I think this could just as easily apply to Israel. — Tzeentch

And which is why I said they should have voted Netanyahu's fascist ass out a long time ago.

But honestly, I have no problem envisioning myself being in the shoes of a Palestinian or Israeli and making the exact same mistakes. — Tzeentch

Perhaps, perhaps. But I do believe sane minds can resolve things peacefully. It's possible, just not easy. It's not easy to "bury the hatchet" on past wrongs. I think that was the point of the thread on vengeance, horror, and terror cycle. But you do need doves on both sides. I don't think everything works like Sadat and Begin, two "warriors" that came together. Rather, I think it calls for the doves coming together and agreeing that this has got to stop, Gandhi style. Economically they should freely migrate from one side to the other, but respect the laws of the other side.

Do you, for example, believe the US / the West during the unipolar moment should have acted as the enforcement arm of the UN and forced a two-state solution as was accepted by, among others, UN Security Council 2334. — Tzeentch

That would be just as bad if the UN was pro-Israel and condemning Palestinian actions and enforcing that. Because of problem 2, problem 1 cannot be resolved.

What do you expect from the Palestinians? Their land was literally given away without their say, and their plight was only acknowledged amidst much dragging of feet when the humanitarian situation became utterly unsustainable.

But as I've noted before, the situation has deteriorated too far over the years that we can no longer expect entirely rational behavior from neither Israel nor Palestine. For these nations to come to a solution together would require nothing short of a miracle.

In my opinion, that is where the international community should have stepped in. And it did. Many UN Security Council resolutions were in fact passed, and those are legally binding.

However, the United States, mostly guided by shady and fool-hardy internal politics, refused to hold Israel to its international obligations.

And that's where we are now - at the final stop of decades of failed US Middle-East policy. And security for Israel nowhere to be found. — Tzeentch

What do I expect from Palestinians?

Not supporting terrorist groups that funnel money into violent barbaric means of getting what they want. They tried conventional warfare and lost. That doesn't mean "Ok, let's try some asymmetrical warfare". At some point you put your big boy pants on and negotiate like an adult who cares about the physical and financial well-being of your people. You don't let grievances fester into acts of terrorism and either support or be indifferent to it. Also, if they were going to use violence, use it against their own extremists! Fight the internal "enemy". Much of this starts out psycholgoically. It is the psychology of vengeance, past wrongs, religion, nationalism, and all the rest that can cause never-ending hatred. The same reason Arafat and Abbas did not take deals in the early 2000s.

The UN is screwed in so many ways.
1) It can't act as a referee unless there is an enforcement arm. In a game, the referee is final, not ignored. If it is ignored, the game is forfeited. For the game to be a game, both parties agree to give authority to to the ref.

2) The referee has to be unbiased. No way does the UN represent an unbiased body. That will be said on both "sides" North and South (the Security Council and the General Assembly).

And again, my main response to this ludicrous hemming and hawing in this justifying of Hamas is:

A vague reference couched in absolutist terms of Jordan to Mediterranean all of a sudden means Hamas is for two states? Its actions say otherwise. And if you think that it is a legitimate form of "getting Israel to negotiate", and they are just playing some "game" then your means not only doesn't justify the ends, it cancels out whatever supposed "peaceful" ends that it supposedly is aiming for (and I don't believe it is intending that in any way). — schopenhauer1

And I can't see how you can look at that same document 18-26 or anything else in there without seeing it as hostile to a two-state solution. Ridiculous!

I pointed it out here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846101
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846212

Even SSU, already pointed it out here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/846238

I just bid you read my last post on that argument. You’re also contradicting yourself about you supposedly not supporting Hamas. Also other posters on here I believe quoted more radical crazy stuff from their charter. Please reference those if you’re gonna try to argue sanity from a violent, suicidal, homicidal barbarically religious extremist groups document.

While the existence of such states or a theoretical Jewish state is not inherently problematic, when that is pursued through violent means over the backs of another nation we call that ultranationalism and it is indeed deeply problematic. — Tzeentch

I think that is simplifying the history of the whole conflict. If Israel is not problematic, then every concession Israel made towards its founding would have been accepted as a reality by Palestine Arab states + Palestinians (Peel 1937, 1947 UN Partition in particular).

Again. You're not replying to the facts. You just don't like it that it's incontrovertibly true that Hamas has indicated a willingness to discuss a two-state solution along the 1967 borders. — Benkei

A vague reference couched in absolutist terms of Jordan to Mediterranean all of a sudden means Hamas is for two states? Its actions say otherwise. And if you think that it is a legitimate form of "getting Israel to negotiate", and they are just playing some "game" then your means not only doesn't justify the ends, it cancels out whatever supposed "peaceful" ends that it supposedly is aiming for (and I don't believe it is intending that in any way).

If only Japan had taken the same position as you would when they had a nuclear bomb dropped on them! "We don't negotiate with war criminals and terrorists and because the US army dropped it, we will not speak with the US government!" — Benkei

I don't get what you are trying to point at here. If anything that would be pro-bombing Hamas to make them give up, because after two a-bombs, Japan did give up. I am not advocating that approach either, but it seems like you are oddly making that case here, which I know you don't mean to.

I understand you get off by dehumanising people simply because they do things you abhor so you can feel all safe and cuddly by blowing up civilians because "necessary and proportionate" to "eradicate" Hamas (as if they're rats). The complexities of politics and actually reaching peace requires people to talk to each other via other means than through the barrel of a gun or cannon. No matter how much they hate each other. You misunderstand my insistence on the requirement to talk to the leadership in Gaza as advocating for terrorism. — Benkei

You implied and explicitly said on many posts that Hamas has a legitimate form of how it conducts itself. You tried saying how it's charter is cuddly-wuddly for a two-state solution, you tried saying that it is justified because they live in X conditions, you tried justifying it because the Likud party exists. I am too lazy right now to go back and provide you your own quotes backing their hostility and butchery. But you can keep pointing at Israel all you want, and you will not make Hamas any more moral an actor, and not outright condemning them is moral equivocating.

I agree with you when you when you say that "peace requires people to talk to each other via other means through the barrel of a gun or cannon." If you JUST stick with that, instead of all the moral equivocating and hemming and hawing at a DEHUMANIZING group, I wouldn't say stuff like "you're so far gone".

I wonder if people's country of origin have a lot to shape the way they view these things, based especially on what their circumstances in WW2.

Finland felt it had to align with Nazi Germany to not fall under the influence of their old enemies, the Soviet Union/Russia. I can see reactions to aggression as being seen from the POV of strategic neutrality. If given a personality chart, it can be seen as true neutral.

Netherlands was overran by Nazi Germany in 1940 and was occupied until the end of the war, with pockets of resistance. I can see this also taking a neutral position, as it had to maneuver occupation, being bombed by allies alike, and could not afford to take a hardened military position, and never amassed a military big enough to do so.

Britain had a more complex role. They learned the hard lesson that you can't negotiate with leaders who have evil ends and means when Neville Chamberlain made his ploy for peace with Hitler and the Sudetenland. At the same time, they held control of many colonial territories gained from colonization (India, Ghana, Nigeria, etc.) or from WW1 (the Mandate of Palestine). So they were also mired in the middle of the conflict between the nationalism and ethnic divisions of the various populations under their mandate. They had to stay kind of neutral. Thus they have a more limited pro-Israel stance when it comes to being attacked.

The US learned that to defeat an evil enemy, you had to amass great military strength and not be afraid to use it to get unconditional surrender. They would be the most pro-response after being attacked by a terrorist group. Whether appreciated or even right about it, it sees its military as useful in destroying "evil actors" on the world stage. At the same time of course, its military industrial complex has issues of what counts as "evil" (Vietnam wasn't necessary, arguably you can't have a never-ending war on "terror" itself, overthrowing those not fully aligned leads to worse consequences like getting rid of Mossadegh in Iran etc.).

Similarly, Britain is most likely going to back US hegemony as US had their back in WW2, and it allowed them to give up the need for as much military spending and put that on the backs of the US. US will get the flack for fighting wars in their former colonies, not them. Western/Central Europe is mildly anti American hegemony, as they formed alliances after WW2 to create things like the EU and Euro. They tend to like coalitions versus lone actors. Also, the anti-colonialism tendencies of Communism and leftism in general are more influential in European countries, thus the tendency to sympathize with certain groups aligned against American hegemony or foreign policy that are perceived to be the underdog, whatever actions they might take as a means to their ends.

