Defining what a name is

So last time I put the ideas of two sets of thinkers / philosophers together to explain why things - objects that we name - don't exist. I applied Buddhism's understanding of existence to Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

Here is our problem with the common understanding of what a name is.  It is childish.  It oversimplifies the meaning of the thing that we now know is more complicated than one might suppose. But it is very easy to fix.

Wittgenstein was right, we should be really really pedantic about the definitions of what we talk about to make sure the essence of what we point at is understood properly.   Now, ironically, as the tortured soul he was, he later wrote and rejected his initial ideas, because he saw that people didn't get his understanding nor did it fully describe the feeling, the experience, and so on.  If his explanations couldn't encompass all of the human experience, then he rejected them completely.  One might call Wittgenstein an absolutist, but that wouldn't go far enough. 

Frankly, in his later work he was whining like a little bitch.  Humans never fully aspire to what potential they could reach. I drink wine and lay on the couch and piss a night away.  But that doesn't mean ideas must be slave to humanity. And a model - what Wittgenstein called a logical picture -  is always an approximation of reality. Until we understand everything fully, we are always estimating.  But it is your job if you are hired as a professor at Cambridge - as he was - to inspire people to move closer to the ideal.  Not wallow in the now.

What Wittgenstein built in Tractatus was an algebra.  A set of symbols that form sets and operators / operations on those elements. I'm not going to sit here and argue how complete it is.  Or if it is a group or a ring or a monoid. I suppose someone has written a Ph.D on explaining Wittgenstein's algebra.  Most of you wouldn't care about that and it's not important for my redefinition of a name.   He explained language, the world, and ideas like the math that models the tick of a clock hand or flies an airplane.  He does state rightly that philosophy exists outside the natural sciences and outside the world.  But if you spoke in Wittgenstein's language you are mathematically correct in general.

Back to the problem.  It is not that things don't exist.  It is not that names don't point at things. What we need is a better approximation for the idea of a name. 

Let W represent an instance of a Wittgenstein logical space.


As I stated previously, a name is a pointer to an object - agreed to by Buddhism and Wittgenstein.  It exists inside W space. The object it points to exists inside the World space (physical 4-space i.e. the Universe). He referred to the world but he means the universe.  So I say a lot of world to strictly translate Wittgenstein, but I am taking for granted you understand it would apply on Mars too.

The "object" in real space is actually an amalgamation sub-objects, which contain sub-sub-objects....ad infinitum.

Let container name be a name inside W logical space.  A container name points at a set of names inside W logical space.  Those names point to objects in the real world (the universe).  A container name is a logical picture AND a name. The names held within the container name - the set membership - is time-varying.

The logical picture changes in lock-step with time change in the world (universe).

So what I am saying, I think, is this:

I am Dave. Dave is a container name.  Dave points at a set of member names inside a logical picture.  When I say Dave I am referring specifically to me the amalgamation or set of names in W Logical Space including "more or less" my lungs, heart, liver,.....,ribosome23424356564, atom9342345535345,  photon2343432342,... and so on of an uncountable set of names that point at real objects  Dave's lungs, Dave's liver, Dave's heart,... Dave's ribosome23424356564, Dave's atom9342345535345, Dave's photon2343432342 and so on back here in the universe.

Check back on me one femtosecond later, look at the Dave set membership inside the logical picture and you see that photon2343432342 no longer belongs to the set of names. And photon2343432342 has left Dave's body in the universe.

Proof:  All physical phenomena exist in the universe. Every object can be named. Every object can change names. I spit in your mouth it becomes your spit.  There is a one to one correspondence / mapping to an equal sized set of names in the W Logical Space.  There are an infinite number of names inside W logical space.  If matter changes form inside reality/ the universe then there exists a different name inside W Logical Space.  There are an infinite number of container names inside W Logical Space. Container names may be set members of other container names.  There exists a one to n mapping  from container names to names inside W Logical Space. There exists a one to n mapping from a container name to container names. There is one operator inside W Logical Space, the "not" operator (applied thusly: not-name) that operates on sets to define membership. Both mappings of names and mappings of container names are carried out by the not operator. When not- is applied to a name or container name in W Logical Space it removes it from set membership in a container name logical picture. I.E. photon2343432342 exists in the logical picture / container name Dave and then later not-photon2343432342 does not.   To count the set membership inside any logical picture, review all names and container names in W Logical Space and count only those that are not-not-names or names.  Set membership is time-varying. Set membership only refers to one container name at a time and must be applied to all names and container names inside W Logical Space before inspection.  QED.

