BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consciousness (Human, animal, etc) Can Exist Without a Brain

BradK, I appreciate the sentiment. The exam was agreeable. Firstly, I disagree with the contention that firing neurones are equal in function to the logical operations of a computer. While it is a comfortable analogy and a useful model to convey the general principles of neuroscience, it is simply too reductionist to be used as the basis of serious inquiry. The path of neurotransmitter across synapses, the growth, regrowth and shedding of neurones and the dense biomechanical arrayed cortices and lobes is far too complex to lump with AND/OR/NOT statements. Therefore, I reject your first proposition that the brain emulates machine, and that such an emulation is reciprocal. Secondly, your logical trap was almost successful, except for the fault in your assertion that I must hold one of two positions. There are in fact three, and I hold the third. Your fallacy here is called 'false dichotomy', or more relevantly, 'fallacy of the excluded middle'. The position I hold which you quoted, "we have no good reason to believe something is the case until it has demonstrated to be the case", is not a 'NOT' statement. This same fallacy is observed by those who don't understand the position of atheism. There is belief for, non-belief and belief against. I am not asserting that it is impossible and will never happen, because of course that is not demonstrable and would carry a significant burden of proof. I am instead assuming the default position; rejection of claims until substantiated by reasonable justification and evidence, of which there is none for a mind absent brain. Therefore, I am in fact justified in my claim, as it is not an opinion but the only reasonable position. Absolutely correct. In my introduction of Eugene I made the point that it was controversial. Not only were there questions about the validity of the testers but as it happens Eugene doesn't employ a mutating/learning algorithm. I don't feel that this is significantly important to our debate other than to illustrate the difficulty in agreeing upon a clear definition. Should you bring this back up in your round I'll be happy to continue this contention but I don't think it serves either of our purposes particularly well and am happy to move on should you agree. Is this really the case? Let me ask you a question. If I convince a person that I'm a police officer, but I'm not a police officer, do I become a police officer? If I trick a girl into thinking I'm good looking by means of silver-tongued seduction and doctored photos on the Interwebs, does that make me attractive? A piece of software, returning scripted responses for a given input, is the same as any other program but has been designed to give the illusion of consciousness. This does not satisfy our agreed upon definition, and in fact specifically refutes it. As for your final question, this resolution is not one about solipsism! Of course I can't prove that other people are conscious or even exist, but given the propensity of the evidence and the fact that it doesn't make a difference, I choose to believe that. Haha!
Consciousness (Human, animal, etc) Can Exist Without a Brain

I hope your exam has gone favourably.---On to the debate: If the brain uses pulses coming into a neuron to generate pulses going out of the neuron, in a fashion similar to OR, AND, and NOT, then our computing machines are plainly working off the same sorts of input/output structure. It is often said that a person can do everything a computer can, given enough time, a calculator, pencil, and stack of paper. Brain and machine are both capable of the same task. The brain is capable of emulating the machine. Is the machine capable of emulating the brain?Many of us are familiar with video game console emulators. You might think "A Wii can emulate an SNES, but an SNES cannot emulate a Wii. If something is being emulated by a more complex machine, then it cannot emulate the complex machine." If you consier the PC, quite the opposite is true. You could run a virtual machine on Windows, which ran MAC OS, which itself ran a virtual machine running the same Windows. It would be slower, but it's at least possible in theory if you have enough RAM.---Call proposition A = "consciousnes can't work without a brain".If as you say, that "A" is reasonable as long as 'A has not been demontrated, then A is the most reasonable conclusion. 'A is a provable, testable claim, so it's worth the benefit of the doubt. A claim like "our universe is an electron in another massive universe" is untestable and not worth consideration. But 'A is testible, and falsifiable so it IS worth consideration. One such test is the original Turing Test - to see if a judge can discriminate between a human and a computer when communicating to both through only a text box.I hope to trap you by using the reasoning in the previous paragraph. Since you are right that "the recipe will be figured out soon enough" is a statement of opinion. But since 'A is falsifiable, and you agree that it has not been falsified yet, isn't it also an opinion that 'A is false? The summary here is that if either of us try to simply state the resolution, or the negation of the resolution, it is a statement of opinion. You are no more justified to say:we have no good reason to believe something is the case until it is demonstrated that it is the case.Than I am justified to say:the formula will be figured out eventually---I've heard of the recent "Eugene Gootsman" who supposedly passed the Turing Test. This isn't the first claim, and it's more of a cheat because any stupidity displayed by the AI could be disguised as "the 13 year old kid was just stupid and didn't know what to say" (I'm running out of time so I won't get into that too much).I think that if a machine convinces you it is a human, it would have to have consciousness. If you claim it does not, then why not take it a step further and claim that every human that you meet in the street that walks and talks like a human, is just a machine? How do you know that a hypothetical machine that has responds as if it were human does NOT have consciousness, but you know that humans who respond as if they were well.. human.. DO have consciousness?
Consciousness (Human, animal, etc) Can Exist Without a Brain

