The Case for Idealism

[Akamia]

You came to a new forum that has tons of posting history and engage with several of those users whom also have posting history predating your arrival and believing them all to be conscious. Yet when it is possible that one of those users could be a bot, now you believe that one of us predicted you would come here, thus set something like that up to trap you?

Some of those accounts were created not long after I created my post, and they come in here defending another user out of nowhere in the middle of the conversation rather than addressing the OP. There's old accounts that never posted, yet all of a sudden are posting as well, again defending other users. So strange how defensive these random people are of certain users... how odd... is the tribalism really that strong here? yeah that doesn't look like sock account behavior at all hahah

Now this is an interesting comment...

Do tell, who are these dubious accounts that appear to have been created shortly after your arrival? :lol: Because as far as I am aware, everyone who has responded to you thus far has been here far longer than you, and have been at least somewhat active in the past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Do tell, who are these dubious accounts that appear to have been created shortly after your arrival?

Hmmm how strange you suddenly pop into this thread out of nowhere after all this time. Why the sudden interest...? How did you even know this conversation was going on...? You just all of a sudden are in the conversation now and defending another user hmmmmmm this doesn't look suspicious at all lol

Anyway, to answer your question: Exogen's account popped up out of nowhere just after this thread was created and for quite awhile made posts exclusively in this thread and defended those like Dragan Glas a few times. Momo's account is old but never made any posts until all of a sudden they jump in the middle of this thread and are all of a sudden so talkative and defensive of those like Dragan Glas. Hmmmmmmm what a coincidence! Nothing fishy here!

 

[Akamia]

Hmmm how strange you suddenly pop into this thread out of nowhere after all this time. Why the sudden interest...?

You amuse me.

How did you even know this conversation was going on...?

I’ve been reading the conversation all along. I don’t know if you noticed, but my name is quite regularly on the “Users Online” list; I read all the unread posts that show up. Given activity here is usually quite low, this is not such a daunting task as it is with some other forum sites I frequent.

You just all of a sudden are in the conversation now and defending another user hmmmmmm this doesn't look suspicious at all lol

What makes you think I’m defending anyone? I didn’t drop any names, and frankly, most of the userbase here, especially those that have become your opponents throughout this thread, are quite capable of defending themselves. They sure as hell don’t need my help.

Anyway, to answer your question: Exogen's account popped up out of nowhere just after this thread was created and for quite awhile made posts exclusively in this thread and defended those like Dragan Glas a few times. Momo's account is old but never made any posts until all of a sudden they jump in the middle of this thread and are all of a sudden so talkative and defensive of those like Dragan Glas. Hmmmmmmm what a coincidence! Nothing fishy here!

I happen to know Momo has his share of threads that he started himself. The way he writes his posts is also very, very different from that of Dragan’s.

As for Exogen, well... turns out you are correct in that his account is younger than your thread, but that alone is laughably insufficient evidence of sock puppetry. He doesn’t write the same way any of the rest of us do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I’ve been reading the conversation all along.

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

What makes you think I’m defending anyone?

You're jumping in the middle of a conversation with another user and stepping in on their behalf to answer what I said to them, like a lawyer.

frankly, most of the userbase here, especially those that have become your opponents throughout this thread, are quite capable of defending themselves.

But how strange it is that they are so defensive of each other hmmmm everyone's just so altruistic and defends each other, yet nobody steps in for me hmmm yeah that's not strange lol if this place is so full of people defending each other why am I all of a sudden left out of the altruism of this site? haha

I happen to know Momo has his share of threads that he started himself. The way he writes his posts is also very, very different from that of Dragan’s.

So the guy just goes awol all this time and pops half a year later just to post in this thread and then go on to defend another user cuz he's just so altruistic haha like sock accounts don't deliberately write differently to throw off the scent, come on man

As for Exogen, well... turns out you are correct in that his account is younger than your thread, but that alone is laughably insufficient evidence of sock puppetry. He doesn’t write the same way any of the rest of us do.

Laughable? Yeah right, it's suspicious as hell. It stinks when you add that up plus the behavior I mentioned.

 

[Akamia]

I’ve been reading the conversation all along.

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

I don't see sufficient reason to give you the play-by-play – that would just take too long – but to sum up, Exogen got fed up with you and dropped the topic, Dragan Glas pressed you further about the consciousness of hypothetical holograms then began discussing the idea of the mind being something the whole body does and is not limited to the brain, Sparhafoc drops in on occasion to take potshots at your expense (which I find hilarious, by the way. :lol, Momo is pressing you to define "I" and appears to be increasingly frustrated that you do not acknowledge when he says that "for god's sake" is not solely used as an idiom, but is used in the literal sense as well. HWIN is also giving you a hard time about the problem of hard solipsism and your insistent terminology.

What makes you think I’m defending anyone?

You're jumping in the middle of a conversation with another user and stepping in on their behalf to answer what I said to them, like a lawyer.

I did play Ace Attorney visual novels for a good portion of my life, and was once a volunteer attorney for a local youth court before I became too old, so perhaps it's a habit I picked up. In the latter case, I was a prosecutor, though.

frankly, most of the userbase here, especially those that have become your opponents throughout this thread, are quite capable of defending themselves.

But how strange it is that they are so defensive of each other hmmmm everyone's just so altruistic and defends each other, yet nobody steps in for me hmmm yeah that's not strange lol if this place is so full of people defending each other why am I all of a sudden left out of the altruism of this site? haha

Maybe because you have nothing worth defending, maybe because you're a dishonest asshole... Could be both...

I think it's less altruism and more a general consensus of the active userbase that your case has more holes than a cheese grater and just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The most damning thing about it is that you don't seem capable of demonstrating any of it, instead trying to convince us with brute logical force. It doesn't work that way here; you're making claims that need to be verified with evidence. Argument alone will not cut it.

I happen to know Momo has his share of threads that he started himself. The way he writes his posts is also very, very different from that of Dragan’s.

So the guy just goes awol all this time and pops half a year later just to post in this thread and then go on to defend another user cuz he's just so altruistic haha like sock accounts don't deliberately write differently to throw off the scent, come on man

It's not like I know what he gets up to in his downtime. Who do you think I am, his roommate?
He didn't come here defending anyone; he just wants to know what you mean by "I", and you've been very dodgy about answering his question.

As for Exogen, well... turns out you are correct in that his account is younger than your thread, but that alone is laughably insufficient evidence of sock puppetry. He doesn’t write the same way any of the rest of us do.

Laughable? Yeah right, it's suspicious as hell. It stinks when you add that up plus the behavior I mentioned.

Not really. Be as suspicious as you like, but as always, there is a report option if you genuinely think someone's a sock. The mods take that pretty seriously 'round here.

