Non-existence

[Edwardo Piet]

You have no evidence of any other consciousness. You have only your own conscious experience.

I think that the burden of proof would be on the strange idea that somehow I was the only one conscious. I only have direct evidence of my own consciousness...but which is really more probable? Them being philosophical zombies as you say, being indentical in every way except not conscious...or simply them being consciouus too and myself not being some sort of bizarre exception, and being the only actual 'conscious' brain (however 'conscious' you have to be to be 'fully conscious' that is...how do you even measure that?)

You are not even aware if others have a consciousness, or are philosophical zombies, with the exact mechanisms of brain chemistry as you, and therefore mechanically human behaviour, just like you, but simply no conscious mind.

Such a belief would be making a gratujitous exception though me thinks. If they are physically and biochemically identical, why on earth would I be an exception with 'consciousness'.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything more than the workings of the brain.

When your brain is messed with, your consciousness is. And I see no reason to believe in philosophical zombies, because the fact I know what I'm thinking is not evidence that I'm 'special'. I obviously dont' know what others are thinking because I'm not psychic...But I certainly have no logical reason to believe that I am somehow 'special' - of course I am only conscious of myself.

If others appear the same I think it's a bizarre conceit that I am an exception and others aren't the shame. Muse on the idea of philosophical zombies, sure. It's possible, sure...but why on earth would I be a total exception and they all be an illusion when in every other way their brain more or less seems pretty much the same?

Brain chemistry would be present in philosophical zombies just as well, and it would be the very source of the mechanical human behaviour of that philosophical zombie. All that would not be present is a conscious mind.

For me to be a total exception and every one else to be philosophical zombies I find to be highly improbable. Their brains are more or less pretty much the same like I said (they're human brains, etc) -

- the fact I'm aware of my own conciousness is not evidence that others aren't conscious. However, the fact that they completely emulate such conscious behavior I see to be at least very strong indirect evidence that they are.

You still haven't given pointed out reasons why you aren't yourself a philosophical zombie, a wholly mechanical and unconscious product of brain chemistry.

I am aware of my consciousnes and are otherwise the same. I cannot be aware of their consciousness because they're not them. I know of no evidence that they wouldn't be the same. I expect evidence for it to be different, because the fact they completely emulate consciousness means that I would need evidence that I am somehow some sort of bizarre exception...merely becasue I'm only aware of my own consciousness (and I mean...DUH!).

Just like a person has knowledge of Gods existence properly basic to his own personal and qualitative experience and knowledge.

Personal experience is not evidence of God. Unless you can show me that it somehow is. And that entirely personal...experience can give credence to the notion of a supernatural being that created the universe actually existing.

You have no evidence others aren't philosophical zombies, because you have no knowledge of their conscious experience, only of their brain chemistry which might as well produce a philosophical zombie acting mechanically without a conscious mind.

For me to be the only one that is 'actually consciousness' when the other around 6 billion people on the planet perfectly emulate it, I consider to be utterly ridiculous. It's not impossible no, I muse over the idea, yes. But I need evidence that I'm some bizarre exception merely because 'I', 'know me'.

I can, and have done so in my own thread, where I have presented two arguments for Gods existence which remain unrefuted.

Unrefuted to you. I don't know exactly to what you're referring to, but all I've seen is you go on about how the existence of 'God' is required for the existence of 'objective truth'. And I think...so what? Truth doesn't need to be objective...and not only does it not...but there's absolutely know evidence (at least that I know of) of any absolute objective truth anyways. And nor is there for God - I haven't seen any actual evidence that gives credence to the notion of a supernatural being that created the universe actually existing.

So since there's no evidence for absolute objective truth, I don't see how you can use such an argument to back God up. And even if there was - I still don't see. Where do you actually give evidence to 'God' actually exsting?

Maybe I've failed to refute your arguments for God because I fail to see how you are in anyway displaying any actual arguments for God, or any that are actually any evidence, or indeed, any that you are actually seriously suggesting to display the truth of 'God' actually existing.

Or maybe it's another thread with a different argument you speak of? In which case you can perhaps kindly direct me? No I don't for one minute expect you to somehow display God - but my mind is open

EvF