Thank you for posting your interesting, if slightly over-baked, thought experiment on the age-old mind-body problem and I accept your challenge for a friendly and spirited discussion. As the affirmative, I will contend that you have the burden of proof when attempting to convince myself and others viewing this thread of the possibility of consciousness being able to exist absent of mind. I also agree that any statements I make to the contrary will require, if not substantive empirical evidence (with this being a thought experiment), then at least a substantive, reasonable justification. My argument will largely focus on three key points: Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence or precedent for a mind absent of body. Naturally, this doesn't mean that one won't be discovered or engineered, however we have no good reason to think that one could possibly exist until there is a reasonable justification for believing that there is. I do not accept your postulate that a simulator which could model the chemistry/physics of the human mind could constitute what we label "consciousness" because we have no good reason to believe that it would. Secondly, I will contend that the concept of consciousness is still nebulous, poorly defined and, more importantly, poorly understood. Neuroscientists, psychologists, philosophers and other academics still do not agree on a clean definition of consciousness. A cursory Wikipedia search lends the following definition in the first line of the opening paragraph: "Consciousness is the quality or state of self-awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself" [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. As a matter of academic integrity, it would be intellectually dishonest to claim the possibility of an absent-body consciousness without any indication of this possibility. Thirdly, I will argue that this problem has been considered for centuries, and the further it is argued and debated, the further away from the concept of an untethered consciousness we become. Plato and Aristotle would talk to you about the 'soul', Descartes would tell you that mind and matter were distinct, but that mind could influence matter (i.e. the mind influences the brain). Huxley would subsequently tell you that the mind was a by-product of the brain but had no influence upon it, and Searle would claim that the mind is part of the brain and there is no need for their separation (in the same way as one cannot absolve problems of microeconomics by discussion macroeconomics; they are mutually dependent and although they operate individually in different ways they are both part of a whole, larger system.) This, again, is from a cursory Google search but I will endeavour to keep the debate as accessible as possible by reducing my reliance on the work of scholars whom I cannot claim the intelligence to understand the arguments of in their entirety. I look forward very much to a sporting and thought-provoking debate.
Consciousness (Human, animal, etc) Can Exist Without a Brain

The topic of the debate is consciousness, the premise is that it can exist outside of the brain but we just don't have a machine capable of running it.Suppose that we understood all of the laws of nature that enable life to exist. Then suppose hypothetically that you could simulate all the models of chemistry/physics/quantum physics necessary, either in a virtual world, or in reality in some sort of "brain machine". I think that you could have an independently thinking consciousness in either the supercomputer program, or the machine that is equivalent to the brain in all aspects.. As for what "ROM" and "operating system" that would be needed to be loaded initially, that is a difficult matter and could be a topic of debate should you so choose.4 rounds, 5000 characters. You have the burden of proof on any claim that you make, as do I; anything not refuted will be considered true until refuted. You can state in the first round, an overview of why you think that a human brain and a human mind need each other plus the spark of life, in order to create a consciousness, and why the lack of any of these 3 things will not cause the "flame" of consciousness to keep burning. I will be debating that none of these 3 things are required.This debate is not intended to be taken overly seriously. You can make the "extraordinary claims" without the "extraordinary evidence" part, as long as it's not "extraneous claims with inane evidence".
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb was Unjustified and Illegal.

"You do not comprehend necessary evils or the consequences of outright refusing to do morally questionable acts. My philosophy prevails over yours because mine adapts to the circumstances." Strong language buddy.... I think you don not understand my position. Who says I can't adapt. I'm just saying the Japanese weren't so evil or scary as you say. I understand morally questionalbe acts, hell a guy tries to stab a christian, if that christian has a gun 90% of the time he'll throw "thou shalt not kill" out the window. I agree....hell if the Japanese would not accept surrender at all I'd advocate dropping bombs and doing whatever to prevent unnecessary deaths but I don't think it was necesary. You say you don't advocate unnecessary deaths but then you go on and say, "Japan has no right to a bargaining chip on the table. You do not slaughter 2,000 soldiers of ours and expect to be considered on equal terms. The repercussions are what the victimized country decides to dish out." This shows a disregard for the civilians. You blame the Japanese leaders for their actions. OK but let me get this straight. It's the Japanese leader's fault that the bomb was dropped? To a certain extent but if what actions the US took were wrong, isn't it not the situation but the action in the context of the situation which is wrong not the person who allows the motivation or possiblity of the action. Lastly I'd like to say that it was the US government's opinion that Japan would have surrendered by the end of the year. Thehe US War Department's Strategic Bombing Survey said "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." This shows that the war was over with basically no actions and the US had won but it was a matter of how many weeks and lives it would take or on what conditions it would end. Japan was finished, the US leaders decided early on that unconditional surrender was the only option.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb was Unjustified and Illegal.

