[ythl]

> You can't logically prove a negative, i.e. you can't prove the NSA isn't spying on you, you can only prove they are.

That's simply not true. You can prove a negative, it just takes a lot more effort.

Imagine if computer scientists took the same approach:

"Hey everybody use our new crypto, there are absolutely no flaws in the design"

"Prove it"

"Nope, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there is a flaw"

That type of "burden of proof" argument is not helpful or productive in real life, which is why algorithm/hardware designers go to great lengths to mathematically prove there are no flaws in their design. It's called Formal Verification. If you toss the burden of proof on your customers, you'll have no customers.

I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative, and I have no obligation to spend time and energy proving or disproving anything. It all comes down to who wants the other party to change more.

[gnaritas]

Outside of math, the only place where proofs exist, you're simply mistaken. In the real world, there's no such thing as proof, only evidence, and in the world of evidence only [1]positive and thus verifiable claims suffer the burden of proof. This isn't debatable, this is a fact that you either understand or you do not, it isn't a matter of opinion.

> I can certainly challenge any claim that anyone makes, positive or negative

Yes you can, but it doesn't make your challenge logical. If you challenge someone to prove a negative claim, you are logically wrong and are demanding the impossible. Yes, they may have made a negative claim, the correct response is to say the claim itself is invalid and rephrase it to a valid form and then determine where burden of proof lies.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

If you say "Fish definitely don't have dreams", I'll say that can't ever be proven, there may be one mutant fish somewhere that does dream and you can't examine them all and thus the claim is simply logically invalid. So the claim should be rephrased as "fish dream" and whoever is on that side suffers the burden of proof. However, just because it hasn't been proved that fish dream doesn't mean it's true that they don't, what it does mean is lacking evidence that they do, the answer is unknown.

[ythl]

This whole argument is silly. Apparently the burden of proof is on whomever you want it to be on. The burden of proof is on you? Simply rephrase the argument and suddenly it's on the other person.

OP's original claim was "Consciousness is not supernatural." Here, I'll define supernatural as "beyond our understanding of the laws of nature". Thus, OP's claim rephrased is:

"Consciousness is within our current understanding of the laws of nature."

Now we have a positive claim, and the burden of proof is back on OP.

[gnaritas]

> Apparently the burden of proof is on whomever you want it to be on

No, I've been very clear how to deterministically determine it, you're not listening or responding to anything or any point made; You're having the same argument with several people yet are unable to admit you're wrong; so we're done, you don't know how to converse or the capacity to change your mind when shown your mistakes.

[ythl]

> No, I've been very clear how to deterministically determine it

Oh yes, you've been very clear indeed. "All" I have to do is prove that consciousness is supernatural in order to be right. And how do I do that? You've basically cornered me with an impossible task by shaping the semantics to be in your favor.

You want proof that consciousness is supernatural? Just wait until you die and then you can marvel all day long at the fact that you can still think without a physical body. I'll reserve my "told you so" until then (~50 years?)

[gnaritas]

> "All" I have to do is prove that consciousness is supernatural in order to be right.

No all you have to do to be right is not demand impossible proofs of negative statements. The correct answer to a claim that "consciousness is not supernatural" is say it's an invalid claim as it's impossible to prove a negative statement except in maths. Done, simple as that. Negative claims are invalid and ought simply be rejected out of hand. Only falsifiable claims are valid claims, this is basic science, if it isn't falsifiable it's garbage.