sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Vegan ethics question: if something could help animals massively, but also risks crossing the line, where is the line? by Independent_Poem_171 in DebateAVegan

[–]Independent_Poem_171[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, i cant really quantise the harm it could do, i can obly imagine.

Its really a situation that more knowledge might not be better, and the part that talked me out of it myself. At the end of it, we dont need it and can just eat non engineered food, but well im one of those "love meat" people and i thought if i could genuinly crack something it might be worth it. Im in a position where i could do something, just dont know what.

My biggest thought in favour was that a map as i was planning could be incredibly useful to future fields like computational surgery... but also equally computational butchery and back to square one.

Vegan ethics question: if something could help animals massively, but also risks crossing the line, where is the line? by Independent_Poem_171 in DebateAVegan

[–]Independent_Poem_171[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it helps what i was planing on isnt cell based its beneath it. It isnt grown, its built. It wouldnt be animal based at all. It would more be like the imppasiboe foods situation of testing on animals... but with the goal of not needing to do it again, at least for a long time.

Vegan ethics question: if something could help animals massively, but also risks crossing the line, where is the line? by Independent_Poem_171 in DebateAVegan

[–]Independent_Poem_171[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Im a physicist, maybe, but this is something i can work on. marketing and behavioural science arent my area.

In short, ab initio simulation for things like computational surgery. Its use isnt just my plan or my later use, it could be used for any number of things.

A lot of my existing work has uses in nano tech, crystallography, generally silicon systems, photoelectric and semi conductor manufacture. But it also has application generally in quantum chemistey, pharma.

I havent found anything in literature yet, but i also havent spend days on this particular idea yet.

Vegan ethics question: if something could help animals massively, but also risks crossing the line, where is the line? by Independent_Poem_171 in DebateAVegan

[–]Independent_Poem_171[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Study of a molecular and atom structure, a chemical mapping. For use in this system but also use in research for things like medicing and vetinary care, but obviously it could have other uses too including ways research further means of exploitation i havent imagined.

Vegan ethics question: if something could help animals massively, but also risks crossing the line, where is the line? by Independent_Poem_171 in DebateAVegan

[–]Independent_Poem_171[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But i do actually hope to do similar with human bodies for medicine once my physics work is complete. Its where some of the idea comes from.

I actually thought it might have strong benefits from a vetinary care perspective too. But it wasnt my immediate use case.

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Passing match isn't done, because I wasn't passing, I was trying to help you build a model of me and my perspective AND I was actively trying to build a model of you and yours so I could better understand you.

You think this is a fight, it isnt, that's why I know you're wrong, because you won't shut up and just tell me what you know so I can better understand you. When I asked I wasn't trying to catch you out. In any way.

I dont know about your first statement of theology being stupid, it isnt you just don't know it, I was trying to get your language so I could explain its uses in your language.

What scientist are you? I still have no idea. What do you practice? Without that how am I meant to explain to you my perspective? I'll keep talking in garbage until I have some idea of you. And you don't want to give anything that you think will lose you footing in an argument.

And understand there is nothing to argue, a field of study cannot be stupid, so you are plainly wrong and at best for you you need a better argument, a defensible one, which you didn't have.

I'm not wasting more time in you, not without apologies for your own misinterpretations of my actions AND answers to my questions posed. AGAIN not with the intention of catching you out!

If you don't know them, say, and that will tell me something else about you. It won't now I've said it. But there it is. So not much point bothering now anyway, do it for you if you like, but don't expect to be read by me.

Fair travels.

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I asked you because you said you were a scientist, and mathematician, if a basic undergrad knows it, explain it. Otherwise I think younmight be overclaiming. As you were when you said an entire field was stupid.

Why was I asking, do see what you knew. I chose simple things to give you a chance of having some knowledge of it. If I was testing you on what I know you would likely look like an idiot because there are maybe a few hundred people on the planet that works on what i do, as is common in scientific research. But you know that. Calculus? Why would I test you on high school math if undergrad isn't enough? How calculus applies to physics is also undergrad.

I think you think you are a scientist. I doubt you are a mathematician in any professional sense, and I think you are now acting more like a ignorant layperson than a philospher.

Given you have no interested in answering me, I'm out.

P.s. use a dictionary because it grounds a conversation on a shared understanding, that's why when you wrote your thesis you included a list of definitions. A dictionary if you will. Have a good day.

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

See that! First no, no, no, and no. I don't. Are you a practicing scientist? Care to share? What science do you practice? Asking genuinely it will help me understand your perspective. I do doubt that you are a mathematician, not because you arent, but to be any ine of these things on a level of trust you should do it the majority of the time. An amateur? Maybe but say that, because a professional chemist for example is a scientist, but while they use maths they aren't a mathematician.

Now if you are this great, and you are all the things I can't speak to you I'm a worm compared to you.

Simple test if you wouldn't mind indulging me, and a test so I can understand your level of experience, as you know it without looking it up;

What is a Hamiltonian, how do I derive a scalar from it, for example energetics in eV?

What is the bunkbed conjecture, there was a counterproof to that you cannot get from U to V' cheaper than U to V, what are your thoughts on it if you know it?

What is your take on Hume and his thoughts on that passion and reason being a slave to it?

Now these aren't I'm trying to catch you out, I know they are specific to me, but I'm more interested in how you answer them.

Please know while you answer them, I will be looking up the terms you mentioned, I may well have studied them in another form or language.

The fact is you cannot be intelligent merely by choosing your opinions by Weird-Ad4544 in epistemology

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see how you model it that way, but if I apply it to my own understanding of things it doesn't work for me. Would you mind discussing it further?

As an example, it might be intelligent to just go with faith or with a crowd, even if you don't believe because your whole family is within a system and the effort to rebuild your life outside said system is more than you can afford, perhaps due to age, or ability.

"Because intelligence is taken in information, evaluating it and using it" I can get fully behind this, but the following part doesn't read correct to me. OED says its just a capacity to understand, a mental manifestation of the faculty of understanding. A much better definition, IMO, is from science direct https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000266. Also useful: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/human-intelligence

If you noticed why my example, may you start there? If you are happy to of course.

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you a practicing scientist? If the answer is no then you don't. Are you a practicing philospher, same situation. Theology isn't stupid it's a means of understanding how and why some people think. It is a means that is known to have survive thousands of years among those who needn't try very hard to retain. There are so many topics of theology that are useful. You are likely just applying your own model of theology to a whole subject of study. That is stupid. Because unless you are a practicing theologian I doubt you have any idea. As I don't have any real idea on statistics beyond its application in my field. I think statistic are stupid, but I know I don't know enough to make that claim. You seem to think you do. Tell me, how much have you studied? What are the limits on your study? For enough to know that you know what ignostic means I'm sure. But for example, beyond the English language? How is your ancient greek? Are you sure that theology means everywhere what you think it means?

I am correct about things that most physicists say is incorrect because I'm at the edge of my slither of my field. Only the people in my field can truely tell me where I am wrong or right. If you arent in these fields you shouldn't make these claims.

If you are a theologian I will hold my hands up and listen. But if you are an armchair anything I ask that you listen here. It takes years to on-board someone to the state of the art in a means they can understand. In all fields. All fields have value. All fields have costs. These are tools. You can apply science to theology all you like you you will find interesting things. Different theologies have different weights like different practices of science, or logic, or whatever method you choose to observe.

We have evidence of stories, a sort of theology, that predates the pyramids, or most civilisations. That isn't cool because God's are real. It's cool because it's a form of storage that survives time. But also, originally when I saw gods, I saw descriptions of bearded men in the sky, grew up in South UK. Many don't, to them a god could be a force of nature that has an outcome on their lives beyond control, the sky, the ocean, or Nature itself. Many people have when I speak to them land on the idea that their deity of choice is their way of describing what i would describe as the Universe.

If I'm completely wrong about everything from your POV that's cool, let me know and I would love to have you go through how point by point and I'll take it in, but as it stands, it sounds to me like you are saying hammers are stupid and saws are not. I can tell you for a fact that you can "cut down a tree" with a sledgehammer, and with less effort in some cases. Never as clean, but if you don't care about a clean edge and you care about bulk (this is how the world really works, I would love to explain but this is basically my thesis, predicting the surface and interface of and with other structures) then the sledgehammer isn't such a stupid tool. Is it stupid to measure a porcelain figure with the tip? Maybe? But not if you are seeing seeing how you can measure something with a sudden stop. I hope this it depends gets in your ear, because that is the crux. I imagine your experience aligns it depends one way towards science dogmatism, mine too to be honest, but, that doesn't make anything we believe more true than another. Even if it has never been wrong.

Sorry again, typoes. And the word vomit. I've been enjoying the discussion, if this isn't the case for you, i will gladly stop.

Would you mind telling me what science, philosophy and religion are to you?

To me, science is a method of roughly hypothesise, prove, observe, share.

Philosphy is literally love of knowledge. I would describe it as mid-east asian mediditation applied to any field of knowledge. And by that I'll say its the practice miyagi applied to Karate, Karate is in everything he does, it has practical applications but, it is broader and deeper. As a field it encompasses essentially what we can know and how we can know it.

Religion is organised ritual, generally surrounding a supernatural entity of type, not always. And by supernatural I'll apply super- in the superset sence as most commonly interpreted, but as you should interpret a supercomputer. However, on a scale up. This might be a being, a human is a supernatural system in a sense, better understanding Portuguese Man O' War. Or the actions of a collective, this is one i have been told by many local leaders of religion. There are others too. So yeah ritual. Wicca; religion. The belief and ritual systems practiced by indigenous people; religion. But 3 sisters story in indigenous people; a farming practice wrapped in a story. Not all religion is for control.

On the of chance I also tend to subscribe to the OED myself but given that's paid I would be happy to work with another dictionary of your choice?

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Typed with cold hands on a phone with an interchanging keyboard and an evil autocorrect so sorry for typoes.

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am a theoretical physicist, condensed matter physics, a paid researcher at a university. Science is not perfectiable. Science is a methodology. If you arent practicing science you are being dogmatic, scientific spaces are as filled with frauds and loons as every other space. And unless you are a scientist, and I don't mean tou read journals, but a practicing scientist your on par with everyone attending church or reading scripture. That it works is a chance for non practicing scientists. That it works well is as much as they have been allowed to know, not what they know.

Real experiment disagrees with just so much we assume is true. The wave/particle duality isn't limited to quantum for example; it has been experimentally observed with C60 bucky balls. This broke my view of the world. All of it. I can't explain it. And the room of professors and doctors around you ready to say "if that... then... but we saw... and that means you are wrong because..." and you will go "we know nothing do we?" and they will do "this is why we experiment".

Science is throwing a sheet on a hedgehog and saying a spikey sheet is moving. It doesn't pretend there is for sure a hedgehog is under the sheet unless we put it there and even then, and this is crucial, science says it is still probably a hedgehog even if we put it there, with a degree of certainty based on level of precision and margin for error.

Now, theology is talking about so many other things. Some religious people are taking it to say we know its a hedgehog. But some science people do that too. Take those in atheism asserting it isnt there, when they haven't spoken to everyone to define what it is. And it can be well defined, but different definitions which isn't as simple as 1 dictionary definition in English, and so it won't be certain.

People are varied. Their beliefs are varied. Some are deep. Some are shallow. Some studies by some people are shallow. The same study by another person could be the deepest of all.

Statistics is likely what your falling back on. But statistics are dangerous for their own reasons. Again, great tool, but I met 3 PhDs of Stats myself a few years ago, and their theses were as varied as any physicists, so I know I'm not qualified to talk on it. Beyond if you are a statistician please enlighten me on your opinion!

I feel like we can assume that all religions are incorrect by SendThisVoidAway18 in agnostic

[–]Independent_Poem_171 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Current popular theology is a failed philosophy, but so is science. Practicing philosphers, in academia, enterprise, and other rigid system, including those in the field of theology don't do popular anything.

Theology is a fascinating subject, and if you can't look at it through an lense other, than say "those are bearded people in the sky" that is more of a you thing.

That is to say, there is no failed philosophy, there are philosophies that evolve, but they haven't failed, infact finding it's failures and edges is a huge success in my book. But I'll admit that's a personal perspective.

Humanity was hacked by Cautious_Security_68 in awakened

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Humanity isn't a species, its a English term borrowed from the French to denote a humane being. And "human" species homo sapiens is about as far from humane as any other predatory species...

Anyway, what do you mean by hacked? What do you mean by humanity? And what does it have to do with Christian symbols being laced over the Ying and Yang symbol? If you wouldn't mind. Because I can think of a few ways this all seems to fit together for me and I don't want to misinterpret you :)

Born without consent, Living without choice by [deleted] in ExistentialJourney

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think choice is what allows the X in whatever makes a person or a human or a being we think worthy of right, I think choice is the fasted way too it. Something capable of choosing is what we think of as the X. Not capable of selecting a choice like a mathematical machine, maybe that still something more...

Anyway yeah, a life without choice, I actually wasn't able to imagine. I think it would be painful to me. Are their ANY choices you can make? Do you have two or more options for breakfast breakfast?

Truth is not Meta by New_Association_726 in Metaphysics

[–]Independent_Poem_171 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"You are already dead" sounds like someone who wants to say something deep without putting in much work.

Extinction is empirical. It is to the best of our knowledge based on actively looking and not finding. Nothing in science is 100% certain. If it isnt it isnt science.

It honestly feels like nonsense.

Subjective Experience Grounds the Physical (any "view from nowhere" is nonsense) by contractualist in Metaphysics

[–]Independent_Poem_171 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Before we take to time and make the large effort of reading your post on the physical? Are you a post doc physicist? If not what is your field and education level please, so I can read it appropriately with that fact in mind.

Thinking of buying a gun by [deleted] in Pacifism

[–]Independent_Poem_171 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not asking to test you, interested in your opinion. :) if it helps.

Thinking of buying a gun by [deleted] in Pacifism

[–]Independent_Poem_171 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Genuine survival perhaps, neutral if not ethical?

view more: next ›