Phi for All

Possibly because you are difficult to understand. Your response to my question failed to help me gain clarity. Of the two that I've asked, which question of mine do you feel was "rhetoric question"? "How about longueur télomères & double DNA?" is actually not a very good question, since it's so vague and general. It's certainly a bad answer to either of the questions I've asked. "Even excellent scientists cannot respond" seems overly generalized and meaningless. Have you spoken to all of them? Could some of them have had trouble understanding your English? No offense, please, but keeping an open mind is very important when discussing science. Be careful of the conclusions you jump to.

But you joined 25 hours ago, so now you can post as much as you want. Evidence in support of this hypothesis: this is your 6th post.

Your links detail dating processes, but you haven't established that your claims of immortality are related to them, so nobody is dodging anything except you. You need to take this step by step and stop leaping to conclusions. Are you asking questions, or are you trying to tell us about an explanation you've made up? Think carefully, and since you've reached your first day 5 post limit (to avoid spammers), we can take this up again tomorrow.

Repeating this doesn't make it true. It does give you an excellent opportunity to learn something you didn't know before that may help you understand this area of science better. Yay for you!

Do you have a link to where you got this information? I didn't find it on the Wikipedia article on the Rh blood group system.

I respect life on all levels, and to me that means avoiding unnecessary killing. Insects can pose specific problems, and I'd have no qualms fumigating or getting rid of true pests, but if there's no need to kill those bugs, I don't do it. I especially wouldn't kill something to impress a person. That seems like animal behavior, something I try to rise above. I remember doing dumb things to impress women, but eventually I learned to appreciate the ones who liked learning about bugs rather than the ones who wanted me to kill them. I'm living right now with several bull snakes on the property. They're fascinating creatures, and we rarely see them when we're outside, but occasionally one gets startled and goes on defense. It hasn't happened to me yet, and it will probably scare the wee out of me (they emulate a rattlesnake when threatened, making their head flatter and hissing like a rattle). I'm OK with the occasional scare, but if one of them actually bites (non-venomous), he's going to be relocated with airborne prejudice. There's a park behind me that could use an aggressive snake. I don't hunt. I haven't fished for decades, and I NEVER fished catch-and-release. I killed and ate the fish instead. For anyone who thinks the bugs they step on don't matter, I highly recommend David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet. It's his witness statement to the effect that biodiversity is what makes the Earth so unique and valuable, and anything you're doing to harm that is a crime.

I looked, and you're wrong, so this is a bad basis for your hypothesis. All electrons and positrons are identical. Many plants actually make clones of themselves (strawberries and potatoes are two of them). Many natural events and processes happen over and over the same way. They seem different because nature is always building on what is already there. Nature doesn't have to start from scratch every time. "You humans"? Did I choose the wrong thread?

Again, in the context of "set of possible people allowed by our DNA" vs "set of actual people", you're wrong. Again, that's not analogous to the situation in context.

! Moderator Note This is NOT the philosophy section. If you can't help, don't post.

Spurred forward? Or merely allowed to continue as long as the nod to god was given?

Discussing problems in science is what we do, but we do it carefully, with as little guesswork as possible. We like to make sure the statements and assertions we make are trustworthy, and based on what we can actually observe. Your approach is to guess at what you think a solution might be, based usually on misunderstandings of mainstream science. When we try to point these mistakes out, you claim it's because of prejudice or politics, but it's really just that you don't understand what you're talking about to the degree necessary for what you're attempting to explain. You're fooling yourself here, and we don't want to be party to it. You don't have a theory (the fact that you say this shows you don't understand what a theory is). Your idea can't cover what a ToE needs to, because you yourself don't understand current models and theories. If you did, you wouldn't be trying to remake them based on your limited studies. You're quite firmly in the group of folks who didn't study science much in school, but now that you've read some popular science on the internet (which is ALWAYS claiming science has been broken/overthrown/baffled), you think you know the answers. And you've probably justified this amazing ability as reasonable because you aren't hampered by all that hidebound book-learning that scientists wasted their time on. YOU are different. YOU, and YOU alone, have a highly honed, intuitive ability to sense when things aren't right. You can take one look at an explanation, and if you don't immediately understand it, you can instead think creatively around it and come up with an alternative that nobody else sees. It's a shame, because you're obviously smart (you can't even talk about science at the discussion forum level without being smart). You obviously are attracted to science as well. I just wish you'd give the mainstream, collected knowledge of your species more of a chance. Humans are really quite smart about learning since we discovered the best methodologies, and we'd love for you to join us.

