Originally posted by StarValleyWyI will agree that there are some inferior forms of therapy as well as inferior therapists, pyschiatrist, etc. but I don't think you can take your experience, thoug h you are perfectly justified for your particular situation, and globally condemn the entire profession anymore than I can say all ministers are bad and evil because they are all like Jimmy Swaggert. Kirk
Kirk,
I waited and thought for a while on your post before replying. I have been much involved with "psychoanalysis" because of what happened to me as a child. I don't see any good that comes from it. It is a scam second to none.
I wasted many thousands of dollars on it before realizing it is snake oil. Next to "Smoke Jumpers"... I can think ...[text shortened]... n identify/modify human nature.
For what it's worth....
Very Dissatisfied customer,
Mike
Originally posted by royalchickenWhen the "long view" is taken though, as i think bbar was doing...
The idea is novel, but the code itself does not exhibit particularly enlightened views 😕
We had to start somewhere. It was "common" as in "everyone with power does it", at the time to own slaves and half the population of the earth thought nothing of making a "human stew" after battle. And battle was about all humans did.
So think of it not as an enlightened document by our standards. Think of it as what will be needed if we destroy civilization over the next few centuries. What goes around... is a bugger and a half. As Yogi Berra so aptly put it... "Hey, Progress goes both ways." 🙄
1 edit
"An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.
"Das Kapital" by Karl Marx.
"Das Kommunistische Manifest" by Karl Marx.
All three books have had a huge impact on economical and social development not only in the Western but also in the rest of the world.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYeah, I know. Just trying to keep everyone from getting too carried away about a document which outlines a judicial system based on throwing people in rivers. Survival of the most bouyant.
When the "long view" is taken though, as i think bbar was doing...
We had to start somewhere. It was "common" as in "everyone with power does it", at the time to own slaves and half the population of the earth thought nothing of making a "human stew" after battle. And battle was about all humans did.
So think of it not as an enlightened do ...[text shortened]... .. is a bugger and a half. As Yogi Berra so aptly put it... "Hey, Progress goes both ways." 🙄
Time for a liittle bit of controversy.
I believe that there are, and have been two basic types of discoveries made by humans. They are Objective and Subjective in nature.
An example of an Objective discovery has already been mentioned. The discovery of the Electromagnetic spectra which results in useable electricity and all modern communications.
An example of a Subjective discovery has been mentioned. The invention of Psychoanalysis.
Notice the slight difference? "Discovery" as opposed to "Invention"?
I don't hold a lot of stock in subjective discovery, or invention. The reason is that it is WRONG AS OFTEN than it is right. And it usually wastes hundreds of years of "human endeavor" trying to refute and bury it. A good example is the early Greek "discovery" that "truth resides in all things and is self-evident to a trained mind." This little bit of non-sense delayed the scientific meathod by at least a thousand years. And the "Earth Centric" ideas that brought about the murder and persecution of scientists who tried to bring forth newer and better ideas.
You will not find me mentioning "Inventors" of "Ideas" in this thread. I think they are neccessary. But I hate the time we waste on the "wrong" tracks taken. All of the people who I consider important to humanity contribute "physically reproducible results".
Like Albert Einstein. (You all just know he was going to make this list. And being my own personal hero... Here he is.)
Originally posted by StarValleyWyA consequence of your statement would be that observed phenomena can be discovered objectively, but things deduced from general principles are subjective. I am vastly different from you; different backround, age, shoe size, etc. Viewed objectively, my subjective understanding is no better than yours. SO how come if I say "2+2=5" and you say "2+2=4", any judge would prefer your opinion of a non-observed phenomenon? Of course you could substantiate yours with counted objects, but that would defeat the purpose of the experiment, since I only want to know whether you are saying that products of the mind are not so great as products of the eyes.
Time for a liittle bit of controversy.
I believe that there are, and have been two basic types of discoveries made by humans. They are Objective and Subjective in nature.
An example of an Objective discovery has already been mentioned. The discovery of the Electromagnetic spectra which results in useable electricity and all modern communications. ...[text shortened]... You all just know he was going to make this list. And being my own personal hero... Here he is.)
Which is the discovery, and which the invention, between these two papers:
www.geocities.com/hagenmaths/twoprob01.pdf
and
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Clearly the latter has had more effect, and is likely of much greater theoretical merit, but I'm having trouble seeing who discovered something and who fabricated something.
(The first is on analytic number theory--pure mathematics, and the second is considered a revolution in physics.)
Originally posted by royalchickenI would respond that Math is not subjective. It's discovery and/or invention is not "subject to debate". That is a good point. I would definitely include great mathematicians in my list. Your avatar picture for example. He was indeed a contributor to human progress.
A consequence of your statement would be that observed phenomena can be discovered objectively, but things deduced from general principles are subjective. I am vastly different from you; different backround, age, shoe size, etc. Viewed objectively, my subjective understanding is no better than yours. SO how come if I say "2+2=5" and you say "2+2=4 ...[text shortened]... analytic number theory--pure mathematics, and the second is considered a revolution in physics.)
