Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tar last won the day on September 18

tar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

207 Beacon of Hope

1 Follower

About tar

  • Rank
  • Birthday 12/11/53

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  • Interests
    The computer game "Civilization", trying to figure out the stock market, philosophy of life, and scientific unanswered questions.
  • College Major/Degree
    BS in Business
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
    Married, two daughters, two dogs, a house and unlucky me, no job.
  • Occupation
    Looking for work in Technical Support/QA in Printing/Scanning/Imaging
  1. The problem is you're considering the scenario which DID happen as special. Why, yes I am. This is the only universe we've got. The logic of the situation is clear to me. I understand that things are the way they are because they evolved that way. But the idea at issue is whether the place happened accidently or on purpose. At least that is why the argument is usually had. Did it happen by accident, or did god do it. I propose it has to be neither, and am looking for the organizing principles and the natural patterns from which an explanation can be formulated. It does not work for me, if the explanation requires multiple universes or multiple chances to work out this way. It does not work for me to consider infinity because it is not a real thing. It does not work for me to consider other universes because they are not real things that we have any access to. And it does not work for me to consider god did it, because an anthropomorphic lonely creator makes no sense to me, and we have zero evidence that such a creature exists and it is just as logical to think the cosmos always was, as to consider that this imaginary creature always was. I am perfectly able to conceive of infinity as all I have to do is consider that any quantity you name, I can mentally add one two, and still have a quantity I can name back to you. But that all happens within our respective brains. I love mental challenges and matching wits and figuring stuff out and understand the "point" of infinity. But neither you nor I can actually conceive of a number of that size, nor mentally catalog each of the members of an infinite set. So I think you misunderstand why I make the comments I make. Not to prove anybody wrong, or settle the argument one way or the other, but to request that we look at the place as special, in that it is the only one we have, and not consider it inconsequential, as if we have any alternative reality to inhabit. Regards, TAR
  2. Thread, Raider5678 said this. Hamlet has approximately 130,000 letters in it. Not counting spaces. The average typing speed is 200 characters per minute. So if the money typed it perfectly, it would take about 650,000 minutes. Or 10,833.3 hours. Or 451.4 days. Or 64.5 weeks. Then went on to calculate the time it would take to randomly arrive at the correct order of the characters. The time was silly large, so to have the question at all, would be to prove a point about randomness or infinity, so I went there. If it was just a hypothetical mathematical question, then Raider should not have divided 130,000 by 200 and gotten 650,000. Are we making a literal mathematical calculation or are we talking hypothetically about infinity and randomness? If we are talking basic math lets start with being able to type 130,000 letters, at 200 characters a minute in 650 minutes, which is 10.833 hours which is about a workday with lunch and 3 hours overtime. Regards, TAR
  3. Lord Antares, Understood, but mathematically the monkey would take longer than the projected life of the universe to type out Hamlet, so the only recourse math has is to propose other universes or more monkeys. So the literal mathematical answer to the question of how long it would take a monkey to type out Hamlet, is there is not enough time available to get the job done. So the correct answer is, the monkey will not type out Hamlet. There is no possible way he can do it. There are a million ways he will not even type out the first sentence, and all these other ways are much more possible than him or her getting it right. And there is also the problem of who is checking and recording the output, and what rules they are going by in the grading. If the monkey jams the typewriter on the last stroke and hits the right key but it doesn't type, or the ribbon is out of ink and the impression is made but it is not readable by the naked eye, does it count? So literally you need a human judge to say it is Hamlet, so you cannot take a human's judgement out of the equation. Hence you cannot achieve the goal in an imaginary fashion that does not take the realities of objective reality into account. One of the problems with infinity is that no matter how big you make it, I can make it one more bigger, every time. This works in our brains, as we have the ability to put ourselves in other peoples shoes, shift grain size, count and so on. The real world has to fit together and make sense, work and operate, even without our equations that describe how it does it. Regards, TAR It is a similar question to "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin." Whenever you mix imaginary stuff, with real stuff, the mathematical answer will vary according the variables allowed by imagination. Back when I was first playing with a Commodore 64, I ran into the problem of trying to write a program that would have a random output. Even the built in random number generator worked off a program that utilized the regular clock pulses of the crystal, so randomness was just simulated, and had beneath it a pattern that could repeat or become evident in artifacts, analogous to the moire patterns put out inadvertently by digital copiers. Chaos theory and Mandelbrot fractals show us that the world is not random at all, but operates usually in patterns that repeat themselves and show up, up and down the line, like overtones and undertones in music. The string vibrates at a certain frequency but that is not the only frequency it vibrates at. It vibrates in halves and thirds and fifths and so on.
  4. Lord Antares, Well there is a reason there could not be infinite tries. We die somewhere before we get to infinity. If the monkey is just a metaphor for randomness and the point is that we emerged from a random universe by accident, then the outside limit for how long it would take a monkey to type Hamlet would be 13.8 billion years. If the odds are against the monkey typing Hamlet in 13.8 billion years, which earlier posts indicate is the case, then the odds against there being monkeys, typewriters, and us by accident are not very good at all, and something in addition to randomness must have been in play over the last 13.8 billion years to get such certainty as it is that you will read this post and type an understandable response. Regards, TAR
  5. dimreepr, The studies first came to my attention when another poster whose identity escapes me at the moment, posted her work on iNow's great thread "How religion usurps the neurocortical mechanisms of the brain". This was years ago and I thought about it a lot and folded it into my thinking about many aspects of human evolution and human society and human psychology. So I don't know that her conclusions were exactly mine, or mine hers. Regards, TAR
  6. Arete,

    It was suggested in the thread that I might be getting neg reps for bad logic, not politics.

    However I think it is the opposite.  When I suggest people fill in the middle, many in politics just reject the complexities and go right to the easy, feel good position.  Even if there might be complexities involved that would slow down the jump to conclusion.

    Fallacy of the  Excluded Middle is a common logical fallacy. Rare in serious analysis, it often appears as a rhetorical device that encourages audiences to reject complexity in complex situations, excluding consideration of range of mid-range choices to instead consider only extreme positions.

    For instance you say if there is employee/employer relationship involved its harassment, and if there is unwanted sexual contact it is rape.  So how do you parse what happens in the alley behind the bar when the client gives the stripper a couple 20s for a blow job?

    Or if a house wife runs her hand up the leg of a cute handiman.

    There are complexities involved in the Weinstein situation, and what a boss does in a button factory and what anybody does in Hollywood, can not be judged, and should not be judged by the same standards.   And, the mindset of the people involved, and the relationship between the people needs to be considered.   To not consider the complexities is using the logic of the excluded middle.

    Regards, TAR


  7. dimreepr, Well yes, that has been my point. Morals cannot come from a logical synthesis of mathematical laws or physical principles or any scientific measures. They have to however come from some aspect of objective reality and the only judges we have are living things or things that once lived, or things we imagine to have existed or exist or will exist. We can be our own judge, but then we are a sophist and this position has no grounding in objective reality, other than our own head's ability to put together a random set of self serving rules. In order to be a conscience we can converse with, it has to represent, in my estimation, an unseen other facilitated by our rTPJ as studied by Rebecca Saxe. This means two objectively real basis are established. One the rTPJ that gives us the ability to have a theory of mind. Our own, and someone elses. And two, this allows us to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. Converse with an unseen other. So now, when we look to know how to behave, whether something is right or wrong we just have to ask Aunt Gloria what she would do. If she would do it, we can do it. If she wouldn't do it, neither should we. She could be dead, or sick, or in Cleveland or in the next room, we can still feel the pleasing or displeasing of Aunt Gloria, because we have mirror neurons, memories of Aunt Gloria's reactions to things, a rTPJ and hence a conscience. Real, objective moral guide. It is not required to find a set of books in Plato's heaven, or some chiseled rules on some stones, we only have to ask Aunt Gloria what to do. Regards, TAR
  8. DrP,

    May I remind you that who I wish to please, and who I wish to help is my decision, not yours. 

