I mean, I did specify “in the real world” and that we were taking about ST, but sure, I guess it applies to SW, too.
I mean, I did specify “in the real world” and that we were taking about ST, but sure, I guess it applies to SW, too.
PERC
Perchloroethylene (aka tetrachloroethene) is a completely non-polar compound, so, yes, it is a dry liquid.
I would tend to disagree with the Cambridge example, because liquids can be dry. “Dry” liquids are anhydrous, meaning they’ve been treated to remove any water.
Source: Am chemist and I teach O-Chem, which frequently uses dry solvents, like anhydrous acetone.
I don’t know about in Trek lore, but I think in the real world, when a ship is designed or used to travel from one star system to another, it’s classified as a starship
I go with music on vinyl because there’s nothing to sit to watch and the the inability to skip a song or change bands from my phone means I’m much more likely to get at least 1 side of 1 album of work done before I get distracted.
You seem unable to distinguish between nuance and pedantry, so it’s unlikely that we will be able to have a productive conversation on a topic that revolves around nuance.
Have a nice day.
Fair. I could have been more accurate by saying “they are exhibiting behavior that has been reinforced by certain positive responses,” but that’s a little wordy.
Do all of us experience ennui for that matter? Envy, to the same level as one another?
As noted elsewhere, this is an ongoing philosophical discussion called The Problem of Other Minds. I’d link it, but since you can’t be bothered to read the links already present, I don’t think there’s much point.
Which leads to a paradox of how one defines a conscious, human mind at all, if it were indeed based only on what emotions are present when presented with a similar stimulus.
You’re missing the point that all humanity, collectively, as a species has largely the same senses, evolutionary history, and brain structure. Therefore, despite experiencing the emotions differently and to different extremes, we are mostly capable of experiencing the same emotions. Take away that shared brain structure and shared evolutionary history, and it’s a very large, unfounded assumption to think that other species have the same emotions.
Further, I’m noticing that you’re focused on dancing around “are they human”, not “are they conscious”
No, I literally agreed with you that consciousness is a spectrum and that most life falls somewhere on that spectrum. Buy hey, go ahead and ignore that so you can build yourself a strawman. I never said anywhere that I eat meat, so you’re just imagining things so you can build an argument against a statement I never made.
Do you think animals are capable of being curious, even when there’s no impetus for them to be? I certainly do.
This sentence right here is everything I need to know about your stance. You’re either not willing to consider or able to understand that different species experience consciousness and emotion as an evolved trait, and when the evolutionary drivers are different, the emotions are different. Any species that evolves the ability to be curious will have done so because it’s an evolutionary advantage, but if the evolutionary pressure and the senses and the literal brain structure is different, then the emotion of “curiosity” will be different. Assuming that other species experience curiosity the same way as humans is exceptionally close-minded.
You’re not doing other species any favors by anthropomorphizing them; you’re just limiting your own understanding.
No problem! I’m just glad my semi-obsessive reading of wikipedia is helping others, too
I believe you just hit upon what is called The Problem of Other Minds in philosophical terms
using names of human emotions instead can be a good approximation
It can be, but it can also be a gross misrepresentation. Outside of higher mammals, it seems safer to me to assume that their emotions are extremely dissimilar and human emotions are poor analogues at best.
My pets express themselves pretty clearly, despite having much more limited ability to communicate across species lines.
They express wants and needs, not emotions. Assuming that they have emotions that are the same as human emotions is anthropomorphization. They might have some analogous emotions, and boredom in a mammal might seem similar to human boredom, but where do you draw the line? Can a dog experience ennui? Can a cat experience a lack of fulfillment? Can a snake experience depression?
I feel reasonably confident in stating that I believe animals are conscious, just to varying depths.
I don’t disagree, but you can’t say that animals that evolved consciousness in completely different environments and with different senses and neurology would experience emotion in the same way as humans. Apes, sure, they are really close and probably the easiest argument for human emotions in non-human species, but other mammals get farther and farther from human experience and emotion, and it’s presumptuous of humans to assume that they experience emotions the same way. Read “What Is It Like to Be a Bat” for some of the philosophical and scientific issues with assigning human emotions to other mammals.
And other intelligent animals that are further removed from humanity on the evolutionary chain would have even more alien emotions. Humans can feel empathy for an octopus or African Greys, but can either of those animals feel empathy for humans? What about curiosity? They seem curious, but how can we know if they experience curiosity that is anything like human curiosity?
But they are not human emotions, so to assign human emotions to animals is a misnomer.
Profession can absolutely affect volume. Even without any hearing damage, any job that regularly requires that you project can become a habit.
I’m a chemistry professor at a community college, fairly well educated, and I flatter myself to say reasonably intelligent, but I still slip into what my wife calls my “teaching voice” in some social settings or even occasionally at home.
This isn’t exactly the same because the Arlington incident actually happened and has some bearing on an ongoing political campaign as opposed to being pure speculation and misinformation.
Plus, admitting that God cannot create light without dark or good without evil means admitting God is not omnipotent.
I misread the headline as “the right to discontent,” which I think is also a good idea to codify, given the way people who speak out are often punished for legitimate complaints
Check the link OP posted; it looks like there’s nearly 400 comics
It doesn’t mean the campaigning will be shorter, just that everything will further turn into attack ads on incumbents
Once I got past the first few paragraphs, all I learned from that is that I don’t understand the Poincare conjecture or really anything about topology