John Cuthber

Good question; What odds are you offering?

Air doesn't normally reflect light. noone, perhaps you could explain what you mean. Also, it's easier if you ask one question in each thread.

The interesting thing about measurement of consciousness is that they even know when they are doing it badly. http://bja.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/6/801.long and, in order to do that, they must have a reference measurement that does it well. The fact that there are commercial monitors for it, that we can measure it in animals* and that there's even a scale for it, shows that we damned well can measure it . Trying to say otherwise is flying in the face of the evidence. And even if all these are wrong, it doesn't matter. The issue is still the subject of scientific research, so there's no way you can reasonably say it isn't. * https://web.archive.org/web/20131109230457/http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

perhaps I should ask this parrot Or a hypothetical copy of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness Or, perhaps, I could repeat the measurements and observations made about it that indicate that it is conscious. Wy? Oh yes, because I can.

I realise that, but I'd still like to hear people's answer to the question- especially from those who think that guns are their defence against a tyranical government- even if they would need very heavy weapons. So, (at the risk of repeating myself) Do people actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves?

Science can't observe anything (because it's an abstract concept)- but scientists can. Quite a lot of us scientists are able to observe consciousness. Can't you? Now I accept that I do logically have to ask that question (and I have to trust you with your answer) because I can't directly observe your consciousness. I also never directly observed an atom. Are you claiming that science can't study atoms? Also, we can experiment (and many do) with altered states of consciousness- in ourselves and (this is the important bit) in other animals. So it's simply unrealistic to say we can't study it. At root, it's a bunch of processes involving chemicals in the brain. All subject to the rules of physics. Unless, of course, you say it's not just a property of the arrangement and function of cells in the brain and that God or something has to be involved somewhere to make something conscious. In which case, the first thing you need to do is demonstrate the existence of that God or whatever it is- the "vital spark" that makes the difference between a brain and a pile of chemicals. Good luck. Just as a thought experiment- imagine that I could copy myself- every atom, molecule and electron replicated exactly in terms of its position and motion. Would that copy say he was conscious if you asked him? If not, why not? What's missing? If so then there's nothing to consciousness than a complex arrangement of molecules doing what physics tells them to.

OK, feel free to expand the definition of "guns" if you like so: Do you actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had arms, the rest of us would be slaves? That seems to be the basis of the opposition to the revocation of the 2nd amendment. and it doesn't seem to me like the way people actually behave. Incidentally, "a plague o' both your houses". OK, but surely slightly more plague on the house that... Is responsible for these guns killing children has to hide behind a centuries old bit of paper as if it was holy writ and Pretends that prohibition is the same as revocation of prohibition, their pea shooters will save them from the government's tanks, and that the 2nd amendment isn't actually an amendment. While the other house's major failing seems to be that a lot of people like guns and are unwilling to give them up and that it's difficult to change that.

Peter, You seem to have forgotten what you actually said which was "This is not a phenomenon accessible to observation. The inability of science to deal with this phenonemon is surely rather obvious. " Science is accessing it, so you are wrong. It doesn't matter if science hasn't got very far yet. You, in the meantime, have utterly failed to give a reason why science can not address it.

I'm still wondering. Do you actually believe that, if only the rich and powerful had guns, the rest of us would be slaves? That seems to be the basis of the opposition to the revocation of the 2nd amendment. and it doesn't seem to me like the way people actually behave.

While I agree with iNow's point that this is dull and repetitive, I think I ought to address the questions, partly because it's good manners (and required by the rules) but also because it's important to see the "debating" style some people employ here. Yes, you did. The bold claim you made was this "It is. " [ made in respect of my observation that I didn't think the people saying the status quo was good, were the ones whose kids hadn't been shot] And what I asked you to cite evidence for was that claim. [ the post where I tacitly asked you to cite evidence only included an external link and this phrase- "You guess wrong. It is. " a quote attributed to you. It is difficult to see how it could have been unclear what I was asking you to cite evidence for] I can't see how that wasn't clear to you from the context. I am sure others will come to their own conclusions as to whether it was genuinely unclear in the thread; you are not able to understand it; or you are being deliberately obtuse. And, perhaps you would like to cite the evidence that shows that my guess was wrong; and that the people whose kids got shot support the current state of affairs with rather limited gun control and an apparently unending stream of dead children. Maybe they do- I never claimed to be sure of it- just that it seem likely to me that those whose children died might want to prevent that tragedy happening to others. But- you said I was wrong. Presumably, you can show that to be the case. All you have to do is show that I was wrong to believe that those people who don't support increased gun control are not those people whose children were shot. I still think the ones with dead kids are likely to support gun control over the status quo.

What do you mean by the bit in quote marks? Nobody said it, so it's not a quote.

That's not just obviously wrong but insulting. What do you think I can't visualise because I have no religion? Now, if the best you can do when presented with the facts is to insult people, perhaps you should stop posting until you have grown up a bit.

How else could you teach it? One thingy does this, some other thingy does that and a third thingy does the other? You need names for the bits.

The point remains; the increase in oxygen due to fusion will be about a million times smaller than the drop due to getting the equivalent energy from fossil fuels. What we really need to do is stop wasting energy and to focus on renewables.

OK, for a start, it has taken centuries of industrialisation to produce the changes- even if we assume it's all in the last hundred years that means we have a hundred million years before the effect is as big as the (practically immeasurable) drop in oxygen level. In a hundred million years we will have evolved to roughly the same extent that we have since the dawn of the mammals. If the effect caries on for another ten billion years it will be unimportant compared to the fact that the sun will have gone out. The reason I ignore it is nothing to do with the lifetime of a human, it's a log time compared to the lifetime of a species and even a star. Did you realise that when you posted?

You made a bold claim; I asked you to cite evidence. That's what is expected of people here on this site. Did you think you were exempt? re "The other thread verified my claim, in detail. Nailed it down to specific States and specific dates and specific times. Completely and clearly and obviously and unquestionably proved it." Yes, that thread did cite the times and places where the amendments were made. You seem to have forgotten that your (rather strange) claim was that the 2nd amendment was not an amendment. Anyway, leave that discussion in the other thread. And you are right that there are elements of this "Gun control advocacy is overshadowed in public by an entire faction devoted to irrationality, illogical claims, denial of reality, bogus statistics, invalid arguments, exaggerations of danger, appeals to emotion, authoritarian threats, the entire panoply of extremist political efforts they ascribe - accurately - to the gun rights fanatics." on both sides. But the side that is responsible for the continued death toll is also the one that has to pretend that the amendment isn't an amendment. So I think it is pretty clear which side is the logical one. ​Why are you on the other? And, if you find my use of language problematic in some way, perhaps you should seek clarification rather than trying to put words in my mouth. That way you may avoid silly things like the idea that repeating the revocation of prohibition is repeating prohibition.

I can say that. I did so.

In very broad terms nuclear reactions are about a million times more energetic than chemical ones. So, to get a given amount of energy, you need roughly a million times fewer atoms to fuse than you would need to burn if you were getting that energy from a chemical reaction like a fire. Burning fossil fuels does remove oxygen from the air- but the cumulative effect over the centuries has been small. It is of the order of the hundred parts per million or so of CO2 that has been added. Since the concentration in air is about 21% the loss of 100 PPM is practically immeasurable. The production of "spare" Oxygen from splitting water and fusing the deuterium would be about a million times smaller. It's not a problem.

Guess again. In all of us science precedes religion. Science is the embodiment of the natural curiosity that all humans (and most animals) have. You don't need to learn science; you are born with it. Every child playing with blocks is doing science- they are doing things, observing the outcome,and modifying their experiments, based on those outcomes. In the same way, humanity was doing science before it invented religion. You don't experiment on the best type of cave to live in on the basis of your guesswork about an afterlife or the existence of a creator. We had science and technology first.

Obvious, but wrong. Here's one of many counter examples. http://www.livescience.com/47096-theories-seek-to-explain-consciousness.html

Why not simply use less propellant? Or, given the way the OP is phrased, simply not have an opening at the end of the barrel?

You need a citation for the observation that it's the children of gun owners who are primarily shooting themselves and each other by accident? That it's the communities with lots of gun nuts and loose regulation whose children are most at risk? No I don't. I did not make that observation. There are two problems there. The first is that what I actually said was "I guess it isn't their kids who are dead." And I don't need to cite a source for what is clearly my own guess. (BTW, that makes it clear that you are wrong) And, what I guessed was not what you are claiming I guessed.You said "So the question of why they appear to favor the status quo, which does not have these things they favor, is a key question to answer. " In short, why do people favour the status quo. My reply was "I guess it isn't their kids who are dead." Now, unless you can show that those whose kids are dead favour the status quo, you haven't a valid point. It's a bit like your claim that "Amendments were made. They have given rise to problems. Times have changed. One of the amendments has been revoked. And I pointed out an ongoing fact: The other might be revoked in the future." was invalid. That claim of yours wasn't true (there's another thread about it). Is there a theme here? You seem to have to keep saying things that are simply not true in order to bolster your position. Did you consider changing your position in order to maintain integrity?

The consensus here is not about whether the stuff goes away. The consensus is that it is fraudulent to use non-organic pesticides and then claim that the produce is organic. Not least because the wildlife that you killed with those pesticides don't come back by magic just because the poison is not there. Do you really not understand that?

http://xkcd.com/285/

You seem to have missed something. At best, you must mean "science (the natural kind) cannot explain consciousness" yet. And, as others have pointed out , you may be simply wrong about it anyway.