Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 March 10

= March 10 =

Cryonic
I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. "However, the idea of cryonics also includes preservation of people after longer post-mortem delays because of the possibility that brain structures encoding memory and personality may still persist or be inferable." I need someone to explain it to me. Thanks!75.168.125.23 (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The previous sentence is "Cryonics procedures ideally begin within minutes of cardiac arrest, and use cryoprotectants to prevent ice formation during cryopreservation." The important part for the context of the next sentence is "within minutes". I'm not sure which part you have problems with but here is a longer version: It's considered best to freeze the body very quickly after death (to avoid deterioration before the freezing starts). But freezing may also be attempted in cases where more time has passed since death ("post-mortem"), in the hope that brain parts responsible for memory and personality have not deteriorated yet or may still be recovered in the future. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This part is confusing "after longer post-mortem delays". What is being delayed here? I think it should be "after longer post-mortem 'decay'". Perhaps, there is a subject-verb confusion in the sentence. Or perhaps to keep it simple so that people can understand it easier, it should be "after being dead for a while". I'm sure not many people would be familiar with the post-mortem term. 75.168.125.23 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The delay is whatever holds up the beginning of cryo procedure. —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The wording is not very good, pretty redundant. The word delay itself implies it would take place a while later, not within the ideal "within minutes". I don't see any reason to put in longer. Plus, in the sentence, "delays" is used as a verb not as a noun such as "the delay"; this is exactly what I suspected subject-verb confusion before. I guess this problem is resolved.75.168.125.23 (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And there is actually a grammar problem. The delay is supposedly to implicate whatever that delays the cryonics procedure. However, due to the placement of the word delay within the sentence, it simply doesn't make sense. The delay in the sentence would modify post-mortem (death). Death has nothing to do with what delays the cryonics procedure. This is misplaced modifier. The sentence is redundant and contain a couple grammatical errors.75.168.125.23 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken on multiple counts. There is no the (definite article) before delays (plural noun) because it is an indefinite noun; that doesn't make it a verb.  delays does not modify the adjective post-mortem but is modified by it, indicating that the delays in question occur after death which is what post-mortem means; the wording in no way suggests a causal link between the deaths and the delays.  I refrain from criticizing your grammar. —Tamfang (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the responses above answer this adequately. Here is the basic point:  If you wanted to be able to thaw a person and revive them without extensive repair, then the freezing would have to take place very soon after death, otherwise the brain and other tissues would deteriorate.  But the more repair you are able to do, the longer you might be able to wait.  Neuroscientists believe that a person's memories are stored by altering the strength of synaptic connections between brain cells.  If the brain deteriorates too much, those structures will basically dissolve into goo and there won't be any hope of reconstructing the memories.  But as long as the deterioration is small enough for the strength of synapses to be measured, they hold a record of the person's memories and all the things the person knows. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the difference is between trying to bring that body (or head) back to life, which requires minimal damage, or scanning it with some future atomic level CAT scan equivalent, then transferring that intelligence into another device. Personally I think too much damage occurs during the freezing process and minutes between death and freezing to ever allow the first option, but the 2nd option seems possible, to me. StuRat (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Patriarchs
I am but dust and ashes. Please help me to understand the patriarchs. And their story. I am but inquirer. Bless all wikipedians who are true and honest in the search for insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.131.41.201 (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I am unsure as to which definition of patriarch you mean. Commonly it can refer to the Three Patriarchs in the Jewish-Christian-Muslim tradition of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  But it can also refer to a high-ranking church official in some Christian churches.  Or it can more generally mean "the rule of fathers", which refers to a male-dominated society where men hold all positions of leadership.  So, perhaps those will give some idea of what you want to know.  If you have a more specific question, perhaps we can help.  -- Jayron  32  11:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Last week, I'd've guessed this was related to Ash Wednesday, but he could be quoting Simcha Bunim of Peshischa's reference to Genesis. Either way, The articles on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would probably be most appropriate.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am but dust and ashes" in Genesis is actually said by Abraham, one of the patriarchs. There is no need to invoke the Rebbe of Pshischa... הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 18:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Portents after traumatic events
I'm looking for historical evidence of 'collective PTSD', i.e. avoidance or hyperarousal (the two main symptoms of individual PTSD). Following catastrophes in the past (plagues, earthquakes etc.), are there accounts of people behaving either individually or en masse in either of these two ways? I seem to remember accounts of people seeing 'portents in the sky' after such events and displaying these symptoms, but the only accounts I can find refer to portents seen before. 78.146.33.172 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Does Mass hysteria help? -- Jayron  32  15:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The question is sort of disconnected. Collective PTSD is common after earthquakes, in the sense that for a long time afterward people are nervous about being indoors and suffer from nightmares and generalized anxiety.  But PTSD doesn't really have anything to do with portents. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in a general sense, "portent", in the sense of "A sense of anticipation of an event" is a symptom of PTSD. People with PTSD can experience the sense that something bad is about to happen; that often causes them to respond in anticipation of such bad events; even if they are entirely psychological in nature.  I believe that is what the OP means by "portent".  -- Jayron  32  16:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Portents in the sky" historically might have referred to an eclipse early on (before astronomers could predict them) or a comet later (until astronomers could predict, or at least explain, those). Note that the population might have been stressed out just by these events, without any actual disaster. StuRat (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This sounds kind of like the acronym FEAR = Future Events Appearing Real. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that symptoms of trauma have been observed after modern events, eg. in New Orleans. What I was looking for was historical accounts, but it looks like I'll have to do the research myself! Thanks for the help. 78.146.33.172 (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Introduction of Western dress in Greece
When did the upper classes in Ottoman Greece start to wear the Western fashion? Alexandra Mavrokordatou had a salon, so could it perhaps be as early as in the 17th-century? Or did it not happen until Greek independence? I have no idea at all. --Aciram (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How did they measure long-distance travel in the past?
I recently learned that miles, as a way of measuring length/distance, came into use quite late, around 1500, and the Kilometer only around 1800. Obviously, the mile have been defined in different ways so maybe it could be argued exactly when and where it began.

But my questions are two;

1) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the high middle ages?

2) What way of measuring long travel-distances did they use in the Roman empire? (yes I know it stretches over a long time, but they probably used the same method throughout this era, I should think.)

Krikkert7 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maps were not unknown in the ancient world. You'd be surprised how accurate they were, without GPS nor any form of satellite. History of cartography will give you an outline. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course they knew their measurements back then also, and could no doubt make accurate maps. I'm not at all saying they were idiots. I'm just asking what methods/unit of measure they used :) Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it now. Krikkert7 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The article provies some units used at various times, such as travelling time via various means and Li (unit) which links to League (unit) (both of which are generally related to travelling time anyway) which you may have heard of from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. It doesn't seem to mention what the Romans used, nor does the articles it links to Pomponius Mela nor Tabula Peutingeriana. The later mentions distances but not the unit. But these sources  mention that either Roman mile or leuga gallica was used, depending on the area. If you follow the links on the league page, you should end up at Ancient Roman units of measurement which also mention these units (although doesn't explain when the different units were used). Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * From mile: "The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, were the first to use the unit of long distance mille passuum (literally a thousand paces)." However, when people travelled on foot or horseback, distance measurements were of limited use because the type of terrain traversed made a huge difference. It was far more useful to describe distances in terms of so many days march, or so many weeks at sea, etc.--Shantavira|feed me 20:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for answers. ;)           Krikkert7 (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The ancient Greeks measured distances in stades or stadia, one stadium being 600 feet (but the length of the foot varied in different places). See Stadion (unit of length). rossb (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidence for bible code
Did you know that in the Torah (Old Testament) every 666th letter spells out the phrase "Satan the accuser". This happens exactly 7 times.

