Phi for All

I left SO much of that evolutionary path out for brevity's sake, but I think it was good information. I'm counting on you to keep me accurate. I think requirer is probably wicked smart and had limited resources for asking questions about things they didn't understand. Smart folks who don't get good explanations start piecing together what they think they know, and that approach is seductive since it makes perfect sense, but only to you.

Purism is well-defined as an art movement, but poorly defined as a philosophy. I'm leery these days of broad, subjectively-defined labels that don't serve us as well as we assume they do. I make conservative and liberal choices every day, but resist painting myself as one way or the other. Most purists don't realize how fragile and restrictive their worldview is, and see only the beauty of simplicity. A purist might claim that eating the plant a medicine came from is a better approach than taking the medicine, because the plant is the "pure" source. But in actuality, modern medicine removes the impurities and things you don't need from the plant to produce a more effective medicine (taking ephedrine as an antihistamine is far more effective than chewing on a bunch of ma huang stems). You have a misconception about science, that it's trying to control or take over the natural world. What science does is make sure the conclusions we reach are carefully and reasonably considered, and they ABSOLUTELY MUST agree with observations made in the natural world. In this case, "natural" means no magic, no deities breaking physical laws, only what we observe happening. IOW, science is a bunch of descriptions of nature that we've refined to such a degree that we're able to predict the future based on the present and past. Theory gives us this predictive power. As far as human "nature" is concerned, we're still figuring that out. Cooking our food led to bipedal locomotion, and gave us smaller jaws so we had more room in our heads for brains, and more time to dig around with tools. It led us to armed warfare, but it also put us on a par with better-armed predators and gave us a fighting chance. We didn't have fur to keep us warm and we figured out how to use the fur from animals we ate instead. In fact, we took the disadvantage and turned it around: we could run down an animal with fur because they'd get TOO hot, and eventually drop from heat prostration. Because of the amazing things we can do that other animals can't, humans are often perceived as anti-natural, or outside of nature, but I assure you, we're very much a part of it. In fact, I would go so far as to say viewing humans as "unnatural" is dangerous, and could give some permission to consider us as above the rest of life on the planet.

You're alive, so you're completely capable of coping with life. Our curiosity has nothing to do with instincts, and everything to do with higher intelligence, so it's completely explicable. Our "bitter primitivity" is a default for ALL animals. It's only our higher intelligence that helps us see where our primitive behavior doesn't serve as well in certain situations. It's something a reasoning human has to work with daily, trying to decide if it's better in this situation to compete for resources or cooperate for a better outcome. Our bias towards materialism is born from our superior use of tools, which is another aspect of higher intelligence. Greed for wealth is one thing, but our desire to have "things" is usually because those things are useful, and having more of them is better than having less. I disagree that the whole species is "aimless". I question a need for "complete focus" on our part as well. There are enough of us that we can focus on many different things. And as for humans lacking self-esteem as a whole, I think it misses the mark by quite a bit. We're a species in a unique set of circumstances, where we have animal behavior that has traditionally served us well, but we lack many of the pressures those behaviors were evolved for. We don't hunt and gather anymore, humans are specialized to an astonishing degree, and our communications have global consequences now. We're at war with the notions of what is different/dangerous and what is different/advantageous. Cooperation is thousands of times more beneficial than competition, but competing for resources is a basic trait that's hard to resist. We have plenty of aim, but I would imagine we aren't aimed at what YOU think is important. YOU have chosen to reframe and redefine everything, which makes things seem even more disjointed. I think if you gave mainstream science another try, you'd discover LOTS of studies to interest you, and a lot less pushback from those like you who want to make the world a better place.

! Moderator Note Since this wasn't the OP's violation, I'm unlocking the thread, and instead giving a warning point for soapboxing to VenusPrincess. My bad. If you aren't willing to answer questions about your stance, please don't make it part of your arguments. Thread open again.

Five senses isn't even a thing. No disrespect, but you stopped your attempts after a few requests for clarification and some replies that pointed out discrepancies with observed phenomena, which you either ignored or claimed represented some kind of religious dogma. The martyr card isn't playable at this point in time.

But all I'm using is part of a standard definition of life to state that life requires a reasonably stable environment, and that would NOT be the case if consciousness were divorced from the body. Thought requires chemical transference, which requires water, which requires a mechanism of distribution, which is also not possible absent our bodies. Thought and consciousness don't fit the definition of life, so I question why you think they are "life by their own right". I'd still like a reply to that, or for you to amend your concept to take my reasoned response into consideration. Equally, I'm completely willing to listen to an explanation of why you think your definition of life is more helpful, and why anti-nature is a better way to explain what we observe happening with various phenomena in the natural universe.

! Moderator Note Then your arguments become preaching, by definition, which is against the rules. This is a science DISCUSSION forum. Since you're unwilling to answer questions posed, don't bring this subject up again. Thread closed.

I can't call it debate when we aren't really using the same definitions. I wanted to simply discuss your ideas anyway, to remove the concept of win/lose. I always assume people come to a science discussion forum to get the science perspective. It is, after all, the least biased by definition, the most current, also by definition, and has been tested for accuracy by the world's most rigorous skeptics on a daily basis for hundreds of years. This is the same science that lets us calculate when and how hard to (in essence) throw a dart from Earth in a straight line that will eventually hit a Mars-sized dartboard after all the spacetime curvature had been accounted for. Can we peel this conversation back to where I felt the need to correct? You claimed that thought and consciousness were life in their own right. I told you how that idea violated the standard definitions, and asked you to support it. Instead, you asked me to "prove" something I'd said, which was that we don't know if thought and consciousness can exist outside the body. So, can you support the idea that thought and consciousness have life of their own? QFT.

