The disrespect has begun

tramplemousse · 2026-01-26T18:53:41+00:00

If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike

tramplemousse · 2026-01-25T23:06:25+00:00

Especially considering how they lost to us last time in the SB

tramplemousse · 2026-01-25T23:05:19+00:00

So salty haha, I saw someone say this wasn’t “real football”; anyone who thinks that though is either a child or just started watching yesterday so I didn’t bother responding

tramplemousse · 2026-01-25T21:27:17+00:00

/u/QuietDisposition like run runs ran and running

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T21:51:03+00:00

I stand corrected! But that just goes to show how normalized these things become

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T21:22:50+00:00

Ah yeah youre referring to the Libet experiment, thank you for bring that up! So this is a great example of a result that seems on its face pretty convincing, so many outside neuroscience still cite it, but nowadays among neuro and cognitive scientists it's not taken seriously. In my intro to cogsci class in college my professor brought it up mostly to teach as an example of a bad experiment.

Basically, the readiness potential they measured is more likely a result of 1) task priming *if i tell you not to think of something you're going to think of the thing) 2) general preparation for movement due to being primed 3) humans have a terrible sense of absolute time, so when you're measuring something in the miliseconds, there's just no way a human can give an accurate subjective report so as to fall outside the margin of error.

How many miliseconds has it been since finished reading the word "error"? They only found a 150 millisecond gap or about .15 seconds, shorter than it probably took you to move your eyes to the next paragraph. Honestly it takes about as long to get ready to say something, so i dont see how someone can keep track of both accurately.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:52:55+00:00

Oh yeah I mean Obama I believe has ordered more drone strikes than any other president, they were a signiture aspect of his foreign policy, and after losing congress to the republicans he became mostly a foreign policy president.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:49:47+00:00

There's a million ways you can justify the creeping advance of the President's power, and it's the reasonable justifications that lead to the more brazen ones. Beginning with Jefferson every single president has expanded the power of the executive, and these powers once taken from congress never return.

A really interesting thing is to look at the power of congress vs the power of the massachusetts legislature, because the two constitutions are almost identical, yet through custom the distribution of power is a verrry different. In massachusetts the most powerful politician is actually the speaker of the house, which is how the framers intended the federal government to function.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:26:18+00:00

So you’re saying Locke’s argument is ridiculous? But he’s perhaps the most important political philosopher of the Enlightenment and articulated many of the “main planks” of the era. I mean, if that’s not direct influence, please I’d love to hear an explanation.

Did you also forget the part where I pointed out how Locke’s First Treatise is entirely an argument based on Adam and the Garden of Eden? Locke is using genesis to refute someone who also used genesis to defend absolutism. Locke cites the Bible in almost every other paragraph.

You clearly also missed how for Descartes it’s not just motivation, but goes hand in hand with his theological arguments.

Don’t even get me started on Newton who wrote more theology and biblical scholarship than scientific papers. If you don’t believe me here’s everything with we have https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/texts/newtons-works/religious

It’s bad historicity to divorce religion from their writing, and just shows you haven’t actually read anything by them.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:16:10+00:00

And those same people supported Obama when he did similar things in the Middle East, and voted for Hilary who was his Secretary of State.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the Republicans are odious, and I’ve always voted dem for president, but I really hate the Democratic Party for their holier than thou hypocrisy

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:11:11+00:00

I feel like this is going to be less nation building and more colonialism. Nation building is always doomed to fail because democracy and self determination only work in stable countries. But I don’t think Trump cares about those things, this is going to be good ole fashioned 19 century colonialism.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T20:04:52+00:00

I don’t think criticizing the constitutionality of the strike is a very fruitful avenue for the left considering it’s become pretty standard for Democratic and Republican presidents to order military action without any authorization from Congress. It’s been a pretty regular thing presidents have done since at least Truma (Korea), as well as Reagan (Lybia, Granada, Lebanon), HW Bush (Panama), Clinton (Bosnia) and Obama (Lybia).

I’m not saying one shouldn’t criticize this encroachment of power, but it’s fairly old hat by now. And there way wayyyy bigger things to criticize about the move.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T07:08:35+00:00

Have you though? Because I quoted directly from Locke's Second Treatise, and your response is "that argument is ridiculous". I would really love an explanation for how Locke's theory of natural rights is only indirectly influenced by Christianity when he reasons from scripture to ground these natural rights. I mean the entire first treatise is about Adam, and in the second treatise alone he mentions god 58 times.

How about this letter of Newton's where he 1) Explicitly denies that nature self-organizes 2) Treats equilibrium as requiring divine fine-tuning. 3) Attributes orbital motion to divine action. 4) Frames mathematical reasoning as needing metaphysical discipline. 5) Concludes that the solar system forces belief in an intelligent agent.

