• helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 04:14 PM
    Why?
    297 replies | 22942 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 03:44 PM
    Is it a bad idea, Ibn.AL.Muqafaa? What do you think?
    51 replies | 823 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 03:40 PM
    The current proposed models of how DNA, or more promising, RNA, forms are zillions upon zillions of orders of magnitude too improbable to happen. That's how we know the models are wrong and why abiogenesisists are working on it. So probability has everything to do with it. It usually does. How do you know they're regular? How do you even know there's a "we" and not just a "you?" At some point, we trust our senses. And at that point we break out of existentialist mumbo-jumbo pointlessness and realize there is an objective reality and it's the purpose of philosophy, and of life, to actually deal with it. As it is. I was just copying your sentence form, of course. But there are a lot more than two problems with scientific observation, as there are with any avenue to truth discovery. Those problems don't make them invalid.
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 02:21 PM
    Since we're all going to get educated and savvy regarding psychology: What do you think, Poet? Do you think there are any psychological or temperamental differences between people who vote for Trump and people who vote for Clinton, broadly speaking? What are those differences?
    297 replies | 22942 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 02:17 PM
    You're confused, bxm. My prediction and hope is that nothing much comes of this meeting: no attack on NK. That it's just optics and theater.
    44 replies | 951 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    44 replies | 951 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 01:09 PM
    Based on our current understanding, we do not know how life arose. That's all! More work on abiogenesis is needed. I actually know a fellow (member of my Church) whose focus was abiogenesis. He was working hard to solve the problem! But the problem is definitely not solved, as of now. Indeed, I was not. What can we know, but what our senses tell us (Hume)? If God never reveals Himself in any observable way, then all discussion regarding God is outside the realm of possible rational discourse. But there are two insurmountable problems with scientific (and all) observation: first, the person receiving the observation from his senses can never be sure whether the sense perceptions are at least roughly reflecting objective reality or are merely a delusion. Welcome to the past two hundred years of philosophical thought. Ahh, but what if it were? That is, after all, what the Bible claims. It is what the Book of Mormon claims even more explicitly and brashly. God and the prophets have thrown down the gauntlet. The challenge is there. "I AM." "Come, and See." "Knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 12:35 PM
    Iran has the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI) Cuba has The Central Bank of Cuba North Korea has the Central Bank of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea I think what you mean is that these three countries all have no Rothschild-owned central bank. Which may or may not be true; I don't know. You know who doesn't have a central bank at all? Nauru.
    44 replies | 951 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 10:31 AM
    There is one person in this thread interested in the percentage of innocent people who get executed. That would be me. I am perfectly willing to believe any percentage for this unknown, so long as it has good data. 80%? 1%? 0.01%? Just show me that data. Are you? You're the one that has an opinion regarding this figure, not me. So what are you basing it on? Where's your data? And a very strong opinion it is! Anyone who disagrees with it is a flat-earther! Your data must be just over-the-top awesome! Incontrovertible! So bring it out!
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 10:21 AM
    Thank you, sincerely! So it looks like there has been one (1) study attempting to address this question. Regarding the study, The research team deployed statistical devices to put a figure on the proportion of cases of hidden innocence. In particular, they deployed a technique known as “survival analysis”, to calculate the percentage of prisoners who have been taken off death row but who might still be innocent. They also applied “sensitivity analysis”, to take into account possible cases of exonerations where the released prisoner is nonetheless guilty, and to ensure that the overall findings erred on the side of caution. I am skeptical of advanced statistical "devices" and "analyses" which I do not understand, but nevertheless let's dive into the study. Significance
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 09:48 AM
    Yeah, no duh, I know, because I read it. Whichever one you're referring to, because I read both of them. It is only a theory once you come up with a good way to potentially disprove it. Until then, it is not part of the rubric we call empirical science. It's just a story. This goes back to Occam's point that it really is a good idea to keep physics and metaphysics separate (if you're serious about either), or at least to distinguish between the two. But, that would be less persuasive. The most persuasive thing to do is to stir and mix your metaphysical theories together with science. One sentence one, one sentence the other. This gives the impression to the listener/reader that it's all part of the same grand system and thus imparts the Mantle of Science to your metaphysics. Physics has a good track record as being level-headed, rigorous, and producing real, useful results in the real world. If you can draft off some of that sweet, sweet credibility, well, you're gonna be persuasive. More precisely, Disprovable. And if it's not, then it is not empirical science! Actually empirical science can't technically prove or disprove anything, only logic can do that. But it can at least induct! You've got to at least be able to do that much! If you can't induct, you must rejuct! Not really. It actually does not conform at all. For it to conform, there would have to be a major advance in our current understanding of abiogenesis. Until then, it just doesn't work. Have as many Big Bangs as you want. It just doesn't work. According to our current understanding, there may not even be any mechanism that *could* work, at all, ever, even giving infinite time to infinite primordial ooze. Going back to Sunny Tuft's bridge game, it would be like getting a hand of 200 King Kandy cards that were alive and self-aware and talked incessantly to you.
