geordief

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2nkBa3Kr9VA&pp=ygUoQXR0ZW5ib3JvdWdoIGJhcmJhcnkgZ2licmFsdGFyIGtpZG5hcHBlZA%3D%3D This is a very entertaining section of a David Attenborough program where a mother Macaque in Gibraltar has her infant stolen by another childless female in the group. She develops a scheme to recover the child, and I wonder whether we can ascribe any "motivated reasoning " to her? She goes to a third party and proceeds to groom him in the apparent realisation that this will entice the robber monkey to join their little group of 3 plus the infant. I doubt she had grooming in mind.Did she persuade herself that it was so as to achieve her main goal of recovering her stolen infant?

Deleted 🫣

A reverse ferret?

Wrong (though interesting) link? I can see nothing about beer or drinking water in that small Benjamin Franklin piece.

I expect you don't have the same history in Canada where beer was (as I think I heard) a healthier option for drinking in the (pre-?)industrial age than the water which was apparently anything but. I think i heard thst that may have applied to spirits like gin too-incredibly. Have you tried Newcastle Brown -what I used to drink ?

By "brainwashing" I mean (as per the OP,I think) that one deliberately or unconsciously "skips over" inconvenient evidence in favour of more reassuring evidence that fits in with preconceived ideas. It reminds me a bit of the skit (was it Frank Muir?) taking off an Indian man getting fitted out in Saville Row as an English Gent in full regalia ,with a witty punch line that escapes me.-ah yes it was "but sir,why are you are weeping" "because we lost the empire" It would be great if there was an animal behaviour that bore an relationship to that kind of behaviour where details are overlooked in favour of a more comfortable outcome. I think we have the "deaf ear" when we pretend not to hear something and this can become physically true with practice. Maybe I anthropomorphise my pet but I often remark to myself that it is purposefully ignoring me(if the weather is bad it will not respond although it will be all over me otherwise as it lives for its daily walks -and seems to be on tenterhooks waiting to be asked out) Do you think the dog could be displaying intuition by comparing fair weather offerings against "head down" rainy day preferences?

Are there any non human examples where an animal "brainwashes" itself for material gain? That could be a precursor to a human "brainwashing" themselves for a perceived psychological gain (which is what I understand the OP to be about) Any examples of an animal deliberately disregarding evidence in any circumstance? Could it be that there is animal behaviour where more than 1 piece of evidence is used for any particular goal and that those pieces of evidence are "weighted internally? (I think some animals do practice deceit and trickery but do they ever turn that tool on themselves?)

I haven't actually listened to this in half a century (I am going to).Apparently the subject matter is in the news as a genre of writing is showing up (unbeknownst to me ) over the past while. 'Complex, dangerous, sexual beings': The erotic, so-calle...The fairies in erotic "fae" romantasy are not cute or benevolent. They are dangerous, sexual beings, which is exactly what they were in historic folklore, according to a new book.I remember this as a really great song on a really great album(Liege and Lief) with a fantastic singer in Sandy Denny ,who very sadly departed this world via the staircase ,as I remember.

Thanks. Would there be any actual practicality to that? I mean ,are there any physical scenarios where the probability of an interaction can be predicted by summing all the possible paths from a point of emission? Or are we just in interpretation territory ? (Out if the top of my hat ,might quantum computing involve that kind of a scenario?-I don't have any understanding of that subject apart from superposition and ,presumably decoherence being involved)

So good I think I will post it twice

If I can just continue this thread without opening a new one,I think this would be a related question..... I think the "all possible paths traveled" may have been Feynman's favourite interpretation of the model. Can I ask ,when these paths are (if they are) drawn and calculated are physical impossibilities and constraints built into the calculation? ie some paths might require faster than c transfers and some paths might encounter strong spacetime curvature. In the "theory" (if this can be called a theory) ,but not perhaps in practicality are the probabilities (zero ,perhaps in many cases) weighted accordingly? Also is "tunneling" a class of travel that is included?

And vice versa? Does muscle not actually turn to fat (as I think I have heard said) but does it simply waste away - with fat increasing or decreasing regardless? Ps I wonder if there have been studies as to whether body building is a physically unhealthy recreation in the long term (I am sure practioners may feel the opposite)

When 2 quantum objects interact does the outcome depend in some way on how each of the two objects "know" each other ? Is that where the Uncertainty principle comes into play? Does each object need to know both positions and momenta of the system in order to "decide" how the system evolves subsequently? It is not just an observer who cannot measure this but the physical objects themselves have to know this for the outcome to be considered exaxtly "predetermined".. Just as Feynman strongly emphasized at the end of the lecture ,paraphrasing "it is as if Nature herself doesn't know her next move"

Can BEC s form spontaneously?(could we ever know if they did?)

I was thinking of an outside atom which might have been entangled with one of the atoms before it entered the BEC.. Is that possible ,or of any possible consequence? (Would the creation of the BEC break any prior entanglement?)