Anyone think it's possible objects can have feelings?
Let's say you have a car or an old chair or pair of shoes or anything you really love. Doesn't love put a powerful energy out there?
I sometime think what if you are selling your old car and it's silently crying and screaming, "No! Please don't give me away. You're my daddy. I love you. Don't send me to live with strangers.
I think of this as I'm getting ready (out of financial necessity not because I want to) to sell my dad's old car that I tried my best to keep going but just can't afford to keep it up or afford gas anymore. I'm already haunted at the thought of it silently crying out for the only family it's ever known and its garage, the only home it has ever had.
I think plants have feelings
Yes, R1, but those are actually alive so it's possible.
You're nuts OP. Just plain nuts.
Nope. But this thread makes me wonder if people have thoughts.
R3, while I think OP overstates the case somewhat, he does have a point. Many people feel an attachment to an old car and feel that it is almost like a member of the family.
There was an episode of 'The Wonder Years' where Fred Savage talks about how difficult it was to give away the old family car and replace it with a new one.
You're projecting your feelings onto the car.
Is David Byrne among us tonight?
You rode the shortbus to school as a child, didn't you OP?
Are you kidding? Of course they do.
When I was a kid all my toys were friends (and I was a kid many years before Toy Story was released) and I've never really outgrown that feeling. It actually helps me get things done.
I empty my dishwasher right away so all my plate and glasses and cutlery can return to their friends in the cupboard.
I do the same thing when I do laundry. Everything is taken out of the dryer and returned to their companions in the closet and dresser.
Oh and I had a big meltdown when I traded in my last car. So don't feel alone!
Yes, OP, it's possible.
OP, you made me think of something from when I was a kid. I must have been 7 or 8. Mom and I went grocery shopping. We got home and I was helping bring the bags in. A glass bottle of vinegar fell out and broke on the driveway. I cried heaving wracking sobs. When my mom asked why I was carrying on so, I knew I couldn't tell her that I was crying because now the bottle of vinegar couldn't fulfill it's purpose in life. I couldn't say that because I knew she'd think I was nuts.
OP, were you molested as a child? One of my friends assigns feelings to things like her cans of chef boyardee ravioli and is afraid her pillow will get lonely without its friend. I won't get into her blankie and stuffed animal.
I was molested as a child but never that stupid.
Actually op....the thoughts you are having regarding physical objects just means you have a great deal of empathy and it spills over to inanimate objects...Good for you!! Not a bad quality to have as a person.
I know that my Tom Chase dildo by Falcon loves me.
Anyone who rides a motorcycle will tell you that people do "bond" with their motorcycles. I have sold motorcycles that I never "bonded" with and it was relatively easy. But selling a motorcycle you are really attached to... It's damned near impossible.
Perhaps we only feel this way about motor vehicles.
OP, you're a delusional idiot. Inanimate objects cannot possibly have "feelings" because they have no nervous system or chemical reactions with which to model emotions or thoughts.
That was pretty much my childhood OP. I still feel bad when I see empty houses - do they miss the families that once lived there?
I don't think I was molested as a kid. However, I pretty much have zero memories for my 9th and 10th year of life.
[quote]I still feel bad when I see empty houses - do they miss the families that once lived there?
It's a complete waste of your emotions, time, and thoughts ... and no, it doesn't.
Because it can't.
You're nuts, OP.
Nobody places higher value on objects than I do. They've been a preoccupation since I was very young, a course of study, a profession, and more for as long as I can remember.
Objects may evoke associations. They do not have "feelings."
Hanging onto an automobile of a dead relative out of sentiment might be fine for a few years...so long as it's practical. Cars come quickly to mind when asked to think about transitory objects; they are as disposable as paper plates, just on a somewhat longer time frame. If something is talking to you, it's your own mind asking what kind of fool thing was it ever to latch onto a car --of all things-- as a memento of your father?
A sensible person choosing mementos looks for something portable and durable and rich in association -- a watch fob to attach to your key chain, a gold watch to keep in a desk drawer, a favorite chair or piece of furniture or a shelf full of his favorite books. A car fails on all accounts, and you know it.
Some of you may enjoy the linked documentary about objectsexuals called "Married to the Eiffel Tower".
I've often wondered if an inanimate object has feelings; but January Jones assures me she does.
don't pick on fat girls r27
I swear I hear my grass screaming as I mow it. I can't help but feel a little guilty
OP = simpleton
I "know for a fact" that my cars love me because I've never had one to suffer a breakdown that left me on the side of a road.
I custom order my cars from the dealers and I keep them much longer than the average person -- 12 years, 18 years, 12 years (current car still going strong.)
I'm there from when they roll off the auto-carrier till the day I donate them. I have their bills of sale, the window stickers, all tax receipts, and their complete service records.
You love them, they'll "love" you back.
Sex objects have feelings.
R32, stop being stupid.
I don't really know if it's possible, but in my mind they can.
And apparently that idea bring out some peoples' rage issues.
I bonded with my couch.
R35, stupid idiotic nonsense is stupid idiotic nonsense. And if you "don't know" whether inanimate objects can have feelings or not, you're a fucking idiot.
I don't know what 2 + 2 is equal to. I know that there are many people who say "4," but, in my mind, I think the more obvious answer is "22."
I guess the jury's still out on this one.
Most people have limited feelings, so I'm inclined to think that inanimate objects have none.
If "feelings" are nothing more than electrical impulses, why can't a car have "feelings"?
They're electrical impulses (even gas powered ones create and use electricity). So it's possible they could have "feelings".
Probably not very developed or self aware but they could.
[quote]If "feelings" are nothing more than electrical impulses, why can't a car have "feelings"?
Dumb-ass question. Seriously?
[quote]They're electrical impulses (even gas powered ones create and use electricity). So it's possible they could have "feelings".
No, it's not.
Dear lord, what the fuck happened to education in this country?
My car told me to tell you she hates you, R41.
You're just going to name call and not give any insight, r41.
What ever happened to maturity in this country?
R43, anyone stupid enough to think cars can have feelings isn't going to understand OR accept any insights or explanations.
But if you're really interested, you can start by reading "Godel, Escher, and Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid" for a starting point in undrestanding consciousness, self-reference, self-awareness, etc... all of which are necessary prerequisites for something as complicated as "emotion".
Saying "Well, there's electricity and feelings are electricity, so cars can feel" is as stupid as saying "I'm made mostly of water, and that glass of Koolaid is made mostly of water, therefore it can pass the SATs like I did!"
It's just beyond ignorant. I don't even know where to start with this kind of stuff. I have to wonder how you even put your pants on in the morning if you're so stupid you can't figure out why inanimate objects can't, by definition, have feelings.
R44--you missed the mark.
It's more Ike saying "I'm ade mostly of water, and that glass of Koolaid is made mostly of water, therefore, it can get a score of 600 on its SATs like I did.
Most Datalounge posters have less feeling than objects.
I think this video might speak to the point op is trying to make. Interesting discovery.
The question remains as to whether or not you believe water is considered to be inanimate or not.
And I pity the fool like r44 who has no imagination and can't even entertain an idea without being threatened by it.
So, r48, I imagine you live in fear of the giant moth who is going to devour humanity.
R48, I'm not threatened by the utterly stupid notion that inanimate objects might have feelings. It's just ridiculously false.
This is not to say I don't have imagination. I do. A very rich one, in fact. It's just that, unlike you, apparently, I can tell the difference between imagination and reality.
R47, the point remains whether you're gullible and ignorant enough to fall for pseudo-scientific clap-trap.
Of course they do! I just mercifully beat the living shit out of my dining room chair for stubbing my toe!!
I used to feel bad when I didn't play with some of my toys when I was little. Now, I feel bad when I don't listen to some songs on my iPod. Weird, I know.
I think that's called autism, OP.
"Anyone think it's possible objects can have feelings?"
Pretty much the entire CW acting roster was hired based on that premise.
Wasn't this an IKEA commercial?
Here's something to think about. I didn't write it, I copied it from someone else:
"Before you judge others or claim any absolute truth, remember that you can see less than 1 percent of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1 percent of the acoustic spectrum.
"As you read this, you are traveling at 220 kilometers per second across the galaxy.
"Ninety percent of the cells in your body contain their own microbial DNA and are not 'you.'
"The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999 percent empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star.
"Human beings have 46 chromosomes, two fewer than the common potato.
"The existence of a rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don’t just look at a rainbow, you create it.
