Phi for All

The problem is self-perpetuating. The science community is plenty vocal, it's just that the people who should be listening to them don't have the science education to understand them. Explanations from scientists tend to be much more nuanced and deep, so the average person tunes out science in favor of some easy-to-understand but ultimately wrong sound byte ("If we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys?"). And frankly, if they only taught the scientific method, and critical thinking skills, I think that's all it might take. If everyone understood how to think rationally for themselves, I think it would foster a desire to learn more.

Ah, it's the adjective then. Substitute "valuable" or "irreplaceable" for "precious". I can't replace a human life taken. From what I've observed, this is all we get. Death happens normally, but I think we should do everything in our power to keep from causing it prematurely.

None of those people posts here, but plenty of people get taken seriously here. I would suggest you're wrong about this.

Yes! We could finally get one of those make-your-own Cheese Nip stations....

It's very hard to read your posts because you speak in nothing but assertions, which makes me want to poke holes in every single one of them. You generalize on assumptions. And despite being told multiple times that science doesn't work with truth and facts as much as evidence, you keep mentioning them, even capitalizing those words. You're speculating. You're trying to make your case for an idea, but you're assuming it's all true from the beginning. That's not how science works. At this point, you should be asking questions, see if your idea has merit, instead of telling us all how things are.

I don't need religion to tell me that we should treat life as precious (I don't know about the "gift" part, that implies a giver). I'd like to see the DP abolished so we can move away from the whole "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" garbage that Christianity was so happy to confuse people with. Our penal system revolves around business and making money at the expense of the taxpayers, who've been told repeatedly that the only alternative is lawlessness. We know it's stupid and counterproductive to punish someone by doing the very thing they're being punished for (can you imagine punching your child as punishment for getting into a fight?), but our fears of lawlessness overcome our reason.

Solution: more in-depth science education, so people aren't ignorant and gullible when it comes to pseudoscientific claims.

In string theory, the strings are a fundamental unit. They aren't made of anything else. Talking about their composition as information doesn't match with the theory (did you study it?). It also seems like you're trying to make the universe a big computer that crunches unimaginable amounts of data. Another common but misguided perspective. I have no idea what you mean by "The logical component of the vast library of information as physical reality...", but I suspect you're misusing the word "logic" (many people do). As for the rest, if you really want to believe this, you should design an experiment to test your ideas. You're trying to swim against the mainstream science but you only know a little mainstream science. There's nothing wrong with swimming against the mainstream, but if you don't learn it first, you'll make a LOT of fundamental mistakes that will waste a lot of your time.

After this many pages, I thought the argument would have settled on "Conservatives", not "people who have conservative values". There seems to be a world of difference. I think it's similar to the Republican party. My brother clings to being a Republican, because he identified with the party under Eisenhower. Too many Republicans today are following a different platform than the one that gets implemented by the leadership. And those who label their entire outlook as "Conservative" seem to have an agenda that's often not what someone who has conservative values would approve of.

This is a great example of why science prefers the best-supported explanations to "proof". We have some wonderful theories that explain most of what you think we don't yet understand. I guess that's because we didn't wait until all the "facts" and "proof" were worked out. We just observed reality, gathered the evidence, and developed a theory based on what we know, what we can observe, what we can predict will happen if we're right. Where do you think all the variables are being hidden? Who is hiding them, and why are you ignoring reality based on a possibility that we're fundamentally wrong about it all?

No. The aim of science is to develop the best explanation for a particular phenomenon. We use theory, not proof, to make sure we're constantly testing and improving our understanding. Math uses "proofs" and "answers", and philosophy uses "truth", but not science. If we think something is "proven", we stop looking for a better explanation, and that's not how the methodology works best.

Kind of sad, that you think this is true.

No. That sounds like a different thread.

Intelligence modifies consciousness. A higher intelligence improves consciousness the way it does for tool use, or communication. Makes it richer and more complex.

I can't believe I missed that. Is this just another misunderstood word, like "logic" and "theory"?

Most definitions I've heard are either specific to humans, or so general they can be applied to anything living but not rooted in the ground. Is there a quality that makes consciousness scalable? Or does intelligence modify consciousness so we could say humans have developed more of it than other animals, or a more complex understanding of what it means to be conscious?

We haven't mentioned how this would affect local weather. If you create a wind strong enough to blow out the smog from a major city, you'd definitely be affecting evaporative processes.

Well, that's not going to happen. You're going to get criticism on all the wrong parts, whether completely or partially wrong. Isn't that what you really want by coming here, knowing it's going to be tough, knowing that if you can convince this crowd, you must be on to something? Philosophers started with "why?", and found it to be lacking. That's when they came up with science.

I think there's a difference between environmental awareness and what we call consciousness. The danger is in tailoring the definition in such a way that only humans qualify. I think awareness of the future, and our impact on it with our present activities is a mark of consciousness. A squirrel might store excess nuts for the winter, but is he doing that because he's aware that pretty soon it's going to get cold like it did last year, or is it just a conditioned response that helps him survive? Humans seem to have a much deeper awareness of the future and how important it is to plan ahead around foreseeable obstacles. Consciousness seems to help us be prepared, which is critical to maintaining our most potent traits, like cooperation, communication, tool use, and complex cognition. I grew up hearing that awareness of our own mortality was a mark of consciousness. We know we'll die eventually, and often make plans based on this awareness. Do other animals have that awareness? They know about death, and perhaps the possibility of it happening if they don't stay away from certain things, but are they aware they're going to age and die no matter what?

I would avoid any kind of subjective moral judgments in an objective definition of consciousness. And what exactly is self-awareness? What are we aware of about ourselves that makes us want to distinguish it from what other animals experience?

Is this plan similar to the one where my neighbor blows his leaves onto my yard? He's firmly convinced he made those leaves disappear completely, since they aren't a problem for him anymore.

Placement? If it's on an elevated portion of a tree or rock, it's been done with the lifted leg. Normally, they just squat on the ground. Of course, pee of any kind is going to signal another wolf's territory. It could be similar to the difference between finding a No Trespassing sign and a candy bar wrapper. One stakes out a boundary, but they both tell you there's a human around.

One of my greatest hopes for humankind is that we colonize offworld. We're the only species capable of doing this that we know of in the whole universe. We have a lot of traits that lend themselves cumulatively towards civilization building. The type of civilization we build as we move forward needs to be one that's worthy of spreading our influence to the stars. We are animals, one of many species on the only planet we know that has life, but our intelligence has given us compassion and imagination. I completely disagree with your proposition. Music, other animals, plants, we don't need to give up the best parts of us to suit you. I'm sure it was a wonderful thing, the day you became a vegetarian, but that certainly doesn't give you the right to dismiss every other animal except humans from a colonization effort.

I get the feeling you're talking around some other issue, because your OP seems deliberately provocative yet vague. You should just come out and say what you want to say. No offense, please, but whatever you're talking about has been so "carefully disguised" that "somewhat obvious" drove right past. Voting?

Why are you discounting efforts to clean up our atmosphere as part of figuring out how to cope? If you don't approve of the effort to stop things from getting worse, can't you at least get behind better air to breathe? And using our high intelligence instead of ignoring the problem probably has a better chance of favoring us when it comes to natural selection.