Not to say it’s entirely apples and oranges, but putting “feelings of affection” in the title is already anthropomorphizing this to such a degree that I can’t take it seriously. Dogs and humans might share some cortical similarities, but a dog won’t be able to relate to running on two legs, and I can’t relate to wagging a tail. The “what-it’s-like-ness” is still elusive.

Hello,

Is it just me or has this subreddit lack of thoughts and more focus on other thinks?

Also, the whole point of the bat example is that we know it uses sounds and reflections of the sounds (ultrasound I think) to see. We know it because we acquired external knowledge about bats, but the concept of seeing through ultrasound feels extremely alien to us humans, we can’t imagine what this would feel like.

Affection on the other hand is a concept we surely understand. Oh and by the way, I wouldn’t need a neuroscientist to understand that dogs feel affection to their owners.

Berns fails if I’m not mistaken to understand that Nagel argued we’d never known how an entity conceives as itself being itself.

This is exactly what Nagel wasn't trying to say. We can measure/read what something is but not how it feels. It's like reading a lasagne recipe and thinking you can imagine how it tastes for another person.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

"current scientific knowledge does seem to imply there is stuff with intrinsic properties, where interactions between them generates everything we feel, see, and experience in this universe."

contrariwise, the standard model, as currently understood through QFT doesn't clearly motivate the existence of corpuscular, individual, intrinsic existents/properties. that's a folk ontology sourced myth. there's a really good book about this, called 'every thing must go' by james ladyman and don ross. also interdependence - biology and beyond by kriti sharma

+ these two articles sketch out some serious difficulties with interpreting QFT and its predictive success and physicalism -

[1] -- does the mathematical nature of physics underline physicalism?
[2] -- what is real?

you also connected your opinion with statements about how experientiality - phenomenal consciousness arises/appears, but physicalist theorizing about consciousness so far has been woefully unclear regarding precise mechanisms and lacking empirical substantiation. the hard problem cannot be handwaved away, the difference between qualitative and quantitative is a principled one, where the latter is an attribute of the former as far as we can know, so attempting to pull out the territory from the map is understandably 'difficult'.

It sounds like Gregory Berns doesn’t really understand Nagel. Showing that dogs feel affection for their owners is in no way a counterexample to his argument. Nagel thinks that no matter how many FMRI’s you have about some state x, you still won’t come to know what it’s like to be in that state x. That’s entirely compatible with Bern’s claim about learning that dogs feel affection through fMRI. No idea why Berns thinks he’s shown anything to discount Nagel shrug

Abstract: Thomas Nagel famously argued that no amount of knowledge about physiology could, even in principle, tell us what it is like to be a bat. Gregory Berns is an animal neuroscientist who argues that Nagel’s thesis is demonstrably wrong. For example, his own work with dog cognition and emotion has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that dogs' relationship to their owners is not simply linked to food rewards.

I'm not so sure. I can imagine a scenario where you have a set of large companies that control entire supply chains and essentially function autonomously. A single megacorporation could run every part of the process from extraction of natural resources, to refinement, to production, and ultimately for consumption by a vanishingly small group of individuals at the top. It would kind of be like a giant oil state but almost entirely self-sufficient. Money, in the end, is just a number in a computer system. If you can manufacture everything you ever need without human workers then currency doesn't really matter much. There could still be growth in output and capability once the system as a whole becomes self-improving.

Thought experiments are useful, for expanding logical conclusions verbally that are otherwise expressed too densely for some ppl.
For example, a friend once said angrily, " I just found out that vaccine causes autism!" That was the first I'd heard that but knew it couldn't be true given the fact that vaccines do almost nothing and autism is a permanent trait, not a temporary set of symptoms.

Anyway, I told her that, if there are any kids with autism who have never been vaccinated, that would basically negate that hypothesis. She said, "I know for a fact there are. I know several of them. But still, you never know." I wanted to say, "Actually, sometimes you know with mathematical certainty", but when ppl are scared or angry, logic is almost useless. That is when thought experiments are necessary. A thought-experiment that utilizes the same type of abstraction can be a verbal mirror of the logic of the concept.

[deleted]

Hilary Lawson's "exposure theory" posits that the world is inherently unknowable, and our access to it is limited to the representations or "exposures" of it that we construct through language, culture, and other forms of mediation. While there may be some truth to this claim, it is also possible to argue against it.

First, exposure theory assumes a radical divide between the world and our knowledge of it, which may not accurately reflect the way we experience reality. In practice, our knowledge of the world is often based on a dynamic interaction between our perceptions and our concepts, rather than a strict separation between the two.

Second, exposure theory also implies that our knowledge of the world is entirely arbitrary and culturally constructed, which overlooks the possibility of objective knowledge. While our knowledge of the world is undoubtedly shaped by cultural and linguistic factors, it is also possible to arrive at shared truths about reality that are independent of these factors.

Finally, exposure theory may lead to a kind of relativism that undermines the possibility of meaningful ethical or political action. If our knowledge of the world is entirely mediated by language and culture, then it may seem that any ethical or political claims we make are simply expressions of our own subjective perspectives. However, it is possible to argue that certain ethical and political claims are objectively valid, based on shared values or principles that are not simply relative to individual perspectives.

In sum, while exposure theory raises some important points about the limitations of our knowledge of the world, it also overlooks the possibility of objective knowledge and may lead to a kind of relativism that undermines meaningful action.

Animals make tools as well and to a limited degree go beyond their biological limitations. Of course the degree at which we make tools is far far superior. No matter the tools though we are left with the same brain to understand the information we find. When we start developing new brains and new consciousness that will be very different.

[removed]

But also that you could, for whatever reason, choose to go against those things.

E: Also people believe taste, values and such are the product of conscious choice.

No, that's not correct.

The ordinary concept also includes the idea that one's choices are a product of one's taste, values and experience - therefore tied to the causal history of one's life.

Why thank you I most celery am into that shit

The difference between us and animals is that we know our limits and we can create instruments to transcend our biological limitations.

crickets

Thank you, token nihilist in the back. Anyone have anything of value to contribute?

Closure is an imminent threshold beyond which no stable means of interrogation can be mastered.

The oscillation between a developing forecast, and a shift in circumstantial decay leaves a vessel prone to even the most subtle disturbing qualities.

> If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

Reality would exist, just as it always has, made up of a bunch of intrinsic particles/fields that interact with each other. And those interactions in turn are what emerges the rest of reality from. You're trying to gotcha me where there is nothing to gotcha.

> But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the endconclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "Ijust really like post-modernism".

I'm wholly uninterested in arguing about ethics, or how something being real or not somehow makes it matter or not. Whether reality is real or not to me has no bearing on how much any of it matters. If you disagree that's fine, that's your prerogative. I'm basically a socialist so wouldn't exactly call myself a eugenicist or against most values western society tends to hold right now. Actually, my worldview would imply that human subjective experience is a rare gift that if anything, we should hold dear. Again though, I'm not interested in formalizing or overthinking ethics. I've been through that already, it's boring.

In addition, I don't care in what way my views are "useful in broader society". In my view it's simply a description of reality.

> A distinction that I'm not sure matters.

Well, it does matter. The color "red" in the way I experience it is something that is constructed by the brain, while the concept of the color red, in the way we describe it and try to communicate the experience to other people would be a social construct. There's a pretty clear difference between the two, wouldn't you agree?

I'll be honest I've had a short post-modernist arc but it got pretty boring, it's a philosophical dead end broadly, same with solipsism. I also find it absurd how you accuse me of solipsism when I'm pretty clearly stating (at least that's how I feel) that my experience of reality is as real as any other, meaning, not "real", just an emergent phenomenon from a whole host of complex interactions. This personally does not bother me, if it bothers you then...I'm sorry?

I'm sure you're well aware yourself but you should turn it down with the straw man fallacies, it's not a very intellectual way of engaging and doesn't seem very productive to me. Your response didn't seem to hold much substance except for accusations. So please respond with substance and proper argumentation instead if you would.

>A reality exists outside of our minds, that reality is just built up out of intrinsic objects (subatomic particles/quantum fields)

Cool. Those subatomic particles (quarks) make atoms which make things. This is very straightforward and provable. If you want I can walk you through all the supporting evidence showing how stuff is made out of these fundamental particles.

> Everything else is extrinsic and essentially emerges from interactions between those intrinsic items. Which includes anything the human mind can see.

That's...... a social constructionist. The watered down one where "some things" are social constructs instead of everything. You've got two opposing views in your head.

>My view lends some ideas from social constructivism

"Borrow"

>most of such constructivism is just inherently done by the brain, not necessarily defined through social interaction.

A distinction that I'm not sure matters. A solipsistic take on social constructionism isn't really awe inspiring. I'm wholly unimpressed by both. They're misdirection at best. Let's take "the obvious example" of money. If people don't agree something is money (or you personally don't think it is), then it can't be used as money. And yes, something being a means of exchanging wealth does depend upon there being an exchange, implying two entities, and therefore a society. I get the concept. But far far too many people use and abuse this idea to justify the end conclusion of "it doesn't really exist" / "doesn't really matter" / "I just really like post-modernism". Like how social darwinism or eugenics were used and abused by terrible people to justify their murder. The scientific or philosophical application of these ideas is just a cover. A distraction from the real intent. Now, that's unfair to you. And it's unfair to all the eugenicists who want a better species. I am throwing out the baby with the bathwater here because the baby is bad. (haha, it's a eugenics joke. Cmon that's funny.) But social construction (and your idea of solipsistic construction) isn't that useful and has been too far abused to be publicly lauded. Extensions like including things which don't depend on social agreement, or things in general. Which is nuts.

And don't dodge it: If there were no human minds, would nothing exist in reality?

unless it is, its about what 'most' people want and 'most' people want someone else to pay.

>When we chase nothing but profitability we forget that we are humans with lives.

already have.

look at any discussion on helping people, first thing that comes up is 'who will pay?'