blanket outside, at least give her a cup of soup for godsake, campfire toast some marshmallows with her, a little bit of kindness goes a long way

turning up uninvited, what he doesn't like surprises? Somebody's not getting a birthday present next year and he's already blacklisted from santa by the homeless chick.

and calling too much hey? The house could've been on fire, I think it's a bit condescending to disregard community awareness and social conscience like this.

All in all this bloke sounds like a poopoohead.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 39 (view)
 
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 4:07:28 PM
You failed to use primary source references. The old testament in particular is not an academic reference for its content, you need to use the torah and transliterate independently using qualified linguistics since many of its terms are taken from old hebrew and have a wide variety of meanings. They can be translated a wide variety of ways, the "LORD God" is a mistranslation of "yawheh elohim" which is a male aspect of the term "creation event" and doesn't denote any particular supernatural figure or character. "Angel of the LORD" is a mistranslation of "nphlm" which means "man of renown", etc.

Never use the old testament as a reference of any christian dogma without primary research and qualified linguistics. Secondly new testament references should be similarly researched academically, using qualified references and primary source material wherever possible as again you will find tremendous disparity between fundamentalist and pentacostal dogma with what was actually intended to be conveyed by the original authors.
Biblical script was originally intended far more as political manifesto than science and reference material.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 37 (view)
 
morality
Posted: 3/31/2013 3:58:26 PM
Why don't we prose a very simplistic and extreme question for illustrative purposes.

In your own words, why is murder immoral?

My answer is that there has to be a rational explanation for it to be immoral, that the contemporary substitute for the word immoral is irrational. So why is murder irrational is what answers the question. And if you can't come up with a rational explanation, then you don't know why. No reference that does not explain why is adequate since the very term moral elicits a point or a reason in and of itself.
So an answer is not "because it's just wrong" or "because it's illegal" (although that is one rationale but lacks a corroberative reference on its own so is amoral for reasoning).
An answer would be along the lines of being social animals dependent upon cooperative efforts to safety and gainful experience of life. People killing each other elicits threat and danger to each other wherever it can be subjectively justified. Hence not only is murder irrational unless you plan on being the only human alive on a desert island, but it also elicits the conclusion that humans killing humans in general for any reason, lawfully or otherwise is ultimately irrational. I call that the moral to this story.

So what's your answer?
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 266 (view)
 
Mensa? anyone?
Posted: 3/31/2013 3:30:02 PM
Mensa uses its own IQ testing to determine membership, there is no guarantee it is any of the standardized tests and of them, which one or what control body is used for the mean average to measure variation.
The church of scientology has its own IQ test too.

I've met two Mensa members. One on a date whom I found to be far more intellectually competitive than possessed of any advanced analytical skills. She was well read, but I didn't find her particularly bright, and spent half the conversation correcting her blanket assertions. I imagined her parenting skills would run along the lines of old school rote and lash, rather than explanation and references. When she predictably said there was no spark between us I was actually relieved. I didn't really like the way she treated staff or patrons at the cafe anyway, from what I could tell she'd be an exhaustive person to be around very much, someone you'd be apolegizing for and correcting constantly.

The other Mensa member was a forum troll who published blogs all over one of the date site forums about his racial theories, basically a eugenicist with no idea that assertion was soundly falsified by the fifties by anthropologists and biologists and then again in the 90s with the advent of modern genetic sciences. It's only really redneck survivialist nut conspiracy theorists who still hold to such old world views as racial intelligence.

Despite being purely anecdotal reference, in a word the two I've met were childish and here's the thing, IQ testing is not about intellectual potential which is actually identical between healthy brains. IQ testing began as a psychiatric/anthropological concern regarding "mental age" as influenced by regional education curriculums. Its purpose was to develop adaptive regional curriculums so that students from rural schools with different home activities/chores environments than students from suburban or city schools could go to the same central universities at the same education levels with the same standards of academic education. Because what was noticed, in France during the mid-19th century for example was that differing home environments influenced the kind of academic curriculums which resulted in the same education standards, when using the same type of curriculum between suburban and rural schools, education standards varied at the same level. Kids growing up milking cows instead of playing with building blocks respond to different ways of teaching mathematics, so to speak.
That's what IQ testing was about. Not about saying one person is genetically superior to another in the realm of academia.

So it's most accurately expressed as a measure of "mental age" not "intelligence". That alone can tell you if a high score on one particular method of testing is worth the paper it's written on. Do they act like a petulant child?

And based on those two anecdotal references I think the Mensa testing method is in need of review and references.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 47 (view)
 
How does one influence LUCK??
Posted: 3/31/2013 2:04:14 PM
Actually the philosophical point of view, discussed often during say a course in philosophy, is that life is ruled by luck and coincidence, neither good nor bad and neither can be influenced (was a poet and didn't know it).

The scientific point of view, discussed often during say, a course in biological or astronomical (hard) sciences, is that life on a personal level is governed by complex evolutionary diversity (chaos theory) and random chance. One is too complex for prediction (but can be reverse engineered reliably for recording), the other is well, random (like socioeconomic status at birth or even genetic disposition for any given sample selected by apple bobbing).

Luck is a valid concept yet is also a meaningless one.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Criticism
Posted: 3/30/2013 10:15:53 AM
Felinity either you believe men are like all humans, so like women have diverse personalities and individuality, or you believe men are another species which uses a collective intelligence.

If men are diverse and individual then follow the logic: a wide breadth of variation is present in any social grouping. If you are encountering repeated behaviour among those you've been in relationships with the only logical conclusion is that you have been most attracted to and selective towards the variation which happens to fall into the behaviour you described.

I for one, know that I don't problem solve that way. I'm a rational thinker not an emotional reactionary and what you described is emotionally reactive behaviour, people who react to their emotions without distancing themselves for objective problem solving in personal issues. Clearly for some reason you are selecting men with this personality type to date.

It maybe a jagged little pill to swallow, but it seems you like the simple type, the reactionary. A lot of people do, it's the big fish in a small pond argument, dating someone who makes you feel intelligent when you're really fairly average in the IQ department might make you feel smarter, but dating idiots has its pitfalls, clearly.

Still, personal lives are freely subjective, so we act to suit ourselves sometimes without thinking very far ahead. You're just getting this same behaviour back in return. Date smarter guys who don't respond to everything in the universe based solely on how it makes them feel. Of course you might become a smaller fish in a big pond that way, but an old world moral is that humility walks in hand with maturity.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 6 (view)
 
morality
Posted: 3/30/2013 9:50:07 AM
I think it is too easy to blur the line between the popularist meaning of "morality" and narcissism.

Generally I find that old world terms (which most fundamentalist religious terms fall into the category of) are best defined strictly within their etymology and original use. Words like "evil" meaning literally "unlife" in old english, its modern equivalent is closest to the word "ill" or "unwell" and nothing to do with supernatural malevolent forces except to say that somewhere between the 8th century and modern medicine (largely a product of the late 19th century) it was popular to start thinking of illnesses (eg. plague) as sent by malevolent supernatural forces. Even in classical thinking (pre-mediaeval era) being beset by illness or personal issues was as medical as supernatural and purely homeopathic medicine was practised alongside and separately to magic for healing, as shown by medical artefacts such as the Nippur tablets (ca.5000BCE). In old hebrew the role of words translated to "evil" was always intended as more medical, sociological and psychological than supernatural, the very place of Sheol (mistranslated as being Hell) actually describes a personal state of impoverishment, vagrancy and desperation, it is entirely an earthly state and makes no reference to any supernatural or otherworldly existence.

Yet among this primary source research I find a more accurate use of the word "evil" when making a reference. It describes nothing supernatural and should be used simply as the word "live" spelled backwards, as it was originally intended. Or in other words, simply replace with the modern equivalent of "unwell behaviour" describes its original use accurately, in a modern context. It draws a line in the sand for fundies who toss the term "evil" around when declaring enemies, like Westboro protesting abortion clinics I would refer to as unwell behaviour. People attending abortion clinics I would not describe as unwell behaviour. Ergo clearly the protestors are the "evil" in that scenario since they cause real world hurt which is unwell justified by abstract hurt which is not unwell but just imagined.

Similarly the term "moral" in etymology just means a point to a story, a lesson. Its modern definition of a code of behaviour or descript of character are popularist definitions which evolved outside the scope of original use later, like the term "evil" to become an entirely different meaning and losing all original reference to become a colloquial abstract.

In strictest definition practising a literal mimicry of biblical passage, eg. don't eat meat on fridays but you don't know why other than being a dogmatic rule, then you are not being moral at all, it is in fact amoral because you have lost the point to this practise. The intention is to remind one of the referenced parable in which this practise occurs, which is the moral of the story and if you're just going through the motions you hardly learned anything from it, so it is amoral.

I find most people use the popularist modern evolution of the term "moral" and forgot that you have to be able to explain why you act in a certain way rationally in order for it to be accurately described as moral. They just go through the motions and seem to have no idea by doing so they are in strictest definition, ruled by amorality.

Reason is key to being moral. If a teacher cannot explain why a student should do a thing, then that student is not being moral by following instruction, nor is the teacher by claiming it. Both are just being apes ordering and following each other for reasons of animist dominance, not very civilised. In order to be moral you must be able to explain why, rationally. That is what the term originally means in etymology.

What it most definitely does not mean is doing what someone tells you is right just because they told you.
In this context you could say most young people tend to be amoral or immoral, most older people should have learned to become moral. This is merely a reflection of accumulated experience and personal confidence, it actually has not the slightest thing to do with benevolence. It has much more to do with simple ignorance.

Immoral (irrational) or amoral (rationale without corroberative reference) doesn't mean evil (unwell). It just means uneducated or anti-intelligentsia.

As for me, I tend to do everything with demonstrable reason, I tend to corroberate all rationale. When I argue with an employer or friend they have learned to listen whether or not they agree or acquiesce, because there is always a clear reason and point of view they themselves will appreciate. This method of negotiating problem solving governs my life.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Should I keep pursuing this, or is she just not interested?
Posted: 3/26/2013 9:12:21 PM
chloraform, handcuffs and a plastic lined trunk and you're in bud. Meet in public to put her at ease and then just ask her to guide you reverse parking and get out to check her judgement, wham bang and in the trunk she goes and you're done.

Or you could just move on.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 14 (view)
 
What do you think?
Posted: 3/26/2013 9:06:42 PM
I take it as nothing is a given until a meet and greet and one can only speak for themselves. It is said even what you know of your best friends is a combination of what you choose to believe and what they choose to show you.

I use a number of descriptors such as how they respond to a wide variety of random consciousness I'm prone to, I'll go from Lorentz transformations to a dog licking his nuts within a sentence so keeping up is really a matter of dropping all salesmanship and speaking truly or you just look like a falsehood as a person. But even so I take nothing for granted, and am competent at getting myself out of trouble so can freely get myself into it as I feel like it.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 8 (view)
 
That annoying question but I want to know
Posted: 3/26/2013 3:27:10 AM
rohypnol, handcuffs, hammer, ask him. It is inferred what would happen if he lied.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/25/2013 1:46:23 AM
I don't disagree with your point Luthion, mine which isn't a counterpoint is that when it comes to the hard physical task accomplishment generally those with more comparative time spent developing those skills will do better than someone who spent the same time developing other skills, and much less time on those ones. That's simple math.
Secondly that "James Bond" was never grunt, he was always "Sheldon Coopers" in reality, their complex combat training is for improvisation, not superiority.
You are taught in Intelligence community training, in National Security forces training, and in Military Special Forces training, not to fight regular grunts in fair fights: you'll lose. A CIA operative, an NSA agent, a Green Beret infiltrator, these are not Ludlum characters capable of flattening the enemy left and right, they're computer geeks with some improv skills and sharp wits. That's the reality of it. And they're ugly and geeky and thoroughly unremarkable, they're selected for qualities like being totally forgettable, for not standing out in a crowd.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/23/2013 8:12:54 PM
That's true in a genetic sense Luthion, but not in a practical one due to simple time. I gave a military example in my previous post because military organisation is simple, direct and thoroughly pragmatic, if something isn't true it doesn't survive contact with the enemy. When a military theory is tried and tested, it means it worked in practise under varied conditions and in high stress environments, and any alternative didn't.

Time is the factor which governs trained response. Educated skills task accomplishment is a trained response, doesn't matter how intellectual you are, if you've never opened a book or talked to another person about electronics you cannot function as an electronics engineer, you can only lie about it.
If you've never eaten right and done the physical activities to form a powerful physique, and spent years upon years of testing the mechanics of motion in various athletic/combat scenarios, you cannot function as a high value warrior/soldier, you can only lie about it.
People can lie really well sometimes, to themselves or others.

But it's a time issue. From minimum adequate physical development of 15-22yrs of age to a viable operational capability at 28-45yrs of age, means that on average only some ten years is available for dedicated training and experience in selected fields.

So by and large, grab a 30yr old grunt from the infantry corps and he'll be pretty tough in any combat scenario. Grab a 30yr old mathematician from a university and don't go spending your wages backing him in a boxing match with the grunt.
That's why they have separate officer training and infantry training, time. You have only a lifetime to set up usable skills.

