The late Francis Crick (of the Watson-Crick DNA-structure-elucidation-duo) is said to have, in later life, been concerned with theoretical neurobiology, and attempts to advance the scientific study of human consciousness.
Crick, by nature and education a classical physicist, was interested in two fundamental unsolved problems of biology: how molecules make the transition from the non-living to the living, and how the brain makes a conscious mind.
In recognition of the fact that we still know more or less sweet-F-A about this matter, I want to announce a composition event. I would like to invite you all to think about this problem that this thoughtful and great scientist never solved in his lifetime.
So, now then, it is time to try to crowd-source possible answers to these problems. Let us try to find out what individual thinking humans think about this matter, and let us start a discussion about how to move forward, and what kinds of things neurobiologists ought to be researching.
I invite submissions, in ordinary dissertation form, as follows:-
This is a libertarian blog. I have written on it for almost nine years, so I ought to know. So also do the other writers, some of whom have been here a long time and some have not; we increase all the time. The problem with life however comes in when people that want to simply rub along normally with other people next-door to them get interfered with by GramscoFabiaNazis and the foul designs of thee foul people, who simply want to destroy and not build.
The Scottish and English People have been (more or less) together since long before even the Romans tried to add the Province of Britannia to their empire. The Romans slightly succeeded for almost 400 years but ultimately failed; the reasons for their failure are also down to socialism but that’s for another post, and entails some kinds of economic theory which I will leave to the Director of the LA to explain possibly better than I can.I have never pretended to be an economist; merely a sort of scientist, that tries to observe and conclude.
In the meantime, the Scottish sorts kind-of-rubbed-along with the more southerly-based English sorts. This must have been the case, more or less.
Modern alchemists and suchlike people even find it hard to discern more than subtle differences between Scottish and English DNA. A largish island with more-or-less-uniform topography except at some of the edges, and which is a largish distance – say more than 20 miles – from any nearby landmass, must inevitably end up with a human population like this one over the course of thousands of years. Discussion of unpopular and proactive-GramscoFabiaNazi-driven “immigration” from “vibrant populations of very-very-high-ethnicity”, which is to say that these blokes are very-very-highly-ethnic and also very religious, is another matter totally.
I come now to the Scots. Like us, the Scots People, being white and so on, are not in this century defined as ethnic.There is no biological or psychological reason why their cosmological view ought to differ from ours.
But….in the last couple of decades, a Scottish Nationalist movement has become a not-negligible force in UK politics. Put simply, I put this down to people deciding to vote for people that say they’ll give you, the voter, an ever-increasing proportion of other people’s money. It is quite natural for an uncurious person to decide this is a good thing for himself. The generalised-British LabourNazi party has been saying things like that for more than a century, which is why it has been quite successful and in effect destroyed the Old Liberal Party, Continue reading
No, I’m serious.
There are two ways it could be done. The first one costs nothing whatever. The second one’s installation costs are nugatory when measured against the astonishing insurance payouts and other colateral reputational damage done by a suicide-crash.
The first solution is Continue reading
I have been wondering quietly to myself for a few days since Tuesday, and the news that a bloke deliberately locked his fellow Flying-Officer out of the cockpit and crashed the entire plane into a mountainside at the speed of an air-rifle bullet, about the strategic wisdom of measures taken by our supposed “leaders” in regard to what they call “The War On Terror”.
I will not make an anodyne speech about how “our thoughts are with the victims and their families” for
(a) they are anyway, and
(b) it’s anodyne corporate wallpaper when said in this way (you might just pray to God instead if it makes things better or at least less awful, and which you can) and
(c) all the Public-EnemyClass-GramscoFabiaNazis say this crap when they are trying to cover up something and they don’t mean it a toss anyway, being bad people a-priori; so they’ve devalued it. So I shan’t do it.
Now then, to The Main Business.
