At BCDO,
https://bootcampdevops.com/
I learned that my big stumbling block to learning Python was my lack of understanding that numerous constructs exist merely to enable back-compatibility, forward changes, etc.
For example, the 'new' Python classes are identified by extra verbiage. Even though every class in Python inherits from Object, one must specifically specify that for classes that have no other parent.
Similarly, "self" is used all over the place, ie as the first argument of many methods, in order to specifically designate methods that are part of a class. Formally, a procedure in a class is a method, and a procedure outside a class and merely in the file module itself is called a function. So each and every method must have 'self' as its first parameter. It's easy to remember, since of course those same methods will be called with self.xx. Note that the caller does not repeat the word 'self' in the argument list it passes.
Finally I feel much more intelligent reading the code!
2013-09-13
Self-grading labels for my posts.
I am acutely conscious of how desperately my posts need further work and thinking. I did and do wish to get started writing something, but until I judge many of the somethings worthy of an audience I will not be telling too many people about my little blog! For now, to help me find the posts most desperately in need of edits, I have added two kinds of labels.
Label: grade-A, grade-F, etc mean my score of how good the article is.
Label: dated means that this article has little or no permanent value.
Label: []TODO would like to add something that differentiates trivial but useful content, eg recipes, from ideas which hopefully are more long-lasting, or quips which may be reused.
[]Vitally related to that is the goal to enable [me] to subscribe only to a channel within, or to see them sorted that way.
[x]BLOG-TIP: Time zone fixed by using Toronto time.
Today it is
2013.0913Fri.15:16::11 , and the post was noon submitted for the book.
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41963?hl=en
Label: grade-A, grade-F, etc mean my score of how good the article is.
Label: dated means that this article has little or no permanent value.
Label: []TODO would like to add something that differentiates trivial but useful content, eg recipes, from ideas which hopefully are more long-lasting, or quips which may be reused.
[]Vitally related to that is the goal to enable [me] to subscribe only to a channel within, or to see them sorted that way.
[x]BLOG-TIP: Time zone fixed by using Toronto time.
Today it is
2013.0913Fri.15:16::11 , and the post was noon submitted for the book.
https://support.google.com/blogger/answer/41963?hl=en
The book 'Proof of Heaven' is Definitely Not one.
Eben Alexander MD wrote a book describing his experience in 'the afterlife' while medically in a coma. It is titled "Proof of Heaven," [1] but cannot be and is not. There can be no such proof of a universe constructed solely within one's head, thus arbitrary to others.
Based on the medical and science training of Dr. Alexander, I was hoping to read discussion of how mystic experiences do and do not relate to evidence. Unfortunately, he merely describes his experiences; tells his related conclusions; and claims his religious ideas are now validated by his mystical experience. That tale is as old as time.
As people know, I have had 'mystical' experiences, for lack of a better word, and yet they are not 'mystical' to me - they are facts of reality as I know it. I have not made them up. In that, Dr. Alexander and I agree. However, being that each of our experiences are not of this world, ie the 'evidence' is all within our own heads, our experiences are not objective nor can they ever be. We can do our best to explain and share them, but they cannot be proven to others.
This book supported my view that what we experience within mysticism is at least partially related to our own background. We use our knowledge to discuss our findings, so he uses religious terminology to describe things that I would describe without it.
My goal is for religionists and mystics to recognize that we do not all perceive the same things in our own heads, thus we must exert the effort to speak cross-culturally. What knowledge spans across all religions, across all time, and is valid for all men? Only such a philosophy, ie Objectivism, does so and can thus be the basis for respecting rights in society. The reason Objectivism succeeds is because it is based on objective reality that we all do know and share. Objectivism is atheist, apart from faith and religion, so it is amenable to true proof and thus is the only proper philosophy on which to base a government. Already in the USA, many people implicitly accept the idea that government does properly separate church and state.
Unfortunately this book adds neither new evidence nor cross-cultural explanations of the NDE or mystic phenomena. It is strictly a Christian religious account of one man’s life during his coma. It does not attempt to discuss how non-Christians or atheists would view his experiences. Its audience appears to be Christians who already think there is proof of heaven and enjoy more stories upholding their faith.
How does the author fail to prove that the “physiological origins [of a NDE] could lead them to be really perceived although not lived in the reality" [2]? Taken at random, by flipping through the pages, here are two specific examples of how he refutes his own argument. First, on pg. 120 he appears to admit that he came back from his coma with "an ICU psychosis." By definition, psychoses are a "loss of contact with reality" [3], thus any/all objective credibility of what he said about his experiences while in the coma are destroyed. Secondly, in the final summary, he wrote on pg.170, "....[My NDE, Near-death Experience] had healed my fragmented soul. It let me know that I had always been loved.... And it had done so while placing my physical body into a state that, by medical science's current terms, should have made it impossible for me to have experienced anything." In science, lots of things appear impossible until they are understood. In this case, current science surely does not say that the lack of brain activity at time A necessitates never having a ‘dream’ regarding time A. Science never tries to prove a negative.
