tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73184189479146150532024-03-19T09:40:49.644+01:00Belief Kills ThoughtMichael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-67729840641750512632017-01-12T17:16:00.000+01:002017-01-12T17:16:32.589+01:00Philosophy and ScienceI recently had a reader post on one of my <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mtgerety/posts/10210705280775317" target="_blank">Facebook threads</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<i>Unfortunately, my mind doesn't work like a scientist's. I studied English Lit and Philosophy. Philosophers can pontificate without having their hypotheses tested for correctness.</i>"</blockquote>
There are several things here that need to be addressed: Science, Philosophy, hypothesis, and hypothesis testing. I have participated in discussions where essentially the same phrase finds a way into the conversation. It shows some common misunderstanding of how "intellectuals", "academics", or "scientists" think about reality. Scientists *are* philosophers and therefore their minds *do* operate in the same manner as the mind of a Philosopher, by definition.<br />
<br />
Philosophical ideas *are* rigorously tested for correctness. A person who pontificates without testing his ideas is not engaged in philosophy, at all. These people pontificate, they are *not* "philosophizing" and I don't care what their degree is in or whether or not they are full professors in a philosophy department. Maybe what is needed here is a clear explanation of what constitutes philosophy? Philosophizing (doing philosophy) is the act of creating a model of reality; the word philosophy is often used to describe the intellectual model of reality constructed by philosophizing. <br />
<br />
<br />
Scientists *are* philosophers. It is only recently that people have started separating out science from philosophy. Others can if do this if they like, but I do not. Philosophy has to do with 'reality' in all of its manifestations. For example your own ideas, emotions, and thoughts are part of this grand 'reality', so is mathematics and physics. People may have stopped thinking of science as philosophy because it was so successful; it took the spotlight and reduced the rest of philosophy to small academic corners in our universities. This is *not* progress; it is sad. Science is philosophy that addresses the physical and *repeatable* world.<br />
<br />
Science deals with things that we can repeat, nothing else really. We do experiments that we can repeat in in order to test the "null hypothesis". That is, we attempt to prove that the idea is *wrong* as it is impossible to prove that an idea is correct. I mean that. It is impossible, theoretically, to prove an idea is correct; it *is* possible to demonstrate that it is wrong. This is how scientists makes progress concerning our knowledge of the physical world.<br />
<br />
The rest of philosophy deals with things that are not repeatable. For instance, people think that the study of the origin of the universe is science; for all *practical* purposes the universe is not a repeatable phenomenon subject to experimentation. The study of universe is called cosmology and although it uses some of the tools that are considered 'science' it is not science but it is philosophy, important philosophy. I know that this is a bit "technical" but the point is important for understanding how we pick the world apart in order to understand it. So this thing that we call a "hypothesis" is really only applicable to the "science" part of philosophy.<br />
<br />
So how do the other philosophers, the ones that deal with more ephemeral topics such as logic or law deal with 'testing' their ideas? These are not the sort of thing that one can test physically so how do we separate the bad ideas from the good ones? We use consistency. If a system of thought, "Law" for instance, is internally inconsistent, it is considered as incomplete or impracticable. Much of the work in philosophy (thought) is in locating and fixing the inconsistencies and finding and filling the holes (completeness).<br />
<br />
When I evaluate what people are saying, I look for internal inconsistencies, contradictions and completeness. When I find an internal inconsistency, I know that the idea is not viable. We *define* what is viable by that which is consistent with itself and the world that it fits into. This does *not* mean that it is correct. It means that it has the *possibility* of being correct. When I find an area the seems applicable but it is not covered in the philosophical structure, I attempt to patch the hole so that what would logically be covered in the concept is covered in the idea structure.<br />
<br />
Sorry about the 'lecture' but this stuff is important. I hope that what I have said makes sense to you. Correctness for a philosopher means internal consistency, completeness and conformance to that which is observed. It is highly rigorous and subject to intense testing. More intense scrutiny than perhaps any other human activity. It deal with how we think. Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-55808968338674467442017-01-11T18:22:00.000+01:002017-01-11T18:22:38.885+01:00Reality, a Fantasy<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidbb4E7dX76Z2rSwl4ICPjkPhvSWOeDAMELIUhp3xDtrDxVmhOPTLPMVkICx2EaG7YOzYoFXA_iWj1jyU7kFIZEAGuDOWxWXd6f1RbhcctO2Q2my0RA1EUl52udIvuRzccJJBDrcOvDhc/s1600/RealityModel.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidbb4E7dX76Z2rSwl4ICPjkPhvSWOeDAMELIUhp3xDtrDxVmhOPTLPMVkICx2EaG7YOzYoFXA_iWj1jyU7kFIZEAGuDOWxWXd6f1RbhcctO2Q2my0RA1EUl52udIvuRzccJJBDrcOvDhc/s320/RealityModel.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption">The
image, by the way comes from a pretty good article that has not much to
do with what my point is here. It is a great article that makes a
different point concerning reality: one that is not at all inconsistent
with what I am saying here. <a href="https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/virtual-reality-could-it-revolutionise-higher-education" target="_blank">https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/virtual-reality-could-it-revolutionise-higher-education. </a></span></span><br />
<span class="fbPhotosPhotoCaption" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}" id="fbPhotoSnowliftCaption" tabindex="0"><span class="hasCaption"><br /> "Reality" is for all practical purposes, something that our<span class="text_exposed_show">
brains build entirely within our heads. In this sense it is a fantasy. It may be based on real experience, but it is a fantasy nonetheless. <br /><br />The construction of a 3-D model
is one of the primary functions of our brains; it does this so that we might move through space and
time too. All animals do this too. It is an abstraction concerning the
information that our bodies encounter with the five senses. That's it,
just five things. From color patterns and smells and sounds and tastes
and physical contact, all independent of one another and all coming into
our brains on different channels at different times. Sometimes sensory
data relates to one another, sometimes they do not. Sometimes they do
and we miss the relationship entirely and sometimes they do not relate
at all but we think that they do. It is a big job, a huge job; and the
model that the brain puts together I call a Reality Model or just
Reality for short. <br /> <br /> Every individual has a different Reality
which, is constructed from the memories of what we have stored about our
experiences, not the experiences themselves. Not only that, but we only
remember a very small number of the things that we observe and
experience. Our brains choose what to remember based on its Reality
Model and the strength of the emotion associated with the input. <br /> <br />
We each have different memories: therefore the reality space in which
one person manages is not at all the same reality space that another
person lives within. All of this is completely unconscious. We have no
conscious control over the process. Some people are more fearful than
others; it is not a choice. Some people frame people as lazy and stupid,
some frame them as productive and smart. The words lazy and productive,
of course, mean nothing outside of comparison and who easier to
compare with but ourselves. <br /> <br /> The stories that others tell us
and the things that other people point out to us are also important in
the construction of our personal Reality. I did not discover by myself
that light can be broken apart into a rainbow; it was pointed out to me
and has since become part of my reality. People pass their observations
to other people so that other person might experience the same 'reality'
as they do and in such they construct what I call Communal Reality. <br /> <br />
My favorite story illustrating the point comes out of the Internet, of
course. It is true in the sense that this is what happens as people
interact with each other but it is probably not true in the sense that
this probably never happened; it is a story to illustrate a concept.
Every person experiences these types of interaction every single day,
provided that they are not in solitary confinement. <br /> <br /> -------<br />
A friend, who worked away from home all week, always made a special
effort with his family on the weekends. Every Sunday morning he would
take his 7-year old granddaughter out for a drive in the car for some
bonding time. Just he and his granddaughter.<br /> <br /> One particular
Sunday however, he had a bad cold and really didn't feel like being up
at all. Luckily, his wife came to the rescue and said that she would
take their granddaughter out. When they returned, the little girl
anxiously ran upstairs to see her grandfather.<br /> <br /> "Well, did you enjoy your ride with grandma?"<br />
"Oh yes, PaPa" the girl replied, "and do you know what? We didn't see a
single dumb bastard or lousy shit head anywhere we went today!" <br /> ------<br /> <br />
So what is the difference driving to school with Grandpa vs grandma?
Well, with grandma they don't pass through a world of idiots and lazy
people and drunks; they pass through a world of hardworking handsome
boys and flowers. The realities really are different even though they
take the same streets in the same town. <br /> <br /> What people see and
how they behave and what they show others is determined by their Reality
Model. All Reality Models are incomplete and all reality models are
fraught with errors. Maybe we should compare notes to forge something
that works well? Maybe not. Maybe we should take the traditional
approach and kill all those that have Reality Models that conflict with
our own. Your choice Conservatives and Liberals, your choice readers.</span></span></span>Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-83686361532032585812017-01-11T14:41:00.002+01:002017-01-11T17:52:43.732+01:00The Trump Card. A Description of Reality. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje7MN5iNav4tZFqPj48U9Dihyj-TkHQJdI8-2xn82RGdoRWeaF3vTTybuDK71RGknW2snj5hY_J253EMtgBGc0Jy46iwlaOiGm3irb6Snx6x-6-8S-feLJ3qEREh7B8wcKAGy-8_8eu80/s1600/Brain.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEje7MN5iNav4tZFqPj48U9Dihyj-TkHQJdI8-2xn82RGdoRWeaF3vTTybuDK71RGknW2snj5hY_J253EMtgBGc0Jy46iwlaOiGm3irb6Snx6x-6-8S-feLJ3qEREh7B8wcKAGy-8_8eu80/s320/Brain.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35552030</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Take a look at Trump's nominations for the highest levels of government. Virtually every appointment is someone that detests the Agencies that they are to manage. Why? Because their job is to destroy the "effectiveness" of those agencies, that is if they are not successful in actually dismantling the agencies in their entirety. Trump's reality is one in which the most ideal society is one that is run by those people that control the world distribution of resources (Exxon, Monsanto, Alibaba, Gazprom, Glencore, etc.). For Trump, a democracy is absurd. Trump *would be* a follower of Ayn Rand, that is, if he read at all. Trump's reality does not include books. He is functionally illiterate. At least that is what *he* has said.<br />
<br />
How in the world can a complex society be governed by people that do not understand how the economy works? They can't ... *if* ... one's concept of governmental function is to aid the good guys in building a perfect world and stopping the bad guys from damaging the effort. Bad guys should not be voting. The success of said society is measured by the amount of profit made. Ones "importance" to society is directly related to the amount of resources/cash that they control. It makes no sense to Trump nor to his supporters nor to the Republican Party that anyone *but* the 1 percent should be *allowed* to determine the rules by which society is managed.<br />
<br />
The first rule of this new 'elite' is that there are *no rules* for the good guys whose job it is to fight evil (them). The very first action that the new Congress took was to attempt to abolish the Ethics Committee. Rules are to be applied to control the evil nature of those that *call themselves* Homo sapiens, but are not really quite there yet. One must free the good guys (them) to create a wonderful society and one must control the "less gifted" (the rest of us) with laws to stop us from damaging society. Rules do not apply to them because they are working for good. Rules only apply to the evil ones to stop them from destroying society.<br />
<br />
Jess Session's nomination for Attorney General is particularly instructive. Sessions is one of the most virulent racists in American politics and has been for his entire career. His appointment speaks loudly to Trumps desire to make sure that the disruptions caused by the "less enlightened" be controlled. There is ample evidence that Trump *believes* in his heart and soul that the reason that American has been successful is because the "white race" (yes, I know that there is no such thing) has a more effective reality model (genetically superior) than the "other races" and that the "almost humans" are trying to take over governance, which would result in the destruction modern civilization (built by them, of course). The unenlightened must be stopped from doing this, for the good of humanity. Jeff Sessions has been working for this his entire life. He is the best able to manage the systems that were designed to stop the bad guys from damaging his country. He is the best qualified for this task. Trump has indeed found the best man for the job.<br />
<br />
Property values fall when "non-whites" move into a upper class neighborhoods (White neighborhoods) . This is a clear indication to Trump) that non-whites, if left to their own devices will damage the economic structures that he has worked hard to create. He has personally denied non-whites housing in units that he controls. He has said clearly that many of Americas economic woes, derive directly from immigrants. He probably does not see this as racism or hatred of non-whites; it is an economic fact, so it cannot possible be racist. He loves non-whites, they can't help it if they are not equipped to be fully human. He feels sorry for them but still, he must control them from damaging society. He has ample evidence that they, in fact, do damage society ... as *he* envisions it.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately Trump thinks that *his* vision of society and the vision of his friends (Putin, for example) is the only *real* and accurate description of "reality". The rest of us are either uninformed, misinformed, uneducated, lying for our own benefit, or outright evil ... in that order of escalation. He *does* give his opponents the benefit of the doubt; he starts the enlightenment process by assuming the person who disagrees is just "uninformed". Magnanimously Trump will attempt to help the poor fool. Total failure to "educated" the deluded soul will result in the "evil" label. One is *obliged*, by all morality and good sense, to eliminate evil, by whatever means possible; it is his job, at least as he perceives it. The use of vengeance, torture, and deadly force are tools to be employed in the eradication of the evil that will destroy society as he envisions it. At least that is what *he* has said.<br />
<br />
The justice system must therefore, be specifically tailored, to treat each level of society differently, *if* the good guys are to win this battle for the benefit of the human race. Full privilege is only to be given to those that are fully aware (real humans, not those that just look, on the surface to be human, blacks, for example). Traditionally this means rich white folks, the ones that actually understand how the system must be structured for it to be successful. Practically speaking, this means those that agree with them. They don't appreciate me, for example. Jeff Sessions is the man with the proven track record to do the job. This is why he was nominated.<br />
<br />
Trump has been appointing the top White Supremacists and Racists in the political world to the very top positions in his future administration. He is appointing people to deconstruct many of the social systems that have taken 200 yr to develop. He is appointing the 0.1 percent to govern the country. He said that is what he was going to do before the election and he is doing it. His campaign promise was to dismantle the political control of economic and legal structures as they exist.<br />
<br />
To some readers, it may seem that I am being dramatic and exaggerating. I am not. What Trump and the American people have done is dramatic; I am just describing it. All that I am doing is presenting a coherent Reality Model that might explain behavior that I have observed. Everything that I describe within this reality model has been openly debated and discussed on the House and in the Senate floors and in the editorial pages of both major and minor newspapers throughout the country for the last 200 years. No, I am not exaggerating, at all. Go look for yourselves.<br />
<br />
Americans just elected an illiterate man to be the President of the most powerful and dangerous country on the planet. He himself has stated that he has not read a book his entire adult life. Let that sink in. The man cannot read and does not see the importance of reading and he controls the most powerful and aggressive military on the planet. *Seventy five* percent of the American people have no real objection to this. "Hey let's give him a chance."<br />
<br />
There is an virulent intellectual/emotional pathogen that is ravaging the US population at the moment. Maybe it has always been present and modern technology has allowed it to grow and/or allows us to see it for the first time? I don't know, probably. American Culture is in very deep shit and the sharks have already begun to circle. Oh well.<br />
<br />
"Belief kills thought: fact is different than opinion: thinking is different than feeling."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://goo.gl/GRQEvY" target="_blank">Read the letter Coretta Scott King wrote opposing Sessions’s 1986 federal nomination</a>Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-49591279413673645662016-02-10T18:18:00.000+01:002017-01-12T17:17:41.116+01:00Alternate Realities - Donald Trump and Ted Cruz <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd2wLhq-8Cc04qt80oM7qpKcueKohWezsr7CZ9FfAQk88TkBENHiZsgtCBVEhwRHwpnFdFz59Ryx9k7PXq8aWCuEXB8TQsJ0e3SSqlo_mxO3G_GElp7ccwsLvoxq8OLm982KGqi6oKTQQ/s1600/CruzTrump.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" border="0" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgd2wLhq-8Cc04qt80oM7qpKcueKohWezsr7CZ9FfAQk88TkBENHiZsgtCBVEhwRHwpnFdFz59Ryx9k7PXq8aWCuEXB8TQsJ0e3SSqlo_mxO3G_GElp7ccwsLvoxq8OLm982KGqi6oKTQQ/s400/CruzTrump.png" title="Ted Cruz and Donald Trump" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ted Cruz and Donald Trump</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz do not live in the same world as as many of us do; They have a completely different reality in their heads, literally. As they wander through this thing we call time and space their brains seek information to be used for understanding what is happening and for reassurance that what they think is 'correct' among other things. The important things, things that they consider useful for interpreting the world and for making predictions, they store into memory. Brains do not store everything into memory. It is selective in what it keeps and what it discards. Memories are what form our reality, nothing else. Memories *are* our reality, our personal realities. What Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have stored in their memory banks is not the same as many others. <br />
