You're right, the chat is altogether too dead! I'll have to come here more often.

@JosephWeissman: What was your logic in deleting the question on deconstruction? I think that's got a lot of potential to be a great question. Both students of philosophy and critical literature are often exposed to the concept, and quite often find themselves confused. Maybe "what is it" is a little broad, but I definitely think the question is worth salvaging and re-opening.

@Cody: I hadn't noticed this question until you pointed to it here, but I agree

@Joseph: perhaps we could think of it like the other question that you broke apart, and turn your question into reasonable pieces. I say this in the reasoning that your logic may have been centered around the idea that it contained multiple questions.

@CodyGray it felt like more a 'seed' question than a serious question at the time I originally wrote it (pretty early in priv. beta) -- I will undelete as it sounds like we are agreed it could be constructive

great!

@JosephWeissman: what are your thoughts on my last question (philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/711/…)

as it is, in effect, an extension of your closed question, except that I attempted to shape it towards this forum a bit

i do like it -- i am wondering what sort of answer you might be expecting? :) it's difficult to inspect the suffering of others in the first place, after all...

Perhaps I'll be surprised, and someone will know a great reference - that's sort of what I'm hoping for

but I fear that the answers will center on the definition of suffering

first thing it made me think of

that's pretty interesting? have you read it? is it good?

i can report that i love sontag in general, but can't give a very good review as i haven't finished it :/

I'll look into it. I currently struggle a little bit to conceptualize the answers we expect here. I do not imagine this forum to have much philosophizing, for example, but rather to talk about philosophy (to refer to that meta question). But even then, I sort of expect answers to be opinionated here.

So when you ask me what I anticipate, I have a really hard time guessing.

well, here's my potential answer -- an intelligent machine whose internal cognitive structure was 'transparent' to itself would have a choice whether to experience suffering or not

is that suffering anymore, if you can choose to end it at any time?

What a thought.

probably not, but as that point presumably there are posthumans around who would have the same choice

idk -- again, just my thoughts. the problem of suffering is pretty difficult in general. it's hard enough to convince a doctor you've got chronic pain if there are no other major symptoms

at any rate, the only other suggestion i would have would be to reformulate the question title to more clearly reflect the primary focus of the answer

(that may just be my own hypersensitivity speaking)

That's very true. Even the 10 point pain scale was only invented to protect from ambiguous law suits (clamedly)

I could believe that - do you have something in mind?

I take it you find the mention of slavery and suffering to be extreme?

it's a bit leading, perhaps, but really i think i just have a strong preference towards formulating titles as questions

"What are the ethical implications of human-level artificial intelligence?" -- if that's really the question; "What are some philosophical perspectives on the nature/reality/character of suffering?" could be another formulation

you could use the question line as written: "could a sentient machine suffer?"

This seems reasonable, but I am a little afraid to title a question: what is suffering? So then I would say something like, could a machine suffer?

aha - that's your last bit, good

ok, consider it done

thanks -- though keep in mind that's just a suggestion :)

the question is fine as-is

thank you thank you

Anyhow, I'm off to join my family. Happy 4th to you. Enjoy the festivities

happy fourth! you too :)