If philosophy only raises new questions has science answered anything other than by way of discoveries that give philosophers more to ask questions about?

Way TL/DR

Never played it.

Maybe I prefer games that are more intuitive and less objective. Clearly there are no people as powerful as the queen is compared to pawns. And certainly the king shouldn't be nearly helpless. It might be more fun to me if you can power up pieces without simply replacing pieces that already died.

Nora Jones isn't your cup of tea? Lol.

I assume with chess they know a computer will always win without testing it further. Go I think only has a very high probability of beating a person?

Jazz is perfectly fine.

The thing I dislike about chess is the lack of creativity and the ability to beat someone in like 2 moves regardless of having pretty much all your pieces at that stage. It's like you need to do all preliminary moves at the start which isn't really so much skill, just protection against the shortcomings of how the board is set up initially. There can only really be creativity after eliminating equal or more valuable pieces with yours.

Yes but can a computer beat a human 100% of the time? My point was it has even more possibilities than chess.

Does our DNA evolve within our lives though? Of course our species has been able to continue and adapt to our environments or else we wouldn't existence to discuss it. I worry argument that is based mostly on the fact of existence is overused. I just want to know if our DNA takes more and bigger positive turns to negative in our lifetime.

What is the point of DNA that degrades versus evolves? Can we assume that everything that occurs has a reason?

Isn't empathy and goals for society betterment a self serving self preservation tactic that biology put into place which also degrades when we do? Old people aren't fighting no wars for us or able to protect others of the species as well anymore.

We don't know our purpose so we can't consider what we leave behind when we die as either good or bad. Sure we know the legacy of famous people who died, but again we don't know our purpose as a species and therefore good or bad can't be determined. I am asking about individual single life betterment. Our DNA degrades. I don't think that is in question. And it is our biological identity. It doesn't decide everything about us, but if we can't prove an identity that transcends the physical than what do we have? And if what we physically have clearly continues to break or become less adaptive what value can even it have?

I didn't say I couldn't be content with dying eventually. My emphasis is on the value of living based on our DNA's decline. Even if it is unique at all times, even a rock in a stream meets that criteria. What value can something that can't (to my knowledge) continue to better itself have?

Free will aside. Can we ever be more than a clear computer program? Even computers accumulate errors and fail, and they too don't evolve from their original source code.

What is the difference between Predetermined and Determinism?

You are saying free will and determinism aren't mutually exclusive?

Epigenetics isn't that new. Yamanaka Factors can actually wipe them off the DNA making the cell behave younger than it is. But the DNA still has errors and may still be more prone to cancer.

I have no issue with obscurity myself. I don't like the idea of oblivion is all.

If we don't live to see the destination, we have no right to be proud of the seeds we plant. I want to know the value of our own biological identity and would prefer to think it evolves instead of breaks then ceases.

You got to keep your memories? I can't remember half the people I work with daily and I'm in my 40s. I suspect blood plasma dilution or senolytics are the only true treatment for brain issues, but that is likely a ways off research wise.

If our only identity is genetic ultimately, and it constantly is deleteriously changed over time, what value does it have? And as far as predetermined I think most in this forum are comfortable with a lack of freewill which I think science can't prove to the contrary?

What do you mean by transhumanism? If you ask age researchers, at best they think they "might" be able to stop human aging in 20 years, by then I might be dead. But that doesn't promise that we will know enough about our DNA to reprogram all the DNA in all of our cells so they will avoid cancer and other diseases. I think to this day they still haven't mapped out, let alone gained full understanding of the Y chromosome. I don't think technology and biology research are making the appropriate pace to give me any sense that my only biological identity can be protected.

Sounds interesting. If you find the study I'd love to read it.

None yet. Those in the group I joined seem to like putting up so many conditions for testing the ability. They say the viewer and "tasker" should know each other, the target should be descriptive and not as objective like numbers or letters so basically very difficult to measure success rate, and they seem concerned with people they might categorize as skeptical or otherwise trying to prove to themselves that this ability exists. I am frankly worried they want people to have blind faith even though they freely admit that results aren't consistent enough to be used for anything too critical. I believe the CIA considered these means to not be "actionable." But I guess some say the success rate in general beats chance which is all I'd like to determine.

So would most in here say right brain associated abilities alone would not do much towards science processes?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6837438/

According to this the side of stroke or aneurysm doesn't change prognosis that much.

As far as aneurysms and strokes I hope gene therapy makes regeneration of the brain a possibility. So far optic nerve has shown potential for regeneration with gene therapy.

Recently I have taken an interest in testing remote viewing. Some say it's totally legitimate. Others say it has never been proven scientifically. I joined a group that discusses it online and one person says it is a very right brained process. So in that sense a viewer's description would be very abstract. Numbers, letters, and more objective data shouldn't be used as a target, as it's unlikely they will be able to process that type of information. It would be much easier for me to determine if this is a real phenomenon if I could test something that requires minimal interpretation.

Actually I think the eye position and brain access thing might be a myth if you're referring to detecting lies versus remembering the truth?

That is pretty incredible. I have heard of brain cancers that called for removing half the brain. I have also heard of studies of blindfolded seeing people who were taught sign language and under brain scans their occipital seemed to respecialize or at least temporarily assist at tactile functions since it wasn't being used for sight. I'm not referring to brain plasticity though. I mean adult brains that can't accommodate s***. Lol.

Ok. Consider this. We can look at a beautiful painting and give it a particular meaning. It can evoke emotions and even trigger memories. Imagine if we had the intellect to know and hold the position and type of atoms of the entire painting in our mind as that that is all we can see of it? The latter doesn't have the purpose and meaning behind it and it basically matter of fact, and the former is immediately compared and connected to other ideas. Kind of woven in. These are the two versions if objective I mean.

I guess subjective isn't quite an opposite to objective. So I guess I mean objective that doesn't have emotional connotation or anything that isn't pure information, and a version of objective that refers to objects and objective ideas, but allows emotions and other non pure data to leak in. And have there be a spectrum between them?

I mean absolute knowledge of. Something we can entirely hold in our thoughts at a single time.

Knowledge is relative. Surely we can get closer or farther from absolute knowledge of a topic, object, concept? The number "3" is well understood? 1 above 2 and 1 below 4. We probably don't apply emotional content when thinking about the number 3 unless we specifically consider what there is 3 of?

I guess we will have to assume nothing is truly infinite.

Perhaps I mean objective and an altered memory of objective containing emotions for easier storage. So two types of the same thing of varied quality.

The brain isn't perfect. Although there are people who can photographically remember any day when you give them the date.

Good advice, and nice new avatar

I will check that out. Is it something that can be embedded into a forum? Or just an academic tool that everyone needs to buy a membership?

I'm incoherent in places.