I think you're trying to degrade the entire school of philosophy down to your "philosophy 101" understanding and then shoving it where it doesn't fit in order to feel like this is all complicated.

Philosophy is a intrinsically human thing. It has to be. That is the whole point. There really is nothing else.

Plants feel and experience things too. But there's no philosophy of the plant experience from the point of view of the plant, because why would there be?

The fact that we have a pattern recognizing word generator print out the words "I am alive" does not lead to some broader philosophical point, except for hysteria and delusions, which probably fit more along sociology instead.

▲

esikich 14 hours ago | parent [-]

"Philosophy is an intrinsically human thing. It has to be."

What is philosophy? Thinking? Reasoning? Thinking about thinking?

You're asserting that only a human brain can think and reason? Surely other animals can as well. Couldn't aliens as well? Why can't this crazy electronic box?

Where do we draw the line? Do dolphins not have internal experiences? Dogs? Cats? Mice? Fish? Worms? Bugs? Amoebas?

We don't even really know what thinking or experience is. You can train a caterpillar to do tricks. That's pattern recognition. You can train a human to spike their heart rate when you get a Teams notification.

I mean, I'm watching an LLM run benchmarks on my caching strategy for a webpage right now. It's certainly doing something.

▲

drekipus 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I suggest you print out this exchange and spend a week away from the computer, then re-read what was printed.

I'm not trying to be rude but I gave you the answers. Alien philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not aliens. Tree philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not trees. Dolphin philosophy is irrelevant to us because we're not dolphins, etc.

Everything else you mentioned is "hallucinatory" and you need to probably have a break from screens for a while.

As a legitimate exercise, go ponder the philosophy of a bash script. Think about philosophy of trees in a forest vs trees in a plantation. You'll find it and see how silly you're being

	▲	gf000 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> irrelevant to us because we're not What an unnecessarily dismissive "argument". I'm certainly not a CPU, nor a painting, nor a bird, yet plenty of people find these topics and many others interesting.
	▲	crent 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I’d respectfully disagree here. All phenomena are defined not just by what they are but also by what they are not. I can tell something is relatively tall because I can compare its size to something small. In a fully isolated environment with no reference points, the concept of a given object being small or tall is meaningless. If we apply that same thought process to philosophy and reason, how can you define it without creating boundaries of what it is not?