Your posts contain spelling mistakes on the basic simple English words too, which gives impression you are not in clear mind when typing posts. — Corvus

Are you not quite aware of typos? This is an absolutely ridiculous ad hominem.

Hope it helped. — Corvus

As noted i the quote you've used, no, it did not :) Status quo remains...Evolution is occurring.

If you cannot honestly say, "My belief could be wrong, I will fairly consider it," then like a child, you will lie, ignore anything which would counter that belief, and go to the manipulation of language to dodge accountability. It is irresponsible, childish, and makes the world a worse place. — Philosophim

All of that.

it is possible you have been duped.

NGE was run through the 90s until old mate ran out of time and money (over three attempts to get it done!!). He absolutely hated hte ending, because they weren't able to do what he wanted to do. He became incredibly depressed and his wife left him (i think).

"Timing constraints[citation needed] at Gainax also forced Anno to replace the planned ending of Evangelion with two episodes set in the main characters' minds. In 1997, Gainax launched a project to re-adapt Evangelion's scrapped ending into a feature-length film. Budgeting issues left the film unfinished,[citation needed] and the completed 27 minutes of animation were included as the second act of Evangelion: Death and Rebirth. Eventually, the project culminated in The End of Evangelion, a three-act film that served as a finale to Neon Genesis Evangelion. "

Years late he was given the opportunity to complete it properly. The films Evangelion 1.0 through 4.0 (sort of) are what you should really be watching. A shame, because I understand not being bothered with it after getting through the series. Perhaps leave it another few years and watch these films instead. Incredibly work - but it's not the Shakespearean gold it's sometimes held out to be! The creator, Hideaki Anno, worked a lot with Hayao Miyazaki so there's some credibility to it lol.

More of the same - other people's ideas and avoiding your foibles.

I assume that is a Bible, — Athena

It is usually understood to be a volume of history, not a Bible.

A single atom cannot accomplish what the whole brain does. Atoms do not process information, integrate signals, have memory, or exhibit awareness. Neither does a single neuron, either. It is in the interaction of the system components – large scale neuronal networks - from which consciousness emerges. — Questioner

The logic runs directly against this. You have not given anything that could remotely support the emergence of consciousness from elements which are themselves non-conscious. We have zero examples of this elsewhere and no evidence it is the how consciousness is generated. That is your extreme obstacle. You don't even seem adequately across your own beliefs to explain them clearly.

You are, though, because you are being obtuse, defensive, refuse to stay on topic, cannot answer simple questions and refuse to accept that your position is an emotional one (which simply means its a conviction you can't support - but want to continue).

These are all on you. I have tried to tease out some answers from you to no avail - so have others. This is not my problem at all.

Hmm. In my view, you have not answered these questions. I have also responded, pointing this out, to each example you seem to think you have answered with reasoning. The answers avoid entirely what's being asked of you by providing yet more ambiguous, unclear responses that don't seem to really set out what you think the answers to those questions are - just some other information about your emotional response to them - often, these are off-topic from the question at hand also.

If that is your wish, that is fine. I was looking for clear answers. It seems others are having this same problem...

Lets keep those goal posts moving! More speculation! MORE condemnation!

One would think a rational person would be relieved.

It might be helpful if you could tell us why, or what about, the human mind makes it so special that standard logic doesn't apply? — AmadeusD

Is the suggestion that a certain level of complexity in a system magically generates a novel attribute? — AmadeusD

Then you need to tell me what it is, and how it works. Every single piece of information we have about hte brain is biomechanics.Please.. tell your story. — AmadeusD

You need to explain how this, all of it non-conscious, results in first-person phenomenal experience and you are not doing that. — AmadeusD

I just read over your reply to me and didn't see any questions. — Questioner

Who says we don't need to fly around cities apart from you? — Corvus

Do you have trouble getting around the city? That would be an evolutionarily pertinent question. And the answer, as a species, is no. We don't. We've adapted technologies for that. Pretty cool, tbh.

But if you lived in a large city with loads of cars, then you will know the problem. Air pollution destroys folks lungs putting them in the hospitals in large numbers every year. — Corvus

Ok, sure. This is not an evolutionary pressure, and if it were what we would see is strengthened lungs which dissolve contaminants (from our current perspective) how plants do with Co2 (in excess of what we need, anyway).

