Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 7:03 am And I am pointing out that what is "self-evident" to you is not a fact. It's an assumption.

It's a matter of semantics, facts by definition. But of course, logic is not self-evident to everyone. Sorry.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:30 pm I am pointing out to you a fact of human reasoning.

I’m pointing to four simple self-evident facts.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:29 pm Ontology is epistemology.

You can't say anything ontological if you don't know about it.

You can not have a conversation without some grounding, and conversation can not be meaningful if the grounding is not common. My grounding is simply English dictionary, is there any other way?

There is no difference between physical and virtual/subjective. In English, things either exist actually or virtually. Subjective / objective is a different category - mine is ontological statement, yours is epistemological. You managed to conflate and confuse three different concepts in one senten...

1. How do you know? 2. What is that "something" ? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox ) We know by comparing before and after of external appearance and internal memory. That something is usually referred to as identity or personality. More specifically it is a set of constrai...

When all your molecules change something stays the same, apparently not quite physical, yet surely is real, and therefore that is "virtual entity", by definition. Fact No.01: Personality, identity, ego, self, subject of experience... is a virtual entity. * * * Any doubt here can only be du...

Computers are not sentient or conscious and that's all there is to it. All you get from a computer is a programmed response. Computers don't feel anything. Sentience does not require free will. Besides, your responses are programmed too. You can see what your computer feels and thinks on your displ...

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:35 am There is a long word that means the attribution of sentience to inanimate objects. When poets make use of this idea it's called 'the pathetic fallacy'.

Electrons in the hardware components are pretty animated, like electrons in the brain.

EVERY thing is relative to the observer. And, how every thing is perceived is relative to the definitions being used. How are 'you' defining the words 'sentient' and 'conscious' here? Consciousness as "subjective experience". Sentience as qualia or minimal element of consciousness, i.e. w...

-1- wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:40 am His parents now think he'd be lucky to amount to nothing.

Hahahaaaa! For this laugh, it was all worth it.

What if I say a PC becomes conscious the moment you connect it with a monitor and it displays some content. Then I can say, look, there it is its qualia right there on the display, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels. It does not feel like we do in terms of pain and desire, but in terms of g...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:18 am If you choose ignorance and intellectual masturbation - say so.

So it appears to you, and yes I choose it. There, I said it. Bye, bye, baby.

Goodluck. Master Philosopher. Do some science. You keep making the same stupid point that there is no point talking about this. So what then, you are wasting your time trying to save my time, telling me I should better go fishing instead. Thanks, baby philisopher! I'll consider it, so now there is ...

Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:09 am How do we determine whose theory is right/wrong?

Like with any other scientific theory. And that answers all your questions.

How do you go about asserting whether any particular task does or does not require consciousness if you don't know what consciousness is? According to some theory. The theory I presented, for example, says the task of "planning in advance" requires consciousness. Furthermore, "planni...