The Case for Idealism

[Monistic Idealism]

Okay, let's try that definition and see where it gets us. Which part of the definition you have provided accounts for the word "god" ?

It's an idiom man, there's no philosophical dissection of the word God here. It's just an expression, and one that you clearly knew the meaning of so you're committing a false analogy.

And did you, or did you not, misread my comment ?

Did you or did you not understand the meaning of the phrase "for god's sake"? I'm giving you a chance to be honest now, don't pretend you don't know the meaning of things you know...

It means I do not understand what this "I" is.

That doesn't make any sense, what do you mean???? You're saying there is this "I" that doesn't know. What do you mean by "I"???

 

[momo666]

It's an idiom man, there's no philosophical dissection of the word God here. It's just an expression, and one that you clearly knew the meaning of so you're committing a false analogy.

Sure there is. The word "god" is nothing special; it requires a definition. You have provided a definition of the phrase "for god's sake" and I want to know which part of that definition accounts for the word "god". That should be something fairly simple to do if your provided definition matches the phrase.

Did you or did you not understand the meaning of the phrase "for god's sake"?

I did not and I still don't. Now, will you acknowledge that you have misread my comment ?

You're saying there is this "I" that doesn't know. What do you mean by "I"???

You are asking me to explain what I am requesting you to explain. If I knew what this "I" is, I wouldn't need you to explain it right ? And if you truly knew what this "I" is, you wouldn't have such troubles explaining it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You have a habit of selecting the text to which you want to reply, whilst leaving out the important parts of the response

You have a habit of trying to tell me what I mean by my own words... I've told you what I meant: I was only asking for verification, you're hearing it straight from the horses mouth... Deal with it...

Just to update you, Gnug has responded that he's now got the emails, and - I trust - he'll either contact you or post here that they're genuine. [Edit: I see he has whilst I was typing this reply.]

Alright then.

As Gnug has now confirmed their existence/authenticity, there's no need to continue this point of contention.

You keep making this claim - that "consciousness is irreducible": I don't agree, and have seen nothing in your posts to convince me of this.

I've provided several arguments and appealed to negative evidence from neurology. Describing neurons and their activity doesn't tell us what it is like, as even Nagel pointed out.

And as I've pointed out, our current understanding of consciousness does not allow us to make any definitive claim as to whether it is irreducible or not.

The science shows that a neuro-biological basis for consciousness is the most likely explanation.

Those who affirm strong emergence make this same claim. They believe this neuro-biological basis "gives rise" to consciousness, that it produces rather than constitutes consciousness.

Nothing indicates that mind can exist absent the brain, and - indeed - the body.

I'm not a substance dualist.

Substance dualism is not the only alternative - monistic physicalism is a valid position.

an AI system can be conscious due to the analogous relationship between neurons in the brain and processors in a computer system.

No since consciousness is not reducible and you have yet to give proof rather than a mere analogy.

You've yet to convince me of the irreducibility of consciousness.

In a high-level language program, say Pascal, it is "unaware" of the hardware on which it runs.

The program is run through a compiler to translate it into a lower-level language, Assembler, which then is converted to machine code at the hardware level.

You might argue that the compiler is analogous to "introspection" - however, it is also unaware of the hardware, merely the "state of consciousness" (the Pascal program), and the Assembly language program.

From the "top-down" perspective of the high-level program, being unaware of anything else, it considers itself "irreducible". From the "bottom-up" perspective of the hardware, even though it's equally unaware of anything above it, there's a path from hardware > Assembly program > Pascal program.

Whereas the Pascal program is not irreducible, the hardware can more properly be described as irreducible.

Does that help make it clearer?

Not at all. Just because a reflection can fool someone into thinking it's real does not mean that it's conscious.

Then convincing another that its conscious is an insufficient criteria by your own admission. This would apply to AI as well: just because it can convince another that doesn't mean its conscious.

And that equally applies to biological life-forms - including humans. See?

Introspection is a state of consciousness, which is still undefined/unexplained

I have defined it as even the SEP went on about, introspection grants direct knowledge. Are you familiar with that term...?

Yes, I am. But, like the Pascal program analogy above, that still doesn't solve the problem of consciousness - since the compiler (introspection) is unaware of the hardware on which it runs.

Is the mind/consciousness a single- or group-entity? Is it independent of, (co-)dependent on the brain, or is it an illusion?

Consciousness is unified/one, fundamental, and definitely not an illusion as it takes an act of consciousness to perceive an illusion in the first place.

It's made up of a multiplicity of parts, as Baars' model describes; it's somewhat analogous to "the wisdom of crowds", as such, it can't be "fundamental". You can't claim that it's not an illusion - that would require a better understanding of consciousness than is currently known.

An argument doesn't mean a thing

Yes it does: it's a proof. Definition of proof: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Which means nothing in the real world.

P1 James has a beard;
P2 Goats have beards;
C James is a goat.

Have I proven that I am a goat?

My premises are built on evidence as I noted long ago with the observations regards neurons and their activity example. If the mind were identical to such, then describing such would be sufficient, but its not. This is an empirical claim backed up by the data.

Incomplete data: we don't know enough yet to decide what consciousness is nor how it exists.

You didn't mention, let alone answer, this question.

Because its irrelevant. I already told you I believe mind from mind makes sense and that I'm a cosmic idealist. I clearly believe our minds come from a cosmic mind and that we are all contingent on this cosmic mind.

That answers the "how" - now all you have to do is answer the "when".

The hard problem of consciousness doesn't exist, as the article I cited explains.

Why don't you email Chalmers about it and convince him yourself? Scared he'll express some credulity and hence saw off the branch you sit on...?

He's aware of how many people in his field (including Searle), and others, disagree with him - he doesn't need me to add to that number, given my opinion will carry no more weight than yours.

"Constituted" and "produced", as you use them here, are simply not separable

You are 100% wrong. Constitute and produce are NOT synonyms. Check out the thesaurus for yourself:

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/constitute?s=t

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/produce

Constitution is like lego bricks making up a face, the face is constituted of the bricks and thus identical to the bricks. There is nothing more to the face than the bricks.

But a face still needs some entity to perceive, and identify it as such - so, it's not just the bricks.

Produce is like what happens when steam comes out of an engine. The steam is produced by the engine and is not identical to the engine. There is not just the engine, there is the steam that the engine "gave rise" to.

Again, water is part of the steam engine's system - so, the steam is definable as being "produced", as in ("consituted of its parts") by the system.

As I said, these terms were usable when it was just the brain, the grey matter in the skull. Nowadays, they're no longer of any use since it's difficult to tell where the boundaries of the system end.

And, as I've intimated before, the hard problem will be found to be nothing more than an illusion: a result of the multiple soft problems.

Is there or is there not something special about neurons and their activity? We can describe every other cell just fine without there being this bridge to gap...

No, we can't - if that were the case, medical diagnosis and treatment of everything from diseases to injuries would be a doddle.

If the mind were identical to neurons and the body then describing such should be sufficient, that's how identity works: A=B. But that's clearly not the case as you even admit with your appeal to the future. You wouldn't have to worry about some possible future discovery, your job would already be done if what you're saying is true. The mere fact that you're doing this is an admission that reductionism is false.

No, it isn't. It's an admission that we don't know enough yet to answer the problem of consciousness.

The solution is bound to be neuro-biological, at least, because we have evidence of the existence of Nature.

You don't have any evidence of the existence of a Cosmic Entity, on which you claim minds, and everything else, are contingent.

I'm arguing that consciousness is not necessarily confined to biological systems - computer systems can be conscious, given that processors, working in parallel, are no different than neuronal activity.

I'm awaiting proof that this is actually true.

I've provided an analogy above of how a computer system could be conscious. There's no such thing as "proof" in the real world, only evidence - proof only exists in systems of logic, and mathematics.

Only because you're blinded by the idea that minds are a top-down phenomenon.

No, even you have a problem with strong emergence lol irreducible mentality from the non-mental? that makes no sense

Only to someone who's trapped in a "top-down" ideology.

Here are a couple of recent items that might be of interest - particularly the first:

What would it mean for AI to have a soul?

IBM project debater fights corner against human opponent

It's a case of emergence - not reduction. It's a "grass-roots" phenomenon, if you will, not a "top-down" one.

If you're talking about weak emergence then you're saying these "mental properties" are determined by observing the system, that they are constituted of that neuro-biological base. Yet describing such a base fails to describing consciousness. Looks like you'll have to give up your reductionism if you want to avoid eliminativism. But then you'll just be a property dualist and wind up with the same problems as Descartes. With Idealism, you can avoid these problems altogether... Ever notice how your own article cites Idealism as the first solution to the hard problem of consciousness...?

Just like a Creator solves all the how/why problems in regard to the existence of the universe?

You keep referring to the term "system" - as I've pointed out, it appeared easy when this only referred to the brain in the skull. Now that the boundaries of the system have expanded, it's not so simple any more. People, in all relevant fields, have realized that the saying - "the more you learn, the less you seem to know" - is true.

Can you clearly define the boundaries of "the system"?

The fact that we don't know/understand enough about the brain and its activity to completely explain consciousness at present does not mean we'll never be able to do so.

There would be no explanatory gap if consciousness were reducible, but there is by your own admission... Per modus tollens, the fact that this is happening at all means consciousness is not reducible.

Wrong - as I keep pointing out, all this shows is that we don't know enough yet about "the system" to explain consciousness.

You focus on two named philosophers, whilst ignoring the rest who disagree with Chalmers?

I've addressed those claims already. You're either an eliminativist, a reductionist, or a non-reductionist. I've dealt with em all.

And your explanation of eliminativism doesn't appear to be accurate:

I haven't gotten a thing wrong. Notice how you didn't cite the definition at the very beginning of the entry, how convenient... It states:

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist. Descartes famously challenged much of what we take for granted, but he insisted that, for the most part, we can be confident about the content of our own minds. Eliminative materialists go further than Descartes on this point, since they challenge the existence of various mental states that Descartes took for granted."

