WTF? Sure I can. My own subjective experience is wrong all the time. For example, I think you are an ignorant piece of shit who is not worth having a three-minute conversation with, however, you probably wouldn’t be such an ignorant dick in person and might actually listen to reason. My subjective experience could always be wrong. That’s why we have, “What Scientists Call” INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION. We do that, so we don’t make stupid errors like the ones you are making. Always question your subjective experiences. It’s the right thing to do. If I was stupid enough to experience a universe with consciousness I would probably be wrong.
Now.Your assertion was that the universe had subjective experience. That is what I denied. Lack of evidence is evidence of absence. You have no evidence that the ‘Universe’ experiences anything.
So, it seems that you don’t grasp my point. You believe that just because a movie is fictional, it implies that the viewer is also fictional. However, that’s not the case. Subjective experience is an objective phenomenon. Nevertheless, what you are currently experiencing could be entirely inaccurate or false.
But it’s important to note that your subjective experience cannot be independently verified.
Anyway, I see that it’s impossible to discuss these subjects with our current language. Everything is riddled with misunderstandings, fallacies, and so on. It’s simply nonsensical.
Oh dear…either neither position can proved, or one position is objectively evidenced more than the other, you can’t have it both ways, and you will need to do better than this straw man, as no one has disputed the existence of subjective experience, merely been unswayed by panpsychism, and more importantly your inability to explain why you think it evidences a deity, and the “experts” you cited on it do not, as they are atheists.
FWIW all the objective evidence suggests consciousness exists as an emergent property of a functioning brain, so your argument is going down the pan whichever of your mutually exclusive claims you finally decide to own.
Another straw man, the assertion is that what the evidence supports is that one is an emergent property of the other, the brain dies and it’s bye bye consciousness. However you can’t demonstrate consciousness in the absence of a functioning brain at all? And worse still you claimed the positions were equally unevidenced assumptions, oh dear.
You seem to be repeating my point back to me for some reason? See emboldened text, you misrepresented what @Old_man_shouts_at_cl said.
You don’t seem to have addressed your false dichotomy fallacy at all, and merely repeated your original claim? And you’ve added a straw man fallacy as well, as I never said subjective experience was imaginary, so two logical fallacies on the bounce, what doe that infer about your arguments? Oh and Chalmers is an outspoken atheist, so what he says doesn’t support your argument, or Russell who was also a renowned atheist, yet you keep citing them, and refusing to address this obvious CONTRADICTION in your reasoning.
That is simply a lie, I have very specifically cited the overwhelming objective evidence that we only ever see consciousness in conjunction with a functioning brain, and that if that brain is impaired it usually impairs consciousness to some degree, and that in every single instance when the brain dies, the consciousness disappears forever. The arbitrary claims are all yours.
The same straw man fallacy, clearly I wasn’t suggesting that subjective experience is imaginary, only that you could not demonstrate it exists without a functioning brain, “outside of your imagination”, that was the imaginary bit see. You have also failed to explain why the expert philosophers you cited don’t support your argument that panpsychism is a sound argument for a deity, as they are both outspoken atheists. or which deity you imagine is real? Your argument for a deity is non-existent at this point.
Ah I see, you’d rather my reasoning mirrored your fallacious arguments? I don’t think you have a very good handle on debate in that case. Though given your relentless use of straw man fallacies to misrepresent my position this mendacious accusation is pretty funny. I shan’t even feign surprise you made this duplicitous claim without even a pretence of an example or any evidence to support it.
I don’t, nor did I remotely imply any such thing, this is another of those mendacious straw man fallacies you keep using, your timing was perfect though. Now you will leap to an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy and insist that I explain the evolutionary benefit. You’re becoming so very predictable, as your argument leaps from one logical fallacy to another. Subjective experience exists, and evolution exists, you are the one violating Occam’s razor by trying to add an unevidenced deity and inexplicable magic.
No we are not, another straw man fallacy sigh, we are discussing your claims that a) it exist in the absence of consciousness and a functioning brain, and b) that somehow (as yet unexplained) it is an argument for a deity, even thought the expert philosophers you cited don’t agree with you, and are well known atheists.
A whole thread dedicated to a straw man fallacy you created? I think that’s overkill. A better use of your tie would be to present some explanation of why you disagree with the expert philosophers you cited, as you think panpsychism is a sound argument for a deity, and they clearly don’t. You might also finally tell us which deity you are claiming exists.
I see you’ve gone from clipping my posts to mitting any quote at all, I suppose it makes it easier to misrepresent them with straw men that way.
I see the misunderstanding here, @Quim meant to say you cannot deny the EXISTENCE of your subjective experience, he just worded it hilariously poorly, I was minded to point out this out to him a while ago, but was having too much fun.
Nice of you to begin reading minds. Where in the fuck did you come up with that gem? If a subjective experience can not be independently verified we may agree that there may have been an experience but not know what exactly that experience was. We are left with a big ‘I don’t know.’ Including delusional states, false experiences, lies, and the rest. Until we can begin the verification process the only response we have is ‘no response.’
The only thing nonsensical is your usage of the language.
Well when you have learned to avoid logical fallacies, and have a sufficient grasp of language come back and see if your argument is any more compelling. In the meantime any chance you’ll explain why your experts on panpsychism don’t agree with your argument it is a sound argument for a deity? Leaving tis one unanswered simply looks like you’re running away to be honest, though that is your choice of course.
You have fallen into a trap. Both statements are correct, as you cannot prove subjective experience to be real, and you cannot claim that the universe is real if our experience of it is not.
Seeing an intelligent response is NOT equivalent to having a subjective experience. The word here is see
So, let me clarify: does an AI interacting intelligently with you possess subjective experience? It seems you’re conflating your ability to perceive an intelligent response with the ability to have subjective experiences. This is an arbitrary assumption. Just because you cease perceiving someone or something interacting with you, it does not necessarily imply that this entity lacks subjective experiences.
The number of assumptions made here is extensive, making it impractical to engage in a meaningful debate.
Those were not the choices, and the fact you think mutually exclusive claims can both be correct again infers something pretty obvious about your reasoning.
Experience is an emergent property of consciousness, and exist only as an emergent property of a functioning brain.
Experience can exist without a functioning brain.
Those positions are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. You claimed they were “equally” plausible since neither can be proved, of course this involves an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy and likely violates the law of non contradiction?
And of course we do have objective evidence for position 1, but none for position 2.
We have objective evidence that AI is designed, created by a species with a functioning brain, and claiming AI experiences things in the same or a comparable way to consciousness is a false equivalence.
Nope, it seems you are doing this and assigning this falsely to me, another of those straw men fallacies we discussed.
Well it was one of yours not mine, so physician heal thyself…
Well you could reason it’s a coincidence of course, but I’m afraid I cannot muster that level of intellectual dishonesty, but then I am not emotionally invested in preserving a specific belief. So I will go where the objective evidence leads, and not make arbitrary assumptions that dispute that evidence as you’re trying to do here.
You could stop making them?
I already did, you’re welcome.
Please address my question why the expert philosophers you cited on panpsychism don’t support your belief that it is a sound argument for a deity?
I asked this long before you started playing with your imaginary abacus, and have asked it many times since, and you have ignored it every single time, so do try not to be a hypocrite here, by making churlish demands like that, there’s a good lad.
Well since your argument is in tatters I suppose blackmail is your only recourse. Fucking truly hilarious fair play. Did you try stamping your foot when you demanded that?
Did you imagine for one moment I had any expectations your rank hypocrisy and dishonesty would suddenly abate at this point?
Tell you what I’m in a generous mood so I will help you understand. You don’t need to answer it, because having evaded it this many times it has exposed your argument as worthless. You theists love analogies, so lets try one here, when a small child hides it’s face in the mistake belief it can’t be seen or can avoid the angry glare of a parent, it is wrong. Similarly you are obviously wrong if you think you can avoid the inference of the question by not answering it in a public debate.
I was trying to convey that perhaps you are conflating your ability to interact with something intelligent with the idea that this thing possesses sentience. However, this assumption is fallacious for reasons that are currently unknown.
Then I will allude to near-death experiences (NDEs) that expose sentience despite zero brain activity. Then, you will deny it, so I will provide an example of sentience without a heartbeat (no blood circulation in the brain). Next, you may mention undiscovered processes in the brain, and the conversation will continue in this manner… there is no end to this…
I know, it is fallacious because you made an assertion I had not, and falsely assigned it to me. That is called a straw man fallacy.
All experiences are near death, and I don’t believe your unevidenced anecdote that sentience has been demonstrated “despite zero brain activity”, and it is almost painfully tedious at this point in the discourse to explain why, but it is nonetheless an unevidenced anecdote, what’s more one need only flip on any news channel or seek our any scientific publication to see they are not running with what would we be a paradigm shifting event.
Sigh, I don’t need to, how many times must the utter worthlessness of unevidenced anecdotal claims be explained, or that all I need do is withhold belief, and need not make any claim whatsoever?
Since these are two very different claims, you are either being incredibly obtuse, or incredibly dishonest? That brain function doesn’t cease immediately when the heart stops is not disputed, that consciousness disappears every time the the brain function ceases is equally not disputed.
What’s your point, that I simply and stubbornly refuse to accept unevidenced anecdotes, and poorly reasoned arguments? Why would you think anyone is obliged to do that? You came to an atheist debate forum quite deliberately, to peddle your unevidenced superstition remember. Do we owe you anything we wouldn’t owe a flat earther or someone who came here insisting they’ve seen bigfoot?
I just want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.
1 I believe you agree that we cannot measure whether anything possesses sentience or not. For instance, we cannot determine if AI is sentient. Is this correct? Are there any mistakes here? Please correct it if necessary.
2 If you cannot ascertain whether something is sentient, then it is impossible to assert that sentience exists only when there is a brain or is absent when there is no brain. This assumption is being made. Is this correct? Are there any mistakes here? Please correct it if necessary.
3 When you claim that there is no experience anymore once the brain dies, it is another assumption because you cannot measure the presence or absence of sentience. Is this correct? Are there any mistakes here? Please correct it if necessary.
4 The only reason we assume something is sentient is because we observe reactions that appear consistent with brain activity. However, we are not directly observing sentience itself, which is another assumption. Is this correct? Are there any mistakes here? Please correct it if necessary.
5 I believe it is entirely reasonable to state that observing reactions in something is not necessarily equivalent to sentience, such as with AI, for example. Is this correct? Are there any mistakes here? Please correct it if necessary.
@quim, I will be happy to offer an expansive response as I have done throughout, but first I am going to have ask you to answer my question:
Why do you think panpsychism evidences a deity, especially as the expert philosphers you cited to support the idea obviously don’t agree, as they are outspoken atheists?
Debate requires reciprocity, and most of those points I have already offered detailed explanations of my position on. So in the interest of fairness I think you ought to try and answer, and tell us which deity you are calming to believe is real.
Who gives a shit of subjective experience is X,Y or Z.
How do you link this to God?
You have to first demonstrate God is even more then just some simple hypothesis invented by our ancestors in order to put a label on what they don’t know.
WTF? My subjective experience of fire is that it is hot and if I touch it it will burn me. I have verified that on many occasions and it is scientifically verifiable. WHAT PLANET ARE YOU LIVING ON? The fact that other people have the same experience tells me it is independently verifiable.
@Quim is NDE proof for sentience with zero brain activity or sentience can’t be measured? Which one is it?
It’s funny that you would take a testimony of NDE as proof of sentence with zero brain activity, even tho you cannot know when that experience has developed because there is no time stamp on memories.
However you accept post facto interview as proof of sentience while claiming that sentience can’t be measured.
I asked for your definition of experience, you pointed me to some link that you posted. I can do same, I could just say watch Sapolsky’s lectures you’ll find all answers there. And you’ll learn why there can’t be experience without brain or neural network.
However this is a debate forum and you are expected to know and defend your claims in your own words.
