Starmaker: Sunk cost fallacy.
Now you're just being a dick -_-...
Starmaker: edit: you're attacking my people, me personally, and the very foundations of science. Specifically, you claim that
two things which are apriori impossible to distinguish are not identical Whoa... Leibniz is your hommie? Seriously?
Identity of indiscernibles is a fascinating concept, but no longer accepted. Look up "Black's spheres".
Starmaker: that only real philosophers[tm] get to decide the truthfulness of that claim, and whoever strongly disagrees is
not a real philosopher.
I don't know where you're going with this, but I hope you intend on scaring away birds, since that's a strawman if I ever saw one.
I ASSUMED you'd have a measure of respect for me, and thus would give the benefit of doubt to that which I am trying to show you. I'm kinda saddened by how this turned out, but I guess life is full of disappointments.
Starmaker: What. All "mental" processes are physical.
This is a very, VERY difficult stance to defend.
I'm sorry, this is as far as we can go, apparently. I wish you good luck on your journey.
Starmaker: I'm actually willing to concede I might not have emotions in the categorically different way from thoughts, and I'm therefore incapable of ever understanding the concept. Or I might be an android, in which case, someone, please reinstall my corrupted codecs, thankyou.
You're almost paraphrasing the first video. In doing so, you are contradicting your previous claim. If you could have ALL the theoretical knowledge that could ever be gathered about emotions, but would still not "grasp" the concept fully without being able to feel them as a first-person experience, then there exists something beyond purely learnable physical facts. These are the things I've referred to as "qualia". It's one of the most basic intuitions behind differentiating between matter and mind.