swansont

Survival is not just a matter of luck, just as chemistry outcomes are not random. If you are stringer/faster/smarter you stand a better chance to survive most situations. With your ever-shifting description of mind, who is to say what role it had, but intelligence can be an advantage, since it affords an opportunity to work smarter, not harder.

! Moderator Note You overestimate the utility of your ”pointing” Meanwhile, we have rules that you need to follow.

It’s also true that in atomic clocks, less movement leads to better precision. The best kinds of clock try to make the atoms or ions motionless. Even though you can’t remove the movement, time would still pass if you could, since that’s not the source. And one has to be careful saying that change is the source, since correlation is not causation.

Appealing to emotion and base instincts works. Make people afraid. Give them a scapegoat. Subvert the system when you can. Lie. Lie some more. Keep repeating the lies.

We also know fusion is possible, unlike some research efforts. Similar to heavier-than-air flight - we know it can happen, but didn’t know if certain implementations would work.

There is a mix. But deterministic laws mean results are not random; some results are more likely than others, and some are not possible at all. You’re the one who keeps bringing up intent, not me. But there are still simple organisms. Complexity is favored if it improves odds of survival; if there are no complex organisms then it represents a new niche that could be exploited

All that means is CO2 did not cause the original temperature rise in those events. Not that it can’t.

Since humans aren’t going to be in the device, one could say it’s all robotics. But it’s also a hand-wave; there’s no science here.

And there are polls saying the economy sucks, too, when it doesn’t. People are responding to a narrative pushed by the media, much like “but her emails” in 2016, and the narrative you introduced here.

The earth has no intent either, but a dropped rock will fall toward it, and not in a random direction. There is more to natural phenomena than randomness.

Not just swing states, a small subset of these voters. Certainly not a “majority of Americans” as you had claimed “Of those surveyed, 2,255 were classified as “Deciders” — those who fit into one or more categories: They voted in only one of the past two presidential elections; are between ages 18 and 25; registered to vote since 2022; did not definitely plan to vote for either Biden or Trump this year; or switched their support between 2016 and 2020.” IOW, likely these are uninformed voters. “Still, most voters, regardless of party, report that the issue matters to them. Gest noted that “the vast majority don’t want to tip toward more authoritarian control,” with systems of representative or direct democracy polling far more favorably.” If that’s the vast majority, the poll was selecting a small minority. Who might have other issues affecting their vote.

Was anyone claiming that it did? Note that length also has no existence in the form of matter and energy I used to build clocks, and none of them worked that way. None of them had hands.

Do these people (esp. the first two groups) even watch debates? Fewer people watched it than watched the first debate in 2020 “the count of those who watched Thursday night's debate on TV marks a 30% decline from 2020, when more than 73 million people watched the first debate between Biden and Trump across all TV networks” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/first-debate-ratings-2024/ Earlier this year a fair fraction of people were unaware Trump had any legal issues https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/02/most-republicans-arent-aware-trumps-various-legal-issues/ A lot of people just don’t pay attention to politics, at least until the ads hit in the fall “But the pattern among Republicans is clear. At most, 45 percent of Republicans said they knew about legal issues: specifically, the documents case and his being found liable for assaulting the writer E. Jean Carroll. Only a quarter knew about the value-inflation suit, and only 4 in 10 knew about the criminal charges in Manhattan related to the hush money payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.”

To think you could have had nuclear physicists working on this, except they worked on fusion instead.

What does your model successfully predict? Show your work.

If you have a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms bumping into each other, are the resulting molecules randomly formed? You’ll get H3O2 as often as H2O?

The phrasing of the OP certainly suggests it - it’s not “should we replace Biden?” It skips past that to the position that we should (and skips examining all the reasons it would be disastrous) which is GOP propaganda. Now we have a vague mention of a poll with another bit of spin, but no link to it. It’s meant to have the left admit defeat before the battle has happened. Waste time and effort thinking about some pie-in-the-sky scenarios that aren’t going to happen, feeding the idea that some perfect candidate is out there. There never will be. Any one person’s perfect candidate is mediocre in someone else’s eyes. As the saying goes, it’s like a bus. You take the one that gets you closest to where you want to go. Don’t waste time whining about the fact that it’s not a flying taxi cab. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. If you want to defeat Trump and preserve democracy, let’s get to work. If not, get your Nazi ass away from me.

There’s a gap between “molecules bump into each other randomly” and “living matter” that you can drive a galaxy through The results of atoms and molecules bumping into each other is decidedly not random.

So not only is the mind not from the brain, it doesn’t even require life? And it existed prior to the universe? Those are rather bold claims, and not consistent with your previous definition of mind.

! Moderator Note Please comply with rule 2.7, or stop wasting our time

I think various things with Boeing have pointed out that a lack of independent oversight is not a wise path to take regarding safety. We see it in other industries but the damage there is not quite as spectacular (e.g. banking failures ruin lives, too, but not quite as dramatically)

Yes, we do interference with them in a controllable fashion. With sound, as MigL has offered; there are also examples of levitation with sound waves. We do diffraction and interference with light, and we make holograms.

And what does this have to do with this topic?

But you don’t know that it won’t work, only that it hasn’t, which is true of all research at some point.

And yet when I asked about this, you said “the numbers don't matter” If you can’t actually support your argument this is just ignorance-based ranting