The SuperMan hypothesis, that the Modern Man can be The EveryMan is Nietzschean philosophy, from a man who died in a mental hospital. It is a deluded fiction. The simple basics do apply.
But the point is you can swing a physical contest outside the realm of physical prowess, this is not intellectual, it is merely planning and influencing conditions. That can bring back balance.

Old school kobudo styles work on this basis. You don't fight a samurai in a contest of skill and strength, you do it using superior mechanics and combat conditions. Same for fighter pilots, you don't break off with an enemy aircraft and engage a wild dogfight in a contest of skill and aircraft performance, you attack out of the sun and shoot down stragglers that are damaged, lost or have engine trouble, killing off the weaklings and diminishing the overall enemy force in the long term. Combat is predatorial, not philosophical and dedicated grunts work better than wonderfully rounded beings. It's a fact.
It is the same theory practised by militaries throughout the ages and is even written out in length in modern NATO military handbooks.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Times are a changing.
Posted: 3/23/2013 5:31:01 PM
Considering each neuron is a databus and each neurological structure a multi-layered networked processor, and there's billions upon billions of them in one brain, if you networked every computer and supercomputer on the planet you still would be eons away from getting anywhere near the data handling or processing capacity of a teenage kid looking at girls on a beach. There's so much data handling and information processing in that one simple millisecond act that Freud could write an entire tome on it and it would lock up every supercomputer on the planet, even if you networked them.
We're millennia away from matching the capability of a biological brain with technology, if it is even ever possible.

AI engineering has a handful of leading researchers that, with the best theory and equipment available one day hope to create a large, complex, expensive machine that would function at best like an autistic child. They won't be replacing humans anytime soon except in highly conditional roles, like the F-22 FCS/Management AI assist...and experienced combat pilots like those of the IAF complain because of less pilot role in preventing critical malfunction meaning when the system itself malfunctions the pilot is a passenger and cannot prevent a crash. That's the best we can do with our technology and it's not nearly good enough.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Is Geekism / Nerdism Evolutionary Undesirable?
Posted: 3/22/2013 6:04:35 PM
Well it seems there's a can of worms on the topics of popularisms and genetic traits on the boards but I'll avoid those entirely and just cut to the simple OP postulate/prose, who wins in the evolutionary stakes, Sheldon Cooper or James Bond?

I'll completely disregard genetic traits as irrelevant chicken and egg argumentation on human behaviour and related social status.
But popularism is a factor here, an historical misconception is involved. I'll use an illustrative real world reference to back the following abstraction:

James Bond was never James Bond, not in real life. Sheldon Cooper was James Bond and we prefer as consumers to see a contemporary male model playing the role in a visual depiction, because we like to identify with protagonists and like to see ourselves as obviously sexually potent.

Military special forces as we know them widely today in our Anglo-US cultures: the military "commando" (SAS, Green-berets, etc.) was created during WW2 in Britain under the Special Operations Executive at the height of Nazi European occupation, licensed by Churchill and effectively fathered aforementioned modern special forces as a military unit.

The purpose of SOE/military commandos was to put Sheldon Cooper into combat, not James Bond. The problem you have with regular trained combat troops is they're tough as nails by focusing the bulk of their training on being tough as nails. It just doesn't leave a great deal of physical time to have trained as a genius physicist, mathematician, electrical or chemical engineer. In fact most people with those kind of qualifications came from money, private/exclusive schooling, hobbies in a shed and not a lot of winning football games and beating up the neighbourhood kids.

But they're real handy to have when you need to get into a fully armoured Nazi submarine pen with a 5 man team in occupied Europe. Problem of course comes with the fact they're no match even for a curious boyscout with a guard dog let alone a determined military guard on the lookout for the enemy. On the one hand you need an explosives engineer to hit the sub-pen in a way that even 2-ton bombs from Lancasters couldn't penetrate, to disable it and for that you really need an expert, on the other hand you need personnel who can get close enough to the target incognito to disable it using engineering skills and physics theorum, without being revealed as an enemy operative by the very first guard to ask them a question or patrol near their ingress point.

You need a mathematician, very qualified technician or an engineer to do the job. Yet you need someone who won't fold under pressure, panic and get everyone killed, or can actually hide in cover and take out an enemy guard quietly in close combat if the situation calls for it. You need Sheldon Cooper for the job, but you need him to act like James Bond on the job.

Now let's get rid of one misconception right here. A military commando is not trained to compete with an infantry soldier. You want tough, try your regular everyday infantry man, very hard to beat in a fight. It's what they do, professionally and single mindedly. SOE did not try to train engineers to fight a soldier in a fair fight, there's just no way. You can't teach a grunt to be a genius physicist unless he was one before he became a grunt. You can't teach your genius mathematician to become an ultimate warrior either, unless he was already one before...you get the idea.

The purpose of SOE was to teach mathematicians and engineers to fight dirty, get out of trouble, use a wide variety of skills from subterfuge to camoflage, to use problem solving and to get the job done in a military environment that is, strictly speaking well out of their depth.

James Bond never existed, they don't exist. Sheldon Coopers taught to point behind an enemy guard, shout "Hey look over there!" and when he turns around stab him with a concealed knife, that's your real James Bond in the real world.

In terms of evolutionary superiority in a fair fight, yeah sure the grunt beats the mathematician 9 times out of 10, he just breaks the little nerd in half and terrorizes him whilst doing it.
But human beings control their environments to a far greater degree than any other species and we don't exactly have to follow all the normal rules of natural selection. We can build a hut and a fire to overcome climate. And likewise Sheldon Cooper can cheat and misdirect to kill a Rambo in an unfair fight.
And if evolutionary domination depended on having that submarine pen in operation, Sheldon Cooper is the person who won that round, all the grunts in the world running at it shooting rifles would never have scratched it.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Not mentioning certain things in the profile, if it could confuse or intimidate a man?
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:56:40 PM
So basically you want to be more ambiguous so you can attract more people who are incompatable with who you really are as a person?

Lady, you can never change the number of people who don't like you no matter what you do or how you present yourself. You can only change which ones don't like you.
It's a compatability thing. The whole idea is to present yourself openly enough not to waste time on paid dates with people who would never work out with you anyway. It wastes both your time and annoys both of you. Just let the chips fall where they may and describe yourself as you are, to best attract those who are most compatable with you.

Don't try to be Ms Popularity, that's the hooker's game. Be you. People meant for you will recognise you that way.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Pick on someone your own size turkey!
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:45:31 PM
Reminds me of that Monty Python radio sketch where the world's first genius sheep convinced all the other sheep to rise up against their cruel oppressive masters and throw themselves from a cliff in protest...

What did you have in mind, chooks shaking your hand with a big thankyou for the wonderful treatment on their way to the chopping block? And that's somehow not infinitely more twisted from a philosophical point of view?

