Leaderboard

"More than everyting I said/wrote?" = "Every coin has a flip side". Thanks for clarifying. I still don't know what you mean. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's often the tumor of understanding.

Molecules can vibrate, rotate, twist, and scissor, etc. In fact, there are DOF that are not obviously rotational/vibrational, etc. but some complicated so-called normal modes like, https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Spectroscopy/Vibrational_Modes/Number_of_Vibrational_Modes_in_a_Molecule Recently, a key to why CO2 (kinda mysterious, as it's just a boring non-polar linear molecule) is such an important agent in global warming has been found to have a root in resonances of such non-obvious normal modes due to Fermi resonances: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.15177.pdf

That would depend on your field of inquiry. Neuroscience gives serious attention to a functional definition of consciousness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222861/ Normal human consciousness is defined as the presence of a wakeful arousal state and the awareness and motivation to respond to self and/or environmental events. In the intact brain, arousal is the overall level of responsiveness to environmental stimuli. Arousal has a physiological range from stage 3 non-REM sleep, where strong stimuli are required to elicit a response, to states of high vigilance, where subtle stimuli can be detected and acted upon2. While arousal is the global state of responsiveness, awareness is the brain’s ability to perceive specific environmental stimuli in different domains, including visual, somatosensory, auditory, and interoceptive (e.g. visceral and body position). The focal loss of awareness, such as language awareness in aphasia or spatial awareness in left-sided neglect, does not significantly impair awareness in other modalities. Motivation is the drive to act upon internal or external stimuli that have entered conscious awareness. In the next section, we describe the brain regions that support these three aspects of consciousness and show that they are not independent, but rather heavily interact with each other....

Oh it's relavent but you really really should have read it. Honestly if you're not going to read stuff before claiming it supports what you say then you're not arguing in good faith as far as I'm concerned. I mean if you won't even read what you share, how can anyone expect you to be willing to read what anyone else shares? I'm going to suggest that you read Cohen's preface to logic. You probably won't, but there is the suggestion. You've fooled yourself into thinking you actually know what you're talking about. You have a grasp on some philosophy but it's not very well structured or consistent because the more you speak, the more you contradict thing's you've previously said, betraying a lack of understanding of some topics and how they relate to subjects you have some understanding of. This is one of those situations where the only one looking at shadows on the cave wall and is calling it reality, is you. If you were to put a name to your belief structures and philosophical ideologies, what would that be? To be fair, he seems to have a habit of diluting his own thinking closer to meaninglessness the more he speaks so of course he'd expect us to redefine it that way!

It’s big and massive, cold, and the distance from the sun means a reduced solar wind as compared to inner planets and moons. It’s also somewhat protected by Saturn’s magnetic field

Gian, the intensity of sunlight on the Surface of Titan is about 0.1% of what we see on the surface of the Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon) As for why... You ask a question that has crossed my mind many times, I have read that the reason why Jupiter's giant moons do not have atmospheres has to do with Jupiter being being very hot in it's youth and this prevented the Galilean moons from having atmospheres. I am not really sure if this is accurate or not.

You should give me some points for my reputation, because at least I did not offend anybody this time.

As an aside, I have to wonder if the infertility issues getting worse is partly an artifact; infertility clinics cost money, so one wouldn’t expect people to go to a doctor unless they had the means to do something about it, which would increase as household income increased. IOW, we got better at diagnosing the problem, and reduced an economic bias.

Above good. Below bad. When I said earlier to stop trying to be smart, I said so because you are obviously intelligent and some of your writing has insight, nothing I've not heard before but better insight than you get from your average joe. The problems start when your ego starts to outstrip your ability to articulate insight and you get caught up in trying to convince us you're smart when you really don't have to. Not saying this to put you down at all but to help you succeed, and there are plenty of people here who know I am speaking from experience when it comes to my ego outstripping my ability to articulate insight and I'd get caught up in trying to prove how smart I was, by putting so much weight into everything I said, even the bullshit. Then I'd take it personally when people called out said bs, flame out and get temporarily banned from posting here for long periods of time. Okay, why this was bad? Because you've crushed me down into a single point in space to my Schwarzchild radius and I've turned into a very small black hole. Not cool. As for the rest of it, 2 things, go on youtube and type in "Crow documentary" then go on google scholar to find out what linguists actually have to say on bird language(cue the IASIP bird law meme). You'll see generational learning in the crow documentary and that they can solve puzzles and mimic human speech. Why? Well because the linguists say birds have language. In a nutshell. Oh no I'm so sorry, half of my response was to you, the other half was to cladking. You've said nothing that has bothered me at all and my tone towards you was always meant to come across as more pleasant and collaborative. You're smart Luc, seriously those comments were for Cladking. He's smart too, just less secure about believing it enough to be himself. Being smart and trying to look smart are very different and you haven't done the latter as far as I can tell, you're just enthusiastically engaging with the subject as best you can which is the best all of us can do. Like most discussions in philosophy, this one has and will rage for a long time still. Forrest Gump famously said "Stupid is as stupid does." Which applies to being smart too. But what he means is, you're only stupid while doing stupid things and only smart while doing smart things. Otherwise you're just you.

Who defines lower? We are sort of in the same bandcamp where animals thinking is concerned, however if asked to point to conclusive evidence that they do in fact think based on empirical standards, I'd say I don't know any. So there are some caveats, linguistic thinking and impressionistic emotional thinking ought to be differentiated here. I have some reasonable certainty that the deductive case for; other animals do have some capacity to think, is based on deductive reasoning about motivations for animal behaviour and basic mathematical probability. Do birds tweet or whistle their tunes in their heads? Do whales sing their songs in their heads and take time to think up lyrics? Can a dolphin have an internal dialogue? Does my dog dream? Billions of current and past species and sub species of all shapes and sizes and the ability to think is confined to one species? The furthest I'd go, is to say that the burden of proof is on saying they don't think, since I'd wager that the best models that would constitute what thinking is, are in line with the behaviour we observe in some forms of life. A) You weren't arguing that animals could think at all on the previous page of the thread. Now you're flipflopping. B) And what experiment are you talking about precisely? Oh and don't say the double slit experiment. Our looking at reality isn't what defines it, how reality is, is what defines it. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena implies that the problem lies in our ability to perceive reality as it is, leading to the phenomena seen in the double slit experiment. My explanation is very poor tbh this isn't my area of expertise at all. I recall reading once about something called the quantum eraser experiment lending credence to the Copenhagen interpretation. Will try find the links this weekend. Unless someone else here wants to explain that stuff, it's beyond me and hurts my brain. Can you provide any clarity in the form of a paper you've read or something anything that will help me figure out what you're trying to say? Stop trying to be smart and just be yourself... also reread the rules around providing sources when asked while understanding you are more than welcome to ask the same of others.

Is it part of a managed persona to be constantly cryptic? It's a waste of life "conversing" with you, how you behave. Your behaviour is fucking irritating. This is the first and last time I'm saying this.

Yes the printing of the bible in the vernacular was a significant milestone, democratising the process of reading and interpreting the bible - and thereby to some degree disempowering the clergy. The printing press democratised knowledge of all kinds, a process the internet is taking further today - with even fewer controls on quality.

I am guessing you never played the telephone game in childhood.

And yet when we measure temperature gradients between systems at different temperatures, in non-extreme conditions they are generally linear in agreement with the dominant mechanism for transfer of heat being by momentum exchange. If the dominant mechanism were EMR as you suggest, then the measured gradients would be highly non-linear (cubic in delta T I think). I understand your POV but I think it's a misleading one. Particle collisions in gases that support rotational and vibrational modes only follow conservation of linear momentum on average. In the general case, some momentum is transferred via the other modes.