We definitely disagree on this then. I don't use a toothless definition of hostility where our thinking is merely opposed. To me, hostility is treating someone like an enemy, and wishing them ill will. That is NOT my intent when I try to help someone with an ignorance problem. It's the way I was treated when I first joined here, with respect but no tolerance for guesswork where rigor and research serve us more consistently.

What an odd perspective, given this is a science discussion site with clearly posted rules, and the member came here instead of harmlessbeliefs.com. Personally, I think it's extremely harmful to lend tacit support to WAGs by remaining silent, much less encouraging them to jump to baseless conclusions with reinforcement. Where does integrity and honesty fit into your perspective? I object strongly to the sensitivity setting on your "hostility meter". I think you're being vividly misleading.

By confining their conclusions to a rigorous set of methodologies that yielded observable results. Anyone can make things up, but by using an approach that minimizes human bias and error, we hope to develop best current explanations that are trustworthy. Waaaaaay past the "my own personal definition" phase. Are you trying to knock down a man of straw? You make things up. Why am I not surprised science doesn't sound like science to you? Science has accumulated a great deal of trustworthy knowledge, but most of it isn't "fixed". That's why a theory is the strongest explanation there is, because it's always being updated with the latest information. It may seem rigid to you, but that's mostly because definitions are much more important in science than almost anywhere else. It sounds like you have some misunderstandings about science. Welcome to the forums, I hope you gain something from discussion.

If you don't understand something, you should ask questions instead of making stuff up. Using your own personal definitions is NOT science, and is, quite frankly, ignorant behavior. Why are you choosing "something that makes more sense to me" over "accumulated human knowledge"?

I can provide evidence that thought as we define it currently ceases upon death. I can point to the current definitions of life and show that "thought" and "consciousness" don't qualify. There is no evidence to support that either are separate entities, or have a life independent of their host. I can support the statement with a myriad of sources. There's no mathematical proof, and I wouldn't trust a philosophical one. Proof isn't really a scientific concept. Best current explanation is as good as it gets.

By what definition? They seem more like emergent properties of high intelligence. They can't live independently from the body as far as we know.

Biological Combination has been banned for being unable to explain their idea in a way that honored the rules they agreed to when they joined, and also being unwilling to listen to remedial replies from the members.

Well there you go!

! Moderator Note The way you "explain" is to simply repeat your misinformed concepts over and over, without answering the folks who are trying to show where you're wrong. You also don't bother with evidence, preferring to simply assert what you believe, without any support. You're not well disposed for discussion. You should probably stay with your blogs and YouTube channel for this kind of ignorant approach to a very rigorous discipline. You don't discuss well. If that doesn't change, and if you don't start supporting your ideas with evidence and stop with the hand-waving, I'm going to recommend your account be banned. Nobody seems to be able to have a conversation with you. This thread is closed because science.

! Moderator Note This is NOT the type of post we ever want to see here, even in the Religion section. This is more like blogging, and we're a discussion forum, specifically for scientific perspectives. Nobody here is interested in your version of god(s). No more posts like this, please.

Oooh, I had an idea not long ago about making a bowl-shape out of leaves from the yard and lacquered somehow. I thought they'd make cool birdbaths, if the resin or whatever didn't taint the water. I've thought about a super-slick plastic for snow shovels before, but you actually need the snow to stick JUST enough so it stays in the scoop as you begin to toss it, and only releases at the end of the throw. If the snow didn't stick AT ALL, I think you'd change the physics of manual snow removal.

! Moderator Note On the contrary, you haven't supported your ideas, nor have you adequately addressed the questions and concerns you've amassed in the last four pages, so you're still pushing against mainstream physics without evidence. You ignore the posts that refute or challenge your thinking, and you keep repeating points that were covered in the posts you ignored. That's not discussion, that's soapboxing, and it's not conducive to meaningful discussion. This thread is closed, and since you can't support the ideas within the boundaries of our rules, please don't bring it up again.

Perverting the Creator's Plan? I sure don't want to do THAT! Better stick with the ashes to ashes approach. Reduce, reuse, recycle!

I don't think your concept is compelling enough to motivate the casket consumer to spend the extra money. Why should they care what someone digs up thousands of years from now? I do think the name suggests a better motivation. What if you design the Walker's Casket with an escape hatch and a shovel, and market it to those who want a way out in case, you know, it's not what we thought? Walker's Caskets - Keeping Your Options Open.

Slippery liquid-infused porous surfaces (SLIPS): https://www.fastcompany.com/3044276/literally-nothing-will-stick-to-this-new-slippery-surface

I wanted to share this brief 9 minute video presentation, mainly for its unique approach regarding international space agreements, but it's also a great overview showing many of the various actors and institutions currently involved in trying to hammer out some rules regarding orbital debris and other problems facing us in the space around our planet. Very interesting research, and a crash course on what's happening in orbit.

I didn't get one either.