StringJunky

From Clarence, I can only say 'Moron': CONSERVATIVE JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, IN A CONCURRING OPINION: "Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court's opinion." "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold (which protected the right to contraception), Lawrence (which invalidated state laws banning sodomy), and Obergefell (which legalized gay marriage nationwide)." "Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."

Probably a bit of pubic hair.

The day has come.

I had a lens I tried to sell to a camera shop and was told it it had mould on the inside surface. That was unfixable because it was in the coating.

If the surface is damaged cerium oxide powder might polish it out. Jewller's rouge (iron oxide) is another, but cerium oxide is finer.

You are here to defend your thesis, and that means not to keep using your article as it's own evidence. Your approach is getting annoying. The best explanation for consciousness I've seen involves sufficient system integration and sufficient complexity. What is 'sufficient'? We can't know until we can observe and quantify it. That is the nature of an emergent property.

Whatever we construct we are replicating some existing configuration of nature; we don't conceive of patterns/designs in a vacuum. No teleogy required.

But a mutation is an alteration to the design of the RNA/DNA molecule. It doesn't require sentience to alter the design. The human mind was designed by deterministic behaviour of DNA molecles, mutation and environmental pressures.

That's generally what happens when something becomes recognized and understood better. It's not unusual.

The other issue is the societal expectation that people fall into one of the categories. I'm sure some gender dysphorics are just gender-fluid and just want to be what they are, when they are, without any aspiration towards surgical reassignment.

I think it will be ex post facto when we find out what a synthetic recipe for consciousness looks like. I think this is to be expected, being emergent and, as such, only a retrospective analysis will allow us to find out. Hopefully, we find the blighter before they can become too autonomous in a way that might be detrimental to us.

The OP doesn't seem be familiar with emergence as a concept or indeed the view of complex systems from the hard sciences perspectives. This seems to be an issue with being familiar with computer logic systems but not biological/molecular systems, and that, I think, that tends to instil a Cartesian duality view of things, since computers are non-biological in substrates. That can lead to a metaphysical interpretation of living systems as somehow distinct from the physical substrate,

Nature does it.

There is no depth he won't stoop to.

The reality is that things don't change significantly until the next fresh generation takes it on board without resistance. The vociferous old naysayers from the pioneering days by then are putting their teeth in a glass or are compost. Civil unions didn't start in the UK until 2005. It took 38 years from homosexuality not being illegal i.e. tolerated, to them being allowed to be in a recognised partnership.

You've got interstellar space with a density of 1 atom/cm3 and intergalactic space at 1 atom/ metre3. How long will it last colliding with them at relativistic speeds? I would imagine if it collided with a mass in grams, or less, it would be toast.

Nice illustrative example. Reminds me of the expression Evolution is a blind watchmaker, whereby there is stochastic and deterministic phenomena occurring simultaneously.

When I read about it, the range 100-300 words was deemed acceptable, but it really depends what your country defines as fair use.

In what country?

Stand up humour is nearly always at the expense of someone or some group. I don't class his humour as unduly nasty.

RG isn't anti-any minority. It's important to him to not discriminate, so every group gets it whenever his humour takes him there... he is equal in his piss-taking. I think that's fair. We need humour and astutely observed ridicule is part of it.

You need to go and learn some science. This post tells me everything I need to know what you know, and it's very little.

It's not possible to detect anything that has less than a quantum of energy i.e. virtual particles . AFAIK we can infer their existence when two occasionally combine to make the necessary quantum in the form of detectable particle.

It isn't whether it's logical or not, what interests physicists is lots of maths... that is their language.

There's no maths in it for a start, so a physicist wouldn't give it a second glance.