Phi for All

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?

! Moderator Note To clarify, this Reported statement, along with similar ("Go jump in a lake"), is NOT a suggestion that a person commit suicide. It's an old-time admonition to go elsewhere, stop bothering us, get lost, scram.

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?

! Moderator Note Just noting that most people who can't defend their assertions and are told not to bring it up again for that reason choose to view it as censorship, or that we don't want to discuss their idea because it's too challenging. I don't know what you're referring to, but if it was an admonition from staff, it's because you were unable to persuade anyone that your idea was valid. THAT is why you were asked not bring it up again. You don't get to use your idea in other threads if you can't defend it in your own.

Science has very little for you then. 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!

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.

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.

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

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

! Moderator Note OK, 17 pages into this discussion, and I'd like to know if any of the input you've gotten has persuaded you to soften your position, or if it's been of no value and you stand by it adamantly. Nobody wants to discuss any subject with a preacher, someone who has no intention of being persuaded by any argument. Please give a brief summary of what, if anything, you've taken on board wrt this discussion.

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.

Or we did and didn't find anything to support your claims that "Mind-brain theory has a lot of catching up to do with what observation and findings are telling us about it." Can you highlight the reference for this? It's very helpful to provide a link, and even more helpful to call out the particular bits that support you: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878929314000048

! Moderator Note Staff doesn't judge the correctness of the information you present (the membership is better for this), but rather enforces our rules about supporting the assertions you make. It's frustrating when someone makes an assertion but won't show the evidence that convinced them. Opinions are fine as long as we all know they're opinions, but when you make a hard claim, you should link to or present the evidence on which you based it. This, for instance, seems like a specious claim, one that sounds reasonable until you look harder at it. Do you have any articles that also make this claim? What is "a lot of catching up"? There are whole university courses and many graduate students studying this, so how are observation and findings lagging behind so badly? Do you have any evidence that researchers are doing the experiments and getting the measurements but are failing to advance the theory?

Or the church was so powerful that acquiescence meant you could continue doing science, as long as you lied about your findings and your beliefs. It's hard to do science from the dungeon, or when you're dead. Ask Galileo about not being Catholic in 17th century Italy. So other than being diametrically opposed, yeah, same page.

! Moderator Note This isn't a classroom either. It's a discussion forum. What would you like to discuss regarding evolution on other planets? Please design opening posts to encourage an interesting conversation, in this case on a specific aspect of this article.

You're going by the book now? You think these folks are actually practicing what they preach?! Tell me you've never seen people pointing out the sins of others righteously. I think it's part of the whole magic of sinning your ass off but being aware enough to openly ask for forgiveness. That's what seems to bump you up the heaven ladder. Judgement is measurement, and yes, we do it all the time as part of the way we observe the universe. The difference is sort of like what we have here at SFN wrt attacking ideas instead of people. I fight against the urge to judge a whole person by what I observe, and try to make my measurements based on their words and actions for that situation. I don't think I'm better person than a meth addict, or a religious zealot, or a someone who has less money, or a person from a foreign country. I don't think a priest, or a billionaire, or a police officer is a better person than I am. People are people, the only humans we know of in the whole universe. When you think about it, any judgement that isn't about specific actions is prejudice. It's fairly easy to spot, actually. If someone throws trash on the ground, we can denounce that act without claiming they're a litterbug. Exactly how much trash do you have to throw and how often in order to deserve that judgement? I think it's better to call out each act and hope the person can change, which might be much easier without the onerous judgement about their whole being.

There you go! All you have to do is claim we can't do something that your god can do easily, and you set up a vertical hierarchy that you can use to manipulate and subjugate others with. The part about consciousness "absorbing existence" is particularly nebulous. That's a first class religious argument right there. Don't forget to berate us for being sinners! That's really the important part. Call us sinners first and you're obviously higher up the moral ladder than we are. Judgement is yours!

You're so lucky you've found an argument nobody can ever assail! It's the answer to every unknown, it uses only the knowledge you currently have, it puts all those smartass scientists in their places, and you never have to study or bother with thinking on your own. You can now close your mind for good!

And that is a crying shame. I wish it could be different. I, of course, blame religion. It only took a few seconds to find that there's absolutely no evidence for an immortal soul. I made some tea, ran an errand, and swapped out laundry before answering. I tried to make the wait last longer, but, like your religion, I felt it was wasting my time.

So it includes "essences" that can't be measured but are supposed to be tangible, such as "identity". It can contain memories the way the brain can but doesn't need actual physical storage. And it can transcend the need for electrochemical processes even after the body that provides such is dead. So my answer is "NO!" Btw, I used intelligence instead of "wisdom", because I feel when you say wisdom, you mean "a wise person would agree with me". Also, because I have advantage on Intelligence checks.

Can you define how you're using the term, please?

! Moderator Note Non-mainstream concepts need to be worked on in Speculations, so I'm moving this there. Please support your idea (not a theory) with evidence, including possible ways it could be falsified. Please be aware you're trying to build this concept by pre-assuming other universes exist, which is a shaky foundation at best.

Indeed, we are. I'm suggesting that there's NOTHING the Abrahamic religions give us that we can't find elsewhere, and we can do it without all the guilt and sin and contrition and penitence and threats of eternal damnation. What you seem to be suggesting is that we can somehow recycle the good parts and keep them as spiritual guidelines for living. I don't mind reusing something worn but still useful, but you're asking me to keep using something that's been chewed up and passed through the bowels of some of the filthiest creatures imaginable. It's difficult to touch it without contamination. It's been used for some of the most horrible acts I've ever heard of. If it were a toothbrush, I'd have to figure out how to use only the clean bristles on my teeth. If it were something to drink, I'd have to strain the garbage out and take small sips. I think you're guilty of the Sunk Cost Fallacy in this regard. You think these religions are salvageable, but I think we'd be so much better off without this template of misery, salvation, and abasement guiding our society. Time to cut our losses and work on actual joy to the world.

! Moderator Note Please don't use one thread to advertise another. Thanks for understanding.