The Case for Idealism

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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.

Over the last several posts, you used an analogy where you equated "hand" with "brain", and "the five-fingered thing on the end of your arm" with "consciousness".

I disagreed with this analogy on the grounds that, if consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, they can't be identical, so it's a false analogy.

However, you insisted that your analogy is valid.

If that is the case, and the equivalences are valid – that "hand" is to "brain" as "five-fingered thing on the end of your arm" is to "consciousness" – then, since "hand" and "five-fingered thing on the end of your arm" are identical, that means that "brain" and "consciousness" must also be identical.

Ergo, by your argument, consciousness is reducible.

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.

"Seems more like" is not "is".

The "hard problem" has been suggested to be nothing more than a combination of "soft" problems, which are currently being investigated.

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.

See my point above about your analogy.

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 was exploring various possible solutions within naturalism, which is where I stand on the explanation for consciousness. None of them have been ruled out yet.

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'm capable of changing my mind as new research, etc, changes the state of conciousness studies.

Are you able to change your mind?

We'll see as this discussion progresses.

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?

Updating one's knowledge is a necessary step in learning. The latest edition was obviously necessary as the field has changed sufficiently to require it.

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.

Kindly name a monist version that you imply he mentions that doesn't fit into the broad categories I listed.

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.

Since you again left out what I actually said, I'll repeat it for you and anyone else reading this:

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

"Suggests" through parsimony – not "said".

You don't seem to be able to read between the lines: it's a valid inference that the simpler version of the simulation is more likely through parsimony. Chalmers, and you, have not escaped this fact – something that you keep attempting to avoid addressing.

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...

This is not a formal debate – it's a general discussion.

And given that your "Nope" earlier is good enough for you, no-one else – including Chalmers - needs to provide anything more robust.

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

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

Now you are being disingenuous, to say the least. You are now displaying the very behaviour to which Sparhafoc described as your MO: deny/distract/dismiss.

Let's see how you reached this sorry state:

DG: 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).

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

DG: 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.

MI: Not with reductionism.

DG: 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.

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

You have attempted to avoid answering my question by pretending that I've mistakenly equivocated the two words – I haven't, as any one with an ounce of intelligence can see. You're not unintelligent, so you can't use this as an excuse for what you've just done.

So, you need to explain how you can reduce or eliminate the physical whilst still maintaining your realist position.

Then you can provide evidence of a mind independent of the physical.

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.

You keep claiming this but have not provided any evidence for this claim.

HWIN linked to a video expaining how computer programs are irreducible, yet you have ignored and/or dismissed this.

You appear to be ideologically opposed to any equating of human and computer-generated/AI consciousness.

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

Philosophical arguments are not "proof" in the real world, only in deductive logic.

Empiric evidence is required for the real world, otherwise it's just an assertion.

You're not the first creationist to come here in the mistaken belief that they can "logic" God into existence, which is the only way you can argue for your Cosmic Entity, since you don't have any evidence of its existence anymore than any other creationist.

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...

No, I'm not expanding it to "ALL knowledge claims", just those about the real world.

I've specifically stated that science's domain is the real world – not abstracta.

You're attempting to apply deductive logic to the real world, which is properly addressed by inductive logic.

If you're going to make claims about the real world, you need empiric evidence to corroborate said claims.

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.

You think you have but you haven't.

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...

You have simply attempted to deflect his question by arguing that, if he can understand English, he can't not understand the use of the term "I".

You're like someone pointing at the bonnet of a car – this doesn't tell anyone what's under the bonnet.

He's asking for what you mean by the term - what's under the bonnet.

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.

None of which addresses Libet's experiments and the inferences and conclusions drawn from them.

Your scientism canard is an attempt to remove consciousness from the realm of scientific inquiry. If monism is true - which is for what you are arguing - then consciousness must be capable of being explored through scientific inquiry, experimentation and empiric evidence.

Now let's examine your continuing tendency to put introspection on a pedestal.

Like most creationists – who quote the abstract of a scientific paper in the mistaken belief that it "proves" evolution wrong, for example – you quote a single paragraph from the introduction of the SEP article on introspection, in the mistaken belief (undoubtedly due to the underlined text, and particularly the highlighted phrases) that it "proves" that your faith in introspection is justified:

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/

The key phrases being "thought to be" and "held to be" – not "is". And "putative features" is an even more diminishing qualifier of introspection's reliability.

However, if you actually read the article, you'll find that it questions the reliability of introspection throughout.

You also failed to cite its sister article from the IEP, which you were at pains to point out, in your OP, is a "peer-reviewed academic resource".

Again, it also questions the reliability of introspection - to an even greater degree than the SEP's article.

Then there's the empiric evidence.

In The Tell-Tale Brain, Ramachandran [2012] explores the brain and the consequences of damage to various regions of the brain on our ability to perceive, think, and act.

In the final chapter – An Ape With A Soul: How Introspection Evolved (pages 245-288) – he addresses the region of the brain associated with all aspects of awareness of the self and others, both physical and mental.

He identifies seven aspects of the self or, at least, our intuitions about the self:

Unity; Continuity; Embodiment; Privacy; Social embedding; Free will; Self-awareness.

Some of these he'd at least touched upon in earlier chapters but he addresses them more directly in this chapter.

Ramachandran points out that consciousness is often confused with both qualia and self, although we can't have the former without the latter. He also notes that Freud had argued that we cannot equate the self with consciousness since our mental life is governed by the unconscious. "Your 'conscious-life' is an elaborate after-the-fact rationalization of things you really do for other reasons" (Ramachandran [2012], 249) . Despite our experience of the self as the ("kernel" or centre of the) brain, it isn't – only a part of the brain is conscious, comprised of a relatively small cluster of regions linked into a vast network of neurons.

The anterior cingulate is critical to all aspects of self-awareness. Damage to this region of the brain can impair our ability to perceive ourselves (and others), either in part or in whole. This, along with certain pathways linking various parts of the brain, affect our impression of free will, unity, continuity, self- and social awareness, etc.

In patients suffering from apotemnophilia, for example, neurons within this region of the brain can be over-sensitive to the signals coming from a limb, resulting in the patient feeling "overwhelmed" by that limb. More than half go on to have the offending limb amputated.

