Phi for All

On the front page, the Trash Can is listed as a subset of Speculations. It's just a placeholder. Posts that go in the Trash are usually hijacks inappropriately placed or worded, and they can come from any subsection. We don't like deletion; we either hide posts that repeatedly break the rules, or we put them in the Trash where everyone can see why. Speculations is a bit less rigorous, but we need standards there too. New ideas are great, and hopefully those who pose them understand that any criticism is to help put the idea on more solid ground. Speculation needs a good foundation if you want to discuss an idea meaningfully.

I don't know if you could use this, or if its an unnecessary complication, but current psychology is moving away from the concept of any kind of "subconscious" mind that can't be accessed when awake. There is a level of brain activity that happens without our awareness, certainly, but there's probably no dark cave up there where our fears hide.

! Moderator Note Not when you reject empirical test results for your own personal incredulity over how the theory is structured. Not when you reject the efforts of several knowledgeable people trying to show you where your errors lie. And certainly not when you ask for help but continue to proffer your own flawed misunderstanding of a thought experiment as a better explanation. You've had direct feedback from multiple sources that that part, at least, was a great waste of time. The thread will be closed if its current direction remains unchanged. Use what time you have left wisely, and don't waste it responding to this modnote.

Easy isn't always the most fun. Trying to solve riddles without cheating enhances our intellectual honesty, imo.

! Moderator Note ?! ! Moderator Note Please don't use one thread to advertise others. Also, people in this discussion are asking you to please focus on one subject at a time. And tossing words together to describe your ideas isn't helping you communicate them any better either. Please remember discussion requires that you be understood.

If I were an arms dealer, my marketing department would be flooding the internet with put-up stories like this. Hating large groups of people is very good for business. Fear easily takes the place of reason in many people's minds, and there are many agendas being served by spreading fear of muslims. Reason tells us these are extreme views held by a fringe following, and don't reflect the opinions of the vast majority. I'm sure the part that really helps the arms dealers is when people react to extremism with more extremism. I wonder how many hate crimes were committed by people who got an email like this?

! Moderator Note When people come here, what they want AND need is a conversation. This is, after all, a discussion forum. What you're doing is essentially blogging, expecting to teach with no interaction. The attitude you've encountered is due to your behavior, which isn't normal for people who want to talk about science. As has been mentioned, we're not your students, that's not what the site is for, and I think you need to adjust your own attitude if you expect to be part of the conversations we have here. Alternatively, you could start a blog here, we have the tools. But if you come into the science topic sections, we expect the flow of information to go both ways. I'm sure your next thread will reflect this change in behavior. Thread closed.

A theory is the best you can get in science. In fact, science isn't interested in "proving" anything. Even scientists don't start out with a theory, they start with an hypothesis and work methodically from there. It's all about piling up supportive evidence for an explanation of a particular phenomenon. If the explanation can't be refuted, and even more evidence continues to pile up in support, we eventually start calling the explanation a theory. A theory is more valuable than an answer, because a theory keeps getting better as more people work to either support it or refute it. When we think we have an "answer", we stop asking the question. Does that make sense to you?

Best wishes for a tough little guy. I hope Mom & Dad are taking care of themselves as well. Remember when you used to sleep? Like your father, and his father before him.

! Moderator Note The "link between the camps", as you put it, would seem to be the math, but one "camp" seems unwilling to speak the native language. The lingual approach is almost always the culprit in these relativity discussions, and this one seems fated to follow the same historical path. Thus far, the same approach has been used but different results seem to be expected. If a theory cannot be explained with words to someone who doesn't know the maths, maths won't help. Is there a resolution or do we need to close the thread? Don't respond directly, but please think about an approach that isn't just more insanity.

You're using the word "opposite" in a non-mainstream way that confuses me. I don't know if it's a translation problem, or if you're just putting words together that sound like what's inside your head. Either way, the way you state these declarations, as if you have some kind of strong evidence to back them up, requires some kind of strong evidence to back them up.

Implied is that all life is conscious. Nobody has ever been able to support that argument effectively. You should start with what you mean by consciousness. Inorganic substances have many qualities that make them useful, even if only to the ecosystem they're part of. I don't think substance and consciousness are mutually connected. You may need substance before you can have consciousness, but the reverse isn't true.

! Moderator Note Starting a second account as a sockpuppet to support your first account is against the rules you agreed to when you joined, TJ McCaustland. Please take some time to think about the intellectual honesty required to use science effectively. Sockpuppet banned. Report this post if you have anything to say, don't respond to this in the thread.

It's not just the rubber; the other surface you're using to create friction plays a factor. You can also reduce the frictional coefficient of rubber with another substance, like oil or grease.

I think you're letting your resentment of modern lifestyles lead you to some absurd conclusions. I would also point out that what you're really attacking probably isn't the whole lifestyle, it's the emphasis on convenience. Convenience in the marketplace today means giving up the efficiency of healthier food for instant gratification, among other things. What you're suggesting is the opposite, to take up more of our time and lose all the efficiency of supermarkets for distributing nutrients to the populace. Surely some sort of middle ground might be a better choice than choosing either extreme end?

