LastThursday

Things could be even weirder. My first order distinctions may be totally incomprehensible to another person's first order distinctions. What you call colour, I may not even recognise as part of my experience. It's totally possible that if you suddenly become me, you wouldn't be able to understand my first order distinctions at all. This happens with cochlear implants for the deaf people for example, they have to learn how to hear over time, i.e. they now have the first order distinction of "sound" but it's meaningless to start with. What matters with distinctions is their relationships to each other, not their absolute "value". It's worth noting that first order distinctions are in constant flux. That's why you could see a white and gold dress one day, and black and blue the next. And last thought. A chair is a first order distinction, in that it is recognised instantly and without thought, but the construct of a chair has to be learnt over time, we aren't born with the chair construct already there. So in some sense a chair is of a lesser order of distinction than a colour. But we may have latent constructs for faces, trees, sky etc.

Growing up I've always felt very self-conscious. I'm not sure when it really started, whether it was when I was a young kid or a teenager. The general sensation I've had most of my adult life is that I'm being watched. I don't mean this is in a tin-foil-hat kind of way, but rather that if I'm somehow not conforming to some social standard or other, then I'll be caught out, and it will be awkward or I'll have to explain myself. It's extremely hard for me to explain without sounding like I'm paranoid (maybe my signature is correct?). I could provide some examples, but they're so minor it seems ridiculous to go into any depth about them. There are several potential sources for my self-consciousness, they might be: Growing up with a very particular mother, and not wanting to do things "out of line" Being just more self-aware than the norm, or at least focusing on myself more intensely than is the norm Some form of autism, and not quite being able to judge what is acceptable or might be deemed weird, i.e. avoidance of awkwardness A form of hyper-vigilance stemming from growing up in a rough neighbourhood and having to always look out for myself Not being very good at explaining myself when put on the spot, and avoiding that sort of thing at all costs Having some sort of issue with self-worth over the years There's been pros and cons to this, let's call self-consciousness. A strong pro is that it has given me the ability to introspect and look at myself from a kind of detached viewpoint. I think this stems from constantly putting myself into someone else's shoes and judging "me" from this external viewpoint. And I very often use it as a way to correct myself when I go wrong: I behave impulsively, or hurt someone else, or I behave out of spite or whatever. Or someone tells me as much. I use to grow myself and I get clarity from intense introspection. A strong con is that I'm constantly having to course correct my behaviour and appearance, "just in case". It can be mentally tiring, and inauthentic. Sometimes I just want to be an unkempt slob in public and not worry about it. Or, just say what's on my mind without having to curate what comes out of my mouth. At times my mask slipped and it's got me into trouble, but compared to the times that hasn't happened it's insignificant, mostly it ends up being a neutral reaction from others, or better no reaction at all. And, the one thing that has changed in my later years, is that I've realised that most of the time people don't give a damn about what I'm doing. I've let myself off the hook a lot more. I see others doing and saying things completely unconsciously, where I would definitely need to check: "is that ok to say? is that okay to do?". There's still plenty of work for me to do to be completely comfortable with being "myself", but at least I'm aware, I'll get there.

¡Más música!

Love comes in many forms. Some you may not even recognise yet. Be curious and let yourself be open to them all.

When was he a mod? Must be before my time...

@Michael569 if you slip me more compliments (and some cash) my thoughts might change. Jokes aside, some of the other guys you mentioned would make great Mods. My vote goes to any of them, make it so!

Ralston isn't wrong, suffering can be dropped. But he does say it in a very blasé nearly dismissive way; he's doing that for effect however, the effect being that you should consider it possible to do. Most folks wouldn't even consider that suffering can be stopped or lessened. What he doesn't cover is the detail on how to do it. How is it possible to stop doing anything, if you've never stopped doing it? How can you bootstrap yourself into non-suffering? In this way he's being disingenuous, because he's glossing over that bootstrapping process. In a sense you have to catch yourself in the act of doing, realise it, and then not do it. Even the act of noticing takes a lot of dedication and awareness, which most people don't start off with. It's very hard. And, physical pain and hunger is still physical pain and hunger, you can't stop it.

@Michael569 thanks man, I appreciate your vote of confidence. As much as I would like to see my name in green, being a Mod is not for me, others would do a better job. And, I have my Sigma Male status to maintain and curate.

It's far more subtle than just labels, which is just language, but the idea is correct. It's more like mental constructs than pure language. The mental constructs act like templates and we match perceptions and happenings to these templates. So you have a mental construct for "luck" as well as the label for that mental construct. Having a label doesn't make the label happen, it just makes it possible to realise when the label hapens. Say you had no idea what "luck" was and no label for it, then luck would never happen. But you learn the label "luck", and now things that happen can be matched to your new mental construct, and you can call it luck. The mental construct is just a different type of perception than a sound or a colour, it's all within consciousness. Mental constructs are built from other constructs and so you can share them via language (which is all constructs).

At the bottom of a lot of addictions and depression is a lack of basic human needs being met. It could be that the isolation is out of your control, but maybe it isn't and it just takes a lot of difficult work to get out of it. You probably know that drinking isn't fixing those basic needs. We do have other needs though, such as pleasure, so your drinking does meet that need. There's also a need to "step outside ourselves" now and then, and to have relief and a break from the hard stuff of being a person, and drinking also meets that need. I also enjoy drinking for exactly those reasons, I have never abused alcohol, but I drink far far less than I used to, maybe once or twice a month. There are many other healthier pleasures in life to try. There are many ways to meet new people. If you think you can be disciplined, then try to clean up other areas of your life, the usual run of: regular exercise, cleaner diet, good sleep, some sort of mindfulness practice.

A triple bill.

Orange isn't real as such. It's just a label we use to communicate with. You could argue that Orange points to something out there or a perception, and so even if it's a label it is still real in a sense. But it could just as well be the other way round, and the perception points to the label "orange" instead. And maybe not just one perception points to Orange, but many different types of perception: dark orange, light orange, yellowish orange, an orange coat, orange paint on a wall, sunset orange, juice orange and so on. When you think about all the possible oranges then you realise that the label Orange isn't so clearly defined. Orange is a kind of ill-defined template we have. Your Orange is not my Orange. Orange is not an absolute. The screen analogy is useful, but it may not be true. Maybe there are only images but no screen, only perceptions themselves, not perceptions happening within consciousness.

Same. But sometimes being "forced" to look at subjects you wouldn't have done otherwise can open up new avenues of interest. And, even if you're not that interested it may still have utility in future.

The answer is that there is no figure, just idea. That idea isn't fixed however, it get continuously updated according to the perception. It's a feedback loop. The idea comes (from somewhere), perceptions get matched to the idea and we project out the idea onto the world of perception. Over time the perceptions slowly drift outside the bounds of the idea and so the idea must drift with it or the idea stops matching the perceptions altogether. It's no different than seeing shapes in clouds: the shapes are in our minds not in the clouds. Where do ideas come from? They are largely given to us by others, or by nature itself. For example it's very important to have an idea of a "face" embedded within us. Incongruence can happen, for example by meeting someone you used to know, again after many years. They are the person you remember, but not wholly, they have changed, so you must update your idea about them. Bearing in mind that "person" and "them" are ideas.

Both genius and madman are social constructs and not inherent in someone's make up. It's the whims of a society that confer these statuses on people. In the case of insanity the person is often removed from the pool or neutered by drugs in order to either protect society or to make the person conform to the norm. At one time in the UK homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and treated with chemical castration. Someone could be a self-confessed genius, but really there has to be a general societal consensus that labels the person as a "genius", often post mortem. At one time people weren't geniuses but had genius, the implication being that the genius had entered the person via some means. The word genius is related to genie, jinx and jinn. A genius and a madman are completely separate things, the only commonality is that they're both divergent in the eyes of society.

In my experience nothing is ever wasted. There are always side benefits to learning anything in more depth, even if the subject itself doesn't seem directly useful at the time. The biggest benefit is improving your ability to learn new stuff. The more you do it the easier it gets. Even in the workplace you'll have to learn new stuff all the time nowadays, this is an advantage if you can be ahead of your peers. If you want to work for yourself, then you'll definitely have to learn new stuff constantly. If you can do this efficiently, the pay off is obvious. Another is that different subjects cross over into each other as @Shane Hanlon says. Anything new you learn also crosses over into other areas of your life, even if you haven't studied those other areas. Even a basic grasp of things like maths can help with understanding your finances and money better, especially so you don't get hoodwinked by others. The last point is quite important. If you want to take control of your life, you'll need a good BS filter, and you can only get that by educating yourself well in lots of different areas.

Nothing. I mean you shouldn't change it. Why not reframe what you're feeling as a positive thing? You're clearly very into your girl, otherwise you wouldn't feel the way you do, tick. She could be testing your reaction (maybe without knowing it), so a bit of jealously is a good signal to her that you're still into her, tick. You yourself can of course virtue signal by NOT looking at other women (at all) when you're with your girl, and just be wholly focused on her, tick. Call her bluff by inviting the guy she's eyeing up over? Probably too much, but clutch. Basically, exude annoyance, but not insecurity. After all she is still with you and not them.