(OOPS: forgot one proposition - a name can only be true if it points at a  real object in the universe. A container name can only be true if it points at a container name, or a name and that name eventually points at a real object in the universe. Otherwise it is logically false.  Now QED.)

So from now on, when you name something, you are referring to a container name unless you are talking about a single physical object like a soliton or a photon.  You will almost never, not mathematically correct but stick with me, use a name.  You will in general mean a container name. 

When you use a container name, you are not referring to the set members inside name. That is the general understanding.   But that also means you are not referring to the uncountable set of objects underneath - nor the set membership inside W Logical Space.

A container name is a logical picture.  When you refer to me you are talking about your understanding of what Dave is. Dave is a dad.  Dave is a container name, dad is another container name for the same thing because you are pointing it at me.

You inspect them by looking at all names in W logical space and adding up set members.  You apply it to Dave.  You apply it to dad.  They are both true so the proposition is true.

Apply it to a non-existent object.  Phil is a unicorn.  You look in W Logical Space, you look in the universe.  There is no unicorn.  The name pointer is aiming at nothing.  Phil is a unicorn is a false proposition, a false logical picture.  You can prove it so.  

You are talking in Wittgenstein English. You are using a Wittgenstein name. 

Now I'm going to go play some Xbox, maybe later I will write a paper about this. 

Reconciling Buddhism and Wittgenstein: Inherent Non-existence

Not-self (Pāli: anatta; Sanskrit: anātman) is the third mark of existence. Upon careful examination, one finds that no phenomenon is really "I" or "mine"; these concepts are in fact constructed by the mind. In the Nikayas anatta is not meant as a metaphysical assertion, but as an approach for gaining release from suffering. In fact, the Buddha rejected both of the metaphysical assertions "I have a Self" and "I have no Self" as ontological views that bind one to suffering.^[77] When asked if the self was identical with the body, the Buddha refused to answer. By analyzing the constantly changing physical and mental constituents (skandhas) of a person or object, the practitioner comes to the conclusion that neither the respective parts nor the person as a whole comprise a self.


Ludwig Wittgenstein:   Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

3.144 States of affairs can be described but not named.
(Names resemble points; propositions resemble arrows, they
have sense.)

3.203 The name means the object. The object is its meaning. (“A” is
the same sign as “A”.)

3.22 In the proposition the name represents the object.

3.221 Objects I can only name. Signs represent them. I can only speak
of them. I cannot assert them. A proposition can only say how
a thing is, not what it is.

3.26 The name cannot be analysed further by any definition. It is a
primitive sign.

3.3 Only the proposition has sense; only in the context of a propo-
sition has a name meaning.

++++++++++++++++++++++++
My analysis:

A name has no meaning in and of itself. (Let me underline this: it does not have any existence without the object it points to) It is a point it represents an object.  It is the object in a proposition, and the proposition is an element of a logical picture.

A Logical picture is used to depict something in the world (2.19)

2.22 The picture represents what it represents, independently of its
truth or falsehood, through the form of representation.

So a name is a way to describe something (as a placeholder in a proposition) but it holds no other properties than the proposition which may be true or false.  E.G.  Dave is a Dad.  Dave points to an object, Dad points to another object, you can verify the truth and therefore whether or not that logical picture is true or false as a proposition. It either agrees with reality or not. Dave is a person and a father. Both names are true and therefore by Wittgenstein the proposition is true, the object in the world is true, and so on. 

That is the same thing as a Buddhist name for an object, it is an illusion or a primitive sign that points to an object, but does not take the place of the object.  It exists only in logical space not in real space. I don't exist.  You don't exist.  I and you point to us as objects but never take the place of I or You.  If I can't find an I or You that is completely true in the world exactly for all propositions that encapsulate these respective objects, then each proposition is false (errata: typed true but meant false.). The opposite is also true, the named object may exist but the proposition is false.  The name only matters in the statement and picture regarding whether or not these propositions are true.

OK now here is the tie-in to inherent non-existence: By Wittgenstein all propositions within a logical picture must be true for the entire logical picture to represent an object in the world.  Therefore any name must represent that object truthfully for the proposition to be true. Any moment you declare an object as containing such and such elements, the next moment that named object changes, that logical picture becomes false.  See Impermanence below.  There is no moment in time that object is not undergoing changes.  Therefore, the named object is always false. It is always a false proposition. The named object never lives up to the elements that make up the logical picture.   It has inherent non-existence.

Impermanence (Pāli: anicca) expresses the Buddhist notion that all compounded or conditioned phenomena (all things and experiences) are inconstant, unsteady, and impermanent. Everything we can experience through our senses is made up of parts, and its existence is dependent on external conditions. Everything is in constant flux, and so conditions and the thing itself are constantly changing. Things are constantly coming into being, and ceasing to be. Since nothing lasts, there is no inherent or fixed nature to any object or experience. According to the doctrine of impermanence, life embodies this flux in the aging process, the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra), and in any experience of loss. The doctrine asserts that because things are impermanent, attachment to them is futile and leads to suffering (dukkha).

Christians aren't stupid for believing in God,

they are just misguided...by those that would profit.

I'm voting for the NDP next federal election.

I just watched a conference by Thomas Mulcair and I've decided to vote NDP in the next election.  I doubt they have a chance but here is my rationale.

He is pro science, not contra science. He wants a parliamentary science officer.

He is focusing on nutrition, not ISIS, because health concerns from bad food is a massive health care problem. This will help everyone live longer and feel more productive.  If you want to save the deficit and the debt, stop worrying about saving nickels cost cutting and tackle the biggest costs of the biggest federal expenses: health care. The Conservatives have signed the federal government up to a 6% year over year escalation in health spending without audit and without reason.  That is a recipe to bankrupt all of us in the long run. Conservatives are bribing local governments/local health care to help get elected with an unwise policy.  Conservatives may brag about the billion surplus, but they forget to mention the massive whale-sized health liability.


The fact is the business climate has swung so clearly into pro business that it is time to force issues back to a more balanced approach.  So a life-long fiscal conservative will vote NDP. 

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein : Ubernerds beware!

Below is a link to the free Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus by Ludwig Wittgenstein. A philosopher, soldier, medic, millionaire, recluse, warrior-poet and true rugged individual. He was a tortured genius misunderstood by most.  He should stand beside Newton and Einstein. 

If you think you qualify as an ubernerd in any sense of the nerd spectrum, I dare you to understand all of the Wittgenstein philosophy. 

Economic Action Plan? Government nets $205,000 for a $50-million asset

Merck announced it will pay $50 million for commercial rights to manufacture and develop the vaccine, invented at the Canadian federal government’s National Microbiological Laboratory in Winnipeg.

How is this a commercial success for Canadians?  A US company that is essentially acting as a broker has scored a 244 times asset gain by flipping a Canadian invention to drug giant Merck for $ 50 million. Taxpayers got $205,000.

Surely, had the government lab that made the discovery been allowed to run and licence that patent, rather than PWGSC, I am sure they could have funded themselves for many years and still it would have been a bargain.

Why do we pay managers and executives to manage these things in the first place? That amount might not cover a single executive for a year. I hope they recoup some of it by divesting one executive.

The Three Benefactors to any Tragedy

Doctors, lawyers, and comedians.

Pre-game show to Ferguson decision amped up rioter's; media is culpable?

What other American past-time has hours upon hours of lead up marketing until final kick-off of festivities?  Simple, the NFL's Superbowl.

Before the Superbowl there is a pre-game show defined as:

A pre-game show or pregame show is a TV or radio presentation that occurs immediately before the live broadcast of a major sporting event. Contents may include:

• replayed highlights of each teams previous games.
• analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each team by sports commentators.
• interviews with fans and coaches from each team.

Due to the prolonged timeframe between the announcement and the kick-off of the grand jury announcement, there was 8 hours of pre-game show marketing and heightening of hysteria - just like the football game.

What did the media do when they found out the grand jury had a decision on the Darren Wilson indictment?  When the decision was delayed, it turned into hours upon hours of an ever-increasing stream of innuendo and replays that heighten the emotions and expectation of the people. The fervor grew higher as the time passed.

So what did the media expect when the riot kicked off? 

Ferguson riots: we need riot control robots!

We need riot control robots to help police.  We need the ability to augment police when and where a riot might occur. Also there is the untapped reality that robots are unnerving to rioters.

The facts are people will take the advantage to loot and burn no matter what the outcome.  There was going to be looting and mayhem.  The police can't hold a perimeter and chase down looters. 

So a robot that can be used to keep the perimeter will allow more police to move out and disperse a crowd. No one will want to fight a robot. The police will feel safer and therefore they will be less likely to react with unmeasured violence.  They can always regroup at the robots.

Equip all police officers with cameras

People act differently when a camera is on them or on their actions.  It's called the Hawthorne Effect. People modify their behavior under inspection. It makes them, in general, act better.

This has now been shown to reduce incidents of violence; http://phys.org/news/2014-12-scientific-police-body-worn-cameras-unacceptable-use-of-force.html

Let's reduce the confusion and reduce the leeway police have to act inappropriately by making them wear a camera during their shift.  It helps for evidence.  Anyone who attacks a police officer knows it. The evidence cuts both ways - it can justify good behavior and incriminate bad behavior.  That is fair to all. It won't eliminate confusion but it will shed more light on what went on.

How much have the Ferguson riots damaged the economy?  How much would the cameras be? 

Working the Economic Levers

People think capitalism doesn't work because of how twisted some industries have become.  The levers of capitalism work today as they did one hundred years ago.  Except the markets have been able to rig the conditions so they don't work properly.

For some unknown reason environmental protesters thought it would be a good idea to bury their heads in the sand.

I can't see how anyone thinks this would work.

When the economic levers are set up properly, then it works the way it should. When you allow polluters to self-regulate and bail out banks that should fail that's the reason why it doesn't.


Look at this graph showing emissions:

During the economic crisis, around 2008, US emissions took a plunge to mid-1990's levels.  There was no change in regulations.  There was no political intervention, in fact quite the opposite people were worried about jobs not the environment. The environment fell off the top of mind status. It wasn't as important to everyone.  All that previous time the environmental movement was pushing for change, it took the banks almost going out of business to slow emissions growth and even reverse the trend. Demand dropped and emissions dropped the way it's supposed to work.

That means capitalism does work if you allow it to work.  If you want to change work habits, punish polluters with fines and punish worse polluters more.  That forces businesses to change how they operate.  If you are a person that wants change, don't buy products from the worst polluters.  That is more helpful than burying your own head in the sand.

A Drug Dealer is a Business Person

It's easy to demonize people that make a living at narcotics.  It seems like they are bad people from the start.

But the reality is that drug dealers are business people.  They supply to a need that other people want. They model their business to the cost benefit analysis.  And they are people like everyone else.

Just look at how far acceptance of LGBT people has changed once the majority stopped listening to the troublesome Church "role models" like disgraced

Ted Haggard.

 
Ted Haggard preached to his flock about sex and drugs, and then smoked crack and had sex with male prostitutes. This man is the ultimate hypocrite.

Of the two, a drug dealer and Ted Haggard, I would feel safer around a drug dealer.  Once people accept that drugs are not going away like alcohol then we can stop demonizing people for business. 

Black Justice Inequality?

Eric Garner	OJ SIMPSON
Killed (not murder since it was unintentional?) for being too big to subdue and choked to death (accidentally?) for trying to make money selling loose cigarettes. A crime amounting to a few dollars.	Acquitted of premeditated two knife murders of his spouse and her friend. Lost civil case and owed victim's families. Won his freedom using his money to beat the rap. A crime that was worth millions in costs between criminal and civil trials.

So my questions are: are all black people treated unfairly?  If I was black, perhaps I would be just as mad at the fact that all people are NOT treated the same.

What is stream of consciousness creation?

I use a very simple creation method to get ideas out: continue creating until your thought process stalls. I start by some simple meditation.  Normally just breathing. Not Om meditation. I do not aim my mind at a goal. I let it wander which is against meditation where you are focussing on the centre to consider your inner self. Not bad for a white guy?

Start with one idea and let it evolve and come out into some form as your main goal. Attaining that level of control on one thought is key.

Never delete your thinking nor criticize it while your brain is trying to get the ideas out. Most people lose creating by starting to edit before they have fully formed ideas. Don't self edit. Don't criticize.
Last edit comes later once you've distracted yourself and forgotten your thought process.

It really helps thinking like a Buddhist. You realize that the ideas don't exist anymore than you do so you don't feel ownership. Just stewardship. It's ok if they don't make sense. That takes time.

