I have some better quality kitchen knives I like keeping sharp.

I use a two-sided whetstone 400/2000 grit for basic shaping (400 is akin to those rolling sharpeners, to be used only when you fucked up real bad), a leather strop with green sharpening paste (~6000-8000 grit) glued to a piece of wood, a plain leather strop, and a honing steel.

Green sharpening paste is most of what I ever use, a couple of strokes weekly (more realistically about 20 once a month), and maybe polish it up with the plain leather strop. Keeps the knives wicked sharp, and then I just hone them after each use.

Sometimes I do stupid things and get burrs in my edge (like cleaving frozen bone), that’s where the 2000 grit saves me.

400 I guess is for when the apocalypse comes or your kids decided to practice chef’s knife throwing into scrap metal. It’s nice to know I can remake a whole edge, but rarely used.

Written with ChatGPT no doubt

Lol, indoctrinated much?

We will still expend energy, thus satisfying the gods of thermodynamics.

My list is quite different than the ones currently in the thread.

The boring ones:

Creating a vaccine or other cloaking to make humans invisible to ticks & mosquitoes. A separate project would be to do the same for parasites.

Enacting strict pollution/carbon limits and mandatory circular economy everywhere in the world.

Researching, trialing and Enacting a sustainable post-capitalist system everywhere in the world.

Developing solar energy until covering global energy demands, including a power network that can transport energy from the sunny side and/or orbit everywhere.

The slightly more ambitious:

Establish self-sustainable colonies living on off-earth resources, most probably also situated off-earth.

Create a Dyson swarm with enough energy output for in-system exploration, mining, colonisation, and terraforming.

Perfect matter replicators.

I have some other ideas as well, but those would be a start.

Mostly spam, porn, and recipes it seems from the traffic.

Heat is electromagnetic radiation - photons, sound is mechanical displacement - phonons.

They mostly propagate the same due to being waves, in most other respects they are very different.

Heat convection is an entirely separate process where heat radiation is aided by the movement of the surrounding medium. Where it would otherwise heat up it’s environment, convection keeps the environment from heating up. Compare coffee in a thermos (very little convection) to a cup you’re blowing on (significant convection); more air movement - more cooling.

Also, destructive interference does not at all work like that.

Maybe a more useful analogy could be that waves have like walking animations, where in part of the animation they go up, and in another part they go down. Destructive interference happens when a wave in its’ “up” phase crosses a wave in it’s “down”, meaning the resulting movement looks like nothing. The waves don’t however interact in any way, and will continue on their way and on their own animation cycles.

The shifting and heating parts are technically true but require very specific circumstances, enough so that I’m more prone to believe it’s another misunderstanding of the physics behind this. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, I’m sure you’re right

Unfortunately I don’t agree.

Good reasons to omit details include brevity, legibility, pedagogy and scope.

Showing the supporting evidence for all steps in an evidence chain is simply not feasible, and we commonly have to accept that a certain presupposed level of knowledge as well as ambiguity is necessary. And much of the challenge is to be precise enough in the things that need precision.

You’re right to be sceptical until more data is presented, but saying no claim of progress is ever true is quite obviously a gross misrepresentation of our current reality. You are doing this on digital devices interconnected with millions of users ar staggering speed and latency. Every part of which are scientific claims.

There’s a relevant physics anomaly called a Helmholtz resonator, or more broadly waveform interference.

🤣

What I find interesting is that for me personally, writing the fantasy down (rather than referring to it) is against the norm, a.k.a. weird, but not wrong.

Painting a painting of it is weird and iffy, hanging it in your home is not ok.

It’s strange how it changes along that progression, but I can’t rightly say why.

Your last response wasn’t constructive, and this one does even less to further a discussion. I’ll just end this here.

Have a nice rest of your existence.

There are a lot more changes influencing your perception of reality than just sensory development.

I’d agree, but those are enough to clearly demonstrate a mechanism for changed perception in the proposed time span. The underlying question is question begging and whataboutism, so I think I’ve provided an overly generous answer to a dishonest question.

That’s dependent on your consciousness being limited to your physical body. Who’s to say that your consciousness wasn’t limited so a pantheistic deity could interact with itself. Both theories are equally unscientific as you can’t disprove what happens before or after life

As we can reliably affect consciousness though manipulating the body, it’s well established that it’s contingent on the body.

And as we can map consciousness happening in the body down to individual neurons firing, where would a non-corporeal consciousness interact with a body?

You calling these reliably reproducible facts unscientific belies a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

Though naturalism might not be the only way to investigate the universe, we have yet to encounter any reliable other paradigms. And even if we would discover them, naturalism would still be part of science, we’d just add the other paradigms to the areas they’re useful, like we’ve done with psychology, sociology, and even quantum physics.

A difficult question for unfalsifiable hypotheses is that if they’re unfalsifiable, they are also undetectable, and as such no different from figments of imagination. Why should I believe your imagination when my imaginary friend says not to?

I feel different today as my sensory as well as sensory processing organs have developed.

Being dead, just as before being born, I possess no such organs and expect not to “feel”.

But my position isn’t the interesting one, @RadicalEagle suggested something I interpreted as still having perception beyond life, and I was wondering if that excludes having perception before life, and how that ties into their metaphysics.

Is there any reason to feel different after you’ve died than before you were born?

Yes, very much so, many many things.

MBTI most definitely takes magnitude into account. It’s bullshit for many other reasons, including not being reliably measurable.

But the issue is not with the AI tool, it’s with the human wielding it for their own purposes which we find questionable.