A4E

Yes. And also we have to take into account relationships between species. A dog/cat owner would likely value their pet more than some random human.

Probably lots of bacteria, fungus, plant seeds, and very small animals (Water bears) could have made it to the moon involuntarily and then died there. I have a bridge for sale if you think humans have set foot on the moon. We might be able to in the future sometime though if suppressive institutions are repelled.

Ok, so then we do not have any proof of true intelligence anymore, since humans could just behave somewhat differently because "every matter consisting of more than a few atoms differ from another". Which means that our brains could very well just be large instinct deposits if we go by what you are saying. Why not? And if much smaller brains do not know they exist, how then can much larger human brains know they exist? Does any universality become impossible, because the ant just needs all those 250000 brain cells to store instincts?

Ants and monkeys have brains. So if they (only) follow their instincts, why do they have brains? Studies on ants have shown that every single individual ant behave somewhat differently to every other ant, which makes the burden of proving your statement much harder. I am pretty sure monkeys all behave somewhat differently as well. Just like humans. So why are humans unable to control fire ants? Why are humans considering introducing natural enemies to fire ants from another continent to combat fire ants? (that may have horrid consequences on its own). If humans are superior to fire ants, we should not need help from multiple natural third parties to combat them. It really means that humans are admitting that they do not have the strength to take on fire ants by themselves. I can play devils advocate and say that the reason humans are superior is precisely why we have the means of easily introducing natural enemies to a life form we want to control. -But then the question is, would a superior life form allow the natural wildlife on entire continents or islands to be compromised by introducing species from other parts of the planet? (which humans have involuntarily and willingly done many times)

Here is another perspective for those who are convinced that humans are superior to other lifeforms. A group of humans in most places on this planet will be bathing in lies, which are usually formulated to exploit them and/or keep them subdued. A group of monkeys will build a hierarchy that can be based on might or social status. Which is more direct and to the point, and also requires a lot more work to achieve the same submissive effect. If humans are so superior to all other lifeforms, why is it so easy to exploit and subdue vast amounts of them with lies?

Yes. Very well laid out! I would like to add that this is just one of the lies/convictions plaguing society.

By twisting some of the polish out of this statement, it can be read as saying that because we rely on eating other lifeforms to survive, who in turn might also have to eat other lifeforms to survive, and so on, that makes us superior to all other lifeforms. If we rely on x number of organisms to survive ourselves. How does that make us a superior organism? I think it should be about perspective as well. Yeah sure we can grow trees or plants to survive ourselves, but are they not more of a superior life form, since they do not rely on other lifeforms to survive? Also plants and/or bacteria might very well have colonized many other planets around the galaxy by now. Humans, not so much. Bacteria are also predators, and they kill and eat humans all the time, or just use them as food platters before using them to move on. So in practice there are no real tops of the food chain when disregarding the definition of an apex predator. But humans chose to contain fire ants in a small area. And failed. And humans chose to try to control the spread. And failed. How many battles must there be in order to admit defeat? Do you seriously believe that humans can somehow eradicate fire ants if we really put our mind to it, when we could not contain them in one area? Anyone can state that humans are capable of anything in theory. But that does not make it so. Are you willing to concede that it _appears_ to this day that humans are not superior to fire ants? You and others are the ones making a claim that we are superior to all other organisms, that's why I am asking. Also our battles against bacteria are endless. If we are so superior, why are these battles still going on?

Here, your statement is that humans are superior to other lifeforms on this planet, which can be an understandable position to take, even though it is inherently biased. But here is at least one problem with this: In recent history, humans wanted to study/experiment with fire ants that originated in Africa. They brought them from Africa to America. If we were superior to fire ants, we should be able to contain such an experiment. But we did not. Furthermore, humans then tried to stop the spread of this ant species in America. Again humans failed. And also humans have given up any hope of eradicating fire ants in America. So is it logical to conclude that fire ants are superior to humans? Superior means superior, so whatever excuses are made, the fire ants still won. So that means at a minimum that humans are not superior to fire ants, right?

Ah the pompousness argument. We humans are so great at the brainy stuff, like knowing we exist, that any other animal can't possibly have any such intelligent abilities. I know this is sort of the general view amongst people, but this forum is a bit more challenging environment to propose such conclusions. I'm sure there are at least 10 ways to make your statement collapse. But I am wondering if you thought enough about it before you typed. Remember that humans scientifically fall under the classification of animals. Not that it hardly matters since 'animals' has become so universally meaning "non human". It would of course be much more productive to stop putting every non human living thing in one box. You appear to be setting a standard for an ability that may already be present in many animals here on earth.

I have fought some crime, so chances are high that I am a superhero.

I think back on movies like World War Z differently today.

