Why aren't all processes moving exactly opposite to their present direction? — EugeneW

↪apokrisis
:up: — 180 Proof

And so the irony is that complexity is mechanical - but the causal action reaches down from above rather than works its way up from below. — apokrisis

But those [global] rules can't be the result of an evolutionary process - they must pre-exist it. Biological evolution at least assumes the existence of species of some kind for any kind of natural selection to operate on, because species uniquely possess the attribute of seeking to continue surviving. — Wayfarer

Like termites and their castle — EugeneW

it is unlikely that the US will attack the Netherlands — Benkei

All this talk about "objective truth" is silly. Objectivity and subjectivity are properties that pertain to a mind. None of the literature on the theories of truth (pragmaticism, coherentism, correspondence, semantic, et. cetera) ever seems to actually investigate this isolated pop-culture idea about "objective vs subjective" truth. — Kuro

For example, how many old scientists does it take to replace a light bulb? — magritte
I give up. How many? I will note though, that changing the incandescent for the LED has provided us with a much more efficient source of light. And the LED still has significant energy loss as heat. — Metaphysician Undercover

But it does need Crimea for its security in the Black Sea — Apollodorus

My contention is that some kind of dualism is more scientific than materialism — lorenzo sleakes

if consciousness is merely a by-product of physical processes then it cannot ever have any independent effect back to the physical world and therefore it cannot be detected or measured in any way. — lorenzo sleakes

Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle that can never be detected. Such a view would be dismissed as meaningless and unscientific. But the view that physical processes generate consciousness but consciousness has no independent effect back on physical processes is the same.
No theory of a purely epiphenomenal mind can ever be tested. An invisible object which has no causal efficacy disappears into pure speculation.
On the other hand if I clap my hands and create a particle called a poltergeist that I claim has some effect on the world then that claim can be tested, falsified and verified. At least it a scientific claim. We are discussing consciousness so it must have some ability to speak for itself. — lorenzo sleakes

Imagine if every time I clap my hands together I claim to have created a new ghost particle — lorenzo sleakes

putting Russia in a position in which it sees it has no escape other than a massive escalation of this war — Manuel

This week might prove crucial, depending on how much more resistance Ukraine has left. — Manuel

Take The Manhattan Project for example. When you get hundreds, or even thousands of scientists working together, in a network, there is a lot more efficiency than a handful of scientists here, and a handful there, with intellectual property guarded by secrecy. Fusion, or other new ideas, might not be as far away as you think. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is why I earlier said that Putin needs to be put down — Christoffer

To say that a defensive alliance like NATO is an offensive threat to Russia when they make nations bordering to Russia members is just uneducated on what NATO actually is.
The truth is simple, NATO is NOT a threat to Russia other than blocking Putin's ability to easily invade and claim these nations for himself. — Christoffer

People need to understand that it's not Russia that is acting here, there is no Russia, there's only Putin. — Christoffer

Putin genuinely seems to view things that he is doing from a historical perspective. Hence his actions now are responses to things that happened decades ago. — ssu

Does Putin think that capturing Kiev and installing a puppet regime and things will be fine? Those troops have to stay and occupy a huge country of 44 million people. — ssu

as a result of the US trying to project power into areas it doesn't even have realistic interests — Benkei

Putin's also demonstrating promises from NATO are meaningless. — Benkei

human beings are the spokespersons for reality. There are no others.

Knowledge is the adventure of a lifetime when we seek it through talent, humility, sacrifice, experience, and so much more that the gift of our humanity has provided us.

I have found that a skeptic likes to look up into outer space because he has never discovered the greatness right where he stands, within himself.

Your ignorance of your own greatness will keep you from the knowledge of who you actually are until you breathe your last breath in this body and this knowledge is revealed to you in the next instant — Joe Mello

Explain how the brain functions if you're going to insist it functions in such a way that everything is perfectly as it seems (to you.)
You're a little ant building a hill, oblivious to the mountain behind you. — theRiddler

As Putin is obviously trying to reconstitute and reconquer the Russian (Soviet) Empire, he truly is the modern imperialist in the genuine sense. — ssu

George Soros — Apollodorus

pi as a constant is ambiguous - just ask Matlab — sime

from Le Monde: 'The deconstruction of the discourse of objectivity at work in Lacan and Foucault was transposed by American universities to their own cultural context: this objectivity that must be deconstructed is that of the dominant, white male.' — Olivier5

You can come to my place and check the reality of my table. — Olivier5

My table would appear as objectively real to anyone seeing or touching it, yes. — Olivier5

the table is real enough for me — Olivier5

which, in fact, we do not need in order to survive and thrive in the world, so why does that matter? — 180 Proof

Whereas materialists of all stripes believe that the objects of perception have intrinsic reality - the kind of reality that persists independently of any perception, sensation or judgement. — Wayfarer
Patently false. Again. :sweat: — 180 Proof

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume considers the common-sense view that we directly perceive material objects, such as a table. This sort of naïve realism is, Hume says,
destroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us, that nothing can ever be present to the mind but an image or perception, and that the senses are the only inlets, through which these images are conveyed. (Enquiry, XII.I.9)
He then argues:
The table, which we see, seems to diminish, as we move farther from it: But the real table, which exists independent of us, suffers no alteration: It was, therefore, nothing but its image, which was present to the mind. — Gary Hatfield (upenn) for SEP

America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars — Apollodorus

certain interest groups in America or Britain — Apollodorus

But now it would be as if Austria would demand "a sphere of influence" over Hungary and the Czechs and Slovaks. — ssu

This is the first bang, followed by the hot bang. What's wrong with it? Where it says stars are 20 billion years old? Do you have a link? — Raymond

Considering the "big bang" theory (which I do not subscribe to) - did time exist before the singularity expanded and did the space that it expanded into exist - or is that space created as the universe expands? If we believe that the universe is expanding then our reference point for time would be measured from the point of its "creation" until its current state of expansion, or at any referential points during that expansion, and therefore can only go forward (expansion). When we see the light from a distant star we are viewing the image of something from the past - from back in time - if we could get a close-up view of that image we would be viewing history of events that occurred then - but that has already passed - all we are seeing is an image. Could I now interject myself into that image and change some event, i.e. time travel? All I can do is see the image - I am not able to participate in it. — Mason

The torus model looks a lot like what sprang up in my mind. But it has its difficulties (of course I say that!). — Raymond

Charge is attached to a particle... They can't be pulled apart. — Raymond
Um, right. That's because its not "attached to" it in a physical sense (again with the physical metaphor), charge is a property of a particle, and so its not meaningful to talk about "pulling it apart" any more than it would to talk of "pulling apart" the redness of an apple from the apple.

And in any case, charge is a physical property of a physical object- no mystery there. The problem is the proposal that the mental "resides in" or "is attached to" the physical in the way that a physical property like charge does with a physical object, without itself being physical. In other words, the interaction problem, dualism's harder problem of consciousness. — Seppo