u/AlterTheSilverBird

Season 2 was definitely more heavy in the story arcs and overaching plot with the Ghost Hunter. Chairman Scratch and the subplots of the remaining case, where many episodes were follow-ups to episodes from Season 1 or foreshadowed by Season 1, hell it feels there were things set-up in Season 2 that was meant to follow-up or foreshadow future events, like the Davenport's in Demise foreshadowing Andrea's romance, conflict, and potentially sets up Bizmart as a future antagonist.

Libby's episode felt like a follow-up to Like Father Like Libby and Carbon Zero Heroes with the bunker and potentially inherting her dad's obsession for writing, and there was lore episodes with Pat's focus episode and the nature of the Ghost World and Ollie's planned sub-plot.

Think Season 3 if it happened was gonna be more serialize and story focus if it continued base on the early episodes that were revealed, and the tone of the story? The Ghost F.R.I.E.N.D definitely was gonna be a new sub-plot they were gonna explore further. Not saying it was gonna be dark and gritty with drama and more fight scenes, but more lore and story driven?

Not counting shows like Hazbin Hotel and Digital Circus, Ghost and Molly Mcgee feels like its sense of humor seems like some of the most unhinge in recent years, like even more unhinge then shows with some dark humor like Gravity Falls and The Owl House. Maybe not to the level of the Adventure Time, which arguably went full young adult epic by the latter half, but sometimes this show feels like a more modern sensible level of something like old Cartoon Network shows (modern sensible, half the jokes then wouldn't fly now).

Like Happy, Happy Death Day, Perfect Day, F.O.N.A.A and most of the humor episodes in Season 2 seemed to step heavily on the dark humor and meta satirical jokes, and less of the juvenile jokes from Season 1 (I don't think Daryl practice as much gross out humor like before).

Maybe it's just because Molly has been the most unhinge protagonist I've seen in years in a kids show and the contrast of its art styles and initial tone gives me the vibe?

It feels like Season 1 was more consistent then Season 2, more episodes I'm not skipping, but same time it feels like if you ask for people's favorite episodes, it's mostly Season 2. Season 2 felt like had great episodes when it involves someone's personal story or a curse, the others were seemingly OK but Season 1 felt decently more pace but lower lows.

What do you think overall?

Disney has a lot of adult jokes and wondered if Ghost and Molly Mcgee has any? I know Gravity Falls, STVFOE, Amphibia, and Owl House all are infamous for that, well the latter is more on the young adult elements, but Ghost and Molly don't seem to have that level. I'm well aware of the dark humor that sometimes even surpasses other shows in its unhingeness (Happy, Happy Death Day and Perfect Day says hello) and it the hidden adult messages like in Like Father Like Libby, but not sure about innuendoes aside:

Libby: Daryll! Stop grooming me!

When I say did and didn't, I think individually the show does get darker and more serious but seperately.

I feel the 2nd season of the show was more serialize and handle more serious arcs and ideas, Season 1 did have but not as many as I recall, with the story arcs of Ollie, Andrea, and Libby, while also juggling multiple different storylines like the Chens, Scratch as the Chairman and the aftermath of Molly killing the Chairman and destroying the Flow of Failed Phantoms.

It didn't become dark that it felt like it was for young adults like Owl House became, but it was still a bit more serious.

Dark however for me was the comedy, it felt like the show's dark humor was ramp up in the 2nd season while the juvenile jokes they had were lessen and then even had more sarcastic and meta jokes like Molly's Perfect Day (Is there a way to hit restart). An old man and birds dying happened in Season 1, but things like the Happy Happy Death Day and Daryl dying seemed even more darkly comical for me.

What do you think and wondered if this would continue had Season 3 happened?

Considering how the first case of The Conspiracy killed off Nathan, I accept the first victim in a return to Pacific Bay would be a returning character, who?

I feel like it wouldn't be a Police Member because they did Nathan dirty, so I think they would pick someone like Trevor Finn or Derek Stone. Trevor Finn was the first main case killer so it make sense to make him the first victim, and Derek Stone feels like someone who would become a victim to showcase a bigger force, since Derek Stone was just a drug dealer.

I guess it depends where in Pacific Bay do we revisit in this scenario.

When the series started, it felt like a Phineas and Ferb style type of adventure show where there's a premise and different scenarios of that premise happening, the premise being shenanigans with a ghost cursed with you.

However watching throughout Season 1, I didn't think they would follow shows like Gravity Falls and Amphibia and have a Grand Final Battle at the end with an invasion signaling the end of the world. I knew we would have some sort of climax because they started introducing so many different characters which usually signals a big reunion when something big happens, thanks mainly to Gravity Falls.

