Area54

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It's an inarguable subject... purely subjective.

I think that's what I said.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

Value is determined by how much buyers are willing to pay

It does not follow, and I did not assume, that @dimreepr  was referring to monetary value. Your comments are spot on in regard to that, but not necessarily relevant to the broader meaning of value.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

A perfect replica still expresses the concept of the artist, which is the real thing of value, in my opinion

Which makes it precisely true for you and for others with the same opinion. An alternate view is the original carries with it, for want of a better word, an aura that is unique and important. Both views are correct. The relevant one, for the individual, depends upon their value system.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

FFS, is it so difficult to understand? 

While I am aware of the meaning of the acronyms you used, I have no idea what you are driving at. So, yes, for at least two of us it is difficult to understand.

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Doesn't the printed version do the same?

To a lesser extent. I remind you of my earlier comment - that probably I should have made my only comment, as it says it all.

22 minutes ago, Area54 said:

It's a value judgement.

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I had an "E-Type" jag and money to burn, I would have it re-built with modern technology; now which is more valuable?

An original "E-Type" that rarely starts and rides like a go-cart.

Or

A convincing copy that starts every time and rides like a 'Rolls'?

It's a value judgement. Which do you place more value in? If I were one of the nouveau riche, one with little sense of history and overloaded with affectation, I would butcher the vehicle and turn it into a "comfortable" ride. If I were a simplistic technophile purist I would savour the idisosynchracies of the 'original' and recall when, before the M6 bypased Birmingham, my friend made it from London to Aberdeen in 7 hours 15 minutes in one, passing down Brechin High Street at 110 mph at 4.00 am.

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then what's the point?

Given that you can't tell the difference...

(Before I place them in the hands of your illusionist I make sure that they are both properly labelled.) The copy never felt the hand of the artist upon it. The original gives us fleeting and ephemeral contact with genius. Humans celebrate genius because we recognise its absence within ourselves.

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

What's the difference?

Everything. I see little overlap.

The value of the Mona Lisa lies in its subtle evocation of personality and gentle clouding of intent. Any beauty is secondary.

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I get an artist to perfectly (or as near as feck-it is to swearing) reproduce the 'mona lisa' and then let an illusionist play 'find the lady' with them, who decides which is more beautiful?

 

Are you conflating more beautiful with more valuable?

The original is more valuable since it represents an original perception and expression of that perception. It is qualitative, emotional. The duplicate is quantitative, mechanical.

3 minutes ago, Dord said:

Some planets.

I can't imagine terraforming a gas giant will be easy! 

Irrelevant to the question as to why one would favour a planet over a spacecraft. And while gas giants may be impractical to terraform they are certainly more robust than spacecraft.

5 hours ago, Airbrush said:

Why make the effort to terraform Mars when you could much easier build a giant spacecraft that can travel for decades without needing anything, except to stop occasionally at an asteroid to collect water-ice for water, air and fuel, and some useful minerals.

Why? Planets are more robust than spacecraft.

On 8/26/2020 at 10:42 PM, Daumic said:

horizontal drill between the vertical wells with a hydraulic fracturing

I am not sure what you mean here.  I see two possibilities (Did you mean something else?) :

• Drill a well which becomes horizontal at the zone of interest.  Drill a second (vertical) well to intersect the first at its end point. Employ fracing technology to facilitate penetration of the chemicals into the zone of interest.
• Drill two vertical wells. Establish a connection between them by hydraulic fracturing.

The second method won't work economically. The first method is feasible in terms of well placement, but the fracturing pressures required would likely make this a non-starter. You have overlooked the significant strength difference between the comparatively weak sedimentary strata containing oil/gas and the much stronger metamorphic or igneous rocks that are gold bearing.

You have also ignored the greater cost of drilling wells in rock that is much harder and more abrasive than those encountered in oil/gas drilling. (Not to mention the greater challenge of achieving good directional results.)

On 8/30/2020 at 4:37 PM, Ten oz said:

Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without cooperation with one another? Do you believe as a species Humans can exist without competitiveness towards one another?

No and no. And that was the principal point of my posts in this thread. You have chosen to take exception to a figurative use of the word cooperation, a usage that I have found useful and effective in explaining biological processes. I have no intention of attempting to defend such usage here as it is neither the correct setting, nor - more to the point - should it be necessary to do so, since some reasonable reflection should higlight its value to you.

On 8/30/2020 at 4:37 PM, Ten oz said:

Biology 101 studies the biological process. Not the pros & cons of competitiveness.

Clearly we went to universities with different curricula.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Natural Selection isn't a process which should be conflated with cooperation in nature.

Then it is just as well that I did not do so. I simply noted , or at least implied,  that evolution (through processes of natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift) has periodically "favoured" cooperative behaviour. It has also favoured competitive behaviour. Are you seriously challenging these points? If so, lets see some supporting evidence.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Cooperation implies some form of intentional unified effort.

