recogitare.com

I asked for the source of your information. Not what you think about the info. I prefer to make up my own mind about what I read.

Thanks.



ETA: A reduction of snarkiness which is almost always counter productive.

And now here's one for Di may she spin in her grave:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/climate/ ... ef/1677846

Looks like you got out at just about the right time Darlin'.

sparks wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 5:01 am I asked for the source of your information. Not what you think about the info. I prefer to make up my own mind about what I read.

Thanks.



ETA: A reduction of snarkiness which is almost always counter productive.

i felt it to be 'self-evident'.
if thought is a metabolic process that requires energy, stuff gets moved, stuff is made of electrons and other wee bits. all set in motion with something ephemeral that we don't understand much. Thought itself is certainly worthy of deep investigation. We take it for granted.

sparks wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2024 10:20 pm And now here's one for Di may she spin in her grave:

https://www.accuweather.com/en/climate/ ... ef/1677846

Looks like you got out at just about the right time Darlin'.

i hate it!
what a thing to lose!
not sure if i'll ever see a healthy coral reef again. Likely not.
Fairly certain my grand-kids won't.

stanky wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:05 am

sparks wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 5:01 am I asked for the source of your information. Not what you think about the info. I prefer to make up my own mind about what I read.

Thanks.



ETA: A reduction of snarkiness which is almost always counter productive.

i felt it to be 'self-evident'.
if thought is a metabolic process that requires energy, stuff gets moved, stuff is made of electrons and other wee bits. all set in motion with something ephemeral that we don't understand much. Thought itself is certainly worthy of deep investigation. We take it for granted.

Well, mr stanky, we recently got a step closer to understanding thought:

A fruit fly's brain has been sliced into 7,000 units and examined under electron microscopes. The claim being made is that we've mapped the neural connections of the fly brain. Like,150 million of them. The scientists in the article were gosh-darned excited and thought it would only take 30 years or so to do the same with the human brain.
It's a wonder what a fruit fly can manage with that tiny brain. A male can 'sing' songs of seduction, for instance.

Evidence?
(Something i read on the interweb)

Evidence is for people that insist on solid ground, where, as we slowly discover, there isn't any.

stanky wrote: ↑Fri Oct 04, 2024 12:12 am

stanky wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 2:05 am

sparks wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 5:01 am I asked for the source of your information. Not what you think about the info. I prefer to make up my own mind about what I read.

Thanks.



ETA: A reduction of snarkiness which is almost always counter productive.

i felt it to be 'self-evident'.
if thought is a metabolic process that requires energy, stuff gets moved, stuff is made of electrons and other wee bits. all set in motion with something ephemeral that we don't understand much. Thought itself is certainly worthy of deep investigation. We take it for granted.

Well, mr stanky, we recently got a step closer to understanding thought:

A fruit fly's brain has been sliced into 7,000 units and examined under electron microscopes. The claim being made is that we've mapped the neural connections of the fly brain. Like,150 million of them. The scientists in the article were gosh-darned excited and thought it would only take 30 years or so to do the same with the human brain.
It's a wonder what a fruit fly can manage with that tiny brain. A male can 'sing' songs of seduction, for instance.

Evidence?
(Something i read on the interweb)

Evidence is for people that insist on solid ground, where, as we slowly discover, there isn't any.

Fascinating stank. There are only two conclusions that can be drawn from your reply here. 1. You're trying to be funny. 2. You're being evasive on supplying your source information.

Don't care which it is. Ultimately you've not provided info/evidences to back up your initial claims.

Major FAIL.

Have a nice day, and as always, thanks for playing.

Now now, sparkplug.

I did state my source...I read it on the internet.
I wouldn't have mentioned it if i didn't think it was decent data.
That, you can either trust, or not.
And I don't remember more than that.

snark reduction fail, sparky.
I'm not at all being evasive.
If I'm funny, that's cool.
Wasn't the goal.

Also, you're wrong about the "only two conclusions". I thought of six.
If you didn't have to pretend to be so hard core materialist, you'd probably be able to enjoy my contributions.

Was there something about the fly brain slicing article that seemed like something I'd make up? For what?
Google it. Take 10 seconds. I shouldn't have to. I had to write stuff.
I say bullshit to the rules you lay out. Making it like work, communicating.
Six demerits!
(according to my rules.)

stanky says (among other things): "I did state my source...I read it on the internet."

OK. I'm done trying to pry citations out of you which may or may not back up your claims.

When I see you doing this same old lame bullshit in the future I will not attempt to solicit citations or evidence from you.

And best of luck with your rules which are contrary to a good execution of the scientific method. We've been down this road before:

No point in wasting further time and effort on you and the unfortunate way you 'reason'.

Dude, I was trying to share something interesting.You don't seem interested in that; only in busting my ass.
What concerns me in this, is the exaggerated credibility given to proper procedure, in light of the immense heap of misleading or compromised science reporting. This is especially heinous in the medical and energy fields.

Be thankful i don't share the latest battery or fusion breakthroughs.
Truth has been compromised by profit motive.
Further complicating the situation is the bifurcations we discover about reality itself.

Scientific arrogance is on notice.

Hey,
how about that JWST?
Half the stuff i was taught in college science courses has been proven false.
Yet the teachers were cock-sure and arrogant about it.
Worse in medicine.

Still, i forgive you. You're young.

I can settle this argument, and in a complete lack of surprise, stanky is mostly wrong.

Not only are they nowhere near 30 years from mapping a human brain, a mouse will take a decade.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 ... uroscience

The human brain is roughly a million times more complex than the fruit fly brain, putting a complete wiring diagram beyond practical reach with today’s technology. It would also require some hefty memory: scientists estimate it would amount to a zettabyte of data, equivalent to all of the world’s internet traffic for a year.

Interesting research but tells us nothing so far.