So when people say "I am conscious" or "I think" or "I believe x" or "I feel x" the eliminativist would deny this. They think there is just the brain and its activity and all other things like qualia and consciousness and thoughts are eliminated, hence eliminativism... The SEP even states in that very article you cited that in principle, anyone denying the existence of some type of thing is an eliminativist with regard to that type of thing, so why else would they be called eliminativists if they weren't denying the existence of something?

Even Searle had this to say about Dennett's book "Consciousness explained": "To put it as clearly as I can: in his book, Consciousness Explained, Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. He continues to use the word, but he means something different by it. For him, it refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have. For Dennett there is no difference between us humans and complex zombies who lack any inner feelings, because we are all just complex zombies. ...I regard his view as self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which a theory of consciousness is supposed to explain...Here is the paradox of this exchange: I am a conscious reviewer consciously answering the objections of an author who gives every indication of being consciously and puzzlingly angry. I do this for a readership that I assume is conscious. How then can I take seriously his claim that consciousness does not really exist?"

Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/dec/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/

Galen Strawson brings up this same issue on how physicalists of this type will sometimes deny that they deny consciousness, but when you look at the details they really are denying consciousness:

Notice how the very first objection listed against eliminativism in the SEP is The Self-Refutation Objection? lmao

If the term can be used in either regard, then it's a generic, not unique, term to refer to the elimination of something - whether "folksy" explanations of consciousness or consciousness itself.

You quoted from Nagel in support of what you said. How is that different from my "alleged Chalmers' email"?

Nagel gave an argument, Chalmers didn't.

You have not "proven" your premises - otherwise, Chalmers would not have an issue with most of them, particularly P4, and the step from P7-P8, would he?

Chalmers didn't give us an argument, and it doesn't seem he read the paragraphs.

He was giving his opinion based on his expertise in the field - that should count for something.

As I've said before, chess grandmasters automatically dismiss moves that lesser players waste time considering because they lack the grandmasters' expertise.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

As Gnug has now confirmed their existence/authenticity, there's no need to continue this point of contention.

Alright, glad you've dealt with it.

And as I've pointed out, our current understanding of consciousness does not allow us to make any definitive claim as to whether it is irreducible or not.

Yes it does. If it was reducible then describing neurons and their activity would be sufficient since A=B, but describing A does not describe B by your own admission. By modus tollens, then means reductionism must be false. You can't hide behind the future, either you can identify consciousness with the brain and its activity or you cannot. You clearly cannot...

Incomplete data

Not possible given cells and their activity is described entirely with observation. If consciousness were identical to such, then describing such would be sufficient, but it's not. This means you have to give up reductionism.

No, it isn't. It's an admission that we don't know enough yet to answer the problem of consciousness.

A=B, remember...? Since you can already describe neurons and their activity, and there's clearly nothing special about them as they are just like any other cells, then describing them should describe consciousness. The fact that it doesn't entails reductionism is wrong by your own admission.

Wrong - as I keep pointing out, all this shows is that we don't know enough yet about "the system" to explain consciousness.

All you're doing here is repeating the very statement I've refuted. You're not even giving a counter-argument, you're just repeating the very same claim that I gave an argument against... Do you even know what modus tollens is....? It's the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p ) can be inferred.

If reductionism were true, that means A=B, which means describing A describes B. Yet you admit there's an explanatory gap. If A=B then there would be no explanatory gap, which means by the very rules of logic, reductionism must be false...

Substance dualism is not the only alternative

I never said it was, I'm just correcting your misunderstanding. You keep talking about me like I'm substance dualist. Stop doing that. I'm a monistic idealist.

monistic physicalism is a valid position.

Not really as both reductive and non-reductive physicalism fail.

And that equally applies to biological life-forms - including humans. See?

All you've done is shot yourself in the foot here. You're the one using the "if it can convince another its conscious then it's conscious!" criteria, not me. So you've just admitted your own failure here...

P1 James has a beard;
P2 Goats have beards;
C James is a goat.

Have I proven that I am a goat?

Of course not because your argument here is INVALID. sigh i'm not saying this to be mean, honest: you should seriously consider studying introductory logic/critical thinking. You're trying to show that arguments are insufficient by citing an invalid argument... come on, man... If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Show me a valid argument with true premises that has a false conclusion, go ahead I'll wait...

That answers the "how" - now all you have to do is answer the "when".

Probably at conception but idealists can vary on this. This general case for idealism doesn't commit one way or the other on this matter.

He's aware of how many people in his field (including Searle), and others, disagree with him

And they disagree with him for good reasons: namely that Dennett's position is self-refuting. Even his fellow new atheist pal Sam Harris, who is a neuroscientist mind you, agrees with Chalmers on the existence and irreducibility of consciousness.

But a face still needs some entity to perceive, and identify it as such - so, it's not just the bricks.

No it doesn't, it's just a brick that constitutes a face and that's it. A face is a face, even if nobody is around to identify it. Turn it into any other shape and my point still applies: turn it into a triangle or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's still reducible to the bricks and is nothing more than the bricks.

Again, water is part of the steam engine's system - so, the steam is definable as being "produced", as in ("consituted of its parts") by the system.

Fail: the steam is not identical to the engine and to say otherwise is to go full retard... Any child can easily point out that the steam is not itself the engine, come on dude you know this... The second you admit that the steam is in fact not the engine itself, which we all know it's not, then you'll have to admit I'm right on the distinction between constitute and produce.

As I said, these terms were usable when it was just the brain, the grey matter in the skull. Nowadays, they're no longer of any use since it's difficult to tell where the boundaries of the system end.

Constitute≠produce. They're not synonyms, I've already proven this to you. Just open a thesaurus...

No, we can't - if that were the case, medical diagnosis and treatment of everything from diseases to injuries would be a doddle.

We're not saying illness are identical to the patient, now are we? fail... Obviously describing the patient doesn't tell us the diagnoses since they're not identical. Your analogy is a false analogy.

You don't have any evidence of the existence of a Cosmic Entity

I haven't given the case for cosmic idealism yet. We're going through idealism first.

I've provided an analogy above of how a computer system could be conscious.

I don't want an analogy I want proof.

There's no such thing as "proof" in the real world, only evidence - proof only exists in systems of logic, and mathematics.

Could you be anymore autistic? I already showed you the definition of the word "Proof": evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Stop playing autistic words games, stop giving me analogies, give me proof.

Only to someone who's trapped in a "top-down" ideology.

But you're the one who is saying strong emergence is silly too, you're not making any sense bro... Stop being a contrarian

You keep referring to the term "system"

That's literally my first time using that term but whatever...

as I've pointed out, it appeared easy when this only referred to the brain in the skull. Now that the boundaries of the system have expanded, it's not so simple any more.

Then describing the body should do it, but it doesn't, hence reductionism is still false. No matter what, you're going to fail at reducing consciousness.

If the term can be used in either regard, then it's a generic, not unique, term to refer to the elimination of something - whether "folksy" explanations of consciousness or consciousness itself.

In this regard it refers to the elimination of consciousness itself. If someone says "I'm conscious" the eliminativist would say that's not true.

He was giving his opinion based on his expertise in the field - that should count for something.

All it counts for is being an appeal to authority. If you want to stop being fallacious then stop doing that...

As I've said before, chess grandmasters automatically dismiss moves that lesser players waste time considering because they lack the grandmasters' expertise.

They have good reasons for doing so. They don't just say "because I said so!" they would point out how the lesser player is failing. This is something Chalmers failed to do.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As Gnug has now confirmed their existence/authenticity, there's no need to continue this point of contention.

Alright, glad you've dealt with it.

Thank you.

And as I've pointed out, our current understanding of consciousness does not allow us to make any definitive claim as to whether it is irreducible or not.

Yes it does. If it was reducible then describing neurons and their activity would be sufficient since A=B, but describing A does not describe B by your own admission. By modus tollens, then means reductionism must be false. You can't hide behind the future, either you can identify consciousness with the brain and its activity or you cannot. You clearly cannot...

Incomplete data

Not possible given cells and their activity is described entirely with observation. If consciousness were identical to such, then describing such would be sufficient, but it's not. This means you have to give up reductionism.

No, it isn't. It's an admission that we don't know enough yet to answer the problem of consciousness.

A=B, remember...? Since you can already describe neurons and their activity, and there's clearly nothing special about them as they are just like any other cells, then describing them should describe consciousness. The fact that it doesn't entails reductionism is wrong by your own admission.

Wrong - as I keep pointing out, all this shows is that we don't know enough yet about "the system" to explain consciousness.

All you're doing here is repeating the very statement I've refuted. You're not even giving a counter-argument, you're just repeating the very same claim that I gave an argument against... Do you even know what modus tollens is....? It's the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the consequent does not hold ( not-q ), then the negation of the antecedent ( not-p ) can be inferred.

If reductionism were true, that means A=B, which means describing A describes B. Yet you admit there's an explanatory gap. If A=B then there would be no explanatory gap, which means by the very rules of logic, reductionism must be false...

And all you're doing is repeating the same statement, that consciousness is irreducible. We can't say anything either way since we don't know enough about the system.

Just because we don't know everything now doesn't mean that the answer is settled.

If we did know everything about neurons and their (inter)activity, why are neuroscientists still studying the brain?

As the Irish comedian, Dara O'Briain said: "Yes, science doesn't know everything - otherwise it would stop!".

Substance dualism is not the only alternative

I never said it was, I'm just correcting your misunderstanding. You keep talking about me like I'm substance dualist. Stop doing that. I'm a monistic idealist.

I've never said - nor implied - that you were. The above statement was a lead-in to my next.

monistic physicalism is a valid position.

Not really as both reductive and non-reductive physicalism fail.

Again you make a hasty generalisation when we don't have all the answers yet.

And that equally applies to biological life-forms - including humans. See?

All you've done is shot yourself in the foot here. You're the one using the "if it can convince another its conscious then it's conscious!" criteria, not me. So you've just admitted your own failure here...

No. You claimed that:

Then convincing another that its conscious is an insufficient criteria by your own admission. This would apply to AI as well: just because it can convince another that doesn't mean its conscious.

If this is true, by your claim, then the fact that you can convince others you're conscious doesn't mean you are.

P1 James has a beard;
P2 Goats have beards;
C James is a goat.

Have I proven that I am a goat?

Of course not because your argument here is INVALID. sigh i'm not saying this to be mean, honest: you should seriously consider studying introductory logic/critical thinking. You're trying to show that arguments are insufficient by citing an invalid argument... come on, man... If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. Show me a valid argument with true premises that has a false conclusion, go ahead I'll wait...

You missed my point entirely.

Philosophical arguments have no bearing on reality.

Like theologians arguments for the existence of God - they don't prove that God exists.

That answers the "how" - now all you have to do is answer the "when".

Probably at conception but idealists can vary on this. This general case for idealism doesn't commit one way or the other on this matter.

But since you require a Cosmic Entity for your mind's existence, your case for idealism stands or falls on whether you can prove a Cosmic Entity exists or not. Which was the back-bone of my objection to your OP.

He's aware of how many people in his field (including Searle), and others, disagree with him

And they disagree with him for good reasons: namely that Dennett's position is self-refuting. Even his fellow new atheist pal Sam Harris, who is a neuroscientist mind you, agrees with Chalmers on the existence and irreducibility of consciousness.

You are aware I was referring to Chalmers, not Dennett?

But a face still needs some entity to perceive, and identify it as such - so, it's not just the bricks.

No it doesn't, it's just a brick that constitutes a face and that's it. A face is a face, even if nobody is around to identify it. Turn it into any other shape and my point still applies: turn it into a triangle or whatever, it doesn't matter. It's still reducible to the bricks and is nothing more than the bricks.

You're talking about a simple, inanimate construct here - that's not the same as consciousness.

Again, water is part of the steam engine's system - so, the steam is definable as being "produced", as in ("consituted of its parts") by the system.

Fail: the steam is not identical to the engine and to say otherwise is to go full retard... Any child can easily point out that the steam is not itself the engine, come on dude you know this... The second you admit that the steam is in fact not the engine itself, which we all know it's not, then you'll have to admit I'm right on the distinction between constitute and produce.

I said "system", not engine. In the same way that we can no longer talk of the "brain", since it's now a whole-body system.

As I said, these terms were usable when it was just the brain, the grey matter in the skull. Nowadays, they're no longer of any use since it's difficult to tell where the boundaries of the system end.

Constitute≠produce. They're not synonyms, I've already proven this to you. Just open a thesaurus...

My point is that there are no clear boundaries anymore - it's a gradient.

No, we can't - if that were the case, medical diagnosis and treatment of everything from diseases to injuries would be a doddle.

We're not saying illness are identical to the patient, now are we? fail... Obviously describing the patient doesn't tell us the diagnoses since they're not identical. Your analogy is a false analogy.

I'm saying that if it were only a case of understanding cells and their interactivity - which we don't - we'd be able to understand how diseases work, and these would be easy to treat.

Again, if we understood cells and their interactivity, why are we still studying this?

You don't have any evidence of the existence of a Cosmic Entity

I haven't given the case for cosmic idealism yet. We're going through idealism first.

That doesn't change the above fact.

I've provided an analogy above of how a computer system could be conscious.

I don't want an analogy I want proof.

There's no such thing as "proof" in the real world, only evidence - proof only exists in systems of logic, and mathematics.

Could you be anymore autistic? I already showed you the definition of the word "Proof": evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Stop playing autistic words games, stop giving me analogies, give me proof.

I don't have proof because we haven't arrived at the technological level yet to settle whether AI can be/is as conscious as us, or whether we're as conscious as AI - not.

Only to someone who's trapped in a "top-down" ideology.

But you're the one who is saying strong emergence is silly too, you're not making any sense bro... Stop being a contrarian

I'm not being a contrarian just because I disagree with what you think is true.

You keep referring to the term "system"

That's literally my first time using that term but whatever...

as I've pointed out, it appeared easy when this only referred to the brain in the skull. Now that the boundaries of the system have expanded, it's not so simple any more.

Then describing the body should do it, but it doesn't, hence reductionism is still false. No matter what, you're going to fail at reducing consciousness.

As I keep telling you, we don't know enough yet, therefore we can't make any definitive statements on the matter at present - that doesn't mean we'll never be able to do so.

If the term can be used in either regard, then it's a generic, not unique, term to refer to the elimination of something - whether "folksy" explanations of consciousness or consciousness itself.

In this regard it refers to the elimination of consciousness itself. If someone says "I'm conscious" the eliminativist would say that's not true.

So, you acknowledge that it's not exclusively referring to materialism, thank you.

He was giving his opinion based on his expertise in the field - that should count for something.

All it counts for is being an appeal to authority. If you want to stop being fallacious then stop doing that...

As I've said before, chess grandmasters automatically dismiss moves that lesser players waste time considering because they lack the grandmasters' expertise.

They have good reasons for doing so.

Which is the point I was making with Chalmers - his expertise in this field.

They don't just say "because I said so!" they would point out how the lesser player is failing.

That's not what I meant. My point was that they'll dismiss moves that a lesser player would waste time considering. I'm talking about when they're playing games that are broadcast live, which are being watched by lesser players.

This is something Chalmers failed to do.

He doesn't need to do so - it's enough that he has greater expertise than either of us to know whether there are issues with your argument or not.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

And all you're doing is repeating the same statement, that consciousness is irreducible.

No I'm not, I'm giving an argument and you're failing to respond with a counter-argument... My argument is valid as it takes the form of modus tollens and each premise is true by your own admission, hence the conclusion I presented must be true. Reductionism has to be false.

We can't say anything either way since we don't know enough about the system.

Do you not know what the word "identical" means...? Definition of identical: similar in every detail; exactly alike. Synonymous with: indistinguishable, (exactly) the same, undifferentiated etc.

If the mind (B) were identical to the body (A) then describing A describes B by definition. But you're admitting that it doesn't... Which means, by definition, A≠B. They cannot be identical if they are not exactly alike, if they are not indistinguishable. Every single time you try to hide behind the future is an admission that reductionism is false...

If we did know everything about neurons and their (inter)activity, why are neuroscientists still studying the brain

A is supposed to equal B, remember...? If A=B, then describing the neurons should describe consciousness, but it doesn't by your own admission... By the very rules of logic, more specifically modus tollens, reductionism must be false.

I've never said - nor implied - that you were.

Your language suggests otherwise. Just tread more carefully and don't forget that I'm a monist just like the physicalist. I have all the same monistic advantages as the physicalist without the weaknesses regarding consciousness.

Again you make a hasty generalisation when we don't have all the answers yet.

If A=B then you would have the answers you seek, but since you don't have them this implies A does not equal B.

No. You claimed that:

I never once claimed that, that was you the whole time with your point about AI. Come on now, don't go changing your position out of nowhere once you've been backed into a corner...

If this is true, by your claim, then the fact that you can convince others you're conscious doesn't mean you are

Great, I have no problem with that since I'm not using your silly criteria.

You missed my point entirely. Philosophical arguments have no bearing on reality.

No, you have missed the point. You tried to show that arguments are insufficient by citing an invalid argument... Fail... If you wanted to show such a thing, then show me a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion. Go ahead, I'm still waiting...

But since you require a Cosmic Entity for your mind's existence, your case for idealism stands or falls on whether you can prove a Cosmic Entity exists or not.

No it isn't as I've explained to you multiple times now: The case for idealism, as found in the OP, can be used by any version of idealism and that's all its meant for. The case for cosmic idealism is premised on idealism, not the other way around. Any non-cosmic idealist can use the case for idealism for themselves. It doesn't stand or fall on any cosmic entity.

You're talking about a simple, inanimate construct here - that's not the same as consciousness.

Hey you're the one arguing for reductionism here. By your logic, it is the same as consciousness. Unless you're abandoning your reductionism, which would be a really smart move. Even you are starting to realize consciousness is not identical to "inanimate constructs" as you put it.

I said "system", not engine. In the same way that we can no longer talk of the "brain", since it's now a whole-body system.

Then you're not address what I've said. We all know the steam is not identical to the engine, and thus this is an example of production. Constitution is like a shape made out of lego bricks. If you're talking about weak emergence you're talking about constitution, if you're talking about strong emergence you're talking about production. Pick your poison.

My point is that there are no clear boundaries anymore

Yes there are: constitution≠production. They're not the same thing by definition. You're trying to argue for weak emergence so you're stuck with constitution, which means you can't talk about the brain/body "creating" consciousness as if its "over and above" the brain/body. You would necessarily be stuck identifying consciousness with the brain/body itself, yet you admit there's an explanatory gap, and that's not logically possible if they were identical. If you were talking about strong emergence/production you'd be a bit safer here, but you'd just wind up with the problems of strong emergence and mental causation.

I'm saying that if it were only a case of understanding cells and their interactivity - which we don't - we'd be able to understand how diseases work, and these would be easy to treat.

We do exactly that and know how diseases work. Often times diseases aren't simply a constitution of such cells, but rather are produced by such cells and so we have to look further than the cells themselves. With your perspective, it's all about constitution and that puts yourin a very uncomfortable position as I've laid out.

That doesn't change the above fact.

It kind of does since I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do...

I don't have proof

Then you should suspend judgment until the proof comes out. You shouldn't assume which way the evidence will go and make beliefs based on that. You should wait for the facts. You should surrender your position and enter a state of agnosticism on the matter. For all you know, the evidence that will come out in the future will completely disprove you. You don't know for sure, so you should be more intellectually humble.

I'm not being a contrarian just because I disagree with what you think is true.

When you affirm the absurdity of strong emergence and I simply agree with you, and then you turn back around and contradict yourself because of that, then yeah you're being a contrarian... I've caught you doing this before dude... Stop being afraid to agree with me, and just stick to your beliefs. It's not always a trap, its okay. We can agree sometimes, relax with the contrarianism.

So, you acknowledge that it's not exclusively referring to materialism, thank you.

I didn't say it was lol

He doesn't need to do so

Then all you're doing is appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy: "Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority."

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

And all you're doing is repeating the same statement, that consciousness is irreducible.

No I'm not, I'm giving an argument and you're failing to respond with a counter-argument... My argument is valid as it takes the form of modus tollens and each premise is true by your own admission, hence the conclusion I presented must be true. Reductionism has to be false.

Why would I need to respond to a failed argument with a counter-argument? Where did I say that each premise was true?

We can't say anything either way since we don't know enough about the system.

Do you not know what the word "identical" means...? Definition of identical: similar in every detail; exactly alike. Synonymous with: indistinguishable, (exactly) the same, undifferentiated etc.

If the mind (B) were identical to the body (A) then describing A describes B by definition. But you're admitting that it doesn't... Which means, by definition, A≠B. They cannot be identical if they are not exactly alike, if they are not indistinguishable. Every single time you try to hide behind the future is an admission that reductionism is false...

We can't yet describe A, therefore, we can't say whether B is or is not identical to A.

And saying that we'll have to wait until we do is not an admission that reductionism is false, it merely says, "we don't know yet".

If we did know everything about neurons and their (inter)activity, why are neuroscientists still studying the brain

A is supposed to equal B, remember...? If A=B, then describing the neurons should describe consciousness, but it doesn't by your own admission... By the very rules of logic, more specifically modus tollens, reductionism must be false.

See above answer.

I've never said - nor implied - that you were.

Your language suggests otherwise. Just tread more carefully

This is ironic given that you objected to my interpretation of what you said regarding verification of the emails.

and don't forget that I'm a monist just like the physicalist. I have all the same monistic advantages as the physicalist without the weaknesses regarding consciousness.

On the contrary: as Blackmore [2010, 11] notes regarding mentalism/idealism:

Among the monist theories, some claim that the mental world is fundamental and others that the physical world is. So, for example, you might doubt that real pencils actually exist out there and decide that only ideas or perceptions of pencils exist - making you a mentalist or idealist. That does away with the awkward division but makes it very hard to understand why physical objects have enduring qualities that we can all agree upon - or indeed how science is possible at all.

Again you make a hasty generalisation when we don't have all the answers yet.

If A=B then you would have the answers you seek, but since you don't have them this implies A does not equal B.

Or we don't know A yet.

No. You claimed that:

I never once claimed that, that was you the whole time with your point about AI. Come on now, don't go changing your position out of nowhere once you've been backed into a corner...

I'm not changing my position - I was responding to something you said.

If this is true, by your claim, then the fact that you can convince others you're conscious doesn't mean you are

Great, I have no problem with that since I'm not using your silly criteria.

The criteria are not silly. Just because you're a cosmic idealist, and don't accept a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, does not make my criteria silly. Given we have empiric evidence for the existence of natural phenomena, and you have none for a Cosmic Entity, I think the shoe is on the other foot.

You missed my point entirely. Philosophical arguments have no bearing on reality.

No, you have missed the point. You tried to show that arguments are insufficient by citing an invalid argument... Fail... If you wanted to show such a thing, then show me a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion. Go ahead, I'm still waiting...

When a valid argument can be false

But since you require a Cosmic Entity for your mind's existence, your case for idealism stands or falls on whether you can prove a Cosmic Entity exists or not.

No it isn't as I've explained to you multiple times now: The case for idealism, as found in the OP, can be used by any version of idealism and that's all its meant for. The case for cosmic idealism is premised on idealism, not the other way around. Any non-cosmic idealist can use the case for idealism for themselves. It doesn't stand or fall on any cosmic entity.

Your denying that your worldview has no bearing on this does not change the fact that you would not have posted your argument if you didn't believe in a Cosmic Entity, in the same way that a creationist would argue from a belief in a Creator or a ID proponent would argue from a belief in a Designer.

You're talking about a simple, inanimate construct here - that's not the same as consciousness.

Hey you're the one arguing for reductionism here. By your logic, it is the same as consciousness. Unless you're abandoning your reductionism, which would be a really smart move. Even you are starting to realize consciousness is not identical to "inanimate constructs" as you put it.

Consciousness is a more complex phenomenon than a face.

I said "system", not engine. In the same way that we can no longer talk of the "brain", since it's now a whole-body system.

Then you're not address what I've said. We all know the steam is not identical to the engine, and thus this is an example of production. Constitution is like a shape made out of lego bricks. If you're talking about weak emergence you're talking about constitution, if you're talking about strong emergence you're talking about production. Pick your poison.

Whichever it turns out to be - most likely weak - will have to wait until we know enough about the underlying neuro-biological system, and its interaction with the environment.

My point is that there are no clear boundaries anymore

Yes there are: constitution≠production. They're not the same thing by definition. You're trying to argue for weak emergence so you're stuck with constitution, which means you can't talk about the brain/body "creating" consciousness as if its "over and above" the brain/body. You would necessarily be stuck identifying consciousness with the brain/body itself, yet you admit there's an explanatory gap, and that's not logically possible if they were identical. If you were talking about strong emergence/production you'd be a bit safer here, but you'd just wind up with the problems of strong emergence and mental causation.

Whichever it is, we'll just have to wait.

I'm saying that if it were only a case of understanding cells and their interactivity - which we don't - we'd be able to understand how diseases work, and these would be easy to treat.

We do exactly that and know how diseases work. Often times diseases aren't simply a constitution of such cells, but rather are produced by such cells and so we have to look further than the cells themselves. With your perspective, it's all about constitution and that puts yourin a very uncomfortable position as I've laid out.

Diseases are a result of their interaction with the environment - our bodies. How they interact with our bodies is still being studied, otherwise no-one would fall ill, let alone die. You talk as if we know all there is to know on the matter - we don't. That's my point.

That doesn't change the above fact.

It kind of does since I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do...

As I've said, you're arguing from a belief in a Cosmic Entity, whether you realise it or not.

I don't have proof

Then you should suspend judgment until the proof comes out. You shouldn't assume which way the evidence will go and make beliefs based on that. You should wait for the facts. You should surrender your position and enter a state of agnosticism on the matter. For all you know, the evidence that will come out in the future will completely disprove you. You don't know for sure, so you should be more intellectually humble.

You should take your own advice with your case for idealism.

I'm not being a contrarian just because I disagree with what you think is true.

When you affirm the absurdity of strong emergence and I simply agree with you, and then you turn back around and contradict yourself because of that, then yeah you're being a contrarian... I've caught you doing this before dude... Stop being afraid to agree with me, and just stick to your beliefs. It's not always a trap, its okay. We can agree sometimes, relax with the contrarianism.

You insist on the division between constituted and product - I've had to try to accommodate this by implying that these may not be of much value given that we've moved from the grey matter in the skull, to the whole body, to the interaction of the body and the environment, both in terms of social interaction and Nature.

So, you acknowledge that it's not exclusively referring to materialism, thank you.

I didn't say it was lol

He doesn't need to do so

Then all you're doing is appealing to authority, which is a logical fallacy: "Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority."

Source: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

He doesn't need to do so anymore than grandmasters need to explain why a given move is not worth considering - no-one would question his expertise on the matter.

And I note you left-out my point that I was referring to Chalmers when I noted that others, including Searle, disagreed with him, when you seemed to assume I was referring to Dennett.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Why would I need to respond to a failed argument with a counter-argument?

You have to justify that it actually is a failed argument by providing a counter-argument. You repeating the very same claim that I'm refuting with an argument is just pure fail on your part.

Where did I say that each premise was true?

You're admitting reductionism (A=B) and you're admitting there's an explanatory gap. Insert modus tollens and reductionism is therefore false.

And saying that we'll have to wait until we do is not an admission that reductionism is false, it merely says, "we don't know yet".

But A=B, remember??? You keep forgetting this. There would be nothing to wait for since A=B. Describing A should describe B, but it doesn't by your own admission, which means by definition they are not identical per your own admission.

Or we don't know A yet.

lmao so there's something special about the body/brain then lol apparently it's not describable with observation and science now. Apparently we haven't described human anatomy, and there's mystical hidden body parts haha

We have described A. There's nothing special about the body/brain. We have described it just fine. But there's an explanatory gap, which means reductionism fails.

This is ironic given that you objected to my interpretation of what you said regarding verification of the emails.

I never tried to tell you what you mean by your words so I never made the same mistake as you. I only pointed out what seems to be the case, and I cited evidence of this, and moved on. Just don't forget that I'm a monist just like the physicalist and hence I have all the same monistic advantages as them.

Among the monist theories, some claim that the mental world is fundamental and others that the physical world is. So, for example, you might doubt that real pencils actually exist out there and decide that only ideas or perceptions of pencils exist - making you a mentalist or idealist.

This guy is talking about a weird anti-realist version of idealism that I do not subscribe to, nor does it apply to idealism in general, so this doesn't apply to me or what I'm talking about at all. Nice try though

I'm not changing my position - I was responding to something you said.

I never gave that criteria, you did with your claims about AI.

Just because you're a cosmic idealist, and don't accept a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, does not make my criteria silly.

See? I told you it was your criteria even though you tried to deny it was... Stop being a contrarian dude and just be real already. If I get you on something, don't pretend that's not your position, just be honest and admit the flaws as they come.

Given we have empiric evidence for the existence of natural phenomena, and you have none for a Cosmic Entity

Define what you mean by natural phenomena and I've told you the case for cosmic idealism comes later. I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do.

When a valid argument can be false

Letting links do all the thinking/arguing for you yet again? haha pathetic

I'm not seeing a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion here. Looks like your lazy attempt at refuting logic itself failed

you would not have posted your argument if you didn't believe in a Cosmic Entity

That's not true at all since this is a general case for idealism. Can you not read or something bro? This is a general case that can be used by any version of idealism. Any non-cosmic idealist can use this argument.

Consciousness is a more complex phenomenon than a face.

That makes no difference at all since it is reducible according to you. A=B remember??? Stop conveniently forgetting this... You keep trying to claim weak emergence while trying to keep the advantages of irreducible consciousness. You can't have your cake and eat it too... You'll have to bite the bullet if you want to keep reductionism, but that leads to a conclusion that even you are recognizing as clearly false given your reaction.

Whichever it turns out to be - most likely weak -

If it's weak then your job should be done already since A=B. A should be exactly the same as B, so describing A must describe B by your logic. But you admit it doesn't per your hiding behind the future. You're admitting they're not identical every single time you do this... If you want to play this waiting game, you must abandon reductionism, but that leads you to even more problems with strong emergence and mental causation.

