Phi for All

Except when it's not. The heart isn't like skeletal muscles. It's not attached to the bones and cardiac cells are powered differently than other muscles. Do you have a point to make that isn't rooted in misconceptions?

No, I'm pretty sure Sensei just denied your premise, in the part you didn't quote. The heart DOES get tired, with catastrophic results.

For science, you require direct observation, but not of your god? Yeah.

For too long, many of these issues have been pushed on us as political, where a vote can decide, but whether you respect someone as a human enough to use non-hurtful terms is a moral issue. Persecuting fellow humans for the color of their skin or who they love or how much money they have isn't a right vs left, liberal vs conservative decision, it's a right vs wrong matter.

Your style of masculinity hasn't helped any society in over a thousand years. Real people are waking up to that fact that you're all a bunch of Neanderthals and we need to weed you out or suppress your influence enough to stop inhibiting the natural growth of our unique abilities, independent of our violent, regrettable, animalistic past. I hate it when dinosaurs insist everything was better when they were in charge. Take your walnut-sized brain and get out of here!

Nobody trusted your mother to serve on a jury, or have her own bank account or credit cards, and she wasn't good enough for Ivy League colleges. She couldn't even decide NOT to have sex with your father from a legal stance, so caving in to you boys and your pie cravings was just part of her poor existence. Something tells me that if she'd known how hurtful the term was, she wouldn't have used it.

You should look up what subjective means. How can we base science off my personal tastes and preferences? You're being ludicrous. Try NOT injecting make-believe fiction into what you observe around you. Why do you think science does everything possible to REMOVE subjectivity from its arguments? Again, you should look up what it means. So because Luc Turpin says something is so, we should base our science around it? What if another individual disagrees with you, do we incorporate their opinions too? And the third and fourth persons, they all have completely different ways of thinking about it, none of them actually rooted in what we observe in nature. Is this your idea of science heaven?

Reality, something else so subjective that science isn't interested. Look, if you choose to convince yourself that your lack of knowledge means there's a supernatural mystery instead of simple ignorance waiting to be banished with some objective reasoning, there are plenty of people willing to hold hands with you and pretend the compassion and camaraderie and oneness you all feel is because of some higher power instead of simple biological functions and behaviors. I remember being that way in my 20s, and thinking that I had answers when all I had was junk pushed on me by miserable people who wanted company. What if god is holding you back from understanding the universe around you by helping you pretend you know what's "real"?

The heritage you're talking about is pretty sick and twisted. America, home of the free and brave, give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, all people are created equal, and all of it meaningless to hypocrites like you. You don't care that many of the words you use on people who don't look like you are hurtful and disparaging. You just want your childhood back, when people didn't complain about your racism and inhumanity. It's a shame you've rejected humankind. What we have today is a whole lot of people who don't want to be hypocrites like you anymore. We want the USA to actually be the home of the free, free from white nationalists and religious zealotry, a place where everyone can pursue dreams (unless they're dreams like yours, where you dream of using hurtful words and phrases on whomever you like). The only thing we can't tolerate is your lack of tolerance. You diminish our society with your pursuit of criticism and mediocrity. Wake up and smell the diversity. You should watch some David Attenborough docs. He'll convince you that diversity is the key to the survival of life on this planet.

Science is about the best supported explanations for various phenomena, so nobody is asking for "proof". All we're asking for is a persuasive argument that makes sense, that has some reasoning behind it. Unfortunately and admittedly, the OP is NOT well written, and has some assertions that can be shown false, and those haven't been addressed (or have been but in the same difficult to follow style). A second page of explanation hasn't helped. Do you understand what the OP is talking about? Proof is for maths and philosophy. Science uses theory. But thanks for the ignorant criticism of the forum.

Both sound like social constructs. I think you're applying some kind of unnecessary mystery to your concept of spirituality. A focus on growth and inner peace that enables connection with other humans is no mystery, and certainly nothing supernatural. We're social creatures with certain complimentary physical attributes that allow us to communicate with each other to an astonishing level of complexity, which in turn facilitates an incredible propensity for cooperation, which benefits whole societies. You keep trying to cram a bunch of woo where it isn't needed. Watch a protest march, or neighbors helping each other after a natural disaster, or locals gathering to help a beached whale regain the sea. Gods aren't needed at all for that feeling of oneness, of common bonds, of the spirit of hope in the face of adversity.

So tell us the difference between religion and this quasi-religion you call "spirituality"? Please also tell us what is humble about accepting someone else's unsupported explanation about a phenomena without questioning it first? That doesn't fit my definition of humble. It's more like "naive" or "gullible". It describes someone who thinks blind faith in anything is a strong and admirable stance. It's definitely unscientific. I'm often humbled (in the real sense) when I read about scientific advancements or some new knowledge about life on this planet. I'm humbled to think that all life we've found in the universe seems to be clustered on the surface of this planet, but it's the life itself I observe that humbles me, not some imagined mystery involving things I can NEVER observe. What if gods are just mental laziness on the part of otherwise intelligent humans?

That's not what I'm talking about. There is no "body" memory, and forgetting something is just a regular memory problem. Here's the Wiki entry for muscle memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory

Can you explain this idea without assuming humans have souls, something you can't support? As an argument, this is a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. Otherwise you should focus on convincing us that souls exist in the first place, then add in your mysterious energy (you know energy isn't a physical thing, right?). This assumption prevents you from modeling your concept (not a theory).

