sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] arken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

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

[-] arken@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The hides of giant mutated squirrels

[-] arken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] arken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

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.)

[-] arken@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] arken@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

[-] arken@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] arken@lemmy.world 37 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] arken@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] arken@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Or less refined...

[-] arken@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

IDK if it's the ADHD or the autism, but I hate logos on clothes.

It's neither; you are just a person of some integrity and intelligence. Nothing wrong with paying more for quality and durability, but if you're paying more to be a walking ad, well... let's just say it's not flattering look. (I get that not everyone are sensitive to these things though, and that unbranded clothes are hard to find.)

I refuse to buy anything with a visible brand - I even remove the neck and washing labels inside of garments. When I bought it, it's mine, it's not [brand name]s anymore. Sneakers and similar shoes are harder to find unbranded, sometimes you can remove sown-on labels, sometimes I even tape over labels with black tape.

It actually makes wearing the clothes a much better experience as well. Instead of thinking that I'm wearing a shirt from [expensive brand], I see the shirt for what it is.

[-] arken@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

As they say, horniness is the stepmother of invention.

view more: next ›

arken

joined 11 months ago