TheRobin

Great interview I just found with Bruce Ecker, one of the founders of Coherence therapy. http://sevencounties.org/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=29647 Here's a bit of the interview and also why I think this might be very interesting to all people interested in Self-Knowledge and Therapy

Depends all on how old your kid is and the situation. Like, I don't think you can reasonably expect a two year old to pay for something they broke, but you probably can if it's a ten year old. Plus also depends a bit on what made them break it to begin with. If it was an accident or just exploration or something I don't think it makes sense to have them pay for it. As adults we'd have insurance for accidents, but as kids we rely on our parents far that I think. Could you give some more details?

Not being a parent here, but my general thoughts about punishment: Punishment is a clever way of saying revenge, without it sounding that bad. It's the idea of "You did something to hurt me (or someone else), so I (or someone else) will now do something to hurt you". I think the whole principle is rather uncivilized frankly. What I'd rather go with is restitution (i.e. you caused some hurt, now you have to make up for it by providing something positive to the hurt party). Parenting ofc has that added difficulty that the child comes into being completely unaware of a lot of things. Including what reactions his or her actions elicit in others. But generally, without understanding of why something he/she did was wrong or hurtful to the other person nothing is learned from either punishment or restitution, I think. But ofc, how the details look like in terms of what to do in what situation I can't really say.

Not quite sure what you're asking. Do you want to figure out why you have those symptoms? Or do you ask for advice on how to get rid of them?

All you really say is that you dismiss psychological explanations (which are based on what we KNOW about the human psyche) and then claim there's no good reason to dismiss religion otherwise. But unless you make a case why the explanations are invalid to begin with or make the case that some of the religious claims are true, then you haven't really made an argument for the validity of religion.

Interesting article, got my mind blown a little at one of the studies they use as examples. Imo totally worth the read, enjoy https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201506/how-early-academic-training-retards-intellectual-development

Right, so your theory has absolutely no value whatsoever when it comes to gaining any knowledge about the economy and it's functioning. It's like a theory of gravity that says "stuff falls down and sometimes up, I can't really tell how or why or measure it or predict anything though ".

Okay then, I'm hungry I want to eat something, the apple is in normal healthy condition. is it worth the 50 cents or not? And how do you determine that? It sounds more like it's practically impossible to ever gain an answer to these kinds of questions anyway, so what can you actually predict and or deduct from your theory anyway? So far all I'm hearing is some abstract basic principle that doesn't lead anywhere

Okay, so I buy an apple for 50 cents. What's the value of the apple to me and what's the value of the 50 cents to the seller? And how do you know?

YESSS!!!!!

I see. As I said, I stopped watching at around 8 minutes in, cause I had a hard time following, so I can't really comment on the ideas themselves. But if your presentation skills are lacking so much that you can't communicate ideas well enough for normal intelligent people to follow (or only follow with great effort) then you might as well not have said anything in the first place unfortunately. Also just to be clear, with circular I meant your definition of "object" which itself includes the very same term ("object of thought")

Sure, you go off on tangents quite a bit. You use non-common definitions (maybe check the dictionary for a better word?), but also in the example of the definition of "object" you use the word object itself (which is circular and so doesn't help much either for that part of the definition). And yeah, using the technical mathematical term (which almost no one knows) isn't helpful either. But the most difficult part was stuff like your deep loud breaths, the uhms and the tangents. Given that it's already quite challenging to follow because of all the things mentioned above it should be even more of a priority to not drift off into tangents and have some flow to your presentation. The actual text with the things you talk about was very helpful though.

While I didn't have much trouble following your reasoning during the call, I find it impossible to follow your thoughts in your video. Admittedly, I only tried to first one and gave up after about 8 minutes in. My humble advice would be to boil down what you're trying to say to it's bare essentials and then communicate that as best as you can and avoid all other arguments and thoughts while doing so.

Afaik there are different definitions of "inflation" depending on what school of economics you're looking at. The austrians simply define Inflation as an increase in money supply. Other schools define it as a decrease in purchasing power of money. A drop in purchasing power comes, when money decreases in value more so than products around them. So in theory, using that definition, you can print money like mad, as long as prices of consumer goods prices decrease equally you don't get Inflation. I don't quite understand how productivity is measured in your example (i.e. what exactly is defined as productivity), but I guess that might be what the defintion exaplins, as if you increase productiviy (i.e. you produce more but at the same cost, or produce the same at lower cost) then you can sell cheaper as a result, even if there's a drop in purchasing power, practically you can still buy the same amount of stuff as before Also I want to add, the problem isn't competition for labour. That's just an effect of advanced statism, where it's increasingly more risky/difficult to set up a company than it is to simply work for someone else. So that's the main reason why there are more unemplyed workers looking for jobs, than entrepreneurs looking for workers. In a truly free market, the employer/employee ration would naturally balance itself into creating the least amount of unemployed on either side. Also you're saying that there's already unemplyoment so riseing wages wont' change that. This is completely ignoring the amount of employment. Raising wages (if done coercively) always leads to more unemployment, regardless of how much there already is. So that's not the answer to anything.

In a way that's not really helpful at all, though I appreciate the answer. But given that the guy is a Prof at a university and giving a lecture on the topic, simply saying "he's wrong" isn't really adding much. But okay, let me ask you this then, if it's just limits of knowledge, then you could easily get around that with certain setups in experiment, by letting an electron without angular momentum get to the proton (and then stick to it), then you'd know the exact momentum and have a really small delta on the location too, which accoridng to the prininciple shouldn't be possible, as that would give you a zero value, where the principle demands something greater than zero. So, is the Uncertainty principle therefore only valid for certain experimental setups then?

Hey gSmtih, First of all. I'm really happy to hear someone with an actual physics degree participating in the conversation So maybe you can explain me this then, cause form a physics lecture (link below) I had it explained to me that the uncertainty principle actually does generate a force if the possible location was small enough. This was given as the reason why in a hydrogen atom the electron doesn't just stick to the proton for example. (see this (don't let the title of the lecture confuse you though, the first point he makes is about eh uncertainty principle)ç In general I found the whole Phyiscs-x series quite intersting, as it tries to show the concepts without much of the (heavy) math, while still giving some clear experimental setups and all.

I think you're now even more confusing things. Yeah, sure most anarchists (especially in Europe) are left anarchists (though they just call themselves anarchists) and yeah they reject property rights, but that has nothing to do with anarchy. As you said (sort of) anarchy means no rulers, not no property rights. It is your personal conclusion that no rulers => no enforcable rules => no property rights. But that, again, has nothing to do with the term anarchy. As for recommendations: Try Stefs "Practical Anarchy" where he goes into detail of that kind of stuff.

Well, either you want to build a house where no one is near and no one cares, then that's not a problem anyway. OR you want to build a house near to people or in a town/city, then you're not the first one and can just ask what the common procedure is there. I'd just guess with 7 billion people on the globe there's no one universal way that is that exact same in every single location, so asking for a general rule is rather impossible, imo. Also, just by the way for both Aviet and Costa, I can only recommend the free books and podcasts on this webpage, as most of these questions have been answered already time and time again. Especially the "how do rules get enforced in a free/anarchic society"-thing. Also, aviet, please don't create unnecessary confusion just becaue YOU don't get what anarchy means and how it works. Else every post will end up with conflict over definitions and that will usually lead nowhere.

Thanks for clarifying the technical part. But I don't think it's a matter of owning the adress but more of fraud then. For example, you also can't own a name, but if you know a packet is waiting for someone at the post office to pick up and you present a false ID with their name on it so you can get to the packet that's still fraud on your part, or wouldn't you say? I mean, the adress only describes the location of where your mailbox is, so when someone sends you stuff (like if you bought something from amazon), the contract is, you give them money and they put the packet in your mailbox (more or less). So if someone else also puts a nother identical mailbox where yours is in order to receive the package, then that's theft, cause they don't have such an agreement with amazon and so they don't get the packet with their consent.

But if you can't get a more precise description, then what's the difference? Also from what I understand, "particles" do get an increase in momentum if the location where they could be is limited. Like, electrons don't stick to the atomic core, cause the less possible locations it could be as it gets there means that its momentum will just increase, hence it will never stick to the protons, despite if EM forces dragging it there. Also not sure how this requires the many worlds interpretation to be valid.

Well, I'm no hacker, but I doubt there's anything passive in what you describe. In order to collect ANY information it has to end up on your PC somehow and in order to do that you need to "tell" other PCs (that aren't yours) that they need to send you this information. Unless the owners of those PCs consent to that, you're breaking the NAP by using their property without consent.

You don't "copyright" things, you automatically have a copyright on anything you create, regardless of whether you want to or not. (or at least in 99.9% of countries)

Maybe I'm just arrogant and daft here, but it makes quite a lot of sense to me actually. To use Stef's example with the invisible spider. If you claim that a spider is sitting on your hand, but no instrument can measure it's existence, then we must conclude that the spider is actually identical to not existing at all (as it has all the characteristics of non-existence (well, mainly, a lack of characteristics ofc)). And similarly, since the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can't know location and impulse of things more precisely than a specific given number then, for all intents and purposes, statistical probabilities of stuff being in more than one location is effectively how things are at that level. It would be similar to putting 10 tennis balls into a black box that doesn't allow for any information or radation to pass through and then put the box on a spinning wheel to keep it in constant motion. Since we no longer have access (can't measure) to the location and impulse of the tennis balls, then for all intents and purposes they become a purely statistical phenomenon without any clear impulse and location that we could define accurately at any single point and it would stop makng any sense to still treat them as everyday objects so to speak, because we can't apply the characteristics of everyday object (i.e. precise knowledge of location and impulse) to them anymore.

No, but that doesn't make it moral to shoot tresspassers on site either

To make the case as briefly as possible: If we accept that empathy means something along the lines of "being able to understand an emotional and/or cognitive state of other people" then people who lack emapthy would just show confusion when they are exposed to a behaviour/emotion/idea they can't empathize with. However most of the time what we experience is people actively opposing the behaviour/emotion/idea, which can not logically be attributed to a lack of understanding, but an opposition/anger towards the expression of this behaviour/emotion/idea. Maybe I'm just extrapolating too much from my own experience here, but I've found that when I couldn't empathize with certain aspects about myself I've felt annoyed by whatever I couldn't empathize with. Which was something that came out of the idea that "I shouldn't have/listen to this feeling/idea". And simply recognizing this has helped me tremendously in empathizing with myself again. I mainly post this, 'cause if I'm more or less correct, then maybe a simple explanation of this might help people with an apparent lack of empathy to understand their own process better which might help them change their behaviour. Ofc it might just be a bit wishful thinking on my part. Also, for that sake of accuracy, I think it might be more productive the understand it as a opposition to a very specific thing and not an overall lack of understanding or opposition of all behaviour/emotions/ideas. Like, most people barely have a problem with empathizing with happyness and joy. Some have a problem accepting and listening to anger. And most often it's a lack of accepting and listening to sadness. As Stef mentioned a few times himself, there's a problem for empathetic people by not being able to understand what's going on inside people who lack empathy for certain things (i.e. can't empathize with a lack of empathy). I think this can create two distinct problems of communcation. One is when someone gives more pragmatic answers without much regard for the emotional content of the person's expression, which is often seen by the difference of men and women reacting to certain situations, where women generally want more someone to listen to their feelings and men generally just want to help them change things for the better (and then get called cold or heartless for that). The other situation is where someone shares something and the other one comments with annoyance and surprise at the fact that they would feel/express something like that, implicitly stating "you shouldn't feel that way". In the first example the solution (I think) lies in understanding that people have different ways of trying to alleviate the unease and that this difference doesn't necessairly imply a lack of wanting to help. While on the other hand it's also good to keep in mind for the more pragmatic among us, that people can have different expectations when communicating something than just wanting practical advice. In the second example it might be useful to explain those people the basci idea of emotions and why they would be appropriate and useful in that specific situation and see if they get it. Also possibly ask them why they'd think people "shouldn't feel that way (and express it)" to encourage them to question their own assumptions a bit. Of course this is no guarantee that people will listen and it will be productive but it might help bridge the gap a bit and help with community building and problem-solving in relationships. Anyway, looking forward to hearing your thoughts about it and I hope I didn't just miss something that obvious that the first answer to this post will completely invalidate all of what I just wrote