The girl in the window looks so pleased with herself lol

Okay, I hope you go forth and research these ideas

That’s not what it’s saying at all, it’s talking about immobilization as a survival strategy as induced by the body’s neurophysiology, think of it as another option after flight vs fight responses.

Here’s the report mentioned in the article https://explore.bps.org.uk/content/report-guideline/bpsrep.2020.rep133

Edit looking closely, the report itself doesn’t mention anything about the immobilization defense.

Edit2 so on further review, I agree that this article is low quality. Apologies, was just browsing while half asleep and thought it was interesting

Polyvagal theory itself does not seem promising so far. Oh well, editing this post to highlight that…

Interesting, elaborate

The post is starting out with the wrong assumptions so naturally it’s conclusions are wrong, top tier shitpost.

In the old days we’d use this kind of pseudoscience for mischief (you know, trolling), now it’s disinformation spread by useful idiots to upend their democracies.

Probably thought the weight limit was a suggestion and not a hard constraint. Yikes

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

You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really.

I don’t, I am just going based on current findings.

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.

I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact, look at any cell of any major organ in the body. Why do we treat the brain differently? Because I think we get irrational.

What you and other people who’re objecting to my comment are saying is that there is no way to define consciousness because we don’t know all the different ways something can be conscious. But that doesn’t matter because these organisms lack the properties which we see in other conscious organisms, ie proprieties we do know about

Here’s what I am saying: consciousness is an emergent property of some discrete biological processes, and we have developed some idea of what consciousness looks like when exhibited by an organism.

So that means that all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties. You cannot pick and choose which properties to exhibit because then what you’re doing is something else, and not exhibiting consciousness.

Like, if you’re a heart of some sort, you have to exhibit the same activity as a heart in general across all different organisms to be classified as a heart.

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.

We don’t know how consciousness works enough to say they don’t. Having a brain and/or nervous system might not be necessary.

Hmm sorry but no, there are traits exhibited by conscious entities which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness. This is a nice explainer on consciousness, note that it’s not saying anything about needing a brain to exhibit those traits

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/#DesQueWhaFeaCon

correct me if I am misremembering sth

Eh someone who gives their SO hell for not sticking to their diet is not necessarily “Karen”, it’s unnecessary to frame it this way