subject:"The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing"

One thing wrong with the US constitution is that the right to bear arms
meant muskets and flintlock pistols at the time, but has been extended to,
for example, semi-automatic weapons. The people who wrote it were only
aware of single-shot weapons, even the colt revolver hadn't been invented!
If they're so keen to extend the original meaning to what are in effect
weapons of mass destruction, why not, say, let citizens build nuclear bombs
if they want to?


On 8 October 2013 09:58, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

 Bruno: you wrote:

 *The US constitution is very good, but is not really followed, and things
 like prohibition have put bandits into power, who have broken the important
 separation of powers.*
 *Lobbying and the role of money in politics should be revised. But we are
 a bit out of topic here, I think.*
 *
 *
 Out of topic of everything? OK, OK, I know. But the US Constitution
 (IMO) HAS BEEN very good in a 300+ year old societal view - drawn by
 duelling, pipe-smoking, hunting male chauvinist slave-owner despots to
 organize the 'colonies' NOT TO PAY taxes to the King of England. Now, the
 Supreme Court's oldies (probably younger than me) valuate the 18th c.
 language for the 21st c. life in a many times skewed sense.
 *Lobbying *I call buying votes for a special interest, *money* is not
 talk and *corporation* is not a 'person' (as e.g. a citizen). And so on.
 JM


 On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 06 Oct 2013, at 18:08, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often
 just to get enough funding to survive.

 Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

 Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question!

 *How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert
 itself in beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an
 integral part of research. *
 *
 *
 *For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more
 fundamental question than knowledge itself.*

 ---

 I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily.


 Ha Ha ... That reminds me when my father told me that truth is what
 humans fear the most and like the less.



 What they aim at, is like any living being, and in fact, like any stable
 dynamic auto-regulated structure, is * to reduce uncertainty*.


 The humans oscillate between security/certainty/control and
 freedom/uncertainty/universality. Basically that is why we vote, to have a
 sort of equilibrium in between.




 That fit with many considerations at different levels, and embrace
 conclussions of evolution, game theory, computability, social science
 psychology and entropy.


  That explain how knowledge interact with power (and money and you wish)
 and faith. As I will explain:

 To reduce uncertainty can be achieved adquiring pure knowledge of the
 world around in order to predict better the future.

 But it can also be achieved by adquiring for themselves money or power,
 or love from other people, or commitment from tem, or respect, or common
 commintment to something or someone.

 The fact is that pure knowledge is not enoug. Money is not enough, power
 is not enough, since neither of them work without a committed society that
 make use of this knowledge in an organized way, that respect the money
 value and other properties, that has fair mechanism for adquiring power and
 legitimacy, and more that that, a society with a  clear plan for our
 sibiling and generations to come.

 Thinking materialistically (I´m not but for a matter of argument) there
 is no social vehicle for our genes if the society have all these
 requirements, and, more important, no people that had not these
 requirements ullfilled survived, so we have inherited this natural seeking
 for all these kinds of uncertainty reduction mechanism around us.

 Some societies make enphasis in one kind of uncertainty reduction. Others
 rely more in other different in this equation. These different uncertainty
 reduction alternatives are one against the other. A strict hiearchi of
 power and legitimacy based on an enforced supernatural plan is a excellent
 uncertainty reduction for a stable society that does not need to change. In
 the other side, adquring knowledge is good, but that may challenge the
 structure, questionin legitimacies and creating civil wars, that can be
 pacific or violent. When there is no common plans nor loyaltyes, the
 pacific disputes become violent almos by defintion.

 A lot of philosophy on all their branches can be extracted from this
 starting point.


 The US constitution is very good, but is not really followed, and things
 like prohibition have put bandits into power, who have broken the important
 separation of powers.

 Lobbying and the role of money in politics should be revised. But we are
 a bit out of topic here, I think.

 Bruno







 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 10/7/2013 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:
One thing wrong with the US constitution is that the right to bear arms meant muskets
and flintlock pistols at the time, but has been extended to, for example, semi-automatic
weapons. The people who wrote it were only aware of single-shot weapons, even the colt
revolver hadn't been invented! If they're so keen to extend the original meaning to what
are in effect weapons of mass destruction, why not, say, let citizens build nuclear
bombs if they want to?

The second amendment was adopted by people who had just fought as rebels against the army
of an oppressive government. So their intent was plainly to ensure that any new central
government could be overthrown as well should it become oppressive. So the arms an
individual should have a right to bear would be the same as those issued to individual
soldiers in the military, i.e. assault rifles (which are issued to everyone in
Switzerland). Because of the media coverage of rare multiple shootings and because
assault rifles look scarier, most people don't realize that 97% of gun deaths in the U.S.
involve handguns. The Supreme Court could easily uphold a ban on handguns and still
support the intent of the 2nd amendment and not interfere with hunting; but no state has
tried such a ban.

I think that the examples of Poland, South Africa, the USSR, India, and Egypt indicate
that overthrow of oppressive governments can be done by unarmed citizens, and if so that's
the better way. But it's clearly not the example the authors of the U.S. constitution had
before them.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

Yes of course it's mostly handguns, just as most deaths aren't due to mass
shootings. Handguns are more common (cheaper, and easier to conceal if you
intend to commit a crime). Firearms cause around 30,000 deaths/year in the
US, apparently (plus about 70,000 injuries) - about the same number as car
accidents - yet the budget for research into preventing gun deaths is,
guess what, only one 20th of the budget for preventing car accidents. It's
almost as though there's a conspiracy ... oh, wait, there is!

Apparently there are 315 million people living in the US, who between them
own 300 million guns, and 260 million cars.

On 8 October 2013 11:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/7/2013 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:

One thing wrong with the US constitution is that the right to bear arms
meant muskets and flintlock pistols at the time, but has been extended to,
for example, semi-automatic weapons. The people who wrote it were only
aware of single-shot weapons, even the colt revolver hadn't been invented!
If they're so keen to extend the original meaning to what are in effect
weapons of mass destruction, why not, say, let citizens build nuclear bombs
if they want to?

The second amendment was adopted by people who had just fought as rebels
against the army of an oppressive government. So their intent was plainly
to ensure that any new central government could be overthrown as well
should it become oppressive. So the arms an individual should have a right
to bear would be the same as those issued to individual soldiers in the
military, i.e. assault rifles (which are issued to everyone in
Switzerland). Because of the media coverage of rare multiple shootings and
because assault rifles look scarier, most people don't realize that 97% of
gun deaths in the U.S. involve handguns. The Supreme Court could easily
uphold a ban on handguns and still support the intent of the 2nd amendment
and not interfere with hunting; but no state has tried such a ban.

I think that the examples of Poland, South Africa, the USSR, India, and
Egypt indicate that overthrow of oppressive governments can be done by
unarmed citizens, and if so that's the better way. But it's clearly not
the example the authors of the U.S. constitution had before them.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-listhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 10/7/2013 4:14 PM, LizR wrote:
Yes of course it's mostly handguns, just as most deaths aren't due to mass shootings.
Handguns are more common (cheaper, and easier to conceal if you intend to commit a
crime). Firearms cause around 30,000 deaths/year in the US,

Of which 2/3 were suicides. I don't think the government has a right to
prevent suicides.

apparently (plus about 70,000 injuries) - about the same number as car accidents - yet
the budget for research into preventing gun deaths is, guess what, only one 20th of the
budget for preventing car accidents.

That would depend a lot on the accounting. You could say that all police budgets are for
preventing gun deaths due to homicide. And exactly what would you expect such research to
do; conclude that guns that wouldn't fire would prevent gun deaths. It's kinda the point
of guns that they can kill things. With cars it's an accident. And car accidents kill
six times as many people as guns, 18 times as many if you discount suicides.

It's almost as though there's a conspiracy ... oh, wait, there is!

Apparently there are 315 million people living in the US, who between them own 300
million guns, and 260 million cars.

And about two billion pairs of shoes and 250 million TV sets. So what? Is there some
prescribed, right number for these things?

Brent

On 8 October 2013 11:25, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 10/7/2013 3:01 PM, LizR wrote:

One thing wrong with the US constitution is that the right to bear
arms meant
muskets and flintlock pistols at the time, but has been extended to, for
example, semi-automatic weapons. The people who wrote it were only
aware of
single-shot weapons, even the colt revolver hadn't been invented! If
they're so
keen to extend the original meaning to what are in effect weapons of
mass
destruction, why not, say, let citizens build nuclear bombs if they
want to?

