iNow

Why do you assume that?

Focus here

Suffering is everywhere all the time. You’re not special. We see what we look for.

Depends entirely on how you’re defining analysis. How are you defining analysis? It’s better to think of it like water flowing or electric current through wires. You’re basically asking whether the flow of each is effected by the hoses which came before. The answer is of course, but we’re venturing on the idea of this being so obvious as to be useless.

Covered when they asked the exact same thing over here

The question doesn’t make sense bc analysis isn’t something individual neurons can do, so no. They can’t.

Collections of neurons can analyze collections of neurons, but individual neurons can only depolarize and cascade action potentials.

Of all the problems our world faces, I’d welcome more of this one.

Which animals?

He’s playing a slightly solipsistic silly semantic game whereby only a human calls it by the exact word “color” and a dog calls it “bark bark ruff ruff,” ergo “color” didn’t exist before humans etc. Just wasting time.

I asked you to narrow it down. This does the opposite and expands it out. But my previous question applies here, too: Which animals?

Repeat it all you want. It’s still wrong. Different animals have different visual capabilities. You’re gonna need to narrow it down a bit, or simply stop this silly trollish waste of time.

Which animals?

Not even wrong

That’s right, bc the dominant wavelength of green is roughly 495–570 nm, so you’re off by a factor of a trillion Depends on the thing, but now you’re venturing into philosophy

Technically the OP is wasting everyones time, but I’m grateful they’ve confirmed it so quickly You were wrong the last time you said it, too.

Thanks for confirming it went over your head

Encourage you to reread, in context, the exchange above HERE. I couldn’t care less about your experiences in other forums.

What, humor? People missing obvious jokes? No, it doesn’t. I said the consequences of a truth don’t negate it. Suggesting additional consequences doesn’t move your argument in any way. It’s simply wrong.

I understand your stance

A contrary viewpoint might suggest he’s playing the long game and ensuring leverage when the fighting ultimately ends and Israel is forced to govern and rebuild the area. We could “what if?” until the end of time. IF Israel does the things you mention, THEN we’ll see exactly how the US responds… but Biden isn’t the President of Israel and that’s who’s making these decisions we all wring our hands about… Netanyahu and his inner circle, to be specific. His support for Israel right now is likely to be his biggest challenge (other than geriatrics) in next years election and will certainly cost him votes. He’s almost certainly doing this based on principles and worldview, not a sense of responsibility to past funders with deep pockets.

Nonsense. Of course we can, and frequency continues to be conflated with color in your posts. While related, attachment isn’t mandated. A label we’ve learned growing up in a society that rewards us for naming things accurately and making sense in conversation.

Elaborate

Hyperbole much? Of course you know which is better, even if you disagree with this particular policy approach.

Of course it is. You’re conflating frequency with color.