Submitted by seethehappymoron t3_11d0voy in philosophy
ErisWheel t1_ja9dpvi wrote
Reply to comment by NullRad in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron
Your hunger and thirst sensations are hormonally driven. They don't arise as a result of bacterial activity.
You're making huge sweeping assumptions based on the fact that because the volume of bacteria in the human body is very high, they must "control everything". That's not how our biology works. There's no evidence at all that bacterial function in the body has any sort of causal link to higher-order brain function. Altered states of consciousness can arise as a result of serious infection, but that's not at all the same as bacteria being able to coordinate and "control" what the body does or how the conscious mind acts and reacts.
You'd need a LOT more evidence to even come close to supporting what you're suggesting.
Xavion251 t1_jabpx2s wrote
Actually, bacteria only "make up most of our bodies" if you look at the raw cell-count.
Most bacteria cells are smaller than most human cells, so actually bacteria only make up about 1-3% of us by weight (a few pounds).
...But the "bacteria cells outnumber human cells" is a more provocative statement - so that's the one that gets spread around.
NullRad t1_ja9dxjm wrote
Evidence? I don’t need shit to make a tongue in cheek comment on r/philosophy.
ErisWheel t1_ja9fdlb wrote
"My argument is bad and I don't care/don't believe it anyway."
Gotcha.
NullRad t1_ja9fned wrote
How’s throwing ad homonyms & snuck premise at people who don’t care working out for you?
ErisWheel t1_ja9hpir wrote
Do you know what ad hominem means? Because this ain't it.
You said you don't need evidence because you made a "tongue in cheek" comment on r/philosophy. Which seems to suggest either a) you don't think evidence is important for arguments, b) you don't know what tongue in cheek means, or c) you think r/philosophy isn't a place that requires the above, or some combination of all of that.
How's what working out for me? Calling out a bullshit argument? Not all that hard, really. Feel free to provide support if you don't think that's true, but I'm not sure why you're upset that someone doesn't take your point seriously when your justification is "I don't need shit because my comments are flippant and this is r/philosophy".
NullRad t1_ja9i11x wrote
What do you get when you Hitchens a Diogenes? Behold, a chicken.
ErisWheel t1_ja9j5s9 wrote
>when you Hitchens a Diogenes? Behold, a
>
>chicken
Cool, man. You've read some ancient philosophy somewhere and mish-mashed it with name-dropping Hitchens for some reason. Good stuff and keep those quips rolling, no matter how nonsensical they may be.
Whatever bone you've got to pick from here on out, the bacteria idea you offered earlier wasn't a good one.
NullRad t1_ja9jdqh wrote
How’s that working out for you… your dopamine bound to winning low risk arguments?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments