iNow

True, though here a reasonable way to more clearly define it gets introduced: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8907974/

Word salad

Encyclopedias are conscious now? I’d say you’re watering down the definition so much that it’s becoming useless. It’s not that simple. Is anything “fully” understood? Literally and one thing?

Depends on from which side you take the measurement.

False vacuum like needless spaces btw words, right?

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen shared today that unless the House (the one who took 16 tries to elect a Speaker) votes to raise the debt ceiling (i.e. agrees to pay for spending they’ve already done and put on the credit card) by Thursday (6 days away), the US will default.

Whatever the people who fed it put into the training datasets

Physics. Chemistry. The usual. Bc they’re idiots who don’t care about being correct. This part I agree with.

For the curious reader on the panpsychism / integrated information theory front: https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/is-consciousness-everywhere/

It likely does, but that behavior is governed by your personal notifications settings under user profile (i.e. because you chose for it to be that way). https://www.scienceforums.net/notifications/options/

Gene mutation and environmental inputs.

You might lookup Planck Time https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

Good question. Been a while. Not this site, used one of the countless others like bustedtees, but same outcome: https://www.redbubble.com/shop/63+earths+can+fit+inside+uranus+64+if+you+relax

I have a tshirt that says that!

I wouldn't, or if I did, I'd likely be wrong regarding whatever I proposed. It's a placeholder word that's a bit like the concept of God. Ask 10 people what it means and you'll get 10 totally different answers. Then again, it's a bit like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Fair, but I was hoping for an answer that clarified and didn't further muddy. Didn't realize it was his word, so sorry for that. So... Dim? What did you mean by "perceived?"

The patterns will be there whether or not there is an observer. The observer is not relevant to the effect. This has nothing to do with consciousness, whatever that is...

IMO, no. Of course not. Blind individuals still "experience" space all the time and every day, they just use their motor/muscular cortex more to process that experience whereas sighted people just use their occipital cortex more to process that same information. The information processing and sense of experience, though, is remarkably similar. Not the same, of course not, but it's just passed through and processed with different cortical machinery. The experience of time, however? That is there and permanently embedded into the background of everything we do... and interestingly our experience of time itself never really changes in any meaningful way across the entirety of our lives. A few nanoseconds of dilation "experienced" relative to those on the ground when traveling on a plane, a few millisecond increases in processing velocity when pumped full of caffeine cortisol and adrenaline, but otherwise our experience of time is consistently unchanging and cringingly unremarkable. Space is not that way though, nor is space that way for blind individuals who simply use different neural machinery to process movements through and experience of our constantly changing spatial world.

"Ever since St. Augustine, people have wrestled with this, and there are all sorts of things [time] isn't. It isn't a flow of something, because what does it flow past? We use time to measure flow. How could we use time to measure time? We are stuck in it, each of us time travels into the future, one year, every year. None of us to any significant precision does otherwise. If we could travel close to the speed of light, then we could travel further into the future in a given amount of time. It is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~Carl Sagan

@studiot Rereading our exchanges, it’s all clear now. Thx for clarifying.

I have. There's no valid inertial frame of reference for light since light by definition is never at rest, hence my confusion about your reply remains unabated.

If true, that's even sadder.

You responded to my request for elaboration with a question. That's a bit rude, TBH. Your question strikes me as irrelevant to the point I made, but I surely am missing something. Will you please elaborate further (about your actual point, not with some Socratic method of questioning) to help us close this gap in our mutual understanding?

The insertion of the word "perceived" struck me here. Are you able to elaborate a bit about what you mean, specifically in what relevant ways is the "perceived" identity of a trans person different or in any way "less than" the "perceived" identity of a cis person? Not attacking. Just trying to understand.