I’d argue this is different from a centaur. Since horses have four legs and humans have two, the womanoman’s graft would need to be towards the posterior of the forward woman, instead of above the hips like where the upper part of a centaur’s graft would be. Two sets of human legs indicates there should probably be two sets of… erm… equipment.
Probably not. She looks like she weighs at least 200 lbs plus maybe another 40 lbs of armour and weapons. The average person would struggle to support that much weight for any significant duration, let alone…
That’s a good question… I think for this to work properly, the digestive tract can’t just stop in the middle, they’ve got to be plumbed together into series. That means the first one would have to be disconnected, so if it was left in, it wouldn’t be functional in its typical evolutionary context.
Any claim can be inverted, so lacking evidence in either direction, this applies to the inverse as well.
I personally prefer more psychologically rooted arguments that lean towards at least compatibilism. If a belief in free will, regardless of the actual fact, is sufficient to affect one’s actions, is that not evidence against hard determinism?
Sure, but the compatibilist view is, in my understanding, that determinism is true, but we still have free will. The mind is so complex its deterministic function can’t be fully predicted, so the outcome of particular inputs over any meaningful duration cannot be computed. Thus actual free will and the illusion of free are essentially functionally identical.
I have several questions, actually (slrpnk.net)
What's the best response to someone who believes in hard determinism but also uses this to deny responsibility for any immoral actions they commit?
That is, they think all of their decisions were preordained, and then use this to claim that they can’t be held responsible for anything they do.
This has got to be artificial (media.kbin.social)
internet points (mander.xyz)