The second amendment was adopted by people who had just fought as rebels
against the
army of an oppressive government. So their intent was plainly to ensure
that any
new central government could be overthrown as well should it become
oppressive. So
the arms an individual should have a right to bear would be the same as
those issued
to individual soldiers in the military, i.e. assault rifles (which are
issued to
everyone in Switzerland). Because of the media coverage of rare multiple
shootings
and because assault rifles look scarier, most people don't realize that 97%
of gun
deaths in the U.S. involve handguns. The Supreme Court could easily uphold
a ban on
handguns and still support the intent of the 2nd amendment and not
interfere with
hunting; but no state has tried such a ban.

I think that the examples of Poland, South Africa, the USSR, India, and
Egypt
indicate that overthrow of oppressive governments can be done by unarmed
citizens,
and if so that's the better way. But it's clearly not the example the
authors of
the U.S. constitution had before them.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4142 / Virus Database: 3604/6718 - Release Date: 10/02/13

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 8 October 2013 12:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 10/7/2013 4:14 PM, LizR wrote:

  Yes of course it's mostly handguns, just as most deaths aren't due to
 mass shootings. Handguns are more common (cheaper, and easier to conceal if
 you intend to commit a crime). Firearms cause around 30,000 deaths/year in
 the US,


 Of which 2/3 were suicides.  I don't think the government has a right to
 prevent suicides.


Good point, I didn't realise that. I agree with you there, although I would
be interested to know how the suicide rate compares to countries with less
easily available (or certain) methods. Perhaps some suicides wouldn't have
carried it through without it being so easy, and would have gone on to
overcome their suicidal depression and live happy and fulfilling lives (I
managed it. I wonder how I would have fared if there had been a firearm
handy...)

 apparently (plus about 70,000 injuries) - about the same number as car
accidents - yet the budget for research into preventing gun deaths is,
guess what, only one 20th of the budget for preventing car accidents.


That would depend a lot on the accounting.  You could say that all police
 budgets are for preventing gun deaths due to homicide.  And exactly what
 would you expect such research to do; conclude that guns that wouldn't fire
 would prevent gun deaths.  It's kinda the point of guns that they can kill
 things.  With cars it's an accident.  And car accidents kill six times as
 many people as guns, 18 times as many if you discount suicides.

 I guess this Wintemute guy in New Scientist got his stats wrong, then.
(He's some sort of researcher into this field, too, so a surprising
mistake.) He placed the numbers at about equal.

Yes, why guns kill people is a no-brainer, which is why most countries
don't allow them to be available to everyone in apparently unlimited
quantities. But apparently the US doesn't agree with that, and requires
people to do research on the subject (and then makes publishing their
results illegal, or so I'm told).

 It's almost as though there's a conspiracy ... oh, wait, there is!
 Apparently there are 315 million people living in the US, who between them
own 300 million guns, and 260 million cars.


And about two billion pairs of shoes and 250 million TV sets.  So what?  Is
 there some prescribed, right number for these things?


That's a strange comment. Given that the topic under discussion is guns in
the US, and a comparison was made with cars, it seems reasonable to fill in
a few extra pieces of gun and car related background information. And
obviously these both relate to the population - a million guns in a
population of 100,000 would seem more significant than if the population
was 1 billion - don't you think?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 10/7/2013 5:29 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 October 2013 12:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 10/7/2013 4:14 PM, LizR wrote:

Of which 2/3 were suicides. I don't think the government has a right to
prevent
suicides.

Good point, I didn't realise that. I agree with you there, although I would be
interested to know how the suicide rate compares to countries with less easily available
(or certain) methods. Perhaps some suicides wouldn't have carried it through without it
being so easy, and would have gone on to overcome their suicidal depression and live
happy and fulfilling lives (I managed it. I wonder how I would have fared if there had
been a firearm handy...)

Yes, I'm sure availability has an effect. Switzerland which has a very low homicide rate
but high gun availability, has a higher suicide rate by gun than the U.S. But Finland has
an even higher one - suicide rate seems to go with low population density and lack of
sunshine.

That would depend a lot on the accounting. You could say that all police
budgets
are for preventing gun deaths due to homicide. And exactly what would you
expect
such research to do; conclude that guns that wouldn't fire would prevent gun
deaths. It's kinda the point of guns that they can kill things. With cars
it's an
accident. And car accidents kill six times as many people as guns, 18
times as many
if you discount suicides.

I guess this Wintemute guy in New Scientist got his stats wrong, then. (He's some sort
of researcher into this field, too, so a surprising mistake.) He placed the numbers at
about equal.