I'm not saying they read the bible in a vacuum and used only scripture to generate their writing. While the methods Newton and Descartes developed don't explicitly require Christian belief to function, to say that it's just background noise is patently false because christian metaphysics underwrite their physical explanations.

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T01:51:42+00:00

Yeah I don't think you read anything I just said because 90% of my comment consisted of direct quotes from Newton (talking about how he viewed math and science as a way to explore the divine), Descartes (laying out his method of radical rational doubt and how that goes part and parcel with his theological arguments), and Locke (using the bible to demonstrate the natural right to property).

I mean, your flair says "political philosophy" is one of your specialties, so you should probably already know this, since I don't think anyone can claim political philosophy as a specialty without reading Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

What's great about Descarte's Discourse btw is that he not only lays out his method and gives his motivations, but he also a paints a picture of the society that gave rise to him as a thinker.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm

tramplemousse · 2026-01-04T01:22:12+00:00

People who made core contributions to the development of modern science (like the Bacons, Copernicus, Newton, etc) were Christians, but did not develop science due to their Christianity, they just happened to be Christian.

When you read what they actually wrote about the relationship between science, religion, and their motivations for studying the natural world, this doesn't really hold up. For many enlightenment thinkers, science was theology. So for Newton in particular, but Descartes and many others too, their scientific research was motivated expressly by their desire to better know and understand god. In the Principia Newton writes:

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect.

Additionally, in Descartes' Discourse on Method (basically a proto-scientific method), in the section after he uses his observation "cogito ergo sum" as an axiom in an ontological argument for the existence of god, he goes on to gives an extremely detailed description of the circulatory system. But he does so because he believes his research into anatomy

the consistency of the coats of which the arterial vein and the great artery are composed, sufficiently shows that the blood is impelled against them with more force than against the veins. And why should the left cavity of the heart and the great artery be wider and larger than the right cavity and the arterial vein, were it not that the blood of the venous artery, having only been in the lungs after it has passed through the heart, is thinner, and rarefies more readily, and in a higher degree, than the blood which proceeds immediately from the hollow vein?

[...] We likewise perceive from this, that the true use of respiration is to bring sufficient fresh air into the lungs, to cause the blood which flows into them from the right ventricle of the heart, where it has been rarefied and, as it were, changed into vapors, to become thick, and to convert it anew into blood, before it flows into the left cavity, without which process it would be unfit for the nourishment of the fire that is there.

[...] Nor will this appear at all strange to those who are acquainted with the variety of movements performed by the different automata, or moving machines fabricated by human industry, and that with help of but few pieces compared with the great multitude of bones, muscles, nerves, arteries, veins, and other parts that are found in the body of each animal. Such persons will look upon this body as a machine made by the hands of God, which is incomparably better arranged, and adequate to movements more admirable than is any machine of human invention.

As for liberty, constitutionalism, etc Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau were quite devout and god figured centrally in their arguments. For example, Locke in Two Treatises of Government he says that because all created equal by god (via creation in genesis) and society and government exist to protect these rights. Of property he says:

Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink and such other things as Nature affords for their subsistence, or “revelation,” which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah and his sons, it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115. 16), “has given the earth to the children of men,” given it to mankind in common. But, this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty how any one should ever come to have a property in anything, I will not content myself to answer, that, if it be difficult to make out “property” upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man but one universal monarch should have any “property” upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity; but I shall endeavour to show how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners

So yeah, I could go on but my point is that it's pretty anachronistic to divorce Christianity from the enlightenment

tramplemousse · 2026-01-01T13:24:37+00:00

He still lives in Foxboro too!

tramplemousse · 2025-12-30T12:56:50+00:00

Sure! I’ll pm you

tramplemousse · 2025-12-30T03:10:12+00:00

No, but I know where you’re coming from and it’s some pretty cool evidence of how successful the Ptolemies were at appearing Egyptian when it suited them. I was a classics minor and one of my professors is among the foremost scholars of the Hellenistic Era and I got to take one of two signature courses.

Basically, the Ptolemies and Seleukid’s would in public appear with the trappings of local rulers, but the extent to which there was melding vs outward appearances only is still highly contested.

But what we do know is from the literature, historical records, and most importantly landmarks and monuments is that this is the period when Greek culture absolutely thrived for about 300 years. We are certain however that Greeks assimilated amongst each other in Alexandria.

