kronisk

I have done plenty of research, thank you. Of course even more research never hurts.

The hides of giant mutated squirrels

Er, that’s what I am saying however is that you can observe and measure consciousness.

Going with any definition of consciousness relevant to this discussion, say phenomenality and/or awareness, no.

I am not sure why it’s hard to accept that some living things may not be conscious. Viruses propagate “mindlessly”, they’re neither living nor conscious.

That’s not really the point - I don’t claim to know what entities possess consciousness. The point is that you don’t either.

I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact

Obviously I’m talking about Emergentism as it relates to consciousness, and the idea that consciousness is an emergent property is not a fact, no. And there are perfectly valid reasons - for example, the “explanatory gap” - why someone might find it unsatisfactory.

So, I’m guessing everyone in this thread has a different conception of what “consciousness” actually is and what we’re talking about here, which makes it difficult to discuss casually like this. You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really. “It’s possible that same organisms exhibit some parts of consciousness as we have noticed till now, but if those organisms do not exhibit all parts of consciousness then they’re not conscious”…you’re splitting hairs. If plants could be proven to be aware, have subjective experience, a sense of self, it would be reasonable to change our definition of consciousness to be more inclusive - simply because such a concept of consciousness would be a lot more useful then.

Emergentism is a popular hypothesis, not a fact. Christof Koch lost the bet, remember? The idea that “all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties” and “you cannot pick and choose” does not logically follow from anything you’ve said. These are criteria that you set up yourself. Take the idea of qualia as an example, how could we ever observe that an animal or a plant does or does not experience qualia? Nobody solved the problem of other minds.

Consciousness is nothing like a heart; the function of the heart can be observed and measured. How do you know that you possess awareness? You can only experience it. (Actually, that we are aware is the only thing we can know with complete certainty.)

which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness.

See what you did there? You assume a priori which entities lack consciousness, and then motivate this by claiming they lack traits that can be observed in conscious entities. That is very neatly circular.

Food service and retail needs to exist, (commercial sales) call centers should be banned and their owners shunned from polite society.

Best and easiest way is to reverse image search from a photo, it’s easy to look through the results for yourself and see what actually matches (it’s frequently not the first search result). Perhaps there’s some kind of AI involved in reverse image search, but searching like this is infinitely preferable to me instead of some bot telling me an answer which may or may not be correct. It’s not “convenient” if you actually care about the answer.

I wish I could give this comment more than a simple upvote. I want to mail you a freshly baked cinnamon bun.

Sure, nothing is more masculine than having a preference for men.

This gem also springs to mind

I think the brain is only where the concentration of prions is highest and therefore the most dangerous part of an infected person to eat, but you can also get it from other body parts. But I’m no expert… haven’t eaten anyone in years actually.

As they say, horniness is the stepmother of invention.

And very long single jacket flap.

It’s on my list, and it’s a bit higher up now because of your comment…thanks for the recommendation(?).

Obra Dinn is such a unique experience, a shame (though unavoidable) that there is zero replay value though. My jaw literally dropped a few times during that game.

Well, there’s a difference between democrats not having any power because of a coup or because R did their politics so well…I’m not defending this interpretation btw, but you asked.

Fair point, but I would argue that if you had that kind of experience on twitter, you’re weren’t really the target demographic.

Desperate and out of touch, yes, but deliberately fucking up a platform and ruining his “Iron Man” persona? He’s too stupid and too invested in what people think of him.

There’s a version of this conspiracy I could buy though: the Saudis gave him money and stroked his ego knowing that there was no way he wouldn’t fuck the whole thing up. Everyone except him knew how this was going to end. That conspiracy I could get behind.

Well, since he’s talking specifically to christians, in the context that he wants all christians to vote: he could have meant that he will fix all their concerns during his term – no more abortions, “christian values” in school, etc – so that next election, they don’t have to worry anymore. Just come out and vote this time, he’ll fix America so good that the liberals can’t even undo it if they win the next one (but they won’t, because everyone will be happy in this new golden age).

I don’t buy this conspiracy theory at all, 1) twitter is disinformation heaven, which is very useful to authoritarian regimes and 2) Musky would never intentionally do anything to harm his public image, he’s a textbook narcissist after all.

“I hate that site, I hope someone Musks it up soon”