FOX couldn't get his name right, you trust them to quote him in context? FOX is a blight on the world.

I'll bet it has something to do with dopamine levels. Since the hormone is a part of our reward motivation system, and depressed people show lower levels, they may be saying a depressed person is less likely to fall prey to subjective influences.

I want food but need to stay out of prison to provide for my family. Hunting with a bow and arrow wouldn't get me a year's worth of food, it would get me a year in jail. I'd rather be around a bunch of people shopping for food than a bunch of people shooting arrows so they can eat. Are you really serious about taking such a huge backward evolutionary step? Do you know how much time is involved in hunting/gathering? We're able to go to the store today because our ancestors discovered farming and animal husbandry fed a much greater number of people, and allowed the non-farmers to specialize in other areas.

Well, yes, but nobody said that. swansont referred to rules we have that enforce reasonable behavior so more people are encouraged to participate. He didn't say, "Most of the people will not participate". I don't know where you read that.

Baby gift:

Congratulations to ydoaPs, and belated birthday to mdoaPs! You gotta love a guy who can't wait to get started. Tips: Babies start out small and helpless so you can learn how to wrangle them before they get big and mobile. Your learning curve matches their development perfectly, so don't worry about how "new" this all is. At least until they learn to crawl. Then all bets are off, and you spend the next two years getting whiplash from trying to figure out where they ran off to. Carry at least three band-aids in your wallet at all times for the next ten years. If your son doesn't need them, his friends will. There are no "tricks" when it comes to babies. Just as soon as you think you have a certain behavior figured out, the baby will change the behavior. I must have discovered a hundred "tricks" for getting my daughter to fall asleep, and they all worked well, for about three days each.

Fine. A $3T program funded by private interests as an altruistic alternative for economic advancement. My personal incredulity isn't an argument, but I'm wondering where the history is that would serve as some kind of evidence a program like this would work nationally. I usually look for attached strings whenever private interests appear altruistic. And considering that much money is unlikely to be had from family fortunes, we can assume there will be corporate involvement in this program. I've found most corporations love to be on the receiving end of social programs, then switch to a Libertarian outlook when it comes to altruism, regulation, and taxation.

I don't like the concept of giving away cash to everyone. I think it's already been shown that the OP is far too costly. Can we continue discussion based on the title of the thread (if not, I can start a different thread)? That's what really attracted me in the first place. How do we merge a society that needs a healthy economy with one where basic needs are met for everybody? Can we start with the premise that anyone living here should expect minimum subsistence with regard to food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare? Eliminating hunger and homelessness should be Job One for any country calling themselves both altruistic and a first world nation. I define minimum subsistence as being able to survive without spending any money (which seems reasonable if this program is aimed at poor people). To be fair, such a system would need to apply to Charles Koch as well should he go bankrupt and need America's help to keep from sleeping in the streets.

I think the ever-changing front page and the number of new threads gives us a good indicator that fresh ideas are constantly being offered. I define "fresh" as subjects people want to talk about, not necessarily "new" ideas that have never been raised before. This is too subjective as an indicator. Crackpot ideas that have obvious flaws in the OP are refuted quickly, and often the person who posts them wants us all to think beyond the flaws to see what they see. Unfortunately, that's not how science works. You don't start with a cracked foundation and expect to build anything reasonable. Still, from the poster's perspective, this is often seen as being close-minded, not giving the idea a chance, a lack of "open thinking". Actually, in most cases, it's the person with the crackpot idea they're convinced is right that's really being close-minded. We can definitely improve here. The staff really appreciates the efforts of the other members in greeting newcomers when they post in the Introduce Yourself thread. We don't always have the time to welcome everyone and still keep up with our reading and monitoring, and our normal posting as SFN members as well. If you're referring to someone joining who immediately starts posting a lot of speculative work phrased as assertions, we probably could do a better job there too. It's difficult when someone is out to "prove" their idea is correct and ignores all the methodology we've come to trust as the proper process for scientific understanding. We often seem rude to people because of our more clinical approach. "Warm welcome" is pretty emotional for science, but "welcome" should be at least part of any discussion, I agree. I don't know what you mean by "so-called". None of the Moderators have an ownership stake in the forums. We aren't paid. There's no monetary reason that might influence the way we treat the membership. The Administrators have allowed the rules and guidelines to evolve organically over the years, based on what appeals most to the membership as a whole. The rules aren't set up the way they are to suit the Admins; their goal is to have a reputable science discussion forum that attracts a broad slice of the scientific community, from novices and students to hobbyists and enthusiasts to professional scientists and educators.

I think it's more a case where he liked the direction you were taking the discussion. He doesn't necessarily agree with what you're saying, just that it's a potentially good direction to explore.