Accept your ideas as a starting point. Not a final goal. Once you attain idea maturity then put it on paper and THEN edit it. Simple is better. Concise and packed with meaning is better. Most insightful thoughts are deep but centred. Not bland and obvious. There is a design saying, a design is complete when you remove all that need not be there.

Most blog posts are stream of consciousness. That's why a word or two is wrong and some time later I've gone back to do a final pass. But look at the output. Apart from a few words or clarifications they are all stand-alone ideas done to fruition. Takes me less than 5 minutes. I can write off one before I board a plane. I do them waiting in line. My brain is constantly meandering. I have learned a unique valuable skill to realize I can form it and then release it.

Now my other secret is I've written four books. 300+ pages each in Strunk & White so about 600 pages each in normal writing. That is how I learned short sharp writing.

If you want to learn how start by meditating and ask for some advice. I'm here as long as my brain is. 

People are the same globally

I've never liked the idea that we are equal. Equal under the law, fine. Equal in terms of priority, ok.

But no one is definitively equal. Equal means the same in every way. Without exception.

Equal in the sense of equivalent means that you can substitute one for another virtually. Never. Not even identical twins. If you can't copy and duplicate brain function there is no way to equivocate. In fact, since we are in a constant state of change (add coffee then subtract pee) we are time-varying so we don't equal ourselves moment to moment.

I understand the importance when people (white rich land owners) declared themselves equal. But we've moved on since then. It's an old problem.

A lesser claim is that we are all the same. Similar more or less. It is also more accurate. I've travelled from Hawaii to Hungary. People I've met, worked with lived with, shared wine and bread with are all the same. There is nothing ordinary or unimportant in this fact. It should be celebrated. 

What is megalopinakaphobia?

Fear of Large Matrices. I read this in a paper presentation by Harrison H. Bennett at University of Arizona. 

Clever, no?

An atheist's interpretation of believing in Buddhism.

I follow most of the teachings of Buddha. Most when I remember. But I don't worship Buddha. The man nor the idea of the man.  Believing in Buddhism to me means using those teachings as a reminder of what I try to aspire to.  Buddha didn't care if you worshipped him or not.  He didn't exist. He'd be the first to admit it.

What he wanted was that mankind benefitted from his insight. 

Believing in God does not make him so

The existence of God is not based on the popularity of the idea.  Having one or more believers, having a million believers, or a billion believers does not change the existence in any way.

God either exists or not. Gods either exists in parallel or not.

All that follower base means is a larger penetration of the meme, "there is a god". 

What is an information snob?

Someone that holds information you would like but would prefer to be blatantly unhelpful so you continually need to try again to get their help.  It's sort of an odd co-dependency relationship - they are desperate to show people how smart they are but they hold knowledge no one really cares about. 

Fearing a loss of superiority, they have to be vague and cryptic so you keep interacting with them.

Sending doctors to ebola outbreaks should be a last resort, not a first

We as a society spend a huge amount of money to train a doctor.  We have very few of them and never enough for all the needs of the people.

Consider what it means when you plan to send your doctors overseas to an ebola infection zone.  I'm not saying that we shouldn't send help. I'm not saying we should do nothing.

I'm saying that we should come up with an alternative - like hiring less qualified medical people to go in their place after they take an intensive disease training course to combat that one disease.  We have lots of unemployed medical workers we could train and deploy without risking all our doctors.

If we train people and send them on a six month contract, with life insurance, we have now trained an extra cadre we in society could use later on if we need them.

Sending our doctors should be a last resort, not a first resort.

Science is cool - Rosetta's target: comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko

Taken from ESA's #Rosetta project, shows the comet in view over many days.

Ayn Rand was an atheist

Atheist

Ayn Rand was an atheist.

So if you are a social conservative religious person you are at odds rationally. You can't hug Atlas Shrugged and The Bible equally.  That was her point.  She chose reason. 

Bill Maher is not a biggot

@Rula Jebreal is an emotional person so we can understand how unreasonable her attack on @Bill Maher is.

And the students of Berkeley that oppose his commencement speech are cowardly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/30/berkeley-defends-bill-maher_n_6078000.html

I am glad to hear that the university has more sense.  Frankly, Bill Maher would be a far more entertaining speaker than Larry Ellison, billionaire CEO of Oracle - that once famously gave a commencement speech that summarized as this, " I don't have a degree and see how well I'm doing, thanks to the fact I hire a bunch of you people to slave away for me."  Now that would be an offensive speech to graduating students!

