The Case for Idealism

[Monistic Idealism]

I am under no obligation to pick from any of your beliefs.

[sarcasm]Oh but I'm the coward[/sarcasm] hahaha You're the one who is too scared to pick a horn of a true dichotomy. It's called the law of excluded middle, dumbass: either a proposition or its negation is true. You have to pick one, there's literally no third option. Only one must be true. Either you understand or you don't understand. Pick one.

Those are not quotations of me.

Yes they are, you have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices. This is basic logic man, you trying to run away like a coward doesn't help you... Nice try, liar. Now pick one. 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.

Come on Momo, this disingenuous pseudoskepticism isn't getting you anywhere... You're not convincing anybody... Even SD, who was defending you earlier, has admitted that even they understand what is meant by the "I" in the sense that an 18-month old child can and implied that those who don't aren't as intelligent as a 17-month old child. Unless you're a literal child, you're full of shit momo and you know exactly what we're all talking about...

 

[momo666]

[sarcasm]Oh but I'm the coward[/sarcasm] hahaha You're the one who is too scared to pick a horn of a true dichotomy. It's called the law of excluded middle, dumbass: either a proposition or its negation is true. You have to pick one, there's literally no third option. Only one must be true. Either you understand or you don't understand. Pick one.

You are a coward. Proof of that stands your outright refusal to address not only my line of inquiry but my raised refutations of your assertions. On the other hand, I am being accused of being a coward simply because I refuse to pick one of YOUR beliefs from a false dichotomy. What you are asking is absurd, worthy really of the intellectual level you are at. It makes no sense to ask your opponent in a debate to adopt any one of your beliefs. And notice that yet again you don't even understand your own words. Either I understand or I don't understand WHAT ? THAT which DOES the noticing.

Yes they are, you have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices.

No, they are not. And everyone can see the outright lies you are spewing. That false dichotomy that you assert belongs to me has had several iterations by now. There is a reason you refuse to quote me and instead insist on using your own beliefs. From the very start, you have been asked to explain that which does the noticing, so for you to assert that I now "admit" there is something that notices is just further evidence you are not qualified to hold this debate. Furthermore, the act of noticing is what something DOES, not what something IS. To have an understanding of "THAT which DOES the noticing, you need to explain what that thing IS, not what that thing DOES.

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:

Your assertion that I've committed any contradiction has already been refuted. Were you not to be such a big logic denier you would have realized that by now. As you would have realized my refutations of your assertions completely undermine your whole supposed case, were you not to be such a coward and refuse to address them.

Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Repeating a logically incoherent claim will not magically turn it coherent, let alone true.

Come on Momo, this disingenuous pseudoskepticism isn't getting you anywhere... You're not convincing anybody... Even SD, who was defending you earlier, has admitted that even they understand what is meant by the "I" in the sense that an 18-month old child can and implied that those who don't aren't as intelligent as a 17-month old child. Unless you're a literal child, you're full of shit momo and you know exactly what we're all talking about...

My line of inquiry has gotten me very far. I got you cornered and you know it. That is why to this day you can not explain what "THAT which does the noticing" is. Your whole supposed case is based on a slight of hand, a cheap parlor trick. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about.
As for SD, I will let him speak for himself. Needless to say, it is just amusing that you would think I am the least interested in what you have to say in other people's name. I will however reiterate a basic truth. It matters not how many people or what people agree or disagree with you. Your propositions either stand on their own, or they don't. I am not beholden to any one's beliefs, assertions, assumptions etc.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

On the other hand, I am being accused of being a coward simply because I refuse to pick one of YOUR beliefs from a false dichotomy.

It's literally impossible for it to be a false dichotomy: either you understand or you don't understand. In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true

You have to pick one you cowardly logic denier. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices. This is basic logic man, you trying to run away like a coward doesn't help you... Now pick one. 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.

