Lemmywinks

Bar-weep-gra-nar-weep-ninibon?

That’s okay, drinking in bars is a popular group activity 😊

Sounds like he would have been disappointed even if the tree did have fruit on it, because dates grow on date palms, not on fig trees…

Really? Things have clearly changed in the 25 years since my last school trip then. We didn’t go to bars with our teachers, but we had plenty of free time in the evenings, some of which was definitely spent in bars.

deleted by creator

Their laws don’t allow online advertising (or something, I’m not clear on the actual details).

No ads on YouTube, Spotify can still play ads for premium (but they don’t make any money from them), and you can play mobile games without having to deal with ads too.

My thoughts exactly. Oxygen Not Included too.

A bunch of very rich people really wanted Brexit, that’s why what was touted as a ‘non-binding’ referendum (“just to see what the people want”) was treated as very much binding once the Leave campaign won it (by a couple of percent).

Coincidentally, the original date they wanted to have it all finalised for just so happened to be the same day as new EU regulations about declaring off-shore bank deposits came into power.

The glass is always full, it’s just that some of what it’s filled with is air.

This is the real problem. The payment processors wouldn’t give a shit if it wasn’t for a very vocal minority of batshit religious busy-bodies.

You’re an alcoholic because your blood is alcoholic.

This is false, that’s not what the noun ‘alcoholic’ means.

You’re in luck, green tomato chutney is delicious :)

So you’d only be interested in reading an article if it was going to instantly solve all of humanities energy problems overnight? Why bother clicking on any link with such ridiculously high standards?

What you’re saying isn’t the ‘current best guess’ though, it’s a fringe theory which relies on some incredibly speculative concepts with no evidence to back them up (i.e. the assertion that, if you created another brain with the exact same configuration as your current brain then, your conscious experience would automatically transfer over to it. We have absolutely no reason to believe this is true, whereas the concept that the destruction of your brain results in your death is well supported by the available evidence).

We don’t know what consciousness is, that’s my point. It’s called ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ for a reason, there is no consensus.

For claiming that you are what your brain does, and the (implied) correlation that another identical brain would therefore continue to manifest an identical experience. All of this is entirely conjectural, we have no evidence one way or another.

Your caveat that you must be cut and pasted and not copied doesn’t help your argument, in fact it does the opposite, because it is not theoretically impossible that two identical versions of “you” could exist concurrently.

Again, you have no evidence for any of that.

Right, but even if everything did work as intended there is still the possibility that it might not have done, and that possibility helps us understand what is actually happening, which is that you are killed and a copy of you is created somewhere else. There is absolutely no reason to believe that your experience would magically transfer over to that copy.

You have absolutely no reason to believe that.

What happens if there’s a malfunction in the machine and the copy is made at the other end without the original version being destroyed? Do you think you would experience both perspectives simultaneously?

Not the victims, just a comparatively small subsection of their grandchildren.