i wouldn’t have done it if the paper didn’t say it was itself.
Arguably the paper here is personifying itself, our interpretation of it is dependent on whether or not we want to believe the paper or not. I’m not the one ascribing the emotion of sadness to the paper, it’s the paper ascribing it to itself. I’m merely interpreting what the paper says to be the probable truth here.
because that’s what the paper said, and i’m allowed to think whatever i want to think. Maybe i think the papers true because for the purposes of this thread, it makes my shitpost funny, maybe i think it’s true because i think the concept of sentience is bullshit.
Maybe i’m just lying and i don’t actually think it’s true, but i’m just saying it is for the statement.
You’re personifying the paper by assuming that it can feel an emotion
i wouldn’t have done it if the paper didn’t say it was itself.
Arguably the paper here is personifying itself, our interpretation of it is dependent on whether or not we want to believe the paper or not. I’m not the one ascribing the emotion of sadness to the paper, it’s the paper ascribing it to itself. I’m merely interpreting what the paper says to be the probable truth here.
And why do you interpret what the paper says (that it can feel sadness) as true ?
because that’s what the paper said, and i’m allowed to think whatever i want to think. Maybe i think the papers true because for the purposes of this thread, it makes my shitpost funny, maybe i think it’s true because i think the concept of sentience is bullshit.
Maybe i’m just lying and i don’t actually think it’s true, but i’m just saying it is for the statement.