By that standard, you won't be saying anything positive about Israel?
mountain dew tastes better than tea?
Most people wouldn't call Mountain Dew an "energy drink" but a caffeinated soda.
Energy drinks have more caffeine than a fountain drink, at least 100mg, and often have the words Energy Drink somewhere on the can.
$90 — USA
Here's another: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-productive-countries
So is the IDF, but they aren't described that way in the news.
That's unusual, because most people I've met who are into astrology get most of their predictions wrong and, undeterred, make up an excuse afterward
That's not how AI works. You can use generative software to make pictures of astronauts riding horses on the moon, despite the fact the AI never saw real pictures of such a thing.
It learns basic concepts from benign training material, and then has the capacity to create/detect combinations of those concepts.
The Telegraph is not the original publisher of this information.
The European Journal of Endocrinology published the research, and then the Telegraph decided to report on that.
Medical Journals should be taken seriously, and it should concern the public that trans people have health concerns so they can further study it and find ways of mitigating the risk through an additional medicine, nutrient, or other treatment.
The Telegraph is not the original publisher of this information.
European Journal of Endocrinology published the research, and then the Telegraph decided to report on that.
Medical Journals should be taken seriously, and it should concern the public that trans people have health concerns so they can further study it and find ways of mitigating the risk through an additional medicine, nutrient, or other treatment.
I’d still consider it but [...] I’ll never buy one.
🤔
Rooting ethics in the idea that suffering must be avoided is not an agreed upon moral goal. Many cultures do not see the world this way.
A Buddhist would agree with you, a protestant might not.
Some view progress, wealth, understanding, or some other abstract goal as more important.
You can objectively say one decision leads to more suffering, but you can say objectively that's what matters the most.
Likewise with the potatoes, you can objectively say that one weighs more, but not that having more potatoes is the most important thing.
You can make objective statements about things we can't measure.
Sure, but you should have a reason ito believe it exists to begin with. Otherwise your making statements about nothing.
Also you can't measure self-awareness.
There have been tests of self-awareness. Ranging from seeing if a species will try to get something off of itself viewable only through a mirror (proving some sense of self), to measuring brain changes when someone thinks about something.
I have a feeling you mean something else besides "awareness of ones self" when you say self-awareness, though. Awareness is within our understanding, and pointing that inwards doesn't raise any new mysteries.
Living being, just like machines, can have information related from internals, and either one can process that information.
Morality is an objective reality, that can, in theory, be compared between any two options and there would always be an objective answer which of the options are better or worse or the same.
Whatever standard you used to compare two moral systems would itself be based on the values of the judge.
Even asking "which leads to less suffering" is a subjective value, placing suffering as the most important aspect.
You just think there is no objective reason to follow those options which are morally better, but that's a different question.
Just the opposite. I believe people have their own reasons for following one system over the other.
One system can be more useful to a society, and they will have cause to maintain that ethical system.
This all rests on the assumptions that avoiding suffering is objectively the ideal, and I disagree on that.
I'd like to see less suffering, but I don't confuse my own values with objective values.
Many people think pain is necessary for virtue, so that right there would dispell pain as the objective measure.
Many others have some biased view on it. That it should only be for their clan/nation/species that this applies.
Even if all of humanity agreed reducing pain was the #1 goal, that wouldn't mean it had any objective value outside that society. An uncaring universe with a lifeform that have similar values, is still an uncaring universe.
This is like asking "Who delivers the postman's mail?", it may seem like a profound question, but it's very simple.
People can be aware of millions of things, when it comes to understanding themselves they can model it in the brain with neurons the same way they would think about or model the concept of another creature they saw. Just because they are thinking about themselves doesn't make it suddenly unique and mysterious.
You may as well be asking how someone could be aware of any random thing in their life. The postman delivers his own mail, nothing complex or enigmatic about it.
If you mean how does a person have conscious awareness of their own thoughts, that's like treating computers as a mystery: How can my PC's software display hardware sensory data and react to it? How can my PC display and reason about the code underlying it?
Of course, people don't get the same feeling of mystery about software that can have this "self-awareness" because the real motivation for these ideas about humans lies in a desire for humans to be special and unique.
Yes, it's a physical process where a creature reacts to unwanted physical stimuli.
There's even ongoing research into objectively measuring pain: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30700064/
We can't measure it, because what you are talking about doesn't exist.
Once you point to a part that does exist, it immediately becomes something that we can understand and measure.
The part that can't be measured is the part people erroneously assume exists because they have a gut feeling it does. Not because of any real evidence.
We might as well philosophize about the ramblings of the delusional, because they sense something is real, but cannot provide it to the rest of us.
Generally in the latter case, people understand the error in that. In the former, realizing "consciousness" is just a useful hallucination that helps humans reflect on their own thought process doesn't come so easy.
In other words "consciousness" is as emergent as the imaginary friend of someone who's lost touch with reality.