Doesn't matter that the kid was 17, what you gonna do? Say no to your teacher?
Pervasive gender bias not withstanding, unironically yes. It's trivially easy to ignore your teachers in highschool, I saw kids ignoring legitimate uses of authority constantly for no reason at all other than they could and the teachers now are even bigger pushovers than back then. The incredibly favorable process of reporting inappropriate conduct because of the hair trigger they have for avoiding scandals like this will outweigh even the pro-female biases in education.
Coercion isn't the big concern in that age range, it's manipulation.
It later emerged that she was living with the teenager in her marital home less than two months after being put on the sex offenders register.
That is the downest case of bad and she just wouldn't quit.
This one especially reminds me of one of those bootleg copies of the originals with really poorly done subtitles.
"Frau Dobageens and Grand Elf must get more doors"
The "you may be at higher risk" phrasing is also hilarious, like risk didn't already imply a probability, they're just sounding like they haven't got a clue.
Yep, a hypothetical 16 year old with literally no health issues still gets the "higher risk of getting severely ill" result if he hasn't had his good boy botched boosters. Seems the only way not to get told to be boosted is to already be boosted.
Sorry if this isn't nearly as comprehensive as your reply,, I only have so much time to spread around, but I do appreciate the olive branch, so thanks for that too.
However - I think that same acknowledgement should, simultaneously, recognize that while we’ve kind of… “mapped the shores of the lake called consciousness” through the last hundred years of research and advancements, we still fundamentally understand very little. Y’know?
Briefly I think that is our major disconnect. Because my perspective on the state of the cognitive research and investigating the physical mechanistic basis of our awareness is that we have barely even begun to scratch the surface, even after decades of chipping away at it, but the little we have seen under the surface looks promising. So to me it isn't an obvious necessity to start looking elsewhere yet to explain the consciousness we experience.
To maybe make the metaphor even more convoluted, from a materialist perspective of understanding the brain, we've opened a handful of doors and found a few fragments of what might be the answer to consciousness, but I can still see far more doors still unopened, lining a corridor I that can't even see the end of. And I'm more about getting down that hallway and opening the rest of the doors first, before we start digging up the foundations looking for the rest of the answer.
Well, I suppose they do have a precedent of not really thinking through the implications of what they write.
Yeah I know I've been disrespectful, I freely admitted it already. But only in response.
I didn't start with a dismissal, I challenged you on what to me is the most obvious flaw in the argument: that it all rests on the assumption that consciousness must be a special irreducible parameter that matter does or doesn't have, and there was no explanation as to why you were asserting that. I even made it a conditional to make it clear it was up for debate not just an assertion to the contrary. It hadn't been addressed yet and ignoring that elephant was clearly the crux of why most your other discussions were breaking down here. So I figured a little prod might loosen the tangle you all were getting in.
But challenging people, even tersely, isn't disrespectful. If it were then the only way to have a respectful society would be to be a completely useless blob of yes-men. Ignoring that challenge to repeatedly insinuate I hadn't even bothered to read or listen to the previous arguments is though. As is falsely leveling fallacies at people, and that's a real pet peeve.
And I didn't hesitate to return that demeanor because I'm done giving more than 1 chance to strangers on the internet anymore, not when in my experience it seems like 9/10 people are just willing to take advantage of any and all slack they're given. I'd sooner apologize 10% of the time than let assholes have their cake and eat it the other 90% of the time. Plus being able to throw some heat and get over it afterwards is something everybody should practice occasionally.
Ironic, because everyone crying about trying to start a discussion on panpsychism is making blind appeals to the authority of the field of consciousness studies
Well that's nice, but I don't know why you're bitching to me about those people because that wasn't me. Appeal to authority is "Official head smartman says you're wrong, he must be righter than you because he is officially smarter". I've appealed to no credentials and only put forward abstract concepts, concepts don't have authority, only validity. Maybe you misunderstood appeals to authority to mean mentioning any concept someone with authority has also mentioned before, but that's not an appeal to authority, it's just a natural consequence of being logically consistent that multiple people can reach the same conclusion.
“woo woo”, the most base and disingenuous appeal to the authority of the scientific establishment that exists.
Again, you don't even know what the terms you're using mean. That isn't an appeal to authority either, it's just being disrespectful of your schizophrenic ideas. If that makes you so mad you start imagining fallacies to dismiss it, well too fuckin bad for you I guess. Just don't be so disrespectful of me and expect anything less in return.
Great, whatever, I would have welcomed people trying to make the case for that world view
Apparently you want people to do that without disputing the world view that is diametrically opposed to that and was presented as the starting point of the conversation. At least I waited 3 replies deep before getting tired of the baseless assertions to return a taste of your own medicine. And that's ignoring the philosophical differences between asserting the existence of something Vs the asserting the non-existence of something.
All the people taking issue are just spitting on the ideas presented, as if they’re fucking geniuses and the Oxford PhD biochemist with 300 peer reviewed papers and 2 dozen books is a drooling idiot. Well, chances are they just didn’t understand what was being said, frankly.
C'mon, you should know your audience enough to know that an appeal to that authority won't work here. Anyone who has any experience with academia has seen the patina on top of that pedestal. Especially so the highly cited academics, sometimes they act more like cult leaders within their research department/field than the idealised autists outsiders might believe them to be like. So yeah it totally tracks that an especially prolific academic might pivot to peddling spiritual woo woo in their later years.
