I'm going to wait for your thoughts on what would falsify your theory, because if it's a real effort, I'll be more inclined to put in the work you are requesting.
"Irrelevant" was the wrong word re images; sorry to have sent you down a rabbit hole--I should have said, "not obviously necessary to the point being made and/or unaccompanied by some explanation of why I should learn about what's in the image". I'd look at an image, read your text on either side of it, and have no idea why you were including it.
If you are genuinely willing to give some thought to Base-Line theory then spend some time thinking about the anatomy, finding the muscles on your body and breathing with your Base-Line.Lie on the floor and take a few deep breaths. Touch your pubic symphysis, navel and xiphoid process in turn. Imagine the line (the linea alba) that joins them extending as you breathe. Close your eyes and focus on the sensory information your body is providing. Give that a go. More than once.
If you are genuinely willing to give some thought to Base-Line theory then spend some time thinking about the anatomy, finding the muscles on your body and breathing with your Base-Line.
Lie on the floor and take a few deep breaths. Touch your pubic symphysis, navel and xiphoid process in turn. Imagine the line (the linea alba) that joins them extending as you breathe. Close your eyes and focus on the sensory information your body is providing. Give that a go. More than once.
Why? How many times, for how long? What evidence do you expect this practice to give me in support of your theory? If I don't feel anything, will you count that as evidence against your theory, or will you explain it as somehow supporting your theory, like Freud would claim that a patient was in denial if they claimed not to have some desire that his theory predicted that they would have?
I am p>99.999 confident that what I propose is right. I'd like that rigorously tested. Break me, crush me. Release me from the frustration of knowing (with every fibre in my body) that I'm right ; )
If you're that confident in your position=pain theory, why would you need DAMN-IT? Why would your assessment of a patient do anything other than figure out which of your Big 5 muscles are involved in the pain? If the answer is, "Strengthen the glutes and your pain will stop," then how is any pain ever properly characterized as degenerative?
Alternatively, if your theory is actually "position=pain/Big 5 unless some other pathology is involved," then doesn't your theory only say, "I'm 99.999 percent confident that pain properly diagnosed as idiopathic by someone who doesn't subscribe to my theory is explained by my theory"?
At what point are you describing an invisible dragon?
Here's the thing. You say you came to LW to get your theory disproven. Fine. But you are so confident in it that you expect to be wrong about one in one hundred thousand beliefs that you hold with that level of confidence. Beliefs I hold to that level of confidence include 9 * 7 = 63, because it's possible I am misremembering my multiplication tables.
Now. Imagine trying to convince me that 9 * 7 = something else, just you and me in an empty room with no calculators.
This is why your entire sequence went by with minimal engagement and mild upvoting. The amount of work involved in "breaking you" is tremendous, especially over the Internet, especially when your model takes eight disorganized posts and has many irrelevant images in it, and you seemingly haven't absorbed some basic lessons of The Sequences (TM). If I'm going to spend a bunch of time engaging with your theory and finding cruxes, I want to know in advance that you'll play by the rules of good reasoning.
I'm not unwilling, but can you first provide three substantive answers to the following question:
What evidence would falsify your theory?
[APPRENTICE] My first is due in November. I've had a very hard time finding evidence-based parenting resources on the Internet that aren't for extremely bad situations like poverty or abuse. I feel a burning need to be able to roughly model this kid's subjective experience on a rolling basis because I suspect that's what will make me the most emotionally effective AND let me impart the most rationality-adjacent thought habits. But the books I've come across have been either 1) "it's all Piaget!" which seems somewhat outdated or 2) "Piaget is a good framework but outdated, and I've read some studies, but I'm terrible at synthesis!".
Even just a reading list would be super great. Or a list of 10 heuristics for making parenting decisions. I feel like I need some kind of systematic approach.
I saw in one of your parenting posts that you cited parentingscience.com, which I'd come across in my searches and looked promising, but I couldn't get enough clues from the site itself to figure out if it was a good foundation.
My not-a-Democrat grandmother had this exact experience when meeting him. They spoke for a few minutes, and she felt like he thought she was the most interesting person in the room. It left a permanent impression.
This is a Humble Bundle with a bunch of AI-related publications by Morgan & Claypool. $18 for 15 books. I'm a layperson re the material, but I'm pretty confident it's worth $18 just to have all of these papers collected in one place and formatted nicely. NB increasing my payment from $18 to $25 would have raised the amount donated to the charity from $0.90 to $1.25--I guess the balance of the $7 goes directly to Humble.
Which classic amp sound does her sonorus model? Is it like a Line6 head but it can read the player's mind? Or is there a Vox AC30 in a pocket dimension? What's the mic setup if there are multiple amp speakers? Who handles the mixing? I have so many questions!
Re trade vs conquest - If smart people are in charge of a smart populace, I agree. But China's South China Sea colonialism + attitude toward Taiwan suggest that they aren't viewing things solely in those terms. They act like a people who find terminal value in throwing their weight around and in taking Taiwan, or at least in reducing the influence of the U.S.-Japan alliance in the area by doing those things.
Re your example of Bretton Woods--in an analogous situation, the U.S./world order would be ready to give China great trade terms, but China would not even perceive such terms to be possible--wouldn't that give China an incentive to conquer instead of trade, as the Axis powers did? I am probably misinterpreting your point here. (Does China want more access to U.S./world markets than it already has?)
This all seems pretty sensible.
The United States and China aren't expansionary powers
How long do you think it would take for China to go from its current level of expansionism to a level that would make war with the US plausibly worthwhile? Could it happen in a generation, and what might precipitate it? I'm thinking about Weimar Germany to Nazi Germany, or (the reverse) Imperial Japan to Solid-State Electronics Japan.
The Uighur ethnic cleansing is Han (versus "Chinese" more generally, since the Uighurs are citizens of PRC) expansionism, right? Might that become more widespread and aggressive?
(Contra, there's not much worth owning in southeast Asia or the Stan countries, and Russia would oppose outside influence in former Soviet states, based on past and current behavior.)
What about taking over the Korean peninsula? Wouldn't be the first time. If China controlled DPRK's territory, which I assume they could at will, they could much more easily get troops into ROK than the U.S. could, especially if your view on missile-based ocean-area denial is correct. The 30,000 U.S. troops in ROK would have no realistic hope of reinforcement so long as neither side had air or sea superiority. Does POTUS order them to fight to the last soldier, hoping that 30,000 dead or captured would motivate the country to fight back, or negotiate a peaceful retreat and withdrawal from ROK? I guess it depends on who's POTUS.
I bet the modern PRC could stop another Operation Chromite literally dead in the water. If nothing else, spotting an incoming sea assault is so much easier than it was in 1950.
These same issues would apply if China attacked Japan.
Do I detect an homage to Ann Leckie?
I eventually got tired of not knowing where the karma increments were coming from, so I changed it to cache once a week. I just got my first weekly cache, and the information I got from seeing what was voted on outweighed the encouragement of any Internet Points Neurosis I may have.