ofd
-
Posts
645 -
Joined
-
Days Won
11
Everything posted by ofd
-
Regarding question 3: how do people like Paul Singer or other managers of vulture fonds create value? -
Sure, I don't dispute that. Are any of those impossible with today's gravity? The metabolism plays a huge role too. Warmblooded animals need a lot more food to keep a constant temperature. Poikilothermic dinosaurs had no such problem. The other major factor is the availability of food. The argument is that lightweight bones can be as structurally sound as heavy bones.
-
I did not listen to it. The article you linked to makes the assumption that larger animals share the same building plan as smaller animals. My argument is that the larger an animals, the more pressure there is on saving mass. You can see that in other areas as well where optimisation for weight is important: the anatomy of bats is different from that of other mammals bc of different pressures. They are not rats or mice with wings.
-
There may be a simplier explanation that doesn't violate the law of physics. We know from engineering that H-beams are as structurally sound as a beam that is not cut out to the form of a H. In short, the forces acting on the beam focus on the H part of the beam. If you add more, the beam doesn't become structurally better. Since bones make up a big portion of the weight, it's reasonable to assume that having lighter bones is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps dinosarus had porous bones, the equivalent of H-beams that were as structurally sound as 'our' bones at a much lower weight. You can see the same effect with bones where having light bones is also selected for. Birds have tubular bones filled with air that are much lighter than mammal bones.
-
That's no surprise, frankly. Great Britain and Imperial Russia played the 'Great Game' about control in Asia, now it's the Anglophone World vs China and Russia.
-
Where did the gradual increase in mass come from?
-
Can you point me to it? I haven't found it.
-
What caused the change in gravity?
-
-
Do you have a link with timecode? Afaik, Jung said that synchronicity was a causal and unrelated to determinism. Not even the staunchest determinist scientists would say that, because biology is different from physics with different emergent laws in addition to the physical laws. Studying biology takes a different perspective and mindset than studying physics or chemistry.
-
This is what the third generation cogntitiv approach tries to do. One problem CBT practicioners encountered was that irrationale ideas are coupled with strong emotions. If you de-couple them, you can become more rational in a shorter period of time.
-
Essentially the ABC-model introduced by Albert, where A stands for an input, C is the reaction and B being the irrational ideas. What makes those approaches different from REBT or CBT is that they try to change B at the core, not disputing it with more rational ideas.
-
No idea what this means.
-
There are things and we perceive attributes of those things. If we couldn't perceive those attributes, we couldn't distinguish between entities. Nor could we come up with the law of identity. If the law of identity applies to the empirical world, it's object to falsification. It it doesn't, if it is purely a priori, you can't make statements about the empirical reality and cannot be tested.
-
Things don't have identities, they have attributes. The identity of a thing (the thing in itself) can't be experienced. Further, performative contradictions don't proof what posited is true.
-
How is the First Law of Logic violated? How do you know that the Law of Identity is true?
-
To take a prominent example: Freud actually never cured a patient. More importantly, psychoanalysis can explain everything within its framework. This may be seen as an advantage, however it's a weakness. If psychoanalysis doesn't work it's because of resentment or some complexes deep in the past. This failure validates the theory and serves as immunisation against the critics. As Popper pointed out, psychoanalysis makes no predictions that can be tested. It's a bunch of just so ad hoc theories. Cognitive approaches that test their theories against reality. The third generation approaches (ACT, Mindfulness Based CBT, Coherence Therapy) propose a model of the mind that is in line with our understanding of how the mind works. The null hypothesis is that there are no objective ideals. Presupposing them to proofing free will is begging the question. Jonathan Haidt and Daniel Kahneman have done some groundbreaking work that shows how and when our rationality breaks down and how it is a rider that controls an elephant. There is a simple example that proves this wrong. Emotions are designed to give you more false positives rather than an accurate description of the enviroment. They do that, to make it more likelier that you will pass your genes on. If you hear something rustle behind you, you will turn around and the fight / flight / freeze reaction sets in. In 99% of the cases it was a false alarm. But in the one case where it was say a snake, that emotional reaction may have saved your life. There is a much simpler explanation that can be tested easily. Feeling guilty lets you adjust to a society which makes it easier to pass on your genes. The area of the brain where this calculations take place has been located (Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex) and interestingly enough, it is the part of the brain that is the last to be fully formed. From a biological sense, this makes sense. It helps you adjust to society and their intricate rules. Some societies have arcane restrictions to eating or mating, hence learning about them and internalizing them makes it easier for you to have offspring. There are more concepts, like shame, disgust and so on that are not rational. If you grew up in a society that thinks eating pig is forbidden you will feel a visceral reaction to those animals that can't be found in societies where eating them is considered normal. The same is true for other food and sexual practices. How can you show that they are there at all? Details don't matter when you can't show that what you claim can be tested and be found repeatedly. If you can explain everything, you can't explain anything. Furthermore you immunize your theory against scrutiny. A theory that makes specific predictions that can be tested is preferable over one that has only a big theory of everything, making no predictions.
-
That's a big if. That's a false dichotomy. Emotions are not under your rational control. Sure, you can force yourself to feel differently, but that takes a lot of energy and eventually, it will fail. The self itself is under heavy dispute, especially among those who study the mind. Either via scientific approaches or on a subjective level using meditation. Psychoanalysis has failed both on the theoretical level and more importantly on the practical level of actually helping or curing people.
-
How do you know that? Current findings disagree with your thesis.
-
It would have collapsed 1999 years ago, because food production would have become impossible.
-
That's a popular mistake among philosophical novices. Saying that something exists doesn't add more information. 'This apple here is red and it exists' contains the same information as 'This apple here is red'.
-
Women Better Off as Property?
ofd replied to Fashus Maximus's topic in Men's Issues, Feminism and Gender
Of course they were. Why do you think that the groom's family paid a bride price to the woman's family in the West as well? Because she was considered property, that was exchanged for money. The idea of romantic love, marrying somebody without material interests is very recent and most likely a bad idea, given what it led to. -
There are numerous other cheaper ways to get the same thing. Peterson's suite isn't novel in its approach, it's more convenient. 'Eat that frog' by Tracy or 'Getting Things Done' by Allen are similar and can be implemented without having to buy some software.
-
In theory, the validity of a subject isn't predicated on the form. In reality it is. We pick up on cues on how something is delivered to us and most base the assesment of the validity primarily on the form of delivery.
-
This is my advice