You talk as if we know all there is to know on the matter

No I'm merely saying that if reductionism were true then A=B. You keep forgetting this... If the brain/body is the exact same thing as the mind, if they are precisely the same in ever detail, then there can't possibly be an explanatory gap. It's not possible. That's like saying we can describe the hand but we can't describe the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. The hand=the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. There is no gap, they are identical. You fail to understand identity.

As I've said, you're arguing from a belief in a Cosmic Entity

No I'm not actually. The case for idealism is only a general case for idealism, which can be used by any version of idealism.

You should take your own advice with your case for idealism.

I have proof, I've given it. You're the one admitting you don't have proof. You're the one who is the pseudoskeptic here who claims to be all science-minded yet fails to wait for the facts. You should suspend judgment and wait for the evidence. For all you know, the future evidence will completely disprove you, so you should wait. Have the intellectual integrity to admit this instead of deflecting back on me...

You insist on the division between constituted and product

Because they're not synonyms, I've literally proven this to you... Open a thesaurus. You're demonstrably 100% wrong. Constitute≠produce, come to grips with it already...

He doesn't need to do so

That's just an excuse for you committing a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You have no argument, all you're doing is appealing to their expertise, which by definition is a logical fallacy. Stop being fallacious....

 

[momo666]

@MI

Did you respond to my latest reply ?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I did not and I still don't.

yeah you're not arguing in good faitih. done talking to you

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Um, no. You tried to say it was an assumption but I clearly cited arguments. Arguments≠assumptions... To say otherwise is to equivocate.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. If you had anything more than the assumptions you are circling back to, you would present it. Arguments are not any better than assumptions. Creationists, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers, etc... all present arguments to support their cases. Much like you, if they actually had any real evidence they would just present that and stop wasting time with their assumptions/arguments.

I knew it was called the problem other minds! I was just pretending to be retarded! Got ya! le epic troll xDD

Wow, you really rekt my shit up fam. I bet you and your fellow 12 year old pals are having a good laugh. Try following scholarship instead of youtubers...

:lol:

So triggered. How cute. I suggest you stop getting triggered over the usage of words on a discussion forum and move on.

That is exactly the point I was making

Then it has no relevance here. I'm just making the case for idealism. The problem of other minds is a much broader issue that deserves its own thread.

I am well aware that you are just naval gazing. Twas my original point, again. Perhaps you would know that if you did not leave most of my response on the cutting room floor.

Now this is a actual goal post shift.

How is asking you to clarify if you're talking about weak or strong emergence a goal post shift?? If you're talking about weak emergence then they're reducible and that means you agree with me on my points about reducibility. If you're talking about strong emergence then they're not reducible and you're essentially talking about magic. I've made this quite clear and I've stated my opposition to non-reductive physicalism (which entails emergence) all the way from the OP...

It is a goalpost shift for exactly what I already said, and you left on the cutting room floor:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Now this is a actual goal post shift. You never talked about strong emergence until after people started bringing up that computer programs are also irreducible. You were first saying that mind/consciousness is special because it cannot be reduced. Now that it is shown that some computer programs also cannot be reduced all of a sudden it is not just irreducibly, it is also strong emergence. Now, all of this could have been prevented if you stated from the start that you said mind/consciousness is special because of strong emergence and not just being irreducible, since apparently that is your real argument.

[Emphasis on what you included.]

Amazing just how much you had to cut out just to ask something that was already addressed, no?

Thus, do you grant that I have demonstrated that computer programs can be irreducible?

You have not done so at all. I was merely asking you to come out with it and say you're affirming strong emergence.

Yes I did (in one of the earlier comments you originally ignored). Your goalpost shifting as to whether it is strong or weak is irrelevant to this point. Computer programs have already been demonstrated to be irreducible, which was your original goal.

Nope. I will not laps into anything, I will just remain skeptical.

If you're not making any commitments about the mind at all (like consciousness exists, has causal powers, is reducible etc.) then you have no negation of my argument, you're just suspending belief. I was merely noting that given such commitments you will lapse into dualism and such.

Answer the problem of hard solipsism and you would start to have a point.

Okay. How do you know that one of those seven is not a bot and would it surprise you to find out that one of those accounts actually is a bot?

I simply have no reason to believe its a bot, and the default would be to believe its a human. I need reasons to believe its ab bot.

The point being, you believe that everyone you are interacting with on this forum is conscious, right? Meaning that you believed the bot account you were talking to was conscious by your own standards, right?

You just kept quoting Nagel

First off, this proves you lied. It's obvious I didn't ignore as I offered a quote with an argument that made my point.

I did not lie, we were just making two different points. However, you can call me a liar if it makes you feel better. I know just how triggered you can get after all.

it appears Exogen would agree that you have failed to answer directly.

Don't see how that's possible when I made the distinction and they said they grasped it. That's a direct answer.

Exogen did give you a direct answer, than later said things like:

Exogen[/url]"]Again, what I grasp from you is vague. Negel, Kastrop, Chalmers or anyone else using the 'what it is like' is usin a vague term.

Again, we were making different points. You did respond, but your responses failed to meet Exogen's expectations (twas my point). However, again, feel free to call me a liar. I am not as easily triggered as you.

We are all looking at our navals right now, tis the point of this whole thread. Thus, why not actually answer the question. I do not care if you think it is possible. I am asking that if it could happen, would that mean that clone is also not conscious? Care to answer directly or keep evading?

Dude, I literally just answered your question. Stop ignoring it. Stop pretending it's not there, it doesn't help you by closing your eyes. Just because I didn't follow your script doesn't mean I didn't answer it. You just didn't like my answer or you're ignoring it.

Thus, you evading my question by not answering it directly. Fair enough.

Is that not your position?

Not seeing how that's comparable at all. We can tell when a reflection is a reflection and confirm its not conscious and just a reflection of me, and is in fact not me.

What I was talking about is the part of your quote where you said "it convinces another person that its conscious". The reflection part is irrelevant. You are claiming that as Dragan Glas's critiria, yet that seems exactly the same as you when you said:

Monistic Idealism[/url]"]With myself: introspection.

From here I can see the behavior of other humans and rationally affirm they are conscious like me with an individual "I" like myself.

Both statements appear to be equivalent.

The world is so black and white.

wtf I hate the law of excluded middle now

[sarcasm]Yeah, because people understand complex ideas right from the start and never need any clarification at any point afterwards.[/sarcasm]

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Again, we will have to agree to disagree.

Nah, your comments are public. It's verifiable that you're equivocating. assumptions≠arguments. to say otherwise is to equivocate. I've presented arguments, not assumptions.

Arguments are not any better than assumptions.

Of course arguments are better than assumptions. Arguments are grounded in reason and assumptions grounded in nothing.

all present arguments to support their cases.

If they fail it's because their arguments are bad. This isn't a point against arguments, it's a point about bad arguments.

Ooooh le triggered may-may! I used the word trigger and thus this makes me not retarded somehow!

just trying to help ya not look like a matt dillahunty clone. try checking out some real scholarship instead of youtube fedoras, you might just learn a thing or two haha

It is a goalpost shift for exactly what I already said, and you left on the cutting room floor

Non-sequitur: just because I'm not quoting it doesn't mean I'm not addressing it. I addressed all of this already in my last response, you're just ignoring it.

Your goalpost shifting as to whether it is strong or weak is irrelevant to this point.

Asking a question for clarification is not goal post shifting, you're just refusing to answer. Gee, I wonder why. Are you starting to realize the corner you've put yourself in? If you affirm weak emergence then that contradicts the commitment to irreducibility. If you want to affirm irreducibility then you're going to face the problems of strong emergence as well as mental causation. Neither option looks good for you...

Answer the problem of hard solipsism and you would start to have a point.

Again, that's not a problem for idealism per se, that's anyone who claims other minds exist. Also, if you're saying solipsism is the default position then you're admitting idealism is the default position since solipsism is a version of idealism.

The point being, you believe that everyone you are interacting with on this forum is conscious, right?

Tentatively yes, but I've expressed skepticism regarding possible sock accounts and other forms of deception from you people so it wouldn't surprise me for you guys to use deception if you think it wins some points when really it doesn't mean anything. I've said already that I believe humans are conscious. Once there's a human and a bot next to each other it's clear which of these two are conscious, that's the point being.

You just kept quoting Nagel

First off, this proves you lied. It's obvious I didn't ignore as I offered a quote with an argument that made my point.

I did not lie

Yeah you did because you said I ignored it but then you admit that you know I cited an argument from nagel, which means you knowingly said something false... Nice try

it appears Exogen would agree that you have failed to answer directly.

Don't see how that's possible when I made the distinction and they said they grasped it. That's a direct answer.

Exogen did give you a direct answer,

You're confused. He was saying I wasn't giving a direct answer, but I clearly did.

than later said things like:

You did respond, but your responses failed to meet Exogen's expectations

Truth is not gauged by people's expectations. Truth is truth. Arguments are valid and premises are true independent of people's "expectations". With this way of looking at the world, nobody has a satisfactory argument as long as people just arbitrarily turn up the skepticism dial with their "expectations". that's silly

Thus, you evading my question by not answering it directly.

No that's literally you just ignoring my answer. I can't help you if I answer you question directly and you just ignore it...

You are claiming that as Dragan Glas's critiria, yet that seems exactly the same as you

Nope, you're confused. It was Dragan Glas and other people who brought that up in regards to AI. I've cited classical arguments like the analogical argument, argument from causation, best explanation, etc.

Yeah

Then you're a straight up logic denier. If you're denying the law of excluded middle then you're allowing contradictions, which just blows up logic. Well done...

 

[momo666]

yeah you're not arguing in good faitih. done talking to you

That's not an argument. Cheap baseless attacks can be found anywhere. What I would like to know is what exactly do you assert exists in P1 of your presented syllogism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Why would I need to respond to a failed argument with a counter-argument?

You have to justify that it actually is a failed argument by providing a counter-argument. You repeating the very same claim that I'm refuting with an argument is just pure fail on your part.

Where did I say that each premise was true?

