The Case for Idealism

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is all one big assertion with no arguments. [dodge] Fail [appeal to ridicule]

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

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

Whatever helps you sleep at night, big guy [appeal to ridicule]

I can do this all day.
And I hope that the message sinks in.
You are not getting anywhere with this.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Monistic Idealism wrote:
This is all one big assertion with no arguments. [dodge] Fail [appeal to ridicule]



Monistic Idealism wrote:
hahahaha [appeal to ridicule] once you get called out [false] on your blatant misreading [unjustified] all of a sudden you flee because [projection] you know you can't go back on it without admitting you fucked up [projection] lol yeah you might want to go [appeal to ridicule], you've embarrassed yourself enough. [projection]



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You're literally fleeing from the discussion right now [projection] and failing [projection] to give a rebuttals to many of my arguments [false] lmao dude you just keep embarrassing yourself [appeal to ridicule]



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Whatever helps you sleep at night, big guy [appeal to ridicule]

This is still all one big assertion with no arguments. Absolute fail

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is still all one big assertion with no arguments. [dodge] Absolute fail [appeal to ridicule]

 

[Monistic Idealism]

This is still all one big assertion with no arguments. [dodge] Absolute fail [appeal to ridicule]

Still waiting for you to actually give an argument for these assertions you keep making

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

"Drug-Induced Near Death Experience" - Steven Novella[/url]"]The meta-lesson of all this is that we are our brains. When you alter brain function, you alter our minds, even at their most fundamental level of functioning. Mind function is not just changed in random and unpredictable ways, or made fuzzy. Drugs like DMT will change brain function is specific and fairly predictable ways that track with specific circuits and functions in the brain. The brain really is just a very complex machine, and we can turn dials and knobs to change how it functions (even though we still have a lot to learn about what all the knobs are and how they function).

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The meta-lesson of all this is that we are our brains.

False. I refute this in the OP, check out the argument from Thomas Nagel as well as the hard problem of consciousness.

When you alter brain function, you alter our minds, even at their most fundamental level of functioning. Mind function is not just changed in random and unpredictable ways, or made fuzzy. Drugs like DMT will change brain function is specific and fairly predictable ways that track with specific circuits and functions in the brain. The brain really is just a very complex machine, and we can turn dials and knobs to change how it functions (even though we still have a lot to learn about what all the knobs are and how they function).

All this means is that dualism is false. I'm not a dualist, I'm an idealist. What you're talking about is completely compatible with idealism and just about any form of monism:

 

[momo666]

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

Lying again. I did not misrepresent your presented dichotomy. I don't care to what dichotomy YOU hold. All I did was make MY position clear. From the very beginning, I have been asking you to explain that which does the noticing, which we REFER to using the TERM "I". So there is no need for me to "admit" there is something which notices since I have been asking you to explain that from the very start.

This forum is public dude, we can see you are clearly changing the language up... Too bad you already admitted "I notice" so you can't go back:

Changing the language of what ? That is YOUR dichotomy. If you believe it is mine, quote me directly. There is no "admission" on my part. I have been asking you to explain that which notices from the very start. Basic logic refutes you.

Funny thing these public forums are. One could, for example, go back a bit and take a look at this dichotomy. Before it was :

>I notice x
>I don't understand the meaning of "I"

Then after just two more comments, it was:

>I don't understand what "I" means in any shape or form
>I notice x

Now, it is:

>I have no understand of the I
>I understand that the I exists and notices

You see, all you are doing is pulling lies out of your rear and when you are caught you just accuse me of lying. You have the behavior of a 10 year old.

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

This admission collapses your case. Observe:
1)The "I" is a TERM we use to REFER to that which notices.
2)That which notices has not been explained.
3)That which has not been explained EQUALS whatever the TERM "mind" in your P1 REFERS to.
C)The term "mind" in your P1 REFERS to something which has not been explained.

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

I am not twisting anything. I am stating my position. The reason you don't want to accept the empirically verifiable fact that I have been asking you to explain that which does the noticing is because it collapses your whole narrative. And when that happens, it becomes obvious that you outright refuse to address cirticism brought forth against your supposed case. You have no way to go. In your own words, you're fucked ! Your parlor trick has been revealed and it collapses your whole case.

 

[*SD*]

But premise 1 is true by your own admission

X repeat 4000 times.

You lose! Zing!

 

[Monistic Idealism]

But premise 1 is true by your own admission

It literally is though lol You think you got a zinger but what you're saying here is actually true. It's logically impossible for it to be true that "I notice" while premise 1 being false.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I did not misrepresent your presented dichotomy.

Yes you did and you still haven't given an answer you coward. Pick one:

>I understand nothing about the I
>I understand that the I exists and notices

You have to pick one. Either you understand or you do not understand. That's the law of excluded middle, there is no third option. To state otherwise is to be a logic denier... The problem is you already claimed that there is an I that notices, which contradicts the claim that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I:
"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

 

[*SD*]

There is an I that notices.

Please explain the I.

Thank you.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

There is an I that notices.

So you are admitting then that you have some understanding of the I. You grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way. You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

 

[*SD*]

There is an I that notices.

So you are admitting then that you have some understanding of the I. You grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way. You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

I am acknowledging that there is an I that notices. Yes. <-- there's your answer.

So in return, it follows that I can ask a question of you.

What is the explanation for the I that notices?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I am acknowledging that there is an I that notices. Yes. <-- there's your answer.

That wasn't my question. My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

 

[*SD*]

I am acknowledging that there is an I that notices. Yes. <-- there's your answer.

That wasn't my question. My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

And I have acknowledged the existence of the I, and asked you for an explanation for it. Kindly provide the explanation, many thanks xxx

 

[Monistic Idealism]

And I have acknowledged the existence of the I

That's nice, but you haven't answered my question and I can't continue without an answer. Dear sir, I'm being patient and courteous and merely asking for a yes or no answer to my request for clarification: My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

 

[*SD*]

My question is: do you grasp this notion of the I at least in a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower way? You grasp it at least in the sense that an 18-month child grasps it correct? I need a direct yes or no answer to this before we can continue

I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child. And that includes (by default, since I'm not an 18 month old child) the question you asked. So, therefore, yes <--- there's your answer.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child.

I'm inclined to agree. I appreciate the direct answer and I'm relieved to hear you say yes. At this point though I will have to remind you that I've noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp and that more fundamental issues on the matter deserve their own thread.

 

[*SD*]

I am confident in asserting that I can grasp most notions in a sense higher than the average 18 month old child.

I'm inclined to agree. I appreciate the direct answer and I'm relieved to hear you say yes. At this point though I will have to remind you that I've noted long ago that I've set the bar low on this matter since this thread is about the case for idealism, not the self. If one wants a crazy detailed analysis on the self, they need to start a new thread. From the beginning I've made this clear that I'm giving a common sense average joe's understanding of this, the kind of understanding even an 18-month old child can grasp and that more fundamental issues on the matter deserve their own thread.

I don't dodge questions - ever. So, what have we established here exactly? That I'm not an 18 month old child? That other participants aren't 18 month old children?

Am I supposed to see this as changing some view I presently hold to?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I don't dodge questions - ever. So, what have we established here exactly?

We've established that you understand more than momo (maybe you should give him a talking to?) and that premise 1 is not only intelligible but correct. So we should discuss other premises of the argument since that's what this whole thread is about: the case for idealism