Intoscience

What makes you think I think they don't? How deep do we need to delve into bias? There are positive and negative bias's depending on the contexts/circumstances. I'm bias towards my child's welfare over my own. This could be viewed as a positive bias and negative. One could argue that my child's welfare may depend on my own. Ideally both welfares should be considered equally, so no bias. But in reality this is never the case. Depending on the circumstances one often has to make a choice, which then becomes a natural bias towards the choice made.

Well yeah, but there is always going to be a natural bias if you set a small set of standards across a wide and diverse range. Then you have to define "tough love" & "tough in order to win" then context for each or either... A parent yanking a child back and causing pain to save that child from running in front of a vehicle and suffering worse consequences. A rugby player, or similar, american football player, tackling another player in order to scores points towards winning. Both examples are considered acceptable in the particular circumstances but by your definition would fall under the "bullying" category

My point is some things are learnt, others are traits (mental) that are inherent within personalities (within the make up / process of our brains) that no amount of learning can change. At this point it may be possible and perhaps the only option to use physical intervention to alter/improve things via; drugs, operations etc... . What is normal behaviour in your own mind might well be abnormal behaviour to others. So if the consensus is that someone is deemed a bully, then the person maybe viewed as acting out abnormal/unacceptable behaviour. But for the person doing the bullying in their mind it might be normal and/or acceptable. Or they may not even be aware or recognise, or have the capacity to understand that they are bullying. So I guess, based on my reasoning, my response to your question is - It depends on the individual

Or born different. For most people some things cannot be learned, no matter how much is taught or how hard they try.

I was definitely a water faring animal in my previous life, probably a loner, not a pack animal. Or maybe from Atlantis. 🤔

No point in talking about it then, close the thread.

Waves, strings, vibrations... what ever one might consider I guess. I was not promoting anything per-say. It was in response to a suggestion about parallel "reality's" within the same universe. But as you stated its all conjecture based on ideas that are not testable. Though I may agree with you I can't help wondering why it's still doing the rounds among modern day scientists? You also by your own admission stated that you belong in the "epistemological camp". By the way just to be clear I share the same view, so I'm not arguing the case for any particular theory, but this doesn't make one idea right or wrong, its just a view point based on our interpretation of data/theories. that's what I like about you dim

Essentially the "big bang" theory is a theory based on what we can measure/observe, anything beyond this is speculation. So in answer to your question, "is the big bang theory a complete model?", well the answer is no. It is a model, of the observable universe both present and in the past.

I guess you could consider this as frequencies, where one reality is slightly out of phase with another. And? Its a plausible theory held by many credible scientists as a real possibility, so its at least worth thinking about, no?

Yes, and for the record I agree with you.

I assumed the discussion was around sexual preference, what has love got to do with it? +1 Though in summary, its a little more complex - "A phobia is an overwhelming and debilitating fear of an object, place, situation, feeling or animal. Phobias are more pronounced than fears. They develop when a person has an exaggerated or unrealistic sense of danger about a situation or object" The key point being ( see underlined). Yeah agreed, I think some fears maybe innate, a good survival mechanism. Phobias on the other hand are more likely to be from social construction, a fear of misunderstanding or acceptance, opposition to personal opinions/beliefs etc...

I'm no genius and not even bordering on such, so there you go the tests fail miserably. We did the test as a bit of fun competition between siblings, I don't even know what would constitute as a good/bad/average score. I have heard 200 banded around for those considered very intelligent, so I assumed I sat just slightly above average, which would fit well with my academic and working career. I'm not a big fan of these types of tests for the reasons I stated in my previous posts, but they are ok for a bit of fun. I don't think this is true for all cases. Some people may avoid doing the tests in fear they might score lower than they expect. So whether you do the test for vanity or whether you avoid the test in fear of disappointment both may indicate an inferiority complex. Some people are just interested in where they may fit in comparison to the average within their society, and not really have issue either way, but just accept it is what it is. Then others, myself included, who don't particularly find the tests that important just do it for a bit of fun and don't really care either way what they score (so long as they beat their sibling! lol).

I took one a good few years back for fun as a competition against my younger sister. She scored 137 and I scored 134 (she always reminds of this at our monthly family quiz evenings). To be fair and I think the running score is 7 - 6 to her 😆. I think the difficulty with these sorts of tests is that people have varying capabilities across a very wide range of applications, some of which may not be fairy captured within the test. For example, people who can retain a lot of information maybe considered extremely intelligent, quiz masters etc... and there may well be a correlation to some degree. But there are also people who have very poor memories, but who are extremely good at problem solving. So who is the most intelligent? To pitch one against the other maybe an unfair comparison, especially so if the measure of intelligence is in anyway biased. lets consider me and my partner. I'm a problem solver, engineer... this is what I do for a living and I'm fairly good at my job. My partner is an artist, a carer, she has an eye for creativity, artistic design. She considers herself far less intelligent than me because she is far less capable, academically, practically and so forth... Yet I consider her very intelligent because she can create beautiful art, she can design and fashion spaces to match colours that work or blend, she can see detail in such things that I just don't ever see.

So are you saying that its not possible to create an optical illusion by use of video? There is video footage of persons, famous ones such as David Blaine, Dynamo, just to name a couple levitating. Do you believe they are tricking the audience or actually levitating without aid?

Videos of phenomenon are not substantial proof, such things can be edited, manipulated to obscure etc... The onus of proof is on you by way of the scientific method, if you are serious about disproving mainstream science. Maybe if you persuaded a person claiming to levitate to go and perform this feat under actual scientific experimental conditions then people would then start to take you serious. Until then stop wasting your time trying to convince people that it is real because you have posted a sketchy YouTube video of some someone performing a trick in their underwear.

That's it then, if its been seen on America's Got Talent, it must be real!🙄 Are you really serious or just playing some kind of game? I'm curious. Do you know any Shaolin monks? I could do with my top floor windows cleaning.

This would be a very in efficient way, why would they (even if they had the resource to do this) unless it was key people? Much easier just to bomb from the air.

The wheel is not really very efficient for manoeuvrability unless the terrain is compatible. Since most animals face a multitude of differing terrain to over come then that flexibility trumps the potential speed benefit of a wheel. Additionally I would imagine the mechanism to drive a wheel would be quite complicated using organic material and terribly inefficient. Hence we developed, change the terrain to suit the wheel rather than the other way round. Other than off road vehicles which are still quite limited.

Well yes, in a sense, there is superposition in QM theory also.

One possible path from your own personal experience, maybe so. I know a few "daft planks", myself included at times. Sorry couldn't resist we use that term regularly around my parts to describe someone larking around. Yes, and this then poses the questions and considerations I have posed so far. The question being, in this situation who is you and are you distinct in all ways from the rest?

Your personal experience of your life is finite. There also can be an infinite number of versions of you existing in parallel all with a finite existence. The needle might be in only one position from your personal perspective but maybe at an infinite number of positions all at any infinite number of moments.

Yeah sure, Ok, so we have a situation where there are an infinite numbers of parallel multiverses that continually split of at every change in every existing quantum state. Sort of the multi world time line idea. This means that there are an infinite number of versions of you'. At the moment of your creation, there is the original you, every moment there after another version is created in parallel. This in theory would then continue exponentially at the speed of light. As you can see from this, there are an unimaginable number of yourself, even at a brief moment from the point of your original conception. So, coming back to the question. Would there always remain a connection between each version, do you share a soul, consciousness etc... Are you entwined on a level beyond what you can consciously experience? Or at each moment of divergence a new unique and unconnected version of you is created with an independent soul, consciousness etc...?

Are we connected to our infinite selves?

For each of us? But which us is you?

I wasn't insinuating anything, that's your assumption. It was a news report admittedly, it was not reported in any sensationalized manner but rather a clip with no running commentary (that there are many of) of parents addressing an education board regarding curriculum policies. This particular case was one parent addressing the panel as spokes person for the parent's association. They also petitioned against girls competing against boys in physical sporting competition which personally I have mixed views on. I guess my point around this is that policies are being forced upon children without the consent of the parents where the parents views/rights are being ignored. People want in general to make the world a better place, this is great and should be applauded. However, there are many many problems across the world that require addressing, some more so than others. Yet focus tends to be around what's in trend especially so that which gains momentum from outrage or negativity and then sensationalised to get everyone onboard with the trend.