The Case for Idealism

[Monistic Idealism]

It is not that I did not meet your challenge.

Yeah it is, and you failed to meet my challenge. Notice how you even say that I did not meet your challenge. You're identifying yourself right now and distinguishing yourself from me and you're doing so in first-person. You cannot escape, your pseudo-skepticism can't even get off the ground.

For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person

So one minute you want to act like you have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what first-person means but now all of a sudden you do understand what it means for there to be a first-person perspective? Well you've contradicted yourself here for sure, and you've admitted that you comprehend what I've been saying this whole time now. My definition this whole time of mind has been "first-person subjective awareness".

But the main point is that this "first-person" is but a phenomena we refer to using these first-person pronouns. What this phenomena is remains unknown

It is the self, and we all know this. Even 18-month old children know what this is, or rather who this is, and we know/understand this directly and immediately.

You are still operating under the delusion that I deny this phenomena exists.

You are trying to avoid affirming premise 1 and you are trying to do this by pretending you have absolutely no comprehension of premise 1 in any shape or form, yet here you are explicitly or implicitly accepting that premise 1 is true.

What you are supposed to tell us is what this "I" is and then explain it.

1. I have
2. I've already pointed out your equivocation regarding knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. We know the "I" along with every other mental phenomena via acquaintance and is thus independent of any description or explanation. A subject can be completely non-verbal and be unable to give an explanation for anything but that does not entail that they do not have any understanding of the self or the I in any shape or form. For you to claim otherwise is to equivocate.

Simply using them does not automatically grant us an understanding of the phenomena they refer to.

Yes actually it does, especially when you are using them correctly as you have been this whole time. You don't confuse yourself with me because you understand the distinction between you and me, hence you use language to reflect this knowledge/understanding that you keep pretending you don't have. If you were really so confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form you should be tripping over this confusion all the time and failing to distinguish yourself from me, yet this doesn't happen...

Nowhere did I point out what this "I" is, neither did you.

Yes you did, and you're doing it right now. You're referring to this "I" as yourself right now... You're distinguishing yourself from me as we speak. You don't take momo and monistic idealism to be the same person but rather 2 distinct persons and you identify momo as yourself and monistic idealism as not yourself. So this entails some understanding of the self in some shape or form since there's enough understanding to not only identify yourself but distinguish yourself as distinct from me.

Again, you assert I identify myself as distinct from you

You literally do. You even said that you consider me to be insane and that you yourself are sane. You literally think that I am a different person than you, you've admitted this. We can all verify this publicly...

Then you would be saying you have some understanding of the "I" or "self" in some shape or form since you identify it with the collection of bones and flesh. You would just be another physicalist like everybody else in here.

Even then, it could still be the case that I do not know what does the noticing. For me to do that, it would imply that I have a complete understanding of this body, which none of us has. So while I would identify this "I" with this body, I would not actually have an explanation of it. In fact, it is not even clear I could claim I identified this "I". I say that because absent a complete understanding of said body, I would not know what parts of it are necessary for me to remain as I am. And absent said understanding, I would not know what modes of behavior of any given parts are necessary to remain as I am.

If the "I" is the body then you have to prove your reductionism is true and you'd have to admit that you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the "I"=the body. What's so damn hard about you just coming out of the closet and admitting that you have at least some understanding in some shape or form...?

Yes actually it would, don't forget about the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance as well. You can be acquainted with something without having a description for it.

the very distinction you are attempting to employ can not take flight until you explain what that term refers to.

This is pure question begging. The entire concept of knowledge by acquaintance is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Notice how the word "you" there never showed in that description like you dishonestly suggested... This knowledge is is not dependent on any verbal description or explanation so for you to complain that there is no description/explanation totally misses the point and begs the question that all knowledge must be knowledge by description. And speaking of your point about the word "you" I don't see how you're not going to fall on your own sword since the very notion of knowledge already is mental in nature. All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject that has a justified true belief or however you define knowledge here.

I did not forget that non-mind becomes mind. Why would that bother me again?

Your reading comprehension is so bad that you think saying I notice equals non-mind becomes mind lol learn what words means, here let me help you out: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

But I would not understand it.

You understand enough that you affirm premise 1 is true. You may not have some deep fundamental understanding in some crazy deep way to satisfy the radical skeptic, but you have enough understanding to grasp what it means in the way the average joe uses it, the way an 18-month old child can grasp. Which is all you need for the argument.

Rather, I could merely infer that, whatever it is, it does not require the taste of an apple say. What something is not does not tell us what something is.

Direct knowledge is non-inferential, the knowledge is immediate. The self is grasped in first-person

In fact, our own experience tells us even us might not be necessary for this "I" to persist. You get knocked out, it all goes blank. Same with sleep and certain types of coma. Yet when you wake up, there you are.

So you grasp that there such a thing as "our own experience" and that there is this "I", you're just questioning whether it persists.

What follows is that an underlying non-mental structure is more fundamental than this "I".

Not at all, there is still the sub-conscious level, you're just in a more basic state of the mental. Coma patients report having dreams and all sorts of visions.

Furthermore, consciousness as you've defined it stands in complete negation of P3.

You need to justify this claim, you're just stating this with 0 support.

And for to me agree that consciousness exists, you must point out what the term refers to because if I think consciousness is

You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience" and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I, you just question whether it persists. This is what I'm getting at with mind and consciousness and the mental in general, and again this is an average joe's understanding as I've had to remind you time and again. Everybody else grasps what I'm saying just fine, this is just a personal problem for you.

Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time.

Then you clearly know what the fuck I am talking about when I point out that your admission that you grasp mental verbs is ipso facto an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form as you're grasping the verbs of the mental. You grasp what the mental does, and you don't just see verbs attached to nothing, so you're telling you grasp this idea of us being aware of the mental.

But notice again the distinction between what something is and what something does.

Notice how you admitted earlier that we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't see "jump" or "jumping" just floating out in nature, rather we see an organism that jumps. Same thing goes with the mental verbs... We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping. You even said "right" on this before, so you've been caught admitting I'm right on this already.

Again, what that is, not how you CALL it.

omg do you seriously not understand the law of identity? This is seriously logic 101 man... A=A is the same this as saying A is A. What is A? It's A! This first-person perspective, that you admitted exists, and this subjective awareness that we all know directly and independently of any description/explanation is the mental. That's the mental, I just told you what it is. can you stop being retarded now with the pseudo-skepticism?

Actually, in the definition of "insane", something is in a state of mind so have fun explaining what that something is.

Hey you're the guy trying to claim you consider me to be insane yet you're now telling me you can't comprehend the very words in your own definition of insane so you've just shot yourself in the foot. It's so weird how you think someone else has the burden to define your own terms lol learn how the burden of proof works momo. When you make claims you have the obligation to define the terms you use and give support for those claims, not the other speaker...

That's a form of the mental, namely the actions of the mental. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and true.

So are you saying your P1 refers to actions?

I'm saying mental verbs refer to actions of the mental, and there can't be mental actions unless the mental exists in the first place. So you're admitting premise 1 is true yet again.

You literally can't make sense of projection with your pseudo-skepticism if you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form.

I don't know what mind is. I can make sense of projection without that piece of information.Have fun proving me wrong.

1. I've caught you admitting you do know several times already
2. the very definition of projection involves the mental which you pretend you don't understand so by your own pseudo-skeptic standards its impossible for you to understand projection
3. you don't know how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. The burden of proof is on the claimant so you have the burden to justify your claims.

Also, I do not understand what "in a state of mind" means.

Then you don't understand your own definition of insane by your own admission. Great, thanks for admitting you're completely incoherent.

I observe-

Whoa, stop right there. So you're saying there is an "I" that "observes". How can you make any sense of that if you can't can't make any sense of premise 1...?

whatever drives that behavior must change in some way to account for different behaviors. But I don't know what that thing is. Nor do I know how that process goes.

So then you're with me on P3 if you're not reducing that which drives behavior to the body or the brain or the nervous system or anything like that. You would be against the physicalists then if that's so.

That's the point you keep missing. Without pointing out what that state of affairs is, I can not possibly identify it with anything.

So then you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system or the body in general that drives behavior. Great, then you're with me on P3, you're not a reductionist then.

Again, P3 is necessarily false due to how you defined consciousness.

Consciousness has been defined, but even if it weren't that doesn't make it false that would just make it incomprehensible. Not being able to understand something doesn't mean its false, learn how to logic.

An ability is reducible by definition

proof?

And I just refuted your argument

No you didn't, you just repeated the exact assertion I gave a refutation of.

I keep catching you in this lie and I keep having to throw your own definition right back in your face: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."

Perception, behavior and social interaction is what this thing does.

Actually perception is defined as a noun but either way by your own admission we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't just see "perception" floating out in nature, so like how we don't just see "jump" we see an organism that jumps, we are aware that there is a mind that perceives. Also in your definition is the term "IN A STATE OF MIND", nice try at covering that up by only bringing up perception, behavior, and social interaction though... If you can't grasp what "in a state of mind" means or "perception" then by your own admission you cannot grasp what the word "insane" means...

The phrase "you are you" is meaningless unless YOU tell ME what this "you" refers to.

You just referred to what those words refer to right now... You are identifying them in this very sentence, and you are meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me as if I am not you... your bullshit isn't convincing anyone, you just keep tripping over your own lies

I could for example, mean that collection of bones and flesh.

Then that would be a shape or form of understanding of the I since you have at least some understanding of bones and flesh in some shape or form and the I is identical to the bones and flesh.

I gave several possibilities that show what this "I" is can remain unknown while allowing us to use the term coherently.

No you didn't actually as I just demonstrated. If you identify the "I" with the body then you're still admitting that you have at least some understanding of the I in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the I is identical to the body.

Someone is lying alright...

Yup, and we know damn well that it's you and your pseudo-skepticism can't even let you deny this because you should be pretending that you have absolutely no understanding what "you" means in the first place hahah You can't say that "I" am lying because you'd first have to understand what "I" is in the first place to say that I am lying. There's not a single person here who is buying your crap, momo...

Those are phenomena that I call "perception, awareness and consciousness".

And you're saying they exist! So you're admitting premise 1 is true. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet

And by how you defined them, they are either an ability or an act

No they've been defined as nouns, look it up for yourself even though I've shown you screenshots of the definition already... These terms can also be used as verbs as well though.

You're the one who is literally admitting there is a distinction between me and you, which is also literally an identification of yourself. So you have identified the self and comprehend it enough to grasp that this self is different from me. So that is an understanding of the self in some shape or form.

That is not an identification.

Yes it is, logic denier: Law of Identity. You constantly refer to yourself as if I am different than you, and you affirm that I really am different than you. You think I am a distinct person from you and that I am insane while you are not insane. This in of itself is an admission that there is enough understanding to distinguish yourself from me by your own admission. If there was absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form this distinction would be impossible.

Yeah, which is you admitting that consciousness exists. You're literally admitting that you comprehend and affirm premise 1 right now.

That something that begins to be conscious must be non-conscious to begin with.

1. You're still admitting consciousness exists, which means you're admitting premise 1 is comprehensible and is true
2. I've already explained how there is a fundamental conscious level and that every other contingent being emerges from that mental base. So it's not non-consciousness to consciousness, but consciousness to consciousness. Stop ignoring what I say...

There is no "your" consciousness because you've said "I=consciousness".

That is a complete non-sequitur on your part. All this means is that I begin to exist, that I am contingent.

Moreover, what exactly does it mean for a mind to be grounded in another mind?

You're simply repeating a question I already answered: This is a topic I was going to address in a new thread when I actually give the case for cosmic idealism, and I noted in the OP I was going to deal with cosmic idealism in a new thread. This is a much deeper conversation that deserves its own thread (much like a deeper analysis of the self) and can only be had after one can at least charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case is made from prior commitments to idealism. If you can't wait for that, then check out the paper from David Chalmers I cited in the OP on Cosmic Idealism, he goes over it a bit there.

A potential does not turn into an actual unless that thing which posseses it acts upon said ability to bring it forth. The support for that is your own provided definitions.

I'm not seeing how this applies to me at all. You need to make yourself more clear.

You did actually.

Nice try at an equivocation. You're saying I defined consciousness as an ability yet here you are showing me a definition of the word perception and perceive haha I see right through your bullshit momo. You know I didn't define consciousness as an ability, and that consciousness is a noun, along with perception as a matter of fact.

But it does. Watch! That which does not exist (they) can not begin to be anything.

How?? You're just stating this with 0 support...

Only things that exist can begin to be anything

That's a literal contradiction, if it already exists then it can't begin to be.

Because you've said "I=consciousness", you can only say consciousness begins to be, not that "they being to be conscious".

they=consciousness so they begin to be lol that was easy

What deeper analysis of the self?

A fundamental understanding as you yourself put it. There's a common sense average joe's understanding of mind that even an 18-month old child can grasp, and there's the more philosophical analysis where one tries to grasp the self in a more detailed and critical way. That's a topic of study in its own right and deserves its own thread, I'm just talking about a basic understanding here.

And no, of course, I am not going to commit myself to idealism.

Your dishonesty is so brazen. I specifically said: "charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument". I'm not asking you to actually commit yourself to idealism, I clearly didn't say that... You seriously need to learn how to be more charitable in your interpretations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

You should be able to make your case without me doing that.

No I can't because the case is premised on idealism. Only after idealism is either affirmed or accepted for the sake of argument can the case be made. Hence why I've made the case for idealism before the case for cosmic idealism.

Then you're literally saying "you understand or you don't understand" is a false dichotomy, which is literally a denial of the law of excluded middle... you're a literal logic denier...

No, I am not because that is not what your false dichotomy poses.

Yes it does, it literally takes the form of "P ∨ ~P". Either you understand or you don't understand, you have to pick one.

A noun which references an act.

No, that's not how nouns work... A noun refers to a fucking noun: a person, place, or thing. If it was a verb it would be referring to an act, but it's a noun so it's not. Your cognitive dissonance has you doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with these word games man, its pathetic...

Mental verbs refer to what the mental does.

Right, which means there is a mental in the first place to perform actions. We don't just see "jump" floating in existence, but rather an organism that jumps. Same goes for mental verbs: there is the mental to engage in such verbs. So premise 1 is true and comprehensible enough.

muh chakra

Sorry but the word chakra is already defined and is not synonymous with the mental at all:

You would have to contradict the definition of the word chakra to equivocate and identify it as something else....

What is that which "everybody else" seems to get?

What mind is, and what this common sense average joe's understanding of the "I" or "self" is

Why would I need to adhere to those people assumptions sans proper argument?

Wow you suck at general comprehension. You said, and I quote directly: "What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is." this is pure projection on your part because it is only you that is having this supposed lack of understanding. Literally everyone else understands me, including scholars around the globe, understands just fine. This is a personal problem, momo. Stop projecting your own failure to comprehend onto others, it's only you that fails to comprehend.

And given that what this "I" is remains unknown, what does the thinking remains unknown.

What makes you think it is unknown? Because you personally can't give a description or explanation of it? Do you still not comprehend the distinction between knowing and describing? One can know something without being able to describe it. To claim otherwise is pure equivocation.

You are confusing how we call a thing with what that thing is.

1. law of identity
2. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

are you so autistic that you don't get what "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet" means...?

The term "we" is how we call it, not what it is.

This applies to literally all terms. A tree is still a tree even if we called it something else. It's not about the term, but what the term is referring to, and you're using the word "we" to refer to us users who are in here rather than the letters on the screen. So this entails some grasp of the "we" in some shape or form as there's enough understanding to correctly identify it and distinguish it from other things.

No, I called it "I".

That's identifying it. Law of identity, A=A which means A is A.

Again. Utterly wrong.

If I'm wrong then you're lying because you have literally said it is mind that drives behavior. You've identified that which drives behavior as "mind".

What I said what that you're not reducing that which drives behavior, and this is fact. You are literally not trying to say that the brain or the nervous system drives behavior, but rather you are identifying that which drives behavior as "mind" and you are not identifying this mind with the brain and nervous system. So then you would not be a reductionist which means you're with me

It's not a fact because you do not know if I am reducing that which drives behavior.

Yes I do: you've admitted outright that you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system that drives behavior, but rather this thing you identify as mind. If you were reducing you'd be saying its the brain or nervous system or the body in general that causes behavior, but you're not doing this. Which means you're with me on P3

But for me to identify that thing with the brain, you first need to tell me what it is.

...it would be the brain... you literally just said it.... If the mind=brain then what we identify as the mind is actually just the brain... how did you mess this up...?

It is if you've defined "mind" as an ability

But I never did, you're pulling this out of your ass

Buddy, stop with the behaviorism babble. I am not that

I know you want to avoid that, but your claims keeps boxing you into that corner. Now stop dodging my question: are you with cognitive psychology or not? If yes you're with modern science, if not you're against modern science.

I literally don't.

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the word "insane" means, which entails you can't consider me to be insane then in the first place. Great

States of mind is how we call that which drives behavior.

And you're not reducing that to the brain or the nervous system or the body in general, so that means you're with me on P3 by your own admission.

"Whatever" is not an understanding.

I never said it is, I said you understand what "myself" means which is just you admitting you've been full of shit this whole time.

Noticing is what it does, not what it is

I keep correcting you on this and you just keep dishonestly ignoring: notice is defined as NOUN, but even if it's not it's still an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form since you grasp the verbs of the mental.

What an absolute fail. On what criteria is this definition set ?

On what criteria is any definition set??? See this is exactly what I was talking about months ago: you're going off onto other fundamental topics like philosophy of language. You need to start some new threads, momo. You're bringing in too much philosophical baggage

Give me an actual argument as to why I could not call that which notices "chakra".

Look up the very definition of the word "chakra". We can see that it's not defined at all in the same way as "I" or "consciousness". This is how we define our words, we have an agreed upon set number of words that refer to what we're talking about. For you to go beyond this is to delve deep into some philosophy of language bullshit that has nothing to do with our conversation.

There can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exists. Why is this different from what you're saying ?

It isn't different. There literally can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exits. Check mate

What distinguishes itself from what? Again. What that thing is. Not how you call it.

This is a question you have to ask yourself because it is YOU who is literally distinguishing yourself from me. It is not my responsibility for me to define your own terms that you yourself use and to justify your claims. And cue the silence...

I don't think so.

The irony here is stunning lol then how come you're so alone in this forum? Everybody has agreed with me so far, they all understanding what I'm getting at perfectly fine. This is clearly a personal problem for you.

I think a reasonable person would see the distinctions I am making are quite reasonable.

Notice how alone you are... You and I both know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of humans know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know whole swathes of those people are quite reasonable. What I'm saying is common sense, this is something you don't need a degree in philosophy to grasp. Hell even 18-month old children understand what I'm saying. You're literally the only person who is trying to be such a turbo skeptic that you're willing to straight up lie and pretend you don't even grasp what even an 18-month old child grasps...

It is for what I was quoting.

No it's not actually, you literally can't say there is perception while premise 1 not being true. If you're saying perception exists then you're saying the mental exists because perception is mental.

What I don't understand is what this "I" is.

You understanding enough to understand that there is an "I" in the first place and that this "I" understands/doesn't understand. That's enough to admit you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form. Again, what's so bad about coming out of the closet about this...?

What should I expect from a habitual liar.

You really didn't give an argument, you just repeated an assertion that was already dealt with

Yes you did, you did it just now! hahah You are saying that you are momo, that you are you, and you are the one who said x,y,z as if it wasn't me who said x,y,z. You are distinguishing yourself from me, you are identifying yourself as distinct from me and the words on the screen etc.

That is how we call that thing

You are saying this thing that we call "x" actually exists. Labels don't matter, it's what the labels reference: A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME SMELLS JUST AS SWEET

What do they understand ?

That premise 1 is true and comprehensible.

You never defined your terms.

This is a bold faced lie. I've given my definition all the way back in the OP and even gave several scholarly sources that go into more detail.

Be honest and admit to your ignorance.

This is more proof of your equivocation. Knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things. Even if I couldn't describe it, which I have, that wouldn't mean I don't know it. Stop equivocating. Do you really not see the difference between knowing and describing??? Weren't you the one bitching earlier about subtle nuances and all that? I'm asking you honestly, don't dodge this question: do you really not see the difference between describing and knowing??

This comming from the guy that literally spammed his nonsense over and over. Such silly projections.

1. This doesn't address what I said at all.
2. This is ironic because I was only doing what you were doing lol

1.The "self" is a term.

All words are terms, the fact that it's a term doesn't change anything...

2. No one is equivocating, except you.

No that would be you. You're equating "knowing something" with "describing something". Knowing and describing are 2 different things. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong.

1. You did not. You merely swapped words and acted as if that explains it.

Giving a definition is not swapping words, nice try.

Did you also not try to say the self is an act by the self ?

I didn't actually, but nice try.

2. You are the one that is equivocating as shown above.

prove to me that the words "describe" and "know" mean the same thing... Go on, I'll wait... Show me that they mean the same thing... the second you admit they're not the same thing then you admit that I'm right and thus you're equivocating...

But I would like to know what this mind is and what a representation is.

I linked you an entire academic article on cognitive science. Maybe try reading the sources I give you...

You've said "I=consciousness".

That doesn't prove your claim at all.

The word is.

And you comprehend the word as you've just admitted, that it is the I that drives behavior.

Those are phenomena that we name that way

We have identified them as such because that is what they are. This point about names literally applies to EVERYTHING. Trees, cars, birds etc.

3. Notice how you said we don't need to know FUNDAMENTALLY what the I is. That's fine, we don't need to know fundamentally what existence is to understand what an object is. Maybe there is a more fundamental question about the nature of the "I" that needs to be explored (perhaps in a new thread since its a topic of study in its own right) but that doesn't mean there is 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form.

Yes, because it is supposed to be non-reducible remember ?

what? that's entirely irrelevant. This isn't about reduction or non-reduction it's about what the I is. Just like how we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of existence is to understand what an object is, so we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of the self is to understand what the I is.

How is it what I'm asking you so hard that requires a new thread.

It's not about being hard it's about something being more fundamental and so it's a new topic.

I just want to know what this "I" is.

You understand enough to know that there is an "I" that just wants to know something. You have what you need to assess the argument, so stop being a coward and actually address more premises.

The only reason they are called "mental properties" is because we choose to call that which does all those things "mental".

This applies to literally everything, this is a vapid point that gets nobody anywhere.

What was that thing about the rose again ? It smells just as sweet no matter the name ?

You really are autistic aren't you...? Too dumb to use google too I guess. Looks like I'll have to spoon feed this to you as well: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a popular reference to William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet seems to argue that it does not matter that Romeo is from her family's rival house of Montague, that is, that he is named "Montague". The reference is often used to imply that the names of things do not affect what they really are."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_rose_by_any_other_name_would_smell_as_sweet

It's about what the name refers to, and no matter how much you bitch and complain about names like "muh chakra" and "muh cabbage" that has no effect on what I'm talking about or what I'm referring to. What we're identifying as "mind" exists, even if you wish to call it chakra or cabbage. Get it?????

Identity of the terms, not of the things they refer to.

No, it's not identity of the terms, it's identity of the object. The words refer to the object, not the terms themselves. There is a specific word that we have for words that refer to themselves: Autological Words. For you claim to hold water you'd have to say all words are autological words and that's just demonstrably bullshit...

The apple is the object, the word "apple" is what is used to refer to that thing.

Yup, and this applies to the "I" as well.

No. I am calling myself that way.

100% contradictory lol

Wow, you suck at reading... I specifically said "you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well." end quote. You can't tell me that you understanding absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form while admitting that you comprehend thoughts, feelings, ideas, and complex mental phenomenon like projection and so forth. Learn to read

Those are names we give to phenomena.

And those phenomena exist by your own admission! So you're saying premise 1 is true! Call it whatever you want, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Call a rose a chakra, it's still a rose. Call the mental whatever you want, it's still the mental.

And what does the "other mental properties" refer to ?

Exactly that: other mental properties.

I am stating that I do not know what this "mental" is. That does not mean I can not give it a name.

If that were true then you would be a strict behaviorist and talk only about behavior yet you keep talking about perception, awareness, consciousness and so forth. What you are calling mental exists by your own admission no matter what you call it.

Totally. Like confusing how a thing is called with what a thing is. Noob!

An apple is an apple by your own admission. There's the word we use to refer to the object (apple) and the object in itself (apple) and we have identified this object as: apple. This is the law of identity. Apple=apple. Your word games aren't working...

Okay, let's turn that "might" into a "probably".

You didn't answer the question yet again, coward. Where would Sally look for her ball?? If you're not such a coward then you should have no problem answering this question outright...

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. If you have a bruised view of oneself then that necessarily is a view of oneself, it's merely a bruised view of the self. If I can have a coherent bruised view of the self then that means I can have a coherent view of the self. You've painted yourself into a corner, momo...

Thoughts and ideas is how we call certain phenomena.

Again, this applies to literally all phenomena. It's not about the labels, it's about what the labels reference and you're admitting what those labels reference exists.

No it's not merely a term, that term refers to something (or rather someone) that actually exists, and I've explained that this "I" is grasped in first-person and is known directly, immediately, and independently of any description. Again, don't equivocate description with understanding. I'm going to call you out on that bullshit every time, so don't think you're going to get away with it...

It is merely a term. That it refers to something does not make it more special.

Yes it does because that means it's not merely a term lol what matters is not the name, but what the name refers to. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Again, act not object. Law of identity.

Notice is defined as a noun so thanks for shooting yourself in the foot, also I've defined mind already: first-person subjective awareness. That is what these terms are referring to, and you grasp this directly and immediately.

There is something I call "me".

So this "I" exists! great

Whatever is doing the thinking can ponder about what it is. What about that is so hard to understand ?

What's so hard about you coming out of the closet already and admitting you have some understanding of the "I" then? You can ponder yourself, you just admitted it!

Is this a law of nature ? Is it set in stone ? What argument do you have for me not being able, if I so choose, to call that which does the noticing "cabbage" ?

1. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet
2. you're going into some other irrelevant topic in philosophy of mind. What is being told to you is our terms have already been defined and to go against that is to contradict oneself. If we can't agree on the definitions of ANY word then we can't have a meaningful dialogue so even if its just for the sake of argument you and I have to come to an understanding of our terms and keep them that way so we don't equivocate. Otherwise I can just define every word you've written as "monistic idealism is right" and by your own logic that's perfectly legitimate... We need set terms. I know you don't like that because you want to equivocate as much as possible but that's how the game is played buddy. So stop with the dishonesty. You know chakra and cabbage aren't defined as mental nor are they synonymous with mental, so just cut the crap...

 

[momo666]

Yeah it is, and you failed to meet my challenge. Notice how you even say that I did not meet your challenge. You're identifying yourself right now and distinguishing yourself from me and you're doing so in first-person. You cannot escape, your pseudo-skepticism can't even get off the ground.

Your challenge is based on a very falwed set of assumptions. Until those assumptions are demonstrated to be true, there is no need for me to even accept your challenge as a legitimate one. I am calling this phenomena, whatever it is, a name. That however does not imply I know what the phenomena is, it merely shows that I have a name for it. You, even if I had the unfortunate pleasure of meeting you in person, would merely be considered to be similar to me only because I make a series of assumptions. But at no point would I know what you fundamentally are, even if I assumed you are very smiliar to me. It would just be a name I give to a phenomena that I do not know what is or have an explanation to. So it's completely the other way around, it is your pseudo-understanding that can't even get off the ground.

So one minute you want to act like you have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what first-person means but now all of a sudden you do understand what it means for there to be a first-person perspective? Well you've contradicted yourself here for sure, and you've admitted that you comprehend what I've been saying this whole time now. My definition this whole time of mind has been "first-person subjective awareness".

No, you are simply confused. My position has been made clear to you for some time now. The only reason you continue to try and insert those false assertions is because you can not debate me on my actual claims and thus you are desperately attempting to interject a strawman of your own making. This phenomena we call "first-person" remains not explained, we do not know what it is. Much like a UFO, we have a name for it but we don't know what it is. Naming things does not magically give us an understanding of them.
If what you've been saying this whole time is that there is a phenomena we call "mind" and what this phenomena is remains unknown and not explained, you would be correct. But you insist, as you must, that you are in possession of that knowledge. All I am asking is that you share it, and because I call out your bluff you just can't provide a proper answer.
As for your definition. If this pehnomena we call "mind" is "first-person subjective awareness" then, considering what you've said thus far, mind would be "awareness awareness awareness" or "mind mind mind". That is the case because "I=consciousness" and "first-person" and "subjective" are just different labels for this thing we call "self". Unless of course, you want to claim otherwise, namely that the terms "first-person" and "subjective" refer to different phenomena, not to this "self".
Lastly, this is how you tried to define consciousness at first:

: https://prnt.sc/l31ein

It is the self, and we all know this. Even 18-month old children know what this is, or rather who this is, and we know/understand this directly and immediately.

No, we call it "the self". But what you are supposed to provide is not how you name this phenomena, but what this phenomena is. You are asserting you know/understand what this phenomena is "directly and immediately" but that very concept relies on the existence of this pehnomena. You are building upon sand pillars. Furthermore, you also need to demonstrate this knowledge is correct. We know directly and immediately that there is a lake in the desert but that does not automatically imply that reflects an actual state of affairs. What reason do you have to assert this supposed knowledge is what the "self" actually is ?

You are trying to avoid affirming premise 1 and you are trying to do this by pretending you have absolutely no comprehension of premise 1 in any shape or form, yet here you are explicitly or implicitly accepting that premise 1 is true.

I am saying that this phenomena we call "mind" has not been explained. You are still trying to pretend you know what this phenomena is and that you can actually explain it. I am here to show you that is a false belief and, by extension, idealism is something akin to a con game.
However, if you admit that P1 refers to a phenomena that remains not explained and whose nature has not been pointed out, you would be closer to the truth.

What you are supposed to tell us is what this "I" is and then explain it.

1. I have
2. I've already pointed out your equivocation regarding knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. We know the "I" along with every other mental phenomena via acquaintance and is thus independent of any description or explanation. A subject can be completely non-verbal and be unable to give an explanation for anything but that does not entail that they do not have any understanding of the self or the I in any shape or form. For you to claim otherwise is to equivocate.

1. You have not. You gave me a name. I can name a lot of things. Does not actually imply I know what they are or I can account for them.
2. I've demonstrated your charge of equivocation is based on a self-refuting assumption. The very distinction you are attempting to make relies on this phenomena we call "self". It can not serve as a basis for you to evade your burden of proof.
You assert "we know the I" but yet refuse to state what we know. You assert you understand, yet refuse to share that understanding. To make this worse, you still have to demonstrate that knowledge is correct because after all, a lake in the desert is still known by acquaintance. You are bluffing.

Yes actually it does, especially when you are using them correctly as you have been this whole time. You don't confuse yourself with me because you understand the distinction between you and me, hence you use language to reflect this knowledge/understanding that you keep pretending you don't have. If you were really so confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form you should be tripping over this confusion all the time and failing to distinguish yourself from me, yet this doesn't happen...

"You", even if met in person, would merely be just another object. What makes us assume "somewhere" in there is a phenomena simillar to me is a series of assumptions. I've already explained how a distinction between this phenomena and other objects of its focus let's say can be made. None of which implied an understanding of what this phenomena is. You were not asked to provide "any" understanding. You were specifically asked to say what this phenomena IS and then explain it.

Yes you did, and you're doing it right now. You're referring to this "I" as yourself right now... You're distinguishing yourself from me as we speak. You don't take momo and monistic idealism to be the same person but rather 2 distinct persons and you identify momo as yourself and monistic idealism as not yourself. So this entails some understanding of the self in some shape or form since there's enough understanding to not only identify yourself but distinguish yourself as distinct from me.

That does not tell us what this "I" is, but how we call it. That is simple. I am not identifying myself because I have not said what I am, but merely how I call myself. So if I would have called this "I" chakra or what have you, nothing would actually change. I would be still naming a phenomena that I know not what it is. "You" in this case, are a bunch of pixels, and I can account for that without accounting for this phenomena that does all these things. It's easy to say what this phenomena is not, but not so easy to tell what it is. Simply saying I am not a carrot does not magically explain what I am.

You literally do. You even said that you consider me to be insane and that you yourself are sane. You literally think that I am a different person than you, you've admitted this. We can all verify this publicly...

I am assuming, based on various criteria, that you must be some sort of similar phenomena. But I don't know what this phenomena is. I call it "me" and you call it "you" but that only tells us how we call it, which is not something you have been asked to do.

If the "I" is the body then you have to prove your reductionism is true and you'd have to admit that you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the "I"=the body. What's so damn hard about you just coming out of the closet and admitting that you have at least some understanding in some shape or form...?

"Some understanding" is not what is being asked of you. My inquiry is precise. What is this phenomena and what is your account of it ? Furthermore, without stating what this "I" is, your request is simply nonsensical. If this "I", for example is an activity, then a complete account of the activity of the body is necessary so that we can make that comparison. Cutting a finger for example, does not seem to change much in terms of this penomena. Even brain damage does not automatically change this phenomena. So depending on what this "I" is asserted to be, different requirements are necessary for this comparison to be made.

This is pure question begging. The entire concept of knowledge by acquaintance is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Notice how the word "you" there never showed in that description like you dishonestly suggested... This knowledge is is not dependent on any verbal description or explanation so for you to complain that there is no description/explanation totally misses the point and begs the question that all knowledge must be knowledge by description. And speaking of your point about the word "you" I don't see how you're not going to fall on your own sword since the very notion of knowledge already is mental in nature. All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject that has a justified true belief or however you define knowledge here.

And that is a pure baseless assertion. You are in fact, self-refuting. You are asserting I am dishonest in "suggesting" the word "you" appears in that description, yet in the next breath readily admit "All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject". Yea...do you see it ? The very distinction you are attempting to make already relies on that which you have failed to account for. And you are attempting to use that distinction as a way of not explaining what this "self" is. It just can't work. It is inherently an incoherent defense. And really, what is the big deal anyway ? Didn't you say you do in fact have knowledge by description ? Well ? Share it!

I did not forget that non-mind becomes mind. Why would that bother me again?

Your reading comprehension is so bad that you think saying I notice equals non-mind becomes mind lol learn what words means, here let me help you out: "I notice"

It is not my reading comprehension that is the issue here. Rather, the culmination of what you've said thus far entails my stated conclusion. To notice is to begin to notice. To perceive is to begin to perceive. Whatever that something is that begins to be all those things, it can not be "mind" by definition. In fact, you even said that consciousness is an ability, which again entails my stated conclusion.

You understand enough that you affirm premise 1 is true. You may not have some deep fundamental understanding in some crazy deep way to satisfy the radical skeptic, but you have enough understanding to grasp what it means in the way the average joe uses it, the way an 18-month old child can grasp. Which is all you need for the argument.

Only if P1 states that some not explained phenomena exists and only if what that phenomena is remains unknown. But you are reluctant in admitting that. Just so we are clear. My inquiry is not about some "deep fundamental understanding" or some "crazy deep way to satisfy the radical skeptic". There is nothing radical about what I'm asking for. My inquiry is one of the most benign ones. I simply want to know what this pehnomena is. Furthermore, if your argument requires me to answer if this phenomena is the body or something the body does, I actually require a complete account of both the body and the said phenomena.

Direct knowledge is non-inferential, the knowledge is immediate. The self is grasped in first-person

So is a lake in a desert. You still need to demonstrate that asserted knowledge is correct. Besides, is there anything that is grasped not in the first-person ?

So you grasp that there such a thing as "our own experience" and that there is this "I", you're just questioning whether it persists.

There is a phenomena I call that way, yes. But I want to know what that phenomena is. And I am faily sure it does not persist since I regularly have no experience when I go to sleep.

Not at all, there is still the sub-conscious level, you're just in a more basic state of the mental. Coma patients report having dreams and all sorts of visions.

Not all of them. And that is the important part. I only require one single example. The mere fact that it happens so regularly only makes it obvious this can not be denied. This phenomena of experience is what you have called "mind", that is why you use introspection as a tool to assert it exists. But when I go to sleep and have absolutely no experience, this phenomena literally does not exist. So if you are to claim it exists, you need another tool for that job. And you would also have to assert a state of no awareness and consciousness is somewhat still those things. If you are up to the challenge, have at it.

You need to justify this claim, you're just stating this with 0 support.

Simple. An ability is a potential, which is to say the way something can be yet is not. That is why abilities are always structured by a more fundamental sub-strate. That means, whatever posseses this ability, can also exist in a state that does not express this ability, hence the "begin to be aware" part. So it is true, by definition, that the mental can be reduced to the non-mental if consciousness is an ability. Heck, even an superficial examination of the phenomena we call "to perceive" can reasonably give us that conclusion.

You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience" and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I, you just question whether it persists. This is what I'm getting at with mind and consciousness and the mental in general, and again this is an average joe's understanding as I've had to remind you time and again. Everybody else grasps what I'm saying just fine, this is just a personal problem for you.

I understand those labels refer to a phenomena. But its ridiculous to think that is even remotely interesting. What I want to know is what those phenomena are. If this would be merely a personal problem for me, as you assert, you would not have such problems in answering my inquiry. You know what this phenomena is correct ? So...tell me!

Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time.

Then you clearly know what the fuck I am talking about when I point out that your admission that you grasp mental verbs is ipso facto an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form as you're grasping the verbs of the mental. You grasp what the mental does, and you don't just see verbs attached to nothing, so you're telling you grasp this idea of us being aware of the mental.

I grasp that those labels refer to a phenomena. Again, utterly trivial. But you have not explained what that phenomena is. But other than that, if "I=awareness" then what does it mean to say "us being aware of the mental" ? Is the mental not equal awareness ?
You keep telling me a phenomena we call "mind" does these things. But what you are being asked to do is explain what the phenomena is and you continue to tell me how you call said phenomena.

Notice how you admitted earlier that we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't see "jump" or "jumping" just floating out in nature, rather we see an organism that jumps. Same thing goes with the mental verbs... We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping. You even said "right" on this before, so you've been caught admitting I'm right on this already.

Nice try, but no. You are the one who admitted my point. It was I who said acts are what things do and I repeatedly pressed you to tell me what does those acts, to which you've repeatedly responded with how you call that which does those acts.
You keep missing the obvious point. I want to know what this thing that does the acting is, not how you call it.
Furthermore, are you saying mind=/=perception ?

Again, what that is, not how you CALL it.

omg do you seriously not understand the law of identity? This is seriously logic 101 man... A=A is the same this as saying A is A. What is A? It's A! This first-person perspective, that you admitted exists, and this subjective awareness that we all know directly and independently of any description/explanation is the mental. That's the mental, I just told you what it is. can you stop being retarded now with the pseudo-skepticism?

Oh, I do. It is this understanding that leads me to conclude you are attempting to break the law of identity. We call this phenomena "mind" but that is a term. That term refers to that phenomena. Ok! Now. Tell me what that phenomena is. What it is, not how you call it.
But you did say something interesting. This pehnomena we call "subjective awareness" (really a repetition but have it your way) is the mental. But you forget this phenomena begins to be. It simply can not be fundamental.

Hey you're the guy trying to claim you consider me to be insane yet you're now telling me you can't comprehend the very words in your own definition of insane so you've just shot yourself in the foot. It's so weird how you think someone else has the burden to define your own terms lol learn how the burden of proof works momo. When you make claims you have the obligation to define the terms you use and give support for those claims, not the other speaker...

I do understand the words of my provided definition. I have explained how said definition can be accounted for by making a distinction between a behavior and what drives that behavior. It is not necessary for me to know what does the perceiving. I call it "mind" but that again explains next to nothing.

I'm saying mental verbs refer to actions of the mental, and there can't be mental actions unless the mental exists in the first place. So you're admitting premise 1 is true yet again.

Are you asserting your P1 does not claim to know what this "mental" is ? I know there can't be actions unless something acts, but that does not imply we know what does the acting. That we call it a certain way is really a moot point.

1. I've caught you admitting you do know several times already
2. the very definition of projection involves the mental which you pretend you don't understand so by your own pseudo-skeptic standards its impossible for you to understand projection
3. you don't know how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. The burden of proof is on the claimant so you have the burden to justify your claims.

1. Really ? So why don't you quote me directly when I did state what this phenomena we call "mind" is ?
2. That assertion relies on a false assumption. Because what something does is different from what something is, I can point to a behavior and yet not understand what drives that behavior. We call that which drives said behavior "the mind", true. But that simply does not tell us what it is.
3. Something which I have actually done. See 2. What exactly is so hard to understand about my explanation ?

Then you don't understand your own definition of insane by your own admission. Great, thanks for admitting you're completely incoherent.

I am talking about the phenomena, not the way we call it. I do not understand what the phenomena is. Obviously I know we call it "in a state of mind".

Whoa, stop right there. So you're saying there is an "I" that "observes". How can you make any sense of that if you can't can't make any sense of premise 1...?

There is some thing we call "I" that does the act of observing. I do not know what this "I" is, nor do I understand how this process of observing goes. I just call it that way.

So then you're with me on P3 if you're not reducing that which drives behavior to the body or the brain or the nervous system or anything like that. You would be against the physicalists then if that's so.

If consciousness is what you've defined it, you must necessarily reduce it. It does not matter if its physical or not, it still could not be mental, whatever it is.
But the most important point is that I can not state if that which drives behavior can be reduced to anything since what that thing is remains unknown. Tell me what it is, then I can take a look at the brain and see if that matches.

So then you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system or the body in general that drives behavior. Great, then you're with me on P3, you're not a reductionist then.

You are a reductionist ! Again, I am not saying the brain drives this behavior, nor am I saying it does not. I can not make that claim until that which drives behavior has been pointed out to me. You keep telling me you call it the "I". Irrelevant ! What is it ?

Consciousness has been defined, but even if it weren't that doesn't make it false that would just make it incomprehensible. Not being able to understand something doesn't mean its false, learn how to logic.

Yeah, I did not assert that so, learn how to read. The point is that you've defined consciousness as an ability, and that simply refutes P3.

proof?

An ability is always structured by something, since no-thing can not by definition posses any ability. Whatever that something is, it turns that ability from a potential to an actual. And for that to happen, that something must be able to exist in a state of affairs that does not display that potential as an actual. I can't believe I actually have to explain this.

No you didn't, you just repeated the exact assertion I gave a refutation of.

You never gave a refutation, you merely re-posted the exact comment I responded to, while accusing me of repeating myself. Projection can't help you here.

Actually perception is defined as a noun but either way by your own admission we don't see verbs attached to nothing. We don't just see "perception" floating out in nature, so like how we don't just see "jump" we see an organism that jumps, we are aware that there is a mind that perceives. Also in your definition is the term "IN A STATE OF MIND", nice try at covering that up by only bringing up perception, behavior, and social interaction though... If you can't grasp what "in a state of mind" means or "perception" then by your own admission you cannot grasp what the word "insane" means...

A noun which references an ability. And there was no "admission" on my part. You are the one who admitted actions are not attached to nothing. I've made that point long ago.
I did not cover anything. You've merely failed at reading, yet again. Those things are what the "mind" does. But you insist I must know what that which does those things is, which is simply wrong. It is simply not necessary I know what that which does those things is. And it does not matter that I call it a certain way.

You just referred to what those words refer to right now... You are identifying them in this very sentence, and you are meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me as if I am not you... your bullshit isn't convincing anyone, you just keep tripping over your own lies

Curious assertion, given that you're the only liar here. I am calling a certain phenomena a certain way. But I did not ask you to tell me what that pehnomena is called. You need to explain what it is. So your pseudo-understanding is just a bluff.

Then that would be a shape or form of understanding of the I since you have at least some understanding of bones and flesh in some shape or form and the I is identical to the bones and flesh.

You missunderstand. That is what I would mean by the word "I", it could be that which drives this behavior is not what I mean by "I". But if this I is an activity, then an account of certain parts of this body would be required. As would an account of this phenomena we call "I". Neither of which you have offered.

No you didn't actually as I just demonstrated. If you identify the "I" with the body then you're still admitting that you have at least some understanding of the I in some shape or form since you have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form and the I is identical to the body.

Yes I did actually since your demonstrations have just been refuted. I do not have a complete understanding of the body, and since not all of it is required for me to exist, it is obvious understanding some parts of it is not sufficient at explaining that which drives behavior. Furthermore, one needs to first explain what this "I" is in order to be able to make a comparison to the body.

Yup, and we know damn well that it's you and your pseudo-skepticism can't even let you deny this because you should be pretending that you have absolutely no understanding what "you" means in the first place hahah You can't say that "I" am lying because you'd first have to understand what "I" is in the first place to say that I am lying. There's not a single person here who is buying your crap, momo...

Says the liar. A lie would be some type of claim that does not match an actual state of affiars. I can make that judgement without knowing what I am. So whatever you are, just made a claim that does not match an actual state of affairs. And I call that something "you". Your pseudo-understanding is a joke.

And you're saying they exist! So you're admitting premise 1 is true. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet

Those phenomena exist and we call them that way. We do not know what they are or what drives them. That has to be your P1. What I want to know is what those phenomena are and what drives them.

No they've been defined as nouns, look it up for yourself even though I've shown you screenshots of the definition already... These terms can also be used as verbs as well though.

A term can only refer to one phenomena. If you're using it to refer to two separate phenomena, you are equivocating. Furthermore, those nouns refer to abilities and acts. Here are you actual screenshots (the arrows and blue underline is mine, the rest is yours).

: https://prnt.sc/l31j2d

Yes it is, logic denier: Law of Identity. You constantly refer to yourself as if I am different than you, and you affirm that I really am different than you. You think I am a distinct person from you and that I am insane while you are not insane. This in of itself is an admission that there is enough understanding to distinguish yourself from me by your own admission. If there was absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form this distinction would be impossible.

No, it is not, logic denier. How we call something is not what something is, THAT is the law of identity. This phenomena I call "myself" can be mainntained without the pixels I call "you". That does not actually imply I know what this phenomena is, merely that I call it a certain way. The understanding you are supposed to provide is what this phenomena is.

Yeah, which is you admitting that consciousness exists. You're literally admitting that you comprehend and affirm premise 1 right now.

That something that begins to be conscious must be non-conscious to begin with.

1. You're still admitting consciousness exists, which means you're admitting premise 1 is comprehensible and is true
2. I've already explained how there is a fundamental conscious level and that every other contingent being emerges from that mental base. So it's not non-consciousness to consciousness, but consciousness to consciousness. Stop ignoring what I say...

1. If that is consciousness, then P3 is necessarily false. Again, your own definitions, not mine.
2. No one is ignoring what you say, so stop lying. You have asserted that there is this "fundamental conscious level" but that thing can not possibly be the phenomena you claim in P1. That phenomena begins to be, you are attempting to solve a fundamental problem of your ideology by comitting a big fat fallacy.
Consciousness can not mean one thing when it suits you, and another when it does not. Whatever it means in P1, that's it. You don't get to equivocate.

That is a complete non-sequitur on your part. All this means is that I begin to exist, that I am contingent.

And since "I=consciousness", then consciousness begins to exist. Even when saying there are similar phenomena we call "consciousness", those too would begin to exist else you're equivocating.

You're simply repeating a question I already answered: This is a topic I was going to address in a new thread when I actually give the case for cosmic idealism, and I noted in the OP I was going to deal with cosmic idealism in a new thread. This is a much deeper conversation that deserves its own thread (much like a deeper analysis of the self) and can only be had after one can at least charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case is made from prior commitments to idealism. If you can't wait for that, then check out the paper from David Chalmers I cited in the OP on Cosmic Idealism, he goes over it a bit there.

Again, where in that paper is it explained how a mind can ground another mind ? And no, you did not answer my question, nor is my question not relevant to this topic. What you are saying is meant to be an actual refutation to my points. You either respond to my arguments or you don't. But you don't get to assert you have a refutation and yet refuse to provide it. Else I can just say the mind is something the brain does and..oh well...that explanation is not required here. We don't need that kind of crazy deep explanation for the radical skeptic. Either you support your claims or you don't. Simple as that.
So how does a mind ground another mind ?

I'm not seeing how this applies to me at all. You need to make yourself more clear.

Well, it aplies to you given how you've defined consciousness and "perceive". What exactly do you need explained ? What a potential is ?

Nice try at an equivocation. You're saying I defined consciousness as an ability yet here you are showing me a definition of the word perception and perceive haha I see right through your bullshit momo. You know I didn't define consciousness as an ability, and that consciousness is a noun, along with perception as a matter of fact.

A noun that references an ability. And whenever that ability is acted upon, it is necessarily acted upon by the non-mental and it begins to be.
Furthermore, that is not an equivocation on my part. Here is your own screenshot again, only the arrows and the blue underline is mine, the rest is yours.

: https://prnt.sc/l31j2d
This is you, again.

: https://prnt.sc/l31fv9
And to be frank, this is not even the biggest problem you have. The phenomena we attribute the label of "mental" to begins to be. That alone shows what you are referencing in P1 is not fundamental.

How?? You're just stating this with 0 support...

Because no-thing can not begin to be anything, by definition. Rotten is not what no-thing begins to be. Rotten is what an apple begins to be. Is this really that hard to understand ?

That's a literal contradiction, if it already exists then it can't begin to be.

You are confusing an ability with an actual, hence the accusation of contradiction. Consciousness does not already exist, that is the point. Whatever begins to be that way is what exists.

they=consciousness so they begin to be lol that was easy

And consciousness begins to be. Easy right ?

A fundamental understanding as you yourself put it. There's a common sense average joe's understanding of mind that even an 18-month old child can grasp, and there's the more philosophical analysis where one tries to grasp the self in a more detailed and critical way. That's a topic of study in its own right and deserves its own thread, I'm just talking about a basic understanding here.

But you have not provided that basic understanding. You did not even tell me what that phenomena is. You've just told me how you call it. What I'm asking very much does not deserve its own thread.

Your dishonesty is so brazen. I specifically said: "charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument". I'm not asking you to actually commit yourself to idealism, I clearly didn't say that... You seriously need to learn how to be more charitable in your interpretations:

Yeah, no. I'm not doing that. Demonstrate your case or not. That is the choice you have.

No I can't because the case is premised on idealism. Only after idealism is either affirmed or accepted for the sake of argument can the case be made. Hence why I've made the case for idealism before the case for cosmic idealism.

Then that's a pretty weak premise to begin with. But it does not really matter because what you've said about consciousness would still apply. So if idealism fails, it really does not matter. And idealism has most certainly failed.

Yes it does, it literally takes the form of "P ∨ ~P". Either you understand or you don't understand, you have to pick one.

I don't understand what the phenomena we call "I" is. That is my answer. Does your dichotomy state that ?

No, that's not how nouns work... A noun refers to a fucking noun: a person, place, or thing. If it was a verb it would be referring to an act, but it's a noun so it's not. Your cognitive dissonance has you doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with these word games man, its pathetic...

Let's put that to the test. Earlier in this comment you've said "We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping"
Contrast that with this:

: https://prnt.sc/l31fv9
So "notice" is an action that is performed by something we call "mind", yet notice=consciousness ?

Right, which means there is a mental in the first place to perform actions. We don't just see "jump" floating in existence, but rather an organism that jumps. Same goes for mental verbs: there is the mental to engage in such verbs. So premise 1 is true and comprehensible enough.

See above. Furthermore, is it the case that what this "mind" is remains unknown ? Something must do these actions, sure. But do you know what that something is or are you simply giving the unknown a name ?

Sorry but the word chakra is already defined and is not synonymous with the mental at all

I know. But could it be ? Could I call that which does all these things "chakra" ?

You would have to contradict the definition of the word chakra to equivocate and identify it as something else....

No, it would just mean I choose to call myself that way. Simple as that. Remember the rose ! And something else is what this "cosmic consciousness" is supposed to be, so it's funny how you are still not seeing your equivocation.

What mind is, and what this common sense average joe's understanding of the "I" or "self" is

And that understanding is what ? That we don't know what it is, yet we call it a certain way ? Doesn't sound much like an understanding to me.

Wow you suck at general comprehension. You said, and I quote directly: "What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is." this is pure projection on your part because it is only you that is having this supposed lack of understanding. Literally everyone else understands me, including scholars around the globe, understands just fine. This is a personal problem, momo. Stop projecting your own failure to comprehend onto others, it's only you that fails to comprehend.

It's funny cause you are the one projecting. I've given you a change, several actually, to demonstrate your claims. At each and every turn you either failed miserably or outright refused to meet that demand. So what other conclusion am I supposed to reach ?
Again, what is this which everybody else understands ? How you call a phenomena ? Irrelevant. Tell me what the phenomena is.

What makes you think it is unknown? Because you personally can't give a description or explanation of it? Do you still not comprehend the distinction between knowing and describing? One can know something without being able to describe it. To claim otherwise is pure equivocation.

Didn't you say you do have knowledge by description ? Your distinction already relies on this phenomena, it can not therefore serve as a basis of evasion for you to refuse to say what it is.
You further have to demonstrate that knowledge as correct so have at it. And if you can't explain it, on what basis are you asking me to identify it with the brain ?
The reason I say it remains unknown is because I literally don't know what this phenomena is.

1. law of identity
2. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

1. Yes, that is the law you are breaking.
2. Precisely, which is why I don't care what name you give to a phenomena.

are you so autistic that you don't get what "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet" means...?

It is precisely that understanding that made me bring out that point. Don't worry, I see this caught your attention so I'll expand on this down the road.

This applies to literally all terms. A tree is still a tree even if we called it something else. It's not about the term, but what the term is referring to, and you're using the word "we" to refer to us users who are in here rather than the letters on the screen. So this entails some grasp of the "we" in some shape or form as there's enough understanding to correctly identify it and distinguish it from other things.

Yeah...been trying to get that to you for some time now. You are supposed to tell me what the tree is, yet for some reason you conitnue to tell me you call it a certain way. Furthermore, if perceiving is an act this self does, then by necessity it can not be the letters on the screen. That does not actually tell us what the self if, namely that whatever it is, we call it the "self".
Remember, it's about what the term refers to. Tell me what that phenomena is.

That's identifying it. Law of identity, A=A which means A is A.

To identify is to "establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is" but this "who" is what is in question to begin with so calling it "I" solves nothing. You need to explain what that phenomena we call "I" is. You are confusing the law of identity with a reference. The word "tree" is not the object tree. It is a reference to something that belongs to an entirely different category. So the object tree=the object tree and the word tree=the word tree.

If I'm wrong then you're lying because you have literally said it is mind that drives behavior. You've identified that which drives behavior as "mind".

No, I've called that which drives behavior "mind". That does not imply I know what it is. I call that which causes the extra gravity "dark matter". That does not imply I know what it is.

Yes I do: you've admitted outright that you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system that drives behavior, but rather this thing you identify as mind. If you were reducing you'd be saying its the brain or nervous system or the body in general that causes behavior, but you're not doing this. Which means you're with me on P3

No, that is again utterly wrong. We call that which drives behavior "mind" but what that thing is remains unknown. I can not make that comparison if you can not tell me what that phenomena is. To reduce something I need to know what it is, otherwise it can not be done.
And I can't be with you on P3. Even you are not with you on P3. Not if consciousness is what you've said it is. Not if consciousness begins to be.

...it would be the brain... you literally just said it.... If the mind=brain then what we identify as the mind is actually just the brain... how did you mess this up...?

That implies I know what said phenomena is, for me to compare it to the brain. Worse, if this phenomena is an activity, then I also require a complete account of how the brain works.

But I never did, you're pulling this out of your ass

You did, as demonstrated above. Or maybe mind=/=consciousness ?

I know you want to avoid that, but your claims keeps boxing you into that corner. Now stop dodging my question: are you with cognitive psychology or not? If yes you're with modern science, if not you're against modern science.

I do not. I simply have no interest in the topic you are attempting to put forth. And none of my claims lead to what you say they do. I am with cognitive phychology, sure. What particular claims do you have in mine for me to agree to ?

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the word "insane" means, which entails you can't consider me to be insane then in the first place. Great

Cute. But your fedora behavior remains as nonsensical as ever. I followed that statement with "The reason I can understand said definition is because I am making a distinction between a behavior and what drives that behavior. A distinction you fail to get."

And you're not reducing that to the brain or the nervous system or the body in general, so that means you're with me on P3 by your own admission.

There is nothing to reduce. What those states are has not been explained. We just said that, whatever they are, we name them a certain way. To reduce them or not, we must first establish what they are.

I never said it is, I said you understand what "myself" means which is just you admitting you've been full of shit this whole time.

No, I don't. You are still confusing the term with what the term refers to. I understand the term. It's a term ! Whoa! What I need to understand is the phenomena it refers to.

I keep correcting you on this and you just keep dishonestly ignoring: notice is defined as NOUN, but even if it's not it's still an admission that you grasp the mental in some shape or form since you grasp the verbs of the mental.

Or maybe your memory, much like virtually every single thing about you, just sucks sooo much. "Some shape or form" is not what you've been asked to provide. It is after all true that this consciousness begins to be, that is also an understanding. But I am not interested in that. What I need is to know what this consciousness is.
Again, if "notice" is not an action then how do you square it with this "We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping." ?

On what criteria is any definition set??? See this is exactly what I was talking about months ago: you're going off onto other fundamental topics like philosophy of language. You need to start some new threads, momo. You're bringing in too much philosophical baggage

It is not. That is the point. It does not matter how we call things. I did not ask you to tell me how you call them. I asked you do tell me what they are. This is not a matter of philosophy of language. I just want you to explain that phenomena the word "mind" refers to.

Look up the very definition of the word "chakra". We can see that it's not defined at all in the same way as "I" or "consciousness". This is how we define our words, we have an agreed upon set number of words that refer to what we're talking about. For you to go beyond this is to delve deep into some philosophy of language bullshit that has nothing to do with our conversation.

Which drives home a point I've been making for weeks. It is not that we could not call consciousness "chakra" but that we do not. If we wanted to, it would be perfectly reasonable. That is not the issue here because what I want to know is what that phenomena we refer to using that word is, and that can not change.

It isn't different. There literally can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exits. Check mate

This is the point where you are supposed to tell me what that phenomena the word "chakra" refers to is, mr chess pigeon.

This is a question you have to ask yourself because it is YOU who is literally distinguishing yourself from me. It is not my responsibility for me to define your own terms that you yourself use and to justify your claims. And cue the silence...

Oh, that is simple. What I am remains unknown and not explained. I do not know what this phenomena I call "me" is. Now I suppose it is your turn to tell me what you are. And cue the understanding...?

The irony here is stunning lol then how come you're so alone in this forum? Everybody has agreed with me so far, they all understanding what I'm getting at perfectly fine. This is clearly a personal problem for you.

Am I ? Can any one of the members come forth and tell me what this phenomena we call "I" is ? Or are you just going to accuse them of tribalism ? It seems this is a personal problem for you, since you've built yourself a whole ideology on this sand pillar.

Notice how alone you are... You and I both know for a fact that the overwhelming majority of humans know exactly what I'm talking about, and you know whole swathes of those people are quite reasonable. What I'm saying is common sense, this is something you don't need a degree in philosophy to grasp. Hell even 18-month old children understand what I'm saying. You're literally the only person who is trying to be such a turbo skeptic that you're willing to straight up lie and pretend you don't even grasp what even an 18-month old child grasps...

The question I am asking is one of the most basic ones you can ask in fact. To clasify it as some sort of turbo skepticism is just silly. What exactly the majority of humans know ? What would they tell me this "I" is ? Something ? Would they point to their bodies ? Would they just say "me" ? Would they say it is "something they know directly" ? In which case, on what basis is that knowledge correct(let alone the other issues I have raised) ?
Appealing to the mases won't give you an inch. It's a futile exercise.

No it's not actually, you literally can't say there is perception while premise 1 not being true. If you're saying perception exists then you're saying the mental exists because perception is mental.

And perception is an ability, and thus so is consciousness, and thus so is mind.

You understanding enough to understand that there is an "I" in the first place and that this "I" understands/doesn't understand. That's enough to admit you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form. Again, what's so bad about coming out of the closet about this...?

This "enough" is not what you've been asked to provide. You need to tell what this "I" is. That it is how we call that which understands is irrelevant. THAT, the phenomena, is what you are supposed to explain.

You really didn't give an argument, you just repeated an assertion that was already dealt with

Again. What can one expect from a habitual liar ? Here is what I've followed that claim with: [ You even quoted part of my rebuttal in the next breath. Just so we are clear, I said "That is how we CALL it. So whatever does all those things, we CALL it "myself" or "me" or "I". But that does not tell us what it is.".]

You are saying this thing that we call "x" actually exists. Labels don't matter, it's what the labels reference: A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME SMELLS JUST AS SWEET

Yes, the rose thing. Do you get it now ? And yes, that thing would obviously have to exist. But I don't know what that thing is.

That premise 1 is true and comprehensible.

So P1 does not claim to know what "mind" is ?

This is a bold faced lie. I've given my definition all the way back in the OP and even gave several scholarly sources that go into more detail.

No, it's just the harsh truth. I've addressed not only all your attempts, but your sources as well. In you case, you simply named it a different way. In the sources case, when applied to the claims you've made, they began to be pure nonsense.

This is more proof of your equivocation. Knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things. Even if I couldn't describe it, which I have, that wouldn't mean I don't know it. Stop equivocating. Do you really not see the difference between knowing and describing??? Weren't you the one bitching earlier about subtle nuances and all that? I'm asking you honestly, don't dodge this question: do you really not see the difference between describing and knowing??

I've addressed this point dozens of times by now. I do know the difference. However you keep missing the following:
i)this distinction already relies on that which you have not explained
ii)you've said you can describe it
iii)you need to demonstrate that knowledge is correct, even if it is by aquaintance

1. This doesn't address what I said at all.

2. This is ironic because I was only doing what you were doing lol[/quote]
1. It quite literally does, since all you've said is how you call this phenomena.
2. No, that is simply an excuse on your part. I did not behave the way you did.

All words are terms, the fact that it's a term doesn't change anything...

It does if you keep repeating said word when asked to explain the phenomena it refers to.

No that would be you. You're equating "knowing something" with "describing something". Knowing and describing are 2 different things. If I'm wrong then prove me wrong.

And they both rely on this phenomena you keep refusing to explain. I am not equating those things, I've already explained how that distinction can not help you.

Giving a definition is not swapping words, nice try.

A "definition" which is just a collection of different words for the same phenomena. You swapped words.

I didn't actually, but nice try.

Hm! I'm pretty sure you did.

: https://prnt.sc/l3do2b

prove to me that the words "describe" and "know" mean the same thing... Go on, I'll wait... Show me that they mean the same thing... the second you admit they're not the same thing then you admit that I'm right and thus you're equivocating...

Why the strawman ? Your distinction has not been denied. I've addressed it head on. Why do you think it bothers me ?

I linked you an entire academic article on cognitive science. Maybe try reading the sources I give you...

Does that article explain what mind is ? Quote me the relevant part because I'm not seeing it.

That doesn't prove your claim at all.

So mind=/=consciousness then.

And you comprehend the word as you've just admitted, that it is the I that drives behavior.

The word, not the phenomena it refers to. Obviously the word does not drive the behavior.

We have identified them as such because that is what they are. This point about names literally applies to EVERYTHING. Trees, cars, birds etc.

We have named them as such. But what you're being asked to do is explain the phenomena, not the names. You are the one who said you know what "mind" is.

what? that's entirely irrelevant. This isn't about reduction or non-reduction it's about what the I is. Just like how we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of existence is to understand what an object is, so we don't need to know what the fundamental nature of the self is to understand what the I is.

How so ? Are you saying the I could be reducible ? And that's the point I keep making. We don't actually know what the I is. We only call it that way. I want to know what that phenomena is.

It's not about being hard it's about something being more fundamental and so it's a new topic.

You are saying consciousness is more fundamental and so it is a new topic. But that is the thing you've originally asserted exists. That is what your whole argument is based upon. If you can't even answer that most basic of questions, what hope is there for your case ?

You understand enough to know that there is an "I" that just wants to know something. You have what you need to assess the argument, so stop being a coward and actually address more premises.

There is somethig we call "I". But we need to know what that phenomena is. I really don't have enough because one can not even say if that phenomena is the brain if one does not first explain what that phenomena is. Does your P1 only say that "something unknown exists" ? I don't think so...

This applies to literally everything, this is a vapid point that gets nobody anywhere.

Yes, that IS the point. I did not ask you to tell me how you call it, but what it is.

You really are autistic aren't you...? Too dumb to use google too I guess.

Ahh this is just tooo good. Buddy, that was a rhetorical question. I mean, how did you not get that ? I must have made that point a dozen times by the time I posed said question.
Don't look now, but you've just been upgraded to a "most likely".

It's about what the name refers to, and no matter how much you bitch and complain about names like "muh chakra" and "muh cabbage" that has no effect on what I'm talking about or what I'm referring to. What we're identifying as "mind" exists, even if you wish to call it chakra or cabbage. Get it?????

Do you ? I mean seriously. Do you ? Then why do you keep telling me you named that phenomena "mind" ? Explain the phenomena. That is what you are supposed to do.

No, it's not identity of the terms, it's identity of the object. The words refer to the object, not the terms themselves. There is a specific word that we have for words that refer to themselves: Autological Words. For you claim to hold water you'd have to say all words are autological words and that's just demonstrably bullshit...

The object is identical with itself, which is most likely not the term. The term is identical with itself, which is not the object. We use the word to refer to the object. The object is what I am asking you to explain, not what word you use to refer to that phenomena.

Yup, and this applies to the "I" as well.

And now you are supposed to explain what the "I" is. And right about now you are about to tell me you named it "the I". And about in the next breath, there is a collective facepalm.

100% contradictory lol

What about that is contradictory ?

And those phenomena exist by your own admission! So you're saying premise 1 is true! Call it whatever you want, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Call a rose a chakra, it's still a rose. Call the mental whatever you want, it's still the mental.

And those phenomena are what ? That is what you are still failing to explain.

Exactly that: other mental properties.

That implies you have previously listed some mental properties.

 

[momo666]

PART 2 since my comment was apparently too long.

Apparently, I went with the wrong website for my screenshots. I don't have time now to re-post them so I'll just leave the link. Hopefully, I did not mess anything up.

If that were true then you would be a strict behaviorist and talk only about behavior yet you keep talking about perception, awareness, consciousness and so forth. What you are calling mental exists by your own admission no matter what you call it.

No, I would not be. The things you list are labels that refer to whatever this phenomena is. What you need to explain is exactly this phenomena, not how you call it.

An apple is an apple by your own admission. There's the word we use to refer to the object (apple) and the object in itself (apple) and we have identified this object as: apple. This is the law of identity. Apple=apple. Your word games aren't working...

No, that is a reference. The object apple is not the word apple. You need to explain the object, not what word you like to use when referring to said object.

You didn't answer the question yet again, coward. Where would Sally look for her ball?? If you're not such a coward then you should have no problem answering this question outright...

Dude..."For a participant to pass this test, they must answer the Belief Question correctly by indicating that Sally believes that the marble is in her own basket.".

Yes necessarily. If you have a bruised view of oneself then that necessarily is a view of oneself, it's merely a bruised view of the self. If I can have a coherent bruised view of the self then that means I can have a coherent view of the self. You've painted yourself into a corner, momo...

And if one's view of the self is "I am something not explained" or "I am pure love". Is that coherent ?

Again, this applies to literally all phenomena. It's not about the labels, it's about what the labels reference and you're admitting what those labels reference exists.

Those phenomena exist, and you need to explain what they are. Which is what I've been asking you to do this whole time...

Yes it does because that means it's not merely a term lol what matters is not the name, but what the name refers to. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Yes, the rose. Keep remembering the rose for Pete's sake ! A term that refers to something is...wait for it...still a term. What it matter is what the name refers to. Yes ! Explain that thing.

Notice is defined as a noun so thanks for shooting yourself in the foot, also I've defined mind already: first-person subjective awareness. That is what these terms are referring to, and you grasp this directly and immediately.

"First-person" and "subjective" are just other names we use for the "self" are they not ? So your definition of mind is : awareness awareness awareness. And if one believes mind=awareness then yea...
You keep saying I grasp this but yet refuse to explain the phenomena. Naming it does not help me understand it. You do get that yes ?
As for notice not being an act. You've said "We are aware that there is a mind that thinks, that perceives, that notices, we don't just grasp perception and "notice" without first being aware of the mind that performs these actions just as we are aware of the organism that performs the actions of jumping.".

So this "I" exists! great

And it is what ?

What's so hard about you coming out of the closet already and admitting you have some understanding of the "I" then? You can ponder yourself, you just admitted it!

I can ponder about "dark matter" as well. Does not mean I know what it is. The understanding I require is what I am, not how I call this phenomena.

1. a rose by any other name smells just as sweet
2. you're going into some other irrelevant topic in philosophy of mind. What is being told to you is our terms have already been defined and to go against that is to contradict oneself. If we can't agree on the definitions of ANY word then we can't have a meaningful dialogue so even if its just for the sake of argument you and I have to come to an understanding of our terms and keep them that way so we don't equivocate. Otherwise I can just define every word you've written as "monistic idealism is right" and by your own logic that's perfectly legitimate... We need set terms. I know you don't like that because you want to equivocate as much as possible but that's how the game is played buddy. So stop with the dishonesty. You know chakra and cabbage aren't defined as mental nor are they synonymous with mental, so just cut the crap...

1. Precisely ! So explain the damn rose already.
2.Partly right. But this is not about me disagreeing with using a certain term to refer to a phenomena. In fact, the very reason I keep making the chakra point is so that you finally get the fact that...a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. The idea is that you keep telling me how you CALL a phenomena, while I am asking you to tell me what that phenomena IS.
I also love how you accuse me of equivocating yet here you are, at all times attempting to use two different phenomena under the same term. I mean really...to talk about projection at this point is just too obvious.
The reason chakra and cabbage do not refer to the phenomena we call "mind" is purely ad hoc. That is the precise point I am trying to get to you. You keep telling me how you call this "phenomena". I want you to tell me what this phenomena is.
So do cut it out, indeed.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

YOUR challenge is based on a very falwed set of assumptions.

If there's absolutely 0 understanding of the self, or I, or me, or you, in any shape or form then the sentence "YOUR challenge is based on a very fawled[sic] set of assumptions" is a sentence without meaning since there is absolutely 0 understanding of this "your" in any shape or form. If that sentence makes sense then so does the notion of an I (Monistic Idealism) that you are distinguishing from yourself (momo). You literally can't negate what I'm saying here without leeching off an understanding that you claim you don't have...

Until those assumptions are demonstrated to be true

The mere fact that you're using this first-person language already proves I'm right, because you're admitting what you're saying is meaningful, which ipso facto means first-person language is meaningful. Again, your failure to meet my challenge and your inability to negate this without leeching off this understanding proves I'm right time and again.

But at no point would I know what you FUNDAMENTALLY are, even if I assumed you are very smiliar to me.

See, there's your equivocation again: not knowing what something FUNDAMENTALLY is does not mean there is absolutely 0 understanding of something in any shape or form. Your average joe doesn't delve into the fundamental nature of reality but that doesn't mean they have absolutely 0 understanding of what an object is in any shape or form, same goes for the self... See this is partly why I keep telling you to start a new thread: you're trying to get more fundamental than what this thread is on about... And even with your point about assumptions, you're still admitting they are comprehensible, which means you get this average joe's notion of what the I is.

So one minute you want to act like you have absolutely no idea in any shape or form what first-person means but now all of a sudden you do understand what it means for there to be a first-person perspective? Well you've contradicted yourself here for sure, and you've admitted that you comprehend what I've been saying this whole time now. My definition this whole time of mind has been "first-person subjective awareness".

No, you are simply confused.

You're the one who literally said, and I quote directly: "I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person". So if you can grasp a perspective, and perspective is first-person, then you grasp what is meant by first-person.

This phenomena we call "first-person" remains not explained, we do not know what it is.

This is another one of your equivocations: you're equivocating "knowing something" with "explaining something". They're not the same thing, stop equivocating. We can know something without being able to explain it. And I've told you before, and you just keep conveniently forgetting, that we know this by ACQUAINTANCE, which means this knowledge is independent of any description or explanation.

Much like a UFO, we have a name for it but we don't know what it is.

Your analogies get you in so much trouble: we don't have absolutely 0 understanding of a UFO in any shape or form. We know that it's flying, we know it's an object, we know it has a certain shape to it and moves around in various ways. We are not in this total ignorance where we just understanding absolutely nothing about it, and we have no problem admitting that this UFO exists and we don't play a bunch of dumb word games like you're trying to do to avoid admitting this fact... Same goes for the self: maybe there is not this deep fundamental understanding of what the I is but we know that it's there for sure and we do have some understanding of it just like we do for UFO's.

All I am asking is that you share it, and because I call out your bluff you just can't provide a ""proper"" answer.

What is your definition of proper here, exactly? I've given you an answer, you can't lie about that, you know I did. You just think I didn't give you a "proper" answer. So what exactly is that...?

If this pehnomena we call "mind" is "first-person subjective awareness" then, considering what you've said thus far, mind would be "awareness awareness awareness" or "mind mind mind".

This is just pure bullshit: I never defined first-person as awareness or mind, nor did I define subjective as awareness or mind. You're full of shit momo...

That is the case because "I=consciousness" and "first-person" and "subjective" are just different labels for this thing we call "self".

Nope, try again but with less lying.

Unless of course, you want to claim otherwise, namely that the terms "first-person" and "subjective" refer to different phenomena, not to this "self".

I told you from the very beginning that "first-person subjective awareness" is my definition of mind or the mental. I never gave this as a definition of the self. Learn to read better.

Lastly, this is how you tried to define consciousness at first: https://prnt.sc/l31ein

No that's me defining the self there. You are getting soooo confused... Also learn how the Img feature works.

But what you are supposed to provide is not how you name this phenomena, but what this phenomena is.

I gave a definition just like how anyone defines literally any word. Your point here applies to the definition of every single word: that all we're doing is naming the phenomena instead of defining it...

You are asserting you know/understand what this phenomena is "directly and immediately" but that very concept relies on the existence of this pehnomena.

No it doesn't, all it means is that this knowledge is unmediated, that it is essentially foundational or basic. And this very sentence relies on an understanding you pretend you don't have. Apparently there is this "YOU" that is comprehensible, and the moment you deny this then you're admitting you can't make sense of "You are asserting x" since there's absolutely 0 understanding of "you" in any shape or form.

We know directly and immediately that there is a lake in the desert

Um, no... You're just proving that you still do not grasp the concept of direct and immediate knowledge. Why do you resolutely refuse to read the sources I provide for you? If you had any interest in this conversation actually going anywhere instead of it just being a pissing contest then you need to read what I cite... I cite scholarly sources for a reason, momo. You need to read them...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/supplement.html

Our knowledge of the lake in the desert is mediated by our sense experience, while the knowledge of the mind and self and all that is not mediated by our sense experience. I can lose all sensory data, but I'm still conscious and directly aware that I'm conscious.

I am saying that this phenomena we call "mind" has not been explained.

I've given a definition: first-person subjective awareness. Quit being a fucking liar...

I am here to show you that is a false belief and, by extension, idealism is something akin to a con game.

You can't even make sense of "belief" without making sense of mind... And I've told you this before but you keep ignoring it: your point about the "I" is not a point about idealism per se but about ANYONE who affirms the existence of the self or claims they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. Your point applies to materialists, substance dualists, panpsychists, neutral monists, or anyone in general that affirms the "I" exists and is comprehensible. Everyone but you admits they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form so you point would apply to literally every single poster in here.

1. I have
2. I've already pointed out your equivocation regarding knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. We know the "I" along with every other mental phenomena via acquaintance and is thus independent of any description or explanation. A subject can be completely non-verbal and be unable to give an explanation for anything but that does not entail that they do not have any understanding of the self or the I in any shape or form. For you to claim otherwise is to equivocate.

You have not. You gave me a name.

Again, this applies to literally all words. If my definition fails then all definitions fail since they're all just "names"

I've demonstrated your charge of equivocation is based on a self-refuting assumption

You're the one who has refuted themselves. You've admitted that you're not denying the distinction between knowing something and describing something. Which means your charge that "you haven't described/explained x so that means you don't know x!" is pure equivocation. Even if I was completely non-verbal and had no writing abilities and couldn't explain/describe anything at all, that would not entail that I have 0 knowledge/understanding. So stop equivocating. The moment you admit that "knowing something" and "describing/explaining something" are 2 distinct things then your charge of "you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form!" is undercutted by a lack of support. You can bitch all you want about a lack of description/explanation but that doesn't mean there's no knowledge/understanding.

"You", even if met in person, would merely be just another object.

Actually I would be a subject, but regardless you're still admitting that you have at least some understanding in some shape or form since you're able to recognize me as an "object". If you had absolutely 0 understanding of this self in any shape or form you should be totally confused as to whether this self is an object, or a process, or a property, or anything like that.

What makes us assume "somewhere" in there is a phenomena simillar to me is a series of assumptions

.

Call it an assumption if you want, but its an assumption that you admittedly comprehend, which means you've been full of shit this whole time about having absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form...

None of which implied an understanding of what this phenomena is.

Yes it did: if you were totally and utterly confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form then by logical necessity you comprehend a distinction between us two since you can't understanding yourself. Only if you had at least some understanding in some shape or form could you meaningfully distinguish us as 2 distinct people.

I am not identifying myself because

yes you are, you're literally doing it right now! You're identifying yourself as momo and going on and on about what momo did or did not say.

"You" in this case, are a bunch of pixels

Are you saying all humans are pixels...? wtf???

Simply saying I am not a carrot does not magically explain what I am.

Saying I am not a carrot means you can meaningfully conceive of what the "I" is enough to distinguish it from a carrot. That entails some understanding of the I in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form then you should seriously be questioning whether you really are the carrot since for all you know they are the same thing, but here you are confidently claiming that they are not the same thing. This means you understanding enough to make the distinction, which entails some understanding in some shape or form.

I am assuming, based on various criteria, that you must be some sort of similar phenomena.

You're admitting that you comprehend it enough to make a meaningful distinction. That can't be possible without some understanding in some shape or form.

"Some understanding" is not what is being asked of you.

You're the one who is trying to claim they have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form... You can't move the goal post now that you've been caught admitting that you really do have at least some understanding in some shape or form. I've told you before, I'm going for a common sense understanding, the kind that a non-philosopher can grasp, the kind that an 18-month old child can grasp. We don't need deep philosophical conversations that goes on for months at a time, with 2 part comments because they're so long, and scholarly sources, to grasp what I'm saying here: what I'm talking about is something we grasp before we even enter school! The fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty and dignity to admit you grasp this only proves you're not here to have a productive conversation... If you were at least saying "i grasp the common sense notion, and here's why it's wrong" I would have a lot more respect for you, but the fact that you're playing this stupid pseudo-skeptic game just proves your dishonesty...

This is pure question begging. The entire concept of knowledge by acquaintance is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Notice how the word "you" there never showed in that description like you dishonestly suggested... This knowledge is is not dependent on any verbal description or explanation so for you to complain that there is no description/explanation totally misses the point and begs the question that all knowledge must be knowledge by description. And speaking of your point about the word "you" I don't see how you're not going to fall on your own sword since the very notion of knowledge already is mental in nature. All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject that has a justified true belief or however you define knowledge here.

And that is a pure baseless assertion.

You keep equating "you can't describe/explain it!" with "you don't know/understand it!". You do this all the time... I even quoted you directly doing this earlier... Knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things. Even if I couldn't describe it, that doesn't mean I don't understand it, so stop with the equivocation already.

You are asserting I am dishonest in "suggesting" the word "you" appears in that description

Because it literally doesn't. Saying that this knowledge is immediate direct says nothing about this "you" that you dishonestly claim is in the description...

yet in the next breath

Which is a totally different description, and also doesn't contain the word "you".... fail... Also, please explain to me how knowledge is not grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belonging to the subject. How are you making sense of beliefs, knowledge, ideas, thoughts, and all of that stuff if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...?

Your reading comprehension is so bad that you think saying I notice equals non-mind becomes mind lol learn what words means, here let me help you out: "I notice"

It is not my reading comprehension that is the issue here.

Actually, it literally is. You're the one who claims they can't comprehend premise 1. You're essentially illiterate lmao

To notice is to begin to notice.

Nope, nice try. That's not in the definition of notice or perceive or any of that stuff.

In fact, you even said that consciousness is an ability, which again entails my stated conclusion.

No I didn't, you delusional liar. I even called you out on this lie and you gave me a definition of the word "perception" which shows you can't quote me saying this so you had to equivocate it with something else...

Only if P1 states that some not explained phenomena exists and only if what that phenomena is remains unknown. But you are reluctant in admitting that

It is explained, I gave a definition all the way back in the OP, and you need to justify your claim that this phenomena is unknown. Prove that this is unknown without equivocating "describing/explaining something" with "knowing/understanding something"...

There is nothing radical about what I'm asking for.

Yes there is and the fact that you're trying to pretend you're not radical is absolutely hysterical. You and I both know that your average joe has an understanding of the self in some shape or form, and we talk about this all the time. If you've ever been in a relationship, which I doubt, then you know your partner will talk about their feelings and they will say sentences like "I feel like x". With your line of reasoning, none of that shit makes sense... According to you, this whole idea of there being a self that has thoughts and feelings and a mind with ideas is 100% incomprehensible, and we all know that your average joe objects to this. Come on momo, you know that you're going against common sense... Philosophers who object to common sense at least have the balls to admit it, you're sitting here trying to pretend like this radical skepticism of yours is commonplace, come on dude... you know that's not true...

I actually require a complete account of both the body and the said phenomena.

1. Why would you need a complete account in order to have at least some understanding in some shape or form and 2. is there any thing we have a complete account of...?

Besides, is there anything that is grasped not in the first-person ?

So once again you do grasp the first-person (caught in a lie yet again!), and you grasp it so much you're wondering if there's any grasping outside of it! lol yeah anything that is mediated and inferential would be something we're not grasping directly in first-person. Again, read the sources I gave you. I don't know why you resolutely refuse to read these sources if you claim that you just want to understand...

There is a phenomena I call that way, yes.

So premise 1 is true then, glad we got that out of the way.

And I am faily sure it does not persist since I regularly have no experience when I go to sleep.

So you never dream then, ever?? Come on man...

Not all of them.

Even if there's one of them that contradicts the claim you made before. Thanks for admitting you were wrong, so humble and honest of you to do so momo!

But when I go to sleep and have absolutely no experience, this phenomena literally does not exist.

So you're telling me that there's a difference between being awake and being asleep, and that when you're awake you absolutely do have experience. So you're admitting premise 1 is true yet again. There is first-person subjective awareness, you grasp that you have experience directly and immediately and that this experience is real.

An ability is a potential

I never defined consciousness as an ability, you wrote all that for nothing...

If this would be merely a personal problem for me, as you assert,

It literally is momo, you're literally the only one bitching about having absolutely 0 understanding of the mind or the self in any shape or form. You're 100% alone on this. This is purely a personal problem for you.

you would not have such problems in answering my inquiry.

You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience", you even said it yourself, and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I. You know it's there, you know it exists, you affirm premise 1 as true, you just want some deep fundamental understanding about what it fundamentally is. All premise 1 is saying is that shit exists alright, that's all. The ambitions for premise 1 are minimal: it's just saying that mind exists. You can be confused all you want about what it truly is, but just like with your own example of UFO's, we know they exist. The fact that you can't admit that this incredibly low bar has been hurdled just proves your lack of charity and honesty here...

I grasp that those labels refer to a phenomena.

And that phenomena exists, which is all premise 1 is saying. So you're admitting premise 1 is true. What's so hard about you coming out of the closet on this one???

You keep telling me a phenomena we call "mind" does these things.

You keep telling me that you understand this, but you keep failing to grasp that this means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form since you grasp the verbs of the mental. Again, what's so hard about you coming out of the closet on this???

Nice try, but no.

You're the one who said "right" so you literally admitted I'm right...

It was I who said acts are what things do

I'm sorry, what? So apparently you do understand this "I" as you understand that it was YOU, not me, but you that said such and such. So you comprehend that there is an I that said such things. Great! Now can you cut the pseudo-skeptic bullshit already?

and I repeatedly pressed you to tell me what does those acts, to which you've repeatedly responded with how you call that which does those acts.

You really don't see how obviously retarded this is? This applies to literally everything. If anytime someone asks "what jumped" and I say "the rabbit" and they respond with "you're just telling me what you call it you're not telling me what does the jumping!" everyone is going to look at you like you're a total retard, because you are in fact a total retard... Me telling you that it's a rabbit that jumped is in fact me answering your question. You would have to ask ANOTHER question, a totally different question altogether and that would be "what is a rabbit?". This applies to mind as well. I've answered your question, I gave it to you. You have an additional question: "what is the mind?" and I already defined mind for you.

Oh, I do.

If you do then you're being disingenuous...

We call this phenomena "mind" but that is a term. That term refers to that phenomena. Ok! Now. Tell me what that phenomena is. What it is, not how you call it.

First-person subjective awareness, I said this all the way back in the OP... learn to read and stop pretending I haven't answered you, it's dishonest...

But you forget this phenomena begins to be. It simply can not be fundamental.

You need to justify your claims here.

I do understand the words of my provided definition.

No, every time I've asked you to define "I" you just push your own responsibility back on me with this "that's the word I'm asking YOU to define herp derp!" without realizing that you're making claims using that very word that you claim you don't understand, which means you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I do.

I have explained how said definition can be accounted for by making a distinction between a behavior and what drives that behavior.

I've explained how this is an admission that Premise 3 is true.

Are you asserting your P1 does not claim to know what this "mental" is ?

omfg learn to read: what I just said is there can't be mental verbs unless the mental exists in the first place. There can't be mental actions without the mental. Get it??? If there are mental verbs, then the mental exists and premise 1 is true. Just come out and explicitly admit: "premise 1 is true" Just say it if you have any intellectual honesty....

1. I've caught you admitting you do know several times already
2. the very definition of projection involves the mental which you pretend you don't understand so by your own pseudo-skeptic standards its impossible for you to understand projection
3. you don't know how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. The burden of proof is on the claimant so you have the burden to justify your claims.

1. Really ? So why don't you quote me directly when I did state what this phenomena we call "mind" is ?

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

2. That assertion relies on a false assumption.

Absolutely false, just look up the very definition of projection... It's an idea that comes from Sigmund Freud, who is NOT behaviorist and he's clearly a realist about the mental and that we can comprehend the mental. Projection is a mental phenomenon that is about the mental, so the moment you admit you comprehend projection is an admission you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding of the mental at all then projection should be a total mystery to you just like the behaviorists did.

3. Something which I have actually done.

No you haven't and you completely messed up on how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Don't forget that from now on.

What exactly is so hard to understand about my explanation ?

[sarcasm]oh because it's just a name you see! you're just naming it and not explaining it! you're just giving me a bunch of words![/sarcasm]

I am talking about the phenomena, not the way we call it.

Again, law of identity. The name refers to the phenomena. fail. If you don't understand "in a state of mind" then by your own admission you don't understand what insane means.

There is some thing we call "I" that does the act of observing.

uh-huh, now answer the question... You didn't answer the question. How can you make sense of an I that observes if you don't comprehend I or observe....? You'r speaking pure gibberish

So then you're with me on P3 if you're not reducing that which drives behavior to the body or the brain or the nervous system or anything like that. You would be against the physicalists then if that's so.

If consciousness is what you've defined it, you must necessarily reduce it.

1. I've already called you out on your lie: I never defined consciousness as an ability. 2. You're still not reducing whatever drives behavior to the body or the brain, so you're still with me on anti-reductionism. You're admitting right now that you are not a reductive physicalist.

But the most important point is that I can not state if that which drives behavior can be reduced to anything since what that thing is remains unknown.

omg you're such a philosophy noob, you have no idea what reduce means... If you were a reductionist then you would be saying "that which drives behavior"="the body/the brain." Get it??? As long as you know what the body is, or what the brain is, then you know what drives behavior because that which drives behavior IS the body/the brain. How are you not getting this??? Are you this illiterate???? If you have some kind of disorder you need to come out with it already, don't disguise your autism as some kind of deep philosophical skepticism...

You are a reductionist !

You have no idea what reductionism is lol

I am not saying the brain drives this behavior,

Then you're not a reductionist. Do I have to remind you of the law of excluded middle yet again...? Either you reduce or you do not reduce. You're not reducing, so you're not a reductionist. Plain and simple.

You never gave a refutation, you merely re-posted the exact comment I responded to

No that's what you did. I gave an argument and you just said the same thing....

A noun which references an ability.

Nope, nice try liar. I never defined it as an ability as I have corrected you multiple times now. You're just attacking straw men

And there was no "admission" on my part.

yes there was. You know we don't see verbs attached to nothing. There is a noun to engage in verbs. The rabbit jumps, the mind perceives. It's that simple.

Those things are what the "mind" does.

Exactly, and you're admitting that this mind exists in order to engage in these mental verbs, so premise 1 is true by your own admission. You cannot claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form while admitting you comprehend mental verbs. That's an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental, namely the verbs of the mental.

Curious assertion, given that you're the only liar here.

By your own pseud-skeptic standards you can't even make sense of a "you" that is a liar in the first place so you're just contradicting yourself...

That is what I would mean by the word "I"

yeah and that would mean you have at least some understanding of it in some shape or form. The word "I" would be completely nonsensical if you had absolutely 0 understanding, you would be confused, yet here you are admitting that the word "I" means something and you're telling me what it is...

I do not have a complete understanding of the body, and since not all of it is required for me to exist, it is obvious understanding some parts of it is not sufficient at explaining that which drives behavior.

1. you do not need a complete understanding of the body in order to have some understanding of the body in some shape or form
2. if the "I" is identical to the body then that entails logically and necessarily that you do have some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form since you do in fact that some understanding of the body in some shape or form. You keep missing this point...

Furthermore, one needs to first explain what this "I" is in order to be able to make a comparison to the body.

This is more proof that you don't grasp the law of identity. If I=body then once you have comprehended the body then you have comprehended the I. That's how identity works: they're the same thing, they're identical...

A lie would be some type of claim that does not match an actual state of affiars

Nope, that would just be a false claim, not a lie. There's a difference between a false claim and a lie. See your stupid pseudo-skepticism can't even make sense of lies hahaha

Those phenomena exist and we call them that way.

So premise 1 is true, got it!

If you're using it to refer to two separate phenomena, you are equivocating.

Well then by your own admission I'm good to go since I'm not doing that.

nouns refer to verbs! herp derp!

learn what the word "noun" means... Nouns do not refer to verbs, they refer to people, places, or things. This is basic english, we learned this stuff in like 1st grade.... Nouns≠verbs

How we call something is not what something is, THAT is the law of identity.

I already explained this to you: there's the term and the referent of the term. The law of identity captures this relation, that the referent is identical to itself and we refer to it with this term. Your word games aren't working... And given the law of identity you can't identify yourself while at the same time admitting there's absolutely 0 understanding of the self at the same time. You're distinguishing yourself from me, and that can't be possible without some understanding. If you had 0 understanding, you should be confused as to whether you and I are distinct.

1. If that is consciousness, then P3 is necessarily false. Again, your own definitions, not mine.

I've already corrected you on this, you just keep dishonestly ignoring it: saying that MY consciousness begins to exist is not identical to saying that consciousness beings to exist. So the fact that you're admitting MY (or your) consciousness begins to exist is only admitting that premise 1 is true and that you (or me) is/are a contingent being as well that's it...

And since "I=consciousness", then consciousness begins to exist.

MY consciousness beings to exist, stop being dishonest... Saying MY consciousness beings to exist does not mean consciousness beings to exist.

Again, where in that paper is it explained how a mind can ground another mind ?

I just told you, learn to read. Go to the section on Cosmic Idealism. It's that simple momo...

What you are saying is meant to be an actual refutation to my points.

All that's being pointed out is there is a distinction between the statements "MY consciousness begins to exist" and "consciousness begins to exist". You don't have to be a Cosmic Idealist to grasp this basic fact that those 2 statements are completely different statements... so stop equivocating already

Well, it aplies to you given how you've defined consciousness and "perceive". What exactly do you need explained ? What a potential is ?

I never defined consciousness as an ability, nice try liar. Don't forget: Nouns≠verbs

Here is your own screenshot again

Notice how you don't see me defining consciousness as an ability there at all. fail. You can't point to my definition of consciousness and say that I defined it as an ability, so you take screenshots of me defining other words lmao

Because no-thing can not begin to be anything, by definition. Rotten is not what no-thing begins to be. Rotten is what an apple begins to be. Is this really that hard to understand ?

....huh....?

You are confusing an ability with an actual,

You're the one who literally said, and I quote directly: "Only things that exist can begin to be anything". If it already exists, then it cannot begin to be because it already is... you're just contradicting yourself

And consciousness begins to be. Easy right ?

MY consciousness beings to be. Easy right?

But you have not provided that basic understanding.

Yes I have, I demonstrated this with the rouge test and in many other ways as well. There's an intuitive and immediate grasping of the self that everyone understands on a common sense level. We all know this when we talk about our feelings, our experiences, our ideas, and all that stuff. We all grasp this basic understanding, and you know damn well what I mean by this. I know you want to be this skeptic who wants to go deeper but that's quite frankly for another thread just like any other fundamental analysis of anything really.

Yeah, no. I'm not doing that.

Then you're admitting that you're a stubborn uncharitable asshole that can't even accept something for the sake of argument. Even Socrates (you know, the guy who said "all I know is that I know nothing"?) had the balls to tacitly accept an idea just for the sake of argument so he could refute it:

Demonstrate your case or not. That is the choice you have.

I said I would do that in another thread and that the case is predicated on idealism. Learn to read

Then that's a pretty weak premise to begin with. But it does not really matter because what you've said about consciousness would still apply. So if idealism fails, it really does not matter. And idealism has most certainly failed.

How is that weak? Justify your claim. And I already refuted your straw man about how I define consciousness, nice try liar.

""""""I""""""" don't understand what the phenomena we call "I" is.

FINALLY, the coward comes out with it and picks a horn of the dilemma. The problem is you're admitting that you understand that there is an "I" that does not understand, which is an admission that you have at least some understanding of "I" in some shape or form because if not then you wouldn't be able to comprehend the notion of an I that does/does not understand. And that would contradict your admission that "I notice" and so forth

Let's put that to the test.

All you have to do is look up the definition of the word noun and see that a noun is a person, place, or thing and that verbs≠nouns. We learned this in basic English class dude... If this was an English test then you failed it, momo...

So "notice" is an action that is performed by something we call "mind"

Nice try at equivocation, you're jumping back and forth between when notice is defined as a noun vs when it is defined as a verb. I'm talking about a noun, not verb.

See above

You mean when we clarified the distinction between nouns and verbs? Ah yes, that would mean there is the mental (noun) which engages in actions like perceive (verb). Nouns≠verbs. Simple.

But do you know what that something is or are you simply giving the unknown a name ?

yeah it's the mind, which I have defined all the way back in the OP...

I know.

Then cut the crap. We've already defined out terms and "chakra" is not defined as mental or a synonym for mental. So just stop...

No

Yes, you even admitted yourself a second ago when you said "I know". You know chakra is defined already and that it's not mental so cut the bullshit.

And that understanding is what ? That we don't know what it is, yet we call it a certain way ? Doesn't sound much like an understanding to me.

That it exists and that we grasp this directly and immediately. We all talk about our thoughts and ideas and feelings and what its like for me to experience the smell of a rose vs. what it's like for you to experience the smell of the rose etc.

It's funny cause you are the one projecting.

No it's not, you're trying to pretend like you're not alone on this but I have other users in here, as well as scholars, admitting they comprehend what I say and that it's only you who doesn't... You're straight up projecting

Didn't you say you do have knowledge by description ?

No I didn't actually. I've given a description, I've said that long ago, but I did say that this is ultimately something we know directly and immediately and independent of any description. This is not something we are inferring from other premises like in an argument, this is something we grasp intuitively, this is a basic belief.

Your distinction already relies on this phenomena

Wrong again: all you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

The reason I say it remains unknown is because I literally don't know what this phenomena is.

You claim to have no knowledge but then you go on to admit that there is an "I" that does/does not know, and that there is perception, and consciousness, and all that stuff, so we know you're just lying here. Also, just because YOU don't have knowledge/understanding that doesn't mean there is no knowledge/understanding. Do not project your own failure to comprehend onto other people, momo...

1. Yes, that is the law you are breaking.

Clearly you do not grasp the law of identity

2. Precisely, which is why I don't care what name you give to a phenomena.

Thanks for admitting I'm right: change the name all you want, what the name refers to still exists.

Yeah...been trying to get that to you for some time now.

Dude, I'm the one who has been saying "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet" for like several months now... you're just now catching on.... wow, you're slow...

You are supposed to tell me what the tree is

Are you now going to pretend you don't know what a tree is so you can stay consistent with your stupid pseudo-skepticism? lmao

Furthermore, if perceiving is an act this self does, then by necessity it can not be the letters on the screen.

Then you have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form since you understand that it is distinct from the letters on the screen. If you had absolutely none you shouldn't be able to make such a distinction, you should just suspend judgment like a good skeptic. But we can see you're being a very bad skeptic, kind of like a pseudo-skeptic of sorts...

To identify is to "establish or indicate who or what (someone or something) is" but this "who" is what is in question to begin with so calling it "I" solves nothing.

Yeah and we've done this with the tree, and the self, and everything else we identify with the law of identity.

No, I've called that which drives behavior "mind".

Exactly, you're identifying it as "mind". Law of identity, bitch

No, that is again utterly wrong.

If that's wrong then you're a reductionist after all and you're saying what you call "mind" is actually just the body, and since you have at least some understanding of the body then you have some understanding of mind since mind=body.

That implies I know what said phenomena is, for me to compare it to the brain.

Would you stop using the word "compare", literally nobody said that word. We're talking about IDENTITY and REDUCTIONISM. If the mind=brain then that means that since you understand the brain in some shape or form then you understand the mind in some shape or form since the mind is literally the same thing as the brain. How is your reading comprehension this shitty???

You did, as demonstrated above.

You demonstrated nothing. You tried to say I defined "consciousness" one way but you tried to demonstrate this by bringing up an entirely different word altogether...

Cute. But your fedora behavior remains as nonsensical as ever

Look at this fucking coward lol you still can't answer my question! Answer it, coward. Are you with cognitive science or not...? Are you a science denier or not...?

There is nothing to reduce.

Ooooh okay so now you're no long this weird pseudo-skeptic that acts like they have no idea what mind is, but you're an eliminativist who denies the mind even exists in the first place! is this what you've been trying to hide all along with this evasive pseudo-skepticism? lol

You are still confusing the term with what the term refers to. I understand the term. It's a term ! Whoa! What I need to understand is the phenomena it refers to.

omg you're such an idiot... if you understand the term then you understand the referent by logical necessity: law of identity!

"Some shape or form" is not what you've been asked to provide.

This entire time I've been catching you in contradictions because you tried to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. The moment you admit you have some understanding in some shape or form means you're contradicting your statements from earlier and that you're agreeing with me about there being some understanding in some shape or form. Maybe we don't have some deep fundamental analysis to give a deep philosophical understanding, but that's not necessary for the case for idealism. As long as we have some understanding, and we affirm that premise 1 is true, then we're all good and the argument continues.

Again, if "notice" is not an action then how do you square it with this

All you have to do is stop equivocating when its defined as a noun vs when its defined as a verb and it's all good. You just have to stop being a dishonest prick is all

It is not. That is the point.

You didn't answer my question: On what criteria is any definition set??? You're trying to get on some other topic in philosophy of language here and bringing that baggage into a conversation it doesn't belong in.

Which drives home a point I've been making for weeks

The complete opposite: it drives home MY point. The word chakra and cabbage have been defined already, for you to go back on this is to equivocate.

This is the point where-

Stop right there. You tried to get me on a "gotcha" but I just threw it back in your face. We just admitted that we can't have verbs of the chakra without there being chakra, same goes for the mental: we can't have mental verbs without the mental. period.

What I am remains unknown and not explained.

You are referring to yourself as momo, and claiming that you (momo) are distinct from me (monistic idealism). You cannot pretend to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form if you understand enough about the "I" to distinguish it from anyone else... Just come out of the closet already and admit you have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form already...

Am I ?

Yes, everyone has been able to deal with my argument perfectly fine and have outright admitted they understand what I'm saying. You're the only one paralyzed by this pseudo-skepticism to the point where you can't even address the case for idealism...

The question I am asking is one of the most basic ones you can ask in fact.

The answer I've given is one of the most basic ones to grasp that even an 18-month old child grasps it... You're either a total bullshitter who is a pseudo-skeptic, or you have lack the comprehension of an 18-month old child...

And perception is an ability

Perception is mental, and since perception exists as you admitted, then you're saying the mental exists...

This "enough" is not what you've been asked to provide

What I have been getting at this whole time is that you claim to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form so I've been calling you out on this lie of yours this whole time... You have enough for the argument, we don't need this deep fundamental analysis for the argument to go forward.

Again. What can one expect from a habitual liar ?

That's just you repeating the very same claim I addressed... this is getting extraordinarily repetitive...

Yes, the rose thing. Do you get it now ? And yes, that thing would obviously have to exist.

So premise 1 has been true this whole time! lmao! Let's move on to other premises already you coward

So P1 does not claim to know what "mind" is ?

P1 only claims that mind exists, learn to read. And I already defined mind, liar. These comments are public, we can all see that I defined my terms.

but your sources as well.

HAHAHAHAH you didn't even read my sources you liar! You think reductionism is about comparisons, you think knowledge of a lake is an example of direct knowledge, you have NO idea what my sources say. You didn't read jack shit, your own comments prove this...

It does if you keep repeating said word when asked to explain the phenomena it refers to.

Good thing I never did that

A "definition" which is just a collection of different words for the same phenomena

Mind=first-person subjective awareness is not a collection of different words for the same phenomenon, but nice try liar

Hm! I'm pretty sure you did.

I'm pretty sure you can't read.

Your distinction has not been denied. I've addressed it head on. Why do you think it bothers me ?

So now all of a sudden you get it! lol one minute your'e all "your distinction relies on that which needs to be explained!" but then when push comes to shove you crumble and break down and admit that you really do understand the distinction perfectly fine. So you can stop with your bullshit now when you equivocate knowing something and describing something. Even if I had no description for the "I" that doesn't mean the same thing as me not knowing what the "I" is, so cut the crap.

Does that article explain what mind is ?

In terms of cognitive science, yes it does. Try actually reading the article....It talks about a computational view of the mind

So mind=/=consciousness then.

huh???

The word, not the phenomena it refers to.

The word refers to the phenomenon. Words that refer to themselves are autological words, and this is not an autological word. If you understand the term, then you understand the referent by definition.

How so ?

Do you understand the fundamental nature of reality itself? No??? Well how weird that you can make sense of objects without understanding the fundamental nature of reality itself... This applies to the self as well, it's that easy

Are you saying the I could be reducible ?

I never said that, man you suck at reading

You are saying consciousness is more fundamental and so it is a new topic.

No I'm saying a deeper analysis of the self is a new topic. Just like how you claim that some things are true and I don't hassle you to give me a theory of truth and an exact definition of truth because that's a more fundamental issue. If we played like how you're playing now all threads would be de-railed. We'd have to pressure EVERYONE to fully define reality, knowledge, truth, and all that stuff... but notice how you don't do that to people...? it's almost like your skepticism is like a pseudo-skepticism...

Yes, that IS the point.

Then your point is completely vapid as this applies to literally everything. This isn't some problem for the self, or idealism, this is a problem for literally every single word...

Ahh this is just tooo good.

Your'e the one who literally didn't know what that phrase meant... I want to know how you didn't get that phrase, you've got to be autistic or something. If you are actually autistic can you please be honest about it and admit it already? The problem isn't philosophical its psychological at that point...

Do you ? I mean seriously. Do you ?

yeah, I'm the one making the point. Do YOU???

The object is identical with itself, which is most likely not the term.

The term refers to the object, so once you grasp the term you grasp the object.

a collective facepalm.

There is no collective, you're all alone on this. You're literally the only one who claims to have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form...

What about that is contradictory ?

Because you claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I in any shape or form yet you admit you understand your own sentence, which contains the word I... so you understand I lol

And those phenomena are what ? That is what you are still failing to explain.

I defined this all the way back in the OP, all you have to do is read. Apparently that's asking too much from you...

That implies you have previously listed some mental properties.

No it doesn't, learn how language works.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 2

No, I would not be.

yes you would because you're trying to claim all you comprehend is the behavior.

No, that is a reference.

Again, learn what an autological word is... The word "apple" is not an autological word... The word "apple" does not refer to itself, it refers to the object: "apple". I can tell you the apple is the round-like fruit with seeds and red/green skin and tastes sweet but by your own logic that's just "swapping words" and thus we can never understand what an apple is in any shape or form...

Dude..."For a participant to pass this test, they must answer the Belief Question correctly by indicating that Sally believes that the marble is in her own basket.".

Dude, try making sense of this answer without a mind that has representations... protip: you can't...

And if one's view of the self is "I am something not explained" or "I am pure love". Is that coherent ?

No it's not coherent, you're just admitting that you don't understand the very words you're using. So this whole idea of you saying my ego is bruised is by your own admission total nonsense...

Those phenomena exist,

So premise 1 is true. Great! Now to move on to other premises already

and you need to explain what they are.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. I've done this from the very beginning...

Yes, the rose. Keep remembering the rose for Pete's sake ! A term that refers to something is...wait for it...still a term.

Yeah I know it's a term, but your problem is you keep saying it is "but a term", as if it is merely a term, and that is demonstrably false. These terms refer to something, and that something exists. If you grasp the term then you grasp the referent, that's how language works...

"First-person" and "subjective" are just other names we use for the "self" are they not ?

They are not, try reading better straw-manning less...

You keep saying I grasp this but yet refuse to explain the phenomena.

I defined my terms long ago, but again do not equivocate grasping with explaining. To grasp and to explain are 2 completely different things. You can grasp something without being able to explain it, maybe that's your problem: you just don't know how to explain it. But that doesn't mean you don't grasp it.

I can ponder about "dark matter" as well. Does not mean I know what it is.

This analogy is just as bad as your UFO analogy: we do not have absolutely 0 understanding of dark matter in any shape or form. Here's an entire wiki article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

There is some understanding in some shape or form, we just don't understand it in its entirety... yet

Also, notice how uncharitable you are when it comes to the self vs. dark matter. You do not dismiss dark matter and act like it's completely irrational to assert that it exists even though you tried to put it on the same level as the self. So when it comes to not knowing dark matter that's no problem for you, only when it comes to the self... Why the double standard, momo...? Is there some psychological reason, rather than a philosophical reason, as to why you're so hostile to this comprehension of the self...? Do you not like yourself so you have to sweep it under the rug...?

1. Precisely ! So explain the damn rose already.

I have loooong ago and even if I didn't that doesn't mean there's no knowledge/understanding so your equivocation can just stop now.

2.Partly right. But this is not about me disagreeing with using a certain term to refer to a phenomena. In fact, the very reason I keep making the chakra point is so that you finally get the fact that...a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

1. why are you trying to make this point when you know I already grasp it....? Last I checked it was you who didn't know what that phrase meant and I had to explain it to you...
2. notice how we still know what the rose is even if we call it by a different name and we grasp the idea of it smelling sweet, NOT because of some description, but because of something we are ACQUAINTED with you smell the rose, and it smells sweet. You cannot fully communicate the smell of sweetness to me, you can only point at it really because this is something you're acquainted with. This is something you know, not by a description or argument, but by a direct awareness of your experience of the rose. You experience the rose, and there is this first-person experience of what it is like for you to smell the rose. This is what philosophers use to refer to qualia all the time: that there is a subjective point of view. You going to pretend you have no idea what this is?? If so you can't even make sense of a rose smelling sweet in the first place...

 

[momo666]

If there's absolutely 0 understanding of the self, or I, or me, or you, in any shape or form then the sentence "YOUR challenge is based on a very fawled[sic] set of assumptions" is a sentence without meaning since there is absolutely 0 understanding of this "your" in any shape or form. If that sentence makes sense then so does the notion of an I (Monistic Idealism) that you are distinguishing from yourself (momo). You literally can't negate what I'm saying here without leeching off an understanding that you claim you don't have...

The understanding you are required to provide is what this “self” is. So continuing to parrot the strawman of “absolutely 0 understanding” only shows how disingenuous you are. It was me who pointed out this phenomenon begins to be, and that is an understanding too. I did not ask you to give me “any” understanding of this phenomenon. I asked you to tell me what this phenomenon is, something which you have failed to do.
Secondly, why are you putting “Monistic Idealism” in parenthesis next to the term “I” ? Are you asserting they are the same thing or what ?
I do not assume to know what this “self” is. As such, the reason my sentence makes sense is because in this context “you” are simply an assumed similar phenomenon to this phenomenon I call “myself”. I can most certainly negate your assertions because I am not equivocating between knowing a phenomenon is and knowing WHAT a phenomenon is.

The mere fact that you're using this first-person language already proves I'm right, because you're admitting what you're saying is meaningful, which ipso facto means first-person language is meaningful. Again, your failure to meet my challenge and your inability to negate this without leeching off this understanding proves I'm right time and again.

The fact that you believe that only shows you are ignorant about the distinction between what something is called and what something is. “First-person” language is simply how we call a phenomenon but that is not what you are being asked to explain. You need to explain the phenomenon itself, not how we call it.
You need to demonstrate in what way this language is meaningful. Does it explain what this phenomenon is or does it merely serve as a term ? Again, your challenge is based upon a flawed set of assumptions and a general ignorance about the law of identity. And the fact that I can use this term without understanding the phenomenon it refers to proves I’m right time and again.

See, there's your equivocation again: not knowing what something FUNDAMENTALLY is does not mean there is absolutely 0 understanding of something in any shape or form. Your average joe doesn't delve into the fundamental nature of reality but that doesn't mean they have absolutely 0 understanding of what an object is in any shape or form, same goes for the self... See this is partly why I keep telling you to start a new thread: you're trying to get more fundamental than what this thread is on about... And even with your point about assumptions, you're still admitting they are comprehensible, which means you get this average joe's notion of what the I is.

No equivocation on my part, you are the only one that does that. In fact, I was the one who pointed out this phenomenon begins to be and that is some understanding. You were not asked to provide “any” understanding. You were asked to explain what this phenomenon IS and you keep repeating how you CALL it. This self is supposed to not be reducible remember ? That means that once you’ve pointed it out, it is necessarily fundamental. My inquiry is perfectly reasonable for this thread. I am asking you to explain what this phenomenon is and the average joe most certainly does not know what this phenomenon is. Neither do you, otherwise you would not try to evade my request at every chance you get.

You're the one who literally said, and I quote directly: "I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person". So if you can grasp a perspective, and perspective is first-person, then you grasp what is meant by first-person.

No. I mean that I don’t see how those words refer to different phenomenon. I think they refer to the very same thing. So I asked if that could not be the case.

This is another one of your equivocations: you're equivocating "knowing something" with "explaining something". They're not the same thing, stop equivocating. We can know something without being able to explain it. And I've told you before, and you just keep conveniently forgetting, that we know this by ACQUAINTANCE, which means this knowledge is independent of any description or explanation.

This is another one of your failures to comprehend what I’m writing. I did not assert they are the same, I was listing what you are required to do. I told you dozens of times by now that you have to tell me what this “self” is and then provide an explanation for it. I am not forgetting anything, stop lying. I’ve addressed that point every single time. What we know by acquaintance is that this phenomenon IS, not WHAT this phenomenon is. How you CALL it is not what it IS, but how you call it, that’s the law of identity.
Furthermore, the very concept of knowledge by acquaintance rests upon this concept of “self”. But if you don’t know what this “self” is then you are in effect building upon sand pillars. Your point is moot.
Also, you need to demonstrate this knowledge is correct. All experiences are known by acquaintance, that does not mean they refer an actual state of affairs.

Your analogies get you in so much trouble: we don't have absolutely 0 understanding of a UFO in any shape or form. We know that it's flying, we know it's an object, we know it has a certain shape to it and moves around in various ways. We are not in this total ignorance where we just understanding absolutely nothing about it, and we have no problem admitting that this UFO exists and we don't play a bunch of dumb word games like you're trying to do to avoid admitting this fact... Same goes for the self: maybe there is not this deep fundamental understanding of what the I is but we know that it's there for sure and we do have some understanding of it just like we do for UFO's.

And your pseudo-explanations only prove me right every time. What if the UFO is a hallucination ? Is it still flying and an object ? What if we don’t know the distance or we are unaware of some distortion ? Do we still know the shape ? What if some parts of it are outside our visible spectrum ? Do we still know in what ways it moves ?
Apart from that, it is not that I deny this phenomenon we call “UFO” exists but that I am asking WHAT is it. To which you would probably respond “It’s an UFO” which would explain fuck all about WHAT that thing is.
What you are being asked to explain is not whether this phenomenon we call “self” is there. I did not ask you to explain what no-thing is obviously. What you are being asked to explain is what this phenomenon IS. And at each and every turn, in an attempt to save your ideology, you continue to tell me HOW YOU CALL IT. “Some understanding” is not what is being asked of you. I was the one who said this phenomenon begins to be so to pretend that is something I am interested in is ridiculous.

What is your definition of proper here, exactly? I've given you an answer, you can't lie about that, you know I did. You just think I didn't give you a "proper" answer. So what exactly is that...?

A proper answer would be telling me what this phenomenon we call “self” is. You start off by stating whether it’s an ability, action, activity etc. Then you explain exactly how that phenomenon takes place.
You have not given me an answer. At all times, all you’ve said is how you personally like to call this phenomenon. I want to know what this phenomenon is and then I want an explanation of it.

This is just pure bullshit: I never defined first-person as awareness or mind, nor did I define subjective as awareness or mind. You're full of shit momo...

And you need to learn to read. I specifically left open the possibility that those terms refer to something else. So now you have to explain what the terms “first-person” and “subjective” refer to.

Nope, try again but with less lying.

Then what do the terms “first-person” and “subjective” refer to ? And you did say “I=consciousness” so you are the only one lying here.

I told you from the very beginning that "first-person subjective awareness" is my definition of mind or the mental. I never gave this as a definition of the self. Learn to read better.

But you did say the self equals awareness and consciousness. And if the terms “first-person” and “subjective” do not refer to the phenomenon we call “self”, then what do they refer to ? And do learn to read better. It’s right there in what you’ve just quoted for goodness sake, it says “Unless of course, you want to…”.
Also, this is how you defined consciousness earlier:

No that's me defining the self there. You are getting soooo confused... Also learn how the Img feature works.

No, it’s you defining consciousness. Look!

And I do know how the IMG feature works. I just didn’t knew the forum does not accept particular upload sites.

I gave a definition just like how anyone defines literally any word. Your point here applies to the definition of every single word: that all we're doing is naming the phenomena instead of defining it...

No, it does not. In defining a tree for example, the totality of its being is being defined through concepts as existing independent of the experience of the tree for you. The definition of its being would include what its composition is if I am claiming there are unperceived aspects of it.
So it does not matter if I suddenly want to call leaves and branches “cabbage and karma”. That does not affect the understanding of that object. But you did not do that. You merely told me how you call this phenomenon, you did not provide even the most basic understanding of its being. Even when taking the first step in saying whether it’s an action or ability or what have you, you have immediately contradicted yourself in asserting you did not in fact say consciousness is an ability, which you have 100% done.

No it doesn't, all it means is that this knowledge is unmediated, that it is essentially foundational or basic. And this very sentence relies on an understanding you pretend you don't have. Apparently there is this "YOU" that is comprehensible, and the moment you deny this then you're admitting you can't make sense of "You are asserting x" since there's absolutely 0 understanding of "you" in any shape or form.

It actually does. You said “All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject”. The very concept of knowledge and the very concept of knowledge by acquaintance first requires the concept of this “self”. So that distinction is moot until you explain what this “self” is.
And no, my sentence does not rely on an understanding of what this phenomenon is. That is a lie you continue to push because you are utterly impotent at explaining what this phenomenon is. What I mean by the term “you” is this phenomenon that has not been explained and we do not know what it is. It essentially means “whatever this is” but that is most certainly not an understanding of this phenomenon.

Um, no... You're just proving that you still do not grasp the concept of direct and immediate knowledge. Why do you resolutely refuse to read the sources I provide for you? If you had any interest in this conversation actually going anywhere instead of it just being a pissing contest then you need to read what I cite... I cite scholarly sources for a reason, momo. You need to read them...

The only one who proves his ignorance about the concept of direct and immediate knowledge is you. I am the one who grasps the subtle notions that are at play here. I did read the sources you have posted. None of them explain what this “self” is, let alone explain it. All their talk about direct knowledge rests upon the very thing you have failed to explain.
And I particularly don’t care what you think about my intentions. You are the only one who is pissing in the wind attempting to sell his pseudo-understanding. I am explaining your scholarly sources for a reason. You need to listen to me.

Our knowledge of the lake in the desert is mediated by our sense experience, while the knowledge of the mind and self and all that is not mediated by our sense experience. I can lose all sensory data, but I'm still conscious and directly aware that I'm conscious.

There is a reason I went with that example. Whether or not that lake exists outside our experience of it is left open. I am referring purely to our experience of the lake, which is known directly and immediately. So you must demonstrate this knowledge you assert to possess refers to an actual state of affairs. You must demonstrate that direct knowledge of the self is correct.

I've given a definition: first-person subjective awareness. Quit being a fucking liar...

And you’ve said “first-person” and “subjective” does not refer to the “self” and thus they do not refer to consciousness as well. What do they refer to ? You have not explained what this phenomenon is. Quit being a fucking liar.

You can't even make sense of "belief" without making sense of mind... And I've told you this before but you keep ignoring it: your point about the "I" is not a point about idealism per se but about ANYONE who affirms the existence of the self or claims they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. Your point applies to materialists, substance dualists, panpsychists, neutral monists, or anyone in general that affirms the "I" exists and is comprehensible. Everyone but you admits they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form so you point would apply to literally every single poster in here.

I can make sense of “belief” without knowing what this phenomenon we call “mind” is. You also continue to lie. It was me who pointed out this phenomenon we call “self” begins to be. That is “some understanding” but that is not what you were asked to provide. You need to explain what this phenomenon IS.
My point does not apply to anyone who asserts this phenomenon exists. My point applies to anyone who asserts to know what this phenomenon IS.

Again, this applies to literally all words. If my definition fails then all definitions fail since they're all just "names"

No, it does not because a proper definition goes into the composition of a phenomenon and the way it functions. We don’t just say “that is a tree”, we explain what that object we call “tree” is.

