Stosh

I think those claims are made by people with an agenda and one needs to be skeptical , but not to the point -of just declaring the reverse opinion as factually true. Back in sixth grade they told me that the world would run out of oil in the next ten years. That hasn't even been shown close to being true , it was shown to be false. If predictions of five years ago have not been proven true, then those models need to be trashed , along with disregarding those who made the wrong predictions. If one makes a prediction about the end of the world as we know it , and they were flat out wrong.. they need to be discredited and ignored- forever more , end of story.

It doesn't really matter, the rich powerful countries will always have the upper hand ,,,if we are smart and get that wall started.

I think one should keep an open mind , for instance , how would you or I know what " normal changes" are? but regardless of that There is a principle , and it states , that data is rather neutral to begin with unless it has a lot of unattended errors( its essentially objective). The big problem is when people begin to try to interpret and come up with subjective statements about how things should be put together making 'sense ' of the data. and then again when people start making subjective statements about what to DO about the conclusions, that's where the bias is introduced. We, the general public , often use silly rationales to decide which experts should be listened to. Scientists either put too much emphasis on correlations or on unsubstantiated theory. ( red lights do not actually stop cars , but there is a correlation) Neil deGrasse Tyson, a science guy I overall like , said he thinks that scientists should be listened to , but frankly I don't know that they can be trusted any more than The United Nations, because he has his agenda to promote science. So I annd any lay-person gets relegated the task of figuring out which experts to believe ! , when we know for a fact we are less well informed than they are! I'll die long before the ocean levels rise very far anyway , let the kids figure out what they want to do in their generation.

Ill try to do better , I was watching someone last night in a pod-cast , He is interesting , but kind-of abrupt, his annoyance is um understandable but probably not good as an aspect of his presentations. In your rabbit hole example , as you mean it , you have a very apt analogy. The cat thing sounds like you're just messing around. - but that's another very widely misunderstood presentation .

I don't really get what you mean by "rabbit hole " in this context. But its just a fact that the way the uncertainty principle was meant to be understood , is that you interfere so as to take the measurement. Heisenberg is the one and only person who decides what his principle is , but you get to concur or disagree. If I get a hint that you are an investigator , yes, I will then act to avoid getting caught, but no , not if I have no idea you suspect me. I agree , we do not live on the scale of sub-atomic particles. Certainty , colloquially , is a sentiment. But I don't think I used the term 'certain probability'.

To me it reads just fine. The certainty of events is not guaranteed. And he is saying that there is a difference between statistical models vs probabilistic models.

In the science of quantum objects, the observation is made by manipulating objects and forces , and then considering how particular outcomes may have come about. It is the manipulation ,not the mental consideration, which interferes with the phenomenon.

Spend your leisure time on leisure.

Did you ever see a specialist for purely physiological sleep disorders, like apnea?

Nungali might have an idea for you. Sounds good though to leave this behind. Alaska sounds too cold.

All groupings and subdivisions have an abstract element to them. One can redraw the delineations as they see most appropriate, but they aren't real. Men and women are not purposed to create sex cells. There are no purposes to serve, because there is no ultimate beneficiary. Unless you are a mutant , every gene you have can be reasonably assumed to be out in the population at large, so the only thing you can exclusively offer are the unique experiences an actions of your lifetime , not your gametes.

Don't take it personal ,if you can help it. While some of us are willing to engage , others are not. It doesn't mean they are bad people , it just means they they do not understand .... their ideas are not their identity, (if you know what I mean). For the most part , it means that you put your finger right on the open wound, they see where they have no standing, and have to either run away or face outright loss, obfuscate , spin and put people on ignore. My inverse counterpart , a guy I talk to regularly , ( and who holds every idea in the book- inversely to my own opinion ). Like's to recall that Tip O'neil and Ronald Reagan used to fight bitterly over policy - and then go out and have dinner together. Their person-hood was not invalidated by threats to abstract opinions about policy. And as long as you keep the hits above the belt ,things should be ok , regardless of bias.

Money grab ?? Who is grabbing for it? umm the people who would get it I presume..Soo its a money grab by construction companies and perhaps defense contractors , to take money out of the defense budget and spend it on ..... policing? in two democratic and two republican states? The Great wall was built by slave and enforced labor that is costly to maintain, the cost savings on slaves , was not much more than for free persons,( and it has often happened that slaveholders divested of slaves in tight financial times.) with materials that had to be paid for , and administrated by well paid administrators. That's me thinking for myself.

Go right ahead ,start a site for it. Bye

Two anti-Trump threads isn't enough?

You're destined to make all the decisions you make. To envision a 'change' in the path of history ,you have to envision a history that didn't come about, and every decision and action of every person ever ,aborted another complete history from that point on. Worse even than that, decisions may have multiple solutions, animals might choose things , and there may be random factors that play into each situation. You'd have to postulate gazillions of alternate timelines that didn't happen, for every conscious decision. It only looks simple if you pretend all the other factors don't count in bringing about the situation for the decision. The main problem is due to the illusion that there are discrete distinctions between things. But go ahead and use the umbrella,...you Will, or will not ..regardless of the amount of freedom you think you have.

This is a bad translation of the Kalama Sutta — so bad, in fact, that it contradicts the message of the sutta, which says that reason and common sense are not sufficient for ascertaining the truth. And it’s very common as well. Here’s the original version, from Access to Insight: “Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them. The Buddha is talking to some people who live near his home country. These people, the Kalamas, are confused by the multiplicity of teachings that they hear. Many teachers arrive, who extoll their own teachings and disparage the teachings of others. And the Kalamas want to know, “Which of these venerable brahmans and contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?” The Buddha’s reply is very full, but it’s clear he says that “reason” (logical conjecture, inference, analogies, agreement through pondering views) and “common sense” (probability) are not sufficient bases for determining what the truth is. It’s not that these things should be discarded, but ultimately it’s experience and the opinion of the wise that is our guide. So this brings up at least two questions: 1. If experience is to be our guide, does that mean we have to test out every theory and practice? No. If a teacher says something like “taking drugs is the path to happiness” you don’t have to try drugs. Your experience includes observation of other people’s experience, so that if you have seen others suffering through taking drugs you don’t have to repeat their mistakes. 2. Who is to say who the wise are? You are. Through your experience (see point 1, above), whom have you found to be reliable and insightful in the past? Those people are “the wise”. Now you don’t have to take everything they say as being the absolute truth. You can use your reason, your common sense, and your experience as a guide. Not all of “the wise” will agree, for example, so you’re still going to have to figure things out for yourself ultimately. It’s this second criterion that is often overlooked. The first instance of this version of the quote that I’ve found is in a libertarian book by the pseudonymous author, “John Galt” — Dreams Come Due. I strongly suspect that Galt’s libertarianism caused him to alter the quote in order to make it supportive of his position. Incidentally, the “no matter where you read it” is an anachronism, since spiritual teachings were orally transmitted at the time of the Buddha. You're making a fine point , however the approach of both methods still works out to be the same thing IMO. Q- Where you have common sense juxtaposed with probability , what is the best translation of the word used, as you understand it ? They are not the same. Neither is it the same to know for oneself , and to adopt the experience of the 'wise'. As I read it. And that's why either translation works out to be the saying same thing. You're supposed to buy in, because inside you know it to be true for you. He thinks people are decent at heart. So he doesn't have to be a genius , nor do you or I, ... his genius status its unimportant, but clearly he was comfortable with complex and subtle thoughts, but that ain't always what people think genius is. I doubt he would want to be considered in that light , as a genius , if it meant that it would make folks believe that his insights were outside the reach of ones own. My reason for feeling confident on this, goes as follows, Since action is a single summation of all the factors which go into our decision making -including their relative weights, one needs to look at what action we are going to make a decision about having read the passage. In this case the action is whether to follow advice or whether not to in favor of our own heart and minds sentiment...essentially to - Heed the yogi or not. The argument makes no sense to be distinguishing whether a yogi has a valid point , if you heed him over yourself ,, and does make sense if you have to look inward. So thats the point .. “Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”' Obviously all that, is my opinion , and the way you are suggested to regard it is if it rings true to you. If it does not , that doesn't mean that its untrue, but it would not be good for you to incorporate what I said in that circumstance.

All that may be true, and maybe someday we will find that out. Or.. I might be right on the money, and you actually should consider it, lest ye be misunderstood..like Botox lady.. or understood when you would rather be discrete. Any way it is, though I may be wrong, I still read it as being condescending . I can't see you, can't read your body language, and so, these things are not available to blind me . That you counsel, predisposes me to figure that you indeed compartmentalize, conceal, and so forth, and you have been encouraged to think you have an upper hand ,because in the scenario,suggested, a subject starts out playing a second rate role . The shrink or priest plays into the parental role as seen by a six year old and the person with the problem has to condone it.

When I shut off that monkey mind though , its like " hulloooooo.. in here! "

I accept that you feel that way ,I guess I am more personally 'available' , when I do things , I do them wholly. I am not compartmentalized. I don't need to wave my hands or make faces to convey my sentiments. I get no thrill out of doing the wave at a football game , nor do I like complying with formalities. But.. me aside, , you gotta be kidding if you think it uncommon to take such input personally, man , in the old days,, this place got positively heated regularly, there as this one guy something like "imsiz Biri' - man o man that guy was one aggravating character. Wait ! you have 2000+ posts , you should remember back for yourself. ... but anyway people do take ownership of their ideas ,and often take rejection of them as personal rejection. Try telling your neighbor they have an ugly dog and a silly car , see if they don't take it personally.

The old teacher should have explained that this attachment is about making attributions rather than paying attention,.. but what do I know !

I always take things personally since they are said to me , I don't pretend to be a 'vulcan'. Treat all men as straw dogs - a good plan if one understands the usage. When you do get away from the go-to defense of smugness , I have nothing against your opinions, or the expression of them. I guess I'm just naughty about squandering all the patience it required of you.

You can improve your peanut butter usage by employing conditioned helplessness first. Eat your food in front of them , but withhold it from them , ignore them , and it undermines their sense of status. Then you throw them scraps to undermine their dignity. Just don't paint the cell pink.

Disrespecting people with condescension and boasting is not controlling your emotions or handling yourself just fine.

Your post has flaws , I articulated my response in the formula I chose , and I wasnt pissed off at the post overall , I dont know where you got that idea. This parental style thing where you " take a step back till I cool my jets" is what I meant by being patronizing. If you worked with people of violent tendencies you should know that its a dangerous game to get smug like that but maybe you tried that stuff from out of reach.