EDIT:

>I seriously consider the possibility that you are insane
>your ego is hurt

More proof that you're a liar. You can't consider me to be insane if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental since insanity by definition is mental illness... You've just flat out contradicted yourself again. You can't consider me to have an ego that is hurt since by definition an understanding of ego entails an understanding of self. You just keep contradicting yourself... You're so full of shit momo

 

[momo666]

It's literally impossible for it to be a false dichotomy: either you understand or you don't understand. In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for any proposition, either that proposition is true or its negation is true

What is literally impossible is for that to be the case. You forget that I've already demonstrated the second option of your false dichotomy is merely an elaboration of the first. You of course completely ignored that argument because you are a coward but that matters not since everyone has come to expect that from you.
I will ask you again. Either I understand or I don't understand WHAT ? THAT which DOES the noticing ?

You have to pick one you cowardly logic denier. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices.

Yo-ho-ho and a barrel of projection. The man-child who cowardly runs from my arguments and displays an average Joe's understanding of logic confuses himself with me. What a shocker! Observe that, yet again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Keeping in mind that "I" is a term which refers to "that which does the noticing", it quickly becomes obvious that an understanding of this "I" can not be procured by pointing out what that thing does. The reason for that is simple. You are required to explain what this "I" is, not what it does.

More proof that you're a liar. You can't consider me to be insane if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental since insanity by definition is mental illness... You've just flat out contradicted yourself again. You can't consider me to have an ego that is hurt since by definition an understanding of ego entails an understanding of self. You just keep contradicting yourself... You're so full of shit momo

More proof that you don't know what "proof" is, you mean. The term "insane" is defined as: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill." Notice that WHAT is in that state is not explained.
Furthermore, the term "ego" is defined as: "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance.". That too does not explain WHAT has that sense, since what the term "person" refers to has not been explained.

A mode of behavior and a sense of self-importance do not constitute an understanding of this "I". You are confusing what this "I" DOES with what this "I" IS.
So stop denying logic so much and learn what a contradiction is.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

What is literally impossible is for that to be the case.

It is literally logically impossible for any proposition of the form "P ∨ ~P" to be false. Either a proposition is true, or that proposition's negation is true. That's the only options you have, it's called the law of excluded middle you illiterate logic denier. Now you have to choose: either you understand or you don't understand. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices. This is basic logic man, you trying to run away like a coward doesn't help you... Now pick one. 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.

>The term "insane" is defined as: "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill."
>Furthermore, the term "ego" is defined as: "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance."

Exactly, thanks for proving me right. It's contradictory to claim you comprehend mental illness but do not comprehend the mental in any shape or form... That's a literal contradiction... It is contradictory to claim you comprehend self-esteem being hurt if you don't understand the self in any shape or form... You try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental or the self but at the same time you admit that you understand the concept of a mind that is ill and an ego that is hurt... You just keep getting caught in lies over and over momo...

 

[momo666]

Either a proposition is true, or that proposition's negation is true. That's the only options you have, it's called the law of excluded middle you illiterate logic denier. Now you have to choose: either you understand or you don't understand.

Those are not the options presented in your false dichotomy. You tried to pass one option and another one that is merely an elaboration of the first as a true dichotomy; something which I successfully refuted and to which you presented no response. Stop being an illiterate logic denier and learn the basics. Furthermore, you keep asking me whether I understand or I don't understand, yet continuously fail at pointing out what exactly am I supposed to understand or not understand.

You try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental or the self but at the same time you admit that you understand the concept of a mind that is ill and an ego that is hurt...

Your understanding of contradictions is abysmal. Identifying a mode of behavior does not tell us what exhibits that behavior. Identifying a view does not tell us what holds that view. What you need to do is identify what does both those things, and then explain it. But thus far, you haven't event got pas the first step.
This categorical mistake has underpinned your magical worldview from the very start. You go around waving your hands asserting "this exists" or "that exists" or "something exists" yet when asked to clarify what are you referring to, you cower away.
My line of inquiry would be a walk in the park for someone who actually understands the "mind". The reason you try so hard to avoid defending your supposed case is because your trick has been revealed.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Those are not the options presented in your false dichotomy.