Boycott meat, they only do it like this when they get paid. That's the joke. Putting rules on it raises overheads and guess what, the companies then import from places where the rules don't exist to cut costs and raise profits.
Only way to fight for poultry rights to quality of life are stop buying any you didn't farm and kill in the manner you prefer, ultimately. Dollars before politics, you know this.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 90 (view)
 
Traveling at light speed. Does time reall stop?
Posted: 3/20/2013 10:16:33 PM
Relativistic effect is calculated by part of the Lorentz transformations. The problem is the calculation used causes a mathematical singularity at c. (and negative values above c.). It's not the right math for the job but it's the only math we've got for it. Nobody knows what would actually happen if you accelerated an object so infinitely that it reached c. but the math suggests that this would never happen, you would always get one fraction closer to c. but never actually achieve c. because the singularity dictates infinite relativistic mass has to be accelerated, which would require infinite energy. But that's just what imperfect math says, singularities in any theoretical solution aren't a good thing, they mean the math is incomplete and there's something we don't know about it. This is reinforced by the negative values above c. which doesn't strictly mean you can't exceed speed of light, it means you get an error message on your calculator if you do and we're in unknown territory. Some theorists say these negative values mean you can't exceed c. whilst others say you can but enter a "subspace realm" where time travels backwards, others say other things. You could say anything, because it's a big error message in the math.

So long as you never postulate a scenario where you actually reach or exceed c. the math works just fine and shows accurate predictions in observation of fast moving objects, like muons in the upper atmosphere.

andyaa made a slight error on page 1

To the ground observer you would do 1 million miles at light speed in a little over 5 seconds.

To the person traveling at the speed of light he would do the 1 million miles in just over 5 seconds.

To the person traveling at the speed of light observing the ground observer, an infinite amount of time would have passed.

To observe the traveler, traveling at the speed of light, it would take an infinite time


To the person travelling at c. observing the ground observer, an infinite amount of time passes without change although at c. he travels an infinite distance instantaneously within the ship.
To the observer the traveller, travelling at the speed of light would travel an infinite distance taking an infinite amount of time.

andyaa forgot to factor in length contraction.

A better example is to use relativistic speeds, say a factor of 2. You go so close to the speed of light (0.87c.) on your journey that it takes enough fuel/energy to accelerate twice your rest mass to accelerate any further. Time is dilated by 1/2. You take a 1 light-year journey. At 0.87c that should take 1.13 years. A ground observer sees it take 1.13 years on their planet for you to get there. On board your ship lengths contract such that the faster you go the shorter the distance becomes, so that instead of a 1 light-year journey, when you get up to speed at 0.87c spacetime bends towards you and the distance is only half a light-year which takes you 0.56 years to travel at your speed, ship time.
If the ground observer could see inside your ship he would see that time is running twice as slow on board as it is on his planet, but that is not what the traveller experiences. Time runs normally for the traveller, but the distance between two points in space become much shorter, by curvature of spacetime.
But the energy requirements to achieve this velocity are as if the craft had twice as much mass to accelerate than it does.

Now here is the issue I was talking about. At c. these values are all infinite. But nobody really knows what that means.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 18 (view)
 
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 9:36:20 PM
To add, if you're concerned about subcultural groups such as Westboro Baptists abusing lawful medical patients at abortion clinics or lawful attendees of entertainment venues such as gay festivals, then you need to lobby your local political representatives to ammend local laws to include harassment of lawful citizens for ideological reasons. Then you prosecute these extremists as mundane criminals for breaking harassment and abuse laws. What you don't do is start a personal war against everyone inspired by spiritualism, religion, philosophy and other perfectly lawful liberties.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 9:26:25 PM

Say what you will about people's harmless "hobbies", but delusions have a way of getting out of hand.


No they don't. Breaking the law is illegal. If you're not breaking the law then you have a lawfully protected right to liberty.
You can no more say a delusion caused a breaking of law than you can eating a cookie caused someone to break the law afterwards.
The insanity plea is about diminished capacity, which exists irrespective of any delusion described by an individual, it is not the delusion which is the problem, it is the condition of diminished capacity which is arguably causal to a delusion combined with the will to act upon that delusion in contradiction to establishments of law.

You effectively propose to pre-emptively police crime. And yet to do so you would be committing crimes such as discrimination, affray, harassment, upon individuals which have committed no crime.
How about you just try sticking to being lawful yourself before you worry about policing everybody else based on your own personal justice and legal systems, yeah? One might ask whom has the greater delusion, your ideologically totalitarian megalomania or people who wish to believe in fairies.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 12 (view)
 
Are Cell Phones like Drugs?
Posted: 3/20/2013 5:35:08 AM
I like it when satirists play out reactionary scenarios in cartoons like South Park, the Simpsons or comedy sketch shows, it sometimes puts a reactionary concern into a wider context.

Bit like some lobbyists asserting that underage exposure to adult rated movies depicting sex and violence may cause increased youth crime rates. So the cartoon kids on South Park went to an adult rated movie and upon return claimed it damaged their fragile little minds, where as the scenario played out the normal everyday lives of these, easily recognisable child characters make an R-rated movie seem tame by comparison, and really it's the adults around them that find it difficult to cope with the kind of crazy kids think is normal to start with, their claim was entirely facetious and along the lines of "well if you think that movie was a bad influence you should see what I did to the neighbour's dog yesterday..."

The truth is reactionaries tend to have a far more fragile scope of discipline than anyone they claim to be concerned about, and that is the reason they are concerned.
In the 70s parental groups were concerned about kids reading violent comics all day instead of doing sports, in the 80s it was the action movie that bothered them, in the 90s video games started concerning these groups, then the internet and now mobile phones.

You could take the mobile phones away with some kind of jamming transmitter in cities but then they're just going to start carrying around notebooks with cable connections again, and if you take that away they'll be hanging around malls going to see action movies again, and if you censor those they're just going to escape into comic books again. Whatever form you let them use, it's not going to change them. It's a bit over the top to liken this behaviour with hiding in dark corners getting stoned, but hey I can envision if we let you run the universe that certainly might drive them to it.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 13 (view)
 
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 5:00:27 AM
Indeed, humility is not only an important component to benevolent objectivity, but an integral part of scientific method: the falsifiable hypothesis, all arguments begin with "I maybe wrong..." and furthermore all conclusions end with it too. Observation in nature, not arguing nature is the evidentiary procedure.

