StringJunky

'Logic' does not mean: that which makes sense to me. Nature can be very contrary to that and scientists understand that.

Here, have a bigger spade... I am at loss as to why you continue.

LOL

Science is the discipline of objectively describing nature.

But you'll still end up as pancaked tomato sauce, for a fraction of second

Exactly the same neural apparatus are used for dreams as for waking life. Why should dreams automatically be assumed to be self-delusion; are our waking thoughts self-delusion? Is our brain not capable of coherent data streams when we are not consciously active; I think so. I think the mode of operation and internal language(s) may be different in that state though. Yes, it is interesting and I think it's necessary from a survival perspective that the sleeping brain keeps tabs on the external environment via the senses; it is, after all, sharing the same gear to make the dreams and keep tabs. It's not surprising, imo, that sensory data has an effect on dream output. It seems to me that the brain makes caricatures of people or events as a means of emphasis, the degree of grotesqueness or exaggeration depending on how intensely one is disturbed by particular memories, anxieties, fears or people. The net result I think is to attempt to correct or level out emotional disequilibrium. If you are too happy in waking life the dreams could well be bad as well as vice versa when you are unhappy..

Feral ones at that.

If it's some feature that you've been very unhappy about it to the point of making you frequently miserable for a very long time and people have ridiculed you over it, if the risk is low, do it. I can empathise, for example, if a woman has a flat chest (or too big) or a man or woman has a nose significantly out of proportion with their face or misshapen. It's hard to say where t6o draw the line between what is genuinely therapeutic psychologically and that which most people would say "His/her <insert feature> is OK".

Yes. The scientific method is the agreed methodology that brings unity and peer review is the agreed form of dissent.

It's steely cold, strongly unified with plenty of room for dissent; yours is a false dichotomy.

Isn't that all that really matters - to us - when the lights go out for the final time?

... and he's a...

They like to learn empirically.

Thank you. +1

If you were standing in the path between two cars going 50 mph you are being hit at 50mph by each of them; not 100mph. The cars will experience a collision of 100mph but not you. Your speed, relative to each car, and vice versa, is 50 mph. It's the same thing in your scenario but you have to make relativistic corrections,

He gets hit by each object at 90% of the speed of light. Although it happens simultaneously, each collision with him is a separate event. Don' t add them up.

Interesting, can you point me to any literature about it?

'Closing speed' is not the velocity of any single object in the scenario, therefore nothing is violated, but is actually an artifact* of combining the measurements of two objects. * Artifact - something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure.

At the present time that maybe so.

The AI mind will be uncluttered by everyday problems and human frailties;simultaneously handle and play with more algorithms, as well as exponentially faster.

In reality,the technology will happen incrementally, problems will be experienced, predicted and solved as they happen. Autonomous machinery isn't going to happen all at once. Here's Asmov's three laws: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1]