fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3768 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3768 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Goodbye to Halos]

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Great British Bake Off]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11. [SPOILERS for Yuri on Ice]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #538.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - I am not sure if this is a troll or not ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But why do you extend that guess regarding consciousness-experience-emotion to another person, but not to a robot which was advanced enough to act like a human to the point where you couldn't distinguish them by their actions?

What is the actual difference that you can point to which justifies the belief that one of those things is Actually Existing and the other is a simulacrum? What's the criterion that makes one of them Actually Exist when both produce the same actions and outputs?

This is what I'm asking. How do you know what you're experiencing isn't just some simulation? Like, how do you know we're not just a Sims game for someone else? How do you know what you're experiencing isn't just programming in a computer? Because you FEEL you don't? Because you're you? That's a non-answer.

Simple. Because a human (and other animals) are organic life, and a robot isn't. I know we have independence, agency, and emotion, because I have it. I don't look at my microwave and wonder what it's feeling, and I'm not sure why make a much more complex microwave will magically make it any different from the base microwave. It's inanimate, end of story.

That's like an alien looking at a dish of mold and concluding that all organics must be like the mold.

Well, first, my question still is: what specific characteristic of organic life makes it distinctly capable of those qualities? From my point of view, organic life is basically one specific subset of physical systems, and I can't identify any characteristic of that subset which makes it uniquely capable of attaining those states.

Second, you keep making this point about microwaves and Furbies, and I really think it's incorrect. On the one hand, no one is saying that a microwave or a Furby actually is feeling emotion. They are extremely simple machines and there's no reason to suppose they feel emotion. On the other hand, I have no idea why on earth it should be the case that a more complex microwave couldn't feel emotion. After all, from a certain point of view, a human being is merely a much more complex version of algae. The point is that, in organic systems, we know that above a certain point of complexity, there are organic organisms which do have feeling-emotion-agency-volition, and unless you have some specific account of why organic life is distinctive in this way, it seems like it should be the same with inorganic systems. Stop making the dang point about microwaves.

This whole discussion kept me thinking about this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0KTUysrwgQ

[ SECRET POST #3768 ]

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA