The Case for Idealism

[Sparhafoc]

Well isn't that what a computer programed to think like you would say?

It can say whatever it wants, it's still just a computer program that's making some formal or informal fallacy.

Great, so if for example it says:

P1.+P2.) We are conscious.

Then it can say whatever it wants, it's still just a computer program that's making some formal or informal fallacy.

You can try to equate me to the computer but you're just committing what I already predicted: an informal fallacy.

Do you have any other weak cop-outs you might want to try to evade addressing the fact that you've undermined your entire world view? Or do you think your cognitive bias filter will be strong enough to maintain the internal charade?

b-but that's something the computer would say!

Good thing I'm not a computer program but am a human being with flesh and bone,...

What does flesh and bone have to do with it?

How do you know you have flesh and bone? Perhaps believing you have flesh and bone is part of your programming!

... no computer parts or anything.

How do you know?

If you want to go full retard with skepticism you're going to blow up metaphysics and epistemology in general.

Full retard?

What a pleasant chap you aren't.

Your attempts to go after idealism will result in philosophical suicide. The suicide bomber equivalent of a refutation lol

Oh James, you never change.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well isn't that what a computer programed to think like you would say?

It can say whatever it wants, it's still just a computer program that's making some formal or informal fallacy. You can try to equate me to the computer but you're just committing what I already predicted: an informal fallacy.

b-but that's something the computer would say!

Good thing I'm not a computer program but am a human being with flesh and bone, no computer parts or anything. If you want to go full retard with skepticism you're going to blow up metaphysics and epistemology in general. Your attempts to go after idealism will result in philosophical suicide. The suicide bomber equivalent of a refutation lol

Isn't that also something that a computer programmed to think like you would say?

You have already stated that there's nothing special about neurons, and unless you want to claim that there's something categorically different about carbon based neurons from those made of silica that would allow you to tell the difference in introspection, then you are just going to argue in circles.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Says the guy who's just joined the forum and has already tried foisting off the notion that there are sock puppets out to manipulate viewership against him.

I don't think you know what the word troll means and you really need to make peace with this fellow James who made you so butthurt in the past lol

An entirely pointless non-sequitur.

Your comment about me not being correct was indeed that, which is why I had to correct it.

The fact that you made an argument doesn't mean you understood it, nor does owning that argument mean you are in a position to correct people who critique it.

If I am making a point, you don't get to go "oh that's not your point, this is your point". Sorry pal, that's not how communication and debate works, otherwise you're just arguing with yourself. You don't make my points for me, those are my points, and if I tell you you're misunderstanding my point then that's a failure on your part.

The dozens of times you've appealed to this fallacy suggests you should also learn to stop using the fallacist's fallacy. Declaring something a strawman doesn't make it a strawman.

When I give arguments from causation and monism and you start attacking epistemological arguments then you're full blown attacking straw men bro... Your attacking arguments I never made. You're just shadow boxing this guy james you used to know. Deal with your past trauma already and join me in the present.

That's about the closest you've come to having an independent thought in this thread. Congratulations.

Way to avoid the contradiction in your reasoning I just pointed out.

Only you are allowed to assert without support?

still waiting for you to give support to that claim you made.

No, your reading comprehension is flawed. You said 'it is X' and I said 'or it is Y - either/or'

The dichotomy was X or not X, and that's always a true dichotomy. it's your reading comprehension that fails.

Err, then it's a trichotomy.

Oh wow look at that, you can't even count too lol why am I surprised. Me not knowing which of the 2 is correct does not automatically create a third option. It's still either X or not X, I just don't know which one. There's only 2 X's there, champ.... yeah I think you need to step out side the discussion, you can't even count lmao

 

[Akamia]

Why is it not reducible to functional states? You haven't demonstrated this.

Yes I have, many times now actually. All the way back in the OP I have support for all my premises. All you have to do is read the OP in its entirety. My arguments, with scholarly citations, are included.

I did read it in its entirety. I did not find it compelling.

So does everything else, according to you.

I literally never said that. You're just attacking straw men.

You from your OP.

P8.) If we know the mind exists, is irreducible, causal domains are closed, monism is true, and mental causation exists, well then this would have to mean there is only the mental. We can't have both the mental and the non-mental as that would be substance dualism, and non-reductive physicalism would contradict our commitment to mental causation, so we are left with idealism. Anything that exists would fundamentally be mental in nature and is either conscious or a property of consciousness. There's only one type of substance and one type of property: the mental.

