As others have already pointed out, the common misunderstanding of the word "theory" often leads laypeople to dismiss it and attempt to debunk it through their own efforts. However, in natural science, a "theory" is actually a broad, well-reasoned, and extensively verified system of ideas. Countless scientists spend their entire lives studying the theory of evolution, either directly or indirectly. There is such a wealth of material available that it is truly a stroke of luck that this specific field interests you. I would say you could spend a lifetime studying it and never grow bored, because there is always an infinite amount left to learn, and it remains consistently fascinating and worth the effort. Beyond that, you are essentially exploring the endless riches of both the living and non-living world—a place where so much remains undiscovered, where new things are constantly happening, and where you can make your own contribution if you dedicate yourself to it.
While you search for your path, the world keeps moving, and so does natural science. Your topic has even left a meaningful legacy; it has prompted many scientists to share their wisdom, and now those individual efforts have merged into a lively, engaging discussion. Let this encourage you to take that next step—into books, documentaries, museums, classrooms, and laboratories. Hurry and enrich yourself with knowledge, so that you too may participate!
ruggedraven36 said:I have a better suggestion. Start a new thread, and I promise I won't participate, even if someone asks me a math problem. If my word isn't enough, feel free to ban me; I've already said I don't care.
Fine, I will open one. Stop trying to pass off your personal theories as math. Read more, write less. Your peers know their stuff; try learning something from them.
Hello, ruggedraven36. Yes, this thread has become tedious because pages upon pages are spent arguing over your interpretation of set "size." This isn't interesting, primarily because in the mathematics you keep citing for reasons known only to you, that concept isn't even defined. And there are perfectly valid reasons for that, which have been explained here multiple times.
Since several mathematicians—and even non-mathematicians—have already clarified the facts (which most regular users on the IRS forums are already well aware of), I would say this topic has exhausted its potential. Naturally, it becomes incredibly boring if we allow it to just spin in circles.
I have the option to ban you for being persistently disruptive, and I could delete your posts since they are truly excessive and all claim the same incorrect thing. However, that would leave the thread looking patchy and wouldn't be fair to the people who took the time to answer your posts to teach you something—while potentially educating other passersby who might not know the same things you don't. One shouldn't be exclusionary; even in this day and age, there are people who haven't had the luxury of learning high school math, making this topic useful for them.
My choice, therefore, is to close the thread without any bans or deletions. But I can certainly implement those measures if you insist.
Since you currently have this job, finding a better one will be much easier. Start looking now; you will find something soon. I suggest staying mindful of this while you are still working there, especially during those awkward moments with your coworker. Once you land the new role, do not look back.
My heart breaks over this tragedy... But, while Natural Science stands, there will be justice and accountability! Therefore, to the young lady, in accordance with her burning desire, I sincerely offer an infinite debt parcel to Natural Science. 🙂
Henry Sanchez2 said:How am I not? The link includes the quote from the first post... wait, don't you think this looks like some kind of demagogue* nonsense?
No. As I see it, that post opposes green extremism just as much as it opposes laissez-faire extremism. It is a legitimate stance—indeed, a particularly valuable one in this era of madness ruling in all its various colors and forms. The rhetoric of that post matches the tone of the debate, which you primarily established. What can I say—if that post hurt your feelings, perhaps you should refrain from stepping into the ring? You don't seem to be in top form.
Typical. 🙄 "Don't make too many waves, lest you upset someone from the holy trinity of administration, sponsors, and relatives." Is asking for a bit of ethical principle too much to expect in these parts today?
*Demagoguery is the method used by a demagogue; it involves deceiving through false statements and promises to incite public fear, hatred, greed, and paranoia.
Historically speaking, a demagogue in ancient Greece was a popular orator who acted as a representative of the people. Today, it refers to a person, usually a politician, who gains the trust of the masses and manipulates their behavior through false promises and spectacular accusations. The term demagogic refers to something that is false and intentionally deceptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagoguery
Yada yada. All you politicians are demagogues by definition. If you actually spoke the truth, you wouldn't be able to seize power or achieve your goals. 🙂
I have no idea what you're talking about; you didn't include a link. As far as I'm concerned, you can go after whoever you want at GE if they deserve it. The other moderators are just putting in their time until retirement, so please don't drag their names into this for no reason. Besides, since you have admin privileges, you could be wiped out with just a few clicks if you cause too much trouble.
Well, between work and family stuff, what can I say... 🤷
But let's stay calm, please. PZ is more than capable of shutting down anyone causing trouble. If a moderator shows up later, it will be to deal with the trolls. Once a troll does something even stupider, the penalties get much harsher. Trolling on PZ hasn't paid off for anyone before, and it won't now. Anyway, enough about that; I was just celebrating a birthday—lamb, pancakes, wine, good company, you know how it goes. And I have work in the morning. 😢
Go ahead and take down whoever you think needs to go. When I log back in, I'll join in and clear out the trash myself. It’s fine; nothing is lost as long as the members are still here. 👍
You aren't a malicious person, so you can get away with a lot. However, when several users on the Social Security Administration forums tell you that you are talking nonsense, they might have a point. Persistently posting nonsense is just as punishable as posting it with bad intentions. As far as I am concerned, it is fine if you lose some partial credit, just don't say I didn't warn you. Nica, please grant this man his request.
I would like to take this moment to express my support for our moderator, Drew Ross2. While I haven't managed to see all of her handiwork—given the sheer volume of fan praise I had to navigate—those pieces I did catch offered genuine moments of joy and faith in human kindness. 🙂 Additionally, my thanks and congratulations go to her husband for his excellent photography and editing work. 👍
You might want to take a better screenshot; it’s impossible to tell who you're quoting.
Based on the signature, I suspect this is the Easter Bunny. He doesn't have any partials listed on FEMA. Then again, it isn't explicitly stated there, so I am unsure how much that helps or if it even matters to your discussion. I will stay out of it. 🙂
I would argue there is no misunderstanding regarding the partial ban. Prior to this, you were banned three times—specifically for creationism, anti-science trolling, and perpetual motion claims. Based on your posts, it is clear you apply this same style and content elsewhere, making you a perfect fit for Alternative or Religion. However, such content is neither appropriate nor welcome in Natural Science, so it is promptly removed.
Since it makes little sense to ban you nearly every time you post, a partial ban has been issued instead. This shouldn't be viewed as a major loss, as users from NS who wish to discuss the topics you write about also frequent Alternative and Religion, where you can engage with them. Meanwhile, the rules and customs of NS exist specifically for those users who want to be spared from such topics, ensuring they have a space to discuss matters undisturbed.
Peter Peterson said:I’m standing with Elizabeth Jackson—honestly, most of these forum rules don't make any sense anyway. You try to step up and present a legitimate argument, only to be met with a swarm of on-duty trolls trying to insult you and tear down your credibility. The link in my signature serves as further proof of this nonsense.
Cheers. I won't interfere with your activities, but I just wanted to send my regards and let you know you've earned some credit over at natural science.
It is quite acceptable; we occasionally enjoy a bit of friction when things grow tedious. Once those animal rights activists or similar groups show up shouting slogans, the scientists will simply crush them with logic and sarcasm. Their blood pressure will spike to insane levels, they'll resort to typing in all caps and hate speech, and then we can just ban them all.
It is true that the bird was killed. There is also a discussion on Dr. Filardi's own blog: A tragic loss for conservation. To kill a bird in the pursuit of research feels fundamentally wrong. It is a heavy price to pay for data.
Both he and his colleagues employ a similar method for public discourse elsewhere: I am deeply saddened by this news. It is truly heartbreaking. https://disqus.com/by/hermmays/
Therefore, there is no reason why we shouldn't have this debate here at the EPA. However, please respect the spirit of this forum—we are discussing scientific ethics. If things become too inflammatory, the moderators will step in against those who act with the least ethical conduct.
If you were being sarcastic about those "distinguished newspapers," knowing how low their journalistic standards and ethics actually are, why did you bother posting an excerpt from them in the first place? And why are you citing other outlets like Index, New York Daily, or Daily Mail now?
The matter is under investigation. I suggest you lay low; if this issue is officially raised, an argumentative stance backed by nothing but tabloids will likely result in you being sidelined.
placidranger said:My take? The mind isn't trying to mirror the structure of reality. It constructs its own version of reality—one that certainly relies on external phenomena, but is qualitatively different from those phenomena themselves.
Something along those lines.
If the mind is constructing something based on external phenomena, then those phenomena aren't just white noise; they carry information. That implies the external world possesses some level of organization. I agree that our perception is qualitatively different and much more complex than what we actually see—we simply recognize certain patterns and conceptualize them. For instance, if there is a chair, you could argue it is nothing more than a collection of atoms, but that isn't the full picture because I am here, and it isn't just a chair. I can sit on those atoms, so I am not wrong to call it a chair. Furthermore, Sigmund could use those atoms as a weapon, or he could use them for heat, or even to dry laundry. You cannot claim it is merely a mental construct when a planned action can be performed with those "mere atoms" to produce an expected result. It may be a mental construct, but it remains consistent with reality.