Well, there are broader usages of the term that can be productive in providing a perspective on aspects of biology, but we can run with the more commonplace one here with an important caveat. "Intentional" is a loaded word that, to me, implies conscious intent. The greater part of animal behaviour is not conscious. (It's questionable how much of human behaviour is conscious.) So, as long as by intentional you mean that the behviour is a natural product of the organisms reaction to its environment then good.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Evolution doesn't have motives or goals. You're broadening definition out to the point they have no meaning.

No idea where you got that. I have not suggested that evolution has goals. I repudiate such a notion as farcical. In what way do you think I have broadened the definition of evolution? Frankly, I think (and hope) I am misunderstanding you, for you seem to be denying that cooperative behaviour evolved.Perhaps, you can clarify that.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

A human individually would struggle to meet the demands of survival. Human's are a group living animal. Not a solitary animal. Humans require the assistance of other humans to survive. Humans evolved that way.

Which is precisely what I have been saying. The fact that we are also competiive is equally a product of evolution. This is Biology101. I am bemused it is even being dicsussed.

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Competition has not been useful as cooperation.

An unsupported assertion is a mere opinion. I don't know the relative importance of competive behaviour to cooperative behaviour amongst humans. (If I have posted anything to the contrary then it was sloppy writing.) I suggest that your belief that you know which is more important is dubious at best. Feel free to present substanive, solid, peer reviewed references to justify your claim.

58 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You continue to assume competition provides the most competitive canvass

I don't know what you mean by that. Please clarify.

I make no assumptions. I observe that there are elements of comeptition across the whole range of human endeavour and behaviour. Do you deny this?

16 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Evolution supports my arguments better than yours. Adding cooperation to our skillset (along with bipedalism, tool use, and wicked-intricate communication) elevated us above competing animal groups looking only for their next meal. More telling, our societies wouldn't be possible if we didn't see the benefits of cooperation as opposed to competing for resources. 

Competition elevates individuals, and that can be a great investment, but everything fabulous humans have accomplished for the species has been more cooperative. Especially with intellectual endeavors, I'd rather see the results of 100 people cooperating to solve a problem than those same folks competing. 

Well, if you ignore the countless examples of cooperation within nature that evolution has provided to practically every species then your conclusions are sound. Unfortunately for your argument it is refuted by the diversity and the quality and the quantity of evidence that shows the existence of cooperation at every level from the cellular to the eco-system. I respond to your unsupported assertion that places the emphasis upon cooperation and repeat my own: the success of any species is attributable to a blend of cooperation and competition.

You may not like it, but scarcely any purchase, whether it be of a loaf, a textbook, or a fleet of main battle tanks, is not made without a decision between competitive providers. That is everything we use in our daily lives, from our food, to our homes, to highways we drive on, is the product of competitive decisions in which, if Tesco wins, then ASDA, Sainsbur's, Lidl and Waitrose all lose. (Or General Dynamics wins, Thales and BAe Systems lose.)

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

And think about what they all could have done if they'd cooperated with each other instead of competing? Think about how much further those missions could have gone without all that duplication of effort? JFK thought about it, and when they installed the red phone with Moscow after the Cuban missile crisis, he actually proposed that the US, the USSR, and other countries work together to reach the moon. The suggestion fell flat initially, and JFK didn't get much time after that to push for cooperation over competition.

It is a noble aim, but our evolutionary history - not just the last couple of million years as human, or near human, but the 3,5 billion years since oure remote ancestors started replicating  - that evolutionary history points up the value of competition, just as much as cooperation. Ignore either at your peril: it's a proven way to avoid leaving your mark in the gene pool.

16 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Without collaboration is is rock solid certain that civilisation and technology would not develop.
Competition is more or less the opposite of cooperation.

The usual way to defeat bullies is not that bollocks about "standing up to them". (That just gets you beaten up)
The solution is  ganging  up on the bullies.
People who are given to cooperation are, therefore better placed to defeat bullies.
So, for bullies to succeed, one thing they will seek to do is to reduce cooperation among those who they want to exert power over.
A way of doing that is to set them in competition with eachother.

So, for example, if you tell the low paid workers that their enemy isn't the billionaire but the immigrant...

It's not an absolute thing- the best you can say is that encouraging collaboration drives down bullying and drives down competition. 

I am sorry to learn that you have, apparently, not experienced the many positive aspects of competition. Many (probably most) of my friends, made in the business world, were either people within my company with whom I competed for promotion, or employees of rival companies with whom I competed for business.

You seem to think competition and cooperation are mutally exclusive. This is certainly not my experience. Anyone who has particiapted in team sports would know this is not the case. A balanced personality will recognise when it is appropriate to compete and when to cooperate. And you completely fail to recognise that often the most important competition is with ourselves, striving to outdo what we have done heretofore. From my perspective you have a warped understanding of competition.

I found "standing up to them", while it often lead to physical or metaphorical beatings, eventually defeated them, or - in some cases - 'converted' them. There is an element of the bully in all of us and the most effective solution will depened on the environment, the nature of the bully and the character of the bullied. Absolutes don't work here.

As to

57 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

By calling it "Be Best" it sounds like you should try to be the best ONE in your pond, which implies one should be competitive.  How does that stop bullying?

Without competition it is arguable whether civilisation or technology could have developed. More pointedly, I would need a mound of evidence to convince me, as you seem to imply, that bullying is an automatic consequence of competition, or that eliminating competition would eliminate bullying.

(None of which is a defence of the words "Be Best", which is either sloppy English, or questionable ethics.)

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

But back to the topic, do more words lead to more wisdom or understanding?

If they do not then the technical terms to be found in all the sciences are pointless. It seems to me clear that these words, through their precision, enable - or at least facilitate - understanding within the relevant scientific discipline. In part they do this by reducing the number of words needed to convey a concept in a discussion of presentation. Thus a larger reservoir of words reduces the number needed to construct a message. My argument for pedantry is that by extending this approach to everday communication we can acquire the same benefits.

8 hours ago, IDoNotCare said:

 You have no points, I do have points, very specific points in a graph.

That's good. When can we see the graph?

17 hours ago, Strange said:

It has always been true. Sadly, a few pedants have recently discovered this zombie rule and think it’s clever to pick on people 

Personal remarks do nothing for your argument.  In this instance reviously accepted usage, that facilitated valuable distinctions, has been largely abandoned. That contradicts what appears to be your claim that current usage "has always been true". Equally, your assertion that "there is nothing at all wrong" with the current usage, abuses the use of the absolute.

In summary, the current usage was wrong though it is now largely seen as acceptable. The vitality of the English language, of most languages, is fuelled in large part by their ability to change. However, not all changes are positive ones. If it is pedantry to call out examples that detract from the language then I am proud to be called a pedant.

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Nothing at all wrong with "least" in this context.

 Sadly, this has become true. For a generation brought up to speak and write with precision, and to acknowledge nice distinctions, it grates on the ear.

13 hours ago, Alloverthemap said:

I still find it a little curious that we can spontaneously fill in all the background details as our dreams unfold "frame-by-frame" to create a lush tableau all the while propelling the action forward. I mean, these are big production numbers we're talking about. It would take a day and a half to get those sets put up and looking just right on a movie set -- and many hours just to conceive of all the details and proper scaling in the first place? And here we are in our dreams, creating it all on the fly, with everything in place. Ever notice that? The production details are impeccable. If you're climbing a hill on your bike, it's not just you and the road. There is a horizon and everything is filled in on the flanks. All this is mysterious to me -- and a tad suspicious.

Come on now! In the space of ten seconds, with my eyes close, I just "created" the view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building,  a panorama on Mars, a view down Singapore's Orchard Road and a ferry crossing to a Scottish Island. Lot's of detail in each of them, but possible because my brain can pull material together from memory.

34 minutes ago, Alloverthemap said:

I have "a-ha!" moments like this frequently in dreams, where, I as the protagonist, experience something I can't explain, only for the meaning of the event to be explained to me moments later by an accompanying character. Is this not "pre-cognition." I mean, how could I not know what was happening since my mind is creating the action of the dream? When I get the explanation from that second character, I always have an emotional reaction in my dream -- as though a great revelation has been shared with me.

Three thoughts occur to me:

You speak as if pre-cognition is a real thing. There is no substantive evidence for its existence and no plausible mechanism to account for it.

The internal dynamics of a dream have only passing relations to the real world. Extrapolating from one to the other only makes sense in terms of neuroscience, psychology and such.

You have essentially described a three step process. First, an event occurs. Two, "you (POV)" express puzzlement at the event. Three, "you (other character)" provide an explanation. There is no reason to think that step three must have been determined prior to steps one and two. Even if it does it, it lies at a deeper level of the subconscious. Thus, nothing approaching pre-cognition is present.

Anyway, welcome to the forum.

The OU courses are of excellent quality, so these are well worth looking at. I was impressed by the range that was available. Thanks for the heads up.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Wow !

Wiki pages have 20 ( on average ) degrees of separation.
But celebrities have 6 degrees of separation !

Surely celebrities would have eight or nine degrees of separation now, given social distancing. (Except for those celebreties who think the rules don't apply to them.)

15 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I think in the case of interstellar colonisation - with or without autonomous, self replicating probes - incredulity is entirely appropriate and persuasive. I think the onus is on those doing the proposing to provide extraordinary proof or at least sound reasoning for their extraordinary claims.

An average Cro-Magnon, confronted with the prospect of Roman roads, military power, aqueducts and similar would have been incredulous.

An average Roman citizen confronted with steam powered factories, rifled guns, railway systems and similar hallmarks of the Victorian era would have been incredulous.

An average Victorain confronted with computers, mobile phones, space probes and a thousand other remarkable pieces of current technology would have been incredulous.

Their incredulity did not stop any of these developments because, fortunately, there were Cro-Magnons and Romans and Victorians who were not average.

Given that history, it is first and foremost up to you to demonstrate that expectation of interstellar colonisation is actually extraordinary. While you are contemplating how best to do that I would appreciate an answer to my question on von Neumann probes.

Note to Moderators: if this is judged off-topic for the thread could the relevant posts be moved to a new thread?