But how many actually really thought and predicted the Ghost and Molly McGee was gonna have an apocalypse like event with a big battle? Because the beginning of the show didn't give me hints it was gonna escalate to that degree, at best a final confrontation against the Chairman, not the apocalypse.

The thing I'm been thinking since watching a video about some guys hanging out in a podcast and the question of what would one do if someone could send info or travel back in time, and someone said send the winning lotto numbers.

Someone then claimed that base on findings on the nature of time in quantum studies it's not guaranteed those numbers will be right and they may still lose, which is a scenario I've seen more in sci-fi movies compared to before like Back in the Future 2.

Base on findings on the nature of time and space, would it be right to say there's a strong probability if one were able to send info or travel in time to give their past self the winning lotto numbers, it's not guaranteed to work?

Not a free will question, more on the nature of the universe.

Let's say there was a way for a person to reset there life since birth and the reset happened one hundred times, is it possible for each life to ever diverge considering quantum mechanics, or does it averaging out when scaled up to macroscopic levels means every life will largely remain the same? Again it's a question if it's reasonable, not absolute.

I mainly asked because apparently someone said if they could travel in time, they would tell there past self the winning lottery numbers, but when studying and reading about quantum, apparently there is a probability of even if one knows the winning lottery numbers during a certain point, it's not guaranteed it will be the same numbers due to quantum indeterminany or Many Worlds.

I just want to know because apparently macroscopic events largely remain the same regardless of quantum microscopic events, yet I also read a physics book that claim there are many things that can be different if the microscopic events outcome changes through amplification which can makes a difference.

Not a free will question, because largely I studied many theories and largely many experts genuinely accept physics isn't ever gonna be enough to fully answer it, it's a question that goes beyond physics.

My question is if quantum microscopic events are indeterministic, does that mean when scaling up to macroscopic events, they still largely lead to the same outcome or can there be a slight divergence that cause a butterfly effect and chance the outcome?

I'm aware there is some cases such things could be reasonably assumed quantum physics can cause noticeable macroscopic change, such as weather, motion, and biological mutation, and I read a book that even thoughts can be change because a slight change on trajectory of microscopic electrons and neurons can either trigger a new thought or image (there's the challenge decoherence in the brain being too warm and wet but apparently there are quantum mechanics found recently in it although unsure it's long term affects).

So my question is that is it possible that if we let say had the ability to blink back in time to the start of our lives with quantum mechanics remaining naturally the same, could a divergence of our lives ever happen even if we don't retain our memories or not? I'm not sure but many claim that depending on our age, as adults it's unlikely everything when scaled up according to quantum physics, that it will remain the same but that's not something I'm sure of.

Obviously P-Zombies are meant to be a thought experiment, Chalmer outright said P-zombies can't exist in our real world, but mainly argues the conceivability and possibility of it metaphysically. (Apparently he made comments about comparing AI and P-Zombie recently in conferences, but I can't find it.)

The main argument for the impossibility is Psychophysical Law, it seems impossible for the experiential phenomenon that correlates physical actions can be seperated and must come together, and that makes it impossible to ever create an exact replicate of a person without consciousness.

But because of the many develop ideas in response to the idea as impossible even physically, to trying to explaining how physical actions can lead to qualia, I**'m curious has there been any findings or arguments develop to further explain the impossibility of P-Zombies nomologically?**

Aside Psychophysical Laws or the problem of envoking Solipisism (the idea of claiming you can only comfirm your own consciousness and others aren't without falling to the same problems of Solipisism.

Lil Yachty will not be performing at Sunday Night’s Main Event.

WrestleVotes Radio on Fightful Select has learned that a Yachty concert was thrown around as a possible idea for Sunday Night’s Main Event. The idea was ultimately nixed due to the poor reception surrounding the segments that populated the last Saturday Night’s Main Event show.

________________________________

Wonder if Lil Yachty is getting written off soon

Solo Sikoa merchandise is on the rise.

WrestleVotes Radio on Fightful Select reports that Sikoa’s merchandise has recently been doing better than expected, especially with the launch of his new Funko Pop.

Furthermore, WWE is working on “Pew Pew” merchandise to sell both online and in the arena

____________________

In the end, Jimmy and Paul Heyman may be the only iconic Bloodline line-up who never had a world title reign.

