The Case for Idealism

[momo666]

I grasp the meaning of your definition

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

You have misread my comment, yet again. I said I grasp the meaning of your definition, not of the phrase "for god's sake". I also explained why that is the case.

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.

I am not, as that is not something I am interested in. You gave me a definition of this "I", that is correct. You said it "is something we are directly aware of". Unfortunately for you, it does not take a genius to see the obvious flaw in that pseudo definition.

In response to that, you then, and now, are requesting me to explain that which I am asking you to explain. Which is plainly ridiculous since I would not require you to explain anything in the first place, nor would you require me to explain this "I" in the first place, were you to be in a position of knowledge about its nature.

My problem is very much with the first premise. And the fact that, until now, you have been unable to explain what "mind" is, tells me my line of inquiry is very much in line with the topic.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You have misread my comment, yet again.

Do you or do you not understand this sentence: An oath of exasperation, annoyance, frustration, anger, or surprise.

If you do, then I've been right this whole time. If you don't, you fail to comprehend basic English...

I am not, as that is not something I am interested in.

What are you saying? You keep using this word "I" that you refuse to define. I've given a definition, a common sense average joe's definition, and you refuse to admit that you comprehend it yet here you are using that very same word in the same way that I'm using it yet you say it's not defined... This is a blatant contradiction on your part.

You gave me a definition of this "I", that is correct.

Exactly, now its your turn. You keep using the word "I" but you refuse to define it. Define it, stop dodging...

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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...

If the eliminativists, like Dennett et al, are correct, then reductionism is true.

Otherwise it's some form of emergence - whether the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and by how much, remains to be seen.

Regardless, even at the time of the publication of Blackmore's book in 2010, all the evidence suggested that consciousness is naturalistic in origin.

I don't know enough about the current state of consciousness studies to make a decision either way - it'll be interesting seeing how things have changed in the intervening eight years between the publication of the second and third editions of Blackmore's book.

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

So, it's a suspension of judgement when it suits you - but it's "an appeal to the future" when it doesn't.

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.

The burden of proof is, and has been throughout this thread, on you to show that your claim regarding monistic idealism is true.

Your attempt to turn the tables won't work.

Still waiting for you to show that cosmic idealism isn't magic.

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.

I'm saying that I'm no longer sure where the truth lies, other than consciousness is naturalistic in origin. Again, that's not a weakness.

I will have to buy/read the new edition of Blackmore's book to get a better understanding of where things stand.

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

His paper focuses more on realist, as against anti-realist, versions. I haven't seen anything that couldn't be roughly put into the broad categories of monism I outlined.

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...

You accused me of lying about what Chalmers said earlier - I didn't claim that Chalmers said that it was more likely, I said:

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

What he said suggests that it's a more likely scenario through parsimony - Chalmers hasn't escaped this paradox with his qualifications. And neither, for that matter, have you.

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..

As he's taken the time to comment on your argument, it's not an appeal to authority to reference what he said in addressing your argument.

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

Not with reductionism.

But you would be with your claim with reducing/eliminating the physical whilst claiming you're a realist - you need to explain how you could do that and still maintain your realist position.

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical.

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

The difference is evidence - one requires evidence, the other only requires logical counter-argument(s).

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...

Again, you fail to read things in context. I've explained this to you several times - it's not scientism to require empirical evidence of claims about the real world. Since science deals with the real world, this is not contradictory to what you said:

In the domain of science, sure empirical evidence and experimentation rules.

In mere philosophical arguments about abstract things - an example of another domain - it doesn't.

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...

True: we're questioning the basis for your belief in idealism.

The problem we're having is that you're not addressing our questions to you. You copy/paste single sentences or phrases - in a different order than we've typed them - and claim that you've addressed our questions/points.

Momo888 has asked you to explain what you mean by this "I" and/or the "first person" to which you refer. I've raised Libet's experiments in relation to this, yet you haven't answered either of us.

I'll return to this at the end of this post.

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...

That isn't the case.

Chalmers didn't say "it's cool"- you're now guilty of what you accused me - he said, "Most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me - perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8".

You seem to think that this excludes P1-P3 - it doesn't, as these could be counted amongst those with which he finds questionable when he refers to "most".

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.

It still tells us nothing about the nature of this experience, as I keep pointing out: is it a single- or group-entity? Is it independent of/(co-)dependent on the physical? Is it an illusion? Like an Impressionist painting: at a distance, it appears as a uniform whole - up close, you realize it's comprised of a multitude of parts.

Again you elide.

This does not address the other points I made about your "first person" interpretation of consciousness or Libet's experiments showing that there's no "I".

What have you to say/show in response to Libet's experiments?

If there's an "I", how can we suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder - what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder?

So, to reiterate the questions I asked, which should help clear up the similar question Momo888 put to you...

These are simple questions regarding consciousness, where you either choose an option and/or answer Yes/No/I don't know. If you choose either of the first two, then you need to explain why.

1) Is it a single- or group-entity?

I am not asking here for your impression of consciousness - but what it actually is. Do you know?

2) Is it:
a) independent of the physical?;
b) (co-)dependent on the physical?;
c) an illusion?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Sparhafoc

Hey, remember when I refuted you so bad that you backed the fuck off and retreated?? lmao

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc

Hey, remember when I refuted you so bad that you backed the fuck off and retreated?? lmao

Remember when you grew up and got a clue? Me neither. lmao

You know, it's not a badge of honour when people aren't interested in talking to you on account of you acting such a dick... right?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

If the eliminativists, like Dennett et al, are correct, then reductionism is true.

No, elminativist deny the existence of mental states. Reductionists affirm that mental states exist, they just reduce them. Either way that doesn't address what I said. I already pointed out that weak emergence entails A=B and that identifying A identifies B, but you're now starting to see the problems with this (finally) so you're moving away from it. Good for you. But now you're agreeing with me about consciousness being irreducible and now have the problems of strong emergence and mental causation.

Regardless, even at the time of the publication of Blackmore's book in 2010, all the evidence suggested that consciousness is naturalistic in origin.

Nope. See the hard problem of consciousness. It seems more like consciousness is fundamental.

So, it's a suspension of judgement when it suits you - but it's "an appeal to the future" when it doesn't.

Dude, you are getting so confused. That was said in the context of the default position. My other point about the future was in regards to your identity claim (A=B). You appeal to the future contradicted your identity claim, but now you're moving away from such a claim. Good move your weak emergence claims were failing pretty hard.

The burden of proof is, and has been throughout this thread, on you to show that your claim regarding monistic idealism is true.

The burden of proof is in the claimant no matter what. You made a claim, you have the burden of proof. I told you sooooo long ago that I'll be making the case for cosmic idealism in another thread. For now, we're just talking about idealism and you made a claim about strong emergence. Defend your claim about strong emergence or your claim stands unsupported.

I'm saying that I'm no longer sure where the truth lies, other than consciousness is naturalistic in origin. Again, that's not a weakness.

It is indeed a weakness. You were making all sorts of claims earlier and over the course of our discussion you've realized you weren't quite as right as you thought you were. Good thing we had this conversation.

I will have to buy/read the new edition of Blackmore's book to get a better understanding of where things stand.

gona need someone else to do the thinking for you, eh?

His paper focuses more on realist, as against anti-realist, versions.

Yeah and he lists a bunch of different versions there that you left out.

You accused me of lying about what Chalmers said earlier - I didn't claim that Chalmers said that it was more likely, I said:

yes you did, your own quote proves this. If you want to take it back then take it back.

What he said suggests that it's a more likely scenario through parsimony

He was just explaining the argument, he wasn't suggesting that it's more likely or likely at all. Please read better.

As he's taken the time to comment on your argument, it's not an appeal to authority to reference what he said in addressing your argument.

Actually it is. You even cited his credentials as support, this is classic appeal to authority. You didn't cite an argument from him, you cited one sentence from him that contains no argument, and then used his credentials to prop it up. That's fallacious...

But you would be with your claim with reducing/eliminating the physical

reduce≠eliminate. Learn what words means....

And I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical.

I already corrected your misunderstanding on this. I already told you the physical is reducible and consciousness is irreducible. Stop ignoring what I say, learn what words mean.

The difference is evidence

Proof is proof. Definition of proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

stop being a logic denier

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...

Again, you fail to read things in context.

There's nothing being taken out of context, I'm quoting you directly. You said, and I quoted directly: "Any claim made about the real world needs to be verified with empirical evidence and experimentation."

That is the epitome of scientism... Science is restricted to its own domain, you're expanding it to ALL knowledge claims. That's scientism, and that's self-refuting... Go ahead and show me the scientific experiment that demonstrates that "Any claim made about the real world needs to be verified with empirical evidence and experimentation", go ahead I'll wait...

The problem we're having is that you're not addressing our questions to you.

Yes I have, I've been addressing all you guys line by line. You assume just because I don't copy/paste everything that I don't address it, I do.

