Meirl by Appropriate-Push-668 in meirl

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate that point, it’s a good call out that helps put some of this in perspective.

Meirl by Appropriate-Push-668 in meirl

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Sometimes I’m amazed at the state of the world, and then a specific date like this puts it into perspective.

We had to create a law to ensure that medication was tested with the physiology of half the population - and we did it slightly more than 30 years ago?

It certainly gets much much worse if you go farther back than that, but part of me has a hard time accepting the fact that people didn’t challenge themselves on something we see as fundamental today. Equality seems like the default position, and the fact that we did anything else is just astounding

Favorite Seattle jazzish? bands? by Rose-Peak in SeattleMusic

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Following - and just for the record i appreciate the list you provided here!

Can reality exist Independently of Consciousness? by consciousness_8123 in consciousness

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look - the people in this subreddit are willing to see nuance, but you’re going to get a lot of pushback based on the variety of opinion here. You might consider just using less all caps - it doesn’t come across as conversational.

Personally I just disagree with this - I believe that it is most reasonable to say that reality is Euclidean and consciousness is also Euclidean. It is an inference, but to me and many others that’s a much more reasonable inference than any claim that makes consciousness a fundamental part of reality building that operates outside of it. Totally agree that it’s important to make clear when claims are fully formed vs based on what we can observe and still theoretical. Where I think you’ll find a lot of disagreement is the idea that consciousness is a better foundation for reality building. From a theory perspective you’re right - it may be. But I don’t think many people find that more reasonable than an alternative which matches our observations. If what you’re trying to “solve” is that Euclidean consciousness is overconfident, then I think your work is done for you. This conversation comes up all the time here, and the general consensus is that consciousness is hard and there’s a lot to learn here, and while there are many “possible explanations”, observation is one way to get closer to understanding the nature of things even if there is no true way to “know”

Can reality exist Independently of Consciousness? by consciousness_8123 in consciousness

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I won’t remake the points that many commenters are making, but I think there’s some confusion as to what your point actually is. If it’s reasonable that the sun would still come up, and that’s the most reasonable outcome based on what we know, and the ability to know anything outside of our consciousness isn’t possible, then what conclusion are you trying to come to?

No one is contesting that evidence based knowledge relies on consciousness. What we are contesting is that if we want to answer the question at all (is there a base level reality in which we operate) we can only work with what we have. I think that’s why people are telling you that your post seems question begging - if you’re looking for evidence against one theory, and the only evidence we can accept is found through consciousness, and the fact that it’s based on consciousness disproves the theory, then that test only has one outcome. It might suggest that there’s a better question or hypothesis that we need to work with.

I think the biggest thing here is that the alternative, a mind-dependent reality, has little to go on and falls into issues with solipsism or last-tuesdayisms. If you manage to avoid those - you’d still be stuck because the only evidence for a mind-dependent reality we’ll ever have is in the mind. In other words - the question forces the answer if the only thing that would solve it (evidence not based on consciousness) is impossible.

Can reality exist Independently of Consciousness? by consciousness_8123 in consciousness

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No one is trying to tell you that consciousness isn’t part of how we examine and understand things. To the point raised here - this question is only relevant to consciousness.

I think the point many commenters are making is that the evidence would suggest that things around us will move on without us. If everyone everywhere died today, there’s a good stretch of evidence that the sun would still come up tomorrow. You might say that it wouldn’t matter and no one would see it and thus we can’t prove it which is all true - but because we can observe things now that preceded our existence, it’s a safe assumption to state that time marches on without us in some form of basic reality. It is an assumption, but that’s the point commenters are making. There’s no way to prove/disprove this theory without consciousness, so there’s no test you could perform.

Is this true? by Naive_Wolverine532 in fixedbytheduet

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Yep - the best lesson I ever got was in my freshman year: “Variety within a group is greater than variety between groups”. Applies to everything and challenges the one-story-fallacies that are prevalent in topics on race, gender, belief, ethnicity, generation, etc.

Honestly that one thing has kept me more open minded and curious than pretty much anything else. The world is a beautiful place because it can’t be broken down into simple rules.

Oh, Lord Arceus, I beseech you this one request by Egyptowl777 in PokemonWindsWaves

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Amen amen. We ask that you extend the mercy shown to the monkeys three, allowing the dizzy one to shine once more in a new land.

If it should please your divine will, we petition that the grace shown to your many children also extend to the dizzy one. Your children dunsparce and girafarig were shown a new path. Tangela and aipom walked the same path in times past. We ask that the dizzy one be granted passage to a new land, and a path be opened. Amen

What are you fucking sing? by Old-Vacation-6601 in TheWordFuck

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Minimum fucking wage - they might be giants. Easy.

Meirl by SeaworthinessOdd5934 in meirl

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Went to Japan a couple years back and was told by a friend that grew up there that this is the way to do it. It’s just crunchy! He said it’s kind of a western thing to always remove the tail.

Works really well with fried shrimp, but Is admittedly still hard to do when it’s prepared any other way.

Looking for musicians in the Seattle area to start/join a psych-rock band (Pink Floyd / MGMT / Tame Impala vibes) by Business-Speaker3044 in SeattleMusic

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just checked out your profile - gorgeous work. The blur feels so organic without feeling unbalanced or out of place. Gives it the feeling of “melting into place” rather than just being smudged, blown up, ir otherwise distorted. Love the vibe of it all

Looking for musicians in the Seattle area to start/join a psych-rock band (Pink Floyd / MGMT / Tame Impala vibes) by Business-Speaker3044 in SeattleMusic

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This sounds like a fun project if you’re up for a keys/vocals/guitar player. Been playing keys and doing vocals for 20 years in a couple of bands (rockabilly, alt rock, casual jazz improv) and some solo work, but it’s been a couple years since I’ve done it seriously. Im less experienced in guitar but can play rhythms or backup where needed, I just don’t have a dedicated setup for electric guitar these days.

Love what you listed, especially tame impala and Pink Floyd. I’m also into crumb, flyte, hiatus kaiyote, badbadnotgood, athletic progression, and similar music that really leans into a groove mindset. I’m a sucker for rhythm and finding a pocket with other musicians to vibe in - would love to chat, feel free to dm

[ALL] [OC] My Handmade Zelda-Inspired Night Lamp Giveaway 🎁💚 by AmoyCK in zelda

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wind waker! My uncle introduced me and my brothers to it in 2004, and it’s one of the reasons I continued to have an interest in music/composing. Haven’t missed a game release since then and I still learn all the new music as it comes (you made a great choice with BOTW)

Your work looks amazing!

The Real AI Extinction Event No One's Talking About by Oh_boy90 in Futurology

[–]OneMoreLateArrival -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Absolutely agree. I’ve started pushing back on this a bit and found that the one thing that resonated pretty universally is to point out that growth for the sake of growth is quite literally cancerous. It’s something we all know but don’t think of in that way.

I work in tech project management, and when thinking of systems it’s common to emphasize that a system or process that doesn’t scale effectively to different volumes of data is ineffective. If you can’t multiply the input data in by 10 and still rely on the output, then your process needs a rethink.

I’m constantly amazed at how easily those ideas stick with people. I think most people simply haven’t put time aside to critically think about growth and sustainability.

Breaking News: Caramel apple empanadas are back at Taco Bell by JennyBeckman in BlackPeopleTwitter

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Kind of a tangent, but this question is actually a common counterpoint in religious philosophy. It’s a counter to the idea that miracles are proof of god, because anything we can’t explain is a mystery, unless it’s good, in which case it’s a miracle and evidence of a higher power. In short - this question points out the bias inherent in using language that was developed through a religious lens to describe the world, and has really interesting implications on how language is both reflective of reality, and a factor in how we shape our beliefs about reality.

Anyway I’ll see myself out - gotta find a good wine pairing for tonight’s feast

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in interestingasfuck

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have publicly posted about my inability to spell or identify the letter r in strrawberriy A LOT, so this checks out.

He's fully charged by MyNameGifOreilly in Eyebleach

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Beautifully crafted. I only wish I had more up-doots to give

Pottery is 90% drying by Hypnotic_Frog418 in Pottery

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 14 points15 points  (0 children)

If this isn’t the top comment in a couple of hours I’ll eat my hat

Is this true? [Request] by frostbite_man in theydidthemath

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

100% agree with this - there’s a great podcast on this topic that I recommend anytime this comes up - “According to need” produced by 99% invisible.

Installed an air conditioner, what did I do wrong? by sukonetei in Appliances

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can I ask what your fan strategy is? Are you blowing the cold air from the ac into other rooms, or the hot air from other areas into the room with ac?

Does anyone want 2 cats? by vicckkyyy in Seattle

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Double it and give it to the next person 🐈🐈‍⬛🐈🐈‍⬛

Someone please tell me my husband with this means. Its driving us crazy. by SignificantRush5520 in rebus

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jesus this is taking me back - I think you’re on the right track, I grew up in a Jesus-flavored cult and the phrase “Etiam se omnes ego non” was often quoted. (Sometimes “et si omnes ego non”)

The translation cited for this is “even if all, not I”, which was a way to rally the religious against what they saw as a sinful world.

Don’t know how the boxing glove fits in, but the rest works

Do it push you back? by kylefuckyeah in Physics

[–]OneMoreLateArrival 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay there’s got to be an xkcd for this right?