Philosophy Now Forum

Your statement is a physiological process like a sea anenome you poke at it and it responds predictibly physiologically. Thus your responsibility new is simply reactive behavioralism. Predictibly. It's not actually any thinking involved beyound itself simple base behavioralism.

DMT wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 2:59 am Your statement is a physiological process like a sea anenome you poke at it and it responds predictibly physiologically. Thus your responsibility new is simply reactive behavioralism. Predictibly. It's not actually any thinking involved beyound itself simple base behavioralism.

Isn't thinking is a psychological process also?

Yes it is. So now we are locked into a small singular region the intellect, of a particular type of brain homo sapien using a communication system writing that works only in that region we have about what 95% of the brain n unaccounted for. Further more the intellect rests upon about 4.5 billion years of evolution what's primary. It certainly isn't the intellect it's secondary to that and a slave to that regardless.

If we intellectualize what is love to simply a neurological it's circular intellectualized and circular. I might as well ask then what is narrcisism. I would call narrcisism circular and self referential. So yea love is a neurological so Is narrcisism.

But unlike narrcisism which is simply self love and circular another type of love can also be something experienced as well. That places the intellect secondary narrcisism places the intellect as primary.


That type of love is actally good science good religion. Jane goodall is seeing chimpanzees differently than science was in the early 1960s. She didn't reduce.them to an intellectual theory about them she simple spent time with them without intellectually judging them.

If we mechanically reduce intellectually everything rather bad consequences emerge from that. It gives false perceptions and is dehumanizing.

So I ask what is love? Am I asking the self evident or am I asking About experience? When we take our experience reduce it to a convient established collective narrative we really are just practicing religious quakery or theology is all. My degree.its "normal".

Zelebg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:00 am 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 geometry of overlapping densities of magnetic and electric fields, however is that supposed to feel.

How can you deny this sentience?

What I cannot deny is that you don't understand the concept of qualia!

Because, if your personal computer's display really were its qualia, why even bother using such a complex machine! Just pin a one-dollar postcard on the wall, right in front of your nose, and there you are, you "can say, look, there it is its qualia right there the picture, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels".

Awesome.
EB

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm What I cannot deny is that you don't understand the concept of qualia!

Do you think you understand the concept of 'understanding'?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm Because, if your personal computer's display really were its qualia, why even bother using such a complex machine! Just pin a one-dollar postcard on the wall, right in front of your nose, and there you are, you "can say, look, there it is its qualia right there the picture, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels".

Is this what you think? Is this what you feel?

It sure fits on a postcard.

DMT wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:09 pm So I ask what is love? Am I asking the self evident or am I asking About experience?

That's not even half of the problem. That you don't understand the question is obvious.

Why you ask the question in the first place is not.

The immediate "why?" that I comprehend is that asking the question allows you to generate the language necessary to talk about love, but that just begs another "why?" question... why do you want to say anything about love?

I know the intellect itself is stupid organ nothing more

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:49 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm What I cannot deny is that you don't understand the concept of qualia!

Do you think you understand the concept of 'understanding'?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm Because, if your personal computer's display really were its qualia, why even bother using such a complex machine! Just pin a one-dollar postcard on the wall, right in front of your nose, and there you are, you "can say, look, there it is its qualia right there the picture, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels".

Is this what you think? Is this what you feel?

It sure fits on a postcard.

Pedantic as usual.

We, man have defined what qualia is. To suggest a computer has qualia, even an ounce more than a tractor is ridiculous.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:45 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:49 pm

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm What I cannot deny is that you don't understand the concept of qualia!

Do you think you understand the concept of 'understanding'?

Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:31 pm Because, if your personal computer's display really were its qualia, why even bother using such a complex machine! Just pin a one-dollar postcard on the wall, right in front of your nose, and there you are, you "can say, look, there it is its qualia right there the picture, that's what it thinks, that's what it feels".

Is this what you think? Is this what you feel?

It sure fits on a postcard.

Pedantic as usual.

We, man have defined what qualia is. To suggest a computer has qualia, even an ounce more than a tractor is ridiculous.

Isn’t it just as ridiculous to try to prove that the tractor doesn’t have qualifia?

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:45 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:49 pm
Do you think you understand the concept of 'understanding'?


Is this what you think? Is this what you feel?

It sure fits on a postcard.

Pedantic as usual.

We, man have defined what qualia is. To suggest a computer has qualia, even an ounce more than a tractor is ridiculous.

Isn’t it just as ridiculous to try to prove that the tractor doesn’t have qualifia?

Oh yes, with you and skepdick we will have to re-roast those old chestnuts - go around and around in circles.

Consciousness cannot be proven, but we should have some FAITH that, to the minimum, that humans have consciousness\qualia.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 6:13 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 5:49 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2019 1:45 pm

Pedantic as usual.

We, man have defined what qualia is. To suggest a computer has qualia, even an ounce more than a tractor is ridiculous.

Isn’t it just as ridiculous to try to prove that the tractor doesn’t have qualifia?

Oh yes, with you and skepdick we will have to re-roast those old chestnuts - go around and around in circles.

Consciousness cannot be proven, but we should have some FAITH that, to the minimum, that humans have consciousness\qualia.

I know that I have consciousness. I have no idea if you do. As a practical matter, I’ll just have to take it on blind faith that I’ve been wrong about you all along.