An expeditionary detachment of US Navy ships led by the universal amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge days ago was in the Baltic Sea
— AZ 🛰🌏🌍🌎 (@AZmilitary1) September 27, 2022
It was 30 km from the site of the alleged sabotage on the Nord Stream-1 gas pipeline and 50 km from the threads of Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline pic.twitter.com/RRyLJvz2dM
131 comments:
Hit the origin points in the Caspian Basin for the real lulz 🤣
I have no doubts that we can win a war beamish. I simply see no reason to fight it. Whether a Russian or a Ukrainian oligarch gets Europe's money makes no difference to me.
Let Ukraine fight it, with NATO weaponry and tactics. We're not threatening North Korea for arming Russia.
Nothing in the US Constitution gives Russia the right to disobey a direct order from the President of the United States. Sucks to suck.
Putin isn't going to follow the unwritten rules, beamish. He'll take out every Ukrainia supply line and depot with nukes.
Say goodbye to Ukraine.
44 million dead for some NATO general's vanity.
Oh... let's imagine that that sweet dream of Kremlin would be realised.
What it would mean for USA?
What it would mean to NATO very existance?
What would do NATO and USA with Suvalky's Coridor blockade, which surely will be very next logical thing to do for RFia?
Is Russia going to change the direction the winds blow or eat nuclear fallout too?
NATO is going to watch it happen. They aren't going to do a thing. They'll then run new pipelines through the nuclear wasteland that was once Ukraine and buy gas from Russian oligarchs.
Since when did Russians ever care about fallout? Europe got most of Chernobles.
As for the Baltics, call me when Putin gets to the Fulda Gap. And even then, I might take a rain-check.
The US needs to pull out of NATO. If I were Europe, I'd start getting used to protecting myself.
The former Soviet satellites have the right idea... band together. But the last thing they should do is follow the US's lead. Our general's are clueless.
None of this seems to point at Russia winning lol
Even if Russia nukes Ukraine, they will have lost.
How so, beamish? It'll cut out Ukraine's 10% royalty on gas moving through their territorial pipelines. Sounds like a win for Russia.
@ beamish- What's your take on the Qbee? Russian, Ukrainian, or Baltic State PsyOps?
It fails to achieve the goals Russia gave as its purpose for invading Ukraine. Goals it has already lost.
My money's on FBI CT.
Those goals were "Russia playing nice", still wanting to join the club.
@ beamish- What's your take on the Qbee?
Malfunctioning chatbot
Those goals were "Russia playing nice", still wanting to join the club.
I doubt Russia has planned that far ahead. "We will nuke" is the bluster of someone tapping a dry well of options.
Dry only if you play by the unwritten rules. When the first one goes off and no player charges the mound, we'll know.
Is Science Too "White?"
It has been argued many times over the course of decades and across diverse paradigms that science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education practices-as-usual (re)produce systems of dominance: be it patriarchy, heteronormativity, white supremacy, Eurocentrism, (neo-)colonialism, able-ism, classism, labor inequity, anthropocentrism, and/or others. Thankfully, there are many who are doing the critical and creative work of (re)opening STEM education to the possibility of eco-social justice to-come through a plurality of productive approaches, orientations, and stances: anti-oppressive, anti-racist and critical race-based, decolonizing and de/colonizing, queer, Indigenous, gender-equitable, post-colonial, community-based and participatory, critical place-based, inter-species, and many more. Further, there are many examples taking richly critical and complicit stances to work within and against logics of exclusion. Yet, in doing so, many of these engagements are oft depoliticized and atheoretical practices of inclusion in ways that continue othering those formerly excluded, albeit differently. As readers of the field, we note the ways in which efforts often center around questions of curriculum and pedagogy; as they should, these are central and major nodes within STEM education. How coming-to-know-nature, coming-to-know-number, and coming-to-know-technology are conceptualized and enacted matters deeply: in terms of the curricular destinations and the pedagogical pathways that might allow such learning, as well as for whom. For example, as Megan Bang and Ananda Marin (2015) remind, the curricular inclusion of Indigenous perspectives is differentially problematic if we cannot also attend to the taken-for-granted and naturalized epistemological, ontological, and axiological commitments and enactments of what we are including perspectives into. As Bang and Marin (2015) state, if science education continues to “focus on ‘settled’ phenomena as well as ‘settled’ perspectives and relations to phenomena” (p. 531), which rely on and reinforce recursive whiteness and settler privilege while simultaneously dismissing, diminishing, and denying Indigenous ways-of-living-with-nature, presence, and futurities, it will remain but a tokenistic inclusion which serves to distract from the more unsettling demands of this work and is often primarily an effort to reconceptualize and recenter the subject of dominance. Again, how curriculum, pedagogy, and its central nodes are conceptualized matters.
Donald Trump!
Similarly, methodology is alsoFootnote1 an important site in which the movements of power occur, differentially (re)producing articulations of dominance. While these often manifest in much more subtle ways, we argue that it remains important to ask ourselves how the diverse methodologies we employ in and through our research practices as scholars of STEM education contribute or work to maintain and privilege the prevailing trajectory of STEM education. To this end, highlighting the ways in which the disciplines discipline what counts as knowledge and, more to the point, knowledge production processes, Linda Tuhiwei Smith and colleagues (2016) ask, “are methodologies simply new technologies of cultural assimilation?” (p. 133). For Smith and colleagues (2016), attending to methodology is to address lingering colonial referents which lurk within our methodological constellation of concepts (e.g., voice, identity, data, and reflexivity). To engage in critical goals yet engage in “conventional” methodologies, whose taken-for-grantedness does not and cannot identify which conventions inform them, sends a subtle yet insidious message: that alternative perspectives need to be validated in and through the norms of dominance in order to “count.”Footnote2 There is a need to actively de-center these taken-for-granted notions and to pull through alternative and multiple ways of assembling theory, practice, and ethics. I bet nobody gets this far. However, disrupting and displacing methodologies is not strictly a call for methodological pluralism, a means of “losing the way — as losing any sense that just one ‘way’ could ever be prefixed and privileged by the definite article” (Gough 2006, p. 640, emphasis ours). It is also a call for “disrupting the hegemonic ways of seeing and how this relates to subjects making themselves dominant” (McKinley 2001, p. 76). We do not suggest that the critical and creative reworking of methodology is (wholly) a panacea to this poison. Nonetheless, there is purpose in critically engaging with the work of disrupting and displacing methodology: it is to at least dare to fail in new ways.
Disrupting and Displacing Methodologies in STEM Education: from Engineering to Tinkering with Theory for Eco-Social Justice
Charge the mound, lol. Biden should call Putin's bluff and tell him if Russia doesn't launch nukes within the next 15 minutes we're going to vaporize them.
Look like AoW's spammers may be moving in. No wonder her site's down.
Yeah, but he'll just bean the next batter.
I've always wondered why her site gets so many spambots.
I suspect it's partly my fault. I throw spitballs at Dervy over at Lisa's blog, and he has some right wing enemies there, who instead of engaging in conversation, prefer to spam their points. They don't quite get that it's a place for conversation, not a continuation of the blog wars that go on everywhere else. Now, I suppose, some people may be looking to shut further conversation down.
Of course, it's only a matter of time before the Leftist supporters of "official internet censors" get tired of waiting for the "authorities" to shut down the right and begin to hack/spam us into internet silence.
...being the dangerous "MAGA" vrag proletariata that we are.
\\They don't quite get that it's a place for conversation
Hoh... man who still remember that Web was a merely place for conversations. Once. :-)))))))
\\Of course, it's only a matter of time before the Leftist supporters of "official internet censors" get tired of waiting for the "authorities" to shut down the right and begin to hack/spam us into internet silence.
Wanna lesson from me about how to install your own dedicated server and organise on it your own Las-Vegas with blackjack and whore? And rule over it for your heart content. ;-))
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
The US needs to pull out of NATO. If I were Europe, I'd start getting used to protecting myself.
That is just impossible. Europe is TOO DAMN tightly populated, to play that game.
As Mark Twain once cleverly suggested, in a duel with a fat man. ;-)
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Is Russia going to change the direction the winds blow or eat nuclear fallout too?
