View Full Version : Meta Theory of Forum Hosting

James Brody
August 25th, 2006, 05:50 PM
I take a few weeks to chase my psychosis and you all do very well. Sort of an evolutionary thing wherein bottom-up events build cathedrals! Of perhaps a termite mound!

Power laws clearly apply here: they do almost anytime there is mutual influence between participants and, boy, do you folks influence each other!

The trick lies in "influence" and Kuramoto likely applies to all of you. Similar oscillators, no matter how many, draw into synchrony. Implication: you folks appear to disagree in content but are fairly close in abilities. None of you is dumb , each of you spills energy, and none of you is a domain-general processing machine!
Oscillators, however, can not only pull each other into phase but amplify each other. See it a lot in nature and academic growths but the analysts, the ethologists and mired psychologists neglect it.
Keep it up and thanks! You make me look good!

On the other hand, that posting on Kuramoto kicks more ass than average rants about limbic systems and IQ. It points to physical models for the partnerships between critters and settings, between men and women, and even between Maggie and nearly anyone else!

I suspect, but cannot give numbers, that several of you shoot the same arrows regardless of target. Please none of you go away but some of you might live with a different set of assumptions for a while. I'm skeptical, however. Better to keep the mold that already grows in your fridge. You probably chose it. It's a genetic thing...


Carey N
August 26th, 2006, 01:22 AM
You hear that, Fred . . . you and I are coupled oscillators. Unfortunately our intrinsic growth rates are too high for long-term stability.


Fred H.
August 26th, 2006, 08:38 AM
Well, when things resonate, well, they resonate, knowmsayin?

August 26th, 2006, 10:59 AM
I'm sorry about your psychosis, I hope yours is better than mine ;).

I generally agree with your forum-hosting philosophy; I know I could not do better. I wish, though, that you hadn't so quickly deleted the Islam post; I had composed this reply:

Hey, if you can prove that the tenets of Islam are absolutely true, I'd be glad to memorize the Koran. And if you could further prove that Muhammad is so insecure that he requires his people to prostrate themselves in front of him, I would out prostrate you every single day.

I think each of them is highly unlikely, though, and that both of them being true is nearly impossible. It's much more likely that one of the many other religions is true, just because there are more of them. It's even more likely that none of them are true, they're just social constructs developed to soothe minds, resolve conflicts (and create others in the meantime), and concentrate power for the few at the top.

I have children and the last thing I would want would for them is to spend a lot of time worshipping me. I'd much rather they concentrate on creating successful, happy lives, as anyone who loves someone else would.

James Brody
September 2nd, 2006, 03:10 PM
Bad ink is better than no ink...
And arguing simply invites more arguing and there is a large universe for such outside this bubble. And arguing sometimes elicites death threats. Better to cut it off early.