In this case, I guess I’d treat it as any other fantastical statement: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Ah, so this conversation doesn't matter. You made up your mind even before you even asked for explanation.
By design, philosophical concepts neither require nor can produce proof. If they could, they literally wouldn't be philosophy. If your idea of arguing how "you" exists includes the line of reasoning that you need proof, then the truth to you is that "you" don't exist, because you cannot prove your consciousness to someone else either. Just the same as I cannot empirically prove my consciousness to you. You are an amalgamation of chemicals and genetics, as you said.
So really, one taking your stance doesn't have the conversational authority to even ask what proof is there. The hard evidence is just chemical reactions and genetics all the way down.
In any case, all three of the concepts I listed are not my ideas. They are debated topics, some for literally centuries, in the philosophical world. If you suppose yourself better than the likes of Plato or Socrates because you think you can label a fundamental aspect of the universe as a "mistake" people make when they think about it, then there's really no honest way you can even approach theories like those without immediately discrediting them.
I guess have fun with that. But for me, there's no point in contemplating with someone who supposes that proof precedes basic concepts of philosophy in a question inherently about philosophy.
I read this 15 years ago in highschool. It was probably the single most defining piece of literature that shaped how I view life.
Every time I look at something or someone and ponder their perspective, I can't help but get the itchy feeling that "I" (not myself of course, but my little point of consciousness) might be them one day and have to deal with their problems.
It usually makes me a lot more charitable in conflicts and it gives me a compelling reason to randomly make someone's day better.
So thanks for changing my life that way, Andy Weir
Yes, we can on many levels. I am not sure who says these things
Never heard of the "universe started Thursday" theory?
Essentially, there is no proof that the universe didn't start last Thursday. All of your memories, your experiences, your tangible progress, could be planted and you would never know.
So how do you know you are "you" as you think you are, or if you're just a week old construct that believes you are "you"?
Also, I think that the whole "we can't be certain we are the same person who wakes up every morning" is based on the ship of theseus concept they were building on.
You wouldn't consider yourself the exact same person you were when you were 5 for obvious reasons. So it stands to reason that that change happened at some point. How would you know that you did not change over night? And if you did, are you the same person as yesterday? And if you answer yes, where's the line? Are you the same person as last year? 5 years ago? Obviously not, so how can you know that that caliber of change hasn't happened to you in a night, or that any amount of change makes you someone else?
Also, they could be referring to the broken consciousness theory, where consciousness is destroyed when you fall asleep, created when you wake, and dreams are an illusion.
In that scenario, if your stream of consciousness actually is broken, can you say you are the same person as yesterday? If the breaking of consciousness doesn't matter in that question, would a perfect copy of you with all of your memories also be you? Or not, because you can't experience their perspective?
I think the break here is whether or not you can define consciousness as "you". For your supposition to be true, the answer would necessarily have to be no, as you said you can prove that you are yourself in many other ways.
But without a point of perspective experiencing the universe, what are we?
On Android, geddit is a pretty good way to do that.
It functions by skinning reddit's RSS feed into an app. No logging in, so no commenting or voting. But you can have a front page. And also no ads. And the nsfw subs aren't blocked.
I put up with hexbear for awhile, but I ended up blocking them eventually.
Sure, they don't mind explaining their points if you're careful about asking. But god forbid you express disagreement. If you aren't with them completely, you're a fascist.
Here's the thing, if you disagree with American imperialism but you're actively cheering on Russian imperialism, you're a hypocrite.
It's fine to be polarized against the actions of the American government. There are quite a lot of people who are, even within the states. It's fine to be polarized against the west. Being at least wary of the west permeates pretty much everywhere in the east.
It's not fine to call out imperialism from the west with one side of your mouth and praise imperialism from the east with the other side. And brother, I haven't met someone on the tankie communities that doesn't get a hard on simping for the Russian war.
I'm so burnt out on games using the same three pantheons when there's a genuine trove of them out there
Based on that can I recommend Dominions to you? It's like civ and battle simulator had a baby, but the civilizations are based around fictionalizations of actual lore from a wide variety of cultures. And you get to create a god to lead them in each game.
Dominions 6 is the newest one, but 5 is just as good, cheaper and has a more sprawling mod scene.
Fair warning though, it's an incredibly complex game and definitely has a learning curve.
We can stop the inevitable fact that people aren't going to buy our shares by pushing them on the most chronically addicted users of our platform and disguising it as a premium exclusive offer
I mean, who else is susceptible enough to the sunken cost fallacy that they would pour actual money into reddit? The answer is the demographic that's already put in a substantial amount of investment in the form of time spent on content creation.
To those people, they might very well bite because it means their useless, time consuming hobby finally might become a source of income.
It's honestly an intelligent business move by reddit, even if it's scummy as fuck and ultimately setting up their own best content creators to spectacularly fail and lose a ton of money when the shares tank.
Reddit still goes public. Reddit still pays their CEOs obscenely before they jump ship. Only the creators lose.
It's likely that she had the mindset of "Russia isn't as bad as the media paints it" because she has family there. But the Kremlin is that bad. She learned the hard way, and now there's a significant chance she will spend her life in prison or die waiting.
Chipotle tobasco is some of the best hot sauce I've ever had. I honestly have no idea if they even sell outside of Louisiana, but if you ever get the chance, try it.
The denizens of Louisiana have such an elevated taste for spice that any time I even mention it to anyone here they say "oh that shit sounds basic, try this one" and I can't get anyone to actually try it.
It has a kick, but not as hot as a full fledged hot sauce. Nowhere near making you sweat hot. But the flavor profile is 👌
Serious question. When was the last time republicans had a good grasp on "the plot"? That is to say, when was the last time these people exhibited at least a modicum of actual governance?
Was it around the beginning of Obama's second term when they all went off the rails obstructionist and party-before-country?
Those were the days when Romney was considered the looney tune of the GOP, now he's the one talking sense. And his stance hasn't really changed.
That was over 10 years ago... Have republicans really not had the plot in over a decade?
Ah, so this conversation doesn't matter. You made up your mind even before you even asked for explanation.
By design, philosophical concepts neither require nor can produce proof. If they could, they literally wouldn't be philosophy. If your idea of arguing how "you" exists includes the line of reasoning that you need proof, then the truth to you is that "you" don't exist, because you cannot prove your consciousness to someone else either. Just the same as I cannot empirically prove my consciousness to you. You are an amalgamation of chemicals and genetics, as you said.
So really, one taking your stance doesn't have the conversational authority to even ask what proof is there. The hard evidence is just chemical reactions and genetics all the way down.
In any case, all three of the concepts I listed are not my ideas. They are debated topics, some for literally centuries, in the philosophical world. If you suppose yourself better than the likes of Plato or Socrates because you think you can label a fundamental aspect of the universe as a "mistake" people make when they think about it, then there's really no honest way you can even approach theories like those without immediately discrediting them.
I guess have fun with that. But for me, there's no point in contemplating with someone who supposes that proof precedes basic concepts of philosophy in a question inherently about philosophy.