consiousness has been undeniably defined on a scale and now has been located within the physical body and i have all these scientific papers to back it up so i can continue to use magical thinking to feel better about eating plants which over animals using the consious argument [citation needed]
then you got my point: it’s just as much of an insane take saying they dont. yet having not acquired any burden of proof of consciousness to say let alone commit to such absolutes.
you need to drop that as an argument and keep it as your personal belief until it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
til then; just as much conjecture to say equal consciousness to say consciousness exists.
we will meet on that day when theyve written the paper to prove consciousness and where it exists: then we can get proof that one has more than the other.
til then: we are two batshit insane people screaming at eachother. nothing more.
better arguments out there to be plant based. this here is just magical thinking for no other goal than to emotionally manipulate other people.
stick with facts. efficiency, less farming of animals were way better arguments than magical consciousness beliefs to be bullshit and screamy about.
For consciousness to emerge, an organism requires a massive degree of centralised structural, organisational, and functional complexity. This paper builds on the “threshold brain” framework established by neuroscientists, which maps out the absolute minimum neural machinery needed for subjective experience. Animals possess centralised nervous systems designed to integrate disparate sensory streams into a single, unified perspective. Because plants have a decentralised, structurally simple organisation completely devoid of neurons or brains, the authors note that the likelihood of them possessing consciousness is “effectively nil.” Their behaviors are hardwired, genetic reflexes, not conscious choices.
this assumes we have already agreed what consciousness means. each paper so far begins with a relative goal that was agreed within that pod of what they are treating as ‘consiousness’
which is very much still open to interpretation depending on which school of thought that you, with your own set of beliefs, will decide to go with on whichever paper will support it.
it doesnt prove consciousness. it just argues a belief of an idea around consciousness.
consiousness has been undeniably defined on a scale and now has been located within the physical body and i have all these scientific papers to back it up so i can continue to use magical thinking to feel better about eating plants which over animals using the consious argument [citation needed]
Oh dear, seek help.
Seek citations
For what? Burden of proof is on you.
Why? No vegan ever produced a paper proving consciousness. Why do they get a pass?
I’m not here defending vegans, I’m here questioning your batshit insane take that animals have an equivalent level of consciousness as plants.
then you got my point: it’s just as much of an insane take saying they dont. yet having not acquired any burden of proof of consciousness to say let alone commit to such absolutes.
you need to drop that as an argument and keep it as your personal belief until it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt.
til then; just as much conjecture to say equal consciousness to say consciousness exists.
we will meet on that day when theyve written the paper to prove consciousness and where it exists: then we can get proof that one has more than the other.
til then: we are two batshit insane people screaming at eachother. nothing more.
better arguments out there to be plant based. this here is just magical thinking for no other goal than to emotionally manipulate other people.
stick with facts. efficiency, less farming of animals were way better arguments than magical consciousness beliefs to be bullshit and screamy about.
Plants neither possess nor require consciousness.
For consciousness to emerge, an organism requires a massive degree of centralised structural, organisational, and functional complexity. This paper builds on the “threshold brain” framework established by neuroscientists, which maps out the absolute minimum neural machinery needed for subjective experience. Animals possess centralised nervous systems designed to integrate disparate sensory streams into a single, unified perspective. Because plants have a decentralised, structurally simple organisation completely devoid of neurons or brains, the authors note that the likelihood of them possessing consciousness is “effectively nil.” Their behaviors are hardwired, genetic reflexes, not conscious choices.
this is not conclusively proven
this assumes we have already agreed what consciousness means. each paper so far begins with a relative goal that was agreed within that pod of what they are treating as ‘consiousness’
which is very much still open to interpretation depending on which school of thought that you, with your own set of beliefs, will decide to go with on whichever paper will support it.
it doesnt prove consciousness. it just argues a belief of an idea around consciousness.