You're the one who has refuted themselves. You've admitted that you're not denying the distinction between knowing something and describing something. Which means your charge that "you haven't described/explained x so that means you don't know x!" is pure equivocation. Even if I was completely non-verbal and had no writing abilities and couldn't explain/describe anything at all, that would not entail that I have 0 knowledge/understanding. So stop equivocating. The moment you admit that "knowing something" and "describing/explaining something" are 2 distinct things then your charge of "you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form!" is undercutted by a lack of support. You can bitch all you want about a lack of description/explanation but that doesn't mean there's no knowledge/understanding.

No, you are the one who has refuted itself. It was after all you who claimed consciousness is an ability. I am not “admitting” anything because I did not deny that distinction to begin with so you are yet again lying. What I’ve done is address head on that distinction and demonstrate it relies on that which you have failed to explain. As such, it can not serve as a reason for you to evade the necessity of explaining what this phenomenon we call “self” is.
I did not assert “"you haven't described/explained x so that means you don't know x!" nor did I assert "you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form!"
What I did say is that this phenomenon we call “self” remains unknown, in that we do not know what it is and it remains unexplained in that we do not know how it functions.
So your assertions that I equivocated are yet again proven to be lies. You are the only one who equivocates all the time.
Your assertion that there is knowledge by acquaintance of this “self” rests upon the very phenomenon you have failed to explain. You can not use that as a evasion until you explain what this phenomenon is. And after that, you have to demonstrate that knowledge is correct.
So you can whine all you want that you have knowledge. That very assertion rests upon that which has not been explained. And even then it would not imply that knowledge reflects an actual state of affairs.

Actually I would be a subject, but regardless you're still admitting that you have at least some understanding in some shape or form since you're able to recognize me as an "object". If you had absolutely 0 understanding of this self in any shape or form you should be totally confused as to whether this self is an object, or a process, or a property, or anything like that.

I assume the object I am observing is driven by a similar phenomenon as the one I call “myself”. And I did not say this “self” is an object. What I observe would be objects (hair, flesh etc.) but we are talking about what ultimately drives those objects. And I do not know if that phenomenon is an object, process or property. How curious that you understand those distinctions yet you refuse to tell me what the “self” or “mind” is.

Call it an assumption if you want, but its an assumption that you admittedly comprehend, which means you've been full of shit this whole time about having absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form...

You are full of shit. You continue to lie at every turn you get. I was the one who said this phenomenon beings to be. That is some understanding of it. But that is not what I have asked you to provide. I asked you to tell what this phenomenon IS and then explain it.
I do not understand what this phenomenon is. You don’t as well, otherwise you would not try to evade my question at every chance you get.

Yes it did: if you were totally and utterly confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form then by logical necessity you comprehend a distinction between us two since you can't understanding yourself. Only if you had at least some understanding in some shape or form could you meaningfully distinguish us as 2 distinct people.

I am not distinguishing between 2 people( as in 2 “self’s”). To me, you are no different than any other object. The reason I would think you are similar to me is through a series of assumptions. I would recognize some behavior and because I know that to be similar to what I do, I would assume some similar phenomenon drives this object I call “your body”. But that does not imply I know what this phenomenon I call “myself” is. That is what you have to explain and that is what you can not do.

yes you are, you're literally doing it right now! You're identifying yourself as momo and going on and on about what momo did or did not say.

No, I am not. I am calling this phenomenon as “myself” but that does not imply I know what this phenomenon is or I can explain it. Stop equivocating.

Are you saying all humans are pixels...? wtf???

No. I am saying “you” are a bunch of pixels in this context. I assume you are some similar phenomenon to whatever this phenomenon I call “myself” is.

Saying I am not a carrot means you can meaningfully conceive of what the "I" is enough to distinguish it from a carrot. That entails some understanding of the I in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form then you should seriously be questioning whether you really are the carrot since for all you know they are the same thing, but here you are confidently claiming that they are not the same thing. This means you understanding enough to make the distinction, which entails some understanding in some shape or form.

Some understanding in some shape or form is not what you have to provide. You need to explain what this phenomenon is. I am the one who has provided some understanding of it by pointing out it begins to be, so to act as if that is something I am interested in only shows how delusional you are. It is because I can make the distinction between a perception and that which perception apprehends that I know I am not a carrot. That does not imply I know what this “I” is because this “I” is supposed to be that thing which possess the ability of perception. But what is in question here is that thing which possesses the ability of perception. And the fact remains that thing is necessarily non-mental.

You're admitting that you comprehend it enough to make a meaningful distinction. That can't be possible without some understanding in some shape or form.

I am not admitting anything since that I not something I have disputed to begin with. Some understanding in some shape or form is not what you need to provide. You need to explain what this phenomenon is, which you have not done.

You're the one who is trying to claim they have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form... You can't move the goal post now that you've been caught admitting that you really do have at least some understanding in some shape or form. I've told you before, I'm going for a common sense understanding, the kind that a non-philosopher can grasp, the kind that an 18-month old child can grasp. We don't need deep philosophical conversations that goes on for months at a time, with 2 part comments because they're so long, and scholarly sources, to grasp what I'm saying here: what I'm talking about is something we grasp before we even enter school! The fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty and dignity to admit you grasp this only proves you're not here to have a productive conversation... If you were at least saying "i grasp the common sense notion, and here's why it's wrong" I would have a lot more respect for you, but the fact that you're playing this stupid pseudo-skeptic game just proves your dishonesty...

No, I am not. In fact, I was the one who said this phenomenon begins to be. Those goal posts you talk about are of your own making, I have no reason to be bound by them. Your common sense understanding is simply a fraud. You can not even tell what this phenomenon IS, let alone explain it.
This is not some deep philosophical conversation. This is basic stuff and you are refusing to answer a basic inquiry. And we do need long comments that go on for months because you keep lying at every chance you get and continue to contradict yourself. And then you project each and every single one of your failures on me, as if that fools anyone. I have pictures with your own words and you are still lying.
You are the one who does not have the intellectual honesty and dignity to admit you do not know what this phenomenon is. You assert you know what it is and yet refuse to state it. How pathetic is that ? The very fact that you have tried everything you can think of to evade my inquiry only proves your pseudo-understanding is a con game. You do not know what this phenomenon is. It’s that simple. And it does not matter how much you try to hide it, that will always remain a fact. People who know what a phenomenon is do not refuse at every point to share that knowledge.
I already know you are not here for a productive conversation. Your behavior proves that. You just don’t know what to do now that your game has been exposed.

You keep equating "you can't describe/explain it!" with "you don't know/understand it!". You do this all the time... I even quoted you directly doing this earlier... Knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things. Even if I couldn't describe it, that doesn't mean I don't understand it, so stop with the equivocation already.

I am not and you did not. In fact, I even explained how that distinction first requires an explanation of what this “self” is. Your distinction rests upon that which you have failed to explain. And even then, you would have to demonstrate that knowledge is correct. So stop lying already.

Because it literally doesn't. Saying that this knowledge is immediate direct says nothing about this "you" that you dishonestly claim is in the description...

It does because this “you” is that which does the knowing. There can be no knowledge without this thing that does the knowing. You even state “the very notion of knowledge already is mental in nature. All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject that has a justified true belief or however you define knowledge here.”. The very concept you are talking about rests upon this phenomenon that you refuse to explain. You are so dishonest…

Which is a totally different description, and also doesn't contain the word "you".... fail... Also, please explain to me how knowledge is not grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belonging to the subject. How are you making sense of beliefs, knowledge, ideas, thoughts, and all of that stuff if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...?

No, it’s not and it most certainly does contain the word “you”. It states "All knowledge is grounded in the mind, within the subject, and belongs to a subject”. Just because you call the “self” a “subject” does not magically change that, it still remains the same phenomenon. So absolute fail on your part.
As for your request, I do not know what it means for something to be grounded in the mind, nor do I know what this phenomena we call “mind” is. All those things I regard as something that begin to be and are driven by something I do not know what is. But I do know that something is necessarily non-mental since the term “mental” is what I mean by this phenomena that begins to be.

Actually, it literally is. You're the one who claims they can't comprehend premise 1. You're essentially illiterate lmao

Actually, it literally is not. What I do not understand is what that phenomena the term “mind” refers to is. So you have just proved to be essentially illiterate lmao.

Nope, nice try. That's not in the definition of notice or perceive or any of that stuff.

Yes it is, but nice try. Here are your own pictures:

You even underlined it for me “become aware of”.

To notice and to perceive is to begin to notice and to begin to perceive. Every single thing about this phenomenon we call “mind” begins to be. Deal with that!

No I didn't, you delusional liar. I even called you out on this lie and you gave me a definition of the word "perception" which shows you can't quote me saying this so you had to equivocate it with something else...

Yes, you did, you delusional liar. Here are YOUR OWN BLOODY WORDS:

It is explained, I gave a definition all the way back in the OP, and you need to justify your claim that this phenomena is unknown. Prove that this is unknown without equivocating "describing/explaining something" with "knowing/understanding something"...

No, you swapped words. You have not explained what this phenomena is, you merely said how you call it. I already proved it is unknown by pointing out you did not share the knowledge you assert you have regarding what this phenomena is. Even saying it is known by acquaintance requires you to first explain this phenomena so that can’t help you. And then you would have to demonstrate that knowledge is correct. And you are equivocating between knowing a phenomena is and knowing WHAT a phenomena is. As usual…

Yes there is and the fact that you're trying to pretend you're not radical is absolutely hysterical. You and I both know that your average joe has an understanding of the self in some shape or form, and we talk about this all the time. If you've ever been in a relationship, which I doubt, then you know your partner will talk about their feelings and they will say sentences like "I feel like x". With your line of reasoning, none of that shit makes sense... According to you, this whole idea of there being a self that has thoughts and feelings and a mind with ideas is 100% incomprehensible, and we all know that your average joe objects to this. Come on momo, you know that you're going against common sense... Philosophers who object to common sense at least have the balls to admit it, you're sitting here trying to pretend like this radical skepticism of yours is commonplace, come on dude... you know that's not true...

No, there is not. The very fact that you consider my inquiry radical is what’s so funny. It is literally one of the most basic questions one can ask and even that completely shuts you up. The average joe knows jack shit about what this phenomena is and the fact that you would use that a base for your argument is just so sad beyond belief. You have centered your entire ideology on what the average idiot thinks, perhaps because you are one of them to begin with.
And as much as I would like to hear about your imaginary relationships, that point remains an idiotic one. A self with thoughts and feelings and a mind with ideas is what we call this phenomenon. And I assume something similar is what other people are. But that does not imply I know WHAT this phenomena is. That is a point you continue to miss. There is nothing radical about what I am asking. You are the radical one. You continue to refuse to tell me what this phenomena is, even though you assert you know what it is. You know it’s not true. You know WHAT this phenomena is remains unknown.

1. Why would you need a complete account in order to have at least some understanding in some shape or form and 2. is there any thing we have a complete account of...?

1)Because clearly not all the body is necessary for this phenomena to exist. And clearly not all modes of behavior are necessary for it to exist. After all a dead brain should be conscious, yet it is not so clearly the way in which a brain functions must be known. And then I need to know what this phenomena is and how it functions if I am to be asked to compare it with anything.
2.I think not. But in the case of this phenomena, it is supposed to not be reducible so whatever you assert it is, could not be further probed. And you would need to explain how this phenomena functions, from start to finish. If you don’t do that, you can not ask me if this phenomena is something the brain does because you can not tell me what this phenomena is so that question is nonsensical.

So once again you do grasp the first-person (caught in a lie yet again!), and you grasp it so much you're wondering if there's any grasping outside of it! lol yeah anything that is mediated and inferential would be something we're not grasping directly in first-person. Again, read the sources I gave you. I don't know why you resolutely refuse to read these sources if you claim that you just want to understand...

I assume the term “first-person” is just another word for the “self”. But obviously you do not think that so now you have to explain what “first-person” refers to. But I did not say I grasp what the phenomena those terms refer to is so you are the only one who has been caught lying yet again.
All experiences are grasped directly. You are confusing an experience with what an experience is of. The actual object we call “lake” is not grasped directly but the experience OF the “lake” is grasped directly. Your sources do not answer my inquiry. None of them explain what this phenomena is.

So premise 1 is true then, glad we got that out of the way.

So what this phenomena we call “mind” is remains unknown and not explained. Good, glad we got that out of the way.

So you never dream then, ever?? Come on man...

Sometimes. But that was not the point, which you’ve obviously missed. All it takes is one example. That’s it. This phenomena we call “mind” begins to be, some times, from something that is not-mental. Every single thing about this phenomena begins to be. To fail to grasp that simple fact is just sad for someone who has based his entire ideology on this phenomena.

Even if there's one of them that contradicts the claim you made before. Thanks for admitting you were wrong, so humble and honest of you to do so momo!

No, it does not because I did not claim every time we sleep we do not dream. This is why I’ve also said “certain types of coma”. All it takes for my point is that there is one example of going to sleep and not experiencing anything. And that has happened and as such my point stands. The non-mental begins to be mental. So you can lie all you like, that is not an argument.

So you're telling me that there's a difference between being awake and being asleep, and that when you're awake you absolutely do have experience. So you're admitting premise 1 is true yet again. There is first-person subjective awareness, you grasp that you have experience directly and immediately and that this experience is real.

The difference is that when I sleep (again, some times just in case you have your fedora at hand) this phenomena we call “mind” literally does not exist. It follows necessarily that this phenomena begins to be from a state of affairs that is not-mental. To say there is a “deeper fundamental mental” is an equivocation because then the term “mental” would refer to something entirely different. There is a phenomena we call “first-person subjective awareness” but you need to explain what that phenomena is, which you have not done.

I never defined consciousness as an ability, you wrote all that for nothing...

You did.

You just ignored my arguments because you have no refutation, as usual.

It literally is momo, you're literally the only one bitching about having absolutely 0 understanding of the mind or the self in any shape or form. You're 100% alone on this. This is purely a personal problem for you.

It literally is not. You continue to lie that I have asserted I have no understanding of this phenomena when in fact it was me who pointed out it begins to be. The understanding you are supposed to provide is WHAT this phenomena is and no amount of evasion can change that fact. Neither you, nor your sources, nor anyone has pointed out what this phenomena is, let alone explain it. This is a personal problem for you, not for me.

You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience", you even said it yourself, and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I. You know it's there, you know it exists, you affirm premise 1 as true, you just want some deep fundamental understanding about what it fundamentally is. All premise 1 is saying is that shit exists alright, that's all. The ambitions for premise 1 are minimal: it's just saying that mind exists. You can be confused all you want about what it truly is, but just like with your own example of UFO's, we know they exist. The fact that you can't admit that this incredibly low bar has been hurdled just proves your lack of charity and honesty here...

Most of those terms refer to the same thing, this phenomena that you can not say what it is. What I am affirming is that what this phenomena is remains not known and not explained. And so, you are by extension admitting your premise claims that as well. I don’t want some deep fundamental understanding. I literally want to know what it is. You need to tell me what that “shit” is. Is it an object ? An activity ? How does it happen ?
What we know about UFO is that a phenomena is, not WHAT that phenomena is. The fact that you still can’t accept those simple distinctions shows you are the one who lacks charity and honesty.

And that phenomena exists, which is all premise 1 is saying. So you're admitting premise 1 is true. What's so hard about you coming out of the closet on this one???

Because you are not saying what this phenomena is remains not known. You assert to know what this phenomena is. What’s so hard about sharing that knowledge ?

You keep telling me that you understand this, but you keep failing to grasp that this means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form since you grasp the verbs of the mental. Again, what's so hard about you coming out of the closet on this???

“Some” understanding is not what I asked of you. I am the one who pointed out those are actions and that something must perform them. I did not need you to repeat that back as if it’s some novelty. I asked you WHAT performs those actions ? And you keep telling me how you call it. Tell me what it is, not how you call it.

You're the one who said "right" so you literally admitted I'm right...

I said “Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time.” All you do is lie, lie, lie. And then you project those failures on others.

I'm sorry, what? So apparently you do understand this "I" as you understand that it was YOU, not me, but you that said such and such. So you comprehend that there is an I that said such things. Great! Now can you cut the pseudo-skeptic bullshit already?

You are excused. I was the one who said acts are what things do so for you to act as if that is some novelty I have to accept is pure gibberish. I comprehend there is a phenomena I call “I”. I do not comprehend WHAT that phenomena is.

You really don't see how obviously retarded this is? This applies to literally everything. If anytime someone asks "what jumped" and I say "the rabbit" and they respond with "you're just telling me what you call it you're not telling me what does the jumping!" everyone is going to look at you like you're a total retard, because you are in fact a total retard... Me telling you that it's a rabbit that jumped is in fact me answering your question. You would have to ask ANOTHER question, a totally different question altogether and that would be "what is a rabbit?". This applies to mind as well. I've answered your question, I gave it to you. You have an additional question: "what is the mind?" and I already defined mind for you.

Do you see how obviously retarded your answer is ? The rabbit would be the phenomena in question. And I am asking you to explain what that phenomena is, to which you would say something like “well it’s a collection of molecules that do x,y,z etc.”. So no, you did not answer my question. You did not say what that phenomena is.
And your second definition of mind does not explain what this “first-person” and “subjective” refers to. If it refers to the same phenomena, you’ve just swapped words, yet again.

If you do then you're being disingenuous...

No, you are being disingenuous by not admitting how we call something is not what that something is. A light bulb is what we call that object which emits photons from time to time and is composed of glass and lead and what have you. That is an explanation. What you are doing is just pointing to the light bulb and saying that exists. Well, that is irrelevant. I am not asking you to explain a non-existent phenomena. Obviously !

First-person subjective awareness, I said this all the way back in the OP... learn to read and stop pretending I haven't answered you, it's dishonest...

And now you’ve said the terms “first-person” and “subjective” do not refer to the self, nor to awareness or consciousness. So what do they refer to ?

You need to justify your claims here.

That is actually one of the few things we know about this phenomena. Every perception, every thought, every feeling, every single thing about this phenomena we call “mind” begins to be. That which begins to be simply can not be fundamental.

No, every time I've asked you to define "I" you just push your own responsibility back on me with this "that's the word I'm asking YOU to define herp derp!" without realizing that you're making claims using that very word that you claim you don't understand, which means you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I do.

Because that is your responsibility. I am not the one claiming to know what this phenomena is, you are. I just mean “whatever this is” and that’s it. So there is no burden for me because I do not claim to know what this phenomena is.

I've explained how this is an admission that Premise 3 is true.

What are you talking about ? What does my distinction have to do with P3 ? And P3 is necessarily false given how you’ve defined consciousness.

omfg learn to read: what I just said is there can't be mental verbs unless the mental exists in the first place. There can't be mental actions without the mental. Get it??? If there are mental verbs, then the mental exists and premise 1 is true. Just come out and explicitly admit: "premise 1 is true" Just say it if you have any intellectual honesty....

Learn to read, indeed. I was the one who pointed out to you actions are what things do. And I told you I want to know what is that which does those actions. If your premise claims to know what that thing is, then you need to tell me what it is, not how you call it. If it does not, then you literally have no case. Have the intellectual honesty of admitting you do not know what “mind” is or explain what it is. You can not have it both ways.

"I notice"

Notice is an action and “I” is how we CALL that which does that action. I asked you to quote me directly when I did state what this phenomena we call “mind” is. Absolute fail!

Absolutely false, just look up the very definition of projection... It's an idea that comes from Sigmund Freud, who is NOT behaviorist and he's clearly a realist about the mental and that we can comprehend the mental. Projection is a mental phenomenon that is about the mental, so the moment you admit you comprehend projection is an admission you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding of the mental at all then projection should be a total mystery to you just like the behaviorists did.

Oh look, more behaviorism babble. Projection is simply the act of assuming whatever these phenomena we call “feelings” and “thoughts” and what have you are present in another being you perceive similar to you. But at no point does that concept require one to know what this phenomena is. You are again failing to see the obvious.

No you haven't and you completely messed up on how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right. Don't forget that from now on.

You are the one who needs to remember that. I have meet my burden of proof. And you did not meet yours. You did not explain why I would have to know what this phenomena is in order to understand projection.

[sarcasm]oh because it's just a name you see! you're just naming it and not explaining it! you're just giving me a bunch of words![/sarcasm]

I am explaining it. It am stating a categorical difference using the law of identity.

Again, law of identity. The name refers to the phenomena. fail. If you don't understand "in a state of mind" then by your own admission you don't understand what insane means.

A name is not the phenomena. Fail! Learn the law of identity, logic denier. I don’t need to understand what that which drives a behavior is to understand a behavior.

uh-huh, now answer the question... You didn't answer the question. How can you make sense of an I that observes if you don't comprehend I or observe....? You'r speaking pure gibberish

I am not making sense of them in the sense that I do not know what they are. You are confusing the name we give to a phenomena with what that phenomena is. You are the one throwing gibberish around. Learn that distinction.

1. I've already called you out on your lie: I never defined consciousness as an ability. 2. You're still not reducing whatever drives behavior to the body or the brain, so you're still with me on anti-reductionism. You're admitting right now that you are not a reductive physicalist.

1. I’ve already called you out on that lie:

2. 2.Wrong! You need to give me something to reduce. Without knowing what this phenomena is, the request to reduce it is incoherent. You must first tell me what this phenomena is, then ask me to show if it’s identical with a thing or a behavior. And you are a reductionist. Remember you’ve said consciousness is an ability and this phenomena begins to be anyway which means it is necessarily reducible.

omg you're such a philosophy noob, you have no idea what reduce means... If you were a reductionist then you would be saying "that which drives behavior"="the body/the brain." Get it??? As long as you know what the body is, or what the brain is, then you know what drives behavior because that which drives behavior IS the body/the brain. How are you not getting this??? Are you this illiterate???? If you have some kind of disorder you need to come out with it already, don't disguise your autism as some kind of deep philosophical skepticism...

Oh look, the noob is projecting again. If that which drives behavior is an activity, then it is a category error to say it equals the brain because the brain is a thing. If it’s a thing, it is equally wrong to say it equals something the brain does. See, depending on what this phenomena is, the answer is different. So for example if this phenomena is an activity, you need to explain it from start to finish and then I can look and that and say “ah yes…that is not something the brain could do”. Until you do that, your request is pure gibberish. So it’s not enough to know what the body is, we need to know what this phenomena is as well.
But nice try at projecting your disorders on me. It was after all you who failed to grasp one of the most obvious rhetorical questions. Your autism is showing.

You have no idea what reductionism is lol

Neither do you apparently.

Then you're not a reductionist. Do I have to remind you of the law of excluded middle yet again...? Either you reduce or you do not reduce. You're not reducing, so you're not a reductionist. Plain and simple.

I am not doing EITHER or those things. I am not saying this phenomena is or is not the brain or something the brain does or a combination of the two. I first need to know what this phenomena is, then I can begin to take that step.

No that's what you did. I gave an argument and you just said the same thing....

No, that’s what you did. You gave no argument and you simply copy/pasted the exact comment I responded to.

Nope, nice try liar. I never defined it as an ability as I have corrected you multiple times now. You're just attacking straw men

Pathetic liar…

yes there was. You know we don't see verbs attached to nothing. There is a noun to engage in verbs. The rabbit jumps, the mind perceives. It's that simple.

No, there was not. You are the one who admitted we don’t see verbs attached to nothing. And when I asked you what is that which engages in those verbs you just told me how you call it. Nonsense! Tell me what it is, not how you call it.

Exactly, and you're admitting that this mind exists in order to engage in these mental verbs, so premise 1 is true by your own admission. You cannot claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form while admitting you comprehend mental verbs. That's an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental, namely the verbs of the mental.

No, you are admitting something has to engage in these verbs. But these verbs are exactly the phenomena we refer to when we use the term “mind”. That is why you use introspection in P1. Whatever engages in these verbs, by definition, can not be this phenomena. The understanding you have to provide is what is that which engages in these verbs, not how you call it.

By your own pseud-skeptic standards you can't even make sense of a "you" that is a liar in the first place so you're just contradicting yourself...

Sure I can. I just don’t know what that phenomena we call “self” is. So not only are you contradicting yourself, but you are also a liar.

yeah and that would mean you have at least some understanding of it in some shape or form. The word "I" would be completely nonsensical if you had absolutely 0 understanding, you would be confused, yet here you are admitting that the word "I" means something and you're telling me what it is...

It only shows how I call it, not what it is. I am not telling you what this phenomena is, but how I call it. Stop lying.

1. you do not need a complete understanding of the body in order to have some understanding of the body in some shape or form
2.if the "I" is identical to the body then that entails logically and necessarily that you do have some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form since you do in fact that some understanding of the body in some shape or form. You keep missing this point...

1)I do if not every thing about the body is necessary for this phenomena to exist.
2)Completely wrong! If not every thing about the body is necessary for this phenomena, then it might be that what I know is not relevant in explaining this phenomena. And to see if this “I” is identical to anything about the body, I first need to know what this “I” is. You keep missing this point…

This is more proof that you don't grasp the law of identity. If I=body then once you have comprehended the body then you have comprehended the I. That's how identity works: they're the same thing, they're identical...

Says the man child who does not grasp the law of identity. If not every thing about the body is necessary for this phenomenon to exist, then I need specific knowledge about specific parts/behaviors of this body. But I also first need to know what this phenomena is because if it is an activity then it is incoherent to say this phenomena=the brain because the brain is a thing, not an activity. And I need to know what that activity is, from start to finish, to see if the brain could account for that.

Nope, that would just be a false claim, not a lie. There's a difference between a false claim and a lie. See your stupid pseudo-skepticism can't even make sense of lies hahaha

That was obviously written with the context of intent assumed. Your desperation is showing…

So premise 1 is true, got it!

So P1 does not say what this phenomena is, got it!

Well then by your own admission I'm good to go since I'm not doing that.

Then consciousness is an ability. Or you are equivocating…

learn what the word "noun" means... Nouns do not refer to verbs, they refer to people, places, or things. This is basic english, we learned this stuff in like 1st grade.... Nouns≠verbs

Idiot…

I already explained this to you: there's the term and the referent of the term. The law of identity captures this relation, that the referent is identical to itself and we refer to it with this term. Your word games aren't working... And given the law of identity you can't identify yourself while at the same time admitting there's absolutely 0 understanding of the self at the same time. You're distinguishing yourself from me, and that can't be possible without some understanding. If you had 0 understanding, you should be confused as to whether you and I are distinct.

And I already explained your confusion. Here you are, saying it yourself. The term and what the term refers to are different things. There is a RELATION, they are not identical. I am not asking you to give me your favorite term when talking about a phenomena. I am asking to explain that very phenomena. No one is playing word games, except you. I am distinguishing what is necessary for this phenomena to exist and what is not. But I do not know what this phenomena is. I call it “myself”. That does not imply I know what it is.

I've already corrected you on this, you just keep dishonestly ignoring it: saying that MY consciousness begins to exist is not identical to saying that consciousness beings to exist. So the fact that you're admitting MY (or your) consciousness begins to exist is only admitting that premise 1 is true and that you (or me) is/are a contingent being as well that's it...

No you have not and I did not ignore anything, you liar. The word “consciousness” has to mean the EXACT same thing in P1 as it does in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase. If it does not, you are equivocating. In fact, those two phenomena would be entirely different since one is contingent and one is necessary. You would be hard pressed to find two more distinct phenomena. And for some reason you think that when I say consciousness begins to be I only mean we are contingent beings. I mean every single thing we associate with this phenomena and the phenomena itself begins to be. All ideas, all thoughts, all perceptions. All of them begin to be. Every single thing.

MY consciousness beings to exist, stop being dishonest... Saying MY consciousness beings to exist does not mean consciousness beings to exist.

Your P1 does not say “my mind exists”. And you are contradicting yourself. Either “I=consciousness” or not. Furthermore, consciousness can not mean two different things when it suits you. Whatever it means in P1, that’s it. That’s what this “cosmic consciousness” is. If not, you are equivocating.

I just told you, learn to read. Go to the section on Cosmic Idealism. It's that simple momo...

I did. I don’t see an explanation of how a mind can ground another mind.

All that's being pointed out is there is a distinction between the statements "MY consciousness begins to exist" and "consciousness begins to exist". You don't have to be a Cosmic Idealist to grasp this basic fact that those 2 statements are completely different statements... so stop equivocating already

No, that is not all that is being pointed out. You are in fact raising assertions that you refuse to defend. Those assertions are meant to be a refutation to my points. Either you defend them or don’t. What I won’t let you do is pull this nonsense of “oh..I’ll do it later”.
As for which one of us is equivocating, if you use two different meanings for the word “consciousness”, then you are equivocating. Simple as that. So stop doing it…

I never defined consciousness as an ability, nice try liar. Don't forget: Nouns≠verbs

Nice try liar.

And don’t forget:

Notice how you don't see me defining consciousness as an ability there at all. fail. You can't point to my definition of consciousness and say that I defined it as an ability, so you take screenshots of me defining other words lmao

Buddy, YOU are the one who underlined in red that “consciousness” is a synonym for “perception” and YOU are the one who has claimed perception=consciousness. Pathetic liar…

....huh....?

I am explaining how an ability becomes an actual. That hard ha…?

You're the one who literally said, and I quote directly: "Only things that exist can begin to be anything". If it already exists, then it cannot begin to be because it already is... you're just contradicting yourself

Yes, in the context of how abilities become actual. HOW did you miss that part ? Oh wait…because apparently you pass out about one hundred times every time you respond to me.

MY consciousness beings to be. Easy right?

That “cosmic” consciousness MUST begin to be. Otherwise you are equivocating when you use the word “consciousness”. Easy right ?

Yes I have, I demonstrated this with the rouge test and in many other ways as well. There's an intuitive and immediate grasping of the self that everyone understands on a common sense level. We all know this when we talk about our feelings, our experiences, our ideas, and all that stuff. We all grasp this basic understanding, and you know damn well what I mean by this. I know you want to be this skeptic who wants to go deeper but that's quite frankly for another thread just like any other fundamental analysis of anything really.

No, you have not. The rouge test does not even begin to address this question. You need to demonstrate how this “intuitive and immediate grasping” is reflective of an actual state of affairs. On what grounds is that supposed knowledge correct ? And if you grasp what this phenomena is, how comes you can not even tell me if its an activity, ability, act or what have you ? I am not going into anything fundamental here. I simply want to know what that phenomena is. And if then you want to ask me if that phenomena is something the brain does or the brain is, then I would require an account of this phenomena.

 

[momo666]

PART 2. I sure hope I didn't mess anything up. I had to fit a lot more into my second part.

Then you're admitting that you're a stubborn uncharitable asshole that can't even accept something for the sake of argument. Even Socrates (you know, the guy who said "all I know is that I know nothing"?) had the balls to tacitly accept an idea just for the sake of argument so he could refute it:

Oh yes, this coming from you, the eternal prick. You are not asking me to accept this phenomena is. You are asking me to accept you KNOW what this phenomena is. I’m not doing that because you have not demonstrated that.

I said I would do that in another thread and that the case is predicated on idealism. Learn to read

I don’t care what you want to do. Either you defend you case or you don’t. Learn to debate.

How is that weak? Justify your claim. And I already refuted your straw man about how I define consciousness, nice try liar.

Dude stop lying about how you defined consciousness already.

And it is weak because the phenomenon you call “mind” begins to be. I am not about to accept your equivocation just because reality has suddenly smacked you in the face.

FINALLY, the coward comes out with it and picks a horn of the dilemma. The problem is you're admitting that you understand that there is an "I" that does not understand, which is an admission that you have at least some understanding of "I" in some shape or form because if not then you wouldn't be able to comprehend the notion of an I that does/does not understand. And that would contradict your admission that "I notice" and so forth

You are delusional. That is something I’ve been saying all along. What “finally” are you talking about ? I understand something must do these things. But I don’t know what that thing is. And if it is this phenomena we call “consciousness” then I don’t know what that is either.

All you have to do is look up the definition of the word noun and see that a noun is a person, place, or thing and that verbs≠nouns. We learned this in basic English class dude... If this was an English test then you failed it, momo...

Please tell me your native language is not English…

Nice try at equivocation, you're jumping back and forth between when notice is defined as a noun vs when it is defined as a verb. I'm talking about a noun, not verb.

i)a term can only refer to one phenomena. An action and a thing are not only different phenomena, they are in different categories of things
ii)quit being a bloody liar

YOUR PHOTO!

You mean when we clarified the distinction between nouns and verbs? Ah yes, that would mean there is the mental (noun) which engages in actions like perceive (verb). Nouns≠verbs. Simple.

Oh yes, the clarification. But another point emerges here. Under that view, the phenomena in question is always ONLY the verbs. We call consciousness whatever that is when we eat an apple say but that is an action. So whatever does those things can not be that obviously. Which just means the non-mental begins to be mental.

yeah it's the mind, which I have defined all the way back in the OP...

That is how you call it. Tell me what it is. And your first definition failed. Your second one remains not defended since you’ve now said “first-person” and “subjective” refer to something else, not this “self”.

Then cut the crap. We've already defined out terms and "chakra" is not defined as mental or a synonym for mental. So just stop...

But they COULD be. Which is the point. I am showing you this phenomena is not “the mind” because that is a name. I am asking you to explain the phenomena itself. You need to tell me what that phenomena is, now how you call it.

Yes, you even admitted yourself a second ago when you said "I know". You know chakra is defined already and that it's not mental so cut the bullshit.

No, no admission. I know chakra is defined that way. But my point was that it could be used to refer to this phenomena. I did that to show that the term and the phenomenon are different things. What I want to know is what this phenomena is, not how you call it.

That it exists and that we grasp this directly and immediately. We all talk about our thoughts and ideas and feelings and what its like for me to experience the smell of a rose vs. what it's like for you to experience the smell of the rose etc.

That it exists is not in question here. I am not asking you to explain non-existent phenomena. And that is directly and immediately known is a moot point since that very concept relies on this phenomena you need to explain. Not to mention, that knowledge has to be demonstrated as correct.

No it's not, you're trying to pretend like you're not alone on this but I have other users in here, as well as scholars, admitting they comprehend what I say and that it's only you who doesn't... You're straight up projecting

No, you don’t. You literally don’t have ANYONE who can say what this phenomena is. You can not even say if it’s an activity, ability or whatever you want. You just can’t do it. And your scholars say what ? That consciousness is “what is like” ? Gibberish.
Tell me what this phenomenon IS. And if you want me to say if I reduce it or not, explain it. Pure and simple. And you still don’t know what projection is.

No I didn't actually. I've given a description, I've said that long ago, but I did say that this is ultimately something we know directly and immediately and independent of any description. This is not something we are inferring from other premises like in an argument, this is something we grasp intuitively, this is a basic belief.

Talk about a contradiction. You’ve asserted you have described this phenomenon. Heck, even now you assert you have given a description. That obviously implies you do have knowledge by description.
WHAT do we know directly ? That a phenomena is. What don’t we know ? WHAT this phenomena is.
You need to demonstrate this intuition and basic belief are correct. Unless of course, what this phenomena is remains unknown.

Wrong again: all you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

That is irrelevant because you do have knowledge by description remember ? And you have given no reason why knowledge by acquaintance could not be described, none. Nor have you demonstrated this knowledge is correct. Nor have you shown I am equivocating. Absolute fail!

You claim to have no knowledge but then you go on to admit that there is an "I" that does/does not know, and that there is perception, and consciousness, and all that stuff, so we know you're just lying here. Also, just because YOU don't have knowledge/understanding that doesn't mean there is no knowledge/understanding. Do not project your own failure to comprehend onto other people, momo...

There is this phenomena I call consciousness that I don’t know what it is. And I say this phenomena is something this “I” does because it begins to be. But I don’t know what this thing is, I only call it “I”. It’s that simple. And I’ve given you a change to demonstrate your assertions. You have failed. You have no knowledge.

Clearly you do not grasp the law of identity

Says the guy who continues to break it at every change it gets.

Thanks for admitting I'm right: change the name all you want, what the name refers to still exists.

No, thank you for admitting I am right. All you’ve offered is a name. I want to know what that thing which it refers to is.

Dude, I'm the one who has been saying "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet" for like several months now... you're just now catching on.... wow, you're slow...

Dude, I am the one who has been saying I want to know what that which the term refers to is. Then you came along with your rose and you still could not see the obvious. The rose buddy…the rose. What the hell is that thing we call “rose” ?

Are you now going to pretend you don't know what a tree is so you can stay consistent with your stupid pseudo-skepticism? Lmao

Oh, I know what a tree is. What I don’t know is what this phenomena we call “consciousness” is. Notice that the former rests upon some assumptions though.

Then you have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form since you understand that it is distinct from the letters on the screen. If you had absolutely none you shouldn't be able to make such a distinction, you should just suspend judgment like a good skeptic. But we can see you're being a very bad skeptic, kind of like a pseudo-skeptic of sorts...

Not interested in “some” understanding. I’ve provided that some time ago. I’m interested in what this “I” is. What it is not helps me next to nothing.

Yeah and we've done this with the tree, and the self, and everything else we identify with the law of identity.

No because a tree is an object composed of x,y,x that do g,h,j and what have you. You can not even tell me if this “self” is an ability or action or whatever you want. You have not explained this phenomena in any manner.

Exactly, you're identifying it as "mind". Law of identity, bitch

I am calling it as “mind”. Term=/=object it refers to. Law of identity, bitch.

If that's wrong then you're a reductionist after all and you're saying what you call "mind" is actually just the body, and since you have at least some understanding of the body then you have some understanding of mind since mind=body.

No, because you have not said what this phenomena is. If it’s an ability, the answer would be one, if it’s a substance the answer is another, if it’s an activity the answer is another. And in all those cases you need to explain that phenomena from start to finish so I can see if it matches the body/what the body does. Some understanding of the body is not sufficient because not all the body is necessary for this phenomena.

Would you stop using the word "compare", literally nobody said that word. We're talking about IDENTITY and REDUCTIONISM. If the mind=brain then that means that since you understand the brain in some shape or form then you understand the mind in some shape or form since the mind is literally the same thing as the brain. How is your reading comprehension this shitty???

How is your logic that shitty ? If the mind is an activity, then to say the brain=mind is a category error. And if you want to say the mind is an activity, then you need to explain that activity from start to finish otherwise your request is incoherent. You fedora idealists think you are smart but you are not. I don’t need to explain anything. If you want me to reduce this phenomena to the brain/what the brain does, you need to first explain this phenomena and then explain the brain so I can make that judgement.

You demonstrated nothing. You tried to say I defined "consciousness" one way but you tried to demonstrate this by bringing up an entirely different word altogether...

Trump…is that you ?

Look at this fucking coward lol you still can't answer my question! Answer it, coward. Are you with cognitive science or not...? Are you a science denier or not...?

What are you talking about you insane child ? Did I not say that I am “with” cognitive science ? I just wanted to know if that question has any specific foundation and is not just a general one. Take your meds…

Ooooh okay so now you're no long this weird pseudo-skeptic that acts like they have no idea what mind is, but you're an eliminativist who denies the mind even exists in the first place! is this what you've been trying to hide all along with this evasive pseudo-skepticism? Lol

You do realize you have been trying to evade from the very start my inquiry yes ? But no, I am not that. You are asking me to reduce a phenomenon that you refuse to explain what is to a certain object/what this object does. But until you explain exactly what that phenomenon is I can not do that. Remember I don’t know what this phenomena is. Your pseudo-understanding fools no one.

omg you're such an idiot... if you understand the term then you understand the referent by logical necessity: law of identity!

No, I don’t. Just because I have NAMED a phenomena a certain way, that does not imply I know what that phenomena is. I have named that phenomena “UFO” but it could be a fly in my eye or a hallucination. THAT is the law of identity.

This entire time I've been catching you in contradictions because you tried to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. The moment you admit you have some understanding in some shape or form means you're contradicting your statements from earlier and that you're agreeing with me about there being some understanding in some shape or form. Maybe we don't have some deep fundamental analysis to give a deep philosophical understanding, but that's not necessary for the case for idealism. As long as we have some understanding, and we affirm that premise 1 is true, then we're all good and the argument continues.

You have not been able to point out one single contradiction on my part, while at the same time denying, like an idiot, your own words. The claim you assert I have made is not mine. In fact, it was me who originally pointed out this phenomenon begins to be. So “some” understanding is a false goal post. What you need to explain is what this phenomena is. If what this phenomena is is required for your case, then we can not continue as you have not explained what this phenomena is.

All you have to do is stop equivocating when its defined as a noun vs when its defined as a verb and it's all good. You just have to stop being a dishonest prick is all

You mean I have to be an idiot like you and equivocate every single time I open my mouth ?
Oh and which one of is the the dishonest prick again ?

You didn't answer my question: On what criteria is any definition set??? You're trying to get on some other topic in philosophy of language here and bringing that baggage into a conversation it doesn't belong in.

Pretty sure what you just quoted was the answer. There is no criteria. Those terms we use to define something are purely subjective. However, what that phenomena they refer to is, is not. A potential is fundamentally different from an object and swapping the words between them will change nothing. I want to know what that phenomena is and you keep telling me how you like to call it.

The complete opposite: it drives home MY point. The word chakra and cabbage have been defined already, for you to go back on this is to equivocate.

No, wrong again. It drives home my point. I said those terms could be used to refer to this phenomena to show that what you are doing is nonsensical. At all times, you are just telling me how you call a phenomenon, not what that phenomenon is. So stop equivocating.

Stop right there. You tried to get me on a "gotcha" but I just threw it back in your face. We just admitted that we can't have verbs of the chakra without there being chakra, same goes for the mental: we can't have mental verbs without the mental. period.

No, just as usual. You pissed in the wind and you are now confused as to what happened. Of course actions can’t be without something to perform said actions. That is what I’ve been telling you for weeks, if not months. The point you keep missing is that I could very well call that thing “chakra” and those would then be “chakra verbs”. This is supposed to show you that how you are naming something is irrelevant. I want to know what that something is. You keep missing that…

You are referring to yourself as momo, and claiming that you (momo) are distinct from me (monistic idealism). You cannot pretend to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form if you understand enough about the "I" to distinguish it from anyone else... Just come out of the closet already and admit you have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form already...

Nope! Again with the strawman. The understanding you are required to provide is what this “I” is. I am calling this phenomenon “momo” (not really but what the hell) and I am assuming this text I am responding to was written by some phenomenon similar to whatever the heck this is. Distinguishing this phenomenon from whatever is not necessary for it to exist does not mean I know what this phenomena is.

Yes, everyone has been able to deal with my argument perfectly fine and have outright admitted they understand what I'm saying. You're the only one paralyzed by this pseudo-skepticism to the point where you can't even address the case for idealism...

No. Literally no one has dealt with your argument in a serious manner because you have been acting like a complete prick to every single member to the point where they have given up holding your feet to the fire. But that won’t work on me.
You are the one who is paralyzed by your impotence of explaining what this phenomena is. You are the one who is unable to defend his pseudo-case for idealism.

The answer I've given is one of the most basic ones to grasp that even an 18-month old child grasps it... You're either a total bullshitter who is a pseudo-skeptic, or you have lack the comprehension of an 18-month old child...

A child does not grasp what this phenomena is, neither do you. Stop lying. Your bluff is weak.

Perception is mental, and since perception exists as you admitted, then you're saying the mental exists...

Mental, chakra, cabbage. I don’t care. It is an ability and you have said perception=consciousness.

What I have been getting at this whole time is that you claim to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form so I've been calling you out on this lie of yours this whole time... You have enough for the argument, we don't need this deep fundamental analysis for the argument to go forward.

No, that is not a claim I’ve made. In fact, I have claimed the exact opposite by pointing out a certain understanding of this phenomena. So I am the one who is calling you on your lies.
We don’t have enough for the argument nor is my request a deep fundamental one. It is a basic request. Tell me what this phenomena is.

That's just you repeating the very same claim I addressed... this is getting extraordinarily repetitive...

And I have addressed your response. And why are you complaining about this being repetitive ? You are the one who literally spammed your nonsense some time ago, something which I have no doubt will do again.

So premise 1 has been true this whole time! lmao! Let's move on to other premises already you coward

So P1 does not say what this phenomenon is right ? And no, let’s not move to anything, coward. Let’s see how you defend your case.

P1 only claims that mind exists, learn to read. And I already defined mind, liar. These comments are public, we can all see that I defined my terms.

Which by all you’ve said is a phenomena that we don’t know what is. And no, you have not defined mind. You swapped words. Or you have injected new words that have not explained what they refer to. So learn to read and stop lying.

HAHAHAHAH you didn't even read my sources you liar! You think reductionism is about comparisons, you think knowledge of a lake is an example of direct knowledge, you have NO idea what my sources say. You didn't read jack shit, your own comments prove this...

I did, which is why you can’t refute my claims. For me to reduce this phenomena, I first must know what it is. So that request of yours is nonsensical to begin with. Knowledge of a lake is direct knowledge. You are just confused about the perception of a thing and what that perception is of. For all we know, that lake could not be there. Our perception of it is however direct.

Good thing I never did that

You did. You keep telling me you call this phenomena mind and I want to know what this phenomena is.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness is not a collection of different words for the same phenomenon, but nice try liar

So that means the terms “first-person”, “subjective” and “awareness” each refer to different phenomena. This should be fun considering this also means the term “mind” and “consciousness” refer to different things. Go on…

I'm pretty sure you can't read.

I’m pretty sure you are projecting.

So now all of a sudden you get it! lol one minute your'e all "your distinction relies on that which needs to be explained!" but then when push comes to shove you crumble and break down and admit that you really do understand the distinction perfectly fine. So you can stop with your bullshit now when you equivocate knowing something and describing something. Even if I had no description for the "I" that doesn't mean the same thing as me not knowing what the "I" is, so cut the crap.

You are delusional. No one is breaking down or admitting anything. As usual, you are confused by your own incoherence. This distinction you are attempting to make relies on this phenomena we call “self”, unless of course you can show knowledge is possible without this self. So when asked to explain a phenomena, you erect some distinction that takes that phenomena for granted. Absolute gibberish that fools no one.
You already said you have knowledge by description. And there is no reason why knowledge by acquaintance could not be described. Nor is there a reason said knowledge needs to reflect an actual state of affairs.

In terms of cognitive science, yes it does. Try actually reading the article....It talks about a computational view of the mind

Does it say what mind is ? Or are you simply saying it offers a possible candidate about what mind could be ?

huh???

I am asking. Mind=consciousness ? Yes or no ?

The word refers to the phenomenon. Words that refer to themselves are autological words, and this is not an autological word. If you understand the term, then you understand the referent by definition.

No, you don’t. Simply naming a phenomena is not some magic spell you know ? It does not magically grant you knowledge as to what that phenomena is.

Do you understand the fundamental nature of reality itself? No??? Well how weird that you can make sense of objects without understanding the fundamental nature of reality itself... This applies to the self as well, it's that easy

No it does not because this self is supposed to not be reducible remember ? If it can be reduced, it is not fundamental. Those things it would be reduced to would be fundamental, not it.
And you can not even tell if this “self” is an object so your analogy really has no merit.

I never said that, man you suck at reading

And you suck at logic. If this “I” could not be reduced, then whatever it is is fundamental in the sense that once you’ve pointed out what it is, that understanding would be fundamental regarding this particular thing. What that thing fundamentally is would be known.

No I'm saying a deeper analysis of the self is a new topic. Just like how you claim that some things are true and I don't hassle you to give me a theory of truth and an exact definition of truth because that's a more fundamental issue. If we played like how you're playing now all threads would be de-railed. We'd have to pressure EVERYONE to fully define reality, knowledge, truth, and all that stuff... but notice how you don't do that to people...? it's almost like your skepticism is like a pseudo-skepticism...

What I am asking you to provide is not a deeper analysis of the self. I am literally asking you do tell me what this phenomenon we call “self” is. You can’t even do that. That is about as basic as you can get. Nothing fundamental about what I’m asking. Just tell me what this phenomenon is. Or just keep parading your pseudo-understanding…your choice.

Then your point is completely vapid as this applies to literally everything. This isn't some problem for the self, or idealism, this is a problem for literally every single word...

Every single word, not the phenomena it refers to. A potential will never change into an actual just because you CALL it that way. This is what I’m trying to tell you. Explain what the phenomena is, not how you CALL it.

Your'e the one who literally didn't know what that phrase meant... I want to know how you didn't get that phrase, you've got to be autistic or something. If you are actually autistic can you please be honest about it and admit it already? The problem isn't philosophical its psychological at that point...

Phahahahaha. Dude…how are you still not getting this ? I just told you it was a rhetorical question. I even explained the rationale behind it. I’m sorry but you are autistic. At this point, there is no reason to even pretend that is not the case. Damn…the irony. Come to think of it, this fits perfectly with your mode of behavior. You are always projecting your failures on others.
And do return that cheap piece of paper to the Trump “University” please.

yeah, I'm the one making the point. Do YOU???

Which is funny because you don’t seem to comprehend that point. Yes, I do comprehend the difference between what a phenomena is and the name we give it. Do you ?

The term refers to the object, so once you grasp the term you grasp the object.

No, because that is only how you name the object. You are not a wizard mate! Simply naming things does not explain them. Naming a phenomena means jack shit.
[quoteThere is no collective, you're all alone on this. You're literally the only one who claims to have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form...[/quote]
Nope, I am not. You have literally convinced zero members on this forum. And you are parroting a strawman, yet again.

Because you claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I in any shape or form yet you admit you understand your own sentence, which contains the word I... so you understand I lol

No, I don’t. In fact, I even said I begin to be. What I mean by the term “I” is that which gives rise to this phenomenon. I don’t know what this thing is, nor do I know what this phenomenon is.

I defined this all the way back in the OP, all you have to do is read. Apparently that's asking too much from you...

No, you have not. You swapped words or simply injected terms you have not explained.

No it doesn't, learn how language works.

Yes it does. So follow your own advice.

yes you would because you're trying to claim all you comprehend is the behavior.

No, I would not. All “behavior” means in this context is the way in which a phenomena functions. And since to perceive is an action and that is the only thing being referenced in P1, all YOU are comprehending is the behavior. At no point do you point out what carries out that action. You merely say that, whatever it is, you call it “mind” which explains fuck all.

Again, learn what an autological word is... The word "apple" is not an autological word... The word "apple" does not refer to itself, it refers to the object: "apple". I can tell you the apple is the round-like fruit with seeds and red/green skin and tastes sweet but by your own logic that's just "swapping words" and thus we can never understand what an apple is in any shape or form...

How about you learn that yourself ? You are still confused as to what a reference is and what identity is. A reference is not identity. A term REFERENCES a phenomena, it is not that phenomena. You are only giving me a name, how you call this phenomena. I am asking you to tell me what the phenomena itself is. And no, your definition here of an apple is what you are supposed to do. You start off by saying whether it’s an object, activity, ability, potential or what have you and then you go on to explain its composition. That is what you are supposed to do with this “self” and “mind” and that is what you are refusing to do.

Dude, try making sense of this answer without a mind that has representations... protip: you can't...

All that answer requires is that this phenomena I CALL “mind” perform a few chains of thought. You are asking me to make sense of that answer without this phenomena, but this phenomena is what I am. You are talking gibberish again. It is this phenomena I want you to tell me what it is.

No it's not coherent, you're just admitting that you don't understand the very words you're using. So this whole idea of you saying my ego is bruised is by your own admission total nonsense...

Then you are admitting views about the self can be wrong. I may not know what this phenomena is, but that does not necessarily stop me from asserting it has certain qualities, even if those assertions have no merit, hence the idea of a ego that is hurt. You are just not bright enough to spot these differences.

So premise 1 is true. Great! Now to move on to other premises already

Nope. We’re not going anywhere. Does P1 assert to know what this phenomena is or does it merely assert this phenomena is ?

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. I've done this from the very beginning...

And now you have to explain what the terms “first person” and “subjective” refers to since you’ve said it does not refer to this phenomena we call awareness and thus by extension it does not refer to this phenomena we call consciousness.

Yeah I know it's a term, but your problem is you keep saying it is "but a term", as if it is merely a term, and that is demonstrably false. These terms refer to something, and that something exists. If you grasp the term then you grasp the referent, that's how language works...

No, that is demonstrably false via the law of identity. A term, regardless of whether it references an actual phenomena ALWAYS remains but a term. What you are putting forth is complete and utter gibberish and it explains why you continue to blindly follow this hollow ideology. Naming a phenomena does not mean you understand what that phenomena is, let alone explain it. That. IS. NOT. How. Reality. Works !

They are not, try reading better straw-manning less...

Okay. So what do those terms refer to ? They don’t refer to the self. They don’t refer to awareness. They don’t refer to consciousness. This ought to be fun…

I defined my terms long ago, but again do not equivocate grasping with explaining. To grasp and to explain are 2 completely different things. You can grasp something without being able to explain it, maybe that's your problem: you just don't know how to explain it. But that doesn't mean you don't grasp it.

Well no. The first time you tried to define “mind” you ended up saying complete gibberish. Now, you’ve injected two terms which you have not explained what they refer to. And I suspect they too will get you in trouble once you answer that. And remember that unless mind=/=consciousness your answer has to be compatible with your definition of consciousness.
What we “grasp” is that this phenomena is. What we don’t grasp is WHAT this phenomena is. What we also don’t grasp is how this phenomena functions.

This analogy is just as bad as your UFO analogy: we do not have absolutely 0 understanding of dark matter in any shape or form. Here's an entire wiki article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
There is some understanding in some shape or form, we just don't understand it in its entirety... yet

Again with the strawman about 0 understanding. It’s as if I was not the one who pointed out to you consciousness begins to be. Oh wait…I provided that understanding.
What is that understanding we have of Dark matter ? Do we know what it is ? Do we know how it functions ? In fact, if the hypothesis is to be taken at face value, then at least the article says it is a form of matter which at least would tell us is an object. You can’t even tell me THAT.

Also, notice how uncharitable you are when it comes to the self vs. dark matter. You do not dismiss dark matter and act like it's completely irrational to assert that it exists even though you tried to put it on the same level as the self. So when it comes to not knowing dark matter that's no problem for you, only when it comes to the self... Why the double standard, momo...? Is there some psychological reason, rather than a philosophical reason, as to why you're so hostile to this comprehension of the self...? Do you not like yourself so you have to sweep it under the rug...?

Well, I am not actually putting it on the same level as the self. At least its proposed explanation tells us is a form of matter. You are not even capable of telling me if this phenomena is an ability, activity, object or what have you.
And I see you still operate under the delusion that I deny this phenomena we call “self” exists. How many times do I have to correct you on that ? I deny we know WHAT this phenomena is or that we have an explanation of it. I have explicitly asked you if you know WHAT this phenomena is and you’ve said that yes, you do know.
And for goodness sake…go easy with the fedora psychology. That was just so cringy. I hope you didn’t pay money for that, what a waste would that be!

I have loooong ago and even if I didn't that doesn't mean there's no knowledge/understanding so your equivocation can just stop now.p

You have not. And asserting there is knowledge is meaningless when:
i)that very concept relies on this phenomena
ii)that knowledge has not been demonstrated to be correct
iii)that knowledge has not been shown to be impossible to be described

1. why are you trying to make this point when you know I already grasp it....? Last I checked it was you who didn't know what that phrase meant and I had to explain it to you...
2). notice how we still know what the rose is even if we call it by a different name and we grasp the idea of it smelling sweet, NOT because of some description, but because of something we are ACQUAINTED with you smell the rose, and it smells sweet. You cannot fully communicate the smell of sweetness to me, you can only point at it really because this is something you're acquainted with. This is something you know, not by a description or argument, but by a direct awareness of your experience of the rose. You experience the rose, and there is this first-person experience of what it is like for you to smell the rose. This is what philosophers use to refer to qualia all the time: that there is a subjective point of view. You going to pretend you have no idea what this is?? If so you can't even make sense of a rose smelling sweet in the first place...

1)You obviously don’t. You keep giving me different names for the rose instead of telling me what the rose is. I always knew what that phrase meant. I’ve been throwing it at you under a different form from the very start. When you told me that which does the noticing is the “I”, it was me who pointed out that is how you call that phenomena and I want to know WHAT that phenomena is, and then have an explanation of it.
2)You are confused. What the object we call “rose” is would be a thing composed of what have you parts doing what have you actions. This “sweetness” however is our experience of the rose, and that is a different thing, not the rose. That “sweetness” is the phenomena I am asking you to tell me what it is and then explain it.
You see, what we are acquainted with is that this phenomena we call “sweetness” is, not WHAT this phenomena is  And there is really no reason why this “sweetness” could not be communicated once we know what it is. But until we do know that, we can only say it is. Like an UFO.
And how exactly is “first-person” different from experience ? Do those terms refer to different phenomena or what ?
And no, qualia is an attempt at explaining this phenomena. If you want that advance that, be my guest.
The sweetness of a rose is a phenomena. I know that phenomena is. I don’t know WHAT that phenomena is. That is a distinction that keeps flying over your head.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

The understanding you are required to provide is what this “self” is

I did thing long ago, you even quoted me doing so.

So continuing to parrot the strawman of “absolutely 0 understanding” only shows how disingenuous you are.

The only possible way this can be a strawman is if you are now changing your stance (without telling me, so technically not a straw man actually since I'm just going off what you have said) and are outright admitting that it is not the case that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. This would be an admission that you really do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. So come out with it explicitly, do not beat around the bush, say it outright: are you now telling me that you have left your old pseudo-skepticism and now accept that you really do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form then? Is it no longer the case that there is absolutely 0 understanding of the self? Don't dodge, answer the question...

It was me who pointed out this phenomenon begins to be, and that is an understanding too.

1. It was me that pointed out you're equivocating since affirming MY consciousness begins to exist does not mean consciousness begins to exist
2. It was me who pointed out this means you're admitting premise 1 is true since admitting it begins to exist entails by logical necessity that it does in fact exist. If it began to exist then by definition that means it exists, it's just that it began to exist. So come out with it explicitly, do not beat around the bush, say it outright: are you now telling me that premise 1 is true? Is it no longer the case that you cannot affirm or deny premise 1 due to this pseudo-skepticism?

Secondly, why are you putting “Monistic Idealism” in parenthesis next to the term “I” ? Are you asserting they are the same thing or what ?

...are you literally autistic? seriously, are you? I need to know if you are, it's genuinely relevant to the conversation for me to know this information. I'd like an actual yes or no response to this question...

As such, the reason my sentence makes sense is because in this context “you” are simply an assumed similar phenomenon to this phenomenon I call “myself”.

This would be an admission that you have left your old pseudo-skepticism and now admit that it is not the case that there is absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. You're admitting you have enough understanding of this phenomenon you call "myself" to realize that it exists, which is something you've been trying to avoid saying for so long, and that there's enough comprehension of "myself" that you can compare it to others and comprehend that there are others that are like "myself" that really exist. So there really is some understanding of this phenomenon in some shape or form by your own admission here.

I can most certainly negate your assertions because I am not equivocating between knowing a phenomenon is and knowing WHAT a phenomenon is.

Well since you're now leaving your pseudo-skepticism you can now affirm or deny premise 1, which is something you've been desperately trying to avoid this whole time, but the problem is you've affirmed premise 1 so now you definitely can't deny premise 1 without contradicting yourself. All premise 1 is doing is saying that this phenomenon you call "mind" exists. That's all. You've been trying to act like my case can't even get off the ground yet here you are admitting premise 1 is actually true, so the case for idealism does indeed get off the ground.

“First-person” language is simply how we call a phenomenon but that is not what you are being asked to explain. You need to explain the phenomenon itself, not how we call it.

Here's a direct quote from you: "For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person"

Notice the emphasis on the word "be". You're talking about being, you're talking about the object in itself, not the mere name we call it. You outright admitting that you do not understand how a perspective, in reality, can actually be anything other than first-person. You're not talking about the name of the phenomenon, you're talking about the phenomenon. If you grasp perspective, and perspective is first-person, then ipso facto you understand the first-person.

No equivocation on my part,

Yes there is, I caught you complaining about us not knowing what the self FUNDAMENTALLY is, and I already demonstrated the distinction between having some understanding of something in some shape or form vs. knowing what something is fundamentally. Your average joe doesn't delve into the fundamental nature of existence but that doesn't mean they don't understand that objects exists or what an object is in any shape or form .

You were asked to explain what this phenomenon IS and you keep repeating how you CALL it. This self is supposed to not be reducible remember ? That means that once you’ve pointed it out, it is necessarily fundamental

I've defined mind all the way back in the OP: first-person subjective awareness. All you're doing is moving the goal post and delving into some irrelevant topic in philosophy of language. The point you're trying to make here applies to literally all words: that anytime we define a term that all we're doing is naming it and swapping words... By your logic there's absolutely 0 understanding of anything in any shape or form since that's what we're doing for all words...

My inquiry is perfectly reasonable for this thread.

No it's not. We're here to talk about the case for idealism, not the self. The whole point of this thread is to see if the case for idealism is a valid argument and if the premises are true or false. That's how you address an argument. You're trying to delve in philosophy of language and philosophy of the self and all that. The point you're trying to make applies to EVERYONE in this thread, not just me, which makes your fixation on me all the weirder... This isn't some negation of the case for idealism you're trying to do here, you're trying to pull the rug out from underneath literally every single person that claims the self exists and that they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. So why are you so focused on me is the interesting question here. Why are you so fixated on me, momo...? Your questions about the self applies to literally every single poster on this website that thinks the self exists and that they comprehend it so why aren't you barging into everyone else's threads? Why only me?? This is weird...

I am asking you to explain what this phenomenon is and the average joe most certainly does not know what this phenomenon is. Neither do you, otherwise you would not try to evade my request at every chance you get.

What is your justification for your claim that there is no knowledge? The burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Do I need to remind you of the distinction between knowing something and describing something again...?

I did not assert they are the same

Yes you have, multiple times. Here's a direct quote of you doing this in your most recent comment to me: "I already proved it is unknown by pointing out you did not share the knowledge you assert you have regarding what this phenomena is" end quote. You've tried to point to a lack of a description/explanation as justification for your claim that there's no knowledge. Now I'm being charitable and giving you a second chance: What is your justification for your claim that there is no knowledge? You can't point to a lack of a description/explanation since that would be you saying they're the same, so that avenue is cut off to you. You must have some separate justification for your claims that you have been failing to provide this entire time and I'm now giving you a chance to present this justification. So where is this justification that you've been failing to provide this whole time...?

Furthermore, the very concept of knowledge by acquaintance rests upon this concept of “self”.

1. Wrong, the point is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Concepts are not a necessary condition for knowledge by acquaintance, it is direct and immediate and independent of any description. How many times are you going to ignore this??
2. By this logic the very concept of knowledge rests upon this concept of "self".

3. Notice how you completely dodged my request for you to clarify what you mean by knowledge, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and all of that stuff given you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form... What are any of those things? What is a belief, momo...? What is knowledge? What's an idea or a thought? Define your terms, burden of proof is on you.

Also, you need to demonstrate this knowledge is correct. All experiences are known by acquaintance, that does not mean they refer an actual state of affairs.

I keep telling you: this knowledge is DIRECT and IMMEDIATE. This isn't something we know through an argument or a scientific experiment, it's something we know DIRECTLY. This is essentially foundationalism we're getting into here, and so you're delving yet again into other more fundamental issues.

Your analogies get you in so much trouble: we don't have absolutely 0 understanding of a UFO in any shape or form. We know that it's flying, we know it's an object, we know it has a certain shape to it and moves around in various ways. We are not in this total ignorance where we just understanding absolutely nothing about it, and we have no problem admitting that this UFO exists and we don't play a bunch of dumb word games like you're trying to do to avoid admitting this fact... Same goes for the self: maybe there is not this deep fundamental understanding of what the I is but we know that it's there for sure and we do have some understanding of it just like we do for UFO's.

What if the UFO is a hallucination?

Way to move the goal post: this question applies to literally everything we experience. What if you're in the matrix and everything you're experiencing is one big hallucination? You're not making any point about the self, you're making a point about literally all of experience. This is just classic cartesian skepticism you're bringing up here... Your radical skepticism saws off the branch you sit on: the route you're trying to take to doubt the self winds up you doubting literally everything. Well done!

Is it still flying and an object ?

You said yourself that it's a UFO=Unidentified Flying Object, that was your analogy moron... You can't move the goal post and act like you're not being a fallacious dishonest prick. If we understand that this is an object and that it is flying and has the classic saucer shape then that means it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of it in any shape or form. And again, we have no problem admitting that this object exists! We don't play stupid word games and play dumb, we just come out with it and say: "yeah it exists, I understand some things about it, but I don't know fundamentally know what it is" and that's that. If premise 1 was "UFO's exist" you wouldn't come at me like "I cannot affirm or deny premise 1 unless I know what UFO's are" and then play dumb word games and act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of what a UFO is any shape or form... come on man... You even used UFO's as an analogy for the self, so what's so bad about you just saying the self exists just like how you say UFO's exist?

A proper answer would be telling me what this phenomenon we call “self” is.

I did long ago, you even took the time to take a screenshot of my definition:

"it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. 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."

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

I have explained before, along with the scholarly sources I've cited, that this kind of knowledge is distinct:

"The Distinctiveness of Self-Knowledge
What is special about self-knowledge, compared to knowledge in other domains? Self-knowledge is thought to differ from other sorts of knowledge in one or more of the following ways.
Self-knowledge is especially secure, epistemically.
Self-knowledge is (sometimes) acquired by use of an exclusively first-personal method.
Self-knowledge is special because of the distinctive agential relation one bears to one’s own mental states.
One’s pronouncements about one’s own mental states carry a special authority or presumption of truth."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/#DisSelKno

You start off by stating whether it’s an ability, action, activity etc.

Nice try, liar. I defined mind as first-person subjective awareness, and those are all nouns. Those aren't abilities, or actions, or activities, they're nouns.

And you need to learn to read.

That would be you, momo. I never defined my terms the way you dishonestly tried to say I did.

quote]So now you have to explain what the terms “first-person” and “subjective” refer to.[/quote]

The definition in its entirety, as we are supposed to read it, is "first-person subjective awareness" and I just told you that they refer to mind or the mental.

Also, this is how you defined consciousness earlier:

Notice how you're not showing a picture of the definition of the word "consciousness" but are instead showing a picture of a totally different word? absolute fail...

No, it’s you defining consciousness.

It says right there that I'm defining the self lol

And I do know how the IMG feature works.

Yeah now you do after I got after you for it.

In defining a tree for example, the totality of its being is being defined through concepts as existing independent of the experience of the tree for you. The definition of its being would include what its composition is if I am claiming there are unperceived aspects of it.

Nope, you're failing to define the tree, you're just naming it and swapping words! You have no idea what a tree is, you merely told me how you call this phenomenon! xD

And no, my sentence does not rely on an understanding of what this phenomenon is.

Yes it does, you're relying on the fact that "my sentence" is coherent in the first place. The very subject in your sentence is 100% incomprehensible by your own admission, so assigning predicates to this subject like "understanding" is simply nonsensical. Your pseudo-skepticism is parasitic: it relies on an understanding it's attempting to reject

The only one who proves his ignorance about the concept of direct and immediate knowledge is you. I am the one who grasps the subtle notions that are at play here. I did read the sources you have posted.

This is hilarious, it is you who plainly does not grasp the subtle notions at play. You tried to give an experience of a lake as an example of direct knowledge... This 100% proves you don't understand the concept of direct knowledge. The knowledge of the lake is mediated by sense experience, knowledge of the self is distinct, it is a different kind of knowledge, in that it is NOT mediated by sense experience. The knowledge of the self is something we grasp IMMEDIATELY and INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY DESCRIPTION, I don't know how many times you need to be told this. You keep repeating "muh explanation!" and I keep telling you over and over: it's INDEPENDENT OF ANY EXPLANATION, it is IMMEDIATE. When are you going to stop ignoring this???

I am referring purely to our experience of the lake, which is known directly and immediately.

You're pseudo-skepticism is getting real wobbly here. Apparently you can make sense of an "I" now that has experience. This is odd because you've been trying to pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of this in any shape or form...

So you must demonstrate this knowledge you assert to possess refers to an actual state of affairs.

You still don't get it. This knowledge is INDEPENDENT OF ANY DESCRIPTION. Can you not fucking read? This isn't something we know through an argument or a scientific experiment, it is something we know DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY and NON-INFERENTIALLY. Stop. Ignoring. What. I. Write.

And you’ve said “first-person” and “subjective” does not refer to the “self

Of course first-person refers to the self, what are you talking about?

I can make sense of “belief” without knowing what this phenomenon we call “mind” is.

Explain. What the hell is a belief according to you?

My point does not apply to anyone who asserts this phenomenon exists.

So then you have no problem with premise 1. That's great. So you were wrong earlier when you tried to act like the case for idealism cannot get off the ground. Awesome.

My point applies to anyone who asserts to know what this phenomenon IS.

Would you say this point applies to an 18-month old child that passes the rouge-test? Does this apply to the person who merely has a common sense understanding of the self in the way the average joe does? Again, I've told you before my ambitions are minimal here: I'm just saying that this self exists and that more fundamental analyses deserve their own thread since they're going more fundamental then what this argument is going for.

No, it does not because a proper definition goes into the composition of a phenomenon and the way it functions.

1. By your own admission what something is and what something does are 2 different things. We don't need to talk about the function of something in order to have at least some understanding of something in some shape or form.
2. You're just telling me what you call the phenomenon! You're just swapping words! muh names!

We don’t just say “that is a tree”, we explain what that object we call “tree” is.

muh names!

It was after all you who claimed consciousness is an ability.

Notice how you failed to show me defining the word "consciousness" and instead showed pictures of completely different words? lmao

I am not “admitting” anything because I did not deny that distinction to begin with so you are yet again lying

Yes you did, liar, You pointed to a lack of a description/explanation and then exclaimed that I, along with everyone else, has absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. But the moment you admit the distinction between knowing something and describing something is the moment you admit your claim that we have no knowledge/understanding of the self is shown to be completely unsupported.

What I’ve done is address head on that distinction and demonstrate it relies on that which you have failed to explain.

Dude, I already corrected you on this: I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. That's it. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

What I did say is that this phenomenon we call “self” remains unknown

Still waiting for you to meet your burden of proof for this claim you've made here. Your claim is unsupported.

I assume the object I am observing is driven by a similar phenomenon as the one I call “myself”.

So the I exists and there is some understanding of it in some shape or form. Great.

And I did not say this “self” is an object.

Yes you did liar, here's a direct quote of you admitting this: ""You", even if met in person, would merely be just another object."

This is a public forum momo, there's no point in lying. I will call you out on your bullshit every single time so just stop...

What I observe would be objects (hair, flesh etc.) but we are talking about what ultimately drives those objects.

So then you're with me on premise 3 for if you were a reductionist you would identify the self with the object you observe. If you weren't with me on premise 3 then you would identify the self with the object you observe.

I was the one who said this phenomenon beings to be. That is some understanding of it.

So your initial pseudo-skepticism about us having absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form is bullshit. Great!

Yes it did: if you were totally and utterly confused and had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form then by logical necessity you comprehend a distinction between us two since you can't understanding yourself. Only if you had at least some understanding in some shape or form could you meaningfully distinguish us as 2 distinct people.

I am not distinguishing between 2 people

So we are not 2 distinct people...? wtf?? You said you consider that I'm insane, so if we're not distinct, then you're telling me you consider yourself to be insane...

To me, you are no different than any other object.

So there's no difference between me and a rock? lol

The reason I would think you are similar to me is through a series of assumptions.

And what is this "me" again that you apparently understand enough to meaningfully compare to other things? You can't shirk this responsibility onto me, you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I have the burden to define the terms I use.

yes you are, you're literally doing it right now! You're identifying yourself as momo and going on and on about what momo did or did not say.

No, """"""I"""""" am not.

You literally did it just now! You're saying "I" am not right now!

Are you saying all humans are pixels...? wtf???

No. I am saying “you” are a bunch of pixels in this context.

So humans are pixels...? huh??

Some understanding in some shape or form is not what you have to provide.

According to your disingenuous pseudo-skepticism there is absolutely 0 understanding and 0 knowledge of the self in any shape or form. If this is no longer the case then you need to be honest and come outright with it and declare your abandonment of this pseudo-skepticism you held on to before.

It is because I can make the distinction between a perception and that which perception apprehends that I know I am not a carrot.

So you understand perception, which is a noun by the way. If you understand mental nouns then you do in fact have some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. You recognize the state of being aware and you recognize that you are not your perception but are the bearer of perception. This is the self.

And the fact remains that thing is necessarily non-mental.

Proof? Also if you can understanding that something is not-mental then you're admitting that you comprehend the mental. If you had absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form then you should be totally confused as to what is or is not mental.

No, I am not. In fact, I was the one who said this phenomenon begins to be. Those goal posts you talk about are of your own making, I have no reason to be bound by them.

This entire conversation has been me pointing out your contradictions since you're trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, you even refuse to admit that you grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, the way the average joe does, the way a non-philosopher does. The fact that you don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that you grasp this at all is just proof you're a pseudo-skeptic. Again, at least philosophers who object to common sense have the balls to admit it, you're just a cowardly pseudo-skeptic.

Your common sense understanding is simply a fraud. You can not even tell what this phenomenon IS, let alone explain it.

See, there's that equivocation again: you're trying to point to a lack of a description/explanation as if that's justification that there's no understanding/knowledge. All we have to do is acknowledge the distinction between "knowing/understanding" and "describing/explaining" to see that your inference is invalid. Again, this isn't about knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance, it's about the simple distinction between understanding an describing. The moment you admit this distinction, then you have admitted your claim that this common sense understanding is a fraud is unjustified.

This is not some deep philosophical conversation.

Yeah it definitely is. I've told you before how low I've set the bar on this and you just keep raising the bar higher and higher. If you pass the rouge test then you have the understanding necessary for the argument. That's it. That's all I'm trying to get at, you just keep moving the goal post farther and farther. A fundamental analyses of what exactly the self is deserves its own thread, I'm not going that far, I never tried to pretend that I am going that far. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do and the fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty and charity to admit this proves your disingenuity. I'm just going for a basic common sense grasping that your average joe gets, the bar is low here.

People who know what a phenomenon is do not refuse at every point to share that knowledge.

I've defined my terms long ago and even gave scholarly sources to provide more info. People who are genuinely seeking an understanding of a word do not play a bunch of pseudo-skeptic word games and try to avoid admitting this phenomenon exists and go on about "muh names" and "word swapping!". You're clearly not a genuine skeptic, you're starting off with your conclusion (the self is unknown), with no justification mind you, and working your inquiry backwards from there. You're starting off on the assumption that the self is unknowable and then acting all surprised like "well gee how come we don't know what the self is? herp derp!"

I am not and you did not. In fact, I even explained how that distinction first requires an explanation of what this “self” is.

omg how many fucking times do I have to tell you this: when I make this point I am NOT, I repeat: NOT, talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance"! All you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

It does because this “you” is that which does the knowing

That applies to all knowledge dummy! lmao you just proved my point from earlier about knowledge and how you're leeching off an understanding you claim you don't have

There can be no knowledge without this thing that does the knowing.

And you know it, since you say things like "I don't know x". You are self-aware, you have an awareness of the self that knows and is aware. Maybe you can't describe it or explain it with words, but you're aware of it. You're conscious of it.

No, it’s not and it most certainly does contain the word “you”.

Actually it literally does not contain the word "you". The cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is causing you to hallucinate...

As for your request, I do not know what it means for something to be grounded in the mind, nor do I know what this phenomena we call “mind” is.

That wasn't my question you coward: I'm asking you to make sense of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, all that stuff. Please explain what those things are... burden of proof is on you

What I do not understand is what that phenomena the term “mind” refers to is.

First-person subjective awareness. If you weren't so illiterate you would have seen that all the way in the OP lmao

To notice and to perceive is to begin to notice and to begin to perceive.

You just went in a circle lol Keep in mind you're trying to say that I defined CONSCIOUSNESS as an ability or something that begins to be but your own pictures prove I did not such thing. You're referring to different words and even in your own picture for those words it shows perception is also defined as a state of being, also you're equivocating nouns and verbs.

No, you swapped words

This applies to literally all definitions: that all we're doing is swapping words...

I already proved it is unknown by pointing out you did not share the knowledge you assert you have regarding what this phenomena is

See?! You just proved me right! You're trying to point to a lack of a description/explanation as if that's proof of a lack of knowledge but your inference is simply invalid. Knowing/understanding something is not identical to describing/explanation something. Even if I couldn't describe or explain something that does not mean I do not know or understand that something. You're purely equivocating. AGAIN, since you keep forgetting: when I make this point I am NOT talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance"! All you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

The average joe knows jack shit about what this phenomena is and the fact that you would use that a base for your argument is just so sad beyond belief.

Still waiting for you to justify your claim that the average joe knows jack shit.

You have centered your entire ideology on what the average idiot thinks, perhaps because you are one of them to begin with.

There's nothing wrong with being an average joe so I don't know why you keep using that term like its a bad thing, and again this point you're making is not about idealism but about literally EVERYONE who claims the self exists and that they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. You're not giving an argument against idealism, or the case for idealism, but rather you're asking a question that applies to EVERYONE.

And as much as I would like to hear about your imaginary relationships, that point remains an idiotic one.

The moment you admit that you can have a coherent conversation with your loved one about how YOU feel and YOUR feelings is the moment you grasp enough for the argument. All I'm talking about is this common sense understanding that we all get at in our everyday lives. If you can't comprehend the idea of a person that has feelings and thoughts and ideas then its no wonder you've never been in a relationship lol the moment you try to deny this and admit you've been in some romantic relationship where you two actually care about each others feelings is the moment you admit you understand what I'm getting at. Again, the bar is LOW. I'm talking about common sense here...

Because clearly not all the body is necessary for this phenomena to exist. And clearly not all modes of behavior are necessary for it to exist. After all a dead brain should be conscious, yet it is not so clearly the way in which a brain functions must be known. And then I need to know what this phenomena is and how it functions if I am to be asked to compare it with anything.

This doesn't answer my question at all. I'm not seeing why you need a complete understanding of the body in order to have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form.

I think not.

Then you've just admitted I've been right this whole time about your point about the self applying to literally everything. Apparently we need a complete account of the self or you won't be satisfied but we don't have a complete account for anything, so really you're just another radical skeptic. This isn't an issue for the self, it's an issue for everything.

I assume the term “first-person” is just another word for the “self”.

Before you said you're not sure of a perspective that is not in first person, so clearly you're referring to something more than just the self but rather the perspective of the self and apparently you grasp this just fine by your own admission, so there goes your stupid pseudo-skepticism

So what this phenomena we call “mind” is remains unknown and not explained

First-person subjective awareness. You're welcome.

Sometimes.

Boom! That's all we need for my argument to hold water. Once you admit experiences can be had in sleeps and comas then your point is undermined.

This phenomena we call “mind” begins to be, some times, from something that is not-mental.

Naw, all it means is that MY mind begins to be. You still need to justify your claim that the mind "arises" from the non-mental. You're going to have to affirm either weak or strong emergence. Which do you choose?

No, it does not because I did not claim every time we sleep we do not dream.

You tried to say when we go to sleep or go in a coma the mental is gone and then arises again from a non-mental base, but you haven't shown how it's impossible for the mind to simply slip into a more basic subconscious state where the mental is still there.

The difference is that when I sleep this phenomena we call “mind” literally does not exist. It follows necessarily that this phenomena begins to be from a state of affairs that is not-mental.

Proof?

To say there is a “deeper fundamental mental” is an equivocation because then the term “mental” would refer to something entirely different.

Not at all, apparently you've never heard the term "sub-conscious".

There is a phenomena we call “first-person subjective awareness” but you need to explain what that phenomena is, which you have not done.

Again, this applies to every single definition. Look at the word "Tree" then look at the definition of tree and we can say the exact same thing you're saying here... You just keep moving the goal post

It literally is not.

It literally is. How have you not noticed how alone you are on this? This is a personal problem for you, not a philosophical problem for us.

You continue to lie that I have asserted I have no understanding of this phenomena when in fact it was me who pointed out it begins to be.

You have said this, many times now. You've tried to act like you have no clue, that you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, even in the way that an 18-month old child grasps it. Think about that for just a second: you won't even admit that you comprehend as much as a fucking 18-month old child! Your pseudo-skepticism is that stubborn, you're willing to admit you're as dumb as a fucking 17-month old child to hold on to your stupid pseudo-skepticism... This is pure bullshit momo...

You understand very well what is meant by "our own experience", you even said it yourself, and that there is a first-person perspective and a subjective awareness of this perspective and that there is an I. You know it's there, you know it exists, you affirm premise 1 as true, you just want some deep fundamental understanding about what it fundamentally is. All premise 1 is saying is that shit exists alright, that's all. The ambitions for premise 1 are minimal: it's just saying that mind exists. You can be confused all you want about what it truly is, but just like with your own example of UFO's, we know they exist. The fact that you can't admit that this incredibly low bar has been hurdled just proves your lack of charity and honesty here...

What I am affirming is that what this phenomena is remains not known and not explained.

Can you fucking read or not? What does premise 1 say? All it says is: "mind exists". That's it! You can't tell me my argument can't get off the ground if you're literally affirming the first premise of the argument! You should have the intellectual honesty to just come out with it and say explicitly that "yes, premise 1 is true". Don't beat around the bush, don't play word games, just say it: premise 1 is true. do it.

What we know about UFO is that a phenomena is, not WHAT that phenomena is

If the premise is: "UFO's exist" we have no problem admitting "yes, that premise is true. UFO's exist". You should have the intellectual honesty and charity to admit that premise 1 is true just like how you're willing to admit UFO's exist. And we can't act like we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form just like for UFO's. We do have some understanding in some shape or form, and I've said before my bar is low and I'm just talking about the common sense grasping of the self. That's it. You're moving the goal post.

Because you are not saying what this phenomena is remains not known

1. you still to justify your claim that this phenomena remains unknown
2. that does not that you cannot affirm it exists! you put it yourself with the UFO example. Maybe we don't know exactly what the UFO is, but we know it exists. So what's so hard about you coming out of the closet already and just explicitly admitting premise 1 is true already? If you're not a dishonest coward then say it outright: "premise 1 is true". Say it...

You assert to know what this phenomena is. What’s so hard about sharing that knowledge ?

1. I've defined my terms since the OP
2. I've told you the distinction between the different kinds of knowledge. Things we know by description we can just give descriptions for, things we know by acquaintance we know directly, immediately, and independently of any description. This is something we ultimately grasp in first-person, it's something we are aware of directly. The fact that you keep begging for a description for something is is known by acquaintance just proves you've been ignoring my arguments and my scholarly sources that make the distinction you need to comprehend this...

“Some” understanding is not what I asked of you.

Since the beginning you've tried acting like you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, if this is no longer the case you need to come out and explicitly admit: "yes I do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form"

All you do is lie, lie, lie. And then you project those failures on others.

That's literally you saying I'm right lol the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is so powerful that you just have to pretend its not there

The rabbit would be the phenomena in question.

The question was "what jumped"" and the answer to that question is "the rabbit". To then ask "what is the rabbit?" is a totally different question altogether, so you're just moving the goal post. You're trying to act like I didn't answer the first question by trying to pretend I didn't answer the second question, which is a totally different question altogether...

And I am asking you to explain what that phenomena is

Real quick, you going to pretend you have no idea what a rabbit is either? Cuz the second you try to define what a rabbit is I can just play the same word games you have: "muh names", "swapping words!" etc.

No, you are being disingenuous by not admitting how we call something is not what that something is

I'm the one who has been making the distinction between regular words that refer to objects and autological words. You're the one who is treating my terms as if they're autological words, as if they merely refer to themselves and that's demonstrably false. The words I use refer to the object, or rather the subject, not the word itself. Learn what words mean, learn how the English language works....

A light bulb is what we call that object which emits photons from time to time and is composed of glass and lead and what have you.

You're just telling me what its called! you're just naming it! muh word swapping!

That is an explanation

Nope, according to you that's just word swapping you're just giving it new names, new words, you're not telling me what the phenomena actually is you're just swapping words!

That is actually one of the few things we know about this phenomena. Every perception, every thought, every feeling, every single thing about this phenomena we call “mind” begins to be. That which begins to be simply can not be fundamental.

You haven't proven that mind beings to be, you're just asserting it.

No, every time I've asked you to define "I" you just push your own responsibility back on me with this "that's the word I'm asking YOU to define herp derp!" without realizing that you're making claims using that very word that you claim you don't understand, which means you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I do.

Because that is your responsibility.

If it's my responsibility to define the terms I use then it's your responsibility to define the terms you use as well. No special pleading. Either define the word "I" or stop using it... If you can't comprehend first-person language at all then you have to stop using it or else you have to admit that you're just speaking total nonsense...

I am not the one claiming to know what this phenomena is, you are.

You are claiming right now that there is an "I" that comprehends things, and that this "I" is distinct from myself. Burden of proof is on you to define this "I" that comprehends, and you need to define the term "comprehend" for me as well, and give us the understanding necessary to distinguish us as 2 distinct people... Burden of proof is on you. If you can't handle this responsibility then meet my challenge from before and stop using first-person language, you're just leeching off an understanding that you're trying to claim you don't have...

What are you talking about ? What does my distinction have to do with P3 ?

Because you're not a reductionist. If you were, then you would reduce it, but you're not.

If your premise claims to know what that thing is

All premise 1 is saying is that mind exists, learn to fucking read. Do you do you not have have the intellectual honesty to admit premise 1 is true...?

Notice is an action

Notice can be used as a noun and a verb, nice try liar

Absolutely false, just look up the very definition of projection... It's an idea that comes from Sigmund Freud, who is NOT behaviorist and he's clearly a realist about the mental and that we can comprehend the mental. Projection is a mental phenomenon that is about the mental, so the moment you admit you comprehend projection is an admission you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding of the mental at all then projection should be a total mystery to you just like the behaviorists did.

Projection is simply the act of assuming whatever these phenomena we call “feelings” and “thoughts” and what have you are present in another being you perceive similar to you.

What are feelings? What are thoughts? If you have no comprehension of those then you have no comprehension of projection.

But at no point does that concept require one to know what this phenomena is

yeah it does, it's talking about a mental phenomena. If you don't understand the mental in any shape or form then you don't understand this phenomena

You are the one who needs to remember that.

You're the one who told me to prove you wrong when the burden is on you to prove yourself right, not on me proving you wrong... learn how the burden of proof works, and meet it.

I am explaining it.

No you're not, you're just word swapping! muh names!

A name is not the phenomena. Fail!

I never said it was, learn to read. Fail!

I don’t need to understand what that which drives a behavior is to understand a behavior.

I never said you did lol

I am not making sense of them in the sense that I do not know what they are. You are confusing the name we give to a phenomena with what that phenomena is

Then you're telling me you're speaking gibberish: you don't understand what "observe" means yet you use that word anyway... you're knowingly speaking gibberish then...

I’ve already called you out on that lie

I already pointed out the dishonesty here

Wrong! You need to give me something to reduce.

omfg how are you this dense??? If I=brain then once you have the brain you have what you need to understand! You understand what a brain is, right...? The moment you admit you understand what a brain is, and if the I is the same thing as the brain, then you're admitting you understand what the I is. Brain=self. That's reductionism. How do you keep fucking this up??

Without knowing what this phenomena is, the request to reduce it is incoherent. You must first tell me what this phenomena is

The brain! I just fucking told you: it's the fucking brain! Are you literally retarded???

Oh look, the noob is projecting again

Dude, you're the one who thinks reductionism is about comparisons and not identity... take an intro to philosophy course already, geez

If that which drives behavior is an activity, then it is a category error to say it equals the brain because the brain is a thing

That's only IF you define that which drives behavior as an activity, but even if you did you'll just say its an activity of the brain. Simple.

I am not doing EITHER or those things.

Sorry champ: law of excluded middle. Either a proposition or that proposition's negation is true. Either you are reducing mind or not reducing mind. Currently, you're not reducing mind so you're with me on Premise 3.

No, that’s what you did. You gave no argument and you simply copy/pasted the exact comment I responded to.

That is actually what you just did...

Pathetic liar…

Notice how you can't find me defining the word "consciousness" as such, so you have to find a totally different word altogether lol you're a shitty liar

No, there was not.

Please explain how there can be mental verbs if the mental does not exist... cue the silence

But these verbs are exactly the phenomena we refer to when we use the term “mind”.

And you admitted you comprehend these verbs, which means you understand the phenomena: mind.

Sure I can.

No you can't since you apparently don't know what "you" means at all, remember...? You just can't keep your story straight lol

It only shows how I call it, not what it is.

Then you should totally confused and shouldn't be able to make a distinction between you and me, unless you're admitting you do have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form.

1)I do if not every thing about the body is necessary for this phenomena to exist.

What?

2)Completely wrong!

Quite the opposite. Learn how identity works: if A=B then whatever is true of A is true of B since A and B are actually the exact same thing. If I=body then whatever is true of the body is true of the "I", so if you comprehend what the body is then by logical necessity you comprehend what "I" is since "I" is the exact same thing as the body. That's reductionism.

And to see if this “I” is identical to anything about the body, I first need to know what this “I” is.

It's the body... holy fuck you need to learn how to read...

Nope, that would just be a false claim, not a lie. There's a difference between a false claim and a lie. See your stupid pseudo-skepticism can't even make sense of lies hahaha

That was obviously written with the context of intent assumed.

No it wasn't, all you said was it being a false claim. Also, wtf is intent according to you...? seriously, what does that mean??

So P1 does not say what this phenomena is, got it!

duh! are you seriously this shitty at reading?? all P1 says is that mind exists. That's it! So are you going to just come out and say the words "Premise 1 is true" or are you that much of a coward?

quote]Then consciousness is an ability. Or you are equivocating…[/quote]

1. your inference is invalid, that doesn't follow
2. I never defined consciousness as an ability, nice try liar

Idiot…

You're the one who thinks nouns refer to verbs lmao we learned the distinction is basic English class, how are you messing up this badly?

The term and what the term refers to are different things

duh

There is a RELATION, they are not identical.

This relation is about IDENTITY. A relates to A, as A is A. You can't be this much of a philosophy noob man...

Your P1 does not say “my mind exists”.

And?

I did. I don’t see an explanation of how a mind can ground another mind.

So you just didn't read it, awesome. You're such an honest seaker of truth, momo. real nice

No, that is not all that is being pointed out

That is what I'M pointing out. Keep up

What I won’t let you do is pull this nonsense of “oh..I’ll do it later”.

I've given you sources that explain this, you just refuse to read them. I've also noted that the case for cosmic idealism is predicated on idealism being true so first we have to go through idealism to then get to cosmic idealism. I'd like to continue but you're such a stubborn asshole that you can't even accept something for the sake of argument. Even Socrates with his turbo-skepticism had the decency to at least entertain an idea for the sake of argument so he could later refute it. You're not even doing that!

Buddy, YOU are the one who underlined in red that “consciousness” is a synonym for “perception”

Learn what words mean dumbass: Definition of Synonym: "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language"

and YOU are the one who has claimed perception=consciousness

No I didn't, I said they were synonymous not that they were exactly the same thing. Pathetic liar...

I am explaining how an ability becomes an actual.

You may think you are but you're not lol muh words! muh name swapping!

Yes, in the context of how abilities become actual

You were talking about SOMETHING, that would be a noun, coming into being. A thing cannot begin to be in existence if it already is in existence... How are you messing this up so bad?

That “cosmic” consciousness MUST begin to be.

Naw, just mine. Simple.

No, you have not. The rouge test does not even begin to address this question.

Yes it does, especially for how low I've set the bar. I've said from the get-go I'm just talking about a common sense average joe's understanding that even an 18-month old child can grasp. That's all I'm going for. Once you pass the rouge-test my burden has been met, that's all I'm going for. I'm not making claims about the fundamental nature of the self like you want, so you're just going to have to settle for this low bar I've set and start a new thread if you want more.

You need to demonstrate how this “intuitive and immediate grasping” is reflective of an actual state of affairs.

There you go moving the goal post again: at this point we're just talking about COMPREHENSION. That's it. I'm not talking about proving its true, I'm merely talking about understanding it.

And if you grasp what this phenomena is, how comes you can not even tell me if its an activity, ability, act or what have you ?

Pretty sure I said it was a noun...

I am not going into anything fundamental here.

Yes you are. You're trying to go further than this common sense grasping that even a non-verbal 18-month old child grasps. What I'm getting at is so basic that language is not even necessary to grasp it. The fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you grasp this basic idea just proves your disingenuity and pseudo-skepticism.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 2

I sure hope I didn't mess anything up.

You're messing everything up lol

Oh yes, this coming from you, the eternal prick.

What are you even talking about? Apparently you can't even make any sense of the word "you" at all so you're speaking pure gibberish by your own admission

You are asking me to accept you KNOW what this phenomena is.

You really are retarded aren't you? I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying when it comes to making the case for cosmic idealism then at the bare minimum you have to accept idealism for the sake of argument. Do you honestly not know what "for the sake of argument" means???

I don’t care what you want to do. Either you defend you case or you don’t. Learn to debate.

I can and I'm doing it right now. Idealism needs to be defended first, which is what I'm doing in this thread, and from there it launches off to another separate argument: the case for cosmic idealism. If you want to rush into the case for cosmic idealism you have to accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case for cosmic idealism is predicated on idealism. Get it????

Dude stop lying about how you defined consciousness already.

notice how you can't quote me defining the word "consciousness"? lmao

And it is weak because the phenomenon you call “mind” begins to be.

still waiting for proof on that one

What “finally” are you talking about ?

I pointed out true dichotomy to you long ago and you've been trying to squirm out of it for weeks now. Is your memory that bad?

Please tell me your native language is not English…

Please tell me you grasp the distinction between nouns and verbs...

Oh yes, the clarification. But another point emerges here. Under that view, the phenomena in question is always ONLY the verbs

How did you fuck this up so badly? Pointing out how there's the noun (the mental) which engages in verbs (perceive) only affirms that there is the noun and the verb. There's the mental as a noun and the mental as a verb. Simple.

That is how you call it.

No that's a definition. If my definition fails then all definitions fail.

Tell me what it is.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. You're welcome, I only did that all the way back in the OP months ago...

But they COULD be.

In this discussion they are NOT, so stop equivocating. What you're saying is pointless here. We need set terms in order to have a meaningful dialogue, so stop. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

I am showing you this phenomena is not “the mind” because that is a name. I am asking you to explain the phenomena itself. You need to tell me what that phenomena is, now how you call it.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. You're welcome, I only did that all the way back in the OP months ago...

No, no admission.

Yes, yes admission... You know chakra does not equal mind, so just stop.

I know chakra is defined that way.

Great, now cut the crap. You're done.

That it exists is not in question here.

so then just come out and say "premise 1 is true". Just do it. If this is no big deal for you then why are you so fucking scared to just say it already?? Just say it! Stop hiding, come out with it!

No, you don’t.

Yeah I do, I can even show you a direct quote from SD to prove this. SD gets it, everyone else I've spoken to gets it, the scholars I cite get it, you're literally the only one who doesn't get it... In all your skepticism you'd think you'd have the intellectual honesty to consider that perhaps the problem isn't with us but with you...

You can not even say if it’s an activity, ability or whatever you want. You just can’t do it.

I've said it was a noun long ago so yeah... awkward...

That obviously implies you do have knowledge by description. WHAT do we know directly ?

No, only that we do have a description not knowledge by description. Stop equivocating already, learn what words mean. If only you would read the sources I give you... I said outright that this is something we ultimately know by acquaintance, that this knowledge is foundational and basic. Are you familiar with foundationalism?

Wrong again: all you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

And you have given no reason why knowledge by acquaintance could not be described, none

omfg can you PLEASE read that article I linked you on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description already: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/#Dis

There is this phenomena I call consciousness that I don’t know what it is

Would you say you have absolutely 0 understanding of consciousness in any shape or form? Just say yes or no to this question please. Don't dodge, don't give me some evasive word-game non-answer, just a simple yes or no will do.

You have no knowledge.

Still waiting for you to prove this claim of yours. The burden of proof is on you.

Says the guy who continues to break it at every change it gets.

Proof?

All you’ve offered is a name

Mind=name
first-person subjective awareness=definition

I've given you the definition, you just keep lying and moving the goal post.

Dude, I am the one who has been saying I want to know what that which the term refers to is.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. Done. Call it chakra, or anything else, it still exists. And if you weren't such a coward then what's so hard about you coming out of the closet and just saying "premise 1 is true"?

Oh, I know what a tree is.

Prove it. What's a tree without "muh names" or "word-swapping" as you put it...

Notice that the former rests upon some assumptions though.

1. proof?
2. if this relies on assumptions then so does knowledge of a tree

Not interested in “some” understanding.

Hey you're the one who was trying to act like they had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. If you want to go back on your pseudo-skepticism now is the time...

No because a tree is an object composed of x,y,x that do g,h,j and what have you

You're just telling me what you call it! muh names! word swapping!

I am calling it as “mind”. Term=/=object it refers to. Law of identity, bitch.

The term refers to the object, bitch. A=A, remember????

If that's wrong then you're a reductionist after all and you're saying what you call "mind" is actually just the body, and since you have at least some understanding of the body then you have some understanding of mind since mind=body.

No, because you have not said what this phenomena is

According to your reductionism it's the body... you just said it. If mind=body then understanding the body is understanding the mind by definition. That's reductionism...

If the mind is an activity, then to say the brain=mind is a category error.

Then you would just say it's an activity of the brain. Simple.

You fedora idealists

lmao oh this is desperate. Come on momo, we all know where the fedora meme comes from in this context: ATHEISM. Are atheists a bunch of idealists...? No, they're the total opposite: materialists. If anyone is a fedora it's pseudo-skeptics like yourself and materialists.

I don’t need to explain anything.

Yes you do, no special pleading. If I have a responsibility to explain, then so do you.

Trump…is that you ?

If I'm Trump then you're Hillary hahaha

Also this:

​

Did I not say that I am “with” cognitive science ?

I don't recall you saying that. Notice how you're still not saying it, you try to leave it implied so you can squirm out of it later when called out on it. Say it outright with a yes or no answer: are you with cognitive science yes or no? Don't dodge...

You do realize you have been trying to evade from the very start my inquiry yes ?

I defined my terms long before you ever commented in this thread...

But no, I am not that.

So you're with me on premise 2 then! Great! We're making some real progress in the case for idealism here even though you've desperately been trying to stop this argument from even getting off the ground. Looks like your attempts have failed. You're with me on premise 1, 2, 3, and something tells me you're not a substance dualist so it seems you're with me on premise 4 as well. Wow, we've got you on 4 whole premises already! We're almost there! So what are your thoughts on causal closure?

omg you're such an idiot... if you understand the term then you understand the referent by logical necessity: law of identity!

No, I don’t.

Yes you do, law of identity. If you didn't understand at all you wouldn't be able to identify it at all.

I have named that phenomena “UFO” but it could be a fly in my eye or a hallucination.

1. we know it's not a fly in your eye, we have video footage and multiple eye witnesses
2. your point about hallucinations is a goal post move and applies to literally everything
3. notice how you know it's an object that is flying and that it exists and can identify its shape (e.g. saucer). So there's some understanding in some shape or form, even though you try to pretend otherwise...

You have not been able to point out one single contradiction on my part

Yes I have. Before you tried to say you had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, but now you're admitting you do have at least some understanding in some shape or form.

drawing the rightful distinction between nouns and verbs means you're equivocating!

[sarcasm]ooooookay buddy, whatever you say[/sarcasm]

There is no criteria.

If that's true then why did you ask that in the first place???

Those terms we use to define something are purely subjective.

pardon me but weren't you just trying to pretend you had absolutely no idea what the word "subjective" means? wtf is subjective, momo...?

No, wrong again. It drives home my point.

The total opposite: I'm the one who has been saying "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet".

Of course actions can’t be without something to perform said actions.

Thank you, so there can't be verbs of the mental unless the mental exists. Great! Glad we cleared that up.

You keep missing that…

Call it what you want, name it what you want, it's still there, it still exists, we still have some understanding of it in some shape or form no matter what word games you try to play. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

Nope! Again with the strawman.

Like I explained before, this can only be a straw man if you have changed your pseudo-skeptic stance (without telling me mind you) and that you now admit there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form. Is that what you're saying now? Are you now saying there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form? Don't play word games, just say yes or no.

The understanding you are required to provide is what this “I” is. I am calling this phenomenon “momo” (not really but what the hell) and I am assuming this text I am responding to was written by some phenomenon similar to whatever the heck this is. Distinguishing this phenomenon from whatever is not necessary for it to exist does not mean I know what this phenomena is

Remember when you were bitching about reductionism and how you can't make a comparison without knowing what it is...? check mate, bitch. You can't say I'm similar to you unless you really do understand enough to compare yourself to me! you've just blown your own feet off hahaha

No

Please point out another user who is just as confused as you are. cue the silence....

Literally no one has dealt with your argument in a serious manner because you have been acting like a complete prick to every single member to the point where they have given up holding your feet to the fire.

Oh look at the mind-reading on momo! Like you know what other people think, apparently you can't even make sense of thinking in the first place lol I talked to SD about this, he held my feet to the fire, and he admitted he understands what I'm saying perfectly fine. You're all alone...

You are the one who is unable to defend his pseudo-case for idealism.

Again, the point you're trying to make isn't about idealism it's about EVERYONE who claims the self exists and that they have a common sense average joe's understanding of it, even an 18-month old child.

A child does not grasp what this phenomena is

Yes they do in the sense that they grasp the idea of a first-person subjective awareness. They are aware of themselves as themselves, they recognize themselves in the mirror, and talk all the time about "my feelings" and "my thoughts" etc. There is this basic understanding of the self, and that's all I'm getting at. You want to get fundamental, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the case for idealism.

Mental, chakra, cabbage. I don’t care.

But it exists, right? Just say it: mind exists. do it already, coward

No, that is not a claim I’ve made.

Yes it is. If you don't like this claim then take it back and admit that we really do have some understanding in some shape or form. Come out with it already.

We don’t have enough for the argument

Yes we do. Premise 1 is only saying mind exists. Once we have enough understanding for that, then we have enough for the argument. Simple.

And I have addressed your response

No you really haven't.

And why are you complaining about this being repetitive ? You are the one who literally spammed your nonsense some time ago, something which I have no doubt will do again.

The irony here is hilarious. If I was repeating anything it was in response to your repetitive pseudo-skepticism that you just keep repeating ad infitum.

So P1 does not say what this phenomenon is right ?

duh! can you not fucking read? it only says that mind exists! that's it! just come out with it already and just say "premise 1 is true"

Which by all you’ve said is a phenomena that we don’t know what is.

nice try liar but I said mind=first-person subjective awareness. It's literally in the OP... wow you suck at reading

I did

Then why do you think reductionism is about comparisons and experiencing a lake is an example of direct knowledge? absolute fail...

For me to reduce this phenomena, I first must know what it is.

The body/the brain/process of the brain. Simple.

Knowledge of a lake is direct knowledge.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH!!!

You did. You keep telling me you call this phenomena mind and I want to know what this phenomena is.

First-person subjective awareness. See you're just going to keep repeating yourself no matter how many times I give you an answer...

So that means the terms “first-person”, “subjective” and “awareness” each refer to different phenomena.

The sentence: "first-person subjective awareness" refers to mind. I don't know how many times I've told you this...

Still pretty sure you can't read...

I’m pretty sure you are projecting.

You literally can't even make sense of projecting lol

You are delusional

How is that possible when you literally admitted the distinction I provided is accurate? You admitted the distinction between knowing and describing is true! is the cognitive dissonance that bad?

No one is breaking down or admitting anything

You literally admitted there is a distinction between knowing something and describing something...

This distinction you are attempting to make relies on this phenomena we call “self”

NO. NO. NO. I don't know how many fucking times I've had to tell you this: I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. That's it. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

Does it say what mind is?

Yes, it gives the computational theory of mind. I just fucking told you that.... Can you stop ignoring me and stop reading off your script for one fucking second...? Here's another link if you need it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

I am asking. Mind=consciousness ? Yes or no ?

No, but they can be used interchangeably in more colloquial sense, especially if the listener isn't an uncharitable asshole.

No, you don’t. Simply naming a phenomena is not some magic spell you know ?

Nice straw man, I didn't say it did. I said the word refers to the object. If you grasp the term, you understand it, then by definition that means you understand the object. Do you not grasp what the word "refer" means...?

No it does not

Yeah I'm afraid it does, no special pleading... If I don't need to know the fundamental nature of existence itself to know what an object is then same goes for the self.

And you can not even tell if this “self” is an object so your analogy really has no merit.

The self is a subject. Well that was easy lol

If this “I” could not be reduced, then whatever it is is fundamental

Nope! It only means that it cannot be reduced, that's it. That's all. "I" do not exist fundamentally, it's merely that the mental cannot be reduced to the non-mental. Learn a thing or two about reductionism please.

What I am asking you to provide is not a deeper analysis of the self.

Yes you are, liar! From the beginning I've told you I'm just talking about what the average joe does, what the non-philosopher talks about, what a fucking 18-month old child grasps! That's all I'm talking about. You're trying to go all fundamental into the essence of the self, the fundamental nature of the self. Quit moving the goal post and start a new thread already.

Every single word, not the phenomena it refers to.

See?! You just admitted it! You know this applies to every single word. You're not bringing up any problem with the self, you're just going on some irrelevant topic in philosophy of language. Start. A. New. Thread.

Dude…how are you still not getting this ?

You keep fucking up and going back on what you're saying, you keep contradicting yourself. You've gotta keep your story straight.

And do return that cheap piece of paper to the Trump “University” please.

Last I checked Trump won the election lol if I'm Trump, I'm the winner

Which is funny because you don’t seem to comprehend that point. Yes, I do comprehend the difference between what a phenomena is and the name we give it. Do you ?

You understand that no matter what you call it, it still exists, right???

No, because that is only how you name the object.

The name REFERS to the object, dumbass. If you get the term, then you get the referent as that's what the term identifies.

Nope, I am not.

yeah you are.... You're literally all alone on this. You're the only one who has bitched about this at all. This is a personal problem, momo...

No, I don’t.

Say it outright, quit being a coward. Say: "it is true that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form". If I'm so wrong, then you should have absolutely no problem saying this... We all know you won't though because you're a coward and you know that once I take this inch I'm going to take a mile lol

Yes it does. So follow your own advice.

I'm the one who decides what I mean by my words, and my sentence does not refer to what you want it to be. Intention matters, remember???

No, I would not.

Oh! So you do have some understanding of mind in some shape or form then, great!

And since to perceive is an action and that is the only thing being referenced in P1, all YOU are comprehending is the behavior.

I didn't use the terms perceive or perception in premise 1, I specifically used the word mind. Also, perceive is what a mind does so how exactly are you observing a mind that perceives? Behaviorists will talk about actions of the body and that's what they mean by behavior, but you're going a step further and talking about a mind that has actions. So what is this mind that you claim has actions and what are these mental verbs and how do you observe them....?

Again, learn what an autological word is... The word "apple" is not an autological word... The word "apple" does not refer to itself, it refers to the object: "apple". I can tell you the apple is the round-like fruit with seeds and red/green skin and tastes sweet but by your own logic that's just "swapping words" and thus we can never understand what an apple is in any shape or form...

A term REFERENCES a phenomena

Exactly, it identifies that phenomena. If you have never heard of a tree, and you ask what it is, and I simply point to a tree nearby us, then I have indeed told you what a tree is and my finger pointing refers to it. You understand what I'm pointing to, as my pointing refers to the object which we communicate in the English language as "tree"

Dude, try making sense of this answer without a mind that has representations... protip: you can't...

All that answer requires is that this phenomena I CALL “mind” perform a few chains of thought.

wtf does that mean...? you're speaking gibberish until you define your terms here

Then you are admitting views about the self can be wrong

When did I say otherwise? lol anyway thanks for admitting you were wrong earlier

I may not know what this phenomena is

So this whole idea of a bruised ego is nonsense by your own admission. Thanks for admitting you were full of shit earlier, great....

Nope. We’re not going anywhere

See? you don't want this discussion to move forward. You start off with your conclusion (self is unknown) and work your inquiry backwards from there like a true pseudo-skeptic

Does P1 assert to know what this phenomena is or does it merely assert this phenomena is ?

It merely assert this phenomena is, I don't know how you keep fucking this up... Premise 1 literally states: "Mind exists". That's it! That's all it says! How can you suck at reading this badly???

A term, regardless of whether it references an actual phenomena ALWAYS remains but a term.

No it doesn't because it is REFERENT that REFERS to an actual object. Get your philosophy of language bullshit out of this thread already

So what do those terms refer to ?

First-person subjective awareness refers to mind. Simple.

The first time you tried to define “mind” you ended up saying complete gibberish.

Proof?

injected

Those terms have been there from the OP you lying prick...

Again with the strawman about 0 understanding.

Again if it's really a straw man then you need to come out with it and explicitely say: there really is some understanding in some shape or form of the mental/self/consciousness and all that.

What is that understanding we have of Dark matter ?

I literally just linked an entire wiki article on it. try reading for once.

Well, I am not actually putting it on the same level as the self.

yes you did you lying sack of shit. You tried to compare the self to UFO's and dark matter. Quit the bullshit, your comments are public...

And I see you still operate under the delusion that I deny this phenomena we call “self” exists. How many times do I have to correct you on that ?

Convince me by saying: "Premise 1 is true". say it you coward...

i)that very concept relies on this phenomena

except it doesn't, nice try. I've told you this knowledge is actually independent of any concepts but you just keep ignoring this...

ii)that knowledge has not been demonstrated to be correct

Are you or are you not familiar with foundationalism?

iii)that knowledge has not been shown to be impossible to be described

please read that scholarly article I linked on the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance for goodness sake.

1)You obviously don’t.

You just said i did! lmao get your story straight

You keep giving me different names for the rose instead of telling me what the rose is.

No that's just what you dishonestly call all definitions...

What the object we call “rose” is would be a thing composed of what have you parts doing what have you actions.

oooh you haven't explained the rose though! muh names! word swapping!

This “sweetness” however is our experience of the rose

So you grasp the idea of an "I" that has experience. Great, thanks for admitting you've been full of shit this whole time.

And there is really no reason why this “sweetness” could not be communicated once we know what it is.

Communicate it then, bitch. Show me with words, give me an explanation, give me a description. Give us a description of this experience of sweetness that even someone without any sense of smell or taste could grasp. protip: you fucking can't...

 

[momo666]

I did thing long ago, you even quoted me doing so.

No, you did not. To the extend you tried, you have failed miserably. You can’t even tell me if the self is an activity, act, object or whatever have you.

The only possible way this can be a strawman is if you are now changing your stance (without telling me, so technically not a straw man actually since I'm just going off what you have said) and are outright admitting that it is not the case that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form.

Wrong. That was not my stance to begin with. It is a strawman of your own making. The information I required was very specific to begin with. You repeating a piece of information I have already provided doesn’t mean I changed my stance, it only shows you can’t properly read my comments.

This would be an admission that you really do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. So come out with it explicitly, do not beat around the bush, say it outright: are you now telling me that you have left your old pseudo-skepticism and now accept that you really do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form then? Is it no longer the case that there is absolutely 0 understanding of the self? Don't dodge, answer the question...

No, your delusional thinking is showing again. It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be. “Some” understanding of this phenomena is what I provided. But that is not what you are required to do. What you need to do is tell us what this phenomena is, and then explain it. My sckepticism of your pseudo-understanding remains intact as you have not answered my inquiry.

1. It was me that pointed out you're equivocating since affirming MY consciousness begins to exist does not mean consciousness begins to exist
2. It was me who pointed out this means you're admitting premise 1 is true since admitting it begins to exist entails by logical necessity that it does in fact exist. If it began to exist then by definition that means it exists, it's just that it began to exist. So come out with it explicitly, do not beat around the bush, say it outright: are you now telling me that premise 1 is true? Is it no longer the case that you cannot affirm or deny premise 1 due to this pseudo-skepticism?

1.That is an equivocation on the term “consciousness”. Whatever consciousness is, it must mean the EXACT same thing in P1 as it does in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase. That can not change.
2.No, because you have said P1 claims to know what this phenomena is. As long as that is something P1 claims, and you refuse to tell me what this phenomena is, I can not say if P1 is true or not.
Also, if this phenomena began to exist, it simply can not be fundamental. That combined with how you defined it makes it clear that can not be the case.

...are you literally autistic? seriously, are you? I need to know if you are, it's genuinely relevant to the conversation for me to know this information. I'd like an actual yes or no response to this question...

No, but you are. And you didn’t answer my question.

This would be an admission that you have left your old pseudo-skepticism and now admit that it is not the case that there is absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. You're admitting you have enough understanding of this phenomenon you call "myself" to realize that it exists, which is something you've been trying to avoid saying for so long, and that there's enough comprehension of "myself" that you can compare it to others and comprehend that there are others that are like "myself" that really exist. So there really is some understanding of this phenomenon in some shape or form by your own admission here.p

No, this would be an example of you failing to read what I say. There is no admission on my part because I am the one who provided that “some” understanding to begin with. The understanding you were required to provide however was what this phenomena is, something which you have not done. And what kind of idiocy is that ? I am asking you to tell me what a phenomena is. OF COURSE it exists. Why would I ask you to tell me what a non-existent phenomena is ? And no, I do not “compare” it with others. I assume other people are driven by a similar phenomena. I do not know what this phenomena is to compare it with anything.

Well since you're now leaving your pseudo-skepticism you can now affirm or deny premise 1, which is something you've been desperately trying to avoid this whole time, but the problem is you've affirmed premise 1 so now you definitely can't deny premise 1 without contradicting yourself. All premise 1 is doing is saying that this phenomenon you call "mind" exists. That's all. You've been trying to act like my case can't even get off the ground yet here you are admitting premise 1 is actually true, so the case for idealism does indeed get off the ground.

Well since I am sticking to my scepticism and I continue to reject your pseudo-understanding, then obviously that is not the case. What I have been saying this whole time is that you do not know WHAT this phenomena is, and by now admitting P1 only says this phenomena is, not what it is, you have proved me right. The case for idealism simply can not get off the ground until you tell me what this phenomena is. That was made clear by your attempts at explaining what this phenomena is, when you ended up falsifying idealism. Depending on what this phenomena is, idealism could not even be a possibility so it is clear why you are so terrified of addressing my arguments.

Notice the emphasis on the word "be". You're talking about being, you're talking about the object in itself, not the mere name we call it. You outright admitting that you do not understand how a perspective, in reality, can actually be anything other than first-person. You're not talking about the name of the phenomenon, you're talking about the phenomenon. If you grasp perspective, and perspective is first-person, then ipso facto you understand the first-person.

No, I am not. I think those terms are just different names for the same phenomenon. Which is why I even asked you if that is the case or they do in fact refer to different phenomena.Furthermore, I do not understand what this phenomenon we call “perspective” is or how it functions. That I understand “some” thing about it is irrelevant as that is not something I denied. I want to understand WHAT it is. Also, what object ? Are you saying perspective is an object ?

Yes there is, I caught you complaining about us not knowing what the self FUNDAMENTALLY is, and I already demonstrated the distinction between having some understanding of something in some shape or form vs. knowing what something is fundamentally. Your average joe doesn't delve into the fundamental nature of existence but that doesn't mean they don't understand that objects exists or what an object is in any shape or form .

No, there is not. If the self is not reducible, then whatever it is is fundamental to begin with. Once you’ve pointed out that thing, that is it. If an object is claimed to be not reducible, then stating what that object is means you’ve stated what it is fundamentally. And you didn’t even say what this self is in the most basic sense. You outright refuse to give even the most basic of understandings. And are you saying the self is an object ?

I've defined mind all the way back in the OP: first-person subjective awareness. All you're doing is moving the goal post and delving into some irrelevant topic in philosophy of language. The point you're trying to make here applies to literally all words: that anytime we define a term that all we're doing is naming it and swapping words... By your logic there's absolutely 0 understanding of anything in any shape or form since that's what we're doing for all words...

Then why did you tell me what consciousness is when I asked you to define “mind” ? And how can “I am conscious”=”mind exists” if those phenomena are not the same ? As for your definition, you’ve now said first person refers to the self and since you’ve also said “I=awareness” then at least two terms of your so called definition refer to the same thing. The third you refused to explain what it refers to but we’ll see about that. I am not moving anything. My position remains the same. And no, what I am saying does not apply to all words because the definitions I have provided, for example, are composed of entirely different phenomena. I do not just give you a different name for a tree, I am stating that what it is is a composition of x,y,z that does g,h,j. For that to be merely word swapping, it would imply an action, a composition and its constitutents are the same thing, which is a category error.

No it's not. We're here to talk about the case for idealism, not the self. The whole point of this thread is to see if the case for idealism is a valid argument and if the premises are true or false. That's how you address an argument. You're trying to delve in philosophy of language and philosophy of the self and all that.

Yes, it is. I am talking about your pseudo-case and I am showing how it is incoherent at its core. I’ve shown how P3 is necessarily false by how you’ve defined consciousness. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that idealism is not even a possibility. Asking what this phenomena we call “mind” is is not me getting into philosophy of language. It is literally me pursuing one of the most basic inquiries one can pursue. The mere fact that you are impotent at addressing said line of inquiry only shows how weak your case is.

The point you're trying to make applies to EVERYONE in this thread, not just me, which makes your fixation on me all the weirder... This isn't some negation of the case for idealism you're trying to do here, you're trying to pull the rug out from underneath literally every single person that claims the self exists and that they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. So why are you so focused on me is the interesting question here. Why are you so fixated on me, momo...? Your questions about the self applies to literally every single poster on this website that thinks the self exists and that they comprehend it so why aren't you barging into everyone else's threads? Why only me?? This is weird...

My point applies to anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is. Either you know what it is, or you don’t. You obviously don’t, which is why you squirm at every opportunity you get. I am in fact negating idealism. I have shown how consciousness being an ability means P3 is necessarily false.
As for why I am responding to you, that is simple. I am simply addressing your claims. In case you have not noticed, all the members you talked to gave up on trying to reason with you. And that does not matter to begin with. I choose to who I respond. What is weird is that you believe what I am doing is weird.

What is your justification for your claim that there is no knowledge? The burden of proof is on you to justify your claims. Do I need to remind you of the distinction between knowing something and describing something again...?

You never had to remind me of anything. That distinction has been perfectly clear and it was in fact me who demonstrated it can not help you in the least. My justification that there is no knowledge is the fact that you have not provided it. Much like the mad man on the street who claims to know what the fundamental nature of reality is, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims. Asking me to justify why I don’t believe your gibberish is just a pathetic attempt at evading the obvious. You don’t have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

Yes you have, multiple times. Here's a direct quote of you doing this in your most recent comment to me: "I already proved it is unknown by pointing out you did not share the knowledge you assert you have regarding what this phenomena is" end quote.

No, I have not. My quote is spot on there. You claim to know, yet refuse to state what you know. You just want me to take your word on blind faith. Either you know what this phenomena is or you don’t. If you claim to know what it is, then don’t act surprised when you are asked to justify that claim. And don’t act surprised when people don’t take your word on blind faith.

You've tried to point to a lack of a description/explanation as justification for your claim that there's no knowledge. Now I'm being charitable and giving you a second chance: What is your justification for your claim that there is no knowledge? You can't point to a lack of a description/explanation since that would be you saying they're the same, so that avenue is cut off to you. You must have some separate justification for your claims that you have been failing to provide this entire time and I'm now giving you a chance to present this justification. So where is this justification that you've been failing to provide this whole time...?

No, I did not. All I did was ask you to support your claims, which you have failed to do. I don’t need your second chance. It is not me who has to justify my claims because it is not me who has claimed to know what this phenomena is. You are the one who asserted to know what this phenomena is. So asking me to demonstrate that the knowledge you have never provided is there to begin with is sad beyond belief. You are the one who needs to justify your claims, that you do in fact posses this knowledge and this knowledge is correct. Until you do that, there is no reason for me to give your claims any more credence than the mad man in the street.

1. Wrong, the point is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Concepts are not a necessary condition for knowledge by acquaintance, it is direct and immediate and independent of any description. How many times are you going to ignore this??
2. By this logic the very concept of knowledge rests upon this concept of "self".

3. Notice how you completely dodged my request for you to clarify what you mean by knowledge, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and all of that stuff given you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form... What are any of those things? What is a belief, momo...? What is knowledge? What's an idea or a thought? Define your terms, burden of proof is on you.

1.Wrong. It is this phenomena we call “the self” that does the knowing remember ? The very concept of knowledge by acquaintance first requires an explanation of what this self is, otherwise you are just taking that which you are supposed to explain for granted. How many times are you going to ignore this ? Even in your own picture, you have underlined the fact that knowledge is “acquired by a person”. The very definition of knowledge builds upon this self. So that can’t help you evade the inquiry of what this self is.
2.Yes, it does. That is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Your distinction can not possibly help you evade the responsibility of explaining what this “self” is.
3.Your request is nonsensical. It is you who has to explain what those phenomena are. I do not claim to know what they are. I only know they all begin to be. I said I think they are acts, but I am not settled on that. Burden of proof is on you, not on me.

I keep telling you: this knowledge is DIRECT and IMMEDIATE. This isn't something we know through an argument or a scientific experiment, it's something we know DIRECTLY. This is essentially foundationalism we're getting into here, and so you're delving yet again into other more fundamental issues.

Irrelevant. The experience of a lake is direct and immediate. That does not mean it represents an actual state of affairs. You need to demonstrate this knowledge is correct. And you need to state WHAT knowledge are you talking about. Simply asking me to blindly believe you is not going to cut it.

Way to move the goal post: this question applies to literally everything we experience. What if you're in the matrix and everything you're experiencing is one big hallucination? You're not making any point about the self, you're making a point about literally all of experience. This is just classic cartesian skepticism you're bringing up here... Your radical skepticism saws off the branch you sit on: the route you're trying to take to doubt the self winds up you doubting literally everything. Well done!

Nope, I am not doing that. There is no reason why the phenomena we call UFO can not be a hallucination. Which is why I’ve said knowing a phenomena is is not the same as knowing what a phenomena is. I am making a point about the self. I am showing how knowing this phenomena is does not necessarily tell us what this phenomena is. Nothing radical about what I’m saying. I do not doubt this phenomena is, I doubt we know what this phenomena is so nice strawman again.

Is it still flying and an object ?

You said yourself that it's a UFO=Unidentified Flying Object, that was your analogy moron... You can't move the goal post and act like you're not being a fallacious dishonest prick. If we understand that this is an object and that it is flying and has the classic saucer shape then that means it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of it in any shape or form.

UFO is how we CALL the phenomena but since we do not know what it is, it is not the case that it needs to be an object or flying or have a saucer shape. People confuse clouds and even planets with UFO’s. It could be that the phenomena you are talking about is only a hallucination. The phenomena is, but that does not imply you know what the phenomena is.

And again, we have no problem admitting that this object exists!We don't play stupid word games and play dumb, we just come out with it and say: "yeah it exists, I understand some things about it, but I don't know fundamentally know what it is" and that's that. If premise 1 was "UFO's exist" you wouldn't come at me like "I cannot affirm or deny premise 1 unless I know what UFO's are" and then play dumb word games and act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of what a UFO is any shape or form... come on man... You even used UFO's as an analogy for the self, so what's so bad about you just saying the self exists just like how you say UFO's exist?

Again, is this self an object ? And no, if that UFO is asserted to be not reducible, then whatever it is, that is what it is fundamentally. I did not say this phenomena we call “self” does not exist. I said we do not know what it is. And depending on what it is, it could be the case that idealism is not even a possibility.

I did long ago, you even took the time to take a screenshot of my definition:

No, you did not. You did not even say if this phenomena is an object, activity, ability or whatever. In fact, given your other claims, the self would be “an individual consciousness as the object of consciousness own reflective consciousness”. You are literally swapping words. Your own definition contains the very term you are supposed to explain.

"it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. 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."

The terms “them”, “they”, “awareness”, “consciousness” is supposed to refer to the same phenomena remember ? So “it is manifest to awareness that awareness awareness are the object of awareness”. This is simply gibberish. What is this phenomena we call “ourselves” ? I know we use the term “I” to refer to it, but what is that which we refer to ? Your own source tells us “I” is a term.

I have explained before, along with the scholarly sources I've cited, that this kind of knowledge is distinct:

That knowledge being what ? Knowledge that this phenomena is or knowledge of what this phenomena is ? On what grounds is this knowledge correct ?

"The Distinctiveness of Self-Knowledge
What is special about self-knowledge, compared to knowledge in other domains? Self-knowledge is thought to differ from other sorts of knowledge in one or more of the following ways.
Self-knowledge is especially secure, epistemically.
Self-knowledge is (sometimes) acquired by use of an exclusively first-personal method.
Self-knowledge is special because of the distinctive agential relation one bears to one’s own mental states.
One’s pronouncements about one’s own mental states carry a special authority or presumption of truth."

Those are all assertions that have to be demonstrated. Notice that even those assertions take this “I” for granted. They do not state what this “one’s” is. That is because, like I said before, the very concept of knowledge rests upon this phenomena. You need to explain what this phenomena is and “self-knowledge” can not help you there because that very concept requires the phenomena you have failed to explain.

Nice try, liar. I defined mind as first-person subjective awareness, and those are all nouns. Those aren't abilities, or actions, or activities, they're nouns.

Nope, liar. You’ve already said “first-person” refers to the self and that “I=awareness” so at least two of the terms of your definition are a repetition. Now you only have to explain what the third refers to. Nouns are literally words that refer to objects, abilities, actions or activities or whatever have you. I don’t care what the word you use is, I care what the phenomena the word refers to is. And that most certainly is not a noun.

That would be you, momo. I never defined my terms the way you dishonestly tried to say I did.

No, that would be you. You have defined your terms precisely the way I’ve demonstrated you did. I even showed you pictures. Stop lying.

The definition in its entirety, as we are supposed to read it, is "first-person subjective awareness" and I just told you that they refer to mind or the mental.

And that definition is composed of individual terms that are supposed to refer to different things, otherwise you are just repeating the same thing using different words. So what does “subjective” refer to ? If it refers to mind, then why is mind not just “subjective” ?

Notice how you're not showing a picture of the definition of the word "consciousness" but are instead showing a picture of a totally different word? absolute fail...

It is literally underlined in red. You say “CONSCIOUSNESS IS…”.

Pathetic liar.

It says right there that I'm defining the self lol

It says right there “consciousness is…”. Underlined in red.

Liar!

Yeah now you do after I got after you for it.

Nope, I already knew how it works.

Nope, you're failing to define the tree, you're just naming it and swapping words! You have no idea what a tree is, you merely told me how you call this phenomenon! xD

That entails a composition, its constituents and the acts its constituents perform are the same thing. You have just committed a categorty error.

Yes it does, you're relying on the fact that "my sentence" is coherent in the first place. The very subject in your sentence is 100% incomprehensible by your own admission, so assigning predicates to this subject like "understanding" is simply nonsensical. Your pseudo-skepticism is parasitic: it relies on an understanding it's attempting to reject

No, it does not. I do not know what the phenomenon we call “subject” is. So whatever puts forth that sentence need not be understood in order to understand the sentence. We can just say “whatever it is”. My scepticism only relies on the fact that we do not know what this phenomena is. It does not rely on knowing what this phenomena is.

This is hilarious, it is you who plainly does not grasp the subtle notions at play. You tried to give an experience of a lake as an example of direct knowledge... This 100% proves you don't understand the concept of direct knowledge. The knowledge of the lake is mediated by sense experience, knowledge of the self is distinct, it is a different kind of knowledge, in that it is NOT mediated by sense experience. The knowledge of the self is something we grasp IMMEDIATELY and INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY DESCRIPTION, I don't know how many times you need to be told this. You keep repeating "muh explanation!" and I keep telling you over and over: it's INDEPENDENT OF ANY EXPLANATION, it is IMMEDIATE. When are you going to stop ignoring this???

I don’t know why you would find your ignorance hilarious but that is your problem. The subtle notions at play are obviously lost on you, otherwise you wouldn’t spew the kind of nonsense you spew. The experience of a lake is direct knowledge. You are confusing the experience with what the experience is of. The lake need not be there to begin with. It could be a hallucination. It would still be direct knowledge. The very fact that you fail to see that proves you don’t know what direct knowledge is.
You assert to have knowledge, yet refuse to state it. I don’t care what you believe. I’m not going to take your word on blind faith. Either demonstrate your claims or admit you are wrong. Do you or do you not know what this “self” is ? And on what grounds is that knowledge correct ? When are you going to stop ignoring my arguments ?

You're pseudo-skepticism is getting real wobbly here. Apparently you can make sense of an "I" now that has experience. This is odd because you've been trying to pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of this in any shape or form...

No, I was not. That was your strawman to begin with. I do not know what this phenomena we call “I” is. Neither do you. But the experience of a lake fits the concept of direct knowledge.

You still don't get it. This knowledge is INDEPENDENT OF ANY DESCRIPTION. Can you not fucking read? This isn't something we know through an argument or a scientific experiment, it is something we know DIRECTLY and IMMEDIATELY and NON-INFERENTIALLY. Stop. Ignoring. What. I. Write.

No, it is you who does not get it. What knowledge you speak of ? That this phenomena is ? OR what this phenomena is ? You simply assert to have knowledge. I don’t care. Either you demonstrate your claims or you don’t. I am not going to take your beliefs for granted here. Provide the knowledge you assert and demonstrate it is correct. Stop ignoring my arguments.

Of course first-person refers to the self, what are you talking about?

So mind is “awareness subjective awareness” and “subjective” is mind. Got it!

Explain. What the hell is a belief according to you?

Something this phenomena does.

So then you have no problem with premise 1. That's great. So you were wrong earlier when you tried to act like the case for idealism cannot get off the ground. Awesome.

Depends what P1 claims. And no, I was right earlier. If this phenomena is an ability, then P3 is necessarily false and idealism fails.

Would you say this point applies to an 18-month old child that passes the rouge-test? Does this apply to the person who merely has a common sense understanding of the self in the way the average joe does? Again, I've told you before my ambitions are minimal here: I'm just saying that this self exists and that more fundamental analyses deserve their own thread since they're going more fundamental then what this argument is going for.

Anyone. Anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is. Whatever “common sense understanding” you claim to have, if it asserts to know what this phenomena is, my points applies to it. There is nothing fundamental about what I am asking. It is literally one of the most basic questions one can ask. And depending on the answer, it could be that the argument necessarily fails. So obviously this line of inquiry is spot on.

1. By your own admission what something is and what something does are 2 different things. We don't need to talk about the function of something in order to have at least some understanding of something in some shape or form.
2. You're just telling me what you call the phenomenon! You're just swapping words! muh names!

1.No, by your own admission what something is and what something does are different things. I’ve told you that from the very start. Don’t confuse your admissions with mine. And you don’t have to talk about what this phenomena does. It would be good if you told me what it is. But you don’t.
2.That entails a composition and its constituents and what those constituents do are the same thing, which is a category error.

muh names!

Again, logic has failed you. For me to merely swap words when defining a tree, it would imply a composition, its constituents and the actions they perform are the same thing, but only under a different name. Absolute fail!

Notice how you failed to show me defining the word "consciousness" and instead showed pictures of completely different words? Lmao

Pay attention. For the word “notice” to be just another word for perception AND consciousness, those two things have to be the same, else you’re equivocating.

And YOU are the one who underlined the fact that it is synonymous with consciousness. I see now you are trying to play the “nearly the same” card. That won’t work however because something either is an ability, or it is not. If perception is an ability and consciousness is not an ability, then that would be a contradiction, the furtherst thing from a synonym.

Yes you did, liar, You pointed to a lack of a description/explanation and then exclaimed that I, along with everyone else, has absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. But the moment you admit the distinction between knowing something and describing something is the moment you admit your claim that we have no knowledge/understanding of the self is shown to be completely unsupported.

No, I did not, liar. I asked you to support your claims. I won’t take your beliefs for granted. Either provide the knowledge you assert to have or admit you have no case. What you and me and everyone else does not have is the knowledge of what this phenomena is. This is shown by the fact that you can not even tell me if this phenomena is an object, act, ability or what have you. If you claim to know what this self is, you need to support that claim. You did not so I can only infer that you don’t have that knowledge. Anymore than the mad man on the stree has “direct knowledge from Zeus”.

Dude, I already corrected you on this: I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. That's it. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

No, you did not. All you did was demonstrate you don’t know what direct knowledge is. That very distinction relies on this phenomena. But this phenomena is what you are supposed to explain in the first place. You literally can’t make that distinction unless you take this phenomena for granted. I’m not equivocating. I am asking you to support your claims. If you claim to know what this phenomena is, you need to support that. You didn’t so you have failed.

Still waiting for you to meet your burden of proof for this claim you've made here. Your claim is unsupported.

Simple. You did not say what this phenomena is. Claiming to know what it is, yet refusing to state that knowledge is nothing more than an appeal to magic. “I know I am Zeus directly and immediately”. Yea..yea buddy…

So the I exists and there is some understanding of it in some shape or form. Great.

Why do you act as if this is something new ? Didn’t I ask you to explain this phenomena ? Didn’t I say this phenomena begins to be ?

Yes you did liar, here's a direct quote of you admitting this: ""You", even if met in person, would merely be just another object."

What an absolute fail. Dude. What I would meet is an object, as in the thing we call “a body”. I just assume that object is driven by some similar phenomena I call “myself”.

This is a public forum momo, there's no point in lying. I will call you out on your bullshit every single time so just stop...

So why do you lie so much ? Even when confronted with your own words, your own pictures, you lie. And don’t worry. I will call you out on your bullshit every single time.

So then you're with me on premise 3 for if you were a reductionist you would identify the self with the object you observe. If you weren't with me on premise 3 then you would identify the self with the object you observe.

No, because I did not assert the entirety of the object I observe is required for this phenomena. This can be demonstrated by a simple experiment. Go shave your head and see if anything major happens. If not, then obviously not all of your body is required for this phenomena.

So your initial pseudo-skepticism about us having absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form is bullshit. Great!

What is a great bullshit is your strawman, which will forever remain so, no matter how many times you repeat it. My skepticism stands.

So we are not 2 distinct people...? wtf?? You said you consider that I'm insane, so if we're not distinct, then you're telling me you consider yourself to be insane...

If by person one means this self, then we are not doing that. What I am distinguishing is this phenomena I call “myself” from an object I ASSUME is driven by a similar phenomena.

So there's no difference between me and a rock? Lol

There is but you are both objects. Notice here the word “you” refers to what I would observe, namely the thing we call “your body”.

And what is this "me" again that you apparently understand enough to meaningfully compare to other things? You can't shirk this responsibility onto me, you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I have the burden to define the terms I use.

That is what you are supposed to tell us. And that is what you have consistently failed to do. For my part, I can just say “whatever this is”. But for you it is different because some answers can collapse your pseudo-case instantly.

You literally did it just now! You're saying "I" am not right now!

I am literally not doing that. You are confusing me calling this phenomena “I” with my question. What this phenomena is and how we call it are different things.

So humans are pixels...? huh??

Logic really is not your thing. In this context, the word “you” refers to a bunch of pixels since I did not meet you in person.

According to your disingenuous pseudo-skepticism there is absolutely 0 understanding and 0 knowledge of the self in any shape or form. If this is no longer the case then you need to be honest and come outright with it and declare your abandonment of this pseudo-skepticism you held on to before.

Nope. That is according to your disingenuous strawman. What you are talking about has never been the case and thus no admission is necessary. However, you need to be honest about your strawman and finally address my arguments.

So you understand perception, which is a noun by the way. If you understand mental nouns then you do in fact have some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. You recognize the state of being aware and you recognize that you are not your perception but are the bearer of perception. This is the self.

A noun which references an ability. It does not follow from understanding what something does, that we undersand what does said acts. You say the self is the “bearer of perception” but the term “bearer” is just another word for the self. I want to know what it is. Is it an act, ability or what ?

Proof? Also if you can understanding that something is not-mental then you're admitting that you comprehend the mental. If you had absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form then you should be totally confused as to what is or is not mental.

The very nature of an ability. If consciousness is an ability, then whatever has that ability is not-mental, because the mental is just how we call this phenomena. And no, I do not know what this phenomena is. But if it is an ability, then it is necessarily an ability of that which is not it, that is to say the non-mental.

This entire conversation has been me pointing out your contradictions since you're trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, you even refuse to admit that you grasp this notion in the way an 18-month old child does, the way the average joe does, the way a non-philosopher does. The fact that you don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that you grasp this at all is just proof you're a pseudo-skeptic. Again, at least philosophers who object to common sense have the balls to admit it, you're just a cowardly pseudo-skeptic.

This entire conversation has been you failing at every chance you get. All your accusations have been demolished and in most cases, shown to be more accurate at describing yourself. You continue to create strawmans and lie about your own claims, even when confronted with pictures of your own words. All you have been asked to do is tell what this phenomena is and you have failed to do that. You don’t even have the intellectual honesty to admit that simple fact. Your pseudo-understanding is fooling no one. You just want people to take your claims on blind faith. That won’t happen.

See, there's that equivocation again: you're trying to point to a lack of a description/explanation as if that's justification that there's no understanding/knowledge. All we have to do is acknowledge the distinction between "knowing/understanding" and "describing/explaining" to see that your inference is invalid. Again, this isn't about knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance, it's about the simple distinction between understanding an describing. The moment you admit this distinction, then you have admitted your claim that this common sense understanding is a fraud is unjustified.

For my inference to be invalid, it would imply you do in fact know what this phenomena is. And you can claim that all you like, much like the hobo on the street who claims god speaks to him. I don’t care ! Either you demonstrate your claims or you have no case. I won’t take your beliefs on blind faith just because reality offends you. That very distinction you are attempting to make relies on this phenomena you have failed to explain. So it can not serve as a justification to evade my request.

Yeah it definitely is. I've told you before how low I've set the bar on this and you just keep raising the bar higher and higher. If you pass the rouge test then you have the understanding necessary for the argument. That's it. That's all I'm trying to get at, you just keep moving the goal post farther and farther. A fundamental analyses of what exactly the self is deserves its own thread, I'm not going that far, I never tried to pretend that I am going that far. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do and the fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty and charity to admit this proves your disingenuity. I'm just going for a basic common sense grasping that your average joe gets, the bar is low here.

It most definitely is not. You would be hard pressed to find a more basic question than the one I am asking. The rouge test will only leave you with the object we call “our body”. If that is this “I” then your argument has already failed. I am simply asking what this phenomena is and that simply does not require its own thread. It has direct implications for the matter at hand. The fact that you don’t even know if this phenomena is an object, act, ability or whatever only proves me right. And that you are still refusing to accept this simple fact only shows how disingenuous you are. Your average joe understanding is nonsensical. Stop getting your philosophy from the average idiot.

I've defined my terms long ago and even gave scholarly sources to provide more info. People who are genuinely seeking an understanding of a word do not play a bunch of pseudo-skeptic word games and try to avoid admitting this phenomenon exists and go on about "muh names" and "word swapping!". You're clearly not a genuine skeptic, you're starting off with your conclusion (the self is unknown), with no justification mind you, and working your inquiry backwards from there. You're starting off on the assumption that the self is unknowable and then acting all surprised like "well gee how come we don't know what the self is? herp derp!"

You tried and you have failed. Even now, I’ve shown how 2/3 terms your definition has are really different words for the same thing. You still can’t even say what this phenomena is. And none of your sources have answered that question, as I have shown repeatedly. And you are again putting forth a strawman. I am not stating this phenomena is unknowable. I am saying I do not know what this phenomena is and the mere fact that you claim to know is meaningless unless you demonstrate that assertion. All you are doing is projecting your own failures on me. It is not my problem that your case is so weak.

omg how many fucking times do I have to tell you this: when I make this point I am NOT, I repeat: NOT, talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance"! All you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

As many times as it is required for you to understand it. I’ve already explained that distinction to you and how it already relies on this very phenomena you have failed to explain. I am not equivocating. I am asking you to defend your baseless assertions. Your claims are not magic you know ? Just because you claim to have knowledge does not actually mean you have it. Prove that you know what this phenomena is and prove that knowledge is correct. Until you do that, your words hold no more weight than the hobo in the street.

That applies to all knowledge dummy! lmao you just proved my point from earlier about knowledge and how you're leeching off an understanding you claim you don't have

Which was the point dummy! You’ve just proved my point. The very distinction you are making, heck the very concept of knowledge rests upon this phenomena. But this phenomena is the very thing I am asking you to explain what it is. You are leeching off an understanding you don’t have.

And you know it, since you say things like "I don't know x". You are self-aware, you have an awareness of the self that knows and is aware. Maybe you can't describe it or explain it with words, but you're aware of it. You're conscious of it.

I don’t know what it is. The rest of your comment is also gibberish since you’ve said this I=awareness and consciousness. “You” is the term we use to refer to a phenomena. I am asking what that phenomena is. Do you know that ?

Actually it literally does not contain the word "you". The cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is causing you to hallucinate...

Actually it literally does. Just because you call it a “subject” changes nothing. Go take your meds, you are not well.

That wasn't my question you coward: I'm asking you to make sense of knowledge, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, all that stuff. Please explain what those things are... burden of proof is on you

I’ve answered that question you liar. Just because you selectively quote what you want does not change that. The burden of proof is not on me, because I am not claiming to know what those things are. The burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who claims to know what “mind” is.

First-person subjective awareness. If you weren't so illiterate you would have seen that all the way in the OP lmao

LMAO two of those three terms refer to literally the same thing. So mind is “awareness subjective awareness” and “subjective” is mind. Take your meds…

You just went in a circle lol Keep in mind you're trying to say that I defined CONSCIOUSNESS as an ability or something that begins to be but your own pictures prove I did not such thing. You're referring to different words and even in your own picture for those words it shows perception is also defined as a state of being, also you're equivocating nouns and verbs.

You just failed again LOL. You have defined consciousness as an ability and here is YOUR own picture to prove that.

You are the one who originally highlighted that perception is synonymous with consciousness. You are the one who claimed notice is just another word for perception AND consciousness. Different words, same phenomena. That “state of being aware of something” literally begins to be, which is why it is an ability. Also, I am not equivocating nouns and verbs. You just don’t know what those things mean.
And here is what YOU said it means to perceive.

Absolute fail…

This applies to literally all definitions: that all we're doing is swapping words...

So a composition, its constituents and what those constituents do is the same thing ? Fail !

See?! You just proved me right! You're trying to point to a lack of a description/explanation as if that's proof of a lack of knowledge but your inference is simply invalid. Knowing/understanding something is not identical to describing/explanation something. Even if I couldn't describe or explain something that does not mean I do not know or understand that something. You're purely equivocating.

No, you are the one who continues to prove me right by refusing to defend your baseless assertions. Either you know or you don’t know. If you claim to know, you have to support that claim. Until you do that, your assertions mean absolutely nothing. And you have already said you can describe this phenomena so your complaint is literally nonsensical.

AGAIN, since you keep forgetting: when I make this point I am NOT talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance"! All you have to do is open a dictionary to see that "knowing" is not identical to "describing". That's all it takes for my argument to hold water. I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

Again, since you keep forgetting: that is a strawman. That distinction relies on the very phenomena you have failed to explain. That knowledge you claim to have needs to be demonstrated as true. I don’t care what you believe. I will not blindly accept your claims anymore than I will accept the claims of a random hobo on the street. Defend your case or admit you are wrong. Until you do that, failure is your only game.

Still waiting for you to justify your claim that the average joe knows jack shit.

The average joe can’t defend his claim that he knows anything about what this phenomena is. You need to justify the claim that the average joe knows what this phenomena is.

There's nothing wrong with being an average joe so I don't know why you keep using that term like its a bad thing, and again this point you're making is not about idealism but about literally EVERYONE who claims the self exists and that they have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form. You're not giving an argument against idealism, or the case for idealism, but rather you're asking a question that applies to EVERYONE.

It's a bad thing if that is the source you use when trying to answer one of the hardest questions there is. My point does not apply to everyone. It applies to anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is. Simply asserting you know means nothing. Defend your claim.

The moment you admit that you can have a coherent conversation with your loved one about how YOU feel and YOUR feelings is the moment you grasp enough for the argument. All I'm talking about is this common sense understanding that we all get at in our everyday lives. If you can't comprehend the idea of a person that has feelings and thoughts and ideas then its no wonder you've never been in a relationship lol the moment you try to deny this and admit you've been in some romantic relationship where you two actually care about each others feelings is the moment you admit you understand what I'm getting at. Again, the bar is LOW. I'm talking about common sense here...

No it is not enough because that still does not tell us what this phenomena is. Talking about feelings does not tell us what this phenomena is. Naming this phenomena does not tell us what this phenomena is. Your bar is not there to begin with. You have absolutely no criteria. I am not here to guess what you are talking about. You either defend or your claims or you don’t. You either know what this phenomena is or you don’t. In each of those cases, you need to defend your claims.

This doesn't answer my question at all. I'm not seeing why you need a complete understanding of the body in order to have at least some understanding of the body in some shape or form.

Yes it does. Some understanding of the body is not what is being asked here. I am asking what this phenomena we call “mind” is. If not all of the body is required for it to exist, then it is not enough to have “some” understanding of the body.

Then you've just admitted I've been right this whole time about your point about the self applying to literally everything. Apparently we need a complete account of the self or you won't be satisfied but we don't have a complete account for anything, so really you're just another radical skeptic. This isn't an issue for the self, it's an issue for everything.

No, that would just be an admission on your part that you have no idea what you are talking about. If this self is not reducible, then whatever it is is fundamental, once pointed out. If it’s an object, I need to know what that object is so I can see if it could be the brain, same goes with activity and act. This is an issue for the self because we have no problem stating something is an object, act or ability or what have you when it comes to different things. Only when it comes to this, suddenly you play dumb.

Before you said you're not sure of a perspective that is not in first person, so clearly you're referring to something more than just the self but rather the perspective of the self and apparently you grasp this just fine by your own admission, so there goes your stupid pseudo-skepticism

And by that I meant that I don’t think those terms refer to different phenomena. What this phenomena we call “mind” is remains unknown, as does the “self”. My scepticism very much stands and your pseudo-understanding has been exposed.

First-person subjective awareness. You're welcome.

That’s nonsensical. Two of those terms refer to literally the same thing. So mind is “awareness subjective awareness” and “subjective” is “mind”. You are talking gibberish. You’re welcome.

Boom! That's all we need for my argument to hold water. Once you admit experiences can be had in sleeps and comas then your point is undermined.

Boom! There goes your point. That is not all that is needed for your argument to hold water. In fact, it is the exact opposite. If just one example of sleep or coma lacks any and all experiences, then my argument stands. That’s all it takes, only one. The fact that it happens so often only makes it obvious my claims can not be denied.

Naw, all it means is that MY mind begins to be. You still need to justify your claim that the mind "arises" from the non-mental. You're going to have to affirm either weak or strong emergence. Which do you choose?

No, it means mind begins to be. “Mind” must mean the EXACT same thing every time you use that term, else you equivocate. That is unavoidable. As for my claim, that is simple.
Either there is something mental or there is something non-mental that becomes mental, as nothing can not become anything. Given that this phenomena we call mental does not exist when we sleep (sometimes) and given that to be aware is to become aware and to be conscious is to become conscious, the only possibility that can account for that is the non-mental becoming mental.

You tried to say when we go to sleep or go in a coma the mental is gone and then arises again from a non-mental base, but you haven't shown how it's impossible for the mind to simply slip into a more basic subconscious state where the mental is still there.

What we call “the mental” is this phenomena. When this phenomena is gone, that is sometimes we go to sleep say, then it literally does not exist. If there is a “more basic” state, you have to demonstrate it exists. Good luck doing that without introspection. Without any experience, thoughts or feelings. Seriously…good luck!

Proof?

Either there is something mental or there is something non-mental that becomes mental, as nothing can not become anything. Given that this phenomena we call mental does not exist when we sleep (sometimes) and given that to be aware is to become aware and to be conscious is to become conscious, the only possibility that can account for that is the non-mental becoming mental.
You see. Literally every thing we know about this phenomena refutes idealism. Yours is an ideology that goes against reality.

Not at all, apparently you've never heard the term "sub-conscious".

No, that is simply an equivocation. The term “mental” must mean the exact same thing every time you use that word. You can’t change its meaning like you change socks. And I have heard of the term “sub-conscious”. You are free to explain how that helps you here.

Again, this applies to every single definition. Look at the word "Tree" then look at the definition of tree and we can say the exact same thing you're saying here... You just keep moving the goal post

It literally does not. The definition of a tree does not simply repeat the same phenomena under different names. When it comes to a tree we can at least say it is an object. EVEN THAT you refuse to tell. You don’t even have a goal post to begin with.

It literally is. How have you not noticed how alone you are on this? This is a personal problem for you, not a philosophical problem for us.

It literally is not. Did you not see by now that every single member gave up on trying to reason with you ? This is a personal problem for you. It is you who can not say what this phenomena is.

You have said this, many times now. You've tried to act like you have no clue, that you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, even in the way that an 18-month old child grasps it. Think about that for just a second: you won't even admit that you comprehend as much as a fucking 18-month old child! Your pseudo-skepticism is that stubborn, you're willing to admit you're as dumb as a fucking 17-month old child to hold on to your stupid pseudo-skepticism... This is pure bullshit momo...

I did not. In fact, the opposite is the case since I was the one that pointed out this phenomena begins to be. Think about it. You keep asserting everyone knows what this phenomena is, yet somehow you can not defend that claim. This is pure garbage. You are asking me to accept some vague unspecified belief you assert everyone holds. Explain what this phenomena is or don’t. That is your problem, not mine.

Can you fucking read or not? What does premise 1 say? All it says is: "mind exists". That's it! You can't tell me my argument can't get off the ground if you're literally affirming the first premise of the argument! You should have the intellectual honesty to just come out with it and say explicitly that "yes, premise 1 is true". Don't beat around the bush, don't play word games, just say it: premise 1 is true. do it.

Can you ? If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then depending on what it is, it could be that P3 is necessarily false. What this phenomena is has direct relevance to the whole of the argument. That you still can’t see that is just sad. Don’t talk to me about intellectual honesty when you can’t even get that one straight.

 

[momo666]

PART 2

If the premise is: "UFO's exist" we have no problem admitting "yes, that premise is true. UFO's exist". You should have the intellectual honesty and charity to admit that premise 1 is true just like how you're willing to admit UFO's exist. And we can't act like we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form just like for UFO's. We do have some understanding in some shape or form, and I've said before my bar is low and I'm just talking about the common sense grasping of the self. That's it. You're moving the goal post.

There is a problem because depending on what this phenomena is, another premise might be necessarily false. So obviously only stating that this phenomena is, without stating what it is, is not enough. Your common sense “grasping” is nonsensical. It lacks the most basic of requirements. Go get a bar because you have none.

1. you still to justify your claim that this phenomena remains unknown
2. that does not that you cannot affirm it exists! you put it yourself with the UFO example. Maybe we don't know exactly what the UFO is, but we know it exists. So what's so hard about you coming out of the closet already and just explicitly admitting premise 1 is true already? If you're not a dishonest coward then say it outright: "premise 1 is true". Say it...

1.WHAT this phenomena is remains unknown
2.That a phenomena is is not the issue here. How do you keep failing at this ? The issue is WHAT this phenomena is. Depending on your answer, the situation changes to the extent that idealism might be necessarily false. You should know this by now, given how desperate you are at walking back your admission that consciousness is an ability.

1. I've defined my terms since the OP
2. I've told you the distinction between the different kinds of knowledge. Things we know by description we can just give descriptions for, things we know by acquaintance we know directly, immediately, and independently of any description. This is something we ultimately grasp in first-person, it's something we are aware of directly. The fact that you keep begging for a description for something is is known by acquaintance just proves you've been ignoring my arguments and my scholarly sources that make the distinction you need to comprehend this...

1. You literally swapped words. Two of the terms of your definition literally refer to the same thing. The third refers to the same phenomena you were asked to define.
2.I’ve already explained how your distinction can’t save you. I even explained your sources to you. What is known is that this phenomena is. It is not known directly WHAT this phenomena is. Much like a UFO. It is known directly that the phenomena is. It is not known if it’s an object or hallucination. Whatever knowledge you assert to have, you have to present it. I can’t read minds. Put up or shut up!

Since the beginning you've tried acting like you have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, if this is no longer the case you need to come out and explicitly admit: "yes I do have at least some understanding of the self in some shape or form"

No, I did not. It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be. Why would I “admit” I said that ? You are making no sense.

That's literally you saying I'm right lol the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is so powerful that you just have to pretend its not there

That is me literally saying you lie. You are hallucinating, yet again.

The question was "what jumped"" and the answer to that question is "the rabbit". To then ask "what is the rabbit?" is a totally different question altogether, so you're just moving the goal post. You're trying to act like I didn't answer the first question by trying to pretend I didn't answer the second question, which is a totally different question altogether...

No, it’s not. The only reason the rabbit is an answer is because we know what a rabbit is. If we didn’t know that, all you would be doing is naming that thing which jumped. In this context however, the actions is what we refer to when talking about this phenomena. We just infer something performs those actions. But I want to know what that something is. I get that you call it a certain way. But what is it ? An ability ? An object ? An activity ?

Real quick, you going to pretend you have no idea what a rabbit is either? Cuz the second you try to define what a rabbit is I can just play the same word games you have: "muh names", "swapping words!" etc.

That would imply a composition, its constituents and their acts are literally the same thing, which is a category error. A rabbit is an object but not all objects are rabbits.

I'm the one who has been making the distinction between regular words that refer to objects and autological words. You're the one who is treating my terms as if they're autological words, as if they merely refer to themselves and that's demonstrably false. The words I use refer to the object, or rather the subject, not the word itself. Learn what words mean, learn how the English language works....

An irrelevant distinction as that is not a point I’ve made, even remotely close. I get those words refer to something. But what is that something ? Is it an action ? Is it an ability ? Is it an object ? What is that something ?
How we name something is different from what that something is. John is how I call something. That something is an object, it is composed of whatever that does whatever. How are you still not getting this ?

You're just telling me what its called! you're just naming it! muh word swapping!

No, because not all objects are light bulbs, while a light bulb is an object. A composition, its constituents and their acts are different things. For me to merely swap words, it would imply those things are literally the same, which is a category error.

Nope, according to you that's just word swapping you're just giving it new names, new words, you're not telling me what the phenomena actually is you're just swapping words!

That assertion relies on a category error, as explained above. How comes you can not state your points without committing some sort of fallacy ?

You haven't proven that mind beings to be, you're just asserting it.

I did, you even provided me the tool for that in P1. A simple experiment, when one sleeps and has no experience whatsoever, is enough to prove my claims. And simple introspection is enough to prove my claims. Every single thought, perception, feeling and whatever begins to be. To deny this is impossible.

If it's my responsibility to define the terms I use then it's your responsibility to define the terms you use as well. No special pleading. Either define the word "I" or stop using it... If you can't comprehend first-person language at all then you have to stop using it or else you have to admit that you're just speaking total nonsense...

That doesn’t seem to stop you so what’s the problem ? Anyway, for me, I just mean “whatever this is”. Doesn’t really tell what this phenomena is. So…I don’t know what this phenomena is. Do you ?

You are claiming right now that there is an "I" that comprehends things, and that this "I" is distinct from myself. Burden of proof is on you to define this "I" that comprehends, and you need to define the term "comprehend" for me as well, and give us the understanding necessary to distinguish us as 2 distinct people... Burden of proof is on you. If you can't handle this responsibility then meet my challenge from before and stop using first-person language, you're just leeching off an understanding that you're trying to claim you don't have...

How did you fail at that so hard ? The very quote you used said I do not know WHAT this phenomena is. That there is a phenomena is irrelevant. There is no burden on me to explain what this phenomena is, because I’ve already said that is the very thing I want to know. There is no reason for me to stop calling this phenomena a certain way, that is simply a non sequitur. Why oh why do you still refuse to accept the simple fact that you don’t know what this phenomena is ? How ridiculous your position is. To assert at every turn that you know what this phenomena is and fail at every turn to provide that knowledge. Every single evasion you can think of. Only to evade the obvious. Sad…

Because you're not a reductionist. If you were, then you would reduce it, but you're not.

No, that is wrong. I am withholding judgement until what this phenomena is has been pointed out. I’ve already explained how certain answers necessarily imply reductionism.

All premise 1 is saying is that mind exists, learn to fucking read. Do you do you not have have the intellectual honesty to admit premise 1 is true...?

Do I have the intellectual honesty of admitting the very phenomena I asked you to explain what is it exists ? I don’t know mr pigeon. Do I ? Seriously, what world do you live in ?
That word. “Mind”. It refers to something yes ? I want to know what that something is. Its that simple.

Notice can be used as a noun and a verb, nice try liar

A noun that references an action. Whatever you use it as, it has to mean to same thing else you’re equivocating. Simple logic.

What are feelings? What are thoughts? If you have no comprehension of those then you have no comprehension of projection.

Something this phenomena does. I need not know what they are to infer they are something you experience as well, via a series of assumptions.

yeah it does, it's talking about a mental phenomena. If you don't understand the mental in any shape or form then you don't understand this phenomena

It does not. We call these phenomena mental but that does not mean we know what said phenomena are. Maybe they are objects. Maybe they are activities. Maybe they are abilities. Whatever they are, calling them a certain way means nothing.

You're the one who told me to prove you wrong when the burden is on you to prove yourself right, not on me proving you wrong... learn how the burden of proof works, and meet it.

Yea, after I’ve proved my claims. You did not demonstrate my explanation is wrong. You merely asserted so. So do learn how the burden of proof works and then meet it.

No you're not, you're just word swapping! muh names!

You are committing a category error. Muh logic!

I never said it was, learn to read. Fail!

So it does not matter that you call this phenomena “mind”. Fail!

I never said you did lol

So why would I have to understand what mind is to understand something the mind does ?

Then you're telling me you're speaking gibberish: you don't understand what "observe" means yet you use that word anyway... you're knowingly speaking gibberish then...

I understand what the word refers to. I don’t understand that which it refers to. The gibberish is all yours.

I already pointed out the dishonesty here

I’ve already demonstrated your dishonesty here.

omfg how are you this dense??? If I=brain then once you have the brain you have what you need to understand! You understand what a brain is, right...? The moment you admit you understand what a brain is, and if the I is the same thing as the brain, then you're admitting you understand what the I is. Brain=self. That's reductionism. How do you keep fucking this up??

Why are you so dense is a mystery to be sure. I didn’t say this phenomena is the brain because I do not know if this phenomena is an object. And no, I do not understand what a brain is entirely. Maybe those things I do not understand about it are enough to account for this phenomena. You need to show that is impossible. Problem is you can’t do that until you explain what this phenomena is.

The brain! I just fucking told you: it's the fucking brain! Are you literally retarded???

That entails this phenomena is an object. But why do you consider yourself retarded ?

Dude, you're the one who thinks reductionism is about comparisons and not identity... take an intro to philosophy course already, geez

I am pointing out the necessary conditions for reducing something. I assume your school does not have a philosophy class yes ?

That's only IF you define that which drives behavior as an activity, but even if you did you'll just say its an activity of the brain. Simple.

Which is precisely the point. Depending on what this phenomena is, the situation changes. You can not even pose the question without first stating what that phenomena is. To make it worse, you would have to explain what is so special about this activity since not all brain activity is necessary for this phenomena so obviously we don’t need the whole range of activities of the brain.

Sorry champ: law of excluded middle. Either a proposition or that proposition's negation is true. Either you are reducing mind or not reducing mind. Currently, you're not reducing mind so you're with me on Premise 3.

Sorry champ, your proposition is incoherent. To first reduce a phenomena, you must state what it is. Currently I am not saying mind is irreducible or that mind is reducible. I am not with you on P3 because an ability is by definition reducible. Oh…is mind not an ability ? Well damn, I suppose that means what this phenomena is remains crucial for this premise.

That is actually what you just did...

What I’ve done is state what you’ve done.

Notice how you can't find me defining the word "consciousness" as such, so you have to find a totally different word altogether lol you're a shitty liar

Such a pathetic liar you are. The word notice can not be just another word for both perception and consciousness if those things are different, else you are just equivocating.
And it was you who underlined the fact that perception is synonymous with consciousness. Even if you wish to say it means “nearly the same” thing, it would still have to be an ability. If it’s not an ability, then it is in literal contradiction with the definition of perception because things are either abilities or they are not. Read and weep!

Please explain how there can be mental verbs if the mental does not exist... cue the silence

I never stated actions can exist sans objects to perform them. You are delusional…

And you admitted you comprehend these verbs, which means you understand the phenomena: mind.

Uhm no. The verbs refer to the phenomena we call “mind”. But you say “mind” is what performs those actions. And understanding an action does not entail we understand what performs that action.

No you can't since you apparently don't know what "you" means at all, remember...? You just can't keep your story straight lol

Sure I can. I know what the word “you” refers to. It refers to whatever this phenomena is. But what this phenomena is remains unknown. You are hallucinating again LOL.

Then you should totally confused and shouldn't be able to make a distinction between you and me, unless you're admitting you do have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form.

“Some” understanding is not what I asked of you. I asked WHAT this phenomena is. That there are things which are not required for its existence is irrelevant. I want to know what it is. Again, you in this context are a bunch of pixels.

What?

Is your hair necessary for this phenomena to exist ? Point made.

2)Completely wrong!

What is wrong ?...

Quite the opposite. Learn how identity works: if A=B then whatever is true of A is true of B since A and B are actually the exact same thing. If I=body then whatever is true of the body is true of the "I", so if you comprehend what the body is then by logical necessity you comprehend what "I" is since "I" is the exact same thing as the body. That's reductionism.

No, you don’t understand reductionism. It depends on what this phenomena is. If it’s an activity then comparing it to an object is a category error. If it’s an ability then it is reducible by definition. You first need to explain what this phenomena is. Then you need to present a logical syllogism showing how this phenomena could not possibly be accounted for by the physical reality.

It's the body... holy fuck you need to learn how to read...

So then the self is an object ? But yes, you do need to improve your reading skills.

No it wasn't, all you said was it being a false claim. Also, wtf is intent according to you...? seriously, what does that mean??

Yes, it was. We were talking about lies after all. Intent is the aim one has when performing an action. Like breaking a bottle because you aim to break said bottle instead of just accidentaly knocking it over and breaking it.

duh! are you seriously this shitty at reading?? all P1 says is that mind exists. That's it! So are you going to just come out and say the words "Premise 1 is true" or are you that much of a coward?

Then that is simply insufficient since depending on what this phenomena is, certain premises might be false. And you are in no position to make any demands.

1. your inference is invalid, that doesn't follow
2. I never defined consciousness as an ability, nice try liar

1.My inference is valid because notice is just another word for perception and consciousness. If those things are different, then you are equivocating.
2.You did. Your lies are fooling no one.

You're the one who thinks nouns refer to verbs lmao we learned the distinction is basic English class, how are you messing up this badly?

Says the drop out who does not know a noun can reference an action. How does the obvious escape you so ?

duh

So what is that which the term refers to ?

This relation is about IDENTITY. A relates to A, as A is A. You can't be this much of a philosophy noob man...

No, it’s a relation of reference. A references X. X is the phenomena, A is the term we use to refer to said phenomena. Basic philosophy. Learn it!

And?

It has to. You’ve made that distinction about a dozen times by now. They are obviously different things. Either “mind exists” or “my mind exists”. If those things are different, you need to choose one.

So you just didn't read it, awesome. You're such an honest seaker of truth, momo. real nice

I did, the explanation I seek was not there. But yes, let’s take lessons in honesty from the habitual liar, sure.

That is what I'M pointing out. Keep up

No, that is not all that you are pointing out. You assert those claims are an aswer to my arguments. Defend your claims or admit you have no rebuttal. That’s how debating works. Keep up!

I've given you sources that explain this, you just refuse to read them. I've also noted that the case for cosmic idealism is predicated on idealism being true so first we have to go through idealism to then get to cosmic idealism. I'd like to continue but you're such a stubborn asshole that you can't even accept something for the sake of argument. Even Socrates with his turbo-skepticism had the decency to at least entertain an idea for the sake of argument so he could later refute it. You're not even doing that!

I’ve read your sources and they fail at explaining this. And I am addressing your “case” for idealism, you just don’t like the way I go about it, which is not my problem. As I’ve shown, what this phenomena is remains crucial to the whole case. You simply can’t evade my line of inquiry. As for which one of us is the asshole, I really don’t care what you think. For what I can tell, my behaviour towards you is commendable compared with the one you’ve displayed towards the members of this forum. I couldn’t care less what you think about me.

Learn what words mean dumbass: Definition of Synonym: "a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language"

Oh wow, such new defense. You know the sad thing ? I literally thought about this weeks ago. That’s how slow you are.
But no, pay attention. So first read your own words okay ?

1. The term “notice” is just another word for the phenomena we call perception and consciousness ONLY if those phenomena are the same, else you are equivocating when using the term “notice”.
2. Things are either abilities or they are not. They are not “nearly an ability”. As such, in order for perception to not be in complete contradiction with consciousness, they both have to be abilities.
3. How exactly does consciousness differ from perception ?

No I didn't, I said they were synonymous not that they were exactly the same thing. Pathetic liar...

You did. You said the term notice is just another word for perception AND consciousness. Are you saying you equivocated when you said that ? Bad liar…

You may think you are but you're not lol muh words! muh name swapping!

That entails a potential is the same as an actual, which again is a category error. Muh logic !

You were talking about SOMETHING, that would be a noun, coming into being. A thing cannot begin to be in existence if it already is in existence... How are you messing this up so bad?

I was talking about WHAT something begins to be, which is the only way to talk about abilities. I even gave you an analogy. I am not claiming the apple begins to be. I am claiming the apple begins to be rotten. How is this lost on you ?

Naw, just mine. Simple.

Naw, it too. Else you’re equivocating. Simple.

Yes it does, especially for how low I've set the bar. I've said from the get-go I'm just talking about a common sense average joe's understanding that even an 18-month old child can grasp. That's all I'm going for. Once you pass the rouge-test my burden has been met, that's all I'm going for. I'm not making claims about the fundamental nature of the self like you want, so you're just going to have to settle for this low bar I've set and start a new thread if you want more.

No, it does not. Unless this self is the body, then what you see in the mirror is not the self. Your common idiot understanding doesn’t address my inquiry in the least. It fails to answer even the most basic of questions. If you don’t explain what this phenomena is, then your whole case is in limbo because depending on your answer certain premises might be false. And no, I’m not going to settle on anything. I will go about this the way I want.

There you go moving the goal post again: at this point we're just talking about COMPREHENSION. That's it. I'm not talking about proving its true, I'm merely talking about understanding it.

So then this direct knowledge can be false yes ? And I don’t understand what this phenomena is.

Pretty sure I said it was a noun...

A noun is a word. Are you saying the phenomena we call mind is a word ?

Yes you are. You're trying to go further than this common sense grasping that even a non-verbal 18-month old child grasps. What I'm getting at is so basic that language is not even necessary to grasp it. The fact that you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit you grasp this basic idea just proves your disingenuity and pseudo-skepticism.

No, I am not. I am trying to find an aswer to one of the most basic questions there is. What this phenomena is remains crucial to the whole case. You simply can not evade this question of mine. I’ll ask you again. Do we know a phenomena is or do we know WHAT this phenomena is ? The moment you accept that distinction is the moment I am shown to be right.

You're messing everything up lol

Because I don’t blindly follow your ideology ? I don’t think so.

What are you even talking about? Apparently you can't even make any sense of the word "you" at all so you're speaking pure gibberish by your own admission

I am describing you, whatever you are. And you are still not getting it. It is not the word that is the problem here. It is the phenomena it refers to. Which is why you have been unable to explain it in the least.

You really are retarded aren't you? I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying when it comes to making the case for cosmic idealism then at the bare minimum you have to accept idealism for the sake of argument. Do you honestly not know what "for the sake of argument" means???

I don’t know why you consider yourself retarded but that is your problem. If you are not asserting to know what this phenomena is, then idealism literally can not be accepted, even for the sake of the argument. That is so because, depending on what this phenomena is, idealism could necessarily be false.

I can and I'm doing it right now. Idealism needs to be defended first, which is what I'm doing in this thread, and from there it launches off to another separate argument: the case for cosmic idealism. If you want to rush into the case for cosmic idealism you have to accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case for cosmic idealism is predicated on idealism. Get it????

Brilliant! And I will continue in my own way. You are not defending idealism. You can’t even answer one of the most basic questions regarding this ideology. You have an entire fantasy centered around a phenomena you don’t understand. Do you get that, depending on what this phenomena is, idealism could literally be impossible ? Forget your ideology for a second. You have not even began to defend idealism. Not even close.

notice how you can't quote me defining the word "consciousness"? lmao

Sure I can. Here:

Either you equivocated when you asserted that the word notice refers to perception and consciousness or I am right. Either two words that are synonyms can be in contradiction, or they can’t. They can’t and thus I am right. But hey, keep telling yourself I am the dishonest one.

still waiting for proof on that one

Simple experiment. All it takes is one example of sleep where no experience whatsoever exists. And you don’t even need to do that. To be aware is to become aware, to be conscious is to become conscious. Literally every thought, feeling and experience begins to be. To deny that is to deny this pehnomena itself. Mind itself screams it can not be fundamental.

I pointed out true dichotomy to you long ago and you've been trying to squirm out of it for weeks now. Is your memory that bad?

I pointed out way before you that what a thing is and what a thing does are different matters. And I pointed out simply saying something must do those things does not imply we know what that thing is. Is your memory that bad ?

Please tell me you grasp the distinction between nouns and verbs...

But why don’t you grasp that distinction ? I’ve already shown a noun can reference an action. And I’ve already demonstrated the same word can’t reference both a thing and an action, else you equivocate. Even if we do that sometimes, that still does not make it logical.

How did you fuck this up so badly? Pointing out how there's the noun (the mental) which engages in verbs (perceive) only affirms that there is the noun and the verb. There's the mental as a noun and the mental as a verb. Simple.

Nouns are words. Unless this mental is a word, saying “the mental as a noun” is literally idiotic. Perceive is just what we call this phenomena. To become aware or conscious. If those are actions, then this phenomena IS only those actions. Whatever engages in those actions can not be accessed via introspection because literally every thought you will have when doing that will begin to be. The totality of what we call “the mental” is only ever the actions.
Furthermore, the “mental” must mean the exact same thing. If it does not, you equivocate. A thing and the acts a thing does are not the same, your attempts at equivocation are rejected. Try again!

No that's a definition. If my definition fails then all definitions fail.

No, it’s not. And no, that’s not the case. Literally two of the terms of your so called definition refer to the same thing. The third refers to the very thing you are supposed to define. Pick up a logic book.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. You're welcome, I only did that all the way back in the OP months ago...

That’s incoherent. The terms “first-person” and “awareness” refer to the same thing. The term “subjective” refers to the very thing you are supposed to define.

In this discussion they are NOT, so stop equivocating. What you're saying is pointless here. We need set terms in order to have a meaningful dialogue, so stop. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

They could be so stop lying about me equivocating. And while you are at it, stop equivocating on the term “mind”. What I am saying is not pointless. I am showing how the name you give a phenomena is irrelevant when one asks you to explain that very phenomena. But yes, you should explain the rose. But you keep refusing to do that.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. You're welcome, I only did that all the way back in the OP months ago...

You are only swapping words. The only way that would be a definition is if those words refer to different things. They are not. Again. What is this phenomena ?

Yes, yes admission... You know chakra does not equal mind, so just stop.

Nope. No admission. Those words could mean that, which is the point I am making. So just stop yea.

Great, now cut the crap. You're done.

You do put a lot of crap, that’s for sure. But no, the point I made stands. If those words could mean that, I am right. So you’re done.

so then just come out and say "premise 1 is true". Just do it. If this is no big deal for you then why are you so fucking scared to just say it already?? Just say it! Stop hiding, come out with it!

Why are you so scared to tell me what this phenomena is ? Admit you don’t know what this phenomena is and then we can talk. Until then all you are doing is trying to salvage what is left of your fragile ego.

Yeah I do, I can even show you a direct quote from SD to prove this. SD gets it, everyone else I've spoken to gets it, the scholars I cite get it, you're literally the only one who doesn't get it... In all your skepticism you'd think you'd have the intellectual honesty to consider that perhaps the problem isn't with us but with you...

No, you don’t. Literally every member you talked to gave up on you. You are like that sad bum in the street who claims to know the secrets of the Universe. No one cares about your little religion buddy. Go on and provide the direct quote in which anyone explained what this phenomena is. Not you, nor your scholars have even answered this most basic of questions. What is this phenomena ? You just can’t do it. Yet somehow, that doesn’t make you stop and think “gee…maybe I should build an entire ideology around something I don’t understand”.

I've said it was a noun long ago so yeah... awkward...

Thinks mind is a word. Awkward…

No, only that we do have a description not knowledge by description. Stop equivocating already, learn what words mean. If only you would read the sources I give you... I said outright that this is something we ultimately know by acquaintance, that this knowledge is foundational and basic. Are you familiar with foundationalism?

Really ? Then go ahead. Describe to me any object and let’s see how that description is not knowledge. What we know by acquaintance is that this phenomena is, not WHAT this phenomena is. There is no basic knowledge about what this phenomena is. Learn what direct knowledge is for goodness sake. I am explaining the sources you cite for a reason. Learn something okay ? I know what foundationalism is but what this phenomena is, is not a basic belief.

omfg can you PLEASE read that article I linked you on knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description already:

Can you ? Again. What is the reason knowledge by acquaintance can not be described ?

Would you say you have absolutely 0 understanding of consciousness in any shape or form? Just say yes or no to this question please. Don't dodge, don't give me some evasive word-game non-answer, just a simple yes or no will do.

Again with the double standard. Did you tell me what this phenomena is ? But again. I’ve told you consciousness begins to be. Why are you asking me if I said something I said ? You are making no sense.

Still waiting for you to prove this claim of yours. The burden of proof is on you.

After you’ve proven your claim that you have knowledge. Until then, you are just like the bum in the street. The burden of proof is not on me to show he is not Zeus.

Proof?

You continue to confuse how a phenomena is called with what a phenomena is.

Mind=name
first-person subjective awareness=definition

That would imply those terms refer to different things, but they don’t. Literally two of them refer to the same thing, so you are just repeating there. The third, as far as you’ve said, refers to the very thing you are supposed to define. The very fact that you can’t even tell me if this phenomena is an object, act or ability proves you don’t know what it is.

I've given you the definition, you just keep lying and moving the goal post.

No, you did not. You swapped words. For goodness sake, even you said “first-person” refers to the self and that “I=awareness”. What are you going to say “subjective” refers to now ? Stop lying and get some goal posts.

Mind=first-person subjective awareness. Done. Call it chakra, or anything else, it still exists. And if you weren't such a coward then what's so hard about you coming out of the closet and just saying "premise 1 is true"?

Not done. Those terms have to refer to different things. But they don’t so you are yet again lying. If you weren’t such a coward, you would admit you don’t know what this phenomena is.

Prove it. What's a tree without "muh names" or "word-swapping" as you put it...

A composition of x,y,z that do g,h,j. For that to be simply word swapping, it would imply a composition, its constituents and their acts are the same thing. Have fun proving that.

1. proof?
2. if this relies on assumptions then so does knowledge of a tree

1.Well, for one that our perceptions of things are accurate.
2.No, the knowledge of a tree relies on some assumptions. Knowledge that this phenomena is does not. BUT, that knowledge is only that this phenomena is, not WHAT this phenomena is.

Hey you're the one who was trying to act like they had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. If you want to go back on your pseudo-skepticism now is the time...

No, I was not. And I am not going back on anything. But do continue with your pseudo-understanding.

You're just telling me what you call it! muh names! word swapping!

That’s a category error. Pick up a logic book!

The term refers to the object, bitch. A=A, remember????

REFERS. How you you keep missing that word you man child ? A refers to the object A. But A could refer to the object B if we wanted to. I am not asking what term you use to refer to a phenomena. I am asking what that phenomena is.

If that's wrong then you're a reductionist after all and you're saying what you call "mind" is actually just the body, and since you have at least some understanding of the body then you have some understanding of mind since mind=body.

According to your reductionism it's the body... you just said it. If mind=body then understanding the body is understanding the mind by definition. That's reductionism...

Nope, I did not say this phenomena is an object for it to be the body. And even then that would imply all of the body is required for this phenomena to exist. If mind is an ability, then it is by definition reducible. Which is why it is so crucial that you say what this phenomena is. Which is why you are absolutely terrified to answer that question. You know the moment you show even the least amount of honesty, your religion is dead.

Then you would just say it's an activity of the brain. Simple.

It’s not simple because to even formulate the question, you have to specify what this phenomena is. Maybe this phenomena is only part activity. Maybe it’s all object. Maybe it’s part action. You can’t ask me if it is the body without first assuming it is an object, because then you would commit a category error. And then of course you have to explain that phenomena. Just like we have to explain in detail how cognition works, you would have to meet the same level of detail.

lmao oh this is desperate. Come on momo, we all know where the fedora meme comes from in this context: ATHEISM. Are atheists a bunch of idealists...? No, they're the total opposite: materialists. If anyone is a fedora it's pseudo-skeptics like yourself and materialists.

That smells like desperation. What does theism/deism have to do with this ? Are you saying I have to accept yet another fantasy “just for the sake of the argument” ? What I said stands. You fedora idealists think you are smart but you really are not. You think your opponent has to do all the work but I’ve shown you that is not the case. I’ve turned the game on you and look how desperate you have become. I’ve shown how empty your religion is. Idealism is simply pseudo-understanding mascarading as a theory. It is at its core empty of any support.
Feel free to link atheism to materialism though. Show me how those two are necessarily linked. But make sure to describe materialism without using the concept of mind cause that will get you in the same kind of problems you are already in.

Yes you do, no special pleading. If I have a responsibility to explain, then so do you.

Well yes, you should not special plead. If you claim to know what this phenomena is, you have to explain it. I don’t claim that, so I don’t have to. But remember what happens if you don’t…

If I'm Trump then you're Hillary hahaha
Also this:

Trust me, no matter whom you compare it to in regards to lying, no one can beat Trump. And that video was kind of crazy. I mean…I’ve seen crazy but not that crazy. I think he was trolling people.

I don't recall you saying that. Notice how you're still not saying it, you try to leave it implied so you can squirm out of it later when called out on it. Say it outright with a yes or no answer: are you with cognitive science yes or no? Don't dodge...

I did. In fact I’m pretty sure this is at least the third time I answer this question. Yes, I am. I also asked if this question is about any specific point ? That’s like asking if I am with biology. Well, yes. But you have to be more specific.

I defined my terms long before you ever commented in this thread...

No, you did not. That is why you can’t even tell me if this phenomena is an object or action or what have you. Now you say it’s a noun…which is just idiotic.

But no, I am not that.

So you're with me on premise 2 then! Great! We're making some real progress in the case for idealism here even though you've desperately been trying to stop this argument from even getting off the ground. Looks like your attempts have failed. You're with me on premise 1, 2, 3, and something tells me you're not a substance dualist so it seems you're with me on premise 4 as well. Wow, we've got you on 4 whole premises already! We're almost there! So what are your thoughts on causal closure?

You should really learn to read. I did not ask you to explain a non existent phenomena so acting like this is some revelation is even more evidence of your delusion. I am the one who is addressing your pseudo case for idealism and you are the one who desperately tries to ignore my arguments. But your attempts have failed since everything you’ve said thus far only proved how idealism is necessarily false. Again, you are a reductionist. Even if you did not say consciousness is an ability, which you did, you would still have to state whether it’s an object, action or ability before you can assert it can not be reduced. Until you do that, P3 fails.
As for casual closure, that too depends on what this phenomena is. You haven’t even been able to tell me if this phenomena is an object, ability or action. There is a long way for you to go until you can assert this phenomena belongs to the same or different domain. I’m not even sure what a “domain” is. I feel like another truck load of assumptions are on their way.

Yes you do, law of identity. If you didn't understand at all you wouldn't be able to identify it at all.

No, you don’t. Law of identity. Understanding a word does not imply you understand the phenomena the word refers to. Naming a phenomena is not some magic spell. And you are not identifying it. Remember you can not tell me if it is an object or action. What kind of identification is that ?

1. we know it's not a fly in your eye, we have video footage and multiple eye witnesses
2. your point about hallucinations is a goal post move and applies to literally everything
3. notice how you know it's an object that is flying and that it exists and can identify its shape (e.g. saucer). So there's some understanding in some shape or form, even though you try to pretend otherwise...

1.No we don’t, and I made no mention of any video footate or multiple witnesses
2.No, it’s not. I am stating the distinction between knowing a phenomena is and knowing what a phenomena is. A distinction that continues to be lost on you.
3.Dude how can you be such an amateur ? People mistake clouds and even planets for UFO’s. They have hallucinations about being abducated by aliens. People experience all kinds of things. In all of those cases, we might not know it is flying or that it is an object or what shape it has. We only know the phenomena is and then we try to see how we can find out WHAT that phenomena is.

Yes I have. Before you tried to say you had absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form, but now you're admitting you do have at least some understanding in some shape or form.

No, you have not. What you are presenting is a strawman. And what you are doing is beyond sad. There is no admission on my part. It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be. Stop lying.

[sarcasm]ooooookay buddy, whatever you say[/sarcasm]

That’s not a rebuttal. Nouns are just words. They can reference objects, abilities or even actions. Saying mind is a noun is idiotic. Learn how language works.

If that's true then why did you ask that in the first place???

So that you can finally understand I don’t care you call this phenomena “mind”. That literally answers nothing about my inquiry.

pardon me but weren't you just trying to pretend you had absolutely no idea what the word "subjective" means? wtf is subjective, momo...?

I don’t know what it refers to when you use it. I just mean that there is no particular reason we call objects a certain way. An alien race could call the Moon “chakra”. They would be equally right.

The total opposite: I'm the one who has been saying "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet".

Wrong. It’s the other way around. I am the one who pointed out how you call a phenomena does not explain what that phenomena is.

Thank you, so there can't be verbs of the mental unless the mental exists. Great! Glad we cleared that up.

There can’t be actions without something to perform those actions. Calling said actions “mental” adds nothing to that. If the mind would be called “chakra” those would be “chakra verbs”. You are talking gibberish, yet again.

Call it what you want, name it what you want, it's still there, it still exists, we still have some understanding of it in some shape or form no matter what word games you try to play. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet.

I keep asking you what this phenomena is. Why are you acting as if this is some new revelation ? Are you delusional ? The understanding we have is that it begins to be. But we don’t know what it is. And that won’t change no matter how many lies you spew. A rose any any other name smells just as sweet indeed.

Like I explained before, this can only be a straw man if you have changed your pseudo-skeptic stance (without telling me mind you) and that you now admit there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form. Is that what you're saying now? Are you now saying there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form? Don't play word games, just say yes or no.

Like I explained before, this can only be the case if we take your strawman for granted. But I don’t. What this phenomena is remains unknown, as shown by your inability to specify what it is. It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be. Are you now saying you finally admit I was right ?

Remember when you were bitching about reductionism and how you can't make a comparison without knowing what it is...? check mate, bitch. You can't say I'm similar to you unless you really do understand enough to compare yourself to me! you've just blown your own feet off hahaha

I said I assume that which I am responding to is a similar phenomena to me. Seriously, what grade are you on ? How comes your comprehension of the English language is this poor LOL ? Learn to read and stop embarrassing yourself.

Please point out another user who is just as confused as you are. cue the silence....

Oh no, none of us is confused. You are the only one confused. You have literally convinced zero people. And none of the members said what this phenomena is.

Oh look at the mind-reading on momo! Like you know what other people think, apparently you can't even make sense of thinking in the first place lol I talked to SD about this, he held my feet to the fire, and he admitted he understands what I'm saying perfectly fine. You're all alone...

Nope. Just a reading momo. You have literally convinced no one. All of the people who have give up debating you did so because they say no point in continuing the conversation. Quote me any member who has explained what this phenomena is. You are all alone. No one adheres to your religion.

Again, the point you're trying to make isn't about idealism it's about EVERYONE who claims the self exists and that they have a common sense average joe's understanding of it, even an 18-month old child.

Your average idiot does not know what this phenomena is. The point I am making applies to anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is.

Yes they do in the sense that they grasp the idea of a first-person subjective awareness. They are aware of themselves as themselves, they recognize themselves in the mirror, and talk all the time about "my feelings" and "my thoughts" etc. There is this basic understanding of the self, and that's all I'm getting at. You want to get fundamental, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the case for idealism.

No, they don’t. Go on and ask them what that phenomena is. All you will get is how they name it. In the case of the mirror experiment, all you will get is an object. That is what you recognize in the mirror. A basic understanding of the self would require us knowing whether this phenomena is an object, action or ability or what have you. That understanding is not there. And so my inquiry is perfectly reasonable for this thread.

But it exists, right? Just say it: mind exists. do it already, coward

You are delusional. I am asking you to explain a phenomena and you ask me if that phenomena exists. Take your meds.

Yes it is. If you don't like this claim then take it back and admit that we really do have some understanding in some shape or form. Come out with it already.

No, it’s not. I don’t have to take anything back or admit anything. Your strawman is yours and yours alone. Just admit you were wrong and I was the one who showed this phenomena begins to be.

Yes we do. Premise 1 is only saying mind exists. Once we have enough understanding for that, then we have enough for the argument. Simple.

Nope. If mind is an ability, then it is reducible and thus P3 fails. So different answers have different effects on the argument. Simple.

No you really haven't.

Actually, I have.

The irony here is hilarious. If I was repeating anything it was in response to your repetitive pseudo-skepticism that you just keep repeating ad infitum.

No, you were the only one repeating. Then in an attempt to save face, you did what you always do. Attempt to lie that was what I was doing. Litereally every negative assertion you’ve made about me best suits you. You literally spammed the same comment over and over when I was questioning that very comment. There is nothing ironic here. It’s just you lying.

duh! can you not fucking read? it only says that mind exists! that's it! just come out with it already and just say "premise 1 is true"

Then that is not sufficient for the argument. We must know what this phenomena is.

nice try liar but I said mind=first-person subjective awareness. It's literally in the OP... wow you suck at reading

Those terms refer to the same thing. If they don’t, prove it. Show how they can be used separately. And that still does not say if this phenomena is an ability, object or act. So you suck at reading.

Then why do you think reductionism is about comparisons and experiencing a lake is an example of direct knowledge? absolute fail...

Because you can not reduce that which you don’t know what is. An ability for example is reducible by definition. You refuse to say if this phenomena is that, so that question must remain open. And the experience of a lake is direct knowledge. Fail…

The body/the brain/process of the brain. Simple.

Those are all different things. Are you saying this phenomena is both an object and a process ?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH!!!

It’s funny cause you don’t understand direct knowledge.

First-person subjective awareness. See you're just going to keep repeating yourself no matter how many times I give you an answer...

No. I am just pointing out your incoherence. Those terms refer to the same thing, as per your own admission. You call it self. You call it awareness. But you can’t tell me what it is.

The sentence: "first-person subjective awareness" refers to mind. I don't know how many times I've told you this...

And the terms of that sentence must refer to different things, otherwise you are just swapping words. We already know at least two of those terms refer to the same thing so you’ve failed.

Still pretty sure you can't read...

Considering your are denying your own words, that accusation is just amusing.

You literally can't even make sense of projecting lol

I literally made sense of it.

How is that possible when you literally admitted the distinction I provided is accurate? You admitted the distinction between knowing and describing is true! is the cognitive dissonance that bad?

I admitted nothing because I did not deny that distinction to begin with. That is why you are delusional. I even explained how that very distinction relies on this very phenomena so your point is moot. Your very distinction relies on this self. And even then you would have to demonstrate that knowledge is correct. That is even if you have knowledge of WHAT this phenomena is, which you don’t. Less projecting and more learning please!

You literally admitted there is a distinction between knowing something and describing something...

I literally never denied that distinction so I literally can’t admit said distinction is true.

NO. NO. NO. I don't know how many fucking times I've had to tell you this: I'm not even talking about "knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance" when I make this point: I'm making the simple distinction between knowing and describing. That's it. And you're equivocating, you're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that's proof of lack of knowledge. absolute fail

As many times as you need to finally understand it. We don’t have direct knowledge of WHAT this phenomena is. We only know it is. And that very concept of direct knowledge rests upon this self. Your very distinction already employs that which you have failed to explain. And no I am not equivocating. I simply don’t accept your claims blindly. You assert to know. Prove it! Until then, you are the bum in the street.

Yes, it gives the computational theory of mind. I just fucking told you that.... Can you stop ignoring me and stop reading off your script for one fucking second...? Here's another link if you need it:

But is the mind that ? You are the one ignoring my arguments and repeating the same script over and over.

No, but they can be used interchangeably in more colloquial sense, especially if the listener isn't an uncharitable asshole.

Brilliant! Then tell me what is the difference between mind and consciousness and what are the similarities. And why you are an uncharitable asshole only you can know.

Nice straw man, I didn't say it did. I said the word refers to the object. If you grasp the term, you understand it, then by definition that means you understand the object. Do you not grasp what the word "refer" means...?

The term “refer” refers to the act of referecing , which is an action. And how can it be a strawman if you just proven me right ? Understanding the word does not mean you understand the object. I understand the term “UFO”. That does not imply I understand the phenomena it refers to. That I named said phenomena means nothing.

Yeah I'm afraid it does, no special pleading... If I don't need to know the fundamental nature of existence itself to know what an object is then same goes for the self.

I’m afraid it does not. If said object is asserted to be irreducible, then pointing out what it is means that is what it is fundamentally. And you did not tell me what the self is. That is the problem.

The self is a subject. Well that was easy lol

That is just another name for the self LOL. You really are a drop out.

Nope! It only means that it cannot be reduced, that's it. That's all. "I" do not exist fundamentally, it's merely that the mental cannot be reduced to the non-mental. Learn a thing or two about reductionism please.

Wrong again! Once you explain what that which can’t be reduced is, that is what it is fundamentally. The mental is necessarily reducible to the non-mental because it begins to be. Please learn what reductionism is.

Yes you are, liar! From the beginning I've told you I'm just talking about what the average joe does, what the non-philosopher talks about, what a fucking 18-month old child grasps! That's all I'm talking about. You're trying to go all fundamental into the essence of the self, the fundamental nature of the self. Quit moving the goal post and start a new thread already.

No, I am not, liar. Your average idiot pseudo-understanding is worthless. My inquiry is very basic. It only asks what this phenomena is, which has direct implications on the rest of the argument. I am not moving any goal posts and I am not starting a new thread. Defend your case !

See?! You just admitted it! You know this applies to every single word. You're not bringing up any problem with the self, you're just going on some irrelevant topic in philosophy of language. Start. A. New. Thread.

Nope. No admission. I want to know what this phenomena is, not how you call it. I already know I can call this phenomena “chakra”. That is not what I’m interested in. I’m not starting anything.
[qutoe]You keep fucking up and going back on what you're saying, you keep contradicting yourself. You've gotta keep your story straight.[/quote]
That’s a lie. I’ve not gone back on anything I’ve said. In fact, you have done that by denying your own words. And you have not been able to point out a single contradiction on my part. Do learn how to keep your fantasy straight though.

Last I checked Trump won the election lol if I'm Trump, I'm the winner

You would be the winner of the electoral college, and by extension the US presidency. But you would be a loser in pretty much all other respects, especially when one considers the man is mentally retarded.

You understand that no matter what you call it, it still exists, right???

You do understand I am asking you to explain this phenomena right ? What meds are you on ?

The name REFERS to the object, dumbass. If you get the term, then you get the referent as that's what the term identifies.

Refers. Not explain. You understand the term “UFO”. You don’t understand the phenomena it refers to. You are not a wizard. Go seek help!

yeah you are.... You're literally all alone on this. You're the only one who has bitched about this at all. This is a personal problem, momo...

Nope. I am not. You have literally convinced no one. You can’t bring forth any member that can tell me what this phenomena is. This is a personal problem for you.

Say it outright, quit being a coward. Say: "it is true that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form". If I'm so wrong, then you should have absolutely no problem saying this... We all know you won't though because you're a coward and you know that once I take this inch I'm going to take a mile lol

Follow your own advice coward. Explain what this phenomena is. You won’t do that, because once you’ve said it, you know I will falsify your entire religion. And here you are exposing your delusions yet again. It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be. You are literally arguing with yourself.

 

[momo666]

PART 3

I'm the one who decides what I mean by my words, and my sentence does not refer to what you want it to be. Intention matters, remember???

Yes, it does. If you didn’t want it to express that, you should have been more careful with your language.

Oh! So you do have some understanding of mind in some shape or form then, great!

Are you finally admitting this phenomena begins to be ? Great !

I didn't use the terms perceive or perception in premise 1, I specifically used the word mind. Also, perceive is what a mind does so how exactly are you observing a mind that perceives? Behaviorists will talk about actions of the body and that's what they mean by behavior, but you're going a step further and talking about a mind that has actions. So what is this mind that you claim has actions and what are these mental verbs and how do you observe them....?

You don’t have to. That’s all introspection can give you. Becoming conscious. Becoming aware. Everything introspection gives you, it begins to be.
And I did not say I observe a mind that perceives. What are you talking about ? Nor am I a behaviorist.

Exactly, it identifies that phenomena. If you have never heard of a tree, and you ask what it is, and I simply point to a tree nearby us, then I have indeed told you what a tree is and my finger pointing refers to it. You understand what I'm pointing to, as my pointing refers to the object which we communicate in the English language as "tree"

No. It references that phenomena. It does not identify it. You are not telling me what that tree is. You are telling me how you call that phenomena. Were you to tell me WHAT that phenomena is you would tell it is an object. You would explain its composition. You would explain its acts.

Dude, try making sense of this answer without a mind that has representations... protip: you can't...

wtf does that mean...? you're speaking gibberish until you define your terms here

A phenomena I call “mind” performs an act I call “thought”.

When did I say otherwise? lol anyway thanks for admitting you were wrong earlier

No. Thank you for admitting you were wrong. You just admitted one need not know what the self is in order to talk about the phenomena. So I was right.

So this whole idea of a bruised ego is nonsense by your own admission. Thanks for admitting you were full of shit earlier, great....

No, because one can have an incorrect view of the self remember ? Dude how could mess this one up ? You literally responded to this point in your last quote. You just refuted yourself hahaha

See? you don't want this discussion to move forward. You start off with your conclusion (self is unknown) and work your inquiry backwards from there like a true pseudo-skeptic

Projecting again. I will continue my line of inquiry the way I want. You don’t get to dictate anything. To this day you refuse to tell me what this phenomena we call self is. That shows my line of inquiry has paid off. Your religion is in deep trouble. Your pseudo-understanding is worthless.

It merely assert this phenomena is, I don't know how you keep fucking this up... Premise 1 literally states: "Mind exists". That's it! That's all it says! How can you suck at reading this badly???

The real question is how can you suck at logic this badly ? If you don’t know what this phenomena is, your case is done. You have nothing left.

No it doesn't because it is REFERENT that REFERS to an actual object. Get your philosophy of language bullshit out of this thread already

Yes, it does. A term always remains a term. I am not going anywhere. You don’t get to dictate anything here. Grow up, man child.

First-person subjective awareness refers to mind. Simple.

Your logic is so sad. If those terms refer to this phenomena, then you’ve just named it. You need to explain how those terms are different. That is why it is called a definition and not merely a name.

Proof?

You’ve said consciousness is “something we are directly aware of” but you’ve also said “I=awareness” so consciousness is “something awareness are directly aware of”. Gibberish.

Those terms have been there from the OP you lying prick...

Not when I asked you to define mind. Then you defined consciousness. Now suddenly those things are different. No matter, you should have no problem explaining how they are different.

Again if it's really a straw man then you need to come out with it and explicitely say: there really is some understanding in some shape or form of the mental/self/consciousness and all that.

No. You need to come out and admit you have put forth a strawman. This phenomena begins to be. I pointed that out. Admit it already.

I literally just linked an entire wiki article on it. try reading for once.

I did. Doesn’t say what it is. The hypothesis is that is a form of matter which would be a lot better in terms of an answer that what you gave me.

yes you did you lying sack of shit. You tried to compare the self to UFO's and dark matter. Quit the bullshit, your comments are public...

Nope, I did not. At least that article poses the hypothesis that dark matter is an object. You can’t even say that. And the comparison was so that you understand the difference between a name and a phenomena, which you still don’t. Your comments are public. I don’t see you caring though. You lie everyday.

Convince me by saying: "Premise 1 is true". say it you coward...

I don’t need to convince you of anything. Explain what this phenomena we call “self” is.

except it doesn't, nice try. I've told you this knowledge is actually independent of any concepts but you just keep ignoring this...

Except it does, but nice try. There can be no knowledge where this phenomena is not. The very concept of knowledge requires this phenomena. You are trying to build on that which you have failed to explain. Stop ignoring this.

Are you or are you not familiar with foundationalism?

I am. There is no basic belief about what this phenomena is.

please read that scholarly article I linked on the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance for goodness sake.

I have. You need to show how it is literally impossible for that knowledge to be described.

You just said i did! lmao get your story straight

No, I did not. You still don’t. You still continue to give different terms for the same phenomena and pretend that explains the phenomena. You even admit those terms refer to the phenomena.

No that's just what you dishonestly call all definitions...

That would entail I am committing a category error. I am not so you are lying, yet again.

oooh you haven't explained the rose though! muh names! word swapping!

That’s a category error. Logic. Try it!

So you grasp the idea of an "I" that has experience. Great, thanks for admitting you've been full of shit this whole time.

No. I am saying there is a phenomena I call “I”. I am saying there is a phenomena I call “sweetness”. I am also saying that what these phenomena are is not known. That is what I’ve been asking you from the start. Stop lying.

Communicate it then, bitch. Show me with words, give me an explanation, give me a description. Give us a description of this experience of sweetness that even someone without any sense of smell or taste could grasp. protip: you fucking can't...

Absolute failure! I said there is no reason why it could not be communicated. I did not say we can currently communicate it. You just assert it can’t be communicated but what arguments have you put forth in defense of that assertion ? None.
You need to tell me what this phenomena is and you continue to refuse to do that. You just tell me you call it “sweet”. I don’t care. I call it “shambala”. What difference does it make ? You are not a wizard. Naming things does not explain them. Wake up!

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 1

No, you did not.

Yeah I did, you just didn't like it is all since I'm not following your script.

You can’t even tell me if the self is an activity, act, object or whatever have you.

I told you it was a noun. Nouns are persons, places, or things. I am a person.

Wrong.

So it is the case that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form? Yes or no? I need a direct answer to this question.

1.That is an equivocation on the term “consciousness”. Whatever consciousness is, it must mean the EXACT same thing in P1 as it does in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase. That can not change.

Not at all: all premise 1 is saying that it exists, that's it. It's not referring to MY consciousness or anyone else's in particular, it's just saying that it exists.

2.No, because you have said P1 claims to know what this phenomena is.

Can you not read...? All P1 is saying is that this phenomena exists. Here's a literal copy-paste of P1: "Mind exists".

Also, if this phenomena began to exist, it simply can not be fundamental.

If MY mind began to exist then sure, but affirming that MY mind began to exist does not mean mind in general began to exist. And I never defined it as an ability so your objection simply fails to hit the target.

No, but you are. And you didn’t answer my question.

Oh goodness, the irony here is rich. One sentence you say you're not autistic and in the very next sentence you prove you're autistic lol

OF COURSE it exists.

Before you were trying to act like you can't affirm whether or not it exists since apparently you have absolutely 0 understanding of what it is in any shape or form but now all of a sudden you're comfortable affirming that it exists. I'm glad you've finally wised up and come out with it already, but I don't know why this wisdom doesn't spill over to P1 as well. You've been desperately avoiding saying "Premise 1 is true" so I don't know why you can't just say it already just like you have for the self just now.

And no, I do not “compare” it with others.

Yes you do, here's a direct quote of you doing so: "I am assuming, based on various criteria, that you must be some sort of similar phenomena."

What I have been saying this whole time is that you do not know WHAT this phenomena is, and by now admitting P1 only says this phenomena is, not what it is, you have proved me right.

What do you mean "by now admitting P1 only says this phenomena is"? P1 literally is, and I quote myself directly: "Mind exists". That's what P1 has always been from the very beginning long before we ever spoke. You're just so shit at reading that you're just now figuring this out...

The case for idealism simply can not get off the ground until you tell me what this phenomena is.

All P1 is saying is that "Mind exists". As long as mind exists then the case for idealism does indeed get off the ground.

Depending on what this phenomena is, idealism could not even be a possibility so it is clear why you are so terrified of addressing my arguments.

What arguments? All you do is go turbo-skeptic and inadvertently undermine any attempts to claim to know anything at all. You just lapse into radical skepticism.

Notice the emphasis on the word "be". You're talking about being, you're talking about the object in itself, not the mere name we call it. You outright admitting that you do not understand how a perspective, in reality, can actually be anything other than first-person. You're not talking about the name of the phenomenon, you're talking about the phenomenon. If you grasp perspective, and perspective is first-person, then ipso facto you understand the first-person.

No, I am not.

Yup, you literally used the word "be" and you were referring to the phenomenon not the word we call the phenomenon. You've been caught.

Furthermore, I do not understand what this phenomenon we call “perspective” is or how it functions.

So one minute you admit that perspective cannot be anything other than first-person and the next you try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of what perspective is in any shape or form... you're going to have to make up your mind.

If the self is not reducible, then whatever it is is fundamental to begin with.

That's not true, plenty of property dualists take the mind as irreducible and emergent. I take the mind to be irreducible and not emergent.

If an object is claimed to be not reducible, then stating what that object is means you’ve stated what it is fundamentally.

Nope: saying that it is not reducible is only saying what it is not. It's just saying that it is not reducible.

And you didn’t even say what this self is in the most basic sense.

Yeah I did, you even quote me doing so and I provided several scholarly sources that goes over this.

Then why did you tell me what consciousness is when I asked you to define “mind” ?

As I've said before these terms can be used interchangeably in a colloquial sense, this is even reflected in the thesaurus.

As for your definition, you’ve now said first person refers to the self and since you’ve also said “I=awareness” then at least two terms of your so called definition refer to the same thing.

I've said before that the self is an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness/awareness. Could you be anymore uncharitable?

And no, what I am saying does not apply to all words

Yes it does because you're just telling me what you call it. muh names! word swapping!

I do not just give you a different name for a tree, I am stating that what it is is a composition of x,y,z that does g,h,j.

By your own logic yes you have and you're still not telling me what a tree is. Give me an exact definition of a tree. Don't give me this vague x, y, z crap. Give me an actual definition, define what a tree is.

Also, if we're going to play like you then you should support your commitment about there being composition. What exactly is composition? Do composite objects actually exist? Do parts combine to form a whole that is distinct from the parts or is there no whole and only parts?

No it's not. We're here to talk about the case for idealism, not the self. The whole point of this thread is to see if the case for idealism is a valid argument and if the premises are true or false. That's how you address an argument. You're trying to delve in philosophy of language and philosophy of the self and all that.

Yes, it is. I am talking about your pseudo-case and I am showing how it is incoherent at its core.

In your attempts at doing this you have undermined any claim to knowledge and any definition of any word. We're in a game of chess and you think flipping the board over means you've won the game... You need to show me which premise is true or false and whether the argument is valid/invalid. That's how the game is played.

I’ve shown how P3 is necessarily false by how you’ve defined consciousness.

I keep telling you that I am not defining consciousness as an ability but you just keep ignoring that and attacking a straw man. I know knocking down a straw man is much easier, but that's not how you refute people's arguments.

Asking what this phenomena we call “mind” is is not me getting into philosophy of language.

I've defined mind all the way in the OP, where you go from there is when you get into irrelevant issues in philosophy of language and word games.

It is literally me pursuing one of the most basic inquiries one can pursue.

What I'm talking about is one of the most basic understandings one can possibly grasp. For goodness sakes even an 18-month old child grasps what I'm getting at here and you're not even willing to admit that you grasp what a literal 18-month old child grasps... think about that for a second, let that sink in...

My point applies to anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is.

Like I've said before, I'm only talking about a common sense understanding, the kind the average joe has. If your point applies to me in this sense then it applies to literally just about every single human being in existence including 18-month old children.

You obviously don’t

Still waiting for you to actually prove this.

I am in fact negating idealism. I have shown how consciousness being an ability means P3 is necessarily false.

Good thing I'm not defining consciousness as an ability. Looks like you have more work to do.

I am simply addressing your claims.

Actually you're not: you're just attacking straw men

What is weird is that you believe what I am doing is weird.

You trying to act like you can't even grasp what an 18-month old child grasps is indeed weird... you're trying to tell me that you're dumber than a literal 18-month old child...

You never had to remind me of anything.

Apparently I have since you still are under the delusion that merely showing the distinction between "knowing something" and "describing something" does not rely on "this phenomena that you have yet to explain". You even admitted this distinction is legitimate, and the moment you admit this you admit your inference is invalid and thus your claim that I have no knowledge is unsupported.

My justification that there is no knowledge is the fact that you have not provided it.

I just caught you in yet another lie. Before I said: "You've tried to point to a lack of a description/explanation as justification for your claim that there's no knowledge." and you said "No, I did not." yet here you are doing that right now... Caught red-handed. I've told you before that this knowledge is distinct and one of the things that makes this knowledge distinct is that it is independent of any description and that it is grasped immediately and directly. So you're just missing the point over and over. Again: knowing something and describing something are 2 different things. Just go back to the example of you trying to communicate sweetness to me. Notice how you didn't do so... It's not that you don't know what sweetness is, you understand that a rose smells sweet you even admitted it, it's just that it's not exactly explicable in language is all. You're assuming all knowledge has to be explicable in language and you've failed to justify this assumption of yours...

No, I did not.

Yeah you did, here's a direct quote of you doing this: "My justification that there is no knowledge is the fact that you have not provided it."

By the way this is essentially an argument from ignorance, or rather an argument from silence, which is a weak/fallacious argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

It is not me who has to justify my claims

Yes it is. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Don't like it? Then don't make claims. Simple as that.

You are the one who asserted to know what this phenomena is.

I've only claimed a common sense understanding, a non-ivory tower average joe's understanding that even an 18-month old child has. What I'm talking about is independent of any description or concept.

Until you do that, there is no reason for me to give your claims any more credence than the mad man in the street.

Quite frankly you're the one who is coming off like the mad man on the street here. Humans go about their day talking about the self and their mind and their feelings and thoughts all day long with no worries. You're the guy on the street shouting that every human being is wrong about this. You're trying to act like people wouldn't look at you weird for this? lol such lack of awareness

1. Wrong, the point is that this knowledge is immediate, direct, and independent of any description. Concepts are not a necessary condition for knowledge by acquaintance, it is direct and immediate and independent of any description. How many times are you going to ignore this??
2. By this logic the very concept of knowledge rests upon this concept of "self".

3. Notice how you completely dodged my request for you to clarify what you mean by knowledge, ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and all of that stuff given you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form... What are any of those things? What is a belief, momo...? What is knowledge? What's an idea or a thought? Define your terms, burden of proof is on you.

1.Wrong. It is this phenomena we call “the self” that does the knowing remember ?

You're missing a very subtle distinction here: what I specifically said was this kind of knowledge is independent of any concepts, and that includes what you're calling "concept of the self". This kind of knowledge is direct, immediate, and independent of any description.

The very concept of knowledge by acquaintance first requires an explanation of what this self is

Nope, try reading those articles I linked you: knowledge by acquaintance is independent of any concepts and descriptions. Again, I'm going to need you to justify your assumption that all knowledge has to be explicable in language.

The very definition of knowledge builds upon this self.

So by your logic then ALL of knowledge has been undermined since knowledge builds upon this self. So I've been right this entire time about you sawing off the branch you sit on: you're just a radical skeptic. You doubt ALL knowledge. You don't have a problem with the self, or idealism, per se, you just have a fundamental problem with epistemology in general. You really need to start some new threads man...

2.Yes, it does.

So you're a radical skeptic then, got it.

Your distinction can not possibly help you evade the responsibility of explaining what this “self” is.

Nice straw man: when I point out the simple distinction between knowing something and describing something that is to show that your inference to the conclusion that I have no knowledge is invalid. You're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that means there is no knowledge, but once we acknowledge the fact that knowing something and describing something are 2 distinct things then it becomes obvious that your inference is invalid so your conclusion is unsupported.

3.Your request is nonsensical.

If my request is nonsensical then so is yours. I'm merely asking you to define your terms. If I have to define the terms I use then so do you. No special pleading. What is knowledge? What is an idea? What are thoughts? What's a belief? You've said before in the past that you think my belief is a false belief, that is a claim that you know something. So what is a belief that you claim can be true or false?

I keep telling you: this knowledge is DIRECT and IMMEDIATE. This isn't something we know through an argument or a scientific experiment, it's something we know DIRECTLY. This is essentially foundationalism we're getting into here, and so you're delving yet again into other more fundamental issues.

Irrelevant. The experience of a lake is direct and immediate.

No it isn't, the experience of the lake is mediated by sense experience. No sense experience=no experience of the lake. You even admitted this when you said: "That does not mean it represents an actual state of affairs". Notice the emphasis on the word "represents". You're talking about a representation of the lake, not a direct experience of the lake in of itself. You're talking about the experience of the lake, and questioning whether this experience corresponds to an actual state of affairs. If this was direct there would be no question about whether this corresponds to an actual state of affairs, that's the whole point of direct and immediate knowledge. Here's the thing though: even if we lose all of our sense experience we are still aware of the self and the mental since this is direct and immediate.

There is no reason why the phenomena we call UFO can not be a hallucination.

1. Actually there is: we have multiple eye witnesses, video footage, pictures, we have radars detecting them, etc. If you're going to question whether it's still a hallucination then you are yet again going to saw off the branch you sit on as you're going to be doubting ALL of experience. So you would just be yet another radical skeptic and flipping the chess board over since you can't move the pieces on the board to win.
2. You're forgetting the entire point of why you brought up UFO's in the first place. Your entire point was we can still say that something exists without knowing exactly what it is, now you're moving the goal post and retreating by switching it up and saying perhaps the UFO is a hallucination which means it doesn't actually exist. Which is it, momo? Can we claim something exists without knowing exactly what it is or are you now going to act like you can't since for all you know it's a hallucination? Make up your mind...

I am making a point about the self

No you're making a point about everything. By your own logic everything could just be one big hallucination. If the UFO can be a hallucination then so can everything you experience...

UFO is how we CALL the phenomena but since we do not know what it is, it is not the case that it needs to be an object or flying or have a saucer shape.

Yes it does actually, and if it doesn't then that again applies to literally everything we experience. Pick any object of experience and your point still applies. Take a chair for instance. Chair is how we CALL the phenomena but since it could just be a hallucination we don't know what it is, it is not the case that it needs to have 4 legs, a back, and a seat since it could just be one big hallucination.

Again, is this self an object ?

I told you long ago the self is a noun. Nouns refer to people, places, or things.

I did not say this phenomena we call “self” does not exist.

You've been trying to avoid saying that it exists for months now because of this excuse that you don't know what it is, then you tried to say you can admit that it does exist without knowing what it is, but then when pressed to admit that P1 is true you say you can't because you don't know what it is... make up your fucking mind...

No, you did not.

I literally just showed you your own screen shot of me doing so lol

“them”, “they”,

Actually those are 3rd person pronouns

“awareness”, “consciousness” is supposed to refer to the same phenomena remember ?

Nope, looks like your attempts at showing this is gibberish fail

What is this phenomena we call “ourselves” ?

An individual person as the object of their reflective consciousness. You know how when you use sense experience you grasp the world? Well when you introspect you grasp the self. These are 2 different kinds of knowledge: the first is mediated and explicable with descriptions, while the second is immediate and is explicable in first-person and independently of any description. And just like how we don't need to have a fundamental explication as to what the world we experience with our senses really is in order to have a common sense understanding of it, same goes for the self.

Your own source tells us “I” is a term.

Again, all words are terms. You're not making some deep point here.

That knowledge being what ?

The common sense grasping of the self, just like the common sense grasping of the world we experience. What exactly is existence, momo...? Maybe you can't tell me what exactly existence is, but you can still tell me that some things exist in this common sense way that we all intuitively grasp.

"The Distinctiveness of Self-Knowledge
What is special about self-knowledge, compared to knowledge in other domains? Self-knowledge is thought to differ from other sorts of knowledge in one or more of the following ways.
Self-knowledge is especially secure, epistemically.
Self-knowledge is (sometimes) acquired by use of an exclusively first-personal method.
Self-knowledge is special because of the distinctive agential relation one bears to one’s own mental states.
One’s pronouncements about one’s own mental states carry a special authority or presumption of truth."

Those are all assertions that have to be demonstrated.

1. You're moving the goal post: we're only talking about comprehension of the self at this moment, not whether the self exists.
2. These are essentially basic beliefs, so they don't have to be demonstrated. But once you realize this knowledge is direct, immediate, and non-inferential this follows naturally. Imagine you've lost your sense of sight. If you're plopped into some random environment you now don't know what is ahead of you, you can't see it. Say you've now lost your sense of smell, and touch, and taste, and all of that. Now you really don't know what's going on in your environment. You can't use your sense experience to know about the world now, but you can still introspect: you still know that you have thoughts, feelings, ideas, and so forth. This goes to show that this knowledge is on firmer epistemic ground than sense experience, it is epistemically secure. This knowledge is not mediated by sense experience, it is grasped in first person through introspection and the relation is direct as compared to the world you experience with your senses. So this carries with it a special authority as this is on stronger grounds.

Notice that even those assertions take this “I” for granted. They do not state what this “one’s” is.

All that quote was saying is how self-knowledge is distinct from other kinds of knowledge. You're missing the point entirely.

You need to explain what this phenomena is

Actually I don't, this knowledge is independent of any description or concept.

Nope, liar. You’ve already said “first-person” refers to the self and that “I=awareness” so at least two of the terms of your definition are a repetition. ...So mind is “awareness subjective awareness” and “subjective” is mind. Got it!

You are way confused. Let me give you an example to help you out.

This is a character known as "master chief" in a video game called "Halo" but let's pretend this is you:

Nothing incoherent so far, right? Good. Now this is you in the first-person:

Still coherent, right? Nothing incoherent about this at all. There's no wacky skepticism that creeps up here, we don't flip the table over and exclaim "wtf is that?!" when we look at the second picture now do we? The second picture, the one about the first-person, is perfectly sensible and you know it... There's nothing dubious about this at all... You understand the difference between the first picture and second picture just fine, you understand this idea of first-person. Well that's what I'm talking about there. That is first-person. But there is also a subjective awareness of this first-person. Like in the first picture I showed you, there is the description of you in terms of your shape and size and color and texture etc, but there is the first-person (second picture) and a realization of the first-person by that very person, and there is this state of what it is like to be this person. You realize that this is your experience, you are aware of the fact that you are aware, and certain experiences feel a certain way to you. You and I can experience the same object but we will each have our own unique subjective experience of it and we are aware of this. Are you trying to tell me that you don't grasp any of this shit...?

It is literally underlined in red. You say “CONSCIOUSNESS IS…”.

All I'm saying there is that consciousness is something we are directly aware of, that's not me defining consciousness per se, let alone the way you're trying to portray it as, liar...

Nope, I already knew how it works.

Which is why your images failed to actually appear and you had to apologize for any mess ups, [sarcasm]because you're perfect and mess up and know everything[/sarcasm].

Nope, you're failing to define the tree, you're just naming it and swapping words! You have no idea what a tree is, you merely told me how you call this phenomenon! xD

That entails a composition, its constituents and the acts its constituents perform are the same thing. You have just committed a categorty error.

You still haven't told me what a tree is, you're just telling me what you call it. muh names! word swapping!

Yes it does, you're relying on the fact that "my sentence" is coherent in the first place. The very subject in your sentence is 100% incomprehensible by your own admission, so assigning predicates to this subject like "understanding" is simply nonsensical. Your pseudo-skepticism is parasitic: it relies on an understanding it's attempting to reject

No, it does not. I do not know what the phenomenon we call “subject” is.

You're confused, I was using the word "subject" as used in grammar: "a noun phrase functioning as one of the main components of a clause, being the element about which the rest of the clause is predicated." If you're admitting the subject is 100% incomprehensible then the rest of your sentence is just grammatically nonsensical. This is partly why I keep telling you to abandon first-person language because you're being deceptive: you want to keep the meaningfulness and usefulness of first-person language while using it to deny that it is meaningful. You're just contradicting yourself and proving your pseudo-skepticism to be parasitic. If you could meet my challenge it's possible you could undermine this point but you appear to be unable to meet my challenge...

The experience of a lake is direct knowledge.

No it is not, it is mediated by sense experience. No sense experience=no experience of the lake. You can cut off all sense experience, but you would still be aware of the fact that you're aware. Awareness of the self and consciousness and thoughts are NOT mediated by sense experience.

You are confusing the experience with what the experience is of.

It's literally the complete opposite: we are directly aware of experience but not of what the experience is of. Just like you said, it could be a hallucination. The fact that you admit it could be a hallucination means you're admitting there is a perceptual intermediary between the experience of the object and the object itself. What you have is a perception of the object and you just believe there really is an object on the other side of perception, and that is the total opposite of direct knowledge.

It would still be direct knowledge.

It's not as I demonstrated using your own admission, but you can't even make sense of knowledge in general by your own admission since it rests upon "that which needs to be explained" in the first place. You should be completely paralyzed by this incomprehension just like you try to do with the self.

You're pseudo-skepticism is getting real wobbly here. Apparently you can make sense of an "I" now that has experience. This is odd because you've been trying to pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of this in any shape or form...

No, I was not. That was your strawman to begin with.

So then it is not the case that you have absolutely 0 understanding of this in any shape or form? Yes or no? This is a direct yes or no question, don't give a politicians rhetorical dodge on this, simply say yes or no for the sake of understanding clearly.

I do not know what this phenomena we call “I” is. Neither do you.

Still waiting for you to meet your burden of proof on this.

What knowledge you speak of ?

The objects of knowledge by acquaintance rather than knowledge by description.

Explain. What the hell is a belief according to you?

Something this phenomena does.

Walking is also something a phenomenon does but that doesn't tell us what walking is. You're not giving me a definition of what a belief is. Define your terms. If I have the obligation to define my terms then so do you, the onus is on you just as much as it is on me. No special pleading.

Depends what P1 claims.

That this phenomenon we call mind exists. That's it. Here's a direct quote of P1: "Mind exists", that's it... I've told you so many times now that the bar is low. It doesn't matter if you believe if the mind is an entity, or a property, or a process, or whatever, as long as mind exists then you're affirming P1. What is so damn hard about just saying "yeah P1 is true" given this low bar??

And no, I was right earlier. If this phenomena is an ability, then P3 is necessarily false and idealism fails.

1. not defining it as an ability, fail
2. this would mean you were wrong earlier when you said the case for idealism cannot get off the ground. It does get off the ground as we can affirm both P1 and P2. You just have a problem with P3

Would you say this point applies to an 18-month old child that passes the rouge-test? Does this apply to the person who merely has a common sense understanding of the self in the way the average joe does? Again, I've told you before my ambitions are minimal here: I'm just saying that this self exists and that more fundamental analyses deserve their own thread since they're going more fundamental then what this argument is going for.

Anyone.

Thank you for proving my point! What you're saying literally applies to anyone. You're saying this applies to an 18-month old child, even a non-verbal one. So apparently if a person is unable to speak or write or communicate then they have no knowledge hahahah do you not realize how retarded that is? Do you not see how your inference is totally invalid?

Whatever “common sense understanding” you claim to have, if it asserts to know what this phenomena is, my points applies to it.

What you're failing to grasp is the subtle distinction between what the average joe knows in terms of what a phenomena is vs. what a philosopher, or even a scientist, knows what a phenomena is. You are asking for a metaphysical explanation of what this phenomena is. You want to know what IS it, you're dealing with the question of "is" or "being", you want to know what is the essence of it, and I keep fucking telling you: I'm only talking about something that an 18-month old child can grasp. Remember that picture of the first-person I showed you? Yeah, it's that fucking simple dude... That's how low I'm setting the bar here... You know how you have this first-person experience and you can pass the rouge-test? That's all I'm getting at! If you comprehend this then you comprehend what I've been trying to get at this whole time...

There is nothing fundamental about what I am asking.

Yes there is, by definition what you're getting at is metaphysics. You want to know what it IS. You cannot deny that you want to know what it IS without being a liar.

It is literally one of the most basic questions one can ask.

What I'm talking about is literally one of the most basic understandings one can grasp, it's something a literal 18-month old child can grasp...

1. By your own admission what something is and what something does are 2 different things. We don't need to talk about the function of something in order to have at least some understanding of something in some shape or form.
2. You're just telling me what you call the phenomenon! You're just swapping words! muh names!

1.No, by your own admission what something is and what something does are different things.

I never denied that's the case, but the fact that you admit this is the case means you've just proven your own point wrong. You don't need to know what something does in order to know what something is since those are 2 different things.

2.That entails a composition and its constituents and what those constituents do are the same thing, which is a category error.

You're still not telling me what it is, muh word swapping!

Again, logic has failed you. For me to merely swap words when defining a tree, it would imply a composition, its constituents and the actions they perform are the same thing, but only under a different name. Absolute fail!

You still haven't told me what a tree is! muh names!

For the word “notice” to be just another word for perception AND consciousness, those two things have to be the same, else you’re equivocating.

I specifically said they were synonymous which means "having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language." Pay attention.

I see now you are trying to play the “nearly the same” card.

How is this "playing a card"? that's literally the definition of the word "synonym"... Me schooling you on the basic meanings of the English language is not me "playing a card", get over yourself.

That won’t work however because something either is an ability, or it is not.

It's not. Well that was easy.

Yes you did, liar, You pointed to a lack of a description/explanation and then exclaimed that I, along with everyone else, has absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. But the moment you admit the distinction between knowing something and describing something is the moment you admit your claim that we have no knowledge/understanding of the self is shown to be completely unsupported.

No, I did not, liar.

It is very easy for you to prove I am a liar right now, here's how you can do it: answer this simple question with a yes or no: "Is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form?" If you say yes I'm right and thus not a liar, if you say no I'm a liar. Don't beat around the bush, just say yes or no for the sake of clear communication.

What you and me and everyone else does not have is the knowledge of what this phenomena is.

Stil waiting for you to meet your burden of proof for this claim.

You did not so I can only infer that you don’t have that knowledge.

Nope, that would be an invalid inference. It simply does not follow that because you don't have a description that therefore there is no knowledge. A person can be completely non-verbal, have no ability to speak or communicate, but they still know things. Your argument is invalid.

Anymore than the mad man on the stree[sic] has “direct knowledge from Zeus”.

You're only proving that you still do not understand the concept of "direct knowledge". Zeus is just like the lake, it's mediated by sense experience so this would be a false analogy. fail

That very distinction relies on this phenomena.

I'm not even talking about "this phenomenon" I'm only talking about the fact that the words "know" and "describe" mean two different things. Here's proof that I'm right, this is the word "know":

And here is the word describe:

Notice how these are 2 completely different words, with 2 completely different definitions, and are not even close to being synonymous... Even if someone could not describe, that does not mean they do not know. You are equivocating knowing with describing. Your argument is demonstrably invalid...

Simple. You did not say what this phenomena is.

Your inference is simply invalid as I just demonstrated.

For my inference to be invalid, it would imply you do in fact know what this phenomena is.

No actually it doesn't, what you're saying here is also invalid. As long as knowing something and describing something are 2 different things then there being no description simply does not entail that there is no knowledge. Your inference is patently invalid.

Claiming to know what it is, yet refusing to state that knowledge is nothing more than an appeal to magic.

Nope: just like with your own inability to communicate what sweetness is does not entail that you do not understand what sweetness is. Being unable to describe something does not mean there is no knowledge, your inference is invalid.

So the I exists and there is some understanding of it in some shape or form. Great.

Why do you act as if this is something new ?

If I'm acting surprised it's because you refuse to communicate clearly and have a hard time just admitting that you actually agree with me on a few things. You never answer my yes or no questions with a yes or no, and whenever I catch you saying that it does exist and I ask again to be sure you do a 180 and say the opposite. It's like you're a contrarian. You'll just say whatever the opposite of what I say. If I'm so damn wrong about this then just communicate clearly and say "yes P1 is true" and "yes the self exists" and "yes we do have some understanding of the self in some shape or form". If you would stop being a contrarian and just do that this conversation would go a lot smoother, but you refuse...

What an absolute fail. Dude.

How is that a fail? It's literally a direct quote of you saying that I am merely just another object. You're claiming I'm an object, those are your words not mine.

So why do you lie so much ?

I literally just quoted you directly saying that I'm an object and now you're trying to tell me you didn't say that... You're demonstrably lying...

So then you're with me on premise 3 for if you were a reductionist you would identify the self with the object you observe. If you weren't with me on premise 3 then you would identify the self with the object you observe.

No, because I did not assert the entirety of the object I observe is required for this phenomena. This can be demonstrated by a simple experiment. Go shave your head and see if anything major happens. If not, then obviously not all of your body is required for this phenomena.

No idea what the hell you're talking about. I'm talking about reductionism momo, stay on track. Either you are reducing or not reducing. Law of excluded middle, remember? You can't pick both since that's literally a contradiction, and there is no third option, so as long as you're not reducing then you're with me on not being a reductionist.

[b]My[/b] skepticism stands.

This skepticism of yours cannot even get off the ground hahaha it leeches off that which it pretends to not understand

So we are not 2 distinct people...? wtf?? You said you consider that I'm insane, so if we're not distinct, then you're telling me you consider yourself to be insane...

If by person one means this self, then we are not doing that. What I am distinguishing is this phenomena I call “myself” from an object I ASSUME is driven by a similar phenomena.

So then you were wrong earlier when you said "I am not distinguishing between 2 people". You really do distinguish yourself as a different person than me. You going to go full contrarian and deny this now, too?

There is but you are both objects.

So then you really are claiming that I=object. So you do have an understanding of the I in some shape or form, and you understand this I to be an object. So how come the rock doesn't move around but I move around? What's happening here?

That is what you are supposed to tell us.

[sarcasm]This sentence already relies on that which needs to be explained given the reference to this "us".[/sarcasm] You can't shirk this responsibility onto me, you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I have the burden to define the terms I use. No special pleading.

For my part, I can just say “whatever this is”.

The sentence "whatever this is" applies to literally everything, you could say that about anything. You're failing to say anything coherent, this is all grammatical nonsense on your part.

"""""""I"""""""" am literally not doing that.

You just did it again! lmao your pseudo-skepticism cannot even get off the ground. It begins with this "I" that you try to act like you cannot comprehend in any shape or form.

Logic really is not your thing. In this context, the word “you” refers to a bunch of pixels since I did not meet you in person.

You said I'm a bunch of pixels not merely that the pixels refer to me lol speak more clearly

Nope. That is according to your disingenuous strawman.

This can only be a straw man if it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. So answer this question so me, and everyone else, can be crystal clear here: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no? don't dodge...

So you understand perception, which is a noun by the way. If you understand mental nouns then you do in fact have some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. You recognize the state of being aware and you recognize that you are not your perception but are the bearer of perception. This is the self.

A noun which references an ability.

Depends on how you use the word, it also references the state of being aware of something. If you recognize perception then you understand the state of being aware of something.

If consciousness is an ability, then whatever has that ability is not-mental

Don't know how many times I have to tell you that it's not an ability. You can stop attacking straw men now.

The rouge test will only leave you with the object we call “our body”.

No the rouge test leaves us with the knowledge that the subject has "self-awareness". They realize that when they look in the mirror the red dot is not on the mirror that they are looking at, but is on their own forehead. Remember that perfectly coherent picture I showed you of first-person...? Exactly! They look in the mirror, and realize the reflection is of themselves so this reveals that they are aware of themselves. I'm not saying this tells us exactly what the essence of the self is, or that this gives us a description of the self, only that there is an awareness of the self. The bar is low, I don't know how many times I have to remind you of this. Are you going to deny that there is self-awareness, do you fail to rouge test???

Your average joe understanding is nonsensical. Stop getting your philosophy from the average idiot.

This average joe understanding is how we evolved to dominate the planet. There's only a handful of philosophers and scientists out there, and they are not the only ones who have knowledge. There is a common sense understanding, and sometimes it's false, but other times its right and merely needs more explication for a deeper understanding of it. I'm just getting at the common sense understanding here.

You tried and you have failed.

More like you failed to comprehend. Your comprehension is not my responsibility. You can guide a horse to water but can't force it to drink.

That applies to all knowledge dummy! lmao you just proved my point from earlier about knowledge and how you're leeching off an understanding you claim you don't have

Which was the point dummy!

No you were specifically trying to say that "knowledge by acquaintance" relies on that which needs to be explained but now you're going further and saying that this applies to ALL knowledge. So you just proved my point about you being a radical skeptic. You don't have problems with knowledge of the self, you have problems with knowledge in general! You have a fundamental issue with epistemology, not the self.

heck the very concept of knowledge rests upon this phenomena.

Then you really are a radical skeptic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism

You're doubting whether 2+2=4 is knowledge since knowledge itself rests on the very concept of this phenomena and is thus incomprehensible. Don't be a bullshitter, just come out with it and admit you're a radical skeptic. You doubt all claims to knowledge since knowledge itself is incomprehensible.

I don’t know what it is.

Stop moving the goal post, I'm only talking about you being aware of it. You have self-awareness, you are aware that there is an I that does/doesn't know.

Actually it literally does.

No it doesn't, you're literally hallucinating. The word "you" is not there

I’ve answered that question you liar.

No you haven't, you haven't told me what knowledge, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, or any of that stuff is.

It's a bad thing if that is the source you use when trying to answer one of the hardest questions there is.

That's the thing: I'm not trying to answer some hard question. You're posing a question that I'm not trying to answer, which is why I keep telling you to start a new thread already. I've set the bar low, I'm only talking about something an 18-month old child grasps. If you understand what an 18-month old child does, then you understand what I'm talking about since I'm only going that far.

No it is not enough

Yeah it is because that is all I'm getting at. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do. I've set the bar LOW as I keep telling you. You keep complaining about me not reaching this super high bar when I keep telling you I'm only trying to go over this low bar over here.

Yes it does. Some understanding of the body is not what is being asked here.

I'm still not seeing why you need a complete understanding in order to have merely some understanding. You're going to have to explain this to me.

No, that would just be an admission on your part that you have no idea what you are talking about.

You're the one who said we need a complete account, but then admitted we don't have a complete account for anything. This applies to literally everything, not just the self. You're a radical skeptic, that's the problem at hand here.

And by that I meant that I don’t think those terms refer to different phenomena.

You said you can't imagine how perspective could BE anything other than first person. So you're not just talking about the word you're talking about the phenomena. You understand perspective, and perspective is first person, so then you understand first person.

That is not all that is needed for your argument to hold water

Yeah it does, you tried to say there's no experience but you admitted there is experience in sleep we call dreams, so you proved yourself wrong.

. In fact, it is the exact opposite. If just one example of sleep or coma lacks any and all experiences, then my argument stands.

No it doesn't because there is still the sub-conscious.

No, it means mind begins to be.

naw, just MY mind

If there is a “more basic” state, you have to demonstrate it exists.

Dreams alone prove it exists, if there was no mental in sleep then dreams would be impossible. Also I should mention that we don't always remember our dreams so sometimes when you think you had no experience in your sleep it's just that you're forgetting the dreams you had.

Either there is something mental or there is something non-mental that becomes mental

I would also like to point out that the mental cannot emerge from the non-mental in general as this would entail a commitment to strong emergence and strong emergence is purely magic: “[strong emergence]is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.”

Source: Bedau, Mark A. (1997). Weak Emergence. Philosophical Perspectives 11 (s11):375-399.

as nothing can not become anything.

Precisely! So you see how your commitment to strong emergence is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It's not the case that there is no rabbit in the hat and the magician just pulls it out of nowhere, it's that the rabbit was in the hat the whole time. Same goes for the mental. It's not that the mental came out of the non-mental, but rather the mental has always been there.

The term “mental” must mean the exact same thing every time you use that word.

I never changed any meanings here.

You are free to explain how that helps you here.

Because if there is the subconscious then it's always there, there is a more basic state of the mental, it's just outside of your focal awareness is all.

It literally does not. The definition of a tree does not simply repeat the same phenomena under different names.

Neither does mine, I even illustrated this using pictures. If my definition is just word swapping then so is yours and so is any other definition for anything.

It literally is not. Did you not see by now that every single member gave up on trying to reason with you ?

They didn't "give up on trying to reason with me" they were actually stumped by my arguments. One user in here admitted they needed to do more research and said they were ordering a book by Susan Blackmore on the matter, so my arguments have caused them to question their worldview and caused them to do deeper research on the matter. When they're done with the book, and if they feel confident enough in their arguments, they'll probably come back in here and respond. Plus you have to admit that we're talking to humans here: eventually people get tired, they move on to other topics, people have lives and so forth. Maybe you don't understand that because you're not human but who knows, maybe you can learn to be charitable for once.

This is a personal problem for you. It is you who can not say what this phenomena is.

If this was a personal problem then that would mean only I cannot say what this phenomena is while everyone else can. It's you that has the personal problem as everyone else in here readily admits they grasp this common sense understanding that I'm getting at while you're the only one who doesn't. You're the one with the personal problem, momo...

I did not

Then prove it by answering this question: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form?? yes or no???

If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then depending on what it is, it could be that P3 is necessarily false.

P1 is only claiming that it exists, and if you're going all the way to P3 then you're admitting that the argument does get off the ground. P1 and P2 can be affirmed, the case gets off the ground. You should have the honesty to admit this. Your problem would be with a totally different premise altogether, and that would be P3. That would mean we're actually getting somewhere in the argument.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 2

There is a problem because depending on what this phenomena is, another premise might be necessarily false.

That's not a problem for P1. You've been trying to act like the case for idealism cannot even get off the ground but it clearly can, we have no problem admitting that P1 is true, so your cowardly pseudo-skeptic evasions have failed. It's time for you to address the rest of the argument now like everyone else had the courage to do. You and I would now have to start having a conversation about reductionism vs. anti-reductionism.

That a phenomena is is not the issue here.

Yes it is, that's literally what P1 is. If you have no problem with it existing then you have no problem with P1.

What is known is that this phenomena is.

So wait a minute, now there is knowledge??? Before you said knowledge rests upon that which needs to be explained so that would mean knowledge is incomprehensible, but now you're saying there is knowledge??? make up your mind. Either there is knowledge or there is not knowledge, make up your mind.

That is me literally saying you lie.

You literally saying I'm right, you said it right there lol

No, it’s not.

So you're saying the question "what jumped" and "what is a rabbit" are the exact same question...? are you fucking retarded?

That would imply a composition, its constituents and their acts are literally the same thing, which is a category error. A rabbit is an object but not all objects are rabbits.

You're still not telling me what a rabbit is, you're just word swapping. muh names!

An irrelevant distinction as that is not a point I’ve made, even remotely close.

Yeah it is because you keep trying to say that it is "but a term" as if that's all it is "a term" but I keep telling you that they refer to objects, and they don't just refer to the words themselves. So you keep failing to grasp this

No, because not all objects are light bulbs, while a light bulb is an object

You're still not telling me what a light bulb is. Word swapping!

The very quote you used said I do not know WHAT this phenomena is.

But wtf does that mean??? You're trying to say that what you say to me here is meaningful but it's using the very words that you're trying to pretend has no meaning. If it doesn't mean anything then you're speaking gibbering by your own admission. The very sentence: "I do not know what this phenomena is" starts off as completely incomprehensible as you're trying to say the word "I" is meaningless. You're just sawing off the branch you sit on.

That there is a phenomena is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant that's literally what P1 is. So since this phenomena exists then P1 is true and you were wrong about the case for idealism not being able to get off the ground.

I am withholding judgement

By definition that means you're not a reductionist, so you're with me on not being a reductionist.

Do I have the intellectual honesty of admitting the very phenomena I asked you to explain what is it exists ?

You just responded to my question with another question, stop dodging the question: do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that P1 is true? yes or no?

That word. “Mind”. It refers to something yes ? I want to know what that something is. Its that simple.

first-person subjective awareness. Simple.

Something this phenomena does.

That's not a definition at all and you fucking know it. You set the bar all low for yourself but then demand this rigorous definition from me when it comes to the self, you have double standards. This is clearly special pleading on your part. We could say vomiting is something an organism does but that doesn't really tell us what vomiting is, now does it?? Walking is also something an organism does, but that doesn't tell us what walking is now does it??? You have more work to do: define your terms or stop using them...

We call these phenomena mental but that does not mean we know what said phenomena are.

Then how are you identifying them as mental? Why even call them that? Why make this distinction between verbs and mental verbs at all???

Yea, after I’ve proved my claims.

Still waiting for you to prove your claims.

So why would I have to understand what mind is to understand something the mind does ?

You're putting these actions in a specific category: mental. This category is what comes first: mental verb. Same with mental illness and stuff like that. First there is the understanding of the mental, and then the understanding of what the mental does, otherwise you couldn't place it in the category of mental in the first place.

I understand what the word refers to. I don’t understand that which it refers to. The gibberish is all yours.

This is 100% contradictory, pure gibberish

I didn’t say this phenomena is the brain because I do not know if this phenomena is an object.

Dude you're getting so lost. I'm not saying that you said that. I'm pointing out the simple basic intro to philosophy of mind point that IF reductionism were the case then I=Brain, and so that would mean if you understand the brain then you understand the I since they're actually the exact same thing. How are you fucking this up so hard?

And no, I do not understand what a brain is entirely.

Nice moving of the goal post. Nobody is demanding that you do. Nobody said anything about understanding the brain entirely, only that you understand the brain. If I bring up the brain in conversation you're not going to interrupt it and ask "wtf is a brain?!" you get what is meant by the word "brain" you know what it refers to man, come on... Do I need to show you a picture of this to? Do you want some crayons while we're at it??

You need to show that is impossible.

Again you're failing to grasp how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove a negative, I can just remain skeptical and press the affirmative to meet their burden of proof that it is possible. Just like how the atheist doesn't have to prove God does not exist, they can just press the theist to prove that God exists and if they don't meet this burden then the atheist remains skeptical.

I am pointing out the necessary conditions for reducing something.

Comparing has nothing to do with it, it's about identity. Learn how reductionism works.

Which is precisely the point. Depending on what this phenomena is, the situation changes.

Not for P1, which is all I'm getting at for this point. I'm more than happy to move on to other premises like P3, which is something you've been desperately trying to prevent (remember your comment about how "we're not going anywhere"? well that's shot to shit lol). I just need you to man up and admit that P1 is true already.

To first reduce a phenomena, you must state what it is.

Good thing I have: first-person subjective awareness. You can stop hiding behind this pseudo-skepticism now

Currently I am not saying mind is irreducible or that mind is reducible.

As long as you're not saying that the mind is reducible then you're with me on not being a reductionist. If not then you would be a reductionist.

What I’ve done is state what you’ve done.

It's the other way around guy

I never stated actions can exist sans objects to perform them. You are delusional…

So then the mental exists, got it. so P1 is true

I know what the word “you” refers to. It refers to whatever this phenomena is. But what this phenomena is remains unknown.

You just proved my point: you don't know what "you" means at all. You can't assign predicates to a subject with no meaning at all, that makes no grammatical sense

Then you should totally confused and shouldn't be able to make a distinction between you and me, unless you're admitting you do have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form.

“Some” understanding is not what I asked of you

So you do have some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form? Yes or no.

Is your hair necessary for this phenomena to exist ? Point made.

...huh??

What is wrong ?...

Your point about reductionism

No, you don’t understand reductionism. It depends on what this phenomena is.

Actually that would be you, you're the one who thinks reductionism is about comparisons... You keep missing the point I'm trying to make: IF the "I"=brain then understanding the brain means you understand the "I" since they would be the same thing. What are you not getting about this point? I'm not saying the "I" actually is the brain, I'm only saying what would be the case if reductionism were true in this sense. What are you not understanding about this explication?

Then you need to present a logical syllogism showing how this phenomena could not possibly be accounted for by the physical reality

...what is "the physical reality", momo...? Do enlighten us

Intent is the aim one has when performing an action. Like breaking a bottle because you aim to break said bottle instead of just accidentaly knocking it over and breaking it.

what the hell does that mean? You're claiming there is this "one" that "aims"? What is this "one" and what is this "aim"?

Then that is simply insufficient since depending on what this phenomena is, certain premises might be false.

So you really are that much of a coward and cannot admit that P1 is true, got it. And that point about certain premises might be false is irrelevant to whether or not P1 is true. Right now we need to establish before we go to P3 that P1 and P2 are true first.

So what is that which the term refers to ?

First-person subjective awareness. You're welcome

No, it’s a relation of reference.

No it's about being, we merely used words to express it is all. What we call the tree is in fact the tree. The tree relates to tree in that the tree is the tree. Stop playing retarded word games man

Either “mind exists” or “my mind exists”. If those things are different, you need to choose one.

There's broader category of "mind", which includes the totality of the mental, and within that category is "my mind". There's mind as a whole and then there's my mind in particular. So yeah my mind began to exist, no shit sherlock. But that doesn't mean mind began to exist. P1 is just saying that this category of mind, as well as one's own, exists. Nothing complicated here.

I did, the explanation I seek was not there.

Because you didn't read it

No, that is not all that you are pointing out.

Dude, you're literally just being a contrarian right now. This a public forum, we can see my comments, I really am making this point. You're just going to say the opposite of whatever I say aren't you....?

I’ve read your sources and they fail at explaining this.

Show me a quote from the paper where it attempts to explain but fails

And I am addressing your “case” for idealism, you just don’t like the way I go about it, which is not my problem.

Of course I don't like the way you go about it, because it's incredibly disingenuous. You're not even willing to grant that you accept something that a literal 18-month old child grasps. You refuse to grant me the slightest bit of agreement on this most basic of understanding and this reeks of insincerity. Everyone else here had the courage to affirm or deny various premises and just come out with it, you just hide behind this pseudo-skepticism like a total coward and I have no respect for that. You want to say "this phenomena exists" but when I ask you to explicitly say that P1 is true you resolutely refuse even though that's exactly what P1 is saying. You're just not going to agree with me on anything, you're just going to dig your heels in the ground and be a total contrarian.

I literally thought about this weeks ago.

And yet you still didn't understand what synonym meant or what is meant when these words are used interchangeably in a colloquial sense? lol turn down the autism, bud

How exactly does consciousness differ from perception ?

One way of showing the subtle distinction is to point out how when we perceive it is bottom-up processing of taking in sense-data, while consciousness subsumes all of this and there is of awareness of this perception and what it is like to have this perception and experience it.

You were talking about SOMETHING, that would be a noun, coming into being. A thing cannot begin to be in existence if it already is in existence... How are you messing this up so bad?

I was talking about WHAT something begins to be, which is the only way to talk about abilities.

Nice try but you were talking about SOMETHING, not a mere ability. You were talking about a thing, not an ability. Your analogy of the apple proves this, the apple is a thing not an ability. How is this lost on you?

Naw, it too. Else you’re equivocating. Simple.

Naw. There's the category of mind, and within that category is my mind. Saying that mind exists, and noting that MY mind begins to exist, is in no way fallacious.

No, it does not. Unless this self is the body, then what you see in the mirror is not the self.

You have yet again missed the point: this isn't about reducing the self to the body, it's simply about self-awareness. There's no metaphysical claim about what exactly the self is here, all that's being noted to you is that if you pass the rouge-test then you have displayed self-awareness, you are conscious of the "I".

Your common idiot understanding doesn’t address my inquiry in the least.

You're in no position to make demands. From the very beginning I've been telling you that you're going more fundamental than where I'm going, I've set the bar low here. I'm making modest claims and you're bitching about me not making modest claims as if I have some obligation to meet YOUR inquiry where I have told you I'm not even going. I repeat: you're in no position to make demands. This is my thread, it's about the case for idealism, I'm here to see if the premises are true or false and/or the argument is at the very least valid/invalid. You want more understanding of the self? Go start a new thread, ask around. Why won't you start a new thread and ask around to see what answers you'll get? I just don't understand: if you're a true skeptic and you truly just want to know, and have an honest inquiry to gain understanding, then why not start a thread to get everyone's response? What legitimate excuse could you possibly have to not start a thread about this?? It's 100% in your interest to do so! You just might find what you're looking for, unless you're not actually looking like a true pseudo-skeptic...

So then this direct knowledge can be false yes ?

Some of it can be false, yeah. There's limits to introspection.

A noun is a word. Are you saying the phenomena we call mind is a word ?

Ability is also a word, I highly doubt if I said it was an ability you'd respond with "ability is a word herp derp!"... can you just stop being so damn uncharitable? wtf is your problem, man?

No, I am not. I am trying to find an aswer to one of the most basic questions there is.

I keep telling you that I'm answering a different question, and since you have a whole new fundamental and more basic question it deservers its own thread. I've been totally upfront about how I'm making a more modest claim, that what I'm getting at is something a literal 18-month old child can grasp and that this is independent of concepts and descriptions.

Because I don’t blindly follow your ideology ? I don’t think so.

naw it's just that you're an idiot is all lol

I am describing you, whatever you are.

See?? haha the irony is going right over your head is what makes this all the funnier: in order for you to stay consistent with your pseudo-skepticism you have to pretend you have to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of "you" in any shape or form yet here you are ascribing predicates to this "you". That's just grammatical nonsense

If you are not asserting to know what this phenomena is, then idealism literally can not be accepted, even for the sake of the argument. That is so because, depending on what this phenomena is, idealism could necessarily be false.

There is knowledge of this, it's merely the case that this knowledge is ultimately knowledge by acquaintance rather than knowledge by description. Remember when they went over how self-knowledge is a distinct kind of knowledge in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...?

You are not defending idealism.

But wait a minute, weren't you just saying that you are addressing the case for idealism...? If you really are addressing the case for idealism, and I'm offering refutations to you, then I really am defending idealism.

You have not even began to defend idealism. Not even close.

Oh so now you do admit that you are going more fundamental than what I'm going for gotcha

The case for idealism is about whether or not mind (first-person subjective awareness) exists, whether or not the mind is reducible, whether there is causal closure or not, etc. That's what the case for idealism is about, that's what I'm here to talk about, I'm the OP, I'm the one who decides what this conversation is about and how high or low MY bar is since it's MY claims and not yours. You don't get to set the standard for what I'M claiming, you don't get to move the goal post and get into more fundamental issues when I'm only talking about something more modest. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do.

Sure I can.

Hmmm funny how that's not the word "consciousness". how odd, it's almost like you're full of shit

[I pointed out way before you that what a thing is and what a thing does are different matters. And I pointed out simply saying something must do those things does not imply we know what that thing is. Is your memory that bad ?

I've pointed out that you can't put things in a category without understanding what that category is in the first place. You can't say these verbs are "mental" verbs unless you first understand what "mental" is in the first place. For goodness sakes it even begins with the very word "mental". Same goes for mental illness and so forth.

But why don’t you grasp that distinction ?

So you know a noun is not a verb then, right? I need a direct answer to this, don't dodge

Nouns are words.

Nouns=persons, places, things. You're being idiotic...

The totality of what we call “the mental” is only ever the actions.

Whoa, so now you know for a fact that "the mental" is only actions, its all verbs. I would like to see you prove that, and I don't see how you're not contradicting yourself given you admitted there's the distinction between nouns and verbs and that there is the mental noun to engage in mental verbs.

They could be so stop lying about me equivocating.

I told you for the sake of the discussion we need to come to set terms so we don't equivocate. Why else would you resist this if your intention is not to equivocate? It's like imagine if when you made that Trump reference I acted stupid like you are and played it off like you were talking about Hillary Clinton and then when you call me out on it I just go "well Trump could be called Hillary!" it's like stfu man, this is some retarded semantic bullshit word game. Cut the bullshit and be open and honest with the meanings of words. We know what cabbage is, I took a screen shot of the definition earlier, and we know it's not synonymous with the mind, so cut the shit an admit that cabbage is not the mind.

Nope. No admission.

This applies to literally all of language then. You own't admit that any word actually means anything. You won't admit that "Trump" refers to the current president of the united states because you'll just say "well he could be called cabbage!" or some retarded shit like that. You want to equivocate as much as possible and that's why you won't stick to any set definition even for the sake of a productive discussion.

Those words could mean that, which is the point I am making. So just stop yea.

What could be the case is not the same thing as what is the case. Cabbage≠mind, so just stop.

Why are you so scared to tell me what this phenomena is ?

I have all the way in the OP: first-person subjective awareness. What's so hard about admitting this exists??

No, you don’t. Literally every member you talked to gave up on you. You are like that sad bum in the street who claims to know the secrets of the Universe. No one cares about your little religion buddy.

If you actually believed this then why the hell are you even talking to me? Your actions speak louder than words. If you truly thought I was someone worth "giving up on" and that this discussion is just a bunch of psycho babble from some bum on the street then why the fuck are you spending months of your existence, hours of your time, writing comments that are so long they take multiple parts to be posted in succession?? This makes no sense, momo! If you actually believed what you were saying here you would have left long ago. Also, I'd like to point something out there: When adjusted for time in particular, this thread I've made here is literally the most popular thread of all time in the philosophy forum! Look at the measurements for yourself: no other thread has as many replies or views as mine, especially in such a short period of time. Out the entire history of this website, my one and only thread that I've started has garnished more views and replies than anything else anyone has ever posted in here. Awfully strange how some bum that is supposedly being ignored on the side of the street is garnering the most amount of responses and views than literally anyone else that has walked these streets... if you actually believe what you're saying, then what does that tell you about these streets (league of reason)...?

Really ? Then go ahead. Describe to me any object and let’s see how that description is not knowledge.

I can describe Harry Potter to you but that doesn't mean Harry Potter exists, it's just a figment of the imagination. Oh but let me guess you're going to probably try to act like you have no idea what is meant by "figment of the imagination" lol

What we know by acquaintance is that this phenomena is, not WHAT this phenomena is.

Your average joe does have a common sense understanding of what it is, they just don't go as fundamental as you want to go, and complain as much as you want but you're in no position to make demands. The metaphysician asks: "what is reality? what is real?" and those are fundamental questions, there's no denying that. The average joe is not really a metaphysician, they don't go that far, but that doesn't mean they do not know anything about reality, or cannot meaningfully say that something is real and so forth. Same goes for the self: the 18-month old child may not be able to give you a metaphysical thesis on what the self is, but they have self-awareness, they have an acquaintance of the self.

There is no basic knowledge about what this phenomena is. Learn what direct knowledge is for goodness sake.

Yes there is actually, and that's my point. it actually fits perfectly with direct knowledge. It's non-inferential, it's direct, it's basic. You keep asking for a description for something I keep telling you is independent of any description.

I know what foundationalism is but what this phenomena is, is not a basic belief.

You couldn't be more wrong. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Introspection: "Introspection is a key concept in epistemology, since introspective knowledge is often thought to be particularly secure, maybe even immune to skeptical doubt. Introspective knowledge is also often held to be more immediate or direct than sensory knowledge. Both of these putative features of introspection have been cited in support of the idea that introspective knowledge can serve as a ground or foundation for other sorts of knowledge."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/

Also, do you even Descartes bro? From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource): "Arguably, the most well known foundationalist is Descartes, who takes as the foundation the allegedly indubitable knowledge of his own existence and the content of his ideas. Every other justified belief must be grounded ultimately in this knowledge."

Source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/

Even many non-philosophers are aware of Descartes famous "I think therefore I am" and how we are more knowledgable about the subjective nature of the mental then we are of the objective nature of "the physical" as it is called.

In the common sense way, yes it is a basic belief. And you can complain all day about "muh demonstrations!" but I'll just show how you're going to fall into an infinite regress or will end up arguing in a circle if you don't accept a kind of foundationalism in which there are some beliefs which do not depend on other beliefs in order to be justified or counted as knowledge. And see now we're getting into more fundamental issues in epistemology, which deserves its own thread.

Can you ? Again. What is the reason knowledge by acquaintance can not be described ?

I've told you this myself many times and have referenced scholarly articles on this many times, you just keep ignoring it: there is a distinction between knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance is direct, immediate, non-inferential, and INDEPENDENT OF ANY DESCRIPTION OR CONCEPTS.

Again with the double standard.

How is me asking you a simple yes or no question a double standard...? It's a simple question: do we have absolutely 0 understanding of consciousness in any shape or form? Yes or no?

A composition of x,y,z that do g,h,j.

That doesn't tell me what a tree is. Tell me what a tree actually is. You're just using a bunch of letters (x,y,z,). This is worse than word-swapping you're just letter-swapping lmao

1.Well, for one that our perceptions of things are accurate.

How is this proof for your claim?

2.No, the knowledge of a tree relies on some assumptions.

That's what I just said...

not WHAT this phenomena is.

What is the phenomenon momo? Wtf is a tree?

REFERS.

Exactly!

A refers to the object A.

And A=A, it refers to itself.

But A could refer to the object B if we wanted to.

Nope, law of identity.

Maybe this phenomena is only part activity. Maybe it’s all object. Maybe it’s part action.

What the hell does that even mean? can you give me a single example of a phenomena that is "part activity" or "part action" or "part object"?

What does theism/deism have to do with this ?

Because you're being a noob is misusing the fedora meme

Feel free to link atheism to materialism though. Show me how those two are necessarily linked.

the autism is real: I only said that the fedoras are the atheists and materialists, I didn't say they were the same thing or "necessarily linked" I never said that.

But make sure to describe materialism without using the concept of mind cause that will get you in the same kind of problems you are already in.

Are you saying materialism is incomprehensible?

Well yes, you should not special plead.

Neither should you, so make due with the definitions already. No special pleading: if I have to define my terms then so do you.

Trust me, no matter whom you compare it to in regards to lying, no one can beat Trump.

Remember when wikileaks revealed Hillary Clinton admitting she has a "public position" and a "private position" when it comes to policy? lmao you people have been duped

And that video was kind of crazy. I mean…I’ve seen crazy but not that crazy. I think he was trolling people.

[sarcasm]Oh geez, you think so?[/sarcasm] haha

I did. In fact I’m pretty sure this is at least the third time I answer this question. Yes, I am. I also asked if this question is about any specific point ?

Wow, I finally get a "yes" out of you for once on a direct yes or no question. I wonder why you're so willing to give an upfront yes on this question, but not the others... suspicious... anyway, then you should be able to at least make sense of the computation theory of mind. You should be able to at the least conceptualize the mind as a computer of sorts that runs algorithms and heuristics and utilizes representations and so forth. Wouldn't you agree, I mean this is cognitive science after all...?

No, you did not.

Pretty sure "first-person subjective awareness" is in the OP...

But no, I am not that.

I did not ask you to explain a non existent phenomena so acting like this is some revelation is even more evidence of your delusion.

If you just had the honesty to come out of the closet and say "yes premise 1 is true" I wouldn't be so damn shocked.

Again, you are a reductionist.

I actually am a kind of reductionist, but I don't go in the direction you're claiming. What we cal the physical is reducible to the mental, or you could say is subsumed within the mental.

you would still have to state whether it’s an object, action or ability before you can assert it can not be reduced.

It's a noun. There you go.

As for casual closure, that too depends on what this phenomena is.

Naw, it's just wondering if the causal domain is closed or not. Can 2 distinct types of entities/properties interact with each other or is the domain of causation closed?

I’m not even sure what a “domain” is. I feel like another truck load of assumptions are on their way.

I'm glad you have the humility to admit you're not up to date on the literature on this matter. You should check out the sources I've cited in the OP. Jaegwon Kim is a great source for this discussion on causality.

No, you don’t. Law of identity. Understanding a word does not imply you understand the phenomena the word refers to.

That's what it means to understand a word. law of identity

1. we know it's not a fly in your eye, we have video footage and multiple eye witnesses
2. your point about hallucinations is a goal post move and applies to literally everything
3. notice how you know it's an object that is flying and that it exists and can identify its shape (e.g. saucer). So there's some understanding in some shape or form, even though you try to pretend otherwise...

No we don’t, and I made no mention of any video footate or multiple witnesses

Who cares if you made no mention of it? I'm giving evidence that you're wrong since we have video footage and multiple eyewitnesses. What, are you going to tell me everybody coincidently, including multiple cameras, all have a fly in their eye? come on man...

People mistake clouds and even planets for UFO’s.

Is this the case all the time? Is every single UFO report a mistake for a cloud or planet? No. Is every single UFO report a fly in the eye? No. We have radar stations that pick up flying activity in the sky and we can tell that it's an object and we can even describe its shape, how fast its moving, and what directions its flying in. Do we understand entirely what this is? No, by your own admission its a UFO, we don't know exactly what it is. But it is a flying object, and we know this, so it's not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form.

Wrong. It’s the other way around.

Dude, come on, don't be such a contrarian that you're just going to bold faced lie like this. We all know I'm the one who said the phrase "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet". That was me who said that, not you...

There can’t be actions without something to perform those actions.

Exactly, so there can't be mental actions without the mental to engage in such actions.

Calling said actions “mental” adds nothing to that.

Would you say calling it "physical" adds nothing? If so, then why did you refer to "physical" reality earlier...?

Remember when you were bitching about reductionism and how you can't make a comparison without knowing what it is...? check mate, bitch. You can't say I'm similar to you unless you really do understand enough to compare yourself to me! you've just blown your own feet off hahaha

I said I assume that which I am responding to is a similar phenomena to me.

Yeah and before you said you couldn't make any comparisons because you couldn't make sense of it, but now you're saying you can compare it, so by your own admission you can make sense of it!

Seriously, what grade are you on ? How comes your comprehension of the English language is this poor LOL ? Learn to read and stop embarrassing yourself.

Dude, you are in no position to be making jokes like this since you're the one who admits they don't even grasp what a literal 18-month old child grasps hahah

Oh no, none of us is confused. You are the only one confused.

Oh so everyone but me understands what the mental is, and what the self is? It's only me?

And none of the members said what this phenomena is.

The members have said they grasp what I'm saying. You're the only one who is failing to comprehend. By the way you never did tell me what you meant by comprehend...

No, they don’t.

Proof?

You are delusional. I am asking you to explain a phenomena and you ask me if that phenomena exists. Take your meds.

This thread is all about the case for idealism, and the very first premise of this case is "Mind exists". My inquiry is 100% legitimate, and if you weren't such a coward you should have no problem answering my question. Is premise 1 true yes or no?

Nope. If mind is an ability, then it is reducible and thus P3 fails.

1. its not an ability
2. that's irrelevant to the truth of premise 1. All that's being asked of you right now is if premise 1 is true. Don't pivot and dodge, just say whether or not premise 1 is true already.

No, you were the only one repeating.

You were the one repeating the same question and so I kept having to give you the same answer.

Then that is not sufficient for the argument.

It's only 1 premise, of course it's not sufficient for the argument it's only talking a single proposition. You don't get to idealism from premise 1 alone, of course.

Because you can not reduce that which you don’t know what is.

If they're identical yes you can

Those are all different things.

All which fall under the umbrella of reductionism. You really need to learn a thing or two about reductionism...

Are you saying this phenomena is both an object and a process ?

of course not, man you're autistic. I was just going over the versions of reductionism.

It’s funny cause you don’t understand direct knowledge.

LMAO

Considering your are denying your own words, that accusation is just amusing.

Yup, you definitely can't read.

I literally made sense of it.

If you did then you made sense of the mental, since projection is mental.

I admitted nothing because I did not deny that distinction to begin with.

You can act that way if you want, but no matter what you have to admit that I'm right when I make that distinction. There really is a distinction between knowing and describing, you cannot deny this. You even said you won't deny it, you know this distinction is true.

I literally never denied that distinction so I literally can’t admit said distinction is true.

I hope you realize the word "admit" is not predicated on there first being some kind of denial. An admission is only stating that something is true. You're implying that me stating you admitted x means you initially denied x. That's just a failure on your part to understand the meaning of the word "admit". As long as you agree that the distinction between "knowing" and "describing" is true then you and I are both admitting that the distinction is true.

But is the mind that ?

I don't think it is, but that's one conception of the mind for you to think about. Are you going to pretend this theory is 100% incomprehensible too now?

That is just another name for the self LOL.

No actually it isn't. It is identity the self as a noun, but as something distinct from an object per se. There's thinks like rocks (objects) and people (subjects). People are quite different from rocks, and you know this... People behave, rocks don't. People have thoughts and feelings, rocks don't. Again, you fucking know this...

Wrong again! Once you explain what that which can’t be reduced is

I have: first-person subjective awareness.

The mental is necessarily reducible to the non-mental because it begins to be.

Still waiting for proof on this one.

My inquiry is very basic.

No it's not, you even said it's one of the hardest questions there is. This isn't some basic simple question you're asking, you're getting at something super fundamental. It's so fundamental that it's a study in its own right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

I don't barge into the biology department for not being experts in chemistry nor does the physics department barge into the chemistry department for not being experts in physics. There's different levels of study, some go more fundamental than others. We don't need to be experts in physics to understand biology or chemistry. Same goes for the self: we don't need a metaphysical account of what exactly the self is to have a common sense understanding of what it is.

Nope. No admission.

Be a contrarian all you want, your own words are right there with you admitting it.

That’s a lie

Prove it by answering this question: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no?

You would be the winner of the electoral college, and by extension the US presidency.

So I'd be the winner and you'd be the loser lol

But you would be a loser in pretty much all other respects

What are you talking about? The economy is booming, stock market and GDP and all that has never been higher, unemployment is at its record low, we've got better trade deals, we never hear shit about ISIS anymore cuz they've been taken care of, we're getting peace with North Korea, Kavanaugh has been confirmed, I mean the list goes on and on and on. You don't know shit about American politics lol

Refers. Not explain. You understand the term “UFO”. You don’t understand the phenomena it refers to. You are not a wizard. Go seek help!

Wow the autism on you is thick: what I keep telling you is that we have some understanding of the UFO in some shape or form. We know it's a flying object and has a certain shape to it and can move in certain directions at various speeds. We do have some understanding of it, and we have no problem admitting it exists.

Nope. I am not.

Name a single user that has been so paralyzed by this lack of comprehension that they can't even affirm premise 1 is true... Quote me a single user that admits they can't even comprehend what an 18-month old child can grasp. Go ahead, I'll wait....

Follow your own advice coward.

See?! You're too scared! You won't do it! You want to claim that I'm committing a straw man but you can't even bring yourself to prove it's a straw man by telling me that we do have some understanding in some shape or form. You could prove me wrong so easily by doing this but something is stopping you and I know why lol

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 3

I'm the one who decides what I mean by my words, and my sentence does not refer to what you want it to be. Intention matters, remember???

Yes, it does

Nope, just like you yourself said: intention matters. My intentions, my words, my reference.

If you didn’t want it to express that, you should have been more careful with your language.

Or maybe you could just learn a thing or two about the principle of charity and listen to when someone tells you what they mean by their own words instead of you trying to construct your own meaning of their words, as that would be attacking straw men...

Are you finally admitting this phenomena begins to be ? Great !

Nope, but since you are claiming it beings to be you're still claiming that it exists so premise 1 is true! awesome! looks like the case for idealism gets off the ground after all

You don’t have to. That’s all introspection can give you. Becoming conscious. Becoming aware. Everything introspection gives you, it begins to be.

Naw, there's "being conscious" and "being aware". There's being and becoming, it's not all becoming.

And I did not say I observe a mind that perceives.

If you don't observe it then how do you know it's there?

No. It references that phenomena. It does not identify it.

Yes it absolutely does, and when I point at the tree it references the tree and when we look at a tree I'm pointing at we grasp the tree. There's more studying to be done to fully understand exactly what kind of tree it is and whatever other properties it may have, but really all you gotta do it look at it and you get the idea.

A phenomena I call “mind” performs an act I call “thought”.

What is this action you call "thought"? And you know how we can point to the tree? Well can you point to this phenomena you call "mind"? Just where is this phenomena?

You just admitted one need not know what the self is in order to talk about the phenomena. So I was right.

You're completely lost: that was in context to your claim that views about the self can be wrong, not whether we need to know what the self is in order to talk about the phenomena. Try to keep up, momo....

No, because one can have an incorrect view of the self remember ?

Are you saying a view of the self is now comprehensible? Before you acted like you can't affirm or deny something if it's incomprehensible, so if you can have some incorrect view of the self then sure you can have a coherent view of the self.

Projecting again.

The total opposite, I'm not trying to act like I'm some skeptic like you and I have an entire argument laid out in the OP. fail

I will continue my line of inquiry the way I want.

So your pseudo skepticism with continue, great...

Yes, it does. A term always remains a term.

No it's not because it is also a REFERENT. It is not "but a term" or "just a term" it is a meaningful word that has a concept in it that has a truth value to it. I know you love word games but there's more than words going on here, we have concepts as well.

Not when I asked you to define mind.

yes it is, it's right there in the OP.

No. You need to come out and admit you have put forth a strawman

I can't admit it's a straw man because that would mean I'm misrepresenting you and I keep asking you a simple yes or no question to see if I am misrepresenting you and you resolutely refuse to answer my question! My question is a simple yes or no question: is it true that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no? If yes, then no straw man. If no then straw man BUT then that means you agree with me that there's some understanding in some shape or form.

I did.

Then you should know we do have some understanding of it in some shape or form.

Nope, I did not.

yes you did, liar. You used those an example that you can affirm something exists without knowing exactly what it is and you did this in reference to the self and the mental and all of that. Own your own analogies, momo

I don’t need to convince you of anything.

lol yeah you do, you're arguing with me right now. If you weren't trying to convince me of anything you wouldn't be arguing with me dumbass. Now stop being a coward and say premise 1 is true already

No. I am saying there is a phenomena I call “I”. I am saying there is a phenomena I call “sweetness”. I am also saying that what these phenomena are is not known.

Do you not have a sense of smell or taste? Have you never smelled a rose? If you have smelled a rose and you have experienced the aroma that comes off the rose then you are telling me you do in fact understand what "sweetness" is. You may fail to communicate this with language, but that's no reason to then invalidly infer that there's no knowledge. There's no reason to think that only things we can communicate with language count as knowledge, this is a baseless assertion on your part.

I said there is no reason why it could not be communicated.

If there's no reason then there's no reason you couldn't do it right now. Do it right now, coward. If you have the ability to do so then prove it, if you don't then admit it.

You just assert it can’t be communicated but what arguments have you put forth in defense of that assertion ? None.

1. I have negative evidence that it cannot be communicated because if it was able to be communicated then you would have done so just now
2. The experience of sweet is subjective

 

[momo666]

Yeah I did, you just didn't like it is all since I'm not following your script.

No, you did not. I’ve refuted your attempts and all you keep doing is repeat your script.

I told you it was a noun. Nouns are persons, places, or things. I am a person.

A “person” is just another name for this phenomena we call “self”. A noun is a word, literally. So all you’ve said is that you prefer to call this phenomena a “person”. I don’t care about how you call it. You must tell me what it is.

So it is the case that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form? Yes or no? I need a direct answer to this question.

I’ve already answered this question. Your attempt at strawmaning has been rejected. The understanding you have to provide is what this phenomena is.

Not at all: all premise 1 is saying that it exists, that's it. It's not referring to MY consciousness or anyone else's in particular, it's just saying that it exists.

And on what basis are you making that claim ? You do that using introspection. You need to support the claim that it exists. The problem is that whatever you establish as existing, it most certainly begins to be. That is a fact. And that fact can not change.

Can you not read...? All P1 is saying is that this phenomena exists. Here's a literal copy-paste of P1: "Mind exists".

If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then P3 has no foundation. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that the mind is necessarily reducible to non-mind.

If MY mind began to exist then sure, but affirming that MY mind began to exist does not mean mind in general began to exist. And I never defined it as an ability so your objection simply fails to hit the target.

You defined consciousness as an ability and you have also failed to state what difference is there between consciousness and mind.
Also, there is no “mind in general”. P1 makes a claim about a specific phenomena. A phenomena that is established to exist using introspection. Whatever phenomena you establish to exist in P1, it must mean the same in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase else you equivocate. Whatever we establish using introspection most certainly begins to be.

Oh goodness, the irony here is rich. One sentence you say you're not autistic and in the very next sentence you prove you're autistic lol

Here you are, yet again, projecting. It was you after all who has failed to grasp one of the most obvious rhetorical questions.

Before you were trying to act like you can't affirm whether or not it exists since apparently you have absolutely 0 understanding of what it is in any shape or form but now all of a sudden you're comfortable affirming that it exists. I'm glad you've finally wised up and come out with it already, but I don't know why this wisdom doesn't spill over to P1 as well. You've been desperately avoiding saying "Premise 1 is true" so I don't know why you can't just say it already just like you have for the self just now.

This is a strawman. The position you are describing does not belong to me. What you were asked to explain is what this phenomena is, which is crucial to your argument. Secondly, are you saying the self and the mind are different phenomena ?

Yes you do, here's a direct quote of you doing so: "I am assuming, based on various criteria, that you must be some sort of similar phenomena."

No, I am not. I literally say that I am ASSUMING that you must be some sort of similar phenomena. What I observe is an object.

What do you mean "by now admitting P1 only says this phenomena is"? P1 literally is, and I quote myself directly: "Mind exists". That's what P1 has always been from the very beginning long before we ever spoke. You're just so shit at reading that you're just now figuring this out...

I mean exactly that. You are now trying to squirm out of the corner I’ve put you in by making a bold faced lie. You have always asserted to know what this phenomena is. And what this phenomena is remains crucial to your argument. P3 literally collapses unless you answer my inquiry.

All P1 is saying is that "Mind exists". As long as mind exists then the case for idealism does indeed get off the ground.

No, that is literally impossible. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that idealism is necessarily false. You first have to establish what it is.

What arguments? All you do is go turbo-skeptic and inadvertently undermine any attempts to claim to know anything at all. You just lapse into radical skepticism.

The argument that this phenomena begins to be. The argument that unless you specify what this phenomena is, you can not proceed to defend idealism. The argument that shows, using your own words, that you have defined consciousness as an ability. All you do is erect strawmans, because you are inadequate at addressing my arguments.

Yup, you literally used the word "be" and you were referring to the phenomenon not the word we call the phenomenon. You've been caught.

Yes, as in the phenomena we call a certain way is the same phenomena when we call it another way. If you want to claim otherwise, tell me the difference between a perspective and first-person. Unless you do that, you are only proving me right.

So one minute you admit that perspective cannot be anything other than first-person and the next you try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of what perspective is in any shape or form... you're going to have to make up your mind.

No. One minute I am saying that the name “perspective” and “first-person” refer to the very same phenomena. And the next minute I am saying I do not understand this phenomena. You need to stop erecting strawmen, you are fooling no one.

That's not true, plenty of property dualists take the mind as irreducible and emergent. I take the mind to be irreducible and not emergent.

Which is irrelevant. Whatever the mind is, if it is not reducible, then stating what it is means that is what it is fundamentally. That is logically necessary. Something can not be irreducible and reducible at the same time.
And why are you talking about the mind in response to a point about the self ? Are you saying the self is just another name for the phenomena we call mind ?

Nope: saying that it is not reducible is only saying what it is not. It's just saying that it is not reducible.

And once you’ve stated what that which is not reducible is, then that means you’ve stated what it is fundamentally.

Yeah I did, you even quote me doing so and I provided several scholarly sources that goes over this.

No, you did not. I quoted you as saying the self is an action done by the self, which is moronic. And your sources merely stated the “I” is a term we use to refer to this phenomena. Which would have been fine if I asked you how you prefer to call this phenomena. But I did not and thus my point remains unchallenged.

As I've said before these terms can be used interchangeably in a colloquial sense, this is even reflected in the thesaurus.

I did not ask you to define mind in any “colloquial sense”. I asked you to define mind. Period.

I've said before that the self is an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness/awareness. Could you be anymore uncharitable?

And why would your inconsistencies be any of my problem ? And are the terms “person”, “his” and “her” not merely different names for this phenomena we call “self” ? Did you not say “I=consciousness” and “I=awareness” ? How is your explanation making any sense then ? The self, according to you, would be “an individual self as the object of self or self own reflective self/self”. This is the kind of garbage that results from your denials of reality. And this kind of nonsense does not even begin to address the question of what is this phenomena we call “self”.
And again. Why are you talking about the self in response to a point I’ve made about your definition of “mind” ?

Yes it does because you're just telling me what you call it. muh names! word swapping!

I actually did not. It would not matter how you call it. For me to merely swap words, it would imply you committed a category error.

By your own logic yes you have and you're still not telling me what a tree is. Give me an exact definition of a tree. Don't give me this vague x, y, z crap. Give me an actual definition, define what a tree is.

I did define what a tree is. You just don’t like that my answer evades your fedora attempts. Again, for me to merely swap words, it would imply you committed a category error.

Also, if we're going to play like you then you should support your commitment about there being composition. What exactly is composition? Do composite objects actually exist? Do parts combine to form a whole that is distinct from the parts or is there no whole and only parts?

Oh, there is a simple experiment that can show you there is such a thing as composition. Go cut your hair. That should not be possible if the object we call “our body” is not a composition of more fundamental parts. As for your questions. A composition is many parts, not one. A “composite object” is the same as “a composite of parts” and if the latter exists so does the first. And if by combining, the different parts give rise to something that is different than the individual parts, then the “whole” is obviously different than the parts. Let me know what other basic notions you require help with.

In your attempts at doing this you have undermined any claim to knowledge and any definition of any word. We're in a game of chess and you think flipping the board over means you've won the game... You need to show me which premise is true or false and whether the argument is valid/invalid. That's how the game is played.

First, I did that. I’ve showed you how P3 is false given how you’ve defined consciousness. And your answer was predictable. You denied your own words, even when I showed you pictures of what you’ve said.
Secondly, you tried to say my definition of tree is merely word swapping and you ended up committing a category error. You say the self is a noun, but a noun is a word, which of course refers to a person which is…how we call this phenomena. You are like a headless chicken.
And lastly, unless you tell me what this phenomena is, P3 literally has no foundation.

I keep telling you that I am not defining consciousness as an ability but you just keep ignoring that and attacking a straw man. I know knocking down a straw man is much easier, but that's not how you refute people's arguments.

You are. You necessarily are. The word “notice” can not be “just another word” for both the phenomena we call consciousness and the phenomena we call perception. You can whine all you like but that won’t change the errors you have committed.

I've defined mind all the way in the OP, where you go from there is when you get into irrelevant issues in philosophy of language and word games.

How ? Your definition contains two terms that refer to the very same thing, so that is just you repeating yourself. The third term refers to the very phenomena you have to define. What are you even doing ?

What I'm talking about is one of the most basic understandings one can possibly grasp. For goodness sakes even an 18-month old child grasps what I'm getting at here and you're not even willing to admit that you grasp what a literal 18-month old child grasps... think about that for a second, let that sink in...

Unless this “basic understanding” is WHAT this phenomena is, you are merely beating around the bush. That is the inquiry you have to answer. Does a child possess this understanding ?

Like I've said before, I'm only talking about a common sense understanding, the kind the average joe has. If your point applies to me in this sense then it applies to literally just about every single human being in existence including 18-month old children.

Your common idiot “understanding” either tells me what this phenomena is or it does not. Why is that so hard for you to understand ? THAT is what I am asking about. Do you have that understanding or not ?

Still waiting for you to actually prove this.

After you’ve demonstrated you actually possess the knowledge you claim to possess. Until such time, much like the bum in the street, your claims can be ignored.

Good thing I'm not defining consciousness as an ability. Looks like you have more work to do.

Too bad you are. Unless you admit to have equivocated when you claimed the word “notice” is “just another word” for perception and consciousness and unless you show how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction, my argument stands.

Actually you're not: you're just attacking straw men

False again. That accusation has no merit.

You trying to act like you can't even grasp what an 18-month old child grasps is indeed weird... you're trying to tell me that you're dumber than a literal 18-month old child...

Does a child know what this phenomena is ? If not, you are still attacking a strawman.

Apparently I have since you still are under the delusion that merely showing the distinction between "knowing something" and "describing something" does not rely on "this phenomena that you have yet to explain". You even admitted this distinction is legitimate, and the moment you admit this you admit your inference is invalid and thus your claim that I have no knowledge is unsupported.

But it does rely on this phenomena you have yet to explain. You yourself stated that all knowledge requires this phenomena. As such, pointing out said distinction is meaningless when you have to explain the very phenomena that is required for all knowledge.
I never denied this distinction and as such there was no admission on my part. And that you do have knowledge is an unsupported assertion which you have not supported. My inference is valid, to the same extent my inference about the bum in the street is valid.

I just caught you in yet another lie. Before I said: "You've tried to point to a lack of a description/explanation as justification for your claim that there's no knowledge." and you said "No, I did not." yet here you are doing that right now... Caught red-handed.

Caught red-handed doing what ? Asking you to support your assertions ? You can assert all day long that you do possess knowledge. Unless you demonstrate that, you might as well wave your hands and say a magic spell. You either demonstrate your claims or you don’t.

I've told you before that this knowledge is distinct and one of the things that makes this knowledge distinct is that it is independent of any description and that it is grasped immediately and directly. So you're just missing the point over and over.

Do you grasp directly WHAT this phenomena is ? Or do you grasp directly that this phenomena is ? You are missing the point, yet again. You must demonstrate your claims. If you claim to know something, it is not me that has to prove that wrong. It is you who has to prove your claims right. Until such time, you might as well appeal to magic. “I know something and if you disagree you have to prove me wrong”. Yea, how about no ?

Again: knowing something and describing something are 2 different things. Just go back to the example of you trying to communicate sweetness to me. Notice how you didn't do so... It's not that you don't know what sweetness is, you understand that a rose smells sweet you even admitted it, it's just that it's not exactly explicable in language is all. You're assuming all knowledge has to be explicable in language and you've failed to justify this assumption of yours...

That I hold said assumption is a bare assertion. But its good that you finally admitted a rose smells just as sweet no matter the name. But these are the points you keep missing:
i)The direct knowledge we have is that the phenomena is, not WHAT the phenomena is
ii)Direct knowledge can still be wrong
iii)You have not demonstrated direct knowledge is necessarily impossible to be described

Yeah you did, here's a direct quote of you doing this: "My justification that there is no knowledge is the fact that you have not provided it."

That is me asking you to support your claims. You can claim to know directly that you are Zeus all day long. It is not my job to prove you wrong.

By the way this is essentially an argument from ignorance, or rather an argument from silence, which is a weak/fallacious argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Only if this debate was held in your head. But it is not. When you enter a debate, you are expected to demonstrate your claims. You did not and thus it is safe for me to assert the knowledge you claim to possess is not there.

Yes it is. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Don't like it? Then don't make claims. Simple as that.

“It is not me who has to justify my claims because it is not me who has claimed to know what this phenomena is.” Is the FULL quote which you selectively chopped off. You talk to me about honesty? Take a look in the mirror kid. Did I claim to know what this phenomena is ?

I've only claimed a common sense understanding, a non-ivory tower average joe's understanding that even an 18-month old child has. What I'm talking about is independent of any description or concept.

Your “understanding” does not explain what this phenomena is, which is what you were asked to do. Unless that is what you are talking about, then you are simply evading.

Quite frankly you're the one who is coming off like the mad man on the street here. Humans go about their day talking about the self and their mind and their feelings and thoughts all day long with no worries. You're the guy on the street shouting that every human being is wrong about this. You're trying to act like people wouldn't look at you weird for this? lol such lack of awareness

I’m the guy who is honest enough to admit I do not understand a phenomena. It is not me who has built himself an entire religion on ignorance. Humans go about their day believing all kinds of stupid shit. I’m not required to believe any of that. This is not a vote. If you make a claim and expect me to believe it, be prepared to support it. Appealing to the masses is about as helpful as throwing a turd at me.

You're missing a very subtle distinction here: what I specifically said was this kind of knowledge is independent of any concepts, and that includes what you're calling "concept of the self". This kind of knowledge is direct, immediate, and independent of any description.

You’ve missed it again. Whatever knowledge you are talking about, it relies on this phenomena. I’ve asked you to explain what this phenomena is. This very distinction does not exist unless this phenomena exists, as you’ve stated yourself. I get that you claim that “we know this directly” but it is the “we” part that I’m interested in to begin with.

Nope, try reading those articles I linked you: knowledge by acquaintance is independent of any concepts and descriptions. Again, I'm going to need you to justify your assumption that all knowledge has to be explicable in language.

I did read them. Without the self, there is no knowledge. This is something you’ve said. So there is no point in talking about knowledge by acquaintance when you are asked to explain the self. Again, your accusation has no merit. And it is you who has to demonstrate said knowledge is necessarily not explicable in language.

So by your logic then ALL of knowledge has been undermined since knowledge builds upon this self. So I've been right this entire time about you sawing off the branch you sit on: you're just a radical skeptic. You doubt ALL knowledge. You don't have a problem with the self, or idealism, per se, you just have a fundamental problem with epistemology in general. You really need to start some new threads man...

No. Note that I am not making any claims regarding the validity of any knowledge. I am pointing out that all knowledge builds upon this phenomena. This is something you agree with, unless there can be knowledge where there is no self. I am asking you to explain this self. You keep throwing out a distinction that already takes this self for granted.

So you're a radical skeptic then, got it.

I would say I am not.

Nice straw man: when I point out the simple distinction between knowing something and describing something that is to show that your inference to the conclusion that I have no knowledge is invalid. You're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that means there is no knowledge, but once we acknowledge the fact that knowing something and describing something are 2 distinct things then it becomes obvious that your inference is invalid so your conclusion is unsupported.

Irrelevant. That very distinction builds upon the very phenomena you are supposed to explain. It can not help you evade my inquiry. You have asserted that you have knowledge and refused to defend that assertion. As such, my inference stands. I don’t have to prove you wrong anymore than I have to prove any maniac I meet wrong. Claim whatever you like. At the end of the day, you have to support those claims.

If my request is nonsensical then so is yours. I'm merely asking you to define your terms. If I have to define the terms I use then so do you. No special pleading. What is knowledge? What is an idea? What are thoughts? What's a belief? You've said before in the past that you think my belief is a false belief, that is a claim that you know something. So what is a belief that you claim can be true or false?

No, it’s not because I do not claim to know what these phenomena are. I did define my terms. Problem is their definition does not explain what they are. Just like I can define a UFO I see and yet not know what that phenomena is. I think all those things are what this phenomena we call mind does. But again, I am not sure because I, unlike you, am honest enough to admit it.

No it isn't, the experience of the lake is mediated by sense experience. No sense experience=no experience of the lake.

Not necessarily. I am talking purely about the experience of a lake. I made no mention about what causes that experience. It might be that there is no lake there to begin with. It might be that you are hallucinating. All experiences are direct. It is that which is experienced that is mediated, not the experience.

You even admitted this when you said: "That does not mean it represents an actual state of affairs". Notice the emphasis on the word "represents". You're talking about a representation of the lake, not a direct experience of the lake in of itself. You're talking about the experience of the lake, and questioning whether this experience corresponds to an actual state of affairs. If this was direct there would be no question about whether this corresponds to an actual state of affairs, that's the whole point of direct and immediate knowledge. Here's the thing though: even if we lose all of our sense experience we are still aware of the self and the mental since this is direct and immediate.

I am talking about the experience of the lake, which is not the lake. This is why whether or not this experience corresponds to an actual state of affairs is irrelevant here. What is in question is not the experience, but what causes the experience.

1. Actually there is: we have multiple eye witnesses, video footage, pictures, we have radars detecting them, etc. If you're going to question whether it's still a hallucination then you are yet again going to saw off the branch you sit on as you're going to be doubting ALL of experience. So you would just be yet another radical skeptic and flipping the chess board over since you can't move the pieces on the board to win.

Actually we have none of that stuff. I made no mention of them so you are yet again erecting a strawman. We have a phenomena we call UFO which could be any number of things. Knowing that the phenomena is does not imply we know WHAT the phenomena is. As for your accusations, they are empty and as such can be ignored.

2. You're forgetting the entire point of why you brought up UFO's in the first place. Your entire point was we can still say that something exists without knowing exactly what it is, now you're moving the goal post and retreating by switching it up and saying perhaps the UFO is a hallucination which means it doesn't actually exist. Which is it, momo? Can we claim something exists without knowing exactly what it is or are you now going to act like you can't since for all you know it's a hallucination? Make up your mind...

Such confusion on your part. A hallucination exists. It’s just that we think said hallucination corresponds with an actual state of affairs. So the phenomena we call UFO is. It’s just that we don’t know WHAT it is, which is to say a hallucination or a planet or a cloud or whatever have you.

No you're making a point about everything. By your own logic everything could just be one big hallucination. If the UFO can be a hallucination then so can everything you experience...

Hold on. Are you claiming to know directly what this phenomena we call “self” is ? Also, everything we experience might be a hallucination. Irrelevant. It would still be. We would just be wrong about WHAT it is.

Yes it does actually, and if it doesn't then that again applies to literally everything we experience. Pick any object of experience and your point still applies. Take a chair for instance. Chair is how we CALL the phenomena but since it could just be a hallucination we don't know what it is, it is not the case that it needs to have 4 legs, a back, and a seat since it could just be one big hallucination.

No, it very much does not. People call clouds and planets and all sort of things UFO’s all the time. You are still failing to see the obvious. We would not know that the phenomena we call chair corresponds with an actual state of affairs. But we would know the phenomena we call chair is. Knowing a phenomena is does not imply you know what said phenomena is, which is exactly the point.

I told you long ago the self is a noun. Nouns refer to people, places, or things.

So the self is a word ? Or is it a word that refers to a person ? A “person” is just another word we use to call this phenomena. So all you’ve said is that sometimes you like to call this “self” a “person”. Again. What is this phenomena. Not how you call it.

You've been trying to avoid saying that it exists for months now because of this excuse that you don't know what it is, then you tried to say you can admit that it does exist without knowing what it is, but then when pressed to admit that P1 is true you say you can't because you don't know what it is... make up your fucking mind...

No. Unlike you, I am not evading anything. You’ve been asked to explain what this phenomena is, so no admission on my part. And I require to know what this phenomena is if you want to start your case for idealism.

I literally just showed you your own screen shot of me doing so lol

That screenshot does not mention if this phenomena is an object, activity, act or what have you. Saying it is a person is moronic since that is just another word for the very phenomena you have to explain. And I also showed how your supposed definition is incoherent given your other claims.

Actually those are 3rd person pronouns

Which don’t refer to this phenomena we call “self” ?

Nope, looks like your attempts at showing this is gibberish fail

So you equivocated when you said “I=awareness” and “I=consciousness” ?

An individual person as the object of their reflective consciousness. You know how when you use sense experience you grasp the world? Well when you introspect you grasp the self. These are 2 different kinds of knowledge: the first is mediated and explicable with descriptions, while the second is immediate and is explicable in first-person and independently of any description. And just like how we don't need to have a fundamental explication as to what the world we experience with our senses really is in order to have a common sense understanding of it, same goes for the self.

Look how idiotic your explanation is. You are asked to explain the self. You say the self is a “person” as if that is not just another word for the very same phenomena. And as if “they” does not refer to the very same phenomena. And as if you did not say “I=consciousness”. What are you doing mate ? You are literally spinning in circles.
Also, what do you mean we grasp the self ? Do we grasp WHAT this self is ? Or do we grasp that there is a phenomena we call “self” ? Do we know that knowledge is correct or are you just assuming that ?

Again, all words are terms. You're not making some deep point here.

I am since you obviously don’t know “person” is just another name for this phenomena we call “self”. I get that you like to call this phenomena “person” or “self”. But I want to know what this phenomena is.

The common sense grasping of the self, just like the common sense grasping of the world we experience. What exactly is existence, momo...? Maybe you can't tell me what exactly existence is, but you can still tell me that some things exist in this common sense way that we all intuitively grasp.

What “common sense grasping of the self” are you talking about ? I am not a mind reader. I need you to actually support your claims. Does that understanding include what this phenomena is or not ? And what is existence of what ?

1. You're moving the goal post: we're only talking about comprehension of the self at this moment, not whether the self exists.

That’s a lie. I’ve asked you to explain what this phenomena is. I did not assert this phenomena is not. Why would I ask you to explain a non-existent phenomena ?

2. These are essentially basic beliefs, so they don't have to be demonstrated. But once you realize this knowledge is direct, immediate, and non-inferential this follows naturally.

Are any of those beliefs talking about what this phenomena is ? You know…the very thing I’ve asked you about ?

Imagine you've lost your sense of sight. If you're plopped into some random environment you now don't know what is ahead of you, you can't see it. Say you've now lost your sense of smell, and touch, and taste, and all of that. Now you really don't know what's going on in your environment. You can't use your sense experience to know about the world now, but you can still introspect: you still know that you have thoughts, feelings, ideas, and so forth. This goes to show that this knowledge is on firmer epistemic ground than sense experience, it is epistemically secure. This knowledge is not mediated by sense experience, it is grasped in first person through introspection and the relation is direct as compared to the world you experience with your senses. So this carries with it a special authority as this is on stronger grounds.

That is beside the point. I am asking what knowledge is that which you claim to possess. In your scenario, would we know what this phenomena we call “self” is or we would merely know a phenomena we call “self” is ? It is the first that I want an answer to.

All that quote was saying is how self-knowledge is distinct from other kinds of knowledge. You're missing the point entirely.

That would be you. That quote literally builds upon the very phenomena you are being asked to explain.

Actually I don't, this knowledge is independent of any description or concept.

That you do have said knowledge is very much only an assertion on your part. And are you saying you do know what this phenomena is ?

You are way confused. Let me give you an example to help you out.

Right. I’m the confused one. Because I can connect the dots. Got it!

This is a character known as "master chief" in a video game called "Halo" but let's pretend this is you:

That literally can’t be the case. The body is not identical to this phenomena we call the self remember ?

Nothing incoherent so far, right? Good. Now this is you in the first-person:

No. That would be the phenomena you have to explain. The first one would best be compared to a reflection in the mirror or something, which would be a perspective.

Still coherent, right? Nothing incoherent about this at all. There's no wacky skepticism that creeps up here, we don't flip the table over and exclaim "wtf is that?!" when we look at the second picture now do we?

Actually there is. I want to know WHAT is that. Explain that phenomena to me. That is what you were asked to do from the very beginning.

The second picture, the one about the first-person, is perfectly sensible and you know it... There's nothing dubious about this at all... You understand the difference between the first picture and second picture just fine, you understand this idea of first-person.

I understand we call it “first-person”. I do not understand what this phenomena is. I do not know if it is an activity, object, act or what have you. Saying it is a person tells me nothing. You might as well say it is a chakra. Ye ye, I get that you like how that sounds but I asked you what the phenomena the word refers to is.

Well that's what I'm talking about there. That is first-person. But there is also a subjective awareness of this first-person. Like in the first picture I showed you, there is the description of you in terms of your shape and size and color and texture etc, but there is the first-person (second picture) and a realization of the first-person by that very person, and there is this state of what it is like to be this person. You realize that this is your experience, you are aware of the fact that you are aware, and certain experiences feel a certain way to you. You and I can experience the same object but we will each have our own unique subjective experience of it and we are aware of this. Are you trying to tell me that you don't grasp any of this shit...?

First off, if the terms “first-person” and “subjective” refer to this phenomena we call “self” then what you’ve said is literally incoherent. How are you still not getting this ? You can’t explain a phenomena by putting together a bunch of different names we use for that phenomena ? All those words have to refer to different things.
Secondly, you are literally taking this “I”, “self”, “person” or whatever you like to call it, for granted. At no point you are telling me what this phenomena is. Your entire explanation takes that term and uses it freely. But it is that very phenomena that word refers to that I want explained.

All I'm saying there is that consciousness is something we are directly aware of, that's not me defining consciousness per se, let alone the way you're trying to portray it as, liar...

You are saying what you mean by that term. I am not trying anything. I am just showing your own words.

Which is why your images failed to actually appear and you had to apologize for any mess ups, [sarcasm]because you're perfect and mess up and know everything[/sarcasm].

There is no reason to apologize, especially to you. I did not know that particular website is not supported, which is why after I’ve seen my images are broken, I just edited my comments to include the actual links. I know you are desperate to score a point, but you won’t.

You still haven't told me what a tree is, you're just telling me what you call it. muh names! word swapping!

You are committing a category error, logic denier.

You're confused, I was using the word "subject" as used in grammar: "a noun phrase functioning as one of the main components of a clause, being the element about which the rest of the clause is predicated." If you're admitting the subject is 100% incomprehensible then the rest of your sentence is just grammatically nonsensical. This is partly why I keep telling you to abandon first-person language because you're being deceptive: you want to keep the meaningfulness and usefulness of first-person language while using it to deny that it is meaningful. You're just contradicting yourself and proving your pseudo-skepticism to be parasitic. If you could meet my challenge it's possible you could undermine this point but you appear to be unable to meet my challenge...

It's the other way around actually. Your challenge is based upon a false assumption and it can be ignored as such. Not knowing what a phenomena is does not imply we can not name it, which is what I am doing. There is no reason for me to abandon any terms. They are simply how we prefer to call a certain phenomena. That is irrelevant, as what I am interested in is what that phenomena is.

No it is not, it is mediated by sense experience. No sense experience=no experience of the lake. You can cut off all sense experience, but you would still be aware of the fact that you're aware. Awareness of the self and consciousness and thoughts are NOT mediated by sense experience.

It very much is. Notice that I did not say the experience of the lake corresponds to an actual state of affairs. I am talking purely about the experience, which is direct. We know directly there is a phenomena we call “lake”. We just don’t know directly if that phenomena corresponds to an actual state of affairs in the world.
Also, if “I=awareness” and “I=consciousness” then what you’ve said is “awareness of the awareness and awareness”. Nonsense.

It's literally the complete opposite: we are directly aware of experience but not of what the experience is of. Just like you said, it could be a hallucination. The fact that you admit it could be a hallucination means you're admitting there is a perceptual intermediary between the experience of the object and the object itself. What you have is a perception of the object and you just believe there really is an object on the other side of perception, and that is the total opposite of direct knowledge.

How can that be the complete opposite if that is literally what I’ve said ? The belief that there really is an object is what is not direct knowledge. But the experience of the lake is still direct.

It's not as I demonstrated using your own admission, but you can't even make sense of knowledge in general by your own admission since it rests upon "that which needs to be explained" in the first place. You should be completely paralyzed by this incomprehension just like you try to do with the self.

You literally demonstrated me right and even took the time to explain why I am right. Also, I am not making any judgements regarding knowledge. I am in fact re-iterating a point you admitted to. Namely that without this phenomena that you have failed to explain, there can’t be any knowledge. Which is why that distinction can not help you.

So then it is not the case that you have absolutely 0 understanding of this in any shape or form? Yes or no? This is a direct yes or no question, don't give a politicians rhetorical dodge on this, simply say yes or no for the sake of understanding clearly.

This is an answer you’ve been provided many times. And I also went to great lengths to explain my position. All you did was ignore my answer and repeat the very same strawman. I won’t reward you for playing stupid. Admit to your strawman or go back and see what my stated position is.

Still waiting for you to meet your burden of proof on this.

Sure. As soon as you meet your burden of proof that you do in fact know what this phenomena is.

The objects of knowledge by acquaintance rather than knowledge by description.

Do we know by acquaintance what this phenomena is ?

Walking is also something a phenomenon does but that doesn't tell us what walking is. You're not giving me a definition of what a belief is. Define your terms. If I have the obligation to define my terms then so do you, the onus is on you just as much as it is on me. No special pleading.

No special pleading on my part. But a lot of confusion on yours. If walking is what a phenomenon does then that tells us what walking IS. It’s right there “walking is…”. That is what it is. You also forget that I do not claim to know what these phenomena are. I think that is what they are but I am under no obligation to settle on an answer just because you want me to. If I don’t make any claims to that knowledge, your request is nonsensical.

That this phenomenon we call mind exists. That's it. Here's a direct quote of P1: "Mind exists", that's it... I've told you so many times now that the bar is low. It doesn't matter if you believe if the mind is an entity, or a property, or a process, or whatever, as long as mind exists then you're affirming P1. What is so damn hard about just saying "yeah P1 is true" given this low bar??

Because your position is not clear. You have not explicitly stated if P1 claims to know what this phenomena is. That information is crucial to your case because, depending on what the answer is, idealism might be necessarily false and so could P3. So you can’t just act as if that is irrelevant.
Also, earlier you tried to suggest “mind” in P1 does not refer to “my mind”. Well, that is what I mean by the term since that is what introspection gives me. So if P1 does not refer to that, then it might be that I don’t agree with P1. Clarity matters and you have shown none.

