swansont

It’s not like war has been eliminated from the equation, nor slavery (if we’re comparing recent times to the middle ages, the 1800s are recent times)

No

Anyone can raise an issue of modifying the rules — we have a section for suggestions. What’s not proper is breaking the rules and then pleading that you shouldn’t be bound by them for the reason that your ramblings are some new revelatory truth. We get this a lot. To quote the judge from “My Cousin Vinny” I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it. Go develop your idea and you can present it when it’s compliant with the rules.

Once again, that’s between you and the United States, i.e. the government. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png (BTW, grabbing an argument from a chatbot AI isn’t going to help your case)

This is bullshit. The first amendment protects you from censorship or sanctions by the government. We aren’t a government entity. And the issue isn’t anonymity. If you wanted to be anonymous all you had to do was post the salient material (as required by the rules anyway) and not link to the paper that had your name on it. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a serious issue. Rule 2.12 on posting in good faith includes misrepresentation, and you posted as if you were inquiring about someone else’s paper in a mainstream forum rather than posting in speculations as you should have. For that reason you avoided having to defend the argument because it was thought not to be yours.

There’s no one path or formula for discovery. But in the context if this thread, one response is: not here. The kind of wild, unsupported conjecture you started putting forth a few weeks back is not within the scope of our rules. You are not the first, nor likely the last, to get vocal about not liking that the rules apply to you. We aren’t compelled to accommodate you. There are sites that don’t tolerate any against-the-mainstream discussion at all. Here were permit it as long as it’s at a point where one can (at least in principle) compare it to experiment and/or existing models. As the mods often tell people who start soapboxing: this isn’t your blog. We’re not set up for more chaotic discussion, or a firehose of crackpot ramblings, and we want to be able to exert leverage on people to get them to respond to inquiry with a handful of volunteer moderators. So we have a line, and your posts were on the wrong side of it.

Prajna has been suspended for violating the rule about requiring people to click links in order to participate after they had acknowledged that it’s a rules violation

Ok. Your choice. Din’t bring the topic up again.

The latter would not have offered such a poor definition. My PhD in physics is an even better friend in this case. 11 years of school studying physics and ~32 years of employment in the field and it never came up as a topic. Citation needed “first ones offered”? What does string theory have to do with anything? What would it have looked like to people if it had been that way? That’s something to blame on organized religion and possibly politics, not science You don’t list any of these problems, and relativity is tested in new ways fairly often.

And I was clarifying the kind of faith you exhibited. Being an atheist is completely beside the point. People were “sure” about a lot of technologies. The list of “next big thing/can’t miss” things is pretty long. Feel free to respond using your Google Glass while riding your Segway and thinking about the Metaverse. No technology is guaranteed to succeed, and AI was made public far too early IMO. The public is beta-testing it, which isn’t how beta-testing used to work.

For someone who purports to have developed a ToE, you sure have lousy reading comprehension. I even bolded the relevant parts of the rule you were violating, and “advertising” wasn’t it. Post the material here, or don’t post about it. Those are your only two options.

Moderator NoteYou tried this earlier and it was moved to the trash. Rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no). I bolded the sections that apply here I think that’s a non-starter

I suspect there are those who disagree, but if that’s your position then we’re done here.

The problem with this claim is there’s no way to verify if it’s you gaining knowledge or just copy-pasting things. The incredulity comes from people who have actually gone to university and know how hard it is to actually truly learn these concepts, and just reading some text on a screen doesn’t lead you there. In a university setting you could take a test, but here if you were asked such questions there’s no way to be sure if the answer is coming from you or from something you looked up.

We have done so. Some members have had the privilege removed. I suspect it was because of the difficulty reconciling what you posted (e.g mentioning band structure and phonons) with “I’m a 10th-grade student, and I’ve only studied basic physics from NCERT so far — Newton’s laws, gravitation, sound, and motion.” when phonons and band structure aren’t part of those subjects.

Moderator NoteRule 2.7 says, in part, Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. IOW, referring to linked pictures doesn’t cut it. Do you have a credible reference for this? (here you can post a link, since it’s for background information) I thought R/G color blindness was due to missing or damaged cone cells

Accurately predicting the future of technology is notoriously difficult. All you can truly predict is that, barring some catastrophe, we will have improved our capabilities. Advances in capabilities often reveal new obstacles that need to be overcome

<sigh> I’ve bolded the parts that apply Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted. Documents must also be accompanied by a summary, at minimum. Owing to security concerns, documents must be in a format not as vulnerable to security issues (PDF yes, microsoft word or rich text format, no). IOW, telling us to go read the logs violates this rule.

Right. But the details of what specific pathogens were involved matters only a little; the important thing in regard to the OP’s inquiry is that there wasn’t much in the way of treatment or prevention Don’t anthropomorphize nature. She hates that. Healthy doesn’t enter into this equation. Evolution is not “looking out” for any species. Every disease or malady we’ve suffered from throughout most of human history is a product of evolution (the only possible exceptions being very recent)

Some have become less potent, and some have all but disappeared, but new ones pop up.

But if that’s part of the protocol, then it’s not breaking protocol to do the very thing you described. Maybe you could read the rules so I don’t have to keep covering the same ground. Specifically 2.7 https://scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Can you be sure the original programming doesn’t include anything that makes it agree with you to keep you engaged? Aren’t you just assuming the logic pathways have been altered? Shouldn’t any testable hypothesis have to exclude such alternate explanations?

If you read these threads you’ll see some strong words about the AI, which doesn’t know what they mean, but uses them because it’s parroting what others say.

That’s unfair. Wheeler has hundreds of thousands of followers, and has sold books, so there are a lot of people who have simply bought into the nonsense.

A claim you can’t actually make as anything more than based on (religious-type) faith. More faith; two items of the same density don’t require the same composition. consciousness or conscientiousness? What does that even mean? .