I saw the sabre rattling today between NK and USA, and this is my opinion: I think Trump genuinely believe that NK has nuclear bombs, and so thinks that NK is a threat to the world. That might be an unfortunate piece of information to have in this, because it means NK will be treated as a bigger threat than they are. Trump will thus be pushed more to engage in a war with them, both by himself and others. And my prediction is that if they start a war, they will mysteriously and hastily make a deal to not use nuclear bombs. Dirty bombs are still an option though. I guess there won't be any agreement on that, since it would 'Create too much of a hint'.

Here is another thing muslims like to do apparently.

An x number of sites will tell you that ultrasound can not harm a baby/fetus. Knowing that ultrasound is energy and will most likely have an effect on anything small, I was convinced by my own volition that it would be best for a baby/fetus to not have to go through it. I did some quick research, looking at various sites, and then wound up on this one. I did not expect there to be issues with heat as well. I guess it is self evident in hindsight. I am still in some shock from reading the article. Another article designed more for shock value than science perhaps.

Calorie counting sounds very stressful. So that seems like it can add to your emotions, creating a cycle. I have struggled with perfectionism in the past. But have been able to lessen it significantly by noting that; -I will probably never know the best way to do something, so why torment myself about something I don't know. -Doing something will make me able to do it better, contrary to not doing. -No one started doing perfect things out of the blue.

I was wondering if it is a case of projection. That he is accusing you of using that method, because he is using it himself. And so that you will retreat to go ponder if he is right. Then the question is if he apply the same standards to himself as he does to others.

You say that you want objective truth, not a story. However, how do you suggest that you will find objective truth in what is inherently a story? Even if you did read the Quran, you will interpret it in your way from your past experiences, just like everyone else who have read it, which means that your goal of objective truth will also rely on your own ability to suppress your biases. Religions abuse humans natural sense of tribalism, just like a lot of other things in society. That is what is used to 'justify' actions. This tribalism is a major obstacle for clear open minded thinking. And indeed a reminder that we are not such special or perfect creatures as many tend to promote, since various forms of tribalism is common throughout the animal spectrum.

Crows.

Can I play too? "You have arms to work, and legs to move around, so it is axiomatic that you are here to be my slave. We don't need to find any proof, it just is that way. Now mop the floor!" Did I do it right?

Correct. Yes, but realistically only outside of a closed system. ie if our universe is a closed system, then someone outside of our universe who is getting data about everything in it, and is unable to change anything in it, would be able to 100% predict everything that was going to happen in it. (with something more powerful than the processing 'engine' used in this universe) I'm not going to say that it will be impossible for anything inside of the universe to predict things in the universe, but its going to be a spectacularly hard thing to do that's for sure. This is exactly like saying if we figure out that 2 + 2 = 4 then we can change 2 + 2 to become 5. Especially if you had added "nothing else can interact with them", which is what usually is implied when you use the word 'isolated' Exactly. That is what I was trying to point out in my first reply. I could probably have formed my reply better to make it more clear. Whoever or whatever trying to make a prediction, failed to do so. You have not convinced me that your assessment has any leg to stand on.

Good entertainment.

Ok, I understand what you are trying to say here, but I don't understand how you automatically come to a conclusion that if something is predicted, it can be changed. We predict the orbits of planets and our moon for example. That does not mean that we can just go ahead and change the orbits. Now lets say that we know the orbit of a planet, but we have a mega pulse laser to change its orbit with one jolt. Then it becomes a vaaastly more complicated thing to predict the orbit. (pretty much impossible). Because we would have to factor in all things that could set off the laser. Not just any human, but perhaps some other animal would accidentally set it off as well. But it is still based on the same principles as when we predict planet orbits, (laws of the universe). And we are not really 100% predicting the orbits either though, just guessing on the most probable, and usually ending up right. If the laser was locked inside a high security facility, with earthquake protection and whatnot, and there was a tedious strict routine to use the laser, then we are once again back to a high percentage chance of predicting the planets orbit. This is part of the reason I can not agree with your statement. This is the sentence that triggered me, which is basically why I am talking to you now, since I am a free will denier.

Wrong, because if something or someone succeed in 'changing' the future, then whatever or whoever was trying to predict the future in the first place failed to predict that it would be 'changed' preemptively.

Simplifying and connecting that which are obviously connected to make it more relevant for more people. The brain does this with pretty much everything all the time. And very few people care about small details. We upgrade and update stuff. It is what our brains do. Did you hear anyone say: "This remake of the old quote is better. It is easier to understand and makes it more relevant for people, but it is not 100% accurate, and so we should stop using it, and only ever use the accurate quote." ?

Correction: -Who wants to run the world. And they have not been so secret for a good while. Also some material that you have consumed might have been produced by themselves to make viewers believe they are more powerful than they are, ie having connections to supernatural demons or other wild stuff. They are only as powerful as the mental grip they have on other people. Hence why dinosaur media has been so important for them. I am very sure Donald Trump has been some of their worst setbacks ever. An x amount of people want to control the environment around them. And thus some people want to dictate what should be done in the world at large. Its not so complicated.