<br />
It is not clear to me that either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz are even aware that other 'realities' exist. Both of these people are behaving as though theirs is only possible take on 'reality' and that they have been, for whatever reason, privilege to see it. The rest of us are idiots and/or useful tools to be used in accomplishing what they would like to accomplish. The only 'real people' to them are those that see/remember approximately the same things that they do. Donald Trump or Ted Cruz understand and respect these other 'real people' for their ability to see things as they 'really are'. At least, this is the way that they speak and behave. They are both clever at manipulating their physical and social environment; they are very smart people. But they seem to believe that they alone are privileged to see reality 'as it really is'. They do not seem capable of stepping outside of their own personal realities, or even to realize that what they perceive is *not* necessarily 'real'.<br />
<br />
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz do not live in the same world as as many of us do; here is how. People gather information to confirm what they 'believe' or that they find useful. These are things that the brain likes and seeks out for future reference. The brain is interested in prediction and when it fails the exceptions are noted and are presented to the conscious mind for 'consideration'. Consideration refers to a conscious effort to rationalize unexpected observations. The conscious mind looks for ways to integrate the unexpected observations into the brains preexisting Individual Reality Models (Belief System). If the conscious mind cannot do this, it then seeks reasons (rationalizes) to reject the information; the conscious mind finds the "extenuating conditions" which will nullify the negative effects of a problem and leave the Reality Model intact if possible, or it will modify the Model to the minimum degree possible. This is how the brain works, as far as I can tell, with everyone, myself included.<br />
<br />
There is a wonderful psychology experiment where people are asked to keep track of something complex and give their answer at the end which, they do. At the end of the experiment during debriefing they are asked about the <a href="https://youtu.be/vJG698U2Mvo" target="_blank">naked lady</a> (OK, it was a gorilla) that walked through the middle of the court and the middle of ones focal point. Only about half of the people even see the gorilla. It is not part of Individual Reality, at all. The memory is not accessible to the conscious mind. Even just one second after an event, all one has is what the brain decided to retain. Individual Reality *is* memory and memories are chosen by each individual brain according to its own individual Reality Model and according to what it considers important or is searching for at the time.<br />
<br />
This may be a bit easier to swallow by washing it down with the following analogy. The brain seeks out information to build a functioning intellectual structure that can interpret and predict 'reality'. Useful observations are collected and broken down into the material which is used to build and maintain an intellectual structure or interpretation of the world, which I call 'Individual Reality'. Information is sought out and digested and used 'intellectually' in the same manner that that an individual seeks out food for the the body and stores it in the stomach as it is broken down into its fundamental building blocks (i.e. protein), which are then incorporated into the physical body.<br />
<br />
Some people, however, have one other process going on. Some are fully conscious that their brain makes mistakes and what it presents to the conscious mind is often wrong. This is the whole point of 'scientific' thought process and the null hypothesis. Many people actually believe the things that their brains come up with. Many people don't. Ones 'reality', the world in which they live is constructed of the things that the brain has decided to store, nothing else. People store different things into memory.<br />
<br />
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump really are living in a different reality. I mean the literally. They do not "see" the same things that you do. They do not "hear" the same things that you do. All they have is their own individual memory of the event, nothing else. What I am saying, less delicately put, is that it is not clear to me that either of these people are endowed with the property of a brain that is taken to be 'uniquely human', the ability to recognize and step out of their own Individual Realities.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-5161557181665163082016-02-03T18:02:00.002+01:002016-02-11T14:30:22.947+01:00Hillary Clinton and the Establishment<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jyv7x7Tb--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/794701813831831470.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--jyv7x7Tb--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/794701813831831470.jpg" height="194" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576" target="_blank">Sploid -who-owns-all-the-major-brands</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When someone suggests that Hillary Clinton is a bad choice because
she will work with the establishment? Well, good. I want her to. It is
one of the reasons that I want her as President. Here is my logic.<br />
<br />
I present a set of graphics (I assume that they are 'approximately'
correct) that shows the distribution systems that essentially maintain
all of the worlds Urbain areas. <a href="http://sploid.gizmodo.com/fascinating-graphic-shows-who-owns-all-the-major-brands-1599537576" target="_blank">(Sploid -who-owns-all-the-major-brands)</a> If this system crashes, world
civilization is down the tubes. It sounds really good to say how the
major corporations are evil and they only want one thing and we should
dismantle them and throw the ass-holes in jail. I am sure that it feels
good to say that as well, but ...<br />
<br />
We now have the highest
standard of living in the history of humanity. We have the lowest
poverty rates that the world has ever seen. We have the lowest levels of
violence that the world has ever seen. Shit, one can eat fucking
tomatoes in the dead of winter and Kiwis from New Zealand for next to
nothing. Oranges are not all the difficult to find in North Dakota in
the dead of winter during a snowstorm. Maybe it does not seem that way
given peoples desire to hear all about disaster, but the numbers are
there to back this up.<br />
<br />
So, guys, all this rhetoric about
dismantling the evil 'establishment' is a bit, how shall I say? A bit
'silly'. Yes, there are bad apples and crooks that need to be put away,
yes there are regulations that need to go away and others that need to
be put in place. This is one hell of a complex economic system that we
have going here and I *do not want to break it*. It needs adjusting but
it is a dynamic system, it always needs adjusting.<br />
<br />
The
'establishment' is what we, our culture, has created over several
hundred years and it is the 'establishment' that has given the above
mentioned successes, by definition. Yes, by definition. It is the
'establishment' that has reduced the violence. It is the 'establishment'
that has created the food distribution that feeds virtually everyone in
the cities. It is the 'establishment' that has presided over the social
order that has allowed for research on disease prevention. I could go
on. <br />
<br />
OK, lets assume that other causes are the reason for the
prosperity that the world now enjoys. Lets assume that the
'establishment' is, in fact, slowing down progress and things would be
far better without them. Fine. With this assumption, I dismiss all the
anti-establishment rhetoric as frivolous nonsense. Why? Because
apparently the 'establishment' is so inept and powerless that they have
not even been able to make a dent in the progress that the rest of us
are making. Are you better off than your great-great-grandparents? Got
more shoes and a larger variety of food? Got more free cash to vacation
on the other side of the country which you can get to in hours instead
of days? Using the argument that the establishment needs to be
dismantled because they are a problem in nonsense. At best they can be
ignored. So why all the energy into something that has virtually no
effect on the economy or politics?<br />
<br />
When someone suggests that
Hillary Clinton is a bad choice because she will work with the
establishment? Well, good. I want her to. It is the reason that I want
her as President. At the very worst, and by the very arguments made by
the 'anti-establishment folks', working with the 'establishment' will
have no measurable effect on the progress of the economy. Hillary is a
great choice for President.Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-17772072201818703572016-01-24T16:32:00.003+01:002016-02-11T14:33:17.748+01:00Word Play<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC2C_Pg7Dzy_OhxFkPA-dab_xgTjz5H7JRm2YldBWcY2rWAdIwCot3Aix7tQRnq-NkuRly4Mm-KTsIFlw9Nbi-1eQpfnwOpop7XwW-fe5SykCgthSU6hqwLzdOPz4tERO9WlCyu1hWILY/s1600/ShakespearWords.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgC2C_Pg7Dzy_OhxFkPA-dab_xgTjz5H7JRm2YldBWcY2rWAdIwCot3Aix7tQRnq-NkuRly4Mm-KTsIFlw9Nbi-1eQpfnwOpop7XwW-fe5SykCgthSU6hqwLzdOPz4tERO9WlCyu1hWILY/s320/ShakespearWords.png" width="320" /></a>I maintain that *all* human progress comes from conscious effort to figure out 'just what the hell we are talking about?'. What are these things we discuss: fire, earth, water, air?<br />
<br />
Some people do not like and will not accept the choice of words used. They divert the conversation from a proposed topic to a discussion of the definition of the objectionable word. There are a couple of possibilities to explain what is happening when people argue about the definition of words rather than the concept behind the word. Now, why would people want to kill the expression of a new idea or insight? Some people just want to dominate others and words are one way to do that. The motivation behind this desire to dominate? Well, that is a different discussion. <br />
<br />
Perhaps those disputing the words do not understand the purpose of language? Perhaps they do not care about the ideas being expressed and are seeking power over the speaker by 'winning' the conversation? Perhaps they understand the concept and are attempting to show why the word choice needs to be improved? In any case, the vocabulary discussion kills the original discussion; it kills it. dead. I find it astounding that much of the time the originator of the topic does not even realize that their idea has been killed and they continue along happily along with the new conversation as if nothing had just happened. Oh well, maybe they knew that they did not know what the hell they were talking about and were grateful for the diversion. Maybe it was 'parallel dialog' and neither party was actually listening to the other? This last comprises a significant number of conversations. Neither side actually cares or even listens to what the other parties are saying. <br />
<br />
People who actively object to the invention of new words and the refinement of old words on principle are something altogether different. Yes, I have met some. These are people who actively interfere with the process of learning; it is anti-intellectual at the highest level. These are people whose brains want to, consciously and/or unconsciously, stop the development of knowledge and its transmission from one person to another. New concepts need the redefinition or refinement of old words or the invention of new words without which, human progress stops. People have killed each other over the meaning of words, the word 'mine' or 'God'. As such it seems that the development of new words and the refinement of old words is important if for no other reason than to reduce the level of violence in human society. <br />
<br />
My brother Colin spoke of inventing a word to describe the small period of time between the time the car door slams shut and the instant in time where one realizes that the only set of keys will be very shortly, locked inside. I don't remember what he came up with but I do know that it is a word that would add to the poetry of human existence. Now, go off and invent a new word, contribute to the progress of humanity.<br />
<br />
The Progression of knowledge requires the refinement of definitions, the invention of new definitions for old words, the invention of completely new words. Yes, I said *all* human progress comes from our conscious minds attempting to understand what our unconscious mind is passing to the conscious mind for processing. What does 'time' mean? What does 'love' mean? Hell, what does 'planet' or 'continent' mean? Surprisingly enough, a very large percentage of words that we use in daily discourse have no real definition; they have associated 'feelings' and 'vague concepts' which reside in an individual's reality model. There is no real agreement. We pretend that others understand; sometimes they do. Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-5977439221306907112016-01-05T18:00:00.000+01:002016-02-11T14:35:19.191+01:00Orwellian Destruction - Take the word Greed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-FXW4YOKUU9Hb76QLq4BpHcAHKNk1Aoydm1a9c5MDs1rZfC26KCb-34KtKX9NRmNHfV2DaT5mVSdYUHERzo7JRBxTNJShbwPn7NpPx_GZyIA__IdP_GVLJfk8CqTr72NDQkex1LeLF0/s1600/2002-11-25-1900.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjj-FXW4YOKUU9Hb76QLq4BpHcAHKNk1Aoydm1a9c5MDs1rZfC26KCb-34KtKX9NRmNHfV2DaT5mVSdYUHERzo7JRBxTNJShbwPn7NpPx_GZyIA__IdP_GVLJfk8CqTr72NDQkex1LeLF0/s320/2002-11-25-1900.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
When I was at Berkeley I had a professor who maintained the it was the misuse of language that destroyed civilizations. I disagreed and maintained the the migration of words has nothing to do with the fall of civilization and that it was right and good that the meanings of words change with the time. Language is alive and breathing and growing.<br />
<br />
I am no longer so sure, in fact, I think that I agree with him now to a great extent. He had not thought it through enough to illustrate the logic to an inquisitive graduate student. Or else, he did not think it worth it to explain but we did spend a reasonable amount of time talking about it. I don't like the third possibility but for completeness I need to present it. There is the tiniest, most minuscule and insignificant chance that he did give me the logic and I was too self absorbed or stupid to notice or understand. I have since developed the logic or perhaps recreated his? It does not matter. Here is goes.<br />
<b></b><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Take the Word Greed</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In past usage, when I was a kid, greed was bad; it was then and still is one of the seven deadly sins. Greed was a word restricted to a persons desire to possess things to the point where it was destructive to the family, the neighbors and to the community at large. People afflicted with greed took it all and left none for the others. It was considered a psychological aberration, an important one that affected a significant number of people and that did indeed destroy communities and financial markets and families. This concept had been developed over thousands of years and multiple civilizations. It is an important concept. It is something to identify and nip in the bud at the earliest opportunity. <br />
<br />
The word greed has morphed; It is no longer a negative impulse in much modern usage; it is no longer one of the most powerful destructive forces to afflict man; it is the root of all that is good. It is the reason that we modernize and feed the poor and build TVs and send people to the moon. Was it the film "Wall Street" that placed this distortion in our psyches? I understand the migration. People were indeed starting to get rich and hoard. Wall Street was the perfect example. Take too much and the people around start to suffer. But the people that are causing the suffering don't notice; they are doing fine; they are important people, they are getting rich as far as they are concerned, they are doing God's work. The people around them do notice and start to talk. Pretty soon, there were accusations of 'greed' floating around. <br />
<br />
Being accused of greed hurts; greed is a bad thing; it means that they are bad people. But the financial people do not think that they are evil, they are good, they make the economy run; they feed little children. What they are doing is for the good of mankind. Therefore, the accusations are nonsense. The word greed cannot be bad, they are not bad; this thing called greed is actually the motivation that creates all good in the world, it is not evil or destructive, at all. Hey, what is wrong with stomping out disease and feeding children? This thing they are being accused of? Nonsense. They have the motivation to save small children, that is what greed has given them, "greed is the motivating force". They developed the logic and sold it to the masses; it worked. "Gee, you're correct. You are good people. Greed is indeed good, how could we have gotten that wrong? Hey, we learn as we go. Of course, the motivating force. That makes sense."<br />
<br />
Well, there has always been a motivating force to improve oneself, that is natural and it is a part of the human spirit but that is not what the word greed was designed to describe. It was designed to help identify an illness that affects people and hurts society. It was something that people discussed and watched out for. It can indeed bring down civilizations. Did I mention that it was considered one of the seven mortal sins, for a reason? George Orwell got it right. This is how the bad becomes the good. Bad people can be very slick and convince others and more importantly, themselves, that they are not bad; they are doing God's work. So where is the downside? <br />
<br />
The downside? OK, fine, the word has changed. Now, What word are we to use when describing this deadly sin, this psychological illness, this destroyer of civilizations? How shall we address that issue? We can't. We must invent a new word and teach people about the concept from scratch. The whole entire concept has been erased for the cultural consciousness and we have lost 1000 yr of knowledge. Greed, in the old sense, no longer exists. The trait still permeates humanity and it is still a fundamentally destructive force on grand scale, but the knowledge of this important characteristic of the human spirit is gone, lost. We are less knowledgeable, the awareness of this human condition is gone. With this intentional morphing of the word by greedy people, we have jettisoned not just a word but we have discarded an important concept about a fundamental weakness in the economic and social structure. It is as if we had gone back to thinking that the world is flat. No, I am not exaggerating. <br />
<br />
The problem with the destruction of a word is that it is also the destruction of the concept that the word was designed to describe. No, greed is not the motivating force; it is not good. It is evil. People no longer understand this. They have been conned, tricked and cheated. People are now dumber than they were before. We hurt the civilization. We took a step backwards. Words were invented to describe concepts. Destroying the word effectively destroys the concept. The concept behind the word 'terrorism' is in the process of being destroyed right now. We are harming our civilization by jettisoning basic concepts that have been developed over thousands of years. We are loosing knowledge.Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-82787694309240239552016-01-04T16:12:00.001+01:002016-02-11T14:37:32.216+01:00The Sanders - Clinton War<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fU33V4TXEGbLRbU7hmIw44cjXRjOChqoEuql-mTolerfQ9Obu0SRI21zIDyruZa97i1I4-xk6w_XIfIaIPfI_N0KnsPC83rTRsr9BfvrKLc9LiWD6982CcbuMo5U5EMpHa-m4kC8ukM/s1600/ClintonSanders.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="228" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-fU33V4TXEGbLRbU7hmIw44cjXRjOChqoEuql-mTolerfQ9Obu0SRI21zIDyruZa97i1I4-xk6w_XIfIaIPfI_N0KnsPC83rTRsr9BfvrKLc9LiWD6982CcbuMo5U5EMpHa-m4kC8ukM/s320/ClintonSanders.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Recently on Facebook I saw a graphic flow by that caught my eye. It was a quote, taken out of context and I am not going to follow up.I know that it was taken out of context because it floating all alone with no context. I don't care about the context. I will address the words. The context is not important. I have no idea what Marianne Williamson actually thinks, it could easily be the opposite of what is has been presented. This is not about her, at all, even thought I use her name; it is about the words that someone told me that she said:<br />
