Phi for All

1 hour ago, studiot said:

First I am going to say +1, for actually answering another member.

First time that I can remember.

45 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You sold your soul for 10 dollars, remember this day. And notice, how you feel, when i say that i don't need your soul even for 10 dollars, even for 1.

It's as if you said you don't place any value on the invisible purple unicorn I wanted to sell you for $10! Are you saying you don't NEED my invisible unicorn? Are you saying I might have imagined it to be real, but when faced with the absurdity of it all, realized I was being manipulated?

59 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of life

Doesn't require a god. Science has some possibilities that don't require magic.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of a man

No gods required. Humans evolved like the rest of the vertebrates, from tiny fish. 

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Origin of a soul

Science has nothing to say about the supernatural.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Would you sell me your soul, which you don't believe in for 10 dollars?

Instantly! Please donate the money to a charitable cause of your choice. 

I don't feel any different, but I'll keep you posted occasionally. 

2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

"Unfortunately, it is not possible to answer these questions because there is no confirmed definition of intelligence."

Exactly, and I think it's extremely sloppy to broaden the definition of "intelligence" just because cell communication has a similar pattern to sentient communication. IOW, I disagree with your author since I don't think there's a question there to be answered. Animal intelligence is completely different to the cellular processes described here. To equate the two is a big mistake and gives us no meaningful benefits. It's anthropomorphizing at the cellular level.

1 hour ago, mar_mar said:

Why don't scientists just accept creation?

It's too farfetched. Can you point to ANYTHING that implies there is a creator behind the universe's mechanisms? Because I can point to an ENORMOUS body of evidence that explains those things, and none of them needs me to imagine something omnipotent that refuses to be observed. Have you heard the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Creationism seems exactly like that, people like you telling people like me that the naked Emperor's clothes sure do look great.

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

And accept existence of God, because the science doesn't have proper instruments to prove.

One more time! Science isn't trying to "prove" anything. Science is looking for the best supported explanations. We don't need instruments to show us something that isn't there. 

2 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Too many questions, too many white spots. And people think, you know, people have capacity to think.

Thank you, this is EXACTLY the way I view the Abrahamic religions. I do have the capacity to think, you know, and that shows me your god probably isn't real. 

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

They are.

That's why i responded that way.

Can you quote the people in this thread that are advocating for giving up their feelings and imagination? I've read through the whole thread, and I couldn't find a single one. So what are you talking about?

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

It might also be pointed out that this is a manufactured concern (surprise!) seeing as the number of immigrants in 2021 was about 1.5 million, lower than any pre-pandemic year this century. It was ~2.5 million a year under TFG, pre-pandemic

https://usafacts.org/state-of-the-union/immigration/

The party apparatus that spread lies about the 2020 election being stolen is using the same technique to spread lies about their opponents in 2024. They desperately want the White Public to think there are hordes of dark-skinned migrants crossing without inspection and overwhelming Border Patrol. And with that typical conservative put-that-out-with-gasoline mentality, trying to force Biden to shut down the asylum system just guarantees there will be an increase in illegal border crossings. 

I sincerely hope the entire planet can survive the death throes of the GOP. The ones calling the shots for the party right now are quite simply the scum of the Earth.

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

If Biden would deal with the border, that will neutralize the GOP's biggest weapon against him.

The GOP's biggest weapon is people like you. You ignore the ball & chain Congress put on Biden, and instead wonder why he's hobbling along. Did you ever question the numbers FOX News was throwing at you? When they claim the CBP "encountered" 250,000 migrants in November 2023, they're talking about people who walk up to the Port of Entry, people who cross irregularly but wait for BP to come collect them, as well as those irregulars who don't want to get caught. It's a TOTAL number, but when they phrase it like a Border Patrol encounter, the average viewer assumes it's all illegals.

8 hours ago, mar_mar said:

Don't listen to imaginative music, don't  watch imaginative movies, paintings, and don't read imaginative literature. Only documentaries and science fiction. And music of AI.

I think you missed the point entirely. The term "subconscious" is in question these days because it's been used as a catchall term for "things we aren't aware of", which is actually the definition of "unconscious". "Preconscious" is more accurate, and current debate is considering dropping the term "subconscious" professionally. At least that's what I've read.

Your reply would be more appropriate if people were rejecting feelings and imagination in favor of pure reason, but they're NOT.

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

You do not need a brain to be intelligent; cells are intelligent in their own manner;

You should use a different word for what cells are, otherwise you're saying cells and humans are both intelligent, and I can't think of a context where that's meaningful, and doesn't cloud the issue with having to explain exactly what you mean every time you make the claim. "In their own manner"? You can use that with everything, you know. "Pigs can fly, in their own manner." "Manhole covers are coins, in their own manner."

When we speak of intelligence in a normal scientific context, it does require a brain. When you're speaking about anything related to animal intelligence, plants aren't even considered. And when you're speaking of human intelligence evolved from a common ancestor with other primates, we often don't even consider insects. Intelligence may be a spectrum, but claiming individual cells are on the same spectrum with the higher level cognitive feats humans are capable of diminishes the concept.

21 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

please have a look at "The Secret Language of Cells". Evidence based studies were used in preparation of this book.  I might be mistaken, but this looks a lot like intelligence to me.

I looked at the reviews and didn't find the word "intelligent" at all. It seems to be drawing a parallel between chemical communication between cells and human communication between themselves. The cells "ask questions" and "receive answers" and "gather information", but that's just anthropomorphizing. Cells and their capabilities are astonishing, but individually there's NOTHING that suggests any popular definition of intelligence going on there. 

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

my starting premise is that intelligence is in all living things, so if it is then there would a definitive evolutionary advantage to use it in order to survive, therein the theory of guided intelligence

What good is that definition of "intelligence"? It's in all living things? What about plants without brains? 

6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I did not say that evolution created intelligence, but intelligence emerged from the living and then became one of the driving forces in evolution.

Are you still saying that only intelligent species evolve?

58 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

My contention is that bringing mind into a discussion on the evololution of living organisms is essential, not off topic. It has an effect-impact on evolution.

18 minutes ago, AbnormallyHonest said:

Please watch this video before joining in the discussion.

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I will continue to post relevant points made by other people than me, since I myself have made all of my own points.

Well, that makes no sense as a response to what I posted. I was trying to acknowledge a Reported Post without naming anyone, and felt the phrase in question needed some explanation since it was so badly misinterpreted. 

3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I am blocking @StringJunky and this note is for him to block me as well. I'm not forcing anyone on to here.

You're blocking someone for basically saying "Be civil or get lost", a rephrasing of our prime rule? Got it.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

2. Being a bot is not currently a rules violation. It's also not likely to become one, because how does one conclusively determine this? Feel free to open a thread to discuss this.

 

I can think of at least two members that I suspected of being bots when they first joined, and turned out to be good members. I'm willing to wait until they sneak a commercial link into a conversation, or break another rule that bots usually break.

That said, times are changing. We're already seeing people join who appear to be using AI to make scientific statements. They're easy to spot for now because they tend to write like it's a college paper that needs to follow form, but we also get college-aged people who are simply used to writing like that, so how do we tell the difference moving forward?

On 12/26/2023 at 12:40 AM, StringJunky said:

Be nice... or take a long walk off a short pier.

57 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

Ok. As your wish. I don't have an intention to prove or to preach anything. This is only a matter beliefs.

In case you missed it, this is a SCIENCE discussion forum. Nobody asked you to PROVE anything. If you believe something and want to share it here, you need to show people that your idea has merit. THAT is what you've failed to do. 

Preaching may not have been your goal, but when you insist your faith is reasonable after we've shown evidence that it's not, it's clear that no amount of reason or critical thinking will persuade you. That's called Soapboxing, or Preaching. It's not confined to religion, either. Many people become adamantly convinced they're correct. Evidence is the deciding factor.

But that's pretty typical with faith-based beliefs. You're convinced you're right, and we're convinced you can't support your beliefs. And with each post you make, we see more evidence that supports our conviction. 

Even worse, you've set up this really damaged feedback loop, where you think your faith is weakened by questioning it. It's like an engineer who refuses to inspect a bridge because that would mean he doesn't trust it not to fall down. Do you find bliss in such ignorance?

6 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I can ask you questions on pure phisics, not religious, but you won't like that. And I was told not to bring this up. So, let The Bible for those, who want to read it.

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

 I think that it's not right to give definition to a soul. Feels like I dissect mine with this scientific method.

Science has very little for you then.

17 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

You are free to choose your beliefs. It's your world and your choice. But I think it is good to integrate your beliefs into life. Because someone may ask you "where does your soul come from?".

Or... we can acknowledge that there is no soul, nothing to integrate, nothing in eternal danger of being tortured by your loving god, and we can live free from the guilt and shame of imaginary sins.

Merry Christmas!

18 hours ago, mar_mar said:

I'm not saying that hope is bad thing without faith.

This supports a stance about belief I've developed over the years. Most belief falls into three categories; things you believe because you've reasoned them out enough so you trust them, things you believe because you hope they're true, and things you just believe on faith without any reason. You seem to be saying that your faith is undermined by hope, do I have that right? And is it undermined by trust, by using critical thinking to analyze and evaluate the things you believe in? Does your god hate the scientific method?

This leads me to believe that many religious people think blind faith is the strongest form of belief possible, while evidence shows me it's the weakest. And I think using faith to form their beliefs makes them easier to manipulate, since they rarely question what they're told. 

45 minutes ago, mar_mar said:

I've reread mith about Pandora's box recently. And decided that one shouldn't hope, that hope is forbidden thing. It withdraws attention and strength from what is happening now. One should face reality. But no, there's hope for God's mercy.

Be careful mixing your mythologies. It sounded like you just claimed that hope is bad unless you believe in the supernatural. 

And if that IS what you're saying then I, for one, am tired of this morbid, self-hating, mind-crippling preaching about your god being merciful. This isn't a discussion when you're standing on a soapbox telling us the only hope is believing the way you tell us to.

We'll get an Admin to look at this activity. 

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Good point, and yes, we had that discussion with that person who had a bee in his or her bonnet about microwaving silica gel, some months ago. 

I know it's a post hoc fallacy, but I'm convinced microwaving silica gel causes mental fixations.

12 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What “phenomenon”  are you talking about, and in what way do you think invariance of scale applies to it?

I'm assuming it's the bit mentioned in the article, the evolutionary process supposedly affecting inorganic systems as well as organic. :

Quote

 

The same sort of evolution happens in the mineral kingdom. The earliest minerals represent particularly stable arrangements of atoms. Those primordial minerals provided foundations for the next generations of minerals, which participated in life's origins. The evolution of life and minerals are intertwined, as life uses minerals for shells, teeth, and bones.

Indeed, Earth's minerals, which began with about 20 at the dawn of our solar system, now number almost 6,000 known today thanks to ever more complex physical, chemical, and ultimately biological processes over 4.5 billion years.

 

6 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Let's talk quantum computing, since that's been in the news recently

1 hour ago, mightymike200 said:

What I need to know is how far is the top of that white hinge from the ground (so the distance between the red line and the ground) and how far is the bottom of that white hinge from the ground (so the distance between the green line and the ground).

The hinge looks to be about level with the top of the rear tire. Lots of variables there, but a 2019 model I saw had 215/50 R17 tires, which are 25.5" tall.