What objective evidence can you demonstrate it exists?
Same as all gods worshipped on earth, absolutely none. (But that comment was proving another point to Incognitive)
Yes, well, perhaps we should all leave this until we can all equally comprehend that “I beleive x is true” does not put any obligation on the commenter to prove anything.
Obligations to prove occurs when somone says: “consciousnees requires a god”.
If you are still having trouble comprehending, please try someone else but I will give you a hint:
If I was to say: “I believe Sheldon and Cognostic are morons with no ability to comprehend simple English” that would not require proof.
Conversely, if I was to say: “Sheldon and Cognostic are morons with no ability to comprehend simple English” I would have to be able to explain and perhaps in court.
Read it a few times and see if you can firgure out the difference and why I don’t have to explain anything but the person who claims “consciousness proves there’s a god” does. They need to prove both there is a sustainable theory of a god and what consciousness is.
Please, if you are so incapable of comprehending simple English, don’t respond to my comments. I believe you just look more silly every time.
I knew there may be more on the site.
So can you then define a “Squidlydoogleburg”, or are you saying you believe it is real, only in your original comment below you implied one cannot disbelieve a claim unless one can define it? Which is of course utterly absurd.
Now you see, @cognostic has nailed the point here, and I would bet my house you have no idea what he means.
No I didn’t say consciouness doesn’t exits so I have no requirement to prove anything. Take comprehension lessons.
No I didn’t claim gods don’t exist so I have no requirement to prove anything. Take comprehension lessons.
No you didn’t, you proved nothing. You offered an example even the people studying it don’t claim it proves plants have cosciounsess. Read your own attached paper which opens by writer denying it attempts to prove plants have consciousness.
Repeat: Consciousness currently has no definition or tangible evidence of existing beyond theory and that is why I correctly advised you, that it is the person who claims it requires a god to define it. (Which science of the day admits it can’t.
If it’s irrational and non-subjective how come you can’t offer a sustainable rebuttal?
It is neither evidence or anecdotal evidence. And if you were to claim “god told me to do it” in court as evidence (the only reason to invoke god in court) you would be sent to a psychiatrist to establish you were mentally unstable.
See my thrid comment above, even the persons studying the plants don’t claim it’s consciousness. And, to add to the absurdity, we can’t even prove consciousness exists in humans, it remains undefined, perhaps forever.
-
I have never said no god exists as a fact. I have said the chances are so small that, like unicorns, we can dismiss the miniscule chances one does. If your memory was functioning you’d know that. Repeat: There is no sustainable evidence for a god, never has been, never will be.(And I have already explained “never will be” elsewhere).But you can prove gods worshipped on earth are false which I don’t need to do until it is part of the topic and I decide to so save yourself the effort of mistakenly demanding proof again.
-
I don’t have to. You have to prove it does which currently the scientific world says you can’t.
-
Look up subjective. It requires a brain. Even your own evidence doesn’t claim it is true. You should do what I do and claim it’s something you believe not a truth.
Another total failure to defend yourself, prove me wrong or prove any of your beliefs. This acts as undeniable proof you can neither remember or comprehend what has been said. Before you make a fool of yourself again re-read the posts and get help on comprehension.
Liar…
So that’s two for two champ, you’re consistent, I will give you that, but you’re also a liar. Fire extinguisher needed here stat, we have a serious pants fire going on!!
Uncanny knack you have for being wrong, but in most courts people invoke a god in an oath to give truthful testimony, before they are allowed to testify.
Hmm… Fire extinguisher needed here stat, we have a serious pants fire going on!!
Your hubris catching you out again, and you can’t say I haven’t consistently warned you to rein in that hubris.
That is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole you have also been warned against as well, you cannot possibly know what evidence may or may not be uncovered in the future.
There is nothing in the definition that mentions or implies a brain is required, outside of a human context of course, and we are not discussing humans, so in this context the word seems apropos for a plant detecting light, and moving towards it, though no one is claiming a plant is has consciousness of course, well almost no one, and certainly not in the sense a human is. However you used a sweeping piece of hyperbole, and claimed “evolution **proves it doesn’t exist”, it’s quoted above. The link from @Cognostic was compelling evidence that plants subjectively experience light, through photoreceptors, which are capable of transmitting those signals into a light-signaling response cascade.
Hubris, and very very misplaced again.
More ludicrous hyperbole.
You might want to stick a comma in that sentence, as the irony is going cause some sort of world shortage. You really are an utterly charmless individual aren’t you.
2 Likes
Ooops… there goes that lack of comprehension again. Stupid?
Try to find the difference between “I DON’T BELEIVE” and and a blanket claim: “Consciousness doesn’t exist”. Maybe it’s fifth time lucky for you.
Simple challenge: Print my actual comments in context and prove me a liar or just go back to being as stupid and incapable of comrehension as you appear.
The thing about using words you don’t understand is you make mistakes. You see, claiming “hubris” (and as I know you’ve repeatedly used it incorrectly) is that you must prove it. You must prove the pesron is wrong in order to establish hubris. So far youhave been obfuscating and using subterfuge to avoid proving me wrong. You use deranged an whining insults to cover up your failure, but not everyone is stupid enough to fall for it.
Try proving me wrong and then you can attempt to use hubris.
Yes, well done, if you are too stupid to remember the context was after establishing “There are no gods” in the context of “it is a claim you can make if the chances are infinitessimally small”. So now we establish both lack of comprehension and lack of memory (unless you’d prefer deceit?).
“For a god” obviously refers to current gods claimed to exist and it is a fact because they can be proved false. I thought we discussed there is no evidence for unicorns and never will be as being a statement based on current understanding.
As for hyperbole, repeat: Don’t use it until you know how.
Dumb and dumber. This is why I am no longer going to answer your deranged ramblings.
The definition of “subjective” doesn’t need to state it applies to a brain, the definition itself implies its requirement. They also don’t add to the definition you have to be smarter than a bacteria.
Another failure of your comprehension coupled with obfuscation. My comment about evolution proves it doesn’t exist was in the context with “I” don’t believe consciousness exists. So once again a stupid misuse of hyperbole. (But I excuse you for having zero comprehension ability as you have demonstrated so many times. Or to summarise: Always without fail.)
Yes that was great evidence from someone who appeared to claim to only speculate it and didn’t seek to claim it fact. I view the “evidence” as not only not compelling but as proving nothing beyond a bacteria moving towards food to “eat” before replicating is subjective. I see nothing to make subjective plants a SUSTAINABLE concept.
The truth is you have the exact same stupid failing as all theists: They decide to follow a particular god and are soon delusional enough to believe it. It goes from that to any new evidence being just evidence to new evidence is undeniable. And every comment they manage to scrounge up which even remotely agrees with their delusion moves from speculation to fact. This is what is happening here. Speculation is called “proof”, it’s not proof other than proof of delusion.
If you wanty me to conclude even reading about subjective behavior in plants is remotely worth while investigating, don’t tell me they follow the sun, send me a video of one that decides to not follow the sun otherwise I’ll call it a simple act demonstrating evolution.
But I should congratulate you Sheldon: Here’s me trying to demonstrate hyperbole and failing miserably and you come along and hit it out of the park with a perfect example. Moving from the researchers observed "may be possible " to your “compelling evidence”. Deceiving the reader into thinking possible = compelling. Well done!!! Hyperbole mastery!!!
Yes, well, instead of using a word you don’t understand, try proving it.
Without “compelling evidence” that would be your hyperbole.
Well at least one dropped comma isn’t as revealling as the irony of “utterly charmless” coming from someone incapable of charming anyone with a even one SUSTAINABLE comment and who simply believes deceit, errors, raving and whining is going to make them “charming”.
Anyway… enough time spent with the nut-job brigade. Bye, bye.
Actually what this site needs is the ability to block loosers and hurt fools from responding to your posts.
I agree! And what you need is a good book.
https://www.tongbangbooks.com/shop/shopdetail.html?branduid=20822&gclid=CjwKCAjwzo2mBhAUEiwAf7wjkltOfiNNlqedJRZ6FUFIC3E7WbcI5h2RwUFP7c8862J6pGDRIbuuhhoC-9EQAvD_BwE&ref=
If we were a religious site, we would have already passed the donation plate aound for you. Unfortunately, as an atheist, you have to take responsibility for your own dipwad problems.
3 Likes
It is spelt losers, and that is the most verbose flounce on the way to that old wooden exit I have read here.
You really are an arrogant SOB, you know that? You’ve been in a pissing contest with 2 of the smartest people on this forum, and making an ass out of yourself.
The stuff coming out of your mouth is meaningless and nonsensical. I’d quit while you still think you’re ahead (you’re not).
1 Like
But he can hold his own against the top apologists. He has done it. He is smarter than they are. Actually, I just think he keeps repeating the same bullshit over and over and bores them to death.
You don’t win a debate because no one wants to listen to your bullshit . I know that comes as a shock, but it really is the way the world works.
4 Likes
Flinging ad hominem around is not going to fool anyone, you lied and there they are for all to see.
Right here you claimed evolution "proved it (consciousness) doesn’t exist. I have emboldened it for you, so this response is risible, as it must be you who can’t see the difference between a lack of belief that something exists, and a claim that an accepted scientific theory has proved it doesn’t. Just how deep are you prepared to dig this pit one wonders?
No pants left at this point, they’ve burned away…
Done, and done…
You mean like the numerous posts where you keep congratulating yourself on your contributions here, suggesting you’re winning something and describing others as losers, that kind of hubris? Or this comment from you that I was responding in that instance, where your misplaced hubris is manifest for anyone to see, since I actually quoted your posts making your lie about unreliable memory redundant hubris on your part.
I have done, but no you absolutely don’t need to demonstrate errancy in order to illustrate that someone’s posts are hubristic. One can be correct and still be indulging hubris.
More misplaced hubris from you. Surely at some point you will simply Google the definition of hubris and learn what it means. Or maybe this simple task is genuinely beyond you?
Adding a second unevidenced piece of hubris doesn’t alter the fact you claimed no deities exist, twice, and then denied it, now also twice. Here’s a clue for you, if you’re going to lie and pretend you were taken out of context, don’t use absolutes.
That’s irrelevant, you claimed to know the future, I even emboldened it for you, here it is again then:
This response was therefore apropos: “That is precisely the kind of ludicrous hyperbole you have also been warned against as well, you cannot possibly know what evidence may or may not be uncovered in the future.”
You claimed to know the future, by asserting that there would no evidence for any deity ever, so not only is that demonstrably hyperbolic, it is you who has failed to comprehend both why your comment is hyperbolic, and it appears the meaning of the word itself.
Is it because all you have in response is this sort of infantile ad hominem?
Not in this context it doesn’t, as in the research demonstrates that plants subjectively experience light, both @Cognostic and I linked the evidence. Again I am left wondering how deep you will dig this pit.
One is a claim to lack belief, and the second an absolute claim that consciousness does not exist, they are not mutually exclusive nor has anyone claimed they are, then when @cognostic asked you to evidence your claim you lied and denied you had claimed consciousness doe not exist. Given you had stated the theory of evolution disproved it’s existence one wonders why you didn’t simple quote the part of that theory you imagine does so, but let’s stick a pin in that and come back to it, and focus on your being a liar liar pants on fire…
I agree, your claim was indeed both stupid and hyperbolic, unless you can demonstrate objective evidence that the theory of evolution “proves consciousness does not exist” as you claimed, pin removed…told you we’d come back to it.
There’s that hubris and hyperbole again, keep going champ it is actually getting funny again now.
You could have stopped at the emboldened part. However let’s focus on you using hand waving to dismiss evidence, while lying that you had not made a conrary claim that evolution proved consciousness couldn’t exists, for which you provided zero evidence.
Have I claimed the existence of subjective experience in plants to be a fact? Or are you indulging in idiotic hyperbole through a lack of basic comprehension again, I can help you out if you’re struggling to find the answer?
Iw as you and not me who claimed to have proof champ, where you claimed the evolution proved consciousness doesn’t exist, then lied about the claim, twice. So this is another new lie, pants fire pants fire!!!
FYI I don’t use the word proof in this context, as I know better, and the posters will have known for a long time that think the word proof rather then than (objective) evidence, is something of a misnomer, since proofs are for mathematics and formal logic.
That’s gibberish, and a straw man at the end since no one claimed Phototropism wasn’t evidenced in evolution? Here is a time lapse video demonstrating plants subjectively experiencing light anyway, since you asked.
Irony you say.
Oh if you keep hurling out the ad hominem I think your wish may come true, and it’s losers, not loosers champ, so another irony overload. Again since you keep asking that last claim is as good an example of your misplaced hubris as anyone could wish for.
1 Like
Your mind is not immune to damage and decay. When your physical brain begins to die off, that person known as you dies off as well. All of our memories, experiences, and comprehension skills are directly caused by the neurons in our head. Destroy some of those neurons and the underlying memories are destroyed in corresponding fashion. Destroy enough neurons and we will become imbecilic - unable to recognize our own kids or solve basic math. When a brain grows in childhood, its learning capacity grows in relation to its size. If it is permanently arrested in development, the mind is permanently arrested right along with it. If all of us had “immortal souls”, then the only thing that brain damage would do is incapacitate our ability to move the body. Our memories, experiences and comprehension should remain intact regardless of trauma or disease.
This is now known to be false.
Destruction to your brain parts results in the corresponding destruction to the personality it generates. When our physical brain dies, our personhood dies with it. Thus, the physical brain - regardless if we understand it or not - is responsible for the consciousness it generates. We will not survive intact without this very vital organ.
5 Likes
I followed the rest, but the problem here is that we’re talking as far as I can see about an unfalsifiable concept, and whilst I see no objective evidence for a soul, I think as long as the concept is unfalsifiable it is epistemologically unsound to make assertions about it.
I think primarily this is a problem with wording, so I have no problem with claiming that the overwhelming objective evidence suggests that our consciousness is an emergent property of our physical brain, and when it dies that consciousness disappears every single time. Now if theists and religious apologists want to imagine this is a coincidence that’s up to them, but I find that absurd.
Most importantly there is no objective evidence for any deity, or for a soul, or for anything supernatural. That fact alone is sufficient for me to disbelieve such claims. I need not go further and give apologists ammunition, by making claims that I cannot support with objective evidence.
Oh, and welcome to AR.
Well, there is no objective evidence that we will survive the death of our brain in any meaningful way, I’d not go so far as to make a contrary claim, as again this seems like an unfalsifiable concept, so as with all unfalsifiable concepts I must remain disbelieving and agnostic.
3 Likes
Hey just recently i was ran off by some christians and they said it was for jesus
1 Like
Do you understand that there are true statements that cannot be proven to be true? have you not come across this idea before?
1 Like
No obviously, as there is no basis to assert they are true? Blimey… you get one of these of again for a spectacularly stupid claim:
I can now see why you are so reluctant to answer straight questions with straight answers. Anyone who does not understand that there are unprovable truths is very unlikely to provide stimulating conversation.
Wtf, I just did?
I shan’t even feign surprise you have justified your unsupported oxymoron with a circular reasoning fallacy, or that you’ve ignored my candid and concise response, while lying that I haven’t given a straight answer.
Then I will go straight back to my simple question, that you certainly did not answered: On what basis are you asserting these unknowns are true?
I have to ask now, were you previously ratspit? Your bizarre rationale is too similar not to ask.
While you’re here please clarify can science in any way play any part in explaining the origin of the universe?
Simple enough for you?
1 Like
Why do you keep insisting the universe needed a cause? What evidence supports this idea?
1 Like