PS... I am going to look at your math paper now... If I don't return within three days, please send in a priest and some wooden crosses and silver bullets to rescue me. 😕 I will be the comatose guy in the corner of virtual space with the glazed over eyes.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMath(s) is(are) just the beginning. The whole point of that post is to start rescuing a lot of philosophy. (Mostly, I want to put Kurt and Bert in here without too much trouble 😛)
I would respond that Math is not subjective. It's discovery and/or invention is not "subject to debate". That is a good point. I would definitely include great mathematicians in my list. Your avatar picture for example. He was indeed a contributor to human progress.
PS... I am going to look at your math paper now... If I don't return within three ...[text shortened]... scue me. 😕 I will be the comatose guy in the corner of virtual space with the glazed over eyes.
Math(s) always start[s] from some basic principles (this is in its presentation--actually 'doing' mathematics is frequently far more messy than any axiomatic treatment will admit) and proceeds through deduction to more complex conclusions. Now, we distinguish some things that work this way as "mathematics" when they deal with a large but specific body of subject matter. I don't think this has any importance though--it is the method that counts. I'd say any participants in deductive or empirical procedure can be here.
Also contributors toward good communication of their ideas--artists, musicians, playwrights.
Kurt Goedel. Bert Russell. JS Bach (also his scientific work). Sofia Kowalevski (scientific work and novels). Hypatia (one of my favorite historical figures).
As to the paper, I hadn't intended it for reading closely. If you're not back in three days, I'll send a search party 🙂.
Originally posted by royalchickenMark,
Math(s) is(are) just the beginning. The whole point of that post is to start rescuing a lot of philosophy. (Mostly, I want to put Kurt and Bert in here without too much trouble 😛)
Math(s) always start[s] from some basic principles (this is in its presentation--actually 'doing' mathematics is frequently far more messy than any axiomatic treatment ...[text shortened]... tended it for reading closely. If you're not back in three days, I'll send a search party 🙂.
I had a thought as I went through your proof(s). A notion hit me that, "If all electronic data transfer is based on integer math, ie, the ASCII and UniCode sets, There is no such thing as encryption! Given enough computing power to factor out integers." This is probably just a protective mechanism of my mind because I can't follow your math. I strive instead to find a real world meaning through images and symbolic imagination.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenI backed myself into an unsupportable corner. (again😠)
Math(s) is(are) just the beginning. The whole point of that post is to start rescuing a lot of philosophy. (Mostly, I want to put Kurt and Bert in here without too much trouble 😛)
Math(s) always start[s] from some basic principle ...[text shortened]... If you're not back in three days, I'll send a search party 🙂.
I will back track on my position. With no shame, i might add.😵
When speaking of "Science"... I don't like to include "Arts".
But this thread is after all about contributions to humanity. Maybe the contributors to the "arts" are MORE important to our humanity. But they are definitely LESS important to our physical comfort and technologically INVENTED AND SUPPORTED modern civilization.
That would be a good topic for an entire discussion. "Which Type Of Human Contribution, Physical Or Cultural discovery... Adds More To The Civilization Of Humanity".
Maybe we can compromise by agreeing to TWO AREAS OF HUMAN ENDEAVOR. The Phyical world we have created and the Cultural world we have created. Some of the really greats have made contributions to both aspects.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyActually, you are quite astute. That paper was written after I spent some weeks trying to invent/discover an encryption system I called "Grasshopper". Predictably enough, I got too interested in the theory behind it and the result is that. But it was initially motivated by quite practical concerns.
Mark,
I had a thought as I went through your proof(s). A notion hit me that, "If all electronic data transfer is based on integer math, ie, the ASCII and UniCode sets, There is no such thing as encryption! Given enough computing power to factor out integers." This is probably just a protective mechanism of my mind because I can't follow your math. I strive instead to find a real world meaning through images and symbolic imagination.
The integer factoring problem is about as difficult as the problem of deciding whether an integer is prime, a problem which is at the base of much modern encryption. Shortly after I wrote that, some very clever computer scientists in India came up with a fairly simple and very efficient way of testing primality (primeness of a number), so the speculative paragraphs at the end of my paper were answered to some degree. I was glad of that, and got my hands on their work, which was quite cool.
Anyway, I guess as the method filters out more into the practical world of encryption, some serious changes may have to be made, and many algortihms (would become, or always have been, depending on discovery/invention) insecure. If the encryption thing interets you, might I suggest:
Simon Singh's books on the subject (fairly untechnical, but quite good)
David Kahn's books (wider range of information in terms of degree of technicality)
The Appendix of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon (which you can follow if you've played cards. While you're at this one, just read the book because it's so damned excellent....
anyway, interesting subject, glad you brought it up.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThis is probably a good compromise. A better one might be to associate each person with his or her accomplishments and justify to ourselves why this is important. So an actual ordering ('he/she's the best'😉 is a bit absurd. Who else would you put? You've had some good ones.
I backed myself into an unsupportable corner. (again😠)
I will back track on my position. With no shame, i might add.😵
When speaking of "Science"... I don't like to include "Arts".
But this thread is after all about contributions to humanity. Maybe the contributors to the "arts" are MORE important to our humanity. But they are definite ...[text shortened]... tural world we have created. Some of the really greats have made contributions to both aspects.
Originally posted by royalchickenI don't know their names, but definitely the Arabic contributors to astronomy and math. The invention of decimal based math's is theirs, is it not?
This is probably a good compromise. A better one might be to associate each person with his or her accomplishments and justify to ourselves why this is important. So an actual ordering ('he/she's the best'😉 is a bit absurd. Who else would you put? You've had some good ones.