The problem with non-reductive definitions such as the one you just gave there is that they don't have much information at all. What are those "lights" that are on when you say there is consciousness, apart from the presence of consciousness itself, the same thing that should be defined by that phrase? The presence of qualia is only possible, by definition, when there is already a consciousness that experiments them, but what is this? What is that something that you contrast with nothing, and how is it different from any other somethings like rocks, if at all? That just avoids defining at all.
Mine was a straight question you should be able to answer directly for any debate to go forward, not any "rhetorical move" nor any "approach" involving anything. Any rhetorical moves or approaches of mine, reductive or not, conceding or refuting, would come after your answer but couldn't come before it because your point needs this disambiguation.
So again: please, without resorting to tautology from which anything could be implied, define what consciousness is to you in a way you don't consider reductive, so we can clearly see what there would be to reduce at all.
The body is the mind's interface with the world. Why couldn't a digital mind "feel sensations", subjective as they are, on its own interface with it? If it's assumed to not be a subject, then how could it be a mind at all?
Yes. One might want to take care of the main stuff the usual way at least in part before passing on to the bidet, though, so as not to risk soiling. Source: Argentina, land of bidets.
The message seems to be: sales is a soul-sucking job, a demoralizing exercise on psychopathic exploitation in which making people feel something (be it good or not) is the way into their wallets.
For anyone interested in the phenomenon of consciousness who finds this microtubules idea suspiciously impenetrable like I do, I suggest to look into the Reticular Activation System in the human brain, which acts as its on-off switch and could well be its seat too.
It's not a matter of disrespect as much as of disobeyance. If there isn't (or shouldn't be) any subordination, disobeyance may not imply disrespect. The problem arises when people differ about whether there's subordination.
To make it explicit for those who haven't tasted it, mother's milk tastes distinctly sweet (literally), in a way cow milk does not.
So yeah, there's a probable purpose for sweet receptors. An interesting question is whether seeking sweet foods in modern adult life, which would probably not have been available in our evolution, guides us to a healthy diet.
I know. It may well be so, but I'm willing to try it because I don't find "may contribute" to be a strong deterrent, even supposing it's not wrong. There are many people with various inflammations that have found the carnivore diet to be very effective, (e.g., see Mikhaila Peterson). It may be that red meat is bad, or not entirely healthy, and the diet could still work because it's a very extreme keto and elimination diet. Elimination diets are known to work, see the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP) diet. Leaving out all processed food or some vegetables could mean excluding some unknown allergenic or noxious substance to which some of us may be too sensitive to. There's also an interesting argument about it being the diet we evolved with for millions of years.
The traditional TradingView black Friday discount always deserves a mention. Although this year it's only 40% off the Plus plan, the Premium one costs only one dollar more so there's that.
The collective "intelligence and character of the masses" was a topic of the highest relevance back in 1939, particularly to a Jew like Einstein, while the average of its individuals less so (and of more interest to the racist ideologies he opposed). And this is not a metaphor: it is literally what is said in the note. On the contrary, it's a stretch to interpret it as a reference to the individuals in the masses instead of the masses themselves.