Ok, I’m a little surprised at the first claim, but not at all surprised but the second. So let’s start by making sure we mean the same thing when we say consciousness, which I understand to mean the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings, I’d add in some cases to be “self aware”. Since I have read and am responding to your post, I think you can see why your claim is off to a bad start.
That’s just an unevidenced subjective opinion though, and since I can see that I have consciousness, and it is an objective fact that like all living things humans evolved, it seems to be at odds with the evidence.
So demonstrating its existence by creating it artificially will confirm it doesn’t exist? I don’t follow you there sorry?
Well the definition of it is pretty simple, not much in the way of mystery, perhaps you’re speaking exclusively of human consciousness, and the degree of self awareness we have? Firstly I don’t see that subjective experience and consciousness are in anyway mutually exclusive. those phrases might easily be describing aspects of the same thing. Consciousness is simply a word we use to describe something, and that is the state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings. That doesn’t seem that mysterious to me, it also seems like it might add a survival benefit, and more so as it increases.
Why would anyone think consciousness remotely evidences any deity?
Or you could just point out that there is no objective evidence for any deity, or that a deity is even possible, no need to complicate the claim beyond that. Though as a corollary consciousness only seems to exist where there is a functioning brain, and disappears when that brain dies. This suggests it is an emergent property of an evolved brain, and it’s not hard to see how becoming more aware of your environment and being able to react to it by understanding your place in it would add a survival benefit.
Where in the hell did you study logic? You have a claim. “Consciousness does not exist.” it is a claim. No one made the claim consciousness exists. I never made that claim. I asked you for evidence of your claim.
We did the exact same thing with your God claim. You made the claim God does not exist. I have not asserted God exists. I have asked you for evidence of your claim.
You made the same claim regarding consciousness. You defined it as needing a brain or something like that, and I demonstrated that it did not. You now have articles on plant consciousness. So I have asked, what is this thing you are calling consciousness and how are you defining it. This way I know we are talking arout the same thing.
In each case you have written pages of irrational, non-substanative bullshit. Just answer the questions.
There is evidence for the existence of god. It is called anecdotal evidence, but it would be allowed in any court in the nation. It counts as evidence. How do you know this god thing you speak of does not exist. I introduced you to the diest god who exists, according to believers, without any contact what so ever, with this world. The deist god is completely undetectable and that is their belief. How do you demonstrate it does not exist.
In regard to plant’s subjective experience’ yes, I brought that up in opposition to your assertion of cosubjective experience needs a brain. Clearly false. Plants have a form of consciousness. (That’s why your panties are all wadded up.) It is also why I have asked you to define consciousness, so I know we are talking about the same thing. My request is completely reasonable.
These are really simple requests and don’t require all the bullshit you are posting. Just answer the questions.
How do you demonstrate no god exists.
How do you demonstrate there is no such thing as consciousness.
How do you demonstrate plants don’t have subjective experiences. I have shown you the evidence tha they do.
In your opening post? You made quite a few assertions as well, and as @Cognostic has pointed out, your assertions and beliefs carry a burden of proof, this is a debate forum after all.
Yes I did get ahead of the debate there a little, I’ll try and rein that impulse in a little.
Where are we on using Ouija boards? I don’t think they’re against the forum guidelines, but given I am too lazy to read them, I am wary of @Whitefire13’s rolling pin.
Say whaaaaat?.. … YOU are a Squidlerite? Aww, man! No way! There are so few of us out there! What are the odds I would find a fellow Squidlerite on HERE? An atheist site! Fucking amazing!.. … Oh, I’m so sorry. Please pardon my bad manners… (clearing throat)… Ahem… Greetings, Brother Squidder. May your life be filled with tentacle delight… (secret eye wink code)… Again, I apologize. I was so excited that I almost forgot to give you the formal Squid-Doodle greeting. Anyway, so nice to have a fellow Squidder around. Gets a little lonely here sometimes around all these non-Squid-believers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
… YOU are a Squidlerite? Aww, man! No way! 
There are so few of us out there! What are the odds I would find a fellow Squidlerite on HERE? An atheist site! Fucking amazing!.. 
… Oh, I’m so sorry. Please pardon my bad manners… (clearing throat)… Ahem… Greetings, Brother Squidder. May your life be filled with tentacle delight… (secret eye wink code)… Again, I apologize. I was so excited that I almost forgot to give you the formal Squid-Doodle greeting. Anyway, so nice to have a fellow Squidder around. Gets a little lonely here sometimes around all these non-Squid-believers.