No, he was right and I was wrong. I checked and I had inadvertently compared gun deaths
(about 30,000) to all injury deaths (180,000). Auto deaths are about (33,000).

Yes, why guns kill people is a no-brainer, which is why most countries don't allow them
to be available to everyone in apparently unlimited quantities. But apparently the US
doesn't agree with that, and requires people to do research on the subject (and then
makes publishing their results illegal, or so I'm told).

Not exactly. Congress just stopped funding the CDC to study gun violence; no doubt due to
various lobbying pressures. But I think they still include gun death and injury in their
statistical summaries. Anyone who wants to can study and publish whatever they want.

It's almost as though there's a conspiracy ... oh, wait, there is!
Apparently there are 315 million people living in the US, who between them own 300
million guns, and 260 million cars.

And about two billion pairs of shoes and 250 million TV sets. So what? Is
there
some prescribed, right number for these things?

That's a strange comment. Given that the topic under discussion is guns in the US, and a
comparison was made with cars, it seems reasonable to fill in a few extra pieces of gun
and car related background information. And obviously these both relate to the
population - a million guns in a population of 100,000 would seem more significant than
if the population was 1 billion - don't you think?

I guess. But my point is that people decided to have three television sets and seven
pairs of shoes and three guns and two cars and... So who is to say, No, you can decide
how many shoes and TVs and cars you want, but you can't decide how many guns you want. I
own six guns, only two of which I bought (I inherited the others).

Brent

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

I've found the article I read...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/10/gun_violence_epidemiology_garen_wintemute_on_mental_illness_and_background.html

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find where I read that there would be
restrictions on what research into gun control would be allowed to say.
Whatever it was implied that it would be illegal to draw certain
conclusions, but until I come across it again I will have to leave that one
aside.

By the way, here is the main reason I object to gun cultures...

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/417-gun-control-/19650-children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I skimmed
through to check...

*TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence research
received more attention?*
*GM:* There is a proposal in Congress to allow for $10 million in
research funding. But I suspect it essentially has no chance of making it.
Even if it did, our Department of Health and Human Services prohibits any
of the funds from being
usedhttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html,
and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun
controlhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html.”
That means even if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to
talk about the policy implications.

Here's the article he links to:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

And here is the grant, with the prohibition mentioned:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html

I assume this is the relevant bit:

*Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities*
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that: None of the funds
made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with
appropriated Federal monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of
Federal funds for direct or indirect communications intended or designed to
influence a member of Congress with regard to specific Federal legislation.
This prohibition includes the funding and assistance of public grassroots
campaigns intended or designed to influence members of Congress with regard
to specific legislation or appropriation by Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets
the language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may
not be spent on political action or other activities designed to affect the
passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to
restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.

So the implication *seems *to be that if the research discovered that the
best way to stop people being killed and injured by guns was gun control,
it wouldn't be allowed to say so.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 10/7/2013 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:
Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I skimmed through to
check...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html,
and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun control
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html.” That
means even
if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to talk about the
policy
implications.

That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control. Would the research
consider the possibility of armed revolt against and oppressive government which was the
original motivation for the 2nd amendment? Would he consider the value of recreational
hunting? I think not. I think the researcher had already assumed his conclusion. Just
because a certain device results in people being killed and injured is not sufficient
reason for banning it. I'm sure there would be fewer deaths per year if motorcycles were
banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming, skiing, and drinking beer.

Here's the article he links to:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

And here is the grant, with the prohibition mentioned:

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html

I assume this is the relevant bit:

*Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for Certain Gun Control Activities*
The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related
Agencies Appropriations Act specifies that:None of the funds made
available for
injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention may
be used to advocate or promote gun control.

Anti-Lobbying Act requirements prohibit lobbying Congress with appropriated
Federal
monies. Specifically, this Act prohibits the use of Federal funds for
direct or
indirect communications intended or designed to influence a member of
Congress with
regard to specific Federal legislation. This prohibition includes the
funding and
assistance of public grassroots campaigns intended or designed to influence
members
of Congress with regard to specific legislation or appropriation by
Congress.

In addition to the restrictions in the Anti-Lobbying Act, CDC interprets the
language in the CDC's Appropriations Act to mean that CDC's funds may not
be spent
on political action or other activities designed to affect the passage of
specific
Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the
purchase or
use of firearms.

