BS: KISS keep it simple

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 30 Jan 23 - 10:39 AM

Donuel
Are you on some forums where people understand you straight away and maybe even agree with you and expand your points?
Could you post a sample link?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 23 - 11:28 AM

There are hundreds of sites like Quora which is on the lay side. The academic sites require math skills.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 23 - 12:55 PM

Best yet listen to the foremost cosmologists and astrophysicists on you tube in interviews or presentations. My leading favorites are Brian Greene, Roger Penrose and Witten. Lex Fridman interviews many of them on youtube. For free lessons on cosmology check out this guy PBS HE IS ENTERTAINING AND FASCINATING. He's older now and is held in esteem.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jan 23 - 01:02 PM

In the UK this cosmologist has many fans check it out

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: FreddyHeadey
Date: 30 Jan 23 - 10:30 PM

Donuel
Could you suggest some websites where we could read and hear from good cosmologists and astrophysicists please?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 11:40 AM

O'DOWD is a cosmologist who may be your age and appears on 'PBS Spacetime' and more or less teaches in a wonderful way while exploring fundamentals.

Starting with the noble prize winner Roger Penrose on youtube will get you to see many other related cosmologists but the more you know the more you might understand the top guys and gals.

I am more of an audience than a contributor. The universe is awesome and the more people who learn about it the more we can come together.
We all tend to play games by simple rules. Science can show us bigger landscapes and perhaps we can become less fractionalized people and become united even in new mysteries. At least I hope so.

Having an opinion based on evidence is your right and privilege. It shows you are thinking beyond being spoon fed.

I believe the more we learn about the universe the more we can understand what is within us since the universe made us.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 12:24 PM

I am at the point where the tiniest observation of 'is it a particle or a wave?' is also true of the entire universe as well - in a duality that we can not yet fully understand. The obvious answer is that it is two things at once. That only seems to be true in our human consciousness.
I am a panpsychist who believes our consciousness is simply information inspecting itself and being aware of itself. This is true of all information and has no cut off point. That means all things have a consciousness of varying complexity.

There are fundamentals and emergent complexities but they each have their charm, delight and consternation in my information stream consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 01:04 PM

The more I learn the more I realise how little I know!

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 03:44 PM

From wiki.

One criticism of panpsychism is that it cannot be empirically tested.A corollary of this criticism is that panpsychism has no predictive power. Tononi and Koch write: "Besides claiming that matter and mind are one thing, [panpsychism] has little constructive to say and offers no positive laws explaining how the mind is organized and works."

John Searle has alleged that panpsychism's unfalsifiability goes deeper than run-of-the-mill untestability: it is unfalsifiable because "It does not get up to the level of being false. It is strictly speaking meaningless because no clear notion has been given to the claim."

Which is what I think too.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 05:18 PM

You will only think you know what is impossible based on the past.
Knowledge has a way of proving the chronic nay-sayer wrong over time.

I on the other hand must go with experiential evidence for now.
Things change although the universe has a few enduring fundamental features/forces.

I like your polite side for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 05:27 PM

Experiential evidence isn't evidence, except to you. It's a claim. Do note that your claim is unfalsifiable. That's a way of saying that it isn't good science.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 10:33 PM

50 years ago Prof. Hawking said by the year 2000 we should have a theory of everything in astrophysics. Carl Sagan wasn't sure if there was enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion of space and recollapse the universe. Well, since then we discovered dark matter and that space is expanding AND accelerating.
They were both wrong but they were right about other things.
The future holds surprises we do not expect.
At this time I am both wrong and right. IN TIME SO ARE YOU.
I'm willing to reason it out even when there is not currently a single person who can prove what consciousness is.
We do however experience it.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Feb 23 - 11:22 PM

I think it is admirable to learn of and explore many different world views. There is not just one way to view the universe.
An old fashioned accepted truth involved particles. However,
that concept is now positively not real.
Knowing is not the way you know it, but I know you will not understand.
Knowing about geometric unity is just as valid as field theories as well as a multiplex of perspectives.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 23 - 01:48 AM

In the debunking community there is a tendency to stigmatize a subject of inquiry and the researchers and witnesses or even attempt to harm or destroy those individuals. For example despite hundreds of thousands of witnesses and indirect evidence, the people involved are singled out for derision. This is actually an impediment to science as well as being mean and arrogant to witnesses. The UAP Navy introduction is attempting to get away from that kind of stigma and punishment of the witnesses and those who try to have real inquiry into the subject. Likewise in politics there is a mean spirited push to insult and accuse people of things which requires private detectives and a defensive posture. Most good people who could serve honorably do not wish to be subjected to such treatment.

