3 ms·
The physics has obvious relevance to the experience and leaves no experiential questions unanswered. There's no problem with gravity. I'm not looking for a why
by smosher 13y ago
The physics has obvious relevance to the experience and leaves no experiential questions unanswered. There's no problem with gravity.
I'm not looking for a why—the common complaint about gravity—I just want all the whats to match up. The meaninglessness is in reference to the question of consciousness. If you supply this to the asker, they could rightly ask, "sure, but what about my question?" Perhaps there is no reconciliation and you might want to complain that the question is nonsense—that complaint would make a better answer than a collection of irrelevant facts.
- Zigurd 13y agoYou are right. I should have gone straight to the heart of the matter: An intelligence arising in machines or in an exobiological system (or, for that matter, in a sufficiently different animal) seems very unlikely to function like human intelligence. Does that mean the only philosophically valid intelligence is human, or maybe in a genetically manipulated primate?