Morphogenesis (from the Greek morphê shape and genesis creation, literally "the generation of form") is the biological process that causes a cell, tissue or organism to develop its shape. It is one of three fundamental aspects of developmental biology along with the control of tissue growth and patterning of cellular differentiation.
The process controls the organized spatial distribution of cells during the embryonic development of an organism. Morphogenesis can take place also in a mature organism, such as in the normal maintenance of tissue by stem cells or in regeneration of tissues after damage. Cancer is an example of highly abnormal and pathological tissue morphogenesis. Morphogenesis also describes the development of unicellular life forms that do not have an embryonic stage in their life cycle. Morphogenesis is essential for the evolution of new forms.
Morphogenesis is a mechanical process involving forces that generate mechanical stress, strain, and movement of cells,[1] and can be induced by genetic programs according to the spatial patterning of cells within tissues. Abnormal morphogenesis is called dysmorphogenesis.
The process controls the organized spatial distribution of cells during the embryonic development of an organism. Morphogenesis can take place also in a mature organism, such as in the normal maintenance of tissue by stem cells or in regeneration of tissues after damage. Cancer is an example of highly abnormal and pathological tissue morphogenesis. Morphogenesis also describes the development of unicellular life forms that do not have an embryonic stage in their life cycle. Morphogenesis is essential for the evolution of new forms.
Morphogenesis is a mechanical process involving forces that generate mechanical stress, strain, and movement of cells,[1] and can be induced by genetic programs according to the spatial patterning of cells within tissues. Abnormal morphogenesis is called dysmorphogenesis.
Morphogenic Intelligence - A Collective form of Intelligence
Rosenbleuth and Wiener Cognitive Hierarchy
Cognitive hierarchy theory (CHT) is a behavioral model originating in behavioral economics and game theory that attempts to describe human thought processes in strategic games. CHT aims to improve upon the accuracy of predictions made by standard analytic methods (including backwards induction and iterated elimination of dominated strategies), which can deviate considerably from actual experimental outcomes.
Bill Cope & Mary Kalantzis, "The Cybernetics of Learning"
128 comments:
Where and how they collect their examples, perform experiments?
They're all affiliated with Universities like Tufts. In America the research universities are subsidized by the Government through grants. They copied the nineteenth century German university model.
...many of the intruments flown on NASA spacecraft are developed at universities in collaboration with NASA programs and centers who supply the grant monies..
Hmmm...
I never have thought that I have read about Feinman too?
(consulting with memories)
Well, it seems -- yes, I didn't.
His "Are you kidding mr.Feinman" exactly. ;-)
PS Oh. I know. That was cunning double-check -- to test me if I am a spy. ;-P
What's Feynman got to do with what I said about university grants.
And if I cared if you were a spy I would have ghosted you by now.
\\What's Feynman got to do with what I said about university grants.
Where he started his career? What he was doing for living? What he written a book about, revealing it with utter lighthearted carelessness? ;-P
You have no experience with REAL eggheads, isn't it?
\\What's Feynman
Sorry. Still unable to memorise. :-(
Curse that lang.
\\And if I cared if you were a spy I would have ghosted you by now.
Do you like spy movies?
I mean real one. Not Bond/Hunt stunts.
/You have no experience with REAL eggheads, isn't it?
Maybe not. I've dealt with a lot of *ssholes, though.
ps - I'm pretty phonetic, so don't worry about spelling.
As for Bond movies, I like watching them even if they are fantastical. As for 'real" ones like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" or "Bridge of Spies"... I like them, too. What I hate are the ridiculous "John Wick" movies that I can't help watching over and over again. How many people can you kill in a single fight? It's ridiculous, but fun, nonetheless. "You killed my dog, so I'll kill 1,000 of your men...." I guess the movie expresses my desires of what I should want and been taught by Hollywood to desire... supernatural power and invincibility.
\\As for Bond movies, I like watching them even if they are fantastical. As for 'real" ones like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" or "Bridge of Spies"... I like them, too.
Meh.
Your series "Americans" is half-bad. Even though all things on the side of Soviets is purely cartoonish.
French one "Bureau of legends", watched this year -- quite good actually.
Also, things like your "Madam Secretary".
Something... that showing INNER working... not superficial.
Well... not like I am fan of that genre... I just like -- sophistication. Naturally.
\\supernatural power and invincibility.
But not being super-smart.
Well, I cannot help it to agree with it -- being smart is boring. :-)
\\As for Bond movies, I like watching them even if they are fantastical. As for 'real" ones like "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy" or "Bridge of Spies"... I like them, too.
/Meh.
Your series "Americans" is half-bad. Even though all things on the side of Soviets is purely cartoonish.
Never seen it.
French one "Bureau of legends", watched this year -- quite good actually.
Never seen, but will try and look for.
Also, things like your "Madam Secretary".
Never watched, never care to watch.
Something... that showing INNER working... not superficial.
Well... not like I am fan of that genre... I just like -- sophistication. Naturally.
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. More British side, but show's the ridiculous American side, too.
\\supernatural power and invincibility.
/But not being super-smart.
Well, I cannot help it to agree with it -- being smart is boring. :-)
Dr. Xavier of X-Men? Okay, maybe he's more mind reader/ controller... not that smart. Q from Bond movies? Surely he's your favorite. Techie. ;)
\\French one "Bureau of legends", watched this year -- quite good actually.
\\Never seen, but will try and look for.
Maybe worthy trying to watch from the end of season (any).
Cause starting could make you feel it too anti-climactic.
To your fastfood Hollywood taste.
\\Dr. Xavier of X-Men? Okay, maybe he's more mind reader/ controller... not that smart. Q from Bond movies? Surely he's your favorite. Techie. ;)
You know what's the problem here... or not???
Personage -- cannot be smarter then author.
And authors -- cannot be TOO smart (or appear too smart)... by that reason, you yourself properly stated.
Well...
Perfect example of what people trying to scream to DiBi... through that thick wall and niose-tight windows... ;-P
locumranch said...
Genius, hero, scientist, philosopher, moralist, traitor, communist & soviet operative, the story of Oppenheimer puts to lie the Black & White, All-or-None and Either-Or dichotomy of Moral Absolutism.
It reminds of the Parable of the Little Birdy, as told by Terence Hill in the 1973 Spaghetti Western 'My Name is Nobody':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266cV7V4P30
The answer to this parable comes at the end of this marvelous celluloid morality tale. To whit, that all those who dump on you are not necessarily your sworn & evil enemies and all those who aid you and respond to your cries for help are not necessarily your friends & saviors.
To CITOKATE, this is an unspoken corollary, as those who mistake criticism for antagonism are unable to recognize (let alone correct) their most egregious errors.
Best
PS Is it idiocy... or what do you think?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285206383_On_the_reception_and_detection_of_pseudo-profound_bullshit
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
PS Well... Lem has written about it too... but did it, ingeniously.
\French one "Bureau of legends", watched this year -- quite good actually.
\\Never seen, but will try and look for.
/Maybe worthy trying to watch from the end of season (any).
Cause starting could make you feel it too anti-climactic.
To your fastfood Hollywood taste.
perhaps Perhaps not. Amazon Prime? I'll look.
\\Dr. Xavier of X-Men? Okay, maybe he's more mind reader/ controller... not that smart. Q from Bond movies? Surely he's your favorite. Techie. ;)
You know what's the problem here... or not???
Personage -- cannot be smarter then author.
And authors -- cannot be TOO smart (or appear too smart)... by that reason, you yourself properly stated.
/Well...
Perfect example of what people trying to scream to DiBi... through that thick wall and niose-tight windows... ;-P
locumranch said...
Genius, hero, scientist, philosopher, moralist, traitor, communist & soviet operative, the story of Oppenheimer puts to lie the Black & White, All-or-None and Either-Or dichotomy of Moral Absolutism.
It reminds of the Parable of the Little Birdy, as told by Terence Hill in the 1973 Spaghetti Western 'My Name is Nobody':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=266cV7V4P30
The answer to this parable comes at the end of this marvelous celluloid morality tale. To whit, that all those who dump on you are not necessarily your sworn & evil enemies and all those who aid you and respond to your cries for help are not necessarily your friends & saviors.
To CITOKATE, this is an unspoken corollary, as those who mistake criticism for antagonism are unable to recognize (let alone correct) their most egregious errors.
Best
PS Is it idiocy... or what do you think?
I liked that. I'm used to the other corallary. "If you're dumb, warm, happy, and covered in sh*t, best keep your mouth shut." That's most of DiBi's followers, I'd expect. It's the usual "structurally" induced (Blog Owner/Follower) outcome.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285206383_On_the_reception_and_detection_of_pseudo-profound_bullshit
Abstract
Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.
PS Well... Lem has written about it too... but did it, ingeniously.
Sounds reasonable, but then again the almost the whole of Poetry can defy that judgement. Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe, all mimsey were the borogoves and the mome wraiths outgrabe. Do you remeber the Sokal Affaire? The "scientific community" all had a great laugh over it. I think they did it in order not to have to address it. Like Jordan Peterson does the Frankfurt School. Or Lewis Carroll dealing with William Hamilton... for the Snark was a boojum, you see.
...he took his vorpal sword in hand, long time the manxime foe he sought til rested he by the tum-tum tree and stood a while in thought. And as in uffish thought he stood, the Jabberwock with eyes aflame came whiffling through the tulgey wood, and burbled as he came. One two one two and through and through his vorpal sword went snicker snack, he left it dead and with his head he went galumphing back. And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms my beamish boy, oh frubjious day, callou-callay he chortled in his joy. Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and ginble in the wabe. All mimsey were the borogoves, and the mome wraiths outgrabe.
Silly? Profound? Perhaps a bit of both? Beauty's in the eye of the beholder. And I'm not one to criticize. For the great goods cannot live together, we must often choose... that's the tragic nature of choice.
Some people just want to "swipe Left (or occasionally Right). They don't want to have a real conversation and explore "gray areas". It burns too many brain calories. So the DiBis of the world have to choose. And like the successful hypergamist, will swipe Left a LOT. FOMO driven.
\\ "If you're dumb, warm, happy, and covered in sh*t, best keep your mouth shut."
They cannot be any other way... anyway.
As I said... very old, very robust structure. Of totalitarian rule. ;-P
\\Sounds reasonable, but then again the almost the whole of Poetry can defy that judgement.
Poetry is not about definition. Not about usability.
\\Do you remeber the Sokal Affaire?
My path into it is through Geometry. Non-Euclidian one. ;-)
\\...he took his vorpal sword in hand, long time the manxime foe he sought til rested he by the tum-tum tree and stood a while in thought.
You understand that it is far too earky(funny mistyping, so I leaved it) for me to try to grok it...
So... I understand Concept. But cannot grok such particularities.
\\So the DiBis of the world have to choose.
He... incapable to choose.
His sheer reaction is more then needed evidences -- he feels that something do not add up... but cannot grasp what... that's why such a violent reaction... and monkey shit throwing. ;-P
""
Devlin says Carroll's message is that we "get rid of all of this complexity in the first place, and let's just go back to the familiar old geometry that we've had since Euclid for 2,000 years."
""
Yep. :-)))
Can of worms.
Let em all turn back into that can. Out of their own free will... or else!!! ;-)
""
Without Carroll's secret ingredient, Alice might never have achieved her fame. "The very first version of [the] Alice in Wonderland story — that he wrote for the real Alice — had none of the mathematics," Devlin says. "He added a lot of new material and it's all of that new material where you find the mathematical allusions.
""
See.
Profundity. And sophistication.
IT rules over the World.
\\ "If you're dumb, warm, happy, and covered in sh*t, best keep your mouth shut."
/They cannot be any other way... anyway.
As I said... very old, very robust structure. Of totalitarian rule. ;-P
Indeed.
\\Sounds reasonable, but then again the almost the whole of Poetry can defy that judgement.
/Poetry is not about definition. Not about usability.
It has a "universality" about it, ripe for Analogous situation to be substituted...
\\Do you remeber the Sokal Affaire?
My path into it is through Geometry. Non-Euclidian one. ;-)
As Pi said to i, "Get Real". As i to Pi, "Be Rational".
\\...he took his vorpal sword in hand, long time the manxime foe he sought til rested he by the tum-tum tree and stood a while in thought.
/You understand that it is far too earky(funny mistyping, so I leaved it) for me to try to grok it...
So... I understand Concept. But cannot grok such particularities.
You do remember "beamish", don't you? ;)
\\So the DiBis of the world have to choose.
/He... incapable to choose.
His sheer reaction is more then needed evidences -- he feels that something do not add up... but cannot grasp what... that's why such a violent reaction... and monkey shit throwing. ;-P
FoMo frustration.
/""
Devlin says Carroll's message is that we "get rid of all of this complexity in the first place, and let's just go back to the familiar old geometry that we've had since Euclid for 2,000 years."
""
Yep. :-)))
Can of worms.
Let em all turn back into that can. Out of their own free will... or else!!! ;-)
Imaginary numbers, square roots of -1... who needs them? And come to speak of it, the Greeks didn't need ANY 0's! They had "units". 1's to represent "length".
/""
Without Carroll's secret ingredient, Alice might never have achieved her fame. "The very first version of [the] Alice in Wonderland story — that he wrote for the real Alice — had none of the mathematics," Devlin says. "He added a lot of new material and it's all of that new material where you find the mathematical allusions.
""
See.
Profundity. And sophistication.
IT rules over the World.
@@
\\It has a "universality" about it, ripe for Analogous situation to be substituted...
I deaf to it.
And have perfect excuse for that.
\\\\Do you remeber the Sokal Affaire?
My path into it is through Geometry. Non-Euclidian one. ;-)
\\As Pi said to i, "Get Real". As i to Pi, "Be Rational".
Naaah.
That discovery of Lobachev. That further grown into Godel's discoveries. ;-)
\\You do remember "beamish", don't you? ;)
No.
I recognize that bunch of symbols... but dunno what they relate to.
\\\\So the DiBis of the world have to choose.
/He... incapable to choose.
His sheer reaction is more then needed evidences -- he feels that something do not add up... but cannot grasp what... that's why such a violent reaction... and monkey shit throwing. ;-P
\\FoMo frustration.
More like... fear of Reality. fear of Life.
Well... you have branded remedy for it. But... not using it?
Fear of Life | Lowen Foundation
The Alexander Lowen Foundation
https://www.lowenfoundation.org › product-page › fear-...
If one has the courage to accept and feel the pain and hurt, despair and sadness, and inner emptiness or anxiety in one's life, one can heal trauma and gain ...
22,95 USD
Or.
Fear of Life: Lowen M.D., Alexander
Amazon.com
https://www.amazon.com › F...
Fear of Life is an in-depth study of the human condition within modern culture. Alexander Lowen challenges conventional thinking and contends that neurotic ...
18,20 USD
\\See.
Profundity. And sophistication.
IT rules over the World.
\\@@
Yep.
Good example.
Eye-rolling is very sophisticated process. ;-)
\\It has a "universality" about it, ripe for Analogous situation to be substituted...
/I deaf to it.
And have perfect excuse for that.
Which is?
\\\\Do you remeber the Sokal Affaire?
My path into it is through Geometry. Non-Euclidian one. ;-)
\\As Pi said to i, "Get Real". As i to Pi, "Be Rational".
Naaah.
That discovery of Lobachev. That further grown into Godel's discoveries. ;-)
\\You do remember "beamish", don't you? ;)
/No.
I recognize that bunch of symbols... but dunno what they relate to.
Thought Criminal. You used to argue with him here. He died, since. His original name (or at least the one I knew him by, was "beamish").
\\\\So the DiBis of the world have to choose.
/He... incapable to choose.
His sheer reaction is more then needed evidences -- he feels that something do not add up... but cannot grasp what... that's why such a violent reaction... and monkey shit throwing. ;-P
\\FoMo frustration.
/More like... fear of Reality. fear of Life.
Well... you have branded remedy for it. But... not using it?
No, let him stew in his own delusions. For his are the problems of the elites, not the problems of the proles.
Fear of Life | Lowen Foundation
The Alexander Lowen Foundation
https://www.lowenfoundation.org › product-page › fear-...
If one has the courage to accept and feel the pain and hurt, despair and sadness, and inner emptiness or anxiety in one's life, one can heal trauma and gain ...
22,95 USD
Or....
I think I need to get my Chi re-adjusted. A sexy and soapy nude Asian masseuse could just do the trick....
\\See.
Profundity. And sophistication.
IT rules over the World.
\\@@
/Yep.
Good example.
Eye-rolling is very sophisticated process. ;-)
That and a $20 bill can get you a handjob on Rt. 40... But its' a sophisticad process, too. ;)
\\Which is?
Being foreigner, of course.
Do you think it is not perfect? Means, I need to grok any shady intrinsic meanings of foreign to me culture... without flaws?
Or, you still under impression that I am not foreigner and just a cunning fellow USAian who trying to play mind games with you?
Well... you are deaf to it in absolutely same way -- like with that song about Asoka I gave you.
It is quite rich source of information by itself.
By you do not see what before you... and think that knowledge and wisdom... truth, is out there.... yes? ;-)
\\Thought Criminal. You used to argue with him here.
Arguing?
Surely not remember.
\\No, let him stew in his own delusions. For his are the problems of the elites, not the problems of the proles.
Prols... have NO problems... except that proplems elites told em to have. ;-P
\\I think I need to get my Chi re-adjusted. A sexy and soapy nude Asian masseuse could just do the trick....
Still... that is eluding behavior....
\\That and a $20 bill can get you a handjob on Rt. 40... But its' a sophisticad process, too. ;)
Do you know/remember what Avogadro Number mean? ;-P
Better discuss still alive "beamish"... ;-)
It disclosed yet one my comment... but I am not sure for how long it'll continue... so...
\\WHY do you say this? It looks like you're blaming one of Hitler's victims now. Perhaps you hate Jews, too? No wonder you get so defensive.
Defensive???
And you not projecting here?
I was talking about Third World War... where USAians quite possible can happen to play role of Jews... if they'll continue being such blindfolded.
About FUTURE.
And you derailed it into discussing PAST. And my person.
\\I think you've made your case. You've failed in providing facts and made it personal again.
Projection again.
\\You agree with the American radical Right that Nazis were "socialists", instead of a fascist dictatorship.
And they was not?
They was called national-SOCIALISTS for god's sake.
Background & Overview of the Nazi Party (NSDAP)
Jewish Virtual Library
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org › ...
Members of the party referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis. The word “Nazi” was in use before the rise of the ...
\\Soviets were communists. Sweden is socialist. Nazis are fascists:
Whatever.
By their deeds you will know em.
Or you ready to start defending mass-men-slaughter Stalin and claim that soviet commies was ANY BETTER than nazis???
\\The Nazis were the world's largest fascist movement
Nazists was fascists too(well, probably)... but not every fascists(wannabe calling themself that way) are nazis.
Same as... Rabid dogs are dogs... but not every dog have rabies.
""
Fascism is a far-right political philosophy, or theory of government, that emerged in the early twentieth century. Fascism prioritizes the nation over the individual, who exists to serve the nation. While fascist movements could be found in almost every country following World War I, fascism was most successful in Italy and Germany.
""
Clearly written by leftist... maybe commie even.
""
"Fascism is an ultranationalist, authoritarian political philosophy. It combines elements of nationalism, militarism, economic self-sufficiency, and totalitarianism. It opposes communism, socialism, pluralism, individual rights and equality, and democratic government.
""
Yes.
That's obviously are commie's screed.
That conveniently forgetting that ANY commies like to see other commies in graves.
\\I'll show you Hitler's own words:
\\After the allied invasion of Italy, Mussolini was deposed and jailed. Hitler needed to send...
You think it is VIABLE way to show somebody's said words???
\\I think you've said enough with "Fascism is "luke-bad" and "And what so bad fascism did to you?"
Yes.
What EXACTLY other "fascist" did so bad??? Apart from Nazis... national-SOCIALISTS who was calling THEMSELF "Nationalsozialisten"... not fascists.
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Nazis-ever-refer-to-themselves-as-fascists
Probably not. They were National Socialists, though the link with Italy was part of it. They also did not use the term Nazi, which was an insult.
The full name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (English: National-Socialist German Workers' Party) for which they officially used the acronym NSDAP.