Yes they are, I already explained this to you:
You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, but at the same time you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices... Your first claim entails you not understanding while your second claims entails you understanding. So either you understand or you don't understand. You have to choose you cowardly logic denier: pick one... 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[/u]:
"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Identifying a mode of behavior

Nice try liar, the definition of insane is "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill." This is your own definition lol you've already admitted it. Ego is SELF-esteem you illiterate logic denier. You're contradicting yourself. You try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental or the self but at the same time you admit that you understand the concept of a mind that is ill and an ego that is hurt... You just keep getting caught in lies over and over momo...

 

[momo666]

Your first claim entails you not understanding while your second claims entails you understanding.

Point out exactly what part of my claim entails an understanding of what that which notices is.

So either you understand or you don't understand.

What? I understand or don't understand what ? That is like saying "So either you like or you don't like". You need to specify the subject of your inquiry. Either I understand or I don't understand what?

Nice try liar, the definition of insane is "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill." This is your own definition lol you've already admitted it. Ego is SELF-esteem you illiterate logic denier.

Since you are such an illiterate logic denier, I will help you see the errors in your rambling; again. Notice the definition of the term "insane". More precisely, notice the word "in" at the beginning of the definition. Do you understand that which is "in" that state has not been explained?

Moving on to the ego. Do you notice that which has this sense of "self-esteem" has not been explained? And do you understand that since the self has not been explained, what this sense is of is also left unexplained?

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Point out exactly what part of my claim entails an understanding of what that which notices is.

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

What? I understand or don't understand what ?

I've already explained this to you many times now... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the I, or you understand that there is an I that notices. Too bad you already admitted there is an I that notices, which entails and understanding of the self and consciousness.

Notice the definition of the term "insane".

Yes, by your own admission insanity is "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill." So you have admitted that you can comprehend mind since you're comprehending not only a mind, but a mind that is also ill. You're admitting you understand "mental illness", which is impossible to understand without comprehending the first part of that term: mental

"in"

You already admitted you comprehend insanity, which entails an understanding of the mental. But even if we play your game, all we have to do is define the word "sanity" and since you admit you comprehend that as well then you admit you comprehend the mental. Sanity is: "the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health. You can't comprehend mental health without first understanding mental

Moving on to the ego.

Do you not realize that you keep contradicting yourself? it is logically incoherent for you to claim you understanding absolutely nothing about the self in any shape or form yet admit you comprehend the idea of a person that has SELF-esteem... By your own reasoning, it should be impossible for you to understand an ego that is hurt since you have absolutely no understanding of the self in the first place...

 

[momo666]

"I notice"

The term "notice" refers to an act. It cannot give us an understanding of what that which performs that act is; it merely identifies an action. The term "I" is supposed to refer to that which performs that act, but you have not explained what that is, let alone provided an understanding of it. So you were just proven wrong, yet again, since that claim does not entail an understanding of what that which notices is.

I've already explained this to you many times now... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the I, or you understand that there is an I that notices. Too bad you already admitted there is an I that notices, which entails and understanding of the self and consciousness.

The term "I" is supposed to refer to that which notices. You are supposed to explain what that thing is, as you were asked. To imply I am now "admitting" there is something that notices only goes to show how poor your comprehension of the English language is. Keeping in mind what the term "I" refers to, your false dichotomy can be re-stated as "Either you understand absolutely nothing about that which notices, or you understand that there is something that notices". It then becomes clear that an understanding of what performs the act of noticing has not been provided.

