Banno

It's still worth pointing out what a poor response this is.

One.

So you need someone else to tell you what to do?

It's bad philosophy drawn from pop culture. Another sign of the end times, I suppose, in that it distracts from substantial thinking. I can live witho...

There's a certain thinking that refuses to make a decision on moral grounds. Of course that means never making a decision. Talking of pointing things ...

...which is why the simulation hypothesis is useless. Not so much. Rather pointless, actually.

Good against evil; simplifying a complex world down past the point of absurdity. This thread is another symptom of the paucity of philosophical conten...

Hmm. Looks like moral nihilism, rather than relativism. A relativist might say something like "I think it right, you might not"; but @"Echarmion" seem...

This is not appropriate fodder for a philosophy forum. But... Yes, your christian god acts in immoral ways. The Bible tells us so. You now have to mak...

It was this to which I was referring, Harry. Are you making a death threat? That's the pretty pathetic pronouncement. And it's not something I would d...

Logic for beginners. If the bible is the source of our morals, and it says very clearly that we ought not each shellfish, then we ought not eat shellf...

Oh, yeah. I have presented grounds for personhood: sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. You have said being human...

Even if one accepts this, "I like vanilla" is sufficient to justify my purchase. And you seem to have misunderstood direction of fit.

Yes. Your point?

What?

Yep. I'm saying your position is morally bankrupt. I explained why here.

Then present your argument, clearly and coherently. Or point to the post in which you do so.

Then set me to rights; deny your religion.

No. Nor do I grant the bible any authority.

Your name, your predilection for scriptural quotations, and my experience of those who oppose abortion; together with your lack of a coherent ethical ...

SO go ahead, ask a direct question.

I've no trust in definitions, nor do I think them needed here. Is there a sense in which the machine I describe understands? I don't see it. It's just...

I don't see why.

Yep.

Neat analysis.

See if I can register my objection by giving a simplified version of your machine; one that is intended to understand an utterance by translating it. ...

So now I have an image of your homunculus being conscious because inside it is another homunculus, which is conscious because inside it... Is that wha...

Ah, I see, so you think that you can create consciousness by creating a screen for your homunculus! The errors are compounding here, I think. But I wi...

The notion of direction of fit, fits here. A belief has the direction of fit of world-to-word: that is, it says that "the world is thus:...", and henc...

But the autocorrect here is becoming a real pain.

While I take @"unenlightened"'s point, it seems to me that pessimism is more likely to result in action than our present lethargic optimism.

Again, how would you every know that a program incorporated qualia?

More generally, that's why qualia are petty darn near useless.

Ah. I was misled by the title. As you were.

Yep. That's were I was headed. Yeah, well, so much for your accusation. I am not an idealist.

Why not? I like vanilla. There's no reason that I like vanilla, I just do. It's unjustified. SO what? It explains my purchase, too often, of a vanilla...

Yet how could you know that the system had such an experience? And if you cannot know such a thing, why doesn't that render the project infertile?

Then you've lost me.

All you have done here is assert your position, sans justification.

It's circular. You make consciousness using consciousness.

Tedious.

Doesn't any one else feel uncomfortable with consciousness already being in this explanation of consciousness? How is this not a vicious circularity?

Hmmm. I'll leave you to it, then. There's too many dragons involved in having propositions range over other propositions.

Indeed, but that would take us into a second-order logic. Which is why I suggest that modality may suffice.

Again, you have to make that claim, because your morality is out of an old book. That's why you find yourself adhering to the morally indefensible vie...

Yeah, you had the wrong story. In the right story, the one I am talking about, Israel came together not to defend women's rights, but to defend father...

You have to believe that, don't you. Despite what is written right in front of you.

You missed the point that these two blokes thought it acceptable to have their daughter and concubine raped to death.

@"Serving Zion", why not stop the pretence of doing anything like ethics and just admit that what you are doing here is not philosophy, but your own i...

Leviticus 11: So one assumes you do not do anything so immoral as to eat prawns or oysters. Yeah. It doesn't work like that. We get to judge what you ...