kronisk

Art can be a joke, a joke can be art

Well, It also works as a nice allegory for climate catastrophe.

I have done plenty of research, thank you. Of course even more research never hurts.

Us guitarists call them blues lawyers.

Er, that’s what I am saying however is that you can observe and measure consciousness.

Going with any definition of consciousness relevant to this discussion, say phenomenality and/or awareness, no.

I am not sure why it’s hard to accept that some living things may not be conscious. Viruses propagate “mindlessly”, they’re neither living nor conscious.

That’s not really the point - I don’t claim to know what entities possess consciousness. The point is that you don’t either.

I also don’t understand why you think emergent properties are a hypothesis. Emergent properties of biological processes are fact

Obviously I’m talking about Emergentism as it relates to consciousness, and the idea that consciousness is an emergent property is not a fact, no. And there are perfectly valid reasons - for example, the “explanatory gap” - why someone might find it unsatisfactory.

So, I’m guessing everyone in this thread has a different conception of what “consciousness” actually is and what we’re talking about here, which makes it difficult to discuss casually like this. You seem to have a very exclusive definition of consciousness, which only serves to avoid the argument, really. “It’s possible that same organisms exhibit some parts of consciousness as we have noticed till now, but if those organisms do not exhibit all parts of consciousness then they’re not conscious”…you’re splitting hairs. If plants could be proven to be aware, have subjective experience, a sense of self, it would be reasonable to change our definition of consciousness to be more inclusive - simply because such a concept of consciousness would be a lot more useful then.

Emergentism is a popular hypothesis, not a fact. Christof Koch lost the bet, remember? The idea that “all organisms which are conscious have to exhibit the same properties” and “you cannot pick and choose” does not logically follow from anything you’ve said. These are criteria that you set up yourself. Take the idea of qualia as an example, how could we ever observe that an animal or a plant does or does not experience qualia? Nobody solved the problem of other minds.

Consciousness is nothing like a heart; the function of the heart can be observed and measured. How do you know that you possess awareness? You can only experience it. (Actually, that we are aware is the only thing we can know with complete certainty.)

which we don’t observe in those which lack consciousness.

See what you did there? You assume a priori which entities lack consciousness, and then motivate this by claiming they lack traits that can be observed in conscious entities. That is very neatly circular.

Food service and retail needs to exist, (commercial sales) call centers should be banned and their owners shunned from polite society.

Best and easiest way is to reverse image search from a photo, it’s easy to look through the results for yourself and see what actually matches (it’s frequently not the first search result). Perhaps there’s some kind of AI involved in reverse image search, but searching like this is infinitely preferable to me instead of some bot telling me an answer which may or may not be correct. It’s not “convenient” if you actually care about the answer.

I wish I could give this comment more than a simple upvote. I want to mail you a freshly baked cinnamon bun.

I think the brain is only where the concentration of prions is highest and therefore the most dangerous part of an infected person to eat, but you can also get it from other body parts. But I’m no expert… haven’t eaten anyone in years actually.

Or less refined…

IDK if it’s the ADHD or the autism, but I hate logos on clothes.

It’s neither; you are just a person of some integrity and intelligence. Nothing wrong with paying more for quality and durability, but if you’re paying more to be a walking ad, well… let’s just say it’s not flattering look. (I get that not everyone are sensitive to these things though, and that unbranded clothes are hard to find.)

I refuse to buy anything with a visible brand - I even remove the neck and washing labels inside of garments. When I bought it, it’s mine, it’s not [brand name]s anymore. Sneakers and similar shoes are harder to find unbranded, sometimes you can remove sown-on labels, sometimes I even tape over labels with black tape.

It actually makes wearing the clothes a much better experience as well. Instead of thinking that I’m wearing a shirt from [expensive brand], I see the shirt for what it is.

As they say, horniness is the stepmother of invention.

Which by the way is a town name that very often gets mispronounced by people who only read it in books.

It’s Διάδοχοι so rather Dee-AH-Do-©hee with accent on A, actually more like thee-AH-do-hee but that might sound a bit weird if you don’t have a feel for greek pronounciation. A small tip is that “i” is never pronounced as in “die” in greek but as “ee” (or as in “tin” if short).

Edit: I know modern greek, not ancient. The χ might have been more like a K (as the end of truck) in ancient times but I’m not sure. My suggestion above would be a lot closer to the correct pronunciation though.

Dee-AH-doh-kee like in ancient greek is probably what you want to use. Sorry for the confusion.

It’s really not, but please do explain your line of reasoning.

There are no pagans alive today?
Wew lad. Ignorant AF.

There are more or less well informed re-enactments perhaps, but the connection to the pagan traditions relevant here (no, not only roman, but western european polytheistic traditions) were essentially completely severed by christianisation, industrialisation and modernity. There are small pockets in eastern europe and northern scandinavia where some traditions survived, barely. (A convincing argument could be made that modernity and industrialisation actually was a harder blow to lingering remnants of folk beliefs than the conversion to christianity, but that’s a discussion for another day.) I am very familiar with the historical sources, european folk beliefs and various neo-pagan movements, so I’m not making this argument out of ignorance. You may still think I’m wrong of course.

Also why are you specifying only roman pagan? That’s completely non sensical.

I’m not actually, but look at the meme again. The context of this discussion is imagery of roman deities from the european renaissance.

It is blatantly obvious that a vast majority of the miracles and practices of Jesus was directly stolen from various pagan religions. Christmas trees, stockings, winter solstice celebrations…hel even the days of the week are stolen from various pagan religions.

Yes, and so what? The argument made about the Olympic ceremony in the meme is still confused and inaccurate.

Edit: and you seem to believe I’m a Christian; I’m not.

It’s not like the Christian appropriation of non-christian things just ended sometime before the high renaissance.

By that time, there were next to zero pagans left in western europe to appropriate from. The appropriation of pagan holidays and themes was mostly motivated by easing the conversion to christianity, so yes, it wasn’t really a thing after the conversion was complete. Local traditions and syncretism (saint worship etc) living on was mostly discouraged by the church so there is no appropriation argument to be made there either really.(The rest of the world is another issue; we’re talking pagan here, which specifically refers to european polytheistic traditions.)

I’d argue it’s ongoing.

Well, go ahead and argue. Isn’t the tendency of modern evangelicals rather to be scared out of their minds by any suggestion of heathendom, basically equating it to satanism? Jehovahs Witnesses for instance does not celebrate christmas for this very reason?

And even if Leonardo did not appropriate, the Christians now reacting with fury to the depiction of “their” last supper are appropriating.

Jan van Bijlert who painted Les Festin des Dieux was a christian… His depiction of Roman gods and entities are probably as accurate as The lion at Gripsholm Castle is to a real lion. And again, at the time there were no Roman Pagans alive to appropriate from, just as there are none today. You make no sense.

That’s a pretty poor excuse since the meme makes a statement presented as factual that falls apart upon scrutiny. Without this connection, the meme is nothing.

Secondly, the meme isn’t actually funny, it just validates the previously held beliefs of this community. There is no joke, just a poorly argued “gotcha”. Validation feels good, but it’s not actually humor even if the two is often confused.