The Case for Idealism

[Monistic Idealism]

Of course there is, to the creature there is.

You're confused. The context is: "And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness."

The creatures would be just like us functionally but they lack consciousness. A creature that just behaves in a sophisticated manner but lacks consciousness does indeed lack consciousness by definition.

Oh really?

Yes, this was stated explicitly. Read better

So what exactly is the test for consciousness?

There is no "test" for consciousness there's just various arguments for other minds: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/#3

You can induce loss of consciousness with chemistry that affects the brain.

That doesn't prove your claim at all, this only disproves dualism. What you're talking about is completely compatible with idealism and just about any form of monism:

Now it's your turn,

It's still your turn... Still waiting for you to prove your claim and solve the hard problem of consciousness.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. I can't open up your brain and then know what its like for you to experience the sound of music or the smell of a rose. When we examine the brain all we see is a bunch of neurons and structures and chemicals and electrical impulses, we don't get qualia or a first-person experience of what it is like to be the subject for the subject. Don't believe me? Well the neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris confirms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

Your only contention here, is that you are not someone else.

No it's that you fail to prove your claim and to solve the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

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

That's not an argument, just a vapid claim with 0 support.

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

Then you're saying momo doesn't seem reasonable because all I'm doing is what he's doing. I'm the one who wants to actually move the discussion forward and start discussing other premises or at least discuss the form of the argument, but momo is the one who wants to just keep going in a circle and so he's the one who keep repeating himself. I'm merely responding in like fashion. Your failure to realize this means you've lost all objectivity on this matter or simply haven't been keeping up with the discussion. Either go back and read to get more context or reclaim your objectivity by going after momo for his repetition and refusal to move the discussion forward...

 

[*SD*]

I can't open up your brain and then know what its like for you to experience the sound of music or the smell of a rose

So.... your red and my red? Are there any reasons as to why (outside of a medical thing like colour-blindness) your perception of red and my perception of red would be different?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

So.... your red and my red? Are there any reasons as to why (outside of a medical thing like colour-blindness) your perception of red and my perception of red would be different?

The neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fajfkO_X0l0

 

[momo666]

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.

I'm straw-manning myself now. What wonderful things stable geniuses say these days.

You are wrong. These are the actual points I've raised.
>There is something that notices
>That something has not been explained

I am not trying to twist anything, you are again describing yourself. From the very start I have asked you to explain that which does the noticing. You have no idea how sad you look by trying to suggest I have ever denied there is something that notices. I mean, this is some Trump level of incoherence; it's almost funny.
The "I" is but a term. We use it to refer to that which notices. So when we say "there is an I that notices" we are simply saying there is something that notices. But the problem is that you are supposed to explain that and you have done everything but that. The reason is quite simple. You have no idea what it is. And once you realized that impotence collapses your whole case, you tried every which way to evade this problem. But you can't. This line of inquiry shows that your whole supposed case is built upon a parlor trick.

By the way, your asserted equation is incomplete. ["I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true]=You don't know what this "I" is=You don't have a first premise.
You can't equate my quote with your P1 without collapsing your own case. By your own admission.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I'm straw-manning myself now. What wonderful things stable geniuses say these days.

No you moron, you misrepresented the dichotomy that was presented to you. You tried to change it from:
>I have no understand of the I
>I understand that the I exists and notices

To:

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

This forum is public dude, we can see you are clearly changing the language up... Too bad you already admitted "I notice" so you can't go back: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

I know you want to twist the language of the dichotomy because you know you're fucked, that's why you won't address it. You're caught, you know it, I know it, that's why you flee from the dichotomy.

 

[*SD*]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've been reading the last few pages of activity as it's been posted.

To be fair, MI, it doesn't seem like momo is contesting the notion that there is an "I" that notices, he appears to be asking you to actually explain the "I" - perhaps the two of you are talking at crossed purposes.

He isn't asking you to acknowledge or affirm that the "I" exists, he wants an explanation for it.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I've been reading the last few pages of activity as it's been posted.

That's a bad idea. You need to get this conversation in full context to properly judge it. I have given my definitions and given my arguments long ago on this matter. I've caught momo admitting this already and so what you're seeing now is this back and forth of me giving the proof that he's contradicted himself and him just repeating the same questions I've already answered long ago

To be fair

If you want to actually be fair you should address momo as well... The tribalism around here is ridiculous, you guys never criticize or question each other. Go after momo. Question him on this contradiction he keeps making. He keeps claiming that he has absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the way the average joe does in a common sense non-ivory tower way, even in the way an 18-month old child understands, yet he constantly makes I-statements, distinguishes himself from me, talks about his own first-person experience, and what its like for him to be conscious and perceive and be aware etc. This person is clearly contradicting themselves. Clearly they grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, come on now...

If you want to be fair, question him on this blatant inconsistency on his part.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Of course there is, to the creature there is.

You're confused. The context is: "And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness."

No, I'm not confused.
If a creature is conceived that is like us physically, then it can not lack consciousness.
Your contention is an hypothetical that doesn't exists.
But then again the burden of proof is on you to prove that you could create a creature just like us and yet still lack consciousness.

Do I really still need to point out the glaring holes in your reasoning?:
1. You blatantly deny any other alternative because of this problem, then you come up with your view to try and solve this problem, all the while not even knowing if there is a problem to begin with. Show me that there is a problem. Demonstrate, that you could even in principle make a physical copy of you in every way, and yet lack consciousness.
2. You just claimed that a perfect physical copy can still lack this consciousness that the original possesses. Meaning that this consciousness is something else in addition to the physical parts. I.e. Consciousness is not physical. I.e. Substance dualism. Which is a view that you yourself blatantly deny.
Your world view is so mindbogglingly contradictory that you don't even realize that it implies substance dualism at its core, which is a proposition that you yourself negated in order to support it. It is an undodgeable logical contradiction, it is reductio ad absurdum.
And since this is what your argument implies. It must therefore be false.
QED

It's over! There is absolutely nothing you can do to save this.

Oh really?

Yes, this was stated explicitly. Read better

I know what you stated. And what I was pointing out is that your statement is absurd. I'm challenging your reasoning.
Now who has got bad reading comprehension?

So what exactly is the test for consciousness?

There is no "test" for consciousness

Period. Your statement should end here. You can not go from this and say "well but this other thing".
You don't have a test for consciousness.
Therefore you have 0 justification to pass judgement on what is or isn't conscious.
You can not point out what it is, you don't know what it is.

You can induce loss of consciousness with chemistry that affects the brain.

That doesn't prove your claim at all

Yes, it does.

Now it's your turn,

It's still your turn... Still waiting for you to prove your claim and solve the hard problem of consciousness.

No, it's your turn. I don't need to solve the hard problem of consciousness, it is not a problem.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. I can't open up your brain and then know what its like for you to experience the sound of music or the smell of a rose.

Of course not. When I smell something it stimulates the olfactory regions of my brain, if you look at my brain smelling a rose it would stimulate the visual region of your brain (not your olfactory) so your experience would be different.
If we however were to connect my olfactory centers of my brain to your olfactory centers of your brain to produce a similar stimuli you would smell what I smell.

Your contention essentially boils down to you are not smelling what you are seeing, and that you are not smelling by watching me smell.
No shit Sherlock!

 

[*SD*]

That's a bad idea. You need to get this conversation in full context to properly judge it.

I'm sure you can appreciate that this is a very (very) long thread, it would take a huge amount of time to read everything everyone has said. I'm not making strong declarations, I'm just offering a quick comment on what I have read so far.

and so what you're seeing now is this back and forth of me giving the proof that he's contradicted himself and him just repeating the same questions

There is no doubt a lot of back and forth, this is not disputed. But you are also repeating your self so people in glass houses etc...

If you want to actually be fair you should address momo as well...

I do want to be fair, but based on what I have read of this thread I can't see that he's been any less than clear about what his question actually is. Now, granted, I haven't read the whole shebang, but based on your recent exchanges momo's question seems pretty clear to me, and I can't find an instance of you addressing the question he actually asked. Plenty of instances where you affirm that the "I" exists, and note that he also affirms this, but that isn't his contention. He is asking for an explanation for the "I" - not something about the fact that he acknowledges the existence of the "I"

The tribalism around here is ridiculous, you guys never criticize or question each other

As someone who's been a member here longer than your self (MI) and momo, whilst I am by no means the longest standing member or even among the most distinguished, I can assure you this is categorically untrue. Reading through the threads, as and when time permits you will confirm this beyond dispute.

If you want to be fair, question him on this blatant inconsistency on his part.

Of course I want to be fair. But I am not seeing any in what I have read so far. If you maintain that this inconsistency is within a part of this thread I haven't had time to read, then that's something I will have to catch up on.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I'm sure you can appreciate that this is a very (very) long thread

Then you should suspend judgment and leave your incomplete analysis to yourself. You don't know the context, you don't know what's going on, you're just jumping in the middle of some conversation and trying to make a comment about something you don't know about. And then you want to say you're being fair yet you don't address the other person at all. Yeah real fair...

But you are also repeating your self so people in glass houses etc...

See this is what happens when you jump in the middle of a conversation with no context. It's momo that was repeating themselves over and over, I'm the one who wanted to talk about other premises or at least the form of the argument. Momo didn't want to progress the discussion so I'm just doing what they're doing. If you're actually "fair" then by your own logic you need to address momo's repetition... Let's see if you actually have the intellectual integrity to stick to your own logic and call him out...

I do want to be fair,

Then call out Momo's reptition and his refusal to address other premises or at least the form of the argument. I want to progress the discussion, he just wants to keep repeating himself over and over.

but based on what I have read of this thread

This is why you have to read everything in context because I've answered this question long ago. You need to go back and read. At this point I'm just revealing the blatant contradictions. I've also noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp and that more fundamental issues on the matter deserve their own thread. I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do.... This thread is about the case for idealism, not the self.

I can assure you this is categorically untrue.

All you have to do is read this thread, the proof is all around here. Nobody calls each other out in this thread on their disagreements with each other. Absolutely nobody. Nobody questions each other, nobody offers constructive criticism, nothing, it's all just circle jerking and only questioning and criticizing me alone. If you want to actually be fair then go after momo for once. You can't even ask the guy a question...? Come on man...

But I am not seeing any in what I have read so far.

Yes you clearly have. He keeps claiming that he has absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the way the average joe does in a common sense non-ivory tower way, even in the way an 18-month old child understands, yet he constantly makes I-statements, distinguishes himself from me, talks about his own first-person experience, and what its like for him to be conscious and perceive and be aware etc. This person is clearly contradicting themselves. Clearly they grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, come on now...

 

[*SD*]

You really are quite obnoxious aren't you? I've been nothing but courteous to you and you respond with some acidic reply like that? Do you imagine I'll lose sleep over it? Or perhaps cave in and agree with you? Wrong on both counts.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

No, I'm not confused. If a creature is conceived that is like us physically, then it can not lack consciousness.

Yes you are way confused. The context is: "And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness."

The point at hand is that they behave like us but lack inner experience/awareness/consciousness. Either you're denying there is such a thing as inner experience/awareness/consciousness or you're just confused...

Show me that there is a problem.

You need to quit talking like you're some expert on a topic you know nothing about: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

I.e. Consciousness is not physical. I.e. Substance dualism. Which is a view that you yourself blatantly deny.

Because I'm an idealist. I believe the fundamental substance of reality is mental, not physical. Everything is made up of the mental and what we call the physical is actually just mental. You really need to stop talking so arrogantly about something that you are clearly a noob on. There's more views out there than physicalism/dualism. I'm an idealist, look it up...

I know what you stated

No you don't know what was stated as I demonstrated at the beginning of this reply. Your reading comprehension sucks

Period. Your statement should end here

No because there's such a thing as arguments and arguments are proof. Definition of proof: "Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement."

Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof

Arguments are a source of knowledge.

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't, you just repeated the very same claim that I already gave an argument for. All you're doing is refuting dualism, you're not proving physicalism. The idealist is a monist just like the physicalist so brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism.

No, it's your turn.

You haven't even finished your turn yet lol you just repeated yourself. Time to actually prove physicalism is true. Burden of proof is on you to solve the hard problem of consciousness.

Of course not.

Then you really do have the hard problem of consciousness by your own admission. There's a hole in your theory: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. You essentially leave consciousness out of the picture, and that's what we know for sure exists more than anything, so we know physicalism must be false.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You really are quite obnoxious aren't you?

So you're just going to ignore my counter-arguments, eh? Wow, so fair... You're not even going to call momo out on his repitition, which he initiated, not me, by the way. I'm the one who wants to progress the discussion, but of course your tribalism is in full gear and you won't call him out or even question him...

I've been nothing but courteous to you and you respond with some acidic reply like that?

You're the one who is name calling saying I'm obnoxious, hypocrite... I don't appreciate lies: you can easily disprove me by going after momo since you claim to be so fair. It's that simple. Prove me wrong and go after momo for once: He keeps claiming that he has absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the way the average joe does in a common sense non-ivory tower way, even in the way an 18-month old child understands, yet he constantly makes I-statements, distinguishes himself from me, talks about his own first-person experience, and what its like for him to be conscious and perceive and be aware etc. This person is clearly contradicting themselves. Clearly they grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, come on now...

 

[*SD*]

Are you friends with TJump?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Are you friends with TJump?

I'm not a tribalist like you. I'm not friends with anyone here, I'm here to discuss the facts. Now how about you prove that you're actually fair by going after momo? Send some criticism his way on his repetition and his contradictions. Prove I'm wrong about you being such a tribalist

 

[*SD*]

You ARE obnoxious. If you think it bothers me you are quite mistaken, dear sir. I think you'll find it was your self who started with the insults, following my courteous reply to you.

I see nothing to take momo to task over, based on what I have read. His question appears clear, I do not see you answering it, at least within the posts I have read so far. I cannot read at the speed of light, and I prefer to digest what I'm reading in an effort to form a good understanding of the topic at hand. If this is not to your liking, then you may politely fuck your self with the rough end of a pineapple. If this is to your liking, then you will wait patiently for me to take a jolly good look at the thread as a whole, which is where you insist your argument lies.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't even need to say anything.
You didn't even get close to addressing anything I have just stated.
You just stand there lobbing insults as if that somehow would impress me, or cause me to react in your favor. But I have bad news for you, I'm not a 10 year old.

All I have to do is to tell you to re-read my post and try to address any of its points.
It is very obvious to anyone watching this, that the reason you won't even come close to even try to address anything, is that you can't. And you know you can't.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You ARE obnoxious.

You ARE a liar. You're not fair, you're a hypocrite, you pre-judge situations without full context of what's going on, the list goes on and on...

I think you'll find it was your self who started with the insults

Being assertive≠name calling. Just because I confidently state my counter arguments to you and throw your own logic back in your face does not mean I'm name calling.

I see nothing to take momo to task over,

1. repetition. You tried calling me out for repetition when it was him who initiated the repetition. I wanted to progress the discussion to other premises or at least the form of the argument and momo resolutely refused and kept repeating the same questions that I already answered long ago. I even encouraged him to start a new thread since he wants to get more fundamental than I'm trying to go and he just kept repeating himself over and over and over...
2. He keeps claiming that he has absolutely 0 understanding of the "I", even in the way the average joe does in a common sense non-ivory tower way, even in the way an 18-month old child understands, yet he constantly makes I-statements, distinguishes himself from me, talks about his own first-person experience, and what its like for him to be conscious and perceive and be aware etc. This person is clearly contradicting themselves. Clearly they grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, come on now... I've pointed this out to you several times now and you just keep ignoring it. Stop ignoring it...

I do not see you answering it

You haven't even read the entire conversation by your own admission. You have got to learn to read better, I explicitly told you that you jumped in the part of the conversation where I'm just showing his contradictions. I've answered this question loooooong ago, you need to go back and read and read better while you're at it...

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I don't even need to say anything.

Of course you don't because you've been refuted long ago. I've even given scholarly sources to back up what I say and here you are just running away from the debate. I've given arguments, I've given sources, you're failing to give a rebuttal right now...