Hah, thanks mate, but no. I am currently on a tropical island about to go scuba diving!

There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.

Was waiting for him to get to the mating part.

Would you like a napkin? --Nah, I'm good mate.

Thanks mate! When I was born my father had an early 1960's Karman Ghia that was black with a white roof. He claimed I called it "Daddy's race car". My love for this car goes waaaaaaaay back. I currently drive a 2003 Golf GL and hope that I get another 15 years out of it.

Thanks mate. Now I have coffee all over my monitor

Your video, Rare Angler Fish Mating Caught on Video, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thanks StukaFox, you managed to produce no peer reviewed papers but have claimed some sort of research victory because you got some answers from Google. Nice. I'd hire you as a researcher for sure.

So I mentioned the Australian and New Zealand legislation. Lets see if there is a peer reviewed paper that examines this.

McPhedran, Samara; Baker, Jeanine (2011). "Mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A descriptive study of incidence". Justice Policy Journal.

New Zealand didn't enact Australia's draconian laws. You can buy an AR15 there with high capacity magazines. They also haven't had a mass shooting in 20 years. The peer reviewed paper examines this and comes to the conclusion I stated above.

I see you have some ABS data. Nice. I use the ABS all the time.

Oh wait. You took only the last two years of data for a data set that spans over 40 years. Bad form mate. Lets see if the rate of firearms related homicide was reducing at a similar rate before the legislation changes using a much larger time period.

Lucky for me someone else already did this to make my day easier. They used Australian Institute of Criminology (the official government source) data over a 30 year period. It shows the rate did not change with the legislation change in 1997.

Nice examination of the issue on Quora

Are there peer reviewed papers which come to the same conclusion? Yes.

Lee, Wang-Sheng; Suardi, Sandy (2010). "The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths". Contemporary Economic Policy. 28 (1): 65–79

Jeanine Baker, Samara McPhedran; Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms Legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?, The British Journal of Criminology, Volume 47, Issue 3, 1 May 2007, Pages 455–469

Chicago? I wasn't going to mention it. I'm not American. I am Australian.

Conclusion: go wipe the egg off of your face.

Edit: forgot to answer your question.

"What conclusions can we draw from this? "

We can conclude that for a short period of time the homicide by firearm rate went up. Just as it goes up and down for any short period of time in most countries. This does not negate the TREND, which in the USA has been downward year on year for the last 25 years. The rate of firearm ownership has increased over the same 25 year period.

thanks mate!

Of course, there's a line.

If some dude patted my behind, I probably wouldn't take it as sexual.

It's about context. I am not generally in a situation where there is a power dynamic working against me.

If a mate jokingly patted my behind, I probably wouldn't care.
If my boss patted my behind, I'd certainly tell him that's not ok.

But if I felt it WAS creepy and especially if I felt whoever it was a) might do it again and b) was frequently in a position to do so to vulnerable people... yeah, I'd report it.

I wouldn't try to have them convicted of rape because that's not what they did.

I still want to know whose life is being "ruined" over "nothing".

Weinstein? Spacey? It's certainly not nothing and their lives are far from ruined. They're still incredibly wealthy people living (admittedly a little less now) comfortable lives. Are their reputations sullied? Yep, and deservedly so. They've certainly gotten off easier than their victims.

Aziz? Ok, that's a bit more nuanced.

First, is his life "ruined"? Eh, not really. His reputation has taken a hit, but plenty of people have actually come out in support of him.

Second, was what he did "nothing, or at most an innocent misunderstanding not corrected"? Well, it wasn't Weinstein-level harassment and it certainly wasn't rape. We can all agree on that. But was it "nothing"? Would you be ok with someone treating you like that? Do you really think what he did was acceptable behaviour?

He shouldn't go to jail for it, definitely. And there are far worse people out there... one of them is in the white house.

In all honesty, I think he's been unlucky to end up as the cautionary tale of how not to treat your date. Maybe "Grace" could have handled it better.

But on balance, if I have to choose between his actions and her actions, I think his are worse.

Thanks mate!
and a very merry siftmas to you and yours too!

I see a white man miming the n-word. Does that count? Didn't Joyner write and rap the whole thing, and isn't Joyner black? If you wanna disagree with what he is saying, then sure, but like, it's literally a black guy putting words in a white guy's mouth so I think you're overplaying your hand a little there mate.

Congratulations! Your comment on Stag had on mating goggles has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, Stag had on mating goggles, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Another yearly Happy Birthday salutation from the Northern Hemisphere and yer Playhouse SiftPal. May it be a Beaut mate!