Your comments give strong impression that you can't read and understand any suggestions put forward in simile statements. — Corvus

This may be because you provide no arguments to make your similies work. They are suggestions, in your comments. If you want to be clear, be clear. If not, continue :)

We have several English words for this: conviction is one. Devotion, faith and deeply-held belief all do just fine for this concept, which I've been aware of for years.

This may sound philosophical, but shradda is not an intellectual abstraction. It is our very substance — Questioner

He is literally describing standard world-view, base-level belief. There is no reason to think this is special in terms of various concepts of deep belief. It's probably dangerous, having beliefs you wont question.

A little, yes, but I don't think it's on purpose. I trust Questioner is being fully earnest in these replies.

This is just ignoring the discussion and insisting on using manipulative language. — Philosophim

I do think this is occurring, though.

If evolution were true, humans should have wings to fly around the cities and some other physical features combating environmental pollution. No such things can be noticed. — Corvus

This misunderstands evolution in many ways: We do not need to fly around cities. Pollution hasn't been a big issue for more than about 300 years.

To develop wings would take in excess of 100 million as I understand. These are simply silly suggestions the betray misunderstandings of hte theory. Some examples of observed evolutionary changes in humans:

Lactose tolerance
Adaptation to Low oxygen, particularly in the Andes
CCR5 HIV resistance
Decreased avg jaw size
Increased impacted wisdom teeth (because we don't need them anymore, basically)

These can be gleaned from observing rapid allele changes across time. In some cases, as little as 1000 years. Every single birth contributes to evolutionary changes. And we can see them :)

Some people do feel satisfaction when someone kills themselves. — baker

Butting in, but I think this misses a trick: children who say these sorts of things (and, indeed adults, but explication will make the distinction pointless..) are trying to support an internal emotional state, not accurately assess the world for benefit.

If you told someone to kill themselves in earnest (from their perspective) and they do it, it is going to be pretty traumatic to then admit that you caused someone's death vicariously. Particularly a child.

It is self-preservation to rationalize the prior behaviour into something which make sense of your emotional state - defiant, self-absorbed and unflinching in the face of real gravitas. Active ignorance, I think.

Not that your scenario never happens, though. There are psychopaths.

It reflects his deeper claim that standards of theory appraisal, what counts as explanation, simplicity, accuracy, even what counts as a problem, are internal to paradigms. — Joshs

I am genuinely sorry if I was insufficiently clear, but this is exactly what I have explained in my response. I'm really sorry if anything sounds short, but its probably going to be things I've either stated, or intimated.

The issue is that what counts as matching reality is itself partly paradigm-structured. — Joshs

I do not read Kuhn this way. I read him as presenting an issue with falsifiability. If questions are asked within a paradigm, then the answers come within the paradigm and interpretation is an issue - but this does not mean we are not truly (pun intended) aiming at "the case". I realise this is a tricky concept, not because its clever, but because it took me a while to actually figure out in "The Structure..". I couldn't get my head around the claim you're making precisely, but when I shifted to noting his issue is with structural choices and not an epistemic issue per se everything fell into place.

If this isn't how you read him, that's all good.

but it does mean that “the case” is never accessed from nowhere. — Joshs

This is hte issue, as I see it, in Kuhn. And I think what I've described accurately captures how he approaches it. If you don't, that's all good with me :) We are, after all ,interpreting from different paradigms.

But the kicker here is that asking Kuhn would give us a fixed "the case" if he were alive! Heh.

You know when someone believes it, when they believe it to their bones. That's their truthbelief. — Questioner

I have fixed this for semantic consistency and logic.

Sorry to double post, but editing in seemed weird as its going back to a different element of hte exchange:

I think it's not so absurd to think there's something to the Replacement Theory in light of statements like these:

"I always tell people the day the Latino, African-American, Asian and other communities realize that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning... because we are the majority in this country now. We can take over this country" - Gene Wu, Tex Dem (prior house Rep I think?)

"Hopefully, with replacement theory, we can rid this country of fascists and racists with migrants, with working people" - Irene Montero (Spanish far-left rep).

"Show them(whites, native French) that we are more numerous and that we are more intelligent. If we’ve had more children than them, too bad for them.”
“If they wanted to have children, they should have just loved each other, made love, and had children. We managed to have them. Our mothers managed to raise us properly.”" - Carlos Bilongo (French far-left rep)

"Folks like me who are Caucasian of European descent… will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America… Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then on will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing — that’s a source of our strength" - Joe Biden (this borders on Eugenic talk)

I'm still not taking it seriously, don't worry. But it is a little more charitable, I think, to acknowledge these weird statements for what they are. People who tend to go off on seeing statements like this are well-grounded in at least objecting to them. Taking it as some actual theory is insane (besides Montero, but she appears to be, in fact, insane).

