Genady

This is a wrong dichotomy. There are more options than "good side of human nature." For example, it might be a local and temporary opinion. The dichotomy is, either it is or it is not truth. I don't know the answer. If it is, fine. If not, it might be scary for people with this opinion, but it might be fine with other people in other times. We will die. This is truth, scary or not.

The tricky answer is, truth. It is often hard to find, but it is the ultimate ultimate value.

I guess, for this effect the lensing needs to be caused by a massive compact object, ergo, supermassive black hole.

Because there is always another number between any two numbers. It is algebra: Take any number, p. Let's assume that it has a next number. Let's call it, q. q > p. Now take a number 0.5*(p+q). Call it, r. The number r is greater than p, r > p. It is less than q, r < q. Thus, r is between p and q. Thus, q is not next to p. Thus, p does not have a next number.

OK. I am convinced. You can go now.

I wouldn't take her story at face value. Who knows what is behind it. Maybe they have personal issues between them. Maybe she has her own 'solution' for homelessness. Maybe she had a bad day. Etc. And who are "such people"? Homeless people with dilated eyes and pale skeleton? I rather disapprove of her lecturing you while she is on duty, in uniform.

Be polite. In related news: Girl Scout sells out entire cookie inventory after drag queens and other gay bar patrons rush her stand: ‘Everyone was so friendly and kind’ (msn.com)

I believe that common patterns appear because of common properties in arrangement of elements in different phenomena. Any purely statistical explanation is reductionist because it is based on assumptions about properties / behavior of elements. For example, the following explanation for Zipf's law, regardless right or wrong, is reductionist: If this is not reductionist, then I don't know what reductionist means, which is quite possible as I didn't know what atheist means and all my life thought that I am one.

Yes, the topic is reductionism. Then consciousness has been introduced as an example of a failure of reductionism. This example has two interrelated problems: it is too ill-defined to be example of anything, and it is not clear at all that reductionism fails there, rather a matter of opinion. Now, a possible neuroscience behind consciousness is even more speculative and goes too far off the reductionism question, as you said.

Two descriptions of the same thing? This is fine with me. However, an external observer by observing the physical one is able to predict the mental one. Yes, it is. With Heaviside step function. How does it relate to the topic here?

I understand what you mean. But I think that this is unjustified. I see consciousness as physical. It might turn out equivalent to activation of a specific circuit in the brain, when consciousness is a subjective perception of this activation. Just like your subjective perception of a specific color is hidden from everyone else, but nevertheless is not unphysical and not irreducible to neuron processes. Computational irreducibility is something completely different. Computational irreducibility is reduced by performing, or simulating, the computation. This is a good advice, and I will follow it. (As I've learned recently, during another discussion here, not to call myself an atheist, because of its narrow interpretation.)

It happens thanks to mathematics, i.e., the same outcomes occur regardless of implementation when certain conditions are satisfied. It does not contradict that the outcomes occur because the constituent 'parts' satisfy the conditions. I don't cross my name from that list, yet. Did not see yet an emergent property appearing from nowhere.

I didn't say they should be spent primarily on anything. They should be spent on many different causes, such as climate, environment, scientific research, arts, public health, education, helping disadvantaged, etc.

No, they should not.

This is also, No.

No.

However, it tries to alter an existing definition. It does not define a new term, but rather redefines an existing one. Without a reason, such redefinition is not valid.

I don't see what makes it so different. Do you? I rather think that it is another yet unexplained property of a system and that it is a consequence of the system's structure. Another analogy might be a programming language. It consists of a finite number of simple instructions. When put together in a certain way they calculate number pi.

Not necessarily. It looks quite straightforward to me: reductionism allows for a whole to have a property which the parts lack. For example, a composition of non-white colors makes white color. Compositions of sinusoidal functions make functions which are not sinusoidal. Molecules have properties which atoms lack. Similarly, some composition of some unconscious parts makes something conscious, why not?

How do we know this? This does not contradict reductionism. Why wouldn't it be possible to predict consciousness based on a knowledge how the unconscious parts are arranged?

It rains here today. Our aquarium water gets partially changed: (the surface as seen from below)

Here is a different approach: Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model: Schwartz, Matthew D.: 8601406905047: Amazon.com: Books

Simple - no, but not an approximation either. It is an exact matrix multiplication. Frame dragging comes with gravity, not with coordinate transformation.

Yes. I saw that quote about "science without religion..." used by religious zealots out of this context too many times. 🤮 OK.

Yes, I'm a simple guy.