GammaGlobulin

If anyone is interested in a Mass ZOOM Meeting Meet-up, to prove some of us are Real, then I nominate you, for sure. You can be the one to HOST and Coordinate the Zoom Meet-up. Are you up for it?

We are not the first to ponder this question, of course, as I know you know. If Tyson takes this question seriously, then why shouldn't we?

Do you often wonder about the following?: When commenting on the forum, do you ever ponder upon the possibility that the profiles you see on the forum, and interact with,…may not be… REAL People? Do you sometimes begin to believe that the forum is nothing more than a computer game, a simulation, and that you are spending hours and hours communicating with…Nobody? For example… Do you even see a ZOOM button on the forum? Sure, there is a ChatGPT button, but is there a ZOOM button, a button so that you can immediately see the guy whose post you are replying to? I don’t mean that the lack of a Zoom-Meet button on TV is proof that this forum is a simulation. And, it is possible that the simulation has not yet begun. But, what if it already has begun? How do I know that you are not a simulation? Where IS everybody, anyway? In fact, Elon believes that there is less than a One-Billionth chance that we are NOT in a simulation, and that our profiles are, in fact, not real people. To me, this is a very scary thought. What about you? How does anybody know you are real? Would you be willing to go on a group ZOOM MEETING to prove that you are not a simulation? When? Who will coordinate this? Or, is this a moot point, for the obvious reason… So much to think about. So little time in which to think. Will we ever have enough time? Please Note: Elon tells us that he often ponders this question while in a hot tub. But this does not mean that we must be together with Musk, in Elon's tub, before we, too, can consider this question.

What's an Apple mini? Apple is your problem. You should buy a very fast CPU motherboard COMBO. Then, just run Windows 10,11, or any good Linux distro. If you do this, you will never touch an Apple, again.

The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance has been evolving and morphing, to the point that it has gradually become a different theory than was originally proposed. But, was this warping of the original theory justified? Maybe not, and please see this Abstract... So then.. What if the original dissonance theory .... was correct??? I say that the distortion of the theory, maybe so that it will fit needs which were not originally intended, such as uses in industry, in business, for example, may have been incorrect. The question you ask is being hotly debated, as we speak. I love Festinger, though. For sure.... We could read more, to answer your question. Unfortunately, MUCH of Science is now NOT AVAILABLE to the world. Much of science is BEHIND PAYWALLS. The keepers of the knowledge do not want you to know what they do not want you to know. Or, they just enjoy GETTING RICH OFF OTHERS' HARD WORK!!!! Reading the following article will cost you...62 EURO! Is this RIGHT??? NO, this is NOT right!!! ((BUT, of course, if you want to read almost ANY science journal article, then please just use SCI-HUB...and you can gain immediate access, as I just did... SCI-HUB helps the world, by sharing science info with ALL people, rich or poor.))

If you are experiencing problems with your present Internet browser, as you seem to imply, then why not try: It's available in 42 languages, and it's usable on Linux, too! I am still OK with Google Chrome browser, and my settings allow me to not ignore anything.

Actually, much of human behavior is heavily influenced by unconscious influences, such as bias, for example. Leon Festinger, my old pal, put forward his famous theory of Cognitive Dissonance, for example, which I think is a theory now respected by most people in the field of psychology. The only problem is that most people, the lay audience, does NOT understand what Cognitive Dissonance means, and CD is a term in science, not a PopPsych term. Cognitive Dissonance concerns stress and the reduction of stress through the defense mechanisms such as denial. We behave in ways that go contrary to what we know to be true. And thus, we resolve this stress-inducing discrepancy through DENIAL...for example. Or, we change our behavior to become congruent with our perceptions of reality.

Daytime Nighttime Just a state of mind Don't waste time sleeping.

I DO agree that Freud is deep. But only if one is talking about being in DEEP Doo-Doo. Freud is NOT science, if one is referring to the scientific-method sense of science. Freud, and Freud practitioners have caused untold harm to humanity and to society. Freud is a religion, based on faith, and nothing more. Here is why: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-were-still-fighting-over-freud/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7930904/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5459228/ The bottom line is this: Even today, therapists have just too much history, and too much invested, in the study of and the practice of the theories of Freud. We are gradually making progress removing Freud from the serious discourse of science, but... I think it will still require decades before we can FULLY Wipe this Doo-Doo, Freud, off the the bottoms of our shoes. Even after we do, the Stink of Freud shall remain with us, same with other evils, such as slavery, as well as other faith-based mumbo-jumbo religions, like Christianity. Let's see: In Christian Doctrine, God slept with his mother, according to the Bible, and so he must be a mfkr, as well as a Freudian Oedipal Disaster.

Sugar is a lot worse than it's made out to be. Any evidence for your statement? In what ways do you disagree with the evidence provided in Robert Lustig's videos?

You're Not in Kansas Now.

Is that made of Carbon Fiber? Or Carbon Fibre? How much do you weigh?

Some people loath it. And some people love it. Which are you?

Ahhh!

No. Life was not that interesting for me.

It simply means that it's NOT science.

Why would you wish to repeatedly question a good thing?

So. You are suggesting that Freud might be useful in improving Rugby skills?

"Statistically, it's conceivable that a man can be as dishonest and slippery as Freud and still come up with something true," Crews said. "I've tried my best to examine his theories and to ask the question: What was the empirical evidence behind them? But when you ask these questions, then you eventually just lose hope." Freud was not a scientist. He was a nutcase. I am surprised that you would put any credence in his "theories". Maybe you should read more Freud, before quoting Freud. Or, read more about what present day scientists write about Freud, and what Freud might have thought to be true.

You have two choices. a. Reference Freud b. Reference JT It ups to you. Or, watch the film, Hannah and Her Sisters. Woody is magnificent.

I don't use Bard to ask his opinion on anything. I use Bard to help recall what I once knew, but have partially forgotten, such as the title of a book, or the name of a theory, or some author I have forgotten. Bard can be very helpful in this usage of AI.

What about the variety of tools chosen by Larson for this cartoon? The cow seems to be using a saw with nipples rather than saw teeth, for example.

Disadvantaged. Dysfunctional. Neurotic. A comedian. A politician. An entertainer. Jerry Lewis?

What about the COW TOOLS cartoon? That one seems a bit more obscure than most. Your explanation?