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/
2012-10-20
A Perception's truth is not defined by collective assent, rather by evidence.
An important goal of mine is to help the two wonderful sets of ideas I love, Objectivism and Energy Medicine (EEM), acknowledge each others' achievements. It is a tough sell to both sides!
David Feinstein aptly acknowledged the two sides. EEM practitioners, knowing the truth of their work in their results with clients, do not care about whether research does or does not prove them right. Regular science (in which I include Objectivism), on the other hand, sees no reason to care about a discipline whose actual metaphysics (perceptions) appears to have no basis in reality.
I sympathize with both sides, but not yet appreciated by either! I understand that, myself a few years ago would have dismissed the new me immediately. Today however, I read exciting news that a new book is coming out by a doctor whose EEM perceptions were documented simultaneously by medical technology. I will read it.
Anne
[]Newsweek advertises a new book on energy [my word] perceptions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html
I’m still a doctor, and still a man of science every bit as much as I was before I had my experience. But on a deep level I’m very different from the person I was before, because I’ve caught a glimpse of this emerging picture of reality. And you can believe me when I tell you that it will be worth every bit of the work it will take us, and those who come after us, to get it right.
http://innersource.net/em/igeem-keynotes-dp2.html
[]IgEem seminars on science
Cell biologist James Oschman, PhD, author of Energy Medicine (subtitled "The Scientific Basis") (2000).
Dr. Bruce Lipton, author of the books Biology of Belief and Spontaneous Evolution.
Suzanne Clegg 121019f> Some illnesses are much more dire in prognosis than cancer. Cancer cases can have spontaneous remission.
[]For consideration for her [blog]
http://www.spiritgate.com/
http://www.brucelipton.com/
Front page 121020s has a video with the briefest introduction: the idea that cells differentiate because of their environment, not their genes; blood is the environment and it is controlled by one's thoughts.
http://energyresearch.homestead.com/about.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/29/james-oschman-on-earthing.aspx
How Grounding Affects Your Blood
Another very important discovery, and one of the most recent, is that grounding thins your blood, making it less viscous. This discovery can have a profound impact on cardiovascular disease, which is now the number one killer in the world. Virtually every aspect of cardiovascular disease has been correlated with elevated blood viscosity. Dr. Sinatra has been coaching Dr. Oschman's team in how to measure blood viscosity using a method called zeta potential. It measures the potential on your red blood cells by determining how fast they migrate in an electrical field.
Fun non-references
http://www.lifejourneys.net/HayHouse/Australia_2013/Braden_Lipton/index.html
$2k January 2012 Australia cruise.
Blogger time is on PST!
David Feinstein aptly acknowledged the two sides. EEM practitioners, knowing the truth of their work in their results with clients, do not care about whether research does or does not prove them right. Regular science (in which I include Objectivism), on the other hand, sees no reason to care about a discipline whose actual metaphysics (perceptions) appears to have no basis in reality.
I sympathize with both sides, but not yet appreciated by either! I understand that, myself a few years ago would have dismissed the new me immediately. Today however, I read exciting news that a new book is coming out by a doctor whose EEM perceptions were documented simultaneously by medical technology. I will read it.
Anne
[]Newsweek advertises a new book on energy [my word] perceptions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html
I’m still a doctor, and still a man of science every bit as much as I was before I had my experience. But on a deep level I’m very different from the person I was before, because I’ve caught a glimpse of this emerging picture of reality. And you can believe me when I tell you that it will be worth every bit of the work it will take us, and those who come after us, to get it right.
http://innersource.net/em/igeem-keynotes-dp2.html
[]IgEem seminars on science
Cell biologist James Oschman, PhD, author of Energy Medicine (subtitled "The Scientific Basis") (2000).
Dr. Bruce Lipton, author of the books Biology of Belief and Spontaneous Evolution.
Suzanne Clegg 121019f> Some illnesses are much more dire in prognosis than cancer. Cancer cases can have spontaneous remission.
[]For consideration for her [blog]
http://www.spiritgate.com/
http://www.brucelipton.com/
Front page 121020s has a video with the briefest introduction: the idea that cells differentiate because of their environment, not their genes; blood is the environment and it is controlled by one's thoughts.
http://energyresearch.homestead.com/about.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/29/james-oschman-on-earthing.aspx
How Grounding Affects Your Blood
Another very important discovery, and one of the most recent, is that grounding thins your blood, making it less viscous. This discovery can have a profound impact on cardiovascular disease, which is now the number one killer in the world. Virtually every aspect of cardiovascular disease has been correlated with elevated blood viscosity. Dr. Sinatra has been coaching Dr. Oschman's team in how to measure blood viscosity using a method called zeta potential. It measures the potential on your red blood cells by determining how fast they migrate in an electrical field.