And in mahayana buddhism the sign of enlightenment is a hearty laugh, you never attack a samurai who giggles at you when you draw on him, you have a much better chance with one who gets angry over it. Just tossing that in there because to me this is all a philosophical thing, it's about believing in a good philosophy and I'm not real big on ones that are "good" by process of elimination (of opposition). Quality of life is key to itself and cannot be by schadenfreude.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 11 (view)
 
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/20/2013 3:55:58 AM

I have had discussions with fundamentalists from a wide range of religions and sects, 9/11 Truthers, UFOlogists, ghost afficianadoes, etc. and most were pretty good-natured about it (with a few exceptions) and we listened to each other's ideas with a modicum of civility. However... NOBODY even comes close to vitriol and anger like New Agers when you tell them psychics aren't real and that the crystal around their neck probably isn't much use beyond it's ability to accessorize your outfit. That's not to say they can't be persuaded, in fact they may be more persuadable than the others on the list in the long run; but for sheer righteous indignation they have no peers.


You might find such individuals become indignant in response to dismissal out of hand, and vitriolic about being treated arrogantly such that you might dismiss their contentions without understanding their personal rationale, merely treating them like robots who told you something outside their programming shell and so require fixing.

Again you're working from the perspective that yours is the measure of normalcy and extreme variation from your perspective is extreme variation from normalcy. But other people may have had different experiences than you and I'm not talking about seeing ghosts, I'm talking about losing loved ones or living in a combat zone or some other extreme real world consequence to biological functionality.

Now let's be very clear about one particular assertion: as a biomechanical system conditional adaptations ranging from extreme enhanced mundane awareness (eg. a habit of predicting visitors still streets away or phonecalls just before it rings), to PTSD or anxiety disorders are an example of *healthy* function under extreme conditions. Individual variations exist because the individual is healthy and functional, not because there is something wrong with them. The variation maybe distressing at certain extremes and in this case we have the medical facility to attempt bringing biochemical variations back within reasonable range, but again they are an example of healthy functioning of the biomechanical system and not aberrance to have gotten there in the first place.

ie. when someone stubbornly asserts irrationale your question shouldn't be "what is wrong with this person" but should be more like, "gee what has this person been through." Instead of working on the presumption there is something genetically wrong with some people, try working on the assumption everyone is perfectly normal and their conditions of experience maybe extreme.

So even where a person claims poignantly that they are talking to dragons it is not even intellectually sound to tell them there is something wrong with them, even if the assertion is unsound on the face of it this comes from a perspective whereby you are using yourself as the measure by which they ought be ruled but yet you are not them. If they are indeed delusional, or irrational, then it is by normal functioning they arrived there, not being spoilt little brats who just decided to invent their own version of reality for giggles and now need to be disciplined by the schoolteacher. Particularly with subjects such as religious or spiritual experiences you maybe dealing with an effectively closed system of information processing and in fact if you actually cared even slightly about their well being your objective wouldn't be the egotistical domination of their arguments, but an altruistic consideration of their health and well being when dealing with them, if well outside your own normal variations of healthy thinking.

Here is my anecdotal reference for relevance.
I was curious about UFO conspiracy theorists and ghost hunters and being one of those people who like to try new things before I go judging them from an armchair, despite being academic of personality. I signed up with a number of groups and got to know members personally. One UFO-abduction group operating out of Ohio, as it turns out the group administrator happened to have a history of what can only be described as terrible childhood physical, emotional and sexual abuse. I'd describe her as remarkably high functioning given her only wackadoo is some perfectly harmless social hobby that whilst delusional, seems to manage her well being more effectively than a room full of counselers and psychotropic drug regime would, there is no way I would substitute her perfectly happy little existence to make her spend every waking hour no longer able to forget her shocking experiences just because I can't stand it when someone challenges what I want to believe with what they want to believe, it's not about me, her life is not about mine. What would I achieve smashing her evidentiary procedure to pieces other than leaving a human being in a worse state than how I found them? Am I going to pay for her proper medical treatment? Counseling, will I offer support services from my house for her? Some things a contientious person just leaves be, even a medical doctor has the hippocratic oath to do no harm so wouldn't do such a thing unless they were committed to ensuring a better, substitute treatment regime before they went and destroyed someone's life. She knew I was increasingly unconvinced the more I interacted with the group, then I went my own way, and that's enough information for her to do with what she will.

The ghost hunter group based in Wales, as it turned out it's just a bunch of hobbyists that aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed, playing at being university researchers whilst actually being high school leavers and probably the kids that sat up the back flicking elastics at the smart kids anyway. There really wasn't much to it, they had no concept of scientific method and their "research" consisted of making a conditional assertion and using argumentation to find a satisfactorily paranormal explanation for obviously mundane events. No real attempt at evidentiary procedure or corroberative research, just a game where you basically "try" to hear or see something odd and then use only paranormal or supernatural postulates to consider it with. It's a pastime choice, less delusional than elective so really no point arguing scientific method or mundane explanation with them since they're really not interested in thinking along those lines. Fair enough, each to their own, again just a harmless pastime and what right do I have to go and spoil their adult fun. It's their money, let them spend it the way they want.

Trying to change either of those groups/examples would be entirely about ego and animism. One should just leave them be or you can expect a punch in the face and guess what, you'd deserve it too.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 23 (view)
 
The Coming Singularity
Posted: 3/19/2013 2:56:36 AM
Two fallacies up in here.

Singularity is just a mathematical term for a one sided equation in the midst of theoretical physics, that's all it means. It means the equation can't be solved but up until the point it just stalls and breaks down, it reads true. So at worst it's partly true, but could be way way off, like the einstein-rosenburg bridge, great example, all basically comes down to the fact the standard model breaks down under exotic conditions so hell, might as well throw a divine teleporter in there because at that point the theory supports fire breathing dragons too.

Sci fi and scientific journalism tosses this term around way too much, it's an almost meaningless term in a physical sense. I've no idea how we're drawing some kind of philosophical/metaphysical wow factor about human evolution from a term that means nothing more than a math theory can't be tested because only one side of the equation got solved and the other went off into godland somewhere (physics only stands up when two sides of an equation balance each other, one cannot cancel the other or you have total universal annihilation, math is simple like that).

Second one is computer processing being in any way related to AI. Processors work on a "top down" approach to information handling. AI works upon a "bottom up" approach. AI engineers will be intimate with these terms.
Basically, computers as we think of them start with a powerful electronic machine with a highly complex program to give it functions. Organic brains don't work like that. Nobody assembled the human brain and then programmed evolution into it and hey presto, here we are. Evolution constructed the sapient mind from the ground up and it functions with complex evolutionary diversity.