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 08:51 AM
    Of course. That is why, to assess things, one must understand the entire situation and the entire argument being made. If I were simply hollering the word "Improbability!," as if the word were an argument in and of itself, then your post would be an excellent rejoinder to me. As it is, it still is an excellent reminder and illustration for anyone who was making the mistake of thinking so shallowly.
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 08:48 AM
    Cool, thanks! I don't really know anything about this stuff, and have long wanted to do some reading to get a good understanding of Einstein's relativity, and now I want to read the book you recommend too and get some understanding of of the Quanta. My wife majored in physics. Can't have the womens knowing more than the mans! :D
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Today, 08:41 AM
    The "argument" at issue is: caring whether other people are contradicting themselves. I mean, why? Who made me the hypocrisy police? I didn't disagree with that. I just took the weaker position, because I didn't want to argue about whether it was literally metaphysically impossible. Surely everyone would agree at least that it's a long way away. Umm, in what sense do you oppose it if you don't want to reduce it? :confused:
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    22 replies | 216 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:27 PM
    Why is that safe to say? What leads you to that figure? It seems very high to me. My estimate would be more between 1% and 0.1%. But, I would be very willing to change my mind on this estimate based on reality and evidence. So if you have any....... I'm all ears!
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:15 PM
    But what's so bad about hypocrisy? Does it really matter if the system is "hypocritical" in some way? Do we care about that? If so, why? Well, again I don't know that we should necessarily care about hypocrisy (but I could be convinced!). I don't want to be hypocritical (I don't think. Depending what that means), but I don't necessarily care if other people are being hypocritical. Let's say that all that matters is results. Just hypothetically. What result would we be trying to optimize for here? I think a sensible thing to optimize for would be "fewest number of innocent people killed per decade." So, what kind of system would minimize the innocent-person-killings (IPK)? I think an argument could be made that brutal, public executions of murderers would be that optimized system we're looking for (or would be looking for, were we trying to optimize for that variable, IPK, discussed above). I think it would work pretty well. If we were to test out various systems in a parallel experiment on similar populations over a hundred year period, I think chances are good that a brutal punishment system would come out on top or near the top. Eliminating IPK is a goal that we're very far away from. So minimizing it seems like a worthy interim goal. If we could bring it down from 150,000 per decade to 75,000, that would be massive improvement! We cut in half! That is not morally perfect, but I think that would still be a worthwhile accomplishment. Let's say we got it down to 10,000. Wow! If 90% of those 10,000 innocents killed had been killed by the State in erroneous executions (or misguided: witches, drug dealers, etc.), that's too bad, but that still would be a massive improvement in IPK. Then maybe at that point it makes sense to hone in on the 9,000 IPKs done at the hands of the State and whittle that number down, whereas previously maybe it made more sense to focus on the much larger number of IPKs done by private criminals. If what we actually care about is minimizing IPK, then we should do whatever sequence of actions will bring down that number as rapidly and as permanently as possible.
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:59 PM
    Yeah, I think you did the same Google search I already did. :D The description of his work didn't seem familiar, though. I don't think it was him. Upon a little further searching, maybe it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Pollard I'm thinking of. Anyway, does Quantum Reality cover pilot wave theory and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie? Is it one of the eight?
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:55 PM
    I am very much in favor of this reform. I love it. No lawyers in the courtroom (unless a party to the dispute). No one can ever be a judge who has ever done any legal work for a fee. On penalty of death. ;)
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:19 PM
    Right, I know. Yeah, there's no reason the whole thing should be so expensive. One of the advantages of execution should be that society doesn't have to pay for the killer's upkeep for the rest of his life and thus avoids wasting resources. Gotcha. Now I understand. It isn't just a "what if they wrongfully execute someone?" problem, it's a centralization vs. decentralization problem. And I, like Occam and like you, am definitely going to come out on the side of decentralization. If nothing else, for the unrelated practical strategic benefits: decentralization in and of itself will make it easier to accomplish the broad liberty agenda, even if decentralization on a particular issue does nothing to further libertarian goals, or even contradicts them.
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:00 AM
    North Korea is the object of a long(-ish; couple decades) term vilification campaign. The media has been pumping out the anti-Nork propaganda for years now. Whenever you hear "North Korea has nuclear weapons, and is ruled by an insane, crazy, unhinged dictator" the obvious, unavoidable subtext is: "And it would be good if we or someone were to put a stop to that." When you call someone Hitler, you're making it OK to kill/war against that person. Because it's always OK to kill Hitler. Right? So, to answer your question: Everyone. So if we do have a war against the Norks, most Americans will be basically fine with that. They'll be supportive. It will be popular. I just don't predict that happening at this time.
    44 replies | 951 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:39 AM
