The Case for Idealism

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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...

Just because you identify, for example, the brain as A, doesn't mean that you understand every process of the brain. Given that, you can't then say that reductionism is false. You're assuming that a temporary gap - due to not yet understanding everything going on in the brain - is a permanent gap: that there is no equating brain/brain-body/body-environment with consciousness.

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.

There's no reason why it can't be some combination of both depending on the life-form.

You seem to think that it's simple - it's not.

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.

I read it. The main ones are still as I delineated in a earlier post.

And given that Chalmers suggests that Bostrom's model - where we are ourselves simulations in a non-conscious simulation - is more likely, your Cosmic Entity is unlikely to exist, is it?

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?

He's aware of it as it's a well-known position in consciousness studies.

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.

Nature is the universe.

You'll find the same in any dictionary definition.

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
You're not listening to what I'm saying.

Philosophical arguments have no bearing on Nature without empiric evidence to back them up.

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.

In science, you have to show - with empiric evidence - that your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence, your hypothesis is just that - an idea.

Philosophical arguments are just that: an hypothesis.

And your scientism accusation is equally met with that of philosophism.

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.

Other than his email response where he said, "Most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me - perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8".

You don't call that flawed?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Just because you identify, for example, the brain as A, doesn't mean that you understand every process of the brain.

A=B remember?? Definition of identical: similar in every detail; exactly alike. Synonymous with: indistinguishable, (exactly) the same, undifferentiated etc.

If the mind identical to the brain (and its processes) then identifying the brain necessarily identifies the mind, but you're saying there's an explanatory gap. That's literally a contradiction. The moment you identify the brain would be the moment you identify consciousness, but that doesn't happen by your own admission and hiding behind the future. Hand=5 fingered thing attached to your arm. If you've identified the hand then you've identified the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. What don't you get about this???

There's no reason why it can't be some combination of both

Yes there is since you have explicitly denied strong emergence. You're just contradicting yourself (again). Are you now going to go back on what you said about strong emergence...? Don't dodge again, answer the question...

I read it. The main ones are still as I delineated in a earlier post.

No you tried to say there's just subjective idealism and cosmic idealism and that paper goes over several different versions that you're not including.

And given that Chalmers suggests that Bostrom's model - where we are ourselves simulations in a non-conscious simulation - is more likely

He didn't say that it's more likely at all, you're just flat out lying. Also he had a whole paragraph where he qualifies what he really meants about Bostrom's model and how it doesn't quite qualify as idealism so no it doesn't fit.

He's aware of it as it's a well-known position in consciousness studies.

Then he's expressed credulity and per your own appeal to authority from earlier then you need to roll over and accept that you're wrong lol

Nature is the universe.

so then you're just saying we have empiric evidence for phenomenon we observe in the universe. Alright, just a heads up: that's not a commitment to naturalism or materialism. The idealist can accept this just fine without believing there are such things as physical/material objects or that there's only the universe. To contradict this you'll need to present a case for materialism and naturalism.

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

No that's you. If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This is called a sound argument and it is by definition a proof. To say otherwise is you literally being a logic denier...

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.[/quote]

In science, you have to show - with empiric evidence - that your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence, your hypothesis is just that - an idea.

You're not listening: "Show me the experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matter"

If you're so correct, you should have absolutely no problem citing an experiment. You shouldn't need an argument at all, you should be able to just throw some peer-reviewed paper where they document this experiment. If this experiment doesn't exist, then you're full of shit...

And your scientism accusation is equally met with that of philosophism.

Nope, since i'm not reducing everything to philosophy. Youre reducing everything to science, so you're affirming scientism which is just self-refuting.

Other than his email response where he said, "Most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me - perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8".

That's not an argument. That's not a reason to believe there is a flaw in the argument. fail.

 

[momo666]

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

I understand that viewing your cheap baseless attacks as "descriptions of reality" somehow grants said cheap attacks some sort of validity in your mind, but I would just say to you that it is a waste of time.

Notice however that my ability to comprehend the English language is not the issue under scrutiny here. The issue comes in the form of your inability to explain a key term of one of your premises. You claim something exists. I want to know what that something is.
It is not a good sign that your argument runs into trouble from the very first word of the very first premise.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Notice however that my ability to comprehend the English language is not the issue under scrutiny here.

Yes it absolutely is. You sperged out over the idiom "for god's sake" by questioning the definition of God. This means you don't even understand what an idiom is. Definition of idiom: "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words". This means we can understand the meaning of "for god's sake" without defining the word God. I then went on to define what the idiom "for god's sakes" means and you just acted like you still didn't understand even when it was explicitly defined for you. This means one of two things: you're just arbitrarily turning up the skepticism dial and pretending that you don't understand which is just pseudoskepticism and thus dishonest, or you just fail at grasping basic english. I can't help you with your dishonesty and/or failure to grasp the english language...

 

[momo666]

Notice however that my ability to comprehend the English language is not the issue under scrutiny here.

Yes it absolutely is. You sperged out over the idiom "for god's sake" by questioning the definition of God. This means you don't even understand what an idiom is. Definition of idiom: "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words". This means we can understand the meaning of "for god's sake" without defining the word God. I then went on to define what the idiom "for god's sakes" means and you just acted like you still didn't understand even when it was explicitly defined for you. This means one of two things: you're just arbitrarily turning up the skepticism dial and pretending that you don't understand which is just pseudoskepticism and thus dishonest, or you just fail at grasping basic english. I can't help you with your dishonesty and/or failure to grasp the english language...

That is all well and good. Were it not for the fact that I have already factored in this defense from the very first moment you mentioned it. Notice however that it is a very weak defense.
For starters, the phrase "for god's sake" has not been established as being necessarily only an idiom. For someone who believes in the concept of god/gods, that word (the word "god") could very well be used literally to refer to some supposed being.
Secondly, going by that habit of arbitrarily attributing meanings to collections of words, one could just as well say "for table's sake" or "for cup of tea sake" or even "dog to peanut no chair". It is an absurd method of treating words.

You tried to assert the phrase "for god's sake" has a certain definition. Should that be so, you would have no problem pointing out to me what part of said definition accounts for the word "god".

I understand throwing cheap baseless attacks at me makes you feel good. But I hope you understand as well that your so called argument has run into trouble from the very first word of the very first premise. All the venom in the world will not change that fact.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just because you identify, for example, the brain as A, doesn't mean that you understand every process of the brain.

A=B remember?? Definition of identical: similar in every detail; exactly alike. Synonymous with: indistinguishable, (exactly) the same, undifferentiated etc.

If the mind identical to the brain (and its processes) then identifying the brain necessarily identifies the mind, but you're saying there's an explanatory gap. That's literally a contradiction. The moment you identify the brain would be the moment you identify consciousness, but that doesn't happen by your own admission and hiding behind the future. Hand=5 fingered thing attached to your arm. If you've identified the hand then you've identified the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. What don't you get about this???

Pointing at something, and saying, "that's the cause!" doesn't explain how.

There are three possibilities here:

1) Reductionism is false. Period.
2) Given that the default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence to the contrary, reductionism is false for now - with the proviso that, at some point in the future, evidence may show that it's true;
3) Wait until we have sufficient evidence to make a decision.

Your position appears to be 1), mine is 3).

Now, if you want to agree on 2), be my guest.

There's no reason why it can't be some combination of both

Yes there is since you have explicitly denied strong emergence. You're just contradicting yourself (again). Are you now going to go back on what you said about strong emergence...? Don't dodge again, answer the question...

I've come to the conclusion that there's a possibility that both may be applicable depending on the life-form. Changing one's mind is not a flaw.

I read it. The main ones are still as I delineated in a earlier post.

No you tried to say there's just subjective idealism and cosmic idealism and that paper goes over several different versions that you're not including.

There are only three basic versions of monistic idealism - physical, neutral and mental - over the course of my previous replies, I've dealt with all three.

And given that Chalmers suggests that Bostrom's model - where we are ourselves simulations in a non-conscious simulation - is more likely

He didn't say that it's more likely at all, you're just flat out lying. Also he had a whole paragraph where he qualifies what he really meants about Bostrom's model and how it doesn't quite qualify as idealism so no it doesn't fit.

Bostrom's simulation is a variant of the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. If you think Chalmers writing "a whole paragraph where he qualifies what he really meant" solves this, you are sadly mistaken.

He's aware of it as it's a well-known position in consciousness studies.

Then he's expressed credulity and per your own appeal to authority from earlier then you need to roll over and accept that you're wrong lol

His acknowledging its existence clearly doesn't mean he accepts it. And your attempt at a witty riposte is itself amusing.

Nature is the universe.

so then you're just saying we have empiric evidence for phenomenon we observe in the universe. Alright, just a heads up: that's not a commitment to naturalism or materialism. The idealist can accept this just fine without believing there are such things as physical/material objects or that there's only the universe. To contradict this you'll need to present a case for materialism and naturalism.

On the contrary, to contradict naturalism the idealist has to provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical. Never mind evidence for a Cosmic Entity (God).

You're not listening to what I'm saying.

No that's you. If an argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the conclusion has to be true. This is called a sound argument and it is by definition a proof. To say otherwise is you literally being a logic denier...

In deductive logic.

Not in the real world.

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.

In science, you have to show - with empiric evidence - that your hypothesis is correct. Without that evidence, your hypothesis is just that - an idea.

You're not listening: "Show me the experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matter"

If you're so correct, you should have absolutely no problem citing an experiment. You shouldn't need an argument at all, you should be able to just throw some peer-reviewed paper where they document this experiment. If this experiment doesn't exist, then you're full of shit...