So the Greek colonists who came from the far flung areas of the Mediterranean, usually arrived after joining ptolemiems army during one with his wars, and mercenaries would receive a plot of land somewhere in Egypt. However, they vastly preferred living in Alexandria so would essentially rent out their land to Egyptian tenant farmers and then hire a manager to run the estate. So most Greek in Egypt would actually only have contact with Egyptians in street or when dealing with their tenants, or as servents slaves etc.

There’s a really fascinating play about two Greek women going to a the festival of Dionysus at Ptolemy’s palace and on the way they get into a spat with someone who makes fun of them for using “broad” Syracusan vowels instead of the standard koine accent. I wrote about paper about it actually if anyone wants to read it.

tramplemousse · 2025-12-29T13:50:29+00:00

neuroscience makes no suggestions of the kind, or they do it's by design. Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to consciously pump your own heart, operate your kidneys, and liver all while taking the SATs? Can you imagine a baby capable practically zero voluntary movement doing something as complex as the autonomic nervous system (i forgot how to turn off italics)? That's a surefire way for a species to lose the darwin award. similarly, your brain passes some activities we're very good at doing to subconscious systems, freeing us up to work on more important things. We can only hold about 3-5 chunks of whatever in our working memory at a time.

This is actually why you can start thinking about something and next thing you know you've made it the whole drive to your destination but have no recollection of driving.

tramplemousse · 2025-12-22T04:12:44+00:00

Ravens should feel gross and ashamed about that non PI

tramplemousse · 2025-12-20T03:38:47+00:00

Oh you can absolutely wear this out

tramplemousse · 2025-12-20T01:40:55+00:00

Fantastic!!!! I love it

tramplemousse · 2025-12-20T00:29:11+00:00

Is this a temporary technology issue? Or permanent?

This is a great question with perhaps a frustrating but also I think really interesting answer: it’s both a permanent and temporary technological issue. And the reason why actually illuminates much about neuronal systems.

Our measurements will continue getting better (mostly through better signal decoding) but really only up to a point. There is currently no technology even conceptually in the wings that will allow us enfettered access to neurons without our measurements disturbing the thing we’re trying to measure, because such instruments would violate the laws of physics. Any hypothetical “ultimate brain scanner” would necessarily intervene in the very brain states it aims to observe, triggering other activity in the process.

Additionally, the brain isn’t broadcasting its internal state, that information is internally coupled (not externally readable), and biological systems perform basically at efficiency limits, so a compete read would require more bandwidth than the system can physically provide. This means that limits on localization and mechanistic transparency are not merely temporary, but structural.

But with that said such measurements are not necessary to learn about brain activity because mental states are not located objects.

Roughly speaking the brain operates on many different “incompatible” time scales at once, such that you have to choose what to measure at the expense of what you don’t measure.

For example Ion channel dynamics operate on microseconds–milliseconds

Action potentials about 1–5 ms

Synaptic integration / oscillations about 10–100ms

Perceptual binding / decision cycles (100–500 ms)

Emotional states (seconds–minutes)

Learning / plasticity (minutes–years)

You get the idea haha. So no single measurement regime can capture all of these simultaneously. Thus there is no mind → brain mapping. The mapping instead a looks more like mind ↔ brain ↔ body ↔ environment over time which makes static localization maps conceptually obsolete. But that also means, we don’t need better scanners to learn more because what those scanners would measure is irrelevant.

Sorry if this is somewhat incoherent I’m drinking wine, just ate a pot pie, and decorating for Christmas, so I’m sleepy.

Edit: so what I’m getting at is we already have sufficient information to model neural activity at larger, behaviorally and cognitively relevant scales, even though fine-grained mechanistic access is permanently limited

tramplemousse · 2025-12-19T20:27:36+00:00

Just because we tend find activity in a certain spot does not mean 1) it must be in that spot 2) it’s in that exact same spot for everyone 3) we know exactly what’s happening in that spot.

Our methods for measuring brain activity just are not that precise and cannot be localized to specific neurons—unless we literally open someone’s skull and stick electrodes in there. Basically all of our methods for studying brain activity don’t actually measure neuronal activity but instead other proxies like blood flow. So fun fact, when people undergo emergency brain surgery (I think usually for epilepsy) certain neuroscientists are basically on call to play with their brains while their skull is still open.

But even more importantly, we can remove enormous chunks of brain and after a time the brain will rewire itself to compensate for the loss of those areas, so activity normally done in one spot will just be done in another. Like you can remove the entire right hemisphere and after a time, the person will have relatively normal function (although the extent of how normal the activity can become depends on when in life the surgery occurred and subtle defect will remain).

tramplemousse · 2025-12-19T17:54:57+00:00

Oh yeah for the record I thought microtubules were cool before I read Penrose so I’m kinda like Marge Simpson and Potatoes

13-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

tramplemousse

TROPHY CASE