So the implication /seems /to be that if the research discovered that the best way to
stop people being killed and injured by guns was gun control, it wouldn't be allowed to
say so.

I'm not sure whether a technical report of research would count as advocacy or political
action or not. But the reason is obvious. Congress doesn't want the CDC going around them
to advocate for legislation. And in any case the Supreme court has ruled that owning a
gun is a Constitutionally guaranteed individual right, subject only to reasonable
restrictions.

The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by gun
control issues.

Brent

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 8 October 2013 16:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 10/7/2013 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:

Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I
skimmed through to check...

*TO: After recent mass shootings, hasn't funding for gun violence
research received more attention?*
*GM:* There is a proposal in Congress to allow for $10 million in
research funding. But I suspect it essentially has no chance of making it.
Even if it did, our Department of Health and Human Services prohibits
any of the funds from being
usedhttp://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html,
and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun
controlhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html.”
That means even if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to
talk about the policy implications.

That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control. Would
the research consider the possibility of armed revolt against and
oppressive government which was the original motivation for the 2nd
amendment? Would he consider the value of recreational hunting? I think
not. I think the researcher had already assumed his conclusion. Just
because a certain device results in people being killed and injured is not
sufficient reason for banning it. I'm sure there would be fewer deaths per
year if motorcycles were banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming, skiing,
and drinking beer.

That wasn't the impression I got. I assumed he was saying that *if* that
was the case, then he'd be gagged. (But anyway, this does show that there
are legal constraints on reporting some possible results, which is all he
said, and wha I quoted.)

I'm not sure whether a technical report of research would count as
advocacy or political action or not. But the reason is obvious. Congress
doesn't want the CDC going around them to advocate for legislation. And in
any case the Supreme court has ruled that owning a gun is a
Constitutionally guaranteed individual right, subject only to reasonable
restrictions.

Well, if it wouldn't be advocacy then he's OK to report whatever he sees
fit. Personally I would think it shouldn't be considered advocacy, but he's
closer to the whole thing and he seems to think it would.

The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by
gun control issues.

You're telling me *no one* is allowed to lobby the US govt???

Oh well, anyway I suppose I shouldn't make so much fuss, although as I
said I find the child deaths horrifying (as I do the millions of
unnecessary child deaths worldwide, most caused by diseases even more
preventable than US firearm deaths). But if adult Americans want to shoot
one another, I guess that's their business. I don't live there, thank God!

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 10/7/2013 9:08 PM, LizR wrote:
On 8 October 2013 16:36, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:

On 10/7/2013 8:15 PM, LizR wrote:

Oops, silly me, it was in the very same article. I missed it when I skimmed
through
to check...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html,
and I'm quoting directly here, “to advocate or promote gun control
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CE-07-001.html.”
That means
even if I had money to do the research, it would be a crime to talk
about the
policy implications.

That assumes the result of the research would imply gun control. Would the
research
consider the possibility of armed revolt against and oppressive government
which was
the original motivation for the 2nd amendment? Would he consider the value
of
recreational hunting? I think not. I think the researcher had already
assumed his
conclusion. Just because a certain device results in people being killed
and
injured is not sufficient reason for banning it. I'm sure there would be
fewer
deaths per year if motorcycles were banned, ditto for sky diving, swimming,
skiing,
and drinking beer.

That wasn't the impression I got. I assumed he was saying that /if/ that was the case,
then he'd be gagged.

Suppose his research showed that liberalized concealed carry laws reduced gun violence (a
popular argument among gun-rights advocates). Then he wouldn't be gagged. So he was
assuming the opposite conclusion in order to infer reporting the study would be a crime.

(But anyway, this does show that there are legal constraints on reporting some possible
results, which is all he said, and wha I quoted.)

I'm not sure whether a technical report of research would count as advocacy
or
political action or not. But the reason is obvious. Congress doesn't want
the CDC
going around them to advocate for legislation. And in any case the Supreme
court
has ruled that owning a gun is a Constitutionally guaranteed individual
right,
subject only to reasonable restrictions.

Well, if it wouldn't be advocacy then he's OK to report whatever he sees fit. Personally
I would think it shouldn't be considered advocacy, but he's closer to the whole thing
and he seems to think it would.

Bureaucrats tend to be timid about offending Congress and may self-censor.

The Anti-Lobbying rule has been around a long time and wasn't motivated by
gun
control issues.

You're telling me /no one/ is allowed to lobby the US govt???

No, nobody who is an employee of the U.S. government is allowed to lobby it. Civil
service employees and uniformed military are not allowed to campaign for any partisan
candidates either (even in local elections if they are partisan).

Oh well, anyway I suppose I shouldn't make so much fuss, although as I said I find
the child deaths horrifying (as I do the millions of unnecessary child deaths worldwide,
most caused by diseases even more preventable than US firearm deaths). But if adult
Americans want to shoot one another, I guess that's their business. I don't live there,
thank God!

Yes, it's unfortunate that the psychology seems to be It's dangerous out there. So I
should be able to have a gun to protect myself. That's what defeated a gun ban in
Brazil, which has even more shootings than the U.S., in spite of requirements to register
and license all guns.

Brent

The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

2013-10-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona


 Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often
 just to get enough funding to survive.

 Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

 Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question!

*How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert itself
in beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an integral
part of research. *
*
*
*For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more
fundamental question than knowledge itself.*

 ---

I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily.  What they aim at, is
like any living being, and in fact, like any stable dynamic auto-regulated
structure, is * to reduce uncertainty*.

That fit with many considerations at different levels, and embrace
conclussions of evolution, game theory, computability, social science
psychology and entropy.


 That explain how knowledge interact with power (and money and you wish)
and faith. As I will explain:

To reduce uncertainty can be achieved adquiring pure knowledge of the world
around in order to predict better the future.

But it can also be achieved by adquiring for themselves money or power, or
love from other people, or commitment from tem, or respect, or common
commintment to something or someone.

The fact is that pure knowledge is not enoug. Money is not enough, power is
not enough, since neither of them work without a committed society that
make use of this knowledge in an organized way, that respect the money
value and other properties, that has fair mechanism for adquiring power and
legitimacy, and more that that, a society with a  clear plan for our
sibiling and generations to come.

Thinking materialistically (I´m not but for a matter of argument) there is
no social vehicle for our genes if the society have all these requirements,
and, more important, no people that had not these requirements ullfilled
survived, so we have inherited this natural seeking for all these kinds of
uncertainty reduction mechanism around us.

Some societies make enphasis in one kind of uncertainty reduction. Others
rely more in other different in this equation. These different uncertainty
reduction alternatives are one against the other. A strict hiearchi of
power and legitimacy based on an enforced supernatural plan is a excellent
uncertainty reduction for a stable society that does not need to change. In
the other side, adquring knowledge is good, but that may challenge the
structure, questionin legitimacies and creating civil wars, that can be
pacific or violent. When there is no common plans nor loyaltyes, the
pacific disputes become violent almos by defintion.

A lot of philosophy on all their branches can be extracted from this
starting point.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

2013-10-06 Thread meekerdb

On 10/6/2013 9:08 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, often
just to get
enough funding to survive.

Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question!

/How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert itself in beliefs as
a system that prevent further knowledge must be an integral part of research. /

/
/
/For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more fundamental
question than knowledge itself./

---

I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily. What they aim at, is like any
living being, and in fact, like any stable dynamic auto-regulated structure, is */ to
reduce uncertainty/*.

Naah. If that were true they'd never climb Mt. Everest or race motorcycles or explore new
territory. People are complex, they want different things at different times. Sometimes
it's comfort and security, sometimes it's adventure, sometimes its companionship and
sometimes it's competition, sometimes it's leisure, sometimes it's strife. Evolution just
dictates that sometimes its sex and progeny.

Brent

That fit with many considerations at different levels, and embrace conclussions of
evolution, game theory, computability, social science psychology and entropy.

That explain how knowledge interact with power (and money and you wish) and faith. As I
will explain:

To reduce uncertainty can be achieved adquiring pure knowledge of the world around in
order to predict better the future.

But it can also be achieved by adquiring for themselves money or power, or love from
other people, or commitment from tem, or respect, or common commintment to something or
someone.

The fact is that pure knowledge is not enoug. Money is not enough, power is not enough,
since neither of them work without a committed society that make use of this knowledge
in an organized way, that respect the money value and other properties, that has fair
mechanism for adquiring power and legitimacy, and more that that, a society with a
clear plan for our sibiling and generations to come.

