I think the self is contingent, and constantly changes along with other aspects of our experience. — Joshs
I dont go along with writers like Nagel who want to establish some sort of self-identical ‘I’ that accompanies every perception and infuses it with some sort of special feeling of me-ness. — Joshs
You do both simultaneously: — Joshs
It seems foolish to say there is no "inner and outer" but maybe prove me wrong. — schopenhauer1
For Reason everyactual beauty must be accidental. — skyblack
Then this is foolish. — schopenhauer1
"I" see red. That's all you need in my book to confirm an inner aspect (other than me actually getting inside your head). — schopenhauer1
It's the most immediate thing.. Unless you ARE a zombie.. you DO have "what it feels like" aspects (tastes, colors, thoughts, emotions, motives, goals, imagination etc.). — schopenhauer1
THAT there is an inner aspect is the problem at hand, — schopenhauer1
there IS an inner aspect. What is THAT inner aspect? That is the thing to be explained in consciousness. — schopenhauer1
I don't think that was his main point that we can't know what it's like to be a bat. Rather it is the idea that there IS a "what it's like to be a bat", EVEN if we don't know exactly what that means. — schopenhauer1
Why do you think that is the case? — schopenhauer1
And when linked to the idea of p-zombies, it may not be a necessity to have "what it's like" aspects to processes.. It is conceivable that animal processes (like nervous systems) can do the exact same things we can measure now, but WITHOUT the attendant "what it's like" inner aspect to it. Of course that is debatable. If it IS a necessity, then we must understand WHY they are intrinsically linked. THAT is the question at hand. — schopenhauer1
Do you think it was always there, from before the earth existed? — GLEN willows
Do you think there's anyone on the forum here who doesn't have awareness of their feelings? — Daemon
but how does the process come into existence? This is what has yet to be explained. — GLEN willows
Why would you say that to someone who wants to have a productive debate? What do you hope to achieve with that? If you really think I don't have a point, ask more questions to prove it instead of telling everyone how stupid they are based on a few messages. Is that also part of the great set of methods philosophy has? Is that how you challenge the logic of your ideas? — Skalidris
Theology is thinking for religion; Philosophy of religion is thinking of religion. The former attempts attempts to find a good foundation for theistic doctrines, the latter examines it. — Agent Smith
Wouldnt it be more satisfying to be able to see mind and matter as each in its own right possessing attributes that were formerly only seen in the other? Your approach, in Kantian fashion , maintains the split but makes each dependent on the other. What is needed is a way to get beyond the split, by making creative differentiation and transformation intrinsic to matter, and by understanding subjective feeling as having a kind of causality or logic. — Joshs
I do not think you yourself understand what you mean and I do not think you are able to. — Tobias
virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" — Hello Human
A very astute observation. Why would, should, or could gods be proven in a "scientifically rigorous" way? — Hillary
What an idiotic remark! Have you actually met and interacted with humans? — Daemon
past time is finite. — Hillary
It must have a beginning, for if not, we would see chaos only. — Hillary
The brain processes are not programmed. — Hillary
Another thing is that maybe God does not want to be proven. — chiknsld
AI is programmed. It appears to understand, learn, be creative, feel, think, or be intelligent because of a programmed series of hyperfast operations on collections of data — Hillary
...however saying that there is no beginning is logically impossible.
— SpaceDweller
Correct. :up: — chiknsld
I suppose this is different than relativism? — Olento
if not a materialist, how do you see consciousness? — GLEN willows
Even if AI can create new things it is only on account of the fact that we have programmed them to do so, which means it is really us creating the new things utilizing the AI to augment our creativity — Janus
like other scientists (i.e. natural philosophers) observe that only "minds" – mental beings – exhibit a "telos" (contra Aristotle). — 180 Proof
"Teleology" has been debunked — 180 Proof
You/we attribute "purpose" to the process (i.e. anthropomorphism) — 180 Proof
What makes this "an intelligent process"? — 180 Proof