Fun non-references
http://www.lifejourneys.net/HayHouse/Australia_2013/Braden_Lipton/index.html
$2k January 2012 Australia cruise.
Blogger time is on PST!
2011-01-29
Good Food: Chia: Chocolate Tapioca Pudding
Here is a cross-post from my comment to a delightful written debate on the merits of chia, a food I have been eating for well over two years. I'm disappointed that the Paleo gentleman touts flax seed over chia seed. I have personally experienced problems with flax and none with chia. Neither of them are suitable for DHA supplementation imho. I think chia’s greatest benefit is as fiber. I have two servings per day of the following.
//Update 2012-1020: Amazing Grass changed their product for the worse by adding stevia/etc and fortunately reversed their decision recently and stamped the new tins "You have good taste"!
Recipe: “Chocolate Tapioca Pudding”
8oz mug
2 scoops of Chia Seed (not milled/powder) (any kind seems fine. I like RenewLife's slightly best of all, but I normally buy on price, eg below)
2 scoops of Amazing Grass Chocolate Greens Powder
Add a small bit of water. Mix carefully to remove lumps. Gradually mix in more water to fill the 8oz container. Let stand 5 minutes for the chia to swell; stir again.
This recipe, imho, is safe for diabetic/hypoglycemic/oversensitive types such as myself a couple of years back when almost everything disagareed with me. Having this item as a “treat” (I couldn’t eat too much even of this) was something that saved my sanity! Here are urls for products I have bought;
The debate on chia’s healthfulness is here:
My remark is:
Dr. Cordain of the Paleo diet challenges Dr. Coates to provide proof via studies that chia is healthy to consume. Although clinical studies are nice, why doesn’t the fact that the Aztecs raised it for years and venerated it count for anything? Wikipedia summarizes: “Folklore attests it was cultivated by the Aztec in pre-Columbian times, and was so valued that it was given as an annual tribute by the people to the rulers.[2][3]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_hispanica
Human studies of nutrition are notoriously difficult to do and control. The problem and also the benefit of food-based medicine like chia is that it is powerful yet subtle. To detect such subtle effects, imho, almost mandates collecting reams of data.
In the end, is it worth it? Chia is a food. Try it, maybe you’ll like it. Otherwise you spent $10, and in the USA we can all afford that risk. Also, if you don’t like it, be sure to give it to one of us afficionados!
Thank you Mr. Mendosa for a wonderfully rational pro/con blogpost.
2011-01-16
Aphoristic Definitions with Usefulness Notes about Energy Mysticism, Objectivism, EEM, Astrology.
Here are my aphorisms/definitions for a few key terms that will be appearing in this blog (I may improve/edit them in the future):
* An Energy Mystic is one who, through the evidence of his own senses, perceives and uses subtle but real information about micro-weather patterns and other signals [1] to enhance his life. This type of mystic is NOT mystical in the classic philosophical sense which holds that mysticism is blind reliance on facts that are exclusively perceived by others. I now consider myself one of this category of people, as of ~2010.0626Saturday.
* An Objectivist is one who agrees with all the essential elements of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Those tenets are, in brief: that reality has primacy over consciousness, ie it is real and consciousness is the act of apprehending it, not the other way around; that thinking must proceed by logical thought based on the evidence of the senses; that the need for ethics only arises in the course of an individual’s choice to live and that rational selfishness is thus a virtue; and that the social covenants of politics must uphold an individual’s right to liberty and property by protecting him from the initiation of force and fraud against his chosen quest for life. I have been an Objectivist for many years. As soon as I read Atlas Shrugged, I realized I had just read the greatest novel ever written. I immediately reread it to find John Galt, and then I started really living life, because Ms. Rand convinced me that yes, I can truly succeed in life.
* Donna Eden’s Energy Medicine (EEM) [2] is a system for self-care, bodily systems improvement, and relaxation that uses Ms. Eden’s observations and summaries about the micro-weather patterns in living bodies in crafting techniques for improving health. It is a system that is under the rubric of alternative health care, but it does not operate by the method of diagnosing and treatment of diseases and symptoms. Instead, it works by strengthening the body’s responses and abilities. I am becoming certified in this discipline and am due to be completed in 2012; I'm taking the training primarily in order to expeditiously improve my own health.
