Your point being?

There is conceptual work to be done before we can assess the value of any related science. — bert1

Test synthetic beings. Things would likely go south — the price we pay for discovery.

When AI achieves consciousness — punos

When or If?

Your desire to be convinced is the problematic attitude. It's an attitude which rejects possibilities opting only for that which one is convinced of. And that is what you take for granted. — Metaphysician Undercover

I welcome any counterargument. But they need to be convincing enough.

Whom am I stereotyping when I say the distinction between male and female is biological, but the distinction between man and woman is social and linguistic. — T Clark

I didn't say it's your fault. I just reacted to the facts you presented.

thanks.

Nope, i have no objections — punos

What about AI consciousness?

you couldn't convince otherwise.

no, I used it to denote stereotyping.

Wow. No objections. Looks like finally everyone agreed.

If you're a monist, you might have inputs on this.

I don't see where I got it wrong.

I don't see why.

That's not the argument he was making. — Philosophim

I didn't counter him. I responded to the fact he presented.

If transwomen are women or transmen are men just because of cultural or habitual identity, does carrying a gun or shooting down schools make a Norwegian an American, or does loving KFC chicken make a caucasian man an African American, regardless of ethnicity or nationality?

Because it's pretty much stereotyping. We're stereotyping sexes here.

I'd love to hear your idea of conscience.

Is a person not of sound mind no longer a person? — Outlander

If you have the liberty to choose, then it's voluntary. But if, let's say, I hypnotize or control you with magic, then not. — Copernicus

Who decides whose mind is sound and whose isn't? — Outlander

This is a chokepoint I've been stuck for a long while in multiple cases. I guess if I can crack this formula, I can solve multiple paradoxes at once.

Check out the hyperlink to see how this is something I have yet to solve.

What if I was drunk/high/on drugs/delirious from lack of sleep/in an emotional frenzy and had no such agency? — Outlander

You are not of sound mind. Everything you do that is not done voluntarily (under influence or coercion) doesn't count as [voluntary] action.

If you have the liberty to choose, then it's voluntary. But if, let's say, I hypnotize or control you with magic, then not.

I've already discussed something similar here.

Here we go with more presumptions. That overused word "may" that means nothing in absolute discussion. — Outlander

Okay. They MUST have had other gains or motives.

Leaving a hundred dollar bill under a rock on the sidewalk, maybe? You'll never gain any benefit from it. Who knows, it might go to some drug addict. Or, someone really down on their luck who needed just that amount to make rent or cover this month's bills might pick it up instead. You'll never know. — Outlander

No. You served your agency or desire to act.

That would, technically be selfless, no? — Outlander

No. They may had gains or motives other than altruism.

Selfishness=Self-Interest=Self-Serving

My definition.

Other parties (their gain or loss or neutral outcome) are never my driving force for action.

Sweet.

sounds like you agree with me, with some extra steps.

If all acts are selfish in all possible worlds, you've created a definitional truth, which means you needn't go through an empirical analysis of various acts to determine which are selfish and which aren't. You've just created a tautology. — Hanover

Perhaps we'd need to redefine the word.

I see no contradiction.

No offense, but basic solipsism is pretty much an undisputed thing unless one lacks common sense.

So you constructed me? — Banno

In the same way I constructed the image of the screen in my head after receiving the lights through my vision.

Your true version is unknowable to me. I only know what my brain allows me to.

And even if there was an objective reality (not necessarily the universe itself, but the "truths" in it) out there, it's impossible to know outside our subjective experiences. — Copernicus

There are sounds outside our hearing range, or lights outside our visual capacity. If we hadn't advanced in science, we would never know they existed.

Right now, there could be elements billion times faster than light, but even our scientific observations are too rudimentary to detect them.

The same thing applies to the mind. Not everything is received or detected. So the whole picture is never captured. That's the bottom line.

are we happy now that there is more than is "inside your head"? — Banno

Now I see the problem. You had an idea of a solipsistic school of thought, which says your mind is a divine entity, if you will, that created the whole universe, your body, your thoughts, and everything, and you're a formless abstract entity in no-one-knows-where land. That's not what I follow. What I advocate for is that there is no way to know anything outside what our brains construct for us. And even if there was an objective reality (not necessarily the universe itself, but the "truths" in it) out there, it's impossible to know outside our subjective experiences.

