Not just cooking, but fermentation, pickling, curing, aging… in fact you could even describe cultivating more edible organisms as a part of digestion, although that is certainly stretching the definition.

Ok, but in regard to brains an biology, is this just a modified hard problem of consciousness or something else?

Summary: What are rights? They are entitlements paired with duties. But how can these rights be practically specified in the real world? How should we prioritize rights against one another? And where do these rights come from? Traditional libertarian rights theories fail to answer these questions of specification, prioritization, and genealogy. But a social contract analysis does.

I'd appreciate any feedback and criticism on this theory of rights so I can develop it further. I'd be happy to address any questions.

How we as a species are ideally capable of making sense of reality.

[removed]

Same and then I thought wouldn’t it be skeptic? And then I realized I should travel more.

I would say if there is one thing that makes humans unique it's our arrogance. The kind of arrogance that leads us to believe we're unique or that it's important anyway.

This is getting suspiciously close to the old Rationalism versus Empiricism dispute. There is substance, and then there is form. What we might call reality-in-itself is both and neither of these simultaneously; rather, they are two opposing means of comprehension. They are contradicting yet interdependent aspects of our consciousness. They could also be phrased as perception and conception.

So what's the answer to the plenarian and the frog developing its own cognition. I would like to know.

You’re really pushing my temper.

Never heard of the so called "Reduction to Brian". Would like to know more. Can you cite said logical fallacy? Thanks ad nihilo!

Curiosity is very much an animal instinct ; human consciousness and animals' consciousness are very much different in how they differentiate through acting upon their instincts. As animals do, humans are a slave to their instincts (their unconscious) and as Nietzsche put it : before sacrificing God as what is most sacred to us, we had to sacrifice our instincts, meaning we had to repress our instincts to become "sophisticated". You cannot threaten an animal with the burden of death in the future ; you cannot give it an existential crisis by showing him the bones of his mate. They surely do mourn others but do not seem to understand that this also will happen to them. I do agree that some examples are very interesting ; for example, the elephants cemeteries where they go when they are old to die and the relationship they have with the concept of death. It would still seem to me as an instinct insofar as it looks very much like a biological clock. The idea of differenciation in consciousness in our species is also a very interesting one to explore ; people from very old tribes seem to have a different kind of consciousness than we do. Two types have been observed : a consciousness of events and a Collective consciousness . The first one seems to be the oldest one in terms of evolution ; it is simply not an individual consciousness nor a collective one ; the individual acts as if it isn't a person but merely one with the events around him. The second one came after : it is simply like the individual consciousness but shared by a group ; what is felt by one is also felt by the others. So the oldest one would very much look like an animal's type of consciousness. Now the question that arises is what's next ? Why does it goes from the events towards the individual and why has this particular order been selected ? What's the step after the individual, the hyper-individual ? This, too me, seem like the most interesting discussion to have with the discussion on the development of consciousness in humans and why does it seem different than the rest. Let me know what you think.

Absolutely

Billiard balls smashing across the table isn’t the same as a game of pool, although the smashing of the balls determines the game, the game doesn’t reduce to it.

[deleted]

[deleted]

We were lucky to have been birthed into intelligent primates, to be able to peer into the vast universe and are slowly figure out it's mysteries. We could've been born a cow or insect, never being able to realize that.

Hey hey, please leave string theory out of this.

This contains lots of details...https://youtu.be/RwEKg5cjkKQ

He's basically on the same page as Friston with Active Inference and the Free Energy Principle...I can't quite tell what that means in terms of philosophical claims.

Let’s not forget this was from a human and well that would be considered bias

Very biased opinion here

How did you determined other animals don't have those things? Most animals I can think of are curious, and investigation arises from curiosity...

>>In what sense is the wave not reducible to the physical motion of the molecules? > >Generalized enough everything can be described as a transfer of energy. If you accept that 'transfer of energy' can serve as the definition of any process (wave, fire, typing comments on Reddit), then we are on the same page, and we now have universal and useless theory of everything. > >But if you insist that we cannot generalize like that because it omits important differences, then I repeat again: physical motion of the molecules is not a wave. Wave is a physical motion of the molecules in a pattern of wave.

What about "wave" is not reducible to the motion of the fluid particles?

Are you just saying that we have an abstract concept of a wave? Because that's true but pointless in the sense that we can't interact with abstract concepts, only physical realizations. There is no real wave which can be described exactly using abstract parameters associated with a general wave.

Philosophically, the distinction between "determined by" and "can be reduced to" is related to the idea of determinism versus reductionism.

Determinism is the philosophical belief that all events, including human actions, are determined by previous causes and conditions, and thus are inevitable. In this context, "determined by" refers to the idea that the outcome of a certain event is fixed based on certain conditions or causes.

Reductionism, on the other hand, is the idea that complex phenomena can be explained in terms of simpler, more fundamental components. In this context, "can be reduced to" refers to the idea that a complex problem or concept can be simplified and understood in terms of its basic building blocks.

Semantically, the difference between "determined by" and "can be reduced to" is that "determined by" implies a fixed outcome, while "can be reduced to" implies a potential for simplification.

In conclusion, "determined by" and "can be reduced to" represent different philosophical and semantic perspectives on the nature of causality and the relationship between complexity and simplicity in the world. /ChatGPT

Sentience basically, just what it means to be human and all the faculties we have access to that other animals don’t (potential for introspection and high level thought and investigation, curiosity, etc) there’s a sort of wonder and joy to being alive that goes beyond hard science.