First they came for the Hispanics
and I did not speak up because I was not Hispanic.

Then they came for the poor
and I did not speak up because I was not poor.

…

The belief that it’s a byproduct of the physics of our brains is just that, a belief. It’s not provable even if we both think it’s the most likely cause.

I know about the teapot, and it seems you’ve also missed the point. Did you not notice where I said it was as arrogant to claim we do have souls as fact?

We know we have consciousness, that’s not a far-fetched untestable thing like a microscopic teapot in orbit. You accept that you have it as true, but it’s basically impossible to prove, because how would an unconscious biological machine that reacts to all physical stimuli the same as a human be any different from a conscious one? We lack an explanation for why biological machines give rise to consciousness and why the universe is aware of itself. That’s not an extraordinary claim. Why does awareness exist at all? Why does the universe not do everything it does now without being aware?

The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.

Where did I say there’s no objective truth to the universe? Say I drew some pictures on small pieces of paper and arranged them adjacent to each other on a table, and then placed my hand flat on the table, then invited you to look. You can see pictures on the table, I then ask you whether there are any pictures under my hand. You (should) answer that you don’t know. You not knowing whether there are pictures under my hand or not does nor change the objective truth of their existence. The hand represents what we don’t know about the universe, and you (at least currently) don’t have the technology to lift it.

That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.

P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.

You’re inside the waifu!

Poor etiquette to significantly edit your comment without noting so, especially after it’s already received a reply.

That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.

But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.

We can’t prove conscious entities do or don’t have souls. Asserting we don’t, as if it’s some kind of self-evident fact, is as arrogant as religious people asserting that we do.

The entire style is the same generic crap that ChatGPT and others pour out. The significant detail and cutesiness is always indicative for low-stakes events, because it’s rare for a human to put in that much effort for something this simple.

Yep. Had to view in landscape orientation and zoom in to crop out those elements. Bonus was that moved the patterns further apart, making it easier to lock on (and fire photon torpedoes).

As weird as it sounds, I assumed there was some logic to this, and there was at least one case where someone had been the victim of sexual abuse and was forced to engage in bestiality. Then someone with half a brain realised that such a victim had no repulsive proclivities, so shouldn’t be excluded as a candidate on that basis.

The mere mention of the topic encourages irrational discourse.

He’s only a grade 11 bureaucrat.

Can you burn a Luigi board?

He’s looking at you like that because he has a PhD, and he just heard you say that unnecessary apostrophe.

In the worst case where all ice melts and sea level is +70m higher, only a few pockets of coastal areas of NZ are inundated. Plenty of affected population in those places, but most land is untouched and far away from intolerable equatorial heat. That’s why they choose NZ.

Check out this site and set level to max. There are other interactive sites but many show levels higher than Earth could ever have, because we don’t have that much water.

It’s called “the clit”.

Though people will claim that, creating very long, consistent, and physically-accurate videos is beyond the capability or budget constraints of publicly available models, for now.

Could probably have measured its resistance, then put a plain resistor in its place.