Carl-Richard

Why is that the end goal? Isn't it the survival of the organism as a whole? And if you're singling out signalling between neurons as the only important process for sentience, what is so special about this process, and why are other processes in the brain irrelevant? But then, would it be able to think? Does it have memories of previous experiences?

It's true that there is no reason why it can't become sentient. I'm just talking about what reasons we have for it being sentient.

You'd be surprised what goes in there. I'm just saying we have less reasons to believe this than the alternative. Besides, what exactly would they experience? How would you replicate the signals associated with sensory input if you don't have sense organs?

@LSD-Rumi The inside of a neuron is also extremely complex. Maybe missing out on that complexity means missing out on sentience. There are also other arguments about things like embodiment. For example, we have never experienced being a brain in a vat. What if sentience requires being born in a body, developing sense organs, growing up and learning to respond to environmental inputs and relate to the world in some hands-on way?

Why is the signalling between neurons the important thing to replicate and not for example the various types of signalling inside the neuron?

;_; That is what I meant. You know, Silicon Valley? So you're fine with merely replicating the patterns of neuronal signalling, not say the ion channels or the various neurotransmitters that exist in a real brain? But that would still need a substrate, no?

Would you be satisfied with a silicon replica of the brain at the level of neurons, or would you also want to replicate what is happening inside and outside the neuron as well?

If a computer had the intelligence of a dog, would you believe it to be sentient?

@Danioover9000 I don't see how it relates to the discussion.

No ?

@Danioover9000 I don't know what you're talking about.

How does this relate to the discussion?

Can you say that in simpler words?

That's a weird twist, but sure.

There is no absolute interpretation. The best you can do is to know which interpretations you want to use for which goals you want to pursue.

I technically agree, but also consider the context. The dude is a gamer and people call in while he is gaming. Most callers are casual, but sometimes you get gems like this. I would also prefer if he was always fully engaged, but that is just how he is. He is obviously not a shining beacon of virtue, but I prefer Destiny over any other daily content YouTube entertainer. It's a funny meme

Just being Destiny.

The reason I made this thread is because I wanted to talk about the video, because I liked the points the guy made in it. He happened to use the term "grand narrative", and I went with that. If I wanted to talk about Lyotard's definition of grand narratives, I would've made a thread about that.

I don't see that. Remember that my thread is about a YouTube video where that concept was being talked about and which I told you to watch and which I explictly referred to multiple times?

So you still misunderstand what I mean by a grand narrative. That's ok. A grand narrative meets all human needs. There can be many possible grand narratives, but all of them have to meet all human needs in some way. Whether the specific contents of each narrative is efficient or actually conducive to each need is a different question. What I was talking about with an "universal grand narrative" was in the scenario where the world is united (not in serious conflict), which would mean that the specific contents of the leading grand narratives (if they exist) would in some way be commensurate.

In this thread, did I present one way to meet human needs or did I present a list of human needs?

Where do you set your limit? How many human needs are there?

Who is to say that a baby needs food?

I knew I should've prefaced this from the beginning, but I was naively expecting a more openminded and less "religious" (dogmatic) response. Anyways, the issue with this thread, like Nilsi so eloquently pointed out, is that I'm using academic definitions of terms like religion, and when people come with their more colloquial understanding, of course that is going to cause a clash. What I'll propose though is that academic definitions are often simply better in terms of describing and explaining things in the world than colloquial definitions. They're more precise, and it's why academics use them. What I feel like is going on here is analogous to somebody saying "OCD is a psychiatric diagnosis with specific criteria", while the responses are like "but I'm pretty OCD when it comes to certain things". Nevertheless, I guess I can also summarize my position using different terms: what I'm proposing with "why we need religion" is that the search for the highest value (whatever that is for you) cannot easily be separated from your mental and physical wellbeing, and those things depend on certain factors. I'm saying we should not ignore those factors. Now, we can for example talk about what you think those factors should be, or we can keep fighting over definitions. Up to you.

You don't have a set of practices or beliefs about how to do spirituality? Seeking the highest value. Less distinctions = better? ?