From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/10/2025 04:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 05:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/10/2025 20:33, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 03:04:41 -0400, c186282 wrote:

    TODAY, pretty much. YESTERDAY they did just fine without a huge QM >>>>     pre work-up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Electrons_and_Holes_in_Semiconductors_with_Applications_to_Transistor_Electronics

A good first introduction to quantum level stuff

  But they didn't build the thing using any
  of that theory - they just had some hunches
  and banged-together some bulk materials to
  see what would happen. The theoretical
  stuff came later.

I think you should read up on exactly what did happen.
--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

  Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
  than the pith of the matter ???

  *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
  to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
  you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.
Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up a mathematical model that allowed its idealised
regularity to be expressed exactly.

  Might involve more formal 'models', but sometimes
  it's just a collection of factoids that tend to
  compel a decision. SOMEday somebody will be able
  to cobble them into a 'model' with fine equations.

Things, and theories. Facts and hypotheses. It is important to work out
where something belongs.

They do not exist in the same flat space. Theories are like pointers,
Facts are the data.

Theories tell you what the data ought to be, if the theory is correct.

Of course, you can never prove that it is, only if it isn't.

  "Science" as we know it is actually NOT all that
  old. A good set of facts and models did not take
  shape until the early 1800s for the most part.
  'Mystic'/alchemical shit was liberally mixed in
  until then.

Whether you called it science or not, it goes back to the dawn of humanity.

Its *shorthand*. Its the grouping of data into blocks that have a single
name and assigning a ruleset to it.

Wood burns. Rocks do not. Except when they do.

  Consider Shelly's "Frankenstein" - 1818 - which
  blended some of the New Science/facts with some
  older notions about "life force" and "souls"
  and such. She was a keen observer and mixed with
  all the Top People. That WAS the state of "science"
  at the time.

Frankly that is the state of [popular] science now, sadly.
--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/10/2025 05:47, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 16:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:01:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-19, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

They'd better start working on that 600 IQ thing.
We're going to need it sooner than expected.

Given the amount of effort being made by the Powers That Be to dumb down >>> the general public - and the success of same -
I wouldn't hold my breath.

“IQ” is crap.

  Umm ... I'd tend to disagree. For sure we know
  it when we see it - it IS something.

  Exact quantification ... that's much fuzzier.
  "IQ" is kind of the best that can be done.
  I'm very good at some intellectual tasks, but
  crap at others ... a very jagged profile.

  I have met a very few however that are good
  at basically *everything* - and they're very
  impressive. Oddly not too many hold high
  or especially influential positions ... and
  the ones that do tend to be total assholes  :-)

  Briefly met one guy who ... did you ever see
  that movie "Lucy" ... who could sort of "see"
  all the math in and behind everything. He
  was NOT very "stable" alas ... but WOW what
  a view he had. SOMEBODY paid him good money
  as well, never sure what FOR ....

  Computer universe ... also knew a guy who would
  re-write popular computer games for 6502-based
  systems. He did it totally in Machine Code
  using a PET platform. Said it gave him a buzz.
  Again, a "Sheldon-ish" kind of guy.

IQ was developed to identify men who could see abstract patterns in
things quickly and accurately, as it was found they made the best
officers in the military.
It was then found that it was fairly good at separating out people who
would benefit from a more intense and theoretical education.

It measures something.

However it was found that certain cultures did not traditionally benefit
from it, and the survivors of those cultures did not exhibit it. Since
this was against the dogma of New Socialism, IQ was quietly dropped,
and efforts were made to ensure that everybody got Full Marx.
--
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless argument.

Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up  a mathematical model that allowed its idealised regularity to be expressed exactly.

The main mistake people make with models is knowing when to apply them
and when not. When the simplification is OK, and when it isn't

   Might involve more formal 'models', but sometimes
   it's just a collection of factoids that tend to
   compel a decision. SOMEday somebody will be able
   to cobble them into a 'model' with fine equations.

Things, and theories. Facts and hypotheses. It is important to work out where something belongs.

They do not exist in the same flat space. Theories are like pointers,
Facts are the data.

Theories tell you what the data ought to be, if the theory is correct.

Of course, you can never prove that it is, only if it isn't.

Theories/science allow you to make predictions. Popper falsification and whatnot. Popper is good enough for me until something cleverer comes along.

   "Science" as we know it is actually NOT all that
   old. A good set of facts and models did not take
   shape until the early 1800s for the most part.
   'Mystic'/alchemical shit was liberally mixed in
   until then.

Whether you called it science or not, it goes back to the dawn of humanity.

Its *shorthand*. Its the grouping of data into blocks that have a single name and assigning a ruleset to it.

Wood burns. Rocks do not. Except when they do.

   Consider Shelly's "Frankenstein" - 1818 - which
   blended some of the New Science/facts with some
   older notions about "life force" and "souls"
   and such. She was a keen observer and mixed with
   all the Top People. That WAS the state of "science"
   at the time.

Frankly that is the state of [popular] science now, sadly.

The state of theoretical physics is pretty dire, too. Too much politics.
One of the things that really upset me as a software developer was when
I had to start accounting for my time, day to day, week to week. Early
in my career, I was given time to experiment and fail, as long as I
produced something occasionally. On new projects, I was given a month or
two to mess around. In some later jobs, I was expected to report
constant incremental progress. So I gave up experimenting, gave up on ambitious stuff. People suggest something similar happened in physics.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless argument.

Invented of course.

Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up  a mathematical model that allowed its idealised
regularity to be expressed exactly.

The main mistake people make with models is knowing when to apply them
and when not. When the simplification is OK, and when it isn't

Agreed.
AND when the pointers to data are mistaken for the real data.

   Might involve more formal 'models', but sometimes
   it's just a collection of factoids that tend to
   compel a decision. SOMEday somebody will be able
   to cobble them into a 'model' with fine equations.

Things, and theories. Facts and hypotheses. It is important to work
out where something belongs.

They do not exist in the same flat space. Theories are like pointers,
Facts are the data.

Theories tell you what the data ought to be, if the theory is correct.

Of course, you can never prove that it is, only if it isn't.

Theories/science allow you to make predictions. Popper falsification and whatnot. Popper is good enough for me until something cleverer comes along.

