Leaderboard

That seems like a very slanted reading of the situation. For starters, Hamas ended up with more seats due to the electoral system, but overall they barely had more votes compared to Fatah. As we all know, Hamas then later on seized power and murdered their opposition. Inquisitive might then ask the question why folks elected Hamas instead of building those beautiful beaches. Well, for starters many Palestinians viewed the Fatah as corrupt, anti-Western sentiments were high due to their support for Israel, the occupation of the West Bank continued. Hamas stoked these sentiments, they cast themselves as the principled faction (make Palestine great again) that are not subservice to Israeli dominance. A general sentiment was that Fatah was toothless and Israel would be unwilling to negotiate with them anyway (and Hamas fostered that sentiment by conducting suicide bombings which turned Israel away from negotiations). In a way it is ironic that the Bush administration and Hamas were pushing for elections, whereas the Fatah and Israel lobbied against due to the rising influence of Hamas. Some articles around that time have indicated that especially the younger section of Gazans were not that politically motivated, but they were driven by disillusion. Probably similar sentiments that resulted in Brexit. Things obviously changed once Hamas started their brutal takeover and resulting isolation. Now switching to the West Bank we do see some economic benefits and a rise of a middle-class, supported by NGOs. Yet unemployment started to rise since 2000 and remain high, and they are under the continuous whim of Israeli settlement policies. Gaza then is used as a whip to keep them in line. At several points including in 2014, Hamas was severely weakened, but Netanyahu and the Israeli right-wing faction essentially cast them lifelines to keep the West Bank in check. Under these circumstances it is hard not to understand why the Palestinians think that Israel has too much influence over their lives.

There is no such implication at all - no exchange of information takes place here. There is no such incompatibility - the combination of SR and QM gives you quantum field theory, which is perfectly well established, and extensively tested too. There are also simpler relativistic generalisations of the QM wave equations, such as the Dirac equation.

Lots of folks keep saying I'm arguing for epiphenomenalism, and I simply used those exact words found in the definition of epiphenomenalism. They're not my words, and in fact I'm fairly certain you're one of the people who posted the wiki link from which they were drawn. Here it is for reference: I note still the question remains unanswered. If physical and biochemical events are NOT the sole cause of mental events, then what other variables do you suggest ARE involved? I actually haven't. I've said "it depends on how you define it." My apologies for missing it, but it seems I'm not the only one who did. Will you kindly please repeat it so we may align on this point you seem to believe is so self-evident and obvious? I see. So you say I'm arguing for epiphenomenalism, that epiphenomenalism is a wrong dead end, and when I ask what other possibilities exist for the underlying elements leading to mentation and causation, you respond, "I have no fucking idea, I just KNOW that it MIGHT be wrong." Right. Okay, haas. Got it. Super strong position you're arguing. FWIW: I also acknowledge it MIGHT be wrong, but as it stands today nobody can explain where or how. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, so dismiss you I do. One final point of clarification: I'm not arguing for epiphenomenalism and all of the baggage which comes with it. I'm saying our mentation is rooted in chemical and biological processes, physical processes. If you disagree, then the onus is on you to show WHAT ELSE leads to mentation. Not just physical processes? Okay, what then? Not just biochemistry? Okay, what then? Go ahead and lay that out, folks... I'll wait (mostly likely indefinitely given the trend in these last several replies).

Location Location Location……. Andy Beshear won re-election as Governor of Kentucky by +5 clear percentage points - in Kentucky, the home state of Mitch McConnell the Senate Republican minority leader - a deep red state which had previously voted 60/40 in favour of Donald Trump in recent presidential elections. The Ohio constitutional amendment on abortion rights passed by +12 percentage points - in Ohio the home state of ‘Gym’ Jordan, the Republican loudmouth, flamethrower-in-chief, and current chair of the House Judiciary Committee in Congress. In Virginia the Democrats took control of both houses in the General Assembly, and did so in spite of Governor Glenn Youngkin’s high profile involvement in pushing a 15 week abortion ban, and a ’Parents Rights’ agenda in education - thereby frustrating Youngkin’s hopes of a ‘trifecta’, and a possible late presidential run in 2024. They do say that only one poll really matters, and Tuesday night’s election results suggest that MAGA is now largely unelectable. The people have spoken and are saying that they do not wish to live in a Christo-Fascist theocracy governed by a ramshackle coalition of screaming trolls, book burners, and brain-addled Q-Anon Karens waving assault rifles.

