iNow

no

More than most, but enough to know that an ethos is insufficient to overcome basic physics, with which I’m also somewhat familiar. I’ve got a bridge I want to sell you. That was Star Wars, not Shaolin. Correct, the nonexistent one.

I’m familiar with Shaolin training. I can assure you none are able to levitate

And I’ve seen YouTube videos of unicorns pooping out rainbows. Good for you.

It’s Shaolin, and none of them are levitating (despite their incredible training and gymnastic abilities)

CO2 isn’t the only thing ejected by erupting volcanoes. Ash and dust matter here, too. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/how-volcanoes-influence-climate

shade

Oh, thank goodness you clarified that

A link I shared earlier in the thread also dove into this: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-consciousness-everywhere/

Modern research suggests the most likely phenomenon is unconscious processing occurs and we only then later “apply” a narrative on top of that to explain it once it enters our conscious awareness. More remains to be learned, but the most supportable concepts imply that the paraventricular thalamus, claustrum, and the posterior cortex (the occipital and temporal lobe) are core to this integration activity. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2019.00302/full#h2 You may well be correct. The core idea has merit, though. Despite being activated chemically, the nervous system is a global collection of local individual EM events (each with their own polarization and thresholds) all combined by a sort of biological forrier analysis. I compare it to multiple streams and rivers flowing into a single data lake. The shape of that lake is forever changing since so too are the aforementioned flowing inputs from the streams.

True, though here a reasonable way to more clearly define it gets introduced: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/

Word salad

Encyclopedias are conscious now? I’d say you’re watering down the definition so much that it’s becoming useless. It’s not that simple. Is anything “fully” understood? Literally and one thing?

Depends on from which side you take the measurement.

False vacuum like needless spaces btw words, right?

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen shared today that unless the House (the one who took 16 tries to elect a Speaker) votes to raise the debt ceiling (i.e. agrees to pay for spending they’ve already done and put on the credit card) by Thursday (6 days away), the US will default.

Whatever the people who fed it put into the training datasets

Physics. Chemistry. The usual. Bc they’re idiots who don’t care about being correct. This part I agree with.

For the curious reader on the panpsychism / integrated information theory front: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-consciousness-everywhere/

It likely does, but that behavior is governed by your personal notifications settings under user profile (i.e. because you chose for it to be that way). https://www.scienceforums.net/notifications/options/

Gene mutation and environmental inputs.

You might lookup Planck Time https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Good question. Been a while. Not this site, used one of the countless others like bustedtees, but same outcome: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/63+earths+can+fit+inside+uranus+64+if+you+relax

I have a tshirt that says that!