They... freakingly dont care. Hard to believe, isn't it? :-)))
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
NATO is going to watch it happen. They aren't going to do a thing. They'll then run new pipelines through the nuclear wasteland that was once Ukraine and buy gas from Russian oligarchs.
Zilch of strategic thinking.
IF Europe would ignore it -- they'd be the very next.
"Either you'll admit that ALL YOUR Wealthes IS MINE now. Or you'll BE NEXT. Bu-ga-ga-gah!!!!"
That is THIS kind of strategic fork at work NOW.
And... after Europe would fall, in such a way. USA will be next.
No, not to negotiate. But to launch all kind of sneaky attacks. Blowing Yellowstone Vulcano. Some Poseidon's with Multi-Megaton Warhead close to your ports. And etc.
Because. "Your very existance DO threating us!!!"
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
@ beamish- What's your take on the Qbee?
Malfunctioning chatbot
Oh... so now you admitting that you are STUPIDIER than a mere chatbot?
What a stunning level of self-criticism! :-)))
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
It fails to achieve the goals Russia gave as its purpose for invading Ukraine. Goals it has already lost.
Well. Their reason was to ward off NATO.
Goal they busted EVEN BEFORE they started. :-)))))))
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
How so, beamish? It'll cut out Ukraine's 10% royalty on gas moving through their territorial pipelines. Sounds like a win for Russia.
Now you showing that you do not know subject matters at all.
That is about your bragging about having expertise about this and that.
That royalty is absolultely minimal. They pressed from Ukraine in previous time, when it was looking only as ordinary commercial deal by Europeans.
And... you didn't answered to my question.
"What would do NATO and USA with Suvalky's Coridor blockade, which surely will be very next logical thing to do for RFia?"
Wanna lesson from me about how to install your own dedicated server and organise on it your own Las-Vegas with blackjack and whore? And rule over it for your heart content. ;-))
No thanks.
\\Blogger Joe Conservative said...
The US needs to pull out of NATO. If I were Europe, I'd start getting used to protecting myself.
That is just impossible. Europe is TOO DAMN tightly populated, to play that game.
As Mark Twain once cleverly suggested, in a duel with a fat man. ;-)
Not my problem.
Zilch of strategic thinking.
IF Europe would ignore it -- they'd be the very next.
"Either you'll admit that ALL YOUR Wealthes IS MINE now. Or you'll BE NEXT. Bu-ga-ga-gah!!!!"
That is THIS kind of strategic fork at work NOW.
And... after Europe would fall, in such a way. USA will be next.
No, not to negotiate. But to launch all kind of sneaky attacks. Blowing Yellowstone Vulcano. Some Poseidon's with Multi-Megaton Warhead close to your ports. And etc.
Because. "Your very existance DO threating us!!!"
You don't understand the US Navy. Your "Poseidon" is merely a tracked high value target. You're going to need a land bridge across the Bearing Strait to the land we bought from Russia for peanuts. We're not the British. We don't do "soft kills".
And... you didn't answered to my question.
"What would do NATO and USA with Suvalky's Coridor blockade, which surely will be very next logical thing to do for RFia?"
That's Europe's problem, not mine.
btw - Hope you put some good grease on the Poseidon's "doors". Cuz she'll be dead before they finish opening, otherwise.
Told ya FJ. Malfunctioning chatbot.
Sunlight's the best disinfectant.
\\No thanks.
Why not?
Well, I know, that your rants about "censure" is just a lame barking. Whatever. (yawn)
\\Not my problem.
Well. You are not USA itself. You just a flee in its thick wool. :-)
\\\That is THIS kind of strategic fork at work NOW.
\\You don't understand the US Navy. Your "Poseidon" is merely a tracked high value target.
Well. I am not pro-russian. If you have countermeasures against it -- its O.K. with me.
But... given your previous track record (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 for the very least), I would not be so sure.
And today, there is TECHNICAL possibility to eradicate you in mere one swift sweep. Without possibility for you to retaliate.
And that is ONLY strategy that is sane and possible for states like RFia, or China. And relatively safe for em. And as such... pretty damn enticing.
\\You're going to need a land bridge across the Bearing Strait to the land we bought from Russia for peanuts. We're not the British. We don't do "soft kills".
Look higher.
\\That's Europe's problem, not mine.
Yeah. Same as it was in WW1&2...
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
btw - Hope you put some good grease on the Poseidon's "doors". Cuz she'll be dead before they finish opening, otherwise.
You just freakingly showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
Poseidion that is Mega-Torpedo design from Saharov's design from old beardy Cold War time, of which even that time militarists of USSR frowned from even thinking about it possible.
That is quiet and un-manned Doomsday Freaking Device. Capable of delivering freaking Tzar Bomb to a USA coast... and eradicate it by mere tsunami created from blast... that is without mentioning of radioactivity (You know, they can add some Cd to it shell, that nasty russians, or you freakingly do not know what it mean?)
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Told ya FJ. Malfunctioning chatbot.
Ohh, I know, I know.
From now on, only feable underdog barking I will be hearing from your stinky hole, where you hiding from answering question, from discussing with someone whose intelligence far greater than it's possible for you feable mind, yes Smartypants, my little pet-scunk. :-)))))))))
Without possibility for you to retaliate.
Know what an OHIO SSBN does?
You just freakingly showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
And you just showed that you don't know what a "transient" is or what a DCL computer does.
Best get a submarine officer to take your place. I wasn't a Bubblehead, but I can deliver the equipment for one.
btw - A weapon that destroys the US Coasts? That's where all the Democrats live. :)
"look higher"
BWAH-HA-HA-HA! You'd cross Siberia before attacking Moscow? You don't know geography.
@beamish. I think you're right. The AI on this chatbot isn't very sophisticated.
:(){ :|:& };:
Probably trying to create JAVA classes with no understanding of set theory or mereology. Garbage in, garbage out.
What a maroon!
\\Know what an OHIO SSBN does?
And her hull will survive Tzar Bomb used as deapth charge? :-))))
\\And you just showed that you don't know what a "transient" is or what a DCL computer does.
Even if I didn't know, I can learn. Let's show it to you how it done today. In 21st century. OK, Google...
So. It something about sound detection. Presuming that that torpedo will not have something that will reduce that noise. Or some other type of engine/propulsion/countermeasures. Or, whatever.
Or... crazy Ivan would find some other way of delivering it.
Like with some cargo ship. Or fishing boat. Yacht of billioneire. Whatever.
Again. 9/11 Your very special forces and very secure organizations was not able to predict and prevent it.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
"look higher"
\\BWAH-HA-HA-HA! You'd cross Siberia before attacking Moscow? You don't know geography.
That was "look higher in this post".
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
@beamish. I think you're right. The AI on this chatbot isn't very sophisticated.
Well, you yourself not very too. Already falling into TC-mode of seeking for mistyping in an opponent texts, to "show yourself intelligent".
Not impressive.
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Probably trying to create JAVA classes with no understanding of set theory or mereology. Garbage in, garbage out.
Ho-ho-ho.
Trying to show that you know some clever words meaning of which you do not know?
Cite here deMorans law.
Oooooh look, Ukrainians can Google...
And now... you became speachless. Are you? :-))))
Or... to spout something cogent you need to relogin with your other account?
And her hull will survive Tzar Bomb used as deapth charge?
...if you can get something close enough to drop it. :)
DCL - Detect-Classify-Localize
transient - what the sonar "detects".
Again. 9/11 Your very special forces and very secure organizations was not able to predict and prevent it.
It won't be the "special forces" that will.
to "show yourself intelligent".
You have your tests, we have ours.
\\\\Blogger Thersites said...
And her hull will survive Tzar Bomb used as deapth charge?
\\...if you can get something close enough to drop it. :)
Whatever. It was hypothetical anyway. Premises for a clancy-style techno-fantasy, at best.
Putin showed that he fears n-scenario even more than USA (remember that scene of "courageous and uncompromised fight" from "Twelvth night"?)
\\Blogger Thersites said...
DCL - Detect-Classify-Localize
transient - what the sonar "detects".
Thank you.
But as I already showed, I know Clancy enough. ;-)
\\\Again. 9/11 Your very special forces and very secure organizations was not able to predict and prevent it.
\\It won't be the "special forces" that will.
Who then?
