TheVat

Not sure why Zapatos wisecrack stays, but mine was just deleted (though it's partially preserved in exchemist's reply). I am not the one posting under two forum names or trolling on their unsupported assertions and apparent psychic knowledge of stone age peoples cognition. If mods are going to start disappearing people's posts, I think that's going to chill discussion here.

And if we could trigger them, there's the problem that eruption is often pretty unpleasant for those who live nearby. (also, lots of dust can backfire if it deposits heavily on glaciers or snowfields, lowering the albedo for an extended period) I'm surprised they don't erupt more, given that we have stopped sacrificing virgins to appease the volcano gods.

Maybe if you asked them to remove their shoes first?

The need to tighten up a definition of this is one matter that led to Integrated Information Theory, developed by Tononi. And also Christof Koch, who has become the Carl Saganish popularizer of consciousness studies in the past decade... https://www.wired.com/2013/11/christof-koch-panpsychism-consciousness/ There's a theory, called Integrated Information Theory, developed by Giulio Tononi at the University of Wisconsin, that assigns to any one brain, or any complex system, a number — denoted by the Greek symbol of Φ — that tells you how integrated a system is, how much more the system is than the union of its parts. Φ gives you an information-theoretical measure of consciousness. Any system with integrated information different from zero has consciousness. Any integration feels like somethingto that system. When it's dissolved, it does not feel that anymore. It's not that any physical system has consciousness. A black hole, a heap of sand, a bunch of isolated neurons in a dish, they're not integrated. They have no consciousness. But complex systems do. And how much consciousness they have depends on how many connections they have and how they’re wired up. And I see Koch and Tononi get cited in both the papers that iNow posted. Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., and Tononi, G. (2016). Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 307–321. doi: 10.1038/nrn.2016.22 Papers in professional journals, in this field of cognitive science, do tend to come across as word salad to the neophyte, which is why fellas like Koch (or David Chalmers, or Stanislas Dehaene) are so helpful when you just want to get your feet wet.

They are mutualistic symbionts, aren't they? Zooxanthellae are the photosynthetic algae which team up with the polyps, paying rent with sugar and aminos. Then parrotfish come along, eat the coral, and poop white sand. I love that I can type that sentence and be completely factual. Do larger scale reef aquariums introduce parrotfish and generate their own sand?

Wow, I had no idea aquariums were such a battleground. My question concerns chlorine. When I was a teen, I had a 55 with Oscars, a tropical cichlid. I was told to let tapwater stand for a couple days so chlorine could evaporate out of solution before adding to aquarium. Never was sure how important that was. Is that necessary with reef tanks? Anyway, interesting thread, at least where one can step around the blood puddles.

Pretty much all research into the neurological basis of consciousness finds it to be emergent rather than fundamental. One molecule of water isn't wet. A billion are, at sea level between 0 and 100 C. As for theories, those are generated by minds. It doesn't mean what the theory is about is also generated by minds.

The first page and OP seemed less about Friedmann equations (which later chat left us nonphysicists barely treading water) and more about interrogating our intuitions about time as anything more than a part of a geometric description of how matter/energy behaves in space. There is matter/energy. To observing biological entities, it changes - position, energy state, decay, etc. This is due to changes in the biological entities, as well. These changes can be described (and predicted) with geometric descriptions that include a measurable elapsed time, t. The OP prompts the question: is there an ontology of time? Or is time simply how we sentient beings process the universe as we move across a landscape of "events"? Could there be an entity that could see the universe and all events at once, like some sort of cosmic jewel? (A question that invites incoherence, for sure)

I'm impressed whenever another Uranus joke can be squeezed out. It's also interesting that Uranus is a gas giant. I'm sorry, I don't get the joke.

Probably not. 😀 Indeed, i crash into circularity as soon as I hit concepts like rate and change.

It's hard to see time as more than comparative rates of change. So many oscillations between energy levels in a cesium atom compared to a defined fraction of the solar day (sun moving from the noon meridian to noon meridian at a specific point in Earth's orbit) compared to number of beta decays in one gram of carbon 14 compared to change in position of bowling ball falling from 127 meters above sea level over downtown Scranton PA compared to change in seconds of arc of sun position from the vernal equinox compared to average follicular hair production in nanometers of elongation in the standard poodle. Time, abstracted from change, can only be defined in a way that logicians call circular. I need to review McTaggart on the unreal aspects of time. IIRC Rovelli references McTaggart's A series and B series concept in his theory of time. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-019-00312-9

And space is what stops everything from happening to you.

