I don’t see Macuilcozcacuauhtli, the Aztec god of gluttony in there?
You’re dead to me… 
Sorry, binge watching the Sopranos, I may need to be weaned off it slowly with anger management classes, before I can re-enter society.
Whata ya gonna do? 
Bada bing…
1 Firstly, you affirm the existence of evidence linking ‘experience’ to brain activity. However, you subsequently acknowledge that experience cannot be measured and we will never definitively determine if AI is sentient or not. As a result, your initial claim becomes unverifiable.
2 Secondly, you assert that ‘experience’ is an emergent property, despite the absence of any known property, particle, or law in physics that predicts the emergence of ‘experience’ in any material entity.
3 Furthermore, you demonstrate a lack of comprehension regarding the philosophical zombie problem, which suggests that there is no discernible material or physical distinction between a human with ‘experience’ and a zombie without ‘experience’.
4 Additionally, you claim that a brain is a necessity for ‘experience’, disregarding cases of individuals with 90% of their brain missing who lead normal lives.
5 You argue that my statement suggesting a stone could possess ‘experience’ is unverifiable. However, you also assert that the stone has no ‘experience’, which is equally unverifiable. You state that you do not need to believe in unverifiable claims, yet you still claim that “a stone could not possess experience.”
6 Lastly, you state that ‘experience’ evolved in the brain, despite the absence of an associated function or apparent benefit in its development. Of course your forget that universe is also evolving.
**EDIT new contradictions
7 Only biological entities can produce experience because they are biological, including plants that have no brain. But if we don’t label it as “biological,” then it supposedly lacks any experience because… well… it’s not biological. When you classify something as “biological,” suddenly the capacity for experience appears.
I could continue by raising further questions about the subject of experience, but that may be excessive. Don’t you agree?
Not sure @CyberLN made any of those claims? Nor do they appear to be contradictory, the closest you come is presenting straw man claims as a false dichotomy, as if the only choice is to either accept rocks can experience something, or make a contrary claim, whereas it is clear one can disbelieve your claim without knowing it is false, especially since there is no evidence experiencing anything is possible without consciousness, and no evidence of consciousness being observed in the absence of a physical brain.
More pointless than excessive, since at no point have you offered an explanation of how this would remotely evidences any deity or which deity? Even were it true, and I don’t believe it is.
Yes, when you have read all the links I have posted
… come on … 
Ok, good night.
Huh? Please point to the posts where I have said these things or retract your statement that I did!
I didn’t see any obvious contradictions, only false dichotomy and straw man fallacies you’ve created.
Where is the contradiction there?
Can you measure laughter? Are you saying people don’t laugh?
@Quim why do you think Panpsychism is evidence for a deity? Which deity are you claiming it evidences, you seem very keen to ignore these questions, why is that given you premised this thread on that very idea?
Now you’re trying to give us homework?
If that were true, not only would every scientist and rational thinking human support the god hypothesis, but also, you’d win the Nobel prize.
You can assume all you like, you’ve yet to prove anything, empirically or demonstrably.
I won’t become angry in the slightest, I whole welcome theism to actually pull their finger out and make a solid case, rather then “I cannot explain X, science cannot explain X, therefore God.”
It certainly does lead to the notion that we all could be wrong, that still doesn’t get you to God.
Again, you can replace God with anything and it holds the same weight in an argument.
Once you demonstrate that a god is real, you can then start placing him into cogent arguments.
And you are just making ungrounded claims. People have experience, therefore God, is not an argument.
Can you demonstrate the experience of a rock for us. All you are doing is making assertions. Operationalize your data, do the experiment, and share the results. Show me how a rock has an experience.
Because you have demonstrated nothing. You are making inane assertions with no logical progression what so ever. Put your argument into a logical syllogism and see if it floats. I already did that for you based on what you have said and it looked completely foolish. Do you even know what you are talking about? \
Possibility is demonstrated. What can you demonstrate that indicates you are dealing with some sort of possibility. There are no possibilities without demonstrations. Can you demonstrate your version of a possibility should be considered.
i think you are lying Quim
So basically, our newcomer is a qualia fanboy.
The moment I saw Thomas Nagel being mentioned, this became clear.
Except that several modern “philosophers” are playing the same game as pedlars of religious apologetics - namely, presenting blind assertions as if they constituted fact, and their assertions can be safely discarded precisely because said assertions are blind. I’ve previously described this tendency elsewhere as “assertionism”, which is a brand of rot that permeates several disciplines. However, this pestilential tendency is particularly pernicious when it infects philosophy, whose proper remit isn’t to present assertions in this manner, but to determine which questions are pertinent to ask. The business of answering those questions is the remit of other disciplines.
Oh, and the fatuous attempt to characterise “experience” as some sort of magic quality that needs a magic man is precisely that - fatuous. Because “experience” is simply the name we give to any perception capable of being remembered.
Already alluded to this earlier, but as is usual, this was simply summarily dismissed with more assertionist cant.