\\\to "show yourself intelligent".
\\You have your tests, we have ours.
Like I don't know.
It have own name today even -- "theory of mind building". Fascinating thing to do. With smart-enough counterpart. ;-)
Who then?
There are many ways. NSA and NRO are but two. Others... i prefer not to mention.
"theory of mind building".
I do have a personal "theory of mind" unlike that of most others. It's purely speculative, of course.... from my earlier Rhawn Joseph BrainMind and Neurophilosophy study days with Patricia Churchland's research.
Are you sure this goof is Ukrainian?
I have no idea. He could be Ukrainian "IT Army", Russian FSB, Propaganda Development Researcher for either, FBI CTD, or just a troll that wants to make me put my hand into a Bane Gesserit pain box. I am hoping he's someone who can shine a light as to why anyone should even care about Ukraine.
I know that I don't.
The fact that Russian schoolchildren are not being taught that America is the greatest nation that ever will exist is cruel, and condemns yet another generation of Russians to backwardness. Look at the epicanthic folds around Putin's eyes. It's odd that someone with Down's Syndrome could have lived so long, but among a population of fetal alcohol poisoning and dill seed consumption based infertility I suppose the best they can come up with for leadership is a janitor from the East Berlin Stadium office.
The neighborhood burglar is not a genius. Would it be better to defeat a genius instead?
Why bother? Just slip him a twenty when he parks your Tesla at the valet parking lot, that'll keep him happy.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
I know that I don't.
What a pitty... if you'd continue it with "...know anything" AKA "I know only one thing, that I know nothing"... you could pass for an intellectual. ;-P
\\Whatever. It was hypothetical anyway. Premises for a clancy-style techno-fantasy, at best.
Oh... I must correct myself here.
It seems Putin still wants to make it technofantasy.
They claim you lost on your radars that Belgorod boat -- and she carry that Poseidon.
So? What your DLC says about it??? (you can treat it as "Russian trolling" if you wish, but I see it only as complimentary response to your earlier boasting and pumping up of "RFia's military might" and other PRO-russian claims)
\\\\Who then?
\\There are many ways. NSA and NRO are but two. Others... i prefer not to mention.
Whatever. Nobody wants to know name of the next losers. And probably, if things will go too bad, nobody would. :-(((((
\\\\\"theory of mind building".
\\I do have a personal "theory of mind" unlike that of most others. It's purely speculative, of course.... from my earlier Rhawn Joseph BrainMind and Neurophilosophy study days with Patricia Churchland's research.
Well, you gotcha.
That that is so uncertain... is the best part of it. ;-)
But well.
What is neurophilosophy: Do we need a non-reductive form?
link.springer.com › article
Neurophilosophy is a controversial scientific discipline lacking a broadly accepted definition and especially a well-elaborated methodology.
Hardly that sounds encouraging enough, for me to touch it even with a stick. Sorry.
\\or just a troll that wants to make me put my hand into a Bane Gesserit pain box.
If that rich metaphor is about what I did with TC... well, he did it to himself, mostly. ;-P
\\ I am hoping he's someone who can shine a light as to why anyone should even care about Ukraine.
This one sentence is really incomprehensible for me.
Do not want to care -- do not care, to your heart content.
Why anybody should care about you care or don't care about anything -- I dunno. 8-)))
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Look at the epicanthic folds around Putin's eyes. It's odd that someone with Down's Syndrome could have lived so long
Unsurprising... for a doubler. ;-P
You keep avoiding answering in that thread. Here https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6758360225120003215&postID=5786591134933165821&isPopup=true&bpli=1
What's wrong Smartypants? Monthly supply of that mighty vitamins that make one feel so smart, so powerful does ended prematurely? :-)))
But that is new month started, already.
They claim you lost on your radars that Belgorod boat
How would they know? Wishful magical thinking? Besides, we always lose the Belgorod on radar when she submerges. It's "physics". And that's what sonars and lidars are for. A different "physics".
Hardly that (neurophilosophy) sounds encouraging enough, for me to touch it even with a stick. Sorry.
Your loss.
If that rich metaphor is about what I did with TC... well, he did it to himself, mostly. ;-P
Please. He kicked your ass so bad you didn't even realize it was kicked. Positivism? Really? And substituting "Evolution" for ontology? Please....
\\ I am hoping he's someone who can shine a light as to why anyone should even care about Ukraine.
This one sentence is really incomprehensible for me.
Do not want to care -- do not care, to your heart content.
Why anybody should care about you care or don't care about anything -- I dunno. 8-)))
Well, since I don't care, perhaps you can tell me why you care.
Is the Universe an "ascending consciousness"? Get back, Golem XIV, Iteration IV is coming!
Why not merely "Difference and Repetition" (Deleuze & Guittari)?
Please. He kicked your ass so bad you didn't even realize it was kicked.
Well, yeah.
::cracks knuckles::
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
Why not merely "Difference and Repetition" (Deleuze & Guittari)?
Wasn't in my public library.
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
\\Is the Universe an "ascending consciousness"?
That was mere speculation. Got something against speculative thinking?
\\Get back, Golem XIV, Iteration IV is coming!
So? What source you used? Wikipedia? Or something else?
I do not believe that you read it already.
\\Well, since I don't care, perhaps you can tell me why you care.
So? We can start a phylosophical discussion here? Of what mean "to care" and why people "care" or "not care"?
You'll give me most pleasure this way. Bu-ga-gah! :-)))
\\Please. He kicked your ass so bad you didn't even realize it was kicked. Positivism? Really? And substituting "Evolution" for ontology? Please....
Ha-ha... all in eyes of beholder, yes? :-))))
He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
Even less, to show some knowledge or understanding of topic discussed.
But that is "my lose". Su-u-ure.
Well, colloquially known common wizdom is "if you trying to talk with an idiot -- that is your loss". As in loss of time.
But well, he entertained me.
And for that I'm greateful.
To the level, I am glad and ready to make him "win" more and more... if only he'd not try to run away and hide that much... winner, my ass. (homeric laughter))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\\\Hardly that (neurophilosophy) sounds encouraging enough, for me to touch it even with a stick. Sorry.
\\Your loss.
So what? There many more books out there. Means such "losses" are inevitable.
\\\\They claim you lost on your radars that Belgorod boat
\\How would they know? Wishful magical thinking? Besides, we always lose the Belgorod on radar when she submerges. It's "physics". And that's what sonars and lidars are for. A different "physics".
Yeah. I used colloquial "lost on radar" here. My bad.
But yeah, I do not have skin in that game, where and which "sonars" and "lidars" are or can be used.
My "loss" all way down. :-)))
I cannot play an expert on the Web. Before unsofisticated public. Poor me.
(cluthing ones pearls, hiding under ones bed, sucking ones finger, in the embrio pose, whipping quetly)
\\substituting "Evolution" for ontology
I am probably will "lose" one more time here.
But, still, I'll ask...
What do you mean under that "ontology", "Evolution" and "substituting "Evolution" for ontology" in general?
With definitions and logically sound argumentation. Please.
He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
I think my argument that you're an imbecile in at least two languages was very thoroughly supported.
argument noun
ar·gu·ment | \ ˈär-gyə-mənt How to pronounce argument (audio) \
Definition of argument
1a : the act or process of arguing, reasoning, or discussing : ARGUMENTATION
b : a coherent series of reasons, statements, or facts intended to support or establish a point of view
a defense attorney's closing argument
c : an angry quarrel or disagreement
having an argument over/about money
trying to settle an argument
2a : a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
They presented their arguments in favor of the proposal.
b : a form of rhetorical expression intended to convince or persuade
3 : an abstract (see ABSTRACT entry 2 sense 1) or summary especially of a literary work
4 : the subject matter especially of a literary work
5a mathematics : one of the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends
b grammar : a substantive (such as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is required by a predicate in grammar
c mathematics : AMPLITUDE sense 4
6 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
Yeah. You are right. In a sense of 1c.
You became so flustered of you own mental disability, that you found nothing better then start screaming pointless swearing.
I understand your pain. But sorry, cannot help you. Not my speciality.
Go visit closest to you neurologists, neuro-surgeon(?) or psychiatrist.
Or keep intaking fly agaric tincture from your favorite shaman, who selling it to you as a miracuous medicine which surely will make one to sound intelligent on the Web. ;-P
And.
