The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑June 18th, 2022, 12:17 am
RIght, but the issue here was not about knowing what an organism feels, senses and cognizes, but how an organism feels, senses and cognizes. This goes to the point of whether the Google program could feel something or not. Obviously it could not, because the things that allow such experiences are not present in a computing machine.
Well, that is question-begging. We don't know that neurons are the only "things that allow experiences."
Not only neurons, but the whole body of an organism is what allows experiences. That is undisputable. And we know computers are not built like biological organisms.
All we need to infer is that it feels and senses, and yes, we might infer that from behaviors, but we can also study the mechanisms that within the organism make possible such feelings and sensations (and behaviors). And so, having identified sentience, we have also identified what is in place for there being sentience. We can see also that some natural and artificial objects lack such mechanisms.
Same question-begging. You're assuming, without grounds, that only neurons can generate sentience. But that is what is in question.
Again, if I ever gave the impression that we could only point to neurons, allow me to clarify: sentience is generated in biological organisms. There are several biological mechanisms within an organism that make sentience possible. That is undisputable. And we know computers are not built like biological organisms.
No. The disembodiment of the mind is only ubiquitous in the nonsensical world of idealists, which are prone to populate it with immaterial spirits and forces. That concept of mind is a modern development derived from the religious concept of the soul or spirit. In any case, they always needed to attach it to a body, and so the long history of substance dualism. The next step was the attempt by phenomenalists to get rid of the material body altogether, and so the disembodied mind theory came about.
Well, that is not so. The "soul" was conceived to be immortal, surviving the body, and thus disembodied. That notion is about as ancient as as history itself.
What is not so? You said nothing that contradicts my statement. There was an ancient religious concept of an immortal soul or spirit, and the modern concept of a disembodied mind since Descartes is a derivation from that original concept.
“The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero