• CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days ago

            I sympathise, but the cliché is not strictly true. Nature is all about diversity. Just like humans have a certain ratio of “bad apples” born where someone is hard wired wrong, so do dogs, and likely all animals.

            Psychopathology is real. It would be a mistake to deny Nature it’s agency. There are people who belong in an institution. Dogs perhaps moreso.

            To your point, yes most problems are attributable to bad trainers, but even here there is something missing. Bad breeders - natural reproduction would select for fitness, and truly bad dogs would be limited to a small fraction of background instances. We have lots of people actively breeding killers with outsized agression and fear and ferocity, with hair triggers, on purpose. I’m not talking about guard dogs where fierce protective instincts are balanced with loyalty and bonding and intelligence. I mean literal psychokillers.

            I’m circling around Pit-Bulls and the like, but I need to be clear. The breed is fine. Some of my best friends are pit bulls. Diversity naturally makes most of them good dogs, just more context dependant and trainer demanding. I’m not talking about those. I’m only referring to a small subset that were overbred and the natural background level of freakshow.

            If you’ve only known pets from reputable breeders, accidental litters or the shelter rescues, understand that these select for the good dogs. If that’s all you know, you would have reason to doubt that bad dogs are possible.

    • Kairos@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Oh we can do that it’s just prohibitively expensive. Roughly its 1. Create a star…

  • RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Can you give me the exact locations of all lost civilizations? Ideally any that have Pompeii-like level of preservation.

    • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      I’d rephrase and ask "where is the most similarly advanced - relative to humans- intelligent life outside the solar system.

      I wanna weed out all the low hanging fruit and find folks we might have a chance of talking to at some point.

    • jaycifer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      Why not “what specifically should scientists focus on to develop functional near or faster than light space travel?” Then people can just go check where the aliens are or are not!

  • Asafum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    “How do I guarantee myself unlimited more correct answers?”

    If it’s already possible to give one, then tell me how to remove the limit lol

  • CombatWombat@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    How can I live a life that is truly Good? A life that, at it’s end, I can look back on and say that I left the world, on net, a better place?

  • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Winning lottery numbers for next draw. When will humanity go extinct? Where are the nearest 1 billion species with near human level intelligence or greater. How do we safely and conveniently travel faster than light.

    So many to choose.

  • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    Easy: Explain how subjective conscious experience arises from physical processes in the brain.

    • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      somebody will argue that consciousness was there first and the whole body + brain is actually kind of a dream …

      (not how i view it though. i have a different answer)

      my answer is that consciousness does not emanate from the brain at all, but from the fact that we are alive. in other words, i believe that consciousness is a property that many or all forms of life have evolved to have because/as long as it is advantageous to them. this view is called “existentialism” btw. things derive from the fact that we exist (as living beings).

    • isyasad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      The physical processes themselves are the so-called subjective conscious experience in a way that cannot be better described by an abstraction.
      There’s no such thing as a conscious experience without physical processes and no hard-line difference between different physical reactions that would differentiate consciousness and non-consciousness.

      • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        By consciousness I mean the fact of experience - that it feels like something to be. That things have qualia.

        It’s perfectly conceivable to imagine a human-like creature acting just like us and having a brain processing all that information, but it doesn’t feel like anything to be that creature. A philosophical zombie, so to speak.

        That’s what’s utterly mystical to me. How can physical processes inside the brain give rise to subjective experiences i.e. consciousness?

        • isyasad@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          What I imagine to be the “true” answer to the question is that “consciousness” isn’t really real, but if it’s thought of as a result of physical/chemical properties, then there’s no dividing line between what reactions count as consciousness (ie, a waterfall or tectonic plate could also be conscious).

          You can’t prove that you experience that sort of intangible experience and it can’t be measured or well-defined, so I’m personally inclined to not really believe in it at all.
          OR if we do accept that it’s a result of chemical reactions and we want to define it in terms of those, then there’s not a strong reason to differentiate a human experience from rocks or computers or waterfalls.
          I think people are inclined to think that such a thing exists because we have the abilities of memory and communication, but the concept itself I think is not very useful. Which is why I suspect that a magically True answer would say that the physicality of the brain itself is as close as you can get to that idea.

          • Iconoclast@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            Well, there’s zero doubt whether I’m conscious myself. It’s the only thing in the entire universe that I’m absolutely sure cannot be an illusion, because the fact that it is like something to be me (whatever “me” is) is undeniable from my subjective perspective.

            But you’re right that I can’t make absolute statements about the conscious states of other people, animals, or even inanimate objects like rocks. I’m fairly certain that other humans are conscious too. This applies to animals as well, and it’s probably like something to be an insect. A rock, however? I’m not going to claim with absolute certainty that it’s not like anything to be a rock, but the thought of that is so incomprehensible that I don’t really waste much time even thinking about it.