Ramachandran describes a patient named Jason who suffered damage to the anterior cingulate due to a car accident near the Mexico border. As a result, he can't walk, talk or interact with others in the same room as himself – including his father. However, if his father leaves the room and speaks to him over the telephone, Jason can talk to him as normal – but when his father returns, and Jason can see him, he's unable to recognize or talk to his father. Due to the fact that we are visually-oriented, the damage to his visual pathway to the anterior cingulate overides his auditory pathway, preventing him from talking to his father. This condition is referred to as "telephone syndrome". Although Ramachandran doesn't mention it, one assumes that if Jason were blind-folded, he'd be able to interact verbally with those in the same room as him: as long as he can't see whoever is speaking to him, he can interact with them.

Jason presents a striking case of a fragmented self. Some of the "pieces" of Jason have been destroyed, yet others have been preserved and retain a surprising degree of functionality. Is Jason still Jason if he can be broken into fragments? As we shall see, a variety of neurological conditions show us that the self is not the monolithic entity it believes itself to be. This conclusion flies directtly in the face of some of our most deep-seated intuitions about ourselves – but data are data. What the neurology tells us is that the self consists of many components, and the notion of one unitary self may be an illusion. (Ramachandran, 247)

In what is known as "blindsight", individuals have damage to a particular area of the visual cortex – the V1 area – and, as a result, cannot see anything. They are consciously blind. If a spot of light is shone on a wall, the individual will say they cannot see anything – yet if asked to touch the spot, they can do so, and even tell what colour it is. They can also, in the case of a horizontal or vertical line, tell how it is oriented. This is because, although the V1 area is damaged, the pathway from the retina to the parietal lobe is intact. Although the person cannot consciously see the spot or experience the qualia of seeing the spot, they are still seeing it uncounsciously. Why is only the information streaming through your visual cortex associated with self, whilst the same information passing through the parallel pathway – where all the calculations about location, colour, orientation are performed - is not? Why aren't all visually-related information - including visually-guided movement – conscious? Most of what we think of as the mind is unconscious – only a small part is actually conscious.

Our sense of unity and continuity are illusions as, if we are reliant on our memories – the "pieces of light", as Fernyhough [2013] poetically puts it – and how they are linked, then our selves are likely to change depending on how these are linked and how these links change over time. Just as those who are struck by lightning, re-linking their memories in such a way, that they can end up being a completely different person.

Our idea of free will is also wrong.

The age-old question of, "If you were alone with a woman, and knew you would get away with it, *would you?* Do you think it depends on your upbringing? Would it surprise you to know that what you'd do depends more on your blood-glucose at the time?

Baumeister (Brockman [2016, 340) reports that studies where subjects were given various choices showed that there was a inter-relationship between decisions and self-control on the one hand and blood-glucose on the other. If the blood-glucose was low, their decisions were "shallow" and selfish – but if they were given some sugar, which provides a instant boost of glucose, their self-control returned and their decisions were more "moral". (The control group(s) were given artificial sweeteners, which provide no boost of glucose other than the sweet taste.)

In Cotard Syndrome, the patient can believe that they literally don't exist.

One wonders what would have happened if Descartes had suffered from this syndrome!? His famous dictum would never have been thought – let alone, passed on to posterity!

What would happen, Monistic Idealism, if you were ever to be unfortunate enough to suffer from this syndrome? You would declare that you don't exist, and your topic would be about non-existence of the self.

Which raises the question as to how reliable is introspection, if damage to this region of the brain can cause anyone to cease to feel that they exist? More importantly, how can the brain – "really just weakly emergent mental phenomena" – affect the mind's ability to perceive its own existence if idealism were true?

This only makes sense if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain – not the other way round.

So, why are you still claiming that you are conscious – that your mind exists (P1) – if introspection can not be relied upon?

[As it happens, I found a website belonging to a neuroscience student who covers this chapter as part of his course notes.]

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.

This is ironic, given that, immediately after accusing me of an appeal to authority, you do the very thing of which you accuse me...

You seem to think that this excludes P1-P3

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

Remember when you said this earlier whilst accusing me of scientism?:

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...

"Well, Chalmers says it, so it must be true!" :facepalm:

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"...

I didn't say he said all – he said "most".

I'm saying that you can't exclude P1-P3 – even if you grant P1 the benefit of the doubt, P2 and P3 can not be excluded.

He has indicated that "most" are questionable – P4-P8 inclusive are definitely so (along with the conclusion) but the earlier ones are not excluded from this.

There are eight premises (apart from the conclusion) – he only needs to find up to seven questionable for the term "most" to apply.

It still tells us nothing about the nature of this experience

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

But of what exactly?

Given that introspection has been shown to be unreliable, you have nothing on which to base this claim.

is it a single- or group-entity?

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

Again, how do you know, given that introspection has been shown to be unreliable?

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.

What evidence do you have for this claim other than your worldview?

Is it an illusion?

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

By this argument, if you're not able to spot an illusion, then you can't be conscious. :|

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.

This is clearly just your opinion.

The Psyhcology Today article describes DID as "a condition wherein a person's identity is fragmented into two or more distinct personality states ", and as "a disorder characterized by identity fragmentation rather than a proliferation of separate personalities ". It is predominantly associated with severe abuse – 90% of DID sufferers in the US, Canada, and Europe report physical and/or sexual abuse in childhood. More than 70% attempt suicide and/or self-harm.

There is some controversy about the diagnosis due to a cluster of American psychologists, who use hypnosis, being more likely to report DID in their patients – apparently, DID sufferers are more prone to hypnosis (possibly due to the fact that, whichever fragment of their identity is in control, it lacks the willpower of a unified identity(!?) – my inference). However, brain studies have shown actual changes in brain activity when an "alter" is in control. Also, if the subject presents symptoms sans hypnosis and/or prior to hypnosis, then the symptoms are likely to be genuine, rather than due to hypnosis.

Most interestingly, the article reports that:

Several studies suggest that DID is more common among close biological relatives of persons who also have the disorder than in the general population.

This suggests that - like a number of psychiatric conditions, most notably schizophrenia – there may be a genetic basis for this disorder, which suggests that it's not just a figment of their imagination and/or that they're making things up.

