Present me a rigorous definition of the concept, then a coherent evidence based argument for why we should even consider the concept as a potential, and then a series of experiments to prove or disprove the concept.
I will be chatting with the invisible, immaterial and mute elephant that lives in my living room until you do.
Point to the comment made before my edit. I clarified my comment after posting it, no comment was made prior to my edit.
There may have been one I did not see. As is the nature of federate platforms and de-federated instances. Or, perhaps even, a comment from someone I blocked previously.
The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.
That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
Present me a rigorous definition of the concept, then a coherent evidence based argument for why we should even consider the concept as a potential, and then a series of experiments to prove or disprove the concept.
I will be chatting with the invisible, immaterial and mute elephant that lives in my living room until you do.
Poor etiquette to significantly edit your comment without noting so, especially after it’s already received a reply.
Point to the comment made before my edit. I clarified my comment after posting it, no comment was made prior to my edit.
There may have been one I did not see. As is the nature of federate platforms and de-federated instances. Or, perhaps even, a comment from someone I blocked previously.
The elephant crap was not in the original comment. That’s not just a typo, mate. If you’re incapable of admitting something so trivial, and deflect by bringing up previously blocking people, like that has anything to with it, you’re certainly not worth any more of my time.
That entire statement is predicated on the assumption that everything about the universe, how it came to be, etc., is directly observable from within the universe, which we also cannot know with any certainty.
But I don’t have to, you’re the one who made the claim that we assuredly don’t have souls, so prove it yourself.
This is the only way that makes sense to approach it. Either it is and there’s an objective truth and consistency to reality, or it isn’t and there’s literally infinite possibilities so any single possibility is infinitely unlikely and there’s no reason to assume any of them are valid.
An assertion that something does not exist does not need to be proven, since it is inherently a challenge to someone else’s assertion to something existing.
A negative can not be proven, if someone wishes to insist that a concept be considered, the burden of evidence fall upon them.
That’s quite an oversimplification. What you’re really asserting is that sentience has no part which is very difficult if not impossible to directly measure. You can throw your hands in the air and pretend you’ve not made any such claim, but you have. It’s bizarre how many atheists display the same levels of dogmatism and fervour as their religious counterparts.
P.S. pretty odd that you felt the need to condescendingly imply I’d think talking to some kind of ghost elephant is equally plausible as not knowing the entire nature of the universe.
So… you define the concept of soul as being comparable with sentience?
Do you mean sentience or sapience?
They don’t know what they mean, they’re just regurgitating entry-level thought experiments.