philosophy

20217 readers

2 users here now

Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]

"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes

Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

thethirdgracchi@hexbear.net

MiraculousMM@hexbear.net

Leon_Grotsky@hexbear.net

What do you think of panpsychism/the hard problem of consciousness? (hexbear.net)

submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by itsPina@hexbear.net to c/philosophy@hexbear.net

241 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Personally I think it's silly as hell. Qualia is obviously a biological component of experience... Not some weird thing that science will never be able to put in to words.

I've been listening to a lot of psychology podcasts lately and for some reason people seem obsessed with the idea despite you needing to make the same logical leaps to believe it as any sort of mysticism... Maybe I am just tripping idk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It does not contain the qualia associated with your mind state

If we were to recreate a P Zombie of me right now why would they ever respond to you without qualia?

Damn, I wonder if the original paper might have done that. Guess you'll never know, given your refusal to do any actual investigation before asserting your right to speak.

DAMN STRAIGHT. Finally you're making some sense. Why would a P Zombie EVER read that fucking paper? The assumption with a P Zombie is they only do whats biologically imperative to survive. Paper never needed. Writing paper... never needed. Reading paper? What is reading? Not needed. Avoid car.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If we were to recreate a P Zombie of me right now why would they ever respond to you without qualia?

"How can chat gpt respond to me if it's not conscious".

Once again: because they are behaviourally identical to you.

DAMN STRAIGHT.

Ok. Just straight up admitting you don't know shit and you're proud of it. Just a hillbilly afraid those damn scary books.

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Once again: because they are behaviourally identical to you.

What part about their homeostasis dictates that responding to you is necessary to achieve a fruitful life?

Ok. Just straight up admitting you don't know shit and you're proud of it. Just a hillbilly afraid those damn scary books.

DAMN STRAIGHT. And you're just a city slicker too afraid of them country Jays that have too experience with the real world... many such cases.

I beg of you: descibe to me a P Zombie that is a physical clone of me that doesn't have my mental state. Describe to me how that P Zombie is uniquely different from the version of me that you froze of me 20 minutes ago. Where does the distinction lie? You say theres no consciousness, I say theres no way for that to be? Again, me arguing on hexbear is the OPPOSITE OF FUCKING. I should be FUCKING right now. I am getting the OPPOSITE of DICK.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What part about their homeostasis dictates that responding to you is necessary to achieve a fruitful life?

The same as yours. The only difference is that they don't experience qualia

DAMN STRAIGHT.

Least arrogant Redditer

I beg of you: descibe to me a P Zombie that is a physical clone of me that doesn’t have my mental state.

Read. The. Fucking. Paper

[–] itsPina@hexbear.net -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Read. The. Fucking. Paper

I did. Its wrong. It explains no FUNCTIONAL reason for me to be arguing with you right now instead of getting my bump and grind on. We can theorize a robot that does 1:1 what I do in real life,. That doesnt mean I was written in fucking c#

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

You have already outright stated that you did not read the paper while repeatedly demanding people explain to you concepts that the paper explained. You are clearly now lying about having read it, just like you admitted lying about having written a masters thesis in physics.