- 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
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.