Never? Is that true? — Banno

That's the idea. I'm skeptical.

But not made by your head — Banno

It is. I can't function without my brain. So my brain gives me the reality. And since the brain is an element of the universe, it's the universe blurring my vision from itself.

If everything is in your mind, how can you make sense of being mistaken? — Banno

I never sense true or false. I'm only skeptical.

comes from outside your head — Banno

Yes. But received and processed by my head. I can't bypass that.

You want my answer. Therefore I exist — Banno

You exist at least in my head. Therefore I want to debate.

Just because I might be the only real thing in the universe doesn't mean I'll have to die in mental solitary.

I daydream all day or imagine fictional stories (either to write books or movie scripts, or just to entertain myself while living in my basement as a societal hermit). Just because I'm societally reclusive doesn't mean I'll have to be a lifeless monolith in flesh.

solipsists don't deny objective reality. They are skeptical because of lack of proof.

So, assuming I'm believing in objective reality, what is your problem with the OP proposition?

let's not talk about me. Since you made solipsism central to this dispute, let's clear out what your primary objection against it is.

Agnostics are skeptical about God; Solipsists are skeptical about Reality.

No accepting, no denying. Just skeptical. — Copernicus

What is your proof for objective reality, @Banno?

The problem with this topic is in reasoning that if we find some benefit of an action, or a future beneficial state, that proves it's a selfish action.

But surely the intent matters here? — Mijin

Conscious intent isn’t the whole story. Most of what drives us operates beneath awareness. Neuroscience has shown that our emotional and instinctive systems start the process of action before we even realize it. When someone helps an elderly person cross the street, for instance, the brain’s empathy circuits light up before the person consciously decides to help. The decision is almost a justification after the fact. And those empathy circuits didn’t evolve for pure altruism — they evolved because helping others in the right context promoted survival and social stability, which ultimately benefit the individual and the group. Even when we feel selfless, we’re running on emotional patterns shaped by self-preserving systems.

The idea of duty or responsibility doesn’t escape this logic either. Duty isn’t the absence of desire; it’s a refined form of it. Acting out of duty satisfies psychological needs for belonging, coherence, and moral stability. A parent feeding a child might not think, “I’m doing this for myself,” but the brain still rewards the act with emotional satisfaction while punishing neglect with guilt or anxiety. These emotional mechanisms evolved to reinforce behaviors that protect both the individual’s identity and their lineage. In that sense, duty is not opposed to ego — it’s ego’s most organized expression.

The objection also touches on the paradox of “reasonless selflessness.” If a truly selfless act must have no internal motive at all, then it wouldn’t really be an act of will — it would just be something mechanical, like a leaf falling from a tree. All voluntary human actions require motivation. So, rather than being the absence of self, altruism is better seen as the transformation of basic self-interest into a more complex form of fulfillment — one that connects personal meaning with the good of others.

Even when we trace these instincts back to biology, the same logic holds. Behaviors like care, empathy, and moral obligation evolved because they improved survival and reproductive success. The very capacity for compassion is an evolutionary tool that served self-preserving systems in the long run. In other words, what we call “duty” is simply the most refined form of self-interest that evolution has produced.

So yes, intent gives moral texture to our actions — but intent itself arises from internal drives shaped by feedback loops of pleasure, coherence, and survival. To call an act “selfless” just because the person wasn’t aware of its benefit is to confuse consciousness with motivation. Every voluntary act comes from within: from emotion, instinct, or belief — all of which exist because they help the self endure.

Assume I do. How can Newton be proven wrong about light if you know only what is in your head? Newton and light are in your head? — Banno

This is hopeless.

My previous efforts were not deemed worthy of consideration, — Paine

Pardon?

Then you'd need to understand the difference between philosophy, doctrine, law, evidence, science, etc.

Elaborate, please.