"This is pretty amazing, considering that all the beautiful colors you see represent less than one percent of the electromagnetic spectrum."
R57 here again: I don't pretend to have answers, but this is a good reminder than no one else in human form knows as much as they pretend to know, either.
Our human ability to perceive and understand how the world works is necessarily limited by the very nature of our bodies and our brains.
[quote]So you don’t just look at a rainbow, you create it.
That line is utter bullshit. Wrong.
And none of that otherwise interesting post leads to any conclusion anywhere hear inanimate objects having anything like human "feelings". Please.
Also, our human ability to perceive and understand is greatly augmented by the tools we have created, which allow us to perceive the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, hear almost all possible sounds, and perceive everything from the tiniest atomic particle to the largest super-galactic cluster. We know and undertand a lot about the nature of consciousness and feelings, enough to know that it's impossible for a rock, a toy, a car, or a lamp to have either.
There will come a day when computers are complex and sophisticated enough that we can start to talk about consciousness, feelings, and intelligence in them. But that day is pretty far away from now.
Isn't this how hoarding begins?
I talk to my cars and give them names (current one: Max). I thank them for providing me a safe trip. A couple times cars have saved my life, but that's another thread.
R59 apparently doesn't understand the point that there not only may be, but certainly are a myriad phenomena in our world that we are not equipped to perceive.
That doesn't mean those phenomena don't exist, just that we don't have a clue about them.
So he can stamp his feet and insist he knows all about the scientific world, but he's like a creature without conical photoreceptors who insists that rainbows don't exist.
R62 has a point, but at the same time fails to understand that humans have understood this and have created myriad tools to look at things we are not physically equipped to perceive.
Is it your assertion, R63, that nothing exists in the universe we haven't invented a tool to reveal to us?
Considering what we've learned in the past hundred years, 50 years, even the last 10 years, it seems ludicrous to me that someone is willing to assume we know all that is.
Our doctors were still bleeding people only a few generations ago, and chemical poisoning and radiation burning are still the most effective treatments we have for cancer.
I just think the universe is likely to hold a lot of information we and our most sophisticated tools haven't discerned yet.
Yeah, but ... inanimate objects cannot have feelings unless they are haunted or otherwise contain something "our most sophisticated tools haven't discovered yet." Normal, everyday objects (without a curse or supernatural unknown element or other gray area) such as our cars, lamps, soda bottles, forks, house structures, newspapers and the other million inanimate objects in our lives cannot logically have feelings as they are made of inanimate materials.
Someone who thinks they do may have schizophrenia or an intellectual disability.
[quote]apparently doesn't understand the point that there not only may be, but certainly are a myriad phenomena in our world that we are not equipped to perceive.
I obviously DO understandthe point, since I made it myself. It's the entire reason why I mentioned all the ways we augment our limited perceptions in order to better examine the world around us, using tools of all sorts.
But what the fuck does that have to do with inanimate objects having FEELINGS?
[quote]That doesn't mean those phenomena don't exist, just that we don't have a clue about them.
I agree. But how is that relevant to the point being raised, about inanimate objects having FEELINGS?
[quote]So he can stamp his feet and insist he knows all about the scientific world, but he's like a creature without conical photoreceptors who insists that rainbows don't exist.
Obnoxious, and irrelevant. There is a SPECIFIC issue being discussed. And it's not about perception. It's about even the remote possibility. It's about physics, mechanics, and the concept of self-awareness. You don't need "cones" to perceive something else's feelings. That THING itself needs a neural network and all sorts of active chemical interactions in order for itself to perceive feelings.
You're the worst sort of debater... someone who not only engages in name-calling, but many logical fallacies, and who perpetuates pseudo-scientific nonsense as a basis for your argument, trying to sound intelligent but completely missing the point.
In order for something to have FEELINGS, it must posess a mechanism to have them. Inanimate objects, BY DEFINITION, do not.
You don't know anything you're asserting at all, R66. Maybe all matter has consciousness and feelings and we just don't know how to detect them or interpret them.
You can insist you know the answer, but you don't.
I don't know the answer, either, but all we can be certain of is that we don't know.
[quote]Maybe all matter has consciousness and feelings and we just don't know how to detect them or interpret them.
Oh Jesus. Clearly I know a hell of a lot more than you do. Christ.
Your argument is basically "Nobody can ever know anything", which is utterly stupid. But that's the position you're taking. And it's wrong of course.
Just like it's utterly absurd to even THINK that inanimate objects can have feelings.
Stop trying to change the argument.
When I pick out produce sometimes I'll take a tomato or apple with a little bruise on it. I feel bad for it, no one wants it.
A lady at work gave me an impractical coffee mug, but it was a gift and I feel bad for it in the cabinet while the more popular mugs get used. So I use it on Saturday afternoon for my coffee or tea break.
My mother once bought a Jim Nabors album in the 70's because she felt bad for it. Or maybe him.
I arrange my stuffed animals neatly on their shelf when I take them off the bed at night because I feel bad for them if I dont put them comfortably so they can see the room and not be cramped.
My brother tortured my sisters Barbie dolls when I was young, he kept shooting them with the hose outside and was making pretend they were being drowned. Did I feel bad for them? I cried, seriously. Maybe because she cried.
A girl in my kindergarten class cried because her braid and ribbon became undone. Our teacher tried to do a quick fix but failing this, she said "your mother will fix it when you get home, ok?" which made the girl cry and I almost cried, for the girl but also for the braid.
My sister once took a handful of chicken mcnuggets and tossed them on each of her kids plates carelessly, I felt bad for the kids for having such a shitty mother but also felt bad for the mcnuggets because they weren't handled nicely.
Many people who have tripped on 5MEO DMT have encountered, as the late Terence McKenna put it, 'clockwork elves' which can both inhabit and create sentient objects. When it's a commonly experienced thing, you could wonder if DMT might somehow be a window into the nature of reality. After all, theoretical physicists are pushing toward theories of the universe in which there exist hidden dimensions and energy. It's all very weird.
R71 YOU are projecting YOUR FEELINGS onto these objects. The objects are not having the feelings, YOU ARE.
If the zodiac can be sought here, speaking about gray areas, I would hazard a guess you have a strong Cancer element in your chart.
R70, I'm not changing the argument. I'm speaking directly to OP's question, and we don't know the answer.
The scientific method does not support your assertion. One of the tenets of the scientific method is that we cannot prove a negative.
Thus, at this point, science has proved all living things have consciousness, but has not proved the same about what we call inert matter.
If non-living matter does not have consciousness, that question will remain unanswered, because, again, the scientific method as we now implement it cannot prove a negative.
So while you're behaving all self-righteous about what you think you know, perhaps you could learn something by actually studying scientific theory.
The object will only be lonely until it ends up with thousands of new friends in the landfill.
OP's theory is the whole premise behind Toy Story and Winnie the Pooh (the author wrote about his son's stuffed animals).
Although the OP is not rational, many have had the some thoughts/worries, esp. children, so many books and movies have been based on this idea/feeling.
Some of you are seriously deranged, and you sound like hoarders.
I'll bet your houses are filled to the brim.
Do you not flush your toilet because you're afraid your turds will miss you? Or are you reuniting it with all it's turd friends living in the septic tank? Or do you not shit in the toilet because you don't want your turds to drown?
I had to get rid of my car when I caught it presenting its tailpipe to other cars.
It was a whore, darlin'.
I don't really think that objects have feelings. That said, my coffee table is a racist.
R74, you're just wrong on all counts. Perhaps you should educate yourself. Because your education and knowledge is obviously and severely lacking.
You are the epitome of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Seriously. You're spouting nonsense and don't even realize it.
R74, when you get into high school, try to get into a real science class.
R74 You are saying that science hasn't proven that inanimate objects aren't conscious.
This is why the rest of us say you're nuts, because yes, this has been proven. In all your blather about science, you've forgotten a key point: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. There has been and continues to be no evidence than inanimate objects have feelings. They are not alive like plants.
My computer doesn't feel tired if I use it too much and my couch doesn't breathe. Science tells me those things. If I go against that and believe otherwise, I probably have psychological or emotional problems like some hoarders do or I think a magazine photo can speak to me like some schizophrenics do.
Some children go through stages of thinking that non-alive objects have feelings, but that is proven to be due to certain intellectual stages not yet being reached. This is like if you take the same amount of water, but put it into two different containers and many little kids won't yet be able to see that the same amounts of water are in two different containers. They'll think one is bigger and one is smaller. Heck, some adults don't have the brain power ever to do this kind of reasoning.
I'm all for gray areas and the unexplained possibilities beyond our obvious realm, but scientific evidence that's stood the test of time for 100s of years counts for something too, R74.
R82, r74 will return and explain that science hasn't proven that if you look though all possible universes throught all of time, you won't encounter a thinking lawn mower or a dab of mashed potatoes capable of posting messages on Internet forums. R74 believes that anything is possible, even the impossible.
It's best with these kinds of people to nod politely and remove yourself from the situation.
[quote]Do you not flush your toilet because you're afraid your turds will miss you? Or are you reuniting it with all it's turd friends living in the septic tank? Or do you not shit in the toilet because you don't want your turds to drown?
Another YES :) they do :)))))
Just think for short... children know everything, they feel, the see, they hear stuff, we do not.. this is not because this is fantasy, or because this a child... This is because we cannot see! We cannot know the same things children know! We cannot hear the same things they hear! If a child has an imaginary friend - the imaginary friend does exist :) And because someone once said this is impossible.. this doesn't mean it is ;) don't you think so :)
Little by little parents are letting their children to be their teachers in life :) cause they know much more then us :) why? because nobody put borders against them ;)
So the same is the logic with the toys :)
They do have aura (as every object), why shouldn't they have feelings? :) Just think about it :)
Smiles from me :)
Everything is possible like in our dreams :)
just today, i happen to open up my pleasure chest with my giant inflatable dildo and i discovered a single red rose. and i am frequently assaulted at nite by him prodding at my cooch. if objects don't have feelings then i beg anyone to tell me what does all this mean?
r10, seek professional help, and write back. I care
Abby...or was it Anne?
Someone watched the Brave Little Toaster
I love R88 - that was the very first thought I had when I saw the title of this thread.
I still miss mein, 'Dieter' - my dear little '88 VW Fox. He was bought up by a collector who could properly afford to care for him (and plans to race him), so I know he's okay (and much happier) but, yeah. I cried. Hated to sell him.
My main concern is if this is what some people actually pay $18.00 to come here and read. Has DL given free membership to a school for autistics or something?
My Xtra Large, Black Dildo LOVES me!
Jesus, what a bunch of wackjobs.
I really enjoyed this thread when it was originally being authored. It embodies what I like about this website, real honest tender replies and gentle but knowing parodies mixed with qualitative reasoning and quality arguments.
I dismiss the posters simply posting "idiots" or something equally reductive. Please, leave this thread alone. I feel sorry for it being trampled on.
I know a group of eighteen one dollar bills that feel wasted
OP, are you the poster whose glass of water talks or sings to you?
LSD much, OP?
I don't understand how someone like r85 can function in society.
Poster "A" argues that a brain is required for conscious thought, awareness, and feelings to exist.
Poster "B" argues that consciousness may exist in inanimate objects through auras, vibrations, other dimensions that operate by different rules. Or something.
Poster "A" believes that the scientific method is the best approach to truth.
Poster "B" believes that science is too limiting. That free thinking is less stifling. That science doesn't know everything. That anything that the imagination can conceive is as valid as known science, because there is so much we can't know.
Poster "A" probably believes his existence ends when he dies, since his brain cells will forever stop the electrochemical processes and synapses responsible for his thoughts, self-awareness, emotions, that represent his personality.
Poster "B" probably believes in some form of consciousness after death because it "feels right."
Poster B also talks to inanimate objects and puts himself in the poorhouse catering to their needs.
Poster B also believes these objects talk to him in English even though none of them have actually been to school to learn English.
We can also infer that Poster B, since he does not believe in science, did not in fact change the oil every 3,000 miles and that the car, if it could talk, would not have very nice things to say to Poster B.
Maybe they communicate telepathically in some universal language....
Let's differentiate between people having feelings about objects, & vice versa.
Since people have emotions, of course it's possible for them to feel sentimental, loving, regretful, sad, etc. about their cars (or whatever).
But the corollary isn't true because the same premise isn't true: inanimate objects do not have emotions -- therefore, they cannot feel sentiment, love, regret, sadness, etc.
Your elementary school's walls are heavy with shame.
Go the fuck away, R85, and take your inane emoticons with you. You're too stupid for even this dumbed-down version of DL.