You're admitting reductionism (A=B) and you're admitting there's an explanatory gap. Insert modus tollens and reductionism is therefore false.

And saying that we'll have to wait until we do is not an admission that reductionism is false, it merely says, "we don't know yet".

But A=B, remember??? You keep forgetting this. There would be nothing to wait for since A=B. Describing A should describe B, but it doesn't by your own admission, which means by definition they are not identical per your own admission.

Or we don't know A yet.

lmao so there's something special about the body/brain then lol apparently it's not describable with observation and science now. Apparently we haven't described human anatomy, and there's mystical hidden body parts haha

We have described A. There's nothing special about the body/brain. We have described it just fine. But there's an explanatory gap, which means reductionism fails.

We have not described A yet, since A has changed over time from the grey matter in the skull to the whole-body to the interactivity between the body and the environment.

This is ironic given that you objected to my interpretation of what you said regarding verification of the emails.

I never tried to tell you what you mean by your words so I never made the same mistake as you. I only pointed out what seems to be the case, and I cited evidence of this, and moved on.

Be careful of your inferences.

Just don't forget that I'm a monist just like the physicalist and hence I have all the same monistic advantages as them.

Among the monist theories, some claim that the mental world is fundamental and others that the physical world is. So, for example, you might doubt that real pencils actually exist out there and decide that only ideas or perceptions of pencils exist - making you a mentalist or idealist.

This guy is talking about a weird anti-realist version of idealism that I do not subscribe to, nor does it apply to idealism in general, so this doesn't apply to me or what I'm talking about at all. Nice try though

I had meant to include the link to the source before posting but forgot to do so - it's Consciousness: An Introduction - I note a new, third edition has just been published.

And "this guy" is Susan Blackmore, who was the first to carry out, what are called, "change-blindness" experiments.

And I note you again leave the crucial part on the cutting-room floor:

That does away with the awkward division but makes it very hard to understand why physical objects have enduring qualities that we can all agree upon - or indeed how science is possible at all.

Both her points are valid criticisms of idealism.

1) If physical objects have enduring qualities that we can all agree upon, this strongly suggests that they have a reality independent of us, our minds, and our perceptions of them.

The only way to escape this inherent contradiction is to propose a third-party: either a substance of which both the mental and non-mental are aspects (neutral monism), which is an attempt to solve the problem of dualism; or a Cosmic Entity, which - despite thousands of years of religions - no-one has ever been able to put together a sound/valid argument, never mind provide actual evidence for the existence of a Creator, Designer ... or Cosmic Entity.

If you manage to do the latter, then you'll win a prize, and become famous.

So, regardless whether it's your or the case for idealism, it's contingent on the existence of a third-party: and so, your/the argument for idealism is a toe-in-the-door to the argument for a third-party - in your case, a Cosmic Entity.

2) If idealism were true, then science would not be possible, since it is based on empiric evidence. Scientific experiments could not be repeatable - where scientists do the same experiment anywhere and get the same results.

In either case, idealism doesn't work.

Since you claim that her depiction of idealism isn't applicable, then your understanding of idealism is lacking. Equally, as you claim that her depiction is something you don't recognize, then your position is probably of the neutral monist variety, as this allows for the co-existence of the mental and non-mental.

I'm not changing my position - I was responding to something you said.

I never gave that criteria, you did with your claims about AI.

Just because you're a cosmic idealist, and don't accept a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, does not make my criteria silly.

See? I told you it was your criteria even though you tried to deny it was... Stop being a contrarian dude and just be real already. If I get you on something, don't pretend that's not your position, just be honest and admit the flaws as they come.

Given we have empiric evidence for the existence of natural phenomena, and you have none for a Cosmic Entity

Define what you mean by natural phenomena and I've told you the case for cosmic idealism comes later. I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do.

Events that are the result of naturalistic causes. We have empiric evidence of Nature. You have none for a Cosmic Entity - aka, a Creator or Designer.

When a valid argument can be false

Letting links do all the thinking/arguing for you yet again? haha pathetic

I'm not seeing a valid argument with true premises and a false conclusion here. Looks like your lazy attempt at refuting logic itself failed

From the cited article:

If a mineral, then it is made of rocks.
This is a mineral.
Therefore it is made of rocks.

Now, is this a valid argument? Absolutely! Look at the structure. It looks just like this:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore Q.

But the conclusion is false. Why? What should be obvious is that one of the premises is false – “If a mineral, then it is made of rocks.” This gets to whether or not an argument is sound. In order for an argument to be sound, it must be valid and ALL the premises must be true. Let’s look at the first example of rocks and minerals again.

If a rock, then it is made of minerals.
This is a rock.
Therefore it is made of minerals.

Is this sound? Remember I said before that this is likely true. We actually don’t know if it is sound because we don’t know about the veracity of line 2. That person may be holding a tennis ball. That would also make one of the premises false and therefore the argument would be unsound.

Understand? Did you not read the above?

An argument can be valid without being sound.

you would not have posted your argument if you didn't believe in a Cosmic Entity

That's not true at all since this is a general case for idealism. Can you not read or something bro? This is a general case that can be used by any version of idealism. Any non-cosmic idealist can use this argument.

As I noted above, the/your case is contingent on the existence of a third-party.

Consciousness is a more complex phenomenon than a face.

That makes no difference at all since it is reducible according to you. A=B remember??? Stop conveniently forgetting this... You keep trying to claim weak emergence while trying to keep the advantages of irreducible consciousness. You can't have your cake and eat it too... You'll have to bite the bullet if you want to keep reductionism, but that leads to a conclusion that even you are recognizing as clearly false given your reaction.

Whichever it turns out to be - most likely weak -

If it's weak then your job should be done already since A=B. A should be exactly the same as B, so describing A must describe B by your logic. But you admit it doesn't per your hiding behind the future. You're admitting they're not identical every single time you do this... If you want to play this waiting game, you must abandon reductionism, but that leads you to even more problems with strong emergence and mental causation.

You talk as if we know all there is to know on the matter

No I'm merely saying that if reductionism were true then A=B. You keep forgetting this... If the brain/body is the exact same thing as the mind, if they are precisely the same in ever detail, then there can't possibly be an explanatory gap. It's not possible. That's like saying we can describe the hand but we can't describe the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. The hand=the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. There is no gap, they are identical. You fail to understand identity.

I've addressed this earlier: we don't know enough about A as A has changed/expanded over time.

As I've said, you're arguing from a belief in a Cosmic Entity

No I'm not actually. The case for idealism is only a general case for idealism, which can be used by any version of idealism.

Again, it's contingent on the existence of a third-party.

You should take your own advice with your case for idealism.

I have proof, I've given it. You're the one admitting you don't have proof. You're the one who is the pseudoskeptic here who claims to be all science-minded yet fails to wait for the facts. You should suspend judgment and wait for the evidence. For all you know, the future evidence will completely disprove you, so you should wait. Have the intellectual integrity to admit this instead of deflecting back on me...

Deductive arguments aren't empiric evidence - that's the only thing that counts in science.

You insist on the division between constituted and product

Because they're not synonyms, I've literally proven this to you... Open a thesaurus. You're demonstrably 100% wrong. Constitute≠produce, come to grips with it already...

Whatever the dictionary definitions, there may be aspects of consciousness (sentience?) that are constituted, and others (sapience?) that are produced. Consciousness may well be a combination of both.

He doesn't need to do so

That's just an excuse for you committing a logical fallacy: appeal to authority. You have no argument, all you're doing is appealing to their expertise, which by definition is a logical fallacy. Stop being fallacious....

I am recognizing that he knows more about this than either of us.

You first demurred from contacting him, on the grounds that he'd be too busy, and/or that he wouldn't bother with answering "just some guy" (as they say). After I contacted him, you questioned the authenticity of the emailed reply, then said that he hadn't made a counter-argument, and suggested that he only glanced at the premises without reading your OP in full.

You're effectively suggesting that it's only his opinion - no different than "just some guy".

Why don't you ask your professor - at whatever university to which you went - about your OP? Email it to himher and see what s/he thinks about it.

If s/he also questions your argument, and perhaps explains why it's weak, will you then suggest that it's only his/her opinion?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Cheap baseless attacks can be found anywhere.

This isn't a cheap baseless attack. It's description of reality. You're refusing to concede even understanding a simple ordinary idiom used in everyday life (for god's sake). Pretending to not know the meaning of non-controversial phrases is not how you do philosophy, that's how you just be a pseudoskeptic... Your inability to comprehend the english language is not my problem... Bye

 

[Monistic Idealism]

And I note you again leave the crucial part on the cutting-room floor:

Uh-oh, did someone forget to log out of their sock account? hahah that was he_who_is_nobody who used that exact same vocabulary and did such things, now you're saying it was you who did it. well well well... If this isn't a sock account then this sure is interesting lol

We have not described A yet

Yes we have, it's call human anatomy and biology etc. Take a class in it sometime, it's a real thing ya know. We have indeed described A. Your body is perfectly describable with observation. There is no "hard problem of the body" lol

Be careful of your inferences.

likewise

Both her points are valid criticisms of idealism.

No they're not as they come from a strange anti-realist version of Idealism as I just noted. Stop ignoring my rebuttals.

1) If physical objects have enduring qualities that we can all agree upon, this strongly suggests that they have a reality independent of us, our minds, and our perceptions of them.

Since I'm not an anti-realist idealist, and am a cosmic idealist as I noted long ago, this isn't a problem for me at all. Of course objects are independent of us, our minds, and our perceptions of them, as they are dependent on a cosmic mind that holds all things together in consistency. Simple. No problem here.

If you manage to do the latter, then you'll win a prize, and become famous.

Same with you and the hard problem. You better email chalmers and collect your prize lol

Events that are the result of naturalistic causes.

You just went in a circle and used the very word that you're trying to define... define natural please without going in a circle

We actually don’t know if it is sound

Absolute fail. I told you to bring me an argument that is both valid and has true premises and a false conclusion. This isn't the case as per your own quotes admission right here. Just a reminder: you're literally arguing against logic right now, so next time you want to mock a creationist or something just recall the time you literally argued against logic itself hahah

An argument can be valid without being sound.