Saving this for posterity. It’ll come in useful for later posts.
You misunderstand my point. I am not referring to brain activity as experience. Please read David Chalmers’ paper on this topic (1995) to understand the distinction between a physical process (such as brain activity) and the subjective experience associated with it.
Yes, believing in God implies believing in an external consciousness, among other things.
This statement is unverifiable, regardless of whether it is a consensus. We do not know if AI has any form of subjective experience, if plants have subjective experience, or if anything else outside the brain has subjective experience.
With our current knowledge, we are unable to explain it. We observe it, give it a name, establish a consensus, but that’s as far as we can go.
I cannot prove it, and you cannot prove the opposite. That’s the point.
Well, I can ask you to demonstrate the opposite: that AI, a calculator, an abacus, or a stone does not have experience. Your claim is equally unverifiable
Well, now you suggest that experience could arise without a brain, only through reacting
The difference is that the universe is infinitely more complex. The problem is that you assume that only biological entities can produce experience because they are biological, including plants that have no brain. But if we don’t label it as “biological,” then it supposedly lacks any experience because… well… it’s not biological. When you classify something as “biological,” suddenly the capacity for experience appears.
Yes, because not accepting your unverifiable consensus means I’m considered insane.
Let’s illustrate why the current consensus that brain activity produces “experience” is so absurd.
Imagine one person with an abacus. They move one bead. Does it produce experience? No…
Now we have two people with abacuses. The first person moves one bead, then the second person moves another bead, and they perform a simple calculation. Does it produce experience? No…
Now we have one thousand people with abacuses, moving their beads and performing complex calculations that result in the action of, let’s say, a mechanical arm. Does it produce experience? No…
Now imagine a billion people with a billion abacuses, performing complex calculations that make the arm act intelligently. Can we assume that the entire group of people has a subjective experience similar to ours?
What is the supposed minimum number of people required to consider that it is starting to produce subjective experience?
Or perhaps experience has always been present since the very beginning?
This is the problem that you fail to address: computing information and experience are two different categories of things.
Ok, I try to deal in verifiable events…after all that is what history is made of…right?
So our “@Quim” (Shelley, yes, I thought exactly the same) is trying to make a case for “Universal Consciousness” aka his idea of “god” because there is no evidence to contradict his belief that there might be such a thing, aka “a possibility”.
May I enquire why the blue fuck we are, as a group wasting our collective intellects on such bollocks?
Sure all things could be conscious, all things could be connected, we could all be part of a giant mushroom dream…it is possible.
But for those of with a more practical bent…so the fuck what? Will it change your bacon sandwich? Will it turn Captain Cat from a good atheist puss into an evangelical Blue Bunny of Universe Creation?
Then what the fuck, @Quim, of the apposite nickname, are you going on about? You have no argument, not a shred of evidence and only a plagiarised form of assertion to make some sort of pointless debate.
There is a chap on social media pushing similar lard laden bollocks, he calls it “Theistic pragmatic epistemology”, where he maintains, in an overly verbose style, (with the help of Chat GPT) that personal experience is the equal of corroborated factual evidence. Are you pushing this intellectual wheel-less dung barrow uphill together?
Is silliness catching? Is everything in the universe so silly it is just a cosmic stand up routine? Really?
Edit" First and last post lest my brain experience life as Captain Cat and demand a belly rub.
I believe there may be a misunderstanding. Your proposition that such a possibility does not exist is equally arbitrary, unverifiable, and absurd. Therefore, it ultimately becomes a matter of personal choice, as I mentioned from the beginning.
This concept applies to you as well, except for the fact that you are outnumbered by the contradictions that I am attempting to resolve.
You may not grasp the distinction between consensus and truth. Both your assumption and mine are unverifiable. Furthermore, your explanation is as intricate as mine.
The dissimilarity lies in the fact that I do not succumb to the numerous contradictions that you do, such as the one I posted just above.
I did not say that. I paraphrased your proposition. You “possibility” is unevidenced and therefore can be treated as just another opinion. it certainly makes no difference to the reality we move in, and so can be disregarded as intellectual dross until such time proper evidence can be examined. .
Nope. There is only one contradiction and that is entirely in your own imagination. Your bald, unevidenced assertions are possibilities, yes. Far fetched in my opinion, but make not a jot of difference to my cup of tea or Captain Cat’s insistence on a treat.
Nope. You find “its all irrelevant bollocks” intricate? What the hell are you smoking? Can I have some?
Again, no, the dissimilarity lies in the fact that you didn’t read my answer properly and proceed to regurgitate more pointless verbosity.
Your original assertion, question, hypothesis is tired, recycled unevidenced and tiresomely juvenile. If everything is conscious (and we have absolutely no evidence that that is so) and we are all part of a Universal Woo…so the fuck what? There, your question answered, you can forget the Depends and sleep well tonight.
Do you consider attempting to comprehend our subjective experience, which is the most significant aspect of our existence, to be insignificant?
Let me add this to the list of contradictions…