    I know professional physicists. Just had one over to dinner last week. Everybody likes philosophizing! Now should one keep it separate from one's scientific work? Probably (at least somewhat). But I think most are aware of the Many Worlds story (I say story, not theory, because it's not a theory until you can disprove it) and many subscribe to it. And, as you say (and as I said) it is even more popular and influential out among the people at large. For the past decade it has been gradually becoming an important part of our culture, and an unfortunate, corrosive one in my opinion. A grand new element in the West's secular religion, joining nature-worship, Freudian-Kinseyanism, egalitarianism, and all the other wonderful tenets we've come to know and love. ;) Sounds really good! You might know, then: who was the theologian-physicist I was thinking of who proposed the "God decides" explanation? I don't recall his name. Anyway, the pilot-wave theory is getting some new attention lately, thanks to NASA's EM drive. One explanation the researchers proposed involves the pilot-wave theory. Interesting stuff!
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:16 AM
    Do they really have such an abysmal record? I'm not so sure. They might. I just don't know. How many innocent people have states in the USA executed over the past couple hundred years? And then how many innocent people have mobs killed in the same time-frame and geographical area? What's the percentages? Philosophically, people are people. Right? Whether they've organized themselves in one way, or another. So your limited objection to certain executions seems to basically be procedural. You want people to use the best possible procedures in order to ensure those deserving death receive it, and the undeserving do not. Is that right?
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:56 AM
    Exactly. I mean, we've gotta choose our cause celebres carefully. Look at Black Lives Matter: every hero they pick turns out to invariably be a horrible criminal gangbanger who, any normal person would look at and say, probably totally deserved to get shot! We don't want to be Black Lives Matter. This guy was a criminal scum. I have only so much sympathy to go around. The general populace has even less. Let it go. Executing murderers is not a problem high on the to-do list of important things to solve so that our country isn't destroyed.
    141 replies | 2448 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:36 AM
    Well, that would be nice. But, I have a little bit different view. Call me romantic, but as I study and look at history, most of the advancements made, most of the steps forward for the European Mind have come from single individual geniuses. The story of history, at least all the edifying parts, is not the story of the masses, it is the story of Geniuses. You need not despair at the impossible task of energizing 50 million people. That goal is insurmountable, but it's also not required. All it ever takes is one. Just one Voltaire. The one to call to action is yourself. I, for example, have built a financial institution that will enable us to use gold as money. Michael Maresco rode a bicycle across the country. AF won northern NH for Ron Paul by buying newspaper ad space. Bill Greene went through the lengthy process of becoming a part of the Electoral College and cast his vote for Ron Paul. Lew Rockwell founded the Mises Institute and has been running it for the past 35 years. Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug) is building us a new, free internet; he's been working on it since 2002. Pericles wrote a book -- that takes a lot of effort. The point is: these men are working hard, over long periods of time. It takes a sustained focus and effort to accomplish anything. It takes a long time. Libertarianism and Conservatism are K-Selected philosophies. We are K-Selected. So how are we going to win? By being K-Selected! The way to win is to play to your strengths. Push your advantage. Be true to your nature. And that means, in case you're not familiar with r/K theory: thinking long term. Working long term. Not being impatient. Fighting the war, not the battles. I always try to be helpful, or at least supportive, when anyone has a Project, when anyone's actually trying to do something. So, whatever your ideas are/were, give the thread a bump and if I see it I'll try to help.
    51 replies | 823 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:43 AM
    What makes it happen "more than once"? Oh: the Multiverse theory. The same magical, non-disprovable metaphysical framework that makes everything happen more than once. No profound Revelation there. Nay, it is exactly what you were saying earlier: We are here, therefore things are going to be suited for life. The odds of all conditions being perfectly tuned and life having arisen in a Universe being observed is 100%. Because it's being observed. Or, as you pithily put it: "Given we exist, what is the probability that at some point we would question our origin?" The Anthropic Principle is a true principle. Using it as a proof for one's Creation Story -- whatever that story may be -- is also a gross misapplication of the principle, in my opinion. Used in that manner, it is basically a way of ignoring the question. It is a way of defining away impossibility by stipulation. It is a way of "refuting" glaring holes and huge problems in the story you've concocted via, well, waving your hand. Dismissively skeptical: "Your story is wildly improbable to the point of complete unbelievability! There's no way it happened that way."
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:17 AM
    OK, thank you for the accuracy correction. That's what one gets when writing without bothering to look things up. I'm just happy there's still someone here (out of the three people or whatever who read the post) smart enough to notice and willing to correct the error! I would have to push back slightly on this point, though: If that doesn't count as dominant, I don't know what does. It clearly has strong mind share among professional physicists, as well as (and I would say even more-so) among the general laymen who have heard of it. Let us call it the "currently ascendant story."
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
  • helmuth_hubener's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:08 AM
    No Big Crunch = No infinitely yo-yo-ing Universe = Not Enough Time (not even close).
    64 replies | 1365 view(s)
More Activity

