Recent comments in /f/philosophy
simple_test t1_ja6l6d3 wrote
Reply to comment by Dbd3030 in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Where we see articles this end up in this sub is that they don’t define consciousness very well so any conclusion is questionable.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kxqc wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kxn6 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kxiv wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kvjj wrote
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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kvhf wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Argue your Position
>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may 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.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_ja6kv2c wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:
>Read the Post Before You Reply
>Read/watch/listen 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.
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.
[deleted] t1_ja6kuqk wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
Dbd3030 t1_ja6kue6 wrote
What if it’s built off our DNA and somehow we duplicated that in code? Idk this stuff, but how is that not possible?
It meaning consciousness
[deleted] t1_ja6kerd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6k69w wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6jxsx wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6i8z4 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6i7g1 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
noejegspiste t1_ja6hjmh wrote
Reply to Neuroscientist Gregory Berns argues that Thomas Nagel was wrong: neuroscience can give us knowledge about what it is like to be an animal. For example, his own fMRI studies on dogs have shown that they can feel genuine affection for their owners. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Also, I don’t think we need an fMRI to prove that a dogs affection is genuine
[deleted] t1_ja6guok wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6g26j wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6fyik wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6fnps wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
ImmoralityPet t1_ja6fcco wrote
Reply to comment by Mustelafan in Neuroscientist Gregory Berns argues that Thomas Nagel was wrong: neuroscience can give us knowledge about what it is like to be an animal. For example, his own fMRI studies on dogs have shown that they can feel genuine affection for their owners. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Neuroscientists and bad philosophy: the most iconic pop-philoosphy duo!
[deleted] t1_ja6d41b wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
maritimelight t1_ja6c2tx wrote
Reply to Neuroscientist Gregory Berns argues that Thomas Nagel was wrong: neuroscience can give us knowledge about what it is like to be an animal. For example, his own fMRI studies on dogs have shown that they can feel genuine affection for their owners. by Ma3Ke4Li3
Scientists almost always betray complete misunderstanding--or a only shallow comprehension--of core philosophical issues when they make these claims. Like, who is that dude who built an entire public intellectual persona based on his ability to sell his inability to grasp the naturalistic fallacy? Sam Harris?
That and the replicability crisis have made me seriously sceptical about contemporary scientists' intelligence and integrity. These people do so much damage to philosophy and their respective field in the process of making these click-bait claims. Students in STEM should be required to take epistemology and philosophy of science classes in undergrad. Maybe that would help, I dunno. Probably not. Ignorance has shown itself these past few decades to be more influential and resilient a social force than education.
[deleted] t1_ja6bu6z wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ja6atn3 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
[removed]
Thelonious_Cube t1_ja6l8hm wrote
Reply to comment by Im-a-magpie in Compatibilism is supported by deep intuitions about responsibility and control. It can also feel "obviously" wrong and absurd. Slavoj Žižek's commentary can help us navigate the intuitive standoff. by matthewharlow
Perhaps so, but the point still stands