Who here cares about Harry, Meghan, Oprah, etc?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who here cares about Harry, Meghan, Oprah, etc.?

 

 

 

 

Not I

 

 

 

 

the end

 

Michael

[caroljane]

iT is interesting to people interested in English history and the re-echoing themes of the weird families of the Saxe-cobourg-Gothas ((fat.hers hating sons And vice versa, and in 21st century redo of AMerican Woman! GEt away from HE!

This keyboard has no quotation marks, and apologies to Burton Cummings.

and Michael, don,t tell me the all right media cares about this story either - since you don,t indulge in the MSM, how did you even hear of it?

 

still hate this wretched device

 

 

[Peter]

Mildly interesting when you add it to Lady Diana's story, and how her children coped to become the people they are today. I saw an interesting story line about how the royal family is saddened after the interview. It showed the immediate royal family, I think in a church pew, all looking to the left, as if they were waiting for Harry, his wife, and their son to sit down next to them. It did look sad. I was sorry to hear Meghan was considering suicide when she was in Britain.   

[Peter]

What do you think of them royals? I think both of them are trying to “do better” by talking to the press, but I think Meghan and Harry are “decent people.” I wish them well. Peter

Britain reacts to Meghan Markle's interview with Oprah.. Producer Omar Duwaji  6 hrs ago. A bombshell interview between Meghan Markle and Oprah has rocked the UK and its royal family. The interview covered issues of race, mental health and personal security for Markle and Prince Harry and their son Archie. The World’s Marco Werman spoke Cleo Lake, a counselor for the city of Bristol, about the issues surrounding the interview and its aftermath . . . .

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 hours ago, caroljane said:

... since you don,t indulge in the MSM...

Carol,

That's an incorrect assumption. I do consume the MSM and it's easy.

The main vehicles all say the same things at the same time, and they never change. It's the very definition of lockstep. So you only need to skim on article and you've read their entire news coverage of the day. All of them.

10 hours ago, caroljane said:

... how did you even hear of it?

I thought I could get interested in the oppression of the royal class.

Man, are they victimized, poor things. How they suffer.

But I couldn't...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

10 hours ago, Peter said:

I was sorry to hear Meghan was considering suicide when she was in Britain.

Peter,

Right... She said it so it has to be true...

Meghan did OK as an actress in Suits. In the real world, despite trying constantly, she can't act, not in public, unless the role is victim. And even then, she's pretty mediocre in that role.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now I'm starting to get interested, for some damn reason.

I just came across some original footage from the interview.

Watching it actually felt good.

It's only 14 seconds, too.

ORIGINAL, UNSEEN FOOTAGE....

Michael

[Peter]

Aaah, Carol. “Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens and then I don't feel so bad.”

My Favorite Things - Julie Andrews

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things.

Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels;
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles;
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings;
These are a few of my favorite things.

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver-white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites,
When the bee stings,
When I'm feeling sad,
I simply remember my favorite things,
And then I don't feel so bad.

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things.

Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver-white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites,
When the bee stings,
When I'm feeling sad,
I simply remember my favorite things,
And then I don't feel so bad.

Songwriters: Oscar Hammerstein, Richard Rodgers

[Peter]

"Debbie (i.e., Dagney, mother of Jon Galt II)" from below. Some old stuff not about the royals. Joke. Peter

From: "Peter Taylor" To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: Are thoughts material/physical? Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:29:00 GMT To Morganis, Dave Thomas, Ellen Lewit, and Debbie, and anyone following the physical non-physical discussion:

You may be interested in reading a bit of what Carolyn Ray wrote on the subject of Consciousness and the body, in her dissertation. I am up to page 33 out of 90 some and she is a philosopher in her own "Write."

I now paraphrase Carolyn Ray. I defend a different approach. I suggest that, before proceeding to non-person puzzle cases, we acknowledge our implicitly-held theory of personal identity--what are sometimes called "pretheoretic" convictions and  premises--and acknowledge that our conceptual scheme is built upon these premises. The assumption of one's own continued identity is involved in any identity claim, overtly expressed or implicitly ascribed to, and it is in comparison to oneself that one makes judgments regarding the persistence of other things. It is therefore impossible to argue coherently against the "naive" view of persons--in fact this view is only naive in the sense that even naive people hold it, and it is profound in the sense that the fact taken by this view as obvious is a necessary condition for human knowledge.

Section I: The Naive View In any discussion of persons, it is important to keep firmly in mind the fact that under most circumstances neither naive people nor philosophers have trouble determining whether they are confronted with a person at any given moment. It is also important to note that we have little trouble re-identifying persons with whom we are familiar. Rather than take this as evidence of just how naive we are, we should consider why this might be so, and why we are--apparently--so successful at it. In part, it is due to the fact that what is being determined is not whether an entity one meets on the street fits into a fixed category, but whether there are any important similarities between this entity and the entities (primarily, oneself) that one has already classified as persons.

You have a set of faculties that, taken together, you refer to as your mind. You direct some of the activities of your mind, such as deliberation; but some activities do not require your full conscious attention, such as comprehending music while focusing on reading. Other activities do not require your attention at all, such as sitting upright, and dreaming—these activities occur subconsciously.

The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist, that you are conscious, that you remember. Personal identity cannot be demonstrated. To prove your own personhood and persistence to yourself or anyone else, you must assume them. Proof that you are not a persistent person relies on your ability to follow the argument, which requires sensation, perception, persistence, and memory. And these faculties are always embodied. Consciousness requires that there be something external to consciousness to be conscious of; and the only way to become conscious of something external is through sensory apparatus, which are part of a body.

There is no possibility of demonstrating "we are not what we believe." We know what we are, whether we can articulate all of our features or not. It is on the basis of self-knowledge that we are able to form the concept PERSON. To fundamentally change that concept requires denial of this knowledge--in other words, it requires one to contradict oneself, and thus reduces to an absurdity, even by the standards of logical possibilism. If one were to attempt to form or reform the concept PERSON solely on the basis of observations of others or on the basis of thought experiments, again one would fall into contradiction, for it is impossible to block out that internal knowledge which is the standard to which all other beings are compared. Moreover, attempting to deny that persons are as we think they are is again to fall into contradiction, since it is the way that we are that one depends upon in order to disprove it: we are rational, self-aware, unified, and persistent, and all of these ingredients are required to engage in the argument.

The fact that I have a body is given in every act of awareness--it is self-evident. Proving that I am embodied requires a body and denying it assumes I am embodied. There is nothing from which one might differentiate embodiment. Thus the question whether I am embodied or just a soul thinking myself to be embodied is misguided from the outset and cannot reasonably arise when all of this self-knowledge is kept in mind.

Upon looking around the world I do notice that there are objects that may be differentiated from all other objects according to certain characteristics. These objects first and foremost are like me. They are conscious, rational, etc. I can talk to them, make friends with them, have fights with them, remember them, and get remembered by them. They can integrate their past experiences with the present, can recognize things that they have learned. They are always associated with human bodies, and so I at first informally come to think of the term 'human being' as synonymous with 'person'. So a metaphysically necessary condition for the existence of a person is a functional body. And it is also an adequate epistemological criterion for judging whether the same person persists, since I can always judge, for example, who my friends are by which bodies I am facing.

However, there are entities to which the word 'human being' applies, while failing to meet the metaphysical conditions required to give rise to and sustain persons; for example, some kinds of brain damage result in human beings who cannot integrate new information with old memories. Perhaps it is more precise to say that they fail to be so similar in certain important respects to the things I call persons that I am tempted to not include them. Clearly, the persistence of the body is not a metaphysically sufficient condition for the persistence of the same (or even the existence of any) person: a person may cease to exist while the body persists. Contrary to common ways of thinking about criteria, this does not mean that the bodily criterion is inadequate; on the contrary, it is in virtue of this very criterion that we are able to judge that a person has died--how else would we know in the normal case?

I suggest that these facts cast grave doubts upon those inquiries into the nature of personal identity which seek to determine what the word 'person' means by examining case after case of what it does not mean. I suggest that the proper approach to personal identity puts persons back into the inquiry. Persons each take their own case as paradigmatic; unfamiliar individual human beings are identified as persons by comparison to an ever-expanding body of empirical data, but the standard is each person's own case. It is this inductive, everyday approach that I suggest is necessary for more complicated philosophical investigations. This approach is recommended by the conceptualist view of universals, in that it acknowledges that each of us must create his or her own concepts IDENTITY and PERSON, and that to do so requires that each of us observe the facts which give rise to them and pick out the important features--a factor that weighs heavily in its favor from a philosophical point of view. It is also tremendously successful—a factor that weighs heavily in its favor from a common-sensical point of view.

To counteract any temptation to lose sight of this personal knowledge as somehow inferior or tainted and to force the reader to focus on his or her own experiences, knowledge, and consciousness, I have been writing and will continue to write in the first and second person; to help give a sense of the force of the arguments in this chapter, I will use the reader as one of my primary examples. End of quote.

Dave Thomas wrote: "I've heard people say that there are physical and non-physical components to consciousness.  This always seems strange to me.  I've heard some people say that these non-physical components of consciousness cannot be detected by physical instruments.  This sounds even stranger to me.  It sounds particularly strange and contradictory because these same people often feel that the physical component of the brain interacts with this non-physical component.  The contradiction I notice is this:  What is so special about the physical brain that it has the characteristic of being able to interact with the non-physical while no physical instrument we can create could possibly do the same thing.  If the brain can interact with the non-physical, then why couldn't we build something that would also interact with the non-physical?  And if this interaction is possible, wouldn't that thing we considered to be non-physical actually be physical?

The point is - Claiming a non-physical component to the mind which can't be interacted with except by the brain seems implausible. And One more quick topic (perhaps this one is a bit cliche').

Does anyone here believe in life after death? If so, please try to justify that belief. I can't justify it to myself even though I'd very much like to.

Ellen Lewit replied: The mind is *not* some disembodied mystical entity.  The terms spirit and soul are also *not* disembodied things apart from a conscious being. Consciousness is *not* a ghost in some physical machine. What these terms do refer to is aspects of a conscious being.  It is not a matter of dissection but one of focus.  When one speaks of the brain one is talking about the physical aspects of that organ.  When one speaks of consciousness one is speaking of the faculty or processes of awareness in some aware being. More than the brain may be involved - but that is a scientific not philosophical separate issue. (I don't mean a ghost – but rather the rest of the body, like the retina or finger tip nerves or spinal column.)

What does this mean?  That while the consciousness is part of a physical being and may be a evolved trait of such a being and has its roots in the physical properties of the physical being, consciousness is a faculty that is different in kind than any of the physical parts that caused it. Thought is the result of patterns of brain actions not the actions themselves and the content of thought can't be explained in terms of those patterns. Indeed, with self-programming beings such as ourselves knowing the pattern may tell you nothing at all about what the person is thinking.  I don't think we need worry about Big Brother reading our minds with a machine nor, unfortunately, is a "universal translator" ala Star Trek likely to be possible.

From: PinkCrash7 "Well, I was picking through this book of Roger Penrose's, called "The Large, the Small and the Human Mind"  -- mostly incomprehensible to me, but as far as I figure out, Penrose basically thinks that the answers to questions about the human mind and consciousness are in physics.  He says that there is an objective reduction of the wavelength, that this has a significant influence on the brain (maybe through its effect on coherent flows through microtubules), and that objective reduction is necessary because Goedel's Theorem implies that a conscious mind is not computable. He also mentions in one chapter that consciousness is global and that any physical process responsible for consciousness would have to be something with an essentially global character, such as quantum coherence, this having something to do with microtubule walls and ordered water.... ANYway.... Well, Stephen Hawking wrote a one-chapter essay towards the back of the book to disagree with Penrose's views (that's how I managed to figure out what little I did of what Penrose was writing about).  Hawking says that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and that it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality, just whether they predict observations.  He goes on explaining things and debunking Penrose's views, then there's this cute little paragraph about little green men and earthworm brains -- let me share it with you:

Hawking: "Personally, I get uneasy when people, especially theoretical physicists, talk about consciousness.  Consciousness is not a quality that one can measure from the outside.  If a little green man were to appear on our door step tomorrow, we do not have a way of telling if he was conscious and self-aware or was just a robot.  I prefer to talk about intelligence which is a quality that can be measured from the outside.  I see no reason why intelligence should not be simulated on the computer.  We certainly can't simulate human intelligence at the moment, as Roger showed with his chess problem.  But Roger also admitted that there was no dividing line between human intelligence and animal intelligence.  So it will be sufficient to consider the intelligence of an earthworm.  The Goedel argument is irrelevant because earthworms don't worry about [mathematics]."

Hawking then explains that the evolution from earthworm brains to human brains presumably took place by Darwinian natural selection and that the quality selected for was the ability to escape enemies and reproduce, not the ability to do mathematics.  He writes, "So again the Goedel Theorem is not relevant.  It is just that the intelligence needed for survival can also be used to construct mathematical proofs.  It is a very hit and miss business. We certainly don't have a knowable sound procedure."

Then Penrose responds and says he does not agree that environmental decoherence alone can superimpose Schrodinger’s cat, blah, blah, blah, then about the earth worms, he says that a specific ability to do mathematics was not what was selected for in our evolution from earthworms, but rather the general ability to understand, which, as an incidental feature, could also be applied to mathematical understanding.  He said, "This ability needs to be a non-algorithmic one (because of the Goedelian argument), but it applies to many things other than mathematics.  I don't know about earthworms, but I am sure that elephants, dogs, squirrels and many other animals have their good share of it."

If, I don't know about earthworms either because I was talking to one of the biology professors in my department (mind you, I am a secretary, not a scientist) and telling him what it was that Stephen Hawking said about earthworm brains and the biology professor got this real puzzled look on his face and said that earthworms don't HAVE brains.

Then, somebody must have forgotten to tell that to Stephen Hawking, I guess. Still, he did make a good point about the ability to escape enemies and reproduce.... speaking of which.... now where was I?   Oh, yeah -- oh, you are SO full of it, Victor.  Shirley Keller is NOT JonGalt987II's (Joshua Freeman's) mother.  I am!   Let it be known --  Josh  is my adopted internet son.  Debbie (i.e., Dagney, mother of Jon Galt II)

 and from Merlin: "To all, but especially those who answer the above question 'yes', here is another. The physical world consists of matter and energy. Wherein does 'mind' fit?" Merlin

[Peter]

I just listened to it. What a numbing but exultant song, And what a great experience, errrr. Just go easy on the pills. Give it a listen. Peter

Comfortably Numb by Pink Floyd

Hello?
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me
Is there anyone home?
Come on now
I hear you're feeling down
Well, I can ease your pain
And get you on your feet again
Relax
I'll need some information first
Just the basic facts
Can you show me where it hurts?

There is no pain, you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying
When I was a child, I had a fever
My hands felt just like two balloons
Now I've got that feeling once again
I can't explain, you would not understand
This is not how I am

I have become comfortably numb

I have become comfortably numb

Okay
Just a little pinprick
There'll be no more...(Aaagh!!!)
But you may feel a little sick
Can you stand up?
I do believe it's working, good!
That'll keep you going for the show
Come on, it's time to go

There is no pain, you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon
You are only coming through in waves
Your lips move, but I can't hear what you're saying
When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye
I turned to look, but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown, the dream is gone

I have become comfortably numb

Songwriters: D. Gilmour, R. Waters

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Meghan did OK as an actress in Suits. In the real world, despite trying constantly, she can't act, not in public, unless the role is victim. And even then, she's pretty mediocre in that role.

I think she's better in the meme below that I caught on the Interwebs:

 

Michael

[tmj]

Just a guess, but I doubt the grandson of the longest reigning monarch , is going to be married to MM at 50, even 40.

[caroljane]

3 hours ago, tmj said:

Just a guess, but I doubt the grandson of the longest reigning monarch , is going to be married to MM at 50, even 40.

Disagree. With Meg they tried to learn from the mistakes of the Abdication and do everything as differently as they could, since the worst threat to the monarchy had already once come from an American divorcee, nOw I think the Firm will cut its losses and resign itself ,to another embarrassing Duke in exile,. And Harry will stay in love with his wife as his great uncle ways with his Wallis.

) 

 

 

 

[MisterSwig]

[anthony]

Who cares, indeed. The best article:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0321/rhart031121.php3

[Peter]

Thanks for the link about Harry and Meghan, Anthony. It is really funny.  I think they will reshow that interview ten times in the coming year. I saw a half dozen “snips” of it today on different channels. And I will admit . . . I watched them all, though I missed the original interview. One line of dispute? I read something about their finances when they moved to LA and the article I read said they were not as rich as mentioned in the article and their combined worth was less than 20 million U.S. dollars. Ah, those poor little rich kids. If they stay in LA their kids may speak American English too. Rawther, Cheerio, will not be said.  Peter  

From Jewish World Review:  . . . . Worsening their plight, they have gone from an 18,000 square foot home (so you know it is environmentally friendly) in Canada to a 14,000 square foot downsize starter home near Los Angeles. Their current mansion was owned by Mel Gibson, who sold it to them once it was proven to Mel's satisfaction that they are not Jewish . . . . Coming from England and royalty, where there are more Earls than the beer line at a University of Tennessee football game, one would think this couple would be out of place in America. But they seem to be enjoying it, as much as any oppressed couple could.

And I get that it was odd growing up as Prince Harry. Just imagine that when you have your bachelor party and your mates take you to a strip club, you have to put British pound notes with your grandmother's picture on them in the garter belts of strippers. I guess it is both cool and weird, depending on your attitude.

[Peter]

I never watched ”Suits” but I did watch “Fringe,” “Without a Trace,” and “CSI Miami.”  Yet, I can’t remember Meghan Markle from those shows. Peter   

From The FilmoGraphy:  Meghan Markle is an American actress who is best known for her portrayal of paralegal Rachel Zane on the legal drama series 'Suits' since 2011. Before bagging this role, she earned recognition for one of her best roles as Junior FBI Agent Amy Jessup in the television series 'Fringe' in 2009.

