MonDie

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Except we don't.

Gerrymandering skews representation, and voter suppression means that our representation (the rule) is not representative of the people. To some extent we rule by consensus of representation.

But people have rights that can't be abrogated by this consensus. It's one reason Trump has often been a loser in court after trying to implement policy based on GOP "consensus"

 

 

That makes it a top-down consensus rather than a bottom-up consensus.  See #2.  If nobody respected a law, nobody would uphold it.  See prohibition.  P.S. I might have included this link about another way to manipulate consensus:  Trump Jrs NYT Bestseller Scam Confirmed

I think you might have been onto the same idea with "consensus of representation."  

Again, this top-down influence is upheld through bottom-up support, and we might defy it if we learned that what we accepted by default was actually deeply flawed.  In reality, our low-level social affairs tend to be guided by why a thing was wrong, whereas we will accept that lawfully illegal behavior is wrong - by default - without any reason why it should be wrong.

P.S. you might not have seen this if you're watching mainstream media.  MSM'S Embarrassing impeachment Coverage.  Oh, and Bezos and Amazon making the faulty facial recognition tech used by ICE (Beyond The Valley).

... Wrong video link...

Thinking right/accurate about an affair is a means to controlling/optimizing that affair.  The nice thing about sensory perception is that  the feedback is really very in your face.  Internal control would be more ambiguous, however.  Anyone who searches themself for a state of mind will probably find something that will seem like it might be that same state of mind, and there might be little feedback to correct them from being wrong.  An incorrect search and find procedure could yield a circular feedback loop that creates a now erroneously recognizes that new state as the same state as the old state, and this error could become cemented without any kind of correction for who knows how long.  Thus the person is given an illusion of control rather than real control.

*now erroneous recognition*

In the real world we conduct open-ended searches, and I guess the equivalent would be mindfulness.  

On 11/18/2019 at 9:14 AM, CharonY said:

Slightly beside the point, but in some ways this thread seems like a microcosm of what postmodernist philosophers have predicted since the 80s. Instead of a common meta-narrative, knowledge is fragmented and used as a commodity by various actors (Lyotard refers specifically the issues of computerization and who determines which information is stored and disseminated-  a thought that can be easily extended to tech companies as the new gate-keepers of knowledge).

While we are dealing with exactly the same event, theHere associated strands of knowledge appear to be very different, resulting not only a different viewpoints, but in fact in parallel strands that do not cross over. It reminds me a bit on the concept of Language games where players agree to use certain rules to create meaning from uttered words. In the postmodernist world, according to Lyotard, we have created many parallel language games, each of which are legitimized by their respective institutions. So we may have politically affiliated language games, in which certain fragments of information carry entirely different meanings and which are self-referenced and amplified by the use of different communication channels (say, social media). Even when we discuss the same things on this board, we arrived to our conclusions using different lines of information. There is ultimately not thinking for oneself, unless one plays the solitaire equivalent of a language game. 

Here is a battle plan.

1.  We rule by consensus, and we have consensus goals for society.

2. Influential people have influence by consensus, and appeal to influential people is meant to be a cognitive shortcut toward what the consensus should ideally be.

3. The consensus will inevitably be that statecraftsmen should have certain skills, education, and goals.  Any other attempt to manipulate consensus is akin to shooting steroids before the big game.

1L32 PM CST November 24th

See: tactical framing

What is the date? I miss having my computer. 2:01???

November 23rd

double post

I thought about this question because I was thinking of how thinking about thinking might not be worthwhile.  It seems worthwhile insofar that thought guides action, including right or wrong action.  Shouldn't we want to understand thought then?  As you dig in, the thinking about thinking seems to become the issue of the communication of the individuals' perspectives, which merges those perspectives into a more objective one.  You might even argue that explicit memory and explicit thought is actually a kind of internal conversation.

Unfortunately, our desires are part of our perspectives, so parts of our perspectives might not be reconcilable.  However, I do think that most desires are context-dependent.  You are always breathing, so breathing isn't contextual, but other, context-dependent desires seem to be mediated my both sensation and imagination and to modulate the responses within those contexts.  The imaginative capacity is absolutely necessary if the seen item is now unseen, but the non-conscious force exerted by direct sensation can overwhelm the conscious control via the imaginative capacity.  This is why there is a difference between attention and focus.  Focus is an intentional modulate of intention (possibly via imagination, in my experience).    So the likely answer iiisss... sorta but sorta not.  Another possibility is that some social emotions are mediated by self-perception processes and are intertwined with desires that are also socially mediated.

11:06 PM CST November11

Again, I am no expert,

and intention is not attention!  Die, error!

Alas, in the morel domain, I guess the three questions are: do we, could we, and would we.  If we knew from our fuller perspectives that the behaviors were wrong, would we do what we could to change those behaviors?  Would we change our surroundings, our schedules, or our livelihoods, or would we exercise internal awareness or will power?  Some of us might make more effort than others would.  Some of us might think we are too specialized to re-specialize at something else: we like doing things we're good at doing.

11:22 PM CST

The new @#$% stuck in my head, absolutely.

Last night I joked to myself that a new band will be God inc, and punks will think it's badass until they realize it is serious.

pff

Yeah, so I was listening to my ear's ringing.  Trading a phlegmy allergy for cold fresh air, I awoke with a plugged ear.  Intraotic saline released some pressure, and so did the room's temperature, actually.  Grateful for basic chemistry.

5:12 PM

On 11/14/2019 at 8:03 PM, iNow said:

In that light, you might notice also how Speaker Pelosi herself today in a press briefing used the word bribery when talking about Trump’s actions, and it’s an important term that’s come up repeatedly in the hearings, too. 

Our current congressional body does not survive through integrity, but through tactful, duplicitous appeals to their voters and their donors.  They have challengers, and Pelosi's primary challenger is Shahid Buttar (link to The Damage Report is transcribed below).

"I have argued that the president should have been impeached from the first day he took office if only because, preceding his term in office, he was enriching himself at public [sic] expense.  And there is no stronger ground for impeachment than calling out the president's attempt... and his ongoing practice of putting tax payer dollars, that is to say your money, in his pocket.  And that's an issue that particularly infuriates the Republican base.  It is the key to flipping Republican votes in the Senate, and yet, the impeachment inquiry that the speaker has supported, aside from being a year late, after she became the speaker, it also is unfortunately limited and we need to point some light at all of the president's acts of corruption, not just a single one." Oct 23

Moreover, "His acts that warrant impeachment extend beyond obstruction of justice, they extend beyond self-enrichment in office, they include lying to policy makers every time he opens his criminal mouth." 

Two days ago, "During which a number of incalculable costs have happened: families that have been separated at the border, mass shootings inspired by the president's rhetoric.  She also has limited the process, artificially, to exclude any evidence of the president's corruption in the form of emoluments violations, that is to say his putting tax payer funds in his pocket. umm.  My biggest concern about the impeachment inquiry is that at the same time that the speaker continues to rely on the findings of whistle blowers, she is unfortunately silencing others, and keeping members in congress in the dark about executive secrets that the public needs to know aaaaand I'm very eager to continue making that case as we run to replace her in the house."

Do you have a satellite?  The drone footage is clipped, but AP did well.

If architect Joshua Wong is disqualified from running, I guess Hong Kong burns with Beijing.

The Amazon too.

Super justice minister...

It probably won't get through the Senate.  The important conditional seems to be whether the hearings will help or hurt Trump's popularity.

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Re: Booker, I was primarily referencing his massive bipartisan focus on criminal justice reform.

Also, his concept of baby bonds 

I don't know Booker's justice reform proposals, but I know Harris supported civil asset forfeiture, which puts her on par with Biden and his support for the 1994 crime bill.  I worry that this won't actually be a bad thing for her, but I don't know exactly how: TYT Breaks HUGE Pete Buttigieg Story  The manipulation within buttigieg's police department doesn't seem so different from the conspiracy against Lula de Silva in Brazil.

edited 5:36 CST

On 11/11/2019 at 9:11 PM, iNow said:

Gerrymandering is a problem and Stacy Abrams is doing great work, but both of those things are peripheral to my point. A democratic candidate who doesn’t inspire heavy turnout among African American voters tends to lose. That’s related, but separate from the idea of GOP working hard to suppress and disenfranchise those voters. 

