Leaderboard

General Philosophy in a Science Forum is about formal Philosophy, and its relation to Science. As I said lifestyle stuff is not formal philosophy- This is not to denigrate your topic but I think ScienceForums is a unique scientific forum in that it provides a place for both of these in addition to straight Science. So take advantage of that.

Or the Confederated Provinces of Greater Canada.

My view only which is usually correct. Usually. If the DEMOS self destruct and the REPUBS sweep all the races, then perhaps, (perhaps only) our Constitutional Republic will start to swing back to our absolutely necessary Conservative Origins. But ... understand we have but one power base in the USA with two divisions. Until that changes we are just imagining a better future. My opinion only.

I guess fear is a strong motivator.

Pesticides and hormones are added not without the reason.. Mass production of food for large population at low cost forced farmers to find a way to prevent crops from being attacked by bugs, fungi and microbes (which always existed and caused starvation in the past since the discovery of agriculture thousands years ago).. Hormones are added to increase rate of growth. I agree with you that addition of them badly influences human body, so their usage should be reduced to reasonable minimum. The more people is living on the Earth (overpopulation), the more food is needed for them, which requires using mass production accelerating techniques such as pesticides, antibiotics and growth hormones. In my opinion the best would be to build hermetic agricultural skyscrapers, 50+ floors, with hydroponics, monitored in the real-time, with robots and drones which will take care of plants. If microbes, fungi or bugs would appear in them, single floor could be easily decontaminated. If overpopulation won't be prevented, future human generations won't be able to enjoy the real food, but e.g. artificial meat (aka "cultured meat", "clean meat"), artificial organic compounds, will be the only option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat It's possible to make microorganisms (GMO) which will make the all needed for human proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, etc. and culture them instead of the real animals and the real plants. Animals on the farms won't suffer anymore (and won't even exist (only in ZOO), as not needed anymore).

It would help neophytes like me if you would be a little more careful when making statements that sound like accepted theory. There are more people involved in these threads than just those conversing. Thanks.

Pistols at dawn then.

You would prefer an incoherent rant? If that was your best effort I apologize, but right now I think you are capable of better. Bring up a point properly and I will clarify or discuss it, but I'm not replying to something you make no effort at, except to disparage.

Nice word salad...

Oh, hello there No True Scotsman fallacy. Haven’t seen you in a while What, since like Tuesday? Stop moving the goalposts. Hey look! No True Scotsman yet again, and all in the same post! I wonder if goalpost moving will come out to play again. Yep. There it is.

Tell that to the farmers struggling under tariffs. Except, we are. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Niger, not to mention cyber and the cold wars being stoked with China and Iran Except the opioid epidemic, poverty, rampant inequality, and if you want our crumbling infrastructure. Busted v Philip Randolf Institute. Benisek v Lamone. Gill v Whitford. Jennings v Rodriquez. Jesner v Arab Bank. The list goes on. Just because you’re unaware of them doesn’t mean they’re unimportant or indecisive. Except, you know... the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the 18 bombs mailed to democratic leaders, and the countless many other acts committed by white nationalists in the US. How are you unaware of the hundreds of protests and marches which have taken place in 2018 alone? That’s just the first paragraph. I’d reply to the other four, but at this point it really feels like a Gish gallop Except the very first sentence in the next paragraph. Can’t let that go. 1944. 1968. 1952 1951 1945 1943 1929 Shall I keep reading and correcting you?

Actually the question of death is quite complex. After all, much of the brain can be destroyed but still allow some basic functions. And theoretically by providing artificial respiration and circulation we can stop further damage to quite an extent. In many ways it is similar to the concept of "life", it is seemingly trivial in an intuitive way, but trying to apply rigorous definitions is quite difficult. While there are practical medical guidelines (after all, some decisions have to be made at some point), the theoretical dispute about when to consider someone irreversibly dead is still ongoing.

Here's that Greek Angel again, singing a Spanish? number.....Fair dinkum, she could put her glasses on by bed head any day of the week! Beautiful!!

Dimreepr; You get a +1 for questioning this instead of just assuming the answer. I am going to try to explain this in a way that anyone should be able to understand. Reductionism is where you reduce the idea of something to something else that is more understandable, like saying that consciousness is the "soul" or the "brain" or even "God", which is not a sufficient explanation. If you are correct, it is not a problem, but if you are not correct, it becomes a huge problem. Imagine that we took an automobile to a primitive place where no one had ever seen an automobile. While examining it, one person notes that the tires do not feel like the other parts of the auto. You explain that tires are rubber, so they are different. The people there associate "tire" with "rubber", or they reduce the idea of rubber to a tire. Later, I am trying to explain this really cool new material called elastic. I explain that it is made of rubber and you attach it to the waistband of your pants to keep them from falling down. The people there look at me like I am crazy because no one in their right mind would attach a tire to their pants and wear it around their waist. This is how Reductionism can fail. If I talked about the eraser on a pencil or a rubber tree or even the rubber soles of shoes, I am going to look like an idiot because the people there will visualize a tire, as that is all they know about rubber, so I will make no sense. Tires are only products of rubber; they are not rubber. The soul and the brain are products of consciousness. The soul is a product of consciousness through religious interpretation; the brain is a product of consciousness through the evolution of conscious life. Neither are consciousness. A thousand years ago when the Monism v Dualism debates started raging, many theories of consciousness erupted from these debates mostly centering around soul, the brain, or illusion. The problem is that when you reduce consciousness to either "soul" or "brain", you have to exclude other life from consciousness, or you have to prove that all life has a "soul" or all life has a "brain". As far as I know, neither daffodils nor crabgrass has a "soul" or a "brain". You can decide that other life is not conscious (which Science has been systematically proving wrong), or you have to go with the illusion ideas, which turn Science into a joke. If you look on page 2, Part 2, of my thread, Understanding the "God" Concept, you can read about what I think of that nonsense. In Philosophy, your premise, the original truth that you base your thoughts on must be valid. If it is not valid, then all your work (thoughts) will be corrupted and you will produce garbage instead of Philosophy. Think of it like a laboratory where you are trying to research biology. If your lab is not clean and sterile, then the other materials will corrupt your work and you will produce garbage instead of Science. Same principle. For my premises, I look to Science, because I trust Science. Science states that life has DNA. You can think of DNA like a computer chip, which contains memory and knowledge that tells a life form how to grow. All multicellular life has hormones, and all life that has hormones also has pheromones. Hormones guide and dictate survival instincts. All survival instincts work through or are activated by feeling/emotion. DNA, hormones, and pheromones when put in a vial do absolutely nothing, because they need to be in a life form in order to activate. They activate through awareness. So life has memory, knowledge, feeling/emotion, and awareness. That is consciousness. The only component of consciousness that all life does not seem to possess is thought. Science is pretty secure in the knowledge that thought is digitalized by a brain and thinking is processed by a brain, so a brain is required for actual thinking. In a thread like this, you can not reduce consciousness to the "brain" or the "soul". The brain dies well before all of the body loses consciousness. "God" does not drop in a soul for instantaneous life, and does not suck out the soul for instantaneous death. That is a religious belief, not Science. Gee

How, well some 5 or so billion years ago, the primordial Earth had no climate, it went from a ball of gas and dust to a lifeless solidifying mass with no atmosphere. However (tell Al Gore) volcanoes began spewing gasses and gradually a climate emerged. Thus climate change is older than the Earths climate. 20,000 years ago half of NJ and everything above that was under thousands of feet of ice. Since this mostly melted by 10,000 years ago, the current rate of melt is well, babyshit. So climate change is very real, and totally normal, and there is no change in the last 150 years that comes anywhere the last 20,000 years. Which is why the pedophile from Penn State only looked at the last 1000 years Luv ya kids

You can just google Leonard Susskind on YouTube to see it. That was the developer of the theory. It can be hard to find, since that is also a popular term for non-physics theories.

Actually 900 miles of ice melted from 20000 to 10000 years ago. The weather channel was not there taking measurements either, so the graph is retard nonsense I agree that reputable scientist say that humans are adding to climate change. I also know that none of them have any verifiable evidence. They always end up showing pollution, which is NOT climate change, it's pollution Well there you go again babbling about the year 1000, and forgetting that from 20000 years ago till 10000 years ago 900 miles of north south glaciation melted in North America. Now clowns measure a few feet a year and scream that we are all going to die. The god damn glaciers have been melting for 20,000 years, and the rate of melt has SLOWED massively at present

The old director of Fermilab (Leon Lederman; God Particle) and every other book written by someone affiliated with Fermilab or quantum physics in America would say otherwise. Did you learn quantum physics in another country? Some countries don't allow certain types of media from other countries and fit the facts to suite their needs. Was the LHC in Europe unable to confirm this? Do you have any official reference of this being discovered? It is believed that space is a scaler, and it has a low energy level. Then particle pairs were never confirmed to lower this energy level in the lab, since they result in a photon after the collision (which is how they are detected). I never heard any news of this discovery being changed at some point in time. To me, it just sounds like that you guys have just gone out on your own to determine that certain aspect of the theory is incorrect and needs to be changed. Then your viewpoint of the original theory has become distorted by the concept of energy having the potential to generate the same amount of mass. You can't just assume that one aspect of the theory is wrong and adapt every other aspect of the theory to fit it so that everything about it fits into your viewpoint of the laws of physics, unless you write a paper or something to prove it to science. I don't know of any papers written that have changed all these aspects of the theory. I would have to ask if you had any proof in any of this, because for a couple of mods, you guys seem way off track in all of this stuff. It is like you guys have been making into a completely different theory, since; 1) you don't accept particle pairs violating conservation laws, 2) you don't accept that antiparticles will lower the mass of the black hole by converting the matter in it to energy. I don't even really accept the Theory of Hawking Radiation, but I do accept the Holographic Principle. These two theories are in conflict with each other, so you cannot accept them both. But, I do accept both the number 1 and 2 things I just mentioned, and those are not the reasons why I don't prefer Hawking Radiation instead. It does make think that it could be possible that Hawking Radiation is false, because the energy would most likely be converted into electrons where the mass would actually remain the same since the average density of a supper-massive black hole is one, and maybe it is wrong because of that. A sea of electrons would have that approximate density.