we all knew it rots your brain


sorabji.com: The Stalking Post: we all knew it rots your brain
THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016).

By Nate on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 01:42 pm:


By droopy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 02:29 pm:

    i was just reading about this on slate, but i like the way my brain feels on tv. everything is so uncomplicated.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 02:33 pm:

    you're already an adult though.

    did you catch the comedy central telethon to help autism? kind of ironic.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 02:35 pm:

    funny the slate 'exclusive' was posted at about 6am, and the slashdot article at about 4:30am.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 02:39 pm:

    then again, 6am yesterday is before 4:30 today.

    i think i caught autism watching the amazing race.


By droopy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 03:14 pm:

    i don't have cable, just a small portable with rabbit ears. but did you see that episode of "house" with the autistic kid that dr. house feels envious of?

    i had a friend in high school who had an autistic brother. he was high-functioning, i guess you would say: he didn't sit on the floor spinning plates and stuff like that. in fact, he seemed endlessly thrilled with life. i didn't even know he was autistic until one day when i was sitting in my car in front of my friend's house - to pick him up go somewhere - and his brother came outside. he knelt down like he was in a race and than ran of down the street to the stop sign and back. when he crossed his "finish line" he gave a little victory dance and walked back into the house. when my friend came out, i started describing what his brother just did (thinking it was just quirky) and my friend got angry. and he told me his brother was autistic. my friend went on to be a drug casualty. i don't where the brother is now.

    i'm sure other websites have this story, it's just that i have slate bookmarked and there it was when i powered up this morning.


By Spider on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 - 04:56 pm:

    Growing up, I had a family friend who had an autistic son, maybe 9-10 years younger than I. The only thing that would hold his attention was TV.

    Except once, he and his mother came to visit us at our house. At one point, we looked around and realized he was no longer with us. I found him in my room, standing motionless on my bed, staring at the print of John Waterhouse's "Lady of Shalott" on my wall. That's the only other thing I've seen hold his attention.


    I am currently experiencing an obsession with the program, "Supernatural," at a level of intensity I don't think I've ever felt for a TV show before. It's overwhelming. 95% of that is due to the character portraits drawn and the family relationships between the brothers and their father, and the fluidity and growth the characters experience across the season(s). It's actually pretty unusual in this regard among the TV landscape -- pretty complex psychosocial dynamics progressing in real time. So interesting.

    I literally can write pages and pages on these characters and my love for them, so I'm going to stop myself here.


By wisper on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 03:00 am:

    i think the slashdot comments pretty much nailed what i wish to say- correlation is not causation.

    They shouldn't release these kinds of open-ended studies to the media. This shit is going to go right up with "gum stays in your stomache for 7 years" and "television makes children violent".


By Nate on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 12:53 pm:

    almost all science is based on correleation being causation.


By semillama on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 01:16 pm:

    actually, that's more like almost all public perception of science is based on correlation equals causation.

    Not that isn't some shoddy-ass science out there that is in fact mistaking correlation for causation.

    Generally, you don't find that in the "hard" sciences, but in the more open-ended sciences that try and study human behavior.

    However, it's also a mistake to think that correlation never points to causation.


By Nate on Wednesday, October 18, 2006 - 01:48 pm:

    the scientific method depends on accepting that observation of a subset of results provides a general case. you cannot say X precisely causes Y, but rather that observing X cause Y reliably some Z times indicates that X causes Y.

    down to the hard sciences, where math has been shown to model the real world some Z times.


By Antigone on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 03:57 am:

    Correlation with a predictive model that withstands falsifiable tests.

    Causation is an illusion. There is only correlation and observation.


By Nate on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 12:50 pm:

    isn't it all an illusion. observation impacts the observed. correlation is dependant on necessarily flawed observation. we're all small absent specks in an unfathomable unknown. science and religion provide us some myth so that we don't feel at all times like we are weakly teathered just of the lip of an enormous cliff.


By Spider on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 02:32 pm:

    Oh, you.


By Antigone on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 10:10 pm:

    Correlation depends on nothing. It's the perception of causation that is the "impact of observation."

    Science is not a myth. Any particular theory is a myth. Science is the process of debunking theories, of deconstructing myths and creating ones that are more reflective of reality. This is it's fundamental difference from religion. Science is not the myth, it is the process.

    I suppose you could call science a meta-myth. If you did, I'd say, "Fuck you through every available orifice, you donkey sperm burping bitch."


By Czarina on Thursday, October 19, 2006 - 11:47 pm:

    Observation/Perception.
    Human/Fallibility.
    Science?


By Antigone on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 02:42 am:

    AssFuckingTheUniverse


By Nate on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 01:30 pm:

    the process is the myth. the bible is the myth, judeo-christianity is the implementation of the myth.

    the scientific process is the myth, the corpus of theory is the implementation.

    this is all semantics.

    but scientific process depends on believing in a rational, mathmatical world.


By Antigone on Friday, October 20, 2006 - 09:40 pm:

    If everything is a myth then myth is a tautology.

    The scientific process only depends on the belief that assertions about the world can be tested.

    Math has nothing to do with it. It's simply the foundation and language of many of the testable models. Science depends on empiricism, which is not math. It's not even logic. It's "you can test X, and that test can be repeated."

    And everything depends on belief unless you're omniscient, so don't even go there.

    And this isn't all semantics. You misunderstand science.

    And there is no third point.


By jack on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 12:27 am:


    what are you guys talking about?





By TBone on Saturday, October 21, 2006 - 09:40 pm:

    I pray to science every night so that the sun will rise again in the morning. So far, this has worked for me. Your mileage may vary.


By Nate on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 01:31 pm:

    don't talk to me about tautologies.

    when the testable models are built on math, math is the foundation of science. math is logic. science as a process is one thing, but science as the body of scientific knowledge is a religion. it is faith in statistical probability.


By Dr Pepper on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 11:27 pm:

    Do time machine exist? Math and Science may prove that the time machine exit.


By Antigone on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 11:51 pm:

    With a twist of lime! Yes!


By jack on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 - 11:59 pm:



    in a cubic tumbler, please, on the rocks.



bbs.sorabji.com
 

The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS
 

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact