YaDinghus

Second that...

On the basis that your argument lacks any basis to begin with....

Challenge would require admission. As you've so aptly pointed out before, we've dismissed you on several occasions I got plenty left to say. I am however freshly out of f**ks to give

Now you're trying to make me laugh...

Backatcha

I didn't really expect 'nything lucid anyway. Kettle! Kettle! Pot is calling you the B-word again! I mean seriosuly, is your RL identity Donald Trump, Sr.?

I am not going to repeat everything everyone has said on this post. Suffice it to say, this is becoming more absurd than Monty Python's Argumentation sketch. Unlike mentioned sketch, NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS FUNNY. Had to give this +1 to counter the -1. There is just nooooooo way this is a bad post. @Endercreeper01 care to comment?

Forgetting and disregarding as utter horseshit are not quite the same. That is what I meant by asinine. The consciousness doesn't experience the brain, it experiences reality. Also, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but because the brain isn't necessarily the only substrate for consciousness to arise (we haven't achieved consciousness in AI yet, but we're pretty sure that it can be done), neuroscience can only ever explain a part of consciousness, if at all. This might sound like whataboutism or strawman at first glance, but physics doesn't need chemistry to work, either. Chemistry is an emergent system from the physics of electron orbits around a positively charged nucleus. Chemistry would work with completely different laws of physics, as long as there are composite particles that react with each other by exchanging or sharing parts of their surface. It would just be different chemistry emerging from different laws of physics. Also, when we are asleep or put under or knocked out, our brain does continue to work. It only really shuts down when we die... Yes, the brain can work without consciousness. But what do you think this demonstrates? Show us. Or not. Idc. Remeber: I'm a nihilist. You might enjoy reading Michael Polanyi (Wikipedia). He was a very gifted scientist, yet he argued that the scientific method was incomplete and didn't mechanically produce truth. He literally wrote the book on tacit knowledge and emergent systems. I read parts of his book tacit knowledge for an anthropology seminar about the anthropology of knowledge. It was a most fascinating read. The consciousness is the epitome of tacit knowledge. It is our mode of experience, and it is the most familiar concept to us because it is everything we experience. But it is at the same time the most difficult to analyze, because we can't share consciousness with another person (unless you're a Jaeger pilot) and experience what another person is experiencing. Descartes himself said in his famous book that also says 'cogito, ergo sum' that it is impossible to prove to another person that you yourself are conscious, as it is impossible for anyone else in the world to conclusively prove to eachother the instance of their consciousness. Maybe that is where your notion that consciousness is the reason for existence comes from. What you confuse is reason and proof. Your consciousness is proof to yourself of your own existence. There is however no way to logically conclude that it is the reason for your existence. Or any reason for anything, for that matter. Good luck convincing a nihilist of the contrary

I'm quite the nihilist. In what sense do you mean 'someone like me'? I can't really speak for everyone else in this forum. So existence is apart of reality, not a part of it? Which of these two are you defining differently from me, reality or existence, or both? Reality, to my understanding, is what remains when you stop believing in everything. That means, reality is independent from perception. There is a related term called internal reality, which is the subjective perception of reality, and figuring out where one begins and the other ends is tricky, because we only have our perceptions to compare and distill what (objective) reality is. The (most successful) method for this is science. The pure fact of our existence is obvious and axiomatic. We exist, as does our environment - reality, a.k.a. the Universe. And we exist in this reality, as part of it. Therefore whatever explains our reality explains our existence. Faith offers an easy way out, and I understand the appeal. You don't have to understand it, following is enough. There's a simple set of rules to live by, and a complex set of rules to fight about. There's nothing new to learn, the Truth of Faith is eternal and immutable (compared to a human lifespan). Science on the other hand is messy. You're only right until someone proves you wrong, and if you're lucky, you don't live to see the day. It is ever changing, truths held for decades can be toppled overnight by a smart experiment. You always need to stay on top, keep your eyes on the ball, never lose a thread. There's a constant input of information pending evaluation. Science is not for the faint of heart. For the record: I don't judge anyone for choosing faith over science. I respect my friends and family for their beliefs. I even go to church with them from time to time because of the sense of the community, also we have a great organist and choir (I love music). And while the sermon is based on a book and a faith that I don't believe in, I can find wisdom in the priest's conclusion. When it comes to peace, love and decency, I really don't care how people come to it, just that they do. What I do judge people for is being asinine. Being wrong is one thing - it happens to the best. Being asinine is being arrogant and stubborn, and not giving up the falsely held notion even when compelling evidence is presented.

