The Case for Idealism

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't even need to say anything.

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

You didn't make a rebuttal. You didn't address anything. There is nothing to rebut.

 

[*SD*]

You didn't make a rebuttal. You didn't address anything. There is nothing to rebut.

Spot on.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

You didn't make a rebuttal. You didn't address anything. There is nothing to rebut.

Yes I did. I demonstrated how you didn't prove physicalism but merely disproved dualism. I demonstrated how irreducible consciousness does not lead to substance dualism but can lead to alternative views like idealism. I demonstrated that there is a hard problem of consciousness using your own admission and scholarly sources. The list goes on and on, I gave many rebuttals to your shitty claims. You merely have no rebuttal back.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Spot on.

Quite the opposite. I explain in detail how he's not spot on at all. All he did was repeat his last claim that I already gave an argument to and he failed to give a rebuttal in return.

EDIT: by the way, thanks for proving you're a complete and utter hypocrite. I showed how using your own logic you should confront momo, if not at least question him, but your tribalism compels you not to. Thanks for proving me right, big guy

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I demonstrated how you didn't prove physicalism but merely disproved dualism.

No, you just asserted it. I don't need to address assertions.

I demonstrated how irreducible consciousness does not lead to substance dualism but can lead to alternative views like idealism.

No, you just asserted that it is irreducible.

I demonstrated that there is a hard problem of consciousness using your own admission and a scholarly sources.

No, you just asserted that there is a hard problem of consciousness.

The list goes on and on, I gave many rebuttals to your shitty claims. You merely have no rebuttal back.

No, you just lobbed insults at me.

If I'm wrong. It should be pretty easy to point out where exactly your arguments are.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

No, you just asserted it.

No I gave an argument. In idealism, the brain and the mind are not made of separate substances so interaction between them makes perfect sense. Brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism along with any monism that is realist about consciousness and the brain.

No, you just asserted that it is irreducible.

100% wrong, I have arguments laid out in the OP. And the point is that irreducible consciousness doesn't lead to substance dualism like you falsely asserted. Idealism has irreducible consciousness but is not substance dualism. Learn philosophy of mind, noob.

No, you just asserted that there is a hard problem of consciousness.

Also wrong. You admitted that no amount of observations of the brain tells us what it is like and I even linked you a scholarly source going into detail about the hard problem of consciousness. Again, learn philosophy of mind you noob.

No, you just lobbed insults at me.

I just gave you several arguments. You pretending its not there doesn't do jack shit for you

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

No, you just asserted it.

No I gave an argument. [false] In idealism, the brain and the mind are not made of separate substances [assertion] so interaction between them makes perfect sense [unfounded]. Brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism [contradiction, physics can not have an effect if no physics exists] along with any monism that is realist about consciousness and the brain. [assertion]

No, you just asserted that it is irreducible.

100% wrong, I have arguments laid out in the OP. [lie, no actual justification given] And the point is that irreducible consciousness doesn't lead to substance dualism [assertion] like you falsely asserted. [no counter given] Idealism has irreducible consciousness [assertion] but is not substance dualism [assertion]. Learn philosophy of mind, noob. [insult]

No, you just asserted that there is a hard problem of consciousness.

Also wrong. [assertion] You admitted that no amount of observations of the brain tells us what it is like [red herring, irrelevant to the point] and I even linked you a scholarly source [irrelevant to the point] going into detail about the hard problem of consciousness [asserted that there is a problem]. Again, learn philosophy of mind you noob. [insult]

No, you just lobbed insults at me.

I just gave you several arguments. [false] You pretending its not there doesn't do jack shit for you [red herring]

 

[*SD*]

Spot on.

Quite the opposite. I explain in detail how he's not spot on at all. All he did was repeat his last claim that I already gave an argument to and he failed to give a rebuttal in return.

EDIT: by the way, thanks for proving you're a complete and utter hypocrite. I showed how using your own logic you should confront momo, if not at least question him, but your tribalism compels you not to. Thanks for proving me right, big guy

I assert that there is potentially a flaw in your reasoning, and definitely a flaw in your ability to conduct any form of civilised conversation. Do I need to back this up? I? As in I? I I I I I?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Monistic Idealism wrote:

No, you just asserted it.



No I gave an argument. [false] In idealism, the brain and the mind are not made of separate substances [assertion] so interaction between them makes perfect sense [unfounded]. Brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism [contradiction, physics can not have an effect if no physics exists] along with any monism that is realist about consciousness and the brain. [assertion]

No, you just asserted that it is irreducible.



100% wrong, I have arguments laid out in the OP. [lie, no actual justification given] And the point is that irreducible consciousness doesn't lead to substance dualism [assertion] like you falsely asserted. [no counter given] Idealism has irreducible consciousness [assertion] but is not substance dualism [assertion]. Learn philosophy of mind, noob. [insult]

No, you just asserted that there is a hard problem of consciousness.



Also wrong. [assertion] You admitted that no amount of observations of the brain tells us what it is like [red herring, irrelevant to the point] and I even linked you a scholarly source [irrelevant to the point] going into detail about the hard problem of consciousness [asserted that there is a problem]. Again, learn philosophy of mind you noob. [insult]

No, you just lobbed insults at me.



I just gave you several arguments. [false] You pretending its not there doesn't do jack shit for you [red herring]

This whole thing is just one big assertion on your part, no arguments at all. See I can play your stupid game too.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I assert that there is potentially a flaw in your reasoning

You didn't even do that. All you did was make a pre-judgment about a conversation that you haven't even read in full context lol

and definitely a flaw in your ability to conduct any form of civilised conversation.

You're the one who initiated name calling. All I did was assertively present my counter-arguments to you and shove your own logic back in your face. You clearly didn't like this

Do I need to back this up? I? As in I? I I I I I?

So you admit there's an "I" that you clearly understand. Maybe you should confront momo on his ignorance of the matter since you're so "fair"

 

[*SD*]

Where did I dispute that there's an 'I' ? Where did momo dispute that? Feel free to keep making a fool of your self

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Where did I dispute that there's an 'I' ? Where did momo dispute that?

omg your shit reading comprehension and undeserved arrogance makes your comments so cringey. I specifically said: So you admit there's an "I" that you clearly understand. Holy shit, learn to read better. So you understand that there is an "I", you comprehend it. Good, pass that along to momo who apparently has about as much understanding a literal 17-month old child who apparently can't even pass the rouge test lol

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Here is a list of point that I made and how you have address them.
P: Stands for a point that I made
C: Stands for counter that you make [this is a comment on your counter]

P: If a creature is conceived that is like us physically, then it can not lack consciousness.
C: Yes you are way confused. The context is: "And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness."
The point at hand is that they behave like us but lack inner experience/awareness/consciousness. Either you're denying there is such a thing as inner experience/awareness/consciousness or you're just confused...
[The point is itself the counter that your “counter” was trying to rebut]

P: You blatantly deny any other alternative because of this problem, then you come up with your view to try and solve this problem, all the while not even knowing if there is a problem to begin with. Show me that there is a problem.
C: You need to quit talking like you're some expert on a topic you know nothing about: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/ [red herring]

P: Demonstrate, that you could even in principle make a physical copy of you in every way, and yet lack consciousness.
C: [Not available]

P: You just claimed that a perfect physical copy can still lack this consciousness that the original possesses. Meaning that this consciousness is something else in addition to the physical parts. I.e. Consciousness is not physical. I.e. Substance dualism.
C: Because I'm an idealist. [does not address the point] I believe the fundamental substance of reality is mental, not physical [does not address the point]. Everything is made up of the mental and what we call the physical is actually just mental [does not address the point]. You really need to stop talking so arrogantly about something that you are clearly a noob on. [insult] There's more views out there than physicalism/dualism. I'm an idealist, look it up... [does not address the point]

P: Your world view is so mindbogglingly contradictory that you don't even realize that it implies substance dualism at its core, which is a proposition that you yourself negated in order to support it. It is an undodgeable logical contradiction, it is reductio ad absurdum.
And since this is what your argument implies. It must therefore be false.
C: [Not available]

P: Period. Your statement should end here. You can not go from this and say "well but this other thing".
You don't have a test for consciousness.
C: No because there's such a thing as arguments[red herring, the point denies this] and arguments are proof [blatant falsehood]. Definition of proof: "Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement." [appeal to dictionary]
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof [red herring]
Arguments are a source of knowledge. [ad hoc nonsense]
[point was not addressed]

P: Therefore you have 0 justification to pass judgement on what is or isn't conscious.
C: [Not available]

P: You can not point out what it is, you don't know what it is.
C: [Not available]

P: [You can induce loss of consciousness with chemistry that affects the brain.]
C: No it doesn't, [unjustified] you just repeated the very same claim [red herring, argument is unadressed] that I already gave an argument for [false, no argument given]
. All you're doing is refuting dualism [unjustified]
, you're not proving physicalism [red herring]
. The idealist is a monist just like the physicalist [irrelevant]
so brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism. [contradiction, physics can not have an effect if it does not exist]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: [give me a single example of a thought you have that is not happening in your brain.]
C: You haven't even finished your turn yet[dodge]
lol you just repeated yourself [appeal to ridicule]
. Time to actually prove physicalism is true [red herring]
. Burden of proof is on you [shift of the burden of proof]
to solve the hard problem of consciousness. [red herring]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: Of course not. When I smell something it stimulates the olfactory regions of my brain, if you look at my brain smelling a rose it would stimulate the visual region of your brain (not your olfactory) so your experience would be different.
C: Then you really do have the hard problem of consciousness [red herring] by your own admission[false]. There's a hole in your theory: [red herring] it leaves out what it is like to be the subject [the point is the explanation for which this is the counter too], for the subject. You essentially leave consciousness out of the picture [false, red herring], and that's what we know for sure exists more than anything [red herring], so we know physicalism must be false. [assertion]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: If we however were to connect my olfactory centers of my brain to your olfactory centers of your brain to produce a similar stimuli you would smell what I smell.
C: [Not available]

P: Your contention essentially boils down to you are not smelling what you are seeing, and that you are not smelling by watching me smell.
C: [Not available]



I just have to rub this in you.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Here is a list of point that I made and how you have address them.
P: Stands for a point that I made
C: Stands for counter that you make [this is a comment on your counter]

P: If a creature is conceived that is like us physically, then it can not lack consciousness.
C: Yes you are way confused. The context is: "And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness."
The point at hand is that they behave like us but lack inner experience/awareness/consciousness. Either you're denying there is such a thing as inner experience/awareness/consciousness or you're just confused...
[The point is itself the counter that your “counter” was trying to rebut]

P: You blatantly deny any other alternative because of this problem, then you come up with your view to try and solve this problem, all the while not even knowing if there is a problem to begin with. Show me that there is a problem.
C: You need to quit talking like you're some expert on a topic you know nothing about: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/ [red herring]

P: Demonstrate, that you could even in principle make a physical copy of you in every way, and yet lack consciousness.
C: [Not available]

P: You just claimed that a perfect physical copy can still lack this consciousness that the original possesses. Meaning that this consciousness is something else in addition to the physical parts. I.e. Consciousness is not physical. I.e. Substance dualism.
C: Because I'm an idealist. [does not address the point] I believe the fundamental substance of reality is mental, not physical [does not address the point]. Everything is made up of the mental and what we call the physical is actually just mental [does not address the point]. You really need to stop talking so arrogantly about something that you are clearly a noob on. [insult] There's more views out there than physicalism/dualism. I'm an idealist, look it up... [does not address the point]

P: Your world view is so mindbogglingly contradictory that you don't even realize that it implies substance dualism at its core, which is a proposition that you yourself negated in order to support it. It is an undodgeable logical contradiction, it is reductio ad absurdum.
And since this is what your argument implies. It must therefore be false.
C: [Not available]

P: Period. Your statement should end here. You can not go from this and say "well but this other thing".
You don't have a test for consciousness.
C: No because there's such a thing as arguments[red herring, the point denies this] and arguments are proof [blatant falsehood]. Definition of proof: "Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement." [appeal to dictionary]
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/proof [red herring]
Arguments are a source of knowledge. [ad hoc nonsense]
[point was not addressed]

P: Therefore you have 0 justification to pass judgement on what is or isn't conscious.
C: [Not available]

P: You can not point out what it is, you don't know what it is.
C: [Not available]

P: [You can induce loss of consciousness with chemistry that affects the brain.]
C: No it doesn't, [unjustified] you just repeated the very same claim [red herring, argument is unadressed] that I already gave an argument for [false, no argument given]
. All you're doing is refuting dualism [unjustified]
, you're not proving physicalism [red herring]
. The idealist is a monist just like the physicalist [irrelevant]
so brain chemistry effecting consciousness is perfectly compatible with idealism. [contradiction, physics can not have an effect if it does not exist]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: [give me a single example of a thought you have that is not happening in your brain.]
C: You haven't even finished your turn yet[dodge]
lol you just repeated yourself [appeal to ridicule]
. Time to actually prove physicalism is true [red herring]
. Burden of proof is on you [shift of the burden of proof]
to solve the hard problem of consciousness. [red herring]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: Of course not. When I smell something it stimulates the olfactory regions of my brain, if you look at my brain smelling a rose it would stimulate the visual region of your brain (not your olfactory) so your experience would be different.
C: Then you really do have the hard problem of consciousness [red herring] by your own admission[false]. There's a hole in your theory: [red herring] it leaves out what it is like to be the subject [the point is the explanation for which this is the counter too], for the subject. You essentially leave consciousness out of the picture [false, red herring], and that's what we know for sure exists more than anything [red herring], so we know physicalism must be false. [assertion]
[Point is unaddressed]

P: If we however were to connect my olfactory centers of my brain to your olfactory centers of your brain to produce a similar stimuli you would smell what I smell.
C: [Not available]

P: Your contention essentially boils down to you are not smelling what you are seeing, and that you are not smelling by watching me smell.
C: [Not available]

This is all one big assertion with no arguments. Fail

 

[*SD*]

Where did I dispute that there's an 'I' ? Where did momo dispute that?

omg your shit reading comprehension and undeserved arrogance makes your comments so cringey. I specifically said: So you admit there's an "I" that you clearly understand. Holy shit, learn to read better. So you understand that there is an "I", you comprehend it. Good, pass that along to momo who apparently has about as much understanding a literal 17-month old child who apparently can't even pass the rouge test lol

Has anyone ever mentioned to you that arrogance and abrasiveness is not an attractive trait? Beit in mere discussion or any other area of life? I think I can leave you be, MGK is obliterating your strange posts. I wouldn't normally just bow out, but for now I am quite tired, and I'm enjoying reading the things you say. Although probably not for the reasons you'd hope

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I think I can leave you be

hahahaha once you get called out on your blatant misreading all of a sudden you flee because you know you can't go back on it without admitting you fucked up lol yeah you might want to go, you've embarrassed yourself enough.

 

[*SD*]

I think I can leave you be

hahahaha once you get called out on your blatant misreading all of a sudden you flee because you know you can't go back on it without admitting you fucked up lol yeah you might want to go, you've embarrassed yourself enough.

Seeing as I've been here since 2013, and you've been here around 2 months, it's quite doubtful that I would flee from anything. If you can't tell the difference between a high post count in one topic in a short space of time and a relatively similar post count over a much longer period of time, that's not really my problem.

You are of course free to carry on congratulating your self on your self declared victory, people do that all the time, but it doesn't look like you've persuaded anyone. Of anything. And even worse for you is that you've been shown wrong, in multiple ways, by multiple posters.

You'll leave before I will - I guarantee it.

Have a good night's sleep and think on. Try not to hurt your self and I'll catch up with your ever so friendly self tomorrow. Big smile

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Seeing as I've been here since 2013, and you've been here around 2 months, it's quite doubtful that I would flee from anything.

You're literally fleeing from the discussion right now and failing to give a rebuttals to many of my arguments lmao dude you just keep embarrassing yourself

 

[*SD*]

Seeing as I've been here since 2013, and you've been here around 2 months, it's quite doubtful that I would flee from anything.

You're literally fleeing from the discussion right now and failing to give a rebuttals to many of my arguments lmao dude you just keep embarrassing yourself

Of course, sweetie. Try not to injure your self on any soft furnishings now. Nighty night

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Hey look at me, I called you sweetie in a sarcastic manner so that makes my shit reading comprehension and lack of rebuttals okay all of a sudden!

Whatever helps you sleep at night, big guy