Phi for All

As I said before, your version of logic isn't mainstream, so you need to explain it before anyone can accept it. Not sure why you think formal logic isn't allowed here. If it's anything like the posts in the Trash, you'll need to explain it and persuade us that it has meaning, and for that type of discussion we have the Speculations section.

If you would like to start a thread in Speculations in order to get feedback on your version of formal logic, you can do so, and it will stay open as long as you can defend it with a decent amount of rigor. But when you introduced it before, you were using it as if it made sense to anyone but you, and it got thrown in the Trash.

Philosophical logic, mathematical logic, or "This makes more sense to me" logic?

This is a science discussion forum. Your opinions are only worth so much. Is there anything about your concept that you can support using science? Something that elevates this above your opinion?

MSC has been suspended for six months.

Consider that the planes and pilots you see look fast asleep because the plane is flying just fine. They probably don't think your hand waiving will make it fly better.

The reason it only makes sense to you is because you made it up based on limited understanding of the science involved. You filled gaps in your knowledge with things that made sense to you, but now you're trying to persuade people who studied mainstream knowledge, and what you're proposing seems obviously flawed in the ways that have been pointed out.

Are you also simplifying "think" into a meaningless abstraction? All creatures that "are" can "think"? In your quest for simplification, you've just made this incredibly more complex and confusing. You have an idea that only makes sense to you. Perhaps you believe there are only two types of thoughts because you believe there are only five senses.

Sure, but a basic definition begins to fail as we try to peel back what defines this awareness in various life forms. If you're sticking with the basics, many arguments will apply to humans and ants and possibly plants. Human consciousness can help a person explain to another how an experience made them feel, and I think that's more than just detecting and reacting. There's a level of interpretation that's deep and powerful. I'm still not sure how I'd define it, but I don't think simplicity is the key.

I know it's far more sophisticated and nuanced than "manual and autopilot". I don't think a standard definition for every circumstance is possible, but I also don't feel that science ignores the human factor, the way you do. I'm not sure the distinctions you're making are all that important to science. Philosophy, sure. But science can view human awareness as an extension of our hyper-intelligent cognition. I don't have to pick a point on a spectrum of intelligence and claim "This is where consciousness starts!" Your level of awareness can be based on how your perceptions interact with your intelligence. So if you really want to talk about consciousness, it's up to you to define it, and then persuade others that your definition is more meaningful.

I can measure various things about your physical matter without your awareness or you being conscious of it. It's actually best that way, if I'm measuring your heartbeat for instance. Some people's vitals change when they know they're being tested. Doctors know about "white-coat syndrome", where blood pressure can read higher simply because the patient is nervous about the doctor's exam. I can run various experiments on you without your knowledge, and then tell you about them. If I run the same experiments again now that you know, the results of some may be different, demonstrating that your consciousness and your physical matter can be addressed separately. I don't think your definition is quite right yet. Lots of animals are aware of their surroundings, but I would not ascribe consciousness to them. Human consciousness goes beyond functional awareness and response, since we're able to reflect on how our experiences affect us, behavior no other animal seems to exhibit.

Comedians who write offensive jokes and deride those who object remind me of pro athletes who don't want to be role models for children. You can't justify being a cunt by claiming your motives are pure and you're just in it for the laughs/competition.

This is the part people want you to explain, otherwise you're Begging the Question, a fallacy where you assume your premise is correct. It could be you're misunderstanding something fairly fundamental, or you're insisting on a rigid definition of certain criteria. You might also define which "present scientific model" you're talking about. There are many and they each represent a particular set of phenomena.

There's a danger in this though. Does he get to use hateful/hurtful words when he takes the piss just because he's making jokes about everybody? Is it OK for him to mimic someone who stutters, as long as he mimics the way everybody else speaks? Is it fair for anybody to be ridiculed as long as it's done to everybody? Isn't that just a great excuse to ridicule everybody? I can appreciate not discriminating against people, but I don't think this is always a sound approach.

Obvious bot is obvious.

And the fact that the side discussion generated 2 pages of posts in a day also drew the bots in, hoping to find a hot topic, but instead finding off-topic chatter about the popularity of the thread. Ironic, in a way.

I celebrate with a chocolate-chile recipe while spying on my family to see if they have any pigmented spots on their skin.

You made a strong declaration in your title, using hyperbolic words like "nothing" and "always", which the bots are sensitive to. I wouldn't use this as a basis for the veracity of your claims. You never did establish your basic premise.

These are strawmen arguments, since nobody claimed any of this, and instead gave you detailed information to correct you. Fallacies, bad faith, misinformation, outright lying. It seems like a waste of time to read what you write, and none of it is worth discussing, other than to show others the garbage the anti-vaxxers use as "reason", and how they ignore answers given to them in good faith and just keep asking the same questions.

You have no credibility. Nobody trusts you. You're not a scientist, but want to assure us you know more than scientists. Those we do trust tell us your truth is a lie. There's little to be learned from liars.

It's a lie you're spreading: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaids-fakes/fact-check-vaids-is-not-a-real-vaccine-induced-syndrome-experts-say-no-evidence-covid-19-vaccines-cause-immunodeficiency-idUSL1N2UM1C7

It's far more than mere vaccine hesitancy, isn't it? Especially the constant claims of "I'm not a scientist", which seemed designed to make the OP look like a concerned citizen. But concerned citizens don't ignore expert advice, especially when they ask for it so many times. This seems like a professional agenda, like someone is being paid to spread misinformation under the guise of a layman who's afraid.

Yet another thread where you're given experienced answers to your questions and you ignore them in order to continue to ask the questions. I'm reporting you for bad faith arguments. If you aren't here to discuss science, and prefer to spread misinformation, you really aren't welcome here.

Between Christian nationalists and white supremacists, the Republicans are overwhelmed with hate and bigotry of the sort you can't compromise with. They want things I can't give in to even a little bit and still call myself human. How do you meet someone halfway when they want whole groups of people to be oppressed?

This is my camp too. Compromising with the GOP only means giving in to what they want, which is keeping/strengthening the system that murders children with guns while they're in school, and people of color while they're shopping. I'd like to be wholly proud of my country, instead of half disgusted all the time. In a secure election, when you make it difficult to vote, it favors those who identify as conservatives. When you make it easy to vote, it favors those who identify as liberals. There's an inherent evil in restricted voting, imo, and it's definitely a threat to any democracy. And 83% of Americans want universal background checks for gun ownership, so why is Congress stalling? Because of those who identify as conservatives, and want to make it difficult for you to vote. And most of that is about racism. Republicans were interested in the Joe Manchin compromise until Stacey Abrams endorsed it as well, after which they dropped it, claiming "it became the Stacey Abrams substitute, not the Joe Manchin substitute." Compromising with racist, inhuman fascists is the work of idiots who want the democracy to fall to them.