That means the current direction of AI engineering is lots of very very simple little electronic machines, lots and lots of them. Turn them all on with a simple binary task capability, put them in a room like a swarm of insects and they start to solve complex problems accidentally as a whole. AI works like that. Not far away in a technological sense but expensive with a lot of effort and construction involved to make a fairly simple brain, to make a truly AI machine it would have to be a pretty big machine, comprised of a whole lot of little machines doing very simple binary functions as its brain, and then you'd have to educate it, not run it with a shell program. Then it would start to act like true AI. AI will be in large vehicles long before they'll be household appliances, things like interplanetary explorer craft the size of aircraft carriers, you'd want something like that to be AI and kind of need something that big for it, and it's the only kind of scenario where AI funding is actually cheaper than simply hiring cheap labour organics to do the same job. Space travel is ridiculously expensive when manned, more expensive than developing AI for it. About the only possible scenario where this is true, other than similar extremes like running around the ocean floor or inside active volcanos.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 2 (view)
 
The Emperor's New Clothes
Posted: 3/19/2013 2:20:44 AM
You won't remember this but when you were an infant you could never see anything you looked at directly. The reason is physical. At the back of your retinas is an optical nerve attachment. There are no cellular rods to convert light into bioelectrical impulses there, an optic nerve is in the way. In the centre of vision in each eye is a blank spot. Medical fact, provable.

As you grew your brain, capability of imagination working in concert with binocular vision and peripheral vision, has taught itself, from very early development to "fill in the blanks" so that you think you have clear full vision in the frontal hemisphere of each eye. It's an optical illusion, your brain is doing this with subconcious imagination, it is not a direct biomechanical process of organ to image reading.

So my counter-question is, if everything you see is merely what you think is reality, how to do you get people to see yours rather than theirs? A hint: not starting a war is kind of a catch-22 here.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 37 (view)
 
International Law?
Posted: 3/17/2013 10:21:19 PM
Igor you're a brilliant poster I'm loathe to take a merely pedantic exception with..


Anti-union people aren't anti-union because they like the idea of destroying workers rights, they are anti-union because they don't want to have to do the work of thinking about the welfare of their employees, in addition to the work they are already doing to plan out the activities required for their industries.


I work harder than my coworkers, I actually wind up doing half their jobs which would otherwise go undone because they attend work only to get paid, in fact avoiding any labour which they believe will go unnoticed. I put all thought into task accomplishment and get paid whether or not that's what I spend workdays thinking about, so more work now means less work later where their maxim is less work now and shirk responsibility for unfinished work later (with arguments like I didn't think it was my job to empty the full bin...my argument is the bin is full, you've got two arms, bloody empty it or else then you have a dirty floor and an overfull bin).

When I work at Union houses I cannot negotiate an individual wages contract. My hourly rate is argued only by the union and if I want a payrise for additional work duties the employer response is they pay the union agreed wages, whilst the union response is that my wage is decided by employment status as agreed between them and the employer. No individual wages negotiation.

This is why I am anti-Union.


Dictators don't want to be all powerful in order to be able to have more responsibilities for others, they want to be in charge of life and death, so that they DON'T have to work to think about others concerns.


My appraisal of Adolf Hitler through study of Mein Kampf (both original versions), is that his political philosophy was essentially a perspective upon Kaiser Wilhelm's absolutist rulership in the context of "I could've done it better," and whilst albeit strictly unlawful and unethical enforcement of Treatised political representation by Reichstag under a Weimar Republic for what was in essence an absolutist Monarchy formerly, maybe loosely regarded as a forward political evolution from this mid-mediaeval period kind of government; nevertheless Hitler sought personally to further political devolution to the early mediaeval period type of monarchal government complete with beheadings of youths for crimes no greater than political sedition (literally, speaking against the government in a public place). Hans and Sophie Scholl be remembered.
Point being I found no hint whatsoever of any desire of Hitler's to take any easy road in what I do regard as sociopathic political intentions, but rather that he approached them with the kind of inspiration a teen has about masturbating rather than sheer will to disregard the concerns of the general public. He goes to far more lengths to redirect public concerns into his strengths of pseudoscientific argumentation, than he does dismissing them out of hand. And he presents no allusions to power of life and death, his primary intimation is an unshakable will to martyrdom wherever personal ethic demands.

You know what he got his iron cross 1st class for? First this particular award at the time was almost never given to an NCO. He took an enemy machine gun nest single handedly with a pistol and walked the prisoners to his own lines. His early political days leading into the Munich Putsch are flagrant with similar bravado, typically leading brutal streetfights against communist revolutionaries at the very head of the crowd, with bullets whizzing past his head. He was egotistical and bullish and probably had a god complex, but wasn't dismissive. He'd argue, put more effort into it than it takes to simply order a beating from henchmen, he was much more manic than lazy.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 46 (view)
 
chemical imbalance
Posted: 3/17/2013 9:02:02 PM
There seems to be a wide array of thorough misconceptions at work on the boards regarding psychological disorders.

1. A psychological disorder and mental illness is not the same thing but can be an identical condition. That would be because in order to be regarded as a clinical mental illness by medical doctors and clinical psychologists the patient must be in distress without treatment. If the patient is not in distress it doesn't matter if they see fairies and talk to dragons, they are not mentally ill, they are just odd or imaginative. This is according to the standardised (swiss based) international mental competency assessment conventions. If you are happy with your own behaviour and healthy, you are not ill no matter who thinks you're a wacko, it is simple. Legal determinations of mental competency may vary regionally but it is still a prelimenary to being clearly dangerous to yourself or others that you would first have to be in a distressed condition.

Generally speaking if you are unhappy when nothing seems to be wrong with you, utterly certain there is something wrong with you, it is likely there is but it maybe undiagnosed or elusive and that is what clinicians care about: patient health. So: patient in distress = mental illness a possibility; patient not in distress and has no identifiable medical illness: they are not ill no matter how weird they seem to be according to social conventions.

There is no "psycho gene" doctors look for, patient distress is what they look for. It is only after that then whether you hear voices or see things starts becoming of interest but make no mistake, perfectly healthy people experience auditory and visual hallucinations frequently, it is a part of normal functioning. What you think is normal sight is actually an optical illusion, if you saw things as your brain receives sensory data alone there would be black spots in the middle of your vision because the optic nerve is attached in the middle of the retina, blocking vision; it is an optical illusion that you see a clear field of view, created by the a combination of subconscious imagination and binocular vision: clear vision is a hallucination the experience of which is normal functioning.

