Instigator / Con
14
1740
rating
56
debates
73.21%
won
Topic

The mind is obsolete

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
0
Sources points
4
4
Spelling and grammar points
2
2
Conduct points
2
1

With 2 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Philosophy
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
7
1483
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 864 / 5,000

Pros burden of proof: Science has made the mind obsolete and is able to provide a replacement
Cons burden of proof: The scientific replacement for a mind is either nonexistent, far worse or self-contradictory

Only 10 000 characters - no more

Assumptions and rules:
- Science has not disproven or favoured pure atheism or theism
- Concepts exist only within a mind or the replacement
- Both Pro and Con has a mind or something similar
- Science has not and cannot prove the mind to be nonexistent
-Otr means "or the alternative" and refers to what will be inserted instead of the mind

Definitions:
- Mind = What makes a living human different from a zombie copy.
- Brain = what zombies like to eat, and what my opponent does not have.
- Apologies for the joke
- Concept = an abstract idea that is not physical
- Experience = how the mind (otr) perceives reality

Added:
Instigator
--> @Tejretics

I honestly expected a detailed breakdown of the arguments.

Added:

How can the minds of everyone fall into disuse?

Added:

To the right people, I am a recluse, to the wrong people, I am a selfish bastard. To all, my mind is obsolete.

Added:

change it to my mind is obsolete and we might have a debate.

Added:

Define obsolete

Added:
--> @Benjamin

is this just a convoluted version of Wagyu's "Machines in theory can think"? Sure seems like it.