>Thinking you can prove a supreme conciousness when you can't

>>2564293

THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE PROVED JUST REVEALS THE NATURE OF THE IMPAIRMENT OF PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF.

>>2564487
Prove it then.

we can't even define or explain what consciousness is in a useful way

>>2564497

I HAVE ALREADY PROVED IT; CONSCIOUSNESS IS PROVED TO ONESELF VIA INTROSPECTION, NOT TO OTHERS VIA DISCOURSE.

I SUGGEST THAT YOU AVOID THE METAPHYSICAL, BECAUSE IT IS BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF PERSONS LIKE YOURSELF.

>>2564509
No, you fucking dumbass. The question isn't whether or not my consciousness exists. It's about your own. I am asking you to prove your own consciousness. Learn to read.

File: wide__822x462[1].jpg (35KB, 822x462px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 822x462px

>>2564509
did you prove to yourself what introspection is first, so that you knew you were doing it?

>>2564523
That's... what he said...

>>2564523
>you fucking dumbass

How ironic.

>>2564531
>>2564532
What he said was a non-squiturial non-answer.

>>2564540
what's wrong with non-sequiturs?

>>2564545
They don't pertain to the question at hand.

>>2564545
Well I think anon is asking YOU to prove your consciousness to ME, sollepsism yo

File: 1489370595640.jpg (38KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x400px

>am i the bot or are they

>>2564293
The very fact that you are thinking actually proves that you are conscious.

>>2564733
what if he's a bot?

>>2564540
No, it wasn't...

>>2564733
Is an ant conscious? What about a computer?

I think therefore I am

I win

>>2564826
>I think
You cannot prove that there is an "I" doing the thinking, only that thought itself exists.

>>2564835
the thought wouldn't exist if I wasn't thinking it

>>2564509
>yet another rehash of le cogito ergo sum meme
End my life

>rationality is good
Only works if you presuppose the existence of a consciousness.

>>2564842
Prove it.

>>2564293
Can you even prove that the concept of proof is valid?

>>2564826
>Cleverbot thinks that it "thinks" lulz

>>2564856
I am replying to your fucking post , my thought is not independent of me

>>2564844
>>yet another rehash of le cogito ergo sum meme

NO.

>>2564923
YES

>>2564293
>Using the laws of logic, which are immaterial concepts, in order to prove that a naturalistic worldview is objective.

>>2564879
>my thought is not independent of me
Again, this is something that is being asserted. Can it be proven that thought requires a thinker?