The Philosophy Discussion Forum

An emoticon is not a word. The reason words require a context is that the word itself has no systematic connection with what it refers to. So for example the sound "fish" or the typewritten word "fish" don't resemble a fish. But the smiling emoticon does resemble a smiling face. ...

Why Do Some Dogs Tilt Their Heads When We Talk to Them?
Surprisingly, a dog's muzzle may be blocking his view of part of our faces.
Posted Dec 11, 2013
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ca ... -talk-them

bergie15 wrote:You are more likely to have aural hallucinations if you need silence to read? Who said this? I have never heard that before.

Nobody said anything. You must have been having an aural hallucination.

A paradox is self-contradictory, those sentences are self-contradictory, so they are paradoxical.

They're not very interesting though, are they?

Philosophy Explorer wrote: I had an AI app...besides a possible good conversation, you can converse with it and ask it some questions to get answers.

PhilX

Sounds ideal for you.

Your distinction animal/human is a false one. The differences between what you like to call animals and humans is of degree and not kind. Humans are animals too. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html The Principle of Charity is a methodological presumption made in seeking to understand...

what does human language have to do with "self-awareness"? one can be self-aware without ever having interacted with anyone, and without any language. Maybe, I don't think it's been demonstrated, but that's beside my point. Even if your hypothetical human had never interacted or used lang...

what about this: there are at least two types of consciousness. one is very low (simple, basic), as in just sensing (which applies to animals as well), and another higher (more complex) form, which is sufficient awareness, that only humans possess, and which enables more significant emotions/feelin...

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You are a childish p****. You follow one insult with another whilst begging me to respond to your empty headed posts.

I'm sorry that you think I've been insulting you, I haven't, I'm really just trying to have a philosophical discussion.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Well sorry to have missed it, but considering you think very poorly of my contributions, I don't really think it is worth my while to respond., though I might.

That's the most feeble post I've seen on a philosophy forum in a long time.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The remark was not directed at you.

Er, no, but you did direct a very similar remark at me, and I addressed it for you. So could you go back and have a look at what I said to you? That's kind of how a discussion works.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Hi, do not hold your hopes too high from the Forum,

The quality of the Forum discussion depends in part on your contributions Hobbes, and so far in my experience these have been less than satisfactory.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: Place a worm in a jar of vinegar. Does it not feel? But can you know it is conscious?

I've already dealt with this, twice. Would you like to go back and read what I said again?

A worm can experience a p****, but is it conscious. But a worm does seem to yearn food, and spends its life eating the earth, the passion to do this precedes any consciousness of it. When I use the word "experience" in this context, I mean "conscious experience". So if a worm ca...