Podcasts about twin earth

We Found a Twin Earth, Where Evolution Went Horribly Wrong | Sci-Fi Creepypasta Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

☄️ 10ème édition du festival Cabourg mon amour. Un festival avec vue sur mer, 3 jours ensoleillés avec au programme des artistes émergents, comme l'énergie communication de Zélie, l'humour nostalgie de Lancelot, les vinyles house de Marina Trench, ou encore la pop solaire de Styleto. Pour cet épisode j'ai rencontré Albert Newton quelques heures avant de monter sur la grande scène du festival m'a confié les secrets de fabrication de son premier album “TWIN EARTH”. Influencé par Bowie ou Solange, l'artiste franco-britannique se livre dans un univers métaphysique.

Albert Newton fait la rencontre de chercheurs en mécanique quantique et autres passionnés d'astrophysique qui lui ouvrent les yeux sur la beauté et la réalité du monde qui l'entoure. Cette découverte devient rapidement une obsession et une inspiration majeure pour l'écriture de son premier album «Twin Earth» disponible depuis le 9 février. Rien n'est jamais parfait sur la planète bleue, mais Albert Newton la regarde avec tendresse et gratitude dans «Morning light» et nous communique un optimisme dont nous avons grandement besoin.Fall off : Henry de la Ville Montbazon / Henry de la Ville MontbazonMorning light : Henry de la Ville Montbazon / Henry de la Ville Montbazon Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

We Found A Twin Earth On Alpha Centauri. Then Scientists Started to Disappear | Sci-Fi Creepypasta

Things Added to The List on This Episode: Mountain Dew Baja Caribbean Splash -  The Founding Fathers -  Conspiracy Theories -  Hawaiian Punch Cotton Candy -  Fire Crackers -  Trigger Warning: The topics of Slavery and The Holocaust are discussed on this episode. Other topics include Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Twin Earth, Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs, 9/11, Alex Jones, The Tuskeegee Conspiracy, Slot Machines, Santa Claus, The Titanic, Fireworks, Jason Vorhees.  **Join the Chamber of Knowledge : The Chamber of Knowledge | Facebook - The Pyramid is here... Get in the Scheme! Only at Patreon.com/getinthepyramid 

Ben explains Twin Earth to Pat.

Mormonism, Kinderhook, Native American mounds, Mormon perspective of, theurgy, Mormonism as high ritual magick, Utah SRA allegations, LeBaron family, Peter Levenda, Discordianism, OTO, Kenneth Grant, Twin Earth, Cosmic Joker, Sinister Forces, mythmaking, John Wesley Powell, Smithsonian, Ephraim George Squier, Edwin Hamilton Davis, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, Lewis Henry Morgan, VIP obsession with Mounds, Mormon connection Mounds controversy, what was really being covered up, Kensington rune stone, Freemasonry, Cryptic Masonry, the rune stone cipher, 33, Minnesota, other Masonic forgeries across the US, Illuminati, Society of Cincinnati, Illuminati vs Cincinnati Get bonus content on Patreon Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

This is Cognitive Revolution, my show about the personal side of the intellectual journey. Each week, I interview an eminent scientist, writer, or academic about the experiences that shaped their ideas. The show is available wherever you listen to podcasts.My guest today is Annie Murphy Paul. Annie is a science journalist, and she has a new book out. It’s getting a lot of press. She’s made the rounds on all the Big Idea podcasts. I listened to a bunch of them in prep for this episode. Three of my favorites were her talks with Adam Grant, Ezra Klein, and Scott Barry Kaufman (fun fact: AMP was actually SBK's very first guest on his podcast). They’re all great discussions, and so I tried to broach some new territory with Annie in our talk here. The basic argument of her book is about fundamentally rethinking the way we talk about the mind. Her book is called The Extended Mind, and its starting point is a paper of the same title by two philosophers, Andy Clark and David Chalmers. The basic line of argument is that we tend to think of the mind as a fundamentally bounded entity, where the bounds of thought are essentially between one’s ears. These philosophers, Annie, and the relevant academic literature, are saying: No, actually when you start to scrutinize the assumptions of that idea, the position doesn’t hold up very well. Actually our minds are inextricable from the world around us. Annie’s book is all about diving into why this is the case, and how it should change the way we interact with our surroundings.In preparation for this discussion, I revisited that original Clark and Chalmers paper from 1998. The point of the paper, as they see it, is an argument against semantic externalism. This is a philosophical position about whether the “meaning” of a word resides in our heads, or in the world. Philosophers like Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge advanced this externalist position, with the key soundbite being Putnam’s quote: “Cut the pie any way you like, meaning just ain’t in the head.” In particular, Putnam has this famous thought experiment, called Twin Earth, which him and his contemporaries use as an argument that internalism is false and externalism is true (meaning just ain’t in the head). Clark and Chalmers are kind of saying: Look, it’s not just meaning that isn’t in the head. It’s all of cognition. They call this position active externalism. There’s a quote from the paper I really love. This is Clark and Chalmers talking about the details of Twin Earth: “When I believe that water is wet and my twin believes that twin water is wet, the external features responsible for the difference in our beliefs are distal and historical, at the other end of a lengthy causal chain. Features of the present are not relevant: if I happen to be surrounded by XYZ right now (maybe I have teleported to Twin Earth), my beliefs still concern standard water, because of my history.” I have only a modest notion of what the hell they’re talking about. But I just love how the more sophisticated a philosophical argument is, the deeper it gets into the finer points of just how wet water on twin earth is, and if you were doused in it would it feel equivalently wet to substance XYZ, and how do you know whether it’s really you or twin-you who feels this wetness. At any rate, what Clark and Chalmers are saying is that our relationship to the people, objects, and tool in our external environment is not passive. We are actively thinking through the environment, as we much as are thinking through our own neurons. They give the example of Tetris and how you’re actually rotating the shapes on screen, then seeing if they fit—rather than thinking about how they might fit and then rotating accordingly.That’s a brief primer on the philosophical origins of this concept. In my conversation with Annie, we also talk about how our minds extend into our social surroundings, why writing is a form of memory, the important ideas about the extended mind that people tend to gloss over, how this concept should affect American education, and how this concept changes the way we think about other people. We also battle it out over whether a dual monitor computer set up actually works like a second brain. It was a fun conversation, and I hope you enjoy it.Annie’s Three Books:Andy Clark: Natural-Born CyborgsAlva Noë: Out of Our HeadsMark Epistein: The Zen of TherapyLike this episode? Here’s another one to check out:I’d love to know what you thought of this episode! Just reply to this email or send a note directly to my inbox. Feel free to tweet me @CodyKommers. You can also leave a rating for the show on iTunes (or another platform). This is super helpful, as high ratings are one of the biggest factors platforms look at in their recommender system algorithms. The better the ratings, the more they present the show to new potential listeners.Also: If you’d like to unsubscribe from these weekly podcast emails, you can do so while still remaining on the email list that features my weekly writing. Thanks for following my work! This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit codykommers.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Lies, Damn Lies, and Fabricated Options, published by Duncan_Sabien on the LessWrong. This is an essay about one of those "once you see it, you will see it everywhere" phenomena. It is a psychological and interpersonal dynamic roughly as common, and almost as destructive, as motte-and-bailey, and at least in my own personal experience it's been quite valuable to have it reified, so that I can quickly recognize the commonality between what I had previously thought of as completely unrelated situations. The original quote referenced in the title is "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Background 1: Gyroscopes Gyroscopes are weird. Except they're not. They're quite normal and mundane and straightforward. The weirdness of gyroscopes is a map-territory confusion—gyroscopes seem weird because my map is poorly made, and predicts that they will do something other than their normal, mundane, straightforward thing. In large part, this is because I don't have the consequences of physical law engraved deeply enough into my soul that they make intuitive sense. I can imagine a world that looks exactly like the world around me, in every way, except that in this imagined world, gyroscopes don't have any of their strange black-magic properties. It feels coherent to me. It feels like a world that could possibly exist. "Everything's the same, except gyroscopes do nothing special." Sure, why not. But in fact, this world is deeply, deeply incoherent. It is Not Possible with capital letters. And a physicist with sufficiently sharp intuitions would know this—would be able to see the implications of a world where gyroscopes "don't do anything weird," and tell me all of the ways in which reality falls apart. The seeming coherence of the imaginary world where gyroscopes don't balance and don't precess and don't resist certain kinds of motion is a product of my own ignorance, and of the looseness with which I am tracking how different facts fit together, and what the consequences of those facts are. It's like a toddler thinking that they can eat their slice of cake, and still have that very same slice of cake available to eat again the next morning. Background 2: H2O and XYZ In the book Labyrinths of Reason, author William Poundstone delves into various thought experiments (like Searle's Chinese Room) to see whether they're actually coherent or not. In one such exploration, he discusses the idea of a Twin Earth, on the opposite side of the sun, exactly like Earth in every way except that it doesn't have water. Instead, it has a chemical, labeled XYZ, which behaves like water and occupies water's place in biology and chemistry, but is unambiguously distinct. Once again, this is the sort of thing humans are capable of imagining. I can nod along and say "sure, a liquid that behaves just like water, but isn't." But a chemist, intimately familiar with the structure and behavior of molecules and with the properties of the elements and their isotopes, would be throwing up red flags. "Just like water," they might say, and I would nod. "Liquid, and transparent, with a density of 997 kilograms per meter cubed." "Sure," I would reply. "Which freezes and melts at exactly 0º Celsius, and which boils and condenses at exactly 100º Celsius." "Yyyyeahhhh," I would say, uneasiness settling in. "Which makes up roughly 70% of the mass of the bodies of the humans of Twin Earth, and which is a solvent for hydrophilic substances, but not hydrophobic ones, and which can hold ions and polar substances in solution." "Um." The more we drill down into what we mean by behaves exactly like water, the more it starts to become clear that there just isn't a possible substance which behaves exactly like water, but isn't. There are only so many configurations of electrons and protons and neutrons ...

TM News 38 - Bits In Universe, IC Vaccine Refusal, Ant Swarm Robots, Recent Wildfires, Twin Earth...http://www.troubledminds.org ⬇⬇⬇ Support The Show! ⬇⬇⬇➡ https://www.rokfin.com/troubledminds ⬅➡ https://troubled-minds-store.creator-spring.com/ ⬅#aliens #conspiracy #paranormal--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.livescience.com/how-many-bits-in-the-universehttps://gizmodo.com/researchers-think-they-figured-out-how-to-squeeze-500tb-1847974548https://www.pressherald.com/2021/11/05/thousands-of-intelligence-officers-refusing-vaccine-risk-dismissal/https://www.universetoday.com/153202/whats-snuffing-out-galaxies-before-their-time/https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00937https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/11/05/glass-slabs-chiles-atacama-desert-come-comet-explosion/6273588001/https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/doi/10.1130/G49426.1/609354/Widespread-glasses-generated-by-cometary-fireballshttps://newatlas.com/robotics/ant-inspired-quadruped-swarm-robots/https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/05/world/fossil-skeleton-discovered-canyonlands-scn/index.htmlhttps://futurism.com/the-byte/eruption-sun-power-gridhttps://scitechdaily.com/planetary-defense-nasa-prepares-to-launch-dart-to-deflect-asteroid-with-kinetic-impact/https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/11/the-blame-game-how-much-are-we-responsible-for-recent-wildfires/https://www.space.com/digital-twin-earth-to-help-fight-climate-changehttp://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/expanding-universes-black-holes-10236.htmlhttps://www.jpost.com/science/asteroid-the-size-of-eiffel-tower-heading-for-earth-in-december-684133

I vant to thank the Soskas for taking some time out of their busy schedule to come down back in Oct. 2014. Here's what we played: Band Song Album Twins of Evil theatrical trailer, Monster Magnet “Twin Earth”, Doublemint gum commercial Slayer “Gemini”, Dead Hooker in a Trunk trailer, Titan Go-Kings “Kouketsuatsu Girl “, Babymetal “Babymetal Death”, Horrorpops “Psychobitches Outta Hell”, Zacherly “Hurry Bury Baby”, American Mary trailer, Stonewall “Bloody Mary”, Cursed “Bloody Mary”, Carcass “316 L Grade Surgical Steel”, See No Evil 2 trailer, Danzig “Trouble”, The Horrors “Jack the Ripper”, Simon & Hecubus “Evil”, Evil Army “Sgt. Says Kill”, Evil Mothers “The Readyset Die (Vodka Satanic mix)”, Francois de Roubaix “Daughters of Darkness”, The Rotted “The Howling”, Ronald Stein “Spider Baby”, Count Floyd “Dr. Tongue’s House of Cats”, Dismember “The Hills Have Eyes”, The 5 Blobs “The Blob”.