But let's say you're right, let's say all these people are socks of one or two other people; what would that achieve? Why do you think anyone would do that here? We had maybe one person verifiably use socks within the last two years. Not sure what his motivations were for the first sock, but he and his two socks are banned now; both of them were ultimately used to evade a ban, and only the second one was certainly created for that purpose.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I don't see sufficient reason to give you the play-by-play

but to sum up, Exogen got fed up with you and dropped the topic

What was the topic? Doesn't really matter now, this gave you enough time to read more I'm sure. Interesting how he refused to answer my question for clarification though. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

Dragan Glas pressed you further about the consciousness of hypothetical holograms then began discussing the idea of the mind being something the whole body does and is not limited to the brain

Oh yeah I remember catching Dragan Glas in a bad misreading of Chalmers when he tried to claim that the holographic model is more plausible until direct quotes proves that wasn't the case, among many other things. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

Sparhafoc drops in on occasion to take potshots at your expense (which I find hilarious, by the way. :lol

I thought it was hilarious when Dr. Chalmers had to correct his reading comprehension in regards to idealism not being greatly less plausible than other views hahah I noticed he got real silent after that for quite some time. Funny how you don't call him out on that....

Momo is pressing you to define "I" and appears to be increasingly frustrated that you do not acknowledge when he says that "for god's sake" is not solely used as an idiom, but is used in the literal sense as well.

What's funny is he admitted I defined "I" yet he just moves the goal post to other philosophical issues. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

HWIN is also giving you a hard time about the problem of hard solipsism and your insistent terminology.

I've noted that, like momo, he's moving the goal post to another fundamental issue that isn't relevant to the case for monistic idealism. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

noticing a pattern, here...? Things get weirder when you mention this:

I did play Ace Attorney visual novels for a good portion of my life, and was once a volunteer attorney for a local youth court before I became too old, so perhaps it's a habit I picked up.

Oh so in one instance you want to play it low key like "well who is defending who? whatever could you be talking about?" to now you're trying to say you've been a defender this whole time, yet you only seem to be defending those that aren't me... how strange... So you lurk the whole time, you see everything that goes on here, and you're apparently this big defender this whole time, yet you can't even play devil's advocate and step in and talk to the other people on how I might be right about a few things and how they're potentially wrong on a few things...? really? Either this is some hardcore sockpuppetry or some hardcore tribalism around here. Neither option looks good for any of you guys...

Maybe because you have nothing worth defending

Oh yes so everyone else but me has something worth defending haha the guy who actually gives formal arguments and cites scholarly sources and has contemporary research and the latest articles going through the rigors of peer-review has nothing to defend, not even by the guy who has a habit of defending people, but every other random user with no sources or anything deserves this altruism hahaha the more you speak the worse this gets for you man. You just keep digging your grave deeper and deeper.

maybe because you're a dishonest asshole.

Oh so now I'm dishonest. Do tell how I'm dishonest. Where have I lied? You've read everything in here apparently, show me what you've got.

I think it's less altruism and more a general consensus of the active userbase

Except we have accounts that aren't active like momo, and some not part of some community since they were created after my thread like exogen, so this contradicts the narrative you're trying to spin here. Funny how they all think the same but aren't even around. Pure coincidence though amirite? fuck occam's razor

The most damning thing about it is that you don't seem capable of demonstrating any of it, instead trying to convince us with brute logical force

I thought you had experience being a lawyer or something, you know there's higher and lower standards for the burden of proof given various circumstances. A rape victim can't always demonstrate she was raped for instance, we can't go back in time and see it for ourselves. We rely on her testimony and whatever other pieces of evidence we can pick up to infer who the rapist is. We can't perform some experiment, or replicate the phenomenon that we are studying here, so we just have to use logic to piece it together. This is what detectives do. it's not a priori brute logical force, its the nature of dealing with sockpuppetry and you know this...

It doesn't work that way here; you're making claims that need to be verified with evidence. Argument alone will not cut it.

I thought you've been reading the conversation this whole time, bud. We defined proof long ago. Definition of proof: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

It's not like I know what he gets up to in his downtime. Who do you think I am, his roommate?

But you just know the guy, even though barely posted in the past and he hasn't said a thing in half a year. Uh-huh, sure

He didn't come here defending anyone; he just wants to know what you mean by "I", and you've been very dodgy about answering his question.

He did defend someone though or at the least as I recalled piggy backed off what another said: "well as userx said, blah blah blah" that is very typical sockpuppetry. Even wiki states sockpuppetry is: "originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person"

Not really.

You can go ahead and just turn up your skepticism dial but that doesn't refute the points I've made. I'm not a punk, I don't report people or try to get people banned or censored, I just like to reveal the truth.

But let's say you're right, let's say all these people are socks of one or two other people; what would that achieve

Why do you care so much? What are you achieving? This exact line of questioning applies to you just as much as it applies to me. Say you're right, and they're not; what would that achieve...? Why are you stepping into a random conversation on behalf of another if you really have this cavalier attitude? Could it be that your line of questioning here is disingenuous? Now why would you do such a thing if you weren't an earnest seeker of the truth? Could it possibly be that you have the integrity of a person that would stoop to using a sock account? by heaven, noooo

I just want to reveal the truth, and I'm noticing patterns, and so I'm going to say something.

 

[Akamia]

I don't see sufficient reason to give you the play-by-play

but to sum up, Exogen got fed up with you and dropped the topic

What was the topic? Doesn't really matter now, this gave you enough time to read more I'm sure. Interesting how he refused to answer my question for clarification though. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

Doesn't matter to me. It's not my fight.

Dragan Glas pressed you further about the consciousness of hypothetical holograms then began discussing the idea of the mind being something the whole body does and is not limited to the brain

Oh yeah I remember catching Dragan Glas in a bad misreading of Chalmers when he tried to claim that the holographic model is more plausible until direct quotes proves that wasn't the case, among many other things. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

Is there any reason I should? That ship sailed. It's also not my fight. Doesn't matter to me.

Sparhafoc drops in on occasion to take potshots at your expense (which I find hilarious, by the way. :lol

I thought it was hilarious when Dr. Chalmers had to correct his reading comprehension in regards to idealism not being greatly less plausible than other views hahah I noticed he got real silent after that for quite some time. Funny how you don't call him out on that....

See above. Not my problem.

Momo is pressing you to define "I" and appears to be increasingly frustrated that you do not acknowledge when he says that "for god's sake" is not solely used as an idiom, but is used in the literal sense as well.

What's funny is he admitted I defined "I" yet he just moves the goal post to other philosophical issues. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

What I find is that yes, he admitted you defined it; but he thinks the definition you supplied sucks, and wants a better one.

Also, not my problem.

HWIN is also giving you a hard time about the problem of hard solipsism and your insistent terminology.

I've noted that, like momo, he's moving the goal post to another fundamental issue that isn't relevant to the case for monistic idealism. Funny how you don't call him out on that...

Not my fuckin' problem, friend.

You asked me to show you that I had been reading. This is plenty to show you that I have. I'm not gonna do the hokey-pokey just because you want to additionally question my motives. You don't have that kind of standing with me.

noticing a pattern, here...?

Yeah. A measure of apathy, because you pointing out this, that, or the other thing about what I've noted about my reading throughout this thread has nothing to do with what you've asked me to do.

Things get weirder when you mention this:

I did play Ace Attorney visual novels for a good portion of my life, and was once a volunteer attorney for a local youth court before I became too old, so perhaps it's a habit I picked up.

Oh so in one instance you want to play it low key like "well who is defending who? whatever could you be talking about?" to now you're trying to say you've been a defender this whole time, yet you only seem to be defending those that aren't me... how strange... So you lurk the whole time, you see everything that goes on here, and you're apparently this big defender this whole time, yet you can't even play devil's advocate and step in and talk to the other people on how I might be right about a few things and how they're potentially wrong on a few things...? really? Either this is some hardcore sockpuppetry or some hardcore tribalism around here. Neither option looks good for any of you guys...

I never said I was a defender. The fact I play Ace Attorney tells you nothing on its own. You also lopped off the next sentence that explicitly clarifies my usual position. I'm more of a prosecutor than a defense attorney.

Incidentally, my taste in Ace Attorney titles reflects this; I'm a fan of the Ace Attorney Investigations spinoff games primarily, which feature a prosecutor as the protagonist, as opposed to the series's usual defense attorney protagonists.

Also, now that I think about it, I don't know a whole lot of real life lawyers who do what you describe. Maybe that doesn't happen where I live, or maybe I'm ignorant because I don't get out much anymore.

Maybe because you have nothing worth defending

-snip-

:roll: Spare me.

maybe because you're a dishonest asshole.

Oh so now I'm dishonest. Do tell how I'm dishonest. Where have I lied? You've read everything in here apparently, show me what you've got.

Lying is not the sole form dishonesty takes, you know. :lol: You've repeatedly mined quotes from various people in this thread, myself included just two segments ago. Normally I apply Hanlon's Razor, but I think it's becoming increasingly clear that you do that deliberately.

I think it's less altruism and more a general consensus of the active userbase

Except we have accounts that aren't active like momo, and some not part of some community since they were created after my thread like exogen, so this contradicts the narrative you're trying to spin here. Funny how they all think the same but aren't even around. Pure coincidence though amirite? fuck occam's razor

I don't see how it contradicts anything I've said. I count them as part of the active userbase mostly because, having made multiple posts in this thread and others since dealing with you, they became active accounts, if only for a relatively short time.

The most damning thing about it is that you don't seem capable of demonstrating any of it, instead trying to convince us with brute logical force

I thought you had experience being a lawyer or something, you know there's higher and lower standards for the burden of proof given various circumstances. A rape victim can't actually demonstrate she was raped if she never got a test done and so we just have to rely on her testimony and the other bits of information to find a best explanation for the evidence we have. This is what detectives do. it's not a priori brute logical force, its the nature of dealing with sockpuppetry and you know this...

I am aware there are differing standards of evidence for different circumstances. The problem is you don't understand that the standard of evidence you think applies to your case doesn't actually apply here.

It doesn't work that way here; you're making claims that need to be verified with evidence. Argument alone will not cut it.

I thought you've been reading the conversation this whole time, bud. We defined proof long ago. Definition of proof: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Notice that I did not use the word "proof" at all in that statement; I used "argument" and "evidence". These are two very different things, and if you have any hope of convincing any of us here that your case holds, you need both.

It's not like I know what he gets up to in his downtime. Who do you think I am, his roommate?

But you just know the guy, even though barely posted in the past and he hasn't said a thing in half a year. Uh-huh, sure

I don't see how you got the impression that I know him any better than I know you. To me, he's just another poster who sometimes has something to say when he shows up.

He didn't come here defending anyone; he just wants to know what you mean by "I", and you've been very dodgy about answering his question.

He did defend someone though or at the least as I recalled piggy backed off what another said: "well as userx said, blah blah blah" that is very typical sockpuppetry. Even wiki states sockpuppetry is: "originally referred to a false identity assumed by a member of an Internet community who spoke to, or about, themselves while pretending to be another person"

I'm starting to get the impression you wouldn't know a sockpuppet if one came up and kicked you in the jewels on the street.

Not really.

You can go ahead and just turn up your skepticism dial but that doesn't refute the points I've made. I'm not a punk, I don't report people or try to get people banned or censored, I just like to reveal the truth.

So far, your track record for "revealing the truth" is profoundly lacking...

But let's say you're right, let's say all these people are socks of one or two other people; what would that achieve

Why do you care so much? What are you achieving? This exact line of questioning applies to you just as much as it applies to me. Say you're right, and they're not; what would that achieve...? Why are you stepping into a random conversation on behalf of another if you really have this cavalier attitude? Could it be that your line of questioning here is disingenuous? Now why would you do such a thing if you weren't an earnest seeker of the truth? Could it possibly be that you have the integrity of a person that would stoop to using a sock account? by heaven, noooo

I just want to reveal the truth, and I'm noticing patterns, and so I'm going to say something.

I'm seeing a different pattern entirely. You're looking at all the dissenting posts and trying to excuse them all as one or two people at a time coming in to destroy your case out of spite or... something, and you just don't want to think this many people actually think your case is bunk.

I do not believe for one minute that you really want to "reveal the truth". Thus far, you have done nothing of the sort.

What this line of questioning achieves, though? Well, for me, it's personal amusement to a degree, as I find the idea that you think one person runs like 5 or 6 socks on a relatively obscure forum for the sole purpose of tormenting people they disagree with utterly absurd, and I like to watch you try and fail to make that case, and laugh at the excuses you come up with when you decide not to put your money where your mouth is.

I know I'm not a sock account. I know none of these other wonderful gentlemen are sock accounts within the boundaries of certainty that I can work with realistically on the internet. But if you have evidence otherwise, well, by all means, put it forward. I'm interested, but admittedly, your case on this front doesn't look promising in the slightest, which is why I'm amused that it keeps coming up.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Doesn't matter to me. It's not my fight. ...Is there any reason I should? That ship sailed. It's also not my fight. Doesn't matter to me.... See above. Not my problem....

Then why the hell are you here butting into someone else's conversation fighting for them? If this isn't your fight then why are you fighting?

What I find is that yes, he admitted you defined it; but he thinks the definition you supplied sucks, and wants a better one.

ooooh I see, so when it comes to momo now it is your problem. When it comes to the faults of the other users you shrug them off as "not my problem" but when it comes to momo you come to the rescue. How interesting.... Weird how you're stepping into another person's conversation as if its your problem yet when it comes to those "other users" it's not your problem.... interesting indeed...

The fact is I've gotten him to admit that he already understands the "I" since he himself uses it the very same way I do and even distinguishes himself from me. Kind of impossible to distinguish yourself from another if you have literally 0 understanding of the self lol

Yeah. A measure of apathy, because you pointing out this, that, or the other thing about what I've noted about my reading throughout this thread has nothing to do with what you've asked me to do.

no... the pattern is you claim to be ignoring the faults of others because its "not your fight" yet here you are barging into someone else's conversation and fighting just as if its your fight... your double standards are blatant...

I never said I was a defender. The fact I play Ace Attorney

Yeah exactly, you like to play attorney, you like to play the lawyer. You said this in the context of defending others yet I've shown these double standards of yours so it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'm more of a prosecutor than a defense attorney.

yeah except when its not your fight, but somehow this is your fight while also not being your fight... lmao make up your mind

:roll: Spare me.

Not an argument, Ace. You're telling me there's not a single thing the others said in here that you disagree with? You agree with everything the other users in here have said?? Seriously? You think every single sentence I've stated is wrong? There's nothing I've said that was correct, even when those like Dr. David Chalmers have actually proven me correct in a verified email before? Are you this driven by tribalism and ego that you can't acknowledge the truth this badly? Come on...

Lying is not the sole form dishonesty takes, you know. :lol:

So in other words you have no quotes or anything of me lying. Nice. Weren't you the guy going on about how "we want evidence for our claims not arguments blah blah" lol

You've repeatedly mined quotes from various people in this thread, myself included just two segments ago.

You mistaken me quoting a section of what you say as an indicator for what I'm responding to as some kind of distortion of what you're saying. that doesn't happen at all. I just feel no need to waste the space.

I don't see how it contradicts anything I've said.

A person can't be "part of this community" if their account didn't even exist until after my thread came up. You're putting the cart before the horse. Your explanation would make sense if they existed before the thread, but they didn't. Second, you brought up active, yet those like mamo aren't active. They haven't said shit in half a year. Showing up once a year is not "active", come on man... you're objectivity has been soooo compromised. this is explained either by a defense of the self (sock puppetry) or tribalism, neither looks good.

I am aware there are differing standards of evidence for different circumstances.

Then you must know your demands for "demonstrating" are absurd, even that emphasis I pointed out from you shows this. You've probably heard of deductive and inductive reasoning. Well what I'm doing is what detectives like Holmes is doing: abductive reasoning: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

I'm like a detective putting the pieces together to make an inference to the best explanation.

Notice that I did not use the word "proof" at all in that statement; I used "argument" and "evidence".

Did you not read the definition? What you're talking about by definition is proof...

I don't see how you got the impression that I know him any better than I know you. To me, he's just another poster who sometimes has something to say when he shows up.

Then why were you acting like you knew the guy like it was some sort of vouch for him if he's such a stranger?

I'm starting to get the impression you wouldn't know a sockpuppet if one came up and kicked you in the jewels on the street.

Again, not an argument. You can roll your eyes and be passive aggressive but that doesn't refute my arguments.

So far, your track record for "revealing the truth" is profoundly lacking...

Actually I have a great track record. There's been plenty of times when Dragan Glas has even apologized to me and admitted he was mistaken and I was right on a few things. Even Dr. Chalmers confirmed I was right about the meaning of his comments in a recent paper, and quite frankly most of what I've been arguing for in regards to idealism is perfectly in line with contemporary research. So if you think the experts are wrong, by all means show how they're wrong. I'm just launching off what they say and making a new inference. If I'm wrong everywhere then they're wrong.

What this line of questioning achieves, though? Well, for me, it's personal amusement to a degree, as I find the idea that you think one person runs like 5 or 6 socks on a relatively obscure forum for the sole purpose of tormenting people they disagree with utterly absurd, and I like to watch you try and fail to make that case, and laugh at the excuses you come up with when you decide not to put your money where your mouth is.

How am I not putting my money where my mouth is? I've given you good reasons with premises that even you had to admit were true like the date of that users account which just so happened to coincide with the creation of my thread. You're just violating occam's razor with your lazy appeal to coincidences on top of coincidences. I didn't say there's 5 or 6, but I suspect there's are at 1 or more sockpuppets in here and that if not then there's some blatant tribalism going on here which is a bad look on your guys' part.

I know none of these other wonderful gentlemen are sock accounts within the boundaries of certainty that I can work with realistically on the internet.

Notice the emphasis there. Funny how you fail to grant me this very same charity you afford yourself. I've given you reasons for my suspicions. If there aren't any sockpuppets then I've at the very least provided evidence of some clear biases you guys have in favor of each other which puts you at a disadvantage to objectively asses their arguments. You're too busy defending the tribe. Even if they aren't you, you defend them as if they are you because you identify with them. Hence why you're here now.

 

[Akamia]

Doesn't matter to me. It's not my fight. ...Is there any reason I should? That ship sailed. It's also not my fight. Doesn't matter to me.... See above. Not my problem....

Then why the hell are you here butting into someone else's conversation fighting for them? If this isn't your fight then why are you fighting?

The fight I'm fighting at this time is specifically with regard to your sock account nonsense, which, since I am one of the dissenting voices in the thread, is my problem. That other crap? Not my problem.

What I find is that yes, he admitted you defined it; but he thinks the definition you supplied sucks, and wants a better one.

ooooh I see, so when it comes to momo now it is your problem. When it comes to the faults of the other users you shrug them off as "not my problem" but when it comes to momo you come to the rescue. How interesting.... Weird how you're stepping into another person's conversation as if its your problem yet when it comes to those "other users" it's not your problem.... interesting indeed...

I'm not coming to his rescue. I'm not sitting here, demanding in his place that you supply a better definition than you're giving. I agree with him that your definition sucks, incidentally, but I'm not fighting his battle for him. He can do that himself. The fact that you seem to think of us as some weird hive mind, however, is making me laugh.

Yeah. A measure of apathy, because you pointing out this, that, or the other thing about what I've noted about my reading throughout this thread has nothing to do with what you've asked me to do.

no... the pattern is you claim to be ignoring the faults of others because its "not your fight" yet here you are barging into someone else's conversation and fighting just as if its your fight... your double standards are blatant...

Nope.

I never said I was a defender. The fact I play Ace Attorney

Yeah exactly, you like to play attorney, you like to play the lawyer. You said this in the context of defending others yet I've shown these double standards of yours so it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Does the fact that I also play Monster Hunter make me a dragon slayer, too?

I'd drop this angle if I were you, but... :|

I'm more of a prosecutor than a defense attorney.

yeah except when its not your fight, but somehow this is your fight while also not being your fight... lmao make up your mind

I already made up my mind. I'm targeting your "sock puppet" claims.

:roll: Spare me.

Not an argument, Ace. You're telling me there's not a single thing the others said in here that you disagree with? You agree with everything the other users in here have said?? Seriously?

I already addressed that stuff. They made mistakes too. For the moment, I do not care. I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about you.

Lying is not the sole form dishonesty takes, you know. :lol:

-snip-

I'm not gonna dignify this with a response beyond this: I didn't claim you were lying to begin with; claiming you are dishonest is more broad than mere lying. You may or may not have lied, but that's not the dishonesty I am referring to.

You've repeatedly mined quotes from various people in this thread, myself included just two segments ago.

You mistaken me quoting a section of what you say as an indicator for what I'm responding to as some kind of distortion of what you're saying. that doesn't happen at all. I just feel no need to waste the space.

Except the stuff you leave out affects the meaning of what remains. Leaving that stuff in is important. The fact that your responses consistently ignore the stuff you leave out tells me that it is indeed a distortion of what I and others are saying to you.

I don't see how it contradicts anything I've said.

A person can't be "part of this community" if their account didn't even exist until after my thread came up. You're putting the cart before the horse. Your explanation would make sense if they existed before the thread, but they didn't. Second, you brought up active, yet those like mamo aren't active. They haven't said shit in half a year. Showing up once a year is not "active", come on man... you're objectivity has been soooo compromised. this is explained either by a defense of the self (sock puppetry) or tribalism, neither looks good.

I think we just have differing standards of "active". I don't agree with yours.

I am aware there are differing standards of evidence for different circumstances.

Then you must know your demands for "demonstrating" are absurd, even that emphasis I pointed out from you shows this. You've probably heard of deductive and inductive reasoning. Well what I'm doing is what detectives like Holmes is doing: abductive reasoning: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

I'm like a detective putting the pieces together to make an inference to the best explanation.

Well, considering you somehow managed to fool yourself into believing 5+ people are actually maybe 1 or 2 people controlling multiple accounts at once, I think your method has some serious flaws in it.

Notice that I did not use the word "proof" at all in that statement; I used "argument" and "evidence".

Did you not read the definition? What you're talking about by definition is proof...

Did you not read the definition? They are both "proof" by that definition, but I am talking about them like the separate things that they are. I'm not going to speak of them as if they are one and the same; they are not.

I don't see how you got the impression that I know him any better than I know you. To me, he's just another poster who sometimes has something to say when he shows up.

Then why were you acting like you knew the guy like it was some sort of vouch for him if he's such a stranger?

You're reading something into what I said that simply isn't there.

I'm starting to get the impression you wouldn't know a sockpuppet if one came up and kicked you in the jewels on the street.

Again, not an argument. You can roll your eyes and be passive aggressive but that doesn't refute my arguments.

What you said there wasn't worth an argument.

So far, your track record for "revealing the truth" is profoundly lacking...

Actually I have a great track record. There's been plenty of times when Dragan Glas has even apologized to me and admitted he was mistaken and I was right on a few things. Even Dr. Chalmers confirmed I was right about the meaning of his comments in a recent paper, and quite frankly most of what I've been arguing for in regards to idealism is perfectly in line with contemporary research. So if you think the experts are wrong, by all means show how they're wrong. I'm just launching off what they say and making a new inference. If I'm wrong everywhere then they're wrong.

A broken clock is right twice a day too, you know... :roll: Though I question how much of that is accurate, this is getting away from my central point: Your asinine claims of sockpuppetry.

What this line of questioning achieves, though? Well, for me, it's personal amusement to a degree, as I find the idea that you think one person runs like 5 or 6 socks on a relatively obscure forum for the sole purpose of tormenting people they disagree with utterly absurd, and I like to watch you try and fail to make that case, and laugh at the excuses you come up with when you decide not to put your money where your mouth is.

How am I not putting my money where my mouth is? I've given you good reasons with premises that even you had to admit were true like the date of that users account which just so happened to coincide with the creation of my thread. You're just violating occam's razor with your lazy appeal to coincidences on top of coincidences. I didn't say there's 5 or 6, but I suspect there's are at 1 or more sockpuppets in here and that if not then there's some blatant tribalism going on here which is a bad look on your guys' part.

You think I'm violating Occam's Razor?! :lol: Oooooh boy! Where do I even start with that one?!

I'll get to this sucker later. We're gonna have so much fun...

I know none of these other wonderful gentlemen are sock accounts within the boundaries of certainty that I can work with realistically on the internet.

Notice the emphasis there. Funny how you fail to grant me this very same charity you afford yourself. I've given you reasons for my suspicions. If there aren't any sockpuppets then I've at the very least provided evidence of some clear biases you guys have in favor of each other which puts you at a disadvantage to objectively asses their arguments. You're too busy defending the tribe. Even if they aren't you, you defend them as if they are you because you identify with them. Hence why you're here now.

Oh, piss off. The moment people after Sparhafoc and Ghost Knight started showing up to contest your OP, you've been throwing this sock account accusation all around the fucking place. So we have a lot of users on the same page... We also have a lot of users that butt heads with eachother. I've had to navigate a few relatively minor skirmishes between some of these people. I don't agree with all of them on everything, and I sure as hell don't expect them to agree with me all the time. Why should I?

I don't have any special loyalty to any of them. I don't think they even care that I'm taking this matter on. My reasons, as always, are my own.

Maybe I just love to argue...

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The fight I'm fighting at this time is specifically with regard to your sock account nonsense, which, since I am one of the dissenting voices in the thread, is my problem.

How is this your problem? You just butted into someone else's conversation and then made the excuse that you don't criticize others because its "not your fight" so you're completely full of shit and caught red-handed in a blatant lie. One minute its not your fight, the next it is...

I'm not coming to his rescue.

riiiiiight which is why when I bring up the flaws of everyone else you say "not my fight" but when it comes to momo all of a sudden it is. All of a sudden you're defensive. Yeah this doesn't look suspicious at all lol

I'm not sitting here, demanding in his place that you supply a better definition than you're giving.

Actually you are. You're defending his assertion that I haven't defined my terms properly right now instead of going "not my fight" like you did with all those other guys. Your double standards are obvious. Why didn't you just go "not my fight" when it came to momo? Why so protective of momo?

I agree with him that your definition sucks

Got any reasons as to why it sucks? He has no reason to believe it sucks, he just moved the goal post down the line to issues in philosophy of language.

The fact that you seem to think of us as some weird hive mind, however, is making me laugh.

Then why the hell are you here jerking each other off and refusing to go after each other? So strange... If this isn't some hive mind then where's the objectivity? Cuz it's "not your fight"? Then why are you here right now?? You're just contradicting yourself over and over...

Nope.

I have literal proof of this. When it comes to everyone else you said "not your fight" but all of a sudden when it comes to me it is your fight. What a coincidence!

Does the fact that I also play Monster Hunter make me a dragon slayer, too?

Nice try but the context in which you brought this up was in regards to defending others, you said this as an explanation for you acting like a lawyer from time to time.

I already made up my mind. I'm targeting your "sock puppet" claims.

Why? This isn't your fight, remember? You're butting into someone else's conversation. If you're going to play this game, you're open to a host of other objections like how you're not going after others faults but mine. This is either explained by sock puppetry or tribalism. Can't just ignore the charge of tribalism out of convenience...

I already addressed that stuff.

No you didn't actually, you just rolled your eyes. Your comment is public, we can all see you failed to give an argument...

They made mistakes too.

Like what? Name em. Prove you haven't lost objectivity. You said you have read this whole thread so prove it.

For the moment, I do not care. I'm not talking about them; I'm talking about you.

Nice try at trying to squirm away but this has everything to do with the sock puppets claims so by your own logic you can't run away from it. Start naming mistakes by them right now...

I

didn't claim you were lying to begin with

Lying is a synonym for dishonesty but either way your attempts to say I'm dishonest is merely my attempt at not wasting space. I don't quote whole paragraphs unless absolutely necessary to save space. That's not me being dishonest, it's me saving space.

Except the stuff you leave out affects the meaning of what remains.

I never pretended it didn't, I merely save space. Stop assuming me saving space means I'm not addressing what you say. if you only read what I write, I address what you say.

I think we just have differing standards of "active". I don't agree with yours.

So finally making a post after half a year is "active"? lmao! you have lost all objectivity dude...

Well, considering you somehow managed to fool yourself into believing 5+ people are actually maybe 1 or 2 people controlling multiple accounts at once, I think your method has some serious flaws in it.

Could you be anymore dishonest? I specifically told you that I suspect at least 1 or more or that there is some hardcore tribalism going on. If you can't attack my position without creating a straw man then even you realize your position is too weak to take the heat

Did you not read the definition?

Yeah, I'm the one who cited it to prove that what you're talking about by definition in proof. You can't deny this without denying the very definition of proof...

You're reading something into what I said that simply isn't there.

Hey if you want to back off from the vouch then by all means do so. Your case is clearly weak given how little history there is to go off there.

What you said there wasn't worth an argument.

Sorry Socrates, that's not how truth and logic work. I gave an argument, which means I have reasons for what I believe. My beliefs have support. You claimed otherwise, yet failed to give support for your beliefs. I'm rational, you're not...

A broken clock is right twice a day too, you know... :roll:

Funny how I'm proven right over and over and over and over though lol kind of makes the broken clock analogy a false analogy

Though I question how much of that is accurate

Ask Dragan Glas for yourself

You think I'm violating Occam's Razor?!

Yes, you're postulating coincidences on top of coincidences. You're positing more entities than me as well. One user with multiple accounts is less entities than multiple users with separate accounts. The sock hypothesis posits one entity while you posit many. Do you even Occam's Razor bro? \\

lol:lol: Oooooh boy! Where do I even start with that one?!

maybe start by learning what Occam's Razor is?

I'll get to this sucker later.

Gotta look up what Occam's Razor means, huh? lol

Oh, piss off.

See? Look at this visceral reaction from you. Such emotional investment, such loss of objectivity. Such defensiveness. But alas, you won't show any of that towards the tribe haha apparently it's "not your fight" when it comes to the tribe but when it comes to me you all of a sudden have this interest in writing walls of comments to but into a conversation that isn't even your own, which contradicts the whole "not my fight" bullshit

We also have a lot of users that butt heads with eachother.

Funny how you resolutely refuse to butt heads in this thread. What a coincidence! you're a bunch of tribalists, just come out with it or prove me wrong and take a couple swings in their direction. Oh let me guess though: not your fight. Yet here you are fighting... you just can't get your story straight man...

I don't have any special loyalty to any of them.

Prove it. Take a swipe at the tribe. Afterall, you just love to argue right? : )

 

[Akamia]

I’m not going to play your game, Monistic Idealism.

My beef is with your sock account claims for the moment. I do not care enough about the issues the other posters are dealing with. They are handling themselves well enough. Yes, they made mistakes; as you say, Chalmers corrected their mistake in reading his paper. There are other errors, too, but I just. Don’t. Care. Do you understand what that sequence of words means? If I’m talking about problems I’m having with you specifically, what the other guys are doing is of no relevance. You are engaging in whataboutery.

In hindsight, I suppose this thread isn’t the place to confront these accusations. You don’t post in any other, though, and I am not in the habit of sending direct messages around here. My apologies if my conduct has done any damage in this thread. This particular matter appears to have pushed a button.

I do still intend to take on that Occam’s Razor bit, though. Once that’s done, I shall fall back to the shadows once more.

Adun toridas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I’m not going to play your game, Monistic Idealism.

Oh how convenient, just going to ignore where I systematically go through what you said and confront the double standards such as your "its not my fight" excuse lol

My beef is with your sock account claims for the moment.

Just going to ignore the charges of tribalism, then eh? Ignoring isn't the way out. Burying your head in the sand doesn't make the truth go away.

I do not care enough about the issues the other posters are dealing with.

Oh but you care enough to defend them and get their back, just not express any disagreement to them hahah the sockpuppetry/tribalism is that strong. So when it comes to my alleged errors you just barge into someone else's conversation, even though its not your fight, and write huge walls of comments to me, but when it comes to them all of a sudden you just don't care. Surely this is more of those coincidences we keep seeing around here right? It's just coincidences everywhere!

In hindsight, I suppose this thread isn’t the place to confront these accusations.

You are right about that. This thread is about the case for monistic idealism after all. I got distracted as well and contributed to the de-railing of this thread. My apologies as well for contribution on that. It would be best to continue on that topic instead to be honest. This is quite a petty topic we're on right now really. I say we just focus on that from here on, at least in this thread.

 

[momo666]

Yes, with multiple sources confirming that I'm right. I've defined the term, you said you understand, therefore you're guilty of false analogy earlier.

Neither of those sources demonstrated said phrase is necessarily only an idiom and neither of them demonstrated how their definition of said phrase accounts for the word "god". Furthermore, what I said I understand was the sentence which you assert serves as a proper definition of said phrase, so yet again your accusation has no merit.

Yes it actually does as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) confirms:

Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.

Not in the slightest. Notice that your quote takes for granted that which I am asking you to explain.

Wrong. I gave you the definition then you moved the goal post and asked what gives that its meaning, which I rightly pointed out applies to literally all words. So your problem is with philosophy of language, even if you didn't know that's what it was called. You're going more fundamental than what this thread is getting at, so you need to just start a new thread.

No. What I've pointed out in response to your assertion regarding the phrase was that it was an absurd way of treating words. I've also pointed out that the said phrase is not only an idiom, and that it can and it is being used literally. My problem is with your term, not philosophy of language.

You wanted a definition and you got one. You clearly understand it as even you yourself are using the word "I" in the exact same way that I'm defining it. It makes no sense for you to fold your arms and pretend you can't deal with the case for monistic idealism becaue you can't understand the word I, yet here you are perfectly capable of communicating with the word "I" just fine so you're just making excuses for your failure to deal with the case for monistic idealism...Move the goal post all you want but I've met my obligations.

I am dealing with the case. I am requesting you to explain what exactly you claim exists. Your provided definition does not explain this "I", it merely takes it for granted. It, at its core, can not provide an understanding of what this "I" is.

Then this isn't something that is known by description, but by acquaintance. Your insistence on a verbal/written definition is a category mistake. We know this directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. Again, we know this NOT by description, but by acquaintance.

Notice that my "Okay" was not an agreement to your points. Your accusation is also baseless, as I've committed no such fallacy. Notice that yet again you take this "I" for granted.

Actually yes since you distinguish yourself from me you have thus shot yourself in the foot. It's check mate to be honest. You're exactly like the guy who says "I can't speak a word of English". Clearly they speak English, and clearly you understand the word "I" in this common sense way.

Then you are very bad at chess. Distinguishing myself from you does not explain what this "I" is or how does it do it. It can not serve as a proper definition of this "I".

This is known directly.

This is known directly by... ?