This line of questioning is due to your eliding what others say.

In a earlier post I said:

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

In your usual fashion, you reduced this to:

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

And since then, you've been demanding an "experiment that demonstrates scientific evidence is all that matters".

As I keep telling you: in deductive logic, they're called a "proof": in the real world, they need corroborating evidence - otherwise, it's just a claim, an assertion, an opinion.

And your scientism accusation is equally met with that of philosophism.

Nope, since i'm not reducing everything to philosophy. Youre reducing everything to science, so you're affirming scientism which is just self-refuting.

Science, through the scientific method, separates justified belief from unjustified belief. Scientism is the belief that science will solve everything. There is a difference between the two that's often lost in the mix. The scientific method can be applied to most but not all scenarios. If you can't observe something, how can one test (for) it?

I'm not guilty of scientism - I'm pointing out that philosophical claims about the real world need empiric evidence to corroborate them.

Other than his email response where he said, "Most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me - perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8".

That's not an argument. That's not a reason to believe there is a flaw in the argument. fail.

If he's questioning most of the premises, then the argument is flawed - he doesn't need to make a formal counter-argument to show that it's flawed. Just like grandmasters automatically dismissing weaker moves.

And, as mom888 has reminded you, you're (still) stuck on first base. To use an idiom.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Were it not for the fact that I have already factored in this defense from the very first moment you mentioned it.

No actually, you didn't. You just failed to grasp that this is an idiom. You keep pressing on the definition of the word God here but an idiom by definition has meaning that is NOT deducible from those of the individual words. You just fail to grasp the english language, you fail to grasp what an idiom is...

For starters, the phrase "for god's sake" has not been established as being necessarily only an idiom.

Yes it has: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+God%27s+sake

The phrase "for god's sake" is indeed an idiom. You're full of shit, dude...

Should that be so, you would have no problem pointing out to me what part of said definition accounts for the word "god".

This is proof you fail to grasp the english language. I already told you that an idiom is a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words. We don't need to define the word "god" here for the meaning to be there. If you can't grasp this basic informal idiom then no wonder you're having a problem with the first premise. You just fail at grasping basic english. This is a personal problem for you, not me. All the venom in the world will not change that fact lol

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Yes it has: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+God%27s+sake

The phrase "for god's sake" is indeed an idiom. You're full of shit, dude...

It's used as an idiom, therefore, no one can say that they've done something literally for God's sake? That's interesting.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Pointing at something, and saying, "that's the cause!" doesn't explain how.

If you've identified the hand then you've identified the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. Hand=5 fingered thing attached to your arm. What don't you get about this???

Given that the default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence to the contrary

That's not true at all. That is not how the default position works. If there is prima facie evidence that something is true or false, then the default position would be that until more evidence is provided. Otherwise, a suspension of judgment is in order.

Your position appears to be 1), mine is 3).

You keep failing to understand that this isn't about waiting for more evidence, this is about IDENTITY. If A is identical to B then identifying A identifies B. But you're admitting that it doesn't with your hiding behind the future. This is an explicit contradiction of your identity claim. Stop ignoring this and rephrasing the same claim I keep refuting...

I've come to the conclusion that there's a possibility that both may be applicable depending on the life-form.

So you are now contradicting your old position. You are now affirming strong emergence since I've shown you the flaws of weak emergence. Please explain how strong emergence isn't magic please...

Changing one's mind is not a flaw.

You should have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is due to my arguments against your view of weak emergence. Your view changed only after I started pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and now you're being cornered into affirming strong emergence, which means you're leaning towards anti-reductionism which is my own view.

There are only three basic versions of monistic idealism - physical, neutral and mental

Nope, read that paper by Chalmers.

Bostrom's simulation is a variant of the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. If you think Chalmers writing "a whole paragraph where he qualifies what he really meant" solves this, you are sadly mistaken.

First off, you going to admit you were full of shit when you lied and said Chalmers claims its more likely? You should have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong about that... Second, I didn't say anything about that paradox, only that he qualifies that this isn't really a version of idealism so it doesn't fit.

His acknowledging its existence clearly doesn't mean he accepts it.

But he doesn't accept it which means he's dubious about it which means by your own logic you should just roll over and accept that you're wrong... unless of course you were just wrong earlier with your appeal to authority haha

On the contrary, to contradict naturalism the idealist has to provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical

Naw, we can just reduce the physical, or eliminate the physical.

Never mind evidence for a Cosmic Entity (God).

Again, there are many different versions of idealism. Cosmic Idealism is only one of them.

In deductive logic.

Logic=real world.

"Every serious intellectual pursuit comes ultimately to rely on reasoning, because there is nothing that can successfully replace it. ...The study of logic helps one to reason well by illuminating the principles of correct reasoning. Whatever the sphere in which knowledge is sought-whether in science, politics, or in the conduct of one's private life-logic is used to reach warranted conclusions."

Source: Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2011) . Introduction to Logic (14th ed.) "Foreword" p. xiii. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

You really need to study basic logic, dude... Stop being a logic denier

This line of questioning is due to your eliding what others say.

Isn't it weird that you claim science is all that matters yet you can't cite a single experiment to justify this? This means by your own logic, you fail hahaha you have no scientific evidence for your own claim. You saw off the branch you sit on lol

Science, through the scientific method, separates justified belief from unjustified belief.

And you belief in scientism is itself unjustified. You can't cite a single experiment to justify what you say, which by your own admission means you fail...

The scientific method can be applied to most but not all scenarios.

Then scientific evidence isn't all that matters. You're wrong then when you said that. In the domain of science, sure empirical evidence and experimentation rules. But if scientism is wrong then scientific evidence isn't all that matters. You'll have to make up your mind: either scientific evidence is all that matters in all domains or not. You just said its not, so you've officially contradicted your old position.

If he's questioning most of the premises, then the argument is flawed

That's. Not. An. Argument.

We need a reason to believe it's actually questionable. Just because someone says so, that doesn't make it true. We need reasons to believe its actually true... So strange how you demand scientific evidence for every claim in one instance, and then settle with an appeal to authority in the next haha your hypocrisy is stunning

And, as mom888 has reminded you, you're (still) stuck on first base.

Per your own appeal to authority: Chalmers didn't question those premises. only p4+ did he say were questionable, premise 1 and premise 2 for instance were just fine. He's like the chessmaster so by your own logic you have to roll over and accept that you're wrong lol

 

[Monistic Idealism]

It's used as an idiom, therefore, no one can say that they've done something literally for God's sake? That's interesting

your logical fallacy is: equivocation

Nice try, but we already defined the meaning of "for god's sake" here: "An oath of exasperation, annoyance, frustration, anger, or surprise."

 

[Greg the Grouper]

your logical fallacy is:

Oh, cool. A vending machine.

All I did was point out that the phrase "for god's sake", while being a well-known idiom, could also be used literally. You know, exactly what momo was saying when they pointed out that "for god's sake" isn't just an idiom. You know, the point you were responding to where you then pointed out that it is an idiom, as though momo was ever denying that it was an idiom?

Oh, but I guess I should address my prize. You called my statement an equivocation, right? Yeah, maybe you should actually read up on that one. Here, let me give you a proper example of an equivocation fallacy for you:

P1. Apples are gods
P2. Apples exist
C1. From premise one and two, Gods exist
C2. From conclusion one, God sacrificed his only son for the salvation of mankind

Well, there's more wrong with that example argument than just the equivocation, but you get my meaning. Probably not, actually, since you thought my last post was an equivocation fallacy. I can hope though, right?

Nice try, but we already defined the meaning of "for god's sake" here

Really? Maybe you should check with momo about that. I would've thought their argument where they point out that it isn't just an idiom would be a clear indicator that this wasn't made as clear as you seem to think it was.

You know that conversations require two people bare minimum, right? That you can't just go and decide things on your own, right? That momo would have to grant this particular point in order for it to carry any weight in your conversation with them, right?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Oh, cool. A vending machine.

Oh cool, a fallacious prick

All I did was point out that the phrase "for god's sake", while being a well-known idiom, could also be used literally

We defined our terms long ago, go back and see yourself. It was way before you jumped in the middle of the convo. I gave the very definition I gave you a second ago, and momo said they still didn't understand it. Which means this guy doesn't understand basic english.

Tell me, what do you not understand about this sentence: "An oath of exasperation, annoyance, frustration, anger, or surprise."

You understand this just fine, right? You get that when someone says "oh for god's sake!" that its just an expression of annoyance, frustration, anger, or surprise. Momo says they don't understand this. Surely you speak English and thus understand this, right...?

 

[momo666]

No actually, you didn't. You just failed to grasp that this is an idiom. You keep pressing on the definition of the word God here but an idiom by definition has meaning that is NOT deducible from those of the individual words. You just fail to grasp the english language, you fail to grasp what an idiom is...

The defense you are attempting to employ is pretty amateur level. I saw it coming mainly because it is so easy to spot. I keep pressing on the definition of the word "god" because you have not established that phrase is necessarily an idiom. What makes those particular words have that definition ? Why not use the phrase "peanut beer said it" instead ? It shouldn't matter after all, since we are arbitrarily attributing meanings to collections of words.

Yes it has: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+God%27s+sake

The phrase "for god's sake" is indeed an idiom. You're full of shit, dude...

Why ? Because you can copy/pasta someone who wrote something ? A complete and utter non sequitur. To someone who believes in the concept of "god", it could be that she or he uses that word (the word "god") literally. And because of that, the phrase can indeed require one to define the word "god".

