Who knows~?


The thing is (re: Axel and I in comments) …

The `scientific` explanation for what a human is, just doesn’t work.
It is not really-so-much `a bad explanation` … it just isn’t any sort of explanation at all.

I don’t want to have the first guess as to what this means … but, that `we the humans` live in some sort of `matrix` is a more reasonable explanation of what we are.


Post-Fed Calm in Treasuries Masks a Raging Bulls-Bears Debate


A comment at Coppola

I’m afraid you still don’t get it – being right about the economics (and I would dispute that you are, but lets assume for the purposes of argument that you are) does not trump democracy. If Brexit is going to be an economic disaster then we will have to find out the hard way, otherwise we can chuck any pretence of democracy in the bin and just tell people ‘Look, you can have a vote every few years about whether the bins are collected weekly or fortnightly, but you can never really change anything fundamental about how the nation is run, because we clever people have already decided the best course of action and you’re all too stupid to understand we’re right, so thats what you’re getting, like it or lump it’ That at least would be honest.

For example in 1945 the country voted for (or rather about 47% of the country voted for) socialism. For the Common Ownership of the Means of Production, a massive step change in how the economy of the nation was to be organised. Now I’m sure there were people who opposed this policy with righteous (and ultimately correct) fervour, however that did not give them the right to tell all the people who had voted Labour that they were wrong about socialism, that it would not prove to be the Land of Milk and Honey they were promised, and indeed would eventually prove to be far inferior to free market capitalism at creating wealth for all. Or demand that those votes be ignored because of the manifest stupidity of those who made them. No, we had to find that out the hard way ourselves, because thats what democracy means.

Its very alluring, the idea that ‘I know best what the country needs, so ignore the votes of of the idiot masses and listen to MEEEE!!!’ but if you have an ounce of historical perspective you can see where it leads.


Strong growth for top Chinese investments in UK

The most-favoured sector for Chinese acquisitions in the UK is property, accounting for 44 per cent of the value of deals announced between 2012 and the end of the first half of 2016.


Quote from the last druggy link

Scientists have learned far more about the causes of addiction than many people realize. In his book In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts, Dr. Gabor Maté writes about the importance of childhood development in the formation of addiction. Children who experience too much stress at an early age, especially those who face early disruption of care or childhood trauma, do not properly develop opioid receptors in their brains. The effects last into adulthood, when these patients begin to fixate on the chemical rewards for any behavior from shopping to heroin injection. Many do not choose innocent fixations — among adolescent substance abusers, three in four experienced at least one childhood trauma. Far from being the result of any innate failings, their addictive behavior is the result of their experiences and the environments in which they were brought up.




  • Axionication3

    Who indeed.

    The ‘matrix’ description (without the alien overlords) is probably closest to the way I ‘think’ we are.

    • I really haven’t given `the matrix idea` any thought.
      As-I-say … it, as a general `starting point` seems to hold more promise than anything else I have thinked of.

      I guess I should give it some thoughts.

  • axel1million

    Yes some sort of matrix. It took me a long long time to even consider this to be a possibility. Probably because of what my programming was telling me ‘matrix nonsense’ etc etc.

    Linked to this before but here it is again as a ‘refresh’:-


    • I guess that I feel a little daunted by this subject. I clicked the link … saw I had seen it before … realized I was going to watch it again … and clicked on FT Alphaville and started reading an Izzie post on Starbucks.

      I’ll get there later … for sure … probably … yes … for sure …

      • axel1million

        I believe there is no one who would not be daunted by the subject.
        …and people who would say they are not daunted, probably don’t don’t even begin to understand what it means.

        It is because it’s daunting that we think about it!

    • Okay, I watched it (again) … but can’t get into-it, due to my complete ignorance of what they might be talking about.

      (and it is not the sort-of-subject that one can `learn` quickly)

      I can imagine that it would have to be math that leads on this, because the words we have are just too shit to imagine them leading anywhere but around-and-around.

      • axel1million

        I think understanding the mathematical concepts would be enough to get one started.
        Words can then be used to manipulate the concepts.
        In fact Steven Hawking came up with some sort of ‘mathematical shorthand’ to speed up his understanding of the universe.He thought his time was too limited to go through everything in the usual manner.

        • axel1million

          Heres one!
          If exercise is so good for one, how come Stephen Hawking is still going at 75?
          Considering he hasn’t moved in 50 years?

          • axel1million

            “Life would be tragic if it weren’t funny.”

        • It was only last week that I finally gave away `A brief history of time`.
          I was not going to read it again.

          Mathematics is just not my thing.

          • axel1million

            Not a lot of mathematics in that book.

            Your last sentence is just programming.
            I remember Shakespeare was not my thing in school, then something changed and now its a great thing! All is programming!

          • Axionication3

            In that case here’s one for you then.
            (I have to take the people’s word for it that it is super dooper clever as I hardly understand what is being said).

            It’s a massive ‘get’ article for me as it bring to mind ‘the glass bead game’.
            (And for the fact that I find the man interesting. Like I would a magician or trapeze artist)
            ((And for the fact that it is vaguely ‘matrixie’))


            • I read (most) of the article.
              It was like reading french poetry … I kinda understood some of the words.

              One thing that came-to-mind, was the mathematics of early quantum shit.
              They (someone) had to chuck `infinity` in on one side to make it all `balance`.
              It shouldn’t have been there, but it was the only way to `make it work`.

            • axel1million

              There is only one word, every other word is derived from the one.
              There is only one electron, all the others are copies.
              There is only one consciousness.
              There is only one one.
              …and then there is none.

            • I guess you have seen this … but anyway (it is nicely done) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hel5V-gST5g&t=717s

              • Axionication3

                Misses ( I think) and I will watch it over the weekend.
                (Not familiar with it (besides now having read up on it))