Emphasis added.

It's a distinction without a difference, as far as I'm concerned.

That would be the brain. From there it's just neurons and more neurons. Chemicals and more chemicals. Molecules and more molecules...

Yup, and that would be an elimination of consciousness, which we know cannot be true since consciousness exists.

I don't see how it eliminates consciousness. Demonstrate this. As far as I can tell, this is a non-sequitur.

Is a copy of a book not a real book? Is a copy of a movie not a real movie? Is an ebook copy of a book originally written on paper suddenly not a book? Is an ebook that was never printed on paper a book?

Your own language portrays you: notice how you subtly move the goal post by asking "is a copy of a book not a real book?" instead of asking "is a copy of a book not the real book?" and of course we would all know the answer to that question: no. A copy of say the monalisa is not the monalisa, it's just a copy of it. It's not the real monalisa.

When we're talking about consciousness in a general sense, my language is apt. It'd be different if I were talking about specific works or people; is an AI clone of me also me, or is it not? That's an entirely different can of worms, and is not relevant to whether or not a computer replicating the process of consciousness is therefore itself conscious.

Not necessarily.

It does actually. If A and B are identical then everything true of A is true of B. Describing A would describe B. But as we can see this is not the case, so A cannot identical to B. Reductionism would have to be false.

Now who's attacking strawmen? I never said consciousness and the physical substrate that creates it are identical. The software is not the same as the hardware, But the software still needs the hardware to exist.

I don't know what your first person experience is. Strictly speaking, the only first person experience I truly know (and even that I'm dubious of) is my own

I would like to see you justify this, but quite frankly you'll only be giving the idealist the epistemological foothold. By your own epistemological commitments, the idealist has the high ground over the materialist.

Justify it? To you? :lol: You're having a hard enough time doing it yourself, and you're the one asserting that everything is mental. I don't functionally operate from that paradigm, but I do recognize that the problem of other minds cannot be overcome by logic alone.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Still waiting for an apology or acknowledgement of error here btw.

My degree is relevant to the scientific study of the mind, which is what you brought up. You brought up credentials, and it seems I have some in the relevant field. Where's yours?

You're going to credentials, not the argument. The level you have descended to is personal, not logical.

You're the one who brought up credentials, not me.

Again, this is factually not what occurred.

What actually occurred is that you wrote

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=186288#p186288

I actually have a degree in psychology....

Whereas, I had never once talked about qualifications or degrees prior to that.

However, once you appealed to your degree, I then asked you which institution of education you studied at, and you suddenly became coy and tossed out a bizarre notion that knowing the institution would somehow reveal your personal information. :lol: This is clearly bonkers - thousands of people study at university, and knowing which one you studied at would offer me not so much as a jot of information as to which of those students you supposedly are.

You appear to think that repeatedly asserting something makes it true.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=186288#p186288

See that? Yes, that's where YOU declared your qualification.

It's the 8th post in this thread.

So rather than repeat yourself ad nauseum - show where I talked about qualifications prior to that post. Given I only made TWO posts in this thread prior to that, one should imagine it would be very easy for you to show me wrong.

Go on then. I'll wait.

Come on man, don't lie like this, your comments are public. We can all see for ourselves that you're the one who descended to this level. Try addressing the actual arguments now.

So you have factually misrepresented me, then called me a liar.

I think it's perfectly reasonable of me to expect an apology, but if you cannot muster the decency to arrive at that apology, then at the very least I will annoy you long enough for you to acknowledge your error. My sense is that it would do you a world of good to acknowledge your errors more often, so consider this a community service.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Isn't that also something that a computer programmed to think like you would say?

You're literally just repeating what I already refuted. This is all you have, isn't it? repeating: "that's what the computer would say!", this is your big philosophical insight? lmao

As long as you can identify the fact that you're human and conscious and that's a computer that merely runs a program then there's no problem here. The computer can regurgitate whatever information we put in it, that's all it is: information. Humans existed before computers, computers are just copies of our behavior, like a mirror. You going to say the man in the mirror is conscious too? The man in the mirror says the same thing as me so it must be conscious like the computer!

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Still waiting for an apology or acknowledgement of error here btw.

Oh wow you failed to read my address of this, go figure. You failing to read what I write what a shock! lol

I already pointed out the context of you saying I needed to go talk to some people in neuroscience. I was merely correcting you by noting my degree, so I've already talked to such people. That's it. As we can see, it was you who brought up credentials, I was merely correcting you on something you implied about me. That's all. You can stop the autism now.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Why is it not reducible to functional states? You haven't demonstrated this.

