I sincerely hope that this wave of anti assimilation centered around China manifests as a universal view that peoples have the right to break away from states.

Like holy shit to I hope for a future where states crumble and fragment, where indigenous Aussies can claim the red center (at least), the Catalonians and Basque people can break away etc.

International law is so strongly biased in states favour (because they make it) I would absolutely fucking love for anti Chinese sentiment to manifest as actual fucking consistent viewpoints.

Everyone seems to use the words differently but in general sentience is accepted as the ability to feel and respond to one’s environment. That implies a thing which is able to feel/be aware often synonymous with consciousness although some people say consciousness is sentience + imagination etc.

I mean it as there being a thing which feels like something to be.

If you mean it otherwise could you please define it? Or if you’re happy to proceed with that definition of consciousness and sentience (which requires consciousness as defined) could you proceed with answering my questions?

This sounds like Penrose’s stuff which is umm not widely accepted.

Being alive is not a clearly defined state, it’s a classification we impose on the world. Assuming life is conscious is pretty close to panpsychism, especially when we get to organisms like fungi or plants without centralised structures. That’s not saying it’s wrong, as you say we can’t exactly go and measure it. At this stage it is not an empirical question.

But uncertainty doesn’t mean anything is equally likely. toy example: radioactive decay timing probabilities.

Most people tend to come down on assuming brains have something to do with consciousness because humans describe consciousness being modified by stuff happening to their brains and not the rest of them. If you come down on all life being conscious to some degree or another why? and where do you differ from the pan psychics who say all stuff is conscious to some degree or another?

Sure those behaviours are observed. But what specifically makes you think consciousness is likely? Obviously we can’t measure consciousness at this point, (or perhaps ever it’s quite unclear) but most people fall somewhere between “brains do it” and the more chauvinistic “human brains do it”.

This isn’t really something you can talk about particularly scientifically, the closest to that is basically that we observe that in humans people report modifications to consciousness if you dick with their brains and we tend to avoid wanting to overcomplicate hypotheses with second order things until necessary. We can then try making comparisons between human brains and non human brains but it’s all very speculative.

You can assume behavioural complexity requires consciousness but it’s pretty vibes based and drawing lines is hard. Most people also seem to not ascribe say complex algorithms, bacterial colonies, or water cycles or whatever consciousness though.

So I’m curious where you fall. Personally I don’t think pan psychism is woo but I don’t subscribe. Stuff just is conscious doesn’t seem any more or less reasonable to me than a lot of other “stuff in this particular arrangement just is conscious” type hypotheses, especially when humans can have all sorts of modifications to their brains and continue to describe being conscious (p zombies???).

I don’t want to bait, I’m genuinely interested although personally consider myself more of a fence sitter on non animal sentience. Suspecting it’s less likely but of course unprovable one way or the other atm.

Plants are living yes, and hormone signals etc happen in them sure. It’s not known what causes consciousness though, hell we don’t even know why general anesthetics work in humans and we generally only believe them to disrupt consciousness because you ask people about it later and they say they have no recollection, except sometimes when they do so amnesics are often administered as a failsafe.

What do you mean when you say anesthetise a tree? And why is that evidence of sentience? Like lignocaine will work on the nerves in my arm. You could keep my arm alive after removing it from me (at least for a while) and inject lignocaine and observe interrupted nerve signals. Most people don’t believe amputated arms to be sentient though.

Are you an actual pan psychic in the wild? I’ve always wanted to talk to someone who holds that view.

Was in a cab after getting car in for service. Old mate was listening to 2gb and holy fucking shit were they beating up on the protests and saying vile racist shit.

the fash are just innocent smol beans who can’t be blamed for their awfulness. Unlike those heckin’ chungus leftists who want to nom all the euros and leave the rich as poor hungry boys.

Yep. They have just as much right to live as you. Find other options, I’m sure you can.

And yet almost everyone I’ve ever shown slaughterhouse footage to did not change at all.

I think that has more to do with being seen to do a thing or not. Nobody is actually stupid enough to just forget what is involved from one moment to the next.

There’s a difference between wanting to feel pleasure at the result of killing someone and wanting to feel pleasure over the result of killing them?

How is a meal different to a trophy or a photograph? Or even just the memory of the killing.

Why not? It’s not necessary, right, healthy, or environmentally friendly. What reason is left but pleasure? you eat steak instead of tofu to pass the time more pleasantly, no different from someone whaling or shooting rhinos

My mistake, I forgot that paying hitmen absolved you of moral responsibility.

I will never understand how something like 96% of the population kills for pleasure but thinks hunting for pleasure is wrong.

yeah I figured you were, but it seemed like some people were actually engaging with it. As if make-work somehow made the line go up.

There’s a fun joke:

2 economists are out walking. The first economist sees a pile of dog shit and says to the other, “I’ll pay you $50 to eat that dog shit.” So he does and gets paid $50. Later on, the second economist sees a pile of dog shit and says to the first, “I’ll pay you $50 to eat that pile of dog shit.” So he does and gets paid $50.

The first economist says, “I can’t help but feel we just ate dog shit for nothing.” “Nonsense,” says the second economist, “We just contributed $100 to the economy.”

Of course actual economists aren’t this terrible, but the popular perception of economics/monetary theory is about this braindead.

something something glaziers fallacy.

Obviously this is a joke, but if it even sounded remotely plausible to anyone reading fix yourself.

Well, they have to resist it if they first create the circumstances for it to be made, then decide to do the evil thing. Humans are in fact capable of making moral choices. Their response could be, for example, publishing it themselves or like shutting down.

It’s only inevitable if you assume enough people involved don’t actually care about what is going on and instead choose to make the line go up.

And yet people make laws protecting it, people elect people who make those laws, when given a choice between supporting the industry and not they support the industry. When activists show the horrors people insult and ridicule them.

you just want to feel justified in not going vegan till someone else solved the problem for you.

<3

idk how to tell you this but if you aren’t vegan this is the shit you enthusiastically support. Like you work hours of your life to pay for, you vote to tax people to subsidise it and you support censoring what actually happens.

A humane process is one you would submit yourself to.