The term "Nazi" was in use before the rise of the NSDAP as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backwards farmer or peasant, characterizing an awkward and clumsy person. This was derived from Nazi a hypocorism of the German men's name Ignatz (itself a variation of the men's name Ignatius) – Ignatz being a common name at the time in Bavaria, the area from which the NSDAP emerged. (Nazism - Wikipedia)
So...
ENEMIES of Nazis started called em "nazis"... and tried to make it more broad -- over-shading all "fascists".
What a big surprise. NOT.
Especially... that Lefties tried to SEVER link of word "nazi" with national-SOCIALISM it was. And substituted nationalSOCIALISTS with "fascists" -- as did Commies in Soviet Union.
That's all just an accident? "Nothing to look at here"??? MOVE ON! I SAID, MOVE ON!!!
Do not dare to point your dirty finger at our Holy Hypocrisy!!! #$@&%!!!!!!
;-P
John Vigil again making VERY GOOD point... there.
""
Once you grasp the concept of "junk experience" it's a amazing how much of it we've got floating around in our heads. I mean, it's pretty much the entirety of television. Memes and partisan political diatribes on YouTube, talk radio, and cable news opinion shows put all kinds of pithy bs into our noggins.
""
\\Which is?
/Being foreigner, of course.
Do you think it is not perfect? Means, I need to grok any shady intrinsic meanings of foreign to me culture... without flaws?
Or, you still under impression that I am not foreigner and just a cunning fellow USAian who trying to play mind games with you?
Well... you are deaf to it in absolutely same way -- like with that song about Asoka I gave you.
It is quite rich source of information by itself.
By you do not see what before you... and think that knowledge and wisdom... truth, is out there.... yes? ;-)
No doubt. I suppose we don't need to grok everything. But we should at least try and grok the concepts that we are trying to apply. But our "attentions" may be focused differently, and so the "goods" we seek, different.
\\Thought Criminal. You used to argue with him here.
/Arguing?
Surely not remember.
Taunting?
\\No, let him stew in his own delusions. For his are the problems of the elites, not the problems of the proles.
/Prols... have NO problems... except that proplems elites told em to have. ;-P
\\I think I need to get my Chi re-adjusted. A sexy and soapy nude Asian masseuse could just do the trick....
/Still... that is eluding behavior....
Perhaps...
\\That and a $20 bill can get you a handjob on Rt. 40... But its' a sophisticad process, too. ;)
/Do you know/remember what Avogadro Number mean? ;-P
A "fudge factor" representing some overlooked property to make a mathematical equation useful/ concept calculable?
Better discuss still alive "beamish"... ;-)
/It disclosed yet one my comment... but I am not sure for how long it'll continue... so...
\\WHY do you say this? It looks like you're blaming one of Hitler's victims now. Perhaps you hate Jews, too? No wonder you get so defensive.
/Defensive???
And you not projecting here?
I was talking about Third World War... where USAians quite possible can happen to play role of Jews... if they'll continue being such blindfolded.
About FUTURE.
And you derailed it into discussing PAST. And my person.
[...]
Okay, I didn't watch the Asoka clip... sorry. I need to find the link again. Maybe then, I can understand this all...
Can't find it... where was it please/
\\No doubt. I suppose we don't need to grok everything. But we should at least try and grok the concepts that we are trying to apply. But our "attentions" may be focused differently, and so the "goods" we seek, different.
That's why Meta-Thinking. ;-)
\\Taunting?
Do I "taunt" Derpy? How do you see it?
\\/Still... that is eluding behavior....
\\Perhaps...
This too.
But... that is not to stirr you into needed for me direction.
Just interesting -- how much you can analyze/rationalize your own thoughts.
\\/Do you know/remember what Avogadro Number mean? ;-P
\\A "fudge factor" representing some overlooked property to make a mathematical equation useful/ concept calculable?
Naaah.
It's a Number of Atoms even in a little droplet of matter.
It's a Number of Atoms even in a little droplet of matter.
Bzzzzz. Try again.
Moles... er-r-r-r... "stuff".
...and of relating "different" droplets of matter.
mole: the base unit of amount of pure substance in the International System of Units that is defined as having exactly 6.02214076 x 1023 indivisible units (such as atoms or molecules) of that substance
First you would need to measure out one mole of salt. Remember that one mole of a compound equals its relative molecular mass in grams, so to obtain one mole of sodium chloride you would weigh out 58.5 g …
—John Atkinson and Carol Hibbert
one mole of helium contains 4 grams
Physicists (atoms) and Chemists (molecules) care about different things.
...in other words, the Greek "unit" of matter around which all the other "numbers" relate.
Well, maybe not all numbers...
\\Okay, I didn't watch the Asoka clip... sorry. I need to find the link again. Maybe then, I can understand this all...
You stopped checking older posts... well, cannot blame you for that.
Here it is
But it in Russian... dunno if you'd be able to extract anything out of it. :-/
\\It's a Number of Atoms even in a little droplet of matter.
\\Bzzzzz. Try again.
I simplified it perfectly enough for the need I used it (can you imagine that number??? "6.02214076 x 1023 indivisible units")
And you sniped me.
Perfectly nerdy.
Thank you.
So? What topic from BBT (tv series) you want to discuss next? :-)
Where's Derpy?
Was my pill "pulling Charlie Gordon" too bitter to it? ;-P
No, I don't get the Russian song... but it wasn't a bad animation. Hints as to meaning?
...and yes, I sometimes geek out sometimes over numbers... and units? Fogghedaboudit. Yes, your answer was "technically" correct, but it left out the concept of possibly shared electrons in a molecular bond and the fact that it was an approximation... all petty distinctions, I know, but relate to why I called it a "fudge factor".
I think we've exhausted the BBT for now...
....and as for Dervy, either he'll "get over it", or I suppose you can always send him flowers. ;)
\\No, I don't get the Russian song... but it wasn't a bad animation. Hints as to meaning?
That's so-called adult song. Dressed as for children.
Motive is natural for Russian -- as you could devise yourself -- about being drunk and behavior of drunkards. :-)))))
\\....and as for Dervy, either he'll "get over it", or I suppose you can always send him flowers. ;)
:-))))
Well
In our forest, in our forest
Lots of four-legged freaks.
Every Friday a drunken badger
Looking for the way to his native den,
Down deer, throwing back antlers
With a howl it rushes through the thicket,
Like, go away, who cares about life! —
But the most special in an epic sense
The animal in our forest is a squirrel.
There are many freaks in our forest,
And the squirrel among them is an exceptional genius.
She offered this to the moose
Relieve withdrawal symptoms with a pack of dumplings.
Strange beasts live on earth,
But the squirrel is an animal of supernatural power.
She fucked herself in her own hollow
Five kilograms of mushrooms and a mobile phone.
The most advanced animal in the forest is the squirrel.
Anything can be said about beavers.
