Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:18 am
Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:43 am
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:18 am
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:18 am
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?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:18 am
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.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:18 am
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.