Right?!

@Metahuman I am sure that kid learned the hard way why that is not such a great idea

Current, potential difference and power are real, the scale that we use to measure it is arbitrary. The nature don't give a flying fuck about how we measure it.
The speed measured in km/h, retardedUSAunitys(miles) per hour or Standard-bananas/(half-lifes of Cs137) can have different numbers, but represent the same physical phenomena that is a car changing its location in a road.

@Pedrohbds Is sense of humor real or imaginary?

nicely put.

@Nakedterror

Thank you. I really struggled with the composition but hoped I'd finally gotten it right with the final draft.

@Athena nailed it.

bwahahahahahaha

Yes BUT have we actually evolved since the introduction/invention of currency?

My dad is still angry that grocery prices don't match his idea of what they were in 1972.

He (Descartes) thought, therefore he was?

He didn’t feel; he only half was.

In the beginning was logos, logos was with god and was God. ... logos become flesh.

Logos is thought/word capably and causation?

People think their way into existence following a trail of DNA chemical reactions?

@blahblah I prefer Lynn Margulus' theory called "Endosymbiosis." To answer this post the definition of "reality" is the key. Rather than pander to esoteric debates on metaphysical ideas of reality I like to just cut to the chase. Reality is a direct consequence of thought, in general it varies in detail between humans but to be sure all humans have a reality.

@clarkatticus I am looking for clarity to see if I understand. So you say, "Reality is a direct consequence of thought,"

Consequences - a result or effect of an action or condition.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

So, you say we have thought and the result then is the fact of "others" existence along with our realization that we think we exist because of out thought of realization of reality.

It sounds like you are saying, we have thought that gives for an appearance that out thought caused prior exist to exist. Or, to say if you reality did not ever exist, no other really would exist because your thought caused the consequences of reality.

Whereas, it seems to me I began a realization that there are facts out side of and/or previous to my beginning of realization of this reality that I exist with other things that appear to have similar realization.

Realization - an act of becoming fully aware of something as a fact.

So it seems to me that by prior reality existing it caused to bring about my realization of it existing and development of my realization of my reality.

@blahblah that is circular logic. Just like sound needs an emitter and a receiver, reality needs definition and thought, all else is mental masturbation.

@clarkatticus sound is simply atoms bumping into each other, such as when sound passes thru air. Not sure what you mean by sound needs an emitter and reciever. But if for example before any life developed on Earth but having some form of atmosphere there is capability of sound even if no one is around to hear it.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Science to my knowledge does not accept or consider a "bodiless mind" concept, but to my understanding theorize that there was a universe of reality before people come along to realize it.

It is like what we label as colors of light. Science would say light has been around for a long time. The colors of light are intrinsic or inherent to a particular light wave. The light wave such we might call red, would still exist wheither or not there is an eye ball to distinguish it from other colors of light. .

@clarkatticus it sounds to me you are saying that parents and older siblings do not exist until you think of them and give them defination into reality.

@blahblah thinking is a function of life, there would be no parents if there was no thought and vice versa.

@clarkatticus so you seem to agree with biblical text. Logos being thought/word capabilities. In the beginning was the logos, the logos was with God and was God. John 1:1

... the logos become flesh. John 1:14

@blahblah without thinking, please expand on the definition of reality. Without thinking.

@clarkatticus by defination Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Reality is as it is with out an ideal or thought. That is how I understand the definition of reality.

Remove idealistic thoughts or any notional idea thought of the world or state of things and you have the definition of reality.

Am I reading the defination wrong? Reality is defined as the world with out thoughts.

By defination it seems to me that if you "think" you see, observe to have an idealistic(thought) or notional idea(thought) of Reality then you are only thinking and that is opposed to reality.

@blahblah really? Who thought of the definition? How could it exist without thought?

@clarkatticus as the dictionary writer

@blahblah took thought, didn't it?

@clarkatticus sounds like intellege design by a design of intelligence.