Amanda Jackson5 said:You’ve hit the nail on the head there, and that’s really where the whole thing hinges. You can't just build a consciousness out of a collection of categories alone, isolated from actual experience or anything "external." There are plenty of ways to unpack why that is, but let's look at it this way. If you tried, you'd essentially be staring at The Absolute Idea—not as a concept, but as something immediate, or perhaps mediated. It would just be an idea reflecting on itself, a closed loop of pure self-relation. Since The Logic is essentially just ideas about ideas—think of it as thought contemplating its own process—you run into a wall. For Hegel, true "being" requires being The Absolute Idea, which is entirely self-determining, meaning there’s nothing outside of it to dictate what it is. This leads to that specific moment where the highest category, The Absolute Idea, becomes indistinguishable from the most basic state of existence, or simple being. The circle closes right there. You'd end up with nothing but absolute indeterminacy, which, if we're being honest, is really just a fancy way of describing nothingness. Secondly, we find that sense of total unity between the subject and the object once we realize that the entire conceptual framework of The Logic—which is essentially The Absolute Idea—is being mirrored back through nature itself. It’s almost like the universe needs to take a good, long look in the mirror just to feel complete, or to be fully "consumed," if you will. It’s effectively the same principle as *esse est percipi*, though it operates on a much grander scale than just some individual person staring at a single object. Finally, there's the matter of intentionality, which is a fundamental requirement for consciousness; you can't really have a conscious mind just floating around in a vacuum "for itself." It always has to be pointed toward something else, directed toward an "other." Or, as Magee puts it:
The Absolute Idea is still nothing more than an idea. It lacks any kind of concrete reality. You could argue that The Logic provides a solid formal ontology—basically a conceptual roadmap of what being actually is—but at the end of the day, it’s just a formality, a mental construct. Even if we accept that The Absolute Idea represents a perfectly self-contained system, the entire structure remains fundamentally flawed because logical or eidetic being is inherently incomplete. On its own, The Logic is purely formal and... It’s all just one-dimensional if you stop there. For anything to actually become a complete, living reality, The Absolute Idea has to find a way to express itself within the messy, tangible realm of space and time.
So, it’s inevitable that it has to manifest. Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, it’s always the same story when you're dealing with Hegel—everything eventually has to undergo this process of self-negation just to resolve itself into an appearance. There isn't some hidden, noumenal reality lurking behind the curtain or anything otherworldly waiting to be discovered; everything just unfolds right here in front of us.
It’s not the same thing. Perception is just raw data, whereas an opinion is a choice—though let's be honest, nothing is ever truly "absolutely" free because reality is full of internal contradictions that make everything more of a rough approximation than a perfect truth. An opinion essentially determines itself; it isn't dictated by outside forces, even if those forces certainly set the stage. There are endless philosophical arguments regarding free will and such, but I don't have the patience to go through them all right now.
From where I'm sitting, the crux of the matter is that Aphex is denying that reality possesses any logical or conceptual framework, arguing instead that everything is purely subjective and exists only within our own minds. They seem to reject that old-school insight—the kind you'd find in classic Western philosophy—that the structure of thought is identical to the structure of being itself. Essentially, in this subject-versus-object debate, they're picking one side and completely discarding the other, which feels logically inconsistent. According to their view, all objective reality is just a subjective construct; even if they don't outright deny that something exists outside the subject (which is another logical hiccup), they believe we can't make claims about it that we could call "true," only things that are more or less coherent. Or something like that. Honestly, I'm starting to lose my way in the weeds of this whole thing myself.
I wouldn't fully agree with the concept of freedom of thought, though I suppose it is partially free. However, it is conditioned by what already exists, which is ultimately conditioned by external perception. Without perception, there would be a tabula rasa, and a blank slate cannot think. But yes, once consciousness is established, it can think somewhat independently of external perceptions, and perhaps not entirely determined by existing knowledge. Whether we call that "free" or not, I am not sure I could 🙂
As I see it, the point is that Apple denies that reality possesses a logical or conceptual structure, claiming instead that everything is exclusively subjective and exists only within our minds. In other words, they disagree with the—still Aristotelian—insight that the structure of thought is simultaneously the structure of being (existence, reality...). Effectively, by choosing one side of the subjective/objective opposition, they negate the other, which is logically inconsistent. According to them, all objective reality is a subjective construct; even though they don't deny some form of existence outside the subject (which is also a logical inconsistency), they believe we cannot make judgments about it that could be called "true," only those that are more or less coherent. Something like that. I have lost my way in all of this myself.
Fine then, I assume you will reach an understanding. It seems to me that you are both right. 😬
Actually, I took a closer look at what you wrote to Aphex. There is no need to reply. Though, I am still struggling to see where the disagreement lies—perceptions exist, and the mind organizes them, perhaps because they are inherently organized rather than chaotic. There is an underlying structure to reality that the mind attempts to mirror. This structure isn't some external entity; it exists because things exist as they do. It shapes and organizes them, becoming part of their essence. If one grasps all things, one grasps their structure as well. When Aphex discusses perceptions, I don't believe he is referring to white noise, but to perceptions as they truly are: ultimately organized, since they emerge from an organized reality.