Before I say anything, this question sounds similar to my previous post on "What are considered strong challenges against the idea Consciousness is the Physical Structure and Mechanics in union?", however after discussing, I realize this was a better question because my previous question focused specifically on Structuralism and Functionalism, while this is more on the general view rather something very specific like this two views of consciousness. The idea it's a higher level structures emerging from lower level dynamics without requiring any metaphysical extra

I'm aware the Hard Problem of Consciousness is the most common answer, and that many attempts to complete the gap is promisonary, the gap remains unclosed despite out advancement.

However I want to know if there's been other well developed arguments aside the Hard Problem of Consciousness? Where instead of saying it's incomplete, the general idea has challenges against it aside the explanatory gap. Perhaps something less known or common but something experts are aware of, like how the Meta Problem of Consciousness isn't common but is a good challenge for Ephiphenomanilism, so curious if there were other strong arguments.

This sounds like a question on specifically the challenge of mixing together the idea consciousness under structuralism and functionalism, but I find it interesting as this seems to be a common answer among neuroscientist.

This entree was what I wanted to ask because it sounded convincing and would sway me, but the same time I was warned that many of these arguments are likely to have been brought up and may be already challenged despite how strong they sound in the surface level.

>"I think the key distinction is between consciousness operating independently of the brain and consciousness being identical with a particular organisation of the brain.
If you’re asking whether there is good empirical evidence that a human consciousness can continue to function and acquire information without a functioning brain, then I agree we don’t currently have convincing evidence for that. NDEs haven’t established it, and the AWARE experiments haven’t produced the kind of reproducible result that would demonstrate perception occurring independently of the brain.
But that doesn’t settle the deeper question of what consciousness is.
Brain damage, anesthesia, lesions, stimulation, and other interventions show that consciousness is extraordinarily dependent on brain organisation. But dependency doesn’t logically tell us whether the brain produces consciousness as a separate phenomenon or whether a particular organisation of the brain is itself the conscious subject.
That’s the distinction I’m interested in.
Consider a whirlpool. The whirlpool depends completely on the physical dynamics of the water. Destroy those dynamics and the whirlpool disappears. But we wouldn’t necessarily say that the water produces a whirlpool as some additional substance. The whirlpool is the organised process.
I’m proposing that consciousness may be analogous in this respect, although obviously far more complex.
The relevant physical process would have to do more than merely process information. It would need to maintain itself through time, contain a causally active model of aspects of its own dynamics, and recursively use that model in determining its subsequent states. In other words, the system would have to participate in the ongoing construction of the very process that constitutes it.
If that organisation is what constitutes the subject, then there is no separate consciousness substance that has to escape the brain.
And this also changes how I’d interpret the Hard Problem.
I don’t think the fact that we haven’t explained consciousness proves dualism. It doesn’t.
But neither does showing that brain states correlate causally with conscious states automatically explain why that particular organisation constitutes a subject.
The question becomes what physical organisation is sufficient to constitute a subject?
That’s the question I think consciousness science should ultimately answer.
My own proposal is that subjecthood requires an irreducible, self-including causal organisation: a physical process that not only responds to the world, but contains causally effective representations of aspects of its own transition-generating dynamics and recursively incorporates those representations into the process that produces its next states.
If that turns out to be correct, then consciousness isn’t something the brain generates and then somehow has to add to its physical activity.
The appropriately organised physical activity is the subject.
So I agree with your conclusion about the current evidence for consciousness functioning without the brain.
I just don’t think that conclusion answers the more fundamental question of what kind of physical organisation is a conscious subject."

This seems convicing when I first read this but same time I feel there is something off, so I wanted to ask: Is this theory of what consciousness is via structuralism and functionalism strong or does it face strong challenges?

Anime is infamous for having many things being left open to interpretation only for them to be answered later on, whether a sequel when the person who made it needs the money or external material being released years later.

Serial Experiment Lain had the question on who the titular character, Lain is, only for the document design to get leaked in the 2020s that reveal the working backstory the creators were using and never wanted reveal, saying it shouldn't be treated canon later but then later admits he can't take it back but people should still be allowed to develop their own interpretation regardless of the answer.

Neon Genesis Evangelion had two examples, one from the new movie and later the Evangelion END series that gives a more conclusive ending after many years, fitting the idea after many years of struggle the main cast found peace after so long.

When They Cry had an ambigious question on Umineko, whether magic, the magical being, and the events were real or just metaphors of the mundane world, only for the new Higurashi show revealing the origin story of key magical beings and the mobile game spelling out magic is real.

Is there examples of infamous movie endings being left ambigious where the ending is answered later on in some way whether a sequel, an AMA, or documentation?

Like if for example if in a scenario an Inception 2 happened and decided to give a definitive answer later on the famous open-ended ending because Christopher Nolan in this scenario needing money fast.