This is proof you fail to grasp the english language. I already told you that an idiom is a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words. We don't need to define the word "god" here for the meaning to be there. If you can't grasp this basic informal idiom then no wonder you're having a problem with the first premise. You just fail at grasping basic english. This is a personal problem for you, not me. All the venom in the world will not change that fact lol

Actually, you do. You may arbitrarily attribute a meaning to a group of words, but you still have to explain why that particular arrangement of words is a proper fit for that particular meaning, other than your subjective whim. If you don't, the definition you provided for that phrase could be attributed to any collection of words I deem fit; which is an absurd way to treat words.

You have asserted the phrase "for god's sake" has a particular definition. I want to know exactly how that definition maps onto what it is supposed to define. The fact that you are having problems with that request tells more about you, than it does about me.

You can spill your venom at me all you like. You are impotent at defending even the very first word of the very first premise of your so called argument. Make no mistake, there is a problem for sure.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I keep pressing on the definition of the word "god" because you have not established that phrase is necessarily an idiom

I just did, I even included a source. This is known among English speakers as an idiom, an expression, a phrase. It's not to be taken literally, it's just an idiom. I can cite multiple sources affirming this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_God%27s_sake

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/for-gods-sake

Even urbandictionary gets it: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=for%20gods%20sake

Notice the like to dislike ratio on that one? The only person who is having a problem grasping the meaning of the idiom "for god's sake" is you... your problem is not with me, or the first premise, you just fail to comprehend english...

What makes those particular words have that definition ?

See? Your problem is not with my first premise, it's some weird problem with the english language and philosophy of language itself. This question applies to the entirety of the English language itself. What gives any definition its meaning??? You're just de-railing this thread dude. Start a new thread about the philosophy of language or take a basic course in English...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Pointing at something, and saying, "that's the cause!" doesn't explain how.

If you've identified the hand then you've identified the 5 fingered thing attached to your arm. Hand=5 fingered thing attached to your arm. What don't you get about this???

You're using a false analogy: hand = brain, 5 fingered thing attached to your arm = consciousness.

The 5 fingered thing attached to your arm is identical to the hand - consciousness may or may not be identical to the brain.

Given that the default position for any claim is that it is false until evidence to the contrary

That's not true at all. That is not how the default position works. If there is prima facie evidence that something is true or false, then the default position would be that until more evidence is provided. Otherwise, a suspension of judgment is in order.

Again, I have to explicitly state things for you instead of your being able to read what's said in context.

Your OP is a claim that monist idealism is true. The default position for anyone else is that your claim is false until you can provide evidence in support of it.

Your position appears to be 1), mine is 3).

You keep failing to understand that this isn't about waiting for more evidence, this is about IDENTITY. If A is identical to B then identifying A identifies B. But you're admitting that it doesn't with your hiding behind the future. This is an explicit contradiction of your identity claim. Stop ignoring this and rephrasing the same claim I keep refuting...

See my point about your hand analogy above.

I've come to the conclusion that there's a possibility that both may be applicable depending on the life-form.

So you are now contradicting your old position. You are now affirming strong emergence since I've shown you the flaws of weak emergence. Please explain how strong emergence isn't magic please...

Please explain how cosmic idealism isn't magic.

Changing one's mind is not a flaw.

You should have the intellectual honesty to admit that this is due to my arguments against your view of weak emergence. Your view changed only after I started pointing out the flaws in your reasoning and now you're being cornered into affirming strong emergence, which means you're leaning towards anti-reductionism which is my own view.

It's been some years since I read Blackmore - re-reading certain sections of it, in the context of your posts, and recent advances in consciousness studies, has raised questions in my mind about whether there's a one-size-fits-all solution or whether it's a case of horses-for-courses.

I may well have to get the latest edition to see if they're any closer to a solution to consciousness - or, at least, if there's a better understanding of where things are headed - with the latest research.

There are only three basic versions of monistic idealism - physical, neutral and mental

Nope, read that paper by Chalmers.

Rather than my trawling through it again, why don't you point out the specific versions he mentions - with page numbers - that don't fall into one of the above general categories?

Bostrom's simulation is a variant of the Boltzmann Brain Paradox. If you think Chalmers writing "a whole paragraph where he qualifies what he really meant" solves this, you are sadly mistaken.

First off, you going to admit you were full of shit when you lied and said Chalmers claims its more likely? You should have the intellectual honesty to admit you were wrong about that... Second, I didn't say anything about that paradox, only that he qualifies that this isn't really a version of idealism so it doesn't fit.

Let's look at the relevant paragraphs (page 28):

One might even adapt Bostrom’s simulation argument (2003) to argue that it is quite likely that a cousin of this sort of cosmic idealism is true. A simplified version of the simulation argument says that many simulated universes will be created in the lifetime of a universe containing intelligent life, and there will be more beings in simulations than outside simulations, so it is very likely that we are in a simulation. One could additionally argue that most simulations will be done within the minds of simulating beings. The great majority of simulating beings will be superintelligent brings [sic], and these beings will have little need to run simulations on separate computers. Instead they will have the resources to run simulations directly in their own computational minds. If so,most beings in the cosmos will exist in universes realized by the minds of simulating beings.