Yes, by your own admission insanity is "in a state of mind which prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill." So you have admitted that you can comprehend mind since you're comprehending not only a mind, but a mind that is also ill. You're admitting you understand "mental illness", which is impossible to understand without comprehending the first part of that term: mental

And, by your own admission, that which is in that state has not been explained. If you agree with the provided definition, then that is the only option, as that which is in that state has not been explained. Furthermore, perception, behavior and social interaction is what a "mind" DOES. But you need to explain what exactly does all those things, and then provide an understanding of that thing. Displaying a behavior that is not normal only identifies a mode of behavior. It does not identify what exhibits that behavior. So you are, yet again, proven wrong. One can understand a mode of behavior, without actually understanding what exhibits that behavior.

But even if we play your game, all we have to do is define the word "sanity" and since you admit you comprehend that as well then you admit you comprehend the mental. Sanity is: "the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health. You can't comprehend mental health without first understanding mental

You might not have noticed it, but you shoot yourself in the foot, yet again. Do you see that term? [Ability.] You need to explain what possesses that ability to think and behave in a certain manner. One can comprehend a mode of behavior or an act, without actually comprehending that which DOES those things.

it is logically incoherent for you to claim you understanding absolutely nothing about the self in any shape or form yet admit you comprehend the idea of a person that has SELF-esteem... By your own reasoning, it should be impossible for you to understand an ego that is hurt since you have absolutely no understanding of the self in the first place...

These terms: "person", "self". They are simply terms that are supposed to refer to something. What that something is has not been explained. Identifying a view one has does not identify what holds that view. It also does not identify what that view is about; after all, if you don't know what you are, and it is pretty obvious that you don't, then what meaning does your reference act hold?
Respect and admiration are views, in this case about yourself. One can identify you hold those views and yet not understand what holds those views.
Keep in mind that "you", "I", "self" or "person" are merely terms. You are supposed to explain what they REFER to and then provide an understanding of that thing. Until you do that, your whole supposed case is built upon a parlor trick.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The term "notice" refers to an act

You're still screwed because look at the definition when it's defined as a verb:

You pretend you have no idea what awareness or perception is, yet you're outright admitting that you are aware and perceive:

More proof that you're screwed:

You therefore cannot cowardly run from this by pretending you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form since you're clearly admitting you understand awareness, consciousness, perception, etc. Clearly you have some understanding. This is inescapable: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

your false dichotomy can be re-stated

Naw, since you already admitted "I notice". So either you understand absolutely nothing about the I or you understand that there is an I that notices. Either you understand or you don't understand. Stop being a coward and choose one...

And-

Stop right there-so you're admitting I'm right then. You're not negating what I said, you're just adding to it and admitting I'm right in that you really do understand mind since you are admitting you understand not only a mind, but a mind that is ill.

You might not have noticed it, but you shoot yourself in the foot, yet again.

You just used the word notice again, which is just another word for awareness, perception, and consciousness lmao it is you who just shot themselves in the foot. And since you admit you understand sanity then you clearly understand the mental in some shape or form since it's logically incoherent to claim you comprehend mental illness while understanding absolutely nothing about the mental.

These terms: "person", "self". They are simply terms that are supposed to refer to something

Yeah and they refer to your contradictions. Since you claim you can't comprehend the self in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to claim you comprehend this idea of an ego that is hurt. An understanding of ego entails an understanding of self by definition... So you just keep contradicting yourself over and over again.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Ok, so you define conscious as being able to notice, define notice as being able to perceive, define perceive as being aware, and define aware as being conscious.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Master_Ghost_Knight, all I'm doing is showing that momo is affirming the understanding and reality of the mental. By momo's own claims, he's admitting that he understands consciousness, awareness, perception, all of which are mental. The moment you admit that you have at least some understanding of the mental then you're with me and against momo. Momo is the one pretending that they have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet they admit "I notice"="I am conscious"=premise 1 is true by their own admission.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well I disagree. I have been stating that you don't understand your own arguments. And it's a very valid point to demonstrate that you have been operating under a notion about these concepts that are simply invalid, reason why you can't understand why your points are invalid. Case in point your definition is circular, and it actually doesn't come anywhere close to elucidating what exactly is it that you mean by those terms.

