Humanities desk
< May 19	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 20

Alex Linder's middle name

I have been trying to find a reliable source to cite to add Alex Linder's middle name to the biography. Many sources say his full name is Alex Ruedy Linder, but I don't know if any of them are reliable. Vanguard News Network is obviously not reliable, even though he mentions his full name there. How should I know if Ruedy actually is his middle name? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest I've been able to come to confirming his middle name is this, and I don't think that's a reliable source. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Efficacy of detachable faceplates for deterrence of car stereo theft

I'm looking into the efficacy of detachable faceplates for car stereo theft deterrence. Is there any research that demonstrates this? Quotes from police departments? I can't find any research that's been done in this area. Sancho 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need help identifying piano work

Can anyone help me identify the first work played in this video? The beginning is cut off, as is, most likely, the identifying card that is shown for the other works played in this concert. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's the 3rd and final movement (Presto agitato) of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. The slow first movement is the famous one, but there are 2 others. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked recently about one tune inspiring another. Hard telling in this case, but you may know that Victor Borge used to seamlessly segue from "Moonlight ~~Sinatra~~ Sonata" to tunes like "Night and Day" and "Happy Birthday to You". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess more was cut off than I thought--it must have been about 10 minutes. Chick Bowen 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of consciousness is coming up independently with the the 'hard problem' - who has already said this?

I remember reading somewhere the idea that good evidence of consciousness (in the sense of the hard problem) is independently coming up with the concept of the hard problem of consciousness.

My question: who was it who said/wrote this? Is it part of some of existing theory / body of thought?

It seems a very simple and strong idea, but I have not been able to find it (in general web searches and in Wikipedia).

For example if some computers, or aliens, are overheard discussing the hard problem of consciousness, without having been introduced to it by human beings, then this seems very good evidence that they have consciousness.

The fact that other people discuss the hard problem is also good evidence to me that I am not the only person who is conscious.

This is such a simple argument I find it difficult to understand why it is not used more often - or maybe there is a flaw in it that I have not noticed. Could anyone point out such a flaw?

In the article Philosophical zombie, what seems to me a weaker version of the argument is used: "If someone were to say they love the smell of some food... If zombies were without awareness of their perceptions the idea of uttering words could not occur to them." It seems to me quite easy to conceive of something without hard-problem type consciousness coming up with that statement - it seems on the level of a simple robot going towards or away from a light source; two fairly simple computers fitted with appropriate sensors and a simple vocabulary could come up with that statement... There is a lot could be debated here - but my reason for mentioning it is: why didn't they use instead the (what seems to me) stronger argument about discussing the hard problem as being evidence of consciousness?

FrankSier (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, Hard problem of consciousness. Rojomoke (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who wrote that, but the argument seems unsound. The basic idea underlying the "hard problem of consciousness", as David Chalmers formulated it, is that an entity could in principle behave exactly like a conscious entity without being conscious. That's what it means to be a philosophical zombie. But talking is a form of behavior, including talking about the hard problem of consciousness. Therefore talking, regardless of the topic, cannot provide evidence for having genuine experiences. Rejecting this reasoning is equivalent to rejecting the validity of the "hard problem of consciousness". (Let me note that this whole topic strikes many people, including me, as absurd. Daniel Dennett explained the absurdity in a compelling way in a well-known essay titled The Unimagined Preposterousness of Zombies.) Looie496 (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I find absurd is Dennett's position, so much so that I have trouble believing he's actually sincere.

But we're probably not going to get anywhere talking about that. Let's just take the consequences of the arguments as presented. The p-zombie argument says that it's possible in principle that an entity yada yada yada as you say. It doesn't say anything about how likely it is, and indeed that's entirely irrelevant to the argument. So behavior can indeed be evidence of consciousness. Just not proof.

Of course, all bets are off if someone is intentionally trying to deceive you. --Trovatore (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank. Todd Moody has a paper, "Conversations with Zombies" in Journal of Consciousness Studies, volume 1, issue 2 (1994), pp. 196-200. The argument is not exactly like you report, and in the corollary, but he is saying essentially the same thing: While zombies that live among us may be able to ape the talk of primary consciousness, zombies from an alien planet would not develop such discourse. Also, I want to second what Trovatore just said, more or less. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Atethnekos, thanks for that. I have found an online copy [1]. The paper matches just the sort of thing I was thinking. FrankSier (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Q in Mission Impossible 3

Can anyone explain me the context of the vatican city scene in Mission Impossible 3 of Maggie Q.

Is wearing backless dress allowed in vatican city?
What was she trying to prove in the backless dress?