I didn't claim the A-bomb detonation was imperative to preserving freedom. What I did declare was that an alternative land invasion would've brought heavier losses on both sides. Street by street warfare would've ruptured Japan into an unlivable slum. Think it was hideous sight from the devastation of the carpet bombing and hydrogen bombs? Imagine in-your-face confrontation for each step taken. Civilian causalities would've skyrocketed far beyond the aerial bombardment. President Truman out of his own concern for what a land invasion would entail took it upon himself to make a choice out of the lesser of two evils. Japanese citizens as we both agreed upon were fiercely loyal to their emperor. The vast majority were more than willing to attempt to kill Americans on their soil with anything at their disposal. Neither did I assert the Japanese citizens were evil. My whole point was merely establishing a grey area. You seemed to believe civilians were innocent by default despite the circumstances surrounding it. That was my impression when reading your opening post. There seems to have been a misunderstanding. You and I both concur civilian deaths are acceptable so long as it isn't senseless. The difference therefore lies in militaristic approach. Wouldn't you say you would advocate the strategy that would result in fewer deaths? The land invasion shouldn't be your pick. The Japanese government, by the refusal accept unconditional surrender, is responsible for the lives lost. Unconditional surrender ensures as best one can that the aggressive party who initiated the conflict will not do so a second time. Japan has no right to a bargaining chip on the table. You do not slaughter 2,000 soldiers of ours and expect to be considered on equal terms. The repercussions are what the victimized country decides to dish out. It is out of benevolence the U.S. returned Japan back to its people.
The Strategic Bombing and use of the A-bomb was Unjustified and Illegal.

President Roosevelt described the early German bombings "inhuman barbarism that has profoundly shocked the conscious of humanity." Clearly it had not shocked nearly enough because as the tide of the war changed the United States of America (U.S.) completely changed there stance on strategic bombing. In fact the German and Japanese bombings were minor compared to the U.S. bombings. The U.S. bombing of Japan was an unnecessary and cruel act. It is clear that there was no concern for civilian losses. Other then the atomic bombs the U.S. primarily used fire-bombing a method which took advantage of the highly flammable Japanese wood and paper houses. They used the fire bombing to create large uncontrollable fields of fire which would kill thousands. In the end approximately a million Japanese civilians were killed by the bombing. At the Hague convention in 1907 the U.S. ratified a treaty banning the use of projectiles and objects being launched from the air against civilians. I will present more information in next rounds.
Was Simeon Bushnell in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Thanks to my opponent for presenting this debate. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a controversial law passed in the United States that required runaway slaves to be returned to their masters [1]. Bear in mind that I am not required to argue that this law is in any way fair or just, simply that Simeon Bushnell was in violation of it. I accepted this debate by accident and am extremely pressed for time at the moment, so I apologise if I do not delve into the issue very far. I am having trouble finding detailed sources describing the case, so this will have to do. In 'A history of Cleveland' by James Kennedy, the trail is addressed. Details of the evidence presented is quite vague, but in mentions that despite a very strong defense 'the defense was represented by a remarkable strong array of talent', the evidence against Bushnell was clear 'evidence of the clearest character was shown to prove the guilt of the accused, under the laws then existing'. It goes on to say that the accusations brought forth from then on were against the law itself, not the guilt of the men charged in respect to it. We can deduce from this that clear evidence was presented showing that Bushnell was indeed in violation of the act. Source --> http://www.clevelandmemory.org... Control F: 'Simeon Bushnell' to find the relevant page. In this summary of the book 'History of the Oberlin-Wellington Rescue' [2], it is mentioned that the slave is indeed a slave 'a fugitive slave belonging to John G. Bacon of Kentucky who was residing in Oberlin, Ohio' and that 'John was liberated by a band Ohio citizens, led by Simeon Bushnell and Charles Langston', clearly indicating that they were guilty of the violating the act. I apologise for not responding specifically to my opponents arguments, although I believe I have refuted the bulk of them and affirmed the resolution. Vote Pro. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://blogs.law.yale.edu...
Was Simeon Bushnell in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Simeon Bushnell was not in violation of the Slave Act. Bushnell was not a member of the crowd or anyone who aided in the rescue. How can Bushnell be guilty of a crime he didn't commit just because he associates himself with the people who committed the alleged crime. Also, assuming that Bushnell did help the slave escape, Bushnell had every right to help the slave. Under Ohio law a person can not be kidnapped based on skin color. If the slave catcher didn't show proof that the black man was a slave the people of Ohio had know idea that the they were violating the Fugitive Slave Law because from what they knew the slave was simply a free black man. The reason anyone helped the slave escape was because nobody let anyone know that the he was indeed a slave and not a free black man. The slave was not proven a slave and it is hard to believe the court systems and people of this nation now believe that it goes "Guilty until proven innocent" and not "innocent until proven guilty."
there is no race, just fun

I accept.Resolved: There is no race, just fun PRO has the burden of proof to establish that there is no such thing as race, which is defined as "a contest of speed," or at least this is the definition, contextually, that we glean from this resolution. [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]However, this is wrong for several reasons. Life is fundamentally about a race to the top -- a constant competition between people of varying abilities and, in some sense, similar interest striving for more and competing for the same positions. For instance, the John Bates Clark Medal is awarded to the best economist under age 40 [http://en.wikipedia.org...]. Clearly, there's a race among young people to the top -- to publish as soon as they can and with the best material that they can, which inevitably involves competition and a significant time commitment. That is by no means strictly fun. It could be fun, but it's also tedious and requires a significant amount of no-nonsense hardwork.You were already voting CON because PRO didn't uphold his BOP and provided us with no argument other than "yea," but you now have to buy the one argument I made refuting this resolution.
rap battle

i'm on my ballin' each and every day asian girls everywhere, ucla you see me babe? you see me babe? asian girls everywhere, ucla i'm on my ish, call it i watch these haters take they shots like they were alcoholics "what is he wearing? somebody jack that fool's steeze" if i'm a fa*g*t spell it right, i got way more than two g's niga i'm amazing, i'm a phenom i'm assassin, i'mma kill y'all ma ma se, ma ma sa, ma ma coo sa and this sht's closed down cause i ball too hard and i'm cu*ming on her face, have i gone too far? i don't know, who cares, i don't love that broad and it's funny how these niga's always act hard i'm a black star in a black car with a black card they wanna knock me out they try a niga realest mother fuker in the game, like tron niga forget these white girls i need some variation especially if she very asian she got an ugly friend? roll solo can i stay at your place? no hobo not my fault, man, these ladies love me she's an overachiever cause all she do is succeed send me naked pics, i'mma tumbl that i'm the sht, been the sht, fuk a humble brag yeah i'm pushin' that, and her pus*ycat i got swag out my a*s so i'm usin' that texting with olivia munn, hopefully she'll give me some or some rosie jones, man ho*s is ho*s is ho*s, man racks on racks on racks, man all i got is tracks, man sorry for my accent, but i've been practicin' everywhere ya go nigas blastin' that bino nigas be like, "you ain't know?" bi+ches be like, "you ain't know?" met this fly latino hope that she eighteen though if she not, i'll say that i got deep throat in heathrow told me i was sh*t, but that sh*t couldn't stop me niga still hungry, black kobayashi when i talk about you i hear a "who?" like horton i was born for this sh*t, you a rappin' abortion can we hear the n-word one day and not get upset? can we try something new and not be suspect? i don't really know, we fu*ked up bad you don't wanna see my dudes when they get mad i got a bunch of jackanapes at the back of me that'll lacerate anyone in the back of a matinee and laugh while they masturbate all over your beaten body sick boy forever, that suburban illuminati naw nig*a, yeah we never stop no period like menopause no period like, "oh sh*t! am i the only one you sleepin' with?"
rap battle

I love my wife, she makes my life.If it wasnt for her I'd be in strife.I know each day that passes it only grows.Someday I hope she really knows. How serious I took our wedding oaths.I hope we are together forever and more. It is only her loving heart that I adore.Her and her happiness is what I'm for. Her juicy lips and nice body too.When i get off of here I know what I'll do. Sometimes life is stress and we do our best.We should never give up cause lifes a test.I hoped this competition would be good.No luck for that, my opponent quit, split wood. Let's just see if he will show in RD. 4 If not then I'll be back to give you more.