Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.misc > #27178

Re: OT: totally off-topic

Show all headers | View raw

D <nospam@example.net> writes:

> On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>
>>>> I see a lot of neighbors here that don't get along.  I am probably a
>>>
>>> Ahh... sounds more normal! ;) In my current apartment, the community
>>> is either non-existent or nuts. I don't like them, and therefore I am
>>> selling the apartment.
>>
>> Not an unwise decision.  But the wises decision is to buy a house.  An
>
> True. But a house means higher cost, more maintenance, more time lost doing
> things I do not enjoy. So there is no perfect solution. But I have actually
> thought about getting a house. So let's see what the future holds! =)

I hope you get one.  It's all true about the work, but I also think
that's good work.  A lot less USENET, a lot more house work is a good
idea.  We can start with offlining the USENET.  If there's little work
to do, increase the uniform distribution of times you connect to
exchange articles.  If there's more work, decrease it.

>> apartment is like living together with strange people, except that you
>> have a very nice room (that comes with a kitchen inside) that gives you
>> a good sense of privacy.  (But you have none.)
>
> True. It is a little bit better in northern europe where people do not
> want to socialize. Most of the time you meet no one. Another solution
> could be to buy a nice pent house apartment, making sure you share the
> floor with no one, and ideally, a private elevator! =D

Living in an apartment never feels like the right thing.  One almost
doesn't own the place.  If you decide to do something to it, you get to
approval of the condominium.  The same would apply if you live in a
house in a condominium.  Of course, the same thing applies to any house
in any country.  But the less the better (while holding other important
variables constant).

>>> In the other 2 places I have apartments, I do like the community! 66%
>>> goodness!  ;)
>>
>> Dude, 66% is no good. :)
>
> It's better than 0%! ;)

Better doesn't imply good. :)

>> admit it.  I had never eaten a Cheddar McMelt 'til then.  I never
>> thought I would like it.  Many years later I tried it out.  It's all I
>> eat now when I go there---once every 5 years?
>
> Interesting, I have never seen this burger in europe! How does it
> differ from regular cheese burgers?

I think a regular cheese burger would not be a Cheddar cheese burger.
But I agree any Cheddar is a cheese burger.  Over here now they have two
options: you get the traditional Cheddar McMelt or you can order the
double one.  The double one comes with three burgers, IIRC.  Besides the
melted Cheddar, it also comes with chopped onions mixed in the Cheddar.
I think that's it.  And a cheese burger is a burger with some slices of
cheese.  I'm not the right person to ask about such things because I go
there once in a few years, always planning never to come back. :)

>> Above all, I identify myself with people with vigor, passion and energy.
>
> Sounds like a nice group of people to identify with if you can find
> them. =) I've always been a loner from that point of view, so I tend
> to not identify with others much at all.

Oh, if you're a loner, you can identify yourself with pretty much
everyone. :)  In a way I'm a loner as well.

>>> I think our increasingly sedentary lifestyles are to blame as well as
>>> the mindset of instant gratification which makes people want to
>>> achieve things with the minimum amount of energy necessary.
>>>
>>> I also think this ties in with the fertility crisis we spoke of
>>> before.
>>
>> Yeah---the experts always include nutrition in their hypotheses.
>
> The question is... how can we, you and me, change the trend? ;)

I don't think we can.  That would mean that a point can change the
uniform average.  We could do something if we go from a uniform average
to a weighted one and we somehow acquire the huge weight.  Nah.  I don't
think there's true change that way.  I don't think we can change the
world.  I don't think we should change the world.  Let nature follow its
own course.

Should a 4-leaf clover try to make every other a 4-leaf one?

Hey, there are 7 helicopters going round and round around a certain
region where my house is.  They're all gray in color.  One follows the
other.  They're really going around a circumference.  Any idea what this
is?  I'd guess it's military exercise.  They're boringly going round.
Not in high speeds.  They're not high in the sky; probably between
100--200 meters from the ground.  Probably 50 meters from the top of a
hill around which they seem to flying.

