Sisyphus

It doesn't serve you right. However, human beings are quite capable of receiving electromagnetic waves in a narrow spectrum with structures called "eyes." As for emitting, we can't help doing so if we have a temperature above absolute zero, just like anything else. It's not done on purpose, though.

The Maya calendar is not more advanced than ours. And it doesn't require any special insight to come up with, just lots of routine observation.

We'll agree that what we think is wrong? Doesn't that mean we don't think it? No. Not if by evolve you mean in the biological sense. And not really in any other sense, either. Change takes time. Well that's true, at least. We are in an era of faster global change than ever before. I won't deny that people are overconcerned with themselves, but I think you'll find that anywhere, not just in America.

I think they're doing the right thing. This would be an especially terrible time to stop doing business with Haiti, and bringing aid makes it all the better. That said, I agree with bascule. Of course, that kind of "walled off resort in desperately poor country" vacation would probably make me feel pretty awkward anyway, even if there's nothing actually unethical about it.

What happens in the video? (I'm currently on a computer that isn't mine for which youtube is blocked.)

Ok. The neighbor whose wifi we've been glomming off of for the past year or so has moved away. (Don't you look at me so judgmentally. My rationale is that at this point an open network counts as an invitation to glom, in modern wifi etiquette.) There are a few other open networks nearby, but they are all weak and unreliable. There are also dozens of locked networks. One of these belongs to friends of ours, who live down the street. They're willing to share, which would be beneficial to both of us, because we'd split the cost. HOWEVER, this signal only comes in right next to the window closest to them. We'd like to be able to extend this such that our two laptops can access the network anywhere in the apartment. Is anyone in a similar situation? What works, what doesn't, etc. The options seem to be either an antenna (though that would require physically connecting to it), or a repeater. The repeater seems the clear choice, although my cursory research has left me with questions. I understand it will be slower than directly connecting. What's not clear is whether it can connect with one specific network, or whether it will be trying to rebroadcast all 40 or so networks in range (presumably more for a better antenna than the ones in the laptops). And if so, whether that will be a problem. I guess basically I'm asking for specific products.

Even that, I think, requires support. We in modern society worry about our effect on our environment. This didn't really happen (in "modern society," at least) before roughly the mid-twentieth century. Are there older examples of what we would call "environmentalism?" I don't know. Maybe in a practical, "we shouldn't kill all the buffalo because then we'll starve" kind of way, but in an abstract, global, "moral" way? Of course, maybe we have environmentalism specifically because that "practical environmentalism" wouldn't be so obvious for us, whose possessions come from a global network of specialized labor where cause and effect are difficult to trace. I dunno.

Also, the very concept of humanitarian foreign aid is relatively modern. And "foreign aid" that doesn't consist of forcefully converting people to your supposedly superior way of life is even more recent. You think the Maya sent care packages to their more primitive neighbors?

So suppose you made a machine that did those things? I know it's not impossible, because such things already exist: us. But whether something is technically "human" is, I think, beside the point. The question is whether it's a person.

I think you need to follow your own advice. To answer your question. No, I don't believe you, for several reasons: The claim is extraordinary. The claim is poorly defined. The claim is completely unsupported. High skepticism is the rational approach to claims fitting those criteria. Also, you lack credibility. In your other claims that something extraordinary is happening, you are just describing nearsightedness, so that tells me you don't know enough yet to evaluate what you're looking at. Also, uniting relativity and Newtonian motion doesn't even make sense, since the latter is contained in the former. This tells me you are ignorant of the thing you claim to have revolutionized. I'm not picking on you. I'm just honestly explaining why I don't believe you. Not knowing about physics (or whatever) is nothing to be ashamed of - nobody is born with that knowledge. But it is important to recognize what we don't know. You'll get a much better reaction with "I don't have an explanation for this" than "I saw something weird, and it means I have a superpower!" That you might think you're seeing "the entire cosmos" (whatever that actually means) is much more believable. But you, certainly, are the one jumping to conclusions, and pretty wild ones at that. So, why don't we back up a whole lot, and you describe what you're actually seeing. And maybe then people will be able to make some sense of it.

Yup. Evolution sure can be annoying, sometimes.

We have fewer wars and "economic slumps" then we've ever had. We're also nicer to each other. That there are societies where there are consequences for rape, or for a rich person killing a poor person, is actually a very recent development, historically speaking. I am baffled that you would use the Maya as an example of a better society. From what we know of them, the Maya civilization was an oppressive theocracy that engaged in more or less continual, brutal wars of conquest, slavery, human sacrifice, etc. No concept of human rights, no apparent arts except slave labor in service to the theocracy, etc. And yes, our calendars are better than theirs. I think you're imagining an idealized past that has never been lived by anyone, ever.

For what it's worth, I found the balloon analogy very helpful when I was an "ignorant that was not completely stupid." Don't speak for everyone. I also find your quibbles pretty bizarre. It's as if you think it isn't an analogy, but that they're literally claiming the universe is a balloon covered in ants...?

The subject of this thread was a hypothetical question about what would happen to society if "god" was "proven" not to exist (or is "dead"). Continued arguments over whether this is in fact the case count as religious discussion and are not allowed on these forums.

Yeah? What does writing down all the digits have to do with "making sure it's correct?" What does any of this have to do with the rest of the thread? This is also a nonsequitor. Plants are not more primitive than animals, first of all, and so what if they were? It takes our most advanced techniques to look at the most "primitive" things of all, fundamental particles. So? So your claim is that if we don't already know everything that can possibly be known, then science is a religion?

But raisin bread has its own problems. A loaf of bread has edges. In order to expand, the parts have to move. I'm not familiar with the soap bubble analogy, but if each bubble is a "universe," it sounds way off, as if different "universes" are "next to each other" in some larger 3d space. What? The problem with any of these, really, is that they're attempting to be pictures of what the universe looks like from the outside. But there is no outside, by definition. To have any hope of really picturing it other than as an analogy, perhaps you just have to think about what it looks like from the inside. Imagine the ant's perspective, and translate that to 3d.

But you said transcendental numbers can be conceived but not created. Then you say that's the same thing. It all sounds like quibbling with words to me. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. This "comes from the universe." You can't write it down in an ordinary base system because it isn't any ratio of whole numbers. So what?

What do you mean by "conceived?" What do you mean by "object?" What do you mean by "created?" What do you mean by "the universe?" What does this have to do with the post you were replying to, or the initial post?

A spear is a particular tool, but it's also an extremely basic one. Basically combining "sharpness" with "extended reach" in the simplest way possible. It's certainly plausible to me that the LCA did something similar (and it would be surprising if there was no tool use at all), but I don't think it's far-fetched at all to imagine independent development. In fact, if the LCA didn't use spears, it would be surprising if humans and chimps didn't eventually start doing so independently, since they're both smart enough and it's so rudimentary. Also, some evidence against the LCA with spears is that in fact not all chimps do this. Only a couple of groups do. In other words, it is not an instinctive behavior. It is part of the "cultures" of those groups, and is passed on by demonstration and imitation. That such a thing would last 6 million years essentially unchanged in some groups but not others seems rather far-fetched, frankly.

No, no, no. Believing one thing in common with somebody means you have to believe everything in common. My neighbor and I agree, based on the overwhelming evidence, on which days the garbage gets picked up from the curb. In fact, he figured it out first, and told me when I moved in. He also believes aliens are trying to use mind control rays on him, and hence so do I. Because those are the rules.

I can't watch videos on the computer I'm on now. What's going on?

Oh totally. Most of my ideas are stupid, even. But I approach it from the perspective of "ok, why is this wrong," rather than immediately leaping to "makes sense to me, therefore... omg I've overturned everything! I'm an intellectual giant!" It's that bizarre lack of perspective that makes crackpottery.

I don't agree with that. It's much harder to get the whole country on board an issue than it is one state, so individual states often lead the way for others. You see that for practically every progressive issue, past and present.

Fair enough. I actually think we're pretty good in not calling people crackpots, even if we (or at least I) are thinking it. It might help to think of it as more of a verb than a noun. It's one thing to not label people and treat each idea on its own merits, but it is also a surprisingly common set of behaviors.

I agree that the number one sign, perhaps even the defining trait of the crackpot, is demonstrating a lack of understand of the thing they're trying to overturn. Also, the "persecuted martyr to dogmatism" act. Comparing oneself to Galileo, accusing people of "thinking they know everything" or following a religion, etc. Also, bringing up "they used to think the Earth was flat." Claiming that scientists you've approached have been unable to disprove your ideas, but just get "angry" instead. Asking other people to "do the math." Talking about how long you've been working on your idea, as if this lends it credibility, rather than just giving you more time to sink deeper into your own little world. Basically any mention of Tesla. Misuse of well-defined terms, particularly "energy," "dimension," etc. Use of ill-defined terminology without explanation. Assuming a common knowledge base that is in fact only shared with other crackpots. e.g. assuming it's accepted that ghosts are real and have well-defined properties.