• zqps@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    10 hours ago

    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.

    • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      8 hours ago

      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.

        • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          1·
          8 hours ago

          Followed up with:

          we cannot prove consciousness (except our own of course) so it’d be you who must prove it can be implemented in a turing machine. Not me.

          So yeah I think humans have it, but we cannot prove anyone else than ourselves do.

          • zqps@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            6 hours ago

            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.

            • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              4 hours ago

              Lol that’s not how you argue in good faith, but sure let’s stop this sterile pissing contest.

              Bye.