Anirudh Dabas

I do agree with most of what you just said. Only that I think that philosophy is a worthwhile endeavor. While science may be able to provide us with answers to some of our questions, it is philosophy that can help us to make sense of those answers, to ask the right questions, to challenge our assumptions, and to think more critically about the world around us. They aren't mutually exclusive disciplines. I think Philosophy's journey is not about reaching a final destination but about the continuous process of intellectual exploration and the pursuit of deeper understanding. but yeah, Science has a more tangible and immediate impact on our lives and a better track record of success.

Right. Well, I'm not saying philosophers can't learn—I mean, they've been grappling with the meaning of life for centuries, right? It's just that reaching a consensus on free will sounds a bit like herding cats. You know, philosophers and their love for debating the nuances of everything. But hey, if we could quantify free will and turn it into a neat little metric, that'd be quite the party trick. Imagine measuring your culpability score on a scale of 1 to 10 before entering a courtroom. "Your Honor, I may have committed a crime, but my free will score is off the charts, so cut me some slack!" It's like turning ethics into a game show. As for prisons becoming secure holiday camps, I would say that it is a bit too simplistic. There are many reasons why people end up in prison, and not all of them are due to a lack of free will. Some people are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others are victims of circumstance. I would argue that this is a dangerous and misleading generalization. It suggests that some people are more deserving of punishment than others, simply because they have had more opportunities to make different choices. This is not only unfair, but it also ignores the complex factors that contribute to criminal behavior, such as poverty, mental illness, and addiction. A more nuanced approach would be to recognize that free will is not an all-or-nothing proposition. We all have some degree of freedom, but it is constrained by a variety of factors, both internal and external. Our choices are not always easy, and they are often influenced by forces beyond our control.

1. How would you define the mind's reality in a way that separates it from its plasticity? 2. What aspects of the mind do you consider to be inherently plastic or non-plastic? 3. How do you reconcile the mind's plasticity with its fundamental nature as a real and influential entity?

@AIkonoklazt @iNow argues that the mind is not a tangible entity, while you argue that it is, correct? iNow's main point is that the mind is constantly changing and adapting, and that this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. Your main point is that the mind is a product of the brain, which is a physical organ. The brain is constantly changing and adapting, and this ability to change is what allows us to learn and remember. If the mind were a completely separate entity from the brain, then it is unclear how it could be affected by the brain's plasticity. However, if the mind is a product of the brain, then it is possible that the brain's plasticity could also affect the mind. The use of the pronoun "it" to refer to the mind is also a point of contention. Right, If the mind is not tangible, then it is unclear what "it" is referring to. However, it is possible to use "it" to refer to the mind in a metaphorical sense, just as we might use "it" to refer to a computer program or a piece of software. Both of these points are valid. Ultimately, I think, the answer to this question depends on how we define the term "tangible." If we define it as something that can be seen or touched, then the mind is not tangible. However, if we define it as something that is real and has an effect on the world, then the mind could be considered tangible. The debate over the tangibility of the mind is a whole other debate, and there is no easy answer. Ultimately, the goal of any discussion should be to understand each other better, not to change each other's minds. If you both can keep this in mind, you may be able to have a more productive conversation.

It's a teeny-tiny rock, only about 100 kilometers in diameter. Landing a spacecraft on that celestial pebble is like trying to parallel park a spaceship in rush-hour traffic – not for the faint of heart. And let's not forget the interplanetary travel challenges. You're looking at a journey sandwiched between the red and the giant. Maybe it's a bit of space FOMO

+1. The mind, far from being an isolated and unchangeable entity, is intricately woven into the fabric of its environment, subject to influences that continually shape its operations.

It's like you're reading out of the "Troll Handbook for Dummies."

Are you trying to be the Shakespeare of internet absurdity, or is this just your way of getting attention?

^^ @Chris Sawatsky It's not expanding into anything; it's the entirety of existence. Describing the expansion as "outward" might indeed lead to a mental image of an expanding bubble, but the nature of the universe's expansion is more nuanced. It's the fabric of space itself that is stretching, affecting the distances between galaxies rather than pushing into some pre-existing void.

