Today I learned +

[Dioltach]

Huh, they managed to get even more terrifying. Great.

The only thing scarier than a real dragon!*

* You know what I mean.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

TIL: Komodo dragons have iron-tipped teeth to tear into flesh

So in addition to venom, they have grilles? Gangsta!

 

[Ryujin]

TIL: Someone is "relaunching" the WEG D6 system that was used in the WEG Star Wars game. Doubtful they'll have any of that licensed content, but the rule system was nice.

 

[briggart]

TIL: that the Protomolecule is getting busy on Venus

(We are still a long way from convincing evidence of biological processes on Venus, but it seems the original detection was not a fluke, which is by itself interesting)

 

[overgeeked]

This is the third or fourth time I've come across this, but I think it's too wild not to share.

Are we all multiple personalities of universal consciousness?

Bernardo Kastrup proposes a new ontology he calls “idealism” built on panpsychism, the idea that everything in the universe contains consciousness. He solves problems with this philosophy by adding a new suggestion: The universal mind has dissociative identity disorder.

bigthink.com

 

[briggart]

This is the third or fourth time I've come across this, but I think it's too wild not to share.

Are we all multiple personalities of universal consciousness?

Bernardo Kastrup proposes a new ontology he calls “idealism” built on panpsychism, the idea that everything in the universe contains consciousness. He solves problems with this philosophy by adding a new suggestion: The universal mind has dissociative identity disorder.

bigthink.com

That seems wild. Also wrong. From the original paper:

To bring this point home, Rosenberg offers the following thought experiment: imagine a field of tightly packed yellow and red dots. If one observes this field from a sufficient distance, one sees the colour orange. It could then be argued that the phenomenal property ‘orange’ arises from a pattern of bare differences associated with the delta in wavelength between yellow and red photons, as well as the relative size and distribution of the dots. However, if one were to choose
another pair of colours with the same delta in wavelength — say, yellow and green — and otherwise maintain the same relative structure of dots, a phenomenal property different from ‘orange’ would result. In other words, the same pattern of bare differences would yield a different phenomenal property. Hence, phenomenal properties are not entailed by patterns of bare differences and cannot be reduced to properties and arrangements of ultimates.
This and other arguments along similar lines render mainstream physicalism arguably untenable.

This is not how human vision works. Wavelength differences are important, but also the absolute wavelength matters.
Now, previously the author explained how basic physical properties cannot be defined in absolute terms, but only through relative differences, e.g. we cannot define a positive electric charge in an absolute way, but only by comparing its behavior to that of a negative charge, so I understand why the focus is on relative differences.

But even assuming this to be true, wavelength is in itself a differential property (e.g. the separation between two consecutive amplitude maxima), so the claim that a purely physical description of experience is untenable doesn't seem very solid, at least based on how it is explained in this paper.

I'm not familiar with philosophy, certainly not with modern developments, so it's possible there are more in depth discussion of the issue which account for my objection above, but that really seems wrong to me.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

"Skinker" is an archaic term for one who pours libations, ie a bartender. Not often these days that I encounter a useful, easily-remembered word to add to my personal lexicon, but that's a good one.

If the OTR show I picked it up from is correct, it was little-remembered even in 1949.

Addendum: Further research shows that the term was in use as early as 1575, and appears to be derived from Middle English, Dutch, Old Norse and proto-Germanic words meaning "to give a present" - as in, present someone with a drink, in this case. "Skink" was synonymous with the noun "a drink" in Scotland at some point, although it also acted as a verb for pouring one with the usual conjugation - skink, skinked, skinking.

For added confusion, another unrelated series of Germanic and Danish words led to Scotland also using "skink" to mean a shank cut of ham or beef or stew made of same. And because the Danish root words for both meanings was pronounced with more of a sch- or sh sound, "shink" was could be used in place of skink in English during some periods.

None of this has anything to do with the mostly-legless skink lizards, nor (somewhat counterintuitively) does Cockney rhyming slang appear to enter into it - came along too late, I suppose.

If there's a lesson to be learned, it's to be wary of asking your skinker in Glasgow to get you some shink unless you're prepared to get beef pottage instead of beer. Also, language is ridiculous and the mere idea of everyone speaking "Common" is absurd.

 

[Autumnal]

Is that a good book?

Sorry, didn’t get a notification for this. Yes, both 1177 BC (particularly the revised and expanded version) and its follow up After 1177 BC are excellent and I highly recommend them. Also Cline’s general introduction to archeology, Three Stones Make A Wall.

 

[Ryujin]

Today I learned that there is also a white water rafting company that's called JourneyQuest.

GenCon attendees might get that one.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Conventicle is not only a collective noun for a group of magpies (as are gulp, tittering, tiding and mischief) it's also an irregular or illegal meeting, particularly in the sense of an underground religious meeting. Can also just be a meetinghouse or church.

If you can't find a use for that one in some roleplaying context or another you're not trying very hard. I rather like "Conventicle of Magpies" as a name for a classy thieves' guild myself.