Bill Maher and Sam Harris did not lump all Muslims into radical extremism. In their argument with Ben Affleck, who also didn't get the point and turned on the emotions button, they were not attacking Muslims for being terrorists.

They were attacking so-called rational people for believing in nonsense.


They were asking this, " if you are really a moderate, decent, thoughtful person then how can you take any part of Islam seriously?"

Bill Maher and Sam Harris were not even original in their contempt for religion.

Gore Vidal said. it.  He said that he is not an agnostic, but an atheist.


Ayn Rand said it. Ayn Rand said you can't choose reason and religion. It's either one or the other.

In fact, Ayn Rand and Gore Vidal were braver because they openly said all religion was wrong at a time when the majority of American people were either for religion or not diametrically opposed to it.

Christopher Hitchens said it. Hitchens warned of the coming caliphate back in 2005.

Richard Dawkins says it.

The argument that got lost in a haughty "smearing" indignation was the fact that the basic argument is how can rational people that trust airplanes and believe in television also get their spiritual advice from 2000 year old books.

The argument of the students at Berkeley is not that they are offended, that is what they are saying it is, ouch you hurt my feelings.  The students oppose Bill Maher because they don't like his message - university students attending modern college yet following a prehistoric belief system. That is why they are angry with Bill Maher.

True patriotism, true sacrifice

-20 degrees C in Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada, - the coldest day so far - and still the people came out to remember.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_I:

For the first time in its history, Canadian forces fought as a distinct unit, first under a British commander and then under a Canadian-born commander.^[4] The highpoints of Canadian military achievement during the First World War came during the Somme, Vimy, and Passchendaele battles and what later became known as "Canada's Hundred Days".^[5] Canada's total casualties stood at the end of the war at 67,000 killed and 250,000 wounded, out of an expeditionary force of 620,000 people mobilized (39% of mobilized were casualties).^[6]

Promote the Theory of Evolution to a Law

If scientists want to represent the theory of evolution as a proper fundamental law inherent in the natural system, then it should be described as a law.  The evidence is overwhelming, therefore it should be explained as such to society.

People don't understand the scientific definition of theory.  They assume if it's still a theory it can't be 100% reliable.

But look at it this way, we call Newton's three Laws of Motion "laws" but they were in fact are proven wrong. They don't work at subatomic levels.  They don't account for relativistic speeds. They are not true natural laws but an approximation. People got in the habit of calling them laws and no one wants to change that.

I'll start:  Darwin's Law of Evolution describes how natural biological organisms form species through adaptation and survivors evolve the genetic traits and characteristics of the successors.

Thought Spam: The Tragically Hip's interpretation.

In their 1994 song, So Hard Done By, The Tragically Hip wrote:

"It's so deep it's meaningless."

That is the essence of thought spam.  Ideas so deep, so generic, so fundamental, so unhelpful, that you can take any rational meaning from them and you cannot dispute them in any great way. They are so unhelpful because you can reinterpret them any way you want so how can decide what is important in them?  So what then is the point in uttering them?

And that is why thought spam is a colossal waste of time. People will keep filling the void with this nonsense but let's not misintepret how "deep" some of these ideas are.

Solution aversion affects decision making.

Solution Aversion 

This psychology experiment discovered that people tend to discount the likelihood of a possible outcome when they have an aversion to the solution.

I.E.  A Republican is told that the only way to reduce climate change is through a carbon tax, that Republican discounted the likelihood of climate change versus a Republican that was told the way to solve climate change is to hire people and invest in alternate energy companies.  This demonstrates a bias towards/ against  likely event probability estimation due to ideological beliefs. 

So in other words, ideological thinking hampers real consideration of important issues. 

If the Western Capitalist Democracies are so evil, then why are all the ex-Soviet Allies imploding?

Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, all started out after World War II as allies of the Soviet Union.  Look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dates_of_establishment_of_diplomatic_relations_with_the_Soviet_Union

All these countries began the post-war era in the Soviet sphere of influence.

Now they are all imploding. Except Saudi Arabia, but they turned to US ally and have the money to keep a powerful police state. They are an exception for different reasons.


Vietnam was an ally of the Soviet and an enemy of the US.  Of course we all know they dropped all allegiance to communist countries and jumped headlong into capitalism.  They are doing well, even better than the Asian average:

Actual	Previous	Highest	Lowest	Dates	Unit	Frequency
6.19	5.42	8.46	3.14	2000 - 2014	Percent	Quarterly

Vietnam threw off communism and grew at an annual rate of at least 3% between 2000 to present. 


