Phi for All

I think there has to be folks like this, worried that reducing the spending power of the masses will affect their own businesses. They need people to have at least some power to purchase, and probably don't get government subsidization when we buy less. They can't control their own revenue if nobody can afford to buy anything from them. The oligarch types, however, seem ready to chuck the whole free market scheme for industry monopolization and company stores. How anyone who isn't super wealthy can think of this approach as a solution to high prices and inadequate income just staggers the imagination.

The 1% have rigged the laws so they're allowed to sit on huge piles of cash and form ever-larger conglomerates. Now TFG crashes the economy so average people have to sell or go broke, and the 1% buys up their resources at bargain prices. The 1% now gets to buy up things they couldn't own before, and the 99% becomes ever poorer and more subject to the monopolies and their influence on the market.

No hope at all, huh? What if, instead, humans realized we're Earth's caretakers rather than its rulers? What if we all grew up knowing that our best chance of success lies in the biodiversity we see on only one planet, this one? What if we wised up and started trying to preserve life instead of using it up? I think that would be the best thing that could happen to the Earth for the species that live here.

We could toss her into the lake. If she floats, she's an LLM.

Moderator Note This can't stay in mainstream science, and as a speculation it can't be supported (having no fur is NOT proof that a species is meant to be eaten more easily), since the concept is based on poor assumptions (mice are NOT juvenile rats, humans aren't "missing" a snout, etc). I'm going to close it and invite the opening poster to read a few more threads and study some more science. There is no meaningful discussion to be had here.

Can you give us a summary of the concept? Or the mathematical model you're using? If the summary sounds solid, we may ask for a link at a later time.

Moderator Note Please, can you post a summary of this alleged disconnect? Our rules state that members should be able to participate in discussions without being forced to click links they may not trust, or go offsite for info that they should be able to get here. Thanks for understanding.

Not really. She likes a beer, and the occasional tipple, but doesn't like bars. She enjoys a good taproom, but only when Bobby or Matthew is pouring.

My last response was the counter. You should go back and re-read it, if possible. In case you can't re-read past responses, basically I don't think "recorded difficulties affording" is the same as "can BARELY afford". Your vividness is misleading. The article is poorly written with bad conclusions, imo. The poll is data, and shows how the conclusions in the article are overblown or misstated, although I'm not thrilled that it uses information from people who DIDN'T report access or cost problems. Lots of folks don't report things for lots of reasons. And I showed you how they erroneously got that number for the opening of their article. The poll shows 55% of Americans don't have healthcare access problems, so the article assumed that 45% CAN'T AFFORD IT, which is definitely NOT TRUE. The article goes on to say: "37 percent of U.S. adults are 'cost insecure' or 'cost desperate,' according to the survey, meaning they cannot pay for care or medicine or lack easy access."

I disagree with your "meaning". The survey was talking about various obstacles, not just cost, and the word "BARELY" wasn't in the article. This is your interpretation, and an extreme one at that. This is an article from The Hill about a Gallup Poll, and it's a pretty bad article. They seem to be claiming that because 55% of Americans don't have problems accessing healthcare, the other 45% can't afford it at all, something for which there is no evidence.

It doesn't, and speculation about it is off-topic for this thread. The subject is Evidence of Common Human Ancestry, which you seem to agree with, however there are issues with your terminology that have been brought up, outside the whole chatbot tangent. Perhaps addressing those might get the discussion back on track?

Bolded here:

Moderator NoteCan you copy/paste this information here, please? We don't know you and the rules require that members shouldn't have to click links in order to participate.

Moderator Note Our rules require that discussion takes place here without requiring that members go offsite or click any commercial links. Can you post a summary of your idea here, giving enough material to start a discussion? Thanks for your understanding.

Then you have to use your huge ball of drugs. Seriously, you have a contact at the SPA, I would suggest you call them and ask what they recommend. They may offer training, or have other resources like the one you met.

Actually, she likes both of those, and also likes green, but not blue or purple. Mrs Tilly doesn't like red at all, unless it's apple red, blood red, or cherry red.

Oh, she likes Mr Stilly just fine. In fact, out of everyone involved in this thread, she likes me, the tree, and Callipygous, but Mrs Tilly doesn't like you or MigL or joigus or sethoflagos or swansont or the others. She told me she loves my teeth but not my smile.

Theory is the strongest explanation science has, so please don't say "just a theory". Also, you don't have a theory. Theory isn't guesswork or throwing something against the wall to see if it sticks. A theory has to explain a phenomenon based on observation and experimentation, and a good model of where it's applicable. Truth is definitely not a goal in science, since what is "true" is very subjective. You need to define "spirit", but it sounds like something tangible, so why don't we experience differences in our measurements when people are asleep? In the last 30 years or so, sleep studies have gained an enormous amount of data wrt what's going on when we sleep. None of it suggests any part of us is missing when we sleep. I think you've taken the "humans are like machines" analogy too far. We're NOT machines, we're biological animals with species-specific skills that seem special in comparison, but we still just use our abilities to adapt to wherever our environment happens to be. You're also mixing up religious terminology with science, requiring souls and "DNA types" (whatever that is). If you want to persuade anyone with this concept, you need more clarity. But our brains are electrochemical in nature, not electronic. Stress hormones like cortisol are responsible, not overheating. Analogies all break down at a certain point. If you want to learn more about biology, study biology, not computer science.

Multiple temporal dimensions causes some extreme problems with physics, from what I understand, based on this paper by Max Tegmark. Lots of instability and unpredictable outcomes.

Authoritarians and fascists are actively trying to rewrite history, and cast suspicion on mainstream science's explanations. What has happened with Big Oil denying climate change is now happening with anything that hampers wealthy agendas.

Moderator Note This isn't working for me. You spend too much time berating others that have more knowledge than you, you don't learn when corrected, and you seem more interested in making a point than learning. Nobody here is interested in anything other than discussing science with reasonable people. Your style denotes a bad faith attitude towards discussion. It needs to stop or we need you to leave. Up to you.

I missed the obvious part completely. So making man in god's image is interpreted in modern teachings as giving him a soul that can't be destroyed (I was also unaware that the Abrahamic god has a soul - who gave Him that?!), and an awareness of right and wrong? Again, I wasn't aware of this. I thought knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil were obtained when Adam and Eve ate the apple. Was that part of God's plan, is He claiming credit for giving the original humans His "likeness" in terms of moral awareness? Each time I've read the Bible, it was the snake who urges the humans to gain moral awareness by eating the apple, which made God angry enough to kick them out of Eden. To me, this is part of the weakness of religions. What was originally meant is allowed to change with the times so it's never wrong or out of touch. It's good for the religion, but bad for those taking it all on faith or trying to find reason in their beliefs. It reminds me of George Carlin's observation, that even though the Catholics decided they don't have to eat fish on Fridays, there are still people in Hell doing time on the meat rap. Other gods? He did command His followers to put no other gods before Him.

So, worthless then, in terms of discussion.

So, God's image has nothing to do with how He looks? In Hebrew, tselem (image) basically means representation, or copy, or shadow, something imitating the original.

There must be a distinction between "image" and "likeness" if you don't like a redundant god. Image seems straightforward, a visual depiction, to imply that this god looks like us. Likeness may imply characteristics other than sensory ones, such as character, behavior, and demeanor. We're supposed to share this god's joyfulness, patience, desire for peace, kindness, generosity, love, and compassion for others. Unfortunately, this god is no great mentor when it comes to responsibility and self-control, more aspects of its "likeness" we were allegedly created in.