Nathan T_ Freeman

Wow. I haven't watched Glee for two seasons now. Nice to know that I'm missing something worthwhile, so I can go back and check it out. Thanks Mike. :-) Oh man, I hadn't realized that the video that I linked was a cover! I'd meant to link to the original song, and simply thought this YouTube link was the real thing. Here's what I was really talking about when I posted the topic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qQkBeOisNM0&t=63

Heard this for the first time recently and really enjoyed it. The production is completely over the top, but Nate Ruess is trying his hardest to channel Freddie Mercury. I haven't figured out whether I particularly like the lyrics yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-JOBm0sKnU

What does anything look like in the absence of matter? Your eyes are matter. In the absence of your eyes, nothing looks like anything. What does a single boson or quark or electron or atom or molecule look like? You have no perception of any of these things. They are all conceptual models of observed phenomena based on predictive outcome. "Mediator of light?" Ummm... what's that? I'm about 18 inches away from the screen, so please describe the means of interaction. Don't use the terms "light" or "energy" please. What specific action does my brain perform that is independent of nerves? Is there some kind of homonculus inside my cerebral cortex that evaluates the sensory evidence independent of my actual brain? If you're confused by Stef's response, may I suggest Daniel Dennett? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jBUtKYRxnA Condescension is the reflex of those who can't offer explanations. Why don't you just say that he hasn't "achieved enlightenment, man?"

KyleG, let's make this easier. Can you read this question? Can you see me asking you a question in front of you at this very moment?How?

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing. This is correct. A single apple is composed of atoms. I agree. The word "apple" acts as a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms, or to an actualized configuration. "a pointer to an idealized configuration of those atoms" or, in more colloquial terms, a "concept." (I'll leave out the part about it being "idealized" which is pretty obvious Plantonic residue.) What makes heat a thing (rather, a force, is what I should have said) is not the fact that we can conceptualize the relationship between the molecules, but the fact that it has an area of effect and location as a consequence of the physical motion of those molecules Is there an objective difference between the motion of atoms from a flame, and the energy radiated from that flame? The atoms within a single apple are physically bonded? I guess I've never managed to bite into one, then. And since there's no boundary between something radiating energy and something not radiating energy (because energy doesn't exist) then you'll have no trouble placing your hand on a hot stove. The force that affects your skin is, after all, just a conceptualization, and lacks distinct boundaries. Your fallacy is: strawman.

When you say "apple" that's just a conceptualization. It's just a bunch of molecules in a particular configuration. The apple is just a conceptual relationship between these molecules and that concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing. Of course, when you say "molecule" that's just a bunch of atoms in a particular configuration. The molecule doesn't have a shape, since it's just how we describe atoms in a relationship. The concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing. And then when you say "atom", that's just a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons in a particular relationship. You can't even tell the location of the electrons, you just know a percentage likelihood of their position. The concept can be useful, but that doesn't make it a thing. It shouldn't be necessary for me to continue this play...

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not. That about sums my opinion aswell. Since huttnedu hasn't responded to this yet, I'll make an attempt to do so. Are you suggesting that because it would be painful to place your hand above a fire for 10 minutes, therefore the heat must have shape and location? I'm suggesting that someone who advocates the proposition that energy does not exist would be unwilling to act in accordance with this proposition. Sure. From a physics standpoint it is incorrect. I'm not at all clear why "exists" is identical to "having shape and location." But even if it somehow is, then energy has shape and location. The heat from a flame has a location proximate to the flame and it has a shape in the area over which it can be measured.

Then you won't mind holding your hand over this fire for the next 10 minutes. After all, while the plasma matter of the flame that you see exists, the heat energy does not.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law

They know each other. There are pictures of Stef and Kal together at both Libertopia and PorcFest.Also, Kal's house has a sign outside that says "We practice Universally Preferable Behavior."

So let me begin by saying that I didn't click through to your profile information prior to this post, so it's easier now to approach the conversation knowing that you have explicitly listed interests in anarchy, atheism and evolution. Also I am exactly 3 weeks older than you, so I can now make authoritative statements with impunity! (KIDDING! But happy to know I guessed pretty accurately on age.) Also, to set the context clearly, I only have two children myself: a 4.5 year old daughter and a son who turned 2 on this very day. So as I said before: big salute to you for raising 8 at a time. I'm sure you have stories that would be invaluable to the other parents at FDR To be honest, I wonder whether you filter your feelings through your own experiences. You were very forgiving in your descriptions of his childhood. Ah yes. I agree. We all have our personal triggers, but I know well the feeling of reading a story about violence against children and being overwhelmed by helplessness and shame. You cannot think. You cannot fight. You can only cover your eyes, scream at the top of your lungs, and wail at the helpless inhumanity of it all. Yes, I know that agony all too well. I am so sorry you feel it as well. (Well, no, not really. I'm sorry you have to experience that feeling, but I'm delighted that you possess the cognitive awareness of what it really means.) No. And part of me is happy that I can't, because I don't know that I could endure it. And I'm sure that SOMEONE must endure it to convey to future generations the utter horror that it must be. You will find nothing but agreement with your concerns on this board. Ah, but I will challenge you a bit. I bet you DO imagine going through it. And if you personally didn't go through it (and that's a question you can't answer off the cuff,) it doesn't mean you CAN'T imagine it. Again, this is just a pure amateur guesswork, but I suspect you do imagine it quite vividly, and then work very hard to forget what you imagined. Again, just a guess. HUGE APPLAUSE!!! I hope you'll engage this community on a variety of parenting strategies. What you said there was extremely important. You should read it about 10 times. And in answer to your question: no. No, I don't think he would. Everything I have said here is for YOU, not him. I think it's possible he might find his way through what he has endured, but not through anything I have said. He need professional support and insight. I'm just some anonymous person on the internet. The time frame was just speculation, but I hope you can see why there might be an emotional association between the love he was supposed to receive from his mother relative to his older siblings and the love he was supposed to receive from the mother of his children relative to her favorite band. I'd assert that there must be a reason that you highlighted this concert experience when it has such clear parallels to his early childhood. Just to point out that there are alternative stories here, I'll throw out an idea: what if, being born 12 years after his youngest brother, he wasn't intended? What if he not only wasn't intended, but wasn't actually the biological child of his father? Would that explain the pattern of abuse and neglect? Might that have affected his behavior towards his step-children? Or his biological children? Or informed his idea that the matriarch of the family might sire a child out of wedlock? I'm not saying any of these things happened. I'm saying that if they resonate with you, then perhaps they warrant a deeper exploration. Well, I'm certain that you do. So take them. :-) If only the world understood what "supposed to" really meant, all our wounds could be healed and all our fears would vanish like a whisper in the wind. Let's keep working together towards that most noble goal.

I can't offer you anything but my word that I intend no attack. I'm trying to understand the context of your family and how it might relate to your 2nd husband's childhood. I'm speechless! You have been busy! When I do the math, this means that your last child was born 7 years ago (so 2006), at which time you would have had: 13, 11, 9, 6, 5, 3, 1 and a newborn. Were they all living with you and your 2nd husband at the time? That would have been after you'd been married about 2 years, then? That sounds like a wise move. If I can second a suggestion elsewhere in this thread: you really should call-in to the Sunday show and have a chat with Stefan about this. Or drop him an email at [email protected] and ask for a private conversation. I think if you reference this thread, he will be very interested in talking with you. He has a penchant for quickly getting to the core of these kinds of issues. YAY! A 5 year old tries to hitchhike across 3 states in order to leave his parents (and 18-year old brother, perhaps?) I'd say that "not a very good relationship" and things that you would "consider abusive" assuredly understate his actual experience. It is very difficult to imagine that a 5-year old would set out on such an mission for any reason other than mortal terror. Can you imagine your youngest child deciding to run away from home and hitchhike 500 miles to get away from your ex-husband? You described life with him as "living hell" and said you "seriously think he has mental issues." Now consider what happened when your own kids experienced this... And indeed you did have to. Instead of demonizing that, I would praise it as angelic. And precisely the decision that his own mother must not have made. But picture that 5-year old boy, who's mother did NOT leave. And so, at 5, he must have said the same thing to himself that you said at (I'm guessing) around 40. Can you imagine what he must have been experiencing at home to drive him to that decision? Beating up the weakest member of the family, screaming and breaking stuff, being ignored for days at a time... these sound like exactly the kinds of things that might drive a 5-year old boy to try to run away. If I might be allowed a bit of speculation, another thing that might have been trying for a 5-year old boy with 3 older brothers who are at least 13 years older than him is if he thought that his parents didn't love him as much they loved his brothers. If he observed his mother doting on the trio of other brothers, yet ignoring him, he might have felt a horrifying emotional neglect. How many original members of the Foo Fighters were there (or Dave Grohl's prior band, Nirvana?) Their debut album was released in 1995. You started seeing differences in behavior in 2006. Any chance that concert incident was in 2008? I agree. I would further posit that he isn't going to find that help in a church. And unless his older brothers have been through extensive therapy and are prepared to be open with him about their own abusive experiences, I doubt he's going to find it through relationships with them, either. Please understand, I'm not trying to excuse any of his actions. I'm just trying to put them into the context of you saying "he was perfect, and then he completely changed and life became a living hell." Because, and this is really really important, if you don't have some basis of understanding and empathy for what happened to him, you probably aren't going to be able to discover what in yourself causes you to "pick such abusive idiots." If they aren't abusive idiots at the start, but they become so later in the relationship, then there is probably something that you relate to that will point to where you need to work on self-knowledge. Again, I want to commend you and praise you to the heavens for your brave decision to get your kids away from an abusive father. Nothing, NOTHING, is more important than preventing violence to children. And so whatever demonization or defensiveness you might have felt about opening up about this topic here, THANK YOU for doing so, and THANK YOU for protecting your kids from the cycle of violence. You are the light of hope for the future of this species and this planet.

You've mentioned at 16yr old son from a previous relationship, and a 7yr old... what are the ages of all your kids, if you don't mind?He was 12 years younger than his next brother -- that's a pretty big gap. Do you know about his relationship with his parents?

Nothing at all wrong with what you wrote. Thank you for sharing. And yes, I agree that sounds horrifying and based on what you've described, leaving was the best choice. I'm curious, did your husband have any siblings?

Which is a fancy way of saying "it was wrong." No, this is a reversal of the principle. ALL logical theories do not correspond to empircal observation. To wit: "the sky is green." See? There is no correspondence to empircal observation, because I can posit anything I want. Asserting your original position again is not an argument. It's just repetition. Look, let's take a simpler example than gravity. Let's say I propose a theory of counting... 2+2=5 So you test my theory. You take two rocks and put them next to two other rocks, and then you count. And you respond with "no, 2+2=4" Imagine then, that I respond with "sorry, my theory was incomplete. I meant that in the space where all equality includes an additional +1, then the equation is true. So 2+2(+1)=5" If you're going to then say that the original theory of 2+2=5 was true, under certain previously unspecified conditions, then I would submit that you don't understand the meaning of 'true'. Now, to take a slightly less glaring example, let us imagine that I'm cooking a meal for a dinner party of 8. I have a recipe that gives me instructions for one serving. That recipe calls for 3.5 grams of salt. I think "okay, 3.5 g times 8 servings, so I need 27g of salt." And I dutifully measure out the 27 grams and cook up my meal and everyone's happy. Well, you could argue that the meal was an empirical test of 8*3.5=27. I acted on the assumption that was true, the outcome was favorable, and therefore we passed an empirical test. But the problem is that the difference between 27g and 28g (the correct theoretical answer) is trivial in the context of a meal serving 8 people. (side note: yes, I realize that 3500mg of sodium chloride is a ridiculously unhealthy amount.) We could re-examine the math, or we could conduct a specific test of measuring what happens when we combine 8 3.5 containers of NaCl into one single amount -- and ultimately realize that the theory that 8*3.5=27 was wrong. The degree to which it was wrong was unnoticable for our present empirical concerns. But that doesn't make the theory suddenly true. It was just as wrong before we did the test as after when we did the test. What changed wasn't the validity of the theory, or even the taste of the meal, but our knowledge thereof. This is the exact nature of Newtonian vs. relativistic physics. Einstein proved that Newton was wrong. The nature of his error made no more difference when throwing a ball or building a bridge than 27g vs. 28g makes in a meal for 8 people, but the fact that the error was marginal doesn't change false to true. It's our knowledge that changed, not the validity of the theory.

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect. "Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error." That's just factually incorrect. Incomplete theories are theories that apply to specific situations and don't apply to others. Did your example specify those situations as distinct from others? No. It made a universal claim. Therefore, as a theory, it didn't apply to only specific situations; it applied to all situations. You only revised it based on the empirical outcome. But your theory didn't state that until after the empirical test (well, our hypothetical empirical test anyway) contradicted it. That was when you revised the theory (or I guess I revised it -- or Galileo did...) and added the rather large caveat of "no external forces." Once that's added, *it's a new theory*.

Yes, exactly. And in the example you provided, the logical theory is incorrect. "Incomplete" is just a forgiving way to say "error."

No, sorry. You are using the concept of models and evidence incorrectly. If you posit "objects fall at the same rate" and then I drop a bowling ball and a feather at the same time, and the feather takes longer to hit the ground, then your proposition is false. Objects do not, in fact, fall at the same rate. Perhaps what you meant to say was "gravity exerts a consistent amount of force on all objects" and that might be true. But that is a different proposition than "objects fall at the same rate" because the former only implies the latter in the absence of any other force. As you observe, air resistance is another force. Indeed, a Saturn V rocket experiences the same force of gravity during it's launch as a bowling ball dropped from a building; but the rocket exerts a much greater counter-force to allow it to escape the gravity well of the Earth. This has nothing to do with the accuracy of mathematical models. It has everything to do with the COMPLETENESS of theoretical propositions. The original proposition is simply false, because it does not offer sufficient description to make it true. The fact that you left out critical conditions from the proposition that, when applied, prove correct, does not somehow mean that your original proposition is true. It's still false. Your AMENDED proposition (objects of similar mass fall at the same rate in a vaccuum) is true, but that says nothing about the validity of the original statement.

Meh. It'll flop. Whenever someone tries to use it later as a picture of what happens in the absence of the state, you can just say "what's 'The Purge?'"

Also, when you want to draw out the perspective sizes of body counts, etc, these might come in handy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Cities_by_population So if you happen to re-record any of it, you could highlight how the proportional population figures compare to American states or cities. Calling out that the number of displaced people is the equivalent of the entire state of Illinois having to move someplace else might give a litlte more meaning to some of these population numbers. You do a great job with conveying the sums of money by breaking them down to hourly rates. I think you could get a more human connection to the population numbers by comparing them to known populations. Thanks again for all you do.

Incredibly powerful closing, Stef.I have some reservations about that 5 million children number you start with. That doesn't seem to be cited in the sources. And I'd like to see the math on the 1.5 million. I get that this might be a total from several different periods that are covered by different sources. Otherwise, all I can say is that I feel shellshocked just from having watched it. When you're ready to list it, I will definitely share with friends and family.

The question wasn't whether a child could do it. The question was whether it would be moral to tell a child to do it for the benefit of some audience of other people. Oh, I forgot who I was talking to. Sorry.

You could use stand-ins like they do with stings and things sometimes. Adults that are able to pass as kids. Just an idea. Why bother? My daughter is 4. She could throw a perfect tantrum on demand, because she completely understands what it is. She sees them happen with her 22 month-old brother when he gets frustrated about not being able to communicate. She also completely understands the idea of pretending. She takes her Play-dough and pretends to make cupcakes. She takes her dolls and pretends they're having conversations. She watches Dora the Explorer and pretends that Dora can hear her when she answers. There is no confusion on her part. In fact, she tries with sometimes-distressing frequency to pretend to be sad. She knows how to fake crying when she wants something. We're working through that very practice right now, in fact; negotiating away from the use of false distress to trigger a reaction from me and my wife. (If you're wondering whether we did something to cause this practice, the answer is yes: we had another baby. When he cries it generally is real distress and we address it immediately. She's nothing if not observant.) Based on this conversation, I'm tempted right now to try this idea out. My only reservation is whether *I* would deliver an adequate performance and demonstration for people to want to follow. I have no idea whether I'd be successful in my own role. Maybe I'll ask her about it tomorrow.

I agree with both of you that all these explanations are possible. It's not the more-or-less-attractive issue that I think is profound; it's the self-perception vs. other-perception issue. It is very difficult for people to comprehend that the rest of the world does not operate on their inner dialog. This commercial is a great concrete demonstration of that. Sure, it's about looks, but if you flipped it around and turned it into, say, a Briggs-Meyers questionnaire, it would have even more profound implications. About 15 years ago I was working in a startup with a group that was very into team-building efforts and we did DISC assessments. One of the interesting outcomes was whether other people agreed with the results of the description. Another interesting outcome was how people felt about their own assessment. Each of us understanding the way we saw ourselves compared to each other made a big impact on the honesty in our interactions. The company was not ultimately successful, but not because of our relationships. 15 years later, several of us are still close and treasure our shared experience. It strikes me that the commercial is a good introduction to this type of self-empathy. But perhaps I'm being generous.

I thought this reporter had an interesting moment of honesty about the whole thing. Listen closely... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V7SIQJ578d4#t=5s