2. Emotional behaviour medical described as biochemistry, that's what emotions are, biochemistry at work in your body, that is what you are feeling and referring to as "emotions", they're actually biochemical reactions and productions. Clinical depression is by definition a biochemical disorder. Most behavioural disorders involving emotions, including bipolar (once called manic-depression), the majority of anxiety disorders and many others are literally defined by biochemical imbalance. It is the same thing as saying your emotions are out of balance to sensory data and normal intellectual functioning (eg. when you hear hooves you think the apocalypse, forget zebras or horsies, your emotions react out of all proportion and often with misalignment, such as laughing when you would normally cry like say at your father's funeral...not elective behaviour but misalignment and quite distressing to watch yourself do not to mention be chided for by others as offensive), but there is a complication in that emotional states and intellectual functions are causal. So thinking about paranoid things all the time whilst in an aggressive personal environment can lead to a biochemical imbalance through self hypnosis, which in turn affects emotional states under all conditions and can result in anxiety disorders, which in turn can influence intellectual functions with irregular chemistry accompanying regular thinking processes, which in turn keeps this chicken and egg argument going such that you can wind up with people sustaining medical disorders like PTSD from living in violent neighbourhoods and merely spending their days and nights trying to avoid trouble. Your body is a biomechanical machine, it does things with domino effect that you really have no say over once done especially since it can swing your objective self governing abilities away from reach before any real problem is prevalent and obvious.

3. Most general practitioners refer to mild behavioural disorders, where the patient is in distress and certain they are not functioning as they normally would physically and/or emotionally, as a biochemical imbalance. It is when an imbalance becomes extreme that conditions of clinical depression, anxiety disorders or even schizophrenia can occur so they do like to nip it in the bud, but most of the time a person diagnosed with simple "chemical imbalance" has a mild case of conditional disorder. And the dirty little secret is if they won the lotto and moved into a wonderful mansion with a wonderful spouse and roses rained upon them their biochemistry at this stage would swing back to what they are familiar with as normal functioning soon enough.
Biochemistry is conditional and causal and part of normal functioning. Extreme variations are what to look out for, and the nature of it is individual.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Equality with DV victims
Posted: 3/17/2013 1:37:26 PM
Basically OP would like to police the DV support agencies due to his concerns about discrimination in society.
Particularly given many support agencies are community welfare projects operating privately there is no question that ideologically fostered discrimination as well as the potential for local political agendas is highly likely, for example a catholic counseler could infer during victim counseling that catholic ideologies are the only system under which DV can be prevented, their advice to aboriginal victims of DV for example could be to convert to catholicism or else barbaric ways will continue to hurt them. In short it's hard to police support organisations unless they're government bodies, but on the flipside the government bodies are often so PC and statutory in practise there exists no adaptability of assistance to suit individual circumstances and it definitely operates with a political agenda.

So go ahead and police agencies against discrimination OP, not sure how much good you'll do on a date forum but more power to you. It's quite a job you're undertaking, some might say a childish waste of energy that could be better spent lobbying concrete political reforms rather than quoting YouTube videos here.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
 
would you turn down a relationship with someone who believes in a God?
Posted: 3/16/2013 2:57:55 PM

For me the incompatibility I have experienced is all in their stance on exclusivity of truth. When clung to tightly, it usually comes with a heaping supply or arrogance and/or saviour complex.. regardless of whether they are atheist or religious. Funny how the two can often have so much in common, even when diametrically opposed in viewpoint.


Aww cute, smart and kind shakti...do me? (j/k)
Very true, scientific method itself is inherently agnostic due to the inalienable foundation that you "must begin with a falsifiable hypothesis". Both militant atheists and fundamentalist religious have absolutist arguments using unfalsifiable hypotheses and contentions, and seek to prove untestable conclusions through argumentation and most commonly ad hominem.

There is the added complication that both polar opposites also tend to work on the unhistorical presumption of pentacostalism in religion (ie. literal interpretation of scripture and supernatural premises).
Actual theological study using academia clearly displays distinct ambiguity particularly in what is in fact non-constructive old-hebrew script (meaning it is more runic and heiroglyphic than constructive like greek or pheonican), so that the "Adam" name derived from the Genesis piece wasn't really a name but meant simply "humankind" (the pronounciation of the characters is Adm), or say the characters Nphlm doesn't mean "angels" but variously a term to describe foreign nobility, or a knightly warrior, or a strong man, or some other manner of impressive or imposing by nature. So you can write a passage using these characters to talk about a bunch of locals meeting up with some noble sea lords on a beach, and find it translated into a "biblical script" millennia later to read more like Jesus had a chat with God's angels in Heaven. One version would be that of academic research the other of pentacostal popularism which both militant atheists and fundamentalist religious assert as the definition of religion.
Anyone who actually bothered to seriously investigate rather than simply had a hard on for starting pointless and ridiculous arguments with people who don't care about your position (being equally childish), would know better.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 9 (view)
 
What would you do if your friend was being physically abused?
Posted: 3/16/2013 2:36:38 PM
Gaining or losing friends doesn't factor into my decisions. I act with conscience in all things and do as I think best.
If a friend is committing a violent crime or is victim of a violent crime, I will do what I must and what I would always do or have done. If something is to be prevented, I prevent it using any and all available means. This in fact makes me a reliable friend, I'll be the very first to save you or arrest you as the case may be, without slightest hesitation or negotiation. I really don't care what anyone has to think or say about it, be my friend as you will and not as you would not. You are free as am I and those aren't hollow words.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Bill of Rights
Posted: 3/16/2013 2:11:26 PM

Lack of a bill of rights (etc.) does not imply a lack of rights. For a start everyone seems to overlook the existence of the International Declaration of Human Rights.


True but it does allow regionally closed microcosms without recourse, such as NT where if you're aboriginal descent your private sector employment wages are held in trust by a government body in an effort to curb alcoholism, however oddly if you simply changed point of view such as the claim is rather, that aboriginals are too barbaric to handle money this explanation would also fit neatly. And it is the International Human Rights Commission which complained to the Fed.Government about this practise (and others such as boat people indefinite internment and FedPolice handling of asylum claims and antiterrorism legislation), and the Fed Gov. response to the Commission was to shutup and go home.

Now sure this happens on a worse and greater scale in the US, but they actually have to legislate to allow it using things like the Patriot Act to defy the Constitutional rights of subjected people/groups, whereas without constitutionally protected rights the position we're in here is that you must legislate to prevent it, not to do it in the first place which is not unlawful until it is legislated against. The only law which applies without specification is common law, major crimes like murder, rape, theft, etc. Not anything like human rights infringements which are always a matter of perspective, and without constitutional protection aren't illegal by and large unless violently extreme. And without constitutional protection of citizen rights the only checks and balances to parliament is itself, the same way we don't have any independent internal affairs police department so have problems with police corruption where unless a royal commission or some such extreme measure is appointed, complaints against police are left to the same department to investigate and bury or misrepresent freely. When the Vic drug squad was disbanded due to proved corruption the exact same body of cops was reformed under a new squad name and went back to work in about two months doing the same thing. Parliament is in a position to do exactly the same thing about human rights and governance challenges because its only checks and balances save questionable monarchal tradition (governer general) is itself.