What is an object or a thing? I often come back and think about this problem. Why's it a problem? Because objects and things are not static, they break, deteriorate, slowly change over time, lose bits, get bets added on, change form and on and on. If you identify an object as such and such a thing, then if it changes over time does it continue being that such and such a thing? This paradox is exemplified by the Ship of Theseus, whereby a ship has all its parts exchanged over time, until none of the original ship remains: is it still the same ship? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus. I was always confused by this paradox, because it attacks the idea of object permanence in the world. It's clear that if you wait long enough (and that can be a very long time), that nearly all objects will change in some way. How is it then, that we can confidently identify things in the world and give them lasting names? How do things persist in the world? Why is it when I wake up in the morning, I identify it as the same place as when I went to sleep the night before? A partial answer came to me recently, and it was blindingly obvious. Objects don't exist "out there" in the material world, they are simply conventions, ideals and simplifications we use to navigate the world. The Ship of Theseus never objectively exists, but wholly subjectively exists. That's why it can have its parts replaced and still be called the same thing. If a person loses their leg in an accident, they are still a person. The persistance in the world seems to be wholly in our subjective experience or more accurately a choice is made about the permanence of a thing, whether that be consciously (as in naming something) or unconsciously (as in the idea of a chair). I say partial answer because we can all agree that even if everything in the world changes, your sofa is still your sofa and seems to continue being so over time - it never seems to suddenly disappear one day and reappear the next. And giving your sofa a different name or calling it a chair, seems not to make much difference to its existence: i.e. it appears to objectively exist "out there". But we can continue the thought experiment. Say your friends play a trick on you one day, and when you're out, they replace your sofa with an identical looking one (bear with me). You return and none the wiser you assume it's the same sofa. It's the Ship of Theseus again, the whole sofa has been replaced, and yet you think it's still the same sofa. How does that happen? Because the existence of the sofa is wholly subjective. Maybe after a while you realise something's up, the sofa seems fresher and more plump, and then you realise it's not your sofa! How does a sofa suddenly change like that? Because it's all in the mind. We largely recognise the permanence of things not in isolation but in relation to all the other things around it. When we go out we know it's our neighbourhood because the buildings, roads and other things form a net of interrelationships with each other. There's a kind of snap-to-fit to recognising things in the world. Our sofa continues being our sofa because we have a platonic form or subjective template of our sofa, and when we receive stimuli in just the right configuration it snaps-to-fit to that form. When we navigate around the world we walk through that net of interrelationships, snapping-to-fit as we go. We see our friend "Victoria" and recognise her as such, because all the stimuli are close enough to her platonic form that it's good enough - and she's also in the right place at the right time (i.e. in relation to everything else around you). She may be having an off day or wearing new clothes, but it's still her isn't it? Maybe she has a twin? Yet, it's not a complete answer, because somehow even if we're existing in a platonic snap-to-fit world, stuff just keeps on coming back, and not only that that set of interrelationships between things in our environment seems to be quite stable. There seems to be this conspiracy in our subjective experience to create a stable world seemingly separate from it. Why?

Programming can be quite lucrative if you're interested in money. Working in the industry, at least for a year or two will give you decent experience and cash. Then you'll have a good grounding for working for yourself and your own projects. You don't need a degree for coding, I don't use mine for my day job at all. If you're interested in simulating physics for moving bodies with gravity in three dimensions, it's actually relatively simple to set up. Probably ChatGPT could do a decent job of it in the language of your choice.

I've do have an engineering degree and I develop web projects for my day job, so, yes to both. But I'm into in many many things. Scientists simulate whole galaxies, and indeed the universe, so I'm sure it's been investigated. Off the top of my head (although I don't know for sure), I'd say three bodies lying on a circle the same distance apart will follow each around - as long as the three bodies are identical and you start them off with the same velocities. That's because all the forces will be equal and unchanging on each body. Since force = mass x acceleration then the acceleration will also be unchanging (all bodies in circular motion are under constant acceleration).

Interesting. I think the Three Body Problem simply put is that there is no closed form solution to the equations, so no final equation you can plug numbers into to predict the motion. You can predict the motion with numerical methods (i.e. an algorithmic simulation), but this could diverge from reality over time due to inaccuracies in the initial numbers and resolution of the simulation. An external body C's trajectory also may not pass through the space between the bodies A and B, but some way off to the side. Two bodies will revolve around a barycentre, which is a centre of mass of the A and B system. So it may not have a figure eight configuration if this happens. Exponential growth and decay (damping), is closely linked to oscillation, in that they're both instances of solutions to differential equations: essentially equations that feedback into themselves. This comes from the infinite series expansion of the exponential function, from which can derive both the exponential function and trigonometric functions. Basically any oscillation is the tug of war between two opposing exponential actions/forces. Circles and ellipses arise out of the motions because these are oscillatory motions, the opposing forces being inertia and gravity. The case of gravity is interesting, because bodies must somehow "communicate" their presence to each other. Since the force between two bodies is dependent on their distance to each other, this distance must somehow be communicated between bodies (i.e. force or warping of spacetime). But no communication can happen instantly, and so there is always a lag dependent on distance. The upshot is that the force felt between two bodies is not the instantaneous force, but a delayed one. For example if the Sun suddenly disappeared, it would take 8 minutes for that gravitational effect on Earth to "update". Ultimately, this is the cause of gravitational waves and frame dragging. If you want to simulate things correctly, this effect needs to be taken into account. Gravity can also not be shielded from (that we know of), so it has infinite reach - everything tugs on everything else in the universe. So there are no instances of an isolated system, and any simulation can only ever be an approximation, even if you had infinite precision. I'd say there isn't much difference between a two body problem and three body problem. Both will suffer from numerical precision problems. You can't know initial conditions with complete accuracy and you can't compute most functions with complete accuracy either, even with a closed form solution. The exponential function is an infinite series of computations. But there will be solutions to the three body problem which are closed form and so form stable orbits.

