>>11765176>My question is clearly understoodwhether or not this is true is irrelevant. your strong arm debate tactics are first, worthless, since we can just use them against you, second, they distract from the topic. the tiny amount of progress made in this conversation is entirely owed to the generosity of the posters who PERMIT you to rudely interrogate them while you refuse to define a basic fucking term.
the fact is, it is not relevant whether or not your question is clear.
the fact is, when you ask:
>Describe anything without using your consciousness.and you are unable to answer the clarifying question:
>"i'm sorry, i don't understand the question. can you please explain what you mean?"you are not only ruining any chance you had to have a fruitful conversation, but you also allow everyone to deduce that you're incapable of defining consciousness.
this is more relevant.
being right or wrong in an internet argument is of minor importance, all things considered. being so overwhelmingly incapable of having a conversation, should be the more pressing issue.
i'm informing you about conversational norms, because you need to hear this. you have sabotaged any hope of discussing consciousness.
if you think that asking someone to define a term is an unfair request, you are wrong.
if you think it is considered to be a difficult request, you are wrong.
if you think that evading the request to clarify a term makes you more likely to receive effortful replies, you are wrong.
if you think that evading a request to clarify a term doesn't make everyone instantly assume you're a retard that can't express a coherent thought, you are wrong.
if you think there can be cases where the retardation associated with refusing a request to clarify a term can be plausibly denied, you are wrong.
intelligent people of the sort that actually have interesting things to say in conversations about philosophical issues like consciousness, do not do those things.
