yes, that makes sense

I think its hard to say what behaviour is conscious or not. Its hard to tell if it is like something to be a cockroach for example

Yes, and as humans, and beings with brains, we're probably predisposed to recognizing consciousness in other beings to the proportion that they're similar to us

Yeah, I can't even grasp that Gestalt myself. Thinking is hard.

(I know being proportional goes both ways but the question seemed to imply causality)

i think it is like a feedback loop

true

Really? I find that interesting. I would have thought the opposite considering that you said that your mom has been much like a best friend to you.

How do you know that?

I've read it from a few different sources, and I more or less trust the sources. I know people can say anything, and that there's a lot of different delusions

that lots of people tend to say, but I give more weight to the opinions of people in their particular camp than I would to, say, a religious person. (As to the

question of how *they* could know, I think it's incorrect and limiting to see empirical evidence as being the only valid way of knowing things.) I wouldn't

say I "know" that people don't reincanate as cats in the same sense that I know that the Eiffel tower is in France, but I believe it's probably true. Of course,

the bigger question is how I know that people reincarnate at all, and I have more reasons for that than just that other people believe it.

personally myself I don't believe in reincarnation for a good reason, but I made the question from the last line from Penelope Cruz in the movie Vanilla Sky.

Of course I should elaborate on why I think empirical evidence isn't the only valid way of knowing things, why I trust that particular camp, how I know

reincarnation happens, etc., but it seems awkward to try to do all that in comments.

yes, I understand that empirical evidence can have it doubts too..like when people say they have been re-incarnated.

Id like you talk to you about this inhahe. Do you have skype, discord, telegram or something like that?

Skype: inhahe, Hangouts: [email protected], and I have Discord but I'm not really sure how it works regarding identity and servers. I much prefer to debate in a

non-real-time medium though..

I could set up a phpBB forum or maybe we could debate in the Philosophy forum of my bbs, http://local.inhahe.com:8008

You dont even have to consider that it makes no sense physically. It has been shown statistically that astrology has no predictive efficiency.

I've wondered if such studies were done. But I can't just take someone's word for it that it's been disproven, it depends on how the studies were done. Can

you give me the reference?

(Of course I disagree that it makes no sense physically, that depends on what your assumptions are. But since the assumptions are largely unconscious it would

be better to call them a "worldview")

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1572687?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24104554?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Thanks, those are interesting. Well, the first just goes on about how astrology is impossible because it's magical thinking, and then briefly mentions a test in

which it's implied that there were positive results but they discounted those because they (supposedly) could be accounted for physically. But astrology

doesn't purport that its principles work independently of all physical causes. It could be that the physical causes are the means by which the correspondence

is fulfilled, or it could be that astrology is a fancy way of predicting natural causes. After all, if astrology can magically affect events directly, it's

equally likely that it could magically affect events that in turn affect other events.

The other one has more interesting tests, but as it says, they're limited. The most interesting test it talks about is cut-off midway in the abstract. It

doesn't even say what the result was. And it also says it allowed a 2.5 (something) variation from chance, and I don't know if that's a reasonable

amount given the sample size. It seems to imply that that value was picked just based on what the astrologers (who presumably aren't statisticians) claimed

should be their success rate. The main flawv in all the tests in the second article is that it presumes that the astrologers it chose for the test are

actually good at astrology.

Of course, in my original post I wasn't claiming that astrology is necessarily true, I was just expressing my annoyance at people who dismiss it on principle.

Nothing wrong with being opposed to it IMO, but I don't like the idea of shaming someone for living their life on their terms. Especially when it doesn't hurt

Someone someone else in the process.

I keep seeing them on tinder and 'accidently' matched with one.

I don't have one 😭

Lived in Tampa, I don't miss that weather.

When you can't help feeling attracted by those people who doesn't return your feelings over and over and dump you

mostly i'm just attracted to strangers whom i never talk to to give them a chance to like me or not. if i did, though, they probably wouldn't.=p

Lol

Yeah... I’m going to say don’t try those again. 👎🏼