Thank you. 117.99.1.139 (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen the film but perhaps you could answer this question for us. Why wouldn't a backless dress be allowed in Vatican City? Granted, it's a religious country but backless items are common in this day and age. So why do you feel that a point would need to be made by wearing something so common? Dismas|^(talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you believe Angels & Demons wearing short shorts is banned too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to meet the pope by wearing backless dress. Again I have no idea of Vatican City? Can I just go there and meet the pope? Thank you. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Googling turns up lots of discussion of the strict dress code to enter St. Peter's Basilica, which is not just a tourist attraction but a place of worship. The rule seems to be no shorts, no miniskirts, no bare shoulders for either sex. Here's what looks like an official warning: [2]. Doesn't mention backless dresses, but since the Swiss Guards are pretty strict, you'd be well advised to take along a sweater or other modest top to wear over your dress. Textorus (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the answer I was looking for Textorus. I wonder why some people like Dismas not knowing answer of a question instead tend to harass the person asking the question. 223.231.7.121 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can consult image File:Vatican-tourists-queuing-at-St-Peter-6598.jpg. Doubt there are too many restrictions in Saint Peter's Square (most of which is technically not part of the Vatican), but when entering more controlled areas things would be different... AnonMoos (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "most of which is technically not part of the Vatican". I have *zero* knowledge of vatican city. Explanation needed. If any simple guy wants to visit the pope (not necessary in backless dress) where to contact? 106.198.135.241 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains information and links for people wishing to get tickets for a papal audience. You can apply for tickets directly yourself, and they are free. There is no guarantee you will meet the Pope personally at such an event, although you will see him, but the Holy See's website is here if you want to investigate further. As for the dress code inside the Basilica or in St Peter's Square, this news article shows that the dress code has been extended to the Square itself at times, and this Tripadvisor thread makes it clear that enforcement is not consistent and can depend on the guards on duty. Since a backless dress would probably expose at least some of your shoulders, which is not permitted under the dress code, I suggest you wear something else - not shorts either - if you get your ticket and will enter either the Square or the Basilica itself. - Ka renjc 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

106.198.135.241 -- I probably expressed it wrong, but the Italian police often has jurisdiction over the piazza for crowd-control duties, which is not true for the rest of the Vatican... AnonMoos (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP, I didn't mean to harass but when a person can find their way to this desk to ask a question, knows how to use the bold function (though I don't know why you needed it in this case) and has the same access to the Vatican City article as the rest of us, I don't see why you wouldn't at least skim that article first. If you had, you would have seen the culture section. Following that link provides you with a section on the dress code within the Basilica. You've said twice now that you don't know anything about Vatican City and yet you have quite a bit of information at your finger tips. Dismas|^(talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They won't let you in some places with bare shoulders, definitely. There are lots of scarf-sellers and so forth immediately outside who take advantage of this to sell you overpriced coverings. You can get away with being bare-shouldered inside buildings, if no one is watching... Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See papal audience. My boyfriend saw John Paul in and was in jeans and a muscle T (my boyfriend, not John Paul). μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had been meaning to see this movie and have had it in my Netflix queue for some time. MI2 was such a horrible movie that it soured me on the series (I actually re-watched it before watching MI3 just now and stand by my earlier assessment. MI2 is horrible!) but thought I'd give MI3 a shot anyway. So, I watched the movie and I'd like to redeem myself for my previous comments and provide you with some answers to your question. We've gone over the first already, "Is a backless dress allowed to be worn in Vatican City". But the second, what was she trying to prove? I wouldn't say that she was trying to prove anything. It was a decision to further the con that the MI team were playing on the bad guy, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. For those who care, here are a few screen caps from the movie. First, Maggie Q isn't the only actress wearing a backless dress. Not by a long shot. See here, here, and here. I would agree that it is by far more revealing than other backless dresses in the scene. For instance, see here and here. In that last one, the pale portion next to her hand at the bottom of the frame is her leg. While she didn't have anything to prove, I would say that there are two points to why she wore the dress in that scene. The first is for the benefit of the men in the audience with shots like this where she has to pull something from her garter. The second point in her wearing that dress, which was actually relevant to the plot of the film, was to seduce Hoffman's character here. As for why it was in Vatican City, it didn't need to be. They just needed an exotic locale and Vatican City fit the bill. There is absolutely no reason why this scene couldn't have happened in New York, London, Venice, or Bangkok. The particulars of the scene would have had to change to fit the city but in the end it was just a location with some glitz. With all that said, besides reading up on Vatican City, the OP might also want to read the MacGuffin article. So, I apologize for my earlier comments and hope this makes up for them. Dismas|^(talk) 10:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

