No, that statement was not a criticism. Just noticing that they don’t really seem to be vocal about this subject. They do indeed not seem to address the long term issues, but nobody else does either, so religion is hardly taking a different stance here.Are you simply referring to the idea or criticism that many theists (especially christian/moslem fundamentals,) don't care about sustaining/protecting Earthly resources, as their focus is on their faith in their promised existence after death? — universeness
Nope. We’d pull the plug as well when there’s no longer any profit in keeping it running.I try not to make judgements based on nationality. When things get tight, I don't think Russians act so differently from Americans, Germans, Englishmen, Africans or any other nationality.
They’ll hopefully let me hasten the process rather than the prolonged torture that so many people go through, all under the heading of ‘do no harm’. Pretty ironic. At least freezing isn’t torture.I suspect that if you die
Something more like that, yes. Mars sucks. Only 1% the pressure of Earth and no water. Hard to engineer something that can thrive in such a hostile environment, especially a high-metabolism being such as ourselves. Can you have intelligence without that? I think so, but it would be quite slow, sort of like ents.Oh, I get what you meant now, you mean, rather than trying to terraform Mars, its wiser to transform humans so they can live in the current Martian environment. — universeness
Most of them have your positive attitude and assume somebody will fix it.I appreciate your 'worries' about the situation and I think they are well founded and should not be underestimated but I do try to counter balance such with what humans do, when the possibility of their own extinction gets closer and closer.
I never meant it that way. I just mean colonize the galaxy, not conquer it.We will spread out, yes but not 'in conquest,' or as a pernicious force/presence. — universeness
I think a federation of planets would resist a mommy even more than a single one.Perhaps even a benevolent united federation of planets.
OK, we have different definitions. We feed the old and the poor. They used to starve before WWII.Nonsense sir! no current first world country is socialist.
OK, by socialist you want an economy devoid of currency. The problem there is the lack of the mommy. If some country does that, it cannot compete with the capitalist competitors in other countries. Balanced trade would falter, especially if there’s no currency to back that trade. A mommy would fix that since effectively the whole world would work the way you envision, but there’d still be little incentive to finding more efficient ways to produce things. This is a problem that needs solving. How do you salvage the advantages of the capitalism without the drawbacks? What do you do with the people reluctant to work? I mean, money is owed-labor in the end, and you’re throwing that away.They are all capitalist as they are all currency driven, free market economies.
Democratic? Most places are republics. What’s your definition of something being democratic?True democratic socialism has never been successfully established anywhere on the planet ..... yet.
If it’s self-sustaining without fossil fuel, then great! It’s a city. Where do the rednecks live?A resourced based global economy, would be the most significant human change to the way we live, since we switched from nomadic hunter-gatherers to fixed communities supported by trade and agriculture.
That even more is never going to happen. Kind of kills the whole point of rule by unverifiable promises.It isn’t ever going to happen — noAxioms
The 'church' needs to drop god — universeness
The local hospital by me was run by the church, hence prohibited some procedures that they decided made you immoral. Have to go somewhere further away if you wanted those options.Or, at least, every church/chapel/temple/cathedral/mosque etc should also function as secular homeless shelters, substance abuse support centers, medical support centers, etc, etc.
Using a solar panels to create light for crops is far less efficient than just putting the plants in the light. I’m all for solar panels over parking lots and buildings and such, but the solar farms are mostly covering land that could be used to grow something.Crops grown indoors depend on artificial light. Note that sunlight can be exploited for natural lighting or self-sufficient generation of electricity through photovoltaic solar panels.
That’s the rub. Every watt of renewable energy consumed (and it sounds like VF uses more than regular farming) is one less renewable watt that can be used elsewhere. The excess must be taken up by the fossil fuels. It’s why I’ve not bought into the solar farm thing. If I did, that’s just so much green electricity that somebody else can’t have. The net benefit of switching is zero unless your money actually buys more capacity such as panels on your own house.While renewable and alternative sources of energycan promote the ecological soundness of vertical farming, the practice can still have a considerable carbon footprint if it still depends on the use of fossil fuels. There is a need to improve first renewable and alternative energy technologies to guarantee environmental sustainability and energy efficiency of vertical farming."
Well it needs a different name, but one with the right vibes.IDid you deliberately misspell Orca as these imaginings are alien Orca which you are calling OrKa? — universeness
It’s a good percentage of the random articles linked by sites like yahoo news or google news. Yes, there’s better written stuff out there, but almost impossible to find if you’re not explicitly searching for it. The algorithms for what gets put on the front pages of the site is not particularly based on factual content at all. This was a big change compared to only 20 years ago.Half the stuff I read has obviously never seen an editor and cites no credible sources.
— noAxioms
But that's just half the stuff YOU have read, which is what percent of available 'stuff'?
Quite a bit. I just served 2 months on a grand jury and got a taste of the sort of evidence they collect automatically. They knew where these baddies were by phone tracking and car-license monitoring on the main roads. All the big tech companies (apple, google, microsoft, etc) are quite up front now that they collect data on everything you do on your devices. It gets pretty obvious when new ads appear obviously based on recent browsing history.How much merit do you give to 'big brother is watching you?'
That’s kind of evidence that it’s also not going to last long. Make your mark before you’re gone. Make something that can last. That’s as good a purpose as I can think of.I can only invoke the cosmic calendar again and say we have only been at this for a few seconds on the cosmic calendar scale. Give us a f****** chance mate!
We thought it got silly sometimes, but couldn’t exactly pinpoint where.It would have been fun to have been part of that discussion.
I did watch and admittedly don’t know the terminology enough to follow what is being suggested.He finally asks 'how does Tom get from A to B and his second answer is 'through the wormhole,' he then says 'you might not believe that but, that's ok, we can debate that later.'. — universeness
By symmetry, a negative IQ occurs about as often as one over 200. They’re out there. My youngest is at about 67 or so, low, but not newsworthy low. My other kids are over 100.I also didn't know IQ could be negative. — Agent Smith
They’ve found at least 22.Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified?
Bad vibes presumably. I’m all for the posthumans, but not so much for mingling with them. Current gilded-age morals forbids most of the solutions to problems discussed in this topic.We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it gives me Nazi eugenics vibes.
Yes, one may find order(s) in parts of some disordered whole. Not very evident or clear, but yet ...There are clearly observable orders in a boiling water system.
[Soundwave] looks symmetrical on either side of a linear mid section, which is more intense towards its middle compared to either end ...
Jigsaw pieces have a fixed set of 'shape of side'. Straight edge sides, ... — universeness
I see. OK.Entropy is the tendency for a combination to revert back to its fundamentals over time. — universeness
Right.The water turns to steam. There may be no water left when the boiling finishes. If you captured all the steam in a big container, then it would condense back into water, as the steam cooled. — universeness
Alright. This is another point of view ...So I think such examples 'trace back' to an initial state of 'universal' disorder. — universeness
Good. But don't count me in! :grin:I try to improve my physics grasp where and when I can. — universeness
Certainly.it's better to know, as maybe you can help stop it, but if you don't know, then you are powerless. — universeness
By symmetry, a negative IQ occurs about as often as one over 200. They’re out there. My youngest is at about 67 or so, low, but not newsworthy low. My other kids are over 100.
Any ideas whether intelligence genes have been identified?
They’ve found at least 22.
We could breed geniuses then, eh? I wonder of normal folks would approve - it gives me Nazi eugenics vibes.
Bad vibes presumably. I’m all for the posthumans, but not so much for mingling with them. Current gilded-age morals forbids most of the solutions to problems discussed in this topic. — noAxioms
Ha! No messianic salvation intended. Just philosophical enlightenment. And one of my many messiahs is physicist Paul Davies. :joke:No mockery intended Gnomon, but your words here are a little messianic and sacrificial sounding. Always be on your guard against any seedlings of a Christ complex. — universeness
Oh, I completely disagree! Many theist preach, to manipulable people, as a matter of fact and with a suggested 'authority from divinity!' that this life, is of very limited importance and your only focus here should be to follow the dictates of the dogma of the tenets of whatever religion is being peddled to you.They do indeed not seem to address the long term issues, but nobody else does either, so religion is hardly taking a different stance here. — noAxioms
Not everyone is 'profit driven,' to believe that everyone is, is just misanthropic imo.Nope. We’d pull the plug as well when there’s no longer any profit in keeping it running. — noAxioms
I am probably sensing a 'misinterpretation' incorrectly here but just to be sure, you are not under the impression that they cryogenically freeze you just BEFORE you die, if you sign up for that service, are you? You have been declared medically brain dead before you are frozen, so of course 'freezing isn't torture,' it would be, if you were still alive when someone was doing that to you.They’ll hopefully let me hasten the process rather than the prolonged torture that so many people go through, all under the heading of ‘do no harm’. Pretty ironic. At least freezing isn’t torture. — noAxioms
I assume we will start with some dome style construction with tech that can best emulate/simulate Earth's conditions but I accept that, initially, it will be a very rough and dangerous existence.Hard to engineer something that can thrive in such a hostile environment — noAxioms
I don't think much of your 'mommy' comparator. Try to balance your seemingly low opinion of your own species. Many folks have done and still do, dedicate their lives to try to improve the lives of everyone else, surely you are willing to admit they exist and support them in everyway you are able to. You seem to have a similar feeling about the members of your own species to god when it asked Abraham/Lot to produce 50 (which was negotiated down to 10, I believe :lol: ) good people from the populations of Sodom and Gomorrah. I am sure you could find many more good people than 50 to stop you from just 'scrapping,' your whole species as just a total failure.I think a federation of planets would resist a mommy even more than a single one. — noAxioms
............ In this way, the most serious cases are lost, but in the ‘share all the world’ method, even more die and the survivors are worse off. — noAxioms
Democratic? Most places are republics. What’s your definition of something being democratic? — noAxioms
If it’s self-sustaining without fossil fuel, then great! It’s a city. Where do the rednecks live? — noAxioms
I think there will come a more enlightened time in the future when there are not many theists left. If that happens, then theistic buildings will need to be repurposed. There are more and more empty churches nowadays.That even more is never going to happen. Kind of kills the whole point of rule by unverifiable promises. — noAxioms
Quite a bit. I just served 2 months on a grand jury and got a taste of the sort of evidence they collect automatically. They knew where these baddies were by phone tracking and car-license monitoring on the main roads. All the big tech companies (apple, google, microsoft, etc) are quite up front now that they collect data on everything you do on your devices. It gets pretty obvious when new ads appear obviously based on recent browsing history. — noAxioms
I agree but I would add that your mark must be benevolent or else your life would have been better not lived at all, imo.Make your mark before you’re gone. Make something that can last. That’s as good a purpose as I can think of. — noAxioms
I did watch and admittedly don’t know the terminology enough to follow what is being suggested. — noAxioms
If that's your belief system, I apologize for stepping on your toes. — Gnomon
:up:PS__My personal worldview has some similarities to holistic oriental philosophies -- Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc. -- but is not beholden to their religious doctrines. — Gnomon
I have no religion and reject any suggestion (including any camouflaged ones,) that science or atheism are in any way, religious or theistic.PPS__Thanks for moderating your mockery. Some posters are not so tactful in their ridicule of rival "religions". — Gnomon
while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality. — Gnomon
I do give credence to 'theoretical philosophy' but I do think empirical science is its final arbiter.- "only science" means that theoretical Philosophy is not accepted as a path to Truth. — Gnomon
... which nonetheless does not either provide cogent and succinct answers to or critically dispute the relevance of (old) straitforward questions like those linked hereHowever, my straightforward presentation of a novel scientific & philosophical concept ... — Gnomon
conspicously suggests you are anything but intellectually "straightforward", Gnomon. :smirk:
Thanks for the vote of confidence. But, some on this forum have accused me of overweening ego for promoting a new paradigm based on the emerging science of Information. likes to say I'm "making sh*t up", although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1.You haven't. I don't consider you a crank. It can be very tough indeed to try to occupy any 'middle ground' between two diametrically opposed groups. I do have a scientism, in that I champion science over theism or any supernatural posits, completely. I wear that definition of 'scientism,' with as much joy as any halelujah chorus. — universeness
although my modest contribution to the emergent information-centric worldview is to make-up some neologisms to convey the unconventional (post-Shannon) concepts that emerge from the new understanding of the ubiquitous role of Information in the universe : including both Mind & Matter. For example, what I call "EnFormAction" (energy + laws) is just a new name for the causal "phenomenon at the root of things"*1. — Gnomon
*1. quote from Caleb Scharf in The Ascent of Information, who has never heard of Enformationism . — Gnomon
FYI. I have explained many times before why I ceased responding to 's "inconvenient questions". It's primarily because his snarky responses, besides irrelevant, are mostly abusive instead of reasonable.Looking on past the links you provided above. I did notice that Gnomon does not respond to many of your questions. He is welcome to reconsider, that and respond to the points you made, if he wants to. — universeness
Thanks for the effort, but you are not likely to resolve "the impasse", because for it seems to be an ideological war of Good vs Evil (Scientism vs Spiritualism???). I assume that attitude is partly due to his belief that most-if-not-all philosophers up until the 17th century -- most of whom included G*D in their world models -- were simply practicing irrational Religion in words instead of deeds. (Please don't take this characterization-out-of-context literally)I think I will just drop this issue now as I am probably not helping improve the impasse between you both. I was just trying to reduce the barrier between you both, that's all. You both seem to be reasonable folks to me. — universeness
Are you a Kantian? If not, then why do say "time, space, certain forms of energy ... and informarion" are "non-physical"? — 180 Proof
I'm afraid not. Regardless of "energy density", like "solid and gas", energy is a physical phenomenon. "Invisible and intangible" are irrelevant; besides, we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel strong winds which are manifestations of thermal energy. As far as "the only thing that really exists", tell me the difference between exists and "really exists", and why energy is one but not the other. :chin:The difference between physical and non-physical is the same difference between solid and gas, a kind of energetic density spectrum. — punos
Regardless of "energy density", like "solid and gas", it's a physical phenomenon. "Invisible and intangible" are irrelevant; besides, we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof
we see via EM energy (i.e. visible light) and feel a strong breeze which is thermal energy. — 180 Proof
As far as "the only thing that really exists", tell me the difference between exists and "really exists", and why energy is one but not the other. — 180 Proof
This reminds me of Laozi's Dao and Plotinus' One and Nāgārjuna's Śūnyatā ... even Schopenhauer's Will. Okay, but, in fact, even energy is "emergent" (re: E=mc² & quantum field excitations (quanta)) – emergent from what? Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (my guess :nerd:).There is a thing at the very bottom that can not be emergent but gives rise to emergence and that is what is "really real". — punos
even energy is "emergent" (re: E=mc² & quantum field excitations (quanta)) – from what? Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (my guess :nerd:). — 180 Proof
Cold isn't really a thing, as much of a thing as heat is and darkness is also not really a thing, as much of a thing as light is. — Agent Smith
are you making the same mistake as the Hindus (zero) made as according to the Greeks who asked "how can nothing be something?" — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.