Yep, nice. He is still the loser here in many ways.

Please answer at least one question put to you first.

That's also true - thank you.

Ah yep, fair enough. Thank you.

It's been revealed he called the police on Epstein, barred him from Mar-A-Largo, no one has credibly accused him of anything untoward, your mate Cameron had to retract what he said and give an admirably full-throated apology to Trump for his erroneous and libelous claims on CNN. The one statement people seem to be relying on was from a case years and years ago where the Witness tells of Trump not doing anything wrong. In this case, yes, his name will come up a lot.

It seems odd to want the CIC to be a pedophile Questioner.

When Kuhn says “later theories are better puzzle-solvers” he introduces that formulation precisely to avoid saying that later theories are “truer” in a correspondence sense. — Joshs

I think this is more to do with avoiding using "true" at all, because a theory isn't a truth. Its a "best possibility", and the scientific method essentially gives us license to take it as "true". But hte scientific method is not private, or even caught in labs. The layperson can carry out a scientific investigation, and so truth can be shared. But what is not possible is for some scientific method to come to a conclusion across multiple individuals/labs/whatever and another to come to another conclusion (other than interpretation - that doesn't seem apt for the true/not true distinction but I admit this is hard to tease apart) and for both to be the case. There is only one "the case" about the vast majority of questions science can answer. I think we would be doing a disservice to the world and ourselves by suggesting that our access to those "is the case" statements is mediated by context. It is the questions being asked that are mediated by context, and I think this is specifically what Kuhn is talking about.

The success of the method, in answering those questions, doesn't appear to be his target basically.

You seem to read this as a reassurance that objectivity is intact and that subjective variants of truth are excluded. — Joshs

Hmm. Not quite. But rather that facts are intact, and we should be striving for them. We often obtain them. But "practice" is not stable or sound in this regard. It may be accidental that a particular paradigm was able to answer questions C, F and J while we must await another to also answer G, Q and V. I don't think Kuhn is, anywhere, suggesting that we understand truth as anything other than a 1:1 match between the world and ourselves, but that we can't actually achieve that so let's take a step down and approach what we can approach - which is understanding paradigms and contexts as motivators for what science investigates.

the room for divergence in interpretation is much wider. — Joshs

I agree, but I guess I wouldn't (and take it Kuhn wouldn't, even before having these thoughts that lead to Structure...) call that truth in any epistemic sense. Those interpretations are the raw materials that must be adjudicated between, with reference to the "is the case" of the questions at hand. Maybe this is not achievable. I think that's ok, though.

Are you for real? — Questioner

Yes, and I suggest your immediate dismissal of literally every objection to your points speaks to perhaps needing to reflect a little.

Review your grade 9 notes about the types of chemical equations. Now multiply that by a thousand and you'll have maybe a smidgeon of the chemistry that goes on in a human brain. — Questioner

This has absolutely nothing to do with the claim. More of the same thing is still the same thing. This is why I suggest you are having an emotional reaction, because you sure are not presenting anything which operates as an argument for your claims.

You are talking structure, not function — Questioner

You argued that the brain is not merely a "combination". That is exactly what it is. You need to get from structure to function with an argument or narrative of how that occurs. You are not doing so, and therefore are not making an argument in support of your claim. You are dodging all the objections to your discreet points.

God, no. It's chemistry to electrical circuitry. it's on and off switches, and a whole lot of other things. — Questioner

That is, in fact, combination. It is no different that other biochemistry. You have not explained how this results in consciousness, against the logic of that not being a follow-on from neural structures. This is explicitly understood among philosophers of mind and indeed, is what indicates the problem we're discussing. I would be helpful if you could stay on one track. You have described combinatory activity in the brain. You need to explain how this, all of it non-conscious, results in first-person phenomenal experience and you are not doing that.

Like where? — Questioner

Other animals. Where else would "neuro" apply? Human brains are simply more complex - more of the same. So, if you like, we can ignore humans entirely and ask you to tell me how Cats are conscious, given they have extremely less complexity than humans, but are still conscious and have first-person phenomenal experience.

No, the brain is not mechanical. — Questioner

Then you need to tell me what it is, and how it works. Every single piece of information we have about hte brain is biomechanics. Please.. tell your story.

then, explain to me why I cannot ask a rock how it is feeling? — Questioner

This has an obvious answer: Not enough consciousness.

I suggest you are unaware of any popular theory about this issue. Look into Panpsychism and explore hte interplay between David Chalmers, Jaegwon Kim and Christof Koch. Lots to be understood before we can have a worth while conversation about this. Clarendon is right. You are not being intellectually honest here.

Science works, not because it is truth with a capital T, but because it allows us to predict events in a useful way in spite of the fact that each participant in the enterprise of science contributes their own perspective on the meaning of what is called true. — Joshs

This is only half the case. THe first half seems to be true - but that's because we aren't God, not because we cannot adjudicate what the case is. This is why the second is false - science does not proceed on mere consensus. Kuhn is well aware of this and makes much of it in "The Structure..". I'll respond with a couple more from him:

"Nature cannot be forced into an arbitrary set of conceptual boxes"
"Though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientist afterward works in a different world."
"I am not suggesting that there is no reality or that science does not deal with it."
"Scientific development must be seen as a process of evolution from primitive beginnings—a process whose successive stages are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature."

A very key one, which I think illustrates that while Kuhn does reject T truth (as many do - or at least, access to it), he explicitly rejects subjective notions of it, too:

"Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles in the often quite different environments to which they are applied."

His Revolution is in structural applications of scientific apparati. It's not about whether or not true things can be known and adjudicated, from what I can tell. The position is more than science, as a practice, is not concerned with trivial things and so the paradigms relating to which questions to ask are unstable and go through these cycles. I don't think there's much to suggest he thinks "my truth" could be a reasonable phrase.

There is, I think, no theory-independent way to reconstruct phrases like ‘really there'; the notion of a match between the ontology of a theory and its “real” counterpart in nature now seems to me illusive in principle. Besides, as a historian, I am impressed with the implausability of the view. I do not doubt, for example, that Newton's mechanics improves on Aristotle's and that Einstein's improves on Newton's as instruments for puzzle-solving.

What I understand to be a common critique of Kuhn is encapsulated here well - The first half of this suggests we cannot improve, because conclusiory notions are incoherent in some way ("illusive"). But goes on to say does not doubt hte results of that very activity occurring. It was certainly the most obvious tension I picked up in the book.

While I agree, there's no need to slide down into suggestions of motivation. Joshs is a well-spoken and respectful poster. I doubt anything is "sneakily" being done here.

It is involved in a highly complex chemistry - I would say the most complex chemistry that exists on this planet. — Questioner

Hmm. I think perhaps you're misusing many of these words in service of an emotional position. A complex is a combination. The human brain literally combines different atoms into microstructures, microstructures into brain areas and brain areas into hemispheres. This, combined with neurochemicals rushing between them, is what hte brain does. It's all combination. THe logic stands. It's not uninformed at all, it's just perhaps counter to your preferred way of thinking about the mind.

I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. It's really unclear. You're claiming something about the brain which is just not supported by what you're saying. The complex neurochemistry of the brain is not different from complex neurochemistry everywhere else. Is the suggestion that a certain level of complexity in a system magically generates a novel attribute? I understand that IIT runs this line, in a way. But your position seems to me magical thinking rather than some kind of mechanical explanation.

Like the US with it's native American population? Sure. — ssu

This is very much a "look over here!" response, I think. Not that it's entirely untrue or irrelevant but I was clearly talking about extant, happening-now issues.

the absurd replacement theory — ssu

Ok, well I'm not talking about that and explicitly carved it off.

So be prepared to get something totally different out of the hat when radicals come into power. — ssu

Which radicals? (genuine question, just not sure what you're aiming at). Yeah, that's probably true - but It doesn't look like many had an issue with the posturing.

Still, I don't like radicals, be they from the right or from the left. Usually they just create a huge mess. — ssu

Ain't that the truth.

Can you please answer the question, Questioner?

I wondering what it is about the human mind/consciouness (hint: not the brain) that leads you jettison that avenue(general logical principles) when assessing the question? — AmadeusD

Being amazed isn't an argument, just to get ahead of that.

He's specifically talking about Trump's actions.

But this assumes the conclusion - that the human mind is mere electrocchemistry.
What I'm asking is how do you get there? You seem to be saying that the human mind is so special that we can't apply general logical principles.

