As somebody in my mid twenties, I primarily date people in their 30s for this exact reason. I need somebody mature with their shit a little more figured out. Dating people my own age can be fun, but they don’t really have the maturity required to deal with somebody who’s gone through as much trauma and mental illness as I have.

Case in point, my longest lasting relationship with somebody within 5 years of my age was 1 month long. My shortest lasting relationship with somebody older than me by more than that was 2 years.

deleted by creator

This is me every single time somebody has been into me. To be fair though, the one time I didn’t over analyze and just went “Oh, I guess she likes me” it turned out she didn’t, she just really liked romance songs.
So yeah, people are just gonna have to deal with having to be very forward about their intentions with me.

Simultaneously power mommy and disaster bisexual. Except the disaster part only applies around women and the power mommy part only applies around men. I don’t understand this phenomenon but I enjoy it.
I think it’s best demonstrated in the difference between how I confessed to my 2 latest crushes, one man and one woman. The dude, I was like “Yo, I like you. You in?” with zero hesitation.
The woman? Stuttered for 10 minutes straight until she figured out what I was trying to do and helped me through it.
They both said no, but they’re both very good friends of mine now, so it worked out.

I have a similar issue as somebody with a case of dysphagia worsened by certain foods, which happen to be 90% of what you’re supposed to eat to be healthy (suspected to be a combination of eosinophilic esophagitis and another unknown condition.)
The amount of times on various social media platforms I’ve been told to “suck it up and just eat them anyway” as if my condition isn’t real and that won’t cause me to choke to death is absurd.

I hope this doesn’t sound aggressive, but unless you’re a man, you never had to venture very far on Lemmy to experience misogyny. If you ever mentioned you were a woman in any of the major instances and communities in any context except “I’m a woman and here’s what I don’t like about other women,” you were gonna get misogynistic replies and a shocking amount of downvotes. It’s just what happens when any internet community is dominated by a single gender I guess.
Lemmy’s always been great about almost every other social issue, except sometimes trans issues and neurodivergence if you stepped out of the communities for it, but women’s issues have always been an absolute train wreck around here.

I keep luring them out by accident just by bringing up any kind of women’s issue at all. Thankfully though, a quick report and they get banned from my instance real fast.

Sounds like somebody’s never been to Vermont.

I suppose I was overly vague about what I meant by “exact copy.” I mean all of the knowledge, memories, and an exact map of the state of our neurons at the time of upload being uploaded to a computer, and then the functions being simulated from there. Many people believe that even if we could simulate it so perfectly that it matched a human brain’s functions exactly, it still wouldn’t be conscious because it’s still not a real human brain. That’s the point I was arguing against. My argument was that if we could mimic human brain functions closely enough, there’s no reason to believe the brain is so special that a simulation could not achieve consciousness too.
And you’re right, it may not be conscious in the same way. We have no reason to believe either way that it would or wouldn’t be, because the only thing we can actually verify is conscious is ourself. Not humans in general, just you, individually. Therefore, how conscious something is is more of a philosophical debate than a scientific one because we simply cannot test if it’s true. We couldn’t even test if it was conscious at all, and my point wasn’t that it would be, my point is that we have no reason to believe it’s possible or impossible.

I see, so your definition of “physical” is “made of particles?” In that case, sorta yeah. Particles behave as waves when unobserved, so you could argue that they no longer qualify as particles, and therefore, by your definition, are not physical. But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles. Energy, for instance, is not all particles, but it can be. Quantum fields are not particles, but they can give rise to them. Both those things are clearly real, but they aren’t made of particles.
On the second point, that’s kinda trespassing out of science territory and into “if a tree falls in the forest” territory. We can’t prove that a truly unobserved macroscopic object wouldn’t display quantum properties if we just didn’t check if it was, but that’s kinda a useless thing to think about. It’s kinda similar to what our theories are though, in that the best theory we have is that the bigger the object is, the more likely the interaction we call “observation” just happens spontaneously without the need for interaction. Too big, and it’s so unlikely in any moment for it not to happen that the chances of the wave function not being collapsed in any given moment is so close to zero there’s no meaningful distinction between the actual odds and zero.

There shouldn’t be a distinction between quantum and non-quantum objects. That’s the mystery. Why can’t large objects exhibit quantum properties? Nobody knows, all we know is they don’t. We’ve attempted to figure it out by creating larger and larger objects that still exhibit quantum properties, but we know, at some point, it just stops exhibiting these properties and we don’t know why, but it doesn’t require an observer to collapse the wave function.
Also, can you define physical for me? It seems we have a misunderstanding here, because I’m defining physical as having a tangible effect on reality. If it wasn’t real, it could not interact with reality. It seems you’re using a different definition.

