Phi for All

NO. Within the applicability of a theory, it has tremendous explanatory and predictive powers. Outside that, not so much, but that's not a mistake or flaw, it's a limitation. Is it a flaw that your house can't protect your car from the rain if you don't have a garage as well? Flawed because it was developed by man?! That sounds like religious guilt. Science itself was developed by man, and has been filling the gaps in our knowledge caused by belief in religions. Again, you see flaws where there's only limitations. Now your last sentence is partially right. Theories aren't claimed as proof because they're constantly updated with the latest information from observation and experimentation. That's actually what makes theory the strongest concept in science. But again, it's not a flaw but rather the limitation of using the best CURRENT information. I can't think of a better way to make certain our knowledge is sound. We're always looking for better information rather than answers, because when you think you've found the answer, you stop looking. We don't ever want to stop looking.

I watched a short video of this over the weekend! Someone had taken a wad of steel wool, placed it on a kitchen scale, then touched the steel wool with a 9V battery to start it burning. The scale drops until iron oxides start forming, at which point the scale starts registering a gain.

That's how I interpret pro-choice as well. I recently heard of an exchange between two women on either side of that fence, and the pro-life woman admitted she had gone to a clinic to abort her daughter but walked out before the procedure, and considered it the best decision she ever made because she loves her daughter so much. The pro-choice woman just told her she was very happy the woman had been given the choice.

This isn't true either. It's not a flaw if a theory is used outside it's area of applicability. If you want to understand gravity better, you don't use Special Relativity, but that's not a flaw with SR.

Specifically, you made claims about magnets that you couldn't support, and despite several people trying to explain it to you, you just kept waiving your hands insistently until the thread was closed. Our policy on that is you can't bring it up again in other threads because you didn't support it the first time. If you think you can actually support your ideas, open a new thread in Speculations. But you better have more than what you demonstrated in those trashed threads. Nobody but you knew what you were talking about there. Or you can pretend we told you your logic isn't allowed and we're blocking you.

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.