If you would still like to donate, you still can. We have more than enough funds to cover operating expenses for quite a while, so don't worry about donating if you aren't able. If you want to donate something other than what is listed, you can contact RainAndSadness.
Bitcoin Address (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJt
Ethereum (ETH): 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9
Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVS
I feel like it depends on what you define free will as. Perhaps the conscious does not dictate the resulting action but is instead a 'messenger' supplying reason to the individual for a particular action? If this were the case, it wouldn't disprove free will, it would just mean that the conscious, higher think-y part is just not the one making that decision. I guess it could be likened to flicking a switch on a computer program on and off; the user just sees a switch on a white screen that alternates between on and off (so they think that the switch alone is what controls on and off here) while there's so much more going on under the hood that actually dictates what action occurs or whether or not, in the case of free will, what decision is made. Even if it isn't the conscious making that decision and choosing something, there's something that is, so I don't necessarily see it as being too distinguishable from free will.
PS: I would really appreciate that you just summarized what you're trying to say. I really don't have time to sit through an hour of videos.
I already addressed the problem with distances in space. A lot of what you're talking about is also being measured based on modern human biological composition and technological advancement. Even with our modern day concepts of life preservation, cryonics with time can easily shift from speculation to practice.
This is speculation. I'm not sure if you're relying on probabilities or just being biased towards to earth's history, but none of that impedes the advancement of an even type 3 civilization on the kardashev scale.
"fermi paradox math"? Where are you getting that math? The fermi paradox is not specifically a mathematical equation but a thought-provoking question regarding the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations existing in the universe and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.
Of course they would win it, because then it's no longer speculative science but proven fact. I think you're missing something here, wormholes and warpdrives are theoretical speculation and are subjects of ongoing research and debate among physicists and astronomers. The current models we have of the physical universe allow for such things to exist even though their practical applications are still debatable. The Planck length is a tiny unit of length represents a scale at which quantum gravitational effects are expected to become significant; wormholes, if they exist, would not necessarily be constrained to this size. The size of a wormhole, if it were to exist, would depend on the specific conditions and properties of spacetime in which it forms, which are currently unknown.
I can tell you're uh passionate about this topic. But regardless, you're not exactly disproving the basis of my argument.
Every single thing that has ever happened was predetermined by the arrangements of the atoms which make up the universe. It's like a math problem with an inconceivable amount of variables. Almost like how physics can be calculated by humans and be somewhat accurate, but if you calculated every single atom you would be able to perfectly determine how something would happen. This could also apply to how people think, as brains are just bundles of neurons and electrical charges.
should probably read more about the physics of what youre arguing against
Wait a minute, are you saying that everyone who isn't vegan should be punished to death?
I already said don't talk about topics you're sensitive about. Now here you go being toxic.sigh The Fermi Paradox arises from the discrepancy between probabilistic arguments suggesting many possible civilizations and the lack of observable evidence or contact with such civilizations. What you are doing here is probabilistic math, not "fermi paradox math"; is this just a deliberate poor choice of words? Since you're quoting wikipedia, did you just gloss over this "The Fermi paradox is a conflict between the argument that scale and probability seem to favor intelligent life being common in the universe, and the total lack of evidence of intelligent life having ever arisen anywhere other than on Earth."
It's not a formula, there is no fermi paradox formula. The fermi paradox, in simple words, is a thought experiment that questions why the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations existing doesn't align with our lack of observations or contact with such civilizations. You might be misconstruing it with Drake's equation, which at times helps to demonstrate the disparity presented by the paradox.
What exactly have I had the opportunity of proving? You literally started your reply with a strawmann argument, here "sounds like youre discounting evolution as a whole and underestimate early human innovation". I've been trying this whole time to explain to you, what my argument is firstly, and that your post doesn't discredit it. You claim to know how debate works, but you are acting differently, and here you start off with a "rant", in your own words.
So how do you reconcile this with the mainstream understanding that quantum physics is nondeterministic? Which I think would be a huge chink in that variable math.
This doesn't sound controversial, unless I didn't understand correctly. Seems very reasonable. Either way, I agree.
Not at all what I'm saying sigh. When you read a research paper, do you see people copy/pasting entire books in there, or do they cite particular phrases and statements that are relevant to their point? Suppose I send you a 1 hour video every time you have a counter argument, will you diligently sit through and watch each one, or would you ask me to cite what is pertinent to the discussion? You can AT THE VERY LEAST, put in timestamps to mark which parts I should watch. I think you've not been considerate this whole discussion. Anyway, we can end it here.knowledge about counterarguments isnt worth time apparently
HEY CHECKMATE FUCKO no i am clearly not saying that however as an actual meat eater l concede that there is no logical reason to not be vegan in the year of our lord two thousand and twenty four, also don't harm animals for pleasure, it's bad
I was chased by geese and a rooster (I was carrying my dog during the rooster chase and lost my flip flop during the run.) but I don't wish them death upon either of them.
If you were to wish death on geese then they would hunt you down and kill you. It's illegal to wish death on them.
We think and act differently in numbers/groups too; it's gross.
I agree with this, but it needs to have an extremely heavily regulated process; "Denied, re-apply on 60days or 6mo." being an option. Maybe raise the age to 26, with some exceptions. A lot thought and restrictions would need to go into this. Options to have brains studied, body harvesting and donated options too.
I read this and assumed the thread had gone back on to FuneralCry being banned
Nah that shit needs to stop though. Her sheep can go talk about their sheperd on discord or a thread like you said. Said it before, will say it again...
Of course, I may fall into the irrational category.
There are never any scans done, and this baffles and frustrates the hell out of me. Nor are there any testing of genes and whatever else that could be discovered to aid in any kind of recovery. This seems unethical and to be malpractice.
Even the lesser known artists? I find a lot of good stuff if I stay away from popular media. Since the popular stuff are always going to be limited by *something*, lesser known artists have the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want.
