Heaven sent the promised land
Looks alright from where I stand
'Cause I'm the man on the outside lookin' in
Waiting on the first step
Show me where the key is kept
Point me down the right line because it's time
To let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Flash the readies
Wot's uh, the deal?
Gotta make it to the next meal
Gotta keep up with the turning of
Mile after mile
Stone after stone
You turn to speak, but you're alone
A million miles from home, you're on your own
So let me in
From the cold
Turn my lead
'Cause there's a chill wind blowin' in my soul
And I think I'm growing old
Fire bright by candlelight
With her by my side
If she prefers, we will never stir
Someone said, "The Promised Land!"
So I grabbed it with both hands
Now I'm the man on the inside lookin' out
Hear me shout,
"Come on in!
Wot's the news?
Where ya been?"
'Cause there's no wind left in my soul
And I've grown old
- Roger Waters
clenchedfist00: "But what are the simple constituent parts of which reality is composed? -- What are the simple parts of a chair? The pieces of wood from which it is assembled? Or the molecules, or the atoms? -- "Simple" means: not composite. And here the point is: in what sense "composite"? It makes no sense at all to speak absolutely of the 'simple parts of a chair'."
View all 16 posts
theKnaveofNevermore: thing is history repeats, and at no time in history was this kind of unlimited value inflation sustainable, it is the essence of speculation, just stay at the table while it is paying off, but watch the signs, and be prepared to move when music stops. it is the tulip fiasco all over again, way back in 1634, tulips in holland began to experience unprecedented price manipulation, a hand full of people began to buy at overvalued rates in quantity, creating fears of shortages, the price was not set, and people clamored to buy more at ever increasing rates. rates that did not abate or show any signs of dropping. this went on for almost three growing season, then one day, it stopped, somebody woke up and decided a single tulip bulb was not worth an average mans six year salary. and the whole scheme collapsed. poof just like dot com, so, i would have my own concerns about bitcoin. the trick is knowing when to sell. usually best before it,s too late. ha.
clenchedfist00: does a child believe in make-believe? well a child ordinarily believes whatever the parents say - but this is contingent on, among other things, that the child understands what the parents say; if i tell my 4 year old that leibniz' theory of monads is an insufficient method of resolving the paradox associated with atomism, does she believe me or not?
what if i say that the elf on the shelf moves at night and gets paralyzed during the day or whenever you see him? this presupposes, first, that i've taught her to distinguish between movement and stillness, and second, to distinguish between movement of sentient creatures (dogs, squirrels, people) and movement of inanimate objects (wind-blown leaves, rivers, machines, the flicker of a flame) - and teaching her these distinctions requires a massive amount of observation of cases of each
then i tell her: "this inanimate object is alive and moves, but only when you aren't looking" - in other words, i tell her to ascribe properties of living things to something that lacks all such observable properties, to perform the operation of "believing something is alive" on the very objects i have persistently taught her NOT to perform that operation on
does she even understand me? well, she reacts with excitement and wonder, instead of puzzlement - but why here and not in a case where i tell her, in the context of trying to dress her, that a shirt is a pair of pants except when she looks at it, in which case it becomes a shirt?
and why such joyous excitement? even if she understood the shirt/pants idea, she wouldn't express joy or excitement at it - unless, of course, she understood it to be spoken in a "magical" context - she might say ... "like the elf on the shelf?"
i'm suggesting, contrary to what pretty much everyone in the world thinks, that what it is for a child to believe in make-believe is not that she believes something improbable, but believes it because she believes whatever her parents say - whatever goes on there, it's not believing in the truth of a proposition at all, but something very different
theKnaveofNevermore: i actually read this two days ago, and wasn't entirely sure how to address it, initially it took a grave stand against the idea of deceiving children, understanding the concept to be wholly wrong on every level. my gut reaction, essentially. but yesterday as fate or synchronicity would have it, i was approached by abdi, he is an associate, i have mentioned him before and he enjoys sparring with me over theology and other things, anyway, quite out of the blue he asked me, why do you lie to your children, now he knows i have none so the question was a general one, he had been hinting obliquely very a couple of weeks now so i wasn't surprised when he finished his thought, he wanted to know, or have me explain why we tell our children the fiction that is santa is real, not only real but that this 'character' stand in judgement of them. well i had spent the previous evening wrapping my head around what you were saying here, and taking my own mental/moral stand on the issue, now thrust into the position of having to defend the deception that is christmas. and also being interesting in a point of view so alien to the concept of santa that he can't even process the meaning of it or what it is at all. kinda like how i stand with god. frankly i knew there was very little i could say that would penetrate the dogma, and falling back on, well it,s tradition, just seemed to easy, so i left it with the stick and carrot analogy, sometimes more may be garnered by enjoying the life you have, than burdening yourself with austerity banking on a pay off down the unknown road. none of which address the issue of lying to kids, but i think i was in an indefensible position, and he knew it, he,s a chess player man.
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: ha! very interesting, although, if i'm right, it's not lying at all, but an invitation to the child to engage in the most human of activities, the mythical frame of mind, i contend that santa isn't a belief at all but something neither true nor false ... but defending that would probably be beyond my capabilities
clenchedfist00: subject, verb and object - it might not be an accident that the word "subject" can also mean a person, a self, insofar as that person or self is related in various ways to something else: the subject as such is related to its world by experiencing it, interacting with it, dwelling in it, etc.; the subjects of a study are related to the study by way of being what the study is studying; and so on
maybe the various senses of the word "subject" - a type of position occupied by a word in a sentence, a self, a "subject matter," an academic discipline studied in a class, etc. - are all rooted in the self as subject - the "position in a sentence" sense being rooted in the "self" sense, and all others being rooted in the "position in a sentence" sense
and maybe verb and object are rooted in something like pointing and that to which one points, making language itself rooted in self (subject), action (verb), and things acted on (object)
clenchedfist00: if a perpetual motion machine is impossible, then technology can never render work obsolete - there will always be the need to continue to supply the input of the machines, whatever form that input takes
is part of the notion of AI that of a machine that can draw its own input from the physical world the way organisms do? and is that possible?
clenchedfist00: "Now, one can ostensively define a person's name, the name of a colour, the name of a material, a number-word, the name of a point on the compass, and so on. The definition of the number two, 'That is called "two"' - pointing to two nuts - is perfectly exact. -- But how can the number two be defined like that? The person one gives the definition to doesn't know *what* it is that one wants to call 'two'; he will suppose that 'two' is the name given to *this* group of nuts! He *may* suppose this; but perhaps he does not. He might make the opposite mistake: when I want to assign a name to this group of nuts, he might take it to be the name of a number. And he might equally well take a person's name, which I explain ostensively, as that of a colour, of a race, or even of a point on the compass. That is to say, an ostensive definition can be variously interpreted in *any* case."
View all 14 posts
clenchedfist00: btw a definition doesn't state the meaning a word either, a definition is a phrase that is used the same way the word is, so if you can see how the phrase is used, you can then see how the word is to be used
clenchedfist00: hume's objection to inductive reasoning attempts to portray induction as a *method* - now something is a method only if it is one of multiple conceivable ways of achieving a goal ... i can ask "which method will get me to my destination quickest: car, bus, train or cab?" but it would be nonsensical to say "is the method of traversing space really a reliable method for arriving at a destination, or is that an unjustified assumption?"
hume wants to ask if inductive reasoning really is a reliable "method" for discerning the truth about the world - he then goes on to suppose that our "assumption" that it is reliable is only based on the fact that it has "worked well" in the past, which he wants to conclude is circular reasoning
but induction is not a method; therefore hume's argument cannot even get off the ground
theKnaveofNevermore: i think i agree, one would be caused to believe there is an active process to be followed to cause the action of inductive reasoning, like it,s yoga. so no, not the methodology behind inductive reasoning, simple the principle of induction. conceptually speaking.
View all 9 posts
Kermephat: Joy ReidVerified account
4h4 hours ago
So in one day:
- Way cleared to turn national monuments over to drillers and strip miners...
- SCOTUS stacked by Mitch McConnell's unprecedented move to hold a seat hostage until there was a Republican POTUS approves Muslim ban...
- Trump's lawyer says POTUS is above the law.
clenchedfist00: : if the demand for a product decreases, why does this tend to lower the price? if company A produces product X, and demand for X decreases, why would the company lower the price of X? why wouldn't they just produce less of X? either choice, abstracted from all other factors, seems reasonable
is it because of the middle man? a manufacturer of spruce boards will usually sell their product to hardware stores etc. that in turn sell it to the public (most people won't drive 4 or 10 hours to go pick up lumber from the manufacturer directly, so the manufacturer makes more money this way)
but the hardware store will take more of a hit if they just order less spruce boards and sell them at the same price than if they lower their price and order the same number of boards, since their profit comes from the margin - 50 spruce boards per day at 20% margin makes them more money than 30 at the same margin (say $5 per board)
but in order not to lose money the hardware store would have to pay the manufacturer, say, $3 less if they are lowering the price by $3 (and at 20% margin they will still take a bit of a hit), and the manufacturer isn't going to just bow to the store ... the manufacturer might well refuse to change his price
does the store then buy less boards to adjust to the lower demand? which would mean the store would sell them for the same amount - demand would decrease while price remains the same
but if the demand that all stores have for manufactured spruce boards decreases, then the whole situation is repeated for the manufacturer - and will he lower his price or produce less boards? and why?
View all 19 posts
clenchedfist00 in reply to theKnaveofNevermore: you might think the widespread interest in local farmers market food would have an effect on meat factories, but small farmers have to charge such a higher price to compete with the ultra-efficient factories that most people can't afford their food
theKnaveofNevermore: true, but meat consumption globally is staggering, both canada and the US export huge tonnage of beef world wide. and remarkable the prices have remained very stable over all, creeping up certainly, but not nearly as much as other products, the meat industry has for this reason, for the people working, remained almost dickensians, brutal labour for not a great deal of reward. at least not the ground floor, where the lions share of the actual work gets done, where the meat meets the knives so to speak. the higher up the chain you go, the more money there is to be had, my step father was a meat broker, sold product by the container load, never saw any of it, all on the phone, in a good year he could make 150,000. so yeah, people can make money in the bizz, but not with rubber gloves on. ha. lol