<br />
"I want a woman president - really, I do. A lot of us do. And yes, you're qualified, and yes, we've known you forever, and yes, you'd know what to do from Day 1. But none of that is enough to get my vote, or the vote of a lot of people I know. we only want to vote for you if you run like hell away from that corporate box you've landed in. Stop cozying up to the banks, to the chemical companies, to the military-industrial complex, to the party machine, and to all the various financiers who make up the plutocracy now ruining this country. I want you to rail against the chemical companies and their GMO's - not support them..." - Marianne Williamson. <a href="https://goo.gl/2lTQWa">Letter to Hillary Clinton</a>.<br />
<br />
I have a problem with what Marianne Williamson had to say. I WANT Hillary close to the banks and the centers of power. I *want* her knowing all their names and having lunch with them. I want her taking their money. I *want* her doing the same with the unions and the person on the street. Hell, if it were not for Clinton we would not have this step forward in Health Care. In her first effort she excluded the Health Industry and got nowhere. Democrats have gotten nowhere for 50 yr on this issue. In the following round, the industry was included and we win. It was in their best interest. There is an adage regarding conflict that has to do with keeping the "enemy" even closer than the friends. It has been around for a very long time. Marianne Williamson has said the the reverse is true. I humbly disagree. <br />
<br />
This struggle between different segments of society has been going on for many thousands of generations and everyone has made substantial progress. The rates of violence, standards of living, rates of disease and hunger have been steadily falling for hundreds of generations. Statistically people on the planet are more free, the best fed and the most comfortable, in all senses of the word, than at any other point in the history of man. Two hundred years ago a person had a reasonably high chance of being murdered, robbed, raped and otherwise abused simply by traveling from Avignon to Paris. That is no longer the case. Mothers worried about their children taking such a trip. Not any more. now they worry if the train will be on time and complain at the price of wine in the dining car while they are en route. The lack of freedoms suffered in times passed were suffered by the rich and poor alike. Disease is not interested in economic class; the Baron that criticized the king was likely to have his head chopped off as well. There has been, is, and always will be, a pecking order. That is how human society works. And it does work, if we exclude the rest of the species and planet. <br />
<br />
Lets put this in perspective. Thirty minutes ago I ate a soup with white beans, leaks, potatoes, sausage, bell peppers, carrots with a side of sesame seed bread and coffee with a glass of red wine. OK, I did not drink the wine but I will get it right now. Many of these ingredients I pulled out of my refrigerator and I cooked it on my gas stove. I have a refrigerator and a gas stove in my apartment! Shoot, I have the thermostat set too high, I think that I will lower it. (actually I don't but I think you get my point). Three years ago I broke my leg and collar bone in a way that would have left me crippled 200 yr ago. I am totally and completely recovered. In another couple of months I am going to get on a plane and travel to another continent on the other side of the whole fucking planet *and back* for less than the average guys monthly salary. Freedom? Freedom! We have more freedom now than ever before in the history of mankind. Freedom to travel, from the constraints of hunger and disease. Hell, mothers no longer even worry about their children traveling from Avignon to Paris. Shit, I even have the freedom to say that the President's wife is fat and ugly, well I could have always said that, but now, I will not be killed or rot in jail for the rest of my short miserable life. {By the way, Michelle, if I may address you informally. I actually think that you are fantastically beautiful and so smart that I like being on the same planet as you. So, ... if you tire of Barack? ... } Two hundred years ago, that too could easily have me 'chastised'. Not today. Freedom. <br />
<br />
Fine, rally the masses, that is important. But to handle this as a "war between the rich and the poor"? Please, this is frankly, stupid. Sorry for being blunt. Yes, there is a 'level one' conflict and people do get rich from running the economic machine that gives us the freedom and food that we have. I certainly agree that many in these centers of power are beginning to damage the system that has taken millennium to build. And I certainly agree that some of the people controlling the production machinery need to be in jail or at least be have their assets confiscated, then be given a janitors slot to clean up after others more worthy than they. Yes, some of them are just ass-holes. Fine. But there are others that are doing a damn good job. I know that just by looking at the life that I live. Statistically our systems with its central banks and tyrants and theft by taxes has been, overall, doing a damn good job. There is indeed a step backwards once in a while, no need to mention the most recent. The system works so long as the population does not go off the deep end. Which it is doing at the moment. It is not just the banks that have the power to destroy civilization. They 'masses' are pretty damn good at destroying everything too. <br />
<br />
Presently there is a problem. A statistically significant percentage of the population believe things with their whole hearts and souls that are flat out demonstrably wrong. It is not a class war or a war between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots; it is a war between ideas, between memes. Both poor and rich believe that "poor people are lazy creatures that need to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and get to work. Not, us or our friends, of course (the government is messing us up), but the others, you know the guys over there, the lazy ones that are sucking off the system, not us, them". This is an idea that transcends economic class. No, there is no class war. There is a war between memes. Are people inherently lazy, or not. Are Muslims mostly terrorist and do should we kill them all, or not. These ideas all transcend economic class. The fundamental problems that we have as a society today have absolutely nothing at all to do with economic class. <br />
<br />
Essentially, Marianne Williamson has accused Clinton of being on the "side of the rich and powerful", not on the "side of the common man". She does this even as the man she 'supposedly' supports has asked her not to do it. Bernie Sanders has explicitly told her not to attack or be negative with respect to Hillary Clinton. She is doing it anyway; she is dividing the country into good and evil. She, of course, is on the side of the good and we need to destroy the evil. And she is not dividing it up into ineffective ideas vs effective ideas, she is promoting class warfare where none exists. I just demonstrated that. She has no respect for Sanders and his understanding on how to improve society, she thinks that she understands politics better then he. She wants the "powers at be" to listen to her and do it her way and on her schedule. She will be a supporter of Sanders but only if Sanders does it her way. Hey, she understands the world better than he does, or so she says. <br />
<br />
Marianne Williamson is intellectually and emotionally a child. She criticizes Clinton for being close to the power centers? Well, OK. Williamson has her opinion. Maybe she is correct. Me, I'll stick with the wisdom of the ages. Stay a close as you can to everyone. Have lunch, talk about your children, get drunk together. That does *not* mean that you agree with their philosophy of life but unless you know the opposition, you don't have a snowballs chance in hell of countering their arguments and their power. Yes, take their money too. Yes, work to help their kids too. Do it *your* way, not theirs. There is very little in the career of Hillary Clinton that leads me to believe that she is in anyones pocket, or has ever been or ever will be. There is much in her record to tell me that she is the one who charts her course and that others follow. She does not have "keepers". She charts the course and how to get there; she always has. <br />
<br />
Personally, I do not want another 'French Revolution' with rivers of blood flowing in the streets. I do not want revolution, at all. Been there done that personally, not at all interested in doing it again. It is a last and desperate move to stay alive, the last possible thing to do. It is a very bad idea and I oppose the rhetoric that leads in that direction. I am not a pacifist, in any sense of the word.<br />
<br />
Yes, it is time to change, it is always time to change and for thousands of years, we *are* changing. The direction and the rate of change and the strategy for choosing the goal and the direction and the strategies are important. That is a bit more practical than discussing who is good for the job and who is bad for the job. Especially when we are discussing people who need, like and respect each other. Both candidates have asked their supporters not to slam the other. Marianne Williamson does not care what Sanders thinks, she only cares what she thinks. Both have asked their supporters to change the traditional approach and stop attacking the individuals and start discussing the issues. Marianne is not interested in change, she won't do it. She wants to tell Hillary and Sanders both how to do their jobs. I humbly submit that Marianne is *not* a Sanders supporter. If Sanders were ever to even suggest a different approach than Williamson approves, she will become a detractor and make is job more difficult. No, Marianne Williamson does not support Sanders, she does not support Clinton. She supports herself. That's it. She is the smart one on the planet.<br />
<br />
Williamson wants to divide the world into 'us' and 'them'. It is the same thought process that many of us have been fighting for our whole lives. Sanders and Clinton included. I do not know this woman Williamson, at all. This quote is the first that I have heard of her and I don't think that it puts her in a good light. I do not think that she will make Sanders' or Clinton's job easier. She is already making Clinton's and Sanders' job (creating a more functional society) more difficult. And she has disregarded what Sanders has asked her not to do. She is *not* a Sanders supporter. She won't even follow his lead on this very simple concept. <br />
<br />
Clinton and Sanders each have their own strengths and weaknesses and each needs the other; they know that. They have respect for each other. Neither wants their supporters to attack the other. They want to work together. They have each asked explicitly that their constituents work together without tearing down the other. There is an 'after election' and both candidates know that they need the other. They need each other badly. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place. The strategy is different; that's fair. Do lets discuss the strategy, not which candidate is better, which strategy is better. Please do not forget that there is the 'after election' and both candidates need the other especially after the election when the real work begins and unity is even more important. They like and respect each other. They each want the country to get to the same place. <br />
<br />
Bernie Sanders has made it his life's mission to fight for the common man. He knows far more than Hilary Clinton about how the distribution of income affects the social structure of the country. He knows far more about the actual details of the capitalist economy and where its strengths and weaknesses are, he also knows far more about economic theories from around the world. He has done this at ground level. His work has been directly with the people at the State level. Sanders has made his career knowing how to speak with the common man about those things that affect the health of the society. He is good at this; he is better than Clinton at this. He has studied the effects of the economic engine on the common man to a much higher degree than Clinton. He is a more effective speaker than Clinton from what I can see. Bernie Sanders is a strong candidate and I will be more than pleased to support him and to vote for him in the general elections should he when the opportunity. <br />
<br />
Hillary Clinton has also made it her career to fight for the common man. I will use her efforts in Health Care and womens rights as examples. She is just as cognizant as Sanders about the short deal that many US workers have received at the hands of the power brokers, especially in the last 45 yr or so. Clinton has made it her business to know how the power flows in the economic and social systems. She has worked at the National and International levels for her career. She understands the reality of the working economic machine far better than Sanders. She has gotten up close to the political, economic, and military realities of the world far more than Sanders. This is hugely important for driving the ship of state. One cannot *only* pay attention to the desires of the common man, one must also pay attention to the machine that supplies the food, clothing, health care to the population. Clinton has made her career knowing how to work with the machine that provides the material needed for the 'general welfare'. She understands the power structures far better than Sanders. She understands the world power relationships better than Sanders. <br />
<br />
So shall we go with the rally the crowd and tear down the establishment strategy (no that is not what Sanders is all about) or the be nice to the power structure and ask them to change nicely strategy (no that is not what Clinton is about either). Does anyone out there actually know what the different strategies are? Anyone. The candidates do, so do I. Time to get real and stop calling the candidates names. Time to talk about the strategies. It is time to recognize the the war is not a class war it is a war between effective and ineffective ideas. Clinton and Sanders both know this. They are saying the same thing. So, supporters of either, don't you think that it is time to actually give your chosen candidates a certain amount of respect and actually listen to what they are saying and help them get the job done? Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-17220077188052198252015-12-20T23:18:00.001+01:002016-02-11T14:39:47.751+01:00Happiness and the Reality Model, a Love Story.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RcqZajZVeX0/VKqwwGxqq5I/AAAAAAAAERk/uwV2U4ji_8o/s1600/TableIllusion.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RcqZajZVeX0/VKqwwGxqq5I/AAAAAAAAERk/uwV2U4ji_8o/s320/TableIllusion.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Emotion is a difficult word as people fight over its usage. I am using it as chemical change that is provoked by the brain's reaction to a set of stimulus: loud noise, fire smoke, and the person next to you has an arm blown off. The brain does not like the direction that this is taking at all and a set of chemicals is released that increases heart rate, muscle tension etc. This is noticed right away by the conscious mind that feels 'fear' or whatever 'emotion' has been unleashed on the body. I 'look around' to determine what is going on. It is my conscious mind that is doing this part of it. My use of the word emotion has generated some controversy, not in the concept, but which part of the physiologic process is described by the word. I don't care so long as the the idea has been understood.<br />
<br />
The subconscious mind communicates with the conscious mind with emotion, by my definition of 'emotion'. Some subconscious/conscious communications are not 'emotional' in the sense of strong emotion but something has happened chemically or spiritually (for completeness) to get your body to move or even to notice what has happened, beer! This effect may not seem 'emotional' but in my construction, it is by definition emotion, subtle perhaps, but nonetheless emotion. For example there is a glass of beer on the table in front of me. My conscious mind did not do a logical process to understand that it is beer and it is within arms reach and I want it and that I go for it. This is all automatic it is unconscious. Hell, I might not even be aware that I went for it and drank it. This happens with smokers all the time. Your subconscious brain can indeed control a person's body.<br />
<br />
One principal function of the brain is to construct a viable model of the world around it. It includes: the location of objects in 3D space, that one cannot breathe in water, that fire is hot, lightning has the potential to kill me and that I want that woman, and that hamburger is a good thing. The Reality Model, as I call it is this construction of connections between memories. It goes beyond the physical environment. Some peoples brains have decided that people are evil and lazy, for example. Others that people are good and productive. When something is fully integrated into the reality model it is a belief, by my definition. At this point the brain is unwilling to question the interpretation. My brain is not willing to entertain jumping off a 1000 ft cliff because some fast talking salesman says that I can do it. Nope, not willing to even consider it without some sort of external aid like a parachute. My brain believes that if it jumps it will die. Not up for discussion.<br />
<br />
This meme about the nature of man is the same way. Once the brain has an idea, it will look for substantiating evidence and often it will find that evidence and the meme becomes more and more integrated to the point that the eyes and ears are on the lookout for that behavior to the exclusion of contradictory information. The difference in driving to school with Grandma instead of Dad is that there does not seem to be any stupid lazy delinquents on the way to school with Grandma, there are only flowers and good looking boys productively making the world a better place. Grandma and Dad actually remember different things about the trip. Dad's brain is looking for confirmation of his memes and finding them, so is Grandma. Each brain chooses to store different memories of the trip; it is the stored memories that are remembered. That is why it is difficult to believe that Grandma and Dad actually took the same road. They are storing different sensory stimulation in their memory banks. They are living in different realities. They really are.<br />
<br />
Conservatives store different words into their memory banks than Liberals do while listening to a speech by Barack Obama, for example. They literally do not hear the same things. They live in a different reality. Each side thinks that the other side is dumber than dirt because the evidence in right in front of there face! Yes, but they each stored away different fragments to remember. Different Reality Models choose to keep different information. Our memories are indeed all we have to describe reality. Personal reality is our memory.<br />
<br />
Bias to me is mathematical. The information received by the conscious mind is indeed biased, and it cannot be any other way; it has passed through the Reality Model filter. Sometimes the bias is striking and wrong. The table top is an illustration of this; the two tables look as if the table tops are completely and totally different shapes. They are not. Cut them out and put them on top of each other and they have exactly the same dimensions. The brain has misinterpreted the data. It is interpreting the data as if
it were a 3D reality but it is not. It is a 2D set of lines on a paper.