Thinking materialistically (I´m not but for a matter of argument) there is no social
vehicle for our genes if the society have all these requirements, and, more important,
no people that had not these requirements ullfilled survived, so we have inherited this
natural seeking for all these kinds of uncertainty reduction mechanism around us.

Some societies make enphasis in one kind of uncertainty reduction. Others rely more in
other different in this equation. These different uncertainty reduction alternatives are
one against the other. A strict hiearchi of power and legitimacy based on an enforced
supernatural plan is a excellent uncertainty reduction for a stable society that does
not need to change. In the other side, adquring knowledge is good, but that may
challenge the structure, questionin legitimacies and creating civil wars, that can be
pacific or violent. When there is no common plans nor loyaltyes, the pacific disputes
become violent almos by defintion.

A lot of philosophy on all their branches can be extracted from this starting
point.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4142 / Virus Database: 3604/6718 - Release Date: 10/02/13

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

2013-10-06 Thread Alberto G. Corona

2013/10/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 10/6/2013 9:08 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

   Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics,
 often just to get enough funding to survive.

  Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

   Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question!

  *How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert
 itself in beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an
 integral part of research. *
 *
 *
 *For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more
 fundamental question than knowledge itself.*

  ---

  I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily.  What they aim at,
 is like any living being, and in fact, like any stable dynamic
 auto-regulated structure, is * to reduce uncertainty*.



 Naah.  If that were true they'd never climb Mt. Everest or race
 motorcycles or explore new territory.  People are complex, they want
 different things at different times.  Sometimes it's comfort and security,
 sometimes it's adventure, sometimes its companionship and sometimes it's
 competition, sometimes it's leisure, sometimes it's strife.  Evolution just
 dictates that sometimes its sex and progeny.



Good, but some of those complexities  comes from the complex that is
reducing uncertainty in so complex systems such are human societies. First,
either evolution dictates nothing or it dictates everything, because
societies are also a product o evolution. under a gene-meme multilevel
selection process, where memes is in the top of the hierarchy.

To climb mount Everest has egoistic and altruistic aspects. The egoistic
ones try to increase individual fitness, by fame , respect or money. All of
them are individual uncertainty reducers, because they increase resources
for survival and reproduction, that is, survive against the entropic noise
of death and forgetting, and assure  the survival of the personal meme-gene
legacy.

But there is something altruistic also (well the former is not so egoistic
at last) Sir Helmunt Hillary climbed the Everest not only for himself, but
for England. Because he wanted the flag of England to wave above all
nations. To contemplate your nation as powerful and respectable by other
nations is not only a uncertainty reducer for you but also for generations
to come that share your gene-meme legacy.

So there is it.


 Brent


  That fit with many considerations at different levels, and embrace
 conclussions of evolution, game theory, computability, social science
 psychology and entropy.


   That explain how knowledge interact with power (and money and you wish)
 and faith. As I will explain:

  To reduce uncertainty can be achieved adquiring pure knowledge of the
 world around in order to predict better the future.

  But it can also be achieved by adquiring for themselves money or power,
 or love from other people, or commitment from tem, or respect, or common
 commintment to something or someone.

  The fact is that pure knowledge is not enoug. Money is not enough, power
 is not enough, since neither of them work without a committed society that
 make use of this knowledge in an organized way, that respect the money
 value and other properties, that has fair mechanism for adquiring power and
 legitimacy, and more that that, a society with a  clear plan for our
 sibiling and generations to come.

  Thinking materialistically (I´m not but for a matter of argument) there
 is no social vehicle for our genes if the society have all these
 requirements, and, more important, no people that had not these
 requirements ullfilled survived, so we have inherited this natural seeking
 for all these kinds of uncertainty reduction mechanism around us.

  Some societies make enphasis in one kind of uncertainty reduction.
 Others rely more in other different in this equation. These different
 uncertainty reduction alternatives are one against the other. A strict
 hiearchi of power and legitimacy based on an enforced supernatural plan is
 a excellent uncertainty reduction for a stable society that does not need
 to change. In the other side, adquring knowledge is good, but that may
 challenge the structure, questionin legitimacies and creating civil wars,
 that can be pacific or violent. When there is no common plans nor
 loyaltyes, the pacific disputes become violent almos by defintion.

  A lot of philosophy on all their branches can be extracted from this
 starting point.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG -

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

2013-10-06 Thread meekerdb


On 10/6/2013 1:02 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:




2013/10/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

On 10/6/2013 9:08 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Some academies are just prostituted to rotten (sometime) politics, 
often just
to get enough funding to survive.

