Phi for All

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.

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.