Can you show the evidence of this to me please.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/biblecode.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 07scott (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest reading up on the article covering Bible code, in particular the section on criticism of it. You might also find the article on confirmation bias relevant. There is also some relevant information in the answers given when you asked a similar question a little over a week ago. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the equivalent of the "Old Testament" is the Tanach. The equivalent of Torah is Books of Moses. Paul B (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Satan the accuser"? He's more like the accused than the accuser. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Both. See Revelation 12 verse 10.    D b f i r s   21:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this claim, virtually word for word, in many websites, without clarification of which text they're using, or whether they mean Torah or Old Testament. Unusually for such claims, it doesn't even specify what Hebrew phrase it's based on. I'd like to verify it, but can't be bothered to count 666 letters, and, more to the point, am concerned that human error could lead to me missing one or two, rendering the exercise pointless. Anyone know of an online tool for this kind of thing? I'm fairly skilled at reading Hebrew, so that's no problem. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't know of a simple tool, but you can get the bare consonantal text of any book of the Tanach (Leningrad Codex) from www.tanach.us, so if you take e.g. the text of Genesis, copy it into a text editor and replace all spaces, just go to a specific column to find the letter you want. I used Notepad++ for this, and found that if I start at the beginning, the 666th, 1332nd, 1998th and 2664th letters form "עורז", so I don't see how that is going to work. Maybe they didn't start at the beginning, but without more information, it's really hard to verify. - Lindert (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My tech skills are definitely insufficient! What if you start from the first shin/sin, which would be the one in the very first word? --Dweller (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The fourth letter is a shin, so taking letters 4, 670, 1336, 2002, 2668 you get "שׁואאג", which doesn't look very useful. - Lindert (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. Busted? --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Major General Sir Herbert Stewart.jpg
OK Reference Desk tricky one for you, Who is the R. Taylor named as the engraver responsible for this work?

In order to satisfy Commons licensing policy, a date of death of the R. Taylor concerned is needed.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Richard Taylor (active 1871-1901). His date of death is not known. He was a professional wood-engraver employed by the ILN. There were many of them. I think we can assume that he died before 1944. Paul B (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Is my life a fake?
How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor? What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted? Every bird flying in the sky, every plane crash, every car on the road could all be preplanned for my life, could it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoppingalten (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you have to ask, you'll never know. Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The condition you set implies that you'll never know. Try to enjoy life anyway. OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't a fake life be subject to tropes? Hcobb (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My sophomore honors English professor got angry at our class one day (for vehemently denying that he could know without knowing us personally that we were racists due to structural racism), and ended up screaming at us that we couldn't even prove we existed. A student who eventually became a housemate of mine then pulled out a penknife and tossed it at the professor's head, and it stuck in the wall next to him with a thwang.  The student then asked whether the knife existed, and the professor said, "Class dismissed." μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. You're not making that up are you? Joepnl (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish I were, User:Joepnl. It is perhaps the best anecdote of my entire life, and I wish I had done the act.  In fact, were I making it up, I would have said it was I who had done it.  As far as I can see, the person who threw the knife still lives in Alexandria, Virginia, and the "victim" is now an associate professor. For BLP reasons, and to avoid outing myself, you'll have to wait for my memoirs for more details. μηδείς (talk) 04:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You wish you were making up the best anecdote of your life? I like it anyway. Joepnl (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't know my friend. If I simply stole the anecdote, I'd probably wake up some day to a thwang with a knife stuck in the wall next to my head.... I have my own anecdotes, but this reads like something out of Diogenes Laertius. μηδείς (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You cannot even know that You didn't set it up and plant false memories in yourself. See http://www.last-thursday.org/questions. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Starting with the assumption that everything is potentially a scripted apparition, you then focus on what would be doing the scripting. If that doesn't straighten you out, nothing will. 71.246.154.18 (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are all of the above answers choreographed? Are all of you designated actors that can't answer my question? The condition you set implies that you'll never know', ' Go listen to some jazz or something but don't waste any more of your (or our) time by asking unanswerable questions here.. all of these answers are avoidance answers. You must all be actors in my life. --Hoppingalten (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See solipsism and follow more links from that article. See where it leads you.  -- Jayron  32  23:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes.  70.174.141.142 (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me give a serious try at answering the question:
 * How do I know that everyone involved in my life isn't an actor?
 * You don't.
 * What if God or another power has set up my life for his own observation, and everyone around mgr8e is scripted?
 * Unless the scripting is imperfect, or the higher power intends to let you know the truth, you'd never tell the difference.
 * ...could all be preplanned for my life, could it not?
 * It could.
 * What answers did you expect? If you imagine a scenario that can't be refuted, then by definition, it can't be refuted.  That's about as mind-blowing as saying "a man is a man" or "a dog is a dog".  See brain in a vat.--140.180.247.129 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would an omniscient being script someone's life for the observation of the omniscient being? There are two reasons here why that omniscient being would not have to do this: 1) The omniscient being is the one doing the scripting, and therefore would know the outcome; 2) The omniscient being is omniscient, and would therefore know the outcome. I know infinity is a long time, but the omniscient being cannot be that bored, being also omnipotent as part of the job description.  KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( TALK )  00:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect I'm not the only one who wants to know if your life is a fake as well.... Nil Einne (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said anything about omniscience or omnipotence? Most gods in most cultures have been very far from either.  This includes the Old Testament god, who never claims omniscience.  --Bowlhover (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gods don't go around claiming things for themselves. That's what their adherents do.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See also falsifiability, and the question further up the page, titled "History". (Are these questions choreographed? It's hard for me to imagine that we'd need to discuss "last thursday-ism" and solipsism twice in as many days!) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