@clarkatticus did you think when you were a zygote? Did you know you were a zygote? When did your thoughts start? Are "Subconscious " brain function operating body functions a part of thought even though you do not readily, actively or consciously know it is going on?

@blahblah thought, the ability to conceptualize. In the instant thought occurs then reality, the reality of that person, exists. Prior, no definition exists ergo reality does not exist. Someone or something else may have a reality, but only if they can think.

@clarkatticus I am not a brainologist. So, pardon my layman terms. verb (used without object), thought, think·ing.
to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.

Let me "think" of this this way. Thinking is capabilities of processing information. Would you say?

How is the information received for processing, and what is considered an appropriate enough of a process for something to be considered a thought?

This video explains how DNA such as that in a zygote is processing information.

Now, I ask what is the physics of information?

For now I would say it is connected strongly to kinetic energy. The fact something moves. Chemical reaction change is a movement.

@blahblah how does this change my premiss?

@clarkatticus not sure exactly your premise but would not saying I specifically oppose all of it. Cognation, thinking abilities, would seem to be in conjunction with kinetic energy and chemical reactions. Going on a speculate type of premise I heard once. A bodiless mind. A cognitive capability the works on or in conjunction with kinetic energy chemical reactions but is housed in say the environment of the Earth atmosphere rather than the brain environment.

Reverse back to the first chemical reaction that brought about the first reproducing living single cell organism. Perhaps in an ocean hot spot thermal vent with a lot of energy avaliable and the right mixture of elements and compounds.

Now we do know radio waves have been sent from earth carrying information ever since people discovered radio. Radio waves, electromagnetic radiation can carry and transfer information. Light colors intrinsic to light waves would be a form of information. Light and such has been around for a long time to say the least.

@clarkatticus force of the great one was hovering over the waters translated into biblical English as spirit of god hovering over the waters.

@clarkatticus ruach is a force. F=MA , kinetic energy. Ruach most often translated into biblical English as spirit giving connatation of ghost, not exactly correct translation.

@clarkatticus we are forced into existence. Or maybe say a change in the state of kinetic energy transfer.

@clarkatticus logos is thought/word capabilities.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the logos, the logos was with a person and was a person. Genesis says in the beginning ... force of the great one was hovering over the waters.

Reason we can replace "god" with "a person" is because the law says people are gods.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

People are "great ones" (elohiem) as compared to other know creatures.

So, cognitive capabilities of processing information could be traced back to the first theoretical DNA copying single cell organism.

@clarkatticus
Let's look at: create
verb
bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"
synonyms:generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out;
bring into being, originate, invent,initiate, engender, devise, frame,develop, shape, form, mold, forge,concoct, hatch; 
informalknock together, knock up, knock off
"the sculpture has been created out of Portland stone" When a Male and female do the reproductive activity, this causes a new being to come into existence. People are creators when making babies.

Often, create is used in context of bringing something from nothing like the big bang myth would speculate. I am not discussing that version here.

Hydrogen, they say is fused in the gravity pressure of stars to build larger elements like helium and the rest of the known periodic table of elements.

When ever a new helium atom is made by fusion it would be a new creation. Not that helium is new but that specific atom is new. The Sun and stars then could be looked at as Creators.

Continue with chemical reactions that bring about compounds that support what we call life having complex cell structures. Each one may very well be a simular copy of another yet they are each created and unique.

Creation by combining by use of forces is all around. Almost omnipresent maybe.

The kinetic energy of your father combined with the kinetic energy of your mother and you were created.

Parents are creators.

"exclusive leadership" over women? Like male superiority? that's interesting. I've not heard that. What brought you to that conclusion?

@jniece Hearing of it, for starters and reading about it LOTS. Called Ancient History. Very recent anthology that might help you out published only a couple of years ago. 'Female Erasure' edited by Ruth Barrett, some great contributions by women who've heard of it. Consider yourself 'mansplained'.