I think in practice you'll find the Westminster based governments to be far more representative of the people.


Also true but the reason is counter-intuitive. People think of the US constitutional republic system of government as being a forward step from European democracy but the opposite is actually true. The US system is frozen at the Magna Carta era of European democracy, ca. 15th century political evolution and firmly stuck there. Westminster government represents a continued evolution beyond paper rulership and argumentation of constitutional law by abdication of power to the assembly of peerage itself, where the US system remains at the era where an absolutist king ruled with the authority of the church and the Magna Carta ensured the rights to peerage of the process, and protection of inalienable, independent rights of citizens at higher authority than either the king or church. It didn't exactly deal with how to actually govern the nation very well.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 26 (view)
 
FOG LIGHTS
Posted: 3/16/2013 1:32:59 PM
My 89 Merc has bright lights but the extra fog lights are also distinctly pointed at the road and only light up around the front bumper at low wattage (about 35W compared to 60W low beams/100W high beams), you couldn't use them in place of low beams at night for example, you wouldn't see anything. The rear fog lights are just visibility lights, a second pair of red tail-lights.
Still I don't use them in rain or dark overcast daytime conditions because what they do is reflect off the wet road and cause glare to other drivers. It was raining today and I noticed a lot of AWD towncars (eg. Range Rover style) had their bumper fog lights on, these had to be at least 55W xenon blue-white (ridiculously overpowered for fog lights) and reflected off the wet road like high beams right in my eyes, could definitely cause a problem.
What I have is electrically controlled low beams that I can lower further than the standard night setting using a dash switch. It doesn't reflect off the wet road to cause glare like fog lights, and it isn't as directly forward as low beams, so it's a safe setting for rainy days with your lights on.

Most newer Euro style cars now have LED lights for that purpose, they just let other cars see them on overcast/rainy days without causing glare, they're not fog lights or low beams as they're not for the driver to see with, they're just visibility lights for other drivers at a distance in the wet/overcast. You see them on new Audis, Mercs and the latest HSV Commodores, some come on automatically by a light sensor.

The Vic road rules are fog lights cannot be used on overcast/rainy daytime conditions, you must turn on your low beams and not fog lights. I presume an exception would be allowed for cars with specialised overcast-visibility lights like the Audis. It is part of the licensing tests to know this and police can definitely fine people for using fog lights when it's not foggy.

In the 70s when aftermarket foglights were popular for a couple of years they were usually yellow glazed to reduce road glare, but again they still reflect off wet roads and cause yellow glare so fell out of favour since people have always it seems, used their fog lights when it rains rather than low beam. Low beam is safer than fog lights unless it is foggy but people think about themselves not others.

You might find regular patrol cops aren't very car savvy unless that particular cop is a car enthusiast, they're just patrol cops. You need the Road Patrol interceptor cops or VicRoads Safety officer cars (pink roof lights) to actually understand all the road laws and enough about car models to enforce them without getting it wrong half the time. So you might find regular patrol cops are a bit daunted by pulling over a lot of newer cars that have several different kinds of lights, not knowing which are automatic sensor visibility lights, which are fog lights, which are driving lights, pulling someone over for having their fog lights on only to find out they're automatic visibility lights is embarressing for a cop.
You will find the interceptor drivers and VicRoads officers will pull you over and fine you for fog lights causing glare in clear/rainy conditions however, the same as they will for failing to turn your high beams or driving lights off. There's just not very many of them compared to patrol cops, who's job is patrolling neighbourhoods for loitering or suspicious activity, they will only pull over cars for obvious infringements like speeding, burnouts, no rego, etc.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 25 (view)
 
what do marriage minded men in their 30s want?
Posted: 1/5/2013 11:56:26 AM
It kind of sounds like you're shopping for a new tv. Men aren't really accessories you pick up as part of a lifestyle choice.
The presentation of dating forums (online or in person) as a pool of choices to accesorise your life with is commercial marketing and fictional, it's just to draw the crowd and sell the forum itself as a product. The reality is they're just social networking forums where you simply increase the rate you make acquaintences, and have an opportunity to screen some degree of compatability in your new acquaintences. It is by no means any qualifier for relationships, merely increased social networking to make acquaintences.

To form a relationship you have to do it the old fashioned way. Meet lots of people, hopefully within your preferred social groups, and raise the chances that various degrees of relationship may form naturally through increased social exposure.

To set out seeking a relationship itself, marriage or otherwise almost precludes itself, since you're more about causing a lifestyle choice than you are about discovering the inherent relationships you will have with the individuals you meet. People who do that generally find they create a relationship with someone new and the actual relationship you're destined to have with them is not the same one you created. Then you feel cheated, blame them, disassociate, and never notice you set up your own failure from the beginning.

By middle age a lot of guys have gotten pretty savvy about this, especially where LTR and marriage is concerned, from experience. That'd be because marriage and defacto relationships are a legal institution and so when they got involved with a crazy chick who killed any relationship before it began but started one anyway, they lose even more than she does.
 vanaheim
Joined: 6/6/2009
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Taxis for women
Posted: 12/30/2012 3:47:04 PM
Sounds like a fine idea because the buck has to stop somewhere. But some appreciation of the complexity of sociological trends should be watering any knee jerking condemnation involved. This all started not with female passengers being sexually assaulted but with cabbies being criminally assaulted with a high frequency. It's a low paid, long shift job with menial working conditions and this really steered the employee market towards the kind of social dregs that are borderline personalities, misogynistic, aggressive or otherwise damn near antisocial but really need some kind of employment nevertheless and hell, fewer of anybody else wants to do it.
It's like trends in the security industry, between menial conditions and minimum wage, poor social contact 50% of the time at least, and legislative overcompensation that only tie the hands of conscionable employees further yet manage to open the door for simpler thugs, you wind up with the very opposite or unintended extreme of the desired effect.

But the buck has to stop somewhere. Melb cabs started putting screens separating the driver compartment and prepaid policy after dark, but the damage was already done in the employee base apparently. Female only cab service, sure, why not? Generally going to be less violent, but generally going to be cleaning up more vomit on duty. But at this stage just finding a cabbie after dark who's fluent in english or any kind of problem solving skills is an accomplishment. And simple people get confused, frustrated and aggressively disassociative over simple things, it's 50/50 you get one of those any time of day imho.

So glad I've got a car now, didn't have one for a bit. Preferred public trans to cabs most of the time, and that has its issues and retarded governing responses too. I think generally we should just try a government that aren't footyheads one of these days, get someone intellectually qualified in there but it's a pipe dream.
 
Show ALL Forums