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is I grew up in a very faithful region, so, naturally, when I told people I didn't believe in god anymore, I was often asked if I felt an existential Angst now that one pillar of mental strenght was removed. The fact is that I felt no different in that respect whatsoever. I did feel liberated because I didn't have to live a lie anymore, not just to my friends and family, but I stopped lying to myself. I know many people who can't live without faith, they need this pillar. Even the flightest thought that might rock this pillar is abhorrent to them. I might have had this pillar when I was a child - I might not have had it. I don't really know. But in my darkest moments of despair, when I was overwhelmed by fear, I didn't pray to a higher power to save me. Once I realized the power of knowledge and logic, I was never paralyzed by fear again. The pillar of strength that faith is to so many people was replaced by science. I suspect it is similar with many in this forum. If faith is your pillar of strength, then the axiomatic assumption is that a higher power exists, and that there is a purpouse for everyone and a meaning for everything, because if that weren't the case, your pillar would not only shake and rock, but fall and crumble into dust. So in this manner, it's not only reasonable for people like @Endercreeper01 to assume that this higher power exists, it is existentially essential, and every argument will be structured around the fact that they can't live without this higher power. Their escape from reality is so complete that they forge their own reality based on this axiom. Faith is worse than any drug in the world in this respect. And unlike any drug, you can't just take it away and give the faithful their God as a Cold Turkey. @Endercreeper01: Q.E.D.

So I'm whitish, my wife is latin, my best friend is a total cheesecake, another friend of mine has black skin, and many of my business contacts are Asian. 'Race' only goes as deep as skin. Differences between individuals are so strong that the differences you point out in statistics aren't even statisticaly significant in comparison

I guess China is quite tolerant of Atheists. If you've got money, like 100k € and more, you can live quite comfortably for a few years there, and if you're an academic (which I gather you are) you'll have good job opportunities there. If you really like the market economy, though, you could also like South Korea

While I would really like @naitche to answer, I concur: we shouldn't hold our beath on their answer to make sense

What do you mean by that?

The difference is very nuanced. If it didn't show any difference between frames - of which I have no doubt - then it would have to be an extremely sophisticated experiment that in principle could show that there was a master frame to be of any significance. Since we're talking about science, I tend to say that something is only impossible until someone does it. Coming up with this experiment would require designing a lucid alternative theory to GR, which would be a monumentous feat in its own right. And disproving such a theory with the experiment which was supposed to upheave physics as we know it itself would be irony of... Well, we would have a Shakespeare of Physics

That is a common misconception. Don't worry about it, just be glad that you've escaped it. Being able to use the resources better than others is part of being the fittest. And yes, moving into a new territory where the required resources are more plentiful is an advantage, because these resources are not available to (as many) competitors. The genes of such a group would thrive in such an environment. However, another group which remained stationary could evolve to make use of resources which were unavailable because nobody else could process them. This is moving into a different niche. Microorganisms of different species also thrive together due to specialization and exchange. Commerce is basically the beginnig of multicellular life

I did mean alien in the 'original' sense: strange ;-) I so love plays on words

Why look for alien life on exoplanets if it may be at our doorstep...

I'd take a boulder of salt... I guess H2SO4 would dissolve enough other materials to form a stabile solvent with a HSO4- - H2SO4 balance or even an SO4(2-) - HSO4- balance. Then it's still a very powerful oxidizer, but that's what extremophiles at hydrothermal vents like about it, so I guess it could serve the same purpouse for life on other planets. So conceivably there could be an extraterrestrial ocean wjth a balance of HSO4-, SO4(2-), HSO3- and SO3(2-) facilitated by a plethora of dissolved Kations, which alien, perhaps even Si-based life, could thrive in. Another question could be: could life be Si-C hybrid based? Why would Si-bases life not use Carbon, which is more abundant and chemically useful...

If you take up more energy than needed, you're body will store it in a more efficient manner, i.e. fat. Your muscles and liver have a certain glycogen storage limit. Glucose is necessary for the human body, but it is also toxic in excess (diabetics have a range of problems stemming from too much blood glucose) which is one reason for our body to transform it for storage. That being said, super bodybuilders often also inject insulin to stimulate muscle growth. They also eat up to 9 full meals a day (~1500 kcal each). Their muscles are larger than practical for any human to have, and their diet is necessary to sustain their muscles, but it carries significant health risks. I don't know exactly how insulin stimulates muscle growth, I just have it on 'good authority' from my gym trainers that they do it and that it works. It might also just be necessary to get the body to accept this insane amount of calories in the first place.

I'm not saying McCain is an imbecile, but even an imbecile should see how insensibly Trump is acting.

I wasn't aiming at that but it's still a valid point +1

Imagine google AI picking up the phone on both sides and talking to itself...

How exactly would that work? To my knowledge, H2SO4 is a very strong acid; would it accept a proton to form H3SO4+? I find that unlikely. Or do you mean H2SO3? It's still pretty strong, also it's not as eager to oxidize everything around it. Still having a hard time imaginibg H3SO3+

People are regularly fooled by chat bots. They have been passing the turing test for quite a while. I've been rewatching Star Trek TNG and I came across the EP where DATA is in the hearing to determine whether he is a bona fide person with rights or property of Starfleet. It may be a debate that is never satisfyingly settled