Because I've already explained to you that I don't think it's idiocy when seen in its particular context. Rather it's a kind of game that appeals to some and not to others.
And believe me, you did indeed sound cranky. You still do, snappy and demanding to be right.
So "individual" is irrelevant to the definition of "consciousness", you say. Okay.
It's infinitely malleable for the same reason that we never experience it ─ it's entirely imaginary.
And we believe according to the structure of our brain, our upbringing, education, experiences and so on. What...
For me, truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it accurately reflects / corresponds with objective reality. (That's often called the "correspondence" definition.)
As you say, subjectivity can often be a problem for humans. That's why traffic cops use...
What exactly is an "individual" here? What test will tell me whether an amoeba, a shellfish, an ant, a sardine, a snail, a rat, is an "individual" or not?
Human will is only free in the sense and to the extent that it can by and large be exercised independently of external constraints. In fact...
Thank you for your clarification of "sudden".
Now where are those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of "atom" among the unbounded choices you assert are out there? Or were you just talking nonsense when you asserted that?
And what definition of...
What time period, or time test, are you referring to, when you say "sudden"?
And where are those five distinct necessary and sufficient non-overlapping definitions of "atom"?
And where's that nice clear definition of "consciousness"?
If you don't know, just say so. If you know, then make a...
Because your post sounded cranky, of course.
I didn't dispute the facts. I disagreed with the conclusions you drew from them. They fuss you, it appears. They don't fuss me.
I have no mindless need to fight. Nor do I have any mindless need to agree with you when in fact I don't.
I suspect the real problem here is that you have no objective test for truth, and that all your problems with science hinge on that fact.
Is that correct, or do you have an objective test for truth?
If you do, what is it?
Why, that's only $55,460 per head of population!
If everyone in the US (man, woman, child, tourist, visitor, infant, geriatric patient, felon, illegal immigrant &c) just adds $55,460 to their next tax cheque, everything will be perfectly splendid!
I know Donald will agree with me.
Then you'll have no trouble setting out those five distinct, necessary and sufficient and non-overlapping definitions of 'atom' as I requested. It should be very easy for you, considering you say an infinite number of such definitions exist.
Not my job. It's your claim that 'atom' has infinite...
First, what definition of 'consciousness' are you using? Spell it out for us (after you've set out those five distinct definitions of 'atom').
Are you saying amoebae are conscious in the manner you've defined? If so, what is your evidence for such a claim?
Are you saying each ant, each bee...
The key word there is 'imagine'. The only way I can think of to make 'everyone equal' ─ I can't even imagine a family where 'everyone is equal' ─ is for everyone to be a follower and for no one to be a leader.
For example, all gregarious species of land animal that I can readily think of...
I needed the reference to Newsweek since I hadn't seen it before.
The particular instance rather than a vague generalization about the vagaries of human nature is the news. Why else would they report it?
I totally fail to understand your indignation. Humans do weird things all the time. Why...