A building does not actually enter a superposition when unobserved, nor does Schrodinger’s cat. The point of that metaphor was to demonstrate, through humor, the difference between quantum objects and non-quantum objects, by pointing out how ridiculous it would be to think a cat could enter a superposition like a particle. In fact, one of the great mysteries of physics right now is why only quantum objects have that property, and in order to figure that out we have to figure out what interaction “observation” actually is.
Additionally, we can observe the effects of waves quite clearly. We can observe how they interact with things, how they interfere with each other, etc. It is only attempting to view the particle itself that causes it to collapse and become a particle and not a wave. We can view, for instance, the interference pattern of photons of light, behaving like a wave. This proves that the wave is in fact real, because we can see the effects of it. It’s only if we try to observe the paths of the individual photons that the pattern changes. We didn’t make the photons real, we could already see they were real by their effects on reality. We just collapsed the function, forcing them to take a single path.

I think you’re a little confused about what observed means and what it does.
When unobserved, elementary particles behave like a wave, but they do not stop existing. A wave is still a physical thing. Additionally, observation does not require consciousness. For instance, a building, such as a house, when nobody is looking at it, does not begin to behave like a wave. It’s still a physical building. Therefore, observation is a bit of a misnomer. It really means a complex interaction we don’t understand causes particles to behave like a particle and not a wave. It just happens that human observation is one of the possible ways this interaction can take place.
An unobserved black hole will still feed, an unobserved house is still a house.
To be clear, I’m not insulting you or your idea like the other dude, but I wanted to clear that up.

On the contrary, it’s not a flaw in my argument, it is my argument. I’m saying we can’t be sure a machine could not be conscious because we don’t know that our brain is what makes us conscious. Nor do we know where the threshold is where consciousness arises. It’s perfectly possible all we need is to upload an exact copy of our brain into a machine, and it’d be conscious by default.

We don’t even know what consciousness is, let alone if it’s technically “real” (as in physical in any way.) It’s perfectly possible an uploaded brain would be just as conscious as a real brain because there was no physical thing making us conscious, and rather it was just a result of our ability to think at all.
Similarly, I’ve heard people argue a machine couldn’t feel emotions because it doesn’t have the physical parts of the brain that allow that, so it could only ever simulate them. That argument has the same hole in that we don’t actually know that we need those to feel emotions, or if the final result is all that matters. If we replaced the whole “this happens, release this hormone to cause these changes in behavior and physical function” with a simple statement that said “this happened, change behavior and function,” maybe there isn’t really enough of a difference to call one simulated and the other real. Just different ways of achieving the same result.

My point is, we treat all these things, consciousness, emotions, etc, like they’re special things that can’t be replicated, but we have no evidence to suggest this. It’s basically the scientific equivalent of mysticism, like the insistence that free will must exist even though all evidence points to the contrary.

According to the quantum mechanical totalitarian principle, everything not forbidden is compulsory, so it must have happened. It’s physics.

The generations are determined by what the biggest common experience they all have is (at least, that’s how it’s supposed to be.)
Millennials are millennials because they all remember the turn of the millennium. anyone born 1997 or later wouldn’t remember it, which is why the generation line was drawn where it was.
There are people who find that weird and prefer to call anybody born after 2000 gen Z because they were born after the turn of the millennium, so there’s a sizable amount of people who’ve taken to calling anybody born 1996-2000 a “zillennial” as a compromise. I use the term sometimes, but only when I need to demonstrate to somebody that there’s no clear difference between a young millennial and an older gen Z.

Gen Z is 1997-2012. The oldest of us are 27.

Older gen Z here, I remember these really strongly.
People always forget gen Z was alive for these kind of things and I’m starting to think nobody realizes how old we actually are. Most people you think of as gen Z are only really on the younger end of gen Z. Some of us are in our late 20s now and also struggling to understand kids these days.

Agreed. And older women being creeps too needs to be talked about more. Pretransition, in 7th grade, I had a math teacher who tried to flirt with me and it made me horribly uncomfortable, but I could never talk to anybody about it because people would act like that was a good thing and I should feel good for it, and those who acknowledged it was a problem still told me I must have imagined it. I can say one good thing about being a woman is despite encountering creeps way more often, at least I’m allowed to be upset about it now.