/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10748291
>"Do you think atoms exits? Do you think light exist and if yes, how does it work. I need to know how you understand and view these topics befor being able to give a meaningful answer"
Sounds an awful lot like it's gonna lead me down this road >>10746946
>"I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you".

All the questions you propose that I answer basically breaks down to "what the fucking field is" given that both atoms and light would not exist were it not for "fields". At least that is what I've been told anyway, and in the case of light this is most true and demonstrable. Same with matter, you can test and empirically show that a magnetic/electromagnetic field manipulates all elements in some manner. The problem is that I don't even feel right typing any of what I just said because I don't know what the "field" is! It almost feels like I'm saying a deities name when I say "field". "The effect that is noticeable around a magnet" is better but it still doesn't tell me the cause!
>Electricity
Well what the fuck is the cause of that?
>fields
So what the fuck?

So lets say that we isolate whatever makes light in order to study it. Virtual photons, photons whatever the fuck you want to call.
>isolate field, particle/whatever makes light
>It stops moving
>And then ceases to be for what defines it in the first place is now absent, it exhibits no properties
So it's induced to exist by the motion of something else. Same thing could be said of atoms too.

>no motion for mini dynamo to churn
>No little dynamo
>no motion to exhibit properties, to be affected by other properties.

"It is what it does" is the answer that I keep getting here.

Is sarcasm biologically advantageous?
>It is an enjoyable form of humor and stress-release.
>It is highly successful in verbal form with tonal and contextual cues.
>It is less successful in textual form (lacking tonal cues)
>Discrepancy in form reveals an implicit characteristic that one does not wish to explicitly reveal they are being sarcastic WHILE being sarcastic.
How signifigant is this characteristic of implicicity to its role as a reproductive and survivability variable?

>>10435710
The thing pictured there isn't reality, it's just your perception of it. It's not actually like that at all anon. Math describes what we see rather than what is, since it's derived from our senses.
It cannot remove the veil because it is the veil.

>Oh boy, it's this thead again
Y'all might have a productive session if you'd actually sit down and hash out a pragmatic, concise definition for what souls and consciousnes are and aren't before shitposting. Without a good foundation for what you are even arguing over, every troll becomes well-fed, and you have wasted even more time. Let me start this off for you. Build off of this, or sage this shit to oblivion and stop responding.

>1. What is and isn't a conscious being?
-Humans
-Plants
-Animals (Elaborate at any exceptions)
-Inanimate objects

>2. What scope/size does consciousness manifest? Why?
-Community
-Organism
-Organ
-Tissues
-Cells
-Organelles
-Molecules
-Atoms
-Sub-atomic particles

>3. Are there any specific traits/processes that must he possessed/occur for consciousness to manifest? Which of these can be observed by more than just the invoker?

I plant a flag here marking this as the only reasonable starting point for further discussion. All who continue without answering these and building off will be trolled at their own risk.

>>9955155
the other guy did that yesterday, son. you are already behind.

>>9284048

>>8815287

>>6972264
you're on kiddo! do you have $10?

How it be like it is?

How it do?