Instead of knee jerk debunking techniques that discourage research, an open mind will enhance discovery. We don't need new technology or live on Mars more than going beyond Einsteinian paradigms so that a new science might be able to see a path forward to faster than light travel. Brian Greene has found a way to apply faster than light messaging. Going beyond Einstien is a promising direction that is not fully supported and in fact is considered dangerous and foolish by the status quo debunkers.

The power to silence ideas with bullying or gas lighting people of inquiry is attempted shaming. I do not want people scared or ridiculed and as a result withhold experience or data.
You should reserve your debunking efforts to Aunt Tilda's belief in ghosts, not ghosts in the machine. There is bunk or bunko artists. That you can see the difference between those selling nonsense for money and those who merely theorize. There is no room for ridicule and mocking as in the past. In the interest of science people should feel maximally safe recounting the unusual. IT IS IMPORTANT to know where the cutting edge of theoretical physics truly is. Getting there is not helped by ridicule and recrimination. Perhaps most important is to declassify what has been established.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Rain Dog
Date: 11 Feb 23 - 02:04 AM

The Curious Cases of Rutherford & Fry is a programme on BBC Radio 4. All of the episodes appear to be available to listen to again.

A recent one might be of interest to some of you here.

The Case of the Blind Mind's Eye

Close your eyes and think of a giraffe. Can you see it? I mean, *really* see it - in rich, vivid detail? If not - you aren’t alone!

We’ve had scores of messages from listeners who report having a ‘blind mind’s eye’. They don’t see mental images at all and they want to know why. Jude from Perth wants to know what makes her brain different, and Diane from Scotland wonders whether it affectes her ability to remember family holidays.

Our sleuths learn that this is a condition recently termed ‘aphantasia’. They meet the chap who came up with the name, Professor Adam Zeman, a neurologist from the University of Exeter, and quiz him on the brain mechanisms behind this mystery.

Professor Julia Simner - a psychologist who, herself, doesn’t see mental images - shares the surprising research into how aphants differ slightly from others in a range of cognitive skills. We also hear about the world class artists and animators who can’t visualise - but can create beautiful, imaginary worlds.

++

Philosophy professor Fiona Macpherson from the University of Glasgow, deepens the mystery: perhaps this largely hidden phenomenon is behind some of the most profound disagreements in the history of psychology. Our mental experiences are all very different - maybe that’s why thinkers have come up with such different theories about how our minds work.

++


Search for the “VVIQ” or Vividness of Visual Imagery questionnaire to take the test yourself. Look for “The Perception Census” to take part in this massive online study of perceptual variation. And look up the 'Aphtantasia Network' if you're curious to find out more.

Presenters: Hannah Fry and Adam Rutherford
Contributors: Professor Adam Zeman, Professor Julia Simner, Professor Fiona Macpherson
Producer: Ilan Goodman

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 23 - 07:35 AM

Thanks for the detail. I only heard it in passing
btw NPR and MSNBC reported today that the Pentagon announced they shot down a small object 40,000 over Alaska shores. It was called a UFO since it was unidentified. I don't think small prop planes ever get that high.

My mental Giraffe looks pretty good in color and facial features including large eyes, hair, and odd horns. Its bodily features are more challenging to picture in detailed contrast to the face, neck, and mane.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 23 - 08:14 AM

While listening to the podcast I realize I am not a total synthete but I can call upon synthesesia like perception as In turning music into colors or turning smells into tastes. Geometry was always visual. Also, I have no angels or devils.
My dreams are not always in color but as a kid I watched a lot of black and white TV. Especially the Twilight zone. I was fortunate to have Rod Serling as a neighbor for a short time. I would walk his Irish Setters at Cayuga Lake

This whole concept of phantasic imagery could apply to research on Schizophrenia where the ability goes out of control.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Feb 23 - 09:06 AM

Over here a similar broadcast series is called Radio Lab on NPR.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 05:50 AM

"In the debunking community there is a tendency to stigmatize a subject of inquiry and the researchers and witnesses or even attempt to harm or destroy those individuals. For example despite hundreds of thousands of witnesses and indirect evidence, the people involved are singled out for derision."

Well apart from the unwarranted hyperbole there, it's ironic that you debunk the debunkers far more assertively than the debunkers debunk you and your ilk. Good science shrugs its shoulders when presented with flights of imagination that are promoted without a shred of evidence. There's generally no attempt to harm or destroy unless there's a whiff of conspiracy theory afoot, so it's improper to cast yourself as some kind of victim. If you have an outside-of-the-box notion, it's up to you to kindle interest via the very simple step of presenting evidence that IS evidence. Witness is never evidence unless it's honestly corroborated, and I have no idea what "indirect evidence" is supposed to mean. You forget that good science is science that can be well-communicated. I dare say there are some good scientists who live in their own bubble of obscurantism, and they need help to get their ideas out. But there are bad scientists who like to wrap their shaky ideas up in deliberate and dodgy over-complexity and mysticism. If the cap fits, old chap...

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:19 AM

This week it has been reported that three UNIDENTIFIED objects have been shot down. That is the extent of it. This is a departure from the previous policy. With a lack of evidence. ignoring the known realities would be a foolish plan. The eyes-closed method, insistence on silence, or the shaming of witnesses is the absurd policy of the past.
Let's hope we/you learn to do better.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:35 AM

That's got nothing to do with what we're talking about (why am I surprised...), and, what's more, the balloons have their own thread.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:38 AM

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

(Donuel Rumsfeld)

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Rain Dog
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:45 AM

"This week it has been reported that three UNIDENTIFIED objects have been shot down."

At the moment they unidentified. They might well remain so as it will be hard to locate any remaining wreckage.

My money is on it being a Thunderbird.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Rain Dog
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:14 AM

"Witness is never evidence unless it's honestly corroborated"

In the history of science witness tends to lead and science follows with a explanation (or not as the case might be).

Sometimes science can dismiss witness evidence as being nonsense. Just ask Ernst Chladni.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:17 AM

There are some knowns. One was cylindrical, one was octagonal and Canada has not disclosed the shape of one that was shot down over the Yukon. A fourth radar signature vanished from radar over Minnesota.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:46 AM

You failed to take into account my HONESTLY-corroborated caveat. Piltdown Man was dishonestly corroborated. Lourdes and Fatima were "corroborated" by witnesses loaded down by confirmation bias, peer pressure or whatever else made them useless witnesses. There are no golden eagles in Cornwall or anywhere near, but suppose I claim that a golden eagle came to my bird table. Like Donuel, I could shout abuse at anyone who ridiculed me. Or I could present the real evidence, which would mean HONEST corroboration. A couple of proven unphotoshopped pics. Co-witnesses from the highest echelons of the RSPB. Related sightings close by. Sure, science needs lateral thinking, thinking outside the box, flights of imagination. It all helps to move science forward. But only evidence can put it on the right path. For over 99% of human existence, the sun went round the earth and the earth was flat. Newton indulged in alchemy. I've posted here several times about my sighting of ball lightning in Essex in the early 80s. I know what I saw and I know it was what I said it was. I couldn't find a single other witness. I don't require anyone else to believe me and I say that every time. The fact that I do say that has meant that I've never been called a bad scientist, been laughed at or been ridiculed for saying it. I think there's a lesson there.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:50 AM

I do not use Steve's snarky rhetoric that is intended to injure people and possible POVs. Raindog presents alternatives and facts in a reasonable and respectful manner. That's what I have been talking about.

Like my friend Allen J Hynek, I began as a skeptic but as decades of indirect evidence mounted I changed my tune, My experience has led me to far different honest conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 10:25 AM

I still do not have an explanation for the nebulous balls of light that passed through brick walls and out the interior wall. I only know for sure that others have had similar experiences. When I touched it I would have expected a shock if it was ball lightning. In the spirit of objectivity, I had jumped on a sofa and was not grounded.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 10:41 AM

Here is another rhetorical trick Steve does to me;
" For over 99% of human existence, the sun went round the earth and the earth was flat."
quote: From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:46 AM

It is not a misquote, it is merely taken out of context.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 10:41 AM

I have no intention of injuring anyone. What a daft thing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 10:43 AM

Rhetorical trick my fat bottom. It's just that you didn't get what I said!

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Rain Dog
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 10:47 AM

"I only know for sure that others have had similar experiences."

You only know for sure that others have reported to have had similar experiences. They might have been similar to yours but then again they might not.

Back when Chladni was gathering experiences, he did not live in an age when people were posting this, that and the other. The witness was less likely to be influenced by previous reports. If anyone sees anything unusual these days they might well search online for previous reports of something similar.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 11:52 AM

Yes, I spotted that "know for sure" too. On such a basis is dodgy science often predicated...

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 12:44 PM

I concede that similar reports are very similar but do not explain the phenomenon. It is common for me to make predictions. I recently got my super bowl prediction wrong but I'm sure no one cares except Steve.
He thinks my predictions are prophesying and rails against them as vigorously as against a 19th-century medium contacting someone's dear deceased relative for money. No one cares about my posts, nor do people's reality revolve around my opinion.

I think Steve protests too much as if belief in any of my remarks is antithetical to scientific principles he guards like a self-appointed white knight. Nevermind the symptoms of the narcissist.

I believe the most favorite topic for him would be the "I believe in Steve" thread.

I also believe that his intention is degradation in my opinion.
Its a sadism thing.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 03:56 PM

"I think Steve protests too much"

In light of your post, that strikes me as being not only ludicrously ironic but also highly amusing.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 06:15 PM

By way of a small diversion: the Super Bowl comment had me wondering which sport it was. Is it, I mused, that glorified rounders-for-chaps, or perhaps that version of netball for seven-footers? Why no, it's American "football," a game in which padded men beat each other up at regular intervals after someone has thrown the ball along lines of them, with scantily-dressed young beauties leaping up and down on the touchline with bunches of tinsel in their hands. As a chap who has just revelled in Liverpool's convincing (and much-needed) victory over Everton in the Merseyside derby, why would I have concerned myself with your Super Bowl prediction!

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:29 PM

Another reason that I support panpsychism is that it supports legal rights for intelligent animals.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:44 PM

I support fairies in the bottom of the garden because they're prettier than goblins and leprechauns.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 09:24 PM

History supports the idea that some radical ideas become mainstream in 100 years. For example; should Women be allowed to vote?
Should animals be considered co-creators of life on Earth and have legal rights?
If corporations now have the legal rights of a person why not whales, dolphins, primates and others?
US laws ban cruelty but does not convey rights to animals. We know how Steve feels about dogs but we wouldn't want him involved in this question if we love dogs, or any conscious life for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 04:47 AM

See varmints thread. I love dogs but I strongly dislike a lot of their owners, which, round here, is most of them. They let them bark, they let them shit all over our streets and they let them charge around out of control. Nowt wrong with the actual individual dog. You misrepresent yourself here all the the time but kindly refrain from misrepresenting me.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 05:12 AM

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Feb 23 - 08:44 PM

I support fairies in the bottom of the garden because they're prettier than goblins and leprechauns. quote S Shaw
I prefer Gnomes.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 05:21 AM

Careful now, Dick! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 09:26 AM

Run for office with a 'no-shit' campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 12:04 PM

Well, as we keep saying, Steve. You have your Donuel and I have my Dick.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 23 - 12:23 PM

"Run for office with a 'no-shit' campaign."

Hmm. Something you'd never manage...

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 23 - 08:33 AM

The issue of animal rights remains, despite the class clown trolls.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 23 - 09:04 AM

Your repetitive mentions of animal rights lack focus. We have fairly strict laws in this country about who can or can't do what to wild animals. There are rules regarding animal welfare standards in agriculture which some of us would like to see tightened and which, as with humans, are often breached. But we can't discuss it unless we know what you're talking about, and you did raise it out of context and out of the blue. Instead of calling people clowns for not responding to your apparent sudden bee-in-bonnet, why not tell us what you're on about and give us something to chew over?

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Feb 23 - 09:45 AM

Simply animal rights law beyond anti-cruelty statutes.

I'm perfectly capable of discussing it myself. An intro;
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/happy-the-elephant-lessons-for-the-future-of-animal-rights-law.html



Cage free eggs and an end to veal cruelty is also catching on.

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Feb 23 - 11:58 AM

199 posts and I am still none the wiser. Someone else can have 200 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: KISS keep it simple
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 23 - 12:31 PM

I will never go to a zoo. I understand that we may need to breed captive animals that are threatened, injured or on the brink of extinction, but animals on display for entertainment, not for me, thanks. Even my cat is free-range.

Cage eggs are becoming a thing of the past on the whole, though a third of our eggs still come from hens in "enriched cages," which are bigger (but still awful) than the pre-2012 battery cages, now banned. Barn eggs are common still, and from what I've seen around here "free-range" is a concept that needs a serious rethink. I know one place that has huge barns with pop-holes and I never see the hens in their outside enclosure. Their eggs are still sold as free-range. In farming, the concept of "what the eye doesn't see" is heavily guarded.

Tell us about your US chickens. We don't want them here...