Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cramulus

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 758
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Experiments with monkeys
« on: April 04, 2014, 12:39:57 pm »
I got an actual sense of WHOA from reading that. 10/10, much better than the original. Permission to repost next time I see the monkey meme on Facebook?

be my guest!

Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Experiments with monkeys
« on: April 03, 2014, 07:06:15 pm »

Here's MY version:

The Monkey Experiment
   Thereís a famous experiment where they keep a bunch of monkeys in a room for an indefinite amount of time. Thereís a big white staircase leading up out of the room. Every time a monkey climbs to the top of the staircase, he gets blasted back down the stairs with a hose. When this happens, every monkey in the room also gets blasted with water. This makes them very angry.

    Soon, the monkeys have figured it out: beat the shit out of any monkey that starts to climb the stairs. Thatís the new rule.

    At some point, they remove a monkey and send in a new one. He learns the rule quickly: donít climb the stairs. And if weíre beating somebody up, join in. One by one, they replace each monkey with a new one who has to learn the rule.

    At some point they can turn off the hose. The monkeys will reliably prevent escape. Policing the stairs has become a cultural norm. Eventually, they have this population of monkeys who are trained to beat up any monkey that tries to escape, but donít even understand why.

    The experiment is run by interns who are paid in course credit. Occasionally, an intern finishes the semester and leaves. New interns join the team and everybody explains how to feed the monkeys and how to record the data. But at this point, none of the interns are from the original group, none of them have met the scientists leading this project. Most of the interns donít fully understand the point of the experiment.

    The scientist who began the experiment left long ago. Other researchers were assigned to the project by an administrator in order to keep this valuable experiment running. None of the remaining scientists are actually authors of the paper, or even understand what itís about. 

    The administrator supervising the project isnít terribly involved with it. He just prolongs the experiment because itís his departmentís main source of funding. But he didnít begin this project, he just inherited it from his predecessor, who is on a leave of absence and hasnít been seen in some time.

    The company funding the experiment has a sum of money they spend annually on scientific research, mainly for tax reasons. But the person who reads and approves grants left last year. The last time anybody saw the man, he handed a huge folder to some new kid and said ďmake sure these stay funded.Ē Then he disappeared up a long staircase leading into the sky.


The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: WOMP-ertainment
« on: April 03, 2014, 03:09:52 pm »

The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: WOMP-ertainment
« on: April 03, 2014, 03:06:10 pm »

The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: WOMP-ertainment
« on: April 03, 2014, 12:45:48 pm »

I can't put my finger on why, but I'm not as impressed with Kaku. Dont' get me wrong, he's doing good work, but I think I've seen too many documentaries with him just speculating about things from Star Trek in front of a green screen.

Tyson doesn't like his anecdotes getting cut off mid sentence. So he analyzed how long Jon Stewart lets a guest talk (on average) before he interjects a quip.

So to maintain his flow, Tyson builds lowball easy jokes into his responses. Like 25 seconds into his turn to speak, he'll say something which can easily be turned into a sex joke pun--which has little chance of Stewart turning it into a lengthy tangent.

that's some next level shit right there

found on the internets:

"Just nutted but she still suckin"

Principia Discussion / Re: What the shit is all of this?
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:43:58 pm »
I don't follow?

Principia Discussion / Re: What the shit is all of this?
« on: April 01, 2014, 01:25:39 pm »
As far as "truly random" goes, that depends on your definition.  If I predict a 60% chance of something being in a certain place at a certain time, can I say it's behavior is random?  It has a greater chance of being there than not, so maybe you could call that predictable, but since there's no way of saying for sure, wouldn't that be pretty random?

Ok, I'll grant that maybe, someday, someone might come up with a way of removing the probability fields from quantum physics.

But if that ever happens, it will pretty much tip over the apple cart, and undo the past century or so of physics as we know it.

That is to say, the probabilty of it happening is quite low.

isn't the fact that we represent it via a probability indicative that we're glossing over what's really happening?

I mean, a die rolls a given number 16.6% of the time - but it's not truly a random event, it's completely predictable if you know enough about the roll, physics, etc.

it sounds like you're saying that the perceived randomness at the center of quantum events is (probably) how it really is - that a certain degree of magnification, the universe is fundamentally random, unknowable?

Principia Discussion / Re: What the shit is all of this?
« on: April 01, 2014, 12:50:09 pm »
wait wait, I thought the point of the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was to show that quantum particles don't behave like, eh, bigger particles? The Copenhagen interpretation says matter can be in two eigenstates at once, but that only makes sense when we're talking about itty bitty little things, not big things like cats. I thought that was what the experiment showed?

I'm no expert - please correct me if I'm wrong so I stop saying the wrong thing

Also, I've never heard people agree that quantum behavior is "truly random". Is that really accepted? Don't people believe there is some knowable mechanism, some hidden variable, underlying these hard to predict events?

Principia Discussion / Re: What the shit is all of this?
« on: March 31, 2014, 04:48:15 pm »
We are simply parts of the Universe, and we are trying to discover the origins of the Universe, so therefore, one could say, that the Universe is trying to discover itself.  Thus, it may not be entirely absurd to say, that if you focus on discovering your true heart, rather than listening to everybody else as far as the "Correct" way to be, then maybe you're doing the Universe a favor.

I dig that

I like how it also that sleeping till noon and spending Sunday drinking beer and watching reruns IS THE UNIVERSE'S WILL.

There are things beyond our comprehension, and when you're okay with that, it's a good start.

Name one.

you will never really be able to comprehend the experience of death, not until its too late

We can know what the universe is like, what it consists of, how it works, but I'm not sure we'll ever know why. Even from a strictly materialist point of view, it still boggles my mind that if you put matter into a jar and shake for long enough, it eventually thinks it's a Self and begins comprehending things. Why is that? Even if we can understand evolution, the mechanisms of consciousness, the steps it took to arrive at sentience -- I can't shake that there's still something metaphysical and mysterious underpinning it.

And then there's subjectivity -- we can never really know what another human is thinking, what their experience is like, we are all (as True Detective put it) the sole residents of a locked room that nobody else will ever enter.

This is part of what the Principia points to as "Chaos" - the raw universe exists outside of our understanding. Knowledge is a map we draw of it so we can get a grip on it, but it's only a model. There is no universe source code where F=ma was declared.

Keeping this knowledge of my own ignorance tucked away in my front pocket is what keeps me fresh and able to reach towards things with the beginner's mind.

Don't get me wrong - I do think the universe operates on rational principals and a lot of its mechanisms can be observed empirically - but that's really only the beginning of knowledge. The particular model of truth we're using is bound to our subjectivity and our technology and processes and our little moment in history. The 'knowable universe' is an ideal, I don't think we'll ever actually solve the riddle and have it all figured out -- there will always be old knowledge which must be upset and a new frontier to research.

The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: I Write Like....
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:18:45 pm »
David Foster Wallace


Literate Chaotic / Re: Insightful Post Dump
« on: March 31, 2014, 12:17:31 pm »

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 ... 758