The reality model gets it wrong and what your conscious 'sees'
is NOT what your eyes see, it is the interpretation that your brain
thinks it saw; it is wrong; it has been biased by the Reality Model.<br />
<br />
Now take the new knowledge that the rectangles are the same dimensions and look at the illusion again. The brain will refuse to present the reality as it is now known; it insists on the 3D interpretation. It will not let go. My brain *believes* that it is seeing a 3D object even though my conscious mind knows that it is not a 3D object. Political interpretations and the good/evil interpretation of the nature of man suffer the same fate as the table top. Many people's brains *believe* the memes. No amount of logic or discussion can convince them otherwise; it is literally all that they see. When the brain is 'confused' it is unhappy, life is not good. That may be a decent way to define 'happiness'. Brains are not confused when their interpretation, their Reality Model is coherent; it might be 100 percent wrong, but it is coherent. Viola! Religion. Happiness. Contentment. Peace.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-70946153065296406512015-11-21T15:22:00.002+01:002016-02-11T14:50:18.516+01:00The Liberal/Conservative Divide<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCKKD4gIyEjBZYJf5ElYmHfdJdr7_tEw-MoN8zOxdLkQ1spI_xywYlD3Ye4jtM-gIVrUW0tWHIBvVuQSFlAWG_ixElKJW6oG4KqOB1BG6ZjDCEdlGWn7GtsyyntsWqgKtybwcxShOFL1Y/s1600/RussellSquare2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="403" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCKKD4gIyEjBZYJf5ElYmHfdJdr7_tEw-MoN8zOxdLkQ1spI_xywYlD3Ye4jtM-gIVrUW0tWHIBvVuQSFlAWG_ixElKJW6oG4KqOB1BG6ZjDCEdlGWn7GtsyyntsWqgKtybwcxShOFL1Y/s640/RussellSquare2.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Russell Square, London, England. A Street View photo I found in the Square named after the philosopher Bertrand Russell (my favorite) I thought the photo appropriate. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There are a lot of people and I mean a lot of conservatives, who see Donald Trump as the only real leader on the presidential stage today. For the Republican side, I agree with them. Many of these conservatives think that the Democratic candidates are idiotic *liberals* that are ruining the country and that they should not even be considered seriously. Based on factual history, Clinton and Sanders and the liberals in general are totally destroying the country; this is evident and clear to anyone that cares to take even the most superficial look around. The United States of America needs to be taken back by people that can discuss issues as they really are; people like Sanders and Clinton have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt their intentions and approach. This really needs to stop. The liberal elite is killing the country dead and if we do not get it straight the US is finished as the worlds leader. This is as clear as day to a large number of people. Huge numbers of people.<br />
<br />
I know personally people that are highly intelligent and understand the use of maths and logic and have studied the issues and political systems for years that believe the above with their whole hearts and souls. To them Obama and Clinton and Sanders and "Liberals" are total idiots that are in the process of destroying the country. I exaggerate, but not by much. This is not new; it has been simmering on the back burner for a very long time. So what is happening? Here is an idea that at least fits the data and renders coherent the strange twist that vocabulary has taken in the last few (50 or so, at least) years. No, I do not "believe" this idea. It fits the data and may even lead in a productive direction. Hell, it might even be correct but I don't know. Allow me to put some paint on the canvas.<br />
<br />
People have been attacking the concept of 'political correctness' for a long time. This has always seemed appropriate to me, at least in the sense that it does not seem productive to insult the people around us, but hey, that is just an idea floating around in my head; I could be wrong, evolution is a powerful force. Another strange concept to me is the idea that 'the press is liberal' when, almost by definition, the press is not liberal with any generally accepted dictionary definition of the term. The concept of 'elite', the term was a positive attribute at one time; it no longer is. The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' have morphed radically in their meaning as well. There is a powerful force at play here; what is it?<br />
<br />
All of this comes together if one considers that many people have been feeling oppressed because the ideas and desires that float around in their heads have been impossible to express in public without being viciously attacked by the *liberals* and the guys the run the newspapers, the *elite*. *Conservatives* are called racist and stupid for traditional ideas and *facts* that anyone can *observe*. There are many who have been hiding in their closets with thoughts running around in their heads that have been deemed 'inappropriate' by the culture as a whole. They have been hiding in their closets fearful of the repercussions of even discussing the important issues of the day. They see the country falling apart and they cannot even discuss the major causes of this without the liberals destroying their social existence. <br />
<br />
It has been considered politically incorrect for quite a few years, for instance, to call black folks as a group, "lazy niggers" but those indeed are the thoughts that rattle around in some peoples brains (oddly enough in some black brains as well). It the same with poor people (lazy) and sick people (bad lifestyle) and Homosexuals (evil aberrations). Many want to isolate those that they consider a detriment to the human race; they want nothing to do with them; they want the gone. This is true with many other animal species as well. Isolating and/or killing those that are annoyingly different is common; it would be foolish to think that humans are totally immune to what affects the entire animal kingdom. Why the devil would one encourage the traits that will eventually destroy the culture and/or the economic engine that feeds it? Clearly it would be silly to encourage that which will destroy one, either slowly or quickly. <br />
<br />
Evolution is a powerful force. Heck, It is so important that it has been dictated by God himself; destroy that which will destroy you; one must throw the first stone to survive. Practically speaking and theoretically, this is good advice; at least I think so. Unfortunately, in order to follow this practical survival technique, it is necessary to *know* what is going to destroy/damage an individual and/or a civilization; it is necessary to understand motivation, etc., at least when dealing with other human beings. Unfortunately because these items are impossible to know. All we know is that they violate our own personal take on reality. And it has been definitively demonstrated that personal interpretations of reality are heavily flawed and mostly wrong. Understanding motivation and good and evil and morality is less important when eradicating the non-human microbes that kill people. <br />
<br />
*Conservatives* see nothing wrong with their ideas because their ideas are well supported by observation, look at the *data*. It is clear as one's own eye color that the homosexual lifestyle will indeed destroy the family as they know it; they find the concept of one of their children choosing to be homosexual abhorrent. It certainly would not have come from them so, it must come from homosexuals that trick their children into a life of sin. Of course homosexuals need to be isolated and eliminated, it is a disease. This is clear for anyone to see, yet these idiotic *liberals* behave in a way the will spread the disease. They are clearly nuts. They will destroy the culture. The homosexual lifestyle must be stopped. We are commanded by God to destroy that which will destroy us, are we not?<br />
<br />
I do not know, but I suspect the many conservatives find it annoying that one cannot speak frankly about other important topics concerning the reality of the world as well. Another example of might be 'the way the people are'. 'Playing the race card' is now a popular expressions when it comes to responding to liberal accusations. Why is that? What does it actually mean? Perhaps this will help. It is impossible to openly discuss the observable fact that blacks are indeed lazy and violent at least statistically; the *liberals* will have nothing to do with it and make it impossible to discuss the fundamentals of differences between the races. These things need to be talked about, it is important; but they cannot be discussed in this atmosphere that is controlled by the *liberal elite*. They will destroy the country by turning over hard earned work to lazy people; it will destroy incentive and will eventually kill the American spirit. The US was built on hard work and now it is impossible to even discuss the issue without very negative social consequences. These things are important and need to be discussed. This is one of the major reasons that the country is going to hell. The weak and lazy have taken over and they will destroy the country. The country needs to be taken back by the people that understand and can see things as they really are. These topics cannot even be discussed properly with the liberals in charge. Liberal want to pretend that everyone is nice and hard-working and capitalism is evil. Liberals live in a fantasy land. I am pretty sure that this is the way the argument goes.<br />
<br />
Some conservatives would agree with the statement that "Liberals are dumb and do not live in the 'real world'." This statement is true, in my opinion. But, I can say the same of 'Conservatives' as well. In fact, I can say the same about everyone on the planet, including myself and including all species that have the structure we call a brain; it is a consequence of having a brain and consciousness and physical devices that record a portion of what happens around us. It should not be considered an insult to say that a person or group of persons do not see the world as it is; no one does. None of our interpretations of 'reality' are correct. We do not experience existence as it exists independent of our own personal existence. We do not understand time and our entire 3 dimensional interpretation of space has been demonstrated wrong, definitively. Everyone lives in a fantasy land to some extent and many of us know that. That is why we have developed physical and intellectual tools to help sort all of this out. We have thermometers to end the arguments about the temperature. We have developed logic as a way to identify fallacious arguments. We have developed the scientific method to help choose between different ideas. There are a myriad of physical and intellectual tools to help create a reasonable reality model that can by supported by the entire population without bloodshed. We have developed tools because no one, not anyone, sees the world as it actually is, everyone lives in a fantasy land.<br />
<br />
No, I do not know what is rattling around inside another person's brain no matter how clear that it seems. No, I do not know what another persons motivations are, nor can I know even if they tell me; people lie to themselves all the time; they don't really know themselves. I can only guess at my own motivations. 'Facts', that which can be measured independently are a bit more reliable for constructing our Reality Models. But, our interpretations of these facts are astoundingly unreliable. Yes, a stranger gave me the 'thumbs up'. I assume he meant good job, but ... it also means 'stick it up your ass'. So, hell, I can't even be sure of that; I really don't know what he means with his "thumbs up" gesture; I make an educated guess which in many situations will be accurate. But to actually *believe* that our interpretations are absolutely correct and build our entire reality structure on the *fact* that a stranger gave me a sign that I interpret as meaning that I have done a good job seems like madness to me. Sure, we think that is what he meant, can act on it and often,it will work but often it will result in disaster as well.(<a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_16335_7-innocent-gestures-that-can-get-you-killed-overseas.html" target="_blank">innocent gestures that can get you killed overseas</a>). So how to figure it out? Like I said we have a catalogue of tools. Pity that so many people don't know how to use the tools or even that they are necessary. Some do not even know that they exist.<br />
<br />
I suppose that it is normal that many people think that what they see is real and if the interpretation makes sense then it is true. I suppose that it is normal that people think that others emotional response of most people is the same as what they themselves feel. That being the case there is no real need to define terms like: liberal, conservative, fact, opinion, lazy, elite, Christian, hot, cold, good, bad. We all know what we mean. Well, we all know what we mean by those terms but we have only the vaguest notion of what other people mean by those terms. What is hot for you may not be hot for me. What is good for you may be bad for me. A leader for you may not be a leader for me. So what the hell are you talking about? This is where facts come into the picture, they help straighten out what is real from that which is a personal sensation and nothing more. They help us sort out what is real for both of us.<br />
<br />
I suppose it is normal to believe that our ideas are the best ideas, they are the ones that are correct. After all they are based upon what we see clearly in the world and they are coherent, they make sense, they are correct, at least to us. Here is how the discussion goes for someone that *believes* what they think. One can see this played out every day in almost any political/religious discussion between 'believers':<br />
<br />
--The other guy has not been paying attention; he can be shown. Did not work?<br />
--He has missed something, one can teach him. He still does not agree?<br />
--He is thinking about it wrong? one can demonstrate the correct thought process. Still not there?<br />
--He is just not very smart and can never understand? Oh, he is smart?<br />
--He has an economic investment? No?<br />
--He is lying to fool me. I expose his lie. Still not convinced?<br />
--He is evil, he does not care, he wants to destroy for the sake of destruction.<br />
--He or his idea needs to be destroyed. Evil must die. We have war.<br />
<br />
Belief Kills Thought, by definition. <br />
Opinions are different than fact. <br />
Emotion and thinking are different processes.Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-84912381118694657292015-11-18T16:00:00.003+01:002016-02-11T14:45:59.898+01:00 Islamic Terrorism, My Take<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYLPvlSBZJFDHyHo8mm-_1YxutaDaSGkTkKo8D6fltOBcyZvkBYSab3bVp0HQ2Yl65xQDItfvvl9RMzA4twuzLMlFXjqEAF_mBJlG3yn_6tsTaFhaz1f57lvGnRrQ-inUvdiXjGTSbIqI/s1600/TerrorismProblem.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYLPvlSBZJFDHyHo8mm-_1YxutaDaSGkTkKo8D6fltOBcyZvkBYSab3bVp0HQ2Yl65xQDItfvvl9RMzA4twuzLMlFXjqEAF_mBJlG3yn_6tsTaFhaz1f57lvGnRrQ-inUvdiXjGTSbIqI/s320/TerrorismProblem.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html">The Daily Beast. Are all terrorists muslims?</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: large;">F</span>rankly, I want people to stop talking about Muslims and Islam, totally and completely. Let's start talking about the problem, not our prejudice. That's my take so far. Want to stop <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html" target="_blank">Muslim terrorism? Christian terrorism? nationalistic terrorism? economic terrorism?</a> Catch my drift? This type of behaviour transcends ideology or religions. They all have it. therefore the problem is not the ideology. That is the logical "therefore" that I use here, by the way. Ideology/religion is one of the tools that sociopathic people use to rationalize/justify their behaviour. It they were born Christian or Hindu or ... instead of Muslim, they would still destroy the social structure around them if it suited their purpose. Time to stop talking about the ideology as if it were the problem. The individuals that use the ideology to trick or otherwise convince other to kill and destroy are the problem. Some people get sucked into things because they are not clever enough to figure it out. That is common. Some people, however, actively convince others to go out and destroy and kill; THEY are the problem, not the foot soldiers.<br />
<br />
ALL the ideologies have their deranged. Yes, some ideologies are better than others and some rationalize killing non believers and some rationalize killing homosexuals and some rationalize ejecting families out on the street if they loose their jobs and some rationalize punishing people that dance or drink or listen to the wrong music. What the fuck is the difference? Nasty people are the problem, nasty people wrote the 'rules' and then claim transgression as an excuse to 'punish them'. Nasty people actually like punishing people, they like making rules too. Nasty people think that the world is out to get them, because it is; people do not like ass-holes and will get them if they can. Nasty people need guns to defend themselves and then create an environment where everyone actually needs a gun to protect themselves. We call these areas war zones.<br />
<br />
Vengeful people who think that their take on reality is the one 'true' take on reality are the problem. They 'know' how things 'should be' and 'would be' if it were not for 'them'. They are capitalists, socialists, Catholic, Muslim, saxophone players, painters, scientists etc. Stop talking about Islam as if it were the problem, it is not. Vengeful sociopathic people are the problem. I estimate, that a good 30 percent of USians are obsessed with punishing transgressors. this is a number that I invented. Look at our incarceration rate. 'Punishing' people is counterproductive; it makes the problem worse. Think about it. If you want to 'punish' the people that planned the latest round of attacks, then YOU, my friend, are part of the problem. Think very carefully about the word punish and the concept of vengeance.<br />
<br />
There are some very strong indications, supported by objective fact, that the the worlds largest terrorist state, averaged over the last 50 yr, is the United States. Average over the last hundred years and Europe becomes the culprit. Yes, yes, I know... Russia, China, Cambodia, Argentina, ... , This serves to strengthen my case. Terrorism, at its root, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, nothing, zero; it transcends even ideology and jumps into nationalism as well. <br />
