1

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: Today at 01:08:33 »

Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.

The characteristic of many animals, especially humans, is their realisation that you can usually achieve more by collaboration than by competition. Thus we appreciate a sort of long-term integrated reward and most of us value that above immediate selfgratification. We use punishment and reward to bring into line those who don't.

How can we punish earth that created earthquakes and kills millions directly and indirectly? Or asteroids for hitting earth?

There are some balance between collaboration and competition. It's due to economic law of diminishing marginal utility. When there are more available resource or opportunity, collaboration is preferred. But when there are too many conscious agents or the resource are scarce, competition would be preferred.
Technological advancement can increase the amount of available resources. But as long as they are finite, we must keep reproduction rate under control. Otherwise there would be too much redundancy, which would be a suboptimal situation.

2

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: Yesterday at 21:49:26 »

When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it?

Of course not! Since we haven't come up with a useful definition of consciousness, I couldn't possibly mean that! The planet is the physical context in which we act.   

The "two common dangers" are actually one - philosophy. Like alcohol, it can be amusing in small doses but utterly destructive if you let it rule your life. Religion/relativism, whisky/beer, just different flavors, same poison.

If you don't want to call extended consciousness as I described previously as consciousness, that's fine. You can call it extended consciousness then. I've explain why consciousness can be useful in setting moral rules only if it is extended from clinical sense. A baby can be fully conscious clinically, but we can't expect them to follow moral rules intended for adults.
Religious fundamentalism commits false positive error type; it accepts a hypothesis that turn out to be false. Whereas moral relativism commits false negative error type; it rejects any hypotheses, including the correct one.

3

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: Yesterday at 17:13:50 »

Interestingly, I can use uncut nylon cable tie to induce boiling on superheated water, although it couldn't be used as boiling chip.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: Yesterday at 17:04:54 »

How are you measuring the temperature of the water?

I didn't.
I saw another video trying to measure the temperature of superheated water using a contact type thermometer, which predictably induced boiling. I think I better use a non-contact thermometer to measure the temperature after I better understand the induction of boiling on superheated water.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: Yesterday at 16:42:50 »

I also tested some materials to use as boiling chip. Their effectiveness vary.
A shiny metal coin effectively induced boiling. The water can't get to superheated state even after prolonged heating. Steam bubble are visibly generated on its surface.
A plastic button turns out to be a good inducer too. Unfortunately I can't find out what kind of plastic it was made of.
I cut a cable tie which is made of nylon. It can't induce boiling. The water always get superheated when heated long enough.
I also cut a solid coper wire with similar length as the tie. It induced boiling pretty well.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: Yesterday at 12:50:56 »

I found out why previously my metal tool didn't readily induce the superheated water to boil. Apparently, it absorbed so much heat that the water failed to boil. Only after the tool became hot enough, the superheated water still have enough energy to turn into steam.
Hence, using a solid copper wire can solve this issue. The superheated water becomes more easily induced to boil since the wire doesn't absorb much energy.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: Yesterday at 12:10:19 »

Another one is trying to introduce air bubble into the superheated water. Let me know if you have more ideas

Do it carefully.

Thank you.
I have finished several tests using microwave oven. I think I start to understand how it works. Here are some of the results:
- the water can still be superheated even after it boils.
- Plastic drinking straw can be used to induce superheated water to boil.
- The part where it's already induced to boil will eventually lost superheating state, while the other parts may still be superheated. Hence, if the inducer is then moved, it will generate bubble again.
-Introducing air bubble is similar to other inducer. The water can still stay in superheated state.

8

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 21/02/2020 11:50:56 »

When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it? As far as I know, planets are not conscious agents. They don't have internal model of objective reality representing themselves in their environments. They don't have preference either. We can't say if the earth prefer current condition over Hadean period. Jupiter didn't seem to mind to be hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets.

Reward and punishment as tools to enforce moral rules can only be applied to conscious agents, especially those with clear preferences. Otherwise, we need other ways to make an agent behave in good manners.