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Thanks so much!
  2. View Conversation
    Oh. Thank you sir.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About Original_Intent

Basic Information

Signature


"The journalist is one who separates the wheat from the chaff, and then prints the chaff." - Adlai Stevenson

“I tell you that virtue does not come from money: but from virtue comes money and all other good things to man, both to the individual and to the state.” - Socrates

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
9,232
Posts Per Day
2.54
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
10-17-2014 10:04 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 05:50 PM
Join Date
05-18-2007
Referrals
0

6 Friends

  1. american.swan american.swan is offline

    Member

    american.swan
  2. helmuth_hubener helmuth_hubener is offline

    Member

    helmuth_hubener
  3. LibertyEagle LibertyEagle is offline

    Paleoconservative

    LibertyEagle
  4. Mister Grieves Mister Grieves is offline

    Member

    Mister Grieves
  5. silverhawks silverhawks is offline

    Member

    silverhawks
  6. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 6 of 6
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

04-19-2017


04-17-2017


04-15-2017


04-08-2017

  • 05:57 PM - Hidden

04-07-2017


04-05-2017


03-27-2017

  • 04:29 PM - Hidden

03-23-2017


03-21-2017


03-09-2017


01-31-2017

  • 02:43 PM - Hidden

01-30-2017

  • 08:38 PM - Hidden

01-10-2017

  • 09:04 PM - Hidden

12-18-2016

  • 01:20 PM - Hidden

12-14-2016

  • 09:54 PM - Hidden

12-01-2016

  • 02:48 AM - Hidden
  • 02:06 AM - Hidden


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast