I think as renewable energy gets cheaper and we move away from scarcity in society, we will stop looking at ourselves as brands. Instead, personal conduct, or the appearance of such will play a much larger part in our public lives and place in society. This will provide a lot of privacy issues.
I’m a simple person. My main philosophy for just about everything is: “if everyone did this, would the world be a better place?”
Things I do, things I say, things I think. I know I won’t change the world (much). But I won’t make it worse.
You sound like you’d enjoy reading Emmanuel Kant
deleted by creator
I think science would agree with you, since that basically is the law of conversation of mass.
Ownership isn’t a scientific concept though. It’s a social construct which never depended on permanence.
I like this one
I have a saying, if the people no longer respect the government rules, shall the state end up in anarchy.
We aren’t special. Conciousness is a side effect of having so many neurons shaped by millions of years of social and environmental darwinism. We are actually barely concious to avoid confronting the fact that we are just walking meat.
If human head transplants were done, we would have proof that the soul is just a sophisticated algorithm held within our meat, but even then, our barely concious state will refuse to compute the actual implications.
Further our “singular conscious” is an illusion. People with various types of physical brain damage have had their awareness “split” and had something akin to two different consciouses in their brain. Even for “normal” people there are independent processes running in our brain. Our consciousness is in charge sort of the way the teacher is in charge of the nursey school. It might decide when recess is but it can’t stop that one kid from just singing for no reason.
Also to your point I think that if we could transplant a head we’d find that our sentience involves more than the brain. I think we underestimate how connected all of our systems are.
Apple and Android both need to exist. Apple isn’t your friend and market privacy to take a market and when they have it they will shit on it. Google doesn’t care about your privacy but are at least working on doing better and are trying to unite platforms.
Don’t put your eggs in one basket.
First and foremost, treat people like people.
I always liked Bill and Ted’s take on it.
Be excellent to each other. And…party on dude.
See we must be excellent to each other first because that is the most important thing. Then we can all party on.
Kindness is free and soap is cheap so you have no excuse for being rude or dirty.
When forced to choose, minimizing harm should always be prioritized over maximizing good. I more mean this in terms of utilitarianism, but even outside of that framework, improving things seems to cause more problems than working towards equity, and once equity is closer it is easier to improve things after.
That the only resource a person intrinsically has is time, and that everyone’s time is worth the same and invaluable.
If you could play god and either cause a distraction for me (on holiday) or a surgeon at work that lasts an hour, the choice seems obvious. How would you account for that?
Panpsychism has merit.
Yeah, I don’t know that it solves much, but it’s rather tidy to take the one think we know exists (consciousness) and fit it into a fundamental question (what makes up the universe).
Free will is compatible with a deterministic universe.
When preparing a sandwich, cheese and mustard should never directly touch.
Cheese and mustard always go together. I’m sorry.
I hold the opinion that free will is not compatible in a universe with physics. Decisions can be random, but I don’t think the concept of “free will”, as every decision comes from the randomness of the universe, and outside factors. Not “consciousness”
How does the fact that point of observation affects the outcome of the experiment fit into this? If there is no consciousness, why does it matter where you observe, as in the case of varying outcomes of the double slit experiment?
The “observer” doesn’t have to even be conscious.
I don’t believe in determinism or free will, though. The universe is full of random bullshit and nothing matters 👍
Aren’t most philosophers unanimous on this? That the concept of free will can only exist in a world with beings that can act outside the natural world (i.e. god).
Bruh you really gonna use “most” and “unanimous” side-by-side like that?
Lmao good point. Should have said "most philosophers agree’
Consciousness is a side effect of the structures physics has created in our brains. We have consciousness because of the atoms in our brain that interact with each other in different ways.
That doesn’t sound like someone who believes nothing matters. This would sound more like it:
dfakjdsnhabfkjdhfjksdabckjadsbnvchievfbiq4rjwiofhewnJSABjaksbjakdbjbdahbDHBHabshbSHbhbHSBABHDBSHDBbhba
Free will is a bullshit term
“Consciousness” is not a multitude instances of which you have one of, it’s something singular that has you.
We are all the same weird mirror rippling through space-time trying to figure out how to outfox entropy.
There’s no such thing as free will
My trial is ending soon, should I upgrade to the paid version?
Yeah I’d recommend it
I’m not sure that it matters
Not really I suppose
Treat others how you would like to be treated. Adress others the way you want to be adressed.
I used to subscribe to that, but I’ve since modified it for myself.
“Treat others as they ask to be treated. Default to treating them as I would like to be treated. Address others as they ask to be addressed.”
