| Philosophy Corner: Ontology |
by MatthewDBA |
2009-08-24 06:51:21 |
| What is a thought? How do we know when we're thinking? |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
With all the thoughts and images passing | by webishop | 2009-08-24 06:58:10 |
|
I don't know. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 07:07:35 |
|
I think, at least I think so ;-) (n/t) | by AntonLeen | 2009-08-24 07:12:18 |
|
With some people it is harder to tell than others | by Hieraco | 2009-08-24 07:20:35 |
|
To quote Moe Howard (I think) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 07:23:08 |
|
A self-evidential event of the subjective ego | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:26:49 |
|
Would be Descartes-esque. | by krikkert | 2009-08-24 07:33:06 |
|
Actually, I was thinking more of conditions that | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:38:07 |
|
As with anything like this, we need a framework... | by jdelphiki | 2009-08-24 08:02:09 |
|
Exactly. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:04:09 |
|
How about "adaptive behavior"? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 08:30:22 |
|
That's an interesting approach. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:34:59 |
|
Perhaps it does | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:26:36 |
|
How would you be able to tell | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:33:52 |
|
No, an external test is sufficient | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:47:07 |
|
I'm not as sure as you seem to be | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:59:26 |
|
Most programs are written deliberately to assist | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 10:47:04 |
|
You can determine whether another person | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 10:51:07 |
|
How is it absent? | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:16:26 |
|
I'm wondering if things like | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 11:28:16 |
|
But, again, would a conversation with a strong AI | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 11:52:24 |
|
One difference between | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 12:28:51 |
|
Yes, but, by market statistics, most people | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:11:20 |
|
Would that imply that (for example) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 07:37:08 |
|
3: Evidenced by "Hold my beer and watch this." (n/t) | by chanceslost | 2009-08-24 07:39:17 |
|
:-D (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 07:43:35 |
|
My take would be: | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 07:51:37 |
|
That's not quite circular. | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:02:26 |
|
Sure; it tells us that thought is necessary | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 08:53:12 |
|
"The presence of thought in another creature | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:03:30 |
|
I doubt it | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:33:31 |
|
That appears to be directly contradictory | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 09:35:26 |
|
Yes, I mis-stated it, earlier | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 09:50:33 |
|
I would give the wasp the benefit of doubt. | by tallastro | 2009-08-24 09:06:59 |
|
If you "am", you "am" thinking! | by kahuana | 2009-08-24 07:57:08 |
|
How do you know that? (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 08:02:49 |
|
Aye noes dat because life is transitive and cereal (n/t) | by kahuana | 2009-08-24 08:13:02 |
|
If you include 'unconscious' thought... | by TrogL | 2009-08-24 08:50:59 |
|
I think, therefore I am. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-24 11:55:37 |
|
What do you mean, "I am?" | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 12:11:30 |
|
That's exactly my point. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-24 12:33:18 |
|
Given thought, | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 13:01:40 |
|
I've seen no convincing argument in favor of | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:14:53 |
|
Descartes pretty well established that. | by kelli217 | 2009-08-24 13:22:22 |
|
Must it, though, or is it sufficient merely for it | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:20:32 |
|
But how do you know | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 12:24:45 |
|
Am I a person who dreamt of being a butterfly? | by kelli217 | 2009-08-24 12:34:34 |
|
Or neither? (n/t) | by MatthewDBA | 2009-08-24 12:50:26 |
|
But, who *else* would be thinking these thoughts | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:22:06 |
|
Ask SnArL: His forehead gets warm. :+) | by adiplomat | 2009-08-24 12:43:52 |
|
Oh, I shouldn't be laughing this hard about that! | by bitflipper | 2009-08-24 13:23:28 |
