Bender

Why do you think that is silly? Morality does not (necessarily or exclusively) evolve through social expectancy. It evolves because groups with "fitter" morality are more successful. I can't follow the reasoning that follows. You claim that expectancy leads to morality; how then do you get to more expectancy leading to immorality?

Evolution isn't silly. It is indifferent. Concepts of good and evil are irrelevant to evolution (and nature in general). Could you give an example of how skepticism makes one loose morality?

I see It certainly looks interesting. Let us know how it turns out. Assuming your simulations are valid and you can control the production tolerances, this looks promissing.

Cool. Where do you get oddly yet accurately shaped magnets that cheaply? I would have expected those alone would be above 2000$.

I haven't seen this design before. It reminds me of a pancake motor, but then a brushless variant with cooling. It looks very complex and expensive. Do you have any idea how you would make it? What is your air gap? What are the required tolerances? One design in particular with the core wrapped around the coils looks pretty impossible to make. But if you think you can make it and have the budget: go for it. Some other remarks: - does your power density include the volume and weight of the cooling system? - Your efficiency is pretty poor. I would have hoped for a higher efficiency for an expensive novelty motor. - isn't it much simpler to implement the cooling on a regular PMSM? The cooling would be much more effective if it didn't need such awkward shape.

Who or what imparted that role on us?

Most people stop looking when they find the answer (or when they find the question irrelevant ). You certainly seemed to have stopped looking as well. The only thing you are looking for is questions for which your answer of choice is the correct one.

Set of delusions. But you are right, my indifference is not required for faith to be a kind of delusion. But I'm glad you agreed with my post. After all, why else did you follow up with a non-sequitur?

This is pretty much exactly what I said many pages ago in one of my first answers to you: Faith based on imaginary premisses can be internally consistent. So faith is an internally consistent set of delusions, rather than a stand-alone delusion.

I didn't say there is no observer/consciousness; I said there is no reason to assume it is a separate entity. In fact all evidence suggests that there isn't. It is understood just fine, possibly even better than you understand it yourself. We just don't clasify it as "reasoning" in the context of a science forum which requires evidence.

Ah, the notion of the separate observer, often depicted as a little man in our head. Pop culture obviously keeps this image alive with a multitude of hilarious cartoons and sketches. Alas, there is no indication that such a separate observer exists. I agree that raises a whole bunch of questions, but the reason for that is simply that it actually makes very little sense. Have you considered the much, much simpler explanation that this "observer" is simply another program running on your hardware instead of some separate unexplainable entity? Science does not deal with this issue, because scientifically, there is no issue; there isn't even the smallest hint of an issue. The reason you don't find your answers in science is not that they aren't there, but that you don't like them. So yes, I still think you want to have these doubts, because even acknowledging that they might be superfluous could shatter your world view, for which you decided their must be something special about your consciousness even before you start looking for evidence or "reasoning" towards it. That's begging the question.

Not at all. The bag of meat and bones that resides in my skin is "I". These doubts only arise if you want them to. They are by no means necessary or even implied by any objective observation. Is there a reason not to try to look for garden gnomes?

We can't assume there are no garden gnomes in your garden without trying to find them. Have you searched for garden gnomes? Nothing. There is no evidence that we are anything more than a complex machine. We know from computer science that in complex systems, it is best to have a higher level program to organise lower level processes without being bothered with the details. Without this higher level program, which we experience as consciousness, our brain would be too unorganised to function. I'm sorry, but p-zombies are impossible.

On hilly terrain, don't forget the need to switch to a breaking resistance when your battery is full. Can the batteries even handle the current on a steep hill? It can be considerably larger than during normal operation.

We certainly shouldn't assume that there is. As I explained earlier, you need faith for this imaginary conclusion, so you are still basing faith on faith. Besides, I fail to see any logic in the supposed reasoning that follows.

There are plenty of things that have no explanation beyond random chance. I guess I assumed "random chance" doesn't qualify as an explanation for you, because if it did, your conclusion wouldn't make any sense.

No, there is no necessity. You (and many with you) just want there to be. I guess this desire could be caused by a fear that everything would be dull and pointless without it. Then again, I can only guess, because I don't experience any such necessity (at least not to explain the why; science does a great job at explaining the how). If you draw conclusions based on imaginary premisses, it just means there is some internal consistency in your faith. It doesn't mean there is any relation or consistency with the actual world which is independent of your faith.

Do you need the numbers of your arm specifically, or just some average. The latter can be found in tables. The good tables even contain spread.

But you wish it to be a necessity.

The reasoning you are referring to, seems to be "wishfull thinking", which I indeed won't accept as evidence.

Google "center of gravity limbs" you'll find tables for all parts of the body.

This is just an eufemistic way of saying "wishfull thinking". Accepting something for which there is no evidence (this need) requires faith, so you are argueing that faith leads to faith.

Or one wants there to be an explanation (beyond the scientific one).

Is it a need or a desire?

Draw Fs on the right in the opposite direction. In other words, draw a free body diagram of the hinge. Perhaps that will make things more clear. Fs as drawn is a force exerted by the hinge on the left rod, Fd and Ft as drawn as forces exerted by the right rod on the hinge. I guess this causes your confusion. Edit: it could be the other way around, if the piston is driving rather than driven.