The idealism suggested by this simulation argument is admittedly subject to some qualifications. One is that it is far from obvious that the simulations in question will need to be conscious. The idealism may well involve constitution by non-conscious mental states, which may themselves have underlying non-mental grounds. [Like computer-generated holographic simulations - DG] Another qualification is that on this view the cosmic sub-ject will not constitute the entire cosmos, but it will at least constitute everything in our universe.Whether idealism or some other view is true of the cosmos as a whole remains a further question.

The rule of parsimony suggests that this simpler simulation model is more likely true - just as the Boltzmann Brain Paradox suggests. How has Chalmers escaped this paradox?

His acknowledging its existence clearly doesn't mean he accepts it.

But he doesn't accept it which means he's dubious about it which means by your own logic you should just roll over and accept that you're wrong... unless of course you were just wrong earlier with your appeal to authority haha

I'm not relying on Chalmers - merely drawing attention to the fact that, as you say, "he's all over the place" with regard to which philosophical position to take/is true, which raises questions about your citing him in support of your OP. It's particularly ironic that the consolation of philosophy - and logical arguments - has left him in limbo as to what is reality?

On the contrary, to contradict naturalism the idealist has to provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical

Naw, we can just reduce the physical, or eliminate the physical.

If you do that, then you're changing your stated position of realism to anti-realism.

If you're sticking with realism, then you'll have to come up with evidence of a mind independent of the physical.

Never mind evidence for a Cosmic Entity (God).

Again, there are many different versions of idealism. Cosmic Idealism is only one of them.

In deductive logic.

Logic=real world.

"Every serious intellectual pursuit comes ultimately to rely on reasoning, because there is nothing that can successfully replace it. ...The study of logic helps one to reason well by illuminating the principles of correct reasoning. Whatever the sphere in which knowledge is sought-whether in science, politics, or in the conduct of one's private life-logic is used to reach warranted conclusions."

Source: Copi, I. M., Cohen, C., & McMahon, K. (2011) . Introduction to Logic (14th ed.) "Foreword" p. xiii. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

You really need to study basic logic, dude... Stop being a logic denier

Real world logic =/= Ivory Tower logic.

Statements about the real world need scientific evidence. You're making a claim about the real world - "monistic idealism is true" - you need to provide empiric evidence to corroborate your claim.

This line of questioning is due to your eliding what others say.

Isn't it weird that you claim science is all that matters yet you can't cite a single experiment to justify this? This means by your own logic, you fail hahaha you have no scientific evidence for your own claim. You saw off the branch you sit on lol

Science, through the scientific method, separates justified belief from unjustified belief.

And you belief in scientism is itself unjustified. You can't cite a single experiment to justify what you say, which by your own admission means you fail...

The scientific method can be applied to most but not all scenarios.

Then scientific evidence isn't all that matters. You're wrong then when you said that. In the domain of science, sure empirical evidence and experimentation rules. But if scientism is wrong then scientific evidence isn't all that matters. You'll have to make up your mind: either scientific evidence is all that matters in all domains or not. You just said its not, so you've officially contradicted your old position.

That's to what I was referring. Any claim made about the real world needs to be verified with empirical evidence and experimentation. I'm not holding to scientism.

Again, you keep reading things out of context.

And I note you haven't provided a philosophical argument about the real world that doesn't require evidence to corroborate it.

If he's questioning most of the premises, then the argument is flawed

That's. Not. An. Argument.

We need a reason to believe it's actually questionable. Just because someone says so, that doesn't make it true. We need reasons to believe its actually true... So strange how you demand scientific evidence for every claim in one instance, and then settle with an appeal to authority in the next haha your hypocrisy is stunning

This isn't a formal debate - it's a discussion.

No-one here needs to make a formal counter-argument - not even Chalmers - it's enough to raise questions about your claim(s).

And, as mom888 has reminded you, you're (still) stuck on first base.

Per your own appeal to authority: Chalmers didn't question those premises. only p4+ did he say were questionable, premise 1 and premise 2 for instance were just fine. He's like the chessmaster so by your own logic you have to roll over and accept that you're wrong lol

P1 is not "just fine".

You claim "Mind exists (Introspection)"

Firstly, I pointed out to you - in my earliest posts - that you didn't define mind properly, as you were using the term interchangeably with the term consciousness.

You then defined them both as "first person subjective experience".

This is problematic as mind suggests something static, like a rock, whilst consciousness suggests something dynamic, a ongoing process, like a flow of water. The two are not synonymous.

Your use of the phrase "first person" suggests that there's an "I" - this is merely an assumption on your part.

Libet's experiments show that the "I" doesn't exist.

Bear in mind that Libet was a dualist who sought to prove that free will, and thus a causal mind, existed.

If he were correct, then his experiments should have shown that the subjects made a decision (to turn over their hand), then there would be activity in the motor cortex (to move the hand), and finally they'd move their hand.

Instead, he found to his astonishment that the first thing to occur was the activity in the motor cortex, then - up to 10 seconds later - the subject became aware of a decision, before they then moved their hand.

It showed that there was no "I" present.

It's been described as similar to multiple neural networks vying for ascendancy before one of them wins out and we say/do whatever that network is promoting.

It's somewhat similar to living close enough to a stadium, sitting in a room with a closed window - most of the time you don't hear the crowd, until there's a roar, at which point you glance out the window in the direction of the stadium. You've become "aware" of a decision that's been percolating for a while in your brain.

It's similar to the proverbial wisdom of crowds - or, perhaps more accurately, fascism: where special interest groups (various neural networks within the brain) vie for ascendancy until one wins out.

This is why your idea of "first person subjective experience" is wrong.

I've also noted that your reliance on introspection is circular in that you're using a sub-state (introspection) of an unexplained state (consciousness) to confirm/explore said unexplained state.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[momo666]

I just did, I even included a source. This is known among English speakers as an idiom, an expression, a phrase. It's not to be taken literally, it's just an idiom. I can cite multiple sources affirming this:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/for_God%27s_sake

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/for-gods-sake

Even urbandictionary gets it: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=for%20gods%20sake

Notice the like to dislike ratio on that one? The only person who is having a problem grasping the meaning of the idiom "for god's sake" is you... your problem is not with me, or the first premise, you just fail to comprehend english…

You keep failing to see a basic point. That because a phrase can be used as an idiom, that does not mean people can not and do not use it literally. How do your sources demonstrate that said phrase is necessarily an idiom ? I know for a fact people whom have used that phrase literally. Heck, even I used it literally when I believed in the concept of "god".

See? Your problem is not with my first premise, it's some weird problem with the english language and philosophy of language itself. This question applies to the entirety of the English language itself. What gives any definition its meaning??? You're just de-railing this thread dude. Start a new thread about the philosophy of language or take a basic course in English...

Not at all. And hearing that from you is quite funny considering the accusations you've thrown at me. All I want is for you to explain what "mind" is. To that extent, my inquiry is in line with this thread's topic.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You keep failing to see a basic point.

No, that would be you. You're the one who is failing to grasp the meaning of a common everyday phrase used by non-philosophers "for god's sake". Either you just can't grasp basic English or you're deliberately being obtuse to the point of blatant dishonesty...

That because a phrase can be used as an idiom

That's what we're talking about here. This was defined for you several days ago...

Not at all.

Yes it is. Your question literally applies to every single word. What gives anything its meaning??? You're de-railing the thread. You don't have a problem with the first premise per se, you have a weird problem with philosophy of language itself. Go start a new thread...

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You're using a false analogy

Nope. You were talking about reductionism, remember??? You were saying A=B, which is a claim about identity. Brain=mind is the same thing as hand=5 fingered thing attached to your arm. It's the same type of claim: identity. If you don't like this, then abandon reductionism...

consciousness may or may not be identical to the brain.

So you're unable to identify the mind with the brain? Great. Then reductionism is false. If A=B then identifying A identifies B, and you're admitting outright that it's not happening. For if it were, there wouldn't be this "may or may not. The 5 fingered thing attached to your arm isn't a matter of "well it may or may not be the hand", no it's the hand...

Your OP is a claim that monist idealism is true. The default position for anyone else is that your claim is false until you can provide evidence in support of it.

All you've done here is ignored what I said: That is not how the default position works at all. If there is prima facie evidence that something is true or false, then the default position would be that until more evidence is provided. Otherwise, a suspension of judgment is in order. You don't just assume that a claim is false, you suspend judgment until the evidence pulls you one way or the other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_judgment

Please explain how cosmic idealism isn't magic.

Your logical fallacy is: tu quoque. You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism. Justify your claims that strong emergence is not magic. Burden of proof is on you.

It's been some years since I read Blackmore - re-reading certain sections of it, in the context of your posts, and recent advances in consciousness studies, has raised questions in my mind about whether there's a one-size-fits-all solution or whether it's a case of horses-for-courses.

mmhmm sure, whatever massages your ego bud. The fact is, in the course of our discussion you have now officially surrendered ground to me. You're moving away from weak emergence and reductionism now. If consciousness is not entirely reducible then you're agreeing with me that consciousness is not reducible.

Rather than my trawling through it again

That implies you already went through it, yet you're claiming things about it that aren't there. maybe just go ahead and actually read it for yourself there before you make a bunch of claims about it... You had no problem "trawling through it" with your bostrom quotes, there's no reason you can't do it again lol

Let's look at the relevant paragraphs (page 28):

Notice how he's not saying what you claimed. He's not saying that this is actually a more likely view, he's just telling you what the argument is. Your reading comprehension is terrible... Even Chalmers had to correct you on your poor reading abilities. This has happened with you several times now, you need to read more carefully...

