哲学基本问题：物质怎么就决定意识了？

Hello everyone,

the big question to be discussed in this episode of the Big Questions program is

the mind-body problem.

Regarding this question,

those of us who have attended middle school all know that the standard answer

is that

matter determines consciousness, and matter is the first.

Consciousness is the long-term development of the material world. The product is the function of the human brain and the subjective image of the material world.

Of course, if you answer this way, you are definitely right.

When answering short answer questions in the middle school exam,

even if you don’t know anything,

first say "matter determines consciousness and consciousness reacts on matter." You can always get a few points

by attacking first

, but

it has been so many years since our college entrance examination.

Regarding this issue, if you still only know these few big words,

if I ask you to explain it in detail, you won’t be able to explain why.

Then we are here The level is still at the middle school level.

I remember when I was an undergraduate in college,

I majored in business.

I remember when I was a freshman

, the management teacher shared a business case in a management class

and then asked a classmate to analyze it. In this case,

this classmate stood up

without saying a word, opened his mouth, came here, and

immediately shocked the management teacher next to him.

Do you think this is a reward or not?

So in today’s short program,

we will talk about the relationship between consciousness and matter.

Let’s put aside these big words and talk about some detailed reasons.

Indeed, our human consciousness phenomenon is indeed a very magical existence.

Are we unique? mind?

Or are we just a body

like other animals or machines

? Does consciousness have an independence from matter

? Or is consciousness just a derivative of the material world?

If consciousness is derived from matter

, how is it derived?

In fact, this question is indeed a big question.

Some materials say that this question is a "basic question of philosophy."

Indeed, the answer to this question

also lays the foundation for answering a series of other big questions in philosophy,

such as the problem of free will, the problem of strong artificial intelligence, and the self. The issue of identity

, the issue of immortality of the soul, etc.

It can be said that the discussion of these big issues

ultimately needs to return to the discussion of this basic philosophical question. Regarding

this basic question,

today we will introduce the solutions of seven philosophical schools.

They are:

Of course, since there are relatively many factions introduced,

this program will last about an hour.

However, even so, the introduction of

this basic philosophical issue

in today’s short program of about one hour is definitely incomplete.

Today’s introduction is only Let's start with some

ideas for everyone to criticize and discuss. Now let's

go to the main part of the meeting.

First, we invite Descartes, the representative of entity dualism, to

appear. When talking about this issue of the relationship between consciousness and matter,

I have to say

that this pit was dug by the 17th-century French philosopher Descartes.

We started from From middle school textbooks, we can know that

Descartes is a dualist.

On the one hand, he believes that matter is an independent and self-contained entity.

On the other hand, he believes that spirit is also an entity that is independent and self-contained from matter.

Our simple understanding of the meaning of this entity is that it is

independent and self-contained. Things

can exist independently on their own without relying on other things.

Therefore, the two entities of matter and spirit are independent of each other

and have an inseparable relationship.

That's why we call this view dualism.

We have to say that

Descartes is first of all. A materialist

, he is a mathematician and physics after all.

He is not like some great gods who

just talk about the soul and destiny all day long.

Descartes still talks about science.

We need to know that in the 17th/18th century

The worldview of Western intellectuals has changed from the original religious worldview

to the "Cartesian-Newtonian" worldview.

What does this worldview mean?

It means following Newtonian mechanics.

To put it bluntly, it is a mechanistic worldview.

Simply put, there is nothing mysterious about this world. Everything in the

world is the basic movement of basic particles under basic forces.

This worldview is very materialistic. This was Descartes’s worldview at the time.

This materialistic worldview was very popular among the intellectual circles at the time.

If you are in the circle of friends It doesn't talk about mechanics or materialism. It

talks about Plato's ideas and Aristotle's forms.

It feels like your village has not yet connected to the Internet.

Descartes's mechanistic worldview

can not only explain things like Descartes also believed that

there is nothing mysterious about

objects such as stones, clouds, tables, and rags. The

human body is just a machine, a complex machine at most.

Our bones, blood vessels, and meridians are also equivalent to this. The components of a machine

are all in line with materialism

, but the following question arises.

Although materialism can explain everything in the world and even the human body

, Descartes believes that

there is only one thing that materialism cannot explain,

and that is human beings.

Why can't materialism

explain mental phenomena, that is, human consciousness ?

The reason Descartes gave

is quite similar to the reason given by the current artificial intelligence academic circle.

He asked

us if we can imagine that we can create a complex machine

. Can we simulate human-like consciousness?

Descartes believed that this was obviously impossible.

Descartes gave two reasons.

First, a machine cannot have human language capabilities.

A machine is just a repeater.

You can only store different memes in advance for it

, and then it just repeats these memes and does If you don’t play jokes creatively,

to put it simply, this machine itself has no jokes. What about

the second point? The machine can only do specific things.

It is not like us humans who can handle different things flexibly.

AlphaGo can only play chess but not I know how to clean,

let alone tell jokes,

so machines cannot simulate human consciousness,

so materialism cannot explain the phenomenon of consciousness.

Of course

, you may think that computer science in Descartes’ time has not yet been developed.

His argument is a bit rough

. Don’t worry. Descartes also has a trump card argument

, which is "I think,

therefore I am". The original intention of the argument is to find the certainty of knowledge.

Descartes asked

what things in this world definitely exist and can withstand doubt. Woolen cloth?

You say that this cup definitely exists because it can be seen and touched.

That’s not necessarily true.

We have all seen the movie "The Matrix". It

is very likely that we are living in the virtual world of the Matrix.

This is completely possible logically. So

the world in front of us, including all kinds of things

, even scientific knowledge and mathematical knowledge, can be doubted.

But here comes the key.

Descartes discovered that when I doubt everything with such thorough doubt,

the only thing that cannot be doubted is the doubt itself.

Because if I doubt that I am doubting, it means that I am still doubting.

Therefore, doubt itself cannot be doubted.

Then doubting is thinking.

Doubting is me. Thinking is me thinking.

So I can have no body

, but I cannot not have thinking,

so I think, so I It must exist.

This is "I think, therefore I am.

" "I think, therefore I am." That's how it came about.

After universal doubt, Descartes

discovered that such a thinking mind cannot be doubted. It is

a truly reliable thing.

Descartes' "I think, therefore I am."

The argument

"

in

_

_ Simply put , the meaning of high

is that it can be seen and touched.

The other kind of entity is the spiritual entity. It has no extension, that is, it cannot be seen or touched.

Its attribute is thinking.

These two entities are independent and real.

In fact, let's talk about

Descartes' dualism. In fact, it is in line with the common sense of our people.

Of course, the world is first of all material. Needless to say,

things in this world are extended and can be seen and touched.

It can be measured through physical instruments

, but we have to admit that

our mental phenomena are also real.

Although it is invisible and intangible

, we can still really feel that we are spiritual.

For example, when we are in love, Sometimes

we will question each other and say,

"Do you love my soul or are you just greedy for my body?

This all shows that our common sense is Cartesian.

We will think that spirit is different from matter

and even spirit is higher than matter.

We would hope that the other person fell in love with me because we read a lot of poetry

or told a good joke,

rather than because of my body

or the many coins in my account at Station B.

This is what Descartes said. A brief introduction to dualism.

After introducing dualism,

we will introduce the criticism of dualism.

In today's program,

every time we introduce the thoughts of a

school , we will also introduce the

basic philosophical issue of criticism of this school of thought.

In fact, there are different schools. There is a lot of quarrel among scholars

, so today we will introduce the pros and cons

for you to discuss.

Descartes

's dualism

seems

to be very complete

. The peaceful situation where water in a well does not interfere with the river

has encountered a bug in one thing.

What is this thing?

This thing is a human being.

We humans have both a material body and a spiritual consciousness.

The problem lies in

these two things. How does it interact?

For example, you watch our video program on your mobile phone.

This is a physical event

, but this physical event triggers a state of mind for you.

After you watch this program, what do you feel in your heart? I am very happy

and then this mental state triggers the next mental state,

which is that you want to like this program and cast coins.

Then this mental state triggers the next physical event

, that is, you actually move your finger to thumb up and cast coins.

The problem is The two steps

are how a physical event can cause a mental state

and how a mental state can cause a physical event. You

must know that

the physical world must comply with the law of conservation of mass and energy,

which means that

the causal relationship in the physical world must be Closed in the physical world,

something that is visible and tangible

must trigger the movement of another visible and tangible thing.

You say that an invisible and intangible state of mind

triggers a visible and tangible thing. The movement of matter

, Descartes, are you still a scientist

? Do you want to work here?

In fact,

the problem of mind-body interaction had already appeared when Descartes was alive. At

that time, Descartes had a fan girl

named Elizabeth of Bohemia. Princess

, she became obsessed with Descartes after reading Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy".

But Elizabeth was very talented

and saw the problem at a glance.

She wrote to Descartes and asked about

the human spirit and human body. How did they interact?

After receiving the letter, Descartes discovered

that I, a philosopher and ancient philosopher, have a girl? My fan is

also a princess. Let’s chat privately for a while.

So Descartes wrote back to answer this question.

At first, Descartes The answer is that the influence of the mind on the body

is similar to the influence of gravity on objects.

Descartes’s answer to a reader’s question in this issue was very clever. He

used the popular physics terms at the time to bluff people,

just like some boys and girls we have today. When chatting,

she always likes to talk about quantum spin and wave function collapse to

bluff people, making other girls stunned.

But Princess Elizabeth is an ignorant girl. She definitely doesn’t buy it.

Descartes sees that this female fan is not easy to fool

him. He also replied that this interaction between spirit and matter

occurs in a place called the pineal gland in the human brain.

Descartes himself also drew a schematic diagram

saying that in this pineal gland,

material things can be converted into spiritual things. into matter

, but this answer is still very confusing.

You said that the pineal gland is the place where matter and spirit are converted into each other

. So how exactly does it convert?

So is the pineal gland itself material or spiritual?

This is a huge pit that Descartes dug for later generations of philosophers.

It is the so-called mind-body problem.

How do our spiritual existence, the mind, and the material existence, the body, interact? It

can be said about the future development of philosophy of mind.

To a large extent, they are filling the hole dug by Descartes,

which is also answering Princess Elizabeth’s question to Descartes.

In fact, the root of this mind-body problem is what we call

consciousness and the relationship between consciousness and matter. The root cause of the problem of

mind-body interaction

is that Descartes had to insist on a kind of dualism.

He had to separate consciousness and matter into two different entities.

In order to solve the problem of mind-body interaction,

later philosophers generally believed that

we must abandon dualism and return to dualism. As for monism,

most of the monism before Descartes was idealistic,

that is , matter and spirit were well unified

through some Platonic idea or the Christian God.

But after Descartes,

it was all after the scientific revolution. In the world,

not many intellectuals are willing to take the road of idealism.

The current mainstream scientists and philosophers all follow materialism

, or to use a more common term in the academic world, it is called physicalism. Physicalism

is what we usually call

materialism. A version of

physicalism that combines the development of modern natural science. Simply put, it means that

all things that really exist in the world

are based on physics and can be described clearly by natural science

, including physics, chemistry, biology and other natural sciences.

In addition, if Things that cannot be explained clearly by physics are not real.

So if the phenomenon of human consciousness is described using physicalism,

it can only be described clearly using scientific language such as brain nerves, molecules, and atoms. At most,

one quantum is added.

Other than that, don’t do any mysterious chores.

This is physicalism.

Well, the next problem is that

since philosophers and scientists who insist on physicalism believe that matter determines consciousness

, they will face such a difficult problem

: the state of mind of consciousness. How is it derived from material things?

What is the derived mechanism?

Well,

in this episode,

let’s introduce several theories from the physicalist camp.

Let’s see how they fill the hole Descartes dug.

Let’s first introduce the relationship between epiphenomenalist

consciousness and matter.

Let’s first introduce it. Let’s introduce one solution in materialism,

which is epiphenomenalism.

Before explaining what epiphenomenalism is, let’s take a closer look. As

mentioned before, physicalists want to solve the problem of mind-body interaction.

In fact, they want to explain what consciousness is. Or

rather, it

can explain what our human mental state is.

However, since you are from the materialist camp,

when you use materialism to explain the human mental state,

you must follow the following two creeds

. Otherwise, Are you not a materialist?

Then these two tenets are:

first, observing the closed nature of physical cause and effect.

You can't just leave it here to perform power from a distance.

Second, observing that matter determines consciousness.

In other words, consciousness is a product derived from matter.

It is to use the scientific language of physicalism to describe the phenomenon of human consciousness

instead of doing any mysterious and complicated work.

Under the premise of adhering to these tenets,

the homework materialists have to do is

how to use the language of physicalism. It is to use scientific language to explain the human state of mind.

To resolve the somewhat mysterious sounding state of mind

using the language of physicalism

, that is, to write a clear description on the right side of the equal sign that can be explained clearly in the scientific language of physicalism.

Okay, so the answer given by

the epiphenomenalist on the right side of the equal sign for what is a mental state

is that the mental state is an epiphenomenon of the movement of matter.

What is an epiphenomenon?

English is by-products, which means by-products,

just like the smoke produced by the train, the shadow left by the billiard ball rolling across the table,

or the squeak made by new shoes.

You see, smoke, shadows and squeaks are all by-products. By-products

affect the operation of the system. They don't play any role.

They are just products of accompanying nature.

Let's draw a picture to explain it and it will be clear at a glance.

For example, if you watch the show Dialectic,

it is a physical event

, and you feel very happy in your heart

, and then something comes up in your brain. The desire to vote for a thumbs up

, and then move your finger to actually vote for a thumbs up.

These boxes are all physical events

, and these round boxes are mental states.

What really happens in this world is just the physics in the boxes. event

and the state of mind in the circle is just a by-product.

The box caused the circle, but the circle stopped there. The circle

will not cause any further events.

So you give Big Questions a thumbs up and a coin. What is

the correct way to describe this event? It is

you who saw this video, which triggered your brain activity

, and this brain activity triggered your action of tossing in coins and likes.

These are all conductive relationships between physical events.

You feel happy in your heart, and you want to toss in coins and like.

These mental states are just by-products

and will not trigger the next event.

If you look at the plan of epiphenomenalism, it avoids

the use of special functions to break the closure of physical cause and effect.

It also adheres to the creed that matter determines consciousness

. To put it bluntly, epiphenomenalism

means that your conscious phenomena are useless mental pollution.

Do you think that your reflection and imagination all day long will have an impact on your real life?

What you don’t have

is not that you first think about how I should live in your mind

and then you live according to your ideas.

Ask yourself

where do you come from so much reflection in your life?

You get up every morning, eat, go to work, fish, get off work, and talk. When you're in love or when you have children,

don't you just live how you should live according to the inertia of life?

You think about

everything all day long and a

robot who doesn't think about anything all day long, eats or drinks, doesn't take it to heart,

actually life doesn't mean much. The substantive difference.

The only difference between you and that robot is that

there is some extra mental pollution in your brain.

This is a simple summary of epiphenomenalism.

The

human mental state is a by-product of material movement

, but it itself will not cause new events. Now

that we’ve introduced epiphenomenalism,

let’s introduce some criticisms of it.

The first criticism of epiphenomenalism is

that it’s too counterintuitive, right?

What? Are mental states just a by-product?

The state of mind cannot cause the next event?

For example, if you like this video and vote for it, what

we intuitively feel is that it is

because we are very happy in our hearts that our mental state triggers the action of liking and voting for this video. For

example

, for example, for

example, if you have a girlfriend,

she She is very nice to you and waits for you to cook delicious dinner for you every day after work.

Epiphenomenalism insists on saying that she is very nice to you. It is not because of her inner love for you.

You insist on treating your girlfriend as a robot.

This love cannot be helped. Of course

,

if you think this criticism based on common sense is not strong enough,

there is another criticism from the perspective of evolution.

That is to say,

epiphenomenalism violates the principle of parsimony of natural selection.

This means that millions of Over the years,

nature has allowed us to evolve a brain trait that can produce mental states.

Epiphenomenalists actually say that these mental states are useless.

You must know that the energy consumption of our human brain is very large,

among all mammals. The mass of the human brain, which consumes the most energy,

only accounts for 5% of the entire body, but its energy consumption accounts for 20%.

A large amount of energy consumption is the result of conscious activities.

You epiphenomenalists can say that these energy consumptions are all useless. So

why did millions of years of natural selection

select such a useless but energy-consuming trait?

If it was really useless,

wouldn't it have been eliminated by natural selection long ago?

So this epiphenomenalism is a bit intellectually lazy,

and it is just a very simple and crude way to fill the hole Descartes dug

, right

? What? Do people have psychic phenomena?

Then cover your eyes,

I won’t look, I won’t look!

I pretended it didn't exist! I thought it was just an epiphenomenon!

Then we can maintain the closure of physical cause and effect.

