Aside from your groundbreaking research that we're learning about for the first time, the science has held that we have no idea what is and isn't conscious, or if consciousness is even a thing. Humans tend to like to think they are, but it is philosophically accepted that it could be an illusion. So it is astounding that you aren't gushing with details. Maybe you don't understand the magnitude of your findings?
I would engage with this if it wasn't written so rudely. I have thoughts on the subject and would like to discuss them in good-faith, but this is not it.
My original comment may have been a bit sarcastic, I admit, but this comment seems to serve no purpose other than to jab and try to dunk on me, so I won't engage.
> I would engage with this if it wasn't written so rudely.
No you wouldn't. Intellectual thought isn't swayed by meaningless human emotion. Let's be honest, you won't engage because you can't prepare a coherent response. We see this same diatribe in response to every other reply in this discussion. The pattern is clear.
> My original comment may have been a bit sarcastic
Yet you leave no affordances for that also being true of the earlier comment? A curious double standard. Confirms your true intention. What were you hoping to gain by trying to give us a thinly veiled lie? It's not like anyone cares about you posting something stupid on the internet. We don't even know who you are.
As measured, how?
Aside from your groundbreaking research that we're learning about for the first time, the science has held that we have no idea what is and isn't conscious, or if consciousness is even a thing. Humans tend to like to think they are, but it is philosophically accepted that it could be an illusion. So it is astounding that you aren't gushing with details. Maybe you don't understand the magnitude of your findings?