dimreepr

I think that everything above stage two is cultural noise, and more of a distraction to the stated aim, which I assume is contentment (I haven't read anything by Maslow, other than this image and your synopsis.).

Strikes me that 3 or less is doable...

There's another rat study that shows, when rats are adequately stimulated they prefer ordinary water to the "happy" drugged water; the reverse is true when the prison is obvious.

Isn't that what I, strongly, implied?

It doesn't matter, this has now become a question of free will, and that's a kinda god type question. Sometimes God makes some people happy, usually they're well fed, and some get very hangry...

By dealing weed?

What if your hungry and find a happy meal?

My dog deals with my ego, better than I do; dog's are acutely attuned to our moods and are very skilled at appeasing us.

As Wittgenstein suggested, if they could talk we couldn't have a meaningful conversation with them, other than at a superficial mutual understanding, but they can effectively communicate with us at this level already. You wouldn't try to pet a pit bull if it was growling at you... So I'll repeat myself, what's your point? Animal's don't talk, therefore?

Sometimes, it's more nuanced than that...

Probably shit myself, it's never spoken before... What's your point?

No, I stand by my post, "While expansion velocity can exceed the speed of light", then it's not a velocity.

Welcome and +1 I look foward to a good argument...

Whilst I welcome your impute, this topic is 3 page's of discussion that encompasses all of your point's, and that's why it's customary, here at SFN, to have read the thread before you're properly qualified to comment.

You're conflating escape with expansion, please correct me if I'm wrong, but can universal expansion have a velocity in terms of escape?

I have wondered, if the reason gravity doesn't work at the quantum scale, is bc the shape of spacetime at that scale, is essentially flat/shapeless.

It doesn't, that's 'probably' why it's not considered sentient by anyone other than Alice, who followed a rabbit down a hole...

Indeed, but someone didn't understand the intention of an emoji (😉) as shorthand for 'this is a joke'. So you see, my young Padawan, the power of the dark-side... 😇

Cool, but call me Dave...

I don't care... 😉

Fair enough, from here on, if it walks like a duck and quack's like a duck, let's assume that it's 'duck-like'...

Indeed, all I can say is, they don't appear to care...

I would define sentience as the ability to understand why it decided that. An ant doesn't doesn't give a shit.

But it can be implied, for instance: As long as you're learning, I think you'll find the membership is very willing to forgive your past. Never intentionally, I have a "disability" that limits my loquacity, but I've never refused to explain further, when asked but more often than not, the neg doesn't include a question to be answered.

You recently said "I don't see the point of a DV", with which I largely agree bc I'd rather see a good argument to accompany the vote; there's a miriad of examples of a +1 with an explanation of why, I've never seen a -1 explained, as if we're supposed to know the thought's of the voter. However, when a member double's down on a previously, successfully, refuted argument, there's no point in further argument, so only a vote of no confidence is appropriate. If you think it's unfair, explain why.