<br />
Neither Africa nor the Arabs, nor any of the Islamic states individually or in total has risen to the level of butchery that Europe and the United States have perpetrated against the rest of the world, and themselves over the last 5 generations. The Africans and Muslims do not even reach the knees of the 'Western World' in this regard; is not even close. Just count up the dead, that is all you have to do. I don't want to hear anything about morals or justification. Now, stop this nonsense about "Islamic" Terrorism. The numbers killed is easy to find. I leave it as an exercise for the reader. Just count up the fucking dead!<br />
<br />
Islam is not the biggest problem, not by a long-shot. Our false perceptions and bad reactions and totally ineffective Reality Models are the problem. Open the borders and take in these poor refugees, no questions, give them free train and plane bus tickets; give them food and shelter so that they can get to their friends and relatives houses and get set up as quickly and efficiently as possible. We can do the paperwork later. The numbers of people coming is insignificant. Yes, some will be thieves and murderers, so what. Statistics over the years show that migrants commit Less violent crimes than the 'native' populations; they have more to lose. The great majority of these people hate violence. It would be nice if the 'Western Nations' would stop being ass-holes. Want to improve crime statistics? Want to reduce the levels of violence on the planet? Yes? Open the borders. Do it now; it is easy and costs virtually nothing. The alternative is devastatingly expensive and sows the seeds of conflict for another five generations. Open the fucking borders!Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-31316528325892329322015-08-12T19:52:00.000+02:002016-02-11T14:53:49.944+01:00The Iranian Accord, 2015. Ratify it.I have been hearing a great deal from Conservative leadership in the United States that, for the safety of the planet, the Iranian nuclear arms deal must be rejected by Congress. I accept that they may have a point but I also respectfully ask that they present their reason for the rejection, as a matter of courtesy. The sum of the reasons for rejecting the deal should demonstrate that the advantages of rejecting the deal more than compensate for the damage caused by rejecting the deal. <br />
<br />
The cost of rejection? No country on the planet would ever again take any negotiation with the United States seriously. This includes economic, financial, military, political discussions. How would it be possible to maintain a leadership role in the world while no country takes Presidential action seriously? In addition to this, rejecting the deal removes all direct observational tools that the West would have acquired in the deal, thereby reducing Western ability to monitor the situation within the borders of Iran. I assert that the cost of rejecting the deal is high. I perceive absolutely no fact based logical argument being put forward against the accord, at all. All I see is that we "could have done better" or "the world will end" or "They will kill us". Are all purely emotional suppositions. <br />
<br />
Every argument that I have heard in opposition to the accord is nullified with one simple verifiable fact. World leaders, including the power structures of Iran and Israel, realize that, if Iran posed a legitimate threat to world civilizations as perceived by the West, it would be incinerated one fine morning with enough time remaining to prepare a nice dinner. After which, over a pleasant desert, cognac and coffee, the principle parties involved could lament the total destruction of an entire civilization from the globe; one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man, as documented by those that study this sort of thing. An entire civilization obliterated, man woman and child. This outcome is inescapable with or without any treaty or signed or unsigned document of any kind; the West will not die easily. All of the signatories on the accord know this and the military and political power structures of the entire planet know this as well. <br />
<br />
The capability to do this is well documented and it would be a shame to have done so without first having given Iranian leaders every chance in the world to encourage their populations and power structures to relinquish anti-social behavior. Every effort to and including financial aid should be offered up. Failure to having done this in advance would perturb the good taste of the cognac, and that would be a shame. We would then be obliged to spend multiple generations inventing stories explaining to our ch<span id="goog_1821991702"></span><span id="goog_1821991703"></span>ildren why we were not just ordinary assholes who, without any attempt at diplomacy or direct contact, vaporized 77 million people and obliterated one of the oldest civilizations on the planet because "they would not do what we told them to do". So, who is supporting the agreement? <br />
<br />
The leaders of the US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and Iran have, after nine years of negotiation that started in 2006 with economic sanctions on Iran, decided that the best way to proceed with the perceived nuclear material and technology problem with Iran's government is the <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2165399/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf">Iran nuclear deal</a> signed in July 2015. This will lift the Iranian sanctions in exchange for concessions by the Iranian government. They want the US Congress to ratify the accord. <br />
<br />
This agreement is supported by the diplomats of those 7 countries. This is to say that the people most familiar with the use of international power have stated that this is the appropriate process and that this will reduce the likelihood of war. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress.<br />
<br />
Subsequent to signing the accord<br />
<br />
<a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2235612/iranletteraug2015.pdf">29 upper level U.S. Scientists</a> praise the deal in an open letter to Obama. This includes 5 Nobel Prize winners. These are people that are paid to think about science and technology, at least some of whom are intimately familiar with the research, development and production of nuclear weapons. These people agree that the agreement should be ratified by the US Congress. <br />
<br />
Finally, <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2270925/read-an-open-letter-from-retired-generals-and.pdf">36 retired generals and admirals</a> also now support the Iran nuclear deal as well. Once again, this is not to argue that they are correct in their assessment. I am noting that a large number of military professionals of high rank have agreed that this is an important step in dealing with the perceived nuclear weapon threat. They do not rule out a military option. They say instead, that this agreement makes the use of a military option simpler and more effective, should it come down to that. They recommend that Congress ratify the accord. <br />
<br />
Let me reiterate, These upper echelon military men have stated that ratifying the accord will make the use of the military option against Iran simpler and more effective, should it become necessary. Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-55831190329770486572014-08-01T21:24:00.001+02:002016-02-11T14:56:32.905+01:00Individual Reality and Murder<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf6q4tGpvQmWpe2uTKPG2-gT37JTs-vpsqcnw_F_AayxMBI7g_NcCPnFjW4eca9fxoZK-jsFFny5H2VgHbxQ1PIvsat3ylvHzD1zazTjbqoZUvMP2mdWewmT753UJePTxsZOgJzCchBes/s1600/2008-03-06-2040-46.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf6q4tGpvQmWpe2uTKPG2-gT37JTs-vpsqcnw_F_AayxMBI7g_NcCPnFjW4eca9fxoZK-jsFFny5H2VgHbxQ1PIvsat3ylvHzD1zazTjbqoZUvMP2mdWewmT753UJePTxsZOgJzCchBes/s1600/2008-03-06-2040-46.JPG" width="150" /></a></div>
An individuals Perception seems to be a cognitive process based upon information provided by our sensory organs. These organs detect temporal and spacial changes in physical characteristics of our environment and the objects within it. With touch and taste, it is necessary to be in direct contact with the object: is it more or less supple than our bodies, does it increase or decrease the temperature of our bodies, is it sharper or duller than our bodies? <br />
<br />
It is not necessary to be in direct contact with an object perceive it. We see (eyes), hear (ears), smell (nose) or detect heat (skin) from the distant objects. Light and sound are distorted or generated by the distant object and these secondary effects are transmitted to us and detected by our senses.<br />
<br />
Some people maintain that there is another perceptual process: spirit. I do not know other peoples minds and bodies so I will not dispute the point. There may well be something called spirit to which I am blind and others are not; I can only work with what is available to me. Other people may indeed have perceptions that I do not have. Some people can see color, others do not. An interesting point here: people that perceive color have been able to convince those that do not, that color exists and it is not a figment of imagination; it is real. However, people that perceive spirituality have not been able to convince others of its existence. Spirituality is a perception of certain individuals and not others. These impulses from our sensory organs are the totality of what we experience. These are the basis of everything that is the human experience. <br />
<br />
Our bodies, minds and spirit (if that exists) do more than just react to this information, our bodies remember the reactions that our bodies had to the stimulus, when it happened, which side of our bodies experienced the sensation. That is our bodies register the relationship of the physical properties to our bodies but we also register the order in which the events occurred. We have therefore have stored the information that would needs to compute rates of change with respect to space and time. Our bodies are bicameral and each side registers the effect of the object. This gives us the first derivative with respect to space. This, combined with time, gives our bodies the second derivatives of the perceptions with respect to time and space as well. The object is hotter on the right side of our bodies than on the left side, for example. The light arrived before the sound. Our bodies record this information in such a way that when all the individual cells containing the information have been replaced with new fresh cells, the information is not lost; the new cell builds the old information into the new structure. Perhaps in the same way that the replacement of a scar cell knows that it is not to be a regular cell, It copies the structure of the scar cell. <br />
<br />
Our unconscious brains attempt to build a relationship between these different memories of events. Our brains link the information collected together in addition to remembering the events and the order in which they occurred. When multiple sensory events happen at the same time or in close proximity; we see our hand move into the flame and at the same time that it enters we feel intense pain. There is now an association between flames and damage to our body. Our bodies record all the senses at the same time so if another event occurs at the same time, for instance a lightning strike in close proximity the brain will integrate that information as well. Was it the flame or the lightning bolt that caused the intense burning sensation in the hand. This is a flagrant example. The body felt the heat rise as the hand drew nearer so there is a much tighter association with the flame. However the scream of pain and the lightning bolt happened concurrently. Did we cause the lightning bolt? Could this be the result of a strong expression of pain and emotion? The brain must decide this as well. All this thought process is totally unconscious. Sometimes it makes mistakes.<br />
<br />
There are physical differences in the appearance of people and in their internal organs. Some cannot eat certain foods, or see color or hear. There are differences in the way people 'feel' emotions as
well. Hormonal levels change from individual to individual. This is
measurable and the effects of this are observable. Some people feel fear
more than others, and love and empathy. People do not sexually excite
by the same people. Some prefer members of their own sex, some do not.
It is not important whether these feelings are physical or cultural. It
is the way that it is; it is reality for that individual. The point is
that our perceptions of the world are not the same from person to
person. Individual Reality is unique for each human. <br />
<br />
The brain is a physical organ as well and it has variations in structure and chemistry from person to person. That being said, there is no reason to believe that people think and process information in the same way. I do not perceive numbers, for example the way that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Tammet">Daniel Tammet</a> does. This has been disputed but I fail to see how even a cursory look at the different conclusions people reach when looking at the same data does not demonstrate the point definitively. Of course, that is the way that I see it. Others will dispute my observation and attribute the differences to other causes. Frankly, that does nothing but substantiate my hypothesis. In addition to individual reality being different, people also have different ways of thinking about their Individual Realities and different ways of constructing their ideas about their Individual Reality. Our thoughts seem to be fractal in nature. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXUqnklgeNhofRSlUocUKZgjzxCHw_F0-9u8IjWD_kIgn_q1b_NbIOEttRlTyYZ_JnFs54jQDxembvOGEfKx_AQWxnwdH8afQ_H04qRyxZJDF03AiuHVImU4y2ixS4BrKB1znhx3yifMs/s1600/IllusionDolphin.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXUqnklgeNhofRSlUocUKZgjzxCHw_F0-9u8IjWD_kIgn_q1b_NbIOEttRlTyYZ_JnFs54jQDxembvOGEfKx_AQWxnwdH8afQ_H04qRyxZJDF03AiuHVImU4y2ixS4BrKB1znhx3yifMs/s1600/IllusionDolphin.png" width="193" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dolphins or Lovers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Dolphins or Lovers by artist <span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://im-possible.info/english/art/delprete/delprete_o1.html">Sandro del Prete </a></span>is seen differently by children and by adults. The children see dolphins swimming in the bottle (or so I have been told) and the adults see a man and woman embracing (or so I have been told). This, if true, would illustrate that people's interpretation of their reality changes as we get older. That is to say what the subconscious brain presents the conscious mind changes. The data may remain the same but what we perceive changes. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzWlEUs59DrcbZ2NlWbAFSPUz1w_0XngDL1o8-azFsPGo_Bc5aPj5fGYTHPqwrOIa38KyTvW2aBO1flK4vhvwj3s5_H4BMdCeGgoU6eNGIjx8u3dxL4ele_-s4rYLyY0OVuwJQr59ByNU/s1600/Dancer.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzWlEUs59DrcbZ2NlWbAFSPUz1w_0XngDL1o8-azFsPGo_Bc5aPj5fGYTHPqwrOIa38KyTvW2aBO1flK4vhvwj3s5_H4BMdCeGgoU6eNGIjx8u3dxL4ele_-s4rYLyY0OVuwJQr59ByNU/s1600/Dancer.gif" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Dancer</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spinning_Dancer">Dancer</a> illustrates that different people perceive reality differently. The dancer spins clockwise for some individuals and for others she spins counter-clockwise. Personally, I can reverse the spin at will although, the more I look at it, the more difficult this becomes. My brain has its preference. I have seen blogs where people accuse others of lying when they indicate that the dancer spins differently than they perceive. Both perceptions of reality are, of course, wrong. There is no dancer, they are shades of gray on a flat surface and what is interpreted as a dancer is not spinning at all. This is a series of images projected on a two dimensional surface; nothing is spinning. Our brains have manufactured something useful but something that is not part of any objective reality. It is not at all clear that a mouse will interpret the figure as a dancing anything. <br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1pLHrFArMaN3DjtZof5M8ZdNBhB9ly87AISGadx7XgFTTd03iuZKUAqqqEQKmlSxbk47qSbhB_yZpy64Swe5mUTTtZQJecn7ilTkDFskNC9_13vF9YdChqd7K7oC_mIyYHv8wIEUMD14/s1600/BeliefIsGrey.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1pLHrFArMaN3DjtZof5M8ZdNBhB9ly87AISGadx7XgFTTd03iuZKUAqqqEQKmlSxbk47qSbhB_yZpy64Swe5mUTTtZQJecn7ilTkDFskNC9_13vF9YdChqd7K7oC_mIyYHv8wIEUMD14/s1600/BeliefIsGrey.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Shades of Gray</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
A powerful illustration that our conscious perceptions can be incorrect can be seen in Shades-of-Gray. The gray color at the top looks darker than the gray color on the bottom of the figure; they look strikingly different but they are not. The gray at the top is exactly the same shade of gray as that on the bottom. I have personally had arguments where people refuse to believe that they are the same color. When I have suggested how to test this, they have refused. Why bother? Any idiot can see straight off that they are two completely different colors; it would be a waste of time, a fools mission. Even very simple testing has been refused. When suggest looking at the code that produces the colors to see if the computer has been asked to create the same shades, that too is rejected.<br />
<br />
The point is that some people actually define reality to be their Individual Reality and their perceptions may not be questioned; their perceptions are reality. When measurements suggest differently, it is because someone is attempting to trick them. These are people that live in their own world and do not believe that any other exists; all other people live in this same exact reality. Not perceiving what they perceive is an indication that one is of low intelligence, uninformed, misinformed, deceptive (lying), and/or evil, in that order. I am an evil person in some circles. The proof? The shades-of-gray example; it is the proof that I am actively attempting to confuse and deceive them. They can now dismiss everything else that I have to say without thinking about it. Yes, this is a true example. Interestingly enough, it is an example of bigotry and how that process works.<br />
<br />