It seems too easy to say this, right? After

introducing epiphenomenalism,

let’s introduce another materialist plan.

Behaviorism

’s answer to the relationship between consciousness and matter

is the materialist camp. There is also a solution called behaviorism.

What is behaviorism?

We don’t want to talk about dualism, material entities, spiritual entities, epiphenomena.

We don’t want to talk about essences, entities, etc.

These are all metaphysical presuppositions. To be clear,

you said you have a spiritual entity. Why don't you take it out and show it to me? If you

can't take it out, don't

talk about

it. Let's talk about it . Let's talk about things that can be actually measured.

What can be measured?

People. Behavior, to

put it simply, is what we Chinese say when discussing things, regardless of

your heart. Don’t talk about what you think in your heart.

We can’t explain it clearly.

We only look at what you do.

So the behaviorist explanation of people’s mental state is

the mind

.

State is equal to a person's behavioral tendency

. For example, someone comes to me and says, Mr.

What do I mean by love from the heart?

What is a deer collision?

How much do you like it from the bottom of your heart?

How many newtons of force did the deer collide with?

Can it break the phone screen?

I can't feel your heart.

Your heart is a black box to me.

Your love for this show

must be reflected in a way that everyone can measure.

For example, you should translate your love for this show. Cheng

Na, after observing your series of behavioral operations,

I can tell

that you really like this program.

So behaviorism focuses on input and output

, and what inner experience is experienced between input and output.

From the perspective of behaviorism, complex change

is a black box . Let's not talk about it.

We only look at the physical events at both ends of the input and output

, or only the stimulus and response.

Behaviorism does not presuppose any invisible and intangible mental entities

. It is necessary to eliminate all those things that cannot be measured or verified.

This is in line with the spirit of Occam's razor, which is "Don't add entities unless necessary.

So under this logic,

for example, your girlfriend treats you very well

every day . I cooked delicious dinner for you after work.

In this case, we can conclude that your girlfriend actually loves you very much. We

can determine the state of mind of a person through her actions,

even if your girlfriend is a robot.

As long as she is good to you in terms of behavioral tendencies,

she will truly love you.

In fact, this is also in line with

the spirit of the Turing test proposed by Alan Turing,

the father of computer science . The Turing test is a test used to test whether a computer has reached the level of human intelligence.

We don’t want to make conceptual definitions.

We don’t want to talk about what model this computer conforms to

or what advanced technology it is made of.

Instead, we use a behavioral approach to define it.

After you chat with this computer on QQ

for a long time, If you are not sure whether it is a computer or a real person,

then we can say that this computer has passed the Turing test and

has the level of human intelligence.

This is the behaviorist plan.

In a simple summary

, the state of mind is equivalent to behavioral tendencies.

Let’s not talk about it. Those invisible and intangible spiritual entities are black boxes.

We only look at the physical events at both ends of the input and output. Now that we

have introduced behaviorism,

let’s introduce its criticisms. Criticisms

of behaviorism focus on this point,

that is,

you behaviorists equate mental state with behavioral tendencies.

Is this too much?

Then if we want to refute your words,

we only need to find out

that there is a corresponding mental state but no corresponding behavioral tendency.

Then the equal sign you drew is wrong.

For example,

most of us will cry out if we are pricked by a

needle . Everyone will show a mask of pain

, but the question is, does feeling pain equal a mask of pain?

We can imagine that there is a well-trained actor

or a well-trained agent.

You torture him to extract a confession, for example, stick him with a needle.

He will not show pain due to years of training.

The mask will act very calm and He happily faces

a physical event like you pricking him with a small needle with a smile on his face.

But can you

conclude that he doesn't feel pain in his heart just because he doesn't show a mask of pain?

Therefore, the equation drawn by behaviorism is a bit arbitrary and too full of words.

In the final analysis, it must translate all mental states into behavioral tendencies.

But the question is,

can all mental states be translated?

There are a lot of duplicity scenes in our lives

, especially when facing our girlfriends.

If there are some mental states that you can't translate,

just ignore them as a black box

and use Occam's razor to eliminate the other person's thoughts. Then

I guess you'll never find a girlfriend. After

introducing behaviorism,

let's introduce another materialist scheme,

identity theory

. The original intention of identity theory is also to fill the hole Descartes dug.

