Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[polymath257]

OK, please define what you mean by the term 'subjective experience'

Something that qualia is part of.

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

Robots can already mimic many aspects of human behavior and they don't seem to have any subjective experience. Advances in programming will make their behavior more human like but that doesn't mean that they will be able to feel pain.

And what is a quale? it is a part of subjective experience. So a circular definition. Not very useful.

Why do you think it is possible to have computers *exactly* behave like humans and not have qualia? How do you know other people have qualia? For that matter, how do you know *you* do?

I disagree with you statement about computers and feeling pain. To be able to exactly mimic human behavior, they would have to be programmed to have a negative reaction to certain stimuli. To be able to produce the behavior, that negative reaction has to be sufficiently negative that it *would* be the experience of pain as expressed in the circuitry involved.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Then it ends up in a stalemate.  You want evidence, but I don't know what you consider evidence.


If I'm in a court room and a judge wants evidence, I would need to know what he or she considers evidence, or they would just dismiss everything that didn't meet their standard.

Nope it's a victory for the nonbeliever as the asserter as produced nothing to back their assertion and the unconvinced can go along their merry way 

If a you show up in court make up a bunch of assertions the judge is a allowed to simply throw the the case out .

---

No, they behave like they're conscious and aware but they don't have any subjective experience.

P zombies are rubbish 

Complex enough software can make robots behave exactly like humans but that doesn't mean that they have consciousness.

Which in no way makes us not conscience 

Neurons

We also have those

Another idiot who take P zombies seriously

Not at all. The question/op was faulty as-is.  It's not about win-lose.  It's about gaining something, and nobody gains anything if the question isn't fully defined.  You can't readily provide something to someone if you don't know what it is they want.  That should be common sense.


Q: I need a screwdriver. Can you get me one? (Insufficient)
A: What kind of screwdriver? (Request for sufficiency)
A2: I need a #4 Phillips (Request is sufficient for a proper response)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nope it's a victory for the nonbeliever as the asserter as produced nothing to back their assertion and the unconvinced can go along their merry way 

If a you show up in court make up a bunch of assertions the judge is a allowed to simply throw the the case out .

---

P zombies are rubbish 


Which in no way makes us not conscience 


We also have those

Another idiot who take P zombies seriously

Not at all. The question/op was faulty as-is.  It's not about win-lose.  It's about gaining something, and nobody gains anything if the question isn't fully defined.  You can't readily provide something to someone if you don't know what it is they want.  That should be common sense.


Q: I need a screwdriver. Can you get me one? (Insufficient)
A: What kind of screwdriver? (Request for sufficiency)
A2: I need a #4 Phillips (Request is sufficient for a proper response)

A2 is wrong.  The correction is 'vodka and orange juice'.

Boru

[T0 Th3 M4X]

---

It implies the existence of it conceptually.  I thought we already went through this.   If you suggest it exists naturally, then that's a whole different category.  If you say it exists supernaturally, that's  also another category.  More than likely, we would use different means for identifying and assessing each based on the category it falls under.   If you don't think that's fair, then feel free to disagree.  If not, then how would you suggest we assess evidence for anything categorized as being supernatural?

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'.

---

No, they behave like they're conscious and aware but they don't have any subjective experience.

---

Complex enough software can make robots behave exactly like humans but that doesn't mean that they have consciousness.

---

Neurons

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.

[GrandizerII]

"The concept of the supernatural proposes the existence of things that are inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature."

Philosophically speaking, that definition is not sufficient enough to tell us exactly what the supernatural really is. What does it mean to be positively supernatural? And what does it mean for something to be necessarily supernatural if it is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature?

Good enough definition for the dictionary, but not good enough for a proper philosophy discussion.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

"The concept of the supernatural proposes the existence of things that are inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature."

Philosophically speaking, that definition is not sufficient enough to tell us exactly what the supernatural really is. What does it mean to be positively supernatural? And what does it mean for something to be necessarily supernatural if it is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature?

Good enough definition for the dictionary, but not good enough for a proper philosophy discussion.

Right, and I agree.  But if someone is asking for "evidence" this needs to be established so as to be able to provide whatever would be deemed necessary to be considered evidence.  That's what we're working on.

[polymath257]

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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes.  So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence.  What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence?  If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."

[The Grand Nudger]

This entire excuse is ridiculous.  Evidence is evidence.  Literally, it is "that which is evident".  Either you have something that is evident and points to great fairy...or you don't.  Negotiating over the terms is just an exhausting exercise in complete surrender.

The very moment that a convo like this goes to some batshit "well, what is words..and what are they, anyway - what does word mean and what would constitute A Word?" then the answer is obvious. No. No, you don't have any evidence.

[Amarok]

Nope it's a victory for the nonbeliever as the asserter as produced nothing to back their assertion and the unconvinced can go along their merry way 

If a you show up in court make up a bunch of assertions the judge is a allowed to simply throw the the case out .

---

P zombies are rubbish 


Which in no way makes us not conscience 


We also have those

Another idiot who take P zombies seriously

Not at all. The question/op was faulty as-is.  It's not about win-lose.  It's about gaining something, and nobody gains anything if the question isn't fully defined.  You can't readily provide something to someone if you don't know what it is they want.  That should be common sense.


Q: I need a screwdriver. Can you get me one? (Insufficient)
A: What kind of screwdriver? (Request for sufficiency)
A2: I need a #4 Phillips (Request is sufficient for a proper response)

Let's rewrite this 

C: This thing exist 
Q: Really can provide ant evidence that it exist 
R: No you need to leap through hoops to define evidence blah blah blah 
R:So the answer is no then . I'll be on my way then

---

Maybe, but if it supersedes the natural, then it could potentially dictate said laws and processes

Right superpowers solve everything 

So that brings me back to my original question about what would be considered evidence. 

Not our problem 

What is it I would need to provide to be considered evidence?  If I don't know what counts as evidence per the OP, it would be silly for me to assume something, or I would just be told, "Well that's not acceptable evidence."

None of this is our problem