Of course, people are free to believe whatever they want, but beliefs aren't shaped in a vacuum. I can see people's responses being very heavily influenced by the overall lessons learned during that most significant conflict in modern world history.

How about you go fuck yourself you with your irrelevant ad hominems? — Benkei

How about you do that to your advocating for a homicidal group? Either you’re for peace or you’re not.

It means exactly the same as Likud states should be entirely Jewish with the largest difference that even Hamas is in favour of a two state solution. — Benkei

That’s moral equivocating two unrelated things. You are essentially advocating that if you feel jaded over a historical land dispute, you are justified to in brutal, disgusting acts of violence. Man you are so gone…

Is it a cultural thing? I know the Netherlands was taken over by a hostile homicidal regime during WW2 and was unable to put up resistance until the Allies pushed into Nazi Germany bombing them and all…

It would be ridiculous to suggest your experience of reality was true and unfiltered projection of an exterior world. That green was in the leaf is sort of silly, no? — kudos

Panpsychism means that there is some sort of experiential-ness to matter/energy at some level (where these "occasions of experience" inhere or at what level is a different story).

Having a behaviour implies an observational objective, but observation is also a competing objective in itself. And homunculus returns. — kudos

Can you elaborate? If a sponge reacts to its environment, this is a behavior. But most don't think it's conscious or has feeling associated with it. A snail might react to light perhaps this is purely behavior or perhaps there is a "feeling" associated. At what point is the divide? And hence the question "How many behaviors makes a feeling?".

So I was asking the serious question:
How many behaviors makes a feeling? And no one cared about that, and it's crucial. Notice how the article I referenced tried to answer this kind of question by saying "information is encoded in the neurons", as if this then answers that hard problem question. But it doesn't. It is just a stand-in for how it is that at a sufficient amount of neurons, consciousness comes on the scene. It pushes the question back to "information" which itself has to be explained as to "what" that is as to its identity as conscious experience.

Earlier, @Fooloso4 thought it was simply about degree, and this was also addressing how much degree becomes what appears to be a difference in kind. Either you are proposing panpsychism or your are not.

Do you know what a homunculus fallacy is?

What was it do you think that made Viking and Mongol warriors okay with being "horror-ible"? Was it that the horror inflicted terror?

Purported quote from Genghis Khan:

The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and daughters.

No one cares about that last post? :D. I really meant it seriously. It seems like some people think that magically behavioral processes at some dividing line of species has some sort of "what it's likeness". Whence this divide without committing homuncular funkular?

Instead let's talk with the political deadweight Abbas. As if that will ever go anywhere. If you want peace, you talk to the enemy. Not a bystander. — Benkei

Morally speaking it’s wrong to reward the barbarity that Hamas did. Pointing to collateral damage in response or the whole sidelining of the two state solution doesn’t justify negotiating with that kind of group. You reward the peaceful. Thus, you vote in the dives and you work with other doves. It’s insane to equate that kind of barbarity and think they’re equivalent to Sadat or something on the brink of a 1979 peace accord :roll:.

Well, firstly I would suggest, that 'admit' is not the most appropriate term to use here. — universeness

I was responding to this below, not the article:

In your chimp example, is what you describe, only ever 'within a troop hierarchy?' — universeness

The reason I said that is, I know chimps go to war with other tribes. I would have to see any evidence if they actually hold "grudges" against that tribe for past wrongs. I doubt it necessarily. It may be that it is skirmishes for territory and that's it, but they are brutal campaigns (tearing at faces, ripping limbs, etc.). And the campaigns to maintain dominance by the alpha and his allies are basically terror campaigns to keep any would-be contenders in line. Have you seen the series "Chimp Empire"? I remember one scene where one of the outsider chimps was brutally attacked and killed in one of the episodes. That to me seems like basic, "Try allying against the alpha, see what happens" (terror) techniques". Granted, the commentary is pretty dramatic, but take of it what you will from the footage itself.

What is a word but an idea? It can be a jumping off point to explore deeper meanings contained in its potential.