>>> I am lucky! I do not like to exercise, but my wife forces me to. ;)
>>
>> Doesn't sound like fun.  If you take a half hour walk each day, you
>> should probably be good.
>
> I do walk, voluntarily, but the wife judges that not to be enough. I
> am thankful that she makes me train, since it is healthy. Without her,
> I would be a lot less healthy and eating a lot more junk food. So yes,
> it is one of those things that are annoying in the short term, but
> good in the long term! =)

Here's a programmer with a strong connection to his wife:

Lex Friedman interviews Primeagen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNZnLkRBYA8

>> I've reached a routine I've been looking for for a long time.  I wanted
>> to bike to the beach, walk and swim.  I was swimming in a gym pool.
>> It's not very good for me: the chlorine water doesn't feel right at all.
>> Sea water, on the other hand, is ideal.  I live in a part of the town
>> that's elevated.  When I bike to the beach, I must go down.  Coming back
>> is not easy.
>
> Why not try an electric bike? ;)

I don't use it primarily as a vehicle.  I would prefer to go by car if
my objective is to go from A to B.  It's for the thrill of moving the
muscles.

>>>> I think proofs are just constructions.  In math, for example, their role
>>>> is quite clear.  I don't even know what it would mean to prove that
>>>> there is reason.  I think there's reason because we seem to be doing
>>>> some stuff here that we decide to call reason and then, evidently, it
>>>> exists in the sense that we conclude it does and move on.
>>>
>>> You do sound like a philosopher to me! ;)
>>
>> Lol.  I should probably take that as a compliment.  On a more serious
>> tone, I'd ask what is a philosopher to you.
>
> This could definitely be the start of an eternal conversation. 2500
> years has not been able to pin down the definition. ;)
>
> A wise man, someone who is full of wonder, someone who likes to ask
> questions?  Many ways to define a philosopher.

Yeah---lover of something around these referents of these words.

>>> Based on a recent conversation, there can be proof, as in math, and
>>> evidence, as in empirical science. Since philosophy is not about
>>> empiricism, I'd say proof is probably it. There is of course a new
>>> branch of philosophy called practical philosophy, but to me, it seems
>>> more like a closet branch of sociology or psychology.
>>
>> I had never heard of practical philosophy.
>
> It is a fairly new branch of philosophy, about 100 years old or so, depending on
> how you define it.

Kinda funny to me.  Philosophy is totally practical.  The impractical
philosophy is that which is nonsense---you can't make sense of.

I think it's the most practical of them all because it applies to what
happens most of the day---for those who don't ignore the stimuli.

>>>> If someone /rejects/ an axiom I came up with or a definition I wrote,
>>>> then there's likely little friendship there.  Friendship exists when
>>>> people go along with you without judgment.  Rejecting /or accepting/
>>>> anything is judgment, which is not friendship.  When someone proposes me
>>>> anything, I look at it without accepting it or rejecting it.  (Unless
>>>> I'm a really bad mood!)
>>>
>>> There is a theory of truth called the consensus theory of
>>> truth. Sounds as if that might be what you are thinking about?
>>
>> No.  Certainly not.  I have nothing to do with consensus.  Truth should
>> have nothing to do with consensus.  We can easily imagine an outrageous
>> group denying obvious facts.
>
> There are facts, and then there are "facts". Is it true that blue is
> the best color? Good luck answering that objectively. ;)

There are meaningless sentences and questions.  Chomsky constructs the
famous one---colorless green ideas sleep furiously.  Good luck trying to
picture that in any way.  Truth (and philosophy) is not about nonsense.
It's about honestly making sense of things.  

Sometimes people take language to great abstractions, which should come
with lots of examples and simplicity.  If people fail do that, it is not
a bad idea to ignore it.  For instance, Kant is recognized for having
made the distinction between synthetic truths and analytic ones.  Have
you ever understood?  I don't think it too unwise to ignore all that.
But I don't mean it's bad work.

> Is it true that there is a coffee mug on my right on a table, yes! And
> if you were here with me, I am 100% certain that we would agree.

Of course.  There's no point in even questioning that for too long.  We
have so many other important questions to work on.  For instance, is
there anything bothering any bit of your days?  How could we give you a
better life?

>> I'm quite okay with the keeping ``truth'' undefined.  I may have some
>
> Even if your life depends on it?