I may be cherry picking my examples, but it's not a coincidence.

So again, if the western capitalist democracies are so evil, then why are the old communist countries imploding?

Obama lost to hubris, not the Republicans

@Bill Maher, you are wrong about how Obama lost.  He lost because he thought the Republicans were too devastated to come back and he decided to play politics instead of lead the country. And the Democrats were just as guilty.

The real reason was identified by @Ed Rogers in the Washington Post back in September.  People don't like being told the economy is getting better when they see people working three part time jobs with no benefits and calling that fully employed. When they see companies laying off workers, when they see no factories coming back you can't lie to them they will get angry at you. Obama continued to overstate the recovery in the face of evidence to the contrary. Even after the election.

Case in point, the Keystone XL pipeline was a guarantee of jobs for Americans but Obama decided to punt the decision down the road and stall high-paying jobs to appease Democratic environmentalists.  But the people wanted the jobs and that angered lots of people in the heartland.

Obama has to expect the Republicans to play politics and play to the base.  So why did he risk a majority by not governing, not working for the greater good? I thought he was a hope and change president?

That's why Obama lost, hubris.

Spam Thought: First Blocking

Google+ (Nicole Taylor) <XXXXXXX> Unsubscribe	12:20 PM (2 hours ago)
to me

Nicole Taylor mentioned you in a comment on Nicole Taylor's post. +Dave Erickson If you don't like my posts, then move along and take your ignorance elsewhere.

Nicole Taylor sent me her thought spam, I didn't solicit it, and didn't like my opinion of it, and then blocked me.  Who is ignorant?  Who listens to other people's ideas? Who refuses to accept other people's ideas? Not very Buddhist or Christian of you, Nicole.  I wish you the best of luck with your thought spam and perhaps some good ideas I won't get to consider.

Thought Spam Algorithm

Thought Spam: Unenlightened Ideas in Uninspired Form

Thought Spam: Unenlightened Ideas in Uninspired Form

Thought Spam the meme in thought-spam form:

Thought Spam

I have just created a name for what the internet is saturated with; no not porn.  You can never get enough porn. 

What I mean is the bland pleasantries; almost meaningless comments made without a lot of thought nor intended as insightful that people might agree with but won't be too offended by nor upset about but will click on for some obvious reason. Kinda like, "I'm for Jesus".  Apparently, this passes for real discourse.

This is the stuff I am talking about:

This is absolutely understood by anyone with a grade 5 education.  It provides nothing more to the community than something for you to agree with, because how can you not agree with it therefore you unwittingly - because your brain is numb from the dullness - do something to pass this on  and that person gets some attention.   


I'm calling this kind of stuff : thought spam.  Thought spam is my new meme. Thought spam TM.

It's the mark of an anti-intellectual who's trying to get attention - clicks - by passing the stuff you wouldn't talk about at dinner with the family that night.  It's meaningless.  It's mundane. It's uninspired.    It's yet another form of Monty Python's Vikings sketch:

 SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM WONDERFUL SPAM.

Saying the same obvious stuff over and over is exactly what this type of "thought" is. It's counter productive because it gives you no new ideas, and could have been better spent on something meaningful. 

Now the people that create this sort of stuff are at least trying to inspire...something.  But the people that just pass everything on without a faint flipping clue what it means, they are filling a void with nothing.  They are the mouth breathers of the intellectual world. 

The Devil is a meme

Think recycling is worthwhile? It's bullshit.

 Recycling is bullshit!

Watch Penn & Teller's Bullshit and tell me if you still think recycling is worthwhile?

Corporate Sociopathic Behaviour: Christmas advertising before Rememberance day

There is a respectful window of time between Halloween and Remembrance Day that is set aside to honour the lives lost by soldiers and civilians in the wars that gave us all the freedom we have today.

So what is the rationale to start Christmas marketing inside Remembrance Day?

Your veterans gave their lives, wounded themselves so you have the freedom to sell whatever crap you want to everyone all year around. By convention this time starts right after Halloween. So that's eleven days to contemplate their sacrifice.

