Careful what you wish for... — VagabondSpectre
mods should be pleased to see feelings flare up in the forum - insults, rejoinders, expletives, name calling, etc. all indicate a population of normal human beings instead of a swarm of chatbots. — TheMadFool
If we selected for signs of emotion rather than the use of logic, I fear we would devolve into the philosophical equivalent of the above GIF. — VagabondSpectre
As long as the chat-bots are posting good philosophical discourse, would there be any meaningful difference between them, and us, their meat-sack counterparts? — VagabondSpectre
ventually, the chatbot members would become the majority and they would probably vote to ban all humans from the forum and that includes the moderators. :chin: — TheMadFool
Not _exclusion_ of emotions, but one that promotes finer, nobler emotions, and also an outlook that promotes greater emotional literacy.Nevertheless, an outlook that promotes rationality to the exclusion of emotions seems to miss the point of what it is to be human. — TheMadFool
Not _exclusion_ of emotions, but one that promotes finer, nobler emotions, and also an outlook that promotes greater emotional literacy.
You seem to have this strange idea that unless one has tantrums, one isn't showing emotion at all. — baker
That said, since [some] emotions are known to get in the way of rational discourse it does seem perfectly reasonable to discourage outbursts of feelings on at least a philosophy forum like this one whose raison d'etre is logical discourse. Too, moderators on this forum at least don't actually prohibit ALL emotions; for instance those associated with mysticism, eureka moments, to name a few are welcome and perhaps even encouraged for their overall positive impact on the forum members. — TheMadFool
Not exactly.What you say here squares with how Aristotle and later generations of thinkers viewed humans, as rational animals. On this view, emotions can be considered remnants of our animal ancestry, subhuman as it were and to be dispatched off as quickly as possible if ever possible. From such standpoint, emotions are hindrances, preventing and/or delaying the fulfillment of our true potential as perfect rational beings. It would seem then that reason, rationality, logic, defines us - it's what could be taken as the essence of a human being.
So far so good. — TheMadFool
What if an AI saved your life? Last I checked, the deep bond that occasionally :chin: forms between a savior and the saved is based wholly on the act, the act of saving and not on the mental/emotional abilities of the savior. Just asking. — TheMadFool
This kind of thinking stems from the antiquated idea that humans are special, or separate from nature.
Other animals are just as rational as humans. We just aren't privy to the information that some other animal is acting on, so their behavior can appear to be irrational from our perspective. All animals typically act rationally on the information that they have. It's just that the information may be false, or skewed. — Harry Hindu
Human emotions only come into conflict with our rationality when we assume that the objective truth is dependent upon our emotional state, or when we project our emotions and feelings onto the world and assume that they are a characteristic of the world rather than of ourselves (like assuming that apples actually are red and are good).
Emotions are the motivators and inhibitors of our actions and thoughts. Learning how to navigate our emotions and use them rationally is what could be taked as the essence of a human being — Harry Hindu
Bot does not necessarily need to do a forceful action like saving your life to make you love it. As an autistic kid, I was in close emotional ties with my winter coat, and later, in my teens, with a pair of blue jeans. This may be laughable to you, but it's not a joke. I also loved sunsets, the smell of burning leaves in the fall, the smell of the flowers in summer, and the water splashing against my knees on the beaches. I loved nature, life. I loved my school, I loved running down the hill, on top of which our school house was located, shouting "Freedom! Freedom! Freedom!" all the way down, on the last day of classes in grades 3 and 4. I loved the streetcars, the smell of snow, the pre-Christmas hustle-bustle in the city. I even loved the slush, the overcrowded buses, the darkness that we knew.
I don't see why I couldn't love an AI robot then. Maybe even now, if it looked like Dolly Parton or Raquel Welch. — god must be atheist
Your idea of the ancient notion of the relationship of reason and the emotions is not quite right. They thought, not they we should excise the emotions, but rather educate them. Emotions are indeed the enemies of reason, but if you eradicate them, then you have sapped the soul of its energy, what drives it, leaving it vapid and incapable of action of ANY sort. — Todd Martin
Then you're going to have to define "rational".I'd love to agree with you that "...other animals are as rational as humans" but I'm afraid that's incorrect . Moreover, I'm not claiming that non-human animals are irrational and humans are rational in an absolute sense but only that comparatively it's the case that either non-human animals are more irrational than humans or that humans are more rational than non-human animals. This difference, even if it's only a matter of degree and not kind, suffices to make the distinction human and non-human which Aristotle was referring to when he define humans as rational animals. — TheMadFool
Because they are not characterized as having emotions. So an absence of emotions does not make one more human. They are typically not thought to be like humans because they don't have minds, but then I'm just going to ask for "mind" to be defined.Yet, when we interact with such perfect logic machines, we remain unconvinced that they're human — TheMadFool
Then you're going to have to define "rational". — Harry Hindu
Because they are not characterized as having emotions. So an absence of emotions does not make one more human. They are typically not thought to be like humans because they don't have minds, but then I'm just going to ask for "mind" to be defined.
People assert a lot if things, like that animals are not rational and computers don't have minds without even knowing what they are talking about. You call that rational?
Like I said before, animals act rationally on the information they have. Its just that the information might be a misinterpretation as when a moth flies around a porch light until it collapses from exhaustion, or a person acting on misinformation. From the perspective of those that have the correct information, or don't have the information and the interpretation that the other is acting on, it can appear that they are irrational. This falls in with what I've said about the distinction between randomness and predictability. Rational beings are predictable beings. Irrational beings are unpredictable beings. — Harry Hindu
I'm also aware that non-human animals have language, can do math, do use tools but these abilities can't hold a candle to what humans have achieved in these fields. Relatively speaking, we're way ahead of non-human animals in re the brain's trademark ability viz. ratiocination. — TheMadFool
Exactly. That isn't any different than what I've been saying. All animals are rational with the information they have access to. The information that one has access to seems to be the determining factor in what degree of rationality you possess. And the information that one has access to seems to be determined by the types of senses you have.Non-human animals can think rationally, I don't deny that but they can't do it as well as humans just like we can't ratiocinate as well as a computer can [given the right conditions]. It's in the difference of degrees that we see a distinction between computers, humans, and non-human animals. — TheMadFool
Non-human animals can think rationally, I don't deny that but they can't do it as well as humans just like we can't ratiocinate as well as a computer can [given the right conditions]. It's in the difference of degrees that we see a distinction between computers, humans, and non-human animals. — TheMadFool
Exactly. That isn't any different than what I've been saying. All animals are rational with the information they have access to. The information that one has access to seems to be the determining factor in what degree of rationality you possess. And the information that one has access to seems to be determined by the types of senses you have.
What if an advanced alien race arrived on Earth and showed us how rational they are and how irrational we are? What if the distinction between us and them is so vast that it appears to them that we are no more rational than the other terrestrial animals?
To assert that animals are less rational than humans because humans can build space stations and animals can't is to miss the point that most animals have no need of space stations. It would actually be irrational to think that other animals have need of such things and because they can't achieve it, then they are less rational than humans. — Harry Hindu
semantics is an illusion or that it can be reduced to syntax. What say you? — TheMadFool
The answer "no" would point in another direction. If emotions are not irrational, it means that we're by and large completely in the dark as to their nature for the simple reason that we treat them as encumbrances to logical thinking. Emotions could actually be rational, we just haven't figured it out yet. This, in turn, entails that a certain aspect of rationality - emotions - lies out of existing AI's reach which takes us back to the issue of whether or not we should equate humans with only one-half of our mental faculties viz. the half that's associated with classical logic with its collection of rules and principles. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.