you still didn’t answer my question about all the people who lived before the Quran. Were they all immoral? Was slavery morally allowed before the Quran was written? Or were they immoral but ignorant of their immorality only because nobody had told them yet?
So then everyone before the Quran was immoral? literally not a single human being existed before the Quran was written who was moral? Or were they immoral without knowing it because nobody had told them “slavery is wrong” yet? That seems profoundly unjust.
It’s also important to note that according to Surah Al-An’am 6:112, any human who rebels against God and dedicated themselves to leading others astray is classified as a demon.
So I guess enslaving an atheist activist like Richard Dawkins is morally acceptable according to you? Since he is, according to the Quran, a demon?
I don’t think we understand sentience yet. I think it is possible, if not likely, that there are sentient things which we believe are not.
i also don’t think a heart is relevant at all to sentience, as it plays no role in perception which I believe is the core of sentience. The heart is just a pump that moves resources through the body.
I don’t think a nervous system is necessary either, unless you define “nervous system” very broadly. I think any sufficiently complex sensory input system would be enough to provide the elements of perception required to foster sentience.
As for the brain… I’m not convinced it has to look like a brain as we know it. The brain provides several primary functions, but only a few of them are related to perception (many are instead related to automation of bodily functions).
I think any system that can receive input, store a memory (and I don’t mean cognitive recall, I just mean historical record in the loosest sense), and perform complex conditional responses based on the input and memory, could produce something we would call sentience.
at what point do you distinguish a thing from the components it’s made of?
You say neurons have qualia, but its parts certainly don’t. Proteins don’t. Lipids don’t. Molecules don’t. But when you put them together in a specific configuration you say they do?
How is this different from silica? Why can’t a thing composed of silica have qualia even if the parts individually don’t?
so do you believe everyone was immoral until 150 years ago (participation in and tolerance for slavery) or do you believe we are immoral today for denying the right to own slaves (as allowed by religious texts)?
Addition asks “What do you get when you combine these two numbers?”
Subtraction asks “What do you need to combine with this number to get this result?”
Multiplication asks “What do you get if you add this number to itself this many times?”
Division asks “How many times do you need to add this number to itself to get this result?”
In many ways, all of these operations are syntactic flavor for addition. Subtraction is addition in reverse. Multiplication is repetitive addition. Division is repetitive addition in reverse. Exponents are recursive repetition of repetitive addition. And so on.
Look into the axiomatic proof of 1+1=2. It will shed some light on how mathematics is just complex notation for very, very simple concepts at scale.
This is the correct answer and it drives me crazy how often this comes up.
As another user commented, division and subtraction are just syntactic flavor for multiplication and addition, respectively. Division is a specific type of multiplication. Subtraction is a specific type of addition.
And so there is a reason mathematicians do not use the division symbol (➗): it is ambiguous as to which of the following terms are in the divisor and which are part of the next non-divisor term.
In other words, the equation as written is a lossy representation of whatever actual equation is being described.
tl;dr: the equation as written provides insufficient information to determine the correct order of operations. It is ambiguous notation and should not be used.
Oh no you just unlocked a memory I haven’t recalled in a long time: the infamous “wat” video
Completely unrelated to OP but I really want to believe your username is a “treating people like objects” joke
Think of PTSD as the conditioned response to stimuli.
Instead of “happiness” it’s “panic, anxiety, etc”
Instead of “bell” it’s a bunch of other triggering stimuli associated with violent partners/family
Counselors want to replace those negative pathways with positive ones. They want to recondition the brain to have better responses to the stimuli that trigger negative behavior.