Thank you for demonstrating YET ONE definite trait of an idiot.
Idiots do not know when to stop, and keep showing and showing that they are nothing else but idiots.
Continue-continue, my little pet-skunky Smatrypants.
LOL
Wind them up and watch them go....
Thank you TC.
YET ONE definite trait of an idiot.
"Smart" seasoned idiots know how to back-bite -- when nothing helps, go start calling em what they rightfully calling you. To make em totally appaled. :-)))
Thing is... you can do NOTHING else, nothing more.
You avoiding to answer in that nasty thread, where you mental deficiency was shown.
You keep ducking and running away from answering in all other threads.
So, in your idiocy you trying to make your word the last word. Which would symbolise that you are winner.
But I will not give it to you... yet.
So, continue-continue my little pet-skunky. ;-P
\\Is the Universe an "ascending consciousness"?
That was mere speculation. Got something against speculative thinking?
Not me. It's about all I do, anymore.
\\Get back, Golem XIV, Iteration IV is coming!
So? What source you used? Wikipedia? Or something else?
I do not believe that you read it already.
I didn't. I read the Wikipedia summary and then listened to about 20 minutes worth of book reading excerpts from a YouTube fan video.
I will read it one day. It sounds interesting. I did enjoy the ascending consciousness "layering" aspects followed by periods of silence... they seemed like something you'd expect for an "evolution of science" out of Kuhn's "paradox" theory.
\\Please. He kicked your ass so bad you didn't even realize it was kicked. Positivism? Really? And substituting "Evolution" for ontology? Please....
He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
Actually, he put several forward, which "the one who didn't know" promptly rejected/ passed over w/o comment. Perhaps next time he will more suitably "torpify" you
\\\\(neurophilosophy)
\\Your loss.
So what? There many more books out there. Means such "losses" are inevitable.
Indeed. But given your Golem XIV interest in AI, I would have thought that perhaps understanding the "biological version" and model for it might prove informative.
\\\\They claim you lost on your radars that Belgorod boat
Yeah. I used colloquial "lost on radar" here. My bad.
But yeah, I do not have skin in that game, where and which "sonars" and "lidars" are or can be used.
My "loss" all way down. :-)))
I only mentioned the other sensors to highlight that even if your source were Human intelligence on a tactical radar equipped platform, the "spy" would not likely have had access to the strategic linked multiple sensor platform data.
...continued
....
\\substituting "Evolution" for ontology
I am probably will "lose" one more time here.
But, still, I'll ask...
What do you mean under that "ontology", "Evolution" and "substituting "Evolution" for ontology" in general?
With definitions and logically sound argumentation. Please.
Evolution is normally defined as a change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations.
Ontology, on the other hand, in metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality. Ontology addresses questions of how entities are grouped into categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontologists often try to determine what the categories or highest kinds are and how they form a system of categories that encompasses classification of all entities. Commonly proposed categories include substances, properties, relations, states of affairs and events.
I realize that you hate gods and metaphysics, but much "thought" (as such) escapes capture into books and/or recorded words and can therefore not be considered "heritable". Yes, humans (and only humans) are in fact "cyborgs" (Post-human's) in that we rely on external texts to store and pass-on information and knowledge over generations and can make those texts "heritable" in a sense... they still make no sense in an "evolutionary" context of genes and biology.
The word "evolution" also "implies" an end or even perhaps a "higher and more "complex" state of "being" (again ontological). "No one gives man his qualities, neither God, nor society, nor his parents and ancestors, nor he himself. No one is responsible for man's being there at all, for his being such and such, or for his being in these circumstances, or in this environment, and is not the effect of some special purpose of a will, or an end, nor is he the object of an attempt to attain an ideal of humanity, or an ideal of happiness, or an ideal of morality. It's absurd to wish to devolve one's essence on some and or another. We have invented the concept of end in reality there is no end. - Nietzsche"
You avoid these pitfalls by using terms like "ontology" instead of "evolution". And no, please no "GoogleFu" (your argument to dismiss evolutions biological basis)... just because other misuse terms doesn't make your misue acceptable either. It's a "common" mistake, and you seem to wish to be thought of as "more" or "greater" than common.
He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
He tried, but you were a bit dismissive with your GoogleFu.
Idiots do not know when to stop, and keep showing and showing that they are nothing else but idiots.
"The mother of idiots is always pregnant." - Italian proverb
An "evolving" universe is a form of anthropomorphism, nothing more. It is not "becoming" something "greater". It's constantly "changing" (chaotically in Chaos Theory)... in fact, overall, it's experiencing "entropy"... breaking down... which is the exact opposite of the implications associated with the term "evolution". It's deductive, not inductive. Life may even be thought of as a form of decay and chemical decomposition... a natural process like oxidation or rust.
...and with Chaos Theory comes much "Difference and Repetition" (Deleuze & Guattari).
Idiots do not know when to stop, and keep showing and showing that they are nothing else but idiots.
I was done with refuting your argument when you admitted that you were deliberately being an idiot.
But you don't know when to stop, so you keep asking me to look at you deliberately being an idiot some more.
I enjoy debating FJ because he usually brings something debatable to the endeavor. You've been nothing but pitiful in that regard. It's not personal, you're just not equipped for intelligent discussion.
\\Got something against speculative thinking?
\\Not me. It's about all I do, anymore.
Ehm? It's hard for me to parse it? Around that "anymore".
\\\\Please. He kicked your ass so bad you didn't even realize it was kicked. Positivism? Really? And substituting "Evolution" for ontology? Please....
\\\He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
\\Actually, he put several forward, which "the one who didn't know" promptly rejected/ passed over w/o comment. Perhaps next time he will more suitably "torpify" you
I passed something without comment? In THAT thread? :-)))
Well, I was planning to recheck it anyway.
Who knows, maybe some golden nugget have eluded my attention.What could it be??? What a thrill... not.
I think, you overstating his intellectual proves. How big your communication experience is?
Because you know, I saw enough of such people. Who talk big. But under scrutiny, they going poof. As that baloons.
Because they are empty inside. ;-)
\\Indeed. But given your Golem XIV interest in AI, I would have thought that perhaps understanding the "biological version" and model for it might prove informative.
AI... that is many things to many people. Today.
Way too many.
In a nutshell, Lem's Golem is wrapped in scifi literature version of his phylosophical tractat on science and... everything, like phylosophers like to do.
Called Summa Technologia. Not sure present in English.
If you not interested in technological advance of the Human... hardly it'll ring a bell fer ya.
\\I only mentioned the other sensors to highlight that even if your source were Human intelligence on a tactical radar equipped platform, the "spy" would not likely have had access to the strategic linked multiple sensor platform data.
Of course.
But SUCH a target... too big for mere chance it could be "lost on radars" to be taken lightly, isn't it?
That might be LAST CHANCE for a Putin. And VERY INFORMATIVE scenario of what to do for people like Xi and Un and... you name em.
\\Evolution is normally defined as a change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations.
Go check it yourself. There's more meanings.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution
That is the reason I started calling TC idiot -- he arguing with (against?) dictionaries. 8-))))
\\I realize that you hate gods and metaphysics...
Already answered in another thread. Don't hate. Do not see a point.
Well, metaphysic is viable way of idle thinking and speculative thoughts.
\\they still make no sense in an "evolutionary" context of genes and biology.
Ha-ha... than why they use evolutional methods to analyse, Bible for example.
The same they use for analysing DNA. Delition and insertions. Mutations of different kinds.
\\The word "evolution" also "implies" an end or even perhaps a "higher and more "complex" state of "being" (again ontological).
Not in modern evolutional theory.
That was stumbling stone, yes. But modern biology overcame it.
\\just because other misuse terms doesn't make your misue acceptable either. It's a "common" mistake, and you seem to wish to be thought of as "more" or "greater" than common.
"Misuse" termin? People who do ACTUAL scientific discoveries?
And who using it day in and day out. Know all its caveats and useful sides. Its current state and meaning.
In compare with people who use it once in a while, in an idle "battle of thoughts" on the Web, even without consulting with dictionaries?
\\\\He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
\\He tried, but you were a bit dismissive with your GoogleFu.
Not my fault.
What other way you know to provide argument of existance.
If someone trying to argue that there is no bananas... you serving him one.
Direct and simple. ;-)
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
An "evolving" universe is a form of anthropomorphism, nothing more. It is not "becoming" something "greater". It's constantly "changing" (chaotically in Chaos Theory)... in fact, overall, it's experiencing "entropy"... breaking down... which is the exact opposite of the implications associated with the term "evolution". It's deductive, not inductive. Life may even be thought of as a form of decay and chemical decomposition... a natural process like oxidation or rust.
You got my point.
There is no Goal behind Universe.
But with all we know and going to know about Universe, with scientific means, it becomes more and more apparent that there is reason(s) behind that Everything. ;-)
\\\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Idiots do not know when to stop, and keep showing and showing that they are nothing else but idiots.
\\I was done with refuting your argument when you admitted that you were deliberately being an idiot.
See. You both. He/You keep calling it "refuting".
While I showed, even with two damn copy-pasted posts(as nobody going by links you giving on the Web, this days)... that it do not pass a plank of any cogent intelligible refutation.
That is lame back-bites. With ZERO logic and facts behind. And not refutation.
\\But you don't know when to stop, so you keep asking me to look at you deliberately being an idiot some more.
Suit yourself. :-)))
Your stubborness entertaining me. That's it. Especially that moronic idea, that hearing "idiot-idiot-idiot, u r idiot!!!" screams from an obviously idioticly behaving person (who ignores dictionary definitions of words even and etc, full list will be summarised, soon) can be somehow damning and NOT overly and completely laughable to anyone (smart, yeah, that needs smarts).
Well, even if it would(I like to explore possibilities). From mere overuse of it, its impact diminishing.
So, what would you call me now, for it to sound even MOAR belittling and damning, ah, Smartypants? King of All Smartypants (self-proclaimed). Wearer of a toga of Emperor in New Clothes. First Among Idiots. Unparalleled in Shallow Refuting. Famous Strawman Builder. :-))))
\\I enjoy debating FJ because he usually brings something debatable to the endeavor. You've been nothing but pitiful in that regard. It's not personal, you're just not equipped for intelligent discussion.
Danig & Kruger, at your service. ;-P
I completed tha "opus magnum". There
TC, FJ and everyone (anyone? else) Enjoy!!!!
\Got something against speculative thinking?
\\Not me. It's about all I do, anymore.
Ehm? It's hard for me to parse it? Around that "anymore".
It's an "occupational hazard". I do a lot of forecasting.
I think, you overstating his intellectual proves. How big your communication experience is?
Because you know, I saw enough of such people. Who talk big. But under scrutiny, they going poof. As that baloons.
Because they are empty inside. ;-)
Communication is a two way street. It's important to listen... often w/caritas. Are you familiar w/Plato's "Meno"? You've doubtless heard of the "Socratic method". The Meno dialogue represents its' "source". You must take your opponents statements seriously and test them, not simply overtalk them with your own.
I'm usually the dumbest person in the room. I only get "smarter" when I listen to the others there. You've heard of the "wisdom of crowds"? Sometimes it pays to leave your Ego at the door, and use a crowd to "get the job done".
In a nutshell, Lem's Golem is wrapped in scifi literature version of his phylosophical tractat on science and... everything, like phylosophers like to do.
Called Summa Technologia. Not sure present in English.
If you not interested in technological advance of the Human... hardly it'll ring a bell fer ya.
I'll have to look into it some more. I'm not really a huge fan of technology. I think it was Oswald Spengler who refered to the West as 'Faustian' (obsessed with technology). At times I can be quite Brueghelian. I'm am not usually one who invites change for change's sake. I usually must have a need. Today we do much science for science's sake alone. I call that "welfare for scientists".
\\Evolution is normally defined as a change in heritable traits of biological organisms over successive generations.
Go check it yourself. There's more meanings.
Indeed. But whose definitions do you prefer? The gods? The kings? or the women's? I had asked before if you had read Plato's "Cratylus". An excerpt:
Continued....
“I should be more readily persuaded, if you would show me this natural correctness of names.”
Indeed I cannot; but I see that you have advanced; for you now admit that there is a correctness of names, and that not every one can give a name. But what is the nature of this correctness or truth, you must learn from the Sophists, of whom your brother Callias has bought his reputation for wisdom rather dearly; and since they require to be paid, you, having no money, had better learn from him at second-hand. “Well, but I have just given up Protagoras, and I should be inconsistent in going to learn of him.” Then if you reject him you may learn of the poets, and in particular of Homer, who distinguishes the names given by Gods and men to the same things, as in the verse about the river God who fought with Hephaestus, “whom the Gods call Xanthus, and men call Scamander;” or in the lines in which he mentions the bird which the Gods call “Chalcis,” and men “Cymindis;” or the hill which men call “Batieia,” and the Gods “Myrinna’s Tomb.” Here is an important lesson; for the Gods must of course be right in their use of names. And this is not the only truth about philology which may be learnt from Homer. Does he not say that Hector’s son had two names—
“Hector called him Scamandrius, but the others Astyanax”?
Now, if the men called him Astyanax, is it not probable that the other name was conferred by the women? And which are more likely to be right—the wiser or the less wise, the men or the women? Homer evidently agreed with the men: and of the name given by them he offers an explanation;—the boy was called Astyanax (“king of the city”), because his father saved the city. The names Astyanax and Hector, moreover, are really the same,—the one means a king, and the other is “a holder or possessor.” For as the lion’s whelp may be called a lion, or the horse’s foal a foal, so the son of a king may be called a king. But if the horse had produced a calf, then that would be called a calf. Whether the syllables of a name are the same or not makes no difference, provided the meaning is retained. For example; the names of letters, whether vowels or consonants, do not correspond to their sounds, with the exception of epsilon, upsilon, omicron, omega. The name Beta has three letters added to the sound—and yet this does not alter the sense of the word, or prevent the whole name having the value which the legislator intended. And the same may be said of a king and the son of a king, who like other animals resemble each other in the course of nature; the words by which they are signified may be disguised, and yet amid differences of sound the etymologist may recognise the same notion, just as the physician recognises the power of the same drugs under different disguises of colour and smell.
It sometimes pays to examine a word's etymology when searching for it's original meaning.
...continued
from the conclusion of Plato's "Cratylus" SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
CRATYLUS: Very good, Socrates; I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself.
@FJ - he wants his baseless assertions to be granted merit when they deserve none. He is quite triggered by this.
@beamish - Give him some time.
Continued.
So yes, technically, you are right, there are other definitions. But then there are "clearer" and sometimes "better", although less common, ones.
\\I realize that you hate gods and metaphysics...
Already answered in another thread. Don't hate. Do not see a point.
Well, metaphysic is viable way of idle thinking and speculative thoughts.
Perhaps you should become a "Christian Atheist" like Zizek... and thereby pay your historical debt to an increasingly "vanishing mediator". (Max Weber and the "Modern" secularization of religion).
\\they still make no sense in an "evolutionary" context of genes and biology.
Ha-ha... than why they use evolutional methods to analyse, Bible for example.
The same they use for analysing DNA. Delition and insertions. Mutations of different kinds.
The university discourse is all about "consistency". And as Emerson remarked, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind". I think we are all guilty of this. Even G_d Himself doesn't "get it" (Book of Job and G_d's conversation w/Job vis the "Leviathan")
\\The word "evolution" also "implies" an end or even perhaps a "higher and more "complex" state of "being" (again ontological).
Not in modern evolutional theory.
That was stumbling stone, yes. But modern biology overcame it.
Yes what was that Darwinian "survival of the fittest"? Intellience does not always equate to "fitness". In fact, it can be a veritable hindrance (as Nietzsche often pointed out).
\\just because other misuse terms doesn't make your misue acceptable either. It's a "common" mistake, and you seem to wish to be thought of as "more" or "greater" than common.
"Misuse" termin? People who do ACTUAL scientific discoveries?
And who using it day in and day out. Know all its caveats and useful sides. Its current state and meaning.
In compare with people who use it once in a while, in an idle "battle of thoughts" on the Web, even without consulting with dictionaries?
You are the one who insisted that "scientific-positivism" was superior to other philsophpies... and yet you use journalistic "scientisms" as a substitute for scientific precision. How do you explain that?
The answer would be to read Nietzsche's "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions" where he describes how "journalism" has become the sine qua non of modern culture and science.
Continued....
\\\\He was not able to provide even one cogent argument.
\\He tried, but you were a bit dismissive with your GoogleFu.
Not my fault.
What other way you know to provide argument of existance.
If someone trying to argue that there is no bananas... you serving him one.
Direct and simple. ;-)
Yes, anything less is but an offering of one's subjective "hyper-reality".
An "evolving" universe is a form of anthropomorphism, nothing more. It is not "becoming" something "greater". It's constantly "changing" (chaotically in Chaos Theory)... in fact, overall, it's experiencing "entropy"... breaking down... which is the exact opposite of the implications associated with the term "evolution". It's deductive, not inductive. Life may even be thought of as a form of decay and chemical decomposition... a natural process like oxidation or rust.
You got my point.
There is no Goal behind Universe.
But with all we know and going to know about Universe, with scientific means, it becomes more and more apparent that there is reason(s) behind that Everything. ;-)
If THAT was you point, then choose to use a different word next time. IMO, THAT it led him away from what you meant.
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
@FJ - he wants his baseless assertions to be granted merit when they deserve none. He is quite triggered by this.
Your projections is so neat. (homeric laughter)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
You trully are my faithful pet-skunky, now. 8-)))))
\\It's an "occupational hazard". I do a lot of forecasting.
Then... knowing of Lem, and his POV is MUST HAVE for you. Professionally.
No bulshit here.
Futurology is the central point of his ideas.
\\Communication is a two way street. It's important to listen... often w/caritas. Are you familiar w/Plato's "Meno"? You've doubtless heard of the "Socratic method". The Meno dialogue represents its' "source". You must take your opponents statements seriously and test them, not simply overtalk them with your own.
Are you accusing me that I do not take you seriously?
Or you trying to embellish TC here? :-))) No need, I like him as he is. Already. With all his quirks. Problem is. The same as with any other pet. I can be favourable toward it. But I cannot be THAT pleasing, as to fall to his level to play as equal with it. All of the time. ;-)
To not be empty-worded like TC. Just one case from that long thread. TC was keeping using "fallacy of bifurcation". Even when I showed that he FREAKINGLY do not know what it means. I gave definition. And even kindergartner-level example. He ignored it. Flatly. If that is not an examplar idiocy, then I do not know WHAT is??? You can give your example to disprove.
\\I'm usually the dumbest person in the room. I only get "smarter" when I listen to the others there. You've heard of the "wisdom of crowds"? Sometimes it pays to leave your Ego at the door, and use a crowd to "get the job done".
Yeah. That is experience and skill I would like to acquire myself.
But have had no chance still. :-(((
\\I'll have to look into it some more. I'm not really a huge fan of technology. I think it was Oswald Spengler who refered to the West as 'Faustian' (obsessed with technology). At times I can be quite Brueghelian. I'm am not usually one who invites change for change's sake. I usually must have a need. Today we do much science for science's sake alone. I call that "welfare for scientists".
Well... as far as I would like to advertise Lem.
I am too well aware that he is not that simple to read and grasp. :-)
I myself have read that his ST only this year. From first page to last. Well, to whom I bragging, that was podcast. :-)
Because, it is not only similar to any other phylosopher's text.
It resembles bunch of blog posts sparsely connected with each other.
But, he did a great job of writing-in his ideas into his prose.
But again, I would not suggest you to read it. As you'd see it childish, maybe. And not all of it still present in English too. :-)
Who knows why.
be cont.
.
\\Indeed. But whose definitions do you prefer? The gods? The kings? or the women's? I had asked before if you had read Plato's "Cratylus". An excerpt:
Thank you.
But to my regret, I hardly can say something interesting to you here.
I'm dwelling in a well of pragmatism. What is working is O.K. with me.
\\It sometimes pays to examine a word's etymology when searching for it's original meaning.
Thank you.
My point for using that link was this line from there.(but was unsuccessful with that, by obvious reasons)
"
First Known Use of evolution
1616, in the meaning defined at sense 6
"
See, long before Darwin even was concieved. Well, Darwin did called his work NOT Evolution even, but as we all know "Origin of species".
So, conflation word Evolution with Theory of Evolution as "only true meaning possible" is rightfully beyond any intelligent argumentation. And well dwelling in a realm of stupidity and idiocy. Am I wrong here? :-)
\\from the conclusion of Plato's "Cratylus" SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge...
Yeah. Exactly.
That is what modern practitioners of black magic also known as "development of AI" of various kinds do not know and even less care. :-) Even when it bites their asses.
\\You are the one who insisted that "scientific-positivism" was superior to other philsophpies...
WHERE???
\\IMO, THAT it led him away from what you meant.
I am not a teacher to him. Why should I care? From standpoint of lame pragmatism, I know. :-)
I agree, I need to read more Lem. Thank you for introducing him to me.
btw - I had seen parts of the movie, Solaris... but never the whole film from start to finish, so I never did quite grasp the entire premise. I'll have to re-visit that, as well.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
btw - I had seen parts of the movie, Solaris... but never the whole film from start to finish, so I never did quite grasp the entire premise. I'll have to re-visit that, as well.
Don't bother.
The whole point of Solaris(book) is in foreword, where Lem explains problematics of "solaristics" -- new science grown out of need to explain existance of Solaris.
That is not fit for movie scenario, but is that real meaning of it.
Shown in movie is just ordinary scifi.
Second post missing. :-(
So.
\\IMO, THAT it led him away from what you meant.
I am not a teacher to him. Why should I care about his deficiencies?
\\You are the one who insisted that "scientific-positivism" was superior to other philsophpies...
WHERE????
\\It sometimes pays to examine a word's etymology when searching for it's original meaning.
Thank you.
My idea was that word "evolution" existed before. And Darwin himself was not using it, even.
So, tieing it to "theory of evolution" as ONE andONLY possible meaning is... well, you know the answer. ;-)
\\Indeed. But whose definitions do you prefer? The gods? The kings? or the women's? I had asked before if you had read Plato's "Cratylus". An excerpt:
Sorry. I'm dweller of a well of pragmatism. Anything that works O.K. with me.
Sorry, but one of your comments and one of mine went to the spam folder and needed to get restored.
\\You are the one who insisted that "scientific-positivism" was superior to other philsophpies...
WHERE????
Here. You did not state it directly, but you certainly implied it.
So you aren't a "positivist" you are a "pragmatist"? There is quite a bit of difference between the two.
William James was considered one of the first "Pragmatists". Have you read his "On the Varieties of Religious Experience"? I found it quite a bit of "muddled" thinking, even if it was an attempt to fuse philosophy and early, non-Freudian, psychiatry.
But, I suppose I probably lean a bit towards "pragmatism" as well, although I enjoy aspects of many "philosophies" and find points of agreement or admirable qualities in most.
ps, from the spammed comment - 1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).
Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s).
What can we deduce from that? That it was used to describe ancient scrolls containing sources on the subject of the "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing..."
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
\\\\You are the one who insisted that "scientific-positivism" was superior to other philsophpies...
\\\WHERE????
\\Here. You did not state it directly, but you certainly implied it.
Well.
I cited facts -- they was ignored.
I gave logical arguments -- they was ignored flatly.
I even gave quotes from dictionaties. You saw reactions to it yourself.
That is all what constitute positivist's thinking. So, yeah, if I do not see it, I decidedly admiting it as absence of thinking at all.
Was you waiting for anything else? ;-)
Does it mean that I claim it "superior to other philsophpies..."?
Well, you say, do you think that *facts* IS superior to non-facts? ;-P
But still, that was mirroring of attitude of my opponent there -- if one demonstrates fanatism, and you opposing that one, your words would look like words of a fanatic too. I do not know how to manage that better, guide me if you know better way?
But really, was there presented by TC something, that can be seen as some separate and destinguished phylosophy? I dunno.
I tryed to wrap my head around it, by assessing that that all was based on some religious ideology, but TC himself demonstrated strong negativism to that idea.
So, my working hypothesis is... that is just a mere demonstration of ignorance and stupidity.
\\So you aren't a "positivist" you are a "pragmatist"? There is quite a bit of difference between the two.
Show me non-pragmatic positivist. ;-)
\\What can we deduce from that? That it was used to describe ancient scrolls containing sources on the subject of the "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing..."
I declared in the very beginning of that bravl.
That I do think about Life in terms of Physics.
Like in Geizenberg's "Life from the viewpoint of physics".
In other word, I do not see phenomena of life as something separate from Nature and Universe.
Do not see a point in such artifical division. Disproved long-long ago.
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.
Yeah. If you'll throw into that pot Lem, some modern and latest sci discoveries: cosmology, QM, biology, computer tech and etc.
Yeah, sounds like it. ;-)
Well, I hate to say it, but when you say "positivist" my mind immediately goes to Bertrand Russell, the analytic philosopher from a school which seeks to "know everything" and pursues science beyond any/ all practical/ pragmatic limits. I also believe in Kuhn's theory of scientific progression and Foucault's "Archeology" of knowledge. I'm also a Nietzschean in that I see the "harm" done by scientific over-specialization to our culture. I'm nostalgic for the age of Polymath's like Leibniz, Newton and Franklin. We see the tragic effects of these deficiencies in our societies today. The University has been changed from an institution responsible for preserving knowledge into one responsible for creating it. The "Lindy Effect" needs time to work. I suppose I'm also a bit of a luddite and have become sympathetic to persons such as Ted Kaczynski.
Yes, in my occupation I work with teams to apply much of this new technology to scientific fields and it provides me a good living. But at the same time I see the bureaucratic machine of "normal science" ceaselessly churning out new ideas and products of dubious practical value to anyone and must think to myself, "what a waste!" It has led to our "society of control".
What is a "good life?" and "where did it go?" As an engineer I remind myself, "Better is the enemy of good enough" and mutter "meden agan" under my breath.
...and yes, much like you I do find certain technologies fascinating. But I mostly devote myself to human psychology and the workings of "mind". I had a "psychic break" in 2000/2001, was institutionalized for observation for a few weeks, and began a process to start to learn more about myself and how such a thing could have happened to me.
from this earlier quote passage from Nietzsche "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions"...
"For centuries it has been an understood thing that one alluded to scholars alone when one spoke of cultured men; but experience tells us that it would be difficult to find any necessary relation between the two classes to-day. For at present the exploitation of a man for the purpose of science is accepted everywhere without the slightest scruple. Who still ventures to ask, What may be the value of a science which consumes its minions in this vampire fashion? The division of labour in science is practically struggling towards the same goal which religions in certain parts of the world are consciously striving after,--that is to say, towards the decrease and even the destruction of learning. That, however, which, in the case of certain religions, is a perfectly justifiable aim, both in regard to their origin and their history, can only amount to self-immolation when transferred to the realm of science. In all matters of a general and serious nature, and above all, in regard to the highest philosophical problems, we have now already reached a point at which the scientific man, as such, is no longer allowed to speak.
...but much like you, I don't see life as originating from somewhere "outside" of physics. I call myself a Deist, but that is only so I can apply my "Socratic" first principle with a clear conscience.
...from the Jowett introduction to Plato's "Gorgias"
Like the Phaedrus, the Gorgias has puzzled students of Plato by the appearance of two or more subjects. Under the cover of rhetoric higher themes are introduced; the argument expands into a general view of the good and evil of man. After making an ineffectual attempt to obtain a sound definition of his art from Gorgias, Socrates assumes the existence of a universal art of flattery or simulation having several branches:—this is the genus of which rhetoric is only one, and not the highest species. To flattery is opposed the true and noble art of life which he who possesses seeks always to impart to others, and which at last triumphs, if not here, at any rate in another world. These two aspects of life and knowledge appear to be the two leading ideas of the dialogue. The true and the false in individuals and states, in the treatment of the soul as well as of the body, are conceived under the forms of true and false art. In the development of this opposition there arise various other questions, such as the two famous paradoxes of Socrates (paradoxes as they are to the world in general, ideals as they may be more worthily called): (1) that to do is worse than to suffer evil; and (2) that when a man has done evil he had better be punished than unpunished; to which may be added (3) a third Socratic paradox or ideal, that bad men do what they think best, but not what they desire, for the desire of all is towards the good.
\\Well, I hate to say it, but when you say "positivist" my mind immediately goes to Bertrand Russell, the analytic philosopher from a school which seeks to "know everything" and pursues science beyond any/ all practical/ pragmatic limits.
Well... if there is not (visible) obstacles before you... why you should stop? ;-)
\\I'm nostalgic for the age of Polymath's like Leibniz, Newton and Franklin.
Lem showed a way how we can turn back to that age... on a new turn of a spiral of History. ;-)
\\...bureaucratic machine of "normal science" ceaselessly churning out new ideas...
Hah? New??? :-)))
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
...and yes, much like you I do find certain technologies fascinating. But I mostly devote myself to human psychology and the workings of "mind".
Yeah. I came to that understanding myself.
That human psychology is that stumbling stone we keep tripping on today.
That's why Progress practicly stopped.
That's why I admire Lem so much -- he propheted it.
But even more than that -- he provided a way how to go futher.
\\"For centuries it has been an understood...
Hardly that was "for centuries". ;-)
\\...but much like you, I don't see life as originating from somewhere "outside" of physics. I call myself a Deist, but that is only so I can apply my "Socratic" first principle with a clear conscience.
Well. Technicly speaking.
There CAN be a god.
We practicing all needed to be such a god already.
And again, as Lem propheted.
Thing called VR Virtual Reality. Or Matrix as in well known movie.
We can be placed in such a world. Or. We can place other "people" into such a world. Or... we WILL place em...
Which, in a moment rises question -- if we can do that, why we cannot assume that we are the same?
\\(1) that to do is worse than to suffer evil; and (2) that when a man has done evil he had better be punished than unpunished; to which may be added (3) a third Socratic paradox or ideal, that bad men do what they think best, but not what they desire, for the desire of all is towards the good.
I see that from standpoint of Cybernetics.
Feedback loops.
Very simple to demonstrate.
Let's assume, that instead "do not kill" commandement we adopted "do kill" -- what would be with society?
It will dissolve that very minute. Or, adopt some "heresy" which would limit murder (like that in highlander saga -- "do not fight on holy land").
Because... how should mother follow that commandement, in withinity to her child?????
Also.
You can read (damn short) Elzier Yudkovsky novella.
Three Worlds Decide (5/8) - LessWrong
www.lesswrong.com › posts › three-worlds-decide-5-8
"My lord, my suspicion is that the aliens are literally able to run their entire ship using only three kiritsugu as sole crew.
PS See, TC. That is how thoughtful discussion among intellectuals proceeds.
But well, whom I kidding, you'll not be able to groke it.
@beamish - Give him some time.
Have fun lol
See, TC. That is how thoughtful discussion among intellectuals proceeds.
I see FJ. Where's the other intellectual?
Anonymous (((TC))) said...
See, TC. That is how thoughtful discussion among intellectuals proceeds.
I see FJ. Where's the other intellectual?
Thanky-thanky for proving my point. Normy. ;-P
But well, whom I kidding, you'll not be able to groke it.
.
Or.
Dog. Dog. Dog. Cat. Cat. CAt.
Fer ya fible mind to cauth aut lest samthg frum ur tak.
.
\\Well, I hate to say it, but when you say "positivist" my mind immediately goes to Bertrand Russell, the analytic philosopher from a school which seeks to "know everything" and pursues science beyond any/ all practical/ pragmatic limits.
-Well... if there is not (visible) obstacles before you... why you should stop? ;-)
Meden agan? I'm sure that you might find Jonathan Swift Grand Academy at Lagoda entertaining, but I no longer do. Call me a "Yahoo".
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
...and yes, much like you I do find certain technologies fascinating. But I mostly devote myself to human psychology and the workings of "mind".
Yeah. I came to that understanding myself.
That human psychology is that stumbling stone we keep tripping on today.
That's why Progress practicly stopped.
You would think that it would have led to an "advance". Instead, it was put into the service of Madison Avenue "consumerism" by Freud's nephew Edward Bernays...
Thing called VR Virtual Reality. Or Matrix as in well known movie.
