When I look at my smartphone I see the fucking Eye of Sauron.
Scary little fucking things.
When I look at my smartphone I see the fucking Eye of Sauron.
Scary little fucking things.
Don't argue with me about it, I was just paraphrasing someone familiar with complex subjects.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it.
I believe in Panspermia, with one caveat. It is a prophetic belief. Life, rare or not, begets life. It is incumbent on us to spread it everywhere we can, as we have not yet observed it elsewhere.
It's just the way this universe is. The whole thing. At every level we can observe the pieces of the universe interact relentlessly with the space and other pieces of the universe. That is life. That we call the stuff on earth life and what is on mars not-life is merely due to the myopic lens of human vision.
It brings to mind the immortal words of a quantum physicist I once met. I referred to the double slit experiment and asked his opinion as to why the single photon makes a diffraction pattern when it has nothing else (observable) to interact with. He replied with a depth of certitude and fundamental conviction that preachers and popes wish they could posses, and said simply "oh, it just does that." No dwelling on the mysteriousness of quantum phenomena, no postulating his preferred reasoning for the effect. Nope, "It just does that" is sufficient in and of itself, just like that single photon passing through two places at once and interfering with itself.
That's how the universe is with life. It just does that.
You look at humans and see consciousness. I look at humans and see life. I see no difference between the two. Life is consciousness, and vice versa.
You experience consciousness as the ability to think, to say to yourself, "this is why I am doing this." Sadly, the FMRI machine, transcranial magnets, and some modern science experiments have shown that consciousness is just a side effect, a plausible explanation of our actions fed to the conscious mind by the real workhorse of human action and thought, the non-verbal parts of the brain. For instance, say you decide to move your arm. TOO LATE! Your brain started sending the signal before you consciously thought if it, before you decided, before you thought. Then thought is merely the reflected afterimage of non-conscious/non-verbal modules of the brain, the part of the brain that thinks it is the motivator, the initiator of action when in reality it is merely the translator of actions and thoughts into verbally accessible structures and experiential sensory phenomena. It is almost as if consciousness is just the "seminal memory," an altered version of events that gives the verbal part of the brain an understanding of what has just happened in terms it can relate to, but which actually deviate quite strikingly from actual reality.
Seeing thought and consciousness as the illusion they are, realizing that the actual human experience of life is inaccessible to the verbal mind, and therefore not able to be experienced truthfully, and that every verbalization of experience is fundamentally flawed with the untruths inherent in our experience of reality as "thinking beings" with "consciousness" becomes a little disorienting. Better to take the observation of "life" and "consciousness" outside the organism which we have proven has issues (massive ones!) with internal consistency, objectivity of experience, and even cause and effect.
From outside we see a complex system, reacting to the environment based on a system of internal rules. We call it life. It has movement, structure, and seeming purpose. An issue arises though. This is is in many ways functionally indistinguishable from the levels of complexity we see expressed from sub atomic particles, to atoms, to molecules, to cells, and to other organisms. This thing we call life is made up of the things we call not-alive, and yet, when observed very closely, these not-alive things seem to behave much like life does. The molecules have movement, structure, and seeming purpose. When introduced to other molecules they seem to take action, operating in these actions according to a set of internal rules. Even their constituent parts are the same, having movement, structure, and seeming purpose. They operate according to a set of internal rules and seem to take actions when introduced into an environment with other similar scale parts.
This is a fundamental truth of our universe. There is a fractal arrangement of interactivity, structure, and purpose from the incredibly micro sized up to the macro size. Everywhere we can observe, and at every scale. Some would say this complexity has reach it's pinnacle in the human form. That our intelligence and consciousness is the top of the scale.
I call that arrogance. Hubris if you will. We would be as aware of the levels of organization, structure, and seeming purpose above us as enzymes are aware of cells, as heart cells are of the horse they inhabit.
Our first gods were the sun, earth, moon. If they are the next scale up, who is to say they don't speak the cosmic language of large bodies, expressed in magnetism and gravity, emission spectra and absorption, or forces we cannot yet detect in the dark spectrum? What would they converse about?
Yeah that last part is pretty woo, but would we even know the difference if it were true?
