/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15915507
>it states a physically identical human, which is not possible
What you talking about, where/how does physically indentical human enter anywhere into the discussion.
>you need to prove an atomically identical human could somehow lack consciousness
The exact opposite. Since you can't observe the consciousness of another human like you could your own, which is the very basis to the claim consciousness exist in the first place, the proponent that claims another human possess consciousness like himself have the burden of proof.
>you have no reason to dismiss anyone as being conscious other than political and religious reasons, which do not fit in a scientific discussion
Any perceived political or religious implications is your own bias.
I simply follow where the logic leads.
Plus, if you understood the position, I never said you have grounds to logically dismiss anyone as been conscious OR unconscious.
You simply have no way to verify either way.

>>15582479
It's also obvious you have no idea what you are talking about and would rather hide behind jargons and ad hominem
Let me try to see if that makes my post any more convincing.
You are retarded, tard.