I believe even plants have consciousness and that consciousness is a waveform

And science hasn’t really scraped the surface on any of this for any one to speak with certainties around what we should be doing around the topic of consciousness.

so there’s no real clean argument around that particular topic that will fit everyone

chocobo is basically icarus as well

i dunno, going linux feels pretty lazy. just watching you all sweat and panic with your workarounds and here i am like …not.

i think in the past year they must have made ubuntu changes a lot cuz its now really easy like its almost like a smart phone. even upgrades and updates with an interface now. i could see a techphobe who only ever uses iphones use it with ease.

the only hesitation is there is no tech support for linux. like you cant just walk into best buy and expect the geek squad to fix your problems(they could still look into hardware problems)

that said once you learn linux things come pretty easy with a rollback feature(est month maybe 2 to get familiar with the linux tricks on how to fix stuff yourself)

i still work by a cheat sheet. and thankfully the comminity for linux user help is pretty vast for searches

not for the ones with the stupider anti cheats

i gave up on R 6 long ago. but basically all other games are playable on linux. i become comfortable living by the moral code of ‘if the game doesnt play on linux it doesnt exist’

another idea is that we stop putting the importance on consciousness as the rule around the morality of it at least until we can all understand consciousness more truly.

theres plenty of ideas such as sustainability, lower consumption, less harm to plants and animals (regardless of consiousness), less toiling of the earth, healthier body. these are all feasible and more important discussions to have around consumption that are backed up with facts and studies

Also my position is not that humans are the only beings with consciousness.

My personal position(belief) is that we are in consciousness… ‘submerged’ as it were. Or even a radio wave for it to connect to. along with everything forming this reality. Like interconnected.

So I’m of the opinion everything has consciousness.

I actually take offense that anyone would believe one being would be preferred over another. Human vs animal vs plant.

Vehicle wise we might offer a different experience for a consciousness to know itself.

But I’m against minimizing any life form or any form as referring to it as incapable of consciousness without evidence. This is why I find vegans problematic with pushing their opinions with the intention of shame and guilt.

To live is to consume. And anything we consume has consciousness. We’re all ‘guilty’ of consuming in order to live as a flesh body regardless of what it is we consume.

Yes, see these arguments don’t even get that far. The idea that consciousness could surpass animals is where they devolve into ad hominem attacks. Their entire basis is from feeling good about not causing harm (at all) which would be seen as a personal attack should they consider a plant to be ‘alive’ in the same sense as anything else.

See at the end there i remind ppl I’m agreeing that it minimalizes the deaths. I don’t have any issue with that argument. I fully agree with it.

What I don’t quite agree is that consciousness is distinguishable by arbitrary rules of what defines consiousness, as you’ve taken it for example here: in a utilitarian sense. And it changes depending on who you talk to and what school of thought you lean towards. But it’s still theory and not factually measured as we can’t really agree with certainties on what defines conscience. I realise that enters the faith context and in science that’s considered ‘theory’.

My stance is still if they want to take the consciousness argument, they are entering problematic arguments around it if it’s a purist moral ethics approach. I don’t believe there is a purist approach in the consciousness argument. We can still agree that it minimalizes harm.

oh yeah. just got through one of these. I am expected to obtain solid studies if i so much as go against the flow of popular opinions of which have had never had to be up against any scrutiny what so ever.

eg: vegans speaking on consciousness and how they believe it exists in the brain.

they speak about consiousness and it’s location like it has all been proven. They provide no papers. no proof. just how they feel about consciousness when talking about it.

And there is none. any papers that that exist today are all based in theory around the existance of consciousness and ideas of what consciousness means. no hard facts.

but if you question a vegan on their feefees about consiousness they ask you for the science studies and facts and freely call you insane for daring to question them.

Apparently you’re not supposed to consume anything with a brain that would support thought and a nervous system according to their ideas of consciousness. So it appears sea cucumbers, star fish and jelly fish are vegan food according to their beliefs of consciousness.

of course they loose their shit if you challenge it to any depth like this.

dont get me wrong: im all for the plant based diet as its better for the body and planet. i just think the reasonings around using the consiousness argument is very weak. if they can say consiousness exists with animals: i can say consiousness exists in plants too.

Nope. And that’s not why I didn’t discuss it.

There are things you are definitely responsible to yourself for. Such as you’re decisions of what you are doing to you’re own body with what you are cognitively aware of consuming. Such as smoking or too much alcohol or food.

You’re just talking about all things that seem impossible to control just to get the focus off yourself.

That’s how an addict would speak. That’s an old addict trick.

seat belts alone are not as safe considering the side bags and front bags you get with a bucket seat

doesnt sound like youd poop very often too

part 1 & 2

consider it this way: getting old may suck. getting old, sick and having strokes sucks way more and just makes you miserable and a burden to a bunch of people who didnt deserve it. you wont be taking it out your enemy. just hurting yourself and finding more reasons to hate yourself.

You are so close yet so far. You’re still missing that one link of refinement to make your argument water tight and it is very important to acknowledge nuance here.

You don’t suddenly eat less just cuz you changed what you’re eating. Caloric intake is still requiring to be the same.

If you change to plants you need less animals to eat. They’d in turn require less.

You can’t just lazily spew thermal dynamics and nothing to connect it. It makes you sound almost smart but missing the point.

Again you keep missing your opportunity regardless how often I’m bringing it to you on a silver platter. I’m arguing with myself for you…and its a point i actually agree with. And yet you still keep missing it lol. im not even àrguing against thermal dynamics. i was arguing consiousness. you are so lost. I guess some ppl really can’t be helped.

You failing to look beyond high school at the larger work in which real scientists are even debating is where I believe you lost your ground.

But go back and enjoy high school basics all you want. Be my guest. I’m just not devolving to that level just to have a conversation with you.

All this just so you can emotionally manipulate others while you eat plants.

Personally I’ll stick to eating plants and without the emotional manipulation bullshit and will call it out. i will call it bullshit. Relentlessly. Cuz that is what it is. And you can continue obsessively Live angry about it.

same damage. animal eats plant. you are also eating plants. there isnt a zero sum just cuz you moved off of one onto the other.

had you argued less animal farming you might have had a good point as feeding large amounts of meat is inefficent.

you really missed your chance there.

Neither do you.

In simple terms you can understand: I do not agree on their definition of consciousness.

The paper became irrelevant as a point for us to agree on anything after that.

Want to disagree on fairy tales of sky daddies? It would be just as concrete at this point.