Before her television career flourished, she took many insignificant acting and modeling assignments like serving as a 'briefcase girl' on 'Deal or No Deal'. Following her television debut on the long-running soap opera, 'General Hospital' in 2000, she has appeared in a bunch of successful television shows such as 'Century City' (2004), 'Cuts' (2005), 'Love, Inc.' (2005), 'The War at Home' (2006), 'CSI: NY' (2006), '90210' (2008), 'Knight Rider' (2009), 'Without a Trace' (2009), 'The League' (2009), 'CSI: Miami' (2010), 'Castle' (2012) and Extant (2014).

Her first film appearance was as an unnamed passenger on plane in the comedy-drama 'A Lot like Love' in 2005. In 2010, she had an uncredited role in 'Get Him to the Greek' and a short role in 'Remember Me'. The following year, she appeared in the top grossing dark comedy, 'Horrible Bosses'. In 2012, she acted in the short film 'The Candidate'.

[Peter]

On 3/10/2021 at 6:41 PM, caroljane said:

Disagree. With Meg they tried to learn from the mistakes of the Abdication and do everything as differently as they could, since the worst threat to the monarchy had already once come from an American divorcee, nOw I think the Firm will cut its losses and resign itself ,to another embarrassing Duke in exile,. And Harry will stay in love with his wife as his great uncle ways with his Wallis

How are they ever going to survive in America?  Redo  “The Prince and the Pauper?” Nah.  If Meghan reboots her career in television, what sort of show would she really star in? My first thought was joking but it could be a more serious (Not Monty Python) knock off where Meghan meets Harry and becomes a Royal herself . . . no, maybe they date but don’t get married and he still brings Meghan to a Royal dinner . . . but the Royals should be from a country other than England but they all act British. Satiric or a night time Soap Opera? Any ideas, Carol?     

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/11/2021 at 11:29 PM, Peter said:

How are they ever going to survive in America?

Peter,

By becoming president, of course.

I'll just leave this right here and later see how it ages.

Is Meghan Markle already preparing a bid to be America's first woman President? Duchess of Sussex will 'use furore over Oprah interview to launch political career as she networks among Democrats', claims senior Labour figure with strong links to Washington

btw - Love those anonymous sources...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

President?

Well...

Meghan Markle is a strong woman. Wanna see?

 

Prince Harry before Meghan.

 

Prince Harry after Meghan:

 

There's a word that almost comes to mind...

Something... whipped...

   

Michael

[Peter]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There's a word that almost comes to mind...

Something... whipped...

Ah gee, Michael. That picture of Harry with his head down was because of the wind. See how Meghan's cape is blowing to our right?    

Carol Jane wrote: I think the Firm will cut its losses and resign itself, to another embarrassing Duke in exile. And Harry will stay in love with his wife as his great uncle was with his Wallis . . . . end quote

Were they made for each other, as the phrase goes? I guess so, for now, because they are certainly having unprotected sex a lot. I wish them the best. Harry could get a reboot as an older character in the next episodes of "The Crown" and Meghan could play . . . a maid. Sorry, that joke is lame.  

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

Ah gee, Michael.

Peter,

I'm not the only one saying it.

For example:

Report: ‘Whipped’ Prince Harry Stuck Working As Meghan Markle’s ‘Personal Assistant’

There are oodles of stories out there. The adjectives change, like "emasculated," "abused," and so on, but the message is the same. Don't believe me? Google is your friend...

btw - This just popped into my mind. My father literally knew a guy named Harry Butts. His parents didn't do that. Harry was adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Butts.

I don't know. It seems like the Harry's of the world have a tougher time of it...

Michael

[Peter]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't know. It seems like the Harry's of the world have a tougher time of it...

To me Harry seems like most men in English speaking countries. His Mom was driven and/or volunteered out of the Royal circle and he felt the same. I would not put up with bowing to the queen or accepting her as my sovereign grandmother even if I were in his situation. But of course I was "born in the USA, born in the USA!" Well done, Harry.   

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 3/14/2021 at 11:24 PM, Peter said:

Ah gee, Michael. That picture of Harry with his head down was because of the wind.

Peter,

Well, if you don't like that one, here are a few others where Harry lets down his guard and his submission slips through.

In this last picture, Meghan looks like a perfect puppeteer, doesn't she?

You can almost see the strings and her hand going through a hole in his back to manipulate the controls.

Take a minute and try to imagine that.

Now try to unsee it.

 

It's Howdy Doody time!

 

Michael

[Peter]

I just don't see it as you do. Harry does not like being in front of the camera but Meghan seems to. Harry likes to look at Meghan. She can switch to her pretty, happy face in a split second, so he is not looking for guidance, he is admiring her.