There can be no such thing as a “War On Terror”. How do you wage war against a tactic of war, or a “strategic objective”? You can only wage a war on the actual people that execute at least one of a range of different tactics or strategies.
It so far appears that the door to the cockpit of this sadly-doomed plane possessed locking devices strong enough to prevent breaching with an axe. In the wake of 9/11 this seems all very well, but doesn’t take account of probabilities far far higher than an armed hijack by pre-capitalist-barbarian nerds (you all know who there are) armed with stanley-knives. Such higher probabilities must, it seems, include pilots with mental problems serious enough to put their “fitness to fly” in question – regardless of the level of skills they have.
It appears that these locking devices could be commanded from inside the cockpit; and also then _not_ by a flight-deck officer outside it who could then not override them.
The obvious way round this problem, if our “masters” believe that armed air-hijacking is a real threat, and that there is actually what they call a “war on terror” (the need for such a war is indeed rather arguable doubtful) is to do one or else more of the following things, in light of the fact that it’s pretty hard to take, say a Bren Gun or other “medium machine gun” (or even a 0.5″ rifle) into the passenger compartment of an airliner:- Continue reading
I’ve been thinking about the meanings of words, for about 100 years now (I was born on 4th August 1914 as you all know.)
While “libertarian” means “some sort of “/*.-arian” [star.dot.-arian – remember DOS anyone?] who is kind of in favour of individual liberty (that is to say; about choosing this or that course of action and so on, within any agreed legal framework that acknowledges that power), we are now where we are, in a hegemonic climate that’s deeply deeply hostile to any form of nonconformity with the prevailing and “agreed” terms of public discourse. “Anarchists” of the leftoNazi (the only kind of Nazi) persuasion are however tolerated positively and actively, because they are exactly the opposite of what they say. They are “social”, in fact. (See/google “Enoch Powell” + “social” + “word” + “opposite meaning” .)
I have decided that one reason why “libertarians”, such as we here, have got absolutely nowhere in the last 40 years, during which time we should have creamed the World, is that our word for ourselves is an “intellectual” one, and means nothing positive – and indeed has potentially negative connotations – to nearly all people, which is to say about 7 billion. There are perhaps 250,000 people on this planet who actually know what it means in reality, and most of them are opposed academics (Nazis), leftoidNazi journos, or career-politicoNazis. This is not a good place to begin from, to get where we want to go.
We should retake the word “LIBERAL”. Here I promote a comment from Ian B, as follows:- Continue reading
D J Webb
We are not lone individuals engaged in a struggle against nature, but social animals, who have our individual rights to liberty in a free country, but who are nevertheless part of a wider society, culture and economy. We have the right to expect the support of the society around us, which is why we also have the duty to uphold it to the extent that it protects us from the depredations of nature and wild animals and the bad behaviour of other human beings. Society is not meant to be a war of all against all, but a coming together of human beings in a way that promotes the good of each of them.
This is not a majoritarian concept. Society does not exist to promote the good of the majority at the expense of a minority. It ought to hold real benefits for every single member of the polity. This is the reason why the nation-state is important in terms of social freedom: the natural bands and connections of a real society—cultural ties—allow for greater latitude to individual freedom in a nation-state than does the creation of a “society” of warring cultural groups constantly intervened in by a lumpen bureaucracy that seeks social division and conflict as the price of its sinecurist monopolisation of social revenues.
Nations vs. nationalities
Nations are not artificially created: a European directive announcing that all Europeans were henceforth to be considered a single nation would not make it so. Continue reading
D J Webb
I’m personally sick of football being used to promote the politics of racial and national dispossession.
Football fans should not be subject to political propaganda of any type. There should be no link between attending a football match and espousing right-on views on racial relations.
UEFA and any other football association should have no policies on race and racism, and no footballer should be investigated by kangaroo courts held to establish his political views.
I should add that I regard football as a low-brow interest, and I’m not a supporter of any team, and I know nothing about the off-side rule. My only focus in this article is on the _politicisation of football_. Continue reading