3 ms·

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same? Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn

What's the difference. Act upset or is upset the results are the same? Some humans lack certain emotions, them telling you something, and doing something doesn't really matter if they "felt" that emotion?

lucketone 6mo ago
If one is unable to feel emotion X, then: 1. One has some ulterior motive for faking it. 2. One’s actions will likely diverge from emotion X. (Eventually) If everybody believe the same lie, then it could be indistinguishable from the truth. (Until, the nature of the lie/truth become clear)
- johnsmith1840 6mo ago
  Or their ulterior motive is that they don't have one and want to fit in? Meaning they would never diverge? Didn't realize my point was so philisophical lol
  - lucketone 6mo ago
    This is still an ulterior motive (even if benign; we all do it to some extent). Behavior will diverge eventually. Because emotions are what drives our decisions. If you really love tennis, then you spend time and money on tennis. If you just say it to be nice (or to impress somebody), you will not invest into activity that much and will search for opportunity to stop.
cyanydeez 6mo ago
It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population. Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?
- johnsmith1840 6mo ago
  Cool read! Yeah I suppose this is my point AI is the perfect P-zombie here. I was thinking of clear cases like true pychopaths on certain emotions.

lucketone 6mo ago

If one is unable to feel emotion X, then: 1. One has some ulterior motive for faking it. 2. One’s actions will likely diverge from emotion X. (Eventually) If everybody believe the same lie, then it could be indistinguishable from the truth. (Until, the nature of the lie/truth become clear)

johnsmith1840 6mo ago
Or their ulterior motive is that they don't have one and want to fit in? Meaning they would never diverge? Didn't realize my point was so philisophical lol
- lucketone 6mo ago
  This is still an ulterior motive (even if benign; we all do it to some extent). Behavior will diverge eventually. Because emotions are what drives our decisions. If you really love tennis, then you spend time and money on tennis. If you just say it to be nice (or to impress somebody), you will not invest into activity that much and will search for opportunity to stop.

cyanydeez 6mo ago

It's the rise of the P-zombie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie It's really interesting watching society struggle with what percent of the population is indistinguishable from a P-zombie. There's definitely not zil, but it definitely is a segment of the population. Do you think people are born pzombies or is there some fixed point in time, puberty, or middle aged, or around when a lot of psychological problems set in. Do we think some environmental contaminants like Lead push people towards the pzombie?

johnsmith1840 6mo ago
Cool read! Yeah I suppose this is my point AI is the perfect P-zombie here. I was thinking of clear cases like true pychopaths on certain emotions.