The subject is surely changing fast. 
This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?
I'm not sure what you mean by transcendental.
To clarify my statement, i think anything we think of as conciousness or intelligence is the result of specific information flows in a structure.
Anything you feel in an emotional sense is specific to humans. I would not expect most life to experience emotion because most of life does not have a brain to feel emotion (or experience conciousness for that matter). Mammals propably do feel some sort of emotion but it would not be a very human-like mix of emotion and there would propably be a lot less control over these emotions and a lot less reasoning.
Hmm, I now get where you are coming from. "specific information flows" or "specific to humans" don't mean much to me, but I guess you were originally discussing something else and they may be relevant.
However, I need to point out that what "emotion" means to me is the sensory feedback you get as your body reacts to chemicals released by your reptilian brain. They are indeed qualia, just as any other sensory experience is qualia, and nothing more. Qualia in turn is how data is locally represented, and nothing more. So, I don't see why emotions in general would be specific to humans or "living" things.
Then again, I get what you mean when you say that trying to replicate "human emotion" is pointless, although I can't agree with how you describe the situation. We actually don't and can't know qualia, because it's not "human specific", it's "subject specific", so actually you can't replicate them at all.
Well, as I said, I neither get what you mean by simulated emotion, nor true emotion. We can only judge by the resulting phenomena, so there cannot be objective criteria for authenticity.
As far as I can tell, I'm the only consciousness in existence, and "everything else" is just a product of my imagination in my little universe.
That paradigm is solipsism, and is not logically cogent.
I humbly think the contrary, solipsism is as logically cogent as it can get. We just need to stop fighting it and accept it as an indisputable metaphysical perspective.
If you want real emotion you would need to evolve it and so you would have to present the same kind of environment to the developing mechanism to make it develop these qualia we call emotions.
This doesn't make any sense. Are you proposing that qualia are transcendental?
I'm not sure what you mean by transcendental.
To clarify my statement, i think anything we think of as conciousness or intelligence is the result of specific information flows in a structure.
Anything you feel in an emotional sense is specific to humans. I would not expect most life to experience emotion because most of life does not have a brain to feel emotion (or experience conciousness for that matter). Mammals propably do feel some sort of emotion but it would not be a very human-like mix of emotion and there would propably be a lot less control over these emotions and a lot less reasoning.
Hmm, I now get where you are coming from. "specific information flows" or "specific to humans" don't mean much to me, but I guess you were originally discussing something else and they may be relevant.
However, I need to point out that what "emotion" means to me is the sensory feedback you get as your body reacts to chemicals released by your reptilian brain. They are indeed qualia, just as any other sensory experience is qualia, and nothing more. Qualia in turn is how data is locally represented, and nothing more. So, I don't see why emotions in general would be specific to humans or "living" things.
Then again, I get what you mean when you say that trying to replicate "human emotion" is pointless, although I can't agree with how you describe the situation. We actually don't and can't know qualia, because it's not "human specific", it's "subject specific", so actually you can't replicate them at all.
He's saying (and I agree) that a programmed simulation is not the same thing as a true emotion.
Well, as I said, I neither get what you mean by simulated emotion, nor true emotion. We can only judge by the resulting phenomena, so there cannot be objective criteria for authenticity.
As far as I can tell, I'm the only consciousness in existence, and "everything else" is just a product of my imagination in my little universe.
That paradigm is solipsism, and is not logically cogent.
I humbly think the contrary, solipsism is as logically cogent as it can get. We just need to stop fighting it and accept it as an indisputable metaphysical perspective.