A rare goofy tit.
They sent the hare out of the forest,
But nothing compares to our squirrel.
Red tail, fluffy flag,
Black eyes sparkle like agates.
Here she is jumping from stump to stump -
Bam! - flashed and disappeared somewhere.
God save us from the terrible beast - the squirrel.
Oh, yet one thing to mention.
Squirrel(belochka) it's colloquial euphemism for Delirium Tremense ;-P
\\Yes, your answer was "technically" correct, but it left out the concept of possibly shared electrons in a molecular bond and the fact that it was an approximation... all petty distinctions, I know, but relate to why I called it a "fudge factor".
Because... it was not important, in that context.
But well -- if one would start to musing about it -- it would only REINFORCE that my point -- 10^23 elements... PLUS entanglements, bonds, inter-communications between em...
well, that's EXACTLY that sophistication that happens inside our and any other cell...
As Nietzsche alluded, for every phenomena we observe, there are a million that go unseen, hence "cause and effect" is a fictional simplification.
...and I used to blog with a "squirrel nihilist"... now professor.
\\hence "cause and effect" is a fictional simplification.
Well... if you can explain Physics on some other "fictional simplification" -- go tell me, so I could receive Noble Prize instead of you. ;-P
I never claimed that fictional simplification or oversimplification couldn't be useful or powerful or life sustaining. Merely that "truth" may not be. Perhaps a 6 decimal place probability, short of "certainty" is "enough".
That is... quite interesting question.
And pretty much a credo of positivism -- "if only we would know it with enough number of digits after the point..."
But, Third Millenium seems like discredited it.
Structured Knowledge -- Much More important.
It's gives ability to do more Complex things. ;-)
...and w/o the narrow focus.
Multi-focal. By need. ;-)
Systems engineering view. How'd you able to do it any other way???
Indeed.
""
What is Life?
Life is a chemical System that uses energy to keep itself from reaching chemical equilibrium.
""
Life... it's a process in a system... that are in a state beyond equilibrium. ;-)
I deem it as ENOUGH evidence to call that case closed:
""
Blogger David Brin said...
"Note Socrates of Athens, who said that he knew only that he knew nothing; and when he sought wisdom from his fellow Athenians, he failed to find any. They didn't even know that they knew nothing; which gave him the advantage. "
In other words - SAYING that was an incantatory trick to give him a morally advantageous and smug position. One likely to draw in angry, rebellious-phase teens.
""
What did Richard Feynman say about philosophy?
He attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Yet in his two autobiographies he wrote of only three significant brushes with philosophy.
Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59
philosophynow.org
https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Richard_Feynman_Accidental_Philosopher
Worthy reading. ;-)
What is Richard Feynman famous quote?
This was how Feynman approached all knowledge: What can I know for sure, and how can I come to know it? It resulted in his famous quote, “You must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Feynman believed it and practiced it in all of his intellectual work.
Who Is Richard Feynman? The Curious Character Who Mastered ...
See... Feynman KNEW IT.
While for DiBi... that's just "smart taunt".
And this one... looks like a good summary for our with Derpy talks:
""
Like George Orwell, Feynman exposed what needs exposing: that many who lack a deep understanding of facts and reasoning rely on something easier to employ – vocabulary; a trend which has since only increased among the literati and the humanities intelligentsia. Today, deconstruction and postmodernism appear to tolerate a deliberate misinterpretation of texts in a spirit of diversity and relativism. But when we lose a criteria of correctness, falsehood may pass for truth, and nonsense may pass for sense.
""
Like you mentioned that TC -- he allowed himself to be caught in that tenets. And died in it... like that dried corpses of a flyes in old spiderwebs.
But... for at least he get full some spider... I hope. ;-P
And... am I right to suggest, that that:
""
Blogger locumranch said...
In effect, the West has become a transhuman suicide cult, intent on the improvement, elimination & the replacement of existent humanity with something new & novel, wherein any change is thought to be unequivocally 'better', even though this belief in the beneficial nature of change is also a probability fallacy.
This idea of beneficial change qualifies as a probability fallacy because change is rarely good or beneficial, as is the case in carcinogenesis. Also known as oncogenesis & tumorigenesis, carcinogenesis is the process whereby normal self-sustaining systems are transformed into dysfunctional cancerous dead ends.
""
is your point too?
And good story to boot. Though not mine.
Boy Scientist’s Dud Logic Bomb
A long time ago, when I was a young lad, I had a strange encounter with logic. I got a Fisher-Price Science kit for my tenth birthday; it had batteries and wires and lights and toggles and keys and magnetic relays. The instructions showed how to make AND gates, and OR gates, and NOT gates; I made them all. With the AND gate the light went on only if both keys were pressed; with the OR gate the light went on when either key was pressed; and if you wire the magnetic relay in reverse, the light goes on only if you don’t press the key.
Seventeen days before my tenth birthday, I had seen a Star Trek show. In it, Captain Kirk defeated an evil robot by feeding it a logic paradox. Kirk called Harvey Mudd a liar, and Harvey Mudd agreed. Harvey Mudd told the robot, “I am lying”. The robot fell into a yes-but-no wobble, then shorted out in a cloud of smoke.
I remembered that show and thought, “Cool! Can I do the same thing?” It seemed easy enough; wire a magnetic relay to turn on when it’s off, and off when it’s on. A loop of wire, with a twist; what could be easier? I wired in a battery, and a light, and – just to be safe – a key, so the whole circuit was activated only when the key’s pressed down.
For that burnt-out robot worried me. How would the relay react to being forced to be in two places at once? Would it break? Would it short out in a cloud of smoke? Would it explode?
I vowed to leap away if something went wrong; but there were worse possibilities. Maybe the confused relay would tear a hole in the space-time continuum, one that monsters could get through. Maybe a single paradox would destroy the Universe… for I had read those science-fiction stories, too!
I hesitated over my doomsday device… then I figured that other kids must have tried the same experiment before; so it must be safe.
I pressed the key… and the relay buzzed!
I let go of the key; the buzzing stopped. I leaned in close and pressed the key. The relay buzzed; the armature was a blur; a blue-white spark strobed at the contact; the light was half-lit.
Ah, Science! All these effects were new to me, unexpected, yet obvious in retrospect. I have based much of my paradox-logic research upon this experimental observation. The buzz, the blur, the strobing, the half-lighting… and above all the fact that it didn’t explode.
For as you can see, I took a big risk for Science! And I did so without consulting anyone! I didn’t know that a paradox-circuit wouldn’t destroy the Universe; I just figured that it probably wouldn’t. So I went ahead anyhow; but it all turned out OK, because here we are.
How reckless of me! In my defense I plead the folly of youth. So there you have it: as a boy I thought I invented a Doomsday Device, but instead it was just a Buzzer!
Feynman seems like quite a character.