My life would never depend on such intellectual matters.  Life depends
on food, shelter and relationships.  We could easily argue here that
you're likely valuing the intellect more than you should.  The intellect
has to be kept on the leash.

>> idea in my mind that I think it's totally true.  Perhaps I can't get you
>> to assert the same.  So what?  Does that keep in doubt?  So?  I can't
>> see any problem with living life with a little doubt.  Every now and
>> then it's a good idea to hang a question mark on those things we've
>> taken for granted.  (Have you located where Russell said this?  I can't
>> even be sure it was him.)
>
>>>> Excessive refinement in thinking?  They want a kind of super assured
>>>> certainty?  I think that's a waste of time.  It's not a waste of time to
>>>
>>> So do I. In 2500 years no such thing has been found, so I am quite
>>> happy and content to accept what my senses tell me. ;)
>>
>> Our senses also do make mistakes.  And some things can't come directly
>> from the senses---what we see in a microscope, for example.
>
> True, but just because we sometimes make mistakes I do not think is
> enough of an argument to refute completely the idea that what we can
> confirm with our senses is not the truth.
>
> When it comes to the microscope, it is true, but at the end of the
> day, we do use our senses to look into the microscope.

Totally right.  When it comes to information, it has to come through the
senses at least indirectly.

>> Even ``senses'' is a complicated word.  I met someone at the beach last
>> Saturday.  It's a person who lives very far from the beach---another
>> town.  For about a year and half, I've been thinking about (as I walk on
>> the beach as I always do) that I could someday meet that person by
>> chance on that beach.  But, of course, this is just fantasy because it
>> nearly makes no sense.  So, after my Saturday surprise, I was thinking
>> to myself---omg, how weird!  Do the things I imagine come true or is
>> this imagination a kind of premonition?  (Or just coincidence?)
>
> My theory, conincidence, selective memory, and priming your psychological
> filter.
>
> 1. Yes, sometimes it is just conincidence.
>
> 2. You think a lot of things, and forget a lot as well. If you think about an
> event x, and x never happens, you would have forgotten about it. If you
> envounter event x, after first thinking about x, you'll say to yourself, Oh, I
> did think about x, how strange that I know encountered x.
>
> 3. When thinking about a thing deeply, you are in a way telling your
> subconscious mind to be on the lookout for that. So when you filter your 1000s
> of daily sense impressions, your usbconscious mind has been programmed to
> "trigger" based on what you thought about.
>
> Those are my 3 theories around why that happens.

My theory is that it's not that much of an improbable thing.  The reason
I imagine this specific person is likely because she's a pretty likely
one, in fact.  My imagination is never quite towards fantasy---it's
always towards making sense of things and making things reasonable.  I
probably choose to imagine the person that actually had some reasonable
probability of coming over.  But what I find very funny is that I guess
I was right.  And it didn't take very long for it to happen.

Now, I certainly maximized the occurrence of the event because I'm
always at the beach.  Nevertheless, though, it could be that somehow
that's not the whole story.

>> This is not the first time this happens.  But many of the other past
>> coincidences (such as this one), I have been able to explain in a
>> special way, which I have been calling long-range planning.  I can spend
>> years imagining a certain situation (a little bit every now and then)
>> and then I end up putting myself in a position where I can live that
>> imagined situation.  I could then claim to have materialized that
>> situation or that somehow my imagination was having a glimpse of the
>> future.  But I actually call that long-range planning.
>
> True! No hocus pocus at all! =)

You see, we have this preference for destroying mystery.  Other people
prefer the mystic.  We are more warranted in our preference than the
others are in theirs, but we should do it very carefully because
otherwise we're doing the same silly thing other people do.

