zapatos

Using Trump as a measure of success is not setting the bar very high.

We want to discuss something. Phi's question is a good place to start.

I thought you said 'unification', not 'conquest'.

What does "unification" mean? If it means making one country called "Amer-ada" then no, it will never happen, and will not be supported by any Canadian politician who actually wishes to be elected to office.

I suspect that the reason you see bias is because you have a bias toward 'Simulation Theory' and it doesn't get equal time with ideas such as String Theory. Similarly, if I think Trump can do no wrong (i.e. I am biased toward him), then I will tend to feel there is a bias in the press against him, and that people are suddenly demanding to see evidence that he really is doing a good thing for this country. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but it could explain why this bugs you so much.

Are you really that obtuse or just incapable of conceding a point?

Right over your head...

I was simply pointing out that when you said "printing was more effective (than language)" you seem to have missed the fact that what they were printing was LANGUAGE. 'Printing', like computer screens, radio, vocals, and talking books, is just a method for disseminating the 'language'. It might make sense to say 'printing' was more effective than radio or vocals, but 'printing' is not an either/or comparison with 'language'. That's like saying "roasting" is more effective than 'food'.

Language does not imply "spoken". Surely if you are printing something available to all you are talking about printing language rather than printing pictures.

"a mechanical or electrical device for measuring time, indicating hours, minutes, and sometimes seconds, typically by hands on a round dial or by displayed figures."

Not really. The BB was not an event that started and ended 13.8 billion years ago.

It isn't. Unless you ask questions, how will you ever discover anything? Intelligent Design proponents have been looking for a line from the beginning and they always find one, whether it is in the awe inspiring beauty of the universe, or the complexity of the eye. Unfortunately for them, when examined with a critical eye, the line always fails the test. No 'line' ever proposed by ID proponents has stood up to scientific scrutiny. The reason you get somewhat hostile reactions here is because the ID proponents generally start with the solution (God exists) and then piece together some bits of data to make the solution appear true, glossing over the weak spots as they go. Correct, there is evidence that laptops were designed. That is a line showing human intelligence, not supernatural intelligence.

Similarly, just because brain waves continue during wake doesn't mean our consciousness continues, and for all we know we die and are replaced by a copy continuously. The conjecture seems silly either way.

There is NO evolution if length does not exit. Therefore length drives evolution. And while we are at it, width drives radioactive decay, and depth drives fermentation.

Sure, I'll acknowledge that.

Thanks. I was having a hard time coming up with a response.

You really want to use this thread to discuss whether life begins at conception? A woman's right to choose? Whether or not a "right to privacy" actually exists in the Constitution? Societal norms across countries? When the fetus becomes a 'person'?

The question of abortion involves much more than consciousness and thus is likely off topic.

Yes, then we had a lengthy discussion on the aesthetics of art.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm pretty sure she has consciousness now though.

I have a brand new grand daughter. I don't think she can anticipate anything at all about the future.

What would you like to know about time?

Yes, I would agree that "cause" is an appropriate term. "Motivator" implies some sort of organism is involved.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Are you saying that gravity is equivalent to "drive" or "motivation"?