Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community


At Mind Matters News: Asked at The Scientist: Do invertebrates have feelings?

What we are learning is that invertebrate status is not, by itself, evidence of an inability to think or feel — as we used to suppose. In a world full of information and intelligence, it’s not nearly as tidy as our biology teachers thought. Read More ›

Universality of human emotion upheld by study

From UC Berkeley: "Researchers at UC Berkeley and Google used machine-learning technology known as a “deep neural network” to analyze facial expressions in some 6 million video clips uploaded to YouTube from people in 144 countries spanning North, Central and South America, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia." Read More ›

Can we teach a computer to feel things? A dialogue…

You are having an experience reading the vital signs. The dog is having quite a different experience living them. You have all of his data and none of his experience. The dog has none of his data and all of his experience. Suppose you took all that data and instantiated it into a robot. Is the robot having your experience or the dog’s? Or neither, actually? Read More ›

Creationism is EVERYWHERE you look now…

Most likely, “emotions research” is nonsense. But tying it to Darwinism means that its practitioners can hammer down hard on that lectern even if they are not making sense to the people whose emotions they are supposed to be describing. It's all those people's fault for being "creationists." Read More ›

Naturalists (materialists) can’t believe in love

They try but somehow the love story just won’t tell itself in a way that makes any sense: It may sound rational to conjecture that love is merely an emergent property of consciousness that has matured throughout the course of human evolution. But emergence is no less of a “god of the gaps” belief than Zeus’s lighting or Thor’s thunder. Zoe is a great film but it presents a storyline often used to show how inexplicable and ineffable love is in order to get me to believe that it isn’t. For example, the underlying dogma assumes reductionism (everything is material). Thus, the question addressed isn’t the obvious one, “Can a synthetic love a human?”; it is “Can a human love Read More ›