I can see the use of the distinction between terror (fear of the unknown or the future) and horror (fear or revulsion of what has happened). I can see one leading to the other.

The horror of Viking tactics strikes terror on their enemies. But it might not. It might provoke feelings of retribution or justice. Justice might be revenge but it might be a resolve to stop the horror from continuing- to lick the Vikings at their own game.

Do you agree? If not, do you have a clear example of a study that demonstrates a notion such as vendetta or using horror or terror as a deliberate part of an overall, often long term plan, to subjugate/conquer another group within any animal or insect species? — universeness

You seemed to admit that ape hierarchy is an example of this. How it is that the alpha male dominates by intimidation and alliances, whilst forming alliances to keep him in charge.

@Wayfarer@kudos@Janus@Fooloso4. It’s as if you add up enough behaviors you get a feeling.

And do you believe that Netanyahu has really a "strategic plan for a two state solution"? I think his strategic plan is to talk about a two state solution (to keep Americans happy) and make sure it never happens. This is the plan: destroy the terrorists. — ssu

Number one thing is immediate security as a leader. That has to be dealt with first. Then the existential issue when not at hot war.

I could offer my choice of quotes and a brief personal summary of the other article: Chimpanzees are vengeful but not spiteful. I will, if you think such might be of use, but it seems to me that the Chimpanzee use of 'vengence' is very localised, and does not ever become 'vendetta.' What is your opinion on this? — universeness

I think being complex beings, we are going to have complex responses. We have the ability for deep compassion and deep rage and horrific acts.

Were the Vikings terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Huns terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
Were the Mongols terrible or horrible? Both I would think.
And on and on.

Who is worse, the Hatfields or Maccoys?
Who is worse, the Trojans or the Greeks? Helen of Troy was kidnapped...

I would say in all cases you need to demonize the enemy for you to do atrocious acts but I don't think that's all of it.. Besides individual psychological makeups of individuals who might have tendencies for anti-social behavior, you have cultures that simply downplay the ethics of suffering when it comes to its enemies. By what means did the Vikings and Mongols justify how they conducted war, for example? It wasn't necessarily that they de-humanized the other. They simply never thought of their tactics as wrong perhaps. It was what a warrior did.

I don't think anyone (or nearly anyone) thinks Israel isn't allowed to deal with the terrorist threat it's facing. It's really about how they deal with it and if Israel takes into consideration Palestinian civilians or not. Or if the Gaza is the evil city with human animals as Bibi and the defense minister have said...and that's what you give as an order for the military. Warfare does have laws and one should try stick to them. Those laws don't mean that civilian casualties cannot happen. It's about civilian casualties counted in the thousands and not in the tens of thousands. Or in the hundreds of thousands. Besides, the more Palestinian civilians die, the better for Hamas. — ssu

As I stated earlier:

I would love that too. I write a whole post also condemning the perpetual cycle of violence. But the point was to illustrate how the situation can be framed whereby it is both true it is absolutely wrong that any innocent civilian dies in war and yet there is still a justification in a war with a combatant who by all means is rotten in both its means and ends (Nazis and Hamas).

And thus whilst I consider Israel justified in its war on Hamas, it will be an extremely unfortunate fact that just like innocent Germans were bombed and died, Gazans being under this rule unfortunately also fall under this circumstance.

That being said, I think Israel should abide by its own principles in war and provide as much aide as possible to Gazans, keep its air strikes only at targets that are absolutely seen as necessary to disarm them, not just anywhere they suspect. They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians. — schopenhauer1

I hold that there is no such thing as two words that mean the same thing. — kudos

What are you using as definition of "consciousness" if not some form of "awareness" or "experience" or "point of view"? For example, the insect's "experience" of the world. If that isn't a thing, try another animal with a more complex neural system (not ok with conscious crabs and snails? how about lampreys, fish, or frogs then?). You see that is the point, where to draw the line from merely behavioral inputs/outputs (reflexive like behavior) to an animal that has some sort of "experience". Where is the divide, and WHAT is that divide? I used the article to show how it is tricky as saying something like "information is encoded in the neurons" is a subtle but apparent homunculus fallacy. What is this "information encoded" then? The observer seems to be assumed by magically saying "information encoded".

So you agree in the claim an identity of consciousness=subjectivity, so we are back again to 1600's Descartes philosophy. — kudos

When was it ever not defined as some "interiority"? You can define whatever word you want it to be, but for the purposes I have been using it, it is subjective/experiential/what-it's-likeness. In other words primary consciousness, not necessarily self-consciousness (a kind of consciousness that human beings have).

Hey, great points and examples in history! :clap:

Well, rather it was trying to point out that computer programs are so far, an example where adding degree to algorithms, functions, signals, and networks doesn’t get you any consciousness simply by increasing degree.

We can parse terms and say it does increase its intelligence, but no further for subjective experience.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705555104

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0706166104

Here is this article:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705555104#:~:text=Like%20humans%2C%20chimpanzees%20retaliate%20against,and%20are%20therefore%20not%20spiteful.

That's ok and that's a right you have, that I fully endorse. I don't hate you but I hate antinatalism, but I also know that I must not hate it on seek vengeance on those who support it. I need to accept the burden of its existence and try to only ever use nothing other that my own rationale against it and not against the person. Fight the idea and not the person, is probably common ground for both of us. — universeness

:up:

In your chimp example, is what you describe, only ever 'within a troop hierarchy?' Are there examples of one troop seeking vengeance on another, for some previous sneak attack, in which some chimpanzee young were ripped apart, for example? — universeness

I’m going to see if I can pull up some vids..I’m sure someone might beat me to it. Don’t have time now.

Does anyone know pf any example of human style 'vengeance' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans? — universeness

I don’t like your rants against antinatalism, but this is a good topic. As far as I’ve seen in documentaries, common chimps form alliances that are very revenge based. They even bide their time and wait until they have the upper hand in their power.

What should happen is that people stop try to justify and legitimize violence in all of its repulsive aspects. Morality is exercised in living contexts, not historical evaluations. — Pantagruel

I would love that too. I write a whole post also condemning the perpetual cycle of violence. But the point was to illustrate how the situation can be framed whereby it is both true it is absolutely wrong that any innocent civilian dies in war and yet there is still a justification in a war with a combatant who by all means is rotten in both its means and ends (Nazis and Hamas).

And thus whilst I consider Israel justified in its war on Hamas, it will be an extremely unfortunate fact that just like innocent Germans were bombed and died, Gazans being under this rule unfortunately also fall under this circumstance.

That being said, I think Israel should abide by its own principles in war and provide as much aide as possible to Gazans, keep its air strikes only at targets that are absolutely seen as necessary to disarm them, not just anywhere they suspect. They need to actually have a strategic plan for a two state solution and work to bolster the moderate Palestinians.

Still looking for the moral high ground? The moral high ground, preferably with a deep surrounding ditch of historical persecution and subjugation, is always the most easily defensible, especially when guarded by "innocent civilians". — unenlightened

Would you like to answer that question?

Claiming either side has a moral edge in justifying murder is....justifying murder. — Pantagruel

Should the Allies have bombed Nazi Germany in 1945?

Perhaps reference this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847759

Those are obviously not the objectives here. Hamas doesn't want for Israel to "realize" anything. It's intentions aren't surely protecting the people in the open area prison called Gaza.

You really should understand that Hamas is a religious organization, not some Western political movement thinking of politics in the Western way. Just read what Hamas and it's political leadership says about the objectives. — ssu

Yes, you are making my case. Not only are their means evil but so is their ends. Perverted religious ideology of death. People on this forum don’t want to recognize that is what Israel is dealing with. And it’s a devils ploy. If you don’t attack back they are emboldened and it’s victory emboldens more attack. If they do attack back, the inevitable collateral damage (because they hide amongst the civilians) will cause world outcry. The knee-jerk leftist types, academics, quite frankly many of the types on forums like this, fall for it. They’ve made their bed with a death cult.

I dare say it is some form of antisemitism or Judenheit but couldn’t tell you if that’s some subconscious reason for the inability for clarity or just delusion. There has to be accountability on the side that is creating and supporting the death cult or at the least acknowledge the reason Israel would want to root out the death cult.

Netanyahu should have absolutely tried to work with the PLO for a two state solution but the evil thinking is that thus one can expect the death cult is the fucked up thinking I see on this forum. There is no empathy. It’s a kind of ignorance only found in the halls of academia.

This 2021 article says that sponges don't have neurons but do have cells that may have some neuron like functionality. However, the investigation is very preliminary.

Also, it is an open question as to what extent very simple creatures like worms might achieve a rudimentary mental representation. Neurons can automate behavior without mental representation and I'm skeptical towards the idea that worms (or jellyfish) have even the most rudimentary mental representations. (Although projects like Open Worm may eventually provide evidence one way or another.) — wonderer1

Nice, very cool stuff thanks.

Sheer quantity of neurons matters. Quantity of neurons plays a significant role in how complex the interconnections between neurons can be. It is (very crudely) analogous to the way that a higher transistor count in a microprocessor can allow for more complex calculations performed within a given unit of time. With 'surplus' neurons available an organism can have neurons which aren't directly involved with getting from sensory input to behavioral output. A network of 'surplus' neurons can sit alongside the neurons which manage basic survival, and instead of monitoring sensory inputs or participating in causing motor responses, the surplus network can monitor both the outputs of sensory neurons and motor neurons and learn about patterns to the organisms own operation that the more primitive I/O networks are not able to learn.

So this higher level monitoring might recognize something like, 'My automatic response the last time I saw something like that was to eat it, but the result was bad.', and manage to interfere with the behavioral output, so as to avoid a reoccurence of such a bad event.

I'd suggest that neurons available to learn a more complex way of interacting with the world are a prerequisite to mental representation. The more such 'surplus' neurons there are in a brain the more complex the mental representation can be. — wonderer1

But whence "mental representation" versus the prior "behavioral inputs/outputs"? How is it this difference in degree at least SEEMS to be a difference in kind? What is it, this change, this "mental representation"?

I am agnostic as to whether AI will ever be conscious. It was not too long ago that it was generally believed that a computer program and associated hardware could pilot a car. Such a thing was thought to require consciousness. — Fooloso4

Yes sure. But my point was that perhaps there is a difference in kind.

At the end of the day, \violent/barbaric means is not going to convince Israel that Palestine is looking for for a round of negotiations and living peacefully. If somehow supporting violence/barbarism/terrorism to get your message across is in any way supposed to push Israel to "realize" their wrongs, it hasn't and currently isn't working. And if the intentions are for the betterment of their people, certainly provoking a response that leads to mass death for their people (and this isn't an unknown at this point), certainly indicates supremely bad actors (both in their decision-making and their values) and does not represent anything resembling a protector of their own people or a furthering of their cause (unless the cause is more death and hardened hearts).

Again, rooting out bias here, if the point is that "two wrongs don't make a right", that certainly goes for the violent actions of the terrorist actors who are launching attacks from Gaza.

Let us say another direction was taken whereby the people on the streets chanted "Palestine for Peace!" not just random outlier videos you find on YouTube but a sort of Intifada for Peace initiative that sweeps the country. But people on this forum have the same black-and-white thinking- that change is seen as always had by the price of blood. Advocating it as somehow justified in its due course to me is sickening. As I said, it's all terrible. There has to be a better way other than justifications for violence.

For now, you are going to have to wait it out, as the wound is too fresh. No way is a country hardened by decades of tit-for-tat conflict going to let an assault by ground/air/water, one that led to captive hostages, breaching into communities and having the elderly, mothers, fathers, and children gunned down, maimed, and burned going, to just let that fly. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is going to be carried out.

Then perhaps all of it can reset yet again, or more of this barbarism and "security measures" continue and a regional war.

The people have to stop living on past grievances, learn that the other person is human, and actually figure out what the point of existing is. If it is to hold grudges and not carry on with life, then it's just nihilism. It's keeping the trauma and finger pointing going because that is all they know.

Rage should not be the only response to grievances. That in itself is an ethical value to consider. How can one turn it into something constructive? How can peaceful means be used rather than crass nihilistic violence? Enough is enough. The grievance-to-barbarism cycle has to stop or continued death is all there is.

One implication is the rejection of "kinds" in favor of degrees of difference. — Fooloso4

You can have degrees of computer programming that gives you really good responses, but as good as those outputs are, it may never truly be conscious.