Then you have admitted your fundamental dishonesty. Stop de-railing this thread. I've given a definition, I've met my obligations....Either admit you've been lying this whole time, as proven by your distinguishing between yourself and me, or go start a new thread/take an English course...

No. What I have stated was in regard to what this thread is about. To that extent, my line of inquiry is just fine. You have not even come close to met your obligations. In all your attempts to define this "I", you have merely taken it for granted. Me distinguishing myself from you is not a proper definition of this "I" to begin with, so it can not help you here.

The only thing which has been "proven" was the fact that you have on several occasions misread my comments. That and your baseless accusations. It is futile for you to act as if you have a proper argument when in fact you are unable to even defend the first word of the first premise of your argument.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Neither of those sources demonstrated said phrase is necessarily only an idiom

That was never the issue, nice try at moving the goalpost. This was about the meaning of a phrase, not the "necessary" meaning of a phrase. You're going into philosophy of language man. Start a new thread already, you're clearly fascinated with philosophy of language rather than the case for monistic idealism...

Furthermore, what I said I understand was the sentence

All you have to do is admit you understand to prove there's been a false analogy here. You understand the sentence "for god's sake" and you compared this to something you claim to not understand: "I"

Not in the slightest.

Yes it does, sorry champ. The mere fact that you're distinguishing yourself from me fits the definition as even noted by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. SEP>you

No.

Yes, actually. Your comments are public, we can all see this for ourselves...

I am dealing with the case.

No you're not. You're complaining about not being able to comprehend the English language right now. I've given a definition, now its time to actually assess the argument. You're still stuck on the definition, you're trying to de-rail this thread into a more fundamental discussion of language and the self instead of the case for monistic idealism. Dr. Chalmers had no problem assessing my argument, why are you having such a difficult time? Do you fail to grasp English that badly??

Your provided definition does not explain this "I"

Yes it does:

Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my"

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/

If you can't grasp this from here then you just fail to grasp the English language... The self is merely a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. Self is a reference by an individual to the same individual person. This reference is necessarily subjective, thus self is a reference by a subject to the same subject. You're inability to understand this, and your insistence that this is somehow not a satisfactory understanding, is contradicted by your own use of the word "I" in this very same way. As the SEP stated, these are terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such and you yourself do this with your use of the word "I" and how you distinguish yourself from me. So you're just admitting I'm right over and over again every single time you use such words... Again, funny how you're literally the only person here who is having this problem. Sounds like a personal problem, bud.

Notice that my "Okay" was not an agreement to your points.

You're not here to agree/disagree, you're just trying to understand remember...? Get your story straight lol I'm giving you understanding and explaining how you're making a category mistake. You're asking for knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance. If only you wouldn't be trying to fit a square peg in a round hole maybe you'd get somewhere for once in this conversation...

Notice that yet again you take this "I" for granted.

Actually that's you with your distinguishing between yourself and I lol oh the irony

Then you are very bad at chess.

Hey you're the one who keeps using the very word that they keep pretending they don't understand lol you've been caught red handed in a lie, my dude. You can't simultaneously claim you have no idea what a word means yet also have that word as a staple in all of your comments to me. You're just contradicting yourself

I am not. This is known by... ?

You are indeed doing so. You want a description, you want a written/verbal definition rather than knowledge by acquaintance. I've already explained this is a category mistake. I've given you links on this matter so you can read more for yourself. I recommend you do so since you're so unaware of this crucial distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance.

No.

Yes. You know this is a thread about the case for monistic idealism, not language or the self. Dr. Chalmers had no problem assessing my argument with my definitions, along with everyone else in here, so it seems like you just have some personal issue grasping language. That's not my problem, that's your problem... Stop de-railing the thread and start addressing the argument for once...

 

[momo666]

That was never the issue, nice try at moving the goalpost. This was about the meaning of a phrase, not the "necessary" meaning of a phrase.

Right, it was about the meaning of a phrase, for which you asserted a certain definition accounts for it. The problem is that people can and do use it literally. As long as that is the case, I see no reason to accept that definition, given its ad hoc baseless nature.

All you have to do is admit you understand to prove there's been a false analogy here. You understand the sentence "for god's sake" and you compared this to something you claim to not understand: "I"

No, because the analogy is between this "I" and the phrase "for god's sake", not between this "I" and the sentence which you assert serves as a proper definition of said phrase. I don't understand the sentence "for god's sake" because I do not know what you mean by the word "god".

Yes it does, sorry champ. The mere fact that you're distinguishing yourself from me fits the definition as even noted by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. SEP>you

The SEP quote does not define this "I", it merely takes it for granted. Furthermore, this "yourself" and "me" is what you are supposed to explain. So what distinguishes itself from what ?

I've given a definition, now its time to actually assess the argument. You're still stuck on the definition, you're trying to de-rail this thread into a more fundamental discussion of language and the self instead of the case for monistic idealism.

If your case requires the very first word of the first premise of your argument, then my line of inquiry is perfectly fine. The definition you have provided gives no understanding as to what this "I" is.

Yes it does:

Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my"

Chopping your own provided quote will not help you here. Notice that what you have quoted does not explain this "self".

The self is merely a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others, especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action. Self is a reference by an individual to the same individual person. This reference is necessarily subjective, thus self is a reference by a subject to the same subject.

You still haven't learned a thing haven't you ? Notice that, yet again, you take that which you are supposed to explain for granted. Worse. Notice that this time you have asserted that which you are supposed to explain is a reference (an action) by the subject (that which you are supposed to explain) to the same subject. Incoherence on roids.

You're inability to understand this, and your insistence that this is somehow not a satisfactory understanding, is contradicted by your own use of the word "I" in this very same way. As the SEP stated, these are terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such and you yourself do this with your use of the word "I" and how you distinguish yourself from me.

That is because it is not an understanding at all, let alone a satisfactory one. What is referring to what ? What distinguishes itself from what ?

You're not here to agree/disagree, you're just trying to understand remember...? Get your story straight lol I'm giving you understanding and explaining how you're making a category mistake. You're asking for knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance.

Can you tell me where have I stated my reasons for being here ? I don't recall sharing such detailed information with you. Regarding the point though, you have said this: "We know this directly, immediately, and non-inferentially." As you can see, your distinction already relies on that which I am requesting you to explain. For that reason alone, your baseless charge evaporates.

Hey you're the one who keeps using the very word that they keep pretending they don't understand lol you've been caught red handed in a lie, my dude.

Quote directly one of my lies.

Yes. You know this is a thread about the case for monistic idealism, not language or the self.

As long as your "mind" concept relies on this self, my line of inquiry is spot on. The case you are putting forth has troubles from the very first word of the very first premise. My line of inquiry fits just fine with this supposed argument of yours.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Quote directly one of my lies.

You use the word "I" all the time yet pretend you have absolutely zero understanding of it. I can post hundreds of quotes from you saying things like "I didn't bring up philosophy of language, you did" and stuff like "I understand the sentence". You distinguish yourself from me, and you use the word "I" in the common sense way that you keep denying you understand. You're exactly like the guy who says "I can't speak a word of English". So you're just lying and being disingenuous. Let's define the word disingenuous since you have such a hard time grasping the English language apparently: "not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does."

Your line of inquiry is not spot on, it is disingenuous... Especially when we consider the fact that you completely ignored my crucial point about your category mistake regarding knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. I've said long ago that knowledge of the self is by acquaintance and you keep asking for knowledge by description, so you're just confusing categories. The self is known directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. This is also evidenced by the fact that everyone else has been able to deal with my argument using my definitions perfectly fine. I noticed you also completely ignored this point as well, how convenient... A world renowned philosopher of mind, Dr. David Chalmers, had absolutely no problem assessing my argument, along with all the other users in here. So this is just a personal problem for you... This is just you disingenuity and/or lack of reading comprehension. I've defined my terms from the beginning, and even gave you more details along with a host of peer-reviewed academic resources for you to check out that you resolutely refuse to check out... So this is all on you. You clearly fail to grasp the English language or fail to have enough integrity to not be disingenuous.

 

[momo666]

Quote directly one of my lies.

You use the word "I" all the time yet pretend you have absolutely zero understanding of it...You distinguish yourself from me, and you use the word "I" in the common sense way that you keep denying you understand.

I also use the word "god", that does not imply I have any idea what a "god" would be or even if its main required assumptions are true or even possible. I genuinely don't know what this "I" is, and if your attempts at explaining it mean anything at all, then neither do you. Distinguishing myself from you is not a proper definition of this "I" because this "myself" and "you" is what you are supposed to explain in the first place.

Especially when we consider the fact that you completely ignored my crucial point about your category mistake regarding knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance. I've said long ago that knowledge of the self is by acquaintance and you keep asking for knowledge by description, so you're just confusing categories.

I did not ignore that point. In fact, I directly quoted you in my response to said point as saying "We know this directly, immediately, and non-inferentially.". In doing so, I've pointed out that your distinction already relies on that which you are supposed to explain.

The self is known directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. I've defined my terms from the beginning, and even gave you more details along with a host of peer-reviewed academic resources for you to check out that you resolutely refuse to check out...

The self is known directly by... ?
As for your other points, I did indeed check your sources. It's just that none of them explained this "I". You have attempted to define your terms but obviously you are not in a position of knowledge when it comes to this "I". You wouldn't have such troubles explaining it were that not to be the case.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I also use the word "god", that does not imply I have any idea what a "god" would be

Actually it does. If I have to define what I mean when I use words then so do you... no special pleading... If you're using "for god's sake" as an idiom then you don't have to define "god", but if you're making claims using the word "god" then yeah you can't just remove your responsibility to define your terms while simultaneously pressing me to define mine. That's just flat out hypocritical. So you keep using this word "I" that you resolutely refuse to define yet you press me to define it, even though I have. This is blatant hypocrisy on your part. Define the word "I" or stop using it...

I genuinely don't know what this "I" is

So you're telling me that you would fail the rouge-test?

are you telling me that you're dumber than a 17-month old child...? lmao

Distinguishing myself from you is not a proper definition of this "I"

Actually it is as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explained:

Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”

If you pass the rouge-test then you have self-awareness and you thus understand this "I" perfectly fine. If not, you're either dumber than a 17-month old child and/or you're hypocritical and disingenuous...

I did not ignore that point

Yes you did actually. To this day you're still asking for knowledge by description when I keep telling you this is knowledge by acquaintance. Clearly you didn't check out those sources I provided for you...

The self is known directly by... ?

ACQUAINTANCE. Stop ignoring my crucial points that refute you. The self is known directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. How many times to do I have to tell you this?

As for your other points

You keep ignoring the point how everyone but you is able to deal with my argument just fine. Funny how you keep ignoring this... It's because you know I got you on this one and there's no way for you to squirm out of it... The fact that you're the only one struggling here shows the problem is not with my definitions or terms, it's with your poor reading comprehension. Apparently you're only as developed as a 17-month old child so go figures...

 

[momo666]

If you're using "for god's sake" as an idiom then you don't have to define "god", but if you're making claims using the word "god" then yeah you can't just remove your responsibility to define your terms while simultaneously pressing me to define mine... you keep using this word "I" that you resolutely refuse to define yet you press me to define it, even though I have.

I am using the phrase "for god's sake" literally while at the same time I do not know what a "god" would be or even if its main required assumptions are possible, let alone true. You have attempted to define this "I", but in all those attempts that which you are supposed to define has merely been taken for granted. To that end, we can reasonably say your attempts have not been successful. Now you are requesting me to explain that which I am asking you to explain. An incoherent demand, that is to be expected from someone who does not have the faintest idea what this "I" is.

So you're telling me that you would fail the rouge-test?

The test in question concerns itself with the recognition of a reflection; namely the reflection of this physical thing we call "our body". My inquiry is to that which does the recognizing so you are missing the point entirely.

Actually it is as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explained:

Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”

Nowhere in that quote is this "self" explained. Not you, not the quotes you have provided explained this "I" in any manner; you merely take it for granted.

Yes you did actually. To this day you're still asking for knowledge by description when I keep telling you this is knowledge by acquaintance.

I did not. In fact, I even quoted you when I answered that particular point, showing how your own words demonstrate I am right. Your distinction already relies on that which you are supposed to explain. Keeping that in mind, your charge has no merit.

ACQUAINTANCE. Stop ignoring my crucial points that refute you. The self is known directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. How many times to do I have to tell you this?

Again, I did not actually ignore it. What exactly does the knowing ? Saying this is knowledge by acquaintance can't help you here.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

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

You keep ignoring the point how everyone but you is able to deal with my argument just fine. Funny how you keep ignoring this... It's because you know I got you on this one and there's no way for you to squirm out of it... The fact that you're the only one struggling here shows the problem is not with my definitions or terms, it's with your poor reading comprehension. Apparently you're only as developed as a 17-month old child so go figures...

You keep dodging the fact that a world renowned philosopher of mind, Dr. David Chalmers, along with the rest of the users here, is able to deal with my argument just fine. The only one having this problem is you. This shows this is a personal problem for you, not with my definitions. Stop dodging this, it's dishonest...

I am using the phrase "for god's sake" literally while at the same time I do not know what a "god" would be

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

The test in question concerns itself with the recognition of a reflection

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

Nowhere in that quote is this "self" explained.

Yes it is actually, and you're the only one in here having a problem comprehending this. I keep telling you, this is known by acquaintance so your insistence on me giving a description is a category mistake. The "I" is the object of introspection, the object of his or her own reflective consciousness. The self is a reference by a subject to the same subject. Nothing is being taken for granted, it's just being defined. There's no question begging or circular reasoning here or anything of that sort. It's just noting that the "I" is the object of awareness itself. Again, note how you're literally the only person failing to grasp this. How is it that I'm failing to define my terms if world renowned philosophers of mind and every other user in here understands but you...? You are clearly a) disingenuous b) failing at reading comprehension hardcore. Pick. Your. Poison....

I did not.

[/quote]

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