The brain (the unconscious part) presents the conscious mind a fully processed "image", in all the five senses, of what it has constructed when integrating the sensory input from memory. This model is not what the senses have experienced. It is an integrated interpretation of the memory of what the senses (including time) have registered. This model that has been presented to the conscious mind is what I call the Individual's Reality Model or just Individual Reality; it is often wrong as I have demonstrated.<br />
<br />
Some people do not recognize any other reality. This is a mistake that causes a great deal of conflict in human society. Some people kill others based on their Individual Reality Model. I think that this might be because they do not understand how a person could not see what they see and believe the person to be lying in order to do them harm. The body is defending itself from what it perceives to be an malicious attacking organism. The organism is destroyed under the guise of ridding the world of evil. <br />
<br />
Individual Reality can be fraught with so much psychosis that it is only proper and dignified to expose it to the world-at-large in very restricted and filtered pieces. Public conversations about religion, politics or sex have been discouraged for many thousands of years. Perhaps for good reasons. These subjects are the ones that socially responsible people avoid; at least that is a common message. Individual Reality is personal; it comprises what an person experiences within their own body i.e. pain, joy, sadness, happiness, mental coherence, etc. Some people actually believe that their's is the only reality and will attempt to destroy different reality models that they feel are attacking theirs. People get worried enough that they physically kill their "adversary"; this is, in fact, very common.<br />
<br />
People that accept their unconscious brain's model of reality (Individual Reality) as 'real' or as 'truth' can be very dangerous people. It is at this point that the brain will actually start making things up and filtering out information. The brain will present things to the conscious mind that never happened and it will ignore things that did happen; this is the definition of belief. It is the basis of bigotry and racism. This is how the unconscious brain rationalizes murder, intellectual and physical. <br />
<br />Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-39816254858148665282014-03-10T22:18:00.000+01:002015-08-13T12:17:19.706+02:00Color War<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7318418947914615053" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyNyNRhX9denBac-FnQbeVgimjTsxLRwSfaHmcWK9KfCwyArw3-Zb6BVqLwE7mSW3IdFDXuejEYbTMwwjesLZcsd-WLS_A6rAB7BeDMd5bBgKzAknbbTfRAu0fbaBG_aXJrZ9YNG1P58/s1600/BeliefIsGrey.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyNyNRhX9denBac-FnQbeVgimjTsxLRwSfaHmcWK9KfCwyArw3-Zb6BVqLwE7mSW3IdFDXuejEYbTMwwjesLZcsd-WLS_A6rAB7BeDMd5bBgKzAknbbTfRAu0fbaBG_aXJrZ9YNG1P58/s320/BeliefIsGrey.png" width="320" /></a><b> </b><b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. When you 'believe' something, it makes it awfully difficult to perceive things the way they actually are. Facts are important. I assert that the grey on the top is exactly the same shade of grey on the bottom. Some might disagree.<br />
<br />
How do we resolve the issue and turn opinion into fact or dismiss it as unfounded speculation? This is the problem that many people have. They do not question what they see in plain view because it is there for everyone to see for themselves. They do not see any need to question the obvious. Yes, they are indeed the same shade of grey. How to prove it? Ideas?<br />
<br />
<b></b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<b><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7318418947914615053" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a></b></div>
<b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgInXnGZ5gRF1e1Tu7bH21TRmHgu7EKSDLZP2bev5uMg95P5mEXTu0dlgc9mqwtFFUFu6z58er2NEfWkg4_CxrcCGsI3xYHcur9H3W6axfTLMvv6elopdNtjrgGcNPM1MVCxPz4JpOPmNo/s1600/AmauryGray.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgInXnGZ5gRF1e1Tu7bH21TRmHgu7EKSDLZP2bev5uMg95P5mEXTu0dlgc9mqwtFFUFu6z58er2NEfWkg4_CxrcCGsI3xYHcur9H3W6axfTLMvv6elopdNtjrgGcNPM1MVCxPz4JpOPmNo/s1600/AmauryGray.jpg" /></a>Helga Weiss</b>. Amazing!<br />
<br />
<b>Amaury De Cizancourt</b> Well, nearly...<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. No, exactly. What did you do to demonstrate 'nearly'?<br />
<br />
<b>Amaury De Cizancourt</b>. Copied and pasted ...<br />
<br />
<b>Helga Weiss</b> I still have no clue!<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b> Sorry. What did you cut and paste?<br />
<br />
<b>Helga Weiss</b> Even when I turn it, it still appears to show 2 different greys.<br />
<br />
<b>Amaury De Cizancourt</b>. Same here, Helga. Michael, I copied the centre of the top square inside the centre of the bottom square. They are not the same,. At least on my screen...<br />
<br />
<b>Amaury De Cizancourt</b>. I have to go back to work. Will resume the conversation tomorrow if you don't mind...<br />
<br />
Michael Thomas Gerety. Tomorrow then. <br />
<br />
<b>Mike Heighway</b>. The top grey has a value of 109, 113, 112.<br />
The bottom grey has a value of 99, 103, 102.<br />
They are very close. It could actually be that the image compression has slightly altered the original image (color management). Effectively they are almost identical. The difference is not as extreme as it appears.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTDkZ4gyiywn2HulbSasSFjMh9QzoETOGS4lybJkPXsACp03pSwrIqMkNG01vgwCXM9eHWgxHgFswKdIHxEJt5XtuAHQw29yEq7bfmqX92L4X0HXMOun5qBRXzWyR7KX3Cpn7wNWpt6kQ/s1600/Heighway.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTDkZ4gyiywn2HulbSasSFjMh9QzoETOGS4lybJkPXsACp03pSwrIqMkNG01vgwCXM9eHWgxHgFswKdIHxEJt5XtuAHQw29yEq7bfmqX92L4X0HXMOun5qBRXzWyR7KX3Cpn7wNWpt6kQ/s1600/Heighway.jpg" /></a>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. Damn. I have done this several times and not paid attention to the source. Normally I check but this time I did not. Amaury is correct, this site cheated and changed the colors ever so slightly. The reality here is that the dark section on the top is actually lighter than the light section on the bottom by a tiny amount. It makes the disconnect between the reality and the belief even stronger.<br />
<br />
But still, now I have to do it myself. That's OK. I'll do it tomorrow. I didn't check this time!!!!! Ack.<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. Mike, your right but it goes the wrong way making the illusion even more impressive. I'll do it myself tomorrow.<br />
<br />
<b>Pedro C. Hernandez-Baracaldo</b>. if we think of quantum physics, i am seeing the same elements in many different ways all at the same time<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. So here is a good one.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaO-TT2k0bAUdn7bJPKlp8QJ-YMgSv8hemySOMksmpP0-Ll2ubnyrRtopJrZh3XTDGei0pqxz6PujsIg4iJjH-1Joerom5DiEXHk1NwMWzffX2FbRzf1QI1W2Ubk7zV8VwQYK_l-fu5Q/s1600/Fixed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZaO-TT2k0bAUdn7bJPKlp8QJ-YMgSv8hemySOMksmpP0-Ll2ubnyrRtopJrZh3XTDGei0pqxz6PujsIg4iJjH-1Joerom5DiEXHk1NwMWzffX2FbRzf1QI1W2Ubk7zV8VwQYK_l-fu5Q/s1600/Fixed.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Douglas McAdams</b>. Your point about refining thoughts by checking them with reality is really good but how far do you take it? First, if this picture were a scene in our reality, the brain is accurately identifying that the top field is reflecting light while the bottom one is shaded - even though the shades of grey are the same, the perception of difference has some accuracy in that respect. Second, you’re taking the premise that the external reality is the “real” one and the internal is not.<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. Douglas, How far to take it? One of the brains principle functions is to develop this reality model and it does so superbly and that is an understatement. This interpretive function of the brain allows us to greatly increase our use of symbols and inter-generational memory. There is a huge advantage to this. Enormous.<br />
<br />
Most of the time there is absolutely no problem whatsoever, I don't think. So, there is no reason to take it anywhere at all unless there is reason to think something is amiss or a specific choice on an issue of life and death needs to access reality and not the interpretation.<br />
<br />
You make a good point, there is great benefit in what your brain has done to interpret reality. It is not even clear that the brain could present an effective working model of reality if it did not modify your way of perceiving the world. It is probably the only way that your brain can present your conscious mind a working model. This is neither bad nor good, it just is. If you need to separate out things by color, you cannot trust your eyes, for example. You should be able to see the military value to that. Hell without real mechanical measurement we can't even tell what color the picture is, not really.<br />
<br />
Many (most?) of the general population has not a clue as to the extent their brains are making things up, even the highly educated ones. The shades of gray illusion has made the rounds in the circles of people that think about this kind of thing. The flame wars surrounding it are astounding and the educated are no more aware of this than the uneducated. People actually believe that what they see is an accurate representation of the world; it is not. It is here that the distinction between fact and opinion becomes very important. Knowing how to see that the perceived color is an opinion and the actual color is a fact is the heart and soul of a huge amount of conflict. It is here that I get more than a little frustrated in political conversations or ones about the health care system.<br />
<br />
My observations (I pay attention to this kind of thing) is that most, yes I said most people cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. I assert that it is impossible to understand Reality if one cannot determine what is objective (fact) from what is interpretation (opinion). That is a pretty strong statement. For it is with fact, not opinion, that we can begin to understand the world, or the ACA or Obama or anything. Opinion does not really get us that far but it sure divides us. Look how wrong our opinions are when just looking two simple tiles in a drawing. There is no point in even giving voice or ink to an unverifiable opinion, UNLESS a bottle of scotch and friends are involved. It is entertainment and nothing else. It might give rise to a reasonable approach but standalone opinion is worthless for any serious discussion. They should never be mistaken for something 'real'.<br />
<br />
So, when to actively question these interpretations that our brains have manufactured for us in the subconscious? Actively question them when conflicting data is pointed out. Actively question them when something 'smells bad'. Actively question them when, in conversation, someone suggests that you are not seeing things clearly. Dismissing another person's perceptions is prideful and destroys the possibility of cooperation. Pride is a mortal sin, I suggest that it is that daddy of all mortal sins.<br />
<br />
“you’re taking the premise that the external reality is the “real” one and the internal is not.”<br />
<br />
Yes, indeed I am. This is the core of the conflict between the Romanticists (Jacobi and the tea party) and the Rationalists (Me and Newton). It is a battle that has been waging for as long as we have historical records. I have taken my side. As a side note, did you know that the oldest written record in existence (I think) has to do with bookkeeping and beer?<br />
<br />
As far as I can tell there are three different ways to look at reality. 'Personal reality' is what goes on inside of your head and your head alone, I cannot verify it. We have a 'common reality' as well where we can each go out and independently verify what we are discussing. With common reality we can start coming to agreement on how Obama Care (ACA) functions. What exists independent of humans is standalone Reality with a capital R. Reality is something that we are attempting to discover little by little. We seemed to be built for that.<br />
<br />
<b>Nathalie de Truchis.</b> Wahou vous êtes vraiment débordés ! <br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. 'Déborder' C'est le seul truc que je sais comment bien faire.<br />
<br />
<b>Nathalie de Truchis</b>. Oh je suis sûre que tu en fais d autres ! Mais ce n est pas parce que c est la journée de la femme (1 fois par an c est déjà suffisamment indécent ) que vous devez vous masturber ..... Le cerveau ! :-))<br />
<br />
<b>Douglas McAdams</b>. The scientist-turned-artist is a rationalist and not a romantic? This conflict is also known as accidents vs essence, poets vs quants, and science vs theology. Really these are all just false dichotomies like trying put music against sports. The truth is they are separate domains, and we need to develop both to be healthy - we all have a brain and a heart.<br />
<br />
This is the message that we are supposed to get from reading “a modest proposal” - an example of flawless logic explaining something insane - try to explain why it is insane and you will likely fail - the answer is that we know it in our hearts. You defined the “real” reality as the external reality but, in the example you posted, all of us also had the same internal reality of perceiving the top grey as brighter - the external is not the only way to have a common reality.<br />
<br />
If anything, the rational is the easier of the two domains. Part of what is so satisfying about math and science is that we can often find the right answers and reproduce them so we “know” they are right. If only we had that clarity on the deeper questions! Many of the great physicists have written that the the more they learn, the more they realize how much they don’t know. Feynman said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t really understand it. Our five known senses perceive a small fraction of a percentage of reality. Science can tell us the nerves and hormones that interact to make us feel love - does that mean love isn’t real? Does that mean we understand love? Of course not. The most real and important things in life are mysteries. The perceptions in our brains are as much if not more reality. What is the universe if there aren’t conscious beings in it to experience it? The universe is reality but our experience of it is not?<br />
<br />
When presented with a birthday cake, the rationalist might cleverly derive what the recipe was, the romantic will feel the cake as an expression of love from the maker. They are both right, but the romantic is the more perceptive one in this example. This is why the plumber in Missouri who doesn’t believe in dinosaurs may know more about the things that matter in life than the high-IQ urban phd. I find the people who have excelled in both domains to be the most impressive. Examples include John Polkinghorne and Clayton Christiansen.<br />
<br />
When you apply this to politics, I’m lost. The party that gave us the ACA are rationalists? Bernie Sanders has a bumper sticker that says “we may not be perfect, but they’re insane”. I think they are all nuts - limiting their power over our lives seems like the best option.<br />
<br />
<b>Michael Thomas Gerety</b>. Douglas, I don't think that there is a conflict between what you say and what I say. Your experiences of love and grief and sadness are real. They form the core of who you and and mine form the core of who I am. I never even suggested that this was not the case although, I can understand why you might have thought that. Maybe before I die I will learn to express myself more effectively. I will not take all of the blame on myself because the discourse on the topic has been less than productive for thousands of years so that when I say something you have already been conditioned to accept it in a certain light. I am attempting to change the dialog and discard some of the nonsense that has been building for the last several thousand years.<br />
<br />
The only reality that you have is that which you experience in your body, heart, mind and soul. Everything else is supposition; it is a model that your brain constructs of what it supposes the world to be like. We now know that what your brain has told you that your eyes have seen, is not what your eyes have actually seen. The same is true with all the other senses. Your brain has put things in 'perspective' to the point that if you really want to know what is going on outside of your body, you can't just accept what your brain has told you. This graphic was to demonstrate that this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. The interpretation that your brain has made can be very useful, for some things and it can be quite damaging for other things.<br />
<br />
Individuals interpretations of what is external to our selves can be different and they often require cooperation and behavior modification by many people. Accepting your vision of the external world may result in fabulous wealth for yours and desperate poverty for mine. The reverse could also be true. Instead of wealth, life itself may be in play. Are we going to attack Iran or not? Learning how to get a reasonably reliable and perhaps even accurate interpretation of the external world is important.<br />
<br />
My last series of posts was designed to demonstrate decisively that basing our actions on what our brains have presented as evidence to our conscious minds can be flawed. Even something so simple as the color of these two tiles has caused flame wars in the blogs. It has resulted in aggressive behavior and accusations that the one is accusing the other of being stupid or a liar, over the color of a picture! This battle over feelings is destructive; it makes cooperation difficult to impossible. People go hungry over these types of disputes. People die over whose feelings are right and whose are wrong.<br />
<br />
When the world gets confusing and one must choose, feelings are the decoder, for everyone, Romantics and Rationalists alike. What else can one do? Nothing. Every person on the planet has a level at which they must admit that they have no idea what is going on. All the scientists that I know personally are aware of this. The fact that we do not really understand time or matter, as you pointed out with Feynman, has not stopped us from sending a small metal object to orbit around a planet far far away. It has not stopped us from sending men to the moon, and back or plant fields or kissing a pretty girl. We do know some things about how people and the universe work on a practical basis.<br />
<br />