Uh huh. And in 2007 Gore claimed the Arctic would be ice free in seven years (2014) and in 2009 Kerry made the same idiotic claim.
It was quite obvious in the 2009 & 2011 whistle blower release that the CRU scientists were fudging the results. NASA was just caught with its hand in the data jar, fudging the results. The climate "scientists" threw out well calibrated satellite covering the entire ocean in favor of spotty cargo ship temperature data, which is known to be chronically high, just like the temperature stations next to air conditioners, on parking lots, hot roofs, etc, simply because they could be used to support AGW.
Then, to top it off, these geniuses want to make massive changes in the Arctic ocean subsurface environment! Didn't they learned anything from Australia's invasive species problems, all caused by well meaning scientists: cane toads, rabbits, red foxes, etc...????
Too much rain, AGW. Too little rain. AGW, Too hot. AGW, Too cold. AGW. AGW is a repeat of Lysenkoism. it is not a science (because it can't be falsified) it is a religion.
"Salvage as much of the biosphere as possible"
Why? Nothing ever did this before. There have been innumerable extinction events drastically worse for the biosphere than any of the most dire predictions of global warming. The Earth will be fine in a couple of million years, one way or another.
Consider: if it weren't for repeated global disasters that wiped out most of the species on the planet humans would not exist.
Agreed. Was just twiddling your Twinkies, homie.
If you hang out with physicists, cosmologists, or astrophysicists and/or read what they write you can easily pick up this terminology. Also, and more likely, if you read lots of hard science fiction novels (not that god dammed space opera shit!) you will pick up this reference.
I have never encountered any other usage of "order of magnitude" besides a power of 10 (an order of magnitude larger/smaller; you're off by 2 orders of mag) or a label of a power of 10 (23rd order of magnitude = 10x23.) Maybe that is because I am a total science nerd. I am curious where it would be used differently. Thank you for the reference to other usage not as referenced above. I now need to look this up to find out where I could be misinterpreted if I use this term.
You added a percent sign to the number the AC posted. Its like you invented some new kind of mathematical straw man!
Its people like you that crashed the mars lander...
In many people 0.02 is not an active dosage, neither impairing nor affecting the imbiber's skill at driving or even lubricating their social inhibitions. But yes, x10 that amount is totally fucked up.
My first job out of HS in 1959 was at Shwayder Bros luggage plant on South Broadway in Denver. One of the brothers, Jesse, was manager. His door was always open and one could walk in at any time to offer suggestions with no fear of losing their job. Every Christmas he divided the company profits into bonuses based on years experience. I only worked there for a year but my dad worked for them from the middle 1930s until he retired in 1969, at 65.
Across the street was the Gates Rubber Co. Their employees were always striking about something. About three months before I quit and went to college, union members from Gates began picketing in front of Shwayder Bros with posters making outrageous claims. Also, some recent employees, obvious plants, started making equally outrageous claims a/o lies of abuse and mis-management. A couple years after I left a vote was held and the Union lost. After a few more years the union won. The employees lost. Instead of going directly to Jesse employees had to take their suggestions to union stewards, who would decide if and when they would be passed to management. During financially hard times, which the unionization caused to happen regularly, union stewards had job security regardless of seniority. Bonuses stop. Wages stagnated, except for union stewards and the union bosses who had front offices. Union dues, however, did not. 2% of your income for the "privilege" of being a union slave with no freedom or rights except those "granted" by Union bosses.
The unions that brought us the 5 day work week and the 8 hour work week are not the same as the unions that are around today. The people, the organization, the politics, and the intention of unions have changed since then.
Not saying unions are bad by any stretch of the imagination. Just saying that things are different now.
Totally different and obviously so.
Getting a job to expose violations is a morally defensible act. Violations are happening, laws are broken, they need to be brought out into the open. Disclosure is the objective. Openness and resolution is the result.
Getting a job specifically to influence people to do something that might or might not be in their best interests, while secretly being paid to do so, is not a morally defensible act. Someone telling you how they feel and someone delivering a paid speech are two different things, even if the message is exactly the same.
In the first example the mole is there to expose corruption. In the second, the mole is there as an agent of corruption.
How you can equate the two things is really beyond me.
Money isn't everything -- but it's a long way ahead of what comes next. -- Sir Edmond Stockdale