Hey there, So, you're suggesting that if philosophers could just magic up a consensus on how much free will we have, we'd all skip happily into a utopia where prisons are transformed into secure holiday camps. Well, color me skeptical! Let's not pretend that human behavior is as predictable as a toddler's tantrum. I mean, give people a bit of credit; we're not all just puppets waiting for a philosopher to cut our strings. keeping it real – utopia might be overrated, but so is the idea that we're all just innocent victims of our non-existent free will. Cheers

On the one hand, there is no direct evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the multiverse. So, in that sense, it is not a theory in the traditional scientific sense. However, the multiverse is a very well-developed and mathematically consistent idea. It is also compatible with a number of other well-established theories in physics, such as quantum mechanics and string theory. So, in that sense, it could be considered a theory, even if it cannot be directly tested. That's a valid point. Fiction doesn't need to adhere to scientific accuracy in order to be enjoyable. In the case of the Flash series, the portrayal of the multiverse is more focused on exploring the emotional and dramatic implications of parallel universes than on providing a rigorous scientific explanation. That said, the Flash series does draw on some of the theoretical concepts of parallel universes that have been proposed by scientists. For example, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. This idea is reflected in the Flash series, where the characters travel to different Earths that have diverged from our own as a result of different choices being made. I thought this topic would interest and provoke more interesting conversations, but it seems like we've reached a dead end.

It seems like we're going down a rabbit hole here. I'd like to circle back.

I don’t know what a realm is in context of neuroscience, but if mental events are not solely due to physical inputs, then what else do you recommend we measure and look at to better understand them? There are a number of different theories about what might be responsible for mental events. This is a question that philosophers and neuroscientists have been grappling with for centuries. Like I said, My way to think about it is that the mental realm may be emergent from the physical realm, but not reducible to it. There is no scientific consensus on whether or not the mind is emergent, only some evidence to suggest that it is. We do have some ways of measuring and looking at mental events, but none of these methods can directly measure mental events. Instead, they measure physical processes in the brain and body that are correlated with mental events. While there are a number of different theories that have been proposed. The idea that mental events are not solely due to physical inputs is a complex one, and there is no single agreed-upon explanation for why this might be the case. As it stands today, there is no way to definitively argue that something other than physical processes lead to mentation. This is a pessimistic view, but it is not entirely unfounded. This is because we do not yet fully understand how the brain works or how it produces consciousness. However, I believe that it is important to remain open to the possibility that there may be more to consciousness than just physical processes. Even if they challenge our current understanding of the mind. Moving on, I struggle to agree with you here. Why would that be unlikely? Well...We don't have any good examples of information-processing systems that are conscious. We have computers that can process information very quickly and efficiently, but they don't seem to be conscious in any meaningful way. They don't have subjective experiences, and they don't seem to be aware of themselves or their surroundings. It's not very clear how information-processing alone could give rise to consciousness. But then again, who knows.

The 'Flash' television series/ comics offer an imaginative portrayal of the multiverse, featuring a diverse range of alternate realities—Earth-2, Earth-19, and beyond—each with unique adaptations of familiar characters, altered histories, and differing physical laws. In the show, these alternate Earths are interconnected through a conceptual framework involving breaches, vibrating frequencies, and the Speed Force, enabling characters to traverse these parallel worlds. The series explores intriguing possibilities, depicting alternate versions of the same characters and events, introducing variations in their personalities, backgrounds, and interactions, thus creating a rich tapestry of parallel universes. In the realm of theoretical physics, the concept of a multiverse is a subject of theoretical discussion rather than direct observation. Various scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, string theory, and cosmological models, have proposed the existence of parallel universes. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. In string theory, the idea of a "landscape" of multiple universes emerges from the intricate configurations of extra dimensions. The alignment between 'The Flash' series and scientific theories of parallel universes lies in the exploration of diverse realities coexisting alongside our own, often driven by unique physical laws. However, discrepancies arise in the creative liberties taken by the show, such as the ease of travel between worlds and the nature of these alternate realities. Scientific models present a more complex, theoretical, and often mathematically derived understanding of multiverses, involving principles of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and string theory, where access or observation of these parallel universes remains hypothetical or in the domain of advanced theoretical physics. The question remains: to what extent can the speculative and imaginative narrative of the 'Flash' series be seen as reflecting or deviating from the more elaborate, intricate, and nuanced theoretical frameworks of multiverse models proposed in scientific discourse, considering the similarities, divergences, and complexities of the two perspectives?