* Astrology is the nearly-arbitrary art of describing the impact of micro-weather patterns that arise from planetary signatures on the conditions, but not the outcomes, of earthly events, especially those involving interpersonal relations. Outcomes are never pre-determined by astrology, despite how it might have been misused in the Middle Ages and elsewhere. Free will determines human outcomes. Astrology is helpful in two ways. First, its language offers a poetic and respectful way to describe and discuss possible and actual character faults, which may then be examined and corrected in a benevolent atmosphere [3]. Secondly, various astrological analyses, such as of opportunity periods [4] and trends, often prove valuable for clarifying one’s goals (such as by brainstorming and choosing specific task orderings) and achieving those goals with more ease (such as by making allowances for random problems and peace with one’s coping strategies). Note that both the task of self-change, particularly involving psychological/emotional issues, and the task of setting and acting on goals can often be fraught with either difficult conversations or difficult thinking. Properly used, astrology helps one focus more intently on doing the thinking that is required while at the same time flipping the emotional tone to ease and joy. I now consider myself a professional astrologer, as of perhaps 2008, but I will never be conventionally certified.
TODO Tell how I stumbled into Energy Mysticism.
TODO Maybe I should write about how I am an atheist.
REFS
[1] I purposefully use a vague description here, ie “micro-weather patterns and possibly other signals” because the exact nature of these signals is not yet scientifically defined, and the signals are usually perceived differently by each person. The problem is that I wish to define a type of extrasensory perception that is accessible to me personally, but I want to describe what is true for a class of people like me and yet I am too new and overwhelmed by the area to be a completely reliable observer in this regard.
[2] Donna Eden and her husband have been touring the world since they wrote her first book together.
Donna Eden - 5 Min. Energy Routine
07:58 - 4 years ago
Donna Eden - 5 Min. Energy Routine Highly Recommendend Daily Exercises for the Human Energy Fields. See http://www.innersource.net/ for more information.
[3] As Dr. Ellen Kenner has said on many occasions, to solve psychological issues regarding yourself or others: “become a detective and pursue your clues.”
[4] Astrological opportunity periods, defined by Jim Shawvan, are brief times when it is easier to be calm while having a difficult conversation, for example.
Finding Opportunity Periods by Jim Shawvan
Actual finish time: 9.33pm.
On Outsourcing, AKA: In NYC, routine tasks are an exciting adventure.
I was most pleased to have my fellow subway platform-pacer make my acquaintance once our car arrived and started moving. Alas I was not able to have much of a talk because my stop was the first one. This conversation really made my day special. I’m sorry I may not meet him again!
TallDarkHandsomeCheerful> So, I was reading this article in Harvard Business Review [1].
me: Note to Self: I think I'll just keep my sunglasses on in case he is mixing me up with someone else and would end this fun conversation!
TallDarkHandsomeCheerful> You know that argument that business makes? That outsourcing is good for profits and productivity because now better qualified people in Asia and India can do these jobs? Well, I was thinking, why not apply that logic to the corporate elite? Why not outsource top managment’s jobs also? What would they think of that? Shouldn’t we just take all their arguments and say yes to all of them just like that!?
me, giggling> Hey, that’s an argument in favor of low tariffs as well: if outsourcing is good then it’s good to lower the barrier to entry.
TallDarkHandsomeCheerful, smiling> And I just hate those arguments for outsourcing.
me> Well, you know actually, that argument is saying that you want to be in charge of other people’s decisions, and that’s wrong. After all, if I start a company and I make enough profit to hire you, then I can choose whether to keep hiring you or somebody else in India, right?
TallDarkHandsomeCheerful> Yes, but,
me> But the thing is that it’s the owner’s choice to decide who to hire. It’s not up to you to make the owner’s decisions.
me (I think I might not have finished this thought?)> And he is the source, he is the one that made up the business so of course you can’t outsource him.
TallDarkHandsomeCheerful> I disagree...
me> Oh, I'm sorry, I have to go, this is my stop!
[1] Possibly Mr. TallDarkHandsomeCheerful was referring to the following article.
3:00 PM Tuesday October 26, 2010 by Bruce Nussbaum |Comments (20)
Is What's Good for Corporate America Still Good For America?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)