Momo888 has asked you to explain what you mean by this "I" and/or the "first person" to which you refer.

I answered this question and in fact it is them who is refusing the answer my question... Your bias is so clear, you're not even acknowledging how they're the one who is actually refusing to answer my question... you guys are so tribal around here, it's ridiculous. If you weren't tribal you'd be going after him too, but alas, the tribal nature takes over instead of the genuine inquiry of truth...

I've raised Libet's experiments in relation to this

I did answer this with my point already with my critique of scientism, my point about introspection and direct knowledge and how this is important for empirical psychology.

Chalmers didn't say "it's cool"- you're now guilty of what you accused me

omg, you're not seeing the irony here... I'm pointing out a contradicting in what you have said. You keep going "well Chalmers says it so it must be true!" I'm pointing out your inconsistency here since Chalmers is cool with the first premise and by your own appeal to authority you need to just roll over and accept it. If you don't, then you have to surrender your appeal to authority.

You seem to think that this excludes P1-P3

It does. Chalmers is a known realist about consciousness and affirms that its irreducible:

Chalmers told us which premises he says are questionable and it's P4+

What you're saying entails that Chalmers finds all of them questionable, and we both know didn't say "all"...

It still tells us nothing about the nature of this experience

Yes it does, it gives us direct awareness. Direct knowledge.

is it a single- or group-entity?

I've answered this long ago. Consciousness is unified, it is one.

Is it independent of/(co-)dependent on the physical?

The physical is reducible and consciousness is irreducible. Consciousness is fundamental and what you're calling the physical is really just weakly emergent mental phenomena.

Is it an illusion?

Nope, that's impossible since there needs to be consciousness in the first place to perceive an illusion.

If there's an "I", how can we suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder - what used to be called Multiple Personality Disorder?

This is no problem at all, they're just delusional. It's not hard to figure out, there's no philosophical paradox here. There is still clearly an "I" that they are aware of, and it exists, they just had a mental disorder which makes them believe all sorts of weird stuff just like any other disorder that causes delusions. No problem.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Remember when you grew up and got a clue?

So, still no rebuttal eh? nice lol

>"I-I'm just not interested in talking with you!"
>continues talking with me

lmao!

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Remember when you grew up and got a clue?

So, still no rebuttal eh? nice lol

>"I-I'm just not interested in talking with you!"
>continues talking with me

lmao!

Now, see, that's an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Now, see, that's an equivocation fallacy.

How? Their excuse for not dealing with my refutations is that they're not interested in talking with me, yet here they are talking with me lol what I sais is 100% accurate

 

[momo666]

Do you or do you not understand this sentence: An oath of exasperation, annoyance, frustration, anger, or surprise.

If you do, then I've been right this whole time. If you don't, you fail to comprehend basic English...

I understand that sentence, which is the definition you have provided for the phrase "for god's sake". There is nothing for you to be right here, considering you've misread my comment yet again last time you replied. I've never denied I do not understand that definition. I've questioned it as I do not think it maps onto the phrase in question.

What are you saying? You keep using this word "I" that you refuse to define. I've given a definition, a common sense average joe's definition, and you refuse to admit that you comprehend it yet here you are using that very same word in the same way that I'm using it yet you say it's not defined... This is a blatant contradiction on your part.

The same thing I am saying when I use the word "god". It's just a linguistic artifact. If I were in a position to explain this "I", there would be no need for you to explain it, wouldn't it ? So asking me to explain what I am requesting you to explain only shows you really can't define "mind" properly.

Exactly, now its your turn. You keep using the word "I" but you refuse to define it. Define it, stop dodging...

There is nothing to define because I do not understand it, I do not know what it is. To the extent I tried your definitions, they have got me nowhere; they just don't work.
Here is what I said about your provided definition -> [You gave me a definition of this "I", that is correct. You said it "is something we are directly aware of". Unfortunately for you, it does not take a genius to see the obvious flaw in that pseudo definition.]

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I understand that sentence

awesome then you were comparing something you do understand to something you don't understand so it was a false analogy as I said before.

The same thing I am saying when I use the word "god". It's just a linguistic artifact.

That makes no sense since you're using it correctly in the same way that I'm using it. You're using it as if it has meaning, you're using it to distinguish yourself from me or any other user in here. You use the word "I" to refer to yourself instead of the words on the screen or the screen itself. This implies you do know what it means, you're just pretending you don't. You're just being obtuse. You're exactly like the person who says "I don't speak a word of english". You're just contradicting yourself...

