zapatos

And I want you to quit trolling. It's unbecoming.

Yes mam. Promises, promises.

I'd like to debate this statement... https://www.webmd.com/brain/what-is-synesthesia

Yes, I kind of like your system. One good thing here is that when the same party controls the House, Senate, and Presidency you usually see significant changes (for better or worse) rather than the gridlock you often get trying to satisfy a coalition.

In the past, the vice president used to be the person who received the second highest number of votes in the general election. Meaning the president and vice president were typically not in the same party.

You wait. We'll go ahead and address the question now. Again, no definition of consciousness I've ever seen suggests dogs and cats are not conscious. Very poetic but seems a bit off-topic. I read that multiple times and do not understand what you are trying to convey. No one here has made "Any absolute declaration of understanding of what consciousness is" so I don't think you have to worry about that.

I would think powering a wheel would be a major obstacle to it working on a large scale.

I wonder if we don't see it in something like organs simply due to the idea that scaling up might simply make it unworkable in something so relatively large.

I'm having a hard time imagining the human design for moving blood around, made of and powered by animal components, that contained wheels. Unless perhaps it is a wheel that doesn't actually spin.

I'm still a bit confused by your question. Did you expect to find "a circular frame of hard material that may be solid, partly solid, or spoked and that is capable of turning on an axle" somewhere inside something like a liver? Can you give an example where a wheel might have developed? I also don't see why you might expect to find wheels in animal organs developed through Evolution, simply because they are designed by humans for specific applications.

I heard the caucus doesn't want concessions from McCarthy. They just don't like him and don't want him as speaker. Simple as that.

No description of consciousness I've ever seen could be applied atoms. If you are not sure how to "define and describe consciousness", I don't see how you can then say 'if it is in humans then it is also in... atoms". That is like saying "I don't know what the properties of rubber are, but if it is in golf balls then it must be in baseballs."

Interestingly, today the second in line is Democratic Senator Patty Murray. As president pro tem she would normally be third in line, just behind the speaker of the house, but since there is no speaker of the house...

The job has some real power. Appointing members to committees for example.

No, that is not what makes a theory.

Welcome! I love trees too but don't hug them. Love birds too but I do get to hug them a bit as I have chickens and ducks, and some of them like being picked up and petted. Hope you enjoy it here.

Har! 😁

I seem to remember reading on this forum something along the lines of "people may disagree on the timing of events, but they always agree which events took place". Your statement above seems at odds with what I remember reading. That is, only one person sees the particle falling through the horizon. Did I miss something, or perhaps I misremembered what I read?

That may be the issue we are having here. They are not the same at all. The first point of yours I mentioned basically says it is unlikely to occur ("unlikely coincidence"). It is also unlikely I'll win the lottery. It's a one in a million chance. The second point of yours I mentioned basically says it didn't occur ("the idea is absurd"). The idea that I am the person who won the lottery is not absurd at all. People just like me win the lottery all the time.

On a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 being the greatest contribution: Joe is a solid 1 for the first 80 years of his life, and at the age of 81 reaches his greatest contribution to the total well-being of all beings. At 82 his contribution diminishes and a sniper picks him off on the way to the park. Jan reaches greatest contribution at the age of 20 with a score of 100. Best score of anyone ever! Ages from 21 to 99 would have only seen a contribution score of 99 for the 78 years before her natural death, a healthy contribution to mankind for sure, but since she hit her greatest contribution at age 21, Off with her head, to hell with her last 78 years.

So... Let's say my newborn baby has chronic issues and will be a drain on the well-being rating of all beings for her entire life. Will you be willing to be the person who kills her?

Well, that is your argument NOW. After your original argument... ...was shown to be ridiculous. It is easy to present yourself as being 'right and reasonable' if you move the goalposts at a later date.

I had an early morning class Freshman year of college. I remember walking to class with the wind blowing in my face. By the time I got there I had little balls of ice on my eyelashes. Don't know the temperature that day but it was my weirdest experience with the cold.

Yes, I've noticed some of what you had to say on the topic...

Again, you are letting your emotional response to the topic interfere with your understanding of what is going on here. No one is plotting genocide, and to suggest otherwise shows you are not able to participate in this discussion. I do however wish to thank your for your pity. That's very thoughtful of you. 🥰