>> But the beach event of last Saturday seems very much outside of my
>> control.  The most I could do is to always go to beach, which in fact I
>> have been doing lately...  Still...  It still feels totally outside my
>> control.
>
>>>> care for your math proofs, say, or removing bugs from your programs and
>>>> so on.  But rejecting the senses as in I don't know if really exist or
>>>> I'm being fooled by an evil genius?  I think that's excessive thinking.
>>>> That's when thought escapes from the leash.
>>>
>>> Agreed! That is why I do not care much for interpretations of quantum
>>> theory as well. Plenty of thoughts escaping from the leash there, and
>>> plenty of useless (in my opinion) speculation.
>>
>> The case of quantum mechanics is a necessary one, though.  Yeah, surely
>> there's a lot of imagination there, but I think that's part of science.
>
> Oh yes... I am not against imagination and speculation, if that serves
> to motivate a person, or inspire him, or help him advance theories. My
> main beef is when people confuse speculation and theorizing, with what
> we can or cannot prove. Mistaking the map for the real world so to
> say.

Most people hardly have an education.  They don't know what a theory is
and what speculation is very well.  Unfortunately.

>> Quantum mechanics is giving us great philosophical problems.  It's a
>
> Yes!
>
>> very hard read, but to see them all you could skim a quantum theory book
>> by descant.

Lol---what?!  By descant?  Lol.  That's a spurious end of sentence.  I
was totally offline, unable to look anything up, but I wanted to make a
reference to the book 

  ``On Physics and Philosophy'', Bernard d'Espagnat
   Princeton University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-691-15806-8

Not recommended reading.  It's very difficult.

>> Interpretation of quantum mechanics force us to make up our minds
>> about how we want to see the world.  The fun thing is no
>
> I think we are never forced to make up our minds. I am happily
> agnostic about the interpretations of QM and I live my life just
> fine. I am just content to note that some interpretations are absurd,
> some impossible (in my opinion) some meaningless, and some I do not
> understand.

It's a real puzzle.  It's not about choosing axioms one would prefer.
Any choice is problematic.  That's the fun.  Reading d'Espagnat would
clarify how puzzling it is, but reading it would also be a problem in
itself.

>>>> Most psychologist are so full of nonsense that being one wouldn't help
>>>> you here. :) I haven't read The Interpretation of Dreams, but I really
>>>> would like to do it.  The book could be wildly wrong, but notice that
>>>> nobody seems to have made any advances since then anyhow.
>>>
>>> I find the Dodo effect quite facsinating. It says that it is not the
>>> school of psychology that makes a difference in therapy, but only the
>>> person.
>>
>> I had never heard of it and I can't look up anything right now, but it
>> makes perfect sense to me.  The inner is the outer.  What a person lives
>> in the outside is a reflection of you'd find on the inside.  A
>> therapist, like any intelligent person, can be of help, but you can't
>> put your life in order if you are not able to find order where you
>> should be looking.
>
> Like the buddha said somewhere... he cannot do the work for you. You
> have to do the work (meditate, live a good life) yourself if you want
> peace. Buddha can facilitate, point in the right direction, but you
> have to do the work to experience the result.

Yeah.  No royal road---a beautiful law of nature.

Back to comp.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-25 15:45 -0300
  Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 14:05 +0100
    Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-02-26 13:15 +0000
      Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-26 23:10 +0100
      Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 06:49 -0300
    Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-02-27 07:41 -0300
      Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-02-27 19:52 +0100
        Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-07 21:41 -0300
          Re: broken schools yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-03-08 02:59 +0042
          Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 00:14 +0100
            Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-08 22:26 -0300
              Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-09 22:52 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-10 08:39 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-11 22:59 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-14 12:10 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-15 23:58 +0100
                Re: broken schools Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-17 00:02 -0300
                Re: broken schools Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-03-18 03:00 +0000
                Re: broken schools Eva Lu <evalu@tor.soy> - 2025-03-18 21:20 -0300
                Re: broken schools D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-18 11:17 +0100
                OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-19 13:51 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic (Was: Re: broken schools) D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-19 23:20 +0100
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-21 11:52 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-03-23 00:31 +0100
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-03-29 20:50 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-01 16:43 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-04 11:20 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-06 23:17 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-10 15:19 -0300
                Re: OT: totally off-topic D <nospam@example.net> - 2025-04-12 21:05 +0200
                Re: OT: totally off-topic Salvador Mirzo <smirzo@example.com> - 2025-04-13 13:10 -0300
      lifestyles Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.netREMOVE.invalid> - 2025-03-11 20:20 +0000

csiph-web