There is nothing to define because I do not understand it,

See? This is just like saying "I don't speak a word of English". Notice how you are using it to refer to you as if this has meaning. If you're not speaking gibberish right now, then you're saying something of meaning.... but what is this meaning you refuse to reveal...? Why not just tell us? afraid you'll reveal your pseudoskepticism for all to see?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Remember when you grew up and got a clue?

So, still no rebuttal eh? nice lol

No one can oblige you to pay attention to all the critiques made of your contentions.

If you want to convince yourself that only your opinion matters, that other people's criticisms of your ideas are worthless, that you can be the solitary arbiter of merit... then really the only useful question is what exactly you think you're doing here.

>"I-I'm just not interested in talking with you!"
>continues talking with me

lmao!

Mendacity becomes you.

You have tried to pretend that I wrote those words when factually I didn't.

What I wrote was:

You know, it's not a badge of honour when people aren't interested in talking to you on account of you acting such a dick... right?

And you respond by acting like a dick.

It's hard to take you seriously when you keep engaging in such infantile behavior.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Now, see, that's an equivocation fallacy.

How? Their excuse for not dealing with my refutations is that they're not interested in talking with me, yet here they are talking with me lol what I sais is 100% accurate

And that's another lie.

What is true is that engaging with an infantile liar is not profitable for anyone, with the only exception being if the liar gets some kind of pleasure from trolling strangers on the internet.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The 'case' for Idealism has been shown faulty.

In formal terms; it's unsound.

P1's claim is that mind exists, and the validation of that is 'introspection'.

It's fallacious as it's a begged question. The way to validate it is with itself. There is no way to externally validate this other than using mind to declare mind existent.

As has been shown in this thread, there are numerous valid scenarios - whether by artificial/evolutionary programing, by fault, or by error - that could produce the feeling that mind exists without it actually existing. It could just be a very persuasive illusion that still produces some utility or is a spandrel for something useful, and therefore introspection (using the mind to enquire about the mind) wouldn't be trustworthy, and therefore the product of introspection (confidence in the existence of mind) wouldn't be trustworthy.

It's turtles all the way down. At some point, one must just take a faith statement and hold it as an axiom.

As the very first premise is flawed unless you wish to take it on faith, then the argument cannot be sound.

There are other errors in premises too, plus the argument overall is invalid, but given the rampant polemic and juvenile hostility employed over rational discourse; this is all that needs to be said.

The case is dismissed.

Next.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

No one can oblige you to pay attention to all the critiques made of your contentions.

I've gone through em all line by line, refuted them all. You've failed to address several of my rebuttals and just ran away and made excuses. Saying you're not interested in talking with me yet here you are talking with me lol you just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?

>makes excuses why he won't engage with me
>continues to engage with me

rofl you just can't help it...

It's fallacious as it's a begged question

no it's not as even the SEP explained long ago. It's about direct knowledge. Do you even know what that term means...?

produce the feeling that mind exists

nope, mind is irreducible and strong emergence is false as I explained long ago.

There are other errors in premises too, plus the argument overall is invalid

what errors? you're just saying i'm wrong with no reason to believe it. fail.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If mind doesn't exist, and P4 is correct: then the physical is all that exists.

Of course, there's also the problem of the binary assumption as already explained in this thread.

As with any classification system humans impose on the world, we put limitations, borders, and boundaries that potentially falsely restrict or divide when no such restriction or division actually exists - artifacts of our thinking.

If there is mind, and if there is the physical, then it's just as valid to contend that we're misunderstanding their relationship, and that they are both different facets of the same which we misperceive as being distinct. In a Sapir-Whorfian way, we structure the world with our cognitive grammar, but it is not the structure of the world only our perception thereof. See map versus terrain in the original response.

Alternatively, we could be wrong the other way. Perhaps neither exist and we've conjured them up and then got lost in a muddle of our own invention.

Any which way, an argument that has mind commensurable with the physical is flawed from the ground up. Even if there is mental causation, it's only a proximate cause, not the ultimate one. A pin pricks, then the mind converts that physical experience into a mental one. The idea that there is only mental causation is really quite silly, as has been shown a few times already.

 

[Sparhafoc]

No one can oblige you to pay attention to all the critiques made of your contentions.

I've gone through em all line by line, refuted them all.

I've explained this to you before.

Just because you trotted out some words, it doesn't actually mean you refuted anything.

You may feel you did, but obviously no one is obliged to share your feelings.

You've failed to address several of my rebuttals and just ran away and made excuses.

None of this happened. As you keep making up these flights of fancy, your assessment does not seem to correspond well with reality. As such, it's very hard for people to trust your assessment when it's manifestly untrue.

Saying you're not interested in talking with me yet here you are talking with me lol you just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?

Here is a good example.

I never said that I am not interested in talking with you.

But of course, you don't respect truth. You think that spinning bullshit scores points, or something.

Everyone reading, however, can see that I never said what you've now lied about twice.

If you are so quick to lie about something so minor, then it would presumably provoke skepticism in anyone reading that your rendition of your alleged refutation is trustworthy either.

>makes excuses why he won't engage with me
>continues to engage with me

rofl you just can't help it...

No excuses ever were made about anything.

Rather, this is you acting like a juvenile prick again.

It's also a lie.

Why do you need to lie about people if your argument is sufficient?

It's fallacious as it's a begged question

no it's not as even the SEP explained long ago. It's about direct knowledge. Do you even know what that term means...?

This is what counts as a 'refutation' to you, whereas it's really not a refutation.

Your format is:

1) Deny
2) Distract with appeals to something else
3) Employ an ad hominem to divert.

I submit that anyone reading will see that you use this repeatedly to evade engaging in any substantive criticism.

produce the feeling that mind exists

nope, mind is irreducible and strong emergence is false as I explained long ago.

Saying 'nope' does not a refutation make, declaring that salmon costs 5 pounds is irrelevant.

There are other errors in premises too, plus the argument overall is invalid

what errors? you're just saying i'm wrong with no reason to believe it. fail.

Exactly.

This is what you will then go on to call a 'refutation' whereas all you've actually done is assert your denial.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I gave sufficient object examples of this.

Saying 'nope' might make you feel like you responded, but the response is not actually a refutation; you've convinced no one, and only indicated your inability to engage with anything that doesn't conform to your ideas.

That's why your 'case' has failed so spectacularly.

Amusingly, when I copied you and said 'nope' to everything, you suddenly understood that it does not amount to a refutation.

This is all because you appear to think that you get to make up and enforce the rules of this conversation on an ad hoc basis that benefits only you.

In reality, I think we can all assume your case has you sufficiently convinced to seek out strangers and argue with them over it - the problem is that no one else appears convinced by it. Rather than try to convince them, you instead play ultimate arbiter of everything...

You judge that your argument is not refuted
You judge that other people's arguments are refuted
You judge that other people's arguments are irrelevant or invalid
You judge that your argument has not been defeated

You can do all this if you want, but there's a gaping chasm between doing this for your benefit, and other people accepting your judgment.

I don't accept your judgment.

Personally, if I propose an idea, I actively want criticism. I want to find the flaws, and then to try and see if my position can still stand after the smoke clears. If it can't, I will modify or abandon my idea.

But I have to do that professionally. It's a learned skill. The instinct with many people is to cling onto that idea, and to keep comforting themselves that it is right. The more treasured the idea, the harder they cling, and the less willing they are to engage in any notion of it being flawed.

It's akin to the backfire effect, but obviously without a factual element, the entire show existing solely in the argumentative format. Rather, contradictory arguments cannot be allowed any purchase at all, not even when they are perfectly reasonable.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

[Just because you trotted out some words, it doesn't actually mean you refuted anything.

I didn't just trot out words you liar, I gave arguments. Big difference... I gave arguments, you and along with a few others, failed to give a counter-argument. This is publicly verifiable... make all the excuses you want as to why this is the case, the fact is its still the case...

None of this happened.

Yes it did, there's a perfect example of this on page 1 actually as I explained to you like several weeks ago lol

I never said that I am not interested in talking with you.

you made the excuse that this is why there's no response, that's what you said. You said they're not obliged to respond, well okay that doesn't mean they gave a counter-argument to my arguments then. who cares if they're obliged or not? they still failed

This is what counts as a 'refutation' to you, whereas it's really not a refutation.

You literally just ignored what I said and ignored my question. I cited the SEP which explained this and noted how I'm talking about direct knowledge. Now stop dodging the question: do you even know what direct knowledge is...?

Saying 'nope' does not a refutation make, declaring that salmon costs 5 pounds is irrelevant.

Nice lie. I didn't just say "nope". I made a point about mind being irreducible and strong emergence being false. Stop ignoring what I say...

Exactly.

Thanks for admitting you have no counter-argument. You just say I'm wrong with no reason to believe that I'm wrong. fail