Further more, your insinstance on using the falacy of appeal to dictionary betrays exactly that same problem, i.e. you have no idea what those terms mean.

FYI, for people who are not layman, Perception and Awareness are 2 completely different things. One deals with the sensory experience and the other deals with the ability to integrate that experience into a model.

I have been saying from the start that you are not equipped to have this kind of argument.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

Well I disagree.

So you're just going to contradict yourself now and pretend like you also have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...? You have yourself affirmed that you understand the mental and have affirmed that the mental exists and is a phenomenon happening within the brain. This contradicts what momo is saying, and is an admission that you agree with me on the fact that the mental is comprehensible and is real... On this particular topic you would be in agreement with me and in disagreement with momo. Come on man, don't let your ego get in the way of admitting something you have already confessed in the past.... Put your dislike of me aside, put your ego aside, and just admit the truth: you agree with me on this particular topic and disagree with momo. Come on, just be real...

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I know what my own notion of "mental" is.
But my notion and your notion are clearly not the same, is it?

My notion of metal is a self referential phenomena occurring on a physical substrate that we call the brain, your concept is an "unspecified something" akin to a disembodied mind (whatever that is) without a substrate.

To say that I know what those terms mean when I use it does not in anyway help your case, because:
1. What must be understood for your arguments to work is how you use it.
2. When I use those terms, I clearly have a different understanding of them then what you have, and they do not make your argument work.

When people ask you to define those terms, its a courtesy that they are giving you. What are they doing is saying "hey, I'm not going to be biased here, and I'm not going to dismiss your arguments on the basis of what I understand those words mean, I'm going to give you the opportunity to provide clarification so that I can understand the argument with the meaning that you understand those words to have".
More often than not what ends up being is "hey, you have not taught this one trough, you are making allot of implicit assumptions that are not valid, because your understanding of these concepts is incorrect".
By asking you to define it, they are trying to put you trough the process of having to analyse the specific details of those concepts, which will either clarify your point, or make you realize about mistaken hidden assumptions you didn't knew you made.

This is the basis of counter-argumentation. And the fact that you don't understand this makes other people see you as unreasonable.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

I know what my own notion of "mental" is.

So then you really do agree with me on this particular topic and disagree with momo. You have admitted that you have some understanding of the mental. Momo is trying to claim he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form, while you're admitting you have at least some understanding of the mental. This means you agree with me, on this particular topic, and disagree with momo...

But my notion and your notion are clearly not the same, is it?

We both agree that premise 1 is comprehensible and is true. You admit that mind exists. We're in agreement by your own admission... The difference between you and me is premise 3: reductionism vs anti-reductionism.

your concept is an "unspecified something" akin to a disembodied mind (whatever that is) without a substrate

Wow you suck at reading. I said all the way back in the OP that I am using a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower understanding of the mental. I've said that what I mean by the mental is first-person subjective awareness. You reduce this to the brain or processes in the brain, while I don't. That's the difference.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I said all the way back in the OP that I am using a common sense average joe's non-ivory tower understanding of the mental.

That is not a thing. It's meaningless.
Because my understanding of what an "average Joe" should know about theory of mind is absolutely fuck-all, and not even an idea worth entertaining.

So then you really do agree with me on this particular topic and disagree with momo. You have admitted that you have some understanding of the mental. Momo is trying to claim he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form, while you're admitting you have at least some understanding of the mental. This means you agree with me, on this particular topic, and disagree with momo...

No I don't.
You are not getting it, you are not listening to what I am saying.
Momo has seen the word "mental" being used before, he is more than capable of using it in a sentence to form a coherent statement. And I'm pretty sure he has some construct of what that word means. But that is irrelevant, we are not talking about what he means when he uses that word. What is at stake is what do you mean when you use that word, and to that effect He has no idea what you mean when you use those words.

Hell I have no idea what you mean when you sue those words. I don't mean that I have never seen the word mental, nor do I mean that I don't what the word means to mean when I use. What I'm saying is that your concept of the word "mental" the way you describe is trying to describe something that is incoherent to me. I have tried to entertain your concept of what you mean by "mental" and tried to make sense of it by the properties you try to associate to it, and it does not make sense, it is incoherent.