If your life was an elaborate ruse, indistinguishable in all aspects from a "real" life, then it makes no difference in terms of what you experience and your reactions to it; otherwise, you would be able to distinguish the ruse from reality OldTimeNESter (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC).

See also here: "The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains, thereby at the same time also refuting the selection-bias argument. If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously randomly form out of the chaos, complete with false memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the real brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable universe." Count Iblis (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The OP needs to recognize that the word fake has no meaning unless you already do know what the word real means. μηδείς (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Conflict between Buddhism and bourgeois life
I am a young bourgeois Buddhist and feel a conflict between my religion and my life. There is even incompatibility between the noble eightfold path and bourgeois life? In what? And why? Malandrinho (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is a question more suited to your specific teachers you are working with within Buddhism. Buddhism is a very diverse religion, and you are likely to get a VERY wide array of answers to this question.  This sounds like a conversation to be had with a more experienced Buddhist such as a monk or nun that you have a relationship with, who will be well equipped to answer the theological and ethical questions you have regarding your religious life.  -- Jayron  32  22:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The unease experienced by a bourgeois property-owning person is discussed by the Buddha in the Hatthaka sutta. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * All of the so-called "bourgeois" Buddhists go to meditation retreats. I would even say that if you ask the people who run these retreats, they will admit that this is their primary clientele, and they are very open about it, since they design it around this demographic.  You can go for a weekend or a week, or a month or a year. Look into it. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Push notes
What is the name for a note that comes just very slightly earlier than you would expect it to? I'm not talking about a grace note, but rather a full note that gets the downbeat, and happens just slightly early. There's a very prominent example in Ray Charles' Rockhouse.

Someone told me it was called a push note, but we don't seem to have an article on that. --Trovatore (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's sometimes called "pushed note" or "push". The most functional name commonly used is probably "anticipation" (e.g. "8th note anticipation" or "16th note anticipation", etc). Our article section on off-beat syncopation mentions "anticipated bass", giving the example of the tumbao in Cuban music. The "big four" (something Wynton Marsalis likes referring to in his educational programs) is another example, this time from early jazz, as explained in our article on tresillo, which mentions other examples in music of the 19th and 20th century too. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Sluzzelin. I wish we had more coverage of it.  The one in "Rockhouse" is the whole reason I like the song :-) --Trovatore (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)