TheVat

And retroviruses, which do inject RNA into a host cell and alter that cell's genome, don't transmit easily unless there is more intimate contact, so your cellular makeup is probably safe. The bigger concern, obviously, are virus particles carried in airborne droplets (aerosols) from someone who has covid. Even if vaxxed, you can get an unpleasant illness. And then give it to someone who is vulnerable. If you are interested in particles that transfer by means of surfaces in the office, you might google fomites to learn more.

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids In fact it's cold as hell...

I think civilizations got into trouble when knowledge was seen purely as a commodity, something to foster "productivity" in cold calculations of investment and return. An amoral capitalist approach does not really reckon with the natural curiosity and love of connecting with others and the mystery of the larger world that is the real driver of learning. We seek to understand our world, and other people, and what we should do in our lives - education systems that don't focus on this will always become petri dishes of cynical calculation. People will plagiarize when they are no longer able to love knowledge as a vibrant human activity with intrinsic value outside of a marketplace.

So are you describing an approach where holistic (high-order) phenomena have causal powers somehow above and beyond one micro-constituent interacting with an adjacent one? For example, on a macro level, could you have a fundamental law in which there is downward causation through lower levels? A popular example is a mind having the thought to take some action - this is viewed, by strong emergentists, as thoughts having causal power with downward causation through lower levels (neurons, synapses, action potentials, etc.). This thought-event is not uniquely determined by the lower levels, but happens as a more global process that is somehow irreducible. I am not asserting any of this as valid, just (like you) exploring some implications.

However, reading further in the wiki article (thanks, Mac) suggests that overall Antarctica ice is decreasing due to net loss in the west end... From the wiki: If the transfer of the ice from the land to the sea is balanced by snow falling back on the land then there will be no net contribution to global sea levels. The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. A 2006 paper derived from satellite data, measuring changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years.[19] A 2008 study compared the ice leaving the ice sheet, by measuring the ice velocity and thickness along the coast, to the amount of snow accumulation over the continent. This found that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet was in balance but the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was losing mass. (end quote) Also note a further contextual factor - calving at the edges increases the total of lower albedo oceanic surface which can absorb more insolation. Ice reflects, sea absorbs. That is the big feedback potential that climatologists talk about a lot. Just to keep things up to forum standards, could we have a citation for those ice free predictions? Were they widely peer reviewed and agreed upon? Or were those modeling approaches being revised at that time and much debated? For sure, climatology in its infancy had to try and reject many models. Also the extensive permafrost melts in the past decade may point to an Arctic situation that is fairly serious, given the feedback effects as ancient former marshlands and bogs thaw and release both methane and various particulates. And Arctic ice is shrinking, and any shrinkage opens up the lowered albedo feedback system as well. This is a good summary on the decline of Arctic ice pack... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

Thanks, I did go back and take note of where the mutual misunderstood parts were. Oddly flattering that anyone would think my writing would be worthy of the SEP. Anyway, I see the snark was unintended, so I'm sorry for misunderstanding. Carry on.

Given that the movie Soylent Green is set in 2022, this news story seemed rather apt. (CNN quickly revised the headline, btw, hence the screenshot)

Who are "some people?" I mean, yes, I disagree also, but am curious what would lead someone to see pelvic replacement as feasible. Any citations would be welcome.

Studiot: It's a response to your rudeness, calling my example of water is wet as from a "recognized authority.". It seemed directed at me, given that those were my words and not a quote from SEP. The example was mine. You brought the incivility and the blowback is what you got. The fact that you took my example with extreme literalness (yes of freaking course you would need a handful of molecules to understand interactions and bonding) in order to nitpick at that rather than address the main point of the example, suggested you simply wanted something to pick on. And strong and weak emergence are the terms generally used in philosophy of science, and in particular disciplines where they are at issue. The fact that you pay a subscription (for a website that has no paywall) is nice, but has zero relevance to the topic. I hope the definition of types of emergence was useful to other members, who have more open minds. PS - Looking back at my post, I note the quote from SEP was in a different font, followed by the URL. Which was then followed by my own comments. Clearly indicated with a different font.