1. not defining it as an ability, fail

You are. Or…you can admit to your earlier equivocation using the word “notice” and explain how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction.

2. this would mean you were wrong earlier when you said the case for idealism cannot get off the ground. It does get off the ground as we can affirm both P1 and P2. You just have a problem with P3

No, it would not. What this phenomena is remains crucial to P3 and idealism. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that idealism is dead in its tracks to begin with. So you can’t evade this point.

Thank you for proving my point! What you're saying literally applies to anyone. You're saying this applies to an 18-month old child, even a non-verbal one. So apparently if a person is unable to speak or write or communicate then they have no knowledge hahahah do you not realize how retarded that is? Do you not see how your inference is totally invalid?

Laughing at your own dishonesty might sound cool, but it really makes you look retarded. This is the context, just so we are clear: “Anyone. Anyone who claims to know what this phenomena is.” Does any of those people claim to know WHAT this phenomena is ? If they do, they have to prove that claim. Or they can just throw a turd and say “muh knowledge”.

What you're failing to grasp is the subtle distinction between what the average joe knows in terms of what a phenomena is vs. what a philosopher, or even a scientist, knows what a phenomena is. You are asking for a metaphysical explanation of what this phenomena is. You want to know what IS it, you're dealing with the question of "is" or "being", you want to know what is the essence of it, and I keep fucking telling you: I'm only talking about something that an 18-month old child can grasp.

What something is does not change. Regardless of what your average idiot thinks vs. what your average educated human thinks. You either know what this phenomena is or you don’t. Stating if this phenomena is an activity, act or ability or what have you is literally the very first basic step in that direction. To act as if that is some kind of deep impossible question is just dishonest. Does that child grasp what this phenomena is or not ?

Remember that picture of the first-person I showed you? Yeah, it's that fucking simple dude... That's how low I'm setting the bar here... You know how you have this first-person experience and you can pass the rouge-test? That's all I'm getting at! If you comprehend this then you comprehend what I've been trying to get at this whole time...

No, I know there is a phenomena I call that way. But that does not tell me WHAT that phenomena is. Without providing that crucial piece of information, you literally have no case.

Yes there is, by definition what you're getting at is metaphysics. You want to know what it IS. You cannot deny that you want to know what it IS without being a liar.

That I want to know what it is has been made clear to you from the very beginning. Your delusions are not fooling anyone. My inquiry is very basic. That is, for someone who really does know what this phenomena is.

What I'm talking about is literally one of the most basic understandings one can grasp, it's something a literal 18-month old child can grasp...

Unless what is being grasped is what this phenomena is, you are simply attempting to evade the obvious.

I never denied that's the case, but the fact that you admit this is the case means you've just proven your own point wrong. You don't need to know what something does in order to know what something is since those are 2 different things.

Nor did I, yet you’ve made the baseless assertion that I “admitted” that. And how can the fact that what something is and what something does are different things prove wrong the point that what something is and what something does are different things ?
Also, are you asserting to know what this phenomena is ?

You're still not telling me what it is, muh word swapping!

A composition. And you are, yet again, committing a category error.

You still haven't told me what a tree is! muh names!

Sure I have. A composition. Then we go into what it is composed of and what those components do. You are committing a category error, mr. logic denier.

I specifically said they were synonymous which means "having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language." Pay attention.

No. You’ve specifically said the word “notice” IS “just another word for awareness, perception and consciousness”. Either you equivocated or I am right. Stop denying logic already!

How is this "playing a card"? that's literally the definition of the word "synonym"... Me schooling you on the basic meanings of the English language is not me "playing a card", get over yourself.

Simple. Something either is an ability or it is not. Explain to me how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction.

It's not. Well that was easy.

That would imply perception and consciousness are synonyms and yet are in direct contradiction. Also, your earlier claim about what notice is refutes this attempt of yours. Either you equivocated on the word notice or I am right. No other way around it.

It is very easy for you to prove I am a liar right now, here's how you can do it: answer this simple question with a yes or no: "Is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form?" If you say yes I'm right and thus not a liar, if you say no I'm a liar. Don't beat around the bush, just say yes or no for the sake of clear communication.

I did answer that simple question. That is a strawman of your own making. You can pretend all you like that is not the case but I literally made my position clear about a dozen times by now. Drop the strawman and I will happily re-state my position. And you might want to take a look at what you’ve said, pretty sure you’ve messed the wording in that last part.

Stil waiting for you to meet your burden of proof for this claim.

After you have meet your burden of proof for the claim that you do in fact know what this phenomena is.

Nope, that would be an invalid inference. It simply does not follow that because you don't have a description that therefore there is no knowledge. A person can be completely non-verbal, have no ability to speak or communicate, but they still know things. Your argument is invalid.

Only if I stated a syllogism. I did not. I made a probability argument. Just like the bum in the street can be ignored, so can you. Sure, it might be the case that said bum does in fact know everything there is but as long as he refuses to demonstrate that claim, I see no reason not to reject his claims.

You're only proving that you still do not understand the concept of "direct knowledge". Zeus is just like the lake, it's mediated by sense experience so this would be a false analogy. Fail

The source of the knowledge would not be direct. But that said knowledge is direct remains the case. The man would just assume said knowledge really comes from Zeus, just like we assume our experience really matches an actual state of affairs. You still don’t understand what direct knowledge is even after all this time….
And what sense experience are you even talking about ?

I'm not even talking about "this phenomenon" I'm only talking about the fact that the words "know" and "describe" mean two different things. Here's proof that I'm right, this is the word "know":
And here is the word describe:

You are right about what ? That distinction is not something I’ve denied to begin with. You are still failing to see the obvious. That very distinction builds upon this phenomena. It is irrelevant, as I am asking WHAT that phenomena is. So taking it for granted helps us with nothing.

Notice how these are 2 completely different words, with 2 completely different definitions, and are not even close to being synonymous... Even if someone could not describe, that does not mean they do not know. You are equivocating knowing with describing. Your argument is demonstrably invalid...

No. Your strawman is invalid. Which is okay. If you assert to know something, you have to demonstrate that claim. Do you know what this phenomena is ? If you do, and you expect to convince anyone you are right, that is the point where you are supposed to support your claim. Or just continue throwing turds at people. Whatever gets the fix for you…

Your inference is simply invalid as I just demonstrated.

No. Your strawman is invalid, as you’ve just demonstrated. If you claim to know what this phenomena is, you need to support that claim. That is, if you want to have more credence than the ordinary bum in the street.

No actually it doesn't, what you're saying here is also invalid. As long as knowing something and describing something are 2 different things then there being no description simply does not entail that there is no knowledge. Your inference is patently invalid.

As long as you make a claim, you are supposed to support said claim. Simply asserting “I just know” is about as retarded as you can get. I don’t care about your delusions. I care about what you can demonstrate. That is WHY you are here. And no reasonable person in this world will accept this insanity of yours. Your strawman is patently invalid. What is not invalid is the fact that you are supposed to demonstrate your claims.

Nope: just like with your own inability to communicate what sweetness is does not entail that you do not understand what sweetness is. Being unable to describe something does not mean there is no knowledge, your inference is invalid.

I do not understand what sweetness is. What that phenomena is remains unknown. You are yet again confusing a phenomena being with WHAT a phenomena is.
Furthermore, you have not demonstrated said knowledge could not be described or said knowledge is correct. Your strawman is invalid and it is merely an attempt to evade your burden of proof.

If I'm acting surprised it's because you refuse to communicate clearly and have a hard time just admitting that you actually agree with me on a few things. You never answer my yes or no questions with a yes or no, and whenever I catch you saying that it does exist and I ask again to be sure you do a 180 and say the opposite. It's like you're a contrarian. You'll just say whatever the opposite of what I say. If I'm so damn wrong about this then just communicate clearly and say "yes P1 is true" and "yes the self exists" and "yes we do have some understanding of the self in some shape or form". If you would stop being a contrarian and just do that this conversation would go a lot smoother, but you refuse...

I’ve been clear from the very start. What I want to know is what this phenomena is. What is so hard to understand about that ? And I always answer your questions. You keep erecting strawmen of my positions even after I’ve made them clear, all in a desperate attempt to lie yourself into believing I “admitted” to your claims, even though all you are doing is repeating the very same ideas I originally stated. You can play the idiot all you like but don’t expect to be rewarded for that.
As for P1, if it does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then you simply can not proceed further. And I don’t particularly care about how smooth you think this conversation goes, just like you do not care either.

How is that a fail? It's literally a direct quote of you saying that I am merely just another object. You're claiming I'm an object, those are your words not mine.

You would be an object in the sense that is all I am perceiving. And I merely assume, based on various criteria that said object is driven by a similar phenomena I call “myself”. I don’t observe the phenomena we call mind, I observe hair and skin and eyes and shit.

I literally just quoted you directly saying that I'm an object and now you're trying to tell me you didn't say that... You're demonstrably lying...

No, you selectively chopped off my words. This is the full quote: ["You", even if met in person, would merely be just another object. What makes us assume "somewhere" in there is a phenomena simillar to me is a series of assumptions.]
See how “you” is put in quotes ? See the implicit subtle distinction between what we observe and this phenomena we call mind ?

No idea what the hell you're talking about. I'm talking about reductionism momo, stay on track. Either you are reducing or not reducing. Law of excluded middle, remember? You can't pick both since that's literally a contradiction, and there is no third option, so as long as you're not reducing then you're with me on not being a reductionist.

I am picking neither, which is the point you keep missing. That is because a crucial piece of information is missing, namely what this phenomena is. You see, depending on the answer, it might be that mind is necessarily reducible. And as long as you don’t explain away your fallacies, you are literally a reductionist.

This skepticism of yours cannot even get off the ground hahaha it leeches off that which it pretends to not understand

It is your case that can not get off the ground. And for your claim to make any sense, it would imply I know what this phenomena is.

So then you were wrong earlier when you said "I am not distinguishing between 2 people". You really do distinguish yourself as a different person than me. You going to go full contrarian and deny this now, too?

Again with the dishonesty. Here is the full quote: “I am not distinguishing between 2 people( as in 2 “self’s”). To me, you are no different than any other object.”. I do not observe a similar phenomena to what I call “myself”. I infer it via some assumptions from the objects (hair, skin etc) I observe and their behaviour.

So then you really are claiming that I=object. So you do have an understanding of the I in some shape or form, and you understand this I to be an object. So how come the rock doesn't move around but I move around? What's happening here?

What’s happening here is that you are acting like a pathetic child. Here is the full quote, again: “There is but you are both objects. Notice here the word “you” refers to what I would observe, namely the thing we call “your body”.”

[sarcasm]This sentence already relies on that which needs to be explained given the reference to this "us".[/sarcasm] You can't shirk this responsibility onto me, you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I have the burden to define the terms I use. No special pleading.

And I have. I use that term to refer to a phenomena that has not been explained. Are you saying you use that term in the same way ?

The sentence "whatever this is" applies to literally everything, you could say that about anything. You're failing to say anything coherent, this is all grammatical nonsense on your part.

And I would be right. We refer to phenomena we don’t understand all the time. There is no reason for me to explain this phenomena because I do not claim to understand it. It might be a problem for someone who has built themselves an entire religion on said phenomena but hey…

You just did it again! lmao your pseudo-skepticism cannot even get off the ground. It begins with this "I" that you try to act like you cannot comprehend in any shape or form.

You mean you just erected a strawman again. What this phenomena we call “I” is is what I am seeking to find out. Here is the full quote: “I am literally not doing that. You are confusing me calling this phenomena “I” with my question. What this phenomena is and how we call it are different things.”

You said I'm a bunch of pixels not merely that the pixels refer to me lol speak more clearly

Do I have to spell out THAT ? Also, just how dishonest you can be ? Did I not put the term “you” in quotes ?

 

[momo666]

PART 2

This can only be a straw man if it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. So answer this question so me, and everyone else, can be crystal clear here: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no? don't dodge...

No, it is literally a strawman. That is not my position. I’ve explained a dozen times why that is not my position. You just keep repeating your strawman as if that changes anything. You want me to say what my position is AGAIN ? Drop the disingenuous strawman.

Depends on how you use the word, it also references the state of being aware of something. If you recognize perception then you understand the state of being aware of something.

No, it does not “depend”. You either reference an ability or you don’t. You can’t equivocate whenever you like. Also, that “state of being aware” begins to be which means what ? That the state which began to be aware was not aware. Which is ? A potential. Isn’t logic fun ?
And no, I do not understand the state of being aware of something. I don’t know what that is. I only know that it is.

Don't know how many times I have to tell you that it's not an ability. You can stop attacking straw men now.

I won’t stop citing your own words. Admit to your equivocation on the word “notice” and explain how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction.

No the rouge test leaves us with the knowledge that the subject has "self-awareness". They realize that when they look in the mirror the red dot is not on the mirror that they are looking at, but is on their own forehead. Remember that perfectly coherent picture I showed you of first-person...? Exactly! They look in the mirror, and realize the reflection is of themselves so this reveals that they are aware of themselves. I'm not saying this tells us exactly what the essence of the self is, or that this gives us a description of the self, only that there is an awareness of the self. The bar is low, I don't know how many times I have to remind you of this. Are you going to deny that there is self-awareness, do you fail to rouge test???

That test tells us absolutely nothing about what this “self” is. At all times, all you are doing is pointing to the body. Whatever does the pointing is what we are interested in. What will you do ? Point to the body ? That is not the mind remember ? What you are aware of is hair and nose and eyes. THAT is what you are aware of. THAT is what the reflection is of. And what does it even mean to say there is “an awareness of the self” if the self is awareness ? Your bar is literally non existent. At all times, you only seek to evade my inquiry. That is not something people who know what they are talking about tend to do.

This average joe understanding is how we evolved to dominate the planet. There's only a handful of philosophers and scientists out there, and they are not the only ones who have knowledge. There is a common sense understanding, and sometimes it's false, but other times its right and merely needs more explication for a deeper understanding of it. I'm just getting at the common sense understanding here.

Which tells us it is effective, not correct. Your average joe has no idea what this phenomena is. That is why you get all these “accounts” of what this phenomena is. Everyone likes to believe he or she has an answer to the big questions. An evolved delusion. Your common sense understanding literally does not tell us what this phenomena is. That is about as basic as you can get. If it can’t do that, you might as well give up now cause you are not in possession of some deep truth. You are just woobling in the dark.

More like you failed to comprehend. Your comprehension is not my responsibility. You can guide a horse to water but can't force it to drink.

No, you have failed to explain what this phenomena is. You can lie to yourself that you did, but so can everyone. A creationist will say the same thing to someone who does not accept his position. Stop stroking yourself.

No you were specifically trying to say that "knowledge by acquaintance" relies on that which needs to be explained but now you're going further and saying that this applies to ALL knowledge. So you just proved my point about you being a radical skeptic. You don't have problems with knowledge of the self, you have problems with knowledge in general! You have a fundamental issue with epistemology, not the self.

I was not asked that question to make that clear. Now you asked and thus I answered. And no, you are again strawmaning. I make no judgements about knowledge. I am stating that knowledge builds upon this phenomena you have to explain, as you stated yourself. Your very distinction builds upon this phenomena. BUT this phenomena is what I want explained so you can’t evade my inquiry.
I have no problem with the phenomena we call “self” so you can stop lying. I am simply stating we do not know WHAT this phenomena is. I get that we call it “the self”. I don’t care…

Then you really are a radical skeptic! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism

Nope, I don’t think I am.

You're doubting whether 2+2=4 is knowledge since knowledge itself rests on the very concept of this phenomena and is thus incomprehensible. Don't be a bullshitter, just come out with it and admit you're a radical skeptic. You doubt all claims to knowledge since knowledge itself is incomprehensible.

I don’t know what this phenomena we call “self” is. And if knowledge builds upon this phenomena, then saying “we know the self by acquaintance” is meaningless. Notice that I make no claims toward knowledge. I am simply stating your distinction is meaningless unless you tell me what this “self” is.

Stop moving the goal post, I'm only talking about you being aware of it. You have self-awareness, you are aware that there is an I that does/doesn't know.

Stop erecting strawmen. There is a phenomena. I call it “myself”. I do not know what this phenomena is. Clear enough ?
Also, if “I=awareness” then what does it mean to say that I am aware ?

No it doesn't, you're literally hallucinating. The word "you" is not there

Irrelevant. Naming it a “subject” does not help you. You are still invoking the very same phenomena. The rose…the bloody rose!

No you haven't, you haven't told me what knowledge, ideas, beliefs, thoughts, or any of that stuff is.

I’ve said I think they are acts done by this phenomena. That is all I have to do because I do not claim to know what those phenomena are. I can know what the words refer to without knowing what the phenomena they refer to is.

That's the thing: I'm not trying to answer some hard question. You're posing a question that I'm not trying to answer, which is why I keep telling you to start a new thread already. I've set the bar low, I'm only talking about something an 18-month old child grasps. If you understand what an 18-month old child does, then you understand what I'm talking about since I'm only going that far.

Well too bad cause this question is crucial to your case. So I am not going anywhere and I am not starting anything.

Yeah it is because that is all I'm getting at. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do. I've set the bar LOW as I keep telling you. You keep complaining about me not reaching this super high bar when I keep telling you I'm only trying to go over this low bar over here.

A basic question is not some “super high bar”. Is walking an action or an object ? Geez…why do you have to pose these super radical sceptic questions. This is crucial. If you don’t answer this, you have no case.

I'm still not seeing why you need a complete understanding in order to have merely some understanding. You're going to have to explain this to me.

Because you live under the delusion that said strawman belongs to me. Is all of the body required for this phenomena ? Let’s try. Cut off your hair. Any radical changes to said phenomena ? Nope. Still there. So obviously understanding the hair (some understanding of the body) helps us zilch.

You're the one who said we need a complete account, but then admitted we don't have a complete account for anything. This applies to literally everything, not just the self. You're a radical skeptic, that's the problem at hand here.

No, it does not because we don’t assert everything is irreducible. Whatever this self is, once you’ve explained what it is, that is it. You know what it is fundamentally. You just love strawmen, which is the actual problem here..

You said you can't imagine how perspective could BE anything other than first person. So you're not just talking about the word you're talking about the phenomena. You understand perspective, and perspective is first person, so then you understand first person.

I am talking about the phenomena, which is referred to using two different words. And I don’t understand the phenomena in the sense that I do not know what it is.

Yeah it does, you tried to say there's no experience but you admitted there is experience in sleep we call dreams, so you proved yourself wrong.

It literally is not. All it takes is ONE example of sleep with no experience whatsoever. That’s it. If that happened, I am right and you are wrong.

No it doesn't because there is still the sub-conscious.

Whatever this “sub-conscious” is, you need to demonstrate it exists using introspection. OR you need another tool to prove it exists.

naw, just MY mind

“Mind” must mean the exact same thing in P1 and in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase. You can deny logic all you like, it won’t change a thing. Do you have any other tool to prove this phenomena exists, other than introspection ?

Dreams alone prove it exists, if there was no mental in sleep then dreams would be impossible. Also I should mention that we don't always remember our dreams so sometimes when you think you had no experience in your sleep it's just that you're forgetting the dreams you had.

That is still open to introspection. There is still an experience, no matter how different. But if there is only ONE example of sleep with no experience whatsoever, you have to demonstrate that “more basic” state exists using something other than introspection.
Also, we might not remember our dreams but we do remember we had one. If you can’t remember you had a dream, on what basis are you making the claim that you did ?

I would also like to point out that the mental cannot emerge from the non-mental in general as this would entail a commitment to strong emergence and strong emergence is purely magic: “[strong emergence]is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.”

How can you make that claim if you don’t know WHAT this phenomena is ? You need to show strong emergence is logically impossible. Furthermore, it was YOU who said that to perceive is to BECOME aware or conscious. So it is YOUR position that entails a commitment to magic then.
If this state of being aware or conscious begins to be as such, then it is logically necessary that the state that BECOMES as such was not that to begin with. I’m sorry but mind itself refutes idealism. There is just no way around it.

Precisely! So you see how your commitment to strong emergence is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It's not the case that there is no rabbit in the hat and the magician just pulls it out of nowhere, it's that the rabbit was in the hat the whole time. Same goes for the mental. It's not that the mental came out of the non-mental, but rather the mental has always been there.

It's actually the other way around. The mental could not have always been there because it begins to be. What we call the mental is what begins to be. That state which begins to be aware or conscious MUST be NOT THAT before it begins to be as such.
If you want to claim there is some “deeper” mental or whatever you want, you must demonstrate it exists. How will you do that without introspection ?

I never changed any meanings here.

So the phenomena we establish using introspection is the same phenomena you refer to when you use the term “mental” ?

Because if there is the subconscious then it's always there, there is a more basic state of the mental, it's just outside of your focal awareness is all.

And what tool do you use to establish that subconscious is always there ? Remember. No experience. No thoughts. No feelings. Nothing. How do you establish that subconscious is there ?
You have to establish this “basic state of the mental” exists. How will you do that ?
It only takes ONE example of sleep with no experience whatsoever for my point to stand. That it happens so often only makes it undeniable.

Neither does mine, I even illustrated this using pictures. If my definition is just word swapping then so is yours and so is any other definition for anything.

But it does. You’ve said “first-person” refers to the self and “I=awareness” so right there two of your terms refer to the very same phenomena. You said “subjective” refers to the phenomena you are supposed to define. You need to show how all those terms refer to different things.

They didn't "give up on trying to reason with me" they were actually stumped by my arguments. One user in here admitted they needed to do more research and said they were ordering a book by Susan Blackmore on the matter, so my arguments have caused them to question their worldview and caused them to do deeper research on the matter. When they're done with the book, and if they feel confident enough in their arguments, they'll probably come back in here and respond. Plus you have to admit that we're talking to humans here: eventually people get tired, they move on to other topics, people have lives and so forth. Maybe you don't understand that because you're not human but who knows, maybe you can learn to be charitable for once.

No one. Literally no one was stumped by your arguments. You are an amateur. Your religion is self-refuting. Every single one of the members here gave up on trying to reason with you because they saw no point in debating you, given your behaviour.
Just because you respond to someone and have the last word does not mean you “stumped” them. Preach your religion all you like. You have convinced no one and your ideology remains as incoherent as the first time you’ve stated it.

If this was a personal problem then that would mean only I cannot say what this phenomena is while everyone else can. It's you that has the personal problem as everyone else in here readily admits they grasp this common sense understanding that I'm getting at while you're the only one who doesn't. You're the one with the personal problem, momo...

It is a personal problem for you because it is crucial to state what this phenomena is. But you can’t and you need to save face. And you won’t because logic doesn’t care about your religion. You keep appealing to this vague belief “everyone” supposedly holds without actually pointing out WHAT that belief is and THEN demonstrating that belief. No wonder you get your understanding from the average idiot.

Then prove it by answering this question: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form?? yes or no???

I’ve already answered that question. Drop the strawman and I will re-state my position AGAIN.

P1 is only claiming that it exists, and if you're going all the way to P3 then you're admitting that the argument does get off the ground. P1 and P2 can be affirmed, the case gets off the ground. You should have the honesty to admit this. Your problem would be with a totally different premise altogether, and that would be P3. That would mean we're actually getting somewhere in the argument.

If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then P3 has no foundation. It is not the case for idealism that gets off the ground. This phenomena existing does not help idealism in any manner. It is WHAT this phenomena is that is supposed to give idealism the edge.

That's not a problem for P1. You've been trying to act like the case for idealism cannot even get off the ground but it clearly can, we have no problem admitting that P1 is true, so your cowardly pseudo-skeptic evasions have failed. It's time for you to address the rest of the argument now like everyone else had the courage to do. You and I would now have to start having a conversation about reductionism vs. anti-reductionism.

It is a problem if you want to ask if this phenomena is reducible or not. This phenomena being does not help idealism in any particular sense, so asserting P1 somehow helps the case for idealism get off the ground is delusional. My inquiry has remained unanswered and as such the case can not proceed. Your pseudo-understanding has been exposed as such and your evasions have failed. Stop lying and address my arguments. Before we can have a conversation about reductionism, you must first state what this phenomena is and then explain it.

Yes it is, that's literally what P1 is. If you have no problem with it existing then you have no problem with P1.

No, it’s not, because depending on what it is, it might outright falsify P3. I have no problem with a phenomena that begins to be, as P1 states.

So wait a minute, now there is knowledge??? Before you said knowledge rests upon that which needs to be explained so that would mean knowledge is incomprehensible, but now you're saying there is knowledge??? make up your mind. Either there is knowledge or there is not knowledge, make up your mind.

That is again your strawman. I have not put forth the non-sequitur you are talking about. I pointed out what YOU said, that knowledge builds upon this phenomena. That is what YOU said. Before you can even talk about knowledge by acquaintance, you must first explain what this self is.

You literally saying I'm right, you said it right there lol

I am literally saying you are lying. And on top of that lie, you lie again, as you’ve done just now.

So you're saying the question "what jumped" and "what is a rabbit" are the exact same question...? are you fucking retarded?

Are you ? What are you even quoting ? Where in that quote do you see that claim ? You are hallucinating.

You're still not telling me what a rabbit is, you're just word swapping. muh names!

That’s a category error on your part. Muh logic!

Yeah it is because you keep trying to say that it is "but a term" as if that's all it is "a term" but I keep telling you that they refer to objects, and they don't just refer to the words themselves. So you keep failing to grasp this

No, you keep failing to see the obvious. Just because we choose to assign a word to a certain phenomena, that does not make that word any more special. A word remains a word period. I am asking you to explain the phenomena and you keep giving me how you like to call it.

You're still not telling me what a light bulb is. Word swapping!

I did tell you, you are just mad it went off your script. And you are still committing a category error. Logic, learn it!

But wtf does that mean??? You're trying to say that what you say to me here is meaningful but it's using the very words that you're trying to pretend has no meaning. If it doesn't mean anything then you're speaking gibbering by your own admission. The very sentence: "I do not know what this phenomena is" starts off as completely incomprehensible as you're trying to say the word "I" is meaningless. You're just sawing off the branch you sit on.

The word “I” is not meaningless. It refers to an unexplained phenomena. Just because we do not know what a phenomena is, that does not mean we can not name it. This is just a case of you failing at basic logic.

It's not irrelevant that's literally what P1 is. So since this phenomena exists then P1 is true and you were wrong about the case for idealism not being able to get off the ground.

P1 is not enough for the case the get off the ground. All hypothesis of mind start from this phenomena. But depending on what P1 says, it might be that you don’t even have a P3. As long as you refuse to say what this phenomena is, your P3 has no foundation.

By definition that means you're not a reductionist, so you're with me on not being a reductionist.

No. By definition it means I am withholding judgement. Your question relies on the assumption that what this phenomena is has been stated. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that mind is necessarily reducible.

You just responded to my question with another question, stop dodging the question: do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that P1 is true? yes or no?

I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer. I am asking you to explain what this phenomena is and you keep refusing to do that.

first-person subjective awareness. Simple.

Then tell me to what do the terms “first-person”, “subjective” and “awareness” refer to and then explain what the phenomena they refer to is.

That's not a definition at all and you fucking know it. You set the bar all low for yourself but then demand this rigorous definition from me when it comes to the self, you have double standards. This is clearly special pleading on your part. We could say vomiting is something an organism does but that doesn't really tell us what vomiting is, now does it?? Walking is also something an organism does, but that doesn't tell us what walking is now does it??? You have more work to do: define your terms or stop using them...

Irrelevant. It states it is an act and thus my own standard has been meet. For me to explain what this phenomena is further it would mean I am doing your work for you. But you are the only one who has claimed to know what this phenomena is so you are the one who has to explain it.
You are projecting yet again. Your “definition” does not even tell us if this phenomena is an object, act, activity or what have you. That is the most basic first step. That you fail to do that only shows you have no bar to begin with. Saying this phenomena is a person does not tell us what it is cause “person” is just another word we use to call this phenomena.

Then how are you identifying them as mental? Why even call them that? Why make this distinction between verbs and mental verbs at all???

I am not identifying them as mental. I am calling them that way. Nor am I making that distinction. You are the one who originally called them as such, I just went along with it. That is because I don’t particularly care how you call them. They could very well be chakra verbs if we wanted to.

Still waiting for you to prove your claims.

Still waiting for you to address my proofs.

You're putting these actions in a specific category: mental. This category is what comes first: mental verb. Same with mental illness and stuff like that. First there is the understanding of the mental, and then the understanding of what the mental does, otherwise you couldn't place it in the category of mental in the first place.

No, I am not. You are the one who wants to call them that way, as if the word “mental” has some magic mojo to it. If what we refer to are actions indeed, then by logical necessity something must do the acting. We might not know WHAT is that but that does not stop us from calling it mental or cabbage or what have you.

This is 100% contradictory, pure gibberish

It seems so to you because you are a drop out. A phenomena can be and yet not be understood. We can name that phenomena and yet not understand WHAT that phenomena is.

Dude you're getting so lost. I'm not saying that you said that. I'm pointing out the simple basic intro to philosophy of mind point that IF reductionism were the case then I=Brain, and so that would mean if you understand the brain then you understand the I since they're actually the exact same thing. How are you fucking this up so hard?

If it were the case that this phenomena is an object and that object was the brain, then it would be the case that I=brain. But you have not stated WHAT this phenomena is. You did not say it is an object or act or activity. Until you do that, the question can not be posed.

Nice moving of the goal post. Nobody is demanding that you do. Nobody said anything about understanding the brain entirely, only that you understand the brain. If I bring up the brain in conversation you're not going to interrupt it and ask "wtf is a brain?!" you get what is meant by the word "brain" you know what it refers to man, come on... Do I need to show you a picture of this to? Do you want some crayons while we're at it??

No moving of anything, you are just confused. The brain needs to be understood entirely because you have not pointed out which parts of it and what modes of behaviour are necessary for this phenomena to be.

Again you're failing to grasp how the burden of proof works. I don't have to prove a negative, I can just remain skeptical and press the affirmative to meet their burden of proof that it is possible. Just like how the atheist doesn't have to prove God does not exist, they can just press the theist to prove that God exists and if they don't meet this burden then the atheist remains skeptical.

Except that I made no claim as to what this phenomena is, so there is nothing for you to press me on. On the other hand, if you want to claim the brain can not account for this phenomena you must demonstrate that.

Comparing has nothing to do with it, it's about identity. Learn how reductionism works.

Identity of what ? You have not stated what this phenomena is. The question of reductionism can not even be stated until you do that.

Not for P1, which is all I'm getting at for this point. I'm more than happy to move on to other premises like P3, which is something you've been desperately trying to prevent (remember your comment about how "we're not going anywhere"? well that's shot to shit lol). I just need you to man up and admit that P1 is true already.

P1 is not enough for the case to get off the ground. And I don’t particularly care to what premises you move on, I can more than handle you on every front. Are you going to admit you don’t know what this phenomena is already ?

Good thing I have: first-person subjective awareness. You can stop hiding behind this pseudo-skepticism now

That is incoherent, for all those terms refer to the same phenomena. You must demonstrate how each and every single one of those terms refers to something different. Until then all you’ve said is that mind is: mind mind mind. You can drop the pseudo-understanding now.

As long as you're not saying that the mind is reducible then you're with me on not being a reductionist. If not then you would be a reductionist.

No, I am not because you did not state what this phenomena is. It might be that once you do that, I am a reductionist.

It's the other way around guy

Not even remotely. You need to own your failures.

So then the mental exists, got it. so P1 is true

P1 does not refer to that which does the acting. It refers to the actions. That which does the acting is inferred and we do not know what it is.

You just proved my point: you don't know what "you" means at all. You can't assign predicates to a subject with no meaning at all, that makes no grammatical sense

I know what the word refers to. I don’t know what the phenomena it refers to is.

So you do have some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form? Yes or no.

I’ve already answered that question. You are still putting forth a strawman.

...huh??

Is it ?

Your point about reductionism

That is a bare assertion. You need to show how my point is wrong.

Actually that would be you, you're the one who thinks reductionism is about comparisons... You keep missing the point I'm trying to make: IF the "I"=brain then understanding the brain means you understand the "I" since they would be the same thing. What are you not getting about this point? I'm not saying the "I" actually is the brain, I'm only saying what would be the case if reductionism were true in this sense. What are you not understanding about this explication?

No, that would be you. Notice that to even pose the question, you have to assume this phenomena is an object. That is what you keep failing to see. Without first stating what this phenomena is, you can not even form a coherent question. You need to state what this phenomena is and then we can ask if anything we know of can account for it or it is truly irreducible.

...what is "the physical reality", momo...? Do enlighten us

You tell me. Is that not what P3 talks about ? You still fail to see that you need to deduce the hard problem. You need to show how it is utterly impossible for this phenomena to be accounted for by the non-mental.

what the hell does that mean? You're claiming there is this "one" that "aims"? What is this "one" and what is this "aim"?

This “one” is the phenomena you have failed to explain. The aim is something that phenomena does.

So you really are that much of a coward and cannot admit that P1 is true, got it. And that point about certain premises might be false is irrelevant to whether or not P1 is true. Right now we need to establish before we go to P3 that P1 and P2 are true first.

Says the coward who keeps refusing to acknowledge his own words. But yes, we can not move on to P3 until we establish what this phenomena is, glad you agree.

First-person subjective awareness. You're welcome

What do those terms refer to ?

No it's about being, we merely used words to express it is all. What we call the tree is in fact the tree. The tree relates to tree in that the tree is the tree. Stop playing retarded word games man

No, it’s about reference. That is why we say a word references a thing. The object tree is not the word tree. The word tree is the word we choose to refer to that object. We could have chosen any word. It does not matter. I am asking you to explain what the object tree is. Heck I even called it an object so I already did more than you did.

There's broader category of "mind", which includes the totality of the mental, and within that category is "my mind". There's mind as a whole and then there's my mind in particular. So yeah my mind began to exist, no shit sherlock. But that doesn't mean mind began to exist. P1 is just saying that this category of mind, as well as one's own, exists. Nothing complicated here.

Oh then we are back as square one. I thought P1 only talks about that which we establish using introspection, but obviously you want more than that. So I am not sure I accept P1 then. Demonstrate this “broader category of mind” exists because introspection only helps me establish that a phenomena begins to be.

Because you didn't read it

I did read it. The explanation is not there.

Dude, you're literally just being a contrarian right now. This a public forum, we can see my comments, I really am making this point. You're just going to say the opposite of whatever I say aren't you....?

No, I am just asking you to defend your assertions. Either P1 references my consciousness or it does not. Introspection can only help you establish this phenomena that begins to be, this “my consciousness”. Now you say P1 talks about some broader mind. Whatever P1 talks about, you need to demonstrate it exists.

Show me a quote from the paper where it attempts to explain but fails

Show me a quote from the paper where it attempts and succeeds to explain my inquiry.

Of course I don't like the way you go about it, because it's incredibly disingenuous. You're not even willing to grant that you accept something that a literal 18-month old child grasps. You refuse to grant me the slightest bit of agreement on this most basic of understanding and this reeks of insincerity. Everyone else here had the courage to affirm or deny various premises and just come out with it, you just hide behind this pseudo-skepticism like a total coward and I have no respect for that. You want to say "this phenomena exists" but when I ask you to explicitly say that P1 is true you resolutely refuse even though that's exactly what P1 is saying. You're just not going to agree with me on anything, you're just going to dig your heels in the ground and be a total contrarian.

You don’t like it because it exposes your religion for what it is. You are the only one disingenuous here. You are the one denying your own words. You talk about what a child grasps yet refuse to state what is that. Total gibberish. Either you have a claim or you don’t. Your “understanding” is simply not there. You can not even say if this phenomena is an activity, ability or what have you. If you can’t even do that, what exactly does your “understanding” address ?
And there is a reason I am not accepting or denying your premises. You can not explained them. Until you state what this phenomena is, we can not even address P3. You think your pseudo-understanding can be masked by your games ? Calling this phenomena a person does not explain it any more than calling it a self, anymore than calling it a cabbage. What you are saying is pure garbage. I’ve already answered all your questions, it’s not my fault you keep the strawmen coming.

And yet you still didn't understand what synonym meant or what is meant when these words are used interchangeably in a colloquial sense? lol turn down the autism, bud

I understood that two synonyms can not be in direct contradiction with themselves. I understood your claims about the term “notice” makes that line of defence impossible for you. Turn down the projection.

One way of showing the subtle distinction is to point out how when we perceive it is bottom-up processing of taking in sense-data, while consciousness subsumes all of this and there is of awareness of this perception and what it is like to have this perception and experience it.

i) What is “sense-data” and what is “what it is like” ?
ii) To subsume is an action. Are you saying what we call mind comes after this action ? How exactly does this happen ? Or are you just talking out of your ass, yet again ?
iii) That assumes all of those things are different. So are all of those phenomena different phenomena and can you state what they are or can you just name them ?

Nice try but you were talking about SOMETHING, not a mere ability. You were talking about a thing, not an ability. Your analogy of the apple proves this, the apple is a thing not an ability. How is this lost on you?

You really are autistic. I was explaining how an ability works. I said the apple BEGINS TO BE rotten. The ability is rotten, not the apple. How did you fail to see this ?

Naw. There's the category of mind, and within that category is my mind. Saying that mind exists, and noting that MY mind begins to exist, is in no way fallacious.

You have not demonstrated that category of mind exists. Introspection can only help you establish this phenomena that begins to be. If you want to invoke this magical mind, you have to prove it exists. Either P1 references this phenomena we establish using introspection or it does not. You have to make up your mind.

You have yet again missed the point: this isn't about reducing the self to the body, it's simply about self-awareness. There's no metaphysical claim about what exactly the self is here, all that's being noted to you is that if you pass the rouge-test then you have displayed self-awareness, you are conscious of the "I".

You just don’t understand the implications here. What there is awareness of is the body. Simple. Unless that which you observe in the mirror is this phenomena, your point is moot.

You're in no position to make demands. From the very beginning I've been telling you that you're going more fundamental than where I'm going, I've set the bar low here. I'm making modest claims and you're bitching about me not making modest claims as if I have some obligation to meet YOUR inquiry where I have told you I'm not even going. I repeat: you're in no position to make demands. This is my thread, it's about the case for idealism, I'm here to see if the premises are true or false and/or the argument is at the very least valid/invalid. You want more understanding of the self? Go start a new thread, ask around. Why won't you start a new thread and ask around to see what answers you'll get? I just don't understand: if you're a true skeptic and you truly just want to know, and have an honest inquiry to gain understanding, then why not start a thread to get everyone's response? What legitimate excuse could you possibly have to not start a thread about this?? It's 100% in your interest to do so! You just might find what you're looking for, unless you're not actually looking like a true pseudo-skeptic...

You are in no position to make any demands either. I’ve explained to you that the understanding you assert to have is not sufficient. It fails to address even the most basic of questions. It’s not even general. The claims you are making are unsubstantiated. And you can repeat all you like. You are in no position to make any demands either.
And no, this is not your thread. You get zero decisions over who posts here and what is being posted here. I am addressing your case, you just don’t like my inquiry because it goes off your script. I won’t start a new thread, I will stay on this one thank you very much. My inquiry is central to your case.
If I want to start a new thread I will do so. It’s none of your business if and when I do any of that. So you’ll just have to get used to it.

Some of it can be false, yeah. There's limits to introspection.

So how do we know this knowledge you assert to have about this phenomena is correct ? Or are you saying you don’t even know what this phenomena is ?

Ability is also a word, I highly doubt if I said it was an ability you'd respond with "ability is a word herp derp!"... can you just stop being so damn uncharitable? wtf is your problem, man?

No, I would not because the phenomena we call ability does not change depending on how you call it. I am asking what the phenomena is. It would be nice if you took that first step and stated if this phenomena is an ability, act or what have you. And what is your problem ? You are the only one acting like a prick.

I keep telling you that I'm answering a different question, and since you have a whole new fundamental and more basic question it deservers its own thread. I've been totally upfront about how I'm making a more modest claim, that what I'm getting at is something a literal 18-month old child can grasp and that this is independent of concepts and descriptions.

Your question is not my problem. And my question is not even close to fundamental. It is one of the most basic questions there is, nor does it deserve its own thread. You assert kids know something as if that means anything. What do they know ?

naw it's just that you're an idiot is all lol

You sound like an idiot alright.

See?? haha the irony is going right over your head is what makes this all the funnier: in order for you to stay consistent with your pseudo-skepticism you have to pretend you have to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of "you" in any shape or form yet here you are ascribing predicates to this "you". That's just grammatical nonsense

I am seeing your strawman, yes. I don’t need to know what this phenomena is in order to make a few assumptions and inferences. You just don’t understand either grammar or logic.

There is knowledge of this, it's merely the case that this knowledge is ultimately knowledge by acquaintance rather than knowledge by description. Remember when they went over how self-knowledge is a distinct kind of knowledge in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...?

Yes, I remember how both you and your source took this “I” for granted and said it knows something. Which is stupid because you were asked to explain that which does the knowing in the first place. You either know what this phenomena is or you don’t. I am not a mind reader. Either you prove your claims or you don’t. I don’t care what you believe you know.

But wait a minute, weren't you just saying that you are addressing the case for idealism...? If you really are addressing the case for idealism, and I'm offering refutations to you, then I really am defending idealism.

You are not offering refutations. You deny your own words, you lie and you strawman. Those are not refutations.

Oh so now you do admit that you are going more fundamental than what I'm going for gotcha

That is not what the quote says. What are you talking about ?

The case for idealism is about whether or not mind (first-person subjective awareness) exists, whether or not the mind is reducible, whether there is causal closure or not, etc. That's what the case for idealism is about, that's what I'm here to talk about, I'm the OP, I'm the one who decides what this conversation is about and how high or low MY bar is since it's MY claims and not yours. You don't get to set the standard for what I'M claiming, you don't get to move the goal post and get into more fundamental issues when I'm only talking about something more modest. I cannot fail at something I'm not trying to do.

The case for idealism can not proceed until you tell me what this phenomena is. You can not ask if this phenomena is reducible unless you specify what this phenomena is. You are nothing. You get to decide nothing. Enough with the delusions already.
My inquiry is not fundamental. It is a very basic and necessary one. Failing to meet it means you have failed to defend your case.

Hmmm funny how that's not the word "consciousness". how odd, it's almost like you're full of shit

Irrelevant. Unless you demonstrate how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction and you admit you have equivocated on the term “notice”, then my point stands.

I've pointed out that you can't put things in a category without understanding what that category is in the first place. You can't say these verbs are "mental" verbs unless you first understand what "mental" is in the first place. For goodness sakes it even begins with the very word "mental". Same goes for mental illness and so forth.

I am not putting them in any category. You are the one who thinks the word “mental” carries some sort of mojo with it. If what we establish to exist are indeed actions, we infer that something must perform them. We might not know what is that but that is not necessary for naming that thing.

So you know a noun is not a verb then, right? I need a direct answer to this, don't dodge

A noun can reference an action.

Nouns=persons, places, things. You're being idiotic...

Nouns reference those things. But “person” is just how we call this phenomena. I need to know WHAT is a person.

Whoa, so now you know for a fact that "the mental" is only actions, its all verbs. I would like to see you prove that, and I don't see how you're not contradicting yourself given you admitted there's the distinction between nouns and verbs and that there is the mental noun to engage in mental verbs.

Simple. To perceive is to BECOME aware or conscious. Everything about this phenomena that we can establish using introspection begins to be. Absolutely everything. All thoughts, all ideas, all feelings, all of it. They all begin to be. Whatever you establish to exist using introspection, it begins to be.

I told you for the sake of the discussion we need to come to set terms so we don't equivocate. Why else would you resist this if your intention is not to equivocate? It's like imagine if when you made that Trump reference I acted stupid like you are and played it off like you were talking about Hillary Clinton and then when you call me out on it I just go "well Trump could be called Hillary!" it's like stfu man, this is some retarded semantic bullshit word game. Cut the bullshit and be open and honest with the meanings of words. We know what cabbage is, I took a screen shot of the definition earlier, and we know it's not synonymous with the mind, so cut the shit an admit that cabbage is not the mind.

Which has nothing to do with my point. The idea is not that they are called that. The idea is that they could be called that. Why am I making that point ? To show that how you call something is irrelevant. You need to explain what the phenomena is, not how you call it. And you are the only one who keeps equivocating and denying their own words.

This applies to literally all of language then. You own't admit that any word actually means anything. You won't admit that "Trump" refers to the current president of the united states because you'll just say "well he could be called cabbage!" or some retarded shit like that. You want to equivocate as much as possible and that's why you won't stick to any set definition even for the sake of a productive discussion.

You do want to equivocate as much as you can, that is known already. But notice that you have yet again failed to grasp what I’m saying. It is not that I deny certain words refer to certain phenomena. Rather, I am asking you to tell me what those phenomena are and you keep telling you how you like to call them. Calling it a “person” instead of “self” is simply stupid.

What could be the case is not the same thing as what is the case. Cabbage≠mind, so just stop.

Good thing I’ve already made that distinction. I want to know what the phenomena is, not how you call it. So just stop.

I have all the way in the OP: first-person subjective awareness. What's so hard about admitting this exists??

You have to explain how those words refer to different phenomena. Explain what phenomena each of those terms refer to and then tell me what those phenomena are.

If you actually believed this then why the hell are you even talking to me? Your actions speak louder than words. If you truly thought I was someone worth "giving up on" and that this discussion is just a bunch of psycho babble from some bum on the street then why the fuck are you spending months of your existence, hours of your time, writing comments that are so long they take multiple parts to be posted in succession?? This makes no sense, momo! If you actually believed what you were saying here you would have left long ago.

What a nonsensical question. Do you really think you can direct a comment at me and not get a response ? You throw a comment at me, I respond. It’s that simple. We wouldn’t want you to believe that I got “stomped” by your arguments now would we ?
Besides, any time I am wasting is time you are wasting so I have no problem with that. And didn’t you say some time ago you were not interested in responding to me further ? Yea and we see how much you’ve followed that.

Also, I'd like to point something out there: When adjusted for time in particular, this thread I've made here is literally the most popular thread of all time in the philosophy forum! Look at the measurements for yourself: no other thread has as many replies or views as mine, especially in such a short period of time. Out the entire history of this website, my one and only thread that I've started has garnished more views and replies than anything else anyone has ever posted in here. Awfully strange how some bum that is supposedly being ignored on the side of the street is garnering the most amount of responses and views than literally anyone else that has walked these streets... if you actually believe what you're saying, then what does that tell you about these streets (league of reason)...?

A complete non-sequitur. Popular is also the mad bum in the street. It does not actually mean he convinces anyone. And as it stands, you have convinced no one. All you did was convince yourself of your own delusions. You might want to take a look at the “Science&Mathematics” section and see what thread has more views and replies than yours. He too is an idiot. He too got the last word. What a sad little world you must live in that you actually think this is some sort of accomplishment.

I can describe Harry Potter to you but that doesn't mean Harry Potter exists, it's just a figment of the imagination. Oh but let me guess you're going to probably try to act like you have no idea what is meant by "figment of the imagination" lol

Well for one are you saying Harry Potter is an object ? Also, just because it does not exist, that does not imply describing it is not knowledge.

Your average joe does have a common sense understanding of what it is, they just don't go as fundamental as you want to go, and complain as much as you want but you're in no position to make demands. The metaphysician asks: "what is reality? what is real?" and those are fundamental questions, there's no denying that. The average joe is not really a metaphysician, they don't go that far, but that doesn't mean they do not know anything about reality, or cannot meaningfully say that something is real and so forth. Same goes for the self: the 18-month old child may not be able to give you a metaphysical thesis on what the self is, but they have self-awareness, they have an acquaintance of the self.

That is a bare assertion. You have to demonstrate your joe does in fact know what this phenomena is. And it is the other way around, if they really understood what this phenomena is they would first answer my inquiry and then go into more fundamental questions. What exactly does a child know ? You can keep making that claim. Until you demonstrate it, it is meaningless.

Yes there is actually, and that's my point. it actually fits perfectly with direct knowledge. It's non-inferential, it's direct, it's basic. You keep asking for a description for something I keep telling you is independent of any description.

What are you talking about ? Go on and demonstrate that claim. Prove that we do know what this phenomena is. You can assert all you like something is independent of any description. If you make a claim, you have to demonstrate it.

You couldn't be more wrong. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Introspection: "Introspection is a key concept in epistemology, since introspective knowledge is often thought to be particularly secure, maybe even immune to skeptical doubt. Introspective knowledge is also often held to be more immediate or direct than sensory knowledge. Both of these putative features of introspection have been cited in support of the idea that introspective knowledge can serve as a ground or foundation for other sorts of knowledge."

Where in that quote do you see an assertion as to what this phenomena is ? And where do you see that assertion being treated as a basic belief ?

Also, do you even Descartes bro? From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource): "Arguably, the most well known foundationalist is Descartes, who takes as the foundation the allegedly indubitable knowledge of his own existence and the content of his ideas. Every other justified belief must be grounded ultimately in this knowledge."

Do you ? Seriously, don’t you see how this too takes this phenomena for granted ? Where do you see an explanation as to what this self is ? Point it out.

Even many non-philosophers are aware of Descartes famous "I think therefore I am" and how we are more knowledgable about the subjective nature of the mental then we are of the objective nature of "the physical" as it is called.

Does that knowledge include what this phenomena is ? And can you demonstrate that claim ?

In the common sense way, yes it is a basic belief. And you can complain all day about "muh demonstrations!" but I'll just show how you're going to fall into an infinite regress or will end up arguing in a circle if you don't accept a kind of foundationalism in which there are some beliefs which do not depend on other beliefs in order to be justified or counted as knowledge. And see now we're getting into more fundamental issues in epistemology, which deserves its own thread.

No, it’s not. What is a basic belief is that this phenomena is. What IS NOT a basic belief is WHAT this phenomena is. You need to demonstrate that we do in fact know what this phenomena is and show how that is a basic belief. So no, none of this deserves its own thread.

I've told you this myself many times and have referenced scholarly articles on this many times, you just keep ignoring it: there is a distinction between knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge by acquaintance is direct, immediate, non-inferential, and INDEPENDENT OF ANY DESCRIPTION OR CONCEPTS.

Which does not answer my question. What is the reason knowledge by acquaintance can not be described ? Stop dodging.

How is me asking you a simple yes or no question a double standard...? It's a simple question: do we have absolutely 0 understanding of consciousness in any shape or form? Yes or no?

Because you are not following that standard. I’ve already answered your question. Will you drop the strawman ?

That doesn't tell me what a tree is. Tell me what a tree actually is. You're just using a bunch of letters (x,y,z,). This is worse than word-swapping you're just letter-swapping lmao

That’s because my explanation is independent of how you call those components. A tree is a composition. That account alone is more than you did.

How is this proof for your claim?

It is an assumption.

That's what I just said...

No, this is the full quote: “No, the knowledge of a tree relies on some assumptions. Knowledge that this phenomena is does not. BUT, that knowledge is only that this phenomena is, not WHAT this phenomena is.”. You implied I asserted that the knowledge of this phenomena being relies on an assumption. Stop being so dishonest for goodness sake.

What is the phenomenon momo? Wtf is a tree?

A composition. Now, will you meet the same standard or evade again ?

Exactly!

Yes. Refers. Not identity.

And A=A, it refers to itself.

No. A refers to the object A, but they are different.

Nope, law of identity.

Law of identity only prevents B from being anything else, not from being called A.

What the hell does that even mean? can you give me a single example of a phenomena that is "part activity" or "part action" or "part object"?

Water freezing. You need the object (water) to do a specific action (freezing) through a specific activity (cooling it).

Because you're being a noob is misusing the fedora meme

No, I am not. I am using it perfectly fine.

the autism is real: I only said that the fedoras are the atheists and materialists, I didn't say they were the same thing or "necessarily linked" I never said that.

I know you are an autist. You said that, but then again you say a lot of stupid things. You haven’t shown the basis of that delusion though.

Are you saying materialism is incomprehensible?

What do you mean by materialism ?

Neither should you, so make due with the definitions already. No special pleading: if I have to define my terms then so do you.

I am not and I already have. You have not defined your terms while I did define mine.

Remember when wikileaks revealed Hillary Clinton admitting she has a "public position" and a "private position" when it comes to policy? lmao you people have been duped

That pales in comparison to what the orange chimp says on a daily basis. And what do you mean by “you people” ? I get the feeling you think I am an U.S. resident.

[sarcasm]Oh geez, you think so?[/sarcasm] haha

I don’t know. It’s hard to say which things you take seriously and which ones you do not.

Wow, I finally get a "yes" out of you for once on a direct yes or no question. I wonder why you're so willing to give an upfront yes on this question, but not the others... suspicious... anyway, then you should be able to at least make sense of the computation theory of mind. You should be able to at the least conceptualize the mind as a computer of sorts that runs algorithms and heuristics and utilizes representations and so forth. Wouldn't you agree, I mean this is cognitive science after all...?

Yes. Finally I answer this question for like the fifth time. As for your question, I need to know if this phenomena we call the mind can be that AND if you believe it is that.

Pretty sure "first-person subjective awareness" is in the OP...

And those terms refer to what exactly ? They can’t refer to this exact phenomena otherwise you’re just giving me a name.

If you just had the honesty to come out of the closet and say "yes premise 1 is true" I wouldn't be so damn shocked.

How about not ? I mean, it’s good that my scepticism stands because apparently now P1 is supposed to mean something more, not merely what I call “my mind”.

I actually am a kind of reductionist, but I don't go in the direction you're claiming. What we cal the physical is reducible to the mental, or you could say is subsumed within the mental.

That would have to be proved. Not to mention it is completely against reality. The few things we know about this phenomena is that it begins to be, while we are not sure what the fundamental parts of the physical are and if they began to be. The things religion make you believe.

It's a noun. There you go.

A noun is a word. I am asking you what the phenomena the word refers to is.

 

[momo666]

PART 3

Naw, it's just wondering if the causal domain is closed or not. Can 2 distinct types of entities/properties interact with each other or is the domain of causation closed?

i)what is a causal domain ?
ii)demonstrate there are distinct types of entities/properties

I'm glad you have the humility to admit you're not up to date on the literature on this matter. You should check out the sources I've cited in the OP. Jaegwon Kim is a great source for this discussion on causality.

You are delusional. I am asking what do you mean by those words. And no, you’ve made the claim, you defend it.

That's what it means to understand a word. law of identity

No, it does not. Understanding a word does not mean you understand the phenomena it refers to.

Who cares if you made no mention of it? I'm giving evidence that you're wrong since we have video footage and multiple eyewitnesses. What, are you going to tell me everybody coincidently, including multiple cameras, all have a fly in their eye? come on man...

I care since it is my example and you literally can’t give evidence of me being wrong. There is no footage and no eyewitness. Stop erecting strawmen and address the argument.

Is this the case all the time? Is every single UFO report a mistake for a cloud or planet? No. Is every single UFO report a fly in the eye? No. We have radar stations that pick up flying activity in the sky and we can tell that it's an object and we can even describe its shape, how fast its moving, and what directions its flying in. Do we understand entirely what this is? No, by your own admission its a UFO, we don't know exactly what it is. But it is a flying object, and we know this, so it's not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form.

What does that have to do with my argument ? I only require ONE example for my point to stand. The idea is that knowing a phenomena is does not entail knowing what that phenomena is. It’s that simple. That UFO is not necessarily a flying object so you can stop strawmaning now.

Dude, come on, don't be such a contrarian that you're just going to bold faced lie like this. We all know I'm the one who said the phrase "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet". That was me who said that, not you...

After I’ve made the point that you keep giving me a name for the phenomena I asked you to explain. Still failing to see the obvious I see.

Exactly, so there can't be mental actions without the mental to engage in such actions.

No. There can’t be actions without something to perform those actions. It’s your problem that you have a hard on for the word “mental”. That qualification is not necessary and explains nothing.

Would you say calling it "physical" adds nothing? If so, then why did you refer to "physical" reality earlier...?

Yes, it adds nothing. It’s just how we call it. And I referred to whatever you are talking about in P3. Are you going to say those things are different or what ?

Yeah and before you said you couldn't make any comparisons because you couldn't make sense of it, but now you're saying you can compare it, so by your own admission you can make sense of it!

Except that I am not comparing it. I am assuming it is there. I don’t literally compare two of these phenomena.

Dude, you are in no position to be making jokes like this since you're the one who admits they don't even grasp what a literal 18-month old child grasps hahah

Apparently I am and you still can’t defend that assertion. What does that child grasp ?

Oh so everyone but me understands what the mental is, and what the self is? It's only me?

Everyone has the honesty to admit what they don’t know. Do you know what this phenomena is or are you just going to give me how you like to call it ?

The members have said they grasp what I'm saying. You're the only one who is failing to comprehend. By the way you never did tell me what you meant by comprehend...

Which is what ? Do they grasp what this phenomena is ? Or are you just lying again ? And comprehension is something this phenomena does.

Proof?

Proof of what ?

This thread is all about the case for idealism, and the very first premise of this case is "Mind exists". My inquiry is 100% legitimate, and if you weren't such a coward you should have no problem answering my question. Is premise 1 true yes or no?

If you weren’t such a coward you would not deny your own words. You would not continue with the baseless strawmen. And you’ve said P1 does not refer to this phenomena we call “my mind”, that it refers to something more. So until you explain what does that mean and demonstrate that, I can not answer your question.

1. its not an ability
2. that's irrelevant to the truth of premise 1. All that's being asked of you right now is if premise 1 is true. Don't pivot and dodge, just say whether or not premise 1 is true already.

1.How do you know ?
2.P1 is not enough to get the case going because my inquiry is crucial to the other premises. And your question is incoherent because now you say P1 refers to something more, not only “my mind”.

You were the one repeating the same question and so I kept having to give you the same answer.

That is a lie. All I did was demonstrate how your explanations fail and you kept copy/pasta the same thing.

It's only 1 premise, of course it's not sufficient for the argument it's only talking a single proposition. You don't get to idealism from premise 1 alone, of course.

No, it’s not enough for P3. You can’t even have P3 without first stating what this phenomena is.

If they're identical yes you can

That depends on what it is identical with, which you have not stated. And before you can make that exercise, you must state what that phenomena is.

All which fall under the umbrella of reductionism. You really need to learn a thing or two about reductionism...

Irrelevant. Before you can reduce the phenomena, you must state what it is and then pose the question. Learn what reductionism is for goodness sake.

of course not, man you're autistic. I was just going over the versions of reductionism.

I don’t care what versions you have in mind. If you want to pose the question, you must state what is that which you want to reduce. Is a person an object ? An activity ? What is it ?

LMAO

Yes. Very funny!

Yup, you definitely can't read.

You are projecting and you are still denying your own words.

If you did then you made sense of the mental, since projection is mental.

No, projection is what this unknown thing we call the mental does. I need not know what does the act to know the act.

You can act that way if you want, but no matter what you have to admit that I'm right when I make that distinction. There really is a distinction between knowing and describing, you cannot deny this. You even said you won't deny it, you know this distinction is true.

No reason to act. I simply rejected your strawman. Your distinction can not help you evade my inquiry. Either you know what this self is or you don’t. Unless you grant me the power to read minds, your stance is incoherent.

I hope you realize the word "admit" is not predicated on there first being some kind of denial. An admission is only stating that something is true. You're implying that me stating you admitted x means you initially denied x. That's just a failure on your part to understand the meaning of the word "admit". As long as you agree that the distinction between "knowing" and "describing" is true