Theme: Science

  • RT @DegenRolf: “Claims about the health dangers of red meat are not only improba

    RT @DegenRolf: “Claims about the health dangers of red meat are not only improbable in the light of our evolutionary history, they are far…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-10 00:19:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171216651578220545

  • RT @DegenRolf: “Recent evidence across multiple meta-analyses on key mental diso

    RT @DegenRolf: “Recent evidence across multiple meta-analyses on key mental disorders provides an overarching picture of limited benefits f…


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-10 00:14:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171215342653325313

  • No. And it’s unnecessary. The solution to debris is well known and old, encase i

    No. And it’s unnecessary. The solution to debris is well known and old, encase it in silica (sand) or glass. The glass will decompose at the same rate. & We do not ‘create’ fissionable material. We work very hard to concentrate (refine) it. It’s everywhere in the environment.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-07 17:50:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170393901376704524

    Reply addressees: @EvanMcLaren @NoSorcerer @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170360339873091585


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170360339873091585

  • You don’t change minds. That’s a pseudoscientific statement. You provide decidab

    You don’t change minds. That’s a pseudoscientific statement. You provide decidable science. Follow Judith Curry. Only Trustworthy voice.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-07 15:30:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170358717050753024

    Reply addressees: @philtalkradio @BerkeleyGse

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170358434761326593


    IN REPLY TO:

    @philtalkradio

    How do we change the minds of #climatechange deniers? Director of Research Laura Maguire blogs ahead of tomorrow’s live broadcast with Michael Ranney from the @BerkeleyGSE: https://t.co/R5t43ZufN4 #PhilosophersCorner

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170358434761326593

  • I understand that there is a lot of pseudoscience running around but the evidenc

    I understand that there is a lot of pseudoscience running around but the evidence from three mile island, chernobyl and fukushima is that (a) no harm other than tiny increase in thyroid cancer (which I have), (b) nature recovers very rapidly. And (c) The French NE industry works.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-07 14:29:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170343236294119424

    Reply addressees: @NoSorcerer @JFGariepy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170340622991052800


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170340622991052800

  • (archive) I don’t make errors. Let’s test these statements. –” statement isn’t

    (archive)
    I don’t make errors.
    Let’s test these statements.

    –“
    http://1.My statement isn’t a matter of benefit. It’s a matter of math.
    2. A reduction in genetic data can be for better or worse…. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=461040207826208&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-06 17:26:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1170025482034847744

  • (archive) I don’t make errors. Let’s test these statements. –” 1.My statement i

    (archive)

    I don’t make errors.

    Let’s test these statements.

    –“

    1.My statement isn’t a matter of benefit. It’s a matter of math.

    2. A reduction in genetic data can be for better or worse. The point is that these phenomena do not amount to one species becoming another one.

    3. No amount of reducing the genetic data of a single celled organism can get us to the diversity of life as we see it.

    4. Your thoughts aren’t in your head. Thought is a phenomena within the transcendental order of life.

    “—Kahl O’Dournian

    My claims:

    a. You cannot demonstrate the mathematics you are testifying to, and if tried you would self falsify that you can, that you understand the system of measurement (mathematics) and what it is you’re measuring with it (calculation of capture of energy).

    b. You do not know the amount of information necessary to calculate a single celled organism, nor the rate of calculation, nor the time to produce the calculation of the information, so you cannot make such a claim as it is impossible. Conversely almost anyone can show that the rate of calculation can be effectively infinite even in asexual reproduction, before we get to the much higher rates of sexual reproduction, and that (a) the central problem is not calculation of successful mutations by trial and error, but (a) the tendency for trial and error to pursue non-random direction, (b) the central problem of distribution of novelties is multidimensional, including noth less that travel distance, rates of reproduction, degree of caloric advantage, and competition in favor or against it, and the degree of correction already in the genome, as well as the rate of information loss of intermediary steps in the evolution of an expression of a protein (molecular machinery).

    c. Consciousness consists of the conflation (experience) of awareness of space and time, produced by the hierarchy of memory beginning with the shortest term to longest term (hippocampal, entorhinal, perirhinal, parahippocampal, inferotemporal, and cortical) controlled by attention (thalamus), given priorities calculated in a competition then released (basal nuclei) according to timing (parallel order) calculated by the cerebellum. In other words, consciousness is a spatial model into which we conflate sensory information through massive parallelization. Or in simple terms, consciousness consists of short term memory of the past few moments of short term memory. This brief explanation refers to a set of theories the narrowest of which is ‘thousand brains’ model of the cortex, and the broadest of which is the “Thalmo-cortical resonance theory”, in which the frequency of oscillation determines the narrowness of focus, urgency and rate of resulting action. This science is rather current but it is pretty well understood (and I am current with the research).

    d. You are lying, because you cannot testify to those claims. I can however testify to the possibility of each of those claims to the exclusion of all other testifiable claims.

    A NOTE TO THOSE WHO ARGUE WITH THE FAITHFUL

    The purpose of theological speech is to teach sophism, and to reward sophism. You cannot really argue with the faithful for at least these reasons.

    1. All addicts defend their addiction relentlessly and have no choice. And there is a great deal of addiction in christianity, judaism, and islam – that is the reason for their success.

    2. Christianity like judaism and islam teaches theological sophism, fictionalism, idealism, and critique. In other words, just as math, science, and law teach us to speak truthfully, the monotheistic religions teach us to lie.

    3. The monotheists are not intellectually honest, nor in pursuit of the truth, but simply trying to defend their addiction. So you are never, ever, debating with someone of intellectual honesty. They have been trained for intellectual dishonesty, and intellectual dishonesty is one of the rewards (addictions) that result from the practice of monotheistic theology. They will, in the end, always just deny, or leave. You cannot convince an addict not to take his promiscuity, solipsism, alcohol, drugs, or religion.


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-06 13:26:00 UTC

  • Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch

    Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created.

    We can… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=459481677982061&id=100017606988153


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-04 01:45:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1169063967236481030

  • Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch

    Gak. No. Confusing Arousal with Consciousness is like confusing the light switch with the light. Just ’cause we can turn off the switch doesn’t tell us how the light is created.

    We can interfere with any number of parts (Colostrum) and shut down experience. That doesn’t tell us anything.

    The question is, how does that mushy wetware synthesize past memory present experience, and future prediction, from millions of nerves (measurements) into our rather amazing conflated experiences of past, present and future? (cortical hierarchy, parahippocampal, perirhinal, entorhinal cortices and subiculum.)

    How do we shift between narrow focus, near perception, environmental perception, self perception, and deep introspection and imagination? (thalamus)

    Why is it we can react so quickly that we can hit a curve ball with a bat? (basal ganglia, cerebellum, and cortical prediction)

    How do we Assemble memories and experience them? (Hippocampus)

    What is that feeling of me? (mostly, hippocampus)

    Why can’t we pin it down.

    “Cause it’s a verb not a noun”.

    The continuous change in state in a hierarchy of ever smaller cycles of time….


    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-03 21:45:00 UTC

  • “Invisible Hand of Nature”

    by Martin Štěpán I have used the term “invisible hand of nature” in the last post. This is deliberate to create an association between nature and market because that is what nature is, a market. A self-correcting system, constantly trying to approach an equilibrium it can never reach because there’s too many variables involved. I expect anyone with a basic understanding of economics without a belief in evolution to have much firmer grasp of natural laws than some leftist defending evolution just to pawn the religious conservatives because economic laws are natural laws. One only needs to start accounting for exchanges of both positive and negative value on demonstrated interests (property-in-toto). Illustration: A rabbit meets a fox. An exchange is initiated. Fox has the option to avoid the exchange or spend calories for a chance to obtain more calories. This will generally be preferable option for the fox. However, such exchange is highly disadvantageous for a rabbit because he spends his life in exchange for nothing. The option to simply refuse isn’t open to him but he can spend his own calories in exchange for a chance to survive. Neither option is productive for him but that’s just the way it is. The outcome is either that fox gets more calories that it can then spend as it chooses, for instance, to make more foxes, and that the local supply of rabbits goes down and increases their value, or that the fox wastes its calories, is less successful and risk losing its chance at reproduction while the same happens to the rabbit but his chance to increase the supply of rabbits remains positive. On the market of nature, we’re all both entrepreneurs and products at the same time.