Descartes had to insist on a kind of dualism

, and then Through a pineal gland, material things are transformed into spiritual things.

This creates a problem of interaction between the body and the mind.

The identity theory says that

we do not want dualism. We are staunch materialists.

All mental states can be reduced to physics. To be precise, the mechanism

is to restore it to the state of the brain

. Therefore, the answer given by the identity theorists on the right side of the equal sign is that

the state of the mind is actually the same as the state of the brain.

The state of the mind and the state of the brain are actually the same thing. They

are the same.

The "identity" of this identity theory "That's what it means.

This identity theory actually follows a reductionist approach.

What is reductionism?

Reductionism is a very typical physicalist approach,

which means that all high-order mental states can be reduced to low-level mental states. The identity theory

is to restore the mental state to the neural state of the human brain.

Of course, this identity theory also benefits from the development of brain science.

Brain science tells us that

your feelings and thoughts are actually a series of discharges of your brain's neural network. It’s just a process.

Each of your mental states

actually corresponds to a specific wiring state of the brain nerves.

For example, if you are pricked by a

needle, you feel pain

in your heart and shout: Ah! I feel pain.

In fact, according to the reductionism of identity theory,

this sentence should be translated as:

Ah,

my brain nerve C fibers are stimulated.

Then the claim of identity theory makes this theory very smooth,

and it solves the problem of flute very well. The pitfall of the mind-body interaction problem that Karl dug

is, for example, if you watch this video,

you feel happy in your heart

, and then you have the desire to like and throw coins

, and then you start to like and throw coins, and

use identity theory to explain

each of your actions. They all correspond to a neurological state.

One state triggers the next state.

Regardless of whether the event is a mental state or a physical state,

it can actually be reduced to one neurological state of your brain

triggering the next neurological state.

This solution avoids side effects. The bug between phenomenalism and behaviorism

is that they cannot explain that mental states cause physical states

because neither school admits the existence of mental states.

However, identity theory can explain it

because the causal relationship between any events is actually

a state of brain nerves. Does it make sense to say that there is

a causal relationship between the two? After

introducing the identity theory,

let's introduce some criticisms of it.

The criticisms of the identity theory can be simply summarized into two

points. The first is that it cannot explain the subjectivity of consciousness.

How do you say this?

One of the efforts of identity theory

is to translate all mental states into

brain states that can be studied through the third-person perspective.

Because the natural science of physicalism emphasizes the third person,

in fact, it is what we often call " "Objectivity"

but

can this kind of translation fully explain people's mental state?

It misses an important feature of human consciousness,

which is that consciousness is subjective.

Each of us can

intuitively experience that we are conscious and feel from a first-person perspective

. This subjective feeling is sometimes difficult. Use language to explain it clearly.

For example , if you translate the subjective experience of pain

into a third-person description of the state

, what does it mean? C nerve fibers are stimulated and

it doesn’t have that flavor. This

loses many important features of consciousness.

So this kind of The philosopher Thomas Thomas taught that it is incomplete

. Nagel conducted a thought experiment

to refute this reductionist physicalism.

He asked

what it was like to be a bat.

This question is a bit like Zhihu.

We know that

bats perceive the outside world through the echolocation of sonar.

Bats emit fast high-frequency screams and then perceive the direction through echoes.

Of course, as a scientist, you

can put a A bat was disemboweled and studied the sonar system on its body

to understand every detail of the bat's body structure.

But the problem is that

even if you study the physical structure of the bat more clearly,

do you dare to say that you have experienced the experience of being a bat? ?

Do you dare to post on Zhihu to answer this question?

You can't answer this question,

so Nagel believes that

mental states are not completely equivalent to brain states.

The identity theory is incomplete.

The second criticism of the identity theory is that

the identity theory equates mental states with human brain states.

This is a kind of carbon-based chauvinism.

What does this mean?

Does it mean that

only carbon-based materials like the human brain can produce the corresponding mental state?

Is your statement too arbitrary

? If the human brain were not made of carbon-based material,

it would not produce mental states?

Philosopher Hillary. Putnam used artificial intelligence as an example

.

Although we are currently technically unable to build

a computer that can produce a state of mind similar to that of humans

, it can be done in theory.

So if there is such a thing? A supercomputer

also has emotions and feelings. It

says it feels pain.

But we can say that

this computer does not have any C nerve fibers