- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
"Eternal" punishments and rewards are too convenient and binary to be true. For one who claims to 'preach' truth, you sure are a bit too dimwitted.
There's just one thing I don't quite understand - debating in a manner derogatory to your own side, what is it that you hope for? Are you perhaps overly dedicated on a parody on a religion? Or, as you say, you have really managed to hope that such actions can earn you a reward?
Of course, as always, I'm going to be banned with an irrelevant reply that you'd hope to turn out rather provocative, but you'll miserably fail at that. Unless you managed to think something this time, in which case, do surprise me.
PS : Refrain from trying to use your imaginary tortures in your speech against me, and as much of other people as possible. As I believe you now understand, it isn't a one-sided game to play (even though I find it repulsive how you couldn't guess it by yourself and went crying on me for weeks with miserable attempts at being melodramatic). I'll cease those as well - but I assure you, if you decide to not comply this time as well, I won't be putting up the offer another time.
It's just boring to have the guy threatening everyone on eternal totures to act all hurt on me. I'll take the absense of a reply as denial - but you'll have sufficient time to craft an excellent reply, so don't worry about that.
I didn't intend to be harsh, but after seeing your comments, it becomes harder to hold back. Especially since our conversations are more special than your general ones (in our trying to hold back. Don't worry about me, though - I won't act hurt no matter what you say).
I see, so that's the information you were referring to.
You desire to act, hands of the clock lead to a conclusion that you will need to act quickly if you want to, and thus it makes you move.
In other words (moving away from the specific example), information doesn't exist 'out there', but is constructed from observations. (To reach there has been possible by evolution's role, by the way.)
The hands of (a well functioning) clock merely move at predetermined intervals over labels of numbers. It's conventional to set it according to local time zone so that the label corresponds and you don't have to compare the gaps - that hardly makes any time on the clock as information.
I expected you to have searched that when you wanted to know about it. However, (perhaps over-)simplifying things, everything (matter, energy and interactions) would be constituted of information.
However, that's not what you mean there, I'd guess (from the message), but the experience of processing thoughts. (Since nothing beyond instantaneous perceptions/experiences need any special accounting for, so 'physical information' is rather irrelevant.)
You know, right, that it just proves what he said?
I hardly care about the points or the difference (as you can see, it's about 30% for me). The difference increases when you downvote others, or are active on a debate beyond the posssibility to earn points, or rarely use the Clarify button. I believe some information on that is available in the FAQs.
In other words, you care too much about points.
Add the weekly leaderboard (in other words, frequency) to that... and it's clear as vaccuum.
They're more efficient and better.
The only place where printed books take the lead is in having physical ownership over them, which is rather impossible for ebooks, especially the way their terms and laws stand now.
Except that, when you want the content rather than ownership, ebooks are better.
but since you find uncertainty to be a fundamental certainty, I suppose you would accept all manner of insufficient tests.
No, it just has to be certain enough to be valid. I'd prefer it to be as certain as possible, but I still don't claim absolute certainty for any such things.
but is rather a different position that you suppose is easier to attack. You previously did the same when you attempted to "reconstruct" my claim into something you prefer to target but is wildly irrelevant.
Then you should make your claims more precise, since you seem to have trouble in that. If you're confused on my reconstruction about any specific point, you can, as always, ask for clarification about that. Or you can even try understanding it by yourself, if that may suit your tastes.
It's as though you claimed that you know a car by whether it has wheels, and then claim that my position is too "case by case" because I take the more nuanced view of considering the engine in addition to the wheels.
I wonder whether that could be called an efficient rhetoric if I didn't know what the talk was about. The fact that you were criticising such things a few sentences ago makes it rather comical.
But anyway, it's more like I'm setting criteria for knowing whether something is a car, and you're saying that any such thing is impossible and we should evaluate it on a per case basis with the totality of circumstances around it. Rather than showing how my analogy fails, you just contented yourself with blaming me for giving it, as if that was your sacred belief. But, that's unsurprising.
and since you are boring me again, I am gonna stop here. I'll let you have the last word again if that makes you feel better.
I don't mind it either way, but you seem a bit too impatient to try to mimic me. Now that it think of it, it must have been insulting, for me to say that you're arguing just because you want the last word (and then not even let you have it).
For your debate title, yes. Everyone deserves death. What no one deserves is immortality, unless they can get it.
However, in the description, you seem to mean death penalty. Though it's now much more painless than it used to be, it's just an alternative to life imprisonment. You'd be gone from the world either way, so there isn't much difference.
No brain scan can tell you what red looks like to me.
You seem overly confident about that.
Tell it to the victims of Anesthetic Awareness, whose disastrous experience invalidates your opinion.
I probably won't, but you can tell it to them posing as me if you prefer.
With all that, you've just managed to prove that I can not claim certainty on it. That was a bit redundant, I'd say, for you could simply get me to say that directly if you preferred to - you know that I don't claim certainties, after all. I might as well have made you prove it now.
I wonder how certain you are, though.
As I have illustrated already, a thing can lack the ability to alter its surroundings, but nonetheless perceive.
Or, of course, the opposite. I see no reason to favour either case over the other as consciousness.
I didn’t say I would know it when I see it, I said it is reasonable to conclude that animals have consciousness. Not based solely on decision making, but on the totality of the circumstances. The ever-advancing decision-making computer technology indicates that I may very well think I am seeing consciousness, and think I know it, but there is no consciousness there. Though I won’t know there isn’t for sure because I cannot know for sure whether a robot is experiencing it’s processes.
