[creer]

> It's akin to "why do you refuse to believe in god"

Wow wow wow! Here you have the opportunity to design your own experiments; choose as specific (or varied) criteria as YOU wish; start from your own definitions or axioms, state them and test them. In fact you are even allowed to move the goal post if you prefer (though nobody will like you for that, it's still possible). The argument is more "state and test them!" The case could not be more different.

Even if you wish to just stick to defining "conscious", people will welcome that.

Isn't it "not valid at this time", that's not valid?

I don't claim to have the answer to any of these (but I do claim to see where this is headed, and rather fast too.) But I find it hard to claim that it's not even a valid conversation.

[ggm]

Could be you have the right of it. I'm at a point in life where argument about intelligence is unrewarding and so like a thomist I state my view, I don't seek to rebut or defend. Belief, like faith is anchored in axioms which beg questions. I am a non believer (athiest, not agnostic) and i am a non believer in emergent ai from the current activity.

My comments to evidence are about as far as i go to argument and yes they do invite "so you are absolutist but open to evidence" and I certainly acknowledge a burning bush would be very hard to refute hallucinations aside. Not ai hallucinations I hasten to add, the human kind.