Where I was going was: effects can be different even if all choices and results are unethical. If one cares about the possible impacts of ones actions, consideration beyond “well it’s all unethical, so whatever” could be warranted.

are all unethical choices equal? Surely there are better and worse things?

It does smack of hypocrisy but I’ve been feeling more it’s a paradox of tolerance thing. Which itself a sort of hypocrisy now that I’m thinking about it. Huh.

If I don’t show you a video because I don’t think you’d enjoy it, that’s different from not showing it to you because I don’t want you to see it.

I wouldn’t disagree those are different reasons for not wanting to show a video but both are curations based on biases.

I guess I just have a more neutral connotation for bias than “biased against you for others’ own interests” and so I didn’t find bias to be a useful term here to distinguish the reasons behind curation choices.

Nothing really in disagreement here, just fiddling with common usage.

How is bias not inherent to curation? Preference for one thing over another is bias. Curation is literally showing you things it thinks you’re biased to like. These groups aren’t revealing their secret sauce for curation algorithms so we’d never know anyway.

does range come into play here?

I don’t think you can reply to a text message using a third party watch on iOS but you can with your Apple watch. I’ve seen that cited as an exclusive API.

Something is stopping another messaging app to have sms fallback and be the default messaging app on iOS. It’s iOS.

then we get to really specifically define individual, perspective, and perception (can you perceive while unconscious? I guess?), all sorts of fun knots to tie oneself into. I always thought the difference in sense vs. perception was the thinking about it, but if it’s processed at all by the “unconscious” I guess it’s still perception? I mean, I’m gettting twisted up thinking if my individual consciousness has a perspective from which it perceives the world

I think it’s more they are murdering the current instance of a pattern of matter and with it the biological implementation of the pattern of consciousness. Another instance of the same pattern is created near simultaneously. To flip it, aren’t they life creating machines as much as murder machines?

Is there a clear cut distinction between consciousness and self awareness? I think based on common usage, most folks wouldn’t say you were conscious when sleeping, as usually it’s said when sleeping you are unconscious. Sure your brain is still doing stuff and it’s not just “keep the heart beating” stuff, but you’re not aware of it.

That last one isn’t really fair, we’re animals and have attachments that can’t be logically reasoned away. Our brains aren’t entirely controlled by our conscious thoughts. You can believe 100% that the patterns of matter, not the matter itself, make the person but still not “feel” good about it.

Agree for Occam’s if someone is actually suggesting they are replaced nightly or your last Thursdayism, but as for conceiving of parallels to a made up teleportation technology and its philosophical implications, is the break in consciousness/self awareness for sleep not a reasonable comparison?

I mean, is there a scientific consensus on what constitutes consciousness? I thought that was a stumbling point on trying to pin down the various parts of the study of it. I wouldn’t say brain activity ceases while sleeping like that other comment but I’m in the camp that thinks the break in consciousness/awareness-of-being in a ST transporter is not really different than the break when sleeping.