/Life... it's a process in a system... that are in a state beyond equilibrium. ;-)
"autopoietic?", asked the man with his hubris in vocabulary knowledge? ;)
/I deem it as ENOUGH evidence to call that case closed:
...
See... Feynman KNEW IT.
While for DiBi... that's just "smart taunt".
Language is a castrated world... symbolically cut of from the real... signifier... signified.... and wired/ miswired as the kid's logic gates by neurons and axons in the human mind. And my minds full of buzzing, no doubt.
/And this one... looks like a good summary for our with Derpy talks:
""
Like George Orwell, Feynman exposed what needs exposing: that many who lack a deep understanding of facts and reasoning rely on something easier to employ – vocabulary; a trend which has since only increased among the literati and the humanities intelligentsia. Today, deconstruction and postmodernism appear to tolerate a deliberate misinterpretation of texts in a spirit of diversity and relativism. But when we lose a criteria of correctness, falsehood may pass for truth, and nonsense may pass for sense.
""
Another problem is in the lack of "attribution" to knowledge (death of the author?... as if knowledge (or information) no longer needs it. It's more critical today than ever before. Yet very few feel compelled to properly attribute their sources of their knowledge. They're fine with source anonymity.
/Like you mentioned that TC -- he allowed himself to be caught in that tenets. And died in it... like that dried corpses of a flyes in old spiderwebs.
But... for at least he get full some spider... I hope. ;-P
Say what you will, TC definitely had his own mind and thought for himself. No one simply handed him an opinion w/o his passing judgement upon it.
/And... am I right to suggest, that that:
""
Blogger locumranch said...
In effect, the West has become a transhuman suicide cult, intent on the improvement, elimination & the replacement of existent humanity with something new & novel, wherein any change is thought to be unequivocally 'better', even though this belief in the beneficial nature of change is also a probability fallacy.
This idea of beneficial change qualifies as a probability fallacy because change is rarely good or beneficial, as is the case in carcinogenesis. Also known as oncogenesis & tumorigenesis, carcinogenesis is the process whereby normal self-sustaining systems are transformed into dysfunctional cancerous dead ends.
""
is your point too?
I can certainly go along with most of it. It's great to have a large toolkit of change "ability"... but you only want it genetically (or other) "expressed" at the proper time. When the world is underpopulated, being "gay" offers no advantages. When it's over populated, it might be a good thing. Ecclesiastes 3.
/And good story to boot. Though not mine.
...Boy Scientist’s Dud Logic Bomb
...
How reckless of me! In my defense I plead the folly of youth. So there you have it: as a boy I thought I invented a Doomsday Device, but instead it was just a Buzzer!
I remember that Star Trek episode... :)
\\/Life... it's a process in a system... that are in a state beyond equilibrium. ;-)
\\"autopoietic?", asked the man with his hubris in vocabulary knowledge? ;)
Bénard Convection Cells Rayleigh-Bénard convection is a type of natural convection, occurring in a plane of fluid heated from below, in which the fluid develops a regular pattern of convection cells known as the Bénard cells.
Bénard Cells - ENERGY .concord.org
Concord Consortium
https://energy.concord.org › bernard-cells
Reynolds Numbers.
Or...
Most simple example I know.
Imagine heap of sand. Like in sand watch for example.
Small amount of sand falling on it from above. If you want... you can limit it EVEN to SINGLE grain of sand... separated by a long time, for it to be MORE obvious.
Most of the time that grain would find its place either on the tip of that heap... or somewhere lower.
But...
From time to time EVEN single such grain -- can create an "avalanche of changes".
\\Language is a castrated world... symbolically cut of from the real... signifier... signified.... and wired/ miswired as the kid's logic gates by neurons and axons in the human mind. And my minds full of buzzing, no doubt.
Language -- is a part of the World.
Sharing same traits of it. As fuzziness. Or deceptiveness.
But same time dead simple clarity... though quite more rarely. ;-)
\\Another problem is in the lack of "attribution" to knowledge (death of the author?... as if knowledge (or information) no longer needs it. It's more critical today than ever before. Yet very few feel compelled to properly attribute their sources of their knowledge. They're fine with source anonymity.
Is it message... or source of message that are important?
Well... it depends on circumstances, yes.
But well, I would say that when it important -- it just means that source is the same, or ARE the message itself.
As it was among animal -- screams of birds of your flock -- that is the message of a danger.
\\Say what you will, TC definitely had his own mind and thought for himself. No one simply handed him an opinion w/o his passing judgement upon it.
Same as Derpy.
Or even some foster tribe fellow.
Having own opinion... well, you know what they saying about it...
\\When the world is underpopulated, being "gay" offers no advantages.
For individuals... maybe.
But evolution do not care about individuals.
Only about population gene pools... and even that, not too much.
\\I remember that Star Trek episode... :)
Well... in a series -- it was bullshit fiction -- sophisticated enough robot, as in there -- would need to have a fuse. Or, most surely -- built-in ability to cope with such a "paradoxes".
But... we starting learning it only today.
But more important -- and why I quoted it -- because it showing with certainity -- that paradoxes it's not mere fictitious figments of our language. But part of reality.
:)
\\the real crux of the discussion was whether science tells us anything about how the world really is
We do not see Dark Side of the Moon -- is it do not exist? ;-P
Yes, non-living processes can demonstrate what seems to be, or might be misidentified as "intelligence" simply from "structure". Teasing out the differences will be different, since the a living intelligence is built on top of and with all the underlying inorganic "structure'.
We do not see Dark Side of the Moon -- is it do not exist? ;-P
Does the NAZI base also exist?
\\Philosopher of science Larry Laudan produced his notorious list of past bafflingly successful scientific theories: Fresnel’s luminiferous ether (where light propagates in a medium called the ether), the caloric theory of heat (where heat is a fluid that flows from hot bodies to cold bodies), and the phlogiston theory of combustion (where combustible bodies contain a fire-like element) also made the list.
Yawn.
Idiot.
Still, in Thermodynamics used equations that describe "flows" of heat.
And in electric engineering we still use current described as flow of POSITIVE particles. From "+" to "-".
That's exact example of what Feynman called.
What did Richard Feynman say about philosophy?
He attacked philosophy often, calling it “low-level baloney,” and saying philosophers “are always on the outside making stupid remarks.” Yet in his two autobiographies he wrote of only three significant brushes with philosophy.
Richard Feynman: Accidental Philosopher | Issue 59
philosophynow.org
https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Richard_Feynman_Accidental_Philosopher
\\Yes, non-living processes can demonstrate what seems to be, or might be misidentified as "intelligence" simply from "structure".
What Is Life?
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki
What Is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell is a 1944 science book written for the lay reader by physicist Erwin Schrödinger. The book was based on ...
...and so the dance continues.
Yawn.
:P
Not sparring? ;-)
:)
\\He suggests that our brains are exposed to the entire concept of the universe in the same way that any minute part of a hologram contains basically the same information as the whole.
Phony profane that didn't make itself work to study HOW holograms made.
Yawn.
And where's that LASER... that creating that "hologram"???
Ignore Shandrake. Follow Wiki...
\\A. G. Gurwitsch analysed the embryonic development of the sea urchin as a vector-field, as if the proliferation of cells into organs were brought about by putative external forces.
OF COURSE!!!
Because it works through spread of special genetic markers -- special molecules.
That go through physical media -- cells and in-between plasma -- by the rules of diffusion.
Which represented in math... with vector-field exactly.
Well... that was not math. That was physics -- that then turned Math. If I recall it correctly.
Evo-Devo
:)
\\A. G. Gurwitsch analysed the embryonic development of the sea urchin as a vector-field, as if the proliferation of cells into organs were brought about by putative external forces.
OF COURSE!!!
Because it works through spread of special genetic markers -- special molecules.
That go through physical media -- cells and in-between plasma -- by the rules of diffusion.
Which represented in math... with vector-field exactly.
Well... that was not math. That was physics -- that then turned Math. If I recall it correctly.
Deductive math vs inductive math? ;)
Dunno.
I'm not mathematician. Would like to talk with one... though not sure it would be any easier...
The first Evo Devo link above didn't work. :(
Naaah. I just not that fast watcher. ;-P
But... I may reconsider, but... it seems again as you trying to preach to a choir...
as that is the backbone of my idea O.K. ;-)
Atavistic flashbacks... ;P
Feynman was never one to settle for knowing the description of things or the accepted truths of things. Instead, he really wanted to know, and it was that burning curiosity that led him to his greatest work. Feynman was human, at times all too human, but his mind was devoted to figuring out reality the way it was.
Richard Feynman Quotes
“You can know the name of that bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird… I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”
“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer.”
“I think for lesson number one, to learn a mystic formula for answering questions is very bad.”
“In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another. The great problems of the relations between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and less in public.”
“It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil — which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”
“The worthwhile problems are the ones you can really solve or help solve, the ones you can really contribute something to… No problem is too small or too trivial if we can really do something about it.”
“There is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science [pseudoscience]… It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty — a kind of leaning over backwards.”
“I don’t like honors…I’ve already got the prize: the prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out, the kick in the discovery, the observation that other people use it. Those are the real things.”
“The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty.”
PS Do I need to add how I agree with all that? ;-)
There are close parallels here with Feyerabend’s own criticisms of science. (Indeed, Feyerabend admitted that many of his ideas were simply observations he had taken from scientists and reapplied for the benefit of the philosophers of science who, it seemed to him, had not thought to listen to them.) Like Mach, Feyerabend abhorred the lack of critical reflexion among scientists and insisted that scientific progress demanded the constant examination and questioning of its theories and even the methods of research. Otherwise, he warned, science would ossify into a standard set of uniform ideas which would inhibit the freedom and experimentalism that characterised progressive research. “Successful research” argued Feyerabend on the first page of Against Method, “does not obey general standards; it relies now on one trick, now on another.”
https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Paul_Feyerabend_And_The_Monster_Science
“What’s so great about science? – what makes sciences preferable to other forms of life, using different standards and getting different kinds of results as a consequence?” (‘On the Critique of Scientific Reason’ in Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, p.110.) This question, I think, came to occupy him for the remainder of his career.
PS Well, happen to be -- *I* know the answer. ;-)
What does that mean, or why are they doing that, or how are they doing that? I think that’s a perfectly reasonable question.
Of course, it’s an excellent question. But the problem, you see, when you ask why something happens, how does a person answer why something happens? For example, Aunt Minnie is in the hospital. Why? Because she went out, slipped on the ice, and broke her hip. That satisfies people. It satisfies, but it wouldn’t satisfy someone who came from another planet and knew nothing about why when you break your hip do you go to the hospital. How do you get to the hospital when the hip is broken? Well, because her husband, seeing that her hip was broken, called the hospital up and sent somebody to get her. All that is understood by people. And when you explain a why, you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true. Otherwise, you’re perpetually asking why. Why did the husband call up the hospital? Because the husband is interested in his wife’s welfare. Not always, some husbands aren’t interested in their wives’ welfare when they’re drunk, and they’re angry.
And you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications. If you try to follow anything up, you go deeper and deeper in various directions. For example, if you go, “Why did she slip on the ice?” Well, ice is slippery. Everybody knows that, no problem. But you ask why is ice slippery? That’s kinda curious. Ice is extremely slippery. It’s very interesting. You say, how does it work?
https://fs.blog/richard-feynman-on-why-questions/
When you only know what something is called, you have no real sense of what it is.
You can’t take it apart and play with it or use it to make new connections and generate new insights. When you know something, the labels are unimportant because it’s not necessary to keep it in the box it came in.
Slavoj Žižek – The Elvis of Philosophy?
Chris Bainbridge zips through the greatest hits of the celebrity post-Marxist.
“The thinker of choice for Europe’s young intellectual vanguard”, a “punk philosopher”, “a roller-coaster ride”, “sometimes bonkers but never boring” and “the Elvis of philosophers” are among the many things that have been said about Slovenian philosopher, culture critic and psychoanalyst Slavoj Žižek and his works. Žižek (born 1949), who packs out public lecture halls around the world, is currently International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities in London and Senior Researcher at the Institute of Sociology at the University of Ljubljana – from which he was expelled in the 1970s because his PhD thesis was “too Hegelian and not Marxist enough.” He’s made films too, including one entitled The Pervert’s Guide to the Cinema (2006). There is even an Institute of Žižek Studies. When Slovenia became independent from Yugoslavia in 1991, it instituted a four-person Presidency, for which Žižek stood.
…
PS Ehm??? That's all???
“In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another. The great problems of the relations between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and less in public.”
Very much agree. Again, this is all Kuhnian "Normal" Science Paradigm.... and Feynman was more "Revolutionary" Science paradigm.
As for Zizek, he's Lacanian/Hegelian philosophy and psychology, NOT science. And as such, it's almost entirely "language" based. Zizek is the world's leading expert in "ideology" and how language and ideology distort truth through jouissance/ desire). He's a kind of modern day Wittgenstein.
btw - Zizek is not only the "Elvis" of philosophy, he's also been called the world's most dangerous philosopher. And guess what? I believe he's both.
People aren't "rational". Just look at Dervy. Just look at me. Why are we so different? Ideologies.
btw - Chris Bainbridge works as a transport planner in London and is a member of Barnes Philosophy Club.
ps - The purpose of "philosophy" and "philosophers" is to bridge the gaps between the Sciences, Humanities, and Metaphysics/Theology.
\\Zizek is the world's leading expert in "ideology" and how language and ideology distort truth through jouissance/ desire). He's a kind of modern day Wittgenstein.
Pft!
And Stalin with his Gulag, and nowaday Chinese with their re-education camps, and nowaday liliPut, for whom thousands of Russians ready to go to die, for nothing... are profanes in ideology???
\\btw - Zizek is not only the "Elvis" of philosophy, he's also been called the world's most dangerous philosopher. And guess what? I believe he's both.
Yet.
That same story... about cunning galactic spy... that was cracked in a jiffy... when come to some distant "barbaric" planet. :-)))))
\\People aren't "rational". Just look at Dervy. Just look at me. Why are we so different? Ideologies.
That's... because you have no quality hypothesis. Working theory of mind. ;-)
Derpy... he just have female's mind.
His behavior is exactly like of one. ;-P
And female's behavior -- is EXTREMELY... rational.
Made that way -- to GARANTY procreation.
Like... women. Even feministicly-aligned. Wear sexy clothes.
Well, they say that they doing it for THEIR own pleasure.
But... that is just a hypocrisy that Evolution instilled in em... for, you know what.
\\ps - The purpose of "philosophy" and "philosophers" is to bridge the gaps between the Sciences, Humanities, and Metaphysics/Theology.
Means... being useless? :-)
\\Zizek is the world's leading expert in "ideology" and how language and ideology distort truth through jouissance/ desire). He's a kind of modern day Wittgenstein.
/Pft!
And Stalin with his Gulag, and nowaday Chinese with their re-education camps, and nowaday liliPut, for whom thousands of Russians ready to go to die, for nothing... are profanes in ideology???
Their desires are not profane to them. It does, however, many times prevent them to be "rationally" predictable if/ when viewed through a foreign "ideological" lens. As Freud would have called them (camp/gulag members) a society's "discontents"... being exiled to a disciplinary heterotpic space for rehabilitation.
\\btw - Zizek is not only the "Elvis" of philosophy, he's also been called the world's most dangerous philosopher. And guess what? I believe he's both.
/Yet.
That same story... about cunning galactic spy... that was cracked in a jiffy... when come to some distant "barbaric" planet. :-)))))
Is a story... perhaps even a "wish fullfillment". ;)
\\People aren't "rational". Just look at Dervy. Just look at me. Why are we so different? Ideologies.
/That's... because you have no quality hypothesis. Working theory of mind. ;-)
Derpy... he just have female's mind.
His behavior is exactly like of one. ;-P
And female's behavior -- is EXTREMELY... rational.
Made that way -- to GARANTY procreation.
Like... women. Even feministicly-aligned. Wear sexy clothes.
Well, they say that they doing it for THEIR own pleasure.
But... that is just a hypocrisy that Evolution instilled in em... for, you know what.
Hypergamy? Cuz I doubt Dervy has, or would ever desire to have, children.
\\ps - The purpose of "philosophy" and "philosophers" is to bridge the gaps between the Sciences, Humanities, and Metaphysics/Theology.
/Means... being useless? :-)
Nope. It means having "options". Especially vis understanding "others" and their "motivations" and making them "predictable" (remember Sun Tzu "Art of War"... "know yourself and others"...
It's what makes Zizek "the most dangerous philosopher".
\\Is a story... perhaps even a "wish fullfillment". ;)
Of van Vogt??? I dunno.
\\Hypergamy? Cuz I doubt Dervy has, or would ever desire to have, children.
Cause he have not needed "gadgets"? ;-)
\\Nope. It means having "options". Especially vis understanding "others" and their "motivations" and making them "predictable" (remember Sun Tzu "Art of War"... "know yourself and others"...
:-)))))
...it "works" only while you are far from battlefield.
As Mo'adib says, "Fear is the mind killer"... so a soldier must drill-drill-drill and turn that knowledge into muscle memory... instinct. There will be no time on the battlefield to "think"... for it will only lead to paralysis.
See, there is a place for "chicanery". :)
...and a time to break its' symmetry.
That is... ideology of modern -- to make soldier unthinking mechanism.
Today... one need ability to think very much. To be inventive. Or one would die.
Shadown post it here.
""
\\Your devotion to Trump and his numerous treacheries is noted.
Oh... so THAT is how it called today? By DEMNs.
Previously it was called Presumption of Innocent and Upholding the Law.
Under the roof of Principles of Democracy and Human Rights protection.
But NOW. And for DEMNs... that is all "treachery".
PS And this hypocritical DEMN... it WILL NOT disclose this comment. Am I right? ;-P
""
As I don't think that pShaw will unclose it. :-)))))
Which would a good proof.
How to you my BET? ;-)
And I saw DiDi called you "towarisch". :-))))))))
What will be your response to such idiotic taunt? ;-)
I don't know, I don't speak Russian as good as he does. :)
I told pShaw that censorship wasn't a good look for her, and she released about six comments that she had been sitting on.
\\I don't know, I don't speak Russian as good as he does. :)
I remarked it too... but Shaw not disclosed it... naturally.
Maybe they are from one ring (you didn't tryed to watch "Americans"???)
\\I told pShaw that censorship wasn't a good look for her, and she released about six comments that she had been sitting on.
Whatever... that is not non-disclosing comments that are censorship -- pre-moderation are.
Well... is there ones under "DO NOT OPEN" name? ;-P
It's always a game with them...
I'm glad that you are living in such place... where it still "just a game".
Or... game with such a miserly prizes... with no such Shiny Big Scoops like: "now you going to re-education camp" or "now you can visit Syberia".
That f*g Jumangee. :-/
We're getting there. It's becoming more and more "out in the open." Public knowledge.
Lame bragging.
No...tinge of sadness.
I'll explain it with a parable. Based on your cultural monikers. And devoid of any personal or counter-cultural... snarks?
That is pretty common and known to you image, isn't it? Some American that gone to Africa.
And encountered there a lion. Maybe even killed one.
And then, after returning home, became venerated and started bragging "I know everything about lions".
But... isn't it OBVIOUS??? That that is ABORIGINES... who lived whole their life around that lions... who CAN really "know all"?
PS That's exactly what I meant when called it lame... means inadequate.
And my version -- utterly obvious. Real World proof obvious.
If still it somehow tingled your feeling. Made you offended. To level to demand of me courtesy to not mention such things...
Should I have used the word "test" instead of "game"? Would that have made it less "lame"?
Like that was what I was responding to...
Just because the boot isn't directly in my face right now doesn't mean that I can't see it coming.
Fight or flight??? But you do neither.
;-p
Bartleby, "I'd prefer NOT to".
btw - Always support your tanks with infantry.
Unless your infantry... are fremen. ;-P
And Shai-hulud is behind their backs. :-)))))
Who do you think would win -- Skywalker... or Muaddib. ;-P
Muaddib, of course. He's already seen all the probabilities/ outcomes in advance. Like Hari Seldon. Psychohistory. ;)
...but without the limitation of only dealing in "averages" (so couldn't predict the "Mule")
Why he invented "Foundation" for then???
Maybe that was just a political White Lie? ;-P
Post a Comment