@BobbyMack Do you want to play chess now?

sure, whats your username?

@BobbyMack You play really well! That was a massacre 😆

I'm not used to play 5 min so I made a lot of bad decisions 😅

ok! lets do it.

@ThePangburn I just saw a video where you explain your idea of pleasure drive being more accurate than consciousness. There is some empirical support to the idea that pleasure influences perception but the extent of that doesn't seem to me to be enough to justify your claim. I'm probably not understanding what you mean.

Who was him? There is no physical law for replication it just happens.

Totally

Consciousness observing reality is impossible by definition

If you are a Sam Harris fan you will understand that there is no observer, the observation just exists by itself. So a conscious observer is just another word for consciousness

True 😂 our language is not equipped to talk about that

Cons iousness is already without observer

It depends on what you mean by dog. If you mean a single entity that decided to bark and also created the bark and also walks and can be happy and sad, that entity doesn't exist. It's just not how reality works.

I'm saying that the bark exists as a sound in the consciousness of the dog and as information in sinapses and as waves of particles in the air

I just explained one quale, the bark. You can do the same with all the other ones

By the way, I am now convinced that eating pork and steak is deeply immoral and unnecessary. But since I love burgers, I would love to be proven wrong.

@T2the2ndpowr Because even if you are worried about health risks of becoming a vegan/vegetarian, you don't need red meat because you can always eat chikens, turkeys and fish which have much smaller brains

and presumably less complex consciousness (or at least more different from ours)

@T2the2ndpowr I'm a zoologist and what you said is just demonstrably false.

@T2the2ndpowr First, slow down with the strawman, I never said chickens are not extremely intelligent. Second, @kaizen is right about intelligence.

I meant that, since they are so much further away from us evolutionarily than cows and pigs, and their brains are so much more different, their conscious experience, of joy and sadness among other things, is likely to be less close to what we know. I'm not sure what the extent of this is, of course, but I'm saying that not eating red meat is our best bet.

@T2the2ndpowr I'm not saying that animals suffer more intensely the closer they are to us evolutionarily. But considering how little our knowledge is at this moment I'm saying we should assume that the more comlex and evolutionarity close to us a brain is, the more profound are the emotions it has.

@T2the2ndpowr By closer evolutionarily I mean that our lineage diverged from theirs more recently, aka we are genetically closer, aka we should expect to be more similar in our characteristics including our conscious experience

@T2the2ndpowr you are absolutely right in saying its not necessarily true but considering how little we know about consciousness its our best bet to value more the mental states of mammals.

@T2the2ndpowr Not necessarily. I'm just saying that the more intense the emotion is, the more we should value it because the further the animal is from being unconscious (I'm assuming the evolution of consciousness was a continuous process)

Although the assumption that chickens and fish have less intense emotions is obviously a difficult one

repentance is just a useful emotion, atheism is rejecting the hypothesis of god.

by rejecting I mean saying its not true/unlikely

I'm a fan of whats real so I like reality to tell me whats true

youre such a postmodernist

"established" I would say made fun of since then

Thats wrong

They never said reality isn't where the definition of truth is

are you saying that if you are alone in an island you cannot know anything true

?

OMG

What does thermodinamics have to do with epistemology?

There is always some percentage of false results in every test of any disease

You have to understand Sam better if you think evolutionary psychology refutes his theory

Sam doesn't dispute that. The thing is: you don't need to think God is watching you from the sky to get those benefits. You can just listen to your unconscious and to mithology.

I didnt say that

Not even close

Being moraly good for example

It's fun to discuss this. I'm also a big fan of archetypes.