9

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 21/02/2020 10:36:25 »

There are two fundamental dangers to psychological and social stability, which are supposed to be protected by moral rules. They are religious fundamentalism on the right, and moral relativism and nihilism on the left.
The former usually takes form as being convinced by false premises and keeping away from error corrections.
The later usually are related to radical scepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism

Radical skepticism or radical scepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is most likely impossible.[1] Radical skeptics hold that doubt exists as to the veracity of every belief and that certainty is therefore never justified. To determine the extent to which it is possible to respond to radical skeptical challenges is the task of epistemology or "the theory of knowledge".[2]

Several Ancient Greek philosophers, including Plato, Cratylus, Carneades, Arcesilaus, Aenesidemus, Pyrrho, and Sextus Empiricus have been viewed as having expounded theories of radical skepticism.

In modern philosophy, two representatives of radical skepticism are Michel de Montaigne (most famously known for his skeptical remark, Que sçay-je ?, 'What do I know?' in Middle French; modern French Que sais-je ?) and David Hume (particularly as set out in A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 1: "Of the Understanding").

As radical skepticism can be used as an objection for most or all beliefs, many philosophers have attempted to refute it. For example, Bertrand Russell wrote “Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it.”

10

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 21/02/2020 02:52:55 »

I think we can all agree that a good moral rule is a useful one. But follow up question naturally comes up: useful according to who?

Depends on context. The planet, Society, British society, Yorkshiremen, family and friends, family only, or oneself? Or how about some Good Samaritan altruism? As long as you don't invoke any deities, the answer is usually fairly straightforward since the consequences of any action tend to diminish with distance from the source.

When you wrote the planet, can I assume that you meant collective conscious agents living on it? As far as I know, planets are not conscious agents. They don't have internal model of objective reality representing themselves in their environments. They don't have preference either. We can't say if the earth prefer current condition over Hadean period. Jupiter didn't seem to mind to be hit by Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets.

11

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 20/02/2020 22:37:01 »

Do you know if the phenomenon can happen when using a container with larger opening, such as a bowl or a plate?

I have recently repeated the experiment using glass bowl. At first I thought it was a failed attempt because the water always seemed to boil. After the microwave heating stopped, I checked if the water had became superheated by dipping a metal tool into it. No visible bubbling on the metal surface. The heating and checking were repeated several times with the same result until I thought that there was something wrong with the container.
Then I took a closer look at the bubble formation during boiling. The bubbles were mostly formed from the bottom center part of the bowl, which are the area I hadn't checked by metal dipping. Previously the metal tool was dipped near the surface and off center.
After some time of prolonged heating although it was already visibly boiling, I checked again by dipping the metal tool, this time at the bottom center of the bowl. To my surprise, and relieve, I saw bubbles formed on the surface of the tool. I then replace the metal tool with a plastic spoon. I still get some bubbles, but this time they are smaller in diameter and at lower forming rate. It shows that the water has became superheated inhomogenously.
I think that the bumping effect in chemistry is a different phenomenon than microwave superheating.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 20/02/2020 07:57:31 »

In my own experiment,  the water was boiled several times,  thus dissolved air should be already removed after the first boil. I used a clear glass with smooth surface.

My first attempts to produce microwaved superheated water using tap water never succeeded. The water always boiled before being superheated. Reheating the water didn't make any difference, although it should have been degassed by the prior boiling process.
My next attempt used demineralized water with conductivity around 2 microSiemens/cm. To minimize the risk, I used only small amount of demin water in a small glass. In my first attempt, I overheated the water, thus it exploded inside the microwave even before I added anything which can act as nucleation site.
For the next try, I became more cautious by pausing the microwave frequently to check if the water had became superheated. Instead of using salt grains which would provide a lot of nucleation sites at once, I used a solid stainless steel utensil to make the boiling process more controllable. Additionally, it doesn't contaminate the water like salt does, hence the water can be used multiple times. When the metal was dipped into the superheated water, steam bubbles were generated on its surface. It kept bubbling for a while until it stopped and became normal hot water.
I also tried to use a paper cup as the water container. Unfortunately I couldn't find a new one, thus I took a used paper cup previously used to drink tea. Even after I washed it using demin water, I couldn't produce superheated water in it. The water always boiled normally in the microwave.

It would take some time for me to edit the video before uploading it to my Youtube channel. Meanwhile, I'll try to continue the experiment to have an exhaustive investigation and get a firm conclusion. Getting a new paper cup is on my list. I also plan to use a metal container. Another one is trying to introduce air bubble into the superheated water. Let me know if you have more ideas to reduce uncertainty and give us a better understanding on the phenomenon.

13

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 20/02/2020 03:41:28 »

You can demonstrate superheated water with a  candle and a test tube.
There's nothing mysterious about microwaves here- except people often use them to heat water in ceramic mugs with nice smooth surfaces.

Do you have reference for this? Or have you experimented yourself?
What are minimum conditions to produce it?

How have you come to the conclusion that it is a rare phenomenon?
It's so commonplace that there's a wiki page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumping_(chemistry)

Yes, I have done it.

"What are minimum conditions to produce it?"
As I said;
"You can demonstrate superheated water with a  candle and a test tube." (and water, of course- the candle has to be burning).

Do you know if the phenomenon can happen when using a container with larger opening, such as a bowl or a plate?

14

Just Chat! / Re: Can starlink satellites convince flat earthers that earth isn't flat?

« on: 20/02/2020 03:36:53 »

No! You have to believe that the same satellite has gone round the back and reappeared. But it never reappears in the same place, so why should I believe it's the same satellite?  My TV aerial points at a geostationary satellite, so I know it's the same one (the signal doesn't change) and it is fixed in God's Firmament. Now that's what I call evidence of the obvious.

If your intellectual horizon is limited to your own back yard, the earth is indeed "flat enough for engineering purposes". The only unanswered question is "who feeds the turtles that support it? "

At least, with starlink satellites filling up the night sky, visible by naked eyes, and significantly change from its natural view, the flat earthers would be forced to rethink their positions. Especially when they have access to the new internet connections provided by the satellites, which is previously unavailable. Furthermore, SpaceX is a private company, thus no reason for them to spend their resources covering things up from public using conspiracion theory.

15

Just Chat! / Re: Can starlink satellites convince flat earthers that earth isn't flat?

« on: 19/02/2020 09:10:19 »

The appearance of our natural satellite should be sufficient ...


moon inverted.jpg (67.08 kB . 540x720 - viewed 5913 times)

I found from one of their channel that they demand an evidence that they can confirm by themselves, without requiring them to ask someone else, nor going too far from their hometown. This is what the satellites provide. 

16

Just Chat! / Re: Is there a universal moral standard?

« on: 19/02/2020 04:51:20 »

All the quotes seem to suggest is that if you select people with a relevant test, they will perform better than average or those that fail the test. But the key is relevance. A blind man with an IQ of 130 probably won't make a good pilot. Bench pressing 100 kilos is quite a feat, but a footballer needs quite different feet. 

So you assert that we should select lawmakers on the grounds of consciousness, but the only definition you have given seems to be "IQ plus selfawareness". Every animal I have encountered is self-aware. The extreme seems to be narcissism, which is obviously undesirable.

Unaided blind man has reduced awareness compared to otherwise normal men. Advanced technology can provide some ways to compensate the handicap, or even give more advantage, such as additional infrared, ultraviolet, and radar vision unavailable to the unaided normal human. An average man aided by a powerful AI directly connected to his brain may easily beat the smartest persons in many tasks requiring high intelligence.
That's why I mentioned the need to consider distinctions between effective and potential level of consciousness.
If you are inside an autonomous vehicle, you would prefer that the system controlling the vehicle is a proven and reliable system with ability to create accurate model of reality around it, and the system has preference to keep you safe in it to get to your destination instead of getting you run into building or down a cliff.
If you selectively dismantle some aspects that build general consciousness, it's unsurprising that you will get undesired results. In the case of narcissism, the agent has inaccurate model of reality, which significantly reduces its measure of general consciousness.

Empirical studies
Within the field of psychology, there are two main branches of research into narcissism: (1) clinical and (2) social psychology.

These two approaches differ in their view of narcissism, with the former treating it as a disorder, thus as discrete, and the latter treating it as a personality trait, thus as a continuum. These two strands of research tend loosely to stand in a divergent relation to one another, although they converge in places.

Campbell and Foster (2007)[23] review the literature on narcissism. They argue that narcissists possess the following "basic ingredients":

Positive: Narcissists think they are better than others.[26]
Inflated: Narcissists' views tend to be contrary to reality. In measures that compare self-report to objective measures, narcissists' self-views tend to be greatly exaggerated.[27]
Agentic: Narcissists' views tend to be most exaggerated in the agentic domain, relative to the communion domain.[clarification needed][26][27]
Special: Narcissists perceive themselves to be unique and special people.[28]
Selfish: Research upon narcissists' behaviour in resource dilemmas supports the case for narcissists as being selfish.[29]
Oriented toward success: Narcissists are oriented towards success by being, for example, approach oriented.[clarification needed][30]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism#Empirical_studies

The measure of general consciousness of an agent is its effectiveness to achieve long term goals. Many ways can be used, including increasing the input resolution, additional sensing methods, increasing memory capacity and data processing speed, having self error correcting mechanism, influencing other agents to help the cause, manipulating its environments, etc. Since the measure will contain a lot of uncertainty, then the result will be statistical in nature, instead of deterministic one.
So the key parameter for consciousness is the accuracy of internal model of the agent in representing parts objective reality which have significant impact to the achievement of the agent's goal in the long term.
The result of the general consciousness assessment of an agent is not used to justify right or priviledge of that agent, but instead to select appropriate set of moral rules which they can follow/obey effectively and efficiently to achieve desired results in the long term. Simply put, with great power comes great responsibility.

17

Just Chat! / Can starlink satellites convince flat earthers that earth isn't flat?

« on: 19/02/2020 04:12:25 »

Can starlink satellites convince flat earthers that earth isn't flat?

The large number of planned satellites have been met with criticism from the astronomical community.[115][116][117] Astronomers claim that the number of visible satellites will outnumber visible stars, and that their brightness in both optical and radio wavelengths will severely impact scientific observations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starlink#Criticism

18

Just Chat! / Re: Can science prove God exists?

« on: 19/02/2020 04:02:36 »

The thread is about proof but also about the hints and messages that God, if he exists, seems to be leaving for us. Today, while working in the garage I thought about the justification the Israelis give for the establishment of the State of Israel. It is simple "God gave it to them".

What makes you think that God is a male? What is the defining characteristics that makes him male instead of female of gender neutral? Can he change his own gender at will? Does he got female partners?

19

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 19/02/2020 03:35:20 »

When we get unexpected result, one or more of our assumptions must turn out to be false

One assumption you are making is that YT videos are trustworthy.
We know that assumption to be false.

We also know that bubbles are impossible in superheated water (and we know why).

So, when we see bubbles, and someone tells us the water is superheated, we know that he is not telling the truth.

Fortunately, the experiment is quite simple with standard household equipment. Anyone can replicate it to either verify or falsify the result.
I will know for sure which assumption is false when my experiment is done.

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How microwave superheats water?

« on: 18/02/2020 10:55:45 »

What makes you think that the video uploader was dishonest?

Exactly the same observation that you  made.

Here we can see some bubbles are already formed on the container's surface even before the sugar is added.

You just can't do that with superheated water.
So, we know it isn't superheated water.
So, it must be something else.

It could be lemonade.
But it certainly isn't superheated water.

When we get unexpected result, one or more of our assumptions must turn out to be false. I think I can try to replicate the experiment. I have all the required ingredients already. I'll post the result here ASAP.