StringJunky

You don't know what you don't know, very much applies to you.

Do you need to know how a computer works at the hardware/software interface in order to use it? Why do we need to understand consciousness in order to do science?

Try actively creating or picturing in your mind what the words suggest. Words in themselves are just abstract symbols that are meant to trigger the same thoughts or pictures that the author intended. Act out or create in your mind what the contents and narrative suggests to you. With practice the words will disappear, to be replaced by images, emotions, actions etc, depending on what you are reading about. These times you will remember much more because you are applying more of yourself. Read aloud to yourself if necessary as that engages more of yourself to the task and creates more pathways for remembering in meaningful ways. This becomes a memorable experience, instead of a mindless drudge of rote learning by repetition of the abstract symbols laid before you.

I like that idea, gravity is totally reliable.

How about using the best tools for describing consciousness and start with cognitive neuroscience/biopschology. That's where the nuts and bolts are. Philosophy is only useful in the sense of how one approaches the subject.

Proof is for maths. The best can science can do is supporting evidence with varying degrees of mathematically-derived probability; confidence interval.

At least that's one position they can't shoot from.

Russia has vacated Snake Island.

Comparing Cassidy H. with Trump: Guess who's the one with the fur coat and no knickers? She's a credit to her profession.

You said it!

'Surely' is not a word we can confidently use when talking about US law.

Can the Justice Department prosecute him? Is a president not equal under the law?

What do we think of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony today?

How does forcing black women to have their unwanted babies facilitate white people, when it actually facilitates the future black vote. If I were a racist politician with a view to future demographics I would be facilitating non-white abortions.

Striking whilst the iron's hot.

@zapatos Of course. Thanks.

Don't get it.

Russian sites are getting attacked some miles across the border. They are in an unwinnable situation ultimately. They are using relentless attrition tactics atm, that attrition will be directed at them soon enough. Seiging is one thing, holding is another.

The Russians for all their gains will have long term internal resistance from guerrillas to deal with. A Russian-installed city leader was blown up in their car a few days ago.

A wise man. The present SC and GOP doesn't do his words justice. I don't think the founders of the US Constitution ever imagined it to be like the Ten Commandments.

The general standard is when a fetus becomes viable to birth and have a reasonable chance of survival... about 24 weeks. The reason for pro-choice is so that each individual pregnant woman can decide where that line is for themselves... they have to live with the consequences of their decision, not us.

I don't really know what to say. The SC is not apolitical and the Constitution, modern though it was in it's day, is like the Ten Comandments of The Bible today: archaic. How can a court ban something that is acceptable to more than 50% of a population, or even a significant minority? Quite honestly, I'd just pack the SC.

“It’s the best Supreme Court the 19th Century has yet produced.” — Stephen King

What is the point of their existence otherwise?

From Clarence, I can only say 'Moron': CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, IN A CONCURRING OPINION: "Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court's opinion." "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold (which protected the right to contraception), Lawrence (which invalidated state laws banning sodomy), and Obergefell (which legalized gay marriage nationwide)." "Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."