Well then, you seem to have an observation without a hypothesis.  The correlation=causation explanation is that african-american voters are an important voting bloc, and Republicans are reducing the effective size of this voting bloc.  If they are successful, your discussion is moot.

Bernie Sanders was arrested for protesting for civil rights, I guess Cory Booker ran into a burning house, and Andrew Yang will force african-americans to finally collect their welfare checks.  The city of Newark, formerly governed by Booker, recently protested the lead in its water.  The people drinking and breathing that lead are sure to be disproportionately black, and their districts are sure to be solidly blue urban districts.

Somehow...

*surely* to be (adverb form)

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Not to be too crass, but do democrats only win when receiving the majority of the black vote. Specifically, black women. If they don’t get excited by a candidate and choose not to show up, Democrats lose. See also: Hillary 

The Voting Rights Act and supreme court cases like Shelby v Holder (now overturned) and Shaw v Reno address the issue of racial gerrymandering.  It might be easy to gerrymander black neighborhoods, but it's also very unconstitutional.  Stacy Abrams started the Fair Fight initiative after the Georgia governer's race was outright illegally stolen from her.  Thomas Hofeller plotted similar mischeif (the citizenship question), and Donald Trump's deportations might have a similar motive.  The importance of having their vote depends on how well we protect their right to vote.  I don't think any other group's right to vote is explicitly protected by constitutional precedent, and we must hold the new appointees to the letter of the law, somehow.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think they would show up. I can't really think of a group that would have more to gain by his policies...maybe those in jail on nonviolent cannabis charges,

In Canada...they would be allowed to vote.

That is, if they aren't swayed by the inflation counter-argument.

... Or the OJ argument...

Watching Al Jazeera will introduce you to plenty of third-world problems: vaccination and antiboiotic resistance, contaminated water and landfill landslides, collapsed buildings and dams, tsunamis and earthquakes, sand mining and The Great Green Wall, air quality in Bangkok and New Delhi, and smuggled firearms and the direct sale of firearms, armoured vehicles, and fighter jets.  Yet some of them still find time to invent, like Sounthirajan Kumarasamy and his team did, and I want to see more of it.  Our planet is accelerating toward a mass extinction, and India by itself has three times more heads than the United States.

Although foreign leaders favoring the status quo will blame protests on foreign influences, they benefit from globalized scientific advances and in fact some of the wealthier countries will exert economic pressure on our corporate media.  The members of this forum are not corporate subordinates who cannot freely discuss these foreign influences.  Beijing (mainland China) seems to have effectively eliminated coverage of Hong Kong's huge, on-going protests in a globalized city as wealthy as any american city.  Saudi Arabia has been buying american fighter jets, has bribed Trump via his hotels, and has bought information from Twitter employees.  When they trade with us to fund their pro-government media, we are already an influence.  The foreign influence seems to be in our direction, and not theirs, when they purchase or replicate our weapons or surveillance technology and when they actively suppress our coverage of their civil rights violations.  At the very least, we are obliged to print a blank page in the Chinese section or the Arabic section, otherwise we are complicit.  Moreover, when american companies buy, hire, or "move" overseas to avoid taxes and minimum wages, we lose out and our rich are advantaged by the privilege of overseas activity.

Quote

The Hong Kong Free Press ... ...

... ... ...

 

Jamal Khashoggi reported that MBS ... ...

... ... ...

looks really friendly ... ...

12:06 PM CST November 10th

1:00 PM:  The documentary reminded me of the report on the Falun Gong influence behind the pro-Trump Epoch Times that you were seeing advertised on YouTube.  That's a wacky story.

1:15 PM:  Actually, information on how Badger Sportwear's shoe materials were traced to the Uighur detention centers is surprisingly difficult to find, but it's more up to date.

I forgot lobbying, an issue which is more prominent but also more complicated.  Here is a Fortune 1997 archive on its Power 25 lobbying groups.  I have long remembered that the NRA, the Christian Coalition and the National Right to Life Committee fall within the top ten, but what I didn't notice before is that AIPAC was actually no. 2.  Although the Israeli issue is tied up with conservative Evangelical Christians, what might be more notable is that The Israel American Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) actually represents a foreign country.  Of course, AIPAC had a very, very minor role in Trump's anti-Palestinian decision to recognize Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, as the capitol of Israel... eek.

