I mean, it could be a manual photoshop job.
It could, but the double spiral in the shell indicates AI to me. Snail shells don’t grow like that. If it was a manual job, they would have used a picture of a real shell.
Edit: plus the cat head looks weird where it connects to the head, and the markings don’t look right to me.
I have done plenty of research, thank you. Of course even more research never hurts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As they say, horniness is the stepmother of invention.
Arguing that it’s informal logical fallacy is intentionally misleading.
Formally, perhaps, sure. I may have phrased that poorly. Let’s call it attempting to shut down discussion by appealing to academic credentials instead… had you appealed to the actual research backing the claim, I wouldn’t have had an issue with that.
we can use inductive reasoning
Well done Sherlock! And how useful all of this could have been if in fact we did not know the argument, but fortunately, both OPs claim and the claim of the authors are out in the open here.
Jesus Christ, how about countering his actual argument instead of this passive-aggressive appeal to authority? Anyone with actual experience in academia and/or expert knowledge of a subject can tell you there’s a lot of drivel that pass peer review, but more importantly, this is Lemmy, a place where people can discuss articles and other content posted to the platform regardless of academic credentials.
I agree with OP that the methodology described in the quote seems incredibly shaky and far-fetched. If you don’t agree, let’s hear why.
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.
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.
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”
Favourite Amiga games: Secret of Monkey Island 1&2, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Rick Dangerous 1&2, Pirates!, Flashback, Lemmings, Eye of the Beholder…just off the top of my head
Favourite now: The Witness, Braid, Portal, Obra Dinn, Papers Please, Fez, Talos Principle, BoTW, The Last Door…etc.
Even cnailshells would have to adhere to the basic laws of conchology though