Phi for All

Do you know how discussion works? Please get down off the soapbox if you want to talk.

I believe it because I can gather evidence to support my statement. I TRUST what I said, rather than have FAITH in it. I said, "...you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods". Haven't you ever heard about how the Christians persecuted early scientists like Galileo for claiming the Earth revolved around the sun, because the Bible claims in Psalms that the god set the Earth on its foundations so it can't be moved? The Bible claims rabbits have split hooves in Deuteronomy, and that all flying insects walk on all fours in Leviticus, so it's NOT just my belief what others think. I have evidence. Surely you see that? I assume this is that weak macro vs micro argument creationists always bring out. Well, you're forgetting all the time involved (can I also assume you also believe your god is fooling everyone about the age of the Earth?). Small changes each generation over tens of thousands of generation produces speciation. You really should study before ridiculing. I'm not sure if it's a language barrier, or a reasoning barrier, or just you trying to obfuscate because you have no good arguments, but this response is just weird. I gave you a scenario about my imaginary neighbors, I told you what they were thinking because they told me. I was asking you what you would do if faced with that situation in real life. You answered it, briefly, when you said you would tell them the truth. Ever since then, you've avoided answering further. I just wanted to show you how people can be wrong in their religious beliefs, like all of us can be wrong. The difference is, science uses information we can TRUST, so we don't get caught in a process where we just blindly believe things we can't support.

I'm not sure why what I said would confuse you in quite this way. By definition, evolution happens within a population over time. It's a mistake to think of individuals unless those individuals are successfully reproducing to pass their genes along to future generations. Oh, yes. +1

It's not YOUR religious belief, but you can't deny there are many people who attribute things they don't understand to their gods. They don't believe in evolution because they never studied it, they only learned to ridicule it. Evolution doesn't happen to individuals. We see whole populations evolve as each successive generation carries their traits forward to the next. To let you know that my neighbors didn't realize that, in the city, their taxes paid for city trash services. They didn't know where their trash was going, and assumed it was their god answering their prayers.

So you would explain that it's the city that sends trucks around early in the morning to collect trash cans, and not their god? You would correct their religious beliefs about trash pickup because you know the real explanation and feel it would be wrong not to help them?

Maths are used to model theories. The Lambda Cold Dark Matter model supports the Big Bang Theory, for instance. You're mixing standards here. Proofs are for maths (and formal logic). Theories are NEVER "proven", no explanation for anything in the universe is "proven". Theory is our best supported explanations, and the methodology works best if we always assume there's a better (or more detailed) explanation. When you think you've found an answer, you stop asking the question, so theory keeps us searching for better and better evidence for our explanations. Does that make sense to you? No, you didn't read what swansont said. Hawking radiation happens just outside the event horizon. Nothing is entering and then finding enough energy to leave.

Are you aware most communities in the US base education and sanitation expenditures on property values? In essence, this means wealthier areas receive more education funding, and better sanitation services BECAUSE they're wealthier. In poorer communities, far less is spent on education and sanitation so we get situations where "litter is rife", but you seem to be blaming the citizens for this. You make it sound like the rich are removing the stray trash cans themselves, so why shouldn't the poor? It gets removed quickly in the rich neighborhood because the trash services respond. It lingers in the poor area because the trash services don't respond, even after multiple complaints. I thought big corporations wanted to be normal people? My plan to implement your idea would be to raise the taxes on those big corporations to fair levels, tax top tier income so hard that the billionaires start investing instead of sitting on cash, and increase city services all across the board. Knowing that their government cares enough to invest in their communities, people will feel an attachment they don't now. I would welcome an effort to help citizens see the amazingness of nature and all it's bounty. I consider society to be a bargain between peoples. We agree to certain necessary rules (especially sanitation, health, and hygiene), and gain the benefits of working towards a meaningful level of prosperity and fulfillment. I want people to care about the environment we all live in, but I know it's difficult when big corporations pretend to care as they pollute and litter and also lobby away our social services and environmental regulations.

How can a question be incorrect? I gave you a scenario and asked you a question about it, so how can "this" be "so incorrect" that you don't know what to say? Pretend the scenario is happening to me and I'm asking you for advice. "Hey, mar_mar, my neighbors are from the country and don't understand that the city picks up trash cans that are put out at the curb. They think it's because they prayed for the trash to be dealt with, and God is answering their prayers. Should I let them keep thinking God picks up their trash cans, or should I tell them what's really happening?"

And this is because you haven't bothered to study science. You came here specifically to champion religion over science, without understanding either very much. Imagine this: someone from the country moves to the big city. They tell you they've been putting their garbage in a can next to the street, and praying to god to take care of it. And each time they do that, god takes away the trash. They believe trash collection is a matter of faith. They don't know any better, and it seems like a miracle when the trash disappears overnight. You have the power to educate them, and tell them about how the city collects the trash, or you could let them believe their fantasy. What do you do?

! Moderator Note Just a reminder that Paulsrocket has reached their first day posting limit of five posts. Tomorrow the anti-spam measures will be dropped.

Underrated? That's not what we did. We pointed out that the term "subconscious" is being phased out in favor of better descriptive concepts. We explained it rather well, I thought, but you must not have read that part. To recap, the term subconscious isn't applicable in the context you're using it, so you got some pushback (not underrating). Specifically, "one can't create a new work without participation of one's" preconscious, the stuff that you aren't thinking of right now but can recall fairly quickly. The preconscious mind is what helps you solve problems, and where you'll find what you call "intuition". Not entirely sure, but it looks like the unconscious mind and the preconscious mind are parts of the subconscious. So all preconscious thoughts are part of the subconscious, but not all subconscious thoughts are preconscious. Does that make sense? It's difficult discussing this with you since I don't think you care much about the actual science, and are focused on being right about your beliefs.

Well, there you go. Complete idiots. 1. The US has the lowest rate of inflation in the G7 countries. The GOP voters aren't being told this. 2. Immigration is vital to any growing democracy. The GOP voters are being misled about this. 3. The objection is basically, "I don't want to hear how I've been manipulated as an American!" GOP voters don't seem to understand this perspective. 4. This is a two-party system problem, another thing the GOP voters are constantly misled about. It's very sad and frustrating. Like watching Lennie with the rabbit, and trying to explain that he shouldn't hug it so hard, knowing he's not listening.

! Moderator Note This post has been reported as offensive. If you don't STOP giving kenny1999 positive reputation and encouragement to reply to other members, you will be punished again as a "hater"!

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?

Doesn't require a god. Science has some possibilities that don't require magic. No gods required. Humans evolved like the rest of the vertebrates, from tiny fish. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

What good is that definition of "intelligence"? It's in all living things? What about plants without brains? Are you still saying that only intelligent species evolve?

! Moderator Note Mainstream science about the mind only, please. None of the ideas you've been speculating on are allowed in this section.

! Moderator Note Sorry, non-starter since it immediately violates the rules against forcing anyone to watch something before participating in a discussion. You also don't support your ideas with more than Argument from Incredulity (Can't you see the slugs??!) and pattern similarity. If you can come at this a different way, you can re-post this in Speculations, but with this approach you're just going to end up with conspiracy as your final argument.

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