swansont

That's not how this works. You can't show up, stir up shit, and then tell someone else to do the analysis. It's more nuanced than that, but the main point here is that the rules say "Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone."

I’m skeptical. I think nothing actually changes, from a scientific standpoint.

If truth contradicted itself it would not be true. True statements are true seems like a tautology.

US gas prices are quite a bit lower than they were ~10-12 years ago, adjusted for inflation, when they were around $5 a gallon https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1238-may-16-2022-average-nationwide-monthly-gasoline-price-was-highest There was a dip in 2020 when nobody was driving because of COVID lockdowns Currently about $3.50 per gallon for regular according to https://gasprices.aaa.com Energy is always a limited respurce Always going to be the case Always going to be true. You mentioned a crisis. Do you have an analysis to back this up? I’ve seen calculations about how much area would be needed for solar to provide all our electricity, and it’s not all that big. Yes, unicorns don’t exist, either. That’s not an energy problem, as such. That’s a perception problem. Maybe we could have more analysis and less fear mongering?

! Moderator Note You need to post the discussion points. Just posting a video is insufficient. Stop being lazy and actually make your point, in writing.

It’s Pavlov. You take some description and repeatedly equate it with bad, evil things, so you get the response just by dropping the word. Liberal. Socialist. Communist. CRT. DEI. Woke. Odds are excellent that the ones salivating can’t define the terms. They just “know” it’s something bad.

The notion that electrons are not identical has experimental ramifications; the Pauli Exclusion principle is based on them being identical. Atoms would not work as we know they do if electrons were distinguishable. Other parts of this are philosophy, like interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you want to think that electrons going through a double slit are thinking about what to do but still follow the rules of QM you can do that, but make no mistake, there’s no science in it. For it to be science you’d have to be able to quantitatively predict some result, and something better than (or not covered by) existing science. So, as I said, it’s philosophy, and to my mind, a rather useless implementation of it. It’s Oprah-Winfrey-ism. “You get consciousness! And you get consciousness!” and an illusion of progress while nothing at all is different with actual understanding.

! Moderator Note There is no need to SHOUT and iNow’s critique is spot-on. Do better. Is that what they said? You need to be far more specific about what you think the problem(s) is/are.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted.

Daniel Dux has been banned as a sockpuppet of Engr.Daniel Grossman and Astrogeomanity

! Moderator Note If you developed this, you must be Daniel Grossman, who has been banned. Bye.

Repeating it doesn’t make it true. We can study how much pain someone is in and effectiveness of drugs, even though it’s subjective. As TheVat notes, we have language.

Was it pure lead? It could have been an alloy; AFAICT adding a little copper, tin or antimony makes it harder and you don’t generally find pure lead in nature.

Yes, it does. Science requires objective results and rigor (falsifiability, repeatability, etc.) If you think there is something non materialistic going on, you’re doing religion. You can study it in a measurable, objective way, too. I responded to something I quoted (“humans are not special, consciousness might be”) so your confusion is…confusing. If everything is conscious, then consciousness is ordinary. Not special. Nope. Creationism is religion, not science. I have no interest in diving into this quagmire. It doesn’t belong in a science discussion.

No the point is that labels don’t matter; they don’t change how things work, or look. You can’t study consciousness? If I Googled for scientific studies of consciousness, I would find nothing? Surely you jest. If everything is conscious, then no, it is not. That was a point I made not long ago. The parts are not interacting? How does it stay intact? If atoms are conscious, how can a table not be? The same interactions are present. What is the “clear unity of purpose” that a plant has? What is its goal? Again, these sound like creationist talking points.

How did we get from “everything is made of neutrinos” to the Big Bang?

The whole “we don’t know where the mind resides” narrative reminds me of discussion of ufo/aliens, where “it’s unidentified” is erroneously equated to “it’s aliens” and creationism, where “we don’t definitively know how life arose” is erroneously equated to “goddidit” It’s a bad script to follow.

Yes, and AFAICT it’s completely unaffected by the label you hang on it. If I call a rose a floofernurg, what actually changes about the biology or the aesthetics? Nope. You’ve not shown that anything changes. Much like being able to say you’re rich. There’s a psychological shift. Not a scientific one. There’s a bias that occurs because of the view that humans are special, but that’s driven by religion and perhaps philosophy (the article touches on this) so that spilled over into biology (scientists are human, after all). There are people who insist that humans aren’t animals, but that’s not driven by science. Purpose would be your burden to show, but I don’t see how expanding the scope of what is considered conscious gets you there. As the article points out, you have a tough job explaining why some things are conscious and others are not. Like a lot of biology, that demarcation is going to be fuzzy and shifting that line doesn’t eliminate the problem, but likely makes it harder. e.g. an atom is conscious, but certain collections of them are not.

Yes, the wealthy are always held accountable for their transgressions. </sarcasm>

The Coulomb barrier is given by U= kQq/r^2 Having 6x the charge means the barrier is 6x higher (It’s also wider, which would affect tunneling) so the naive solution would be that you need 6x the KE, but there are also momentum considerations since the masses are quite different. But it will be of order a few MeV

You still have the problem. All you’ve done is redefine things. It’s like Syndrome says in The Incredibles - when everyone is super, nobody is. It would be like redefining “rich” to mean having at least $1000, and then giving everyone $1000. Nothing really is changed all that much, and there’s a huge disparity in wealth because billionaires still exist. But hey, we’re all rich. Saying everything is conscious is a semantics issue. It doesn’t really address any science. You don’t know any more than you did before. You still have to figure out why there are different levels of consciousness, and why, unless you think humans and other animals are just exhibiting stimulus/response behavior, in which case we’re done. Problem solved. And you’re going to have the issue of having to accept and defend inanimate objects being conscious when they fit into this suddenly very broad definition.

Yes, we’ve known this for quite some time.

I’ve only seen it in terms of atomic de-excitation and tunneling

Has that ever been observed in nuclear decay?

Ah, so that’s the strawman you’re “dismantling”