Thank you to the author for engaging in an interesting, controversial topic. Let us hope we will hear non-denominational discussion from him in the future. Perhaps he is a candidate to read a free copy of Atlas Shrugged [4]?
Refs;
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
Introduction;
The experiences have been described in medical journals as having the characteristics of hallucinations, while parapsychologists, religious believers and a few scientists have pointed to them as evidence of an afterlife and mind-body dualism. According to the 2013 PLOS ONE article by Thonnard et al., "near-death experiences cannot be considered as imagined event memories. On the contrary, their physiological origins could lead them to be really perceived although not lived in the reality."
[2A] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er
The Myth of Er legend concluding Plato's The Republic (380BC) may have been the first description of a NDE. A soldier appeared to be dead, yet ten days later he had not decomposed and arose from the funeral pyre.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
[4] http://freeobjectivistbooks.org/
Based on the medical and science training of Dr. Alexander, I was hoping to read discussion of how mystic experiences do and do not relate to evidence. Unfortunately, he merely describes his experiences; tells his related conclusions; and claims his religious ideas are now validated by his mystical experience. That tale is as old as time.
As people know, I have had 'mystical' experiences, for lack of a better word, and yet they are not 'mystical' to me - they are facts of reality as I know it. I have not made them up. In that, Dr. Alexander and I agree. However, being that each of our experiences are not of this world, ie the 'evidence' is all within our own heads, our experiences are not objective nor can they ever be. We can do our best to explain and share them, but they cannot be proven to others.
This book supported my view that what we experience within mysticism is at least partially related to our own background. We use our knowledge to discuss our findings, so he uses religious terminology to describe things that I would describe without it.
My goal is for religionists and mystics to recognize that we do not all perceive the same things in our own heads, thus we must exert the effort to speak cross-culturally. What knowledge spans across all religions, across all time, and is valid for all men? Only such a philosophy, ie Objectivism, does so and can thus be the basis for respecting rights in society. The reason Objectivism succeeds is because it is based on objective reality that we all do know and share. Objectivism is atheist, apart from faith and religion, so it is amenable to true proof and thus is the only proper philosophy on which to base a government. Already in the USA, many people implicitly accept the idea that government does properly separate church and state.
Unfortunately this book adds neither new evidence nor cross-cultural explanations of the NDE or mystic phenomena. It is strictly a Christian religious account of one man’s life during his coma. It does not attempt to discuss how non-Christians or atheists would view his experiences. Its audience appears to be Christians who already think there is proof of heaven and enjoy more stories upholding their faith.
How does the author fail to prove that the “physiological origins [of a NDE] could lead them to be really perceived although not lived in the reality" [2]? Taken at random, by flipping through the pages, here are two specific examples of how he refutes his own argument. First, on pg. 120 he appears to admit that he came back from his coma with "an ICU psychosis." By definition, psychoses are a "loss of contact with reality" [3], thus any/all objective credibility of what he said about his experiences while in the coma are destroyed. Secondly, in the final summary, he wrote on pg.170, "....[My NDE, Near-death Experience] had healed my fragmented soul. It let me know that I had always been loved.... And it had done so while placing my physical body into a state that, by medical science's current terms, should have made it impossible for me to have experienced anything." In science, lots of things appear impossible until they are understood. In this case, current science surely does not say that the lack of brain activity at time A necessitates never having a ‘dream’ regarding time A. Science never tries to prove a negative.
Thank you to the author for engaging in an interesting, controversial topic. Let us hope we will hear non-denominational discussion from him in the future. Perhaps he is a candidate to read a free copy of Atlas Shrugged [4]?
Refs;
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience
Introduction;
The experiences have been described in medical journals as having the characteristics of hallucinations, while parapsychologists, religious believers and a few scientists have pointed to them as evidence of an afterlife and mind-body dualism. According to the 2013 PLOS ONE article by Thonnard et al., "near-death experiences cannot be considered as imagined event memories. On the contrary, their physiological origins could lead them to be really perceived although not lived in the reality."
[2A] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er
The Myth of Er legend concluding Plato's The Republic (380BC) may have been the first description of a NDE. A soldier appeared to be dead, yet ten days later he had not decomposed and arose from the funeral pyre.
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
[4] http://freeobjectivistbooks.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)