To be honest, I don't fully understand how lobbying influences D.C.  I do know that business firms and "the business lobby" are very powerful, and that being a lobbyist is profitable.  AOC documented DC's ironic lines of homeless people who were paid placeholders for rich lobbyists.  Moreover, it seems that Saudi lobbyists were exploiting loopholes to pay off our politicians over the war in Yemen.

Another peripheral -- or not so peripheral -- issue was accidentally omitted.  Chinese investors have hidden their money overseas by "parking" that money in american and Australian housing markets, artificially inflating the price of housing.  This has exacerbated the homelessness problem in certain cities.  I think the Australian government was doing something about it... It might be difficult to estimate the actual impact of this hidden Chinese money.  In any case, we don't want our rich to avoid our taxes, and we don't want their rich to artificially inflate our housing markets.  However, I would like to know the positions of lobbying groups like AIPAC on tax avoidance schemes and money laundering schemes.  These issues might not be so peripheral after all.  Cyprus and Switzerland are notorious money laundering locations, and Trump's (German) Deutsche Bank controversy momentarily made headlines.  In years past, HSBC-US and Wachovia were convicted of laundering money to the drug cartels, but the punishment wasn't close to proportional.  On this October 26th, Mexico's AMLO surrendered El Chapo's son to an unexpectedly forceful display from the drug cartels.  Some important question ensue.  Where is the Mexico lobby?  Why couldn't central american lobbyists push for stronger fines against those banks?  Why do the activities of foreign lobbying groups seem to undercut international law rather than uphold it?

12:24 PM CST, November 13th, 2019

12:30:  I forget the specifics, but I think international corporations had a stake in the burning of the Amazon, an area which Brazil's Bolsonaro wants to economically develop.  Lula Livre!

Search and mini-seizure isn't quite operational, but I can suggest forms of realism other than three-dimensionality.  Objective reality is 3D, and also exhibits emergence and its own chronology which further modulate the homogenous/heterogenous distribution of the information/variation that we psychologically perceive.  Our experiences are spatially isolated and temporally isolated, but they are the interface with a personal self that translates a spatially heterogenous world into a chronologically heterogenous timeline of experiences, in the traditional interpretation of "wisdom."  However, the space-wise limitations of being a "thing" are paired with the emergent-wise limitations that arise from the nature of vibration and electromagnetic radiation, the only non-chemical, non-toxic means for information transmission in this universe.  These "limitations" are why we cannot see far away nor see the very small.  These are the constraints placed upon the psychological development of the organism that, along with the functions to be achieved in psychological development, together guide the development of the sensory-response systems of all beings and the somatic nervous system in the human case.  WARNING:  Running for extended periods without defragmentation may cause system lag.

7:00 PM N9th 2019

Mistermack, Obama advised Egypt's democratically elected Mohammed Morsi that he could appease the rogue military with political concessions.  Morsi followed suite, making concessions, and the coup proceeded anyway.  Similar revolutions are underway in Sudan (thank god!), Algeria, and Iraq and Lebanon.

This thread is direly lacking in historical context.  The Wahhabist-Salafist ideology of ISIS originated from the ultraconservative Wahhabism that legitimized the House of Saud in the 1700's.  In WW1, The House of Saud ultimately gained control of Mecca and Medina, the required pilgrimage sites for all muslims, and the Jordanian dynasty was pushed northward.  In 1975, the reformer King Faisal was assassinated.  Fast forward.  Saudis comprised the majority of the 9-11 hijackers, and the official religion of Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, is linked to the religious ideas of ISIS.  Fast forward again.  Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia (and Donald Trump) are ultraconservative allies (or ultra-militarized in Egypt's case), and they're arming Khalifa Haftar in Libya and loosely connected jihadi groups in bombed-to-hell Yemen. 

I would explore the complexities of killing an idea if that were a steadfast commitment.  Ironically, Yemen was more populace and its port city of Aden facilitated British-Arabic cultural exchange, but the Saudis struck oil.  Coincidentally, ultraconservative Wahhabists have the economic means to spread and enforce their ultraconservative version of Islam.  Who wants to buy that hybrid car and let the muslims work this out?  Those Lebanese protesters are ruthless!!!

