StringJunky

Yes, I understand that not all extend, potentially, infinitely.

Up to now, space has not been quantised so we can only assume it's volume. Scientists did an experiment that went on the basis that if space was granular, red frequencies would travel faster than blue ones since their velocity might be impeded less because of the granularity. The distances required went to billions of light years but both ends of the spectrum arrived, effectively, at the same time.

But - I assert - fields permeate the whole universe; gravity/spacetime extends everywhere.

This is how I think. The existence of space - which is just volume - is dependent on the existence of fields. On that line of thinking, empty spaces full of nothing (?) can''t exist.

Like all politicians, he was selling a dream. It doesn't matter if it never materialises, what matters is that they are seen to share a common goal with their voters.

I think it's pretty clear, to anyone reading a variety of quotes from him, inconsistency of his actions and failed promises for a while, that the bloke's a pillock. People voted despite those failings.

They must hate the other side more. From their perspective, he is lesser of the other evils. They hate any notion of socialism. You see this absolutism about firearms as well. they won't give an inch because, in their eyes, that starts a snowball. Yes. We've seen it here in otherwise very intelligent people.

People voted for him because he was in their team; an ideological ally.

At it's most basic, couldn't it be defined as that minimum state which gives something operational autonomy in making decisions/responses to stimuli? This can apply to non-living systems as well. They contain algorithms which allows them to respond to stimuli in a variety of ways, which is the decision-making part. I suppose one could go through all the living taxa, from bacteria, and work through them to the one that is deemed to be conscious. I've read worms are conscious, so one could analyse all the behavioural algorithms that they use and this might be the starting point of consciousness and say "This is what consciousness looks like at its most basic in algorithmic terms". Would this be a useful, empirical approach to nailing it down? I think what we should be looking for is the minimum rule set that makes something 'conscious'; no airy-fairy philosophical or metaphysical stuff to confound the definition.

When one gets to this stage of persistent conviction that one is right, in the face of contrary expert opinion and sources, one needs to let go and start again without that conviction and see how it pans out. Conviction blinds people.

That's very interesting. I never considered that other organs further down might influence the action of the stomach. Thinking about it, some amino acids, glucose or other product from the enzymatic action might pass through the stomach lining into the bloodstream and that would tell the body how to respond wrt to the churning time.

Yes, i meant evidence-based material which not easy to find. The way I'm looking at it is, how does the stomach sense what is in it? i can't see it having chemical sensors for specific food types to determine how long it should churn for and it's lined with mucus to protect itself from the acid which would probably mask any sensors that might be there anyway.

I haven't found anything that supports the idea of different foods being treated differently in terms of time apart from water which is evacuated pretty quickly. Probably stiffness of the food is the main factor for how long it stays in the stomach i.e. stiff mixing food takes longer.

It isn't uniform and that's what you seem to not be grasping and why the arms are perpendicular.

You've repeated that beyond usefulness The distortion of space at one arm is different to the distortion at the other arm; the distortion is not equal or simultaneous at all co-ordinates about the two arms. Your argument supposes that the the changes at each co-ordinate happen simultaneously to the same degree in all co-ordinates, which they don't. Relatively, there is a detectable difference when comparing the behavior of each arm against the other.

Yeah, telling a woman not to put stuff on their face is like... you know what I mean.

America is unique, I think, in thinking the way it does, in having a majority electorate that is so individualistic and capitalistic. It''s politically to the right of ugly.

This is where the discussion is going: clarifying to the OP their error in what constitutes 'natural' and 'chemical'.

Business as usual, that's how science works. People have had serious doubts about Einstein's GR and SR for a century but they are still there. The doubters are as important to science as the people that make the discoveries.

Gotta keep the shareholders happy and also attract new money.

Yes, that's very likely true.

I agree. I found this from a neuroscientist who thinks the same: Earthworms are conscious because they can respond to stimuli, like odours, and react accordingly. I think people erroneously conflate self-awareness with consciousness, which is another higher level of complexity, but is not the minimum parameter for something to be conscious.

i think you are not getting across effectively. it's important to define exactly what you mean by 'chemicals'. i'm not criticising but it's highly nuanced, ambiguous and easily confusing, this sort of conversation. It's easy to assume that people understand words to have the same meaning as you interpret them when you use them in a particular way, especially in the written word.

Because you choose to give them more impact or weight than the happy things. It's the same as seeing the glass as half empty. Unhappy things happening require effort to put you back on an even track whereas happy things are going in the right direction... unhappy things are work.

Everything is made of chemicals and the point of that list was to show you all the chemicals that make up a real blueberry. if you get food grade quality of either powder you should be ok. I think they are pretty stable and inert-ish chemicals for your use. Skin drying might be the main issue with one or both though.