The world is full of ambitious people who have the drive but not the resources. I know I could’ve had a PhD or two under my belt but couldn’t even afford to get an Associate’s degree. (2 complete years). In the USA, you have a SMALL window of help: Age 18-23, approximately. After that, help dries up and life moves on. Gotta work. Had your chance, etc. I don’t regret it because the US is a class based system, mostly hinging on family community status and provable family income. Even with assistance, if your family couldn’t have afforded tuition, it also means you won’t be able to afford to avail yourself of opportunities that come only to those with sufficient connection and family (not personal) income. I didn’t have that and it’s ok. I like my life and glad for the choices I made out of what was available and my capabilities and drive. But I feel for those who DO want more, strive for it, have the intelligence but get little of the assistance (for lack of family community status and family income). If you pry behind the stories of the “self made successes”, you’ll usually find big helpers along the way that “lift” them up and continue to, often political in some way.

The world is full [read full article]


You want absolute libertarian free will. I want degrees of freedom. Metaphor: From the perspective of the inside of a sphere, the inner surface is infinite. You tell me from the inside of your sphere “We are all inside spheres”. I say, “I know but our surface within is infinite from the affordances provided by the subjectively infinite inner sphere we have available”. That’s our difference. I don’t cry ’cause I can’t breath in outer space.

You want absolute libertarian [read full article]


I think I see where you’re going but it’s a throwing the baby out with the dirty bathwater. This is where I think you strayed: ” Because there is no strict criteria [since all general rules differ in distinct fields] – it renders the paradigm entirely arbitrary, ergo: should there even be rule in these cases?” You have domains. Within each of those domains there are general guidelines or heuristics. “Rules of thumb”. They have fuzzy boundaries because they do not capture every instance. But because every instance isn’t captured, this does not then render the heuristic “entirely” arbitrary, or even arbitrary. Rather, it is imperfect. If you understand the principals that lie BEHIND the heuristic, you can compensate, which might require – in that instance – not using the heuristic in that instance. It also might require modifying the heuristic or replacing it if common exceptions show patterns. Or, you can teach the exceptions and the rules together., capturing even more than the original rule alone could. It becomes a series of “if/then” or “case” statements at that point, which is good programming.

I think I see
[read full article]

I put 27000 of my little writings through a library AI autoclassifier to determine what subjects I was probably talking about. It’s old research now – I did it in 2015 – and was from 1989-2015 posts/comments I’d made and found and collected and processed, picked only subjects with a 53% or higher confidence level. Here’s my brain from 1989-2015 in Dewey decimal categories:

I put 27000 of [read full article]