The mind is obsolete
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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
I honestly expected a detailed breakdown of the arguments.
How can the minds of everyone fall into disuse?
To the right people, I am a recluse, to the wrong people, I am a selfish bastard. To all, my mind is obsolete.
change it to my mind is obsolete and we might have a debate.
Define obsolete
is this just a convoluted version of Wagyu's "Machines in theory can think"? Sure seems like it.