Posted:
#1
back packs displayed on Trump towers and White house are part of a larger probe into the personal defense of The President to supseptable explosive device?
Sundance , what do you think of chatter
Views: 343
Posts: 8
Posted:
#5
wonder what a device such as presurre cooker bomb used but packed with radio active material and more refined militarary convential explosives , even if it does create a nuclear signature make quite a mess.
Iran usual responds a test of its latest contraption, pentagon deflects to seismatic. earth quake noise, but it should be determined if sesmatic activity occurs in the cetral iranian plateau the results of their minturized versions...tests.
Posted:
#7
Iran may have the bomb already, and this totasl ruse of they will stop if we ease sanctions is a defection from reality.
when i post some thing or understand some thing I always remeber these words of once a great thinker.
he started off as a believer in maxism but evolved to understanding control through direction of randomness.
Karl Popper.
Popper and John Eccles speculated on the problem of free will for many years, generally agreeing on an interactionist dualist theory of mind. However, although Popper was a body-mind dualist, he did not think that the mind is a substance separate from the body: he thought that mental or psychological properties or aspects of people are distinct from physical ones.[61]
When he gave the second Arthur Holly Compton Memorial Lecture in 1965, Popper revisited the idea of quantum indeterminacy as a source of human freedom. Eccles had suggested that "critically poised neurons" might be influenced by the mind to assist in a decision. Popper criticised Compton's idea of amplified quantum events affecting the decision. He wrote:
The idea that the only alternative to determinism is just sheer chance was taken over by Schlick, together with many of his views on the subject, from Hume, who asserted that "the removal" of what he called "physical necessity" must always result in "the same thing with chance. As objects must either be conjoin'd or not,... 'tis impossible to admit of any medium betwixt chance and an absolute necessity".
I shall later argue against this important doctrine according to which the alternative to determinism is sheer chance. Yet I must admit that the doctrine seems to hold good for the quantum-theoretical models which have been designed to explain, or at least to illustrate, the possibility of human freedom. This seems to be the reason why these models are so very unsatisfactory.[62]
Hume's and Schlick's ontological thesis that there cannot exist anything intermediate between chance and determinism seems to me not only highly dogmatic (not to say doctrinaire) but clearly absurd; and it is understandable only on the assumption that they believed in a complete determinism in which chance has no status except as a symptom of our ignorance.[63]
Popper called not for something between chance and necessity but for a combination of randomness and control to explain freedom, though not yet explicitly in two stages with random chance before the controlled decision, saying, "freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control
Posted:
#8
foot note 61 to paraphrase an analogy, of computer the hard drive and the processor are distinctly different then the program operating features.
note 61 continued to 62 to explain software in context of hard ware does not reveal the truth of the experince of a program vs the design and functionality of the softwares manipulation of the hardwares capabilities hardware = brain soft ware = thought.
to compare the body has no relation to thought is absurd as a processor speed to running a graphical image such as a movie on a computer streamed at live coverage.
Freedom is not just allowed in chaotic behavior but must have limited and pin pointed to control to allow most to be Free and secure.
such as this problem encountered by Popper:
The paradox of tolerance[edit]
Main article: Paradox of tolerance
Although Popper was an advocate of toleration, he said that intolerance should not be tolerated, for if tolerance allowed intolerance to succeed completely, tolerance would be threatened. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, he argued:
Hot Forum Topics