Exactly. Popper reinvented Kant by the back door.,
[,,,]

The state of theoretical physics is pretty dire, too. Too much politics.
One of the things that really upset me as a software developer was when
I had to start accounting for my time, day to day, week to week. Early
in my career, I was given time to experiment and fail, as long as I
produced something occasionally. On new projects, I was given a month or
two to mess around. In some later jobs, I was expected to report
constant incremental progress. So I gave up experimenting, gave up on ambitious stuff. People suggest something similar happened in physics.

In academia it is publish or perish, and the grants go to people
supporting the current political narrative.

Look at Svensmark. Almost lost his job for suggesting that other things
than CO2 might also affect climate. Now sponsored by a lager
manufacturer IIRC

Quantum physics is waiting for a Kuhnian 'paradigm shift'.

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the material
world as an emergent property of consciousness and the quantum world,
hold sway.

Even bloody Penrose despite his equations telling him its that way,
can't accept it and always falls back into a classical worldview.
--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 01:09:47 -0400, c186282 wrote:

LLMs and related are a sort of different way to emulate "IQ". They
are a sort of "fake", built- up emulations/rules based on seeing how
millions of humans think about such things.

Note that if you fake something WELL ENOUGH it's not really "fake"
anymore ... we're almost approaching that point with the LLMs now.

As a thought experiment, how much human discourse is really group think constructed from social clues?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:42:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 20:52:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro
wrote:

“IQ” is crap.

[IQ] measures something.

The “Q” stands for “quotient”. It’s a number from a division, multiplied
by 100, so the number 100 stands for “normal”.

The two numbers being divided are your so-called “mental” age (derived from the IQ test) and your actual age.

So, somebody who is, say, 40 years old, with a genius-level IQ of 150,
must have a “mental” age of 40 * 150 / 100 = 60. Does that make sense to you?

That’s why “IQ” is crap.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:46:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the material world as an emergent property of consciousness and the quantum world,
hold sway.

Consciousness is an illusion. The Zen Buddhists worked that out centuries
ago, modern psychology is gradually coming to agree.

Even bloody Penrose despite his equations telling him its that way,
can't accept it and always falls back into a classical worldview.

Feel free to tell us which of these “equations” tell us about “the material world as an emergent property [that is in any way dependent upon] consciousness”, and how exactly they do so.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 04:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.
Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up  a mathematical model that allowed its idealised regularity to be expressed exactly.

   Might involve more formal 'models', but sometimes
   it's just a collection of factoids that tend to
   compel a decision. SOMEday somebody will be able
   to cobble them into a 'model' with fine equations.

Things, and theories. Facts and hypotheses. It is important to work out where something belongs.

They do not exist in the same flat space. Theories are like pointers,
Facts are the data.

Theories tell you what the data ought to be, if the theory is correct.

Of course, you can never prove that it is, only if it isn't.

   "Science" as we know it is actually NOT all that
   old. A good set of facts and models did not take
   shape until the early 1800s for the most part.
   'Mystic'/alchemical shit was liberally mixed in
   until then.

Whether you called it science or not, it goes back to the dawn of humanity.

Its *shorthand*. Its the grouping of data into blocks that have a single name and assigning a ruleset to it.

Wood burns. Rocks do not. Except when they do.

We're looking at the same thing ... but from
slightly different angles.

Still looking for Groknar's theoretical work-up
for inventing the lever on a cave wall :-)

   Consider Shelly's "Frankenstein" - 1818 - which
   blended some of the New Science/facts with some
   older notions about "life force" and "souls"
   and such. She was a keen observer and mixed with
   all the Top People. That WAS the state of "science"
   at the time.

Frankly that is the state of [popular] science now, sadly.

Almost, alas. Of course now there are 'space aliens'
to credit/blame for everything - no more metaphysics
required :-)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 04:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:47, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 16:52, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:01:22 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-19, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

They'd better start working on that 600 IQ thing.
We're going to need it sooner than expected.

Given the amount of effort being made by the Powers That Be to dumb
down
the general public - and the success of same -
I wouldn't hold my breath.

“IQ” is crap.

   Umm ... I'd tend to disagree. For sure we know
   it when we see it - it IS something.

   Exact quantification ... that's much fuzzier.
   "IQ" is kind of the best that can be done.
   I'm very good at some intellectual tasks, but
   crap at others ... a very jagged profile.

   I have met a very few however that are good
   at basically *everything* - and they're very
   impressive. Oddly not too many hold high
   or especially influential positions ... and
   the ones that do tend to be total assholes  :-)

   Briefly met one guy who ... did you ever see
   that movie "Lucy" ... who could sort of "see"
   all the math in and behind everything. He
   was NOT very "stable" alas ... but WOW what
   a view he had. SOMEBODY paid him good money
   as well, never sure what FOR ....

   Computer universe ... also knew a guy who would
   re-write popular computer games for 6502-based
   systems. He did it totally in Machine Code
   using a PET platform. Said it gave him a buzz.
   Again, a "Sheldon-ish" kind of guy.

IQ was developed to identify men who could see abstract patterns in
things quickly and accurately, as it was found they made the best
officers in the military.
It was then found that it was fairly good at separating out people who
would benefit from a more intense and theoretical education.

It measures something.

"Some things".

But it's not a great measure of lifetime performance
in (barely) any line of endeavor. "Suggestive" only.

Of course for military expediency ...

I did mention that some the the very smartest people
I've ever met did NOT do "much" ... they were kind
on the 'philosophical overview' their intelligence
made possible, but engaged to a minimum.

However it was found that certain cultures did not traditionally benefit from it, and the survivors of those cultures did not exhibit it. Since
this was against the dogma of New Socialism, IQ was quietly dropped, and efforts were made to ensure that everybody got Full Marx.

Well, THAT'S what's important ! And the less
intelligence the better eh ? :-)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 08:54, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless argument.

Even now, an amazing amount of cool stuff is found
more or less by ACCIDENT ... "We noticed THIS while
looking for THAT".

Some of the "AI" research approaches may tend to
replicate this phenom.

In any case, "the prepared mind" is still one of our
most valuable resources - whether it's silicon or
organo-goop.

Mr. Natural places 'theory' before practice. In some
cases he's right, in many cases he's wrong. With the
very latest nano-scale stuff 'theory' DOES kind of
take the lead now, but the old hands-on let's-try-this
approach will remain very valuable. Write up the
math later on.

Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up  a mathematical model that allowed its idealised
regularity to be expressed exactly.

The main mistake people make with models is knowing when to apply them
and when not. When the simplification is OK, and when it isn't

"Models" -vs- Math. When it comes to QM type calx
they CAN lead you to the promised land. However
very complex systems need "models" and they CAN
lead you astray. Many are complicated enough that
personal/political biases can get woven in - and
that's going to be true for the "AI" as well.

So, if you want a hint of the junction between
a boron nitride monolayer and a graphene sheet
then QM may be the best starting point. Super
duper new stuff will come from this zone of
inquiry. So I'm not pissing on The Math at all,
just noting that ham-handed approaches also
produce LOTS of new sci-tech.

   Might involve more formal 'models', but sometimes
   it's just a collection of factoids that tend to
   compel a decision. SOMEday somebody will be able
   to cobble them into a 'model' with fine equations.

Things, and theories. Facts and hypotheses. It is important to work
out where something belongs.

They do not exist in the same flat space. Theories are like pointers,
Facts are the data.

Theories tell you what the data ought to be, if the theory is correct.

Of course, you can never prove that it is, only if it isn't.

Theories/science allow you to make predictions. Popper falsification and whatnot. Popper is good enough for me until something cleverer comes along.

   "Science" as we know it is actually NOT all that
   old. A good set of facts and models did not take
   shape until the early 1800s for the most part.
   'Mystic'/alchemical shit was liberally mixed in
   until then.

Whether you called it science or not, it goes back to the dawn of
humanity.

Its *shorthand*. Its the grouping of data into blocks that have a
single name and assigning a ruleset to it.

Wood burns. Rocks do not. Except when they do.

   Consider Shelly's "Frankenstein" - 1818 - which
   blended some of the New Science/facts with some
   older notions about "life force" and "souls"
   and such. She was a keen observer and mixed with
   all the Top People. That WAS the state of "science"
   at the time.

Frankly that is the state of [popular] science now, sadly.

The state of theoretical physics is pretty dire, too. Too much politics.
One of the things that really upset me as a software developer was when
I had to start accounting for my time, day to day, week to week. Early
in my career, I was given time to experiment and fail, as long as I
produced something occasionally. On new projects, I was given a month or
two to mess around. In some later jobs, I was expected to report
constant incremental progress. So I gave up experimenting, gave up on ambitious stuff. People suggest something similar happened in physics.

Well, 'economic issues' also exist ... can't keep
paying people who never seem to produce anything :-)

'Physics' in the big picture ... been out of that
sphere too long so I can't say from experience.
However I am aware that 'quantification' - be it
results or just lots of paper - has increased in
quantity, enough to suffocate. Managers are EXPECTED
to show 'progress' even if they have zero clue what
the research is about or for.

The System is a bit broken (well, nothing THAT new there)
but its become broken in a very negative way.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 18:58, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:42:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 20:52:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro
wrote:

“IQ” is crap.

[IQ] measures something.

The “Q” stands for “quotient”. It’s a number from a division, multiplied
by 100, so the number 100 stands for “normal”.

The two numbers being divided are your so-called “mental” age (derived from the IQ test) and your actual age.

So, somebody who is, say, 40 years old, with a genius-level IQ of 150,
must have a “mental” age of 40 * 150 / 100 = 60. Does that make sense to you?

That’s why “IQ” is crap.

It was meant for evaluating 'youth' so they
could lock them into some or another education
line/factory.

Means nothing if applied to an older person.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 19:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:46:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the material
world as an emergent property of consciousness and the quantum world,
hold sway.

Consciousness is an illusion. The Zen Buddhists worked that out centuries ago, modern psychology is gradually coming to agree.

Look, we evolved in an environment where chasing
little rodents and digging up roots - while watching
for dangerous predators - was THE main requirement.
Our senses, our minds, are tuned for THAT.

We will always see the universe through "human-
colored glasses".

We get a sort of 'estimation' about the Real World
that fits our kind of being. It's useful, but not
the Whole Picture by far.

Even bloody Penrose despite his equations telling him its that way,
can't accept it and always falls back into a classical worldview.

Feel free to tell us which of these “equations” tell us about “the material world as an emergent property [that is in any way dependent upon] consciousness”, and how exactly they do so.

Material as "emergent" ... try Wolfram's "A New Kind
Of Science". It 'emerges' as the result of 'strings'
humming in tune.

Our 'perception' is what it is. Our 'understanding'
is as much as it CAN be for our kind of life. Chanting
under a tree may SEEM to improve that ... but at best
it seems to reveal our limits rather than extending them.

Our instrumentation and methods CAN at least extend our
view a little - but it's not the same as being inherently
wired to *perceive* such things.

Oh, food for thought ... those "dangerous predators" ...
WAS the beasties for a long time but soon became
OTHER PEOPLE. Now you had to compete with your
mirror image - required a new and stronger kind
of intelligence.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:22:27 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Still looking for Groknar's theoretical work-up for inventing the
lever on a cave wall

There is a new theory how the heads on Easter Island were moved from the quarry to their sites. It was sort of a rocking motion on the base
facilitated by the CG offset from the big noses. I doubt a physics major designed the system. Awarak might have had a short life testing the beta version when it rocked too far and pinned him to the earth with its nose.

Hmmm, that image brought to mind a scene from Southern & Hoffenberg's
'Candy'. I had a girlfriend, Candace, who went by the name Candy. I
thought she might enjoy the book. She didn't.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 00:13:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Our 'perception' is what it is. Our 'understanding'
is as much as it CAN be for our kind of life. Chanting under a tree
may SEEM to improve that ... but at best it seems to reveal our
limits rather than extending them.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/guppies-optical-illusion-doves

It says something that humans fall for the same illusion as guppies.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:58:56 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:42:39 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 20:52:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

“IQ” is crap.

[IQ] measures something.

The “Q” stands for “quotient”. It’s a number from a division, multiplied
by 100, so the number 100 stands for “normal”.

The two numbers being divided are your so-called “mental” age (derived from the IQ test) and your actual age.

So, somebody who is, say, 40 years old, with a genius-level IQ of 150,
must have a “mental” age of 40 * 150 / 100 = 60. Does that make sense to you?