I wondering what it is about the human mind/consciouness (hint: not the brain) that leads you jettison that avenue when assessing the question?

For sure - and I want to be damn clear I am not denying that it's happening, that its anthropocentric, or that we should be doing things about it. Just for anyone would might take it that way... :) Thanks a lot for the exchange!

This is what's called 'special pleading'. It might be helpful if you could tell us why, or what about, the human mind makes it so special that standard logic doesn't apply?

But it becomes a hinderance when we need to clearly recognize perspectival differences between. persons. — Joshs

You are talking, in this entire post, about feelings and opinions. I have addressed that explicitly and carved it off from what we're talking about. THose are simply not truths. They are feelings and opinions. It is true that the person thinks/feels/believes what they do - and there's no issue there, as I said. Its calling it "truth" that's a problem. It rarefies those feelings into something we are not able to argue against, despite empirical evidence to the opposite in many cases. Even within law a subjective impression needs to be reasonable. So even in a system which leaves space for this particular type of disagreement, it requires a certain benchmark to be "valid". And I think that is correct, to avoid people making claims against reality and saying its "their truth". I hope that is now clear that I'm not arguing what you are saying in this reply.

Their ‘truth’ is more than mere opinion, since each of us has to validate our expectations and predictions of how events will unfold against what actually happens. — Joshs

I can't quite make sense of this, I don't think. Either their expectations meet reality, or they do not. They have opinions which they can put forward, and I can do what I do with those - or they can, as is almost always hte case, submit to an investigation whereby between us, we understand the facts of hte matter as against our perspectives. Our perspectives are what is being adjudicated against reality. I would appreciate if you could elaborate in terms that congrue with what's being put forward here - namely, that your description is precisely hte one I am trying to avoid using for the reasons I've put forward.

Science is working on it! But to come up with the answer that, "atoms must be conscious" is an absurd conclusion to make. — Questioner

No, it really isn't. Forget hte brain for a second and focus on the structural claim being made:

400,000 non-mammals combining together wont make a mammal.
65 non-sugar crystals wont make a dissacharide carbohydrate
100 white people wont make a black person
3,545,654,646 thoughts don't make an object.

Those seem clear enough. We are simply applying the same logic to consciousness: it is a non-physical attribute that might be caused by what you're describing, but we don't know that and hte logic says even 100 trillion non-conscious objects cannot create a conscious object.

There is nothing absurd in this. You're right about most else, but the refusal to entertain this logical point. As best I can tell, the repsondants squarely addressed your main point. The above is what's in question.

Brain waves arise from the overall co-ordination of this vast functioning in neuronal networks between specialized brain regions. — Questioner

This doesn't tell us anything about that question. It just tells us that in your opinion, this combination of non-conscious objects can create a conscious one. That's fine. But I would suggest they, and I, object on grounds of it being unsupported and illogical given current available information. That doesn't make it impossible and i don't thikn anyone is saying that.

For my part, my response to that above explication is that you're describing brain activity, not phenomenal consciousness. I think we'd all agree with it in those terms.

For me citizenship is very important. AFD thinks many Germans should not have their citizenship, especially those that have come from Muslim states. Any political party that attempts to take away citizenship of dual-citizens or questions those that have gotten citizenship is quite sinister to me. — ssu

Yes, and I fully grok that. The nuance is that it's based on religious commitment which is, imo, entirely defensible. If you come from a state which physically punishes women for having strands of hair showing, we should probably slow down on admittance. That said, I'm not defending the party particularly - only as far as it goes against what I think are abjectly stupid claims which loom large in political discussion.

AfD tries to paint itself like a libertarian movement of fresh thinking, but when you have people who believe in the replacement theories, you should be careful what you get. — ssu

I'm unsure this is quite as sinister as all that. "Replacement Theory" proper is insane, no doubt. But there are plenty of examples of politicians willingly accepting and even encouraging replacement of native populations (as far as those terms go) with migrants. That, for what it's worth, is sinister and should probably be side-eyed imo.

But then it can be the other way too that the moderates/libertarians are squashed. AfD has leaders that openly talk about a "large-scaled remigration project". So I think that is something that in Germany will obviously be linked to nazism. It's not the final solution, but still... — ssu

Three parts here.
1. Yeah, that part sucks because it tends to be BTS stuff and we don't really know;
2. I don't really see the issue with large-scale remigration if the population is in favour. If they aren't, they wont be voted in;
3. Yes, I can see the link - just wanting the nuance along with it. The idea that the party isn't aware of that is probably worth ignoring. From that, i infer they are not Nazis. Nazis are out and proud, generally.