Reminds me of this:

I seem to have entered another "chatty" phase in my never ending journal. Anyway. When my mum passed away - now four years, yikes - I took the stuff that had some sort of sentimental value or attachment from my childhood home. I knew at the time that whatever I didn't take would be lost forever. Whilst clearing her place, there were one or two things that I expected to see, which were missing. Maybe my mum gave them to my sister years earlier. Mostly it was jewellery, and especially my gold baby bracelet inscribed with my name. I also did manage to displace my first school satchel and first school books in the clear out, and so lost them forever, which makes me kind of sad. She had a bunch of photos (2000 odd), which I wanted to share with my family, so I began the never ending process of scanning them and uploading them on Google Photos to share. It did strike me as a bit odd at the time that I was saving something tangible and long lasting, by "saving" them in an intangible ephemeral way - and which would succumb to time first? the digital or the analogue. As well as sharing and archiving for posterity, it was a kind of personal archaeology. I was able to connect back to the events and people that had made me who I am now, and got reminded of who I used to be. That youthful me is still inside me, both in a sense of being a kind of separate entity, but also how he still influences the me now. I'm a chimera of the old and the new. Surrounding myself with those memories makes that younger me "come back" to an extent and I also see a number of similarities in circumstances between my teenaged self and myself nearly forty years later. I do wonder what my dad and sister experience when looking at those same photos. Most of it feels like a very familiar but now foreign land, both in memory and in culture and in my identity. There were also books and magazines. These also make me remember what I was into when I was a kid. The usual boy stuff I suppose, dinosaurs and planets, ancient history, computers, maths and adventure books; the famous five, and sci-fi, the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, Br'er Rabbit and Rupert the Bear. I scan through them occasionally to get glimpse of my old self again, and compare how different I am now to him. But some of those same interests never really waned. I also found a load of cassette tapes which have been gathering dust the past four years (and probably decades more than that!). I had to buy a new cassette recorder to play them - I had an old cassette Walkman, but it was inconvenient to use. On them were a mix of music mostly recorded from radio, which my sister had done in the early nineties. And I also found a copy of a tape that I'd remembered but had been lost, it made me kind of laugh to play it, it's so ridiculous: Klaus Wunderlich on his organ - look it up. There were plenty of computer tapes too. I still have a working computer that I could load them on to, but not an appropriate cable, and I don't like to fire it up too often now for fear of something unfixable breaking on it. I use an emulator on my PC instead. But what to do about scanning the tapes so I could play them on the emulator instead? I wrote a program on the PC to convert the sound waves on the cassette into digital bits and bytes, it mostly works ok - how does linear regression and standard deviation sound, maths, I love it. I was reminded of what I was doing probably forty years ago now. In one of the files I found a diary I'd kept for about two weeks, with very quick and short entries: Fri, went swimming at school, Mon, met up with John - that sort of thing. I worked out I would have written that in January 1984, blimey. My grammar and syntax were so different then, very "London" - I'm so much posher now, lmao. I don't know why I'm so intrigued by this sort of personal archaeology. It's perhaps because soon after I went to university, there was an abrupt disconnection from my childhood, and despite just still being a teenager at 19, I very quickly became an adult and closer to the current version of me. I wasn't aware enough at the time what had happened, and was just happy to be someone new. Now all this time later I can reconnect and patch over that abruptness in my life. It's an ongoing process, so I can become whole again.

Relationships are complicated. There's definitely unconditional love: giving each other time, care and attention freely. Just the fact that you're both in a relationship is love itself. But there's also conditional love - showing love in the right way to each other, keeping an account of how much each person does for each other, and how much each act is worth - i.e. reciprocation. And there's also nearly always an underlying expectation about who your partner should be, how they should be acting and whether they fit the archetype in your head - and they're constantly being assessed against this template. True unconditional love is hard, and probably unreasonable.

People are flaky all the time for all sorts of reasons. Just hold yourself to your own standards and use yourself as an example to others. Learning to detach from expecting other people to be like you, will make your happier. You should always have a plan B knowing that people might flake on you.