Money is not the problem. Black, obscure and grey money is the problem.

Wait, this is indeed the most fundamental question!

/How knowledge interact with money and power in society and convert itself 
in
beliefs as a system that prevent further knowledge must be an integral part 
of
research. /
/
/
/For me this meta-knowledge about knowledge faith and power is a more 
fundamental
question than knowledge itself./
---

I think that people don' t want knowledge primarily.  What they aim at, is 
like any
living being, and in fact, like any stable dynamic auto-regulated 
structure, is
*/ to reduce uncertainty/*.



Naah.  If that were true they'd never climb Mt. Everest or race motorcycles 
or
explore new territory.  People are complex, they want different things at 
different
times.  Sometimes it's comfort and security, sometimes it's adventure, 
sometimes its
companionship and sometimes it's competition, sometimes it's leisure, 
sometimes it's
strife.  Evolution just dictates that sometimes its sex and progeny.



Good, but some of those complexities  comes from the complex that is reducing 
uncertainty in so complex systems such are human societies. First, either evolution 
dictates nothing or it dictates everything, because societies are also a product o 
evolution. under a gene-meme multilevel selection process, where memes is in the top of 
the hierarchy.


To climb mount Everest has egoistic and altruistic aspects. The egoistic ones try to 
increase individual fitness, by fame , respect or money. All of them are individual 
uncertainty reducers, because they increase resources for survival and reproduction, 
that is, survive against the entropic noise of death and forgetting, and assure  the 
survival of the personal meme-gene legacy.


But there is something altruistic also (well the former is not so egoistic at last) Sir 
Helmunt Hillary climbed the Everest not only for himself, but for England. Because he 
wanted the flag of England to wave above all nations. To contemplate your nation as 
powerful and respectable by other nations is not only a uncertainty reducer for you but 
also for generations to come that share your gene-meme legacy.


All you've done is fuzzy up uncertainty reduction so it can serve as an explanation for 
anything.  That was my objection of Nietzsche's will to power: In a straightforward 
reading it's false.  After enough explication it's turned into accomplishing something 
you probably wanted to and it becomes a tautology.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 7 October 2013 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:


 All you've done is fuzzy up uncertainty reduction so it can serve as an
 explanation for anything.  That was my objection of Nietzsche's will to
 power: In a straightforward reading it's false.  After enough explication
 it's turned into accomplishing something you probably wanted to and it
 becomes a tautology.


This sounds similar to the All Christians are good argument.

All Christians are good!
What about the Inquisition?
Oh, they weren't REAL Christians.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 7 October 2013 09:02, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:



 But there is something altruistic also (well the former is not so egoistic
 at last) Sir Helmunt Hillary climbed the Everest not only for himself, but
 for England. Because he wanted the flag of England to wave above all
 nations. To contemplate your nation as powerful and respectable by other
 nations is not only a uncertainty reducer for you but also for generations
 to come that share your gene-meme legacy.


Excuse me, but I can't let that pass. His name was *Edmund* Hillary and he
was a New Zealander!

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

On 7 October 2013 13:26, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 7 October 2013 09:02, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:



 But there is something altruistic also (well the former is not so
 egoistic at last) Sir Helmunt Hillary climbed the Everest not only for
 himself, but for England. Because he wanted the flag of England to wave
 above all nations. To contemplate your nation as powerful and respectable
 by other nations is not only a uncertainty reducer for you but also for
 generations to come that share your gene-meme legacy.


 Excuse me, but I can't let that pass. His name was *Edmund* Hillary and
 he was a New Zealander!

 (Speaking of uncertainty reduction...!)

:-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing

2013-10-06 Thread meekerdb


On 10/6/2013 5:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 7 October 2013 13:12, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net 
wrote:



All you've done is fuzzy up uncertainty reduction so it can serve as an
explanation for anything.  That was my objection of Nietzsche's will to 
power: In
a straightforward reading it's false.  After enough explication it's turned 
into
accomplishing something you probably wanted to and it becomes a tautology.


This sounds similar to the All Christians are good argument.

All Christians are good!
What about the Inquisition?
Oh, they weren't REAL Christians.


That's usually referred to as the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: The ultimate reason of knowledge faith power and entrophy reduction, computabilty, evolution, the universe and everithing