That's because the idea challenges you. That's ok. — Tom Storm
Well, I wanted an argument from you refuting my claim. — Agent Smith
Misery loves company - the loneliness of suffering is obvious/evident, oui? — Agent Smith
If Chalmer’s hard problem of consciousness does not exist, then there is no difference between a living human body suffering and a computer built to imitate all happenings and behaviours of suffering. — Angelo Cannata
This is inconsistent with my understanding and life experience, Smith. Suffering entails solicitude; self-awareness – "metacognition" – emerges, I think, in early childhood from the perceived interval – wait – between suffering and amelioration, between need (cry) and relief (care). Natal-dependence/vulnerability undeniably, it seems to me, reinforces both 'eusociality' – reciprocal empathy – and, in certain higher mammals, a 'theory of mind' :point: .When suffering we feel most alone and being so isolated, one naturally drifts towards metacognition. — Agent Smith
"Happiness" like this is the exception to the exception. Suffering is the rule of our species and other mammals and any lucid existentialist, whinging antinatalist or devout Xtian "sinner" will tell you so, mi amigo. Besides, what can be more self-centered – ego-fetishistic-aggrandizing – than the orgiastic? :yum:Happiness, on the other hand, tends to be a group affair and one's sense of self is lost in the joyous crowd so to speak.
I think that even though for him a conscious self is just an artifact , a convenient function, he would still argue that humans operate on the basis of complex motivational systems that computers currently lack, but that eventually we will be able to construct machines with such systems , and those machines es will indeed be capable of ‘suffering’. — Joshs
Well, that's the wrong question, right? And a scientific (explanatory) problem, in fact, not a philosophical (descriptive, interpretive) question? :chin:Personally, I side with those who think that it is not solvable in a manner in which we would like the answer to be, namely, to explain how matter produces experience. — Manuel
This is inconsistent with my understanding and life experience, Smith. Suffering entails solicitude; self-awareness – "metacognition" – emerges, I think, in early childhood from the perceived interval – wait – between suffering and amelioration, between need (cry) and relief (care). Natal-dependence/vulnerability undeniably, it seems to me, reinforces both 'eusociality' – reciprocal empathy – and, in certain higher mammals, a 'theory of mind' :point: ↪180 Proof.
Happiness, on the other hand, tends to be a group affair and one's sense of self is lost in the joyous crowd so to speak.
"Happiness" like this is the exception to the exception. Suffering is the rule of our species and other mammals and any lucid existentialist, whinging antinatalist or devout Xtian "sinner" will tell you so, mi amigo. Besides, what can be more self-centered – ego-fetishistic-aggrandizing – than the orgiastic? :yum: — 180 Proof
I never said it can't also do this. :smile: Note Joshs' words 'can also' not 'always'. This is not a black and white world (no matter what some Republicans imagine). :razz: — Tom Storm
It's not really about suffering, but our awareness of suffering. In what ways are we aware of suffering and how does that differ from actual suffering? What form does the awareness of suffering take as opposed to actual suffering? It seems that there can be one without the other. For instance, I can be aware of your suffering but not suffering myself. As a matter of fact, some people can take pleasure in others' suffering.If Chalmer’s hard problem of consciousness does not exist, then there is no difference between a living human body suffering and a computer built to imitate all happenings and behaviours of suffering. — Angelo Cannata
I think the fact that you chose a social suffering is good because it raises a nice (for me) side issue. You say you know that you are an illusion. I would argue that if you knew (in the binary sense of know that I think is implicit here) that you were an illusion you would not suffer. But it's not binary, this knowing. You partially know. Or perhaps part of your brain/mind believes, but other parts do not know. And we do have examples of people who have trained themselves to 'get' this, being an illusion, in a more complete way and who do not suffer that kind of social pain.However, this realization, speaking only for myself, doesn't diminish the suffering I have to bear. I don't feel better about someone belittling me in public just because I happen to know that I am in illusion, an accident of circumstances, having no real essence and so on. In short, there is no self, doesn't necessarily imply there is no suffering. — Agent Smith
I think the fact that you chose a social suffering is good because it raises a nice (for me) side issue. You say you know that you are an illusion. I would argue that if you knew (in the binary sense of know that I think is implicit here) that you were an illusion you would not suffer. But it's not binary, this knowing. You partially know. Or perhaps part of your brain/mind believes, but other parts do not know. And we do have examples of people who have trained themselves to 'get' this, being an illusion, in a more complete way and who do not suffer that kind of social pain. — Bylaw
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.