The Case for Idealism

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

1. Since you're affirming strong emergence

I'm not affirming strong emergence. I was just pointing out how stupid you sound.

Everything that is happening in the mind is ultimately describable by the phenomenon of what is happening in the brain.

Absolutely false.

Well it's your word against empiricism. And you have nothing to back that up.

It doesn't tell us what it is like at all.

Doesn't need to.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I'm not affirming strong emergence. I was just pointing out how stupid you sound.

Then you just contradicted what you said about the brain which means you not only sound stupid but are in fact stupid.

Well it's your word against empiricism.

You have it completely backwards. Empirical analyses of the brain doesn't tell us what it is like to be the subject for the subject. Check out the hard problem of consciousness

Doesn't need to.

Yes it does since consciousness needs to be explained. Your failure to do so does not abdicate you of the responsibility to do so

 

[momo666]

I'm afraid it does, champ: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

It does not. In fact, let me show you using your own source. Pay attention:

->[Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, TERMS that each of us uses to REFER to ourselves as such.]
Source:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/

The "I" is but a term we use to REFER to that which notices. But nowhere in there do they explain this "ourself", they merely use it under different names, be it "self" or "themselves" or "them" or "me" or what have you. But those are just TERMS we use to REFER to that which notices or perceives. We could very well call that which notices "shambala" and it would be equally valid as a term. But that would not explain THAT which notices. It would only tell me how you CALL it.

Actually it was you that was caught in a lie:
>momo: I have no idea what the "I" is even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands!
>also momo: now let me tell you all about how there is this "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives

The first points to the fact that which does the noticing has not been explained. The second points to the fact that there is something which does the noticing. That you would consider that a lie is just sad.

lmao caught in a blatant lie. You can't even say I'm wrong without admitting there is an "I" that is wrong lol

It's rather ironic that you would accuse me of lying yet lie in the next breath. I've never said there is not something which notices. The "I" is a term we use to refer to that which does that thing. But I don't care how you CALL it. I've asked you to explain what it is. So long as you fail to do that, and you will undoubtedly continue to fail, you don't have a first premise. Your so called case is collapsed.

Naw, you just keep repeating the same contradictions over and over. You literally can't even say that I'm wrong without admitting there is an "I" that is wrong

You just keep repeating the same lies over and over. I don't need to "admit" there is something which does the noticing. I have been asking you to explain THAT which does the noticing for weeks. Seriously, what are you smoking ?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Empirical analyses of the brain doesn't tell us what it is like to be the subject for the subject.

Doesn't have to.
And in fact what you ask is impossible. Nothing will be able to tell you what is it like to be the subject from the subject's point of view, because you are not the subject in question.
But my money is on, it's the same to them as I perceiving myself.

Yes it does since consciousness needs to be explained.

It is explained. It is a phenomena happening in the brain, caused by limited self-perception.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The "I" is but a term we use to REFER to that which notices.

That's it? That's your big refutation? Lol all words are terms that refer to something you dumbass. The word "I" just happens to be the one we use to refer to ourselves. What you're saying here applies to literally ALL of language. Every word is a term that refers to something. And your own admission refers to me being correct: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

That you would consider that a lie is just sad.

You claiming you have 0 understanding of "I" in any shape or form yet you then go on to claim there is an "I" that notices is 100% contradictory. You have to make up your mind.

I've never said there is not something which notices

Then you've been lying this whole time by pretending you have absolute 0 understanding of the "I" since you yourself claim that there is an I that notices and can be wrong about things. I literally can't be wrong if there is no "I" in the first place that can be wrong... your objection to me can't even get off the ground lol

I don't need to "admit" there is something which does the noticing.

But you already have which means you already admitted premise 1 is true and you can't object without again admitting premise 1 is still true. You're fucked

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Doesn't have to.

Yes you do. You have to explain consciousness which means you can't leave out what it is like to be the subject for the subject.

And in fact what you ask is impossible.

Then you're telling me it's impossible for you to meet your burden of proof lol

Nothing will be able to tell you what is it like to be the subject from the subject's point of view

I'm guessing you've never heard of introspection or phenomenology. Learn some philosophy of mind instead of regurgitating materialist platitudes

It is explained.

So one minute its impossibe, but now it's not only possible but also true haha you just can't get your story straight. Please tell me exactly how you solve the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[momo666]

That's it? That's your big refutation? Lol all words are terms that refer to something you dumbass. The word "I" just happens to be the one we use to refer to ourselves. What you're saying here applies to literally ALL of language. Every word is a term that refers to something. And your own admission refers to me being correct: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Yes, that it is. That is your own source telling you the "I" is but a TERM we use to REFER to that which does the noticing. I keep asking you to explain that which does the noticing and you keep continuing to tell me how you CALL it. Explain exactly what is this "ourselves". You won't because all you can do is tell me how you CALL it. For that reason you have no premise to begin with, let alone a case. And you are the one who admitted you don't know what this "I" is by equating my claim with your P1.

You claiming you have 0 understanding of "I" in any shape or form yet you then go on to claim there is an "I" that notices is 100% contradictory. You have to make up your mind.

You need to learn what a contradiction is. Saying there is something which does the noticing while also saying that which does the noticing has not been explained is not a contradiction.

Then you've been lying this whole time by pretending you have absolute 0 understanding of the "I" since you yourself claim that there is an I that notices and can be wrong about things. I literally can't be wrong if there is no "I" in the first place that can be wrong... your objection to me can't even get off the ground lol

It already got off the ground. I pointed out to you how your accusation of me lying is absolutely false. The "I" is a term we use to refer to that which notices but THAT which notices has not been explained. Both those things can be true at the same time.

But you already have which means you already admitted premise 1 is true and you can't object without again admitting premise 1 is still true. You're fucked

That would be you. You can't equate my claim without first admitting you don't know what this "I" is. And if you do that, you have no case. I did not "already" admitted to anything. I have been asking you for weeks to explain THAT which does the noticing. That you would act now as if I ever said there is not something which does the noticing is just another one of your episodes. You are losing the little grip on reality you have left.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Explaining the phenomena of consciousness does not require you to experience the "experience of being someone else".
It need only explain why and how it exists, it doesn't need to transubstantiate you into someone else.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Explaining the phenomena of consciousness does not require you to experience the "experience of being someone else".

You don't understand the hard problem of consciousness at all: "In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject."

Source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

 

[Monistic Idealism]

That is your own source telling you the "I" is but a TERM we use to REFER to that which does the noticing.

Nice try at an equivocation, liar. It doesn't say that it is "but a term" as if that is all it is: a term. It's merely noting that this is THE term we use. This has all been explained to you in detail by me and my sources and you just keep lying about all of it and repeating yourself...

For that reason you have no premise to begin with, let alone a case

Except for the fact that you already admitted premise 1 is true: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Saying there is something which does the noticing while also saying that which does the noticing has not been explained is not a contradiction.

Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo... You clearly have some understanding, even in the average joe's common sense non-ivory tower way. Come on momo, just be real for once.

I pointed out to you how your accusation of me lying is absolutely false.

How is that possible if there's no "I" in the first place...? lol it's check mate. You can't claim absolute ignorance of an "I" while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that is wrong.

You can't equate my claim without first admitting you don't know what this "I" is.

As I already noted: Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness.

If they function exactly like us, then I would say that they are conscious.
Because there is nothing in such a creature that you wouldn't find in yourself or vice-versa. Given that, what basis could you possibly have to claim that you are conscious but they are not?
And remember everything you experience is experienced because you have a brain, likewise for the creature.

This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete.

No, it does not.

 

[momo666]

Nice try at an equivocation, liar. It doesn't say that it is "but a term" as if that is all it is: a term. It's merely noting that this is THE term we use. This has all been explained to you in detail by me and my sources and you just keep lying about all of it and repeating yourself...

So you don't know what an equivocation is either, although you do continue lying so at least you are consistent in that area. The "I" is but a term. That is why your own source points out other terms we can use instead of it such as "me" or "my" or "themselves" or "ourselves". But that source never explains what this "ourselves" is. All you are doing is continuing to repeat your old lie that you or your sources have explained what that which does the noticing is. You have not. Nor will you.

Except for the fact that you already admitted premise 1 is true: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

Actually, you have already admitted you don't know what this "I" is. So you have collapsed your own case.

Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo... You clearly have some understanding, even in the average joe's common sense non-ivory tower way. Come on momo, just be real for once.

You are just describing your own lack of character here. I am asking you to explain what is that which does the noticing. To that you fake some kind of surprised attitude as if I ever denied there is something which does the noticing. Why would I ask you to explain THAT which does the noticing if I thought there was no thing which does the noticing ? Something does the noticing but that something has not been explained. That is not a contradiction.

How is that possible if there's no "I" in the first place...? lol it's check mate. You can't claim absolute ignorance of an "I" while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that is wrong.

I don't know why you would believe there is no "I" in the first place but that is your problem. I however have been asking you from the very start to explain that which does the noticing so I know what you just asked does not pertain to me. I can claim there is something which does the noticing while also claiming that something has not been explained. Have fun demonstrating how that is a contradiction. I suspect you will have as much success, or better said lack of it, as you did explaining what this "I" is.

As I already noted: Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo...

And I've shown you that you don't understand what a contradiction is. Saying that there is something which notices while also pointing out that which does the noticing has not been explained is not a contradiction.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

If they function exactly like us, then I would say that they are conscious.

But there would be no experience, no awareness, no "what it is like" to be them. It would just be a sophisticated puppet.

Because there is nothing in such a creature that you wouldn't find in yourself or vice-versa

Of course there is: consciousness.

And remember everything you experience is experienced because you have a brain

Still waiting for you to prove this and solve the hard problem of consciousness.

No, it does not.

Yes it does: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The "I" is but a term.

Yeah you said that already and I already refuted this. It doesn't say that it is "but a term" as if that is all it is: a term. It's merely noting that this is THE term we use. This has all been explained to you in detail by me and my sources and you just keep lying about all of it and repeating yourself..

That is why your own source points out other terms we can use instead of it such as "me" or "my" or "themselves" or "ourselves"

That's because they're synonyms, just like with the word notice and consciousness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

You know I'm right so you tried to use a different word to avoid outright admitting I'm right but you failed to realize you just used a different word for the same thing lol you've been caught in a lie momo

You are just describing your own lack of character here.

Actually that would be you. You literally just ignored the contradiction that has been pointed out to you: Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo... You clearly have some understanding, even in the average joe's common sense non-ivory tower way.

as if I ever denied there is something which does the noticing.

If you are saying there is in fact an "I" that notices then you are in fact admitting premise 1 is true. You have no way out

How is that possible if there's no "I" in the first place...? lol it's check mate. You can't claim absolute ignorance of an "I" while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that is wrong.

I don't know why you would believe there is no "I" in the first place but that is your problem.

So then you're admitting there is an "I", you're affirming its existence, which means you have some understanding, even if its as simple as the way an 18-month old child understands. You may not have exhaustive knowledge, your knowledge may not be intimate, but you at least have some acquaintance with the "I". You know how there's good friends you know vs. someone who is just an acquaintance? You are at the least acquainted with the "I" by your own admission...

And I've shown you that you don't understand what a contradiction is

>I have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I"!
>now let me tell you all about this "I" that notices
That's a blatant contradiction... You can't simultaneously make claims about the "I" while also claiming you understand absolutely nothing about the "I". Either you stop making claims about the I, which you can't since you already admitted there is an I that notices, or you admit you have at least some understanding. Those are the only options you have, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself...

 

[momo666]

Yeah you said that already and I already refuted this. It doesn't say that it is "but a term" as if that is all it is: a term. It's merely noting that this is THE term we use. This has all been explained to you in detail by me and my sources and you just keep lying about all of it and repeating yourself..

You tried but I've already refuted your objection. The source says the "I" is a term we use to refer to ourselves, while omitting to explain what this "ourselves" is. It also provides other terms we can use such as "me" or "my" or "themselves"; because ultimately we could just call it "cabbage" and it would be equally valid. "THE term we use" is a term so your objection is incoherent to begin with. The "I" is a term, that is what you say, that is what the source says. This has been explained to you but you just keep repeating your lies.

That's because they're synonyms, just like with the word notice and consciousness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

Yet different terms. "Chakra" could very well be a synonym should we decide that so. But I don't care what you call it. I want you to explain that which your terms refer to. And remember, if my claim equals your P1, then you admit you don't know what this "I" is and thus your case collapses.

You know I'm right so you tried to use a different word to avoid outright admitting I'm right but you failed to realize you just used a different word for the same thing lol you've been caught in a lie momo

I already know you have realized by now your case has collapsed, as per your own admission. What you are describing is what you are attempting to do. You are the one who keeps continuing to tell me how it CALLS that which does the noticing, while you are supposed to explain it. The only one who has been caught lying, numerous times, is you.

Actually that would be you. You literally just ignored the contradiction that has been pointed out to you: Saying that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, while simultaneously claiming there is in fact an "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives is in fact a contradiction, momo... You clearly have some understanding, even in the average joe's common sense non-ivory tower way.

No, that would be you. In fact, you've just lied here again. I did not ignore your assertion that I contradicted myself, I outright refuted it. Saying that there is something which notices and saying that which notices has not been explained is not a contradiction. So apart from lying you also don't know what a contradiction is either.

If you are saying there is in fact an "I" that notices then you are in fact admitting premise 1 is true. You have no way out

There is something which notices, that has not been explained. The term "I" is what we use to REFER to that. That does not mean your P1 is true. In fact, you don't have a first premise, as per your own admission. So yes, you have no way out.

So then you're admitting there is an "I", you're affirming its existence, which means you have some understanding, even if its as simple as the way an 18-month old child understands. You may not have exhaustive knowledge, your knowledge may not be intimate, but you at least have some acquaintance with the "I". You know how there's good friends you know vs. someone who is just an acquaintance? You are at the least acquainted with the "I" by your own admission...

Nope. No admission. I have been asking from the very start for you to explain that which does the noticing; there is no need for me to "admit" there is something that notices. Saying something does the noticing does not explain what that something is; that is no understanding at all as to what that thing is. You say [You are at the least acquainted with the "I"] but "you" is just another TERM we use to REFER to that which does the noticing. I am asking you to explain what that is. What is acquainted with what ? The "you" with "I" ? Those are terms. Are terms acquainted with each other ? Such incoherence on your part is simply amusing, were it not to be so darn sad that an actual human being can fail so hard at basic philosophy.

>I have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I"!
>now let me tell you all about this "I" that notices
That's a blatant contradiction... You can't simultaneously make claims about the "I" while also claiming you understand absolutely nothing about the "I". Either you stop making claims about the I, which you can't since you already admitted there is an I that notices, or you admit you have at least some understanding. Those are the only options you have, otherwise you're just contradicting yourself...

No, that is just you not understanding what a contradiction is. I can simultaneously say there is something that notices, while also saying that something has not been explained. Read that carefully and demonstrate how that is a contradiction. I have been asking you from the very start to explain what is that which does the noticing, so to see you now claiming that I "admit" there is an "I" that notices just brings a smile to my face. It does that because I ultimately understand the depths you have sunk in order to avoid the hard truth that your case has collapsed.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You tried but I've already refuted your objection.

You just simply repeated yourself and lied about the source. Nowhere in the source does it say the "I" is "but a term", it says it is THE term. Stop being a liar

It also provides other terms we can use such as "me" or "my" or "themselves"; because ultimately we could just call it "cabbage" and it would be equally valid.

No you moron, it's because the terms "me" or "my" or "themselves" are synonyms. Stop ignoring my refutations of you, liar... Those terms are synonyms just like when you used a synonym for consciousness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

The word cabbage is not a synonym for "I" and you know this, liar...

Yet different terms.

Terms that are identical, you moron...

"Chakra" could very well be a synonym should we decide that so

No, chakra is not a synonym no matter how much you tell yourself in your own delusional fantasy land. Chakra is not a synonym, neither is cabbage, you're being retarded...

I already know you have realized by now your case has collapsed, as per your own admission.

lmao you're the one who already admitted premise 1 is true and then is so scared they won't even address the case for idealism in formal terms. You're the one who knows they have failed, you're too scared to actually address the case for idealism. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong: address the validity of the argument you coward.

In fact, you've just lied here again. I did not ignore your assertion that I contradicted myself, I outright refuted it.

Yes you did ignore it and just repeated yourself. You can't pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I" while claiming that you understand that there is an "I" that notices. You can't have it both ways. Either you understand or you don't understand. If you don't understand then you contradict your claim that "I notice" if you do understand then you contradict your initial claim that you don't understand. So you're fucked. Its check mate. There's nowhere for you to go so you just dodge dodge dodge

There is something which notices

And you yourself claimed that is the "I", you admitted "I notice". So you do understand enough about the I to acknowledge that it exists and notices/is aware/is conscious.

That does not mean your P1 is true.

Yes it does. There can't be an I that notices if there is no I in the first place. You have sawed off the branch you sit on.

Nope. No admission.

Yup, you admitted there is an I that notices. Lie all you want, this forum is public...There can't be an I that notices if there is no I in the first place...

Such incoherence on your part is simply amusing

Dude, you're the one who thinks cabbage can be a synonym or "I" lol your English comprehension is beyond silly. Are you on the spectrum...?

I can simultaneously say there is something that notices

Correction, you said "I" notice, not something notices. Try to lie all you want and try to take back what you said all you want, but you already affirmed that there is this "I" that notices. This forum is public, there's no use in lying... Since you already admitted there is this "I" that notices then you already agreed with premise 1. You clearly have enough understanding of the "I" to affirm that it is real and notices/is aware/is conscious

Read that carefully and demonstrate how that is a contradiction.

>I understand nothing about the "I"
>I understand that the "I" exists and notices

Boom, blatant contradiction. You can't keep both of these, one of them has to go. The law of excluded middle, bitch: that's how logic works, you have to choose one... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the "I" or you understand enough to claim that the "I" exists and notices. Pick one...

 

[momo666]

You just simply repeated yourself and lied about the source. Nowhere in the source does it say the "I" is "but a term", it says it is THE term. Stop being a liar

No, I explained to you that "I" is a term we use to refer to that which notices. That is something your own source says. "THE" term we use to refer to that which notices is "I"; that does not mean it is not a term just because you put "THE" in front of it. As such, the "I" is a term, as per your own source. You are confusing the term "I" to that which it supposedly refers to; but the term can not be anything but a term. Shocking, I know.

No you moron, it's because the terms "me" or "my" or "themselves" are synonyms. Stop ignoring my refutations of you, liar... Those terms are synonyms just like when you used a synonym for consciousness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

I am not ignoring your assertions, you liar. I specifically pointed to you how you equating my claim to your P1 shows you don't know what this "I" is. The terms "me" or "my" or "themselves" are synonyms because we choose so. Should we decide to call that which notices "chakra" that would be an equally valid TERM that REFERS to that thing.

The word cabbage is not a synonym for "I" and you know this, liar...

I did not say it is, merely that it could be. So you are lying again, as usual.

Terms that are identical, you moron...

The term "ourselves" and "themselves" are not identical to the term "I". They might REFER to the same thing, but they are different terms. Seriously, you are so embarrassing.

No, chakra is not a synonym no matter how much you tell yourself in your own delusional fantasy land. Chakra is not a synonym, neither is cabbage, you're being retarded...

You are describing yourself yet again. How sweet! Notice that I said "could" not that it is. The term "chakra" could be a synonym. You've spent too much time in idealist lala land.

lmao you're the one who already admitted premise 1 is true and then is so scared they won't even address the case for idealism in formal terms. You're the one who knows they have failed, you're too scared to actually address the case for idealism. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong: address the validity of the argument you coward.

I can't admit to P1 being true since you've already admitted you don't have a P1 to begin with. You are the one who is afraid of defending his supposed case. All you were asked to do is explain what a term of one of your own premises refers to. Once you realized you could not do that, and by extension that your case will collapse, you've tried everything you could think of to evade the obvious. So by all means, defend your argument, coward.

Yes you did ignore it and just repeated yourself. You can't pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of the "I" while claiming that you understand that there is an "I" that notices. You can't have it both ways. Either you understand or you don't understand. If you don't understand then you contradict your claim that "I notice" if you do understand then you contradict your initial claim that you don't understand. So you're fucked. Its check mate. There's nowhere for you to go so you just dodge dodge dodge

Nope. I specifically showed how your accusation fails and there was no contradiction on my part. Now you are just repeating that same baseless accusation based on a very poor understanding of logic. I can say there is something that notices while at the same time saying that which notices has not been explained. So saying "I notice" is fine since I've already pointed out I do not know what is that which does the noticing. Such a bad chess player you are.

And you yourself claimed that is the "I", you admitted "I notice". So you do understand enough about the I to acknowledge that it exists and notices/is aware/is conscious.

You are confused. From the very start, I have asked you to explain that which does the noticing. So there is no need for me to "acknowledge" that something exists that notices. This "I" is a term. But I don't care how you call that which notices. You could call it a thousand different things. I want you to explain it, not to tell me how you call it.

Yes it does. There can't be an I that notices if there is no I in the first place. You have sawed off the branch you sit on.

No, it doesn't. I did not say there is not something that notices. So you are yet again confused. Probably from all those poor metaphors.

Yup, you admitted there is an I that notices. Lie all you want, this forum is public...There can't be an I that notices if there is no I in the first place...

Funny thing these public forums. One could for example go to my comment and see that right after that which you just quoted, there was this "I have been asking from the very start for you to explain that which does the noticing; there is no need for me to "admit" there is something that notices.". So like all your accusations, this too is done while lying. I have been asking from the very start for you to explain that which does the noticing. So there is no need for me to "admit" there is something that does the noticing. You could at least try to be a decent liar.

Dude, you're the one who thinks cabbage can be a synonym or "I" lol your English comprehension is beyond silly. Are you on the spectrum...?

No, but you might be. Notice that I've underlined the word "might" given your poor English comprehension. But seriously now, I've said the word "cabbage" COULD be a synonym. Why ? Because it is just a term that is used to REFER to something.

Correction, you said "I" notice, not something notices. Try to lie all you want and try to take back what you said all you want, but you already affirmed that there is this "I" that notices. This forum is public, there's no use in lying... Since you already admitted there is this "I" that notices then you already agreed with premise 1. You clearly have enough understanding of the "I" to affirm that it is real and notices/is aware/is conscious

And the term "I" is what ? Precisely. A term we use to REFER to that which notices, which is something that has not been explained. You see, it's not that I want to take back anything I've said. It's just that you are such an amateur that you are simply confusing yourself. Since you've already equated my claim with P1, you have already admitted you don't know what this "I" is and as such don't have a premise to begin with. I don't need an understanding that there is something which notices. I need an understanding of what that which notices is.

>I understand nothing about the "I"
>I understand that the "I" exists and notices

Boom, blatant contradiction. You can't keep both of these, one of them has to go. The law of excluded middle, bitch: that's how logic works, you have to choose one... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the "I" or you understand enough to claim that the "I" exists and notices. Pick one...

>There is something that notices
>That something has not been explained

Boom, schooling fedora kids at their own game. One can say there is something that notices while at the same time saying that something has not been explained. The reason you fail at this simple exercise is because, despite your ego storking, logic eludes you.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

>There is something that notices
>That something has not been explained

You straw manning is not schooling anybody. The dichotomy is:

>I understand nothing about the I
>I understand that the I exists and notices

You have to pick one, no matter how much you try to twist the wording this is a true dichotomy. Either you understand or you do not understand. That's the law of excluded middle, there is no third option. To state otherwise is to be a logic denier... The problem is you already claimed that there is an I that notices, which contradicts the claim that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I:
"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

If they function exactly like us, then I would say that they are conscious.

But there would be no experience, no awareness, no "what it is like" to be them.

Of course there is, to the creature there is.
However your complaint seems to be that you can't experience what it experiences. Of course not, you are not it.

Because there is nothing in such a creature that you wouldn't find in yourself or vice-versa

Of course there is: consciousness.

Oh really?
So what exactly is the test for consciousness? Where exactly would you point the finger at and say "Here! It is missing this, it is therefore not conscious" ?

And remember everything you experience is experienced because you have a brain

Still waiting for you to prove this and solve the hard problem of consciousness.

You can induce loss of consciousness with chemistry that affects the brain. Remove someone's brain and they become unconscious.
Now it's your turn, give me a single example of a thought you have that is not happening in your brain.

No, it does not.

Yes it does: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject.

No it doesn't. It doesn't need to address that.
Remember "what it is like to be the subject, for the subject" is an phenomenon happening here:

In the subjects brain. It is not happening in your brain because your brain and the subject's brain are 2 different brains.

Your only contention here, is that you are not someone else. Which is a ridiculous thing to ask for.

 

[Steelmage99]

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Monistic Idealism, in case you haven't grasped it yet, I will share an observation with you.

The "argument" you present doesn't seem to carry the weight you expect it to.

You repeating it ad nauseam doesn't make you seem reasonable, but rather the opposite.