If you had actually read it then you wouldn't be asking why. I told you why. From here you should be expressing why you disagree with my reasons rather than asking me what my reasons are... Get your story straight man: if you've read it then you should know it and already have a rebuttal.

You from your OP.

Thanks for proving me right. Nowhere am I saying that everything is fictional. Total straw man on your part. Fail.

I don't see how it eliminates consciousness. Demonstrate this.

omg I've done this so many times, you people suck at reading: Either you're saying there is a bridge you cannot gap, which means reductionism is false, or you're saying there is no bridge to gap, which means you're saying there is nothing it is like to have an experience (e.g. eliminativism). If there is a bridge to gap, you're saying there is such a thing as the hard problem of consciousness and this would entail reducitonism being false becuse if reductionism were true then there would be no hard problem of consciousness. There would be nothing to bridge, get it? If A=B then describing A describes B, but that's not the case.

When we're talking about consciousness in a general sense, my language is apt.

No it isn't at all. You're just moving the goal post. We know a copy of the original is not the original, we all know this... A copy of the real thing is not the real thing.


It does actually. If A and B are identical then everything true of A is true of B. Describing A would describe B. But as we can see this is not the case, so A cannot identical to B. Reductionism would have to be false.[/quote]

Now who's attacking strawmen?

Still you. My arguments are in If-Then statements, implies that if you affirm such and such then this is what follows.

I never said consciousness and the physical substrate that creates it are identical.

Then you are espousing non-reductive materialism. Welcome to the exclusion problem as noted in the OP. Good luck with that one.

Justify it? To you?

Yup, the claimant has the burden of proof. That's kind of how it works.

 

[Akamia]

Why is it not reducible to functional states? You haven't demonstrated this.

If you had actually read it then you wouldn't be asking why. I told you why. From here you should be expressing why you disagree with my reasons rather than asking me what my reasons are... Get your story straight man: if you've read it then you should know it and already have a rebuttal.

I didn't ask you to tell me why, I asked you to show me why. Your sources don't do it either.

You from your OP.

Thanks for proving me right. Nowhere am I saying that everything is fictional. Total straw man on your part. Fail.

No, I said that you said that everything exists in the imagination alone. Which is true. Everything is mental, remember?

I don't see how it eliminates consciousness. Demonstrate this.

omg I've done this so many times, you people suck at reading: Either you're saying there is a bridge you cannot gap, which means reductionism is false, or you're saying there is no bridge to gap, which means you're saying there is nothing it is like to have an experience (e.g. eliminativism). If there is a bridge to gap, you're saying there is such a thing as the hard problem of consciousness and this would entail reducitonism being false becuse if reductionism were true then there would be no hard problem of consciousness. There would be nothing to bridge, get it? If A=B then describing A describes B, but that's not the case.

"Bridge to gap"... For some reason, that phrase sounds backwards to me. You don't gap bridges (unless you intend to destroy said bridge), you bridge gaps.

Ironically enough, I guess gapping bridges is exactly what you're trying to do here. Yes, there are gaps that must be bridged. I'm attempting to bridge them. You're gapping the bridge I'm trying to build. It's great if you're stress-testing the bridge, but if you're just trying to destroy the bridge to be an ass, that's not okay.

When we're talking about consciousness in a general sense, my language is apt.

No it isn't at all. You're just moving the goal post. We know a copy of the original is not the original, we all know this... A copy of the real thing is not the real thing.

Notice how I added that bit about AI clone me VS organic me? Hell, the clone in question doesn't even have to be an AI for this point to hit home. That's where what you're saying here applies. Not here. A copied book is still a real book; it's just not the original book. A copied consciousness is still a real consciousness; it's just not the original consciousness.

There was no goalpost moving. This was my point all along. I don't care that a copy of the Mona Lisa is not the Mona Lisa; that is completely irrelevant to the question. It's a real painting, assuming it was, in fact, painted, but because it's copied from another one (most likely not by the original painter; in this example, Leonardo da Vinci), it's also a forgery.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Says the guy who's just joined the forum and has already tried foisting off the notion that there are sock puppets out to manipulate viewership against him.

I don't think you know what the word troll means and you really need to make peace with this fellow James who made you so butthurt in the past lol

And yet that's not trolling. It is intriguing that you brought up the notion of trolling when you have written a number of things that appear designed only to inflame emotion.

Plus there's that inconvenient fact of you just having joined the forum, meaning no one has any track record on which to base the assumption of your good conduct and intent aside from kindly lending the benefit of the doubt.

An entirely pointless non-sequitur.

Your comment about me not being correct was indeed that, which is why I had to correct it.

You were incorrect - your ability to comprehend that notwithstanding.

The fact that you made an argument doesn't mean you understood it, nor does owning that argument mean you are in a position to correct people who critique it.

If I am making a point, you don't get to go "oh that's not your point, this is your point".

Where did I do that?

And actually, who says I can't do that if I so desire?

Sorry pal, that's not how communication and debate works,...

Given the thread's progress so far, I am not sure why anyone having read your content thus far would labour under any assumption that you would know how communication or debate works, and certainly not to defer to your self-professed authority thereof.

...otherwise you're just arguing with yourself.

Or I am arguing against your contentions, and you just don't want to address them so you go into song-and-dance mode.

You don't make my points for me, those are my points, and if I tell you you're misunderstanding my point then that's a failure on your part.

Except, of course, when you wrongly declare that it's a misunderstanding on my part, because, as already identified, the mere fact you made an argument doesn't make you the arbiter of how that argument is meant to be conceived. Disputing your position necessitates me taking a position contrary to your argument, as such you don't get to simply declare that contestation a misunderstanding of your argument. Well, you can, but then this happens.

The dozens of times you've appealed to this fallacy suggests you should also learn to stop using the fallacist's fallacy. Declaring something a strawman doesn't make it a strawman.

When I give arguments from causation and monism and you start attacking epistemological arguments then you're full blown attacking straw men bro...

Your record, bro - it's stuck on the old, worn groove bro. Fallacist's fallacy, bro.

Your attacking arguments I never made.

I am critiquing what you're written and how well they coincide with arguments you've made. I am under no obligation not to hold you to consistency. Perhaps you should think a bit more before replying if you don't want to contradict yourself.

You're just shadow boxing this guy james you used to know. Deal with your past trauma already and join me in the present.

Fap.

That's about the closest you've come to having an independent thought in this thread. Congratulations.

Way to avoid the contradiction in your reasoning I just pointed out.

Which, unsurprisingly as it's becoming a routine now, never actually occurred.

Only you are allowed to assert without support?

still waiting for you to give support to that claim you made.

Thus, you do think you're entitled to assert without support while others aren't. Nice handjob you're giving yourself in public.

No, your reading comprehension is flawed. You said 'it is X' and I said 'or it is Y - either/or'

The dichotomy was X or not X, and that's always a true dichotomy. it's your reading comprehension that fails.

Clearly, you either fail at the most elementary level of reading comprehension, or you are emotionally incapable of acknowledging your errors.

Err, then it's a trichotomy.

Oh wow look at that, you can't even count too lol why am I surprised.

I dunno - maybe because you're a vapid troll who gets off on pretending he's superior to strangers on the internet and has spent years of his life refusing to notice that it's just not the case?

Sad as fuck.

Me not knowing which of the 2 is correct does not automatically create a third option. It's still either X or not X, I just don't know which one. There's only 2 X's there, champ.... yeah I think you need to step out side the discussion, you can't even count lmao

You not knowing yet still declaring P or not P is indeed a problem. It speaks of an absolutist mind unaware of itself and its own limitations.

That's just as applicable in this thread of conversation too. Your confidence is misplaced, only passionately asserted from within the limits of your imagination.

http://www.win.tue.nl/~gwoegi/P-versus-NP.htm

Regardless, the whole aside is just another misunderstanding on your part which you won't admit to even if I cite it - so let's do so again, because you seem to need the layers of the passage of time to produce the obfuscation needed to cover your failings:

No, a computer cannot be conscious

...

If anything, that's you who said that: apparently computers can be conscious according to you, even though there's no brain. Go ahead and say the computer is analogous to the brain, it's still not a brain.

It's amazing how you can go from pretending you didn't say what you actually said, to then claiming I said something I never did.

Recall that I asked you a question (How can you tell the difference between the quality of consciousness a human allegedly possesses, and the allegedly simulated consciousness a computer is limited to possess?) and no matter how hard you writhe around in gymnastics, you can't declare that a question I posed to you amounts to an affirmative statement I made.

Or do we need to just toss all forms of logic and semantic clarity out?

I neither said that computers are conscious nor that they're not (or can't be)... my interest therein was in delving into your solipsism, which is why I posed a question for you to respond to.

can computers be conscious or not? If yes then you're admitting there's consciousness without brains, if no then you're contradicting your objections to me when I object to computers being conscious lol you're just a lil contrarian for whatever I say aren't you?

Or I am contesting vapid absolutism - either/or.

Then you're literally contesting logic:

As is quite clear, you are trying to get me to take a position on whether computers are/can be conscious. I refused to take such a position because it is irrelevant for me to do so with respect to my point. I explicitly told you that.

You then once again restated the binary question I had just told you I wasn't answering.

I then pointed out that my interest is in the absolutist mindset.

The syntactic structure was:

Monistic Idealist :- either you (Sparhafoc) are saying that computers are conscious or you (Sparhafoc) are saying they are not.

And my reply was:

Sparhafoc: Or I am contesting absolutism So either you are right that I am saying computers are conscious or that I am saying they are not.... or I am saying something completely different which you ignored and pretended I wasn't saying.

I surmise that the reason you elected to run away with this is because it gives you another opportunity to bolster your own sense of self-worth by superciliously haranguing complete strangers on the internet.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Isn't that also something that a computer programmed to think like you would say?

You're literally just repeating what I already refuted. This is all you have, isn't it? repeating: "that's what the computer would say!", this is your big philosophical insight? lmao

Refuted?

:lol:

Saying 'nuhh uh' is not a refutation - it's a denial.

As long as you can identify the fact that you're human and conscious and that's a computer that merely runs a program then there's no problem here.

Amazing how much effort you're putting into not engaging in this.

If a computer can identify it's a computer and conscious, then....

The computer can regurgitate whatever information we put in it, that's all it is: information. Humans existed before computers, computers are just copies of our behavior, like a mirror.

Mention what their cases are made of too - that's just as relevant to the point.

You going to say the man in the mirror is conscious too? The man in the mirror says the same thing as me so it must be conscious like the computer!

The lengths some brains will go to in order to protect their shallow conceptions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Still waiting for an apology or acknowledgement of error here btw.

Oh wow you failed to read my address of this, go figure. You failing to read what I write what a shock! lol

It's cited right there.

Doubling down is not going to change the factual order of events.

I already pointed out the context of you saying I needed to go talk to some people in neuroscience. I was merely correcting you by noting my degree, so I've already talked to such people. That's it. As we can see, it was you who brought up credentials, I was merely correcting you on something you implied about me. That's all. You can stop the autism now.

Clearly you are lying through your teeth.

At no point did any of the above happen except that you declared you had a degree.

You can instantly show me wrong by citing where I said you need to go talk to some people in neuroscience.

As I've already written and just cited - this should be very easy for you given I had only made 2 posts in this thread before you started waving your whanger about.


So yeah, tell me more about how I'm the liar, the troll, the sock-puppet.

 

[Sparhafoc]

omg I've done this so many times, you people suck at reading:

You people: did you want to expose your trolling now, or were you hoping to retain some semblance of doubt?

Yep, it's everyone else's fault that they don't get what the guy says, not remotely his responsibility for presenting a cogent argument.

And given the repeated failures with respect to this guy's reading comprehension, methinks Dunning and Kruger have something to say here.

 

[Akamia]

I think I need to address a couple of elephants in the room.

Monistic Idealism, it was not Sparhafoc who suggested you talk to neuroscientists. That was Ghost Knight.

Spar, when you referred to Monistic as "James", I looked through the thread. He never said his name was James. That was Dragan Glas in his customary signature after every post.

Carry on.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I think I need to address a couple of elephants in the room.

Monistic Idealism, it was not Sparhafoc who suggested you talk to neuroscientists. That was Ghost Knight.

Indeed, but it's an interesting aside on the problem of solipsism I was waiting for our chap to acknowledge.

Even his acknowledgement will still bring us back to the question as to which university he studied at - all of this dramatic hand-waving seems to be a result of suddenly being coy when asked to substantiate his claim to qualifications.

Spar, when you referred to Monistic as "James", I looked through the thread. He never said his name was James. That was Dragan Glas.

Ahh, that's quite a different topic, Akamia, but suffice it to say that I wasn't mistaking Dragan Glas' signature for Monistic Idealism's post.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Onanistic idealism; but why won't anyone join me?

this place is a circle jerk

oh no the circle jerk of physicalists disagree with me?? oh no, what will I do!

First things first, you'd have to stop tugging on your own tadger if you want to enjoy the company of others.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is painfully obvious, everybody gets this but you.

If you have a test for A that always gives the answer A even when it is not A, then you don't have a teat for A.

Conscious is no exception. If you have a test for conscious that given to a computer cocludes that it is conscious, then it's not a test for conscious. Since there is nothing you can think that I can not make a computer do as well. There's nothing you can refer to to justify the assertion that you are conscious, even if you are convinced of it.

This is not a point that you can ignore. It directly comes from the single most important result from epistemology, it's a point that reduces the rest of the field of philosophy as a mere exercise in masturbation disguised as knowledge.
You can ignore it at your own peril.
I need not convince you, I need only to prove my point.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This is painfully obvious, everybody gets this but you.

If you have a test for A that always gives the answer A even when it is not A, then you don't have a teat for A.

Conscious is no exception. If you have a test for conscious that given to a computer cocludes that it is conscious, then it's not a test for conscious. Since there is nothing you can think that I can not make a computer do as well. There's nothing you can refer to to justify the assertion that you are conscious, even if you are convinced of it.

This is not a point that you can ignore. It directly comes from the single most important result from epistemology, it's a point that reduces the rest of the field of philosophy as a mere exercise in masturbation disguised as knowledge.
You can ignore it at your own peril.
I need not convince you, I need only to prove my point.

Experimentation!!!??

You sully the good name of Philosophy, sir!

As if we lofty philosophers should get our hands mucky dredging around in mundane reality!

No, sir. I beseech you in the very bowels of Christ to understand:, if one can think it and say it, then it must be true.

 

[Akamia]

Still you. My arguments are in If-Then statements, implies that if you affirm such and such then this is what follows.

I know they are If-Then statements. I didn't say otherwise. The strawman is that you apparently think I said that consciousness and brains are the same thing. I never said that. Not even once.

I never said consciousness and the physical substrate that creates it are identical.

Then you are espousing non-reductive materialism. Welcome to the exclusion problem as noted in the OP. Good luck with that one.

Your "exclusion problem" is nonsense. You might as well say that software in computers doesn't exist. Crack open a Mega Man X SNES cartridge and show me exactly where Vile from the intro stage is supposed to be. Pull your hard drive out of your computer and tell me the specific part of the disk that is your OS.

Justify it? To you?

Yup, the claimant has the burden of proof. That's kind of how it works.

I'm not the claimant, though. I'm not the one who thinks other minds don't exist. I don't accept the problem of hard solipsism (or as you call it, the problem of other minds).

But from a purely philosophical standpoint, the problem cannot be overcome. Although to take things a step further, as has been pointed out by others, there's even room for doubt that solipsism is true from a philosophical perspective; we cannot possibly know that we are a simulation ourselves. Most of us don't even think about it, some of us because the idea seems to offer no utility whatsoever. I don't see solipsism as offering utility either.

I've dismissed solipsism as irrelevant for this reason. I'm on the edge of dismissing idealism – or at least your brand of it – as such also.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Still you. My arguments are in If-Then statements, implies that if you affirm such and such then this is what follows.

I know they are If-Then statements. I didn't say otherwise. The strawman is that you apparently think I said that consciousness and brains are the same thing. I never said that. Not even once.

Whereas there are several instances where MI extended an analogous form of response which did in fact attempt to put them in the same set.

Don't worry, we're all watching the hand with the bunny rabbit in it!

Then you are espousing non-reductive materialism. Welcome to the exclusion problem as noted in the OP. Good luck with that one.

Your "exclusion problem" is nonsense. You might as well say that software in computers doesn't exist. Crack open a Mega Man X SNES cartridge and show me exactly where Vile from the intro stage is supposed to be. Pull your hard drive out of your computer and tell me the specific part of the disk that is your OS.

MI's got a bunch of pigeon-holes he's looking for pigeons to fill, so he's not going to notice how you provide actual substantive tailored rebuttal to his claims.

But from a purely philosophical standpoint, the problem cannot be overcome. Although to take things a step further, as has been pointed out by others, there's even room for doubt that solipsism is true from a philosophical perspective; we cannot possibly know that we are a simulation ourselves. Most of us don't even think about it, some of us because the idea seems to offer no utility whatsoever. I don't see solipsism as offering utility either.

Or, in fact, idealism altogether. Even if we just simply ignore all the problems identified, accept all the premises as true, and genuflect intellect on the altar of credulity to accept the conclusion... then what? What glorious new vistas have opened before us? Jesus? :lol: