(December 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:(December 27, 2018 at 9:06 am)polymath257 Wrote: OK, I disagree. The *concept* exists. The object does not. There is an important distinction there that is undermined when you say it 'exists conceptually'. So yes, different terms are required.
Since I have no idea what it means to 'exist supernaturally'. The closest I can get it 'imaginary'.
OK, please define what you mean by the term 'subjective experience' and 'consciousness'. it seems to me that any software that would be able to *exactly* mimic a human in all behavior would require an internal state that it has access to, which seems to fall under the definition of 'subjective experience' in my book.
How, precisely, is it possible to program a computer to exactly reproduce human behavior that does NOT have a subjective experience and consciousness?
How do you know the object does not exist?
Also, here's an explanation with source linked here.
"The concept of the supernatural proposes the existence of things that are inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature."
There you go. Now you know what it means and should be able to be more specific. You would just need to specify what evidence you would find acceptable that are separate from the laws of nature.
Well, the laws of nature are descriptive. So, to say that something is inexplicable by the laws of nature simply means there are no discernible patterns in its behavior. Furthermore, it would mean there is no discernible patterns in the probabilities of its behavior, etc. Since evidence of existence would require a discernible pattern of some sort, that would imply there cannot be evidence of the existence.
At that point I would question in what sense it can be said to exist.
