Phi for All

So many misunderstandings and bad assumptions. You've based an entire philosophy on subjective mistakes, yet claim your emotional objectivity is trustworthy. You make many claims without evidence. Do you respect evidence, does it tend to persuade you more than your emotions? If so, I'd be happy to show support in my replies, but I don't want to waste my time if you're going to ignore it.

It's relevant to your argument in THIS thread. Zapatos was pushing back against your argument that aliens would consider us beneath their notice by pointing out that intelligent beings find many things interesting, and mentioned work with cognitive disabilities. Instead of addressing that point, you chose to argue that even though you understand the situation through your work, you still wouldn't try to explain medicine to a chicken. That wasn't what zapatos was arguing AT ALL, and this tactic is known as the Strawman Fallacy. You couldn't address his real argument, so you made up a man of straw and knocked that down instead. It's actually a common device, and you may be using it unintentionally, but learning how to avoid logical fallacies is important to critical thinking.

! Moderator Note SergUpstart, you need to establish your claims before building on top of them. Your methodology is flawed, and your discussion style is breaking our rules of evidence. Please go back to the responses to your opening post, and satisfy the arguments there, or acknowledge they're wrong. Then look at responses to your second post, and also address the concerns there rather than continuing to add more conjecture. Lather, rinse, repeat. This is the only way anyone (including you) can trust the explanations you have. You need more rigor.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Making claims like this with no evidence is conspiracy, and it's against our rules. We need something to discuss using reason and critical thinking, not hand-waiving and wild speculation. If you have evidence of your claims, you can open a different thread, but this one is closed.

It matters if you're speaking onager mane topic.

! Moderator Note Unless you have some evidence of this, it's conspiracy, and it's against the rules. Science discussion forum, remember? Evidence is the key.

It's no yoke when one of the donkeys dies. The other one just moves in a circle, and because of Newton's 1st Law, it might just burro right into the ground.

Newton kept his donkeys in the house because their knowledge of the law was unstable.

The donkey will kick you back, and that's what we call "stable" equilibrium.

I don't know why so many people get this idea that we'll become or be superseded by an artificial superintelligence by this century. We'll probably go on for thousands of years as the same, limited biological species in a civilization "a la star wars/trek".

But this thread is about inevitability, which implies non-life to start. A seed is already alive, so you're just moving through a process, an existing cycle.

This is why there are so many victims of predation worldwide, because they're blamed along with the perpetrators by folks like you, folks who could make a difference if they'd give up their Iron Age righteousness. These pigs are wolves and are often dressed like sheep, legitimized by those in power so you can't possibly recognize them. Having lots of money gives advantages you aren't acknowledging in your arguments. It's not just the buying power, it's the ability to financially change any given market in ways those without extreme wealth can't. It's sad that you seem to hold victims equally to blame when the field is far from even.

! Moderator Note This is NOT your blog, it's a science discussion forum. This has NOTHING to do with Engineering. Opening posts need to set the tone for conversation. They're not the beginnings of your lectures. Thread closed, do better next time.

I disagree. There are other existing factors you're ignoring. If I'm sitting on boatloads of cash, and you're in bad financial straights and can't afford to keep your house, my offer to you of fifty cents on the dollar might be the best you can get right now. You may be forced to accept my offer, but I don't think that makes you complicit in this shitty deal. I could also be using my money to make sure you don't get other offers, or make you even more desperate to sell. There are plenty of predatory practices, and I think there are times when one side has ALL the blame. What are you supposed to do, refuse the deal and starve in a home you can't afford?

To clarify, you're saying so many Muslims are poor because they don't follow the basics of Islam closely enough? What basic parts are not being followed that would make these countries, in general, more wealthy if they were followed?

Isn't it ironic that this argument is about as nuanced as you'd expect from Iron Age minds? While I don't disagree with your assessment of the death penalty, your presentation makes me want to push back against your many generalizations, assumptions, and insulting manner.

But those things can be explained without resorting to supernatural circumstances. People hear things and swear later they actually saw them as well, but it turns out their brains just filled in a sensory gap. All natural, no need to resort to magic. I watch videos for entertainment. For learning, I find too much bad information can slip past me when it comes in a video format. I'm too used to suspending my disbelief when watching videos. Reading is MUCH more trustworthy for me, and gives me a greater power to question.

The taser is a non-lethal weapon, though some underlying medical conditions can make it deadly in certain cases. This sounds like something from a Hollywood movie, where the good guy tases the bad guy from five stories up because he was touching the metal handrail.

Being your own judge is VERY convenient, but highly subjective and can't be counted as evidential support. So what? It's one thing to recount experiences, but something else completely to claim some of those are more valid than others based on nothing but how believable you think their doctors are. Tell me how you or this doctor is assigning importance to the experiences, and I can tell you more about how subjective you're being. How does it give meaning to life if it's a subjective hallucination, except randomly? I think your "fear of change" argument is garbage. Change is required for improvement, but jumping at NDEs without more objective reasoning has NOTHING to do with being afraid. It's about reason, and critical thinking, not fear.

That's a strawman, because Prometheus didn't say anything about belief. The question is, why is YOUR version/Moody's version of NDEs more valid than the versions where people saw elves?

! Moderator Note Moved from Astronomy and Cosmology to Engineering.

Have you noticed any benefits?

60% of Republicans don't believe in evolution, and call it a liberal conspiracy. Republican leadership mocks the scientific approach to evidence (they regularly call her "Professor" Warren in a sneering tone), and it's easy to see why, since they so often get called out by proper evidence. Belief in an inerrant Bible has also caused many on the right to view all liberal actions as assaults on their entire lifestyles. But mostly I think the majority of GOP leadership is interested in shutting down science because it restricts profit from activities that are harming the planet. It's corporate self-interest trying to keep from paying out for mistakes and dragging their feet against change.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/ They're down to just a few members that trust intellectual experts.

It's difficult to be tactful around "believers" in general these days. Try to make a point about a single, specific aspect and it's perceived as an attack on their whole belief system. I think they realize on a gut level that a house of cards only falls all the way down. Explanations you trust, even though you had to dig to get them, don't suffer from that all-or-nothing perspective. By digging further, if you find better a more refined explanation, it's not a problem changing your mind about that aspect alone. Trust is a better tool than faith when it comes to analyzing what you believe is true.