Carl-Richard

It could be that you're the exception. And I wouldn't claim you're lying for being that. Just to point it out: if what you mean by that is mostly some tangible material change, earlier in the other thread we were also talking about changes in brain function.

Think about another ill of society: people working most of their life at dead-end jobs that they have no passion for and then they die young with chronic health illnesses, putting stress on not just themselves and their friends and families but the healthcare system and the economy and health of the society. You contributing to this machine, vs promoting an alternative (like Leo with his LP course); how does it rate compared to not contributing to the machine of meatocracy? You can live a perfectly healthy and sustainable life (if not 5x better) by aligning your choices with this more obscure and lonely but indeed more noble alternative. And you'll be morally on top. But you might not even have considered it. Because it's so easy to justify your current route. You're limited and you only have so much agency. And society pulls you in to its established norms, because it's simpler and warmer. The ritualized death ritual that is a barbeque is indeed a mediator of one of the deepest human needs, of connection, of familiarity, of belonging. And it's not a need one can easily eschew. Consider that vegans are 3-4x more likely to be single than non-vegans; you could make the case that veganism is a symptom of a loneliness epidemic and of being in a situation where personal morality can be practiced without big drawbacks.

1. You do not need veganism to live a reasonably healthy, sustainable life. 2. Will you eat Porifera (sea sponge)?

My teens were amidst a few moments of escape a chronic mental health crisis so yes.

Have you read one paper on personality genomics?

If you stopped developing your rationality in high school, I feel sorry for you.

That's not true. You think two identical twins raised up on different sides of the world would have the same personality?

Even if cognitive functions are quite fundamental, there are fundamental things that can change over a lifetime. But some things tend towards stasis, when it works.

Does eating a porifera sea sponge count as killing? There are many animals with no neurons or true nervous systems, or nervous systems that don't have clear brains. But even in these animals (and plants), there are waves of electrical potentials and intercellular communication. The difference between a neuron and other cells is a bit like the difference between a Ferrari supercar and Volkswagen type 1. The difference is primarily in speed and precision, but the fundamental mechanics are mostly the same (propagation of signals through electrochemical gradients). Even though you feel quite overtly if somebody triggers a sensory neuron in your hand, you also have a more vague and general sense of your internal bodily states (what you tap into for example when you feel sick or you've eaten something slightly off). This feeling I believe is a holistic assessment of all your bodily states, not just the state of your neurons. You also have various everyday semi-ESP phenomena which are hard to explain with neurons.

Sounds like ChatGPT. Just explain your ideas with concrete examples and unpack jargon with clarifying sentences and you're halfway there. Know your audience.

You have a thing for being rigid with frames when it absolutely doesn't matter.

Read Steven Pinker's tweets on how to write so people can understand you.

Being dead while alive is rare.

Even ChatGPT cut off the last part of the sentence. That tells you something.

Your sentence is literally illogical.

I'm already off.

Yes.

If my car got stolen, it's likely that it was stolen by a human. But I can't know that it wasn't stolen by an alien, before I gather some more conclusive or confirming or disconfirming evidence.

Of course you feel bad when you eat meat. That book seems like an extension of Terrence McKenna's entheogen hypothesis for the development of complex language and higher cognition. Which is not much more than a hypothesis with little corroborating evidence. There is generally a lack of evidence for theories that try to explain things that happened in the distant past, even rigorous scientific theories. Evolutionary biology is plagued with endless competiting and comparably plausible "just so" stories. And it's tied to the problems with ancient aliens egyptology (endless post-hoc multiple comparisons); you can always find an explanation that fits the hypothesis but which is not conclusive or confirming or disconfirming evidence.

Hello? Welcome to the forum.

It's not hard to accept. There is just no conclusive evidence (as far as I can tell). There is no hidden city discovered where you find intact chainsaws and computers and corpses of internet porn-addicted incels.

You're talking about modern fruits downstream of millennia of selective breeding creating essentially candies on a Christmas tree. Babies also like candy. Will you eat sea sponge?

💀