It's not that I don't understand the arguments, I just understand them well enough to see how incredibly flawed they are.
There is no special consciousness field. It's like the "ether", an invisible universal force crudely conjured by people too impatient to do the harder work of isolating and understanding the hundreds of individually observable mechanisms and their interrelations that lead to the same result.
Even if, after decades of research, materialists totally mapped all the “complex series of biological logic gates” of the brain down to the atom, you would still fundamentally be incapable explaining the source of the conscious experience.
No, at that point it is entirely feasible that we could point to the exact mechanical process that produces the experience of pain, or fear. You're declaring something impossible when you've not even tried, for a rationale no deeper than "well, duh".
Cancer is an ostensibly far simpler biological problem, and after over a hundred years of far more extensive research efforts than that into consciousness we're still puzzled by as many unknowns as knowns about the mechanisms around it. That doesn't mean I'm about to declare that molecular biology is a red herring and we should be doing more research into "bad cancer vibes" or some shit. We're not omniscient super beings, just because the comprehensive answer will very likely not be known in my lifetime doesn't mean it's unknowable, if the observable mechanism already exists and just needs calculating on a larger scale then it's up to you to prove some specific reason it won't work when you scale it up.
If there is no special property of consciousness to impart then the threshold for something comparable to human consciousness is system complexity comparable to the human brain.
We're still a long way off creating anything on that level ourselves, and a very very long way off doing that in a way that isn't more or less just copying evolution's homework on neural networks. We've poured billions of dollars and a sizeable portion of top level human resources into AI and LLM projects recently, and even at their peak they pale in comparison to the just complexity we currently understand about how the brain functions, nevermind all the parts we haven't even figured out yet.
So no we couldn't have created artificial consciousness decades ago, and we may not be able to do so for many decades hence.
As to the "hard problem", I disagree to the foundational assertion of it.
Proponents of the hard problem argue that it is categorically different from the easy problems since no mechanistic or behavioral explanation could explain the character of an experience, not even in principle.
Making that your fundamental axiom stems from a misunderstanding of the vast unplumbed depths of the mechanical complexity of the human brain. The stupid urban myth of only using 10% of our brain has an unexpected a kernel of truth to it, in that what we currently understand about how the brain functions could easily turn out to be only 10% of the total system complexity.
This is all very easily made trivial if you just stop considering consciousness as some special property that has be imparted on things.
If it's just the output from parsing an incredibly complicated series of biological logic gates, then the materialists have nothing more to prove than the biological system simply exists.
Why won't my silicone spatula compute as fast as a 4090?!
I know, it must be magic.
If you follow the creator you should get their reviews tagline at the top of the game's store page automatically. It works as a pretty good warning without having to ignore.
What probably stings most for her is that Harambe gets infinitely more dicks out than she ever will.
"But as you can see in my pricing scheme here your honor, it explicitly states 'no oral'. Therefore the defendant's insinuation that I sucked dicks for money is defamatory. Gape pics and findom are clearly materially different services."
It's very funny to me that the entire case may end up hinging on a debate about whether selling pictures of herself blowing a dildo constitutes the legal definition of "sucking dicks for money"
Yeah, Valve's statement is almost satirical given that settling in courts is already the default.
Forced arbitration is bullshit and all the big players have been trying to introduce it via updated user agreements in the last few years. It make class action lawsuits a logistical nightmare and drags out the process to be even more uneconomical for individual consumers to sue. It's basically telling the consumer they have every intention of dodging responsibility if their product causes you physical or financial harm.
This inversion is both good and kinda funny
That one music video where Gyllenhaal played a crazed serial killer felt oddly realistic too. That man does unhinged characters very well.
They tend to have more use in the big space operas or fantasy epics. Anywhere you need someone who just does their job to make the wheels of the world(s) turn.
They're hard to think of easily because written well you don't usually think about their relative submissiveness first. The readiest example of one I can think of is Grey Worm from GoT, just because his slave conditioning took the submissiveness to an such an extreme it's hard to miss.
"Submissive" characters, aren't really any good storytelling, either as men or women. [...] They wouldn't have an impact on the story.
Slight disagree there, there's nothing narratively wrong with submissive characters. They aren't dynamic characters in and of themselves, but they do have an impact; as assets and obstacles for the more dynamic characters to navigate around. They're like the action equivalent of the comedy straight man.
Plus unless they're submissive to a fault, in which case they're bad writing for just being one dimensional not necessarily for being submissive, there's always interest to be had in placing them in rare situations where they would be spurred to action despite their typical inclination.
But you're not wrong that submissive characters aren't going to be the first names you remember in a story, they'll only stand out on a deeper look at the story.
Terminator 2 came out in 1991, even if we generously assume the only fans of that movie were 18 in 1991, and there weren't 10 year olds watching classic action flicks in the early 2000s that loved it.
Even then the OG Fans who saw terminator 2 in theatres are 51 now. And this 70 year old hack is saying they "are all either dead, retired, crippled, or have dementia,”, what an absolutely desperate cope.
Heh, you did better than me, clicked through and just saw endless drivel and cat fights. Twitter is such hell to browse without logging in.
Nevermind the forever lolisho argument. It seems they're trying to slander him with a fucking screenshot of some file names and "just trust me bro", cause I can't find any of those alleged archives.
As Decoy Voice likes to point out, he's allegedly not even Somalian, he's Nigerian. The internet grifter spirit stays strong in that fabled shithole