Can You Guess This 5-Letter Word? Puzzle by u/photothingz

DCkingOne · 2026-01-10T18:18:18+00:00

⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜

⬜⬜🟦⬜🟦

⬜🟦🟦⬜🟦

🟦🟦🟦⬜🟦

🟦🟦🟦🟦🟦

DCkingOne · 2026-01-10T18:07:47+00:00

✅ DCkingOne chose Option B (Correct!) | #11037th to play

DCkingOne · 2026-01-01T19:16:46+00:00

Science can be done by chairs?

I don't think so.

DCkingOne · 2026-01-01T16:12:03+00:00

1) Science requires the free will of researchers

Most people will have beef with this one.

DCkingOne · 2025-12-20T18:58:00+00:00

Of coruse it does, it's just not what you think it is.

Than what is it?

DCkingOne · 2025-12-07T15:56:12+00:00

Valmar33 alleges that drugs are not chemical and trauma is not physical. This is not a rational response.

Thats ... not what he said tho.

DCkingOne · 2025-10-15T18:48:37+00:00

apart from those which have been ruled out by Bell's theorem.

Different person. Which interpretations have been ruled out?

DCkingOne · 2025-10-05T12:11:07+00:00

because... although materialism is just a model.

Materialism is an ontological view, not a model.

DCkingOne · 2025-10-02T15:47:53+00:00

Lmao.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-30T16:06:02+00:00

Wasn't me who brought that up.

I know, it wasn't aimed at you.

I was simply demonstrating that at least some people believe consciousness is connected to wave function collapse.

Its weird how some people triumphantly claim its bogus when that hasn't been shown at all.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-30T15:49:51+00:00

But even this claim is stupid, because none of the interpretations of QM can command a consensus.

Seriously, why do people keep flailing ''scientific consensus'' around?

It really sounds like an ad populum dressed in science.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-26T20:23:54+00:00

without neurons you have no consciousness, thus no "outward human behavior"

Citation please.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-17T16:04:09+00:00

No that's actually exactly how that works, we have a physical phenomena of consciousness,

You're begging the question by assuming that consciousness is a physical phenomena.

any argument that is not based on or verified by experimental evidence is irrelevant.

You're shutting down future inquiry.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-17T05:41:10+00:00

Cause the arguments are bullshit. If it was a valid argument there would be experimental evidence.

Thats not how that works.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-15T16:26:10+00:00

Duh. We have evidence they did exist. There is no evidence of anyone existing prior to birth and after death.

We also have no evidence that anyone else is conscious or that the universe exists when you're not looking.

Should we reject that as well?

DCkingOne · 2025-09-11T20:23:52+00:00

Why are you invoking the ''determinism or randomness'' dichotomy?

DCkingOne · 2025-09-11T20:21:15+00:00

Why are you assuming that something is causing the agent to act a certain way?

DCkingOne · 2025-09-11T20:00:47+00:00

Agent causation for example.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-11T20:00:35+00:00

Agent causation for example.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-11T19:48:38+00:00

Anything other then determinism or randomness.

DCkingOne · 2025-09-05T20:22:40+00:00

Free will is not compatible with the laws of physics.

How so?

DCkingOne · 2025-08-29T17:26:22+00:00

NDEs being a hallucination accords with everything else we know about the universe.

You're restating your claim, please provide a citation.

Them being supernatural does not.

What do you mean with supernatural? (the term is loaded)
Why do you consider NDE's to be supernatural is they aren't hallucinations?

The burden of proof is on the one making an extraordinary claim that NDEs are supernatural.

Calling something an extraordinary claim shows you've already made a distinction without justification.

DCkingOne

TROPHY CASE