iNow

We’ll soon see just how much integrity he really has, and how principled he is. Or, we’ll see how he shapes his judicial philosophy to achieve his personal political preferences by saying, “Naw….THAT was different.”

Struggling to understand. Did you say this in an attempt to rebut my point, or to amplify it?

Part of the problem here is you’re seemingly looking for articles that support your existing conclusions.

Most of his citations aren’t good ones TBH

*their. Stupid autocorrect

Or maybe red states move to convince they’re judges to take Biden off their ballots (or both)

And yet thousands of times per day, every single day, we intentionally make people unconscious by targeting specific parts of it prior to surgery.

You mean the link I thanked him for sharing since I found it to be interesting?

Thanks for the interesting link, Vat. When I hear claims like those above, they sound to my ear like someone 100 years ago similarly proclaiming loudly that planes will NEVER go supersonic or get us to the moon.

Is that because of your nude beaches? “Ooh la la… une naturaliste!! Va va voom, enchante m’amore.”

He’s been soapboxxing for a long time now. Chip on shoulder. Axe to grind. Seems to have an agenda…

Like I said, fast and loose. “Seems to show some elements of cognitive behavior” ≠ cognition The worst part is I tend to agree with the thrust of your position but I hate sloppiness like this. Like in this most recent article you cite… they explicitly state naturalism isn’t sufficient to understand our mind. Horseshit, because the only thing left then is supernaturalism and that’s a nonstarter. They conclude by acknowledging this is an argument against materialism… so woo woo wish thinking it is.

You seem to be using a rather fast and loose definition of cognition

Yes, agreed. See also my repeated mention of how environment and fatigue and hunger and thirst and illness etc anll influence us mentally despite our loud claims of having freedom. Fairly sure this is another example of us being on same page.

Nice strawman. The idea is they can be linked indefinitely allowing nearly unrestricted processing power. The limits are financial and resource based, not technical… and nobody is saying there won’t be exceptions. You are so confident about your predictions regarding the future, practically dogmatic and preachy and soapboxxing. Maybe use your powers for something more rewarding like buying lotto tickets (since you can see the future and all).

They seem to have escaped or simply been abandoned by their captors. Which actually happened is unclear since they couldn’t be questioned or debriefed. They were hiding in a building and came out shirtless waving a white flag with SOS written out using leftover food when the soldier felt threatened and fired. Two immediately died. One was wounded and went back into the building, but was then shot again and killed when he exited a second time.

Well, this sure is a fun and enriching way to spend my time.

My request wasn’t for you to leave, but happiest and healthiest of holidays all the same to you and those you love.

Label the States Even with a blank map, a lot of people can only name 45-50 of the 64 states.

Not seeing any support for your assertion, just a bunch of waffling.

So says you. I’m challenging this assertion. You’re making broad sweeping and dismissive claims about an entire field of study. It’s far more likely that MANY researchers are doing this already and you’re simply unaware of their work. And I’m sure you have numbers to support the assertion this population makes a minority?

The congestion propagates backward, yes. I’m not denying higher order effects, but it’s still individual cars and drivers which lead to that congestion in aggregate and any behavioral focus must be at the vehicle/driver level. They are navigating larger situational restrictions, but it’s still them doing the navigating.

Why assume they are not already doing this, or have not already been doing exactly this for decades?

For instance?

You’ve been offered this feedback many times before, but this tone and approach needlessly tangles and derails already hard complex conversations. Not always, but often when you comment it is bitingly personal, regularly besmirching of the character and intentions of fellow forum members, and consistently needling toward them with an undercurrent of bile. I know I’ve felt it toward you, and readily acknowledge that I’m hardly some angel here leading by example, but please maybe… in the holiday spirit… try focusing on the argument instead of the personal making it. More than anything the existing approach is unproductive and amplifies animus, but more broadly it makes it more difficult to nourish allyship and come together on what are your otherwise extremely well informed and consistently valid points. It makes it harder to agree with you among those who want to. tl;dr? Be more ambassador than curmudgeon, old man. The attacks cascading across the world need not so easily find refuge among what I hope are your friends here at SFN. ✌🏼