I personally suppose humans all (or 99%+, there are always statistical outliers) have a consciousness actually, but that doesn’t mean I can use it as a fact when making an argument. For example, if you do use it as a fact, then why doesn’t monkeys have a consciousness, pigs, cats, muskitoes, trees, planks, too, etc etc etc.
Math is based on the idea that 1+1=2 and you take that as granted. I can live with that, it seems reasonable. All humans have a consciousness? Not accepting that if you infer that just because a machine can mimic a human brain, it thus also will have even the possibility to have a consciousness.
Do you think a machine can have a quala, the experience we “experience” because we have a consciousness?
This was your position: “we have ‘quala’ (consciousness)” in regards to humans. That’s what I’ve challenged in my reply.
Now you’ve wildly moved the goalposts twice in just two comments. The first (solipsism) I’ve rejected, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just needed a reminder on your own position.
Now you did it again. I’m not playing this game. Stick to a point, anything else is just rudely wasting the time of people actually interested in having a good-faith exchange of ideas.
I personally suppose humans all (or 99%+, there are always statistical outliers) have a consciousness actually, but that doesn’t mean I can use it as a fact when making an argument. For example, if you do use it as a fact, then why doesn’t monkeys have a consciousness, pigs, cats, muskitoes, trees, planks, too, etc etc etc.
Math is based on the idea that 1+1=2 and you take that as granted. I can live with that, it seems reasonable. All humans have a consciousness? Not accepting that if you infer that just because a machine can mimic a human brain, it thus also will have even the possibility to have a consciousness.
Do you think a machine can have a quala, the experience we “experience” because we have a consciousness?
This was your position: “we have ‘quala’ (consciousness)” in regards to humans. That’s what I’ve challenged in my reply.
Now you’ve wildly moved the goalposts twice in just two comments. The first (solipsism) I’ve rejected, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just needed a reminder on your own position.
Now you did it again. I’m not playing this game. Stick to a point, anything else is just rudely wasting the time of people actually interested in having a good-faith exchange of ideas.
Dude where did I say we (humans) have quala?
Nowhere.
I do think most of us do, but that there is absolutely no real proof of it.
Now who’s moving the goalpost with that eh.
Do feel free to stop wasting my time anytime you like.
https://vger.to/lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/26710154
Followed up with:
So yeah I think humans have it, but we cannot prove anyone else than ourselves do.
I don’t have to address what other things you also said. I challenged that point, which you believe to be true, with relevant interesting facts.
If you don’t want to defend a thing you said, it’s much less obvious and embarrassing to just stop responding.