I forgot about it because I already put a total stop to it.  DO NOT DO NOT sit cross-legged in what we american's call "indian-style."  This half-ass version of how Guatama Buddha sits is actually the worst thing for your feet.

Anyway, the peripheral point of this post was that these things might impact the actual speed of motion (e.g. improper stretching) or your perceived exertion vis-a-vis joint pain.  You shouldn't experience any joint pain ever.

11:45 AM CST

Oc 13

Go far!

Four Year Bump

I did get a trundle wheel.  I recall that, with the sidewalk's bumps smoothed out, the measurement was reliable at something like 12,XXX feet plus or minus 10-20 feet.  I think that's right, and I think that was after slowing for the bumps.  I remember the last place digit changes so rapidly that I would ignore it in favor of the second lastest digit, but the error margin wasn't more than 50 feet.  That is less than half of a percentage point of error, which was better than the several percentage points of disparity by maps.

I also wanted to share some physiological tips for anyone who shall run regularly (or daily).  None of the physiological insights were obvious, but it was noticed over the years.

The most important thing is symmetry, and, per the relevance to backpacks, I thought some protesters or whomever might find it to be useful for some kind of moving distribution system.  I have been jogging with backpacks and drawstring bags, and their symmetry will make or break a long distance jog.  With backpacks, a box of some kind, a cardboard box, should house all of the items.  This will guarantee symmetry.  A cardboard box with tape will not become wet and soggy, and a plastic bag can protect the contents from rain.  For my drawstring bag I only use plastic bags, and a few layers of bags will fend off flooding conditions.  There are a few ways to tie the draw-strings, but I prefer: with each string, to twist that string 360 degrees and to place the resultant loop over that same arm on the same side and then over my head.  No choking, no asymmetry, and negligible breathing restriction.

If you want to get a better time, your muscles, your calves particularly, should be totally relaxed during stretching.  I DO NOT stretch my calves on stairway steps, but if I must I must b grasping a handle that fully supports my body weight.  Preferably, I take a chair with horizontal bars that are low to the floor.  I relax my feet against those horizontal bars while pulling on it with only my arms.  My preferred outdoor technique is what I call the tree hugger, and on those few occasions of its use I reasoned that it was far safer than using a wall. I find a pole with a large circumference, a telephone pole, and, with one tightly snug heel and the other foot nearer rather than farther , I try to give the pole a big ol' hug with my arm muscles.

With foot pain I noticed some problematic postures that worsened the pain I already had.  Those are the bone tips.  Recently I pulled my leg again, and I noticed upon the next jog that my pulled leg wasn't as tight as the other leg.  This is the basis for the muscle tips.  Obviously, you should not slow too much and accelerate too rapidly else you will pull your calves.  Darn traffic.  Darn geese.  In motion (bones first), your jogs should be turned by both legs and not merely the outside leg.  If you grab a pole and twirl around it, you will notice that it relieves the pressure that would be felt in the feet in a jogging turn.  In motion (muscles second), it might be wise to walk slowly with outwardly pointing toes.  This is what doesn't pull on your calves.  In standing (bones first), try not to straighten one knee or the other.  In standing (Muscles second), try not to stand on curled toes (...yes, like a girl).  This posture tugged on my pulled calf muscle.  In sitting with elevated feet (bones first), DO NOT rest the balls of your feet against hard edges, and (muscles second), on any surface, try to rest on the heels of the feet rather than the balls of the feet.  In sitting on the floor (bones), try to extend out your feet rather than pulling your feet toward your thighs.

Have good jogging!

October 13th, 10:40 AM CST

4 hours ago, Airbrush said:

It appears that Trump will not reverse his troop pull out from Syria, signaling to Turkey is was ok to attack the Kurds.  As this gets worse, civilians killed, ISIS prisoners released, the GOP will start turning against Trump, just as they did against Nixon in 1974.  The top Evangelical, Pat Robertson, said that Trump could lose the "mandate of heaven" by his surrendering to Erdogan.

By turning against the Kurds, Trump is burning bridges back into the area to fight ISIS.  The Kurds will not welcome us back!  Welcome back ISIS. 

Honestly, it's ironic how we wage counterproductive wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and then recant so hastily as to leave all in shambles (Iraq and Libya).  Without the military industrial complex (Raytheon, Boeing,... Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, etc.), this would be the most damning criticism of our two-party system.  No consistent foreign policy, but a very clear business model.  No foreign policy town hall, and now the war-mongers get to self-righteously bash the brain-dead populist.

Oct 11, 6:19 PM CST

Speaking of reality TV, the key witness in the trial of Amber Guyger for the murder of Botham Jean has been killed (in a "drug deal gone wrong" per CNN).  Any re-trial will be even more tainted now.  It's like watching a highly charged football game playing out on a densely foggy football field.  If somebody said that Neo from The Matrix ran across the wall, I suppose the duped fans would still be as enthused and enthralled as any movie-goer.  If somebody lit a firecracker, certain people would immediately and unthinkingly duck or vigilantly scan.  For the sake of society, I think we should be more assured that we all are watching the same game, and it comes to how we verify information, how we verify the relationships that aren't within seconds gathered, merged, and double-checked by efficient sensory/perceptual processing.

We all can identify faces, so imagine one.  Now, try to imagine any specific part of the face.  Your expectations are absolutely fulfilled by the first request, but the latter attempt is more jarring.  What did you think you were imagining that you could not imagine again?  Some things are just "seen", perceptually processed as stand-alone and entire.  Faces are, including their easily perceivable color.  Courts address laws that are just the opposite.  Nobody is good guy or bad guy, nor an ally except my lawyer, but a specific clause of the legal agreement might have been violated.  In videogames, we have allies and enemies and everyone gets killed (no comma), and this is how emotions like resentful anger or traumatic fear are tuned.  The behavior may or may not have consequences, but the behavior always reflects on the behaver, who will ever receive our admonishment, admiration or fear, our "first impression", which is anchored by that face of theirs (plural or singular). If stereotyping or racism are as automatic as I have suggested, then what other recourse does a minority have except to make corrections after the fact?  If we can't correct all of the cases on their individual merits, then should we make broader, more approximate corrections?  Maybe we should, but this Vox video on the failure of Batson vs Kentucky (5:40) shows that sometimes we don't even institute common-sense reforms that could prevent these errors to begin with.  I certainly think that would be the preferred reform, and moreover, any broad-brush reform will certainly enrage some ignorant people who won't need any technical knowledge to realize that those people are getting a boost.  If we can have our cake and eat it too, we should.  If it comes down to well-researched designs rather than brute-force political action, maybe the path of least resistance is, coincidentally, the best path.  On that note, I know Bernie has been criticized for policies that don't specifically mention race, but maybe that is what an informed policy will look like.  Personally, I would be interested in appropriately enforcing the law, and that means being more objective in all matters.  If Amber Guyger made a mistake, we can learn from that.  If racism is a pervasive problem, we can learn from that.  Everybody wins.  If everybody wins, the opposition might not be so fierce.

October 10th, 4:58 PM CST

minus a few minutes

1 hour ago, michel123456 said:

Replace the photon with a bullet. the bullet will look like accelerating, until it hits your retina (and you are dead). So with the photon it is likewise. Except you do not die, you see.

I think you are particulating instead of waving.

9 hours ago, Eise said:

The photons must accelerate because the bike does??? And no, I did not look at the link, because it is on facebook.

It looks like that, but it isn't. The bike looks smaller, but it is not.

'As observed', yes, but not in reality.

The poles look closer to each other, but they are not. If you from your position could see how many poles the bike would pass per time, it would not change.

The only thing you do is describing the movement of the bike in polar coordinates. But a constant velocity, described in polar coordinates, does not lead to a constant angular velocity. A change of coordinate system does not change what is actual occurring.

You did not argue for your view point, that's why I am asking: why do 'photons that reach your eyes must appear accelerated'? Under these circumstances Swansont's 'No' suffices.

Does this drawing help?

Eloise's picture would be wrong if the motorcyclist had lassoed me and was driving me in circles.

Maybe I should be a psychological physicist.  We humans try to subjectively model the objective world that we must survive in, and we generally communicate in objective terminology such that the only motion is the objective motion that is the same for all observers, although we might occasionally discuss (inter)subjective motion with a person who shares our perspective.  That is, subjective motion isn't really motion in the same way that the alien in AVP doesn't really exist.

The more interesting quandary is not that subjective thought is accomodating the objective world it occupies, but that objective laws have constrained the way that we see the objective world.  Factor analysis techniques might suggest that, psychologically, the concept of dimensionality might be more fundamental than the concept of space.  Spatially, we don't see a two-dimensional world, but a three dimensional one.  This tendency/ability is measured by the Mental Rotation Task (BTW girls are still better at algebra, statistically).  I think we intuitively, and mistakenly, associate three-dimensionality with the cube⁠—perhaps this reflects our bilateral, rather than radial, physiological organization, or merely our third-grade indoctrination with Cartesian coordinate grids⁠—, but squares are polygons and there are no polygons below the triangle.  What we really have is two circular lenses placed upon a spherically moving head, but the planet might be a better example.  We live in cubical homes and use four-directional compasses that reflect our two-dimensional system of longitude-and-latitude, but we also move altitudinally up above or down below.  Below motion is with gravity and toward our planet's center and above motion is against or away, and nobody can dispute the profound relevance of this axis of movement.  However, why do we always plaster our globes with a checkered, longitude/latitude surface?  With three directions, we get a honey-combed surface, and with three dimensions (six directions), we might have something like longitude/latitude.  It seems more reasonable to illustrate two-dimensional, circularly-oriented movement of an entity who is placed upon a two-dimensional, spherical surface which exists within a three-plus-dimensional world.

What remains unclear to me is how we could use this terminology to describe the subjective-objective interplay of your examples.  The spherical perspective still permits applications of the inverse square law (although one might wonder why it isn't an inverse honeycomb law!?!?!).  This allows for the objective space being covered to expand as the distance from the observer increases.  This means could explain why the objective motion looks like less motion subjectively.

October 8th, 11:45 AM CST

On 3/23/2017 at 5:00 AM, StringJunky said:

I agree with you generally but there are some people that can lack it with certain psychopathies and autism spectrum disorder, for example.

On 3/24/2017 at 1:51 AM, John Cuthber said:

Yes I can provide the evidence.

If any of this stuff was real they would have claimed the million dollars by now.

 

Also, if you could really do these magic tricks you would have a great evolutionary advantage.

So, such an ability would spread rapidly through a population and after a while, everybody would be able to do it.

We can't, so the trait doesn't exist.

These were from 2017, but I read it.

Primary psychopaths probably resemble narcissists in having statistically lower emotional empathy and, at least, statistically normal cognitive empathy.  Autism has several components that include below normal mentalizing or theory of mind, which might be similar to cognitive empathy.  The link between autism and psychopathy is a myth, although both aspies and secondary psychopaths statistically tend toward lower mentalizing ability and lower religiousness.  Ara Norenzayan published his findings linking "belief in God" to mentalizing.

On 7/29/2019 at 5:05 PM, rrose said:

Empaths are not supernatural beings, they are just individuals who are very high on the empathic spectrum. Unless someone is a socio or psychopath then they possess empathic capabilities. Given that it is a spectrum, some are more empathic than others and a variety of factors go into why. Most empaths are born that way, or their "gifts" are heightened due to environmental conditioning in childhood. Most empaths I've encountered that are very sensitive tend to have suffered childhood trauma and heightened their ability to attune to their caregivers' emotions in order to survive.

[superstitious ramblings omitted]

See above.  Secondary psychopathy is linked to childhood adversity and lower mentalizing ability.  Overlapping syndromes have shown an ambiguous relationship to mentalizing and, unexpectedly, they showed higher performance on the RMET (Reading the Mind in the Eyes), which was originally designed to measure autism.  The reason is very much unclear.  Confusingly, depression severity has been associated, but being in a depression is inversely associated.

Schizophrenics have a better prognosis with more positive symptoms, which can include blatantly psychotic audio-verbal hallucinations, ambiguously defined "delusions", or even obsessive-compulsive symptoms or dissociative symptoms, which I would expect to be statistically more common in STPD or BPD, respectively (i.e. misdiagnosis).  Those so called "delusions" can include beliefs of "thought insertions" or mind reading.  These people might actually have a better prognosis.  They might even show higher social functioning rather than lower, and social support does probably decelerate the schizophrenic deterioration.  Confusingly...

In summary, believing in things you cannot prove is normal, and it might suggest higher or lower "empathy."

P.S. That other thread is about REM Sleep Behavior Disorder, but maybe she should be told by a friend.  Like OCD, this disorder is also linked to STPD.  I imagine such patients would in need of some kind of explanation.

*be* in need of

Although you scientists might recollect interactions with journalists, I think this is the wrong framing.  Journalists who expose corruption have a documented tendency to turn up dead, recently: Jamal Kashoggi (US/Turkey), Daphne Galizia (Malta), Viktoria Marinova (Bulgaria).  Or imprisoned in Asia and the Middle East (Wa Lone).

However, editors and other higher-ups do censor certain kinds of discussions.  One example was Nick Hanauer's Banned TED Talk (TYT) on income inequality, which seems to be back now.  Coverage Discussion of climate change is abysmal.  War coverage -mongering gets ratings (William Arkin, Phil Donahue), but the journalists in those places are heroes.  The problem appears to be an after-the-fact censorship or omission of certain framings, and this probably has a top-down effect on the journalist's paycheck if he doesn't shift his coverage as well.

However, I would be interested to investigate other differences in the framing.  Maybe scientists tend to want to include practical tips for bettering society, while perhaps the reporters have to entice people by activating them emotionally, emotions that will go to waste.

That was a rushed post, but this will be more careful.  BTW, I have been reflecting on human communication for some months now, so following my links will give a pretty good overview of what topics can be contemplated through mere reflection alone.  I don't know which science requires sitting around and thinking about one's own thinking.

I have begun imagining what the information flow between scientists might look like and what its short-comings might be.  It revolves around individual observations (1), individual experimental designs (2), individual searching and collective sharing (3), and individual or collective "dark spots." (3)  Firstly, I've had this idea that we expand language to accommodate new observations that arise from the exploration of new aspects of our reality.  That is, language is like words on a map, and the vocabulary expands when a part of the map is illuminated.  Each scientist illuminates his respective portion of the scientific map.  Secondly, each scientist uses his or her (but not anybody else's) observations to formulate hypotheses, and the scientist designs the experimental testing of the hypotheses.  However, thirdly, scientific discussions probably tend to be driven by the individual's searching rather than the collective sharing, and the search probably tends to pertain to the design of experiments and not the design of hypotheses.  I explain, in my Ubuntuforums quote of myself, how we are driven to generate means toward ends in such a way that our understanding of "success" is limited by our definition of our own ends.  In science, the scientist does not know what he does not know, so his current hypothesis is probably what anchors his success and his interdisciplinary inquiries probably pertain to experimental design and not hypothesis design.  Fourthly and finally, each scientist has a dark region that will include whatever observations he has not made and whatever he does not learn through inquiries about his experimental design.  In general, the scientist should only observe what is not present if it is something that was present in other observed cases, but yet unclear might be how this could illuminate the observe-able cases that have not been observed, and not merely the missing or present features of a case that allow comparisons between observed cases.  Such a mechanism would explain how an individual illuminates his own dark areas, but these dark areas might also be illuminated interpersonally.  However, this might be limited by two things.  (A) The scientists might have a tendency to search for information rather than to share information, and those scientists might actually be more personally successful.  (B) Ideally, if the "map" is dark in some region, a new specialized field ideally should appear to fill the void, but this may or may not happen.

If I were to draw an analogy to biological pathways, I might choose a biofilm rather than a living organism because it might be a better reflection of the individualistic tendency to search rather than the collectivistic tendency to share.  Specialized cells release signaling molecules that binds to receptor sites, but this is probably more comparable to a person who shares the information with somebody who didn't know he needed it.  The receiving cell had the receptors, but he didn't know what should bind to them.  In a biofilm, the organisms are interdependent, but they are still members of separately evolving species.  This means that the pathway, rather than being branched for the sake of flexibility and adaptation to chaotic selection pressures, will probably be branched for the mere reason that it is a meandering pathway that is driven forward, from means to ends, by randomness instead of being driven backward, from ends to means, by selection pressures.  Anyway, I have to finish this post, but that is the jist of what I could come up with.  

October 4th, 10:42 AM CST