If I were to guess, I would say he is making a distinction between identities that have some objective marker, like XY chromosomes and frankfurters, and identities that rely upon a subjective self-assessment. If a cis male has a subjective inner narrative that develops through childhood of being male (which he often does, in his quest for identity), he also has objective markers that provide confirmation of the narrative. If that male has a different one, e.g. "I have always felt like a female," then there is both interior friction, and social friction, between that felt condition and what the world sees. I assume that IntoSci is extending an olive branch, in that respect, by asserting that he would not push back against that felt identity and add to someone's difficulties. However, if that is the case, it does beg the question: why not trust them?

What the heck is an "invisible mental image" ? Images, however they are presented in the mind's eye, are in some sense visible to the person experiencing them. If someone says elephant, I see an image of an elephant in my mind.

This was what I was replying to, in your earlier post, but perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "people in the past." In any case, there are several examples throughout our history where that sort of stuff was going on in the foreground, with Jackson being the first of several "we were robbed" grudge-holders who made allegations of fraud and corruption and showered the winning candidate with criticism and charges of illegitimacy. Sorry you got a neg vote - that was not from me.

(with apologies to Bob Dylan) How many roads must a pangolin walk down Before it can learn how to roll? Yes and how many miles must an armadillo cross Before it can end its weary stroll? The answer my friend is rolling in the wind The answer is rolling in the wind.

@mistermack I replied to an assertion you made earlier, as to its factual basis. If I've posted in error, or you have other issues with my historical cites, please let me know. Not much point in me putting up researched answers if they are ignored. I'm not trying to "win" something here, just correcting a false impression that outsiders may have of America.

Andrew Jackson and his supporters contested the legitimacy of his 1824 loss, for many years after, charging various corrupt dealings. His base endlessly attacked the Adams administration as illegitimate and the election a farce. And you may enjoy a look at the Hayes v Tilden disputed election of 1876, and the years of allegations of election fraud. Anyway, sorry to say that "people have acted with a certain amount of honour" (up till now) is pretty far from the truth.

This is all something of a repeat (or it rhymes, anyway) of the situation with John Boehner's speakership.

Given there are hundreds of papers that include study of persons with aphantasia and collection of data (again, PubMed will be helpful to you), your bold assertion is the one for which evidence is needed. Here's one of many research papers.... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35691243/ Simply pounding the table won't get you far with people in the sciences.

Tone --> color synaesthesia is pretty common. Overall, something like 4% of people have some synaesthesia. I see certain hints of color in my mind's eye associated with certain keys. When I'm sleepy and have eyes closed, certain sharp sounds will present themselves as both the sound and a thin streak of color, usually yellow or whitish, across part of my visual field. Or sometimes a string of dots.

DSM is concerned with mental disorders. This is usually defined as a condition that interferes with normal daily functioning. Aphantasia has not been established as such a disorder, but is a documented deficit in an aspect of cognition. There are other conditions - like synaesthesia - that are also not in DSM, for the same reason: there is a different sort of neurological activity but it hasn't been established as a disorder. Indeed, many musicians have synaesthesia (my spouse and I both have a touch of it) and find it quite useful. Try a PubMed search on it, see what researchers are up to.

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-finally-know-how-ancient-roman-concrete-was-so-durable Recent research finds that lime clasts in Roman concrete, formerly thought to be poor mixing, served a vital purpose. (I was first introduced to the wonders of Roman concrete in Robert Harris' novel, Pompeii) Maybe this could help save those seaside condo foundations in Florida that are so beset with problems.

The scaling problem (with a selective advantage at every step pf the way) seems key, so that leaves some sort of bizarre mutation that miraculously worked, e.g. an animal which can turn a nonvascularized bony protrusion with its hands or paws. The odds seem astronomically small. More possible could be an animal that can already turn itself into a sort of wheel, like an armadillo or hedgehog, developing some way to accentuate its mobility as a wheel - perhaps providing motive force with puffs of air or side-projecting limbs that kick against the ground to keep rolling.

I suspect McCarthy's promise to bow to one NC vote from the "Freedom Caucus" is about as binding as the Treaty of Fort Laramie or the Munich agreement. It's pure theater, and I'm sure he's already calculating ways to delegitimize any such vote. The loathing the F Caucus has for him is probably reciprocated.