Google “ferengi rule 34”

The theory I’ve read is that lots of people are into a bit of the taboo/forbidden partner aspect of an attraction they have toward a real person in their life: their neighbor, platonic friend, co-worker, etc. But most of these connections don’t really feel all that taboo when it’s someone else, so the “step-” angle is just a generic stand in that carries the forbidden aspect without going too far.

Is that why Jews say “la chyme” before they drink, since it’s going into their stomach?

The low 000s are all generally pretty meta subjects, how we interact with and organize knowledge in general. Journalism and library science deal with reporting and classifying information, computers and programming deal with processing generic data, unexplained phenomena deals with things that can’t be assigned to a specific subject by their very nature.

Witchcraft, Feng Shui, and Tarot are all generally found in 133 (Parapsychology and Occultism), although I could imagine particularly high-level books to be sorted into 003 (Systems), since they are supposed to be comprehensive systems.

Books about computer hardware would be next to electronics. Computer science is where it is because it’s a more abstract topic about general information processing. If anything, I’d argue that fundamental mathematics belongs in the 000s with it.

At least you save money on shoes

Snail shells aren’t chitinous.

Crab shells are chitinous.

Hermit crabs are only partly chitinous, and the shells they use are not chitinous.

Hope that helps

“intoxicated from intranasal cocaine administration” is such a hilariously sterile way to say it.

I suggest “bug” applies exclusively to chitinous invertebrates.

I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “chemical” thing. I didn’t say anything about a chemical marker, is that like a theory of consciousness? I’ve never heard of it, I’d like to at least investigate it if you can provide a link. I can’t find any references linking consciousness to a specific chemical, but I admittedly didn’t look all that hard.

Pens, however, can write a wide range of angles.

Which just means it would have been even easier to make the supplemental angle add up! Ugh.

Yeah I was wondering why it added up to 192°. Maybe I’m a freak, but I would’ve measured ambient temperature and drawn a supplementary angle. Also what scale is that thermometer on? That room is either really hot or almost freezing.

it’s a stoner thought that for all I know is totally true, but it’s so impossible to either prove, model or test

That’s basically true for every hypothesis about consciousness, though. That’s why it’s called a hard problem. Like yeah, we can map neuron activity and record what the subject says they were thinking about. But that doesn’t tell us what consciousness itself is.

And those “stoner thoughts” are how we conceptually narrow down the possibilities via internal consistency, and maybe get to something we can test. Just because we haven’t developed a test for a hypothesis doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do so. And even if a test is impossible, that doesn’t mean the hypothesis isn’t true. It just means we can know whether or not it’s true.

We don’t really have models to compare too. We have hypotheses, but how do you test them? Is consciousness an electromagnetic phenomenon? Is it purely mathematical? Can it exist in gravitational systems?

We know precious little about the universe. We have snippets of data about our immediate locale, and ever-changing theories about our not-so-immediate locale. We are specks on a rocky speck orbiting a fiery speck on the outer spiral arm of a bigger speck.

Maybe consciousness is a fundamental force. Maybe it is emergent and the universe thinks a billion times slower and bigger than we do. We just don’t know, and we didn’t really have any way to measure one way or the other. That’s the tricky bit about subjective experience.

I don’t think it’s any more “desperate” than any other theory. The only default position is solipsism: mine is the only real consciousness, and all the rest of you could be inventions of my mind or clever automatons. Once you start generalizing more than that, any line is kinda arbitrary. You either wind up at the universe, or you have to come up with a good reason to stop; and I don’t think we have the physics to confidently place that line.

What measurable neurological means?

Who knows what energetic structures exist within galactic super clusters? Energy is constantly exchanged in the universe.

Panpsychism seems logically more possible than the alternative. If consciousness is an emergent property of complex systems, the universe is probably conscious because it’s the most complex system there is.

Sure, how do you detect conscious effort from outside?

I’m inclined to believe every dynamic interconnected system is “conscious” to some degree. Not 1:1 with human consciousness obviously, but the same base phenomenon.

The main problem is that there aren’t very good metrics to distinguish how primitive a consciousness is. Where do you draw the line between consciousness and reflex? Is each of your cells conscious in its own impossibly tiny way?

I guess I should have been clearer, maybe that combination leads one to be more susceptible to that kind of condescension.