Good shout in Meloni - very good example.

both parties have sex-offender presidents — ssu

Is this relying on the pre-Epstein stuff for Trump?

*sigh*. Okay buddy.

That's an extremely broad and in-depth comment. What specifically were you referring to for me to respond to? I suppose my next bit may answer...

I am referring to the thread itself - . That is why it didn't quote anyone, or refer to any specific comments.

FWIW, I thought this from the OP was good advice:

Just don't muddle things by calling everyone Fascista-Nazista. — jorndoe

that plenty do not take. Then again, you also provided a source claiming 'islamphobia' is A. real, and B. an actual threat beyond latent dumbassery. There is a pretty nuanced conversation to be had about AfD for instnace, which is not adequately covered: nothing they've done, promote or have been shown to support is "Nazi" in nature. Being anti-immigration is not Nazi. Being anti-Islam is not Nazi. As i say, there's far, far, far more to it - its nuanced. But the idea that any restrictive policies are somehow fascist or Nazi is bizarre and speaks to that advice you gave.. .

No, i'm actually just directly responding to things you've said. You seem to be responding to things I havent. eg As i noted earlier, had you wanted my position you could have asked for it prior to responding to a position I haven't given.

In just our exchange, you've been talking about and making claims about Chalmers because that's what I picked up on. I've simply said where I think you're wrong, providing quotes and brief explanation. I cna't see that you're noticing a lot of what's in those responses, and I can see (it seems) that you're adding a huge amount of subtext which isn't there.

Chalmers’s hard problem concerns explanation: that functional and causal accounts leave consciousness no work to do. My point is not that one at all. — Clarendon

This is how I know you're not reading my posts really. I've explicitly jettisoned this and referred you back to the actual point made, which is that his solution is a response to exactly this problem. If you're unsatisfied with the solution, that's fine, and make arguments. All good. I'm not litigating that. I'm just telling you I think you're objectively wrong about your charges on Chalmers. You aren't having hte same conversation I think.

It’s just that those norms aren’t enough make sense of the more nuanced aspects of personal relations which lead to personal estrangement and political — Joshs

Sure, and that's not in argument I don't think. But attaching hte word 'truth' to it unjustifiably semantically rarefies the concept beyond "my feelings" or "my opinion" which is what we're talking about, and those terms are completely adequate. Entering "truth" into these phrases is dumb, ambiguous and unhelpful. As a couple of responses here show clearly.

HI mate - sorry I didn't reply to this.

So, from what I've read recently in the literature there have been some fairly key concessions by climate scientists. For instance. their modelling generally assumes rapid population growth. We can see this is not continuing, and maybe wasn't actually occurring when a lot of this modelling was done sort of 30-15 years ago. Another is that costs for renewable energy have drastically dropped, against assumption. Several countries have also decoupled their emissions targets and levels with their GDP. So there's no sort of central predictability measure which was assumed. Overall, that means that the high ECS models are marginally outstripping lower tails we're seeing in the real-world data without some calibration and compensating errors assumed - worst case scenarios tend to now be rejected by the scientists:

"While the IPCC community has opted against estimating likelihoods associated with future emission scenarios, it does indicate that the worst-case scenarios for future climate change (specifically the scenario leading to 8.5 W/m2 radiative forcing in 2100, RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5) have become implausible 8"

While this needs to be tempered - the paper is survey questions about the likelihood of certain outcomes under the current assumptions - we can see that those may need to be adjusted as the introduction aptly notes.

There is the added spanner of human adaptation, which is much more swift than most models take into account so things like technological cooling adoption will adjust downward in real-world terms. Upsides like the increase in edible biomass globally are ignored, greening we see in some arid areas of the world and that with higher CO2, plants are more efficient with their water on average:

"This increased C02 is not just driving climate change, but also fast-tracking photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilizes vegetation growth in even some of the driest places"

(the use of a zero instead of "O" there is in the article, not me).

All this seems to suggest that there was just a bit of over-caution. Not suggesting anything untoward of any kind whatsoever here. I don't make any kind of real conclusion. I stay looking at all sides, but "act as if" regardless.