Phi for All

Do you remember what this thread is about? Shall we close this one so you can pursue this new problem?

This is totally inappropriate for a hard science topic. True? Reality? Science isn't interested in either of those subjective descriptions. This also highlights my objection with your methods. You get to claim ad infinitum that we don't understand X because you're skeptical of the actual science that's gone on before, of how investigations you've never studied may have been handled poorly. Your incredulity means you're always right, never wrong. It's truly frustrating trying to have a conversation where consensus is in one person's hands rather than among peers. Are we done here, or do you want to start a different thread in Philosophy?

1-3 are the same things. We can definitely do better. This is a capitalist problem though, manufacturers not wanting waste to cost them profits. Remove capitalism and there are suddenly great reasons to clean up our environment. 4-6 are similarly related. Remove the need for capitalist profit and increase education availability to make these vanish. 7-10 also mostly go away when there's no reason or profit in them. Better social investment also reduces these drastically, helping us move away from basic tribal conflicts. 11-13 are yet more examples of problems that mostly go away when we allow pressures OTHER THAN profit to influence our decisions. More capitalism is making these problems worse, so the answer seems obvious. 14-16 are humans forgetting that we have intelligent brains, and that we can overcome animal behavior by actually using them. These are really the only "shortcomings" on your list, since the rest can be fixed by removing the desperate need for more and more profit in our economies. We CAN be ignorant and selfish and greedy like many animals, or we can realize that cooperation and communication gets everybody what they need so greed and selfishness have no firm ground to grow in.

This might be the perfect time for a candidate opposing big corporate influence. Republicans are pretending to dislike corporations so they can favor the big businesses that favor them and denounce the businesses that object to their voting restrictions, but much of their base is old enough not to like the fascist signals coming off of leadership. Most (all?) of the age-appropriate Democratic candidates are all corporate sympathizers banking on populism AND negative reactions to populism. The best that can be said about them is that they won't spend any time dismantling our democracy. I think there are a LOT of People who want to spend less time worrying about political leadership. They'd like to know that their numbers count for something, that We the People are worth the big investment other countries make every day, and that the current corruption brought on by the lack of corporate regulations and restrictions can be stopped.

OTOH, this would really help with 5-9, 13-16.

Absolutely NOT the worst thing about abortion and birth control! Simplistic overgeneralization. Birth control has always been needed, because not all births are wanted. Shine some light on this with calculations, please, because it seems like you pulled this from someplace dark. And in the 20s it was said that by now people would have flying cars. Reality has that affect on science fiction. Specious argument. We also could have spent our space exploration funds on taking care of so many people. Great example of logic failing us when applied outside maths and philosophy.

Awww, that's so cute! But if I'm one of the trillionaires who owns most everything else, I can make it impossible for you to keep and work that land, so you eventually have to sell to me like everyone else did. This kind of money can do things money isn't supposed to do. I'm still discussing the ownership aspect of your OP, since robots making everything for people who have no money to buy anything seems far-fetched and uninteresting. I firmly believe there will always be jobs that require a human presence, no matter how good we get at robotics.

They may have found that, in order to deal with human houses, the best overall design is humanoid. It would be interesting to see a robot that could handle doorknobs, laundry hampers, trash cans, pillowcases, toilet plungers, and vacuum cleaners without human-like limbs and digits.

It costs as much as many cars do. It's supposed to clean house for you. Why not design the parts most likely to get wet to be water-resistant?

Ummm, who owns this land they're trying to farm?

Clothes are basically tools that a robot doesn't need. Giving them a more human appearance is the only real reason to clothe them. Your engineering concerns are based on poor designs. Robots can be built with all these features integrated into their systems, without the need to deal with loose fabric all over their bodies.

I didn't feel that part of the OP was in good faith, so I didn't respond to the "no jobs for anyone" extremism. Who cares who makes the product if nobody has the money to buy it? But 100% capitalism is something many people mistakenly think would be a good thing.

Without state or public ownership, eventually the largest private owners would own everything. Then they'd deal amongst themselves until one or two managed to buy up the others, and finally one would manage to outmaneuver the other and own it all. So 100% capitalism would eventually look like a monarchy or dictatorship, with everyone working for the king, who owns it all.

We'll have an Admin check the settings and see if there's something to be done.

I lost quiz night by one point! The question was where is women's hair the curliest? The correct answer is Fiji.

If you used the whole quote, your question is answered. "It seems you are combining technical terms in ways that do not follow textbook definitions or established engineering practices, making it difficult to understand your discussion." IOW, you put terms together in a non-mainstream way, which is hard for anyone who's studied this stuff to figure out. You're serving word salad when clarity is the goal. If you're having trouble following, read all of what's being written. Don't you assume others are reading all of what you write?

All you're doing is cherry picking bits you find on the web that you think support your claims that we don't know enough about the mind. This isn't "firmer ground", it's been artificially filled in by you. YOU don't know enough about the mind, and you're projecting that onto everyone else. Why don't you just take some mainstream classes and learn what you don't know??? Your own ignorance is causing you to see it everywhere! Fix it! You don't reference the claims you make. You reference things that are adjacent and then hope we make the same wild leaps you do. That's not mainstream science. And all these references should show you that there are indeed people working hard to understand the mind. They just know a LOT more than you or I, and their work isn't super accessible by those who haven't studied it. None of it supports the claim you've made that we're all wrong about the mind, in fact it shows that the scientific method works, and works well. Our best explanations change over time as they're tested and challenged. Reptile brain gets replaced by something closer to what we observe, or a current explanation is drilled into to find its spectrum of influence. And yes, electric fish adapt to their abilities like every other species. You're like so many before you, thinking you can think outside the box without learning to use the tools inside first.

Can you imagine having a conversation with some folks and suddenly someone jumps up on the coffee table and spews out a rant like that? That's not discussion, that's a lecture nobody signed up for.

Are these copy/paste responses to other replies? I don't see how your reply to my post makes any sense. What happened recently? What's been happening since the first generation? What first generation are you referring to? Why are you bringing a 12 step rant into this response to my question: what would you propose this legislation do to force women to acknowledge your amazingness?

Nine pages in, I think you know that the issue is what YOU consider fair, because it isn't mainstream. It involves other people, and the government forcing them to interact with you the way you envision. I never saw anyone mention a decent way to legislate that.

My point was that I don't know squat about weightlifting, so my statement about it was just a word salad jumble of buzzwords that I thought sounded pretty good. But of course, to someone who has studied it, my comments are gibberish. Similar to what you're proposing here. "Only an atmosphere could support the integrity of the craft"?! Are we still talking about a craft with an imaginary Alcubierre drive? Why would a craft capable of some fraction of the speed of light need an atmosphere? At those speeds, an atmosphere would mean instant destruction of the craft as it slammed into atmospheric molecules. I was very excited about the Alcubierre drive back in 2016 until I talked to an astrophysicist at the International Aeronautical Congress in Guadalajara. I'm not a maths whiz, but he showed me how the calculations that allow for the "bubble" to be manipulated can be legitimately adjusted to remove the possibility altogether. IOW, the "bubble" might go away when our maths regarding it become more accurate.

In weightlifting, this is similar to tricep extension, where your lunges and squats deload the plyometrics of the overhead press, depending on which bicep curl gives you a good standing row.

That means somebody's spin doctor degree is paying off for the fossil fuel industry. "Fear progress!" has been the cry of almost every modern industry that stifles competitors while reaping maximum profit so they can afford to hire folks to make videos that scare people away from change. Stop and think about how many more nice conveniences and amenities you could have if we stopped funding oil and made solar electricity super dirt cheap. There are so many goods to be manufactured that are waiting for the costs of the energy to power them to go down. Much of that has been stifled by shenanigans with battery patents big oil holds or held. EVs and solar power need to be supported. We're going to get around the obstacle of big oil eventually. I heard we now have ink that can print a solar panel, so it's obvious that progress is trying to help while ICE and oil proponents want us stuck in the tar pits.

I claim you're wrong since you could easily go on Google Scholar and look up all the studies done worldwide on premonitions. Enjoy yourself because I'm done wasting my time on your lack of reasoning and rigor.

Fortunately for me, I study rigorously within my own limitations, and I have grand access to some excellent scientific minds, and I don't have to think twice about your ridiculous notions of how "fast" I'm being. It doesn't take a lot of time looking at available evidence to conclude that an explanation is unlikely, and one can always extract something from the junkpile the second it provides evidence that it doesn't belong there. You post as if unlikely = impossible, and I really wish you'd stop misrepresenting my stance.