In other words, it's an unreliable instinct, for you want to judge it on a per case basis on the totality of circumstances.
That's just the 'I know it when I see it' behaviour.
but the fact that consciousness itself is completely subjective, we are barred from directly observing another’s conscious experience.
Subjective? Ah, no, it's the basis of subjectivity, so that'd be too... off the mark.
Any subjective phenomena, such as free will, can conclude consciousnes, as I said.
Thus, we are left to a non-testable, non-falsifiable ideas
If that worries you, then you shouldn't attempt at any metaphysical aspects related to it.
But rather that we don't not have current sufficient reason to believe it is true.
And that somehow warrants us to use a circular definition? You might as well 'speak in those terms' if you believe that consciousness should be defined in evolutionary terms/needs.
I did not mean that it is necessarily false.
You should know what happens when you use limiting definitions. I can tell you, though. Everything against it becomes necessarily false.
Only if materialism denies that the phenomenon of experience exists.
Or perhaps it can claim, as it incidentally does, that experience is based on observable material phenomena and thus the problem is invalid.
Are you even trying?
My point is that decision making may be a necessary component to determining the consciousness of another, but it is not sufficient.
Though you say that, if something is able to portray autonomous decision making, even your unreliable instincts would say that it is conscious, as is evident from your criteria. When possible, I'd prefer to avoid such 'I'll know it when I see it' approaches, unlike you.
However, since you brought it up, consciousness refers to the ability to perceive and alter one's surroundings (and, of course, the decision making process connecting the two). If something is altering it's surroundings in sequences that represent free will rather than automated responses, it can be concluded to be conscious.
Unless you want to include a soul somewhere in the model, but I guess that can be ruled out since you declined on having talked about the philosophical zombie problem.
There is no way to fully test out consciousness. Consciousness is a completely subjective experience.
But I wonder how accurate your assessment over your claims was, for it's still eerily similar to the zombie problem, so much that I'm even tempted to consider those as freudian slips on your part.
He did not become conscious only when he re-acquired the ability to make material decisions.
Ah, yes, that reminds me, you might prefer to consider consciousness as only the ability of perception. I still wouldn't go with your assessment, though, for anything that can not both perceive AND alter is not conscious.
(Also, it's a lucky leap for you, since I never said anything earlier about making "material decisions", nor anything that can directly lead you to it. I might as well have not believed it at all.)
The philosophical zombie takes the concept to the extreme and is only refitted by a dislike for the idea of solipsism.
Or it can be dismissed as an invalid problem under materialism. It's a problem only for dualists, after all, for you have to believe that there are unobservable entities to account for experience.
It is their experience that gives them concsiousness,
Sounds a bit bold for a leap.
We have more reasons than just their decision making process to believe thy animals have consciousness.
I wonder about that. Looking at your argument in this debate, it seems merely like a restatement of mine with some unreliable instincts given a higher priority over any possible attempt to test it out.
I'm not a creationist.
Yes, I wanted to see whether you understood that you were implying it in that claim of yours. Since you seem to, we can continue.
We can reconstruct your claim (along with the argument) as,
Since we haven't observed creationism so far, according to our knowledge, it is necessarily false.
It's also evident by you not disputing this conclusion from the previous argument. But just in case that you might not have guessed that to be possible, I'll be asking it again (much more explicitly this time),
Are you fine with it so far?
It's possible to have a robot that makes decisions on its own, without being compelled, and yet has no experience of the decision making process.
I'd like to see it, for there seems no reason to believe that such a scenario might be possible.
Thus, your test for consciousness is not sufficient to determine consciousness.
I don't remember what exactly that refutation was called. The philosophical zombie problem, perhaps?
It's funny that you'd think I need your validation, and even a savage can guess the inevitable conclusion that follows, since I clearly don't, and care mainly about the fun. What would be funnier than unsafe lunatics being made to yield against anything I want you to, after all.
you're no longer my neighbour
At least that's a good thing, I guess.
And validated you as the "god
You've done it again, chimp. To think that a lunatic would disobey my direct command and would go far enough as to even commit blasphemy... twas surprising, but, well, you're exceptionally savage. I expected it, but not so soon, which means that you're essentially brainless. It might be fun to personally crush you, but I probably won't be doing that. After all, you're little more than a disposable guinea pig if need be. Now that's obviously not something I'd be desperate for validation from, is it?
You've always been an idiot to think that I might be doing all things just for the validation, for I've never portrayed anything that can allow you to judge my intentions beyond basing them on your own. Savages like you fall for it too easily.
You rarely disappoint when I wonder whether someone as mindless as you would manage to string together a reply.
Don't worry about the attention, though. If you feel envious, then you can go under my umbrella - I'm so kind, after all, and it's rather amusing to be kind to a savage like you.
I'll surely be gaining attention, but now isn't a good time (even though, of course, with your level of intellect, you'd never be able to understand that, as you've already shown clearly at multiple occasions).
What would be your comeback? Look at my good works?
Nothing, really. If someone can read my thoughts so well, a comeback is redundant.
If a man slaughtered Christians by the thousands (Paul), what would be his excuse to God? Look at my good works?
If that prosecutor is God himself, then I doubt excuses would matter much, for he must already know of the reasons and good things (according to the Christian fantasies).