The BBC and Advertising

Just read this article:

BBC confirms plans to make over-75s pay TV licence fee



This article was linked to on twitter and many on there are saying the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should show adverts. That people can skip the adverts or get a cup of tea, go to the toilet and so on during the adverts if they don't like them.



I think they're failing to grasp the bigger picture. If the BBC get paid for showing the adverts, then who is paying for these programmes?  It'll be the ones that finance the BBC, the companies whose goods and services are advertised. So where do they get the money from? They take a hit on their profits? Unlikely, I imagine they'll increase the prices of their goods and services to cover the cost. Meaning we all pay anyway, but on average more than the license fee (as the programmes AND the adverts now need to be paid for) and we have to suffer the adverts to boot!



And to what avail? The total amount spent on goods and services is unlikely to change significantly as a result of adverts, the money spent just gets shifted to those products that are the most heavily advertised. So other companies have to spend more on advertising to compete, resulting in higher prices still. It's all just so irrational.



The world would be much better if there were no adverts on TV and we just paid for it all directly.

Edited to add (30 mins after posting the above):

Someone mentioned to me on twitter that my misgivings about adverts are met by the fact that one can have either a free service with adverts, or we can pay for the service and have an ad-free experience.  He appeared to suggest that this happens with some apps on smartphones (I don't know since I don't possess a smartphone).

If this is true then we need to be aware that those who are paying for a service, rather than a "free" service with adverts, are paying twice over.  They are paying directly for an ad-free experience and they are also paying the same amount as everyone else for the goods and services that are advertised.  But, as I point out, the price of goods and services are inflated so as to allow companies to recuperate the cost of adverts.  

The BBC and Advertising

Just read this article:

BBC confirms plans to make over-75s pay TV licence fee



This article was linked to on twitter and many on there are saying the licence fee should be abolished and the BBC should show adverts. That people can skip the adverts or get a cup of tea, go to the toilet etc during the adverts if they don't like them.


I think they're failing to grasp the bigger picture. If the BBC get paid for showing the adverts, then who is paying for these programmes?  It'll be the one's that pay the BBC, the companies who goods and services are advertised. So where do they get the money from? They take a hit on their profits? Unlikely, I imagine they'll increase the prices of their goods and services to cover the cost. Meaning we all pay anyway, but on average more than the license fee (as the programmes AND the adverts now need to be paid for) and we have to suffer the adverts to boot!


And to what avail? The total amount spent on goods and services is unlikely to change significantly as a result of adverts, the money spent just gets shifted to those products that are the most heavily advertised. So other companies have to spend more on advertising to compete, resulting in higher prices still. It's all just so irrational.


The world would be much better if there were no adverts on TV and we just paid for it all directly.

Is travelling back in time possible?

It seems to me there are 3 possible reasons why we might never be able to travel backwards in time:

1. We will never create the technology to do so, either because civilisation ends before the technology is invented or because the technology required is simply beyond the ability of human beings to invent.
   


2. Because the laws of physics prohibit the possibility of traveling backwards in time.
   


3. Because the past doesn't exist. So we can't travel to the past for the same reason we can't travel to Narnia.

I suspect we will never travel backwards in time, and that is because the the past doesn't exist i.e "3".

Is this argument against an afterlife as compelling as it might seem?

One could equally retort:

What we're being asked to consider is that if you damage the lenses in your spectacles in one way so as to result in a deterioration of your vision, you damage them in another way resulting in yet further deterioration of one's vision, and yet if the spectacles suddenly disintegrated our vision would be fully restored??  You silly irrational people!

Also see this post and a more expanded version here in my other blog.

The Universe

The Universe Sphere has 380,000 laser etched dots, each one representing a galaxy, revealing the largest scale structure of our universe. It contains a 3D mapping of galaxies in a volume of our universe spanning 800 million lightyears in diameter https://t.co/oJcITpUaCf pic.twitter.com/lAX9fEffYI

— Massimo (@Rainmaker1973) June 1, 2019

Super.  Are we at the centre?

Russell's argument for the mind being created by the brain

Bertrand Russell (a famous 20th Century philosopher) once said:

"The mind grows like the body; like the body it inherits characteristics from both parents; it is affected by disease of the body and by drugs; it is intimately connected with the brain. There is no scientific reason to suppose that after death the mind or soul acquires an independence of the brain which it never had in life".

Something can be dependent on something else without being created by that something else.  For example, when someone is in a building their ability to see the sky is dependent on windows and the glass in them being relatively clean and so on. But such a dependence only applies when inside the building.  It doesn't depend on the window if they were to venture outside.  Their view of the sky would be, if anything, enhanced.

So Russell needs to say more to justify that the mind or soul couldn't have such an independence.  The mind-body correlations are insufficient in themselves to establish there is no afterlife.

Max Planck and Scientific Truths

Max Planck once said the following:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

I used to think this statement might have some element of truth, but that he was largely being flippant. I am now convinced that scarcely anyone likes having their beliefs challenged -- and this definitely includes scientists -- and scarcely anyone will fundamentally change their minds whether on an afterlife, political position, or whatever. They hold tenaciously to those beliefs no matter what. I now believe that presenting counter-arguments is largely futile. People don't want to hear, don't want to think. They'll seek out those people and views that confirm their existing beliefs.



I'm now convinced that what Planck said is mostly true.

18/05/19 Edited to add:

Rereading the above I think I might be conveying the impression that I'm bitter.  This is not the case at all! I'm not talking specifically about my attempts to convince people; it's rather a general observation about the way people are.  I've long been aware that peoples' minds are seldom changed, at least on the important issues.  But I'm now convinced that attempting to change peoples minds, at least by intellectual argumentation, is pretty much of a forlorn endeavour.  And I think that in itself is extremely interesting.  I think we only change peoples' minds by appealing to their emotions -- trying to get others to empathize with your view, utilizing humour, and so on.  And it almost certainly has to be face to face communication.  There is so much more conveyed in body language.