Thought I saw a pattern and was not completely wrong. Quoted every paragraph itt starting with a "No", sorry if missing any.

I don't see it as an optimal start, because I think you kind of negate all what the previous poster said with the two first letters, even if there may be thoughts to consider in there. Views?

I prefer not being the judge.

Does one elephant plus a seal equal an artichoke?

No.

They are equatable as existing as imaginable. Yes.

I'm not one to play the touchy-feely game when it comes to accuracy. There have been many posts in this thread for which "No" is both the correct and the proper response.

But I think you're forcing a separate issue that's really not as present as you seem to think it is. By my count, you've made this observation of 15 paragraphs in a 270+ post thread. If we give an estimate of 3 paragraphs per post (it seems reasonable lowball estimate to me, but feel free to substitute another number if you choose), you're talking about 15 paragraphs out of over 800 paragraphs of typing. That's a really low hit rate.

I would therefore argue that you are merely falling victim to confirmation bias. There's a pattern you wish to see in the evidence, and so it's standing out to you in a certain way.

I'll also point out that anyone is free to challenge a "no" by providing information or argumentation that supports a "yes" (or even a partial yes). "No" doesn't have to mean the end of the conversation.

Edit: Just for fun, you ought to go back and look for "yeah" or "yes" paragraphs.

Actually the amount of no and the support of no suggests bias. It's clearly questionable within reason to notice the patterns. Treating a question like the OP as something to do is not really suggestive of a limiting bias. Particularly compared to a repetitive no.

As with some of your other posts, I really have no idea what you're intending to communicate here. I can't even tell if this is an affirmation of what I've said, a criticism of it, or something else entirely. This post is particularly incomprehensible.

It's understandable as is your reaction to it.

I question the claim of bias and call to question everyone's biases ITT since you mentioned.it. I don't require answers. If there is an articulatable bias, if it not going to be treated as such it is fine to be left alone in my view.

On another note, it still looks premature for conclusions. We haven't even discussed all the senses nor how sense work together.

One alternative is creating an opened-ended variety of the question. Something like "how much intelligence and human sense and human reason can discover and describe physics without using tools or pre- existing derivatives or descriptions?

Another word on imagination.
Imagination is an answer to doing an exploration with say to a point of examining the minimum tools required. So the intelligence would have a very focusable and persistent imagination faculty with at least at human level capability to imagine discoveries of physics descriptively. Imagination recall is a sufficient element of intelligent imagination. Ii'll guess the entity would be better than a human who doesn't do imagination much with practice.

.

So now I'm really annoyed by your crap. Either you're being willfully deceptive, intellectually dishonest, or you're just outright stupid. In either case, I have little tolerance for this idiotic nonsense.

A bit of humor, please.

lol


"Yes" is more including anyway. A bit categorical anyhow, not optimal. Looks I faulted a bit. Glad I didn't have a "No" though.

Apparently "Yeah" is more often ironic than not btw?

It happened to not be ironic in the cases above.

Given that this is a discussion of physics in relation to human senses, intellect and reason, I have absolutely no clue how critiquing the ideas presented would possibly not be the correct method. You know, using facts and such things as logic and reason.

Ideas aren't precious things that require coddling.

Presumably, the various members of this forum have access to a fridge, magnets, paper, pens or crayons and some sticky-backed gold stars.

I think giving some credit to ideas people have can carry a long way, even if not mainly agreeing with them. I don't know who invented the yes-no dialogue, and the quest for necessarily being right oneself in every detail.

We should maybe put our ego on a post-it note on the fridge door, secured with a magnet.

And I think ideas are often precious things. They can be massacred.

That quest is a quest. To critique ideas in an effort to BECOME more right.

Wanting to be right yesterday is extremely silly. Wanting to be right today is only slightly less silly. Wanting to be more right tomorrow than today is a sensible goal.

What ego? I am saying that ego should have nothing to do with it. There is nothing damaging to finding out that you were wrong. It should be embraced.

I believe your claim that you think that ideas are often precious things. You should probably make some sort of argument as to why other people should find them to be precious.*

That they can be "massacred," I assume is hyperbole. If you mean that they can be found to be incorrect and then discarded, I agree. When that happens it is a happy day.

*more precious than say deserving of being attached to the refrigerator with a magnet.

When did you let your initial view be corrected last time?

It happens quite often. The last really important one involved the best method of boiling eggs. It was completely life changing.

Less important ones occur more frequently. There is lots of new information about behavioral biases that I find hard to fit into my worldview and that makes for a ton of changes in my worldview. Nothing amounting to an entire regime change recently*, but some major tweaks were needed.

I assume that this is a sort of bonding exercise. When was your last one?

*my last major regime change was over a decade ago. Probably due for another one.

The real important question here is whether you've abandoned boiling completely yet...

Next-door neighbor keeps a very strict schedule of taking out the trash and going out on his porch to stare off into the distance. Acceptable amounts of taking out of trash and an exorbitant amount of being on porch staring into the distance. Probably a 1:100 ratio.

My downstairs neighbor commented to me that he hadn't seen him in days. Upon reflection, I realized that I had also not seen him in days. I mentioned that perhaps he had gone out of town. Neighbor pointed at his car in the parking lot. Mentioned that next-door neighbor-of-mine has no people. Downstairs-neighbor said that he had already knocked on next-door neighbor door very loudly. I noted that I had heard no classic rock coming from next-door neighbor's apartment. We proceeded to knock on his door in a manner that would make 3rd piggy a bit nervous that he had not made his door out of bricks.

So, I called the cops. "Please check on him."

1)It turns out he was dead and the cops are waiting on a gurney to get him out of his apartment. Or 2) I just went outside after the cops vacated our premises and he was staring at me completely naked through his slightly parted vertical blinds and touching himself as he stares off into the distance and for a few awkward seconds eye contact was made. Or 3) they came, they saw, he answered the door and they knocked on my door to let me know that I am a ninny. Or 4) he had a medical emergency and it was a darn good thing that downstairs-neighbor and I talked and we aren't sure of the details as of yet, but at least we did something and he was taken out on a gurney instead of a body bag.

Up until recently, I had been using a sous vide style water heater.

Flexible ideas can just bend or go around. Which what I recommend for inflexible criticism that may be exercises in vanity. Speaking of, why are topics like this fun to consider?

Good question.

Interesting choice. I can't say that I've known anyone who has used that approach.

I've been steaming eggs for a while now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers...es_of_Superman

If Superman has super intelligence, then he is hands-down the biggest under-achiever in the world.

How about sticking to Clark Kent?