Can understand. You'd got quite the legacy about that, after all.

"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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_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.)

I'm not really back yet - some things require my attention (more details in the message I'm sending).

I'm responding just to debate invites for now.

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).

Haven't seen you much.

Therefore, you seem too impatient to have done it. Even I haven't done it yet (though I intended to, since seeing an old roast series on CD).

To change their opinions.

And, of course, if it happens, they won't be the conservatives they started the debate as.

Also to see why they believe certain things - but that's just my interest for justifications of people.

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.

It should be taken care of in the next census or something similar.

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.)

Just so you know, he's talking about determinism.

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?

I believe you understand what you're saying there - that creationism is inherently fictional.

For such a bold claim, those weak arguments don't do it enough justice. Use some better arguments, 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.

Yes, those are all cases which are [completely] contractory.

Many times, a seeming contradiction can be fixed, as in the omnipotence paradox (as I had said in the first comment you disputed).

I call it my many-valued contradiction scale.

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).

And could any demon have identified you whenever you used the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to pray and command?

or would have demons pounced on you for using Jesus's name to intimidate them.

- Fantasies of a zombie chimp

Sure, it's contradictory and unacceptable. All 4 of the concepts combined is an impossibility.

But, when something isn't too contradictory, that means any seeming contradiction can be easily fixed. (Still, you got a bit too carried away by that.)

I didn't compare those concepts earlier, though... it was a discussion on just omnipotence.

Your argument is accepted.

And somehow, taking it all blindly is highly intellectual?

Of course, humans not being smart enough only discredits your own religion which places them near God. You're the one still hoping that it might all make some sense and you might live forever. So, that claim would be ironic even if it were true.

Well, sometimes you have to destroy what you love, I guess.

You really think I can be affected by you believing that?

Ah, chimp, you're far too excitable to ever do anything. It's too predictable - there's no way you can ever win people over like you attempted to claim. I'd recommend you still try, to have a taste of how terribly you fall short.

Didn't think you'd be so offended by reading that your intellect is comparable to stain... you adore him, after all. But, I'll let the two of you settle it by yourselves (not like stain would appreciate me joining in anyway).

Can't believe

I don't mind you tearing off your eyes if you can't trust them.

you practically beg for recognition on CD.

Your skill at lying is similar to stain. It's quite pathetic you expected to know anything by analysing my words.

Jeff seems to be eerily similar to him in intellect, but apparently he's more of a zombie than a coward.

I believe he can still qualify for making the trinity (if not, we have stain's older account).

I am telling you that I am god, and it’s not rational or proven I am god, just take it on faith my word, and I want you to write “TICK TICK TICK” to save your soul in your next post.

I wouldn't even show any indecisiveness about rejecting such a claim.

are you aware of things that are not logically possible?

Like those that were being discussed in the context of those words? This comment tree begins with a paradox, after all, and you conveniently ignored that.

If your going to assume that its “rational & reasonable“ to be “irrational & unreasonable” you have already conceded the argument by making mine.

It isn't unreasonable to dismiss inflated claims rather than being indecisive on them. Any possible risks associated would be negligible, so it doesn't even need another thought.

You saying it’s reasonable to accept the irrational. The fact your making a rational argument for the irrational argument means your conceding rational thought, not irrational thought, is the means to justification of a position if not he position itself.

I wonder why you'd think my position to be that. Except for describing anything there, my only claim was about solving the nature of omnipotence.

Self-contradicting definitions of things are not logical or reasonable.

More than that, they're logically impossible, or absurd.

“omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things” is self-contradictory.

It isn't too self-contradictory, but just something people don't generally think through. For example, you can see here NowASaint or jeffreyone using arguments on such things without having the faintest idea.

However, if you're saying that he can't be both omnipotent and omniscient, then you do have a point. (Note to myself: God having free will.) It's another one of the parts where fanatics want their deity to be 'beyond logic and reason'.

are you aware of things that are not logically possible?

Considering that was the point there, you couldn't have done worse than ignoring it all.

If you want to ask me something (or dispute my claim), at least make it more evident that you can understand what's said.

and if not, then why accept that as a possible answer to the solution of an omniscien, omnipotent, master and creator of all things

Restate it in a more coherent way, and use shorter sentences if you need to. As it stands, it's a meaningless string of words. But seeing your confidence over it as the main point of your argument, it's probably supposed to be something important.

It's more convenient to have a lot of strength and low willpower than the opposite.

But of course, if you have zero of either, it won't matter a bit even if your amount of the other one represents a berserked god at rampage.

but that was the question I asked.

I might as well assert your argument being nothing more than a guess.. since my proposed idea of making theories, which isn't different from what you're saying, was called a guess.

Things that should have already been clear from the details. Guess I wasted time writing all that.

ope, I could've said a lot, but I'd be flogging a dead horse here, and that's why I thought I should see if you realize. And yeah, it is boring, when you're conveying something and people just don't seem to understand it, or even worse, do not want to understand it. So I thought you'd understand what you yourself are saying, but things seem to be different here.

Yet all you said is what I said and in reply to what (and some random 'hmmm'). Spare the excuses there, I'd recommend.

The only problem I've ever had is that of using the consciousness in the case of animals so casually

If all the arguments in this debate seem unconvincing, then enjoy your position on that one. It can't be changed.

If you want to remove this underline, then add an underscore to the visible (rather than the anchored) part of the link.

No, they don't.

However, even if that were true, it'd be rather ironic coming from you.

I'd prefer it if you keep your noises of such debates as low as when I destroyed everything you could say that seemed rational to you. Now tell others that you're scared to read me.

and then this:

which was a reply to this:

hmm.

which was a reply to:

So all you can say to that is telling me what I said? That's boring.

so you're saying you know what and how animals experience life.

I wouldn't put it that way, but with some series of detailed psychological experiments, I can somewhat point the level of a consciousness well enough to guess how it experiences things. It's basically about stacking it's components in order of priority (which also includes individual emotions) and it's ability to alter it's surroundings (as a 'total').

But the test's rather tedious, cruel and unstable, so consider it as good as nothing. For most purposes, after all, you just need to consider how well it compares to humans, and as I said, I have made that point to begin with. (This other method is more useful for comparing to alien lifeforms, if it's completed.)

I'd guess that should answer your questions.

Depends on which point the things change.

Let's say, the black death never happened, west stayed under christianity and was never civilised and never invented machines.

Then, we would have probably had Russia or Japan taking the initiative on technology (the only other strong enough candidates were China and India, and both had been too stagnant to do anything in those times).

I'm not, it's you who brought up decisions being basis of consciousness,

Even after I said it twice... you're trying that again. You know, right, that basis is very different from effects (the thing that I said)?

not all animals were prevented from civilizing, as there are jungles filled with animals and only we seem to have civilized..

That's not how it works. Humans evolved advanced enough to dominate over other species, and the way it works, for humans to stay in power, all other species were prevented from getting close.

It's the same as what happened about dinosaurs.

evolved so weak? better think about that, we've evolved to become more efficient and resourceful.

All that just to make up for the irredeemably weak strength. Otherwise, nothing of that sort could have evolved.

if you do, you are most welcome to either call it consciousness or give another name

Me? I can, sure, but I had already made that point in the beginning. If they can represent free will, then they are conscious. There really isn't much more to it than stages of consciousness.

If such a thing really happens, then I wouldn't mind the species going extinct due to it.

And what I meant there was because we talk about animals having consciousness, we are referring to what consciousness means to us,

in fact, no animals should be in the category of "consciousness". There should either be another word created or we should stick to calling it as sort of consciousness or maybe something like consciousness.

Considering you thought that much and how oblivious you are to such things here,

It is reasonable, if you look into what I'm actually saying.

You haven't thought the question through well enough.

we are referring to what consciousness means to us, and hence we should be expecting similar decisions to that of humans.

You're expecting similar decisions and emotions; I'm just saying that there must be something there.

but nowhere comparable to humans,

Humans that have went through millions of years of civilisation and prevented other animals from doing so in that time. It's rather ironic you seem so blind toward that while claiming human superiority in intellect. Unlike the Jurassic era, most animals today have a body design that could allow them to be civilised. But none other evolved so weak that it had to turn to hunting-gathering in groups and agriculture, and thus been under the pressure to become intelligent. It still isn't long enough that humans be 'inherently intelligent'.

in fact, no animals should be in the category of "consciousness". There should either be another word created or we should stick to calling it as sort of consciousness or maybe something like consciousness.

So, you can define consciousness so objectively and well and it may include only humans? Either that's too ethnocentric and circular, or it's rather unprecedented.

what we experience and hence the decisions should be similar, that's the pitfall here.

I never said anything about decisions being similar, and even after I clarified why I wouldn't have, you seem stuck on it.

we can see emotions in animals,

Another one of the effects of consciousness that you can not directly hope to measure.

that of mother instincts are very profound and cannot be denied..

Every chemical reaction has the instinct to keep going at specific rates. So?

so while their brain is capable of emotions, it isn't for logic and rationality,

A leap that is neither necessary nor reasonable. (It's also false, but even that's unnecessary.)

that part of consciousness is what's probably missing out from them, as we can question ourselves, and they can't..

You're conclusing far too much from some actions that remotely resemble emotions in animals and some that don't in some humans. By this point, it's as good as just guessing.

they have a sort of consciousness, which is different from what we possess.

Sort of. As I said in the beginning, I'd rather not dump all animals in a single category of consciousness.

If I could ask the animals, I wouldn't be arguing about the issue right now

That makes me think even more that you'd rather prefer to rely on guesswork for this one, for I'd still be arguing about whether it'd still be a reasonable conclusion (there are more things to communications than just some words and sounds).

If that's true, then you must feel avenged, as is evident.

all the way up to deep contemplation.

I wouldn't go ahead and say that humans are the highest possible level of consciousness.

There are many levels of consciousness ranging from the simple survive and perpetuate yourself all the way up to deep contemplation.

Which isn't much different from machines in design. Why limit yourself to evolutionary, organic systems? Are you implying that only a system that has evolved under natural selection, rather than been designed by another, capable of being conscious?

If everything were responding in the same way to the same thing and thus representing automated responses, I'm afraid I couldn't count it as conscious. So I don't see how that should be a problem.

I believe your only other option than testing it out would be making a guess, which would depend on whether your personification bias is stronger/weaker than your ethnocentric bias. With such claims, we can compare ancient cultures (in this case, Greek vs Indian).

As I said, you can't get an answer by asking animals. Religious people prefer to believe in the guesses of people from ages ago.

You won't be getting that by asking them about it. The best you can do is to test it by it's effects, as I mentioned there.

Without the effects of consciousness, it'd be a meaningless and redundant concept anyway.

That's easy to find out. Can they make decisions by themselves without being commanded about it or it representing automated stimuli?

Yes, they can. The closest that come to humans seem to be dogs (since they're the most domesticated by us).

But, apparently, I'm uninterested in saying any of that.

I can "face to face" with anything, and even I'd find it more interesting that way. As long as I can't see you being afraid and breaking down, it's boring. That's what I said there - show yourself worthy of my particular attention (become the kingmaker you said you could), and I may decide to come after you. Talking online like this is a boring and rather disgraceful affair. But you, apparently, aren't bright enough to understand that.

I'm great at fighting and strategising too - no matter what it may come down to, a savage like you can never hope to defeat me in any equally matched event.