Duh! omg, please read... I told you to bring me a valid argument, with true premises, and a false conclusion. Do it, I dare you... you'll literally be arguing against logic itself...

As I noted above, the/your case is contingent on the existence of a third-party.

Naw. The case for idealism by itself is just that: the case for idealism. That's it. I personally am a cosmic idealist but other idealists can use this argument and formulate their own version of it.

I've addressed this earlier: we don't know enough about A as A has changed/expanded over time.

As I already explained, this is just an admission that reductionism is false. We can describe the body, to say otherwise is to flat out lie about the existence of the science of anatomy... We can describe the human body using science with no problem. A has been described. Furthermore, if A hasn't been described then wtf is A???? You're not making any sense, and it's clear you've been backed into a corner. You never once tried to say A wasn't describable until I pointed out the explanatory gap the definition of identical and now you're backtracking like crazy.

Deductive arguments aren't empiric evidence

Nice goal post shift. You tried to say they don't count for anything and I've just proven you wrong on this. Arguments=proof. And we're not limited by science as we're talking about philosophy and not just science. We're going more fundamental than science.

Whatever the dictionary definitions

Basically you're saying fuck the definitions, you're just going to continue to equivocate. nice... real rational bud... If you can't adhere to definitions then you're not arguing in good faith...

there may be aspects of consciousness (sentience?) that are constituted, and others (sapience?) that are produced. Consciousness may well be a combination of both.

That's literally impossible. Either weak or strong emergence is true, you can't have both. Either the mind is reducible or not. Make up your mind...

I am recognizing that he knows more about this than either of us.

And you're still failing to cite an argument from him which means you're just committing the appeal to authority fallacy. Fail...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

And I note you again leave the crucial part on the cutting-room floor:

Uh-oh, did someone forget to log out of their sock account? hahah that was he_who_is_nobody who used that exact same vocabulary and did such things, now you're saying it was you who did it. well well well... If this isn't a sock account then this sure is interesting lol

If you believe either of HWIN's or my account is a sock-puppet, all you have to do is click on the triangle at the bottom right corner of my previous post and alert the Mods - they will take the appropriate action.

At which point, either both of our accounts will cease activity or - if what you believe is wrong - you'll owe both of us an apology.

We have not described A yet

Yes we have, it's call human anatomy and biology etc. Take a class in it sometime, it's a real thing ya know. We have indeed described A. Your body is perfectly describable with observation. There is no "hard problem of the body" lol

A is the system - not the brain or the body but the body and our interactivity with others and the environment.

Be careful of your inferences.

likewise

Both her points are valid criticisms of idealism.

No they're not as they come from a strange anti-realist version of Idealism as I just noted. Stop ignoring my rebuttals.

1) If physical objects have enduring qualities that we can all agree upon, this strongly suggests that they have a reality independent of us, our minds, and our perceptions of them.

Since I'm not an anti-realist idealist, and am a cosmic idealist as I noted long ago, this isn't a problem for me at all. Of course objects are independent of us, our minds, and our perceptions of them, as they are dependent on a cosmic mind that holds all things together in consistency. Simple. No problem here.

So, your "this is just the case for idealism" turns out not to be the case - as I pointed out in my first response. As I said then, your case for idealism doesn't stand on it's own - it's contingent on something else.

If you manage to do the latter, then you'll win a prize, and become famous.

Same with you and the hard problem. You better email chalmers and collect your prize lol

Events that are the result of naturalistic causes.

You just went in a circle and used the very word that you're trying to define... define natural please without going in a circle

Consistent with the laws of Nature. Existing in or derived from Nature; not made or caused by humankind. Or deities, for that matter.

We actually don’t know if it is sound

Absolute fail. I told you to bring me an argument that is both valid and has true premises and a false conclusion. This isn't the case as per your own quotes admission right here. Just a reminder: you're literally arguing against logic right now, so next time you want to mock a creationist or something just recall the time you literally argued against logic itself hahah

An argument can be valid without being sound.

Duh! omg, please read... I told you to bring me a valid argument, with true premises, and a false conclusion. Do it, I dare you... you'll literally be arguing against logic itself...

I apologize, I mistook for what you were asking - valid premises with a false conclusion. An argument that's valid, with true premises, and a false conclusion is impossible in deductive logic.

Regardless, my point still stands: philosophical arguments don't count - we need empiric evidence in science.

As I noted above, the/your case is contingent on the existence of a third-party.

Naw. The case for idealism by itself is just that: the case for idealism. That's it. I personally am a cosmic idealist but other idealists can use this argument and formulate their own version of it.

Other idealists - physical idealists - can argue for such, neutral and cosmic idealists can't.

You need to argue first for the third-party on which your case for idealism is contingent.

I've addressed this earlier: we don't know enough about A as A has changed/expanded over time.

As I already explained, this is just an admission that reductionism is false. We can describe the body, to say otherwise is to flat out lie about the existence of the science of anatomy... We can describe the human body using science with no problem. A has been described. Furthermore, if A hasn't been described then wtf is A???? You're not making any sense, and it's clear you've been backed into a corner. You never once tried to say A wasn't describable until I pointed out the explanatory gap the definition of identical and now you're backtracking like crazy.

I've said that A is no longer just the brain or the body - it's become the body and its interaction with the environment, both in terms of social interaction with other people, animals, etc.

As such, we've not yet explained all of this - it's an extremely complex system: until we do, we can't say one way or the other whether consciousness is constituted of or produced by the system.

Deductive arguments aren't empiric evidence

Nice goal post shift. You tried to say they don't count for anything and I've just proven you wrong on this. Arguments=proof. And we're not limited by science as we're talking about philosophy and not just science. We're going more fundamental than science.

The only thing that matters at the end of the day is scientific evidence. Philosophical arguments mean nothing - like theologians arguing how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.

Whatever the dictionary definitions

Basically you're saying fuck the definitions, you're just going to continue to equivocate. nice... real rational bud... If you can't adhere to definitions then you're not arguing in good faith...

I'm simply saying we don't know enough yet to make a decision.

there may be aspects of consciousness (sentience?) that are constituted, and others (sapience?) that are produced. Consciousness may well be a combination of both.

That's literally impossible. Either weak or strong emergence is true, you can't have both. Either the mind is reducible or not. Make up your mind...

What's stopping sentience being constituted and/or sapience being produced? Is there some law of Nature preventing such from being the case?

I am recognizing that he knows more about this than either of us.

And you're still failing to cite an argument from him which means you're just committing the appeal to authority fallacy. Fail...

Well, you could contact him this time, and ask him to give you a counter-argument against your OP.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

A is the system - not the brain or the body

1. this is a total goal post shift... You have been arguing that A=body/brain and that B=mind and that A=B. Now you're kicking the can down the road cuz you've been caught in a contradiction... If you want to play this game then just come out with it and admit the mind is not reducible to the body/brain. Don't pussyfoot, be real, and say it explicitly so you can be quoted in case you contradict yourself again.

2. you've just landed into panpsychism... If A=system and B=mind and A=B then mind is everywhere according to you... So either you're a panpsychist now or you're going to have to admit A=body/brain and that the mind is weakly emergence from it.

I've said that A is no longer just the brain or the body

Just want to note, this is proof you have indeed shifting the goal post. You now see that you can't reduce the mind to the body/brain so you're moving the goal down the line, but this only gets you in more trouble as I just explained.

As such, we've not yet explained all of this

Reduce consciousness to the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements right now... If A=B, then describing physics and all these other things should be sufficient to describe consciousness, even if the description is not entirely complete. Remember, you're talking about reductionism, which means you're saying the mind is identical to the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements, so that means describing such would describe consciousness, but you admit there's an explanatory gap so you're in the exact same problem as before, nothing has changed here for you. Even with your goal post shift, you never escaped this issue of identity...

I'm simply saying we don't know enough yet to make a decision.

yes we do, we know constitute≠produce. We know that you can't equivocate without being fallacious. If you're talking about weak emergence, that means you're talking about constitution (e.g. shape made out of legos) rather than production (steam coming out of an engine). It's clear you want to keep the advantages of the mind being "produced" by "the system" since it's clear describing just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements fails to tell us what it is like to be the subject for the subject, but you're affirming weak emergence and this puts you in a whole lot more trouble as I've already explained. There would be no appeal to the future with you if A=B since the description of A is identical to the description of B. You don't need a complete description to have a description and your hiding behind the future is just an admission that you can't reduce consciousness.

What's stopping sentience being constituted and/or sapience being produced? Is there some law of Nature preventing such from being the case?

As I just said: either weak or strong emergence is true. Contradictions cannot be true. You've denied strong emergence in the past so you've cornered yourself into weak emergence which mean you're talking about constitution, yet you keep trying to use the language of production. You keep trying to talk about consciousness as if it's this phenomenon that is somehow different from the system itself when it's supposed to be identical to it. That's reductionism...

So, your "this is just the case for idealism" turns out not to be the case

No it just means Blackmore's arguments don't apply to my particular version of idealism. That's all. There's many different versions of idealism and each one can use the case for idealism for themselves.

Same with you and the hard problem. You better email chalmers and collect your prize lol

Funny how you just ignored this. Why aren't you emailing chalmers since you're so confident you've solved/dissolved the hard problem of consciousness? Still scared? hahah

Consistent with the laws of Nature.

dude... you just went in a circle again... you cannot include the very word you're trying to define in the definition itself... Define nature please without going in a circle...

I apologize, I mistook for what you were asking - valid premises with a false conclusion. An argument that's valid, with true premises, and a false conclusion is impossible in deductive logic.

Okay good I'm glad you see what I'm getting at now. So we now see that a valid argument, with true premises, entails a conclusion that must be true. This is the power of arguments, they can lead to a definite conclusion. If the form is valid, and the premises true, there is no escape: the conclusion has to be true. This is why they say arguments=proof. So don't discount the importance of arguments in the future since you'll just get caught in this conversation again.

Regardless, my point still stands: philosophical arguments don't count

And you're back to contradicting yourself.... arguments=proof. You can't deny this without flat out contradicting yourself. If the form is valid, and the premises true, the conclusion is necessarily true. There is no way out of this without being a full blown logic denier which is far worse than being a creationist...

