Let me guess… it’s all a trick? Smoke and mirrors? They’re puppets?
no, but it is all objective learning. more pavlov's dogs stuff.
Phones don’t have wills… which is required for consciousness
oh really? where did you divine this information from?
Let me guess… it’s all a trick? Smoke and mirrors? They’re puppets?
the only smoke and mirrors here is in your argument...
although, what you lack in using facts you are quite good at with using fallacies, misdirection, ad hominem arguing etc.
Play is one the most important parts of learning for humans and all primates... you should know that
its functions are BASE: it has to do with muscle memory and fitness, nothing more.
Their reasons all sprang from one observation. Their civilizations are weaker and less advanced then ours are
no, it also came from physiology, color of skin, cultural differences.
You're working off a preconceived bias... it's painfully obvious.
says he who is only here because he wants to prove he can make safe concious computers!
I'm the only one between the two of us who's argument stands a damn, yours is so full of hot air and indignance at the failure of your preconcieved notion, that so much as poking your argument with a stick makes it pop! nothing whatsoever except your nice wordplay has half a foot in reality.
I mean... the ape doesn't have to learn how to paint. Cus' we have lots of primates in captivity that have learned how to paint. Furthermore, they all acquire skills not needed for survival. They're monkeys... they play around.
because we condition them with treats, its the same situation under different stressors. tell me you arent such an idiot as to not notice.
we dont just walk in one day and see them spontaneously painting, we give them a paintbrush, an eisle and then say "paint". if they do anything sensicle we give them a treat, if they do nonsense they get nothing. so then they connect the two and walla! you have painting monkeys.
its no different then elephants performing at the circus, same principle, same treat, same effect.
Say uncle... in fact... say monkey's uncle.
you are so wrapped up in yourself.
I'm done noting how you cant put two and two together, you just keep coming up with fancy distractions that take away from simple truth. its like playing with a marionette.
Hmmmm... so severally crazy people are conscious? But Apes that can carry on conversations in sign language and tell you what they're thinking are not?
more threadbare by the moment.
if the monkey's talked about their paintings, or talked about what they would like to do in the future, or in general anything that can be considered a "conversation" then yes, I would have to admit that they are concious.
on the other hand, crazy people are fully capable of carrying out conversations about desires and feelings and subjective matter, all monkeys talk about is what their instructors have force fed them.
First, science is not about consensus but about facts
WRONG! science is ALL about concensus, concencus about what the FACTS mean, your threads have neither of either!
Well founded? Would that well founded theory be the fuzzy theory that actually backed up my statements instead of yours?
the word is fuzz, how monkeys and apes think is more or less very well known, and thats all thats relevant.
You've cited nothing that's backed you up. Your whole position is bankrupt
I repeat, the only source you've sited is a novelist with no academic history that we're aware of, yet you state things that make no sense (like that monkeys force fed sign language have in fact, developed it on their own) and call it fact that supports a very very nondescript theory of yours! oh PLEASE!
I have countered all your points
you have countered NOTHING, you've been playing a game of tag where each supposed assault on my points is nothing but a faked ruse of a cleverly similar, but nonetheless different circumstance.
*is amused by the irony*
so you have FINALLY gotten the irony? I've been BLEEDING that through the last 2 pages now.
The complexity of the task isn’t as relevant as the fact that they reasoned out a tool
what you're missing is the fact that there is no evidence tehy have reasoned anything! just because they act doesnt mean they have in fact, developed that action on their own. again, I repeat: if they had reasoned sticks as utensils rather than stumbled upon it, they would have reasoned something slightly more complex, like the idea that if you dig into the mound you will find more ants.
Quite the contrary… but you don’t have to be smart to be conscious as you’ve proven in several ways already
quite the opposite! they are VERY smart! but the thing is
smarts does not beget conciousness. reasoning does, and they have not shown any evidence of independant reasoning skills. all we've seen them do is either a passed down parlor trick or was taught to them through conditioning by US.
The monkey understood the relationship between the stick and the ants
again, show me definative proof. you have none because we've never seen a completely isolated chimp make the relationship apparent on its own, all we've ever seen are chimps in preformed societies that more likely than not learned it from their ancestors
you may be able to work a computer, but that doesnt mean you could build one from the ground up. I need to reach into very complex grounds because you know how to reason other things on your own, monkeys, as far as we've ever seen, do not.
The fact that you have no proof for that point and yet have no doubt of it just backs up what I said about bias.
You’re making this too easy.
of course i dont have evidence about that! the thing is
neither do you and yet you somehow think the assumptions are miraculously different. now do you see waht I mean when I say you arent basing in fact? just because it seems the more likely scenario to you, doesnt mean it is the only scenario.
I like that you fell for my ploy, I feel ever smarter now.
They defined that as responding to sensations.
and they defined responding to sensations as something beyond twitch manuver which even a jellyfish does, though it has absolutely no thought process whatsoever.
No, I placed the highest burden required by each definition as written. Don’t blame me you don’t like the results it’s your own silly citation.
like hell you did, "wakefulness" you defined as... being awake, thats not hte full extent the word develops to. in fact the farthest definition of wakefulness would define even a sleeping person as awake in that they are still processing and thinking, while as a chimp, who does not think in the subjective manner, would not be in a wakeful state.
That means that entities that are not exercising their consciousness are not at that moment at least conscious
hardly, it would define REM sleep as a wakeful state. it would define anything without an appreciably sized frontal cortex as not being in one.
I USED YOUR OWN DAMN CITATION AND INTERPRETED IT PERFECTLY!
see its only perfect in so far as you defined it. thats exactly the hump you cant seem to get over.
Phones don’t have wills… which is required for consciousness
oh really? and exactly where is that definition, because in using "wills" I could definately decimate your whole point about chimps etc. as they have no "will" to do anything, simply an evolutionary imperative.
Are phones self aware? Do the pass the mirror test? If I played back a phone to it self… would it notice itself?
if it has an interference blocker, one could certainly argue yes.
see why I dislike how you defined things? anything goes when you use the words to the point where you might have well said "diddly diddly bong bong boo" and accomplished as much.
For a little levity… you remind me of the black knight from MP and the HG:
and you remind me of this guy

because you really say nothing of intelligable quality.