Phi for All

! Moderator Note The Speculations forum is provided for those who like to hypothesize new ideas in science. To enrich our discussions above the level of Wild Ass Guesswork (WAG) and give as much meaning as possible to such speculations, we do have some special rules to follow: Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure. Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either. Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Are you asking about inventing a pen that engraves, anodizes, and colors metals all at the same time, as you write?

So, you're correct because you say so? That sounds familiar.

No, that would be your tactic. CharonY gave you a perspective on the relevant biology from a biology instructor, which means he's using the best supported arguments for his part in this discussion. Instead of throwing the above links at us, why wouldn't you point out exactly where your objections are supported by them? You must know you aren't the first person who didn't properly understand the science involved because a pop-sci education failed to explain it.

Please: 1. Describe "utensils". Are you talking about flatware like forks and knives, or implements like spatulas and tongs? 2. Describe "electric operated machine pen". Is this something that engraves on utensils? 3. Clarify - do you want to print the name of the color in color (like "red"), or the name of the utensil in color (like "fork"), or something else?

! Moderator Note Due to non-mainstream assertions, I'm moving this to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section, respond to requests for clarification, and support your ideas with evidence.

! Moderator Note You've been told at least three times that our rules state discussions must take place here at SFN, and that clicking on links is not a requirement for participation. Please show the evidence that supports your ideas here, and stop requesting that people go offsite. Links can be used to back up what you post here, but don't ask people to trust downloads. Also, you started out asking questions about mainstream physics, and have now given challenging assertions that aren't mainstream. I'm moving this to Speculations. Please support your arguments with evidence, and respond to calls for clarification.

"We" are here to give meaning and perspective to individual accomplishments, the evolution of which pushes us towards more meaning as a species. "We" don't know why "we" are here because "we" are still me and you and them. "We" are getting better, though.

! Moderator Note An unworthy perspective that needs to stay on the fringes. Not here, please!

! Moderator Note It's very simple, just support your arguments with evidence, or show your model so it can be evaluated. This hand-waving BS is just soapboxing, and we don't allow that here.

! Moderator Note Absolutely not. You need to address the questions asked by others in the discussion. Otherwise, it's not a discussion at all. You have not defended your assertions, nor have you bothered to define the terms you're using, which is rather ironic considering you've called physicists "clueless". How about giving us folks a clue?

See Confirmation Bias. ! Moderator Note Thread closed.

That's why, when you throw a party, everyone gravitates there.

What if I want to print a picture? I don't want the time and date on the actual print, EVER. Even if I needed a picture to show in a court of law, they won't take such a time stamp as evidence if I can use an app to change it. For legal forensic purposes, they'd probably want to see the whole phone. What's wrong with all the information you already get? If you tap on a photo, you can look at the Settings (top right corner, three vertical dots), Details, and get every bit of info on the picture, including when it was taken down to the second.

! Moderator Note The original topic was perhaps based on physical misunderstandings and a lack of precision and rigor, which have hopefully been cleared up. We're now straying wildly from whether or not science is too hidebound to evolve. At this point, I'd like the opening poster Mallic to let us know if his point has been answered satisfactorily, and if not, to ask specifically for points of clarification. In addition, if the religious aspects have been discussed sufficiently, I can move this to Psychology (where it was originally intended to live) for additional perspectives (and replies that will be less personal, more civil, yes?).

Stop peeking at HuffPost! In Fox News land, :

Knowing a few psychologists isn't the same as knowing what knowledge is supported by the mainstream. The reason scientists move away from a concept is because evidence points in a different direction, so the explanation isn't as well supported. The preponderance of evidence shows that the triune brain concept lacked sufficient explanatory power. Sorry, but this is what science does, it comes up with ideas and experiments with them until they're shown to be false or inadequate. Science makes corrections on the best available explanations for any phenomena based on the best available evidence.

Reagan stopped the Fairness Doctrine from becoming a law, but it was Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act that allows Fox to call what it does "news". The law's purpose was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996 This was basically a decision to put some cracks in the integrity of American media that would allow private investment opportunities to leak out.

Those states that have a moderate election process and choices of party seem to have the best representation for non-wealthy citizens. Many EU member states have enviable social structures that take the poor and modestly affluent into account. States with ranked choice voting allow for fairer representation. If campaigning is too quick, it favors those in power. If it drags on too long, money has too much influence on the working and middle classes. In the US, billions of dollars are spent just on presidential elections. It's become just another way for the wealthy to drain the non-wealthy with nothing given in return. Interestingly, here's a study that claims Fox News is responsible for Bush and Trump getting elected. Without Fox, it would have been Democrats only since Clinton made Fox possible.

And both represent only the ethics of wealthy folks.

Psychologists moved away from this line of thinking, deeming it overly simplistic. See Triune Brain. Go to Missouri in July. Huge horseflies, super humid environment, you can pluck them out of the air. First time I tried to swat one, I smeared it all over my arm.

OK, so the majority. My objection was to the word "essential", which means art CAN'T happen without an observer. Do you agree with my objection? Was I THAT unclear about what I meant?

Ah, so a person can't create art on their own because of their experiences. They automatically create art for an observer because they learned everything from something else? Is this what you're saying?

! Moderator Note In a different thread. The topic of this one is whether or not scientists treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth.

My comment was about whether a third party is essential to the creative process. Of course you can gain inspiration from others. But if you were alone on a deserted island, I'm guessing you could get pretty creative all by yourself.