Science Blogs (316)

...Individual adult therapies, groups for children, families, couples, even our dogs. Most folks would be surprised to learn of how the various programs that train counselors teach the craft. Many adhere to unproved dogma, such as rank behavioralism, or Freudian psychodynamics. Where there is some evidence of efficacy, as with CBT, didactics are often sloppy. You read papers or books on the techniques, then have supervision during training, on what goes on in working with your charges. Rarely, mostly in learning family work, two way mirrors are involved. but systematic testing on knowledge, techniques or success is not the rule. No wonder we hear of so many incompetent counselors. But when AI advances enough, perhaps using depth cybernetics, based on quantum phenomena and speed, and including near human levels of relating, psychotherapy may finally be much more effective. And as an added bonus, no more having the doctor trying to put her hand up your kilt.

Today is the 10,483rd anniversary of the invention of the wheel. It's creator, Ug was born in the village of Grot (population 15) and was orphaned at a young age when his hunter/gatherer parents were eaten by a giant carnivorous chipmunk (now extinct).

Some of Ug's early inventions included the stick, and the sharpened stick. It was obvious to anyone who knew Ug that he was destined for greatness.

Ug moved to the big city (population 27) to carve his niche as a...niche carver and during the course of his endeavors, Ug serendipitously realized that large stones could be rolled if he chipped away the jagged edges.

Ug was working on a particularly large stone when he decided to rest and have a beer... or five. As Ug later tried to push the stone up a hill, he inadvertently discovered potential energy when he stumbled and lost his footing. He apparently had one too many before getting behind the wheel.


This day in history also marks the 10,483rd anniversary of the first road kill.
..................................................................
*This is a slightly altered version of something I posted years ago.

Oh, ye light in the loafers Peebles! From those of us who used actually to get paid to ponder such juicy topics, I aver without a trace of malice. Not a solicitor (yet?), so I'll skip the discovery gleaned info, which is everywhere to see, ---and jump right into an anecdotal rant. So, this disgusting pile of piss poor black homosexual protoplasm allegedly tried his racist scam because he wasn't WHAT?!?! Happy with his "thesbian's" income. Puleeze! Look it up, and wonder which of us wouldn't swap paychecks with this cad. And allegedly paying only a little over $3 large for a couple of brothers to join in the fun. So he's also a tight wad. (Ask any wait person for the lore on tipping by race.) But I digress. This sculduggery is certainly greedy poor judgment on steroids. But what else, my people watching friends? Place his criminal antisocial escapade in context of how the alt left media typically jump with treetop automatic support onto such stories. Then consider how the same pundits fail to correct and appologize for such fake news "reportage". And finally, look at how many of these cases have been put upon us all over the years, beginning long before that despicable Towana Brawly's own little version of "Let's accuse, then sue, Whitey, and have 'Reverend' Al help us to get dem big bucks and a big book contract". Lot's more, chumps. But does the highly regrettable slave heritage explain it all in mere cultural terms, or has genomics had generational time to enter into the HARDwired fray? Industrial melanism, this time sans tree moths. Yet, what do I know?

Obsolete. We are all obsolete.

China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced

Story at

It is difficult for an open-minded person, especially if he/she has a scientific background to deny that the various issues of the socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality are open to question. Yet, despite the above-stated factors, very few people are willing to give serious consideration to seeking other perspectives of reality. Perhaps the main reason for this is the very powerful factor of social conditioning or socialization coupled with the need to avoid a feeling of aloneness in one's existence.

Social conditioning is necessary for the existence of a society, otherwise there will be chaos and confusion. Nevertheless, it tends to rob an individual of some measure of his/her individuality, giving in return a certain degree of social security which has a vital role in helping an individual to overcome a feeling of aloneness in his/her existence. This social security may be defined as a sense of belonging and recognition within the society. The actual amounts taken and given by the social conditioning process vary with different individuals.

Social conditioning has such a powerful effect on one's concept of reality that very few individuals are seriously willing to seek new perspectives of reality even though many realize that the perspectives of the socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality are very open to question. If they attempt to do otherwise, they run the risk of being denied the social security mentioned and of experiencing alienation and estrangement from society, and of facing a frightening and almost unbearable feeling of aloneness in their existence, and most are unwilling to take that risk.

The few who realize the shortcomings of the socially-accepted concepts of reality and who dare to seek new perspectives of reality are faced head-on with the question: Is it possible that one can experience some form of reality in life which transcends human sense experience and the process of logical reasoning, since these factors necessarily give a distorted view? What do you think?

Perhaps the most delicate and certainly the most important area of which the individual seeks an understanding to some extent, which may vary from person to person, is that of his/her psyche or mind in relation to his/her existence where the term mind is viewed as the capacity for thought or mental activity. Most people, if not all, at some time, seek to understand themselves or this mental activity through which they can define an identity of their own, with a view towards finding some meaning or purpose in their existence. Philosophy itself seeks an answer to this quest on a broader basis.

The method of approach used towards the attainment of such an understanding is generally the observation of one's thoughts, feelings, desires, etc., in addition to one's behaviour, and the subsequent attempt to find some logical interrelation between these factors on the basis of which a “sensible” deduction can be made. The above-stated factors may be considered to be subjective knowledge, i.e. knowledge of the effects of the mind. Perhaps the stated description of a general method of approach may not be very exact, seeing that each individual decides his/her method of approach. Yet it appears that in most cases, strong emphasis is placed on the use of logical reasoning applied to subjective knowledge. As is commonly stated, most people try to make sense, i.e. logical sense ,of it all. However, this raises the question: Is it possible for the human mind to arrive at a true and complete understanding of itself through the process of logical reasoning seeing it can only acquire subjective knowledge of itself, i.e. knowledge of its effects?

Through the process of logical reasoning, the human mind may try to arrive at an explanation of the causes that produce these effects, but it can never acquire objective knowledge of itself directly in order that it may validate the deductions it made about itself through logical reasoning. For to acquire objective knowledge of itself, i.e. direct knowledge of the causes responsible for its effects, mind would have to break itself into fragments and then make observations about these fragments thereby acquiring direct knowledge about the causes of its effects. This obviously would be impossible since mind would no longer exist, seeing that now there would only be fragments of mind and not mind as a whole to make the observations about its fragments.

A closer examination of the various aspects of socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality mentioned previously reveals the presence of two basic underlying factors: reliance upon the experience of the physical senses and the use of Aristotelian logic. This logic is used in an attempt to extend the range of physical sense-experience through speculation to areas where techniques are not yet available to enable actual physical sense experience. Essentially, therefore, the socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality mentioned may be considered to be based almost exclusively on physical sense-experience, either directly or indirectly.

By its very nature, Aristotelian logic must necessarily view a unified whole as fragmentary parts, make observations about these parts and then attempt to link these observations, and thereby obtain an explanation of the whole. The accuracy of the explanation arrived at is dependent not only upon the accuracy of the observations, which are themselves limited in their accuracy due to physical sense limitations, but also upon whether or not all properties of the fragments have been observed. It may be impossible for us to ever know whether or not all properties of the fragments have been observed since it appears the more we widen the range of our physical sense-experience through scientific research, technology, etc., the more we realize how much there is yet unknown. Thus unless we can be 100% certain that we have accurately observed all the properties of all the fragmentary parts of a unified whole, and it seems unlikely that we can ever be, we can never really be certain that a conclusion based on the process of logical reasoning is accurate.

The past and the present illustrate the above-stated fact only too well. In many cases, our scientific experts deduced logically through the data available at that time, that certain chemicals and processes were harmless to humanity and assured us of their safety. Yet today, we are faced with the tragic effects of certain medically prescribed drugs which actually damaged the health of persons who used them, environmental pollution and other ugly monsters that humankind has created.

If something can be measured, whether directly or indirectly, is it real? According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, if energy has to be added to or taken from a system to implement the measuring process, as is generally the case, then this energy causes a change in the variable that is to be measured so that the value of the variable is no longer what it was before the attempt was made to measure it. In other words, the measuring process itself generally introduces an error into the measurement. For the measurement of macroscopic values, the energy change due to the measuring process is negligible and the error may be ignored. However, for the measurement of microscopic values, the Uncertainty Principle becomes critical and a substantial error may be introduced into the measurement.

For example, suppose we wish to measure the position of an electron. Consider a microscope powerful enough to make an electron detectable to the human eye. To perform the measurement, it is necessary to illuminate the electron with an intense source of light. Because of the extremely minute mass of the electron, the energy imparted by the source of light is of sufficient magnitude to cause a noticeable displacement in the electron's position, so that it would no longer be in the position in which it was prior to the illumination; nevertheless, such illumination is necessary for the measuring process. This same effect occurs in all measuring processes in which energy is added to or taken from a system as is generally the case.

Thus, it seems that even the ability of measurement to define reality is questionable since the very act of measurement itself generally introduces an error, human or otherwise, into the measurement to be made.

What is reality? Is it strictly the world based on sense-experience as perceived through the medium of the physical senses? How justified is this claim? Socially-accepted concepts of sense-experience reality arise when there is common agreement by society on the interpretation of sense-experience phenomena. Such interpretations may result in the postulation of the so-called scientific laws of nature. Yet, these interpretations are just “interpretations”. One never knows when some brilliant person will come along and show that some aspect of our present socially-accepted interpretation of sense-experience phenomena is no longer valid and propose some other interpretation in its place. This indeed is the history of science in which several scientific laws and theories have undergone modification or even rejection in some cases. When can we ever say that we know things as they are? Or perhaps more importantly, can we really know things as they are? What really is the criterion for reality?

Passengers are ripped off for $BILLIONS by being told 1/2 the price of a ticket covers the cost of fuel.

THAT'S A LIE!!

Because airliners DO NOT use fuel. They LEVITATE!!
Like bees.

TRUST #1