That’s why “IQ” is crap.

You're about 100 years behind the curve. Binet and Simon developed a test
for French school children. There were tasks that could be performed by
the 75% of the 8, 9, 10, etc year olds. If Child X completed the 10 year
old tasks and stumbled at the 11 year old tasks, his mental age was 10 regardless of his chronological age. The test was designed to filter out
the retards. It was revise several times in the early 1900's to include
tests for older children and to better classify the slow. Stern devised
the ratio to normalize the scores and coined the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ William_Stern_(psychologist)#Intelligence_quotient

The Stanford Binet was an American revision and there quite a few other
tests like the WAIS but they are scores like a SAT normalized on the
infamous bell curve, not any indication of mental age particularly in
adults.

I was tested when I was four because my mother was trying to enroll me in kindergarten which had an age requirement of five. I talked to the nice
man, did some little tasks, and wound up in first grade with the six year olds. Skipping kindergarten probably fucked up my socialization and it was
a real pain in the ass being 2 years younger than everyone else through
your entire school career.

All I'll say about it is I've only met one self-proclaimed Mensa member
and that was at an AA meeting.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 23:52:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

It was meant for evaluating 'youth' so they could lock them into some
or another education line/factory.

In Binet's original work with French school children it was meant to
separate out idiots, imbeciles, morons, and normal kids. At the time those were technical descriptions. Can't use 'retard' anymore either so I don't
know what the proper terminology is for them except we seem to be breeding them in some sort of societal second law of thermodynamics. Entropy
increases and it isn't reversible once the gene pool is sufficiently
polluted.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 00:36, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:22:27 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Still looking for Groknar's theoretical work-up for inventing the
lever on a cave wall

There is a new theory how the heads on Easter Island were moved from the quarry to their sites. It was sort of a rocking motion on the base facilitated by the CG offset from the big noses.

It WOULD work - and, though requiring coordination,
WOULD get it done. Slow but sure. No football or
blockbuster movies ... what else did they have
to do ?

We can see the quarries where the Moa were carved
out ... still a few 'partials'. No wheels, not even
enough good wood for rollers ... so yea, 'rock' them
across the island.

"They walked" was a fair later description.

I doubt a physics major
designed the system. Awarak might have had a short life testing the beta version when it rocked too far and pinned him to the earth with its nose.

They kind of thought about it and then TRIED.
Likely a few screw-ups at the beginning. It'd
have been a bitch to push-up the ones that fell
during the 'walk'. Best to invent a "walking song"
to keep everyone in coordinated harmony.

Hmmm, that image brought to mind a scene from Southern & Hoffenberg's 'Candy'. I had a girlfriend, Candace, who went by the name Candy. I
thought she might enjoy the book. She didn't.

Almost before my time alas ...

The Wiki says it was one of the earlier post-war
'dirty books' however. I'm no Puritan ... 'dirty
books' are just fine :-)

Once gave a book, I think entitled "Merlin", to a
smart girl. Afterwards she acted like she was
offended by the content - but she DID read the
whole thing :-)

Natural politics oft compels women to pretend
they're asexual. Seems they're as horny as any
teenaged male really - but CAN'T SHOW IT.



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 00:44, rbowman wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 00:13:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Our 'perception' is what it is. Our 'understanding'
is as much as it CAN be for our kind of life. Chanting under a tree
may SEEM to improve that ... but at best it seems to reveal our
limits rather than extending them.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/guppies-optical-illusion-doves

It says something that humans fall for the same illusion as guppies.

As said, we are what we are, wired like we're wired.
We see 'reality' through our 'human-colored glasses".

Space aliens ... they'll see it through THEIR color
of glass .....

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 01:31, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 23:52:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

It was meant for evaluating 'youth' so they could lock them into some
or another education line/factory.

In Binet's original work with French school children it was meant to
separate out idiots, imbeciles, morons, and normal kids. At the time those were technical descriptions. Can't use 'retard' anymore either so I don't know what the proper terminology is for them except we seem to be breeding them in some sort of societal second law of thermodynamics. Entropy
increases and it isn't reversible once the gene pool is sufficiently polluted.

Uh oh ... sounds like some 'eugenics' rhetoric !!!

Look, people fucked people - most ANY people and
some Neanderthals too - since forever. There is
no 'pollution' of the gene pool ... it was ALWAYS
a rough random mix.

The IQ tests weren't really even needed - except
for 'administrative' purposes. Easy enough to tell
a total idiot from someone 'average' from someone
'really up there' by just talking to them for
fifteen minutes - less time than The Test required.

But govts like things 'quantified' somehow - even
if the method is pretty crap. Bureaucracy is one
of the eternal constructs.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 21/10/2025 20:13, rbowman wrote:

As a thought experiment, how much human discourse is really group think constructed from social clues?

Nearly all of it. If you try to say anything outside the current popular worldview people just give you funny looks
--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 05:36, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 22:22:27 -0400, c186282 wrote:

Still looking for Groknar's theoretical work-up for inventing the
lever on a cave wall

There is a new theory how the heads on Easter Island were moved from the quarry to their sites. It was sort of a rocking motion on the base facilitated by the CG offset from the big noses. I doubt a physics major designed the system. Awarak might have had a short life testing the beta version when it rocked too far and pinned him to the earth with its nose.

Hmmm, that image brought to mind a scene from Southern & Hoffenberg's 'Candy'. I had a girlfriend, Candace, who went by the name Candy. I
thought she might enjoy the book. She didn't.

As a person who was doing practical things before I studied engineering,
there is a process involved in achieveing technological objectives.
First you need to imagine - I stress that bit - imagine - how it might
be done, and then if you have the training, work out if your method contravenes any laws of physics or chemistry, and then try an do it.
People without formal knowledge skip the second bit and it takes them
longer. And they often fail altogether.
--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 04:17, c186282 wrote:

  Even now, an amazing amount of cool stuff is found
  more or less by ACCIDENT ... "We noticed THIS while
  looking for THAT".

And the noticing it the thing. What we do, is pattern recognition.

And use it to perform data compressions.
So that a few terabytes of experience goes into 3 bytes called 'CAT' and
its good enough to be useful .
Same with 'gravity'

  Some of the "AI" research approaches may tend to
  replicate this phenom.

  In any case, "the prepared mind" is still one of our
  most valuable resources - whether it's silicon or
  organo-goop.

Well yes.

  Mr. Natural places 'theory' before practice. In some
  cases he's right, in many cases he's wrong. With the
  very latest nano-scale stuff 'theory' DOES kind of
  take the lead now, but the old hands-on let's-try-this
  approach will remain very valuable. Write up the
  math later on.

I don't prefer anything. I merely pointed out that most modern
inventions are driven by physics or chemistry whereas most historic ones
were just muddled through.

Rocks fell and planets moved before Newton.
Newton dreamed up  a mathematical model that allowed its idealised
regularity to be expressed exactly.

The main mistake people make with models is knowing when to apply them
and when not. When the simplification is OK, and when it isn't

  "Models" -vs- Math. When it comes to QM type calx
  they CAN lead you to the promised land. However
  very complex systems need "models" and they CAN
  lead you astray. Many are complicated enough that
  personal/political biases can get woven in - and
  that's going to be true for the "AI" as well.

Maths is what you make the models with, at some levels.

  So, if you want a hint of the junction between
  a boron nitride monolayer and a graphene sheet
  then QM may be the best starting point. Super
  duper new stuff will come from this zone of
  inquiry. So I'm not pissing on The Math at all,
  just noting that ham-handed approaches also
  produce LOTS of new sci-tech.

And waste lots of time and money,

  Well, 'economic issues' also exist ... can't keep
  paying people who never seem to produce anything :-)

Why not,. It stops them bing politicians, or traffic warden, at least...

DUP . The Department of Useless People

  'Physics' in the big picture ... been out of that
  sphere too long so I can't say from experience.
  However I am aware that 'quantification' - be it
  results or just lots of paper - has increased in
  quantity, enough to suffocate. Managers are EXPECTED
  to show 'progress' even if they have zero clue what
  the research is about or for.

  The System is a bit broken (well, nothing THAT new there)
  but its become broken in a very negative way.

I think that people are dimly beginning to recognise that all the stuff
that worked quite well in the 20th century isn't working now, and they
are casting about for people who actually have solutions, rather than promising them and failing to deliver...
--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 06:57, c186282 wrote:

  The IQ tests weren't really even needed - except
  for 'administrative' purposes. Easy enough to tell
  a total idiot from someone 'average' from someone
  'really up there' by just talking to them for
  fifteen minutes - less time than The Test required.

The test was far harder to cheat at.
I've seen so many people get given good grades by teacher, because they
were likeable, because they slept with them, because daddy threw a fat
brown envelope at them...

An impersonal IQ test that has 'right' and 'wrong' answers is simple and reasonably effective.

  But govts like things 'quantified' somehow - even
  if the method is pretty crap. Bureaucracy is one
  of the eternal constructs.

IQ tests measure the subjects ability to recognise patterns. To create
simple theories.

In short *inductive* thinking. Other tests can measure deductive ability
and still others can indicate who is good at memorising loads of shit
without questioning it.

Or running faster.

At certain times in our evolution all these things have been useful.
Take medicine for example, as a diagnostician you need to have absorbed enormous quantities of 'facts' about human biology and chemistry. As a
surgeon you need nerves, self confidence and a steady hand, as a
pharmacist you need to know every single drug on the market and its
effect on every other, and its side effects.

None of these demand a super high IQ. Just a reasonable one and a good
memory and some physical adeptness.

But quantum physicists at the bleeding edge need to come up with
creative hypotheses to explain what is clearly not totally random
behaviour, but absolutely has a discernible pattern. That no one can
explain. Rote learning doesn't work here at all. You need IQ,
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 05:13, c186282 wrote:

On 10/21/25 19:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 15:46:04 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the material >>> world as an emergent property of consciousness and the quantum world,
hold sway.

Consciousness is an illusion. The Zen Buddhists worked that out centuries
ago, modern psychology is gradually coming to agree.

  Look, we evolved in an environment where chasing
  little rodents and digging up roots - while watching
  for dangerous predators - was THE main requirement.
  Our senses, our minds, are tuned for THAT.

  We will always see the universe through "human-
  colored glasses".

  We get a sort of 'estimation' about the Real World
  that fits our kind of being. It's useful, but not
  the Whole Picture by far.

Even bloody Penrose despite his equations telling him its that way,
can't accept it and always falls back into a classical worldview.

Feel free to tell us which of these “equations” tell us about “the
material world as an emergent property [that is in any way dependent
upon]
consciousness”, and how exactly they do so.

  Material as "emergent" ... try Wolfram's "A New Kind
  Of Science". It 'emerges' as the result of 'strings'
  humming in tune.

That's the kind of thing, It isn't equations of course, its metaphsyics.
I.e. 'Let's pretend that there are tow independent principles in the
world. One is called Quantum fields, and the other is called perception.
Is there enough in this model to construct the perception of a matarial
world in space time?'

Rather than 'lets pretend that the material world is the foundation of everything and its exactly like we see it, and consciousness is just
ripples on its surface'.

Or 'Let's pretend that everything is the manifestation of some Gigantic Purpose and we dont need yo know more than that to go along with it and
be happy'

Our minds and science are all about 'let'sp[retend' that something we
cant see directly exists, and see if that way of looking at stuff works
for us.

  Our 'perception' is what it is.

But not what it can be .

Our 'understanding'
  is as much as it CAN be for our kind of life.

I don't believe that to be the case We are simply too busy or too lazy
to go beyond nececessity for the most part.

Chanting
  under a tree may SEEM to improve that ... but at best
  it seems to reveal our limits rather than extending them.

I think revealing te limits that are self imposed is a very useful
trick. Some things can be changed.

  Our instrumentation and methods CAN at least extend our
  view a little - but it's not the same as being inherently
  wired to *perceive* such things.

The question of how inherent that wiring is, is moot.

Try Rupert Sheldrake for example. He considers that thge experiences of
one member of society be it birds bees or British, impinges
subconsciously on the experience of other members.

So e.g. people in Montana wont think the same way - nor even perceive
the same way - as people in urban San Francisco.

They are so to speak running different editions of the operating system.
And the updates are absorbed *directly* at a subliminal level. From
people around you.