Other idealists - physical idealists - can argue for such,

Naw, just any ole idealist can. Per the definition of idealism in the OP then any version of idealism is free to use the case for idealism for themselves.

The only thing that matters at the end of the day is scientific evidence.

Show me the experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matters... You're going to realize quite quickly that such an experiment does not exist... What you're talking about is scientism and that worldview is self-refuting as just demonstrated. You cannot justify science itself with science as that's assuming science is a way to know in the first place. You'd just be arguing in a circle.

Philosophical arguments mean nothing

Do I have to school you on sound arguments again? As long as the form is valid, and the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. Arguments=proof

Well, you could contact him this time

Glad you're done with this appeal to authority fallacy nonsense. I'll email him down the line after I'm done talking with all you guys to work out any kinks that may be there. As I said all the way back in the OP, this is a rough sketch of the argument. This is by no means my final form, bro

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greettings,

A is the system - not the brain or the body

1. this is a total goal post shift... You have been arguing that A=body/brain and that B=mind and that A=B. Now you're kicking the can down the road cuz you've been caught in a contradiction... If you want to play this game then just come out with it and admit the mind is not reducible to the body/brain. Don't pussyfoot, be real, and say it explicitly so you can be quoted in case you contradict yourself again.

2. you've just landed into panpsychism... If A=system and B=mind and A=B then mind is everywhere according to you... So either you're a panpsychist now or you're going to have to admit A=body/brain and that the mind is weakly emergence from it.

I've said that A is no longer just the brain or the body

Just want to note, this is proof you have indeed shifting the goal post. You now see that you can't reduce the mind to the body/brain so you're moving the goal down the line, but this only gets you in more trouble as I just explained.

As such, we've not yet explained all of this

Reduce consciousness to the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements right now... If A=B, then describing physics and all these other things should be sufficient to describe consciousness, even if the description is not entirely complete. Remember, you're talking about reductionism, which means you're saying the mind is identical to the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements, so that means describing such would describe consciousness, but you admit there's an explanatory gap so you're in the exact same problem as before, nothing has changed here for you. Even with your goal post shift, you never escaped this issue of identity...

I'm simply saying we don't know enough yet to make a decision.

yes we do, we know constitute≠produce. We know that you can't equivocate without being fallacious. If you're talking about weak emergence, that means you're talking about constitution (e.g. shape made out of legos) rather than production (steam coming out of an engine). It's clear you want to keep the advantages of the mind being "produced" by "the system" since it's clear describing just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements fails to tell us what it is like to be the subject for the subject, but you're affirming weak emergence and this puts you in a whole lot more trouble as I've already explained. There would be no appeal to the future with you if A=B since the description of A is identical to the description of B. You don't need a complete description to have a description and your hiding behind the future is just an admission that you can't reduce consciousness.

As I said earlier, over the last few centuries, "the system" has shifted: from the grey matter in the skull, to neuro-biology, to social interaction with others and the environment.

We don't know enough about the system to make a decision - that's why we still have, what's referred to as, "consciousness studies".

If you're so certain that it's solved, publish a paper and enjoy the fame and fortune that goes with making a major breakthrough.

What's stopping sentience being constituted and/or sapience being produced? Is there some law of Nature preventing such from being the case?

As I just said: either weak or strong emergence is true. Contradictions cannot be true. You've denied strong emergence in the past so you've cornered yourself into weak emergence which mean you're talking about constitution, yet you keep trying to use the language of production. You keep trying to talk about consciousness as if it's this phenomenon that is somehow different from the system itself when it's supposed to be identical to it. That's reductionism...

As I said, lower forms of consciousness may be constituted, higher forms may be a product.

Again, as I said earlier, if you're so confident of the answer, publish!

So, your "this is just the case for idealism" turns out not to be the case

No it just means Blackmore's arguments don't apply to my particular version of idealism. That's all. There's many different versions of idealism and each one can use the case for idealism for themselves.

No, subjective idealism leads to solipsism. The only way out is cosmic idealism. Neutral idealism also escapes solipsism but, as with cosmic idealism, requires a third-party to do so - either a substance or a Cosmic Entity on which all else is contingent.

Same with you and the hard problem. You better email chalmers and collect your prize lol

Funny how you just ignored this. Why aren't you emailing chalmers since you're so confident you've solved/dissolved the hard problem of consciousness? Still scared? hahah

As has been said, the hard problem may well turn out to be nothing more that a combination of "soft" problems.

Consistent with the laws of Nature.

dude... you just went in a circle again... you cannot include the very word you're trying to define in the definition itself... Define nature please without going in a circle...

First, you asked for a definition of "natural", now you're looking for a definition of "nature". And, not to be pedantic, you do realize that there's a difference between "nature" and "Nature"?

So, you find fault with dictionary definitions? What about the rest of the definition I gave?

Perhaps you should write to the lexicographers at Merriam-Webster and the OED to complain that their definitions are not up to your standard.

I apologize, I mistook for what you were asking - valid premises with a false conclusion. An argument that's valid, with true premises, and a false conclusion is impossible in deductive logic.

Okay good I'm glad you see what I'm getting at now. So we now see that a valid argument, with true premises, entails a conclusion that must be true. This is the power of arguments, they can lead to a definite conclusion. If the form is valid, and the premises true, there is no escape: the conclusion has to be true. This is why they say arguments=proof. So don't discount the importance of arguments in the future since you'll just get caught in this conversation again.

Regardless, my point still stands: philosophical arguments don't count

And you're back to contradicting yourself.... arguments=proof. You can't deny this without flat out contradicting yourself. If the form is valid, and the premises true, the conclusion is necessarily true. There is no way out of this without being a full blown logic denier which is far worse than being a creationist...

My point throughout has been the same.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that philosophical arguments have any power over Nature. They don't.

You're not the first creationist who's come here in the belief that they can do what theologians have failed to do for millennia: "prove" creationism and/or God's existence with an argument.

Other idealists - physical idealists - can argue for such,

Naw, just any ole idealist can. Per the definition of idealism in the OP then any version of idealism is free to use the case for idealism for themselves.

See my earlier response.

The only thing that matters at the end of the day is scientific evidence.

Show me the experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matters... You're going to realize quite quickly that such an experiment does not exist... What you're talking about is scientism and that worldview is self-refuting as just demonstrated. You cannot justify science itself with science as that's assuming science is a way to know in the first place. You'd just be arguing in a circle.

Philosophical arguments mean nothing

Do I have to school you on sound arguments again? As long as the form is valid, and the premises are true, the conclusion has to be true. Arguments=proof

Not in Nature.

No empiric evidence? Then it doesn't count.

Well, you could contact him this time

Glad you're done with this appeal to authority fallacy nonsense. I'll email him down the line after I'm done talking with all you guys to work out any kinks that may be there. As I said all the way back in the OP, this is a rough sketch of the argument. This is by no means my final form, bro

I'd certainly hope not, as it hasn't convinced anyone here - not to mention Chalmers.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

As I said earlier, over the last few centuries, "the system" has shifted: from the grey matter in the skull, to neuro-biology, to social interaction with others and the environment.

No you just plain ole shifted the goal post. You should have the intellectual honesty to admit that you were disproven on your claims regarding reducing the mind to the body/brain since you've clearly moved away from that.

We don't know enough about the system to make a decision

Stop. Ignoring. What. I. Say: You're clearly not grasping what I say so you just keep repeating the same shit I've already refuted: It is contradictory for you to say we can describe the hand, but we cannot describe the 5 fingered thing attached to the arm. You're talking about how the mind is identical to the system and you are clearly identifying the system (the grey matter in the skull, to neuro-biology, to social interaction with others and the environment) which means you're describing it by definition... So when you say this bullshit about "we don't know enough" that's a lie since you're clearly identifying the system, you're describing it by your own admission. And if B (the mind) is identical to A then identifying A identifies B, but you admit there's an explanatory gap which is just as contradictory as saying we can describe the hand but not the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. You're talking about reductionism, stop forgetting this, stop repeating the very same claim I keep refuting...

As I said, lower forms of consciousness may be constituted, higher forms may be a product.

This doesn't address what I've said at all. Either weak or strong emergence is true. You've already denied strong emergence so you can't say consciousness is produced. You're stuck affirming that its constituted. Stop equivocating and admit that you're starting to see the problems with weak emergence since you're so tempted to see it as a product of A rather than being identical to A.

No, subjective idealism leads to solipsism. The only way out is cosmic idealism.

Naw, just read that article I cited all the way back in the OP from Chalmers. There's many different versions of idealism, it's not limited to subjective and cosmic idealism and the case for idealism doesn't commit one to any particular version.

As has been said, the hard problem may well turn out to be nothing more that a combination of "soft" problems

Then convince Chalmers of that. Show him your argument. Why not share it with him since apparently you were able to get a hold of him so quickly before?

First, you asked for a definition of "natural", now you're looking for a definition of "nature"

That was a typo, you're being pedantic.

So, you find fault with dictionary definitions?

Yeah that definition wasn't informative. It just looped back to a term that wasn't defined. You might want to start defining your terms now, you're still not doing it... Define natural. And if you can't do that without defining nature then define nature.

My point throughout has been the same.

And your point has been fail the whole time. You're literally arguing against logic right now. Sound arguments lead to a true conclusion by definition. You're saying arguments aren't proof when arguments are included in the very definition of proof... stop being a logic denier. being a logic denier is waaaaay worse than any creationist could ever hope to be lol

No empiric evidence? Then it doesn't count.

Stop ignoring what I say you coward: Show me the experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matters... You're going to realize quite quickly that such an experiment does not exist... You're sawing off the branch you sit on... What you're talking about is scientism and that worldview is self-refuting as just demonstrated. You cannot justify science itself with science as that's assuming science is a way to know in the first place. You'd just be arguing in a circle.

I'd certainly hope not, as it hasn't convinced anyone here - not to mention Chalmers.

You're not the only ones to hear this argument, there's more people here than you guys, Chalmers gave us no reason to believe the argument is flawed, and I've systematically refuted you and everyone else in here line by line so my case still stands.