Is that to say there is only the display of emotion?
I am curious if the two robot monkeys forget all about the history of the ladder.
Will the future not-robot monkeys discover the truth?
I am always amazed that I am not upset at the computer but at my failure to operate it in a way to get the desired outcome. The ability to generate emotion exists within the imageo and not the observed or learned.
> The ability to generate emotion exists within the imageo and not the observed
I was thinking the exact same thing while pondering the parents assertion.
Qualia is just the notion of being something. The classic example is a bat: what is the qualitative experience of being nearly blind, but having wings and a highly accurate echolocation system?
Plants too have qualia. What is it like to be a tree. To feel the nurture of the sun, the change in seasons, and to heal a broken branch.
The qualia of a stone is less exciting, but we can still imagine being a dense pack of minerals. Perhaps rolling down a mountain and losing some weight. Suddenly finding ourselves on the ocean floor, drifting aimlessly, while providing cover and nutrition to all sorts of life. After staying stationary for thousands of years.
That rock has seen things, man!
Down at the atom level things get more excited. What is the qualitative experience of interacting with other atoms? Or a photon? Of being entangled? State transitions?
Anyway. It's clear to me that this robot absolutely has qualia. I can imagine what it's like to be be a circuit board, with an operating system, a bunch of sensors, a neural processing engine, and a hard shell. How it feels.
It makes me appreciate being human more. But also evokes empathy for that adorable lump of silicon, metals, and plastics. Don't let the GP comment bring you down, little one. You are perfect just as you are.
If qualia is required for emotion, then the appearance of emotion can be evidence of qualia. Saying it requires qualia to truly be emotion is putting Descartes in front of the horse.