Hmm, this might be confusing. You say 'the higher-level event (cognition or mentation) is not determined by the lower-level event (physical or biochemical process)'. I think it is, but not via causation, but supervenience. I do not know if my figurative language helps here: I would say that we can only speak about causation 'between peers'. A firing neuron affects another neuron. Maybe you mean that the same mental phenomenon can be based on different neural constellations. Just as text, text, text and text differ physically, but represent the same: the word 'text'. I understand your point about causation. It's true that we can only really speak about causation between events that are on the same level. For example, a firing neuron can cause another firing neuron. But the relationship between the physical and mental realms is probably more complex than that. I think it's helpful to think of the physical realm as the foundation upon which the mental realm can emerge. The physical realm provides the building blocks for the mental realm, but it doesn't directly determine it. For example, the same mental phenomenon, such as a thought or feeling, can be based on different neural constellations. Like you said, just as the word "text" can be represented by different physical patterns, so too can a mental phenomenon be represented by different neural patterns. This suggests that the mental realm is emergent, meaning that it arises from the complex interplay of physical processes. The mental realm has its own unique properties and dynamics that cannot be reduced to the physical realm. So, to answer your question directly, I do mean that the same mental phenomenon can be based on different neural constellations. This is because I believe the mental realm is emergent, and its properties are not simply determined by the physical realm. Maybe the question was asked for effect, rather than to elicit an answer. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. But, just for fun: (these views are speculative and there is no scientific consensus on any of them. However, they do provide some possible answers to the question.) Consciousness could be a fundamental property of the universe, like gravity or electromagnetism. I believe the term is panpsychism. Consciousness could be a product of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of non-local events, which could be responsible for the emergence of consciousness. Consciousness could be a product of information processing. It could be that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of information-processing systems, such as the human brain. (I know, it isn't very likely.) Consciousness could be a product of evolution. Based on the idea that consciousness evolved as a way for organisms to better understand and interact with their environment. I think it's certainly possible. snapping back to reality, I think it's right to challenge those who disagree to show what else could lead to mentation besides physical processes. If they claim that there is something else, then they should be able to identify it and explain how it works. ✌️

That is an interesting point. Yes, that could be. Maybe for consciousness to arise, it is necessary that the processes are rooted in a specific physical substrate, e.g. electromagnetism. But that doesn't deny the idea of supervenience. It surely is not the case that everywhere where electromagnetism is involved, there is also consciousness. Edited 35 minutes ago by Eise I agree that it's an intriguing notion that consciousness might require a specific physical substrate, like electromagnetism, to emerge. It's plausible that consciousness is an emergent property of certain physical systems, and electromagnetism could be one of those crucial ingredients. However, as you rightly point out, this doesn't contradict the concept of supervenience. I've come to think that mental phenomena are dependent on physical processes, but not in a straightforward, causal manner. It's not as if every instance of electromagnetism (per se) instantly sparks consciousness. Instead, consciousness arises from the interplay of physical elements, and electromagnetism might be a key player in this dance. To illustrate, consider the analogy of a computer program. The software code, which represents the program's instructions, is ultimately executed by the hardware, which includes the CPU, memory, and other physical components. Without the hardware, the software code would be inert, unable to produce any meaningful output. In the same way, consciousness might emerge from the intricate physical processes of the brain, with electromagnetism playing a crucial role in enabling these interactions. Better yet, consider the analogy of a holographic projection. A hologram, like consciousness, emerges from a complex interplay of physical elements. While the hologram itself is not present in any one individual element, it's nonetheless profoundly affected by the behavior of those elements. So, while "electromagnetism" might be a necessary condition for consciousness, it's not a sufficient condition.

Photons have no mass, but they do have energy. The energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. A wave can be defined without associating energy with it. For example, a wave can be defined as a periodic disturbance in a medium. This definition does not mention energy, but it does imply that a wave must have some form of energy in order to exist. as @MigL rightfully pointed out, this equation states that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared. This means that any object with mass must also have energy. However, not all objects with energy have mass. For example, photons have energy but no mass. This is because photons are not objects in the traditional sense. They are packets of energy that travel through space as waves. So, while a wave cannot be defined without associating energy with it, it is possible for an object to have energy without having mass.

