It is not that I did not meet your challenge.
Yeah it is, and you failed to meet my challenge. Notice how you even say that I did not meet your challenge. You're identifying yourself right now and distinguishing yourself from me and you're doing so in first-person. You cannot escape, your pseudo-skepticism can't even get off the ground.
For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person
So one minute you want to act like you have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what first-person means but now all of a sudden you do understand what it means for there to be a first-person perspective? Well you've contradicted yourself here for sure, and you've admitted that you comprehend what I've been saying this whole time now. My definition this whole time of mind has been "first-person subjective awareness".
But the main point is that this "first-person" is but a phenomena we refer to using these first-person pronouns. What this phenomena is remains unknown
It is the self, and we all know this. Even 18-month old children know what this is, or rather who this is, and we know/understand this directly and immediately.
You are still operating under the delusion that I deny this phenomena exists.
You are trying to avoid affirming premise 1 and you are trying to do this by pretending you have absolutely no comprehension of premise 1 in any shape or form, yet here you are explicitly or implicitly accepting that premise 1 is true.
What you are supposed to tell us is what this "I" is and then explain it.
1. I have
2. I've already pointed out your equivocation regarding knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. We know the "I" along with every other mental phenomena via acquaintance and is thus independent of any description or explanation. A subject can be completely non-verbal and be unable to give an explanation for anything but that does not entail that they do not have any understanding of the self or the I in any shape or form. For you to claim otherwise is to equivocate.
Simply using them does not automatically grant us an understanding of the phenomena they refer to.
Yes actually it does, especially when you are using them correctly as you have been this whole time. You don't confuse yourself with me because you understand the distinction between you and me, hence you use language to reflect this knowledge/understanding that you keep pretending you don't have. If you were really so confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form you should be tripping over this confusion all the time and failing to distinguish yourself from me, yet this doesn't happen...
Nowhere did I point out what this "I" is, neither did you.
Yes you did, and you're doing it right now. You're referring to this "I" as yourself right now... You're distinguishing yourself from me as we speak. You don't take momo and monistic idealism to be the same person but rather 2 distinct persons and you identify momo as yourself and monistic idealism as not yourself. So this entails some understanding of the self in some shape or form since there's enough understanding to not only identify yourself but distinguish yourself as distinct from me.
Again, you assert I identify myself as distinct from you
You literally do. You even said that you consider me to be insane and that you yourself are sane. You literally think that I am a different person than you, you've admitted this. We can all verify this publicly...
Then you would be saying you have some understanding of the "I" or "self" in some shape or form since you identify it with the collection of bones and flesh. You would just be another physicalist like everybody else in here.
Even then, it could still be the case that I do not know what does the noticing. For me to do that, it would imply that I have a complete understanding of this body, which none of us has. So while I would identify this "I" with this body, I would not actually have an explanation of it. In fact, it is not even clear I could claim I identified this "I". I say that because absent a complete understanding of said body, I would not know what parts of it are necessary for me to remain as I am. And absent said understanding, I would not know what modes of behavior of any given parts are necessary to remain as I am.
If the "I" is the body then you have to prove your reductionism is true and you'd have to admit that you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the "I"=the body. What's so damn hard about you just coming out of the closet and admitting that you have at least some understanding in some shape or form...?
Yes actually it would, don't forget about the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance as well. You can be acquainted with something without having a description for it.
the very distinction you are attempting to employ can not take flight until you explain what that term refers to.
This is pure question begging. The entire concept of knowledge by acquaintance is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Notice how the word "you" there never showed in that description like you dishonestly suggested... This knowledge is is not dependent on any verbal description or explanation so for you to complain that there is no description/explanation totally misses the point and begs the question that all knowledge must be knowledge by description. And speaking of your point about the word "you" I don't see how you're not going to fall on your own sword since the very notion of knowledge already is mental in nature. All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject that has a justified true belief or however you define knowledge here.
I did not forget that non-mind becomes mind. Why would that bother me again?
Your reading comprehension is so bad that you think saying I notice equals non-mind becomes mind lol learn what words means, here let me help you out: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.
But I would not understand it.
You understand enough that you affirm premise 1 is true. You may not have some deep fundamental understanding in some crazy deep way to satisfy the radical skeptic, but you have enough understanding to grasp what it means in the way the average joe uses it, the way an 18-month old child can grasp. Which is all you need for the argument.
Rather, I could merely infer that, whatever it is, it does not require the taste of an apple say. What something is not does not tell us what something is.
Direct knowledge is non-inferential, the knowledge is immediate. The self is grasped in first-person
In fact, our own experience tells us even us might not be necessary for this "I" to persist. You get knocked out, it all goes blank. Same with sleep and certain types of coma. Yet when you wake up, there you are.
So you grasp that there such a thing as "our own experience" and that there is this "I", you're just questioning whether it persists.
What follows is that an underlying non-mental structure is more fundamental than this "I".
Not at all, there is still the sub-conscious level, you're just in a more basic state of the mental. Coma patients report having dreams and all sorts of visions.
Furthermore, consciousness as you've defined it stands in complete negation of P3.
You need to justify this claim, you're just stating this with 0 support.
And for to me agree that consciousness exists, you must point out what the term refers to because if I think consciousness is
You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience" and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I, you just question whether it persists. This is what I'm getting at with mind and consciousness and the mental in general, and again this is an average joe's understanding as I've had to remind you time and again. Everybody else grasps what I'm saying just fine, this is just a personal problem for you.
Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time.
Then you clearly know what the fuck I am talking about when I point out that your admission that you grasp mental verbs is ipso facto an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form as you're grasping the verbs of the mental. You grasp what the mental does, and you don't just see verbs attached to nothing, so you're telling you grasp this idea of us being aware of the mental.
But notice again the distinction between what something is and what something does.
Notice how you admitted earlier that we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't see "jump" or "jumping" just floating out in nature, rather we see an organism that jumps. Same thing goes with the mental verbs... We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping. You even said "right" on this before, so you've been caught admitting I'm right on this already.
Again, what that is, not how you CALL it.
omg do you seriously not understand the law of identity? This is seriously logic 101 man... A=A is the same this as saying A is A. What is A? It's A! This first-person perspective, that you admitted exists, and this subjective awareness that we all know directly and independently of any description/explanation is the mental. That's the mental, I just told you what it is. can you stop being retarded now with the pseudo-skepticism?
Actually, in the definition of "insane", something is in a state of mind so have fun explaining what that something is.
Hey you're the guy trying to claim you consider me to be insane yet you're now telling me you can't comprehend the very words in your own definition of insane so you've just shot yourself in the foot. It's so weird how you think someone else has the burden to define your own terms lol learn how the burden of proof works momo. When you make claims you have the obligation to define the terms you use and give support for those claims, not the other speaker...
That's a form of the mental, namely the actions of the mental. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and true.
So are you saying your P1 refers to actions?
I'm saying mental verbs refer to actions of the mental, and there can't be mental actions unless the mental exists in the first place. So you're admitting premise 1 is true yet again.
You literally can't make sense of projection with your pseudo-skepticism if you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form.
I don't know what mind is. I can make sense of projection without that piece of information.Have fun proving me wrong.
1. I've caught you admitting you do know several times already
2. the very definition of projection involves the mental which you pretend you don't understand so by your own pseudo-skeptic standards its impossible for you to understand projection
3. you don't know how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. The burden of proof is on the claimant so you have the burden to justify your claims.
Also, I do not understand what "in a state of mind" means.
Then you don't understand your own definition of insane by your own admission. Great, thanks for admitting you're completely incoherent.
Whoa, stop right there. So you're saying there is an "I" that "observes". How can you make any sense of that if you can't can't make any sense of premise 1...?
whatever drives that behavior must change in some way to account for different behaviors. But I don't know what that thing is. Nor do I know how that process goes.
So then you're with me on P3 if you're not reducing that which drives behavior to the body or the brain or the nervous system or anything like that. You would be against the physicalists then if that's so.
That's the point you keep missing. Without pointing out what that state of affairs is, I can not possibly identify it with anything.
So then you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system or the body in general that drives behavior. Great, then you're with me on P3, you're not a reductionist then.
Again, P3 is necessarily false due to how you defined consciousness.
Consciousness has been defined, but even if it weren't that doesn't make it false that would just make it incomprehensible. Not being able to understand something doesn't mean its false, learn how to logic.
An ability is reducible by definition
And I just refuted your argument
No you didn't, you just repeated the exact assertion I gave a refutation of.
I keep catching you in this lie and I keep having to throw your own definition right back in your face: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."
Perception, behavior and social interaction is what this thing does.
Actually perception is defined as a noun but either way by your own admission we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't just see "perception" floating out in nature, so like how we don't just see "jump" we see an organism that jumps, we are aware that there is a mind that perceives. Also in your definition is the term "IN A STATE OF MIND", nice try at covering that up by only bringing up perception, behavior, and social interaction though... If you can't grasp what "in a state of mind" means or "perception" then by your own admission you cannot grasp what the word "insane" means...
The phrase "you are you" is meaningless unless YOU tell ME what this "you" refers to.
You just referred to what those words refer to right now... You are identifying them in this very sentence, and you are meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me as if I am not you... your bullshit isn't convincing anyone, you just keep tripping over your own lies
I could for example, mean that collection of bones and flesh.
Then that would be a shape or form of understanding of the I since you have at least some understanding of bones and flesh in some shape or form and the I is identical to the bones and flesh.
I gave several possibilities that show what this "I" is can remain unknown while allowing us to use the term coherently.
No you didn't actually as I just demonstrated. If you identify the "I" with the body then you're still admitting that you have at least some understanding of the I in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the I is identical to the body.
Someone is lying alright...
Yup, and we know damn well that it's you and your pseudo-skepticism can't even let you deny this because you should be pretending that you have absolutely no understanding what "you" means in the first place hahah You can't say that "I" am lying because you'd first have to understand what "I" is in the first place to say that I am lying. There's not a single person here who is buying your crap, momo...
Those are phenomena that I call "perception, awareness and consciousness".
And you're saying they exist! So you're admitting premise 1 is true. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet
And by how you defined them, they are either an ability or an act
No they've been defined as nouns, look it up for yourself even though I've shown you screenshots of the definition already... These terms can also be used as verbs as well though.
You're the one who is literally admitting there is a distinction between me and you, which is also literally an identification of yourself. So you have identified the self and comprehend it enough to grasp that this self is different from me. So that is an understanding of the self in some shape or form.
That is not an identification.
Yes it is, logic denier: Law of Identity. You constantly refer to yourself as if I am different than you, and you affirm that I really am different than you. You think I am a distinct person from you and that I am insane while you are not insane. This in of itself is an admission that there is enough understanding to distinguish yourself from me by your own admission. If there was absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form this distinction would be impossible.
Yeah, which is you admitting that consciousness exists. You're literally admitting that you comprehend and affirm premise 1 right now.
That something that begins to be conscious must be non-conscious to begin with.
1. You're still admitting consciousness exists, which means you're admitting premise 1 is comprehensible and is true
2. I've already explained how there is a fundamental conscious level and that every other contingent being emerges from that mental base. So it's not non-consciousness to consciousness, but consciousness to consciousness. Stop ignoring what I say...
There is no "your" consciousness because you've said "I=consciousness".
That is a complete non-sequitur on your part. All this means is that I begin to exist, that I am contingent.
Moreover, what exactly does it mean for a mind to be grounded in another mind?
You're simply repeating a question I already answered: This is a topic I was going to address in a new thread when I actually give the case for cosmic idealism, and I noted in the OP I was going to deal with cosmic idealism in a new thread. This is a much deeper conversation that deserves its own thread (much like a deeper analysis of the self) and can only be had after one can at least charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case is made from prior commitments to idealism. If you can't wait for that, then check out the paper from David Chalmers I cited in the OP on Cosmic Idealism, he goes over it a bit there.
A potential does not turn into an actual unless that thing which posseses it acts upon said ability to bring it forth. The support for that is your own provided definitions.
I'm not seeing how this applies to me at all. You need to make yourself more clear.
You did actually.
Nice try at an equivocation. You're saying I defined consciousness as an ability yet here you are showing me a definition of the word perception and perceive haha I see right through your bullshit momo. You know I didn't define consciousness as an ability, and that consciousness is a noun, along with perception as a matter of fact.
But it does. Watch! That which does not exist (they) can not begin to be anything.
How?? You're just stating this with 0 support...
Only things that exist can begin to be anything
That's a literal contradiction, if it already exists then it can't begin to be.
Because you've said "I=consciousness", you can only say consciousness begins to be, not that "they being to be conscious".
they=consciousness so they begin to be lol that was easy
What deeper analysis of the self?
A fundamental understanding as you yourself put it. There's a common sense average joe's understanding of mind that even an 18-month old child can grasp, and there's the more philosophical analysis where one tries to grasp the self in a more detailed and critical way. That's a topic of study in its own right and deserves its own thread, I'm just talking about a basic understanding here.
And no, of course, I am not going to commit myself to idealism.
Your dishonesty is so brazen. I specifically said: "charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument". I'm not asking you to actually commit yourself to idealism, I clearly didn't say that... You seriously need to learn how to be more charitable in your interpretations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
You should be able to make your case without me doing that.
No I can't because the case is premised on idealism. Only after idealism is either affirmed or accepted for the sake of argument can the case be made. Hence why I've made the case for idealism before the case for cosmic idealism.
Then you're literally saying "you understand or you don't understand" is a false dichotomy, which is literally a denial of the law of excluded middle... you're a literal logic denier...
No, I am not because that is not what your false dichotomy poses.
Yes it does, it literally takes the form of "P ∨ ~P". Either you understand or you don't understand, you have to pick one.
A noun which references an act.
No, that's not how nouns work... A noun refers to a fucking noun: a person, place, or thing. If it was a verb it would be referring to an act, but it's a noun so it's not. Your cognitive dissonance has you doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with these word games man, its pathetic...
Mental verbs refer to what the mental does.
Right, which means there is a mental in the first place to perform actions. We don't just see "jump" floating in existence, but rather an organism that jumps. Same goes for mental verbs: there is the mental to engage in such verbs. So premise 1 is true and comprehensible enough.
Sorry but the word chakra is already defined and is not synonymous with the mental at all:
You would have to contradict the definition of the word chakra to equivocate and identify it as something else....
What is that which "everybody else" seems to get?
What mind is, and what this common sense average joe's understanding of the "I" or "self" is
Why would I need to adhere to those people assumptions sans proper argument?
Wow you suck at general comprehension. You said, and I quote directly: "What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is." this is pure projection on your part because it is only you that is having this supposed lack of understanding. Literally everyone else understands me, including scholars around the globe, understands just fine. This is a personal problem, momo. Stop projecting your own failure to comprehend onto others, it's only you that fails to comprehend.
And given that what this "I" is remains unknown, what does the thinking remains unknown.
What makes you think it is unknown? Because you personally can't give a description or explanation of it? Do you still not comprehend the distinction between knowing and describing? One can know something without being able to describe it. To claim otherwise is pure equivocation.
You are confusing how we call a thing with what that thing is.
1. law of identity
2. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
are you so autistic that you don't get what "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet" means...?
The term "we" is how we call it, not what it is.
This applies to literally all terms. A tree is still a tree even if we called it something else. It's not about the term, but what the term is referring to, and you're using the word "we" to refer to us users who are in here rather than the letters on the screen. So this entails some grasp of the "we" in some shape or form as there's enough understanding to correctly identify it and distinguish it from other things.
No, I called it "I".
That's identifying it. Law of identity, A=A which means A is A.
Again. Utterly wrong.
If I'm wrong then you're lying because you have literally said it is mind that drives behavior. You've identified that which drives behavior as "mind".
What I said what that you're not reducing that which drives behavior, and this is fact. You are literally not trying to say that the brain or the nervous system drives behavior, but rather you are identifying that which drives behavior as "mind" and you are not identifying this mind with the brain and nervous system. So then you would not be a reductionist which means you're with me
It's not a fact because you do not know if I am reducing that which drives behavior.
Yes I do: you've admitted outright that you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system that drives behavior, but rather this thing you identify as mind. If you were reducing you'd be saying its the brain or nervous system or the body in general that causes behavior, but you're not doing this. Which means you're with me on P3
But for me to identify that thing with the brain, you first need to tell me what it is.
...it would be the brain... you literally just said it.... If the mind=brain then what we identify as the mind is actually just the brain... how did you mess this up...?
It is if you've defined "mind" as an ability
But I never did, you're pulling this out of your ass
Buddy, stop with the behaviorism babble. I am not that
I know you want to avoid that, but your claims keeps boxing you into that corner. Now stop dodging my question: are you with cognitive psychology or not? If yes you're with modern science, if not you're against modern science.
I literally don't.
Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the word "insane" means, which entails you can't consider me to be insane then in the first place. Great
States of mind is how we call that which drives behavior.
And you're not reducing that to the brain or the nervous system or the body in general, so that means you're with me on P3 by your own admission.
"Whatever" is not an understanding.
I never said it is, I said you understand what "myself" means which is just you admitting you've been full of shit this whole time.
Noticing is what it does, not what it is
I keep correcting you on this and you just keep dishonestly ignoring: notice is defined as NOUN, but even if it's not it's still an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form since you grasp the verbs of the mental.
What an absolute fail. On what criteria is this definition set ?
On what criteria is any definition set??? See this is exactly what I was talking about months ago: you're going off onto other fundamental topics like philosophy of language. You need to start some new threads, momo. You're bringing in too much philosophical baggage
Give me an actual argument as to why I could not call that which notices "chakra".
Look up the very definition of the word "chakra". We can see that it's not defined at all in the same way as "I" or "consciousness". This is how we define our words, we have an agreed upon set number of words that refer to what we're talking about. For you to go beyond this is to delve deep into some philosophy of language bullshit that has nothing to do with our conversation.
There can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exists. Why is this different from what you're saying ?
It isn't different. There literally can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exits. Check mate
What distinguishes itself from what? Again. What that thing is. Not how you call it.
This is a question you have to ask yourself because it is YOU who is literally distinguishing yourself from me. It is not my responsibility for me to define your own terms that you yourself use and to justify your claims. And cue the silence...
I don't think so.
The irony here is stunning lol then how come you're so alone in this forum? Everybody has agreed with me so far, they all understanding what I'm getting at perfectly fine. This is clearly a personal problem for you.
I think a reasonable person would see the distinctions I am making are quite reasonable.
Notice how alone you are... You and I both know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of humans know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know whole swathes of those people are quite reasonable. What I'm saying is common sense, this is something you don't need a degree in philosophy to grasp. Hell even 18-month old children understand what I'm saying. You're literally the only person who is trying to be such a turbo skeptic that you're willing to straight up lie and pretend you don't even grasp what even an 18-month old child grasps...
It is for what I was quoting.
No it's not actually, you literally can't say there is perception while premise 1 not being true. If you're saying perception exists then you're saying the mental exists because perception is mental.
What I don't understand is what this "I" is.
You understanding enough to understand that there is an "I" in the first place and that this "I" understands/doesn't understand. That's enough to admit you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form. Again, what's so bad about coming out of the closet about this...?
What should I expect from a habitual liar.
You really didn't give an argument, you just repeated an assertion that was already dealt with
Yes you did, you did it just now! hahah You are saying that you are momo, that you are you, and you are the one who said x,y,z as if it wasn't me who said x,y,z. You are distinguishing yourself from me, you are identifying yourself as distinct from me and the words on the screen etc.
That is how we call that thing
You are saying this thing that we call "x" actually exists. Labels don't matter, it's what the labels reference: A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME SMELLS JUST AS SWEET
What do they understand ?
That premise 1 is true and comprehensible.
You never defined your terms.
This is a bold faced lie. I've given my definition all the way back in the OP and even gave several scholarly sources that go into more detail.
Be honest and admit to your ignorance.
This is more proof of your equivocation. Knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things. Even if I couldn't describe it, which I have, that wouldn't mean I don't know it. Stop equivocating. Do you really not see the difference between knowing and describing??? Weren't you the one bitching earlier about subtle nuances and all that? I'm asking you honestly, don't dodge this question: do you really not see the difference between describing and knowing??
This comming from the guy that literally spammed his nonsense over and over. Such silly projections.
1. This doesn't address what I said at all.
2. This is ironic because I was only doing what you were doing lol
1.The "self" is a term.
All words are terms, the fact that it's a term doesn't change anything...
2. No one is equivocating, except you.
No that would be you. You're equating "knowing something" with "describing something". Knowing and describing are 2 different things. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong.
1. You did not. You merely swapped words and acted as if that explains it.
Giving a definition is not swapping words, nice try.
Did you also not try to say the self is an act by the self ?
I didn't actually, but nice try.
2. You are the one that is equivocating as shown above.
prove to me that the words "describe" and "know" mean the same thing... Go on, I'll wait... Show me that they mean the same thing... the second you admit they're not the same thing then you admit that I'm right and thus you're equivocating...
But I would like to know what this mind is and what a representation is.
I linked you an entire academic article on cognitive science. Maybe try reading the sources I give you...
You've said "I=consciousness".
That doesn't prove your claim at all.
The word is.
And you comprehend the word as you've just admitted, that it is the I that drives behavior.
Those are phenomena that we name that way
We have identified them as such because that is what they are. This point about names literally applies to EVERYTHING. Trees, cars, birds etc.
3. Notice how you said we don't need to know FUNDAMENTALLY what the I is. That's fine, we don't need to know fundamentally what existence is to understand what an object is. Maybe there is a more fundamental question about the nature of the "I" that needs to be explored (perhaps in a new thread since its a topic of study in its own right) but that doesn't mean there is 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form.
Yes, because it is supposed to be non-reducible remember ?
what? that's entirely irrelevant. This isn't about reduction or non-reduction it's about what the I is. Just like how we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of existence is to understand what an object is, so we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of the self is to understand what the I is.
How is it what I'm asking you so hard that requires a new thread.
It's not about being hard it's about something being more fundamental and so it's a new topic.
I just want to know what this "I" is.
You understand enough to know that there is an "I" that just wants to know something. You have what you need to assess the argument, so stop being a coward and actually address more premises.
The only reason they are called "mental properties" is because we choose to call that which does all those things "mental".
This applies to literally everything, this is a vapid point that gets nobody anywhere.
What was that thing about the rose again ? It smells just as sweet no matter the name ?
You really are autistic aren't you...? Too dumb to use google too I guess. Looks like I'll have to spoon feed this to you as well: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a popular reference to William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet seems to argue that it does not matter that Romeo is from her family's rival house of Montague, that is, that he is named "Montague". The reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are."
It's about what the name refers to, and no matter how much you bitch and complain about names like "muh chakra" and "muh cabbage" that has no effect on what I'm talking about or what I'm referring to. What we're identifying as "mind" exists, even if you wish to call it chakra or cabbage. Get it?????
Identity of the terms, not of the things they refer to.
No, it's not identity of the terms, it's identity of the object. The words refer to the object, not the terms themselves. There is a specific word that we have for words that refer to themselves: Autological Words. For you claim to hold water you'd have to say all words are autological words and that's just demonstrably bullshit...
The apple is the object, the word "apple" is what is used to refer to that thing.
Yup, and this applies to the "I" as well.
No. I am calling myself that way.
100% contradictory lol
Wow, you suck at reading... I specifically said "you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well." end quote. You can't tell me that you understanding absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form while admitting that you comprehend thoughts, feelings, ideas, and complex mental phenomenon like projection and so forth. Learn to read
Those are names we give to phenomena.
And those phenomena exist by your own admission! So you're saying premise 1 is true! Call it whatever you want, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Call a rose a chakra, it's still a rose. Call the mental whatever you want, it's still the mental.
And what does the "other mental properties" refer to ?
Exactly that: other mental properties.
I am stating that I do not know what this "mental" is. That does not mean I can not give it a name.
If that were true then you would be a strict behaviorist and talk only about behavior yet you keep talking about perception, awareness, consciousness and so forth. What you are calling mental exists by your own admission no matter what you call it.
Totally. Like confusing how a thing is called with what a thing is. Noob!
An apple is an apple by your own admission. There's the word we use to refer to the object (apple) and the object in itself (apple) and we have identified this object as: apple. This is the law of identity. Apple=apple. Your word games aren't working...
Okay, let's turn that "might" into a "probably".
You didn't answer the question yet again, coward. Where would Sally look for her ball?? If you're not such a coward then you should have no problem answering this question outright...
Yes necessarily. If you have a bruised view of oneself then that necessarily is a view of oneself, it's merely a bruised view of the self. If I can have a coherent bruised view of the self then that means I can have a coherent view of the self. You've painted yourself into a corner, momo...
Thoughts and ideas is how we call certain phenomena.
Again, this applies to literally all phenomena. It's not about the labels, it's about what the labels reference and you're admitting what those labels reference exists.
No it's not merely a term, that term refers to something (or rather someone) that actually exists, and I've explained that this "I" is grasped in first-person and is known directly, immediately, and independently of any description. Again, don't equivocate description with understanding. I'm going to call you out on that bullshit every time, so don't think you're going to get away with it...
It is merely a term. That it refers to something does not make it more special.
Yes it does because that means it's not merely a term lol what matters is not the name, but what the name refers to. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
Again, act not object. Law of identity.
Notice is defined as a noun so thanks for shooting yourself in the foot, also I've defined mind already: first-person subjective awareness. That is what these terms are referring to, and you grasp this directly and immediately.
There is something I call "me".
So this "I" exists! great
Whatever is doing the thinking can ponder about what it is. What about that is so hard to understand ?
What's so hard about you coming out of the closet already and admitting you have some understanding of the "I" then? You can ponder yourself, you just admitted it!
Is this a law of nature ? Is it set in stone ? What argument do you have for me not being able, if I so choose, to call that which does the noticing "cabbage" ?
1. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet
2. you're going into some other irrelevant topic in philosophy of mind. What is being told to you is our terms have already been defined and to go against that is to contradict oneself. If we can't agree on the definitions of ANY word then we can't have a meaningful dialogue so even if its just for the sake of argument you and I have to come to an understanding of our terms and keep them that way so we don't equivocate. Otherwise I can just define every word you've written as "monistic idealism is right" and by your own logic that's perfectly legitimate... We need set terms. I know you don't like that because you want to equivocate as much as possible but that's how the game is played buddy. So stop with the dishonesty. You know chakra and cabbage aren't defined as mental nor are they synonymous with mental, so just cut the crap...