In a similar vein, individuals struck by lightning may suffer a complete change in their personality – in some cases, moving elsewhere to start/live a different life, and even forgetting that they are married and/or already have a family.

Which raises a number of questions for idealism.

As this is the general case for idealism, if, as you claim, the physical – including the brain - "is really just weakly emergent mental phenomena", then how do flawed minds exist? What causes their being flawed? It can't be due to their brains since, according to you, they're just emergent phenomenona, and should not be able to affect the mind. And, more importantly, on what are minds contingent, regardless of whether they're flawed or not?

For the cosmic idealist, it's even worse.

If minds are contingent on the existence of a Cosmic Entity, this suggests that either said entity is cruel/whimsical in creating flawed minds or the Cosmic Entity is itself Flawed.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I disagreed with this analogy on the grounds that, if consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, they can't be identical, so it's a false analogy.

Then that would mean you're contradicting your commitment to weak emergence. That analogy I brought up about the hand was in the context of your claims regarding weak emergence. If you're talking about epiphenomenonalism then you are moving away from reductionism and moving onto to non-reductive physicalism/property dualism. This would mean you actually agree with me about anti-reductionism of the mind and thus moving away from your older position.

Ergo, by your argument, consciousness is reducible.

You're getting mixed up. The analogy was that if A=B then identifying A identifies B. A in this instance is the hand, and B in the five fingered thing attached to your arm. In this case, identifying A identifies B since they're the same thing. They're identical, they are alike in every detail. The problem is, this doesn't happen with the brain and consciousness. Identifying the brain does NOT identify consciousness, epiphenomenonalists agree with this as they see the mind as irreducible. If you're an epiphenomenonalist then you're moving away from reductionism.

"Seems more like" is not "is".

...what...?

The "hard problem" has been suggested to be nothing more than a combination of "soft" problems, which are currently being investigated.

And I've refuted this. If A=B, then identifying A identifies B. If they really were identical there would be no gap here, just as there would be no gap between the hand and the fiver fingered thing attached to your arm. The fact that you admit there's this gap in your knowledge is an admission that reductionism is false. The eliminativist would be in a much better position than you to deny the hard problem, but then they're just going to refute themselves since the denial of consciousness is contradictory. So you really can't get out of the hard problem here.

See my point above about your analogy.

See my point above about your confusion regarding the analogy.

I was exploring various possible solutions within naturalism, which is where I stand on the explanation for consciousness. None of them have been ruled out yet.

K well you still have the burden of proof. You want to claim strong emergence is true? Then the burden of proof is on you to support your claims.

I'm capable of changing my mind as new research, etc, changes the state of conciousness studies. Are you able to change your mind? We'll see as this discussion progresses.

Sure I am, if there's convincing reasons to do so. I'll give you this, I'm glad you're coming out with it at least in terms of changing your mind. You should have changed your mind from earlier, weak emergence and reductionism is on its face obviously false as Nagel and others have explained.

Updating one's knowledge is a necessary step in learning. The latest edition was obviously necessary as the field has changed sufficiently to require it.

It's interesting how you're so dependent on these other authors though. Do you really not see for yourself which way various logical commitments will take you? If you think the mind is irreducible and the universe is causally closed then you're an epiphenomenalist. You don't need an author to tell you that, the logic is all there.

Kindly name a monist version that you imply he mentions that doesn't fit into the broad categories I listed.

Kindly read the article that you make so many claims about. It makes no sense for you to say so much about something you haven't even read...

"Suggests" through parsimony – not "said".

I already told you, Chalmers is not affirming this argument he's just outlining it. He's not actually saying this is more likely or anything like that, he was just giving the argument. You have got to learn to read more carefully. This isn't the first time you've misread Chalmers, remember when he corrected you before in the email...?

This is not a formal debate – it's a general discussion.

That doesn't abdicate you of the responsibility to think logically. Fallacies are fallacies no matter what.

And given that your "Nope" earlier is good enough for you, no-one else

I didn't just say nope, I gave arguments. Nice try.

Now you are being disingenuous, to say the least.

How is that possible? I was merely correcting you on your mistake in terminology. I'm 100% correct when I told you that eliminate≠reduce. You made a category mistake, don't do it again...

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

I already told you the physical is reducible while the mental is irreducible. You really can't put two and two together there...?

So, you need to explain how you can reduce or eliminate the physical whilst still maintaining your realist position.

I already have. It's only if you eliminate then you're an anti-realist. If you just reduce then you're not an anti-realist. The reductionist is a realist about the physical, they just identify the physical with the mental. The eliminativist denies the physical altogether and I'm not an eliminativist.

You keep claiming this but have not provided any evidence for this claim.

Yes I did, looong ago. You seem to have forgotten. I noted how we describe objects using experience and that an object devoid of such phenomenal properties is an object that is indistinguishable from nothing. Go ahead and try to describe to me an object that looks like nothing, feels like nothing, sounds like nothing, smells like nothing, tastes like nothing etc. and you will soon realize that you've described an object that is identical to nothing. There's nothing more to objects than phenomenal properties.

HWIN linked to a video expaining how computer programs are irreducible, yet you have ignored and/or dismissed this.

I didn't ignore this at all, this is a blatant lie. I made a huge response to him and he still hasn't responded.

You appear to be ideologically opposed to any equating of human and computer-generated/AI consciousness.

You appear to be retarded then cuz I argued long ago that consciousness is irreducible and strong emergence is false. These are logical reasons as to why AI cannot be conscious.

Philosophical arguments are not "proof" in the real world

Actually they are by definition. Proof is proof, Scientism is wrong, stop being a logic denier...

I've specifically stated that science's domain is the real world – not abstracta.

Still waiting for you to show me the scientific experiment to demonstrate this is true. By your own logic you have failed to meet the burden of proof for your claims.

You're attempting to apply deductive logic to the real world, which is properly addressed by inductive logic.

Naw. Logic is logic. Proof is proof. Both deductive and inductive logic applies "in the real world".

You think you have but you haven't.

Naw, that's you buddy.

You have simply attempted to deflect his question by arguing that, if he can understand English, he can't not understand the use of the term "I".

I never deflected, I answered his question and even gave him several scholarly sources to provide even more information to him. If you were being objective at all you would recognize that he's the one who is deflecting. He's making all sorts of claims using the word "I" yet he resolutely refuses to define his own terms. So he presses me to define my terms, but he abdicates himself of this very responsibility which is 100% special pleading. It's a blatant double standard to insist that only I have to define my terms when I make claims but he doesn't. Your tribalism has taken over completely and blinded you to this objective fact... Prove you're not a tribalist and go after him for once.

None of which addresses Libet's experiments and the inferences and conclusions drawn from them.

Yes actually it does. None of this shit about Libet's experiment disproves my point about introspection and direct knowledge at all

Your scientism canard is an attempt to remove consciousness from the realm of scientific inquiry.

Not at all, we just need to get away from reductionism in regards to the mind is all. I'm with David Chalmers here, I'm all for moving towards a new science of consciousness, we just need to break this habit of reductionism is all.

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/

The key phrases being "thought to be" and "held to be" – not "is". And "putative features" is an even more diminishing qualifier of introspection's reliability.

No it's not its just to include the fact that of course there are others who think differently, they're just in the minority like Dennett for example. Those like Dennett deny there is introspection in the first place, so of course we're going to be accurate and say things like "most" instead of "all". Come on man, you can be more charitable than that, you know this...

However, if you actually read the article, you'll find that it questions the reliability of introspection throughout.

It brings up both sides and notes how the majority of philosophers and scientists are realists about introspection. They even brought up how for similar reasons, empirical psychologists too have discussed the accuracy of introspective judgments and the role of introspection in the science of the mind. Notice how the empirical psychologists don't deny the existence of introspection? They question certain features of introspection but they don't deny that introspection grants knowledge like you're dishonestly trying to paint.

sister article

That's not a sister article, that's an entirely different encyclopedia altogether and that same article you're referencing says the exact same thing I'm saying. Read it for yourself. Of course objections are brought up but they are responded to. The majority of philosophers of mind and empirical psychologists are realists about introspection and see it as being on much stronger epistemic ground than sense experience. If you're doubting whether introspection grants knowledge at all then welcome to radical skepticism seeing as how introspection is more direct and immediate.

This only makes sense if consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain – not the other way round.

omg how many times do I have to remind you that I'm not a substance dualist? I'm a monist. The fact that meddling with the brain meddles with the mind makes perfect sense in idealism because they're both made up of the same substance. They're both the same thing. It is someone like you who has the issue here since if epiphenomenalism were true then thoughts and ideas shouldn't have any causal traction in the world, but we can clearly see that it does. Thought patterns can change brain chemistry and neural pathways and it is obvious to everyone else that they behave in various ways due to how they think and feel. You're only hope is to explain this away as an illusion, but since introspection and the like is immediate there's no room for that.

So, why are you still claiming that you are conscious – that your mind exists (P1) – if introspection can not be relied upon?

Introspection can indeed be relied upon. You've brought up the same objects everyone else brings against substance dualism, but I'm not a substance dualist lol I never once tried to claim that introspection is infallible, just that it's direct and immediate and is on better epistemic grounding than sense experience. If introspection grants us 0 knowledge then same goes for sense experience and that saws off the branch you sit on since you're trying to rely on sense experience (science) to refute the latter and that's just impossible.

This is ironic, given that, immediately after accusing me of an appeal to authority, you do the very thing of which you accuse me...

sigh I already explained this to you. I'm just using your own logic against it. I'm obviously not for appeal to authority, but you are. I'm showing how, by your own logic, you have to just roll over and accept that you're wrong or else you have to surrender your appeal to authority. Get it?

I'm saying that you can't exclude P1-P3

Yes you actually can because it is demonstrable through his years of research that he's a realist about consciousness, is against eliminativism, and is for the irreducibility of consciousness. I can cite videos, articles, books, the whole shebang to prove this. We can indeed be confident that he's okay with P1-P3, for goodness sakes Chalmers told us which premises he has a problem with and he explicitly told us P4-P8...

even if you grant P1 the benefit of the doubt, P2 and P3 can not be excluded.

If he grants P1 then he has to accept P2, since P2 is just another iteration of P1. All P2 is saying that P1 cannot be false. P2 merely follows trivially.

But of what exactly?

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Introspection: "The two most commonly cited classes of introspectible mental states are attitudes, such as beliefs, desires, evaluations, and intentions, and conscious experiences, such as emotions, images, and sensory experiences."

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

Again, how do you know, given that introspection has been shown to be unreliable?

Introspection hasn't been shown to be unreliable, you've just dished out the same ole shit against substance dualists when I'm not a substance dualist.

By this argument, if you're not able to spot an illusion, then you can't be conscious. :|

...what...? that makes zero sense... I'm only noting how it's literally impossible to perceive an illusion if there's no consciousness there to have perceptions in the first place. Please explain to me how I can have illusions if there's no consciousness at all...

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.

This is clearly just your opinion.

That's not an argument. This doesn't address what I've stated at all. What you're talking about by definition is a disorder. I told you before that meddling with the brain meddles with the mind given that they are the same substance so this isn't a problem for idealism at all. Of course brain damage messes with your perceptions, it damages your ability to think properly. Same goes for the DID example. This only shows that something is wrong, not that the self is an illusion or that introspection can't give us knowledge. You're way too used to arguing against substance dualists, I'm not a substance dualist for the last time...

As this is the general case for idealism, if, as you claim, the physical – including the brain - "is really just weakly emergent mental phenomena", then how do flawed minds exist?

Because they're all made up of the same substance. I've told you this loooong ago. If I were arguing for substance dualism this would be a problem for me, but I'm a monist so there's interaction between mind-body.

And, more importantly, on what are minds contingent, regardless of whether they're flawed or not?

Mind in generally is fundamental. Consciousness as a whole is not contingent. My own consciousness is contingent, but on a cosmic mind which is itself necessary and not contingent.

If minds are contingent on the existence of a Cosmic Entity, this suggests that either said entity is cruel/whimsical in creating flawed minds or the Cosmic Entity is itself Flawed.

Never heard of the free-will defense? lol

 

[momo666]

You did it again, Momo... You know I got you on this point so you just have to keep ignoring it:

Not quite. I was just enjoying myself given the situation. I doubt you would understand, although I would bet at least a few other members do. Anyhow, to the point at hand. I am willing to entertain any member or philosopher who thinks can explain this "I". I am under no obligation to blindly follow them or accept their assumptions. Until you provide a coherent explanation of this "I" a billion people could agree with you. A billion people would be wrong.

Then you're a hypocrite. You press others to define words they use but you remove this responsibility from yourself. This is blatant special pleading on your part... If I have to define terms I use, then so do you. Better start defining your terms like I am, chop chop.

No. It's just that some concepts are harder to pin down than others. On the question of "god", such is the case. As it is with this "I"; which is why consciousness remains so elusive. Besides, your definition of this "I" merely takes it for granted; it is not a proper definition.

A reflection of yourself, yes. Also, You dodged my question. Stop dodging crucial points, its dishonest... Would you pass or fail the rouge-test? Answer the question... If you pass then you're acquainted with the "I" as you are clearly identifying yourself and distinguishing yourself from the reflection in the mirror and therefore you have the understanding of the "I" that is necessary to understand what I say. If you don't pass then you're literally only as developed as a 17-month old child... Your move...

What is in the mirror is the reflection of a physical thing. What I would distinguish in this case is this physical thing we call "our body" and a reflection. Your question requires first an understanding of this "I". What exactly does the distinguishing ?

Yes it is actually, and you're the only one in here having a problem comprehending this. I keep telling you, this is known by acquaintance so your insistence on me giving a description is a category mistake.

And I keep telling you that your charge is baseless because the very distinction you are attempting to make rests upon this "I".

The "I" is the object of introspection, the object of his or her own reflective consciousness. The self is a reference by a subject to the same subject. Nothing is being taken for granted, it's just being defined. There's no question begging or circular reasoning here or anything of that sort. It's just noting that the "I" is the object of awareness itself.

You are still not getting it. What is doing the introspection ? What exactly is this "his or her" ? And how is it coherent to say that which I am asking you to explain is a reference (an action) performed by that which I am asking you to explain to the same subject ? What exactly is aware here ? At no point have you even come close to explaining this "I". When you don't take it for granted, you spew out incoherent descriptions.

Yes actually you did. You're insisting I give you a description right now. You want me to give a description in words to you right now, you liar.... By definition, you're wanting a description. You want some written, verbal definition. But I keep telling you that's actually a category mistake. What you need is acquaintance. Read those sources I gave you, they explain all of this.

I would suggest you take better care to what you respond. That which you quoted was in fact a response to your charge that I have ignored a particular point of yours. Anyhow, your baseless accusation does not stand because your very distinction relies on that which I am asking you to explain. What does the knowing ? None of your sources explain any of that.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Not quite. I was just enjoying myself given the situation.

You ignoring crucial criticism of you is just enjoying the situation...? wtf...?

I am under no obligation to blindly follow them or accept their assumptions. Until you provide a coherent explanation of this "I" a billion people could agree with you. A billion people would be wrong.

Here's what you're failing to grasp, and your own language proves this: this isn't a matter of right/wrong or agree/disagree, this is a matter of COMPREHENSION. You can understand something, but that doesn't mean you believe its true, only if you understand. If everyone else understands the definition just fine except for you, then that means the problem is with you not the definition. We all speak English here, and we all pass the rouge-test, so we understand what is meant by this "I" in the general common sense way. That's all that is being communicated to you. So either you fail to grasp English or you're only as developed as a 17-month old child, or you're being disingenuous. The very fact that you're using the word "I" suggests it's the latter...

No.

Then define the word "I" right now. You're making claims using that word. You're saying things like "I understand that sentence" and so forth. If I have to define my terms when I make claims then so do you. No special pleading. Define your terms or you're a hypocrite.

What is in the mirror is the reflection of a physical thing.

1. You dodged my question again. Would you pass the rouge-test yes or no? Stop dodging, answer the question.
2. You're assuming mind-body dualism. You're assuming a distinction between the self/mind and the body. Define physical and prove that mind-body dualism is true.

What I would distinguish in this case is this physical thing we call "our body" and a reflection.

What do you mean by "our body"? What is this "our"? Why are you distinguishing this "our" from the body itself? Define your terms and defend your dualist assumptions.

And I keep telling you that your charge is baseless because the very distinction you are attempting to make rests upon this "I".

It can't be a false charge if you say you're not restricting this to knowledge of description yet resolutely refuse to accept that what I keep telling you is knowledge by acquaintance. This understanding of the self doesn't come in the form of a description, but of direct awareness, direct knowledge. Do you understand what is meant by direct knowledge, yes or no?

You are still not getting it.

No that would be you. You're literally the only person here who does not get what is meant by the general common sense average joe's non-ivory tower meaning of the word "I". You're the one who doesn't get it by your own admission...

What is doing the introspection ? What exactly is this "his or her" ?

If you pass the rouge-test then you have self-awareness in a direct way. You may not be able to put this into a description but that's okay since this is direct awareness anyway.

And how is it coherent to say that which I am asking you to explain is a reference (an action) performed by that which I am asking you to explain to the same subject ?

Well first off it's not an action, the reference is the word itself. "Self" is just a word about the subject to the same subject. That's it. There's nothing special going on here, I'm not seeing how you're failing to grasp this.

When you don't take it for granted, you spew out incoherent descriptions.

1. you're the only one who thinks its incoherent, everyone understands me just fine but you.
2. notice the underlined part where you talk about descriptions. I've corrected you many times now on how knowledge of the self is primarily by acquaintance, not description.

I would suggest you take better care to what you respond.

What are you talking about? I just caught you red-handed making this very mistake and even underlined it. You insist on descriptions when I keep telling you its about acquaintance.

 

[momo666]

You ignoring crucial criticism of you is just enjoying the situation...?

Could you quote directly where have I stated the source of my enjoyment and the particular situation I was hinting at ?

You can understand something, but that doesn't mean you believe its true, only if you understand. If everyone else understands the definition just fine except for you, then that means the problem is with you not the definition. We all speak English here, and we all pass the rouge-test, so we understand what is meant by this "I" in the general common sense way. That's all that is being communicated to you. So either you fail to grasp English or you're only as developed as a 17-month old child, or you're being disingenuous. The very fact that you're using the word "I" suggests it's the latter...

What exactly does everyone else understands ? It can't be an explanation of this "I" because none of your definitions do that, they merely take it for granted. The rouge-test does not explain what this "I" is because said test does not tell you what is doing the distinguishing and that is what you need to explain. What is being communicated to me is a very poor attempt at explaining what this "I" is.

Then define the word "I" right now. You're making claims using that word. You're saying things like "I understand that sentence" and so forth. If I have to define my terms when I make claims then so do you. No special pleading. Define your terms or you're a hypocrite.

That is an incoherent demand. You are requesting me to explain that which I am asking you to explain. That you even ask that of me shows you are in no position of knowledge when it comes to this "I".

1. You dodged my question again. Would you pass the rouge-test yes or no? Stop dodging, answer the question.
2. You're assuming mind-body dualism. You're assuming a distinction between the self/mind and the body. Define physical and prove that mind-body dualism is true.

1. That question requires first an understanding of this "I". What exactly is doing the distinguishing ?

2. I am not, on both counts.

What do you mean by "our body"? What is this "our"? Why are you distinguishing this "our" from the body itself? Define your terms and defend your dualist assumptions.

I said the physical thing in question is what we call "our body" (notice the quotes). I did not say that is how matters are in actuality. So this is just another instance of you misreading my comments.

It can't be a false charge if you say you're not restricting this to knowledge of description yet resolutely refuse to accept that what I keep telling you is knowledge by acquaintance. This understanding of the self doesn't come in the form of a description, but of direct awareness, direct knowledge.

It is since you first must explain what is doing the knowing. What is being aware ?

No that would be you. You're literally the only person here who does not get what is meant by the general common sense average joe's non-ivory tower meaning of the word "I". You're the one who doesn't get it by your own admission…

That is because your attempts at explaining this "I" have been so far unsuccessful. All you are doing is taking that which you are supposed to explain for granted. And again, I do not particularly care how many people assert to understand this "I". I will happily listen to what exactly they think they understand. What I will not do is blindly follow their example without question.

If you pass the rouge-test then you have self-awareness in a direct way. You may not be able to put this into a description but that's okay since this is direct awareness anyway.

What I would do is distinguish between this thing we call "our body" and a reflection. You need to explain what does the distinguishing.

Well first off it's not an action, the reference is the word itself. "Self" is just a word about the subject to the same subject. That's it. There's nothing special going on here, I'm not seeing how you're failing to grasp this.

You said "The self is a reference by a subject to the same subject." This "subject" is what you are supposed to explain in the first place.

1. you're the only one who thinks its incoherent, everyone understands me just fine but you.
2. notice the underlined part where you talk about descriptions. I've corrected you many times now on how knowledge of the self is primarily by acquaintance, not description.

1.As far as you assume. And this is irrelevant anyway. The truth of a proposition does not depend on how many people adhere to it.
2.Notice that I was referring to your own words. I was talking about your attempt at explaining this "self".

What are you talking about? I just caught you red-handed making this very mistake and even underlined it. You insist on descriptions when I keep telling you its about acquaintance.

I am talking about you responding to parts of my comments with replies that have no relation to what said part of my comment was in response to. You can tell me it is about acquaintance all day long. Without explaining what does the knowing ; the very concept of "knowledge by acquaintance" rests upon that which you are supposed to explain.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Could you quote directly where have I stated the source of my enjoyment and the particular situation I was hinting at?

Here you go:

You did it again, Momo... You know I got you on this point so you just have to keep ignoring it:

Not quite. I was just enjoying myself given the situation.

I had brought up this criticism of you ignoring my point about how everyone else could understand me but you. You kept responding to all my paragraphs but that one, and when I called you out on this you were all like "I was just enjoying myself bro!" like wtf does that even mean...?

What exactly does everyone else understands ?

The common sense understanding of this "I" that even 18-month old humans grasp...

It can't be an explanation of this "I" because none of your definitions do that

Actually they do, you're just the only person here that fails to comprehend. The problem here is you

That is an incoherent demand.

Then your demands are incoherent. If those who make claims have to define their terms then that applies to you just as much as it applies to me. No special pleading

1. That question requires first an understanding of this "I". What exactly is doing the distinguishing ?

You dodged the question yet again, such dishonesty... Answer the question: would you pass the rouge-test yes or no? Would you look in the mirror and notice that rouge you see on the forehead in the mirror is your own? Stop being a coward and answer the question. If you pass the test then you have the acquaintance necessary to grasp what I say, if you fail the test you're literally only as developed as a 17-month old child and you have no business being here...

2. I am not, on both counts.

yes you did. You tried to distinguish the self from the body by noting this "our body". Prove your dualism is true.

I said the physical thing in question is what we call "our body"

You just went in a circle... You called the body physical, and I asked you to define physical, and you just pointed right back to the body. That's circular. Give me an actual definition of what is meant by the term "physical". If I have to define my terms then so do you, no special pleading....

It is since you first must explain what is doing the knowing. What is being aware ?

Your response here literally makes no sense, you're clearly confused. What is being told is that you're demanding knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance, you keep making this category mistake.

That is because your attempts at explaining this "I" have been so far unsuccessful.

This too makes absolutely no sense. If everyone understands me just fine but you, that means it is your comprehension that has been so far unsuccessful. You're the only one who is so paralyzed by this lack of comprehension that you just can't deal with the case for idealism. Everyone else can deal with it just fine but you...

If you pass the rouge-test then you have self-awareness in a direct way. You may not be able to put this into a description but that's okay since this is direct awareness anyway.

What I would do-

Stop right there, this alone is proof I'm right: you have direct awareness of this "I" as you are clearly identifying yourself right now. Clearly you are aware of the self, you are acquainted with the self by the mere fact that you are indeed identifying yourself right now. Be as disingenuous as you want, you clearly grasp this common sense understand of this "I". You're going to say something like "No I don't" and that is also proof I'm right since you are still aware of this "I" that you are claiming has no understanding, so you're just contradicting yourself over and over and over...

1.As far as you assume.

There's no assumption, I have direct quotes from you dude... You're making a blatant category mistake by insisting on a description for something that is by acquaintance.

The truth of a proposition does not depend on how many people adhere to it.

I already corrected you on this: it isn't about the truth of a proposition but the COMPREHENSION of a proposition. If everyone else can understand but you, the problem is not with the proposition it's with you...

2.Notice that I was referring to your own words. I was talking about your attempt at explaining this "self".

And I keep catching you shifting to goal post back to a description by something I keep telling you over and over is by acquaintance.

 

[Steelmage99]

So you've been reading every post this whole time, just lurking the whole thing and now all of a sudden you have something to say lol. Do tell me the rundown of the conversations that have been going on. Do tell me about the discussions of this thread please. You responded quickly before, you should be able to run this down without taking the time to read through this thread since you've been reading this whole time, right...?

I too have been reading this thread all along, without posting.

Would you look at that?!?!

Only now do I have something to say. That must mean I am a bot account specifically set up some time ago - simply to support myself (in another guise), right?

Your arrogance and paranoia is staggering.


.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Only now do I have something to say. That must mean I am a bot account specifically set up some time ago - simply to support myself (in another guise), right?

Yup, what you're doing right now is super sketchy. If you were just another user responding to the OP i wouldn't suspect a thing, but here you are getting all defensive of other users, referencing a specific conversation buried deep in this thread, and all of a sudden you just give a shit. Yeah, this doesn't look sketch at all lol

 

[WarK]

Only now do I have something to say. That must mean I am a bot account specifically set up some time ago - simply to support myself (in another guise), right?

Yup, what you're doing right now is super sketchy. If you were just another user responding to the OP i wouldn't suspect a thing, but here you are getting all defensive of other users, referencing a specific conversation buried deep in this thread, and all of a sudden you just give a shit. Yeah, this doesn't look sketch at all lol

[centre]

[/centre]

 

[Monistic Idealism]

>2018
>still uses motivational poster memes
You guys are all a bunch of fedoras stuck in the 2000's with the new atheists aren't ya?

 

[momo666]

Here you go:

And where in there do you see me state what the source of my enjoyment is and the particular situation I was hinting at ?

The common sense understanding of this "I" that even 18-month old humans grasp...

Those particular assertions you claim serve as an understanding of this "I" merely take it for granted. There is no understanding in what you assert because that which you assert explains nothing.

Actually they do, you're just the only person here that fails to comprehend. The problem here is you

The problem here are your definitions, which take that which you are supposed to explain for granted. You wouldn't have such problems explaining this "I" were that not to be the case.

Then your demands are incoherent. If those who make claims have to define their terms then that applies to you just as much as it applies to me. No special pleading

But you haven't defined your terms. That is the problem. You have attempted to do that by taking that which you are supposed to explain for granted. You claimed something exists in P1. I would like to know what exactly that is.

Would you look in the mirror and notice that rouge you see on the forehead in the mirror is your own? Stop being a coward and answer the question. If you pass the test then you have the acquaintance necessary to grasp what I say, if you fail the test you're literally only as developed as a 17-month old child and you have no business being here...

I would notice the rouge on a physical object. But I do not know what exactly does the noticing. I do not know what exactly has the acquaintance.

yes you did. You tried to distinguish the self from the body by noting this "our body". Prove your dualism is true.

No, I said this is what "we call" "our body"; not that is how things are in actuality. Your charge is confused.

You called the body physical, and I asked you to define physical, and you just pointed right back to the body. That's circular. Give me an actual definition of what is meant by the term "physical". If I have to define my terms then so do you, no special pleading....

In this case, I mean an object composed of matter.

What is being told is that you're demanding knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance, you keep making this category mistake.

That is a baseless charge because the very distinction you are attempting to make relies on that which you are supposed to explain. What exactly is doing the knowing ?

If everyone understands me just fine but you, that means it is your comprehension that has been so far unsuccessful. You're the only one who is so paralyzed by this lack of comprehension that you just can't deal with the case for idealism.

If the case for idealism requires the first word of the first premise, then I am indeed dealing with said case. Furthermore, what you have said is a non sequitur. Even if "everyone" were to claim they understand your terms, I want to know what exactly they understand. I am under no obligation to blindly follow their assumptions.

you have direct awareness of this "I" as you are clearly identifying yourself right now. Clearly you are aware of the self, you are acquainted with the self by the mere fact that you are indeed identifying yourself right now.

What is that which has direct awareness ? What is doing the identifying ? What is doing the distinguishing ? What identifies what ? How many forms does this question have to take for you to finally realize you don't have the slightest idea what "mind" is ?

There's no assumption, I have direct quotes from you dude... You're making a blatant category mistake by insisting on a description for something that is by acquaintance.

What are you talking about ? That which you quoted was in response to this claim by you "you're the only one who thinks its incoherent, everyone understands me just fine but you." Besides, as shown earlier, your charge is baseless.

I already corrected you on this: it isn't about the truth of a proposition but the COMPREHENSION of a proposition. If everyone else can understand but you, the problem is not with the proposition it's with you...

What exactly is it being comprehended here ? What is that which everyone else understands ? Until you can explain this "I" without taking it for granted, the problem is very much with the proposition.

And I keep catching you shifting to goal post back to a description by something I keep telling you over and over is by acquaintance.

And I keep telling you that very distinction relies on that which you are supposed to explain. What does the knowing ?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

>2018
>still uses motivational poster memes
You guys are all a bunch of fedoras stuck in the 2000's with the new atheists aren't ya?

No, no, no!

"You guys are all a bunch of fedoras"

This is clearly wrong!

You meant to say "You're a fedora".

After all, we're all sockpuppet accounts.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You meant to say "You're a fedora". After all, we're all sockpuppet accounts.

Oh hey look it's that guy I completely refuted long ago and is all of a sudden back out of nowhere defending "the tribe". Well would ya look at that, this doesn't come off like sockpuppetry at all lol

 

[Greg the Grouper]

You meant to say "You're a fedora". After all, we're all sockpuppet accounts.

Oh hey look it's that guy I completely refuted long ago and is all of a sudden back out of nowhere defending "the tribe". Well would ya look at that, this doesn't come off like sockpuppetry at all lol

Refuted? We never even started discussing anything. Well, I guess we did, just not while I was using this account? Forgive me, it's difficult to work with a dozen or so accounts with different personalities, interests, localities, fields of relative expertise, conflicting ideologies, and so on. A lot of moving parts to keep track of and all, I'm sure you understand.

Although, I do feel a little bad about shitposting in your thread? It's not like you're the most ridiculous person I've ever had a conversation with. I guess I should try to contribute something while I'm here, again.

If I'm not mistaken, you do believe that other folks are conscious. How did you justify this?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

And where in there do you see me state what the source of my enjoyment is and the particular situation I was hinting at ?

I just quoted directly admitting you were not addressing it because you were enjoying the situation. No idea how you find joy in that but glad you've finally stopped ignoring my paragraph after I had to call you out several times on it...

Those particular assertions you claim serve as an understanding of this "I" merely take it for granted.

Naw, you just fail to grasp this idea of direct knowledge/knowledge by acquaintance. You're the only one failing to get this.

The problem here are your definitions

Not at all. Everyone understands them perfectly fine. You're literally the only person who fails to comprehend. Dr. David Chalmers, a world renowned philosopher of mind, and every single user in here but you grasps it. This is a personal problem for you.

Then your demands are incoherent. If those who make claims have to define their terms then that applies to you just as much as it applies to me. No special pleading

But you haven't defined your terms.

Yes I did, you just fail to grasp it. You've admitted I've given a definition, and you try to criticize it with this disingenuous lack of comprehension disguised as skepticism .

I would notice the rouge on a physical object. But I do not know what exactly does the noticing. I do not know what exactly has the acquaintance.

Well would you look at that. So you're saying there's this "I" that notices things. You're literally talking about self-awareness right now and you just refuse to admit it. You're literally talking about this self that has perceptions and thoughts yet you're pretending you have not even a slight clue as to what this means. You've been caught red handed affirming this "I" that has perceptions, you know damn well what the average joe means when they say "I". Come on man, have some intellectual integrity...

No, I said this is what "we call" "our body"; not that is how things are in actuality. Your charge is confused.

You can't squirm out of this because you just said that you would notice a physical object, and you are not identifying this with the self given your answer, so you're assuming a dualism between the body and the self. Support your dualist assumptions...

In this case, I mean an object composed of matter.

You just went in another circle. That's just a synonym, not a definition. That's like you asking for a definition of "I" and I just said "self" (which I didn't by the way, this is purely an example obviously). Give me a definition of what you mean by physical/matter. Define your terms.

That is a baseless charge

Except you keep pressing for descriptions like you're literally doing right now...

If the case for idealism requires the first word of the first premise, then I am indeed dealing with said case.

No you're not actually. You're not dealing with the form of the argument or the truth or falsity of any premise, you're just deviating into this word game that's all about your failure to comprehend basic English...

Even if "everyone" were to claim they understand your terms, I want to know what exactly they understand.

Apparently you're only as developed as a 17-month old child so you won't understand until you grow up... If everyone understands but you, the problem is you...

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Refuted?

Yeah refuted, or stumped I should say. You cowardly ran off when I had you cornered.

saying there's potentially a few sockpuppets means you're claiming everyone is a sockpuppet!

why do you people suck at reading so bad?

If I'm not mistaken, you do believe that other folks are conscious. How did you justify this?

If I'm not mistaken I told you to start a new thread about the problem of other minds given how this isn't a problem for idealism but rather anyone who believes in other minds. This thread is about the case for idealism. If you can't address the argument itself then go away.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Yeah refuted, or stumped I should say. You cowardly ran off when I had you cornered.

Well I am a massive coward that hides behind multiple sockpuppets. Seriously though, when was this?

saying there's potentially a few sockpuppets means you're claiming everyone is a sockpuppet!

why do you people suck at reading so bad?

I'm one person with multiple accounts, and I while I could pretend to be worse at reading comprehension for the sake of my charade, I can't pretend to be better at reading comprehension than I actually am. What did you expect? Also, who the hell wrote that quote you were just referring to? I certainly didn't write it on this account.

If I'm not mistaken I told you to start a new thread about the problem of other minds given how this isn't a problem for idealism

You are mistaken about that, as we never had this conversation while I used this account, but anyway booooo you're no fun.

Anyway, is there some reason why, when you attempt to demonstrate that conscience can't be reduced to physical elements that you don't take the physical structure of the brain into consideration, and instead concentrate specifically on neurons?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Well I am a massive coward that hides behind multiple sockpuppets. Seriously though, when was this?

Yeah you are quite the coward, you ran from the argument before and you're still doing it now lol what you don't remember our conversation yet you remember a comment I made about sockpuppetry to an entirely different user? yeah this doesn't look weird at all haha having a hard time keeping up?

What did you expect?

I expected you to be able to at least read but apparently that 's expecting to you from you.

You are mistaken about that, as we never had this conversation while I used this account, but anyway booooo you're no fun.

So you're just gona keep running from the case for idealism, eh? nice

Anyway, is there some reason why, when you attempt to demonstrate that conscience can't be reduced to physical elements that you don't take the physical structure of the brain into consideration

I have, I've brought up a category as broad as non-mind into consideration as well. This question can simply be stated as to how do you reduce mind to non-mind. I've given several reasons to believe we can't reduce mind to non-mind.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Yeah you are quite the coward, you ran from the argument before and you're still doing it now lol what you don't remember our conversation yet you remember a comment I made about sockpuppetry to an entirely different user? yeah this doesn't look weird at all haha having a hard time keeping up?

1. I don't recall this particular conversation, as I haven't been invested in this thread since maybe page 15

2. I referenced no specific comment at any point while revealing my dastardly plan of annoying the shit out of you with multiple accounts

3. You were just speaking to another user(me) about accounts being sockpuppet accounts, this conversation isn't exactly a call back

4. Are you under the impression that internet forum users don't know what a sockpuppet is?

What even is this post?

I expected

And that was your biggest mistake! I haven't even read the four words I'm responding to!

So you're just gona keep running from the case for idealism, eh? nice

I know that you read the entire post. This comment is weird

I have, I've brought up a category as broad as non-mind into consideration as well. This question can simply be stated as to how do you reduce mind to non-mind. I've given several reasons to believe we can't reduce mind to non-mind.

Alright. I didn't see it in your opening post concerning premise three, so I suppose I'll browse the thread. Might take a while.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ho look, this thread got to 30 pages, degenerated into a shouting match on who said what, how how stupid each other are.
And you haven't got an inch closer to any conclusion.
Ah, who would have thunk it?