Yes, there is energy in fields, for example in an energised electromagnet. With photons, the “medium” is the electric and magnetic fields. A photon is a travelling disturbance in those fields.

C'mon. That's not the speed of light anyone here knows.. ..it is true.. measurements taken in space may differ slightly from those taken on Earth. that's why scientists fly into space and repeat measurements to see how they differ.. ..what if you own emitter and detector? Is the laser rangefinder not working? ..do you know the ,meaning of exponential function.. ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

That is an interesting point. Yes, that could be. Maybe for consciousness to arise, it is necessary that the processes are rooted in a specific physical substrate, e.g. electromagnetism. But that doesn't deny the idea of supervenience. It surely is not the case that everywhere where electromagnetism is involved, there is also consciousness.

Though what do you mean about it not being an action ? Also have you heard of reflexes and involuntary actions or the many action we carry out all the time without thinking about them at all, such as breathing and walking (can you normally feel the ground when you walk?) You are correct in pointing out that reflexes and involuntary actions are not typically considered "actions" in the sense we are discussing. These actions are triggered by physiological or external stimuli and do not involve conscious decision-making or intention. When we say that tripping over a stone is not an "action," we are drawing a distinction between actions that are deliberate and motivated by our own intentions, and those that are involuntary or caused by external factors. In the case of stumbling over a stone, our fall is not a conscious decision; it is a result of our foot hitting the stone unexpectedly. This distinction is important because it helps us to understand the role of intentionality in shaping our sense of self. When we take actions that align with our own desires and motivations, we feel more connected to ourselves and our actions. We feel a sense of ownership and agency over our behavior. However, when our actions are involuntary or caused by external factors, we may feel less connected to them. We may question whether they are truly representative of who we are as individuals. In the case of reflexes and involuntary actions, we should recognize that these actions are not necessarily indicative of our character or personality. They are simply physiological responses to stimuli or cues. As for walking, yes, most people are able to walk without consciously thinking about each step they take. This is because walking is a complex motor skill that has been ingrained through years of practice. Our brains have developed automatic neural pathways that control the intricate movements required for walking. However, this does not mean that we are not engaged in the act of walking. Our brains are constantly receiving feedback from our senses and making adjustments to our movements. We are still actively participating in the activity, even if we are not consciously thinking about it.

A topical comment someone made: If they’re black it’s a gang. If they’re Italian its a mob. If they’re Jewish it’s just a coincidence and you can’t talk about it. Whoever gave you a minus, clearly isn't aware of him.

Some northern German company bought that brand recently. They say now it will be made from Hamburgers.

How silly of me to assume you meant what you wrote. It should have been clear by comparing your statement to the research citation you posted to support it.

I encountered a situation where I was unexpectedly blacklisted by the site, receiving an error message stating, "*** Forbidden. Sender blacklisted.***" This unfortunate occurrence hindered my involvement in the exchanges that I've come to value on this thread. Anyways, 'Driven'? You mean 'caused', or what? There is a subtlety here: there is no causal relationship between physical and biochemical processes and our mental phenomena. Mental phenomena supervene on these physical and biochemical processes. So yes, mental phenomena are determined, because the processes they are based on are deterministic. But they do not cause mental phenomena. Compare with a book: it is obvious that a book, without its physical existence, cannot exist. It needs paper and ink. But it does not follow that a book is 'just paper with ink' (compare your 'meat bags'). Even stronger, while it is true that books cannot exist without their physical substrate, the essence of the book is its meaningful contents. And these are not dependent on paper and ink: you can read a book on a monitor, you can have it on an ebook reader, you can even listen to it as audio book (or worse, a human reading it to you). But thinking about how to act, we also cannot do without meaning. It arises in the values that flow into my decision how to act. I would like to offer a different perspective on the relationship between physical processes and mental phenomena, diverging from the notion that mental phenomena are solely supervening on physical and biochemical processes without being directly driven by them. While I appreciate the distinction drawn between physical processes and mental phenomena, the assertion that mental phenomena do not directly arise from physical and biochemical processes overlooks the intricate connection between our physiology and our cognitive experiences. The prevailing scientific understanding underscores the significant role of physical and biochemical processes in shaping our thoughts, decisions, and conscious experiences. Neuroscientific research consistently indicates that mental activities, thoughts, and decisions correspond to specific neural activities and biochemical interactions within the brain. Contrary to the analogy of a book, where its essence is distinct from its physical existence, in the case of conscious experiences and decision-making, the essence is intricately linked to the physical processes occurring in our nervous system. These physical processes are the very substrate from which mental phenomena emerge, shaping our values, perceptions, and decisions. Acknowledging the complexity of conscious experiences does not necessitate a departure from the understanding that our mental phenomena are fundamentally driven by the underlying physical and biochemical processes in our nervous system. The emergent nature of consciousness does not imply a detachment from its physical basis; rather, it underscores the interdependence and intimate connection between the two. Unlike a book where its essence, like its meaning, can be detached from its physical form, in our conscious experiences, the essence seems to be inseparable from the physical activities in our nervous system. It's not just a case of the mind being a separate entity from our physical selves; instead, our thoughts and decisions seem to emerge from the very workings of our brains. It's not about downplaying the significance of our mental experiences, but rather recognizing that the core of our decision-making and consciousness is deeply connected to the biological and neural processes in our bodies. The idea here isn't to dismiss the meaningful content of our thoughts or experiences, but to highlight that these experiences are deeply intertwined with the biochemical and neural activities in our brains. The idea that our consciousness and the stories we tell ourselves about our decisions come after the fact is pretty intriguing. It got me thinking about how we connect with our actions and why we sometimes identify with them, and sometimes not so much. Think about it: when we act in line with our own wishes and motivations, it feels like we own those actions. But when something happens by chance, like tripping over a stone, it doesn't quite fit the bill as an action. It lacks that personal intention behind it, right? It's interesting to consider that we often identify with actions that align with our intentions and motivations. When our actions are in line with our own impulses or desires, there's a strong sense of ownership and recognition. Conversely, instances where actions are purely accidental, lacking any intention, or forced by external influences can create a disconnection from identifying those actions as our own. This brings into focus the distinction between intentional acts, chance events, and coerced actions. Stumbling over a stone, resulting in an unintentional fall, doesn't fit the mold of an action as it lacks intent. Similarly, when our actions are coerced or directed by external forces, they might not resonate with our personal motivations, leading to a lack of identification. These reflections challenge the notion of what constitutes an action and how our narratives of identification are intricately linked with our intentions and motivations. It prompts us to examine the role of intentionality and personal agency in shaping our narratives and our sense of self. The idea that our feeling of consciousness and the freedom to choose are just stories we tell ourselves after we've already made a decision is mind-boggling. It challenges the way we usually think about our actions and the role of our conscious minds in making choices.We often believe that we're in control, consciously making decisions as we go. But this take suggests that our brains might kick things into gear before we're even aware of it, almost like our decisions are made before we realize we've made them...It's like our conscious mind is playing catch-up, creating this narrative to explain what we've already done. Really does put a question mark on how much we truly control our choices and how much is shaped by processes we aren't even aware of.However, it's not all cut and dry. Even if our consciousness pieces the story together after the fact, it doesn't mean it's not important. It's like it might still have a say in how we interpret our actions, even if it doesn't call the shots on the decisions themselves. This whole concept, unfortunately, pushes us to rethink the age-old idea of free will and what it means to be in control of our actions. The idea that our sense of consciousness and freedom to choose is merely a narrative constructed after a decision has been made challenges the traditional notion of consciousness driving our choices. While I somewhat agree, I believe it's essential to maintain a balanced perspective. It's possible that our consciousness and sense of agency, while influenced by unconscious processes, still play a vital role in our decision-making. This concept raises intriguing questions about the nature of free will, prompting us to consider the interplay between our conscious experiences and the unconscious processes shaping our decisions. It poses a challenge in understanding the intricate relationship between our perceived freedom and the underlying subconscious mechanisms that influence our actions. In essence, while our consciousness might indeed construct a narrative post-decision, the full scope and influence of conscious awareness on our choices invites a deeper examination of the complexities of human decision-making and the nature of free will. I do, however, would like for somebody to address this.

@iNow No, it is not obvious. And it really seems you have some trouble understanding me here. (Usually you haven't). And I am sorry you wrote such a long exposé on something I did not mean. I should have omitted 'you are reading'. My point is the relationship between the pixels and the text. Here I have some pixels, greatly enlarged: Just some colours. In reality it is the cross point of the 'x' in the word 'text' above: (Yes, I have anti-aliasing turned on, therefore these colours). Now: is the word 'text' caused by the pixels, or is the word just the pixels seen from a distance? And that is the point I am making: our mental phenomena are the physical and biochemical processes, just observed from a very different perspective. By assuming that physical and biochemical processes cause mental phenomena, you are indeed entering the arena of epiphenomalism, and that is a dead end. It even leads to a form of dualism. (No I am not AIkonoklazt. But he is right on this point. Pity that he is not more polite.)

This is how mass murderer killing children look like: @Anonymous

No, your question includes inherent false assumptions, and your understanding of how the world operates appears to be badly lacking. Maybe you've heard of WW2 ? Harry S Truman ordered that about 200,000 mostly civilians, women and children included, should be blasted or horribly burnt to death. With the consent of Winston Churchill. You can still find their statues all over the place. It doesn't say immoral on the plinth.

It's a very interesting question. Of course, I don't know the answer, but here are some ideas. What seems to be a fairly simple question turns out not to be so easy when you start asking relevant questions on the basic definitions, primitive concepts on which it rests, hidden assumtions, and so on. So, for example (taken from Wikipedia): What is an event? How do you characterise it? What is a cause? What does it mean to be determined? So, for further example, suppose we accept the model of state of a system, state variables, one-dimensional time, law of motion, etc. Is it even possible to factor the state of the universe into environment + system under scrutiny? If so, is it always possible? Can prediction be extended indefinitely in principle without appealing to cosmic events? Could any non-predictability be attributed to unknown --and what's worse, presumably unknowable-- circumstances of past states of the universe such that, were those to be known, a mathematician could carry out the prediction successfully? What's clear to me is that QM dealt a very heavy blow to any intentions of formulating any naive determinism. What's not so clear to me is that there is no chance at all of elaborating on the concept of state variables, evolution law, etc, so as to explain why the universe looks deterministic at some simple level (free fall, penduli, 2-body problem, and the like), inherits this property from some nearly unfathomable cosmic condition which later reappears here and there, but for the most part is lost in the middle ground, which constitutes most of what we see.

I already gave you my answer last time. Now it's my turn to question your reading ability. Meanwhile, I'll just take your refusal to answer as an admission that you are indeed pushing epiphenmonialism. After all, what other designation fits "if not physical processes (that "biochemical" term can be omitted; it's just extra blurb) then there couldn't be anything else" talk that you've been giving? Exactly nothing. @Eise Sorry the rest of you have to bear witness with the tit-for-tat but he and a whole bunch of people weren't too "polite" with me to begin with on some other random forum thread somewhere. When I'm confronted with open disdain I send it back. @Anirudh Dabas someone else asked me and I said I don't know. This self-quote is for reference's sake (as in "I didn't question dodge a question I have zero answer to"): Of course, just because I don't know what X is doesn't mean there couldn't be an X. It'd be a fallacy of paucity in imagination. @Anirudh Dabas I made some comments about this 5 or 6 pages back. Took me some time to find it again:

That is the very definition of relative risk. The drug can have an extreme high risk for causing cancer, but as long as the treated condition has an even higher one it might be better to use it. You don't seem to understand why certain ABs are used. They are used based on efficacy, taking the bacterial species in consideration as well as local resistance patterns. Why do you think did I mention clarithromycin. I have posted a few papers already and you are free to read up more on why folks are using certain therapies. It is a bit more difficult and not all act the same way. I would have to read up more to see what is known about mechanics or whether most of the data is outcome based. But what is known about long-term the culprit seems to be (in part) our immune system. Massive disruptions in the intestinal microbiome is associate with inflammation which in turn is linked to cancer-promoting pathways. However, it is not precisely my specialty and I am not familiar with the latest knowledge in that link.

1. OMG, my point is that if you know the relative risk you're NECESSARILY gonna know the absolute risk. 2. How many times are you going to repeat this. It's not a difficult concept, I get it. Again I ask you, show me the study which shows cancer risk is higher in untreated H pylori relative to metro treatment. Why did you ignore that question? Again, metro is not the only AB used in H pylori treatment.

We can agree to disagree. Sorry, I mistook it for GPS satellites. Thank you for bringing up the idea of sending time signals between an Earth clock and satellite clock. Unlike sending signals between two clocks on Earth, the big distance is a great advantage. I propose the same experiment I analyzed above. The experiment consists of two clocks, one on Earth and one on a satellite. The experiment is carried out when the Earth clock, the satellite and Leo are aligned. But full alignmeent may not be possible, neither is it necessary. A closest satellite off the line can be used, and a component of the velocity can be calculated and used. However, for this the distance of the satellite from the Earth clock should be precisely determined. This must be done by reflecting radar pulses off the satellite ( not by interrogation!). Also the radial velocity of the satellite relative to the Earth clock must be near zero (Brian G Wallace effect). Under these conditions, the satellite distance D can be determined from the round trip time (T) of the radar signal, from: T = 2D/c . The Earth clock sends time signal to the satellite clock, which sets its time using the standard procedure (assuming isotropy). The satellite clock after some delay sends time signal to the Earth clock. The actual time of the Earth clock and the calculated time (assuming isotropy) can then be compared.

Zawoooooosh !! Gotham City's newest superhero " Pedantic Man " zooms in to save the metropolis from the careless use of a word. Thanks, Pedantic Man !!!!! I meant often, compared to never, but you sure nailed me down with your pedant superpowers !!

I am not talking about the traditional problem of quantum-entanglement implying faster than light (instantaneous) communication. In fact, I don’t think the REAL problem in physics is the incompatibility between special relativity and quantum mechanics. I am saying that current physics treats the problem of the speed of light by SRT (time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.) and the quantum problem (wave particle duality, entanglement, wave-function collapse, etc.) by Quantum Mechanics. Physics treats these as unrelated problems, endeavoring to achieve the impossible task of 'unifying' these. My point is that it is impossible to bring unification in physics without destroying much of modern physics.

Sorry, for the first part, it was an honest mistake. I don’t know why I had written it as 300 million km/s but here we are. Lemme just change that to just under 300 thousand km/s. As for the second point, the issue is here is that to get an accurate and truly significant reading, you’d actually need to measure on the variation of the speed of Light, you’d need to measure (and physically record the readings at said location) many “light years” (probably thousands) away. This way we would know that Light travels at different speeds according to the locale in the Universe. 3rd point, the ONE WAY SPEED OF LIGHT is IMPOSSIBLE to measure. There is 0 theoretical method to measure it, because by its very nature, Light is INFINITE and ETERNAL (timeless). To be able to actually measure Lightspeed is a theoretical impossibility by its very definition. If we COULD measure Light, it would not be Infinite. Infinity by its literal definition means unlimited, un-finite, in-FINITE. The very antithesis of limitedness (finity?). Check out Veritasium’s YouTube video on this subject. On the 4th point you pointed out, I meant that light travels exponentially slower depending on the strength and magnitude of the gravitational force being acted upon it. For instance, the gravitational pull of a black hole will obviously have a greater effect on light than the gravitational pull of a star due to its size and mass. On the opposite end of this, the less gravitational forces acting upon Light (and if possible, none or 0), the speed of Light will exponentially approach Infinity (not possible due to the remnant gravitational force from the Big Bang, or rather there is no physical location in the Universe that is unaffected by gravity). My claim is that True Lightspeed is the speed limit of reality itself, not just “matter”. General relativity, and time dilation in the locales of black holes prove this fact. Event Horizons are the point at which black holes distort reality and space time enough to slow Light down just enough, which requires a nigh-eternal amount of time for it to be trapped there in the first place, until another nigh-eternal amount of time passes for that Light to be shot out of that black hole again at near Infinite (or rather, nigh-infinite true Lightspeed) for it to escape again.

The speed of Light is infinite. Light is the speed limit of reality itself. The Universe expands at the same speed as light, and the speed of Light varies depending on the gravitational forces affecting it, slowing it down tremendously. The speed of Light around our local gravitational field here on earth, our solar system, galaxy, and all gravitational forces in the Universe, slow down Light here on earth to what we know as that common measurement of 300,000,000km/s. True light speed needs to be measured in a vacuum and without any gravitational forces acting upon it, which is impossible, and the actual task of measuring it is simultaneously impossible. The one way speed of Light has never actually been measured, it is too fast to. Only when light is reflected/refracted (which in and of itself is an obstruction) can we measure it’s speed. Light speed varies depending on locale in the Universe, and goes exponentially faster infinitely depending on the lack of gravitational forces.