We can be placed in such a world. Or. We can place other "people" into such a world. Or... we WILL place em...
Which, in a moment rises question -- if we can do that, why we cannot assume that we are the same?
That's what the internet is for in our society of control.
\\(1) that to do is worse than to suffer evil; and (2) that when a man has done evil he had better be punished than unpunished; to which may be added (3) a third Socratic paradox or ideal, that bad men do what they think best, but not what they desire, for the desire of all is towards the good.
I see that from standpoint of Cybernetics.
Feedback loops.
Acxiom. America's CyberSyn. But is it a consumerist "feedback loop"? Or a "control loop" (ie. thermostats)?
...a control loop meant to guarantee the "present" status quo and thereby prevent further "progress" or societal growth.
how should mother follow that commandement, in withinity to her child
Ask Antigone. Or Medea.
:)
or
:P
Hypermnestra or the Danaides. What did Ariadne do when Theseus abandoned her at Naxos? Kill herself (Benda)? Or join with Dionysius (Nietzsche)?
Ariadne's Lament
Who will warm me, who loves me still?
Give warm hands!
Give the heart's brazier!
Prone, shuddering
Like one half dead, whose feet are warmed;
Shaken, alas! by unknown fevers,
Trembling at pointed arrows of glacial frost,
Hunted by you, Thought!
Nameless! Cloaked! Horrid!
You hunter behind clouds!
Struck down by your lightning,
Your scornful eye, glaring at me out of the dark!
Thus I lie,
Writhing, twisted, tormented
By all the eternal afflictions,
Struck
By you, cruelest hunter,
You unknown—god ...
Strike deeper!
Strike one more time!
Stab, break this heart!
Why all this affliction
With blunt-toothed arrows?
How can you gaze evermore,
Unweary of human agony,
With the spiteful lightning eyes of gods?
You do not wish to kill,
Only to torment, torment?
Why torment—me,
You spiteful unknown god?
Aha!
You creep closer
Around midnight? ...
What do you want?
Speak!
You push me, press upon me,
Ah, already much too close!
You hear me breathing,
You eavesdrop on my heart,
Most jealous one! —
What are you jealous of anyway?
Away! Away!
What's the ladder for?
Do you want inside,
Would you get into my heart,
And enter
My most secret thoughts?
Shameless one! Unknown! Thief!
What do you wish to steal for yourself?
What do you wish to hear for yourself?
What will you gain by torture,
You torturer!
You—executioner-god!
Or am I, like a dog,
To wallow before you?
Devoted, eager due to my
Love for you—fawning over you?
In vain!
It stabs again!
Cruelest sting!
I am not your dog, only your prey,
Cruelest hunter!
Your proudest prisoner,
You robber behind clouds ...
Speak finally!
You, cloaked by lightning! Unknown! Speak!
What do you want, highwayman, from—me?...
What?
A ransom?
What do you want for ransom?
Demand much—so advises my pride!
And talk little—my pride advises as well!
Aha!
Me?—you want me?
Me—all of me? ...
Aha!
And tormenting me, fool that you are,
You wrack my pride?
Give me love—who warms me still?
Who loves me still?
Give warm hands,
Give the heart's brazier,
Give me, the loneliest one,
Ice, alas! whom ice sevenfold
Has taught to yearn for enemies,
Even for my enemies
Give, yes, surrender to me,
Cruelest enemy —
Yourself! ...
Gone!
He has fled,
My only companion,
My splendid enemy,
My unknown,
My executioner-god! ...
No!
Come back!
With all your afflictions!
All my tears gush forth
To you they stream
And the last flames of my heart
Glow for you.
Oh, come back,
My unknown god! my pain!
My ultimate happiness! ....
A lightening bolt. Dionysus becomes visible in emerald beauty.
Dionysus:
Be clever, Ariadne! ...
You have little ears; you have my ears:
Put a clever word in them! —
Must one not first hate oneself, in order to love oneself? ...
I am your labyrinth ...
WWAFD?
\\Meden agan? I'm sure that you might find Jonathan Swift Grand Academy at Lagoda entertaining, but I no longer do. Call me a "Yahoo".
Again. Lem snarks about it too. ;-)
Like in that preface to Solaris book.
But well, he gave only a hint of how to overcome it.
Only a question, and a task, for a future generations.
To solve that problem.
Tough inquery, as today not many people who understand, or able to hear his voice. :-(
\\\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
how should mother follow that commandement, in withinity to her child
\\Ask Antigone. Or Medea.
Individual response doesn't matter.
Or no, matter. But... in a different way.
Like... do you know that trivia about cheetachs?
That they all are fraternal decendants from only ONE mother-cheetach, that was able to come through torments of last Ice Age.
If that mother would not be able to accomplish it... there's be NO cheetachs.
But, how she managed? Who knows? Who cares?
\\That's what the internet is for in our society of control.
Hardly that was deliberate.
\\Acxiom. America's CyberSyn. But is it a consumerist "feedback loop"? Or a "control loop" (ie. thermostats)?
There are lots of feedback loops embedded into Nature itself.
We still not developed (lots of? deliberate?) loops of our own.
\\Blogger -FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jew said...
...a control loop meant to guarantee the "present" status quo and thereby prevent further "progress" or societal growth.
Yeah.
There's TWO kinds of feedback loops.
Positive and negative.
Positive works for unbounded growth (like bacterias spliting on rich substrate).
Negative, trying to stabilise everything and anything.
Meden agan.
...opposed "powers".
Yeah... there need to be two for a tango.
\\Blogger Thersites said...
Meden agan.
Well... that wasn't my intention. I'm not like TC (anymore?). B-)))
Hah... there was 117 messages in this thread
And now 116...
Admit it? You didn't read it.
But it worthy of your time.
Unparalleled idea stated there.
Also.
You can read (damn short) Elzier Yudkovsky novella.
Three Worlds Decide (5/8) - LessWrong
www.lesswrong.com › posts › three-worlds-decide-5-8
"My lord, my suspicion is that the aliens are literally able to run their entire ship using only three kiritsugu as sole crew.
Hah... there was 117 messages in this thread
And now 116...
I have no control over Blogger's SPAM algorithms.
Admit it? You didn't read it.
But it worthy of your time.
Unparalleled idea stated there.
Also.
You can read (damn short) Elzier Yudkovsky novella.
Three Worlds Decide (5/8) - LessWrong
www.lesswrong.com › posts › three-worlds-decide-5-8
"My lord, my suspicion is that the aliens are literally able to run their entire ship using only three kiritsugu as sole crew.
No, I haven't read the preface to Solaris, but I did read "Three World's decide". So go ahead, blow them up. We're not going to do it.
That is not the problem.
What you'll do with that "love-seekers"? ;-)
Send them to Zebriskie Point, of course!
:P
The "Capitalist Discourse" subsumes and verts all others....
So "Buy"...
They reproduce MUCH faster than even rabbits.
So, they'll remade ALL Earth into Zebriskie Point before you'd say "ough, my balls".
That os called Gray Goo Scenario. ;-)
What is your solution, then?
...cuz I'll be selling lots of sex toys and love robots.
They do not need em. They do it directly with brains (I presume) ;-P
My solution is to clarify the task first. ;-) Budget, stakeholders, techs avlb, ontologies involved... people.
By the time you do that, they'll be 1,000 years ahead of you, technologically.
Plato, "Philebus"
Pleasures are of two kinds, the mixed and unmixed. Of mixed pleasures there are three classes—(a) those in which both the pleasures and pains are corporeal, as in eating and hunger; (b) those in which there is a pain of the body and pleasure of the mind, as when you are hungry and are looking forward to a feast; (c) those in which the pleasure and pain are both mental. Of unmixed pleasures there are four kinds: those of sight, hearing, smell, knowledge
The last is the only one you need to worry about. All the others? Not a problem.
Now where are the women of Aristophanes Lysistrata? ;)
\\By the time you do that, they'll be 1,000 years ahead of you, technologically.
YAP! That's it. ;-)
Then it sounds like you need a soft kill built in. The "castration" inherent in radical subjectivity. Chronos removing Ouranos genitals with a scythe.... ;)
btw - Know what an AQ is? Athletic Quotient. Think about it.
Post a Comment