Genady

Imagine that you are an AI and learn from data: meme - Bing images (Anyway, I'm referring to this image from a post above: https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2023_02/820436526_if-a-person-wishes-to-achieve-peace-of-mind-and-happiness-th-author-friedrich-nietzsche-Copy.jpg.bffe6015bde0ec8ed2688fa9874a0a66.jpg)

Even in translation, it has been introduced by a creator of the meme. (I despise memes.)

I already did. Checked if the punctuation mistake is its inherent feature.

Yes, we could. I just don't find it interesting.

The difference is being an end point vs being an internal point. An internal point has neighbors on both sides, but an end point has a neighbor on one side only. OTOH, you could take out any internal point, say, point 1.5. Then you get two open ends: on the left and on the right of 1.5.

It's nice that we agree. I just don't know what I suppose to do with the quoted statement. I can't discuss anything with that guy, as he is not a member of SFn.

Both predators and prey commonly camouflage by blending with a background using shapes, colors, and textures. It is relatively easy to do when the background is busy, more difficult when it is barren. This seahorse pretends to be a part of or a growth on an underwater cable.

Yes. But perhaps it needs to be also invisible.

I agree with all, except the underlined part. If that part is not true, then "we" is a minority.

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.