The 11 days in Remembrance Day account for a tiny fraction of the year.  Outside those 11 days are 8,496 hours to sell your wares.  But to make that more important than the veterans shows where your self-interest lies. And it's not very enlightened. Perhaps they have measured the outrage as a minority of the public so they are willing to take the negativity and still make a profit. That is even worse than ignorance.

If any company wants to hock wares at Rememberance Day, then please spend the rest of the year serving in uniform to make up for it. 

The Anti-Intellectual: what the internet has wrought.

Serious problems require serious dialogue, serious contemplation, and weighing the evidence very carefully. 

Unfortunately, being glib with the details, expounding beliefs quickly and often, and always using cheap emotional opportunism instead of facts is what the internet rewards.  Lots of hits equals lots of views equals lots of advertising revenue. 

Go back in the way way back machine and look at an honest debate from 1970's TV and compare that to the clap-trap superficial half-hearted less-reported "dialogue" of today.


Here is a good example:  Monty Python discuss controversial film "The Life of Brian"







In this debate, both sides were right to an extent. The depiction of "Jesus" as Brian was blasphemous. Monty Python argued quite a bit better the merits and distinction of what they did and what they meant. I tend to agree with Monty Python over the religious people but at least they brought a real argument. There was some belittling and some emotional manipulation by the religious side but overall it was polite, it was factual, and even-handed.  To 1970's religious people this was a big deal in deed so there was lots to get emotional about. And on the other side, Monty Python had sunk their life savings and some money from George Harrison to finish off the film.  Both sides had a lot to lose.

My point is consider if we could actually pull this off today?


Hard problems are hard. Solutions are not easy.  Facts are important. People need to go through the challenge of working through and understanding a problem takes.  Sometimes the right solution will change with the circumstances. It's not something a 5 second sound bite can cover.  And it certainly can't be covered by blindly leading people to believe nonsense based on emotions and celebrity.

Wonder why we can't get consensus on global warming?  Could it be a result of how thinking has changed?  

Here is my current big problem with a celebrity I thought was not like this; until he demonstrated that he is more illusion than substance. 

I think Russell Brand owes Stephen Harper an apology

What we are breeding is in fact the anti-intellectual. Anti meaning "against intellectual pursuit" the traditional reason that was a gift of the ancient demos to us today.  


What mankind has adapted over generations are the skills and traits that engender success.  The best adapted survive better or so evolution goes.  In a society where being fast and loose with the truth and playing to your audience of supporters is what makes people more famous/rich than digging into a problem and coming to a reasoned solution then that's where the effort will go.  By rewarding this behavior we are supplying the conditions for continued adaptation over and over.

People that throw their clout around carelessly and without real research are endangering all of us. Endangering our future.  Not that we care what Russell Brand thinks of Renee Zellweger's new face looks like.  But we do care that we teach the next generation to be critical thinkers  as previous generations.

What is the point of suffering the life of a researcher, a scientist, a historian, and so on when making fun of a celebrity pays better.  We would bankrupt our future generations if they were not brought up to appreciate reason.

The biggest problems facing mankind cannot be solved by anti-intellectualism.

Diversified Investments without a Cryptocurrency?

Lots of people have investments in all sort of stocks, bonds, GIC's, currencies, and so on.  I won't dwell on the varieties because that's not the issue.  The general wisdom is that to compensate for variability to spread out your money into all sorts of investments. 

The problem is that all these "diversified" investments are still based on the value of a dollar.  In most cases, the US dollar.  Even in resource stocks, the businesses rely on pre-negotiated commodities contracts - providing x amount of resource for y amount of dollars.

But what if the US dollar collapses?

In that case, all those businesses will suffer the same collapse.  They are all interlocked and all based on the same valuation.  So your value in diversified same-model investments is an illusion.

What you need to compensate for that catastrophic (potential) eventuality is to have an investment that is not linked to the same valuations. 

I have started to invest in cryptocurrencies is a hedge against that same-system shared risk.

I own small amounts of Bitcoin and now StartCOIN.  I am just testing the waters but I plan to continue to acquire truly diversified investments.

Buddhism explained through Object Oriented Design: What is a name?

One of the main principles of Buddhism is the belief that there is no inherent self-existence:  no thing exists in itself - all things even energy must consist of other smaller things.  This is the reason there is no magic

So consider what that means for a name.  A name is a pointer to a collection of objects.  Each of those objects is a pointer to further objects.  Ad infinitum.

A named object is a container class for other smaller things.  Since it's a container it only exists to point at other objects.