I'm not relying on Chalmers

says the who guy appeals to authority when it comes to his analysis of my argument hahah what a hypocrite -

which raises questions about your citing him in support of your OP.

I didn't appeal to authority, I cited arguments. And I didn't actually cite Chalmers as support for any premise in the OP, I referenced him only to point out my particular version of idealism. Again, you have got to learn to read more carefully, you keep making these basic mistakes which leads to your confusion about my arguments..

If you do that, then you're changing your stated position of realism to anti-realism.

Not with reductionism.

Real world logic =/= Ivory Tower logic.

Real world=logic. Wow, you're a straight up logic denier hahah even creationists accept logic, they just suck at it. You just flat out deny logic itself lmao

Statements about the real world need scientific evidence.

Scientism is false, remember? Stop contradicting yourself.

>Any claim made about the real world needs to be verified with empirical evidence and experimentation.
>I'm not holding to scientism.

pick one...

This isn't a formal debate - it's a discussion.

That doesn't abdicate one of the responsibility to think logically. Appeals to authority are fallacious. We need reasons for what we believe. A claim with no support is just that: a claim... Anybody can claim anything dude, you need reasons to believe claims...

P1 is not "just fine".

Yes it is actually per your own appeal to authority. Chalmes says its cool, therefore its cool by your own logic. Either you roll over and just accept this or surrender your appeal to authority...

This is problematic as mind suggests something static, like a rock, whilst consciousness suggests something dynamic, a ongoing process, like a flow of water.

What you experience changes, but the fact that you are experiencing doesn't and that's my point. The fact that there is first-person subjective awareness. I mentioned long ago that I'm giving a very broad definition as well, something you don't need to step into an ivory tower for. Something the average joe, the non-philosopher, can grasp. This is grasped just fine as even admitted by Dennett and the Churchland's with their talk of folk psychology. This "I" is known directly and I noted long ago introspection is immune to skepticism in various ways:

Introspection is a key concept in epistemology, since introspective knowledge is often thought to be particularly secure, maybe even immune to skeptical doubt. Introspective knowledge is also often held to be more immediate or direct than sensory knowledge. Both of these putative features of introspection have been cited in support of the idea that introspective knowledge can serve as a ground or foundation for other sorts of knowledge. Introspection is also central to philosophy of mind, both as a process worth study in its own right and as a court of appeal for other claims about the mind. Philosophers of mind offer a variety of theories of the nature of introspection; and philosophical claims about consciousness, emotion, free will, personal identity, thought, belief, imagery, perception, and other mental phenomena are often thought to have introspective consequences or to be susceptible to introspective verification. For similar reasons, empirical psychologists too have discussed the accuracy of introspective judgments and the role of introspection in the science of the mind.

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/

This is a crucial concept in empirical psychology and is well supported by the total body of data plus our own direct knowledge.

 

[momo666]

No, that would be you. You're the one who is failing to grasp the meaning of a common everyday phrase used by non-philosophers "for god's sake". Either you just can't grasp basic English or you're deliberately being obtuse to the point of blatant dishonesty...

Except that, of course, to someone who believes in the concept of god/gods, using that phrase literally is perfectly sensible. I grasp the meaning of your definition. I am asking you to show how exactly does it map on that said phrase.

That's what we're talking about here. This was defined for you several days ago...

So if that is what we're talking about here, then a phrase being used as an idiom does not imply that some people do not use it literally. And if said phrase can be used in the way I am advocating, which it is, the said phrase requires a careful definition of the word "god".

Yes it is. Your question literally applies to every single word. What gives anything its meaning??? You're de-railing the thread. You don't have a problem with the first premise per se, you have a weird problem with philosophy of language itself. Go start a new thread...

Just no. That is not something I even came close to. That is simply a topic of your own invention. I have a problem with the first premise. I want to know what "mind" is. You claim it exits, so why are you having so much trouble defining that which you claim exists ?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I grasp the meaning of your definition

Great, then you were using a false analogy earlier. Glad we cleared that up.

Just no.

Yes, actually. You were literally questioning how any definition get its meaning. I see what you're doing man: I'm going to give you a definition (which I already have) then you're just going to be obtuse and act like you don't understand again when I've given you a basic, general, average joe understanding, of the term and you won't even concede this...I keep catching you in this lie as well where you claim you don't know what the word "I" means but then you'll say shit like "I don't know"... wtf do you mean by "I" in that sentence?? You're not making any sense, you're just blatantly contradicting yourself... You're being obtuse, you're going too fundamental, you're going off topic. Your problem is not with the first premise, it's with philosophy of language. Stop de-railing the thread and start a new thread.