From what I can see in the changelog, @jamalrob deleted it, presumably for low quality.

Presumably, I just wondered about the criteria. To me, if a thread is generating discussion it has merit even if the topic or OP is of low quality. Why is there yet another anti-natalist thread going strong yet this other guy gets shut down almost immediately?

For more detail >> jamalrob.

Maybe have jamalrob speak for himself if he's doing the deleting? At least that way one can get a more substantial answer.

To me, if a thread is generating discussion it has merit even if the topic or OP is of low quality. — DingoJones

My observation is that the only threads that may not generate discussion are those with a very narrow focus, such as concerning a specific philosophical work - and those can actually be high-quality posts. Low quality threads tend to generate discussion, if only for people to comment on their low quality or to post easy takedowns.

I deleted it for low quality.

My computer is sentient, you can not deny 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 geometry of overlapping densities of magnetic and electric fields, however is that supposed to feel.

How can you deny this sentience?

It seems more like a passing thought than a philosophical thesis or discussion-point. A lot of work has been done in philosophy of mind, cognitive science, and so on, but this OP didn't acknowledge any of that.

If I haven't seen a discussion before it has generated a lot of comments, I will sometimes leave it even if it's low quality. In this case, it hadn't generated much discussion when I saw it.

Unfortunately, chrome ignore doesn't work on mobile, so I saw your pointless comment. I'll leave it to you to work out why tagging a moderator in order that they may sooner be aware of a query relevant to them could be of utility to the one making the query. Take your time.

Is there some reason we're so tight on space that we can't leave however many kilobytes of text intact?

You'd need to delete the vast majority of threads and posts here on the criteria you mention. But it seems like a problem with this board is that it's relatively inactive--not that many different threads or posts per day, and that's probably one reason we have problems attracting and retaining new people who post regularly.

lol re not taking responsibility for posting vacuous responses in a thread like this.

Stop trolling.

Well you killed it in its infancy, it hadnt had much time to develop. I understand though, there are probably way too many such threads to let each one develop.
What is the criteria? If he had been more organised In the OP, would that have saved his thread? There are threads with more organised OP but lack any real substance or are just a repetition of a topic thats been done to death (again, The anti natalist one comes to mind), and those seem to be allowed.
Im just curious about what counts as worthwhile to you, given what I see being allowed. Seems inconsistent, though I do realise that could be due to the sheer volume you have to sort through.

It was a poorly thought out and poorly worded thread. I guess if a repeat thread was made asking about what does and doesn’t qualify as ‘sentient’ as well as exploring AI and consciousness, then it might not look so redundant.

It is a popular enough topic to warrant something new to offer and/or a particular argument posed.

It was a poorly thought out and poorly worded thread. — I like sushi

List the threads here that are not.

Pretty much all the ones not deleted? Take look and compare them.

The one about populism has some thought behind it, the one about math and prob too. I could list them, or you could just take a look yourself?

I think maybe if you would have linked it to artificial intelligence, which is an emerging topic, you would have had more success. You know, robots, driverless cars/trucks/commerce... .

It wasnt my thread.

if a repeat thread was made asking about what does and doesn’t qualify as ‘sentient’ as well as exploring AI and consciousness, then it might not look so redundant.

It is a popular enough topic to warrant something new to offer and/or a particular argument posed.

Good point. Someone should have done that: recallibrate the discussion.

Perhaps I should have explained the parallel with the brain in detail. Anyway, the point was that our definitions are far too wide to grasp the concept, and I think PC-monitor example precisely points where we need to dig deeper and be more specific in order to understand _what is_ consciousness or sentience, not just what it does and how it works.

I don’t even see any ideas trying to explain ‘what is’ question. We are creating an AI hoping sentience just might pop up somewhere in there, but we have no idea what to look for or where exactly. It could be right under our noses, right in front of us on our computer screens and we would not know it.

This reminded of Starflight game fom DOS days, where the fuel they used for interstellar travell turned out to be sentient lifeform.

My observation is that the only threads that may not generate discussion are those with a very narrow focus, such as concerning a specific philosophical work - and those can actually be high-quality posts. — SophistiCat

Is there a metric for quality of posts? I think not.

I think maybe if you would have linked it to artificial intelligence, which is an emerging topic, you would have had more success. You know, robots, driverless cars/trucks/commerce... . — 3017amen

Or connect it to love... or Love. What is Love? How does it differ from a computer keyboard? THAT's what would have made an interesting question.

Whoa... @DingoJones makes in the OP as if he had started the sentient computer thread. And now we have @Zelebg take ownership of the topic.

Is it possible to have two monikers and two different identities to be possessed by the same one person on this site?

Or maybe I am missing some big and important information... like that @Zelebg has contributed to the by now deleted thread big time, although it had been started by @DingoJones. Or the other way around.

At any rate, I don't know what the upset is about. The thread is alive and well and is generating responses as we speak on philosophy now. The site.

An interesting question is one that people respond to. If the OP is poor, but gets a response, a responder can reframe it, and rescue it from deletion.

What time is love? THAT's what would have made an interesting question. :wink:

DingoJones already said that it wasn’t his thread.

What time is love? — Chris Hughes

Apparently all males have an erection at 4 in the morning. Ruth told me that. They are asleep at the time, so it's all wasted. I don't know if this applies to men with ED.

Thanks, I am stupid.