    If there are people less fortunate than you, that you wish to help, please do so.

    I pay my taxes and give to charity and volunteer in the local community.  I care about the place.  I do not have unlimited funds and have to watch out for my retirement and the security of my wife.

    Liberals are very liberal with other people's money.  Don't try and shame me into giving my money to other people's children.  Those lives are the responsibility of their parents.  They are just as fortunate to be in this country as I am.

    Regards, TAR

    1. tar


      Aren't those drug addicts lying in the gutter fortunate they live in a country where medical professionals and law enforcement officers will run to their aid and administer CPR and Narcan. And a country where DrP will take him into his home and offer him a room and food and psychological support during his detox.

    2. DrP



      "Aren't those drug addicts lying in the gutter fortunate..."   ...  No - they are not.   And what's with the "..will take them into his home"..?  That's not how a social net works and you know it. It isn't a black and white separation between Capitalism and communism, there are many shades of grey that are possible. You have a certain amount of social care already... it just needs to be better everywhere. You seem to have this fear that better social care means less money for you  - it doesn't need to be if the money is managed properly....   But as I said - I am not wasting my time going in circles with you again. Keep voting in people that will lower taxes for the rich and take what limited social care that is already available away from the poor. I'm sure your conscience is used to it.  

  9. Arete,

    Quid pro quo sexual demands are, by legal definition, sexual harassment. Sexual acts resulting from those demands are by legal definition, sexual assault/rape. 


    This does not say anything about quid pro quo sexual offers.   Demands would be sexual assault.  Offers would be prostitution, illegal in its own right.

  10. Harvey Weinstein

    Oh come on thread. Too many neg reps with no reason cited. I have spent my limit of points to speak my mind here. Sorry DrP. I see a bar that says you have replied. I will read it, but not respond. You guys and gals are set in your ways and have no interest in looking at your ideas critically. Or in looking for the sense that exists in my takes. I am out. Again. I know I have no chance at reaching you guys. I shouldn't even try. It is too expensive.
  11. Harvey Weinstein

    DrP, Yeah, the world would be perfect, if it were not for all these damn people. Give me a break. Your utopia is obviously not very well thought out, as it outlaws the behavior of everybody but progressives. Regards, TAR And as an aside, since this is a politics forum, exactly why Hilary lost the election. She called a third of the country she was looking to lead, deplorable. What would this country look like, if you removed all the folks you find deplorable? who would be left running the show? Can you name them and count them? How many do you come up with, and do they have the required skills to make the place work and protect us from enemies?
  12. Harvey Weinstein

    iNow, If penetration happened without their consent then it was rape. If it happened with their consent, then they were selling their body for a chance at stardom. It cannot be rape, if they said yes then and are saying no now. Nor is it sexual harassment if they knew exactly what and why they were doing at the time, and are just now deciding that they are not whores at all, but victims, in retrospect. Regards, TAR
  13. Eise, That is how I read the article also, but there are some points where they did not complete the proof. For instance when saying there are rational ways to derive morality the arguments were weak and ungrounded, like saying we don't murder our butcher because then we would not have a place to buy meat. (he didn't say that, I forget the arguments, but in looking for a replacement reason to behave, he did not come up with any good objective argument) However I think there are some good objective arguments, but they lie in the area of brain chemistry, religion, constitutions, agreements, promises and other emergent facilities that have arisen from our need to agree with each other, and our need to agree with each other is objectively true both in the survival situations that arise when we do, and in the way we feel good when we do it. (dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine) Hence the weak argument and the contradiction. The objective reasons for moral behavior were not based on any objective principle, because the whole complex is driven subjectively and has everything to do with our need to be accepted by the group. This reintroduces the reason for why we should and do listen to the imposed authority, because the imposed authority is the moral leader chosen by or imposed on the group. Which reintroduces religion and codes of ethics and club rules and family codes and such, and even pacts and promises between blood brothers or marriage vows, as objective basis for morals. And the thought that one can derive logically, the moral code required to live in society, without considering religion and law and personal agreements and expectations is baseless. Regards, TAR
  14. Harvey Weinstein

    DrP, Laws are another subject, in general I have been of the opinion that a law that is not codifying a rule that 90 percent of the population already follow, should not be a law. A law that creates winners and losers is self destructive. The losers should be the people that are not pleasing the 90 percent. They should be the criminals. Our laws are built to protect the 10 percent from the tyranny of the 90 percent, but along with that should not come the understanding that the 90 percent ARE tyrants. Laws should not create a we against them situation where someone is a criminal because of their beliefs and their expectations of responsible behavior in others. The article with the broadened definition of sexual assault illustrates the issue I have. It gives governmental legal power to a class of people over another class, based on a definition the one class never agreed to. Meaning 90 percent were not already on board. I am certainly onboard to consider rape illegal. It already was. I am not onboard having jokes in the workplace outlawed that make someone uncomfortable. What if, for instance, I felt uncomfortable taking a shower in the army with a guy I knew to be gay, at a time when it was illegal to be gay in the Army. I did not tell on the guy, I just took my shower uncomfortably. Do you see how a law forcing me to take showers with a gay guy might be not proper according to my 90/10 rule? The law does not make me feel any more comfortable, in fact makes me feel victimized. It makes winners and losers and more likely two losers. You can't make a law that changes anybody's heart. That has to be done slowly, person by person with examples. And a law that makes me a criminal, when I didn't think I was doing anything wrong in the first place is some sort of governmental interference in personal ethics and beliefs, which I think we are pretty much against in principle. Regards, TAR swansonT, I am on point. I had an insight concerning my problem with the law, and I am exploring that avenue. It is pertinent because you said that harassment has been against the law since the civil rights act. Ten Oz posted a telephone survey with a "broadened" definition of sexual assault. This is central to the discussion because what the starlets experienced on the couch, might have been, at the time, a moment where they were selling their body, for a chance at stardom. Now, after the broadened definition, they are victims of sexual assault. Regards, TAR
  15. Harvey Weinstein

    SwansonT, Well perhaps that is the problem I am having with this, that sexual harassment in the workplace was tied to anti-discrimination laws meant to force entities that enjoyed government contracts to not discriminate. This was already unfair to whites who then had to unfairly compete with less qualified blacks for certain positions in education and employment, but this was understood as a way to undo past discrimination so everybody yielded to each others desire for social justice. However, people that already did not look at a man or woman based on their skin color, but just as a human with whatever character and capability they brought, were now forced to look at the skin color, and treat blacks with a preference. Like in a race where you know the other is slower than you, you give them a head start. Then it was women, and people with disabilities and gay people, and then transgender or immigrants till everybody got so fed up with all the identity politics that gave this or that group a head start or a leg up over the overbearing, rich, hateful, mean, white devil that we got Trump. Never does the left give the right the benefit of the doubt that they would have and did treat people always as fellow equal citizens in a grand experiment, where individual effort counted and taking care of each other counted. Making a law that forces me to do what I already would have done, based on the fact that some others would not do it without coercion is doubly bad. First it takes away my right to discriminate ( in the sense of having discriminating taste) and secondly it paints me as the problem in society because I am old and white, male, and heterosexual, living in the suburbs. And worse, I am registered republican. None of those characteristics have much to do with the content of my character or my capabilities, nor how I view or treat my fellow man. Regards, TAR There is a quality in the American heart that has to do with self help, helping oneself and ones neighbor automatically. People with such in their heart do not wait for the government to come in, before doing the right thing.