Slowly we have come develop models about what is real, independent of human feeling. We are not sure exactly what or how this reality works exactly but we are making progress. This agreement about what seems to be independent of us is our common reality. These agreements on what constitute the reality that we all agree on (for the most part) constitutes the basis for our society. It is difficult to form a cohesive society when 30\% of the population thinks that another 30\% of the population are not human and can be used for slaves and killed at will. Here we have peoples feelings conflict in a brutal way. These are people that are willing to die over the 'fact' that one color is darker than the other or one is a 'socialist' or 'capitalist'. Worse there are people that are willing to kill for the same reason.<br />
<br />
Yes, personal reality (our feelings) are important but they do not help resolve conflict when it is precisely those feelings that clash. The only resolution there is an agreement on common reality, that which is external to us. God was supposed to be that 'reality', I think. It has not worked out well. There are too many Gods with conflicting rules and regulations and there are too many men that will use the concepts to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Yes, love could be the answer, theoretically if people would agree, but they don't. They cheat and I can't know if the love you express toward me is real. Too many are to good at acting and conning others out of their life savings. I will stick with what I can verify. At the same time I will try not to harm you, but you can't know that, so maybe you should stick to the facts and logic too, at least at first. Use the feelings to try and help sort it out.<br />
<br />
I understand why the politics could get confusing; We look at that one differently. Neither party concocted the ACA; neither party knows how to do that. The ACA was the best option that the private enterprise insurance companies could come up with. This is not an Obama or Democratic solution. Neither Obama nor the 'liberals' wanted this solution. The 'liberals' and Obama wanted single payer universal care but we could not pull it off.<br />
<br />
The ACA is 80\% industry driven (I made that up, it is my 'feeling' ;-)). The same is true of the website debacle. Government did not design or build it. Private enterprise did and private industry fixed it. I think that we can gather enough actual data to demonstrate that definitively. The ACA is the best that our industry could come up with. Hell, the Representatives did not even read the damn thing so they sure as hell are not responsible for it, neither did the Supreme Court even after being asked to.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW5NgXjilO8Y7JVPycbWLy6R_AXE0rv2V0cHKB-ZEFvrVTdPI1jRDSzD_2gXmtjzUr9I9S9dEFSXydWX1jasED_DZefnwwwWuyhUyy8SzIqVE2znK6EWW7J-noInZATyHjw2rMV_wY-nE/s1600/TableIllusion.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgW5NgXjilO8Y7JVPycbWLy6R_AXE0rv2V0cHKB-ZEFvrVTdPI1jRDSzD_2gXmtjzUr9I9S9dEFSXydWX1jasED_DZefnwwwWuyhUyy8SzIqVE2znK6EWW7J-noInZATyHjw2rMV_wY-nE/s1600/TableIllusion.png" width="320" /></a><br />
Take a look at the<br />
TableIllusion<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
The representatives (government, both parties) and private industry ALL recognized that we have a huge health distribution problem in the States that was/is pissing off significant numbers of people (The drawing). Industry designed the solution, not government. The fact that you said 'which party' tells my that your brain is interpreting the 'drawing' with a 3-D model, instead of what it really is (facts): Government against industry and one party against the other. Of course it will be confusing when looking at the reality. The actual measurements don't corroborate the 'interpretation'. The big fight is over who gets either the credit or blame. They want to get reelected all of them. The measurements say that neither party had much to do with it. The 'feelings' say that is was the 'fault' of one or the other. The feelings are wrong about this just as they were wrong about the colors of the tiles. This was the best that our culture could come up with. We can't agree on what is real and what is imagined. Fact is different than opinion.<br />
<br />
This was the whole point of the exerciser. Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-43814472084430634652014-02-19T16:06:00.000+01:002014-02-19T17:01:14.551+01:00The Winning Argument<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg94m7YFfDl83HHUDiXl_VhHslHknMGFMHopRsM1YgCNg28aBv7GpVrJMyEoCy0A6qh07X1WAbWY3qHh8QBwQYtBICTz_dFFimrMFCa1AunwrC9P7N38aMuxvAx8zWL_l__9umYj_ugR3s/s1600/Truth.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg94m7YFfDl83HHUDiXl_VhHslHknMGFMHopRsM1YgCNg28aBv7GpVrJMyEoCy0A6qh07X1WAbWY3qHh8QBwQYtBICTz_dFFimrMFCa1AunwrC9P7N38aMuxvAx8zWL_l__9umYj_ugR3s/s1600/Truth.png" height="320" width="243" /></a><br />
<ul>
<div class="blogpost-western">
Recently I had an exchange with a person
that I like and respect quite a lot. He said something that
disturbed me. He said “I do indeed have a fascination with the
argument and the tools that are employed in winning them.” It
seems to me that many people (probably since the beginning of time)
feel that they must win their arguments; they must convince the
audience that they are correct and the 'opponent' is wrong, if not
outright evil. This disturbs me. It worries me. <br />
<br />
To me, a
'winning' argument is one which is internally consistent, fits all
the facts (our common reality), does not violate the logical
reasoning process, has reasonable assumptions that, at least for the
sake of the discussion, we can agree upon. A 'winning' conclusion
from said argument is one which gives useful predictions and leads
to the discovery of new and useful information. Convincing people
that the conclusions of the argument are right is silly. It is silly
because every ideas conceived by man to explain what is going on
with reality has been 'modified' with time. None are 'right'.
Newton's laws have been modified. People no longer consider that
earth, fire, air and water are the basic building blocks of matter.
Arguing that we are 'right' is intellectually immature. <br />
<br />
There
is often than one winning argument with more than one set of
conclusions. The chore then becomes eliminating the ones that cannot
support a more stringent set of criteria, facts, if you will or one
that ceases to be useful given changing circumstances and increases
in knowledge. The ones that remain are the ones which we are not
able to eliminate. We keep trying. When one is forced to choose
between multiple winning arguments and conclusions, emotions come in
to play. All the points of view are valid so choose the one that you
personally prefer, there is no other way to do it. Flipping a coin
is a reasonable alternative and may even be the best
alternative.<br />
<br />
Riches and fame often follow from one
argument train and conclusion set. Most human beings will choose
that route if it is available. Fortunately, many of these
'motivated' people will discard facts and distort logic and
assumptions specifically to obtain said fame and fortune. "Hey,
I am just following the logic. It is not my fault if it results in
great wealth". I say fortunately because this enables me to
identify these people easily, no effort. They are the con men and
this is one of the most productive ways to identify them, they screw
with the facts and logic. Romney is a good example, out of a fertile
field of politicians. This is the reason that following the money is
so important. The people that get rich from an idea are highly
motivated to 'win' the argument, so motivated that they will even
lie to themselves, in private. <br />
<br />
People's brains know how to
convince the conscious mind of things. Indeed the unconscious mind
will only present to the conscious mind those thing that are
consistent with their belief. Many of these people do not lying
unless forced to; they actually believe the nonsense that their
brain has twisted out of a train of thought. The global warming
argument is a terrific example of this, so is the 'job creator'
argument, and the 'trickle down' arguments. They are each
fundamentally flawed at the very base but the proponents will hear
none of it; they are trying to 'win' the argument and 'prove' that
they are right. They derive power from this and that is often the
objective; understanding the system is no that important. Why not?
Because their brains have convinced them that they already
understand the system. No one understands the system. Hell, we don't
even understand what rocks are, not really. People that are trying
to understand don't really care which way the cards fall, the con
men care very much which way the cards fall. They will cheat and
many of them are easy to catch once you know 'how to think' about
it. They want to 'win'.<br />
<br />
Pundits provide a great example of
this; the popular ones are very convincing, especially if they are
telling a story that fits what the audience wants to hear. 'Obama is
bad', 'Obama is good' are great examples of this. But, can the
pundit put together self-consistent arguments that have possible
assumptions, fit the facts, do not violate the laws of logic and
have conclusions that are useful? Sadly, virtually all of the big
name conservative pundits simply do not have the intellectual
capacity to formulate a decent argument. That or they are con men
trying to trick the public. Seriously, I mean pretty much all of
them, even the big named guys, they are either intellectually
immature (by the above standard) or they are con men. Generally they
are Jacobian in their understanding of facts and logic. Here
are a couple of examples. <br />
<br />
Peggy Noonan is a name that comes
up often when I ask conservative friends to give recommendations and
I have gone out of my way to look for them and study what they have
to say. I look at the presentation of their ideas before even
thinking about the ideas themselves. It is like grading papers in
school. Noonan is just an example of one of the popular ones; she
writes for her audience and almost never says anything worth
thinking about. I used to read her a lot but not any more. She is
not capable of putting together a real argument. Hell, she doesn't
even know what a real argument is. She is a robot. She is one of
many on the conservative side. I really like the way that she
writes, far better than I, however, she is not very good at making
arguments. She is a Romantic, a Jacobian. Facts and logic take a
back seat to feelings. No, that is not quite correct. Facts and
logic are ways to trick people and as such, they are irrelevant. Our
feelings are the true contact with reality. The reality? Obama is
evil, that's it, all of it; she feels it strongly, so strongly that
it must be correct. She will find lots of supporting evidence to
show that this is the case. She wants to win. <br />
<br />
David Brooks
on the other hand is a completely different story. When David Brooks
has something to say, I listen, I study, I think. The guy is good,
very good. Interestingly enough, when I ask for conservative
intellectual elite recommendations, he is almost never on the list.
He is not out to 'win' he is out to to understand. He Is about
making the world a better place. There is a difference. The
arguments are good or they are not. His are superb.<br />
<br />
Me, I
don't care about winning the argument or convincing people that I am
right. I do care that the argument be solid and the conclusions
useful. That does not mean that the conclusions resulting from the
logic train are 'right' or those from my discussion partners are
'wrong'; it means that we have different ways of thinking about the
problem. Time will tell. This concept of 'winning' an argument and
'being right' disturbs me greatly.</div>
</ul>
Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0Avignon, France43.9438274161481 4.802591800689697343.9431129161481 4.8013313006896974 43.944541916148104 4.8038523006896972tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-18653484315594305392013-12-10T18:24:00.002+01:002018-08-03T22:31:43.696+02:00Carrots and Sticks<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjktmU1Fg5xVcayThIEliA_BkHjK3OXlUm7zXDxvJKChxAQiDJnlth4sb9TxWB7UJZyrlm134BtwThyK-ZnerXwOVuPZ3OcMgSjqZz7_ZjgqyD4TI9d1Si9Wx0ziwSlLvwkQX6dLcPLSno/s1600/StickPeople.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjktmU1Fg5xVcayThIEliA_BkHjK3OXlUm7zXDxvJKChxAQiDJnlth4sb9TxWB7UJZyrlm134BtwThyK-ZnerXwOVuPZ3OcMgSjqZz7_ZjgqyD4TI9d1Si9Wx0ziwSlLvwkQX6dLcPLSno/s320/StickPeople.png" width="317" /></a>There are two schools of thought on how
to elicit behavior that someone or a group has decided is the way
things 'should be'. Each group religious, economic, military,
intellectual etc. has ways that they think things should be. Some
actually have power to try and make it happen.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What is common to all of these people is that
they know how others 'should be', they have a hot-line to God or they
know right from wrong or they are the 'smart ones'. That is to say
that the 'others' have none of these advantages; the others are poor
saps that need 'parenting' because they can't figure it out on their
own, they have 'bad' tendencies. So, … how do we create this
Utopian dream that we have in our heads? How do we get the children
to behave?<br />
<br />
The
'carrot school' gives a nice feeling of benevolent superiority.
Encourage people, give them incentives to behave the way that they
should. It feels good to be the power that gives pleasure, come to
daddy, I have candy. Be good. Carrot people want to be rewarded for their good behavior, they are good people and they know it, they want to be acknowledged. They want the rewards for living properly and contributing to society, my daddy showed me this. People are not evil by nature. We want a nice world, life is short, lets enjoy it. We are alive! come smell the roses. We want a pleasant world so lets build one. </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The 'stick school' provides a feeling
righteousness and definitive power. Discourage people from following
their wicked nature. It feels good to show people the penalties of
transgress, go and sin no more. Do not force me to hunt you down,
there will be pain. The stick people feel good about being beaten when caught transgressing the rules; breaking the rules is bad, we all want to do that but that is evil, that is letting our true nature out; we deserve the pain, my daddy showed me this. People are evil by nature. Stick people do not like rewarding people for doing what they should be doing anyway. It will spoil them. We want a harsh world, it makes us strong. It makes us invincible. The others, the evil ones will not get us, ever.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That being said,
the stick people worry me, profoundly. Sometimes I think that many of them rather enjoy punishing others for their 'sins'. Sometimes I think
that they make some rules simply to assure a steady supply of people to
punish. They think it works best. "Damn, don't make me beat you again".
They clearly like the stick. They like it a lot. They do not really
have a problem with people breaking the rules. Hey, it gives is the
opportunity to show the others what the penalties are. The harsher
and nastier the punishment the more effective it is. You do want to
work effectively and efficiently toward having the society that I
want us to have, don't you? Yeah, the stick people worry me.</div>
Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-63534070111627749572013-11-27T17:59:00.000+01:002018-02-14T10:47:20.248+01:00Power, Diplomacy and Balls: Terrified Republicans. <div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbFL-46tOHg5tWJC-tEcdO8qkcOyElK_Aee7YQJSw8oN5N-Ir0rf6tOf9rKGvuWEsuxrz8jkQw1U3D0m7XCk9hnJ558ZEv6iUvT6On-VTQ3ZUPaRhBT9AdvF7tQ_TL6KtbFroIt1P8-iI/s1600/BurningHead.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="576" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbFL-46tOHg5tWJC-tEcdO8qkcOyElK_Aee7YQJSw8oN5N-Ir0rf6tOf9rKGvuWEsuxrz8jkQw1U3D0m7XCk9hnJ558ZEv6iUvT6On-VTQ3ZUPaRhBT9AdvF7tQ_TL6KtbFroIt1P8-iI/s320/BurningHead.png" width="240" /></a></div>
I read a Globalpost article By <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/bio/michael-moran">Michael
Moran</a>, <a href="http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/the-unraveler/iran-nuclear-agreement-israel-saudi">Why
Israel and Saudi Arabia really hate the Iran deal</a>. He gave me
food for thought. I have reduced it to the components that I could
use. It was a good article, filled with the nutrients needed to build
and interesting structure. Here is what I build with it
______________________
<br />
<br />
Apparently the Executive Branch of the US government has just
wrapped up a deal with Iran that is supposed to reduce the danger
that Iran poses to 'the west'. This has met with some pretty strong
criticism from people within the US and from some World governments,
notably Syria and Israel. Each country has it's own constituency and
its own problems. For whatever reason some of the upper echelon of
these countries have expressed their misgivings. I have no idea
whether this is political posturing for some hidden treasure or if
they are indeed unhappy with the deal. Frankly, I don't care because
I don't know enough about their situations and culture and I can not do
anything about it anyway. I do know something about the American
culture and what is traveling around the blogosphere and newspapers.
In America we have one group in particular (New Conservatives) who
have lots of people that are outraged that we would 'appease the
enemy'. <br />
<br />
I would like to expose these 'hardliners', these
defenders of liberty for what they are. Fearful cowards, but more
than just fearful cowards, they are ignorant jerks that do not understand power or its use. I am being generous here. War is the
last resort of someone who has already lost. This is nothing new
for those that study conflict. For these conservatives however, the only
'acceptable' outcome To the US 'negotiation' with Iran would be war.
For war is the only definitive way to solve 'the problem', whatever
that means. These are people that accuse the American President of
weakness and even traitorous behavior when he allows anyone in his
administration to have any contact with someone in a 'hostile
country'. Any compromise is seen as defeat, even saying hello on the
street is seen as defeat.<br />
<br />
Only those that a<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">re
strong have the option of being generous with their opponents. I am
not speaking of a perception of strength, I am speaking of real
demonstrable strength. America has finally begun to behave as if it were
strong; strong enough to talk with those that disagree and even
strong enough to throw them a face-saving bone once in a while.
