A Return to the Topic of Consciousness

[Flannel Jesus]

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

That's... what just happened, you goofball. Quit talking about doing it and do it.

As I said, I have already done what was asked for.

Did you miss where and when I already said and wrote this?

Yeah, I missed the part where you gave arguments. You can surmise I missed it by noticing that I'm asking for it - if I had seen any arguments, I wouldn't be talking about them as if they hadn't been provided.

[Iwannaplato]

If you say so.

So, how about some actual arguments about how it is possible to provide actual arguments that prove one thing to one who believes otherwise?

Once I have had some actual arguments, presented to me about how one can only go about presenting actual arguments to those who believe or disbelieve things, then I will 'know' how to provide 'actual arguments' that 'that' is the case.

Also, how about some actual clarification that one has, fully, understood what 'that', 'the case', claimed is, exactly, first?

After all providing 'actual arguments that 'that' is 'the case' to someone who has not yet shown any sign at all that it has even understood that 'that' is the same 'that', which was said and claimed, in the first place.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that 'actual arguments' can be nothing more than just unsound, and/or invalid arguments which, to me, are just a waste of time' and some thing that is best not repeated, unless, of course, to show what 'not to do'.

So, how about some sound and valid arguments be presented here, in this forum, as well?

P1: For a computer to have 'conscious experience' like human beings do, then computers would need the ability that human beings have, which allows them to have the 'conscious experience' that they do.
P2. The ability that human beings have, which allows human beings to have the 'conscious experience' that they do, comes from 'intelligence', itself.
P3. 'Intelligence' is; having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.
P4. Computers do not have 'intelligence', itself. Computers do not have the ability to learn, understand, and reason every thing.
C: Therefore, it is impossible for computers to have 'conscious experience', like human beings do.

Now, how I am supposed to provide 'actual arguments' that it is possible that computers 'are aware', other than just ask, if absolutely any one 'knows', irrefutably, how it could be 'impossible' that it is 'possible that computers are aware', then will you please provide your sound and valid argument, here?

P1. Human bodies are made up of matter. And, it is said that human bodies, or that what is within human bodies 'are aware'.
P2. Computers are made up of the exact same matter.
P3. If the matter 'is aware', or 'that', which is within matter 'is aware'.
C: Then, it is 'possible' that computers, and everything else for that matter, and/or 'that', which is within matter, 'is aware', as well.

Now, do these 'actual arguments' that 'that' is 'the case' suffice, or 'No'?

Wow.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It seems it wasn't so easy or simple, for you, at all. Why one could say it was a daunting task for you and one that was 'performed' with bitterness and anger. Since you've told me you don't feel those things, I know you didn't, but your communication indicates them. This could be worked on.

The first argument is circular.

But the 2nd is interesting. You leave open the possibility of panpsychism. Interesting.

[Flannel Jesus]

But, I have already done what was asked for.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

That's... what just happened, you goofball. Quit talking about doing it and do it.

As I said, I have already done what was asked for.

Did you miss where and when I already said and wrote this?

So, knowing I haven't seen that you've done what was asked for, are you gonna show me? Please show me

[Atla]

Also, how many different types of 'consciousness' are there, to you, "atla"?

The word has like 4-5 different meanings. This is too complicated for you. None of them is your delusional sort of 'I', by the way.

[Age]

That's... what just happened, you goofball. Quit talking about doing it and do it.

As I said, I have already done what was asked for.

Did you miss where and when I already said and wrote this?

Yeah, I missed the part where you gave arguments. You can surmise I missed it by noticing that I'm asking for it - if I had seen any arguments, I wouldn't be talking about them as if they hadn't been provided.

Okay.

Once again, some things are 'seen' by some people, while being completely 'missed' by other people.

[Age]

If you say so.

So, how about some actual arguments about how it is possible to provide actual arguments that prove one thing to one who believes otherwise?

Once I have had some actual arguments, presented to me about how one can only go about presenting actual arguments to those who believe or disbelieve things, then I will 'know' how to provide 'actual arguments' that 'that' is the case.

Also, how about some actual clarification that one has, fully, understood what 'that', 'the case', claimed is, exactly, first?

After all providing 'actual arguments that 'that' is 'the case' to someone who has not yet shown any sign at all that it has even understood that 'that' is the same 'that', which was said and claimed, in the first place.

Also, and let 'us' not forget that 'actual arguments' can be nothing more than just unsound, and/or invalid arguments which, to me, are just a waste of time' and some thing that is best not repeated, unless, of course, to show what 'not to do'.

So, how about some sound and valid arguments be presented here, in this forum, as well?

P1: For a computer to have 'conscious experience' like human beings do, then computers would need the ability that human beings have, which allows them to have the 'conscious experience' that they do.
P2. The ability that human beings have, which allows human beings to have the 'conscious experience' that they do, comes from 'intelligence', itself.
P3. 'Intelligence' is; having the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing.
P4. Computers do not have 'intelligence', itself. Computers do not have the ability to learn, understand, and reason every thing.
C: Therefore, it is impossible for computers to have 'conscious experience', like human beings do.

Now, how I am supposed to provide 'actual arguments' that it is possible that computers 'are aware', other than just ask, if absolutely any one 'knows', irrefutably, how it could be 'impossible' that it is 'possible that computers are aware', then will you please provide your sound and valid argument, here?

P1. Human bodies are made up of matter. And, it is said that human bodies, or that what is within human bodies 'are aware'.
P2. Computers are made up of the exact same matter.
P3. If the matter 'is aware', or 'that', which is within matter 'is aware'.
C: Then, it is 'possible' that computers, and everything else for that matter, and/or 'that', which is within matter, 'is aware', as well.

Now, do these 'actual arguments' that 'that' is 'the case' suffice, or 'No'?

Wow.

Now, if you or any one else 'wanted arguments', then just ask for 'them', instead.

How much simpler and easier could things get here?

It seems it wasn't so easy or simple, for you, at all.

Why, exactly?

What, exactly, made it seem, to you, to be, supposedly, not to be so easy nor simple, for me, at all?

Once again, what will 'come-to-light', 'be shown', and 'be revealed' here, is just how often this one makes claims, but will not back up and support those claims with absolutely any thing when just asked to clarify its position, with just some very simple and very easy clarifying questions.

Why one could say it was a daunting task for you and one that was 'performed' with bitterness and anger.

How one 'presumes' things like this one has here, when it has absolutely nothing at all to 'go on', besides just printed words before it alone, is because of its pre-existing beliefs and presumptions 'about' 'the writer', only.

Since you've told me you don't feel those things, I know you didn't, but your communication indicates them. This could be worked on.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, once more, shows and proves that when it 'presumes' some thing 'about' another, then it will 'jump to a conclusion', without seeking absolutely any clarification at all, and worse still will actually believe that its own made up 'pre-existing views/beliefs, its new 'presumption', and its, obviously, new 'confirmation biased conclusion' is true, and so then write and say some thing like; 'This could be worked on', as though it, laughingly, actually did even exist.

The words from this one known here as "iwannaplato" are 'living proof' of just how utterly 'closed' and 'blind' some adult human beings really were, back in the 'olden days' when this was being written.

Not that you "iwannaplato" would, ever, answer and clarify this, but what, exactly, in 'my communication', supposedly, 'indicated', to you, that there was absolutely any 'bitterness' and/or 'anger', when I just what you call 'performed', what was to me a Truly very simple and easy thing to do here?

The first argument is circular.

It is often said in 'philosophy forums' that the burden of proof' is up to, and on, the one who makes 'the claim', 'the accusation', and/or 'the assertion'.

you have 'claimed' and 'asserted' that the 'first argument is circular', so would you 'clarify' how, exactly?

Because, from another's perspective it is not circular, although it might appear to be so, to some.

But the 2nd is interesting. You leave open the possibility of panpsychism. Interesting.

The word 'interesting' can be one of 'those words' that could imply just about any thing and/or is one of those words that can be used and said without really saying much at all.

[Age]

Also, how many different types of 'consciousness' are there, to you, "atla"?

The word has like 4-5 different meanings. This is too complicated for you. None of them is your delusional sort of 'I', by the way.

But, it is obviously 'you' who is complicating things here, which did not needed to be, by your adding more and more 'layers' and/or 'definitions', which you do so in the hope that it will never become obviously clear that, really, you do not yet have any idea about what you are even talking about here.

Once example is by you claiming that there is some so-called 'relevant consciousness', but when you are asked to clarifying or elaborate on this term and phrase, nothing at all is provided, by you.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complicated at all here. Absolutely nothing.

People who say, 'This or that is complicated', are those who do not know 'this' or 'that', fully.

And, for you to say and claim, 'This is too complicated, for you', when just asked to clarify or elaborate on what you said and claimed, actually shows, and may well prove irrefutably, just how little you really know in what you claimed.

To 'presume' or 'believe' 'the other' could not understand some thing, when you "yourself" do not even begin to explain what you understand shows and reveals a couple of things 'about you' here.

[Atla]

Also, how many different types of 'consciousness' are there, to you, "atla"?

The word has like 4-5 different meanings. This is too complicated for you. None of them is your delusional sort of 'I', by the way.

But, it is obviously 'you' who is complicating things here, which did not needed to be, by your adding more and more 'layers' and/or 'definitions', which you do so in the hope that it will never become obviously clear that, really, you do not yet have any idea about what you are even talking about here.

Once example is by you claiming that there is some so-called 'relevant consciousness', but when you are asked to clarifying or elaborate on this term and phrase, nothing at all is provided, by you.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complicated at all here. Absolutely nothing.

People who say, 'This or that is complicated', are those who do not know 'this' or 'that', fully.

And, for you to say and claim, 'This is too complicated, for you', when just asked to clarify or elaborate on what you said and claimed, actually shows, and may well prove irrefutably, just how little you really know in what you claimed.

To 'presume' or 'believe' 'the other' could not understand some thing, when you "yourself" do not even begin to explain what you understand shows and reveals a couple of things 'about you' here.

We already knew it was too complicated for you, there was no need to demonstrate it, but thanks.

[Flannel Jesus]

As I said, I have already done what was asked for.

Did you miss where and when I already said and wrote this?

Yeah, I missed the part where you gave arguments. You can surmise I missed it by noticing that I'm asking for it - if I had seen any arguments, I wouldn't be talking about them as if they hadn't been provided.

Okay.

Once again, some things are 'seen' by some people, while being completely 'missed' by other people.

Age, you're not holding up your side of the bargain. You always go on about how if someone wants to know something from you, they should just ask. So far you have an extremely bad track record of giving people the information they ask for, making you a liar, and an exceptionally annoying one.

The people from the future reading this forum notice that, you know. They see how full of shit you are.

[Age]

The word has like 4-5 different meanings. This is too complicated for you. None of them is your delusional sort of 'I', by the way.

But, it is obviously 'you' who is complicating things here, which did not needed to be, by your adding more and more 'layers' and/or 'definitions', which you do so in the hope that it will never become obviously clear that, really, you do not yet have any idea about what you are even talking about here.

Once example is by you claiming that there is some so-called 'relevant consciousness', but when you are asked to clarifying or elaborate on this term and phrase, nothing at all is provided, by you.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complicated at all here. Absolutely nothing.

People who say, 'This or that is complicated', are those who do not know 'this' or 'that', fully.

And, for you to say and claim, 'This is too complicated, for you', when just asked to clarify or elaborate on what you said and claimed, actually shows, and may well prove irrefutably, just how little you really know in what you claimed.

To 'presume' or 'believe' 'the other' could not understand some thing, when you "yourself" do not even begin to explain what you understand shows and reveals a couple of things 'about you' here.

We already knew it was too complicated for you, there was no need to demonstrate it, but thanks.

This one NEVER has an 'actual discussion' 'with me'.

It always just makes accusations, and then 'runs away' as quickly as it can.

[Age]

Yeah, I missed the part where you gave arguments. You can surmise I missed it by noticing that I'm asking for it - if I had seen any arguments, I wouldn't be talking about them as if they hadn't been provided.

Okay.

Once again, some things are 'seen' by some people, while being completely 'missed' by other people.

Age, you're not holding up your side of the bargain.

And, what is, supposedly, 'my side' of some 'bargain'?

You always go on about how if someone wants to know something from you, they should just ask.

Do 'I' 'always' do this?

So far you have an extremely bad track record of giving people the information they ask for, making you a liar, and an exceptionally annoying one.

If this is what you 'see', then okay.

But, as I just pointed out, and which you are now 'showing' and proving absolutely True. Some things are 'seen' by some people, while being completely 'missed' by other people.

The people from the future reading this forum notice that, you know. They see how full of shit you are.

Is this what you 'see', and 'believe' here?

Oh, and by the way "flannel jesus", was it you, or was it not you, who wanted 'some actual arguments, from me, that 'that' is the case, instead of just stating it'?'

If yes, then did you miss where I provided some, for you?

If yes, then they are there.

But, then again maybe you might prefer to just keep missing them, then you have no excuse for not replying to what 'it' was that you, supposedly, wanted.

[Atla]

But, it is obviously 'you' who is complicating things here, which did not needed to be, by your adding more and more 'layers' and/or 'definitions', which you do so in the hope that it will never become obviously clear that, really, you do not yet have any idea about what you are even talking about here.

Once example is by you claiming that there is some so-called 'relevant consciousness', but when you are asked to clarifying or elaborate on this term and phrase, nothing at all is provided, by you.

Oh, and by the way, there is absolutely nothing complicated at all here. Absolutely nothing.

People who say, 'This or that is complicated', are those who do not know 'this' or 'that', fully.

And, for you to say and claim, 'This is too complicated, for you', when just asked to clarify or elaborate on what you said and claimed, actually shows, and may well prove irrefutably, just how little you really know in what you claimed.

To 'presume' or 'believe' 'the other' could not understand some thing, when you "yourself" do not even begin to explain what you understand shows and reveals a couple of things 'about you' here.

We already knew it was too complicated for you, there was no need to demonstrate it, but thanks.

This one NEVER has an 'actual discussion' 'with me'.

It always just makes accusations, and then 'runs away' as quickly as it can.

You're not yet ready for the ACTUAL TRUTH, and by the looks of it, you never will be. Discussions don't work with you.

[Age]

We already knew it was too complicated for you, there was no need to demonstrate it, but thanks.

This one NEVER has an 'actual discussion' 'with me'.

It always just makes accusations, and then 'runs away' as quickly as it can.

You're not yet ready for the ACTUAL TRUTH, and by the looks of it, you never will be. Discussions don't work with you.

you have never even begun to have a discussion, with me. And, this is obviously because of those very, absolute, beliefs that you clearly have and are clearly holding onto, dearly, 'about me'.

LOL you 'talk about' some made up 'relevant consciousness', as though 'it' actually exists, but then are absolutely too afraid and too scared to even just discuss what it is, under the pretense that 'it' is 'too complicated for me'.

you are being an absolute "joke" here "atla".

you seem to forget that you are in a public 'philosophy forum', from which anyone can 'look at' and 'see' what you are saying, and doing, here.

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh, and by the way "flannel jesus", was it you, or was it not you, who wanted 'some actual arguments, from me, that 'that' is the case, instead of just stating it'?'

If yes, then did you miss where I provided some, for you?

If yes, then they are there.

Then WHERE they are? This is the internet. You can link to things. Are you incompetent to link to things? Do you not know how to use this forum software?

[Atla]

you seem to forget that you are in a public 'philosophy forum', from which anyone can 'look at' and 'see' what you are saying, and doing, here.

You're the one who keeps forgetting that this is a public forum and anyone can see that the problem is with you, not with me/us.