But they are! But again you are using a vague word, 'responsible'. (you used 'driven' before, also vague). What is this 'responsible'-relationship? You say it is causation, I say it is supervenience. So my answer to your question is simple: there are no other variables. But there are different ways we can look: from the low levels like atoms, molecules, and neurons; or at the higher level of persons, (true) beliefs, actions, motivations, (free) will etc. The latter we are using in day-to-day life, the former by neurologists, biologists etc. By "responsible.", I think he meant to convey that physical and biochemical processes are the underlying mechanisms that give rise to cognition and mentation. However, I understand your point about the distinction between causation and supervenience. Would it be right for me to put it simply as: In the case of causation, one event (the physical or biochemical process) brings about another event (cognition or mentation). This is a direct, linear relationship. In the case of supervenience, one event (the physical or biochemical process) is the foundation upon which another event (cognition or mentation) exists. However, the higher-level event (cognition or mentation) is not determined by the lower-level event (physical or biochemical process). Instead, the higher-level event emerges from the lower-level event in a more complex and nuanced way. I agree that there are different ways to look at cognition and mentation. In everyday life, we tend to focus on the higher-level aspects, such as our beliefs, actions, motivations, and free will. However, neuroscientists and biologists study the lower-level aspects, such as the firing of neurons, the release of neurotransmitters, and the structure of the brain. It is likely that the answer lies somewhere between causation and supervenience.

Though what do you mean about it not being an action ? Also have you heard of reflexes and involuntary actions or the many action we carry out all the time without thinking about them at all, such as breathing and walking (can you normally feel the ground when you walk?) You are correct in pointing out that reflexes and involuntary actions are not typically considered "actions" in the sense we are discussing. These actions are triggered by physiological or external stimuli and do not involve conscious decision-making or intention. When we say that tripping over a stone is not an "action," we are drawing a distinction between actions that are deliberate and motivated by our own intentions, and those that are involuntary or caused by external factors. In the case of stumbling over a stone, our fall is not a conscious decision; it is a result of our foot hitting the stone unexpectedly. This distinction is important because it helps us to understand the role of intentionality in shaping our sense of self. When we take actions that align with our own desires and motivations, we feel more connected to ourselves and our actions. We feel a sense of ownership and agency over our behavior. However, when our actions are involuntary or caused by external factors, we may feel less connected to them. We may question whether they are truly representative of who we are as individuals. In the case of reflexes and involuntary actions, we should recognize that these actions are not necessarily indicative of our character or personality. They are simply physiological responses to stimuli or cues. As for walking, yes, most people are able to walk without consciously thinking about each step they take. This is because walking is a complex motor skill that has been ingrained through years of practice. Our brains have developed automatic neural pathways that control the intricate movements required for walking. However, this does not mean that we are not engaged in the act of walking. Our brains are constantly receiving feedback from our senses and making adjustments to our movements. We are still actively participating in the activity, even if we are not consciously thinking about it.

Even though they're weightless, they still pack energy. How does that work, right? Well, their energy doesn't come from mass but from their movement and frequency. It's like they're tiny packets of energy zooming around at the speed of light. This energy is related to how fast they're vibrating, kind of like how a fast song with a higher pitch can feel more energetic than a slower one. The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency (E = hf, where 'h' is Planck's constant and 'f' is frequency). As the frequency of a photon increases, its energy also increases. Therefore, while photons are massless, they do possess energy due to their momentum and frequency, allowing them to interact with matter and transfer their energy during various physical phenomena, such as the photoelectric effect. This might help: Light has no mass so it also has no energy according to Einstein, but how can sunlight warm the earth without energy?

Absolutely, acknowledging uncertainty is a crucial aspect of discussing complex topics like this one. While the statement might come across as definitive, it's important to recognize that our understanding of decision-making, consciousness, and the boundaries of what can truly make choices is an ongoing and evolving discussion.

As curious as I am to know the true answer, I do think it's impossible to answer this question... We've seen living beings, like animals, demonstrate behaviors that suggest they're considering different options before making a choice. This ability to make decisions is often linked to having some form of awareness or consciousness. But I get it, this conclusion might not cover everything. The idea gets tricky when we talk about non-living things. There's ongoing debate about where the line is drawn between what's alive and what's not, and for instance, whether things like machines or AI could ever truly make choices or decisions. The whole concept of what makes a choice or decision might be a lot fuzzier than we think. It's like we're still trying to figure out where consciousness starts and ends, and how that relates to making choices. This area is one big puzzle that we're still piecing together and has become a major question here...

I encountered a situation where I was unexpectedly blacklisted by the site, receiving an error message stating, "*** Forbidden. Sender blacklisted.***" This unfortunate occurrence hindered my involvement in the exchanges that I've come to value on this thread. Anyways, 'Driven'? You mean 'caused', or what? There is a subtlety here: there is no causal relationship between physical and biochemical processes and our mental phenomena. Mental phenomena supervene on these physical and biochemical processes. So yes, mental phenomena are determined, because the processes they are based on are deterministic. But they do not cause mental phenomena. Compare with a book: it is obvious that a book, without its physical existence, cannot exist. It needs paper and ink. But it does not follow that a book is 'just paper with ink' (compare your 'meat bags'). Even stronger, while it is true that books cannot exist without their physical substrate, the essence of the book is its meaningful contents. And these are not dependent on paper and ink: you can read a book on a monitor, you can have it on an ebook reader, you can even listen to it as audio book (or worse, a human reading it to you). But thinking about how to act, we also cannot do without meaning. It arises in the values that flow into my decision how to act. I would like to offer a different perspective on the relationship between physical processes and mental phenomena, diverging from the notion that mental phenomena are solely supervening on physical and biochemical processes without being directly driven by them. While I appreciate the distinction drawn between physical processes and mental phenomena, the assertion that mental phenomena do not directly arise from physical and biochemical processes overlooks the intricate connection between our physiology and our cognitive experiences. The prevailing scientific understanding underscores the significant role of physical and biochemical processes in shaping our thoughts, decisions, and conscious experiences. Neuroscientific research consistently indicates that mental activities, thoughts, and decisions correspond to specific neural activities and biochemical interactions within the brain. Contrary to the analogy of a book, where its essence is distinct from its physical existence, in the case of conscious experiences and decision-making, the essence is intricately linked to the physical processes occurring in our nervous system. These physical processes are the very substrate from which mental phenomena emerge, shaping our values, perceptions, and decisions. Acknowledging the complexity of conscious experiences does not necessitate a departure from the understanding that our mental phenomena are fundamentally driven by the underlying physical and biochemical processes in our nervous system. The emergent nature of consciousness does not imply a detachment from its physical basis; rather, it underscores the interdependence and intimate connection between the two. Unlike a book where its essence, like its meaning, can be detached from its physical form, in our conscious experiences, the essence seems to be inseparable from the physical activities in our nervous system. It's not just a case of the mind being a separate entity from our physical selves; instead, our thoughts and decisions seem to emerge from the very workings of our brains. It's not about downplaying the significance of our mental experiences, but rather recognizing that the core of our decision-making and consciousness is deeply connected to the biological and neural processes in our bodies. The idea here isn't to dismiss the meaningful content of our thoughts or experiences, but to highlight that these experiences are deeply intertwined with the biochemical and neural activities in our brains. The idea that our consciousness and the stories we tell ourselves about our decisions come after the fact is pretty intriguing. It got me thinking about how we connect with our actions and why we sometimes identify with them, and sometimes not so much. Think about it: when we act in line with our own wishes and motivations, it feels like we own those actions. But when something happens by chance, like tripping over a stone, it doesn't quite fit the bill as an action. It lacks that personal intention behind it, right? It's interesting to consider that we often identify with actions that align with our intentions and motivations. When our actions are in line with our own impulses or desires, there's a strong sense of ownership and recognition. Conversely, instances where actions are purely accidental, lacking any intention, or forced by external influences can create a disconnection from identifying those actions as our own. This brings into focus the distinction between intentional acts, chance events, and coerced actions. Stumbling over a stone, resulting in an unintentional fall, doesn't fit the mold of an action as it lacks intent. Similarly, when our actions are coerced or directed by external forces, they might not resonate with our personal motivations, leading to a lack of identification. These reflections challenge the notion of what constitutes an action and how our narratives of identification are intricately linked with our intentions and motivations. It prompts us to examine the role of intentionality and personal agency in shaping our narratives and our sense of self. The idea that our feeling of consciousness and the freedom to choose are just stories we tell ourselves after we've already made a decision is mind-boggling. It challenges the way we usually think about our actions and the role of our conscious minds in making choices.We often believe that we're in control, consciously making decisions as we go. But this take suggests that our brains might kick things into gear before we're even aware of it, almost like our decisions are made before we realize we've made them...It's like our conscious mind is playing catch-up, creating this narrative to explain what we've already done. Really does put a question mark on how much we truly control our choices and how much is shaped by processes we aren't even aware of.However, it's not all cut and dry. Even if our consciousness pieces the story together after the fact, it doesn't mean it's not important. It's like it might still have a say in how we interpret our actions, even if it doesn't call the shots on the decisions themselves. This whole concept, unfortunately, pushes us to rethink the age-old idea of free will and what it means to be in control of our actions. The idea that our sense of consciousness and freedom to choose is merely a narrative constructed after a decision has been made challenges the traditional notion of consciousness driving our choices. While I somewhat agree, I believe it's essential to maintain a balanced perspective. It's possible that our consciousness and sense of agency, while influenced by unconscious processes, still play a vital role in our decision-making. This concept raises intriguing questions about the nature of free will, prompting us to consider the interplay between our conscious experiences and the unconscious processes shaping our decisions. It poses a challenge in understanding the intricate relationship between our perceived freedom and the underlying subconscious mechanisms that influence our actions. In essence, while our consciousness might indeed construct a narrative post-decision, the full scope and influence of conscious awareness on our choices invites a deeper examination of the complexities of human decision-making and the nature of free will. I do, however, would like for somebody to address this.

Drawing from the rich history of philosophical inquiry and the ever-evolving landscape of neuroscience, the question of free will versus determinism remains a focal point of academic discussion. Building on past dialogues and incorporating the insights of modern scholars like Daniel Wegner**, what is the prevailing perspective in the field today, and how has the latest research in neuroscience and psychology advanced our comprehension of human agency and decision-making processes? How do recent findings on the neural basis of decision-making and the subconscious factors influencing choices impact the debate on whether individuals possess genuine free will or if their actions are primarily determined by external, biological, or environmental factors? ** Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Scientific Epiphenomenalism https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02536 In The Illusion of Conscious Will, Daniel Wegner writes: The experience of consciously willing an action... serves as a kind of compass, alerting the conscious mind when actions occur that are likely to be the result of one’s own agency. The experience of will is therefore an indicator, one of those gages on the control panel to which we refer as we steer. Like a compass reading, the feeling of doing tells us something about the operation of the ship. But also like a compass reading, this information must be understood as a conscious experience, a candidate for the dreaded “epiphenomenon” label. Just as compass readings do not steer the boat, conscious experiences of will do not cause human actions. This chapter examines why the conscious experience of will might exist at all. Why, if this experience of will is not the cause of action, would we even go to the trouble of having it? What good is an epiphenomenon? (2002, pp. 317–318) Wegner (2002, 2004, 2008) maintains that conscious intentions and decisions are never among the causes of corresponding actions and he uses two lines of argumentation to support his thesis. One line is based on Benjamin Libet’s influential neuroscientific work, which I discuss in section 2. The other is based on a mixed bag of findings that I discuss in section 3. Section 1 provides background, and section 4 wraps things up. --- For those unfamiliar: https://www.mentalhealthcenter.org/free-will-versus-determinism/#:~:text=In the domain,accountable for them.

Hello Paul! When lithium metal is stored, it is indeed done so under oil or an oil film. Yes, This is to prevent the metal from reacting with the air and any moisture in the air. In a school science lab, a specific type of oil is typically used for this purpose. While cooking oils like sunflower or vegetable oil could work in a pinch, mineral oil is a more common choice for lab use. Mineral oil is a clear, odorless, and relatively inert oil commonly used to protect reactive metals like lithium and sodium from air and moisture. It forms a stable layer on the surface of the metal, preventing direct contact with the surrounding environment. This helps ensure the safety of handling and storage in a laboratory setting. Happy learning!