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.