  Oh, food for thought ... those "dangerous predators" ...
  WAS the beasties for a long time but soon became
  OTHER PEOPLE. Now you had to compete with your
  mirror image - required a new and stronger kind
  of intelligence.

No need to compete at all these days. There is enough to go round. If
you are not greedy.

Happiness is a state of mind and has little bearing on how much stuff
you have.
Once you achieve financial security, life doesn't have to be about
anything at all.


"Mrs. Betty Pench was playing the trombone when she heard a knock on the
door. "I wonder who that is at 11 o'clock in the morning?" she thought,
and cautiously opened the door. Instead of the turbaned ruffian she
expected she found a very nice young man. "Mrs. Pench, you've won the
car contest, would you like a Triumph Spitfire or three thousand in
cash?" She smiled. Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it
all, not that it's any of my business?" he giggled. "I think I'll become
an alcoholic," said Betty"

Rhinocratic Oaths, by the Bonzo Dog Doodah Band from the milestone album
'The Doughnut In Granny's Greenhouse'
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 06:49, c186282 wrote:

  As said, we are what we are, wired like we're wired.

You really should try booting a different OS/firmware.
--
“Ideas are inherently conservative. They yield not to the attack of
other ideas but to the massive onslaught of circumstance"

- John K Galbraith


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 06:19, rbowman wrote:

All I'll say about it is I've only met one self-proclaimed Mensa member
and that was at an AA meeting

I worked for one, Complete cunt. Obsessed with his image. Not really intelligent at all. I suspect he cheated.

I know what real IQ looks like because I have met many with IQs over 160
etc etc.

As well as many who are less.
--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/21/25 15:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless
argument.

Invented of course.

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.



[snip]

Exactly. Popper reinvented Kant by the back door.,

Dunno about that, I'm not a great philosopher, it is mostly too vague
for me to be comfortable with. I like very simple stuff.

[,,,]

The state of theoretical physics is pretty dire, too. Too much
politics. One of the things that really upset me as a software
developer was when I had to start accounting for my time, day to day,
week to week. Early in my career, I was given time to experiment and
fail, as long as I produced something occasionally. On new projects, I
was given a month or two to mess around. In some later jobs, I was
expected to report constant incremental progress. So I gave up
experimenting, gave up on ambitious stuff. People suggest something
similar happened in physics.

In academia it is publish or perish, and the grants go to people
supporting the current political narrative.

It is worse than that. It is the need to publish quantity that denies
people the time to work on quality. I don't know the solution. I know
that if people aren't checked up on, they tend to slack off. But, if
people are constantly fearful and accounting for their time, they won't
have the energy left over to make a real break through.

Look at Svensmark. Almost lost his job for suggesting that other things
than CO2 might also affect climate. Now sponsored by a lager
manufacturer IIRC

Quantum physics is waiting for a Kuhnian 'paradigm shift'.

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the material world as an emergent property of consciousness and the quantum world,
hold sway.

Yeah, I don't really understand consciousness. I don't know enough to
comment on when and why the wave function collapses.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 22/10/2025 14:50, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 15:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless
argument.

Invented of course.

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.

Well no, they are *inherent* in the definition of what mathematics and geometry are...
They are part of the metaphysics...

Yeah, I don't really understand consciousness. I don't know enough to comment on when and why the wave function collapses.

Well that, too, is only a metaphor.



--
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

- Leo Tolstoy


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-10-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 22/10/2025 05:13, c186282 wrote:

  Oh, food for thought ... those "dangerous predators" ...
  WAS the beasties for a long time but soon became
  OTHER PEOPLE. Now you had to compete with your
  mirror image - required a new and stronger kind
  of intelligence.

No need to compete at all these days. There is enough to go round.
If you are not greedy.

Unfortunately, back in the 1980s greed was redefined as a virtue.
It's only gotten worse since.

Happiness is a state of mind and has little bearing on how much stuff
you have.
Once you achieve financial security, life doesn't have to be about
anything at all.

Sonds good to me.

"Mrs. Betty Pench was playing the trombone when she heard a knock on the door. "I wonder who that is at 11 o'clock in the morning?" she thought,
and cautiously opened the door. Instead of the turbaned ruffian she
expected she found a very nice young man. "Mrs. Pench, you've won the
car contest, would you like a Triumph Spitfire or three thousand in
cash?" She smiled. Mrs. Pench took the money. "What will you do with it
all, not that it's any of my business?" he giggled. "I think I'll become
an alcoholic," said Betty"

Rhinocratic Oaths, by the Bonzo Dog Doodah Band from the milestone album 'The Doughnut In Granny's Greenhouse'

Gotta look that one up. I always had a soft spot for them. In the
early '70s I had garnered the nickname "Spaceman", and I was working
for an outfit named "Urban Computers Ltd." So I _was_ the Urban Spaceman.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

All I'll say about it is I've only met one self-proclaimed Mensa member
and that was at an AA meeting.

I refuse to join any club which would have me as a member.
-- Groucho Marx
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 11:38:43 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 20:13, rbowman wrote:

As a thought experiment, how much human discourse is really group think
constructed from social clues?

Nearly all of it. If you try to say anything outside the current popular worldview people just give you funny looks

Obviously no funny looks being exchanged here!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 15:01:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 14:50, Pancho wrote:

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.

Well no, they are *inherent* in the definition of what mathematics and geometry are...
They are part of the metaphysics...

Feel free to demonstrate the truth of that.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc



On 10/22/25 11:03, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

All I'll say about it is I've only met one self-proclaimed Mensa member
and that was at an AA meeting.

I refuse to join any club which would have me as a member.
-- Groucho Marx

I had a very close friend for a few years who thought Mensa was the thing. He refused to believe in his mental illness and killed himself
off his
medication.

Unlike Groucho I do not join clubs lightly but make an exception for LUGs.

bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.10 Linux 6.12.54-pclos1- KDE
Plasma 6.5.0
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 06:38, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 20:13, rbowman wrote:

As a thought experiment, how much human discourse is really group think
constructed from social clues?

Nearly all of it. If you try to say anything outside the current popular worldview people just give you funny looks

Don't forget stakes and burning ....


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 07:12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 06:57, c186282 wrote:

   The IQ tests weren't really even needed - except
   for 'administrative' purposes. Easy enough to tell
   a total idiot from someone 'average' from someone
   'really up there' by just talking to them for
   fifteen minutes - less time than The Test required.

The test was far harder to cheat at.
I've seen so many people get given good grades by teacher, because they
were likeable, because they slept with them,  because daddy threw a fat brown envelope at them...

An impersonal IQ test that has 'right' and 'wrong' answers is simple and reasonably effective.

Note that, in the USA anyhow, IQ tests are mostly
administered to children - grade six or less. The
kiddies (hopefully) aren't banging the teachers
and only a very few daddies have those big brown
envelopes full of cash.

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my
status changed from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey,
I'm kind of a spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing
and such, the system thought I was an idiot because
I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

   But govts like things 'quantified' somehow - even
   if the method is pretty crap. Bureaucracy is one
   of the eternal constructs.

IQ tests measure the subjects ability to recognise patterns. To create simple theories.

In short *inductive* thinking. Other tests can measure deductive ability
and still others can indicate who is good at memorising loads of shit without questioning it.

Yep. Understand.

Or running faster.

If you want quick success in the USA, be good
at "running faster" - preferably holding some
kind of athletics-related ball. Then they don't
care if you can add two and three :-)

At certain times in our evolution all these things have been useful.
Take medicine for example, as a diagnostician you need to have absorbed enormous quantities of 'facts' about human biology and chemistry. As a surgeon you need nerves, self confidence and a steady hand, as a
pharmacist you need to know every single drug on the market and its
effect on every other, and its side effects.

Ability to absorb lots of facts IS important - medicine
and especially law. You need just enough other abilities
to kind of put those facts into a useful framework.

Now 3000+ years ago there weren't all that many "facts".
Maybe some THOUGHT they had them, but, really, not so much.

3000 years from now ... how many of our 'facts' will be
dusty useless artifacts to muse over and insult ? :-)

None of these demand a super high IQ. Just a reasonable one and a good memory and some physical adeptness.

Almost nobody HAS a "super high IQ" ... 120 is
actually pretty smart and good enough for almost
everything.

But quantum physicists at the bleeding edge need to come up with
creative hypotheses to explain what is clearly not totally random
behaviour, but absolutely has a discernible pattern. That no one can explain. Rote learning doesn't work here at all. You need IQ,

QM and ultra-math DO have an important place, more tomorrow
than yesterday. As said, I'm not shitting on that - only
mentioning that alt approaches can also still be very useful.
Theory is good for very specific aims, but sometimes the
problems are just super-messy or vague.

Found a news blurb today ... a new spectral chip ... the pixels
change their spectral sensitivity depending on how much voltage
you apply to a given channel. You can both use a LOT of light
AND get a very narrow spectrum profile. This is not much "let's
fool around" but required a lot of theoretical pre-analysis.
Should be great for tomorrow's cameras too, maybe better than
the current CMOS/layer approach.

I suspect ye and me will always have a different 'perspective'
on this issue. Doesn't mean we're opposites though, just looking
from slightly different angles.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2025-10-23, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my
status changed from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey,
I'm kind of a spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing
and such, the system thought I was an idiot because
I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I'm sure I had an IQ test or three during my school years.
I never did find out the results - apparently they were
secrets almost as tightly kept as the nuclear codes.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 09:50, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 15:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 09:37, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 05:31, c186282 wrote:

On 10/20/25 15:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/10/2025 20:30, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/20/25 11:55, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:02:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>>>>>>

Science is not about knowing or knowledge,
It is about models of knowledge.

Knowledge models are something quite different.

     Science is about various modes of learning the facts

No it isnt

Its about concocting models that explain the facts

   Are we arguing about the fine semantics rather
   than the pith of the matter ???

   *I* see "science" as "The Path" - the Best Way
   to find new knowledge and be as sure As Possible
   you have it right.

It doesn't actually find any new knowledge. It *constructs* it.

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless
argument.

Invented of course.

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.

[snip]

Exactly. Popper reinvented Kant by the back door.,

Dunno about that, I'm not a great philosopher, it is mostly too vague
for me to be comfortable with. I like very simple stuff.

[,,,]

The state of theoretical physics is pretty dire, too. Too much
politics. One of the things that really upset me as a software
developer was when I had to start accounting for my time, day to day,
week to week. Early in my career, I was given time to experiment and
fail, as long as I produced something occasionally. On new projects,
I was given a month or two to mess around. In some later jobs, I was
expected to report constant incremental progress. So I gave up
experimenting, gave up on ambitious stuff. People suggest something
similar happened in physics.

In academia it is publish or perish, and the grants go to people
supporting the current political narrative.

It is worse than that. It is the need to publish quantity that denies
people the time to work on quality. I don't know the solution. I know
that if people aren't checked up on, they tend to slack off. But, if
people are constantly fearful and accounting for their time, they won't
have the energy left over to make a real break through.

Look at Svensmark. Almost lost his job for suggesting that other
things than CO2 might also affect climate. Now sponsored by a lager
manufacturer IIRC

Quantum physics is waiting for a Kuhnian 'paradigm shift'.

Personally I think it will come when the people that regard the
material world as an emergent property of consciousness and the
quantum world, hold sway.

Yeah, I don't really understand consciousness. I don't know enough to comment on when and why the wave function collapses.

I don't think anything REALLY collapses ... other
than our indeterminate MODEL.

To the universe we're just another rock, not masters
of reality.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc



On 10/22/25 21:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-23, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my
status changed from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey,
I'm kind of a spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing
and such, the system thought I was an idiot because
I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I'm sure I had an IQ test or three during my school years.
I never did find out the results - apparently they were
secrets almost as tightly kept as the nuclear codes.

Well I had one in HS 1951-55. I had 138 but had a hard time
wrapping my head around advanced math. This was an RC HS and
I think they told us about it to encourage some of us.

There was a lot prudery in that era, about not only sex, but
physical and mental illness. Otherwise they & i might have gotten a
handle on my bipolar illness much sooner. There was no specific
treatments at that time for many conditions both ordinary and mental
illnesses so I had measles, rubella and maybe whooping cough.

bliss - not even a candle in the wind.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/23/25 00:45, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 10/22/25 21:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-23, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

    I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my
    status changed from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
    A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey,
    I'm kind of a spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing
    and such, the system thought I was an idiot because
    I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I'm sure I had an IQ test or three during my school years.
I never did find out the results - apparently they were
secrets almost as tightly kept as the nuclear codes.

        Well I had one in HS 1951-55.  I had 138 but had a hard time
    wrapping my head around advanced math.  This was an RC HS and
    I think they told us about it to encourage some of us.

138 is damned good. The ACCURACY, who knows - but that
high a general figure looks very good.

I'm around 130 ... with a few performance gaps, esp math.

In any case, 120+ is good enough for almost anything except
high theoretical math. Very little of the pop gets to 120.

As I said somewhere, I have met a few individuals in the 200
range. Only one was more or less 'normal' - all-around with
no obvious side effects. Often it seems you gain some things
but lose others in the process.

        There was a lot prudery in that era, about not only sex, but
    physical and mental illness.  Otherwise they & i might have gotten a
    handle on my bipolar illness much sooner.  There was no specific
    treatments at that time for many conditions both ordinary and mental
    illnesses so I had measles, rubella and maybe whooping cough.

I've got that Nordic/Danish gene ... can't even
imagine what 'depression' or 'bi-polar' is. The
further you get from that gene pool the worse
it gets.

As for the 'childhood diseases', those are making a
big come-back, mostly due to RFK in the USA. He's
kind of generally insane IMHO ......

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 23/10/2025 04:57, c186282 wrote:

I suspect ye and me will always have a different 'perspective'
  on this issue. Doesn't mean we're opposites though, just looking
  from slightly different angles.

Of course.
Everyone has their own worldview, similar to but not identical with,
everyone else's,
Only socialism sees that as a major problem.
Where I came from the name of the game was finding out what people were
good at and helping them achieve their potential.

IQ tests were a tool in that process.
--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 23/10/2025 05:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-23, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my
status changed from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey,
I'm kind of a spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing
and such, the system thought I was an idiot because
I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I'm sure I had an IQ test or three during my school years.
I never did find out the results - apparently they were
secrets almost as tightly kept as the nuclear codes.

They did whisper mine. But you wouldn't believe it if I told you.
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 23/10/2025 05:32, c186282 wrote:

Yeah, I don't really understand consciousness. I don't know enough to
comment on when and why the wave function collapses.

  I don't think anything REALLY collapses ... other
  than our indeterminate MODEL.

Of course. That is a way of talking about something we don't really have
words for or direct experience of.

In my own mind (assuming it still is in fact mine)...I think of it as a *transform*...you start with one set of data organised with respect to a particular axis, and then map it onto a different co-ordinate set and -
voilà - the 'material world' springs into existence.

  To the universe we're just another rock, not masters
  of reality.

To us, the universe is just another perception,..:-)
--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 10/22/25 15:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 14:50, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 15:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless
argument.

Invented of course.

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.

Well no, they are *inherent* in the definition of what mathematics and geometry are...
They are part of the metaphysics...

No, they are not an artefact of the mathematical language. The idea of
natural numbers, addition, multiplication, exponents are natural. Any
language would develop similar ideas. The mathematical constants Pi and
e will occur in any language. They are discovered.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 23/10/2025 09:43, Pancho wrote:

On 10/22/25 15:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 22/10/2025 14:50, Pancho wrote:

On 10/21/25 15:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 21/10/2025 13:54, Pancho wrote:

Is mathematics discovered or invented? I think it is a pointless
argument.

Invented of course.

But fundamental constants, like e and pi, just are. The relationships
just exist, regardless of our inventing them.

Well no, they are *inherent* in the definition of what mathematics and
geometry are...
They are part of the metaphysics...

No, they are not an artefact of the mathematical language.

I didn't say they were.

The idea of
natural numbers, addition, multiplication, exponents are natural. Any language would develop similar ideas. The mathematical constants Pi and
e will occur in any language. They are discovered.

They are an artefact of the worldview which includes mathematics.
--
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 23:57:11 -0400, c186282 wrote:

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my status changed
from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey, I'm kind of a
spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing and such, the system thought
I was an idiot because I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I had one at 4 in my mother's attempt to get me into kindergarten. I don't remember any past that until college. There was a project to assess the predictability of success form tests and I wound up in the group selected
for the study. We had to show up a week before the freshman class started
for about a week of every test they could dig up. At the end of the week
we met individually with one of the administrators to discuss the results. Among other things he counseled me to find a career in science, not engineering. Probably his bias but he considered engineers to have
adequate intelligence but not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

I had a deja vu years later when a prospective employer sent me off for a battery of tests. The shrink said I was certainly capable and that's what
he would tell the employer but off the record he told me I'd be bored out
of my mind and I really belonged in some place like Lincoln Labs. I took
the job anyway and lasted three months.

My high school career probably classified me as dull. Then came the SATs, National Merit Scholarship exams, and the NYS Regents scholarship exam.
There probably was a heated discussion in the faculty lounge along the
lines of 'Oh fuck! I suppose we have to let him into the National Honor Society'.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 03:22:59 -0400, c186282 wrote:

I'm around 130 ... with a few performance gaps, esp math.

I did okay but my math was significantly lower than my verbal. Today they would have put me 'someplace on the spectrum'. I'm adequate in the
mechanics of math but I really don't think that way. My spatial skills
aren't great either. More than once I've managed to make two left handed pieces for a project and I have to pay close attention when laying out a circuit board.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:05:56 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 23/10/2025 05:06, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2025-10-23, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

I didn't get an IQ test until grade 6. Overnight my status changed
from "dull" to "gifted underachiever".
A couple of other (longer) tests after that. Hey, I'm kind of a
spectrum 'geek', don't love socializing and such, the system
thought I was an idiot because I wasn't all "perky" and "likable".

I'm sure I had an IQ test or three during my school years.
I never did find out the results - apparently they were secrets almost
as tightly kept as the nuclear codes.

They did whisper mine. But you wouldn't believe it if I told you.

Many of my teachers didn't believe mine as I skated through with minimal effort unless a subject interested me. My grammar school report cards
usually had 'no' checked for 'keeps busy at worthwhile activities'. My activities damn well were worthwhile, just not what they expected or
approved of.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2