! Moderator Note The links to said sources aren't showing up properly.

Anand_Haqq has been suspended for 3 days for continued soapboxing after being warned. This is a discussion forum. It's more like conversing with each other around a table. Stop jumping on top of it and preaching at us, please.

In this statement, you're equating true/false with good/bad, and I think that's a mistake. There are instances when something "false" can also be "good". It may seem bad or false for a child to lie, but lying also shows the child is thinking ahead, predicting a better future by changing their present strategy. It's a positive cognitive sign, but we tend to think of it negatively. There is much suffering, true, but "generally bad for conscious beings" is not how most people define existence. Yours seems to be an extreme POV, and not representative "generally" I think you have this backwards. Adversity happens, but life is generally considered a good thing, and even with the occasional bout of suffering there is much to celebrate. There are certainly individuals with different experiences, and whole countries where conditions are far from ideal. In general though, people thrive, and are hopeful of thriving further, and most agree that life is better than the alternative. People struggle to live when death would be simpler. Many aspects of humanity stem from our incredible intelligence, and we give them names like consciousness, spirituality, morality, ambition, justice, etc. Personally, I think emotions are best used to lend weight and urgency to our reasoning skills. Without good reasoning, emotions are a waste of effort, and often lead us astray. An emergent property happens because of many parts combining to allow it, like the electrochemical impulses of the brain combined with other bodily systems, but that doesn't mean emotions aren't important. Never underestimate the power of "just a bunch of electric and chemical impulses". There is organic material like plants and animals (life), and there is inorganic material (elements, rocks). Living matter is better at absorbing and dissipating heat from the sun than inorganic matter is. In this context, positive, negative, and neutral are part of the makeup of the matter itself. You're correct, existence/nonexistence is a property of a thing, not a thing itself. I can't borrow a cup of nonexistence from the dragon in my garage. But that doesn't imply that life is a neutral state. Between existence and non-existence, a neutral state might be more like the potential of a zygote in its mother's womb.

So many misunderstandings and bad assumptions. You've based an entire philosophy on subjective mistakes, yet claim your emotional objectivity is trustworthy. You make many claims without evidence. Do you respect evidence, does it tend to persuade you more than your emotions? If so, I'd be happy to show support in my replies, but I don't want to waste my time if you're going to ignore it.

It's relevant to your argument in THIS thread. Zapatos was pushing back against your argument that aliens would consider us beneath their notice by pointing out that intelligent beings find many things interesting, and mentioned work with cognitive disabilities. Instead of addressing that point, you chose to argue that even though you understand the situation through your work, you still wouldn't try to explain medicine to a chicken. That wasn't what zapatos was arguing AT ALL, and this tactic is known as the Strawman Fallacy. You couldn't address his real argument, so you made up a man of straw and knocked that down instead. It's actually a common device, and you may be using it unintentionally, but learning how to avoid logical fallacies is important to critical thinking.

! Moderator Note SergUpstart, you need to establish your claims before building on top of them. Your methodology is flawed, and your discussion style is breaking our rules of evidence. Please go back to the responses to your opening post, and satisfy the arguments there, or acknowledge they're wrong. Then look at responses to your second post, and also address the concerns there rather than continuing to add more conjecture. Lather, rinse, repeat. This is the only way anyone (including you) can trust the explanations you have. You need more rigor.

! Moderator Note This is a science discussion forum. Making claims like this with no evidence is conspiracy, and it's against our rules. We need something to discuss using reason and critical thinking, not hand-waiving and wild speculation. If you have evidence of your claims, you can open a different thread, but this one is closed.

It matters if you're speaking onager mane topic.

! Moderator Note Unless you have some evidence of this, it's conspiracy, and it's against the rules. Science discussion forum, remember? Evidence is the key.

It's no yoke when one of the donkeys dies. The other one just moves in a circle, and because of Newton's 1st Law, it might just burro right into the ground.

Newton kept his donkeys in the house because their knowledge of the law was unstable.

The donkey will kick you back, and that's what we call "stable" equilibrium.

I don't know why so many people get this idea that we'll become or be superseded by an artificial superintelligence by this century. We'll probably go on for thousands of years as the same, limited biological species in a civilization "a la star wars/trek".

But this thread is about inevitability, which implies non-life to start. A seed is already alive, so you're just moving through a process, an existing cycle.