egalitarian opposition to lotteries

With all this talk about reversing the US income disparity we have just recently had a lottery jackpot of $590 million.[3] A half-way billionaire. Do egalitarians also oppose this practise? I haven't found such on wiki. Pass a Method talk 19:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lotteries provide upward mobility for a very few (randomly-chosen) winners, but are often considered to be a useless economic drain (or "stupidity tax") on predominantly lower/working class lottery ticket buyers... AnonMoos (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state will bark about "reversing the US income disparity" up until the point it takes money from the state, and lotteries make tons of money for the state . . . how am I so sure? The state(s) have rapidly expanded lottery products in the last 40 years, government only grows something if it benefits government.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article lottery has mentions of opposition throughout and sections headed "problems" and "social corruption". "Egalitarian" is undefined here and I don't see how we can comment on a vague class of people's opinions. μηδείς (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to lotteries typically has to do with the fact that it's a state-sponsored "vice", which could lead a gambling addict to ruin. That's the moralistic argument. The practical argument is that it is often supposed to be for funding education, but that somehow other projects manage to get their mitts on it... and that it doesn't really raise enough money anyway. Not sure where the "egalitarian" part comes in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help that I could be the worst craps player in the world (and by i worst i mean the worst odds) and still get better odds than most lottery players. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mathematically speaking, the odds of winning big in the lottery are almost the same whether you actually play or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by "almost the same" you mean infinitely greater. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They both round to 0, even when taken out several decimal places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio between any real positive fraction and zero is so infinitely large it is undefined. This is basic pre-calculus. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not link to an article for a change, per the purpose of this reference desk? Division by zero might be appropriate here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is division the issue here? An extremely slim chance (e.g. 0.000001) is "almost the same" as zero chance in the practical world of betting odds. If you went to a restaurant and ordered a nice steak with all the trimmings, and you were served a plate that was devoid of food except for a single pea, and you remonstrated with the waiter saying "But you've brought me nothing", and he responded "Oh, no, sir/madam, it's infinitely greater than nothing if you calculate the ratio of the weight of the pea to nothing", and you picked up your fork and stabbed him in the heart, would anyone blame you? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Dogbert selling "half-priced day-old lottery tickets". He justified this in that the new lottery tickets cost $1 with a 10 cent return, on average, while his day-old lottery tickets cost 50 cents with a 0 cent return. Thus, people lose 90 cents when buying a regular lottery ticket, and only 50 cents when buying his, so he was doing them a favor. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

A lot of the opposition for lotteries comes from the fact that people are presented lotteries as a way to make up funding shortfalls for governments; that is that the state doesn't make enough money on taxes, so lotteries provide a way to generate a "voluntary" tax, so the state can make more money for necessary programs (education is a commonly cited "public good" which is funded by lotteries, i.e. the North Carolina Education Lottery). This pamphlet from Illinois explains some of the opposition, but the biggest opposition is that lottery money is fungible with all other government funds. What this means in practical purposes is that, while the lottery is sold to the public as a way to make more money for schools, there's no requirement that the state doesn't then just take tax money previously designated for the schools, equal to the amount of lottery-generated income, and spend it on other projects. That is, while the lottery gets sold to the public as "this pays for schools", it's equally likely that some creative bookkeeping turns essentially all of it into kickbacks (excuse me "tax incentives") for businesses that fund campaigns for candidates for political office. --Jayron32 01:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another list of common objections to lotteries, from Salon.com. --Jayron32 01:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primogeniture

Let's consider a family of British landed gentry in the 1100's or 1200's. The father owns estates that provide for himself and his family. Let's assume he has more than one son. Because of the system of primogeniture, upon the father's death, the entirety of the estate would go to his firstborn son. How would the younger sons provide for themselves then? Were they expected to earn their own estates somehow (eg. warfare)? I know the primogeniture system was often amended with appanages, but was it common among the lower gentry or mainly restricted to the higher nobles? 88.112.32.233 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a large extent, fathers could and did provide for younger sins in their wills; see Legal history of wills for the differences across various times and places (that article focuses on England, which was your question). They could also be provided for through marriage (see Dowry#History). In addition there were several paid occupations that were socially acceptable for members of the gentry; in the era you are discussing, these could include priests, military work of various kinds, as well as being a civil officer for a yet higher-ranking aristocrat (see bailiff); even a manservant was acceptable employment if the master's rank was sufficiently high: dukes, earls, and kings frequently drew their servants from younger sons among the lower gentry. Despite all that, it was often a problem, and friction between oldest and younger sons in an aristocratic family was very common (as portrayed in literary works such as Shakespeare's As You Like It). Chick Bowen 23:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for when primogeniture applied: it chiefly applied to land. Differences of rank among the landed had little legal standing for something like that. Chick Bowen 00:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might learn a lot on this subject by reading about the Paston Letters, a hundred years' worth of one wealthy but non-noble family's letters and legal documents, which unusually and almost miraculously were preserved intact from the 14th-15th centuries and were eventually published in the Victorian era. They can be read online, but a layman might get more understanding of the legal and social milieu from reading the two recent books written about the Pastons, which are named in the wikiarticle. It's a fascinating story that covers a large family down through five or six generations. Textorus (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They lived a bit later than the OP's 1100s-1200s though. The differences would not be too major, but 12th century England is rather different from the 15th (and even from the 13th). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, younger sons didn't inherit, or at least were not always expected to inherit enough to support themselves; lots of them were "encouraged" to enter the religious life. I'm not exactly sure if he had older siblings, or how many he had, but the life of someone like Thomas Becket would be quite informative for the life of a son of middle-class Englishman of the 12th century. --Jayron32 02:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

88.112.32.233 -- England and Scotland were completely different countries at that time, as were parts of Wales up to 1282, so "British" had little practical meaning then. In parts of England, ultimogeniture or "Borough-English" was practiced among ordinary people (probably not among the nobility). One significant difference between England and France (though it did not fully manifest itself until long after 1200) was that in France all male-line descendants of nobility had theoretical noble status, whereas in England younger sons often became military officers or church clergymen, and their descendants often gradually merged into the middle classes... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the story of how King John of England got his nickname and how he acceeded to the throne enlightening. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]