How can entries in a ledger or words in a book be said to have moods either? Answering that question for anything is verging on the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
How can entries in a ledger or words in a book be said to have moods either? Answering that question for anything is verging on the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
I admit, all of Alain’s considered options seem hopeless to me, those two included.
Defining the moods that way seems wrong. If some alien species evolves with a distinct biochemistry that has some similar moods, we wouldn’t assert that they weren’t the same. Rather the moods correspond to varying chemical states in these bags of saline solution and they are varying chemical states that predict some macroscopic behaviors of those saline solution containers, such as their tendencies to damage other containers or engage in activities that produce new containers.
It is trivial, but it’s because the great-grandparent of your comment is essentially a statement of the parent. When you combine the two, you get a pretty trivial statement.
It is trivial, but it’s because the great-grandparent of your comment is essentially a statement of the parent.
The parent is not, as the grandparent takes pains to be, ‘respectful to the complexity of the human condition’. The grandparent is obviously true. The parent is fairly unintelligible: in order to make sense of it, we have to define moods in such a way as to make it an empty tautology.
But...how can a mass of chemicals in a saline solution be said to have moods in the first place?
How can entries in a ledger or words in a book be said to have moods either? Answering that question for anything is verging on the Hard Problem of Consciousness.
I admit, all of Alain’s considered options seem hopeless to me, those two included.
Because those moods are defined as varying states of the chemicals in the saline solution.
Defining the moods that way seems wrong. If some alien species evolves with a distinct biochemistry that has some similar moods, we wouldn’t assert that they weren’t the same. Rather the moods correspond to varying chemical states in these bags of saline solution and they are varying chemical states that predict some macroscopic behaviors of those saline solution containers, such as their tendencies to damage other containers or engage in activities that produce new containers.
So Alain’s claim is then “Our varying states of chemicals in a saline solution are unstable because we are only chemicals in a saline solution”?
That’s trivial as can be.
It is trivial, but it’s because the great-grandparent of your comment is essentially a statement of the parent. When you combine the two, you get a pretty trivial statement.
The parent is not, as the grandparent takes pains to be, ‘respectful to the complexity of the human condition’. The grandparent is obviously true. The parent is fairly unintelligible: in order to make sense of it, we have to define moods in such a way as to make it an empty tautology.