The member I responded to didn't ask that question, so I didn't respond to it. They asked for proof rather than supportive evidence, but I gave some supportive evidence that we know of ways inorganic matter could react in an early Earth environment to form the building blocks of what we define as life. There is an understandable amount of debate and argument over which way it happened.

I read all your posts before responding to you. Each of my responses has been specific to a quote of something you said. Thanks for acknowledging that I make a good point. I still have a problem with your premise, that having memories taken away is the same as never having lived them. How do you account for muscle memory and capabilities? Doesn't that make a difference, that you don't remember studying how to cook but when asked to help with dinner, you handle a knife like a pro? Doesn't that make it NOT the same as if you actually never studied cooking? If your memories of being an olympic gymnast are taken away, you're still a person that could compete at that level and you still have skills that could fairly easily be tapped into. Your new coach would be amazed at how quickly you pick up on everything. But if you never lived through gymnastic training or chef school in the first place, you'd have no advantage, and would learn at a normal pace. Does that make sense to you? Do you see why I have a problem with your premise?

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Basic_Cell_and_Molecular_Biology_(Bergtrom)/20%3A_The_Origins_of_Life/20.03%3A_Formation_of_Organic_Molecules_in_an_Earthly_Reducing_Atmosphere https://ebrary.net/70968/education/conversion_inorganic_materials_organic_matter_through_series_complex_reactions https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1093669 The mechanisms for evolution are better understood than you think. Of course it's remarkable. But so is an animal that can fly because it's given up just about everything that doesn't aid flying. Birds don't even have the muscles to swallow water. Their evolution focused so much on wing muscles that now birds have to hold water in their mouths and then thrust their heads forward to force the water down their throats. Just about every species has something quite remarkable about it. Our remarkableness seems more relevant to us, for obvious reasons, but nature is full of remarkable species.

One way to look at this is solar efficiency. Organic or living matter can much more efficiently absorb and dissipate sunlight as heat than inorganic matter or non-living matter can. A rock is very durable, but it has limited ways to disperse the heat it collects. Life is just better at that. As for comparing intelligences, that's not as meaningful. We're more than big brains. Human intelligence is different in a large part because we have lots of compatible features other animals don't, even animals with bigger brains. They don't walk upright to free up their hands, their thumbs can't oppose their fingers for gripping, and they can't communicate as well so they can't cooperate as well when they need help. Any gap is purely perspective and context, and not a mystery at all. Birds gave up a lot for flight, just like we gave up a lot for bigger brains. Sharks are incredibly evolutionarily stable, and our brains would be of little use if a human and a shark were tossed together in the middle of the ocean.

I've always suspected that it's not a good idea to thicken and hold in suspension the food you're trying to digest partially via gravity and movement. It's very eye-opening to feel aches and pains go away after removing these stabilisers from your diet.

Don't you think there's a difference between the brains of a newborn and you? What if you have no memory of being a newborn because newborns don't have enough experience to put together a meaningful memory? You have no memory of the time you crawled up the stairs in your house because, at the time, you didn't know what crawling was, or what stairs were, or even what a house was. Memories require that you know what each part of the memory is.

I know the claims that emulsifiers are nutritionally inert, but there have been any studies on how they affect the processing of liquids consumed, and that they can cause cancer: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7961571/ It seems our bodies don't do well when trying to separate substances that normally don't form a stable mixture. Everything about emulsifiers seems to benefit the manufacturers and distributors and stores. The consumer only gets to shake things up less.

You keep repeating what you've already said, and you don't address what I've been saying. You don't answer questions. Why do you think this is a conversation? I reject your basic premise, which seems to be: I definitely don't think the former will be like the latter. I think there is a distinct difference between not remembering experiences and never having lived them, and I tried to explain why to support my arguments.

As I said earlier, there is a difference. Have you experienced both? With sleep, you have awareness of the passage of time. If you wake too early, you know it even before you look at a clock. There are dreams. There is awareness of being uncomfortable in your current position, so you change position. Under anaesthesia, you're usually counting backwards for a few seconds, and the next thing you know, a nurse is telling you the four hour operation went beautifully. It seems completely unreal that you were totally unaware for that long.

This part seems wrong because you'll still be in the world you experienced. If you wake up in bed, it may not seem familiar but you'll still know you're in a bed and just woke up. You'll know what the items in the room are for even if you don't remember buying them or using them. It will NOT be as if you never lived these experiences. Unless you're taking away all knowledge, in which case this is a really pointless discussion. Have you ever been under a general anaesthesia, the kind that puts you to "sleep"? Once you've been put under, you realize it's not like sleep at all. In sleep, you're aware when you wake up that you've sleeping for some amount of time. Under anaesthesia, it seems like no time has passed at all, as if you weren't present during the experience. I think, in your scenario, it's much more likely that it would feel like sleep. You wake up and know that you have no memory of the experiences you've been through, but you know that you did because you're in a bedroom in a bed with a person's things around you, maybe even pictures of you. It wouldn't be as if you never lived before.

This is a bad assumption that you don't bother to support in any way. And it's easily falsified as well. If you can't remember, you're still standing there breathing, aware that you're alive and sensing the world around you. That doesn't happen if you never lived at all.