This episode discusses the famous philosophical debate of internalism versus externalism. It explains the perspective of the externalist using the Twin Earth thought experiment and also popular objections to it. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/adya-singh/message

Current Program 813 Week Commencing July 3rd 2020 Duncan Roads – The Helical Sun & Climate, The “Twin Earth” and more…. Website: nexusmagazine.com Right Click and “save link as” to download the MP3 PROGRAM 813

It's taken for granted among analytic philosophers that some of their primary areas of inquiry – ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, in particular – involve a special and characteristic methodology that depends essentially on the use of intuitions as evidence for philosophical positions. A thought experiment is developed in order to elicit intuitive judgments, and these judgments have a special epistemic status. Paradigm cases of this methodology include Gettier cases, in which we judge whether the subject in the scenario has or does not have knowledge, and Putnam's Twin-Earth cases, in which we judge whether the contents of thought depend on the physical nature of a thinker's environment. The new experimental philosophy movement also accepts this assumption, as it is premised on rejecting it by conducting real experiments (with non-philosophers as subjects) rather than thought-experiments. In Philosophy Without Intuitions (Oxford University Press, 2012), Herman Cappelen, professor of philosophy at the Arche Philosophical Research Centre at the University of St. Andrews, argues that this assumption is simply false as a descriptive claim about the practice of contemporary analytic philosophy. Instead, a detailed look at the thought experiments shows that uses of the term “intuition” or “intuitively” are better interpreted as an unfortunate verbal tic or as a conversational hedge indicating that a claim is just a snap judgment or a bit of pre-theoretic background. What is not true, he claims, is that the judgments have bedrock epistemological status, are considered justified without appeals to experience and without inference, that inclinations to believe these judgments tend to be recalcitrant to further evidence, or that these judgments are based on conceptual competence or have a special phenomenology.

It’s taken for granted among analytic philosophers that some of their primary areas of inquiry – ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, in particular – involve a special and characteristic methodology that depends essentially on the use of intuitions as evidence for philosophical positions. A thought experiment is developed in order to elicit intuitive judgments, and these judgments have a special epistemic status. Paradigm cases of this methodology include Gettier cases, in which we judge whether the subject in the scenario has or does not have knowledge, and Putnam’s Twin-Earth cases, in which we judge whether the contents of thought depend on the physical nature of a thinker’s environment. The new experimental philosophy movement also accepts this assumption, as it is premised on rejecting it by conducting real experiments (with non-philosophers as subjects) rather than thought-experiments. In Philosophy Without Intuitions (Oxford University Press, 2012), Herman Cappelen, professor of philosophy at the Arche Philosophical Research Centre at the University of St. Andrews, argues that this assumption is simply false as a descriptive claim about the practice of contemporary analytic philosophy. Instead, a detailed look at the thought experiments shows that uses of the term “intuition” or “intuitively” are better interpreted as an unfortunate verbal tic or as a conversational hedge indicating that a claim is just a snap judgment or a bit of pre-theoretic background. What is not true, he claims, is that the judgments have bedrock epistemological status, are considered justified without appeals to experience and without inference, that inclinations to believe these judgments tend to be recalcitrant to further evidence, or that these judgments are based on conceptual competence or have a special phenomenology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It’s taken for granted among analytic philosophers that some of their primary areas of inquiry – ethics, epistemology, philosophy of mind and philosophy of language, in particular – involve a special and characteristic methodology that depends essentially on the use of intuitions as evidence for philosophical positions. A thought experiment is developed in order to elicit intuitive judgments, and these judgments have a special epistemic status. Paradigm cases of this methodology include Gettier cases, in which we judge whether the subject in the scenario has or does not have knowledge, and Putnam’s Twin-Earth cases, in which we judge whether the contents of thought depend on the physical nature of a thinker’s environment. The new experimental philosophy movement also accepts this assumption, as it is premised on rejecting it by conducting real experiments (with non-philosophers as subjects) rather than thought-experiments. In Philosophy Without Intuitions (Oxford University Press, 2012), Herman Cappelen, professor of philosophy at the Arche Philosophical Research Centre at the University of St. Andrews, argues that this assumption is simply false as a descriptive claim about the practice of contemporary analytic philosophy. Instead, a detailed look at the thought experiments shows that uses of the term “intuition” or “intuitively” are better interpreted as an unfortunate verbal tic or as a conversational hedge indicating that a claim is just a snap judgment or a bit of pre-theoretic background. What is not true, he claims, is that the judgments have bedrock epistemological status, are considered justified without appeals to experience and without inference, that inclinations to believe these judgments tend to be recalcitrant to further evidence, or that these judgments are based on conceptual competence or have a special phenomenology. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A detailed discussion with Dr Barry Smith and Professor Tim Crane about thought experiments, their implications for language and for thought and the legitimacy of their use in philosophy

Transcript -- A detailed discussion with Dr Barry Smith and Professor Tim Crane about thought experiments, their implications for language and for thought and the legitimacy of their use in philosophy