• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Not a Drill: SETI Is Investigating a Possible Extraterrestrial Signal From Deep Space

That depends on whether they experience a multiversity or bog standard space madness.

If we want to talk about a man reaching and crashing into the end of the universe, what about this?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
No, that's deliberately wasting people's time when they're trying to understand what you're talking about. Which is not good. AT ALL. And you should probably avoid doing that.
Our time has already been wasted. It's either get an aneurysm trying to lay down scientific concepts to someone who rejects them out of hand, regardless of the data presented, or be less serious about it and inject some cheeky humor into the conversation. People have tried plan A. Repeatedly. To no avail.

Therefore, Plan B it is.
 
Our time has already been wasted. It's either get an aneurysm trying to lay down scientific concepts to someone who rejects them out of hand
As I just explained to you, "reductivism" is not a scientific concept, and the assumption that human experience is in any way comparable to the experiences if animals is just that, an ASSUMPTION, and not a scientific fact.

regardless of the data presented
"Data" usually consists of NUMBERS. You haven't posted any of those.

What you have is a difference of OPINION. I welcome differing opinions and a genuine effort to share an explain the reasoning behind it. I do not welcome peevishly jerking people around just because you've decided they're too stupid to warrant an honest response, and I'm actually disappointed that you do.
 
As I just explained to you, "reductivism" is not a scientific concept, and the assumption that human experience is in any way comparable to the experiences if animals is just that, an ASSUMPTION, and not a scientific fact.


"Data" usually consists of NUMBERS. You haven't posted any of those.

What you have is a difference of OPINION. I welcome differing opinions and a genuine effort to share an explain the reasoning behind it. I do not welcome peevishly jerking people around just because you've decided they're too stupid to warrant an honest response, and I'm actually disappointed that you do.
I wasn't talking about my posts, silly. I mean people who have posted hard evidence about various issues that have been soundly ignored. I'm just chatting and wool gathering. If I wanted to get serious about this discussion then I would, but I've been in this forum long enough to know when I'm going to make headway, or when I'll just end up pissing into the wind. In this case, I believe it's the latter, and you could post all day with link upon link of factual information, peer reviewed, and signed by one of the foremost biologists in the world, and it will not matter to some.
 
I wasn't talking about my posts, silly. I mean people who have posted hard evidence about various issues that have been soundly ignored.
What part of "reductivism is not a scientifically valid concept" are you not understanding? There is NO DATA that supports the assertion you're trying to make and no one has posted any. That's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

But then again, you just said you're basically dicking around trying to get a rise out of people and thinking you're funny, in which case I'm probably going to end up ignoring you for the forseeable future.
 
What part of "reductivism is not a scientifically valid concept" are you not understanding? There is NO DATA that supports the assertion you're trying to make and no one has posted any. That's a philosophical position, not a scientific one.

But then again, you just said you're basically dicking around trying to get a rise out of people and thinking you're funny, in which case I'm probably going to end up ignoring you for the forseeable future.
What part of "I wasn't talking about my posts, silly" did you not understand just now? I am not trolling, and I'm not bothering you. You ask for me to calm down, but I am not the one threatening to ignore another person. That being said, If you have a problem with me, and cannot accept that I do not take this thread as seriously as you wish it to be taken, regardless of how things have actually been handled in this thread, then it would be best if you would please put me on ignore.
 
What part of "I wasn't talking about my posts, silly" did you not understand just now? I am not trolling, and I'm not bothering you. You ask for me to calm down, but I am not the one threatening to ignore another person. That being said, If you have a problem with me, and cannot accept that I do not take this thread as seriously as you wish it to be taken, regardless of how things have actually been handled in this thread, then it would be best if you would please put me on ignore.
They don't teach Twain or Swift nearly enough, anymore.
 
Mickey Mouse wears trousers and Donald Duck does not.

Is Mickey ashamed of his tiny rodent dong, or is Donald too proud of his giant foul schmeckle?

Mickey is more sensitive about his penis than Donald is about Donald's penis, despite who actually does have the more sensitive penis.

Daisy and Minnie have to be interrogated to answer that question properly.

Donald's dingy is hidden by his feathers and Mickey's is not. Plus birds have extremely small penises. It's probably related to aerodynamism. You'd be surprised.
 
...
OTOH, it's worth pointing out that brains DO NOT operate like computers (modern analogies notwithstanding) and do not "process information." They react to stimuli in deterministic ways, and their reactions affect subsequent reactions later on, but memory and information are not stored within the brain, only expressed in various ways to the extent the pattern of expression is repeatable. Human intelligence (such as it is) works the way it does because we excel at abstract thinking; this makes us accomplished generalists, which is good for us because it makes is highly adaptable. On the other hand it means we basically suck at just about everything and have to make up the difference with technology, where as other life forms are much better at identifying sounds, objects, special relationships, movement patterns, kinesthetic patterns, and assessing threats in their immediate environment. In other words, most life forms appear "less intelligent" because they devote most of their thinking power to simply staying alive and/or not getting eaten. Humans appear more intelligent because we devote an anomalous amount of brain power to all kinds of meaningless bullshit like cat videos, presidential elections, and arguing with people on the internet.

This makes a lot of sense. Thank you for un-wasting my time.;)
 
No, that's deliberately wasting people's time when they're trying to understand what you're talking about. Which is not good. AT ALL. And you should probably avoid doing that.

There's only one person here wasting everyone's time...

I am not going to wade through all of this. If you have anything specific that endorses your peculiar notions. quote it.

Only one person here that simply refuses to acknowledge anyone's point but their own.

I'll let you guess who it is...
 
Are you drinking?
I guess I presumed too much of my readers.

Was I being too cryptic when I said you need to get back to discussing in a civil way? Was it really not clear you're not supposed to do ad hominem bullshit?
I don't want to see any digs at your fellow posters anymore. Stick to the topic. I hope that was clear enough. Comments to PM.

Donald's dingy is hidden by his feathers and Mickey's is not. Plus birds have extremely small penises. It's probably related to aerodynamism. You'd be surprised.

Incidentally the Lake Duck has the longest penis relative to body size of all vertebrae.

Your post just got owned by somebody who watched this:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

But then again, you just said you're basically dicking around trying to get a rise out of people and thinking you're funny, in which case I'm probably going to end up ignoring you for the forseeable future.

Don't tell people you're going to put them on ignore. Just put them on ignore.
Talking about it only serves to create forum drama and has nothing to do with debating the issue of the topic. You're getting personal. Don't do that again. Comments to PM.
 
...
Incidentally the Lake Duck has the longest penis relative to body size of all vertebrae.

Your post just got owned by somebody who watched this:
.....

Not really no, my comment was not about ducks but about birds in general. (there are exceptions to every rule, especially in the animal kingdom, as you know or at least should)

http://www.10000birds.com/do-birds-have-penises.htm?doing_wp_cron=1472735579.7073910236358642578125

from the link:

Most birds do not have a penis. Most birds have a little lump called a cloaca. During the breeding season when hormones are flowing the cloaca swells and birds can get a cloacal protuberance.

Playing fast and loose with the word "owned", are you?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top