America has started to behave as if it is not afraid of the boogie
man anymore and has the quiet confidence of a country with real
power. Absolute power. <br /><br />This is the image that Barak Obama is now
projecting. He has started to show respect for those that disagree,
he will listen to them and even try to help them out once in a while,
he will show them real respect. I am pleased, for this is the stance
of a person that controls real power, the winning hand. His position
is so strong that he can even grant them some concessions if it will
help them manage their own internal public relationship challenges.
Why not? They will have to come around eventually, there is no
choice. They know that and we know that. Why make it difficult on
them? It is not courteous. We have real power we do not need to strut
around on the world stage like a 13 year old bully taunting his prey.
<br /><br />Frankly, I am sick and tired of the New Conservatives total
lack of confidence in American power; They are the ones that think we
are weak and cannot afford to negotiate. They are the ones that make
Americans look fearful and weak to the rest of the world. This is
more than just an appearance. These people are afraid and fear does
make one weak and vulnerable. These are the people that are so afraid
of being perceived as 'weak' that we cannot treat our opponents on
the world stage with the utmost courtesy and respect. These are the
people that think America is so weak that we cannot give them
concession that will make it easier for them to manage their own
people.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Let
me remind our terrified and insecure Conservative cowards that
America has the power to vaporize any of these 'problems' in just a
couple of hours for a cost of a couple of billion dollars and without
the loss of a single American. We can do this in the afternoon then
go out to dinner that evening. I am not exaggerating at all. We can afford to be courteous and
respectful with our 'opponents' because anything short of that, is a
straightforward admission that we are just asshole bullies and
nothing else. <br /><br />The Iranian culture deserves a HUGE amount of
respect. Now, in addition to just being assholes, the 'War Monger
Conservatives' are also demonstrating that they are dumb-fucks as
well. Read some history about the rise of civilization on the planet
and the place that Iranian culture played in that rise. Dumb people
seldom win conflicts. A battle once in a while but never the
conflict. You give our opponents confidence and you destroy the
confidence that is rightly ours. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #222222;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "tahoma" , "helvetica" , "freesans" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Now,
you 'New Conservatives', stand up straight and stop acting like
terrified little children. We have real power and everyone on the
planet knows it. Grow some balls. Treat the 'enemy' with the utmost
courtesy and respect. Offer to talk anytime and give them the
concessions the need to effectively govern their people. This is very
important because one afternoon, on one cloudy day, we might have to
annihilate their entire civilization from the planet and that would
be sad.</span></span></span>Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-69803939240976694592013-11-23T14:30:00.003+01:002017-01-12T16:42:30.585+01:00Weak Sissy Liberals; The Conservative View. <div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcxCja1LPYHBL4NHgG8bUnowlQjcPGDAbeKWggqLuV57GU84qFzxPnMe4AD_HuNQnQgvN-bjEZZLpZ0Ch01FSMlZY-uqNSq-IYUWJdtVjKRbtLo9bz65Hu30CtGIzre93Zevkx6DGAhd8/s1600/CIMG1009.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgcxCja1LPYHBL4NHgG8bUnowlQjcPGDAbeKWggqLuV57GU84qFzxPnMe4AD_HuNQnQgvN-bjEZZLpZ0Ch01FSMlZY-uqNSq-IYUWJdtVjKRbtLo9bz65Hu30CtGIzre93Zevkx6DGAhd8/s1600/CIMG1009.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
This is in response to an acquaintance
of mine that published an article "<a href="http://quietmike.org/2013/11/21/conservatives-universal-healthcare-in-the-us/">Conservatives want Universal Healthcare In the US (and don’t know it)</a>".
He asked for feedback; he wanted to know if he might be delusional.
That is always 'delicate' but here goes.
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">You are definitely
delusional, Frank; welcome to the club. I think you are calling this
one wrong and I am guessing that the reason for this is some kind of
cognitive dissonance. The world is not how you think that it should
be so you refuse to listen when people try and explain it to you. You
are going out of your way to show how it just really 'isn't so'. Yes,
it is so. What you are hearing is not stupid. It is well thought out
philosophy and the truth of this philosophy is there for everyone to
see. It is clear and it is concise and it is correct. Yes, the
Conservatives are correct. The government must stay out of this
'taking care of the people' business or it will destroy the country.
Here is how I know this.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Life is about
proving oneself, it is how evolution works, the strongest survive.
Any thing short of that compromises the very species. You become
strong and prove yourself or … well, you are part of the problem.
If you end up dying? Well, that is God's will. This is how it works,
period. This was beaten (literally sometimes) into their heads by the
time that they were 3 yrs old.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">"Prove to
daddy that you are strong and independent. It is how it must be and I
must teach you to understand this, it is important. No, we will not
pick you up just because you want us to. You may cry and scream in
your crib if you like. We will not be manipulated like this and we
will not allow you to get away with that All babies/people are
naturally manipulative. We can see the results of spoiling the
children and this will not happen in our house. You have been changed
and fed and now it is time to go to sleep, period. It may be painful
but you will learn the rules. You MUST learn to be strong and take
care of yourself, it is my personal responsibility to make you
strong. I am taking my responsibilites seriously, you should too. I
love you too much to let you fail. We do not tolerate spoiled
children in this household. Scream in you crib all you like but you
are going to learn that other people are not here to take care of
whatever whim you have. Scream all night if you want, we are not
going to give you what you want. We are not going to help you."</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">If the parents
were successful the child has learned by about 3 yrs of age that he
cannot count on anyone but himself when he has a need for something.
Yes, his parents will feed and change him but that is it. When they
want to play, they will play, when he wants to play, well they don't
want to spoil him. This is how people are. How can you possible
dispute this Frank? Even this 3 yr old has figured it out. He will be
strong and he will be independent. He knows the rules. You want
something? Well you do it yourself, whatever it takes, whatever it
takes. I am giving nothing away for free, now, go cry in your crib. I
will not be manipulated by your stupid emotional games. You want to
give me something for free? Cool, I'll take it but I will loose
respect for you. What are you some kind of Liberal with 'emotions'
and stuff? No, I will not do the same for you, I don't believe in
spoiling people. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Yes, many of the
most vociferous are those that are on or have been on the 'take' at
some point. They are deeply ashamed of this. To offset this proof
that they themselves are or were not worthy and to pay for their sins
they must push even harder against the 'injustice', against their
sin. They double down to teach their children even more fervently the
lesson. They do not want their children to be failures, as they
were/are. And so it goes.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">There is no logic
in the world, there is no factual basis in the world that will get
these people to change the way they think about this. Why? Because
this is indeed how the world works for them, their dad showed them
and they are going to demonstrate this to their children, work or
starve, yes, they will withholds food and yes they will be beaten. If
violence is necessary to teach the child, so be it; it is that
important. The children, like them, will find examples of this
throughtout their lives, hundreds and thousands of examples. There
are lots and lots of people like this and they band together, they
know what the rules are, the rules are self evident. Liberals ! What
a bunch of namby pambies. Hey, it is just business.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">You liberal
fantasy world pretty boys, intellectual with all this 'education' and
as smart as you think you are can't see this? Pretty silly, if you
ask me. No, we will not let you run the show, you live in a fantasy
land and you will destroy us all. Survival of the fittest, no free
lunch. These are the laws of our species; these are the laws of God.
Any idiot can see that.Work or die, be strong, no free lunch, We will
not allow it, We will actively stop you from rewarding people that do
not deserve it. I will not let you destroy us, we know how things
work, you do not. Heck, even one of your own 'smarty pants' guys said
this, Darwin. You don't even listen to your own people. Jeesh, and
you want us to let you run the country? Are you nuts? I get to keep
what I worked for, just try and take if from me you lazy son of a
bitch. What about freedom is it that you don't understand? When I was a kid, I had some asshole telling me what I could and could not do, well I am not a kid anymore and I'll be damned if I am going to lets to ruler think he can be my daddy. At least my dad taught me how things are and taught me discipline. He taught me to be strong. He showed me how the world works.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">"Obama care",
the ACA, propagates;weakness and steals from people. In addition, the
people that will get stuff for free are the weak and lazy and we do
not want to be a part of the destruction of the species. No, keep the
'government' out of this business of helping people that have not
proved themselves, it will destroy us. It is a law of nature. It is
harsh but that is just the way it is. There is no free lunch and
there should not be any free lunch; it would violate the law of
nature. We are the strong, we are surviving, we are not weak. If I
mess up well, I will pay the price. I would not not deserve to
survive. The government needs to stay out of this entirely. They are
inefficient and encourage the weak to survive and they do this by
stealing the money that I worked hard to get.. Frankly it is against
the most fundamental law of nature. Work, be strong, or die. Hey, it
is not my rule, it is God's rule. It is natures rule. There is no
free lunch. Yeah, yeah, I know it hurts but we ain't in the business
of spoiling people, lie in your crib and cry and scream all you like,
we are not going to spoil you. It is the only way you can learn to be
strong, like me.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">Obama is evil;he
goes against the laws of nature actively and with forethought. This
is the very definition of evil. Some of the Liberals know this as
well and they are evil too. The rest are sheep and incapable of
thinking for themselves or even seeing the world for what it
obviously is. Why does he actually want to destroy? Because that is
the job of Satan. That is just the way it is. I can show you
thousands of examples of people bent on destruction for destructions
sake, just to hurt people. That is what evil is.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">The argument is
correct, the evidence is there for;everyone;to see. It is even
written in our oldest books. It is knowledge that has persisted for
countless thousands of years. It has withstood the test of time and
all the forces that have been pitted against it; it is correct. Keep
the government out of our healthcare, we don't need them 'taking care
of us'. We can do it just fine by ourselves. We don't need some
'daddy' to rule over us and frankly we don't even like the asshole.
But he did teach us how the world is. You liberals just want 'daddy'
to cater to your every whim. Well, fuck you. We are the strong, you
are the weak. You are one of the poor dupes that cannot see that the
world is harsh and therefore so must we be, to survive, no we do not
want to give away anything for free; it would be a sin.You are wrong.
You are indeed 'delusional'. Go back to your crib and cry all you
want, we are not going to help you. That is not how it works. We are not weak, we are strong and you liberals are going to wreck everything and make us weak. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="border: none; margin-bottom: 0cm; padding: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Michael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7318418947914615053.post-17828734913647639072010-10-01T16:11:00.002+02:002010-10-01T16:37:07.313+02:00Who is to Blame? Steve Moore.Recently someone asked my to comment on a Wall Street Journal article titled "The Pelosi-Reid Deficits" by Steve Moore.<br />
<br />
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882404575519784046288058.html<br />
<br />
In speaking of the nations debt problem, Moore knows who to blame. "The real culprits are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid." The article is one of the many "It's their fault" pieces that come out of both sides of the political spectrum. All these arguments are backed with facts on who was in charge when and numerous facts on the debt. Both sides reach opposite conclusions with the same data set; how surprising. Each focus on figures that make them look better than the other guy. <br />
<br />
Moore says. "Of course, Mr. Bush sponsored or signed into law many of these deficit-raising bills, such as the bank bailouts and effective tax rebates of 2008. But the Democratic Congress passed them." He says many things that you can read in article. Apparently he does not think the Democrats are very good for the country. <br />
<br />
I have a different perspective and it has nothing to do with liberal/conservative or Republican/Democrats or Capitalist/Socialist ideologies; it has to do with human nature and who we are as a culture. Bear with me as I paint the picture before I hang it on the wall. <br />
<br />
First of all, I have not checked the election data that I present here as they fit my preconceived notion. I do not know the following site; it presents some interesting concepts, none of which are included in my argument. If the numbers are completely wrong, I would love to hear about it. Otherwise, no. <br />
<br />
http://www.innerself.com/Commentary/Congress_for_Life.htm says: <br />
<br />
"For our first 125 years, about 35 percent of the members of the House retired before every election."<br />
"Average turnover in the House for the entire first century of our government was 43 percent in every election."<br />
"Reelection rates have risen, but not sharply. In the first 102 years of our history beginning in 1790 (the second election), the reelection rate in the House was 82.5 percent, overall. In the first 13 elections, 1790 - 1812, the average reelection rate was a very modern number of 93.7 percent."<br />
<br />
I gather that when the country was formed, elected positions were not, in general "career positions" and for whatever reason we had large turnover in our Representatives. At the present time, being a congressman is more of a "civil service" post; it is a career with retirement benefits (really good ones) and all.<br />
<br />
A necessary goal of a career representative is "getting reelected." that takes lots of time, money (mostly money) and effort which is not spent on the job of legislation; it is spent on finding money and pleasing constituencies; two items that are not necessarily in concert. Hence, we see our politicians molding their "ideas" into whatever the particular constituency wants to hear, rather than what makes sense for the country as a whole or is internally consistent as a philosophy. At the same time we see them accepting money from groups that would like to have like minded thinkers elected to office. Money often wins elections. You can extrapolate the implications of this process for yourselves. <br />
<br />
The easiest way for politicians to make people happy is to give them money or advantages. This plays a major role in what we see going on today. It is also one of the reasons they do not have control of the money supply. Politicians everywhere keep trying to buy votes and printing money to "pay" for it. This, of course, destroys the economy. So, they borrow the money instead, with interest; it is less transparent. The end result is the same, they get reelected and debt builds. This has been going on for a long time and it transcends political party or "ideology," regardless of the brand name. <br />
<br />
Recently large numbers of people have noticed that the hole we have dug for ourselves is deep enough to damage/destroy the entire economy of the country. It is worrisome and has colored the pants of many people; and that was before the recession. It is an emotional issue and we see emotional responses. <br />
<br />
The voting population of the US is about 120 million people. We elect our representatives every few years. This process almost guarantees that the majority of our elected representatives cannot stray too far from the will of the people for too long or they will not keep their jobs and keep their jobs they do. There is very little "turnover" on either side and it is independent of party or liberal/conservative ideology. Many of the people who currently hold office are "career politicians" who elected time and time again.<br />
<br />
The House and the Senate are a reflection of who we (Americans in the statistical whole) are as a people. There are anomalies, of course, but in the larger sense, the House and the Senate do represent who and what we are as a nation. As a culture we have been quite content with the system of buying votes in this way; we keep reelecting people that do this. We have been doing it for a long time, certainly since before I was born (1948).<br />
<br />
Politicians have just been giving "we the people" what we wanted (it gets them reelected). It is not just the politicians that have been digging the hole. Individuals have been doing it as well with their personal lives and businesses for years. "Hey! buy now pay later." this is ingrained in our culture. Americans (in the statistical whole) are NOT fiscally conservative, quite the contrary, neither are our representatives; they are a reflection of us.<br />
<br />
So, with a culture like this, what do you expect after a couple of generations? Now people are naming names and blaming the most recent politicians of the opposite side of the political spectrum. "It is their fault!" referring to the "other side." No, it is not their fault, we have bred them carefully. We have chosen them specifically because this is what they do; they bring home the bacon, we can pay for it latter. <br />
<br />
So, what do I think of the article? I think it is shallow and stupid and the same old blame game nonsense that both sides are using to defend themselves. It is part of the same cloth that led us into the mess. It is shallow thinking designed to please certain "readership constituencies." It is what the politicians are doing, now the pundits are doing it as well. They make money off the system too. <br />
<br />
It is not Obamas, or Pelosi, or Bush, or Clinton, or... fault; they have been giving "we the people" what we wanted. It is now time to pay the piper and dig ourselves out of this hole. The article was destructive in that it hides the real issue. We will either stop believing this nonsense and discern out what is really important or will whither and become a second rate nation. The latter seems likely. Too bad. I kind of liked America when it was powerful and well respected. <br />
<br />
That is what I thought of the article.<br />
<br />
MichaelMichael Geretyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01988238314749282940noreply@blogger.com0