http://worldif.economist.com/article/13526/electromagnetic-shockREAD THIS – THIS IS HOW
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 00:38:00 UTC
Theme: Science
-
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method such that we can test statements and arguments in every field by a single grammatical system. The rest of it is just the application of the completion of that method to the entire spectrum of human knowledge, from metaphysics through aesthetics.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 18:03:00 UTC
-
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method such that we can test statements and arguments in every field by a single grammatical system. The rest of it is just the application of the completion of that method to the entire spectrum of human knowledge, from metaphysics through aesthetics. -
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method
Look. My work is reducible to a single thing: I completed the scientific method such that we can test statements and arguments in every field by a single grammatical system. The rest of it is just the application of the completion of that method to the entire spectrum of human knowledge, from metaphysics through aesthetics. -
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I rea
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I read scientists. The principal purpose of reading philosophy is that once you’ve mastered the basics of the the major logics and sciences, you may want to know ‘how to do it wrong’ -so you can avoid it. Because that’s what philosophy means: how to do it wrong.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 18:02:00 UTC
-
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I rea
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I read scientists. The principal purpose of reading philosophy is that once you’ve mastered the basics of the the major logics and sciences, you may want to know ‘how to do it wrong’ -so you can avoid it. Because that’s what philosophy means: how to do it wrong. -
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I rea
I don’t read philosophers – they’re nonsense-peddlers: secular priesthood. I read scientists. The principal purpose of reading philosophy is that once you’ve mastered the basics of the the major logics and sciences, you may want to know ‘how to do it wrong’ -so you can avoid it. Because that’s what philosophy means: how to do it wrong. -
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems. -
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems. -
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ system
Junk Science at its best. Either we have three or four emotional ‘reward’ systems, we can describe Pluchik’s eight dimensions (which is a projection of four). Then we have five or six personality factors that bias them (certain, because they correspond to physical reward systems). And if we assume that in general, humans can distinguish at best, between five states, that should yield Pluchik’s diagram, of, at least five levels, with no less than three emotions ‘active’ at the same time. Meanwhile we can experience any combination at once, or sequence of emotions that result in a transitory, temporal, or durable state of emotional experience. That means there are no less than 64 simple emotions, at no less than five degrees of intensity, in some combination … often in many combinations, including ’emotional confusion’. Ergo the number of discernable permutations may be more than two thousand, even if we only possess names for a few hundred of them, and even if we have only four reward(punishment) systems.
Source date (UTC): 2017-09-12 11:24:00 UTC