Humanists of the world gather up!

Most people I've come to accept just don't get it.
Thomas

"Speak English so that Steven can understand you." - Me

No, it was a joke on my lack of knowledge of any other language.

"The recklessness of science gave birth to you, Godzilla. Why do you appear before us?
Because we humans gave birth to this monster. Godzilla is... inside all of us! "
- Godzilla 2000

Ingrate.

"It must be very hard to move Disney, but it's better to try than do nothing."
- Miya

OK, I'm serious

Well, it's difficult because you ask an awfully specific question, Pawel. But one that immediately comes to mind is of course the famous quote from W.E.B. Dubois' cornerstone work "The Souls of Black Folk" (which at least has to do with race and coming to terms with your own race):

"It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One feels his twoness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder." (Dubois 1903 [1989]: 3)

Perhaps at least the first part - before the "Negro" part - could be used.

Not sure this is the right topic, but it seems to be a good general topic for philosophy and the like. I posed this question to Erik, but I eventually realised that asking Erik to partake in even the slightest bit of whimsical, harmless philosophy is like asking an orthodox Jew to pray to Jesus while eating a ham sandwich on the day of the sabbath. (Both of which I would strongly advise against.)

So, just for fun: If a robot, an artificial form of life created by our own means, had the capability to recreate human thought, feelings and emotions perfectly, should or could we consider it to be alive? To have basic human rights? If it, he, she or whatever literally feels those emotions, what's to say that they're any less real than our own? What's to say that a human is more special than a robot that experiences exactly the same emotions, thought processes and feelings? Where's the qualification? I mean, I certainly don't know.

Though my own general belief (or perhaps point of view) is that if such a robot existed, it would deserve to be treated as a lifeform with basic rights. I think that's a safe assumption since there's nothing we know of as yet that separates us from it; we are effectively biological robots ourselves. We're just squishier than you might envisage this hypothetical robot to be (let's call him 'Data').

It's a hypothetical philosophical question Tom, a pure thought exercise, not a question that is meant to give a definitive answer in reality. (But my belief is that one day it will become a reality, so perhaps the question is not as hypothetical as you might think.)

I know what, let's not discuss tomorrow's weather since it doesn't affect us now.

Yes, but let's not confuse the point of the question: Imagine 'Data' had a brain that EXACTLY and PERFECTLY replicated our own brains, which would in effect make it indistinguishable from our own (apart from its constituents). This would set the stage for 'emotions' to play out with equal validity in either the human or the robot.

Okay, name one? I don't think there has been any observations alluding to the fact that we are more than the sum of our parts. There are certainly beliefs and theories, but if they haven't been observed and proved, how am I to believe them? For now, I will assume the former until some piece of evidence comes our way proving otherwise.

So from that basis, it is very easy to ask this hypothetical question.

Very broadly speaking, philosophy is often concerned with how we read emotions INTO things rather than necessarily being at the receiving end of it all the time; a form of empathy. Psychology emphasizes emotions as a survival technique; its FUNCTIONS. As emotion researchers Juslin and Sloboda say: "A major purpose of emotion science is /…/ to explain what functionality emotions do have /…/ There is some consensus that the primary function of emotions is to guide behaviour; emotions evolved because they enabled successful interaction with the environment (Juslin og Sloboda 2001: 83)" . In other words, it ties up to SOCIAL INTERACTION. There is also the emphasis on the interplay between our long-term and short-term memories as a crucial mechanism in understanding human emotion.

All of these require something MORE than just "having a brain" like humans.

For example, using the above, one could argue that a non-human entity only has emotions when WE say it has emotions, NOT that it is something it inherently has.

(PS. I just saw your extra post, and you'll see that none of the above have to do with "soul", which is a non-scientific, non-measurable entity AND - I agree - slightly beside the point).

Without trying to shortcircuit an interesting discussion, I think that particular question actually has been pretty definitively settled.

Yeah, really can't be arsed to read or interpret that. What's your Point of View™ in a few a words?