What you are describing, when you use those words, seems to match this incoherent picture that we formed from your description, and we don't understand why you don't find it incoherent, when we clearly do.
There can be many reasons for this:
1. The picture that we are painting based on your description is not the same that you have. The way to fix this problem is to describe the picture in more detail. I.e. Define your terms more accurately.
2. You know something we don't. In that case going into more detail will allow to fill the missing pictures. When they ask you to define your terms more accurately, what they are saying is, "this picture looks wrong, and it looks wrong on this tiny little bit where your terms are not define that accurately". Define your terms more accurately.
3. We know something you don't. Maybe we have a better picture of things than you have. And by asking you to define your terms more accurately, we are inviting you to take a closer look at the picture, and just maybe you will realize that some of the more finer brush strokes don't quite jive and that you have been painting your picture in the wrong way.

Do you understand what I am saying?
If so. I want you to reiterate what I am saying, in your own words.
(This is an exercise designed to check if you are painting the same picture, i.e. that we understand each other).

 

[Monistic Idealism]

That is not a thing.

Um, yeah it is... Everybody goes around talking about their thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, beliefs, experiences etc. all the time and you know this... Just about everybody has this notion that there is an "I" that is aware, that is conscious. Couples talk to each other all the time about their feelings and what is on their mind and so forth. Come on man, quit the disingenuous bullshit... Even 18-month old children grasp this:

Humans have been aware of the fact that they exist and that they are conscious long before science ever came about... Every average joe can grasp this, even children can.

No I don't.

Then you're contradicting yourself. You're trying to tell me you have some understanding of mind and absolutely 0 understanding of the mind in any shape or form....

And I'm pretty sure he has some construct of what that word means.

According to him he doesn't. He's claiming he has absolutely 0 understanding of the mind in any shape or form. You're claiming you do have some understanding. It can't go both ways... Either you have some or you have none. It's logically impossible to have none and some at the same time, if you have some then it's not the case that you have none by definition. Come on man, you know this.

Hell I have no idea what you mean when you sue those words

So when someone talks about a first-person shooter video game you just throw your hands in the air with a puzzled look on your face and say "what the fuck are you talking about?!"...? You know what first-person means, cut the bullshit. You use first-person pronouns all the time, you're being ridiculous. Subjective awareness in this sense is that you have this experience in first person and you have consciousness of it. There is what it is like for you to experience taste or pain etc. You're aware of this, you've admitted as such already. Your pseudoskepticism isn't fooling anyone.

I've also linked several scholarly sources for more information in the past for further clarification. Such as:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/

Do you understand what I am saying?If so. I want you to reiterate what I am saying, in your own words.
(This is an exercise designed to check if you are painting the same picture, i.e. that we understand each other).

You first... this is your exercise, this is your idea, you go first.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

</B></COLOR>[quote mine]<COLOR color="#FF0000"><B>

Um, yeah it is... Everybody goes around talking about their thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, beliefs, experiences etc. all the time and you know this... [Why this is wrong]

Then you're contradicting yourself. You're trying to tell me you have some understanding of mind and absolutely 0 understanding of the mind in any shape or form....
[...]


According to him he doesn't. [...] You're claiming you do have some understanding. It can't go both ways... Either you have some or you have none. It's logically impossible to have none and some at the same time, if you have some then it's not the case that you have none by definition. Come on man, you know this. [why this is wrong]

[...]


So when someone talks about a first-person shooter video game you just throw your hands in the air with a puzzled look on your face and say "what the fuck are you talking about?!" [why this completely misses the point]

You first... this is your exercise, this is your idea, you go first.

This demonstrates that you have spent exactly 0 effort in trying to understand what people are trying to explain to you.
Explain to me why you think you deserve that other people put in the effort when addressing your arguments?