swansont

You should ask for your money back I think Luc needs to decide if they’re going to present a scientific argument, a philosophical one or a mystical one, make an actual argument and provide answers. Starting with: if the mind is not located in the brain, where is it located? The big toe? I think you need to look up “silenced” in a dictionary.

A false dichotomy and a strawman. And now you’re begging the question. The strategy is only dishonest if they’re hiding something, which you are assuming. This does raise the question of why they’d agree to a debate (and a debate before the convention) if they were hiding anything.

But what you propose is not science. You said it yourself - what you’re discussing is not science. It’s not particularly coherent, either.

No, that’s one take being offered up by spin doctors, people asserting opinion as if it were fact, and/or people hoping to sabotage the democrats.

Mixing metaphors like a banshee

No, there is very little chance of that. A new candidate will have less support and no election infrastructure (unless it’s Harris). Less name recognition, no federal-level accomplishments to point to, a new set of personal priorities and new skeletons to uncover. It’s a fantasy that some candidate will step in and be instantly widely popular. They will have their detractors, and at the very least the media will latch on to some issue and it’s “but her emails” all over again. Because they’ve been doing this for quite a while. The candidate that you love will be a turn-off to some fraction of the electorate, and others will be lukewarm. It’s not like the voters are some monolithic group. If there was anyone even close to being popular enough we’d know about them and they might have had this discussion a year ago when it could have worked.

What results do you get from using a search engine?

! Moderator Note Your previous thread on mesotron was shut down for a lack of science. You were told not to bring it up again. You can peddle your pet theory somewhere else. The standard, thankfully, is not whether you understand it.

Of course, subpoenas don’t have to be honored, according to GOP precedent.

The WH was working on legislation involving Parkinson’s; visiting the WH does not mean seeing the president. Lots of people work there, and Biden wasn’t even in DC for some of the visits. I guess it’s only irresponsible to diagnose Trump without actually examining him. Yes, but at some point you have to recognize that infighting is destructive, and you’re just amplifying GOP/Russian talking points.

You might notice that, despite Trump’s cognitive issues, the fact that he’s a convicted felon, a rapist (and with credible accusations beyond what was found in a court of law) his corruption, and several more issues, the GOP is united behind him. A pity that democrats can’t do the same for Biden. But then, most of the narrative isn’t starting with democrats Back when there was some republican infighting, Biden took advantage . Pretty good for the doddering, drooling idiot some have depicted him as. Trump had a trifecta and never passed infrastructure legislation

Why share it if you aren’t defending it? It advocated for anything capable of recording information as having intelligence.. Surely more is required, if we conclude that wax is not intelligent.

What the report finds is that Biden held on to 94% of the people who said they would support him before the debate. For Trump, 86% of people who said they would support him before the debate said they would do so after the debate. “What we see is that there is some churn –– maybe 10 percent or so of people change what they answer –– but that the net result is not a movement away from Biden,” Lazer says. “If anything, it seems that Biden is holding on to his people somewhat better than Trump.” https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/07/09/biden-debate-performance-voter-preferences/ It would seem that Trump’s performance hurt him slightly more, but you wouldn’t know that if you heard certain discussions.

Being a prerequisite is a very different claim. But your source was basically asserting that the wax is intelligent.

So you want answers but don’t want to do any of the legwork I don’t think anyone here is an energy expert. But people have basic understanding of science, and what we can do is think, look up information, and assess credibility of that information.

That presupposes that storing/copying information is intelligent behavior. A bit of wax will store information of anything that makes an impression. Is wax intelligent? If yes, as I’ve argued before, you’ve diluted the meaning of intelligence to a point where it’s meaningless. Everything is intelligent. Nothing new is known. Science has not advanced at all.

If you say “we’re going to lose” it suggests you are a potential voter. If you aren’t, (let’s say you were posting from another country) that would be bad faith misrepresentation. Nothing ad-hom about it. It’s like the media coverage, going for clicks instead of reporting actual news. People pretending to be democrats but really trying to divide the voters, hoping to reduce support.

It could, in that it is not impossible, but it’s not a practical solution. Can you think of (and post) the pros and cons, or do you think that just SHOUTING is going to convince anybody? There are reasons we stopped using wood to fuel steam engines to power trains. The limitations of that mode still exist. Can you think of some? Practical implies you’ve done some sort of analysis to show how the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, but you’ve not shared this information. There are reasons we went away from animals, too.

That’s not what I asked.

Biden was attending a NATO meeting this week. Trump is the one who hadn’t been seen in public for 10 days until his rally at his golf course. Can you stop peddling propaganda? We? Did you answer my question about whether you are able to vote in the US?

And coal has a 50% higher energy density than wood, which is a reason it was adopted. You can’t be serious, suggesting we use wood for aviation.

No credible discussion of the topic would refer to the center of the BB.

I skipped this one earlier. US residential electricity bills have been basically flat for the last decade, when adjusted for inflation. (There has been a couple percent decline over that span) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61903 That would include any increased usage from having to run the AC more. Almost all US new planned generation is carbon-free https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2024/04/11/the-next-phase-of-electricity-decarbonization-planned-power-capacity-is-nearly-all-zero-carbon/ None of this happened overnight, nor are zero-carbon goals going to be met tomorrow, but there was no reasonable expectation that it would be. We’re in the middle of an energy revolution. Technology isn’t the problem. Though soggy panties might be clouding the judgement of some. Impediments are political, so solving that problem means voting for people who will work toward solutions rather than against them.

But the redshift is pretty much isotropic, as is the CMBR. There’s no evidence I’m aware of that would lead to abandoning the idea that the universe is isotropic, nor a mechanism that would lead to that situation.

Neutrinos are not “the basic units of materialized energy” and there isn’t a pathway for neutrinos to form atoms. They don’t interact in ways that would allow that.