swansont

! Moderator Note The definition being used in this thread (as posted by the thread originator) “my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.”

So you need a threat of war, which violates the dichotomy that was presented.

! Moderator Note And this is one of the reasons we have a rule (2.13) prohibiting the use of chatbots as a basis for discussion. You might be basing your proposal on a hallucination. It’s not up to others to sort through it and figure out what’s right and what’s crap. It requires this to be moved to speculations Posting a wall-of-text is also bad form

Does diplomacy work with sociopaths? If diplomacy is so powerful, why didn’t Putin use it? Diplomacy is give-and-take, but the pattern with Putin, Trump, et al. seems to be “Give me what I want, or else”

Trump has been trying to shake down Ukraine, and this was not the first time. It’s ludicrous to think there was anything Zelenskyy could do that would garner Trump’s support, since Trump is a Russian stooge.

Poland has “Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk voiced supported (sic) for Ukraine following the dispute between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb. 28.” https://kyivindependent.com/polish-pm-tusk-voices-support-for-ukraine-amid-zelensky-trump-clash/

I don’t know; I didn’t use that phrase (except to quote it), Ant Sinclair did. You should ask them. “Quantum” didn’t show up until a comment by MigL, and quantum consciousness followed after (>25 posts in), so I don’t think there’s a legit argument to be made that it was part of the OP. And I’m pretty sure that both quantum fields and consciousness are a matter of scientific discussion, and also that you’ve presented a false dichotomy here. Is your little tantrum over yet?

! Moderator Note Those are statements of a factual nature, which need to be supported before this continues “rising rapidly” is vague; it’s a number that can be quantified. Details matter.

We’re not in the original thread, are we? It was split because of the discussion of different topics. I mentioned human as a contrast to tree consciousness that you brought up, and why we need a definition.

In addition to the requested agenda, please define “woke” Stated without evidence (which should happen in a different thread) Both sides fallacy, strawman, and also, no evidence. (also arguably off-topic)

It’s IT if how they do it is under discussion. But it’s not.

True. You could substitute a handful of other animals, but since this is a discussion involving humans, it reduces a variable. (we know we are self-aware and can make decisions, for example)

You can look at it solely from electrostatics and relativity, as Markus has detailed.

You’re wrong. It’s better not to speculate about others’ motivations; it really says more about you. I split the thread because quantum fields was not part of the OP, and neither was consciousness, but “invisible spirit” was As far as science being brought in, well, this split was to determine if there’s any science involved, rather than just some word salad. Yes. Neither if those is a human, and neither is a plant. Indeed. Which means even under a simple definition of consciousness as awareness, not all is equal. Since you’ve conceded my point, I guess we’re done?

But you claimed that it wasn’t particularly uncommon. And gave no details about the one I asked about. So you don’t have anything to support the claim. Got it. You made a claim. You own the burden of proof.

What happens to two parallel wires with current flow?

No, it’s a rights issue. Nobody else was discussing IT issues here. (and Telegram doesn’t have end-to-end encryption on by default, so unless someon establishes that it was being used, this is all moot. So you have your answer: it’s a matter of law, not of enumerated rights. (similar to the situation in the US, as well)

If you’re going to claim that it’s uncommon, citing an uncommon event doesn’t support your claim. You should also be specific. What provisions were “set aside”? (as opposed to eroded)

It’s not about what I’d like. It’s about having a definition so the thread can have a definition to point to, rather than the chaos that arises when people use different ones, resulting in discussions equating unequal things, like plant consciousness with human consciousness

Makes sense. State & local includes 3.8 million public school teachers https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/clr/public-school-teachers

This says ~ 2 million civilians with ~3.7 million contractors. (The fed workforce hasn’t changed all that much since the mid-90s, unless you include the temp worker spike every 10 years to do the census, even as the population has grown. Graph in first usafacts link) https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commentary/2023/05/opening-up-federal-contracting-jobs-for-more-americans/ This says ~ 3 million https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-work-for-the-federal-government/ And another 2.8 million in the military, if you include civilian support, national guard and reservists. (~2 million military, 800k civilians as of September 2023. ~1.3 million active-duty troops) https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-people-are-in-the-us-military-a-demographic-overview/

Is god really George Costanza?

! Moderator Note You’ve already opened two threads related to this; we don’t need more. And if it’s just an excuse to post links to advertise some site, you will be banned as a spammer.

! Moderator Note From rule 2.7: Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. From 2.12 (emphasis added) Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

So it’s not new, as you claimed