Two points: You are picking at an example while missing the conceptual point of defining weak emergence. If the example has technical problems, fine, whatever. Did you bother to read the SEP article? Second, "recognized authority"?? WTF is this rude snarkiness about? Did someone piss in your oatmeal? I am not a chemist, nor have made such claims. If deriving wetness from micro-constituents doesn't work for you, then just pick another example. Gas pressure, tornadoes, whatever floats your boat, brother. If there is some secret grudge thing here, just PM me, okay? Otherwise, back the fuck off and lose the attitude.

Could you cite the specific wiki article? I would like to get some context for that, as well as the primary source they used. Also, why do you think the scientific community is largely in agreement that there is measurable net ice loss there? (I seriously hope this not some Heartland Institute (Koch Brothers front org.) factoid that's been allowed into Wikipedia!)

This seems to be a repackaging of the OP question you asked, which was extensively answered by several of us last month. You replied to none of them, nor absorbed apparently any of their points. Why the hell should I bother with this again?

In philosophy, emergence usually is defined in terms of two classes, weak and strong. From SEP: Though diverse, accounts of ontological emergence can be usefully grouped by a basic division between those that are and are not compatible with physicalism, understood as the thesis that all natural phenomena are wholly constituted and completely metaphysically determined by fundamental physical phenomena. This thesis is standardly understood to entail “the causal closure of the physical”, according to which (roughly) any fundamental-level physical effect has a purely fundamental physical cause. “Strong” emergence accounts are inconsistent with physicalism and causal closure (as just elucidated) while weak emergence accounts are consistent with it. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ My sense of these terms is that weak emergence lies in observations like "water is wet." Though we cannot easily deduce wetness from a single H20 molecule, it seems possible in principle to get there from fundamental physical causes. The loose joinery of molecules, the latent heat of vaporization, etc. Some theorists believe that there are some phenomena, like consciousness, volition, or spacetime, which require strong emergentism in which higher-level functions take on unique and fundamental causal powers which micro-constituents do not have. It seems to me that this more robust definition of emergence is where the controversy is thickest. Many emergent phenomena are simply our macro level experience of them, and do not really provide any reason to imagine special macro level causal powers.

https://apnews.com/article/science-glaciers-antarctica-e9687077d7295e8218ba7cbcb9246ca3 A team of scientists is sailing to “the place in the world that’s the hardest to get to” so they can better figure out how much and how fast seas will rise because of global warming eating away at Antarctica’s ice. Thirty-two scientists on Thursday are starting a more than two-month mission aboard an American research ship to investigate the crucial area where the massive but melting Thwaites glacier faces the Amundsen Sea and may eventually lose large amounts of ice because of warm water. The Florida-sized glacier has gotten the nickname the “doomsday glacier” because of how much ice it has and how much seas could rise if it all melts — more than two feet (65 centimeters) over hundreds of years.

Thanks, Zapatos. I found the roulette wheel analogy quite helpful. Just curious about the downvote. It would be greatly helpful if someone could alert me to which part of the post was problematic, and how I could remedy that? The first portion was responding to an article posted here earlier which did state there was an advantage in avoiding earth/moon shadows. I was just seeking a bit of clarification, and was not trying to push any opinion. A bit mystified by the minus one. Please clarify? Since I don't give downvotes here, I would prefer some directness when someone casts one. This situation is actually why I don't downvote. Without an explanation, it can be perplexing and thus counterproductive.

My memory of London this time of year (when visiting in the eighties) was that it did not offer optimal viewing conditions. Orion is prominent in the winter sky, arcing across the southern sky in the evening. I don't know which direction from London would get you away from light pollution the quickest.

Yes, for sure there are exceptions that a reasonable person would carve out. Young children who might not have the capacity to process some harsh truths. Or someone with dementia, paired with an anxiety disorder. Thanks for pointing out - I wasn't aiming at absolutes. Twelve below zero when I walked downtown this morning. If my toes are gone I don't want to know!

You mentioned expense, Shivaji. Music is a wonderful stress reliever, and there are instruments less expensive than a guitar. https://www.amazon.com/YRS-24B-Plastic-Soprano-Recorder-Natural/dp/B00EJF5Y26/ref=asc_df_B00EJF5Y26/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198057701162&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=17332029863741598566&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=t&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9020641&hvtargid=pla-380354557370&psc=1 Not spam, just an example of an easy to play instrument that is affordable. Other ways to ease burnout and fog...take long walks, avoid caffeine after 5pm to improve your night sleep (good sleep cures a lot of mental fog problems), avoid sugar and refined flour-based foods (both produce mental fog and mood swings, as well as other negative effects), intensive "explosive" exercise (kickboxing, fast tempo dancing, racketball, karate, etc), and last but not least, regular sexual release of whatever variety is available.

Most societies value truthfulness because it is a part of social reputation. As civilizations developed credit and trade, trustworthiness became more important because it was vital to know someone would keep their word, keep promises, supply what they said they would. Lying robbed communities of trust and undermined collective action. Lying about a commodity (false advertizing) can lead to overt harm, even death. In the OP, I noted the medical frankness with a spouse. In that case, honesty is important because each individual has a right to know their situation and be able to plan their last days and prepare themselves. No one has the right to censor medical information about your body and I would certainly hope when I am dying that people are truthful with me. I would remind Calranthe that Greta Thunberg, who has autism, credits her truthfulness with greatly helping her be an effective activist. In interviews, it's always clear she sees the positive values of Asperger's. As do I.

Your posting name seems apt, given that the Fabians promoted vegetarianism. I agree the flexitarian approach seems most viable for an omnivore species like ours. I think smart vegans can see flexitarians (especially the "eat meat rarely" sort) as allies in the movement towards humane treatment and away from factory farming.

As David Graber and other anthropologists have noted, the desert cults tended to be conservative because they were developed among rural pastoralists (herders and farmers and support trades) many who had fled the urban centers of the ancient world and rejected the worse aspects of them, like multi-generational debt obligations, debt peonage, usury, rigid heirarchies, and the tendency to go to war for filling royal coffers and acquire slaves. It's no accident that desert cults like Christianity had prophets who preached communist values and egalitarianism, and pushed back against materialism and wealth acquisition. It's interesting to see how such a religion gets later coopted by economic/political entities and gradually starts to shy away from collectivism and embrace mercantilism and then capitalism.

The parrot always remains as a 4D structure in the Block Universe. For thermodynamic reasons we cannot get to him. Really, he's just resting. I'm sorry, but how many more wacky dark energy tired light threads are there going to be this week?

I could have posted a similar OP when I became active here last summer. One of the best general science forums out there. Glad you are here, Genady. And thanks to the mods here, who are a big factor in the quality of SFN.

Quite a star(t)ling sight! I'm sure Uri Geller is envious.

Plus one. Are you quite sure English is not your native language? You could have fooled me. In discussion, this argument for the effectiveness of models is sometimes called the evolutionary argument. To adapt to a challenging environment, our modeling of reality has to maintain a high degree of correspondence with what is "out there." At least, insofar as it helps us navigate the macro world of tigers, waterholes, snakes, poison plants, wire coral, etc. The small pitfall of the evolutionary argument is that it only requires models to be effective on a very pragmatic level. We could imagine a creature that needs lots of water. It perceives a pool of water as a jiggling purple tetrahedron that sings "I Feel Pretty" in a lovely soprano voice. It responds by going towards the singing, and drinks, and lives another day. Now, though adaptive, we might assert that this model of a pool of water is not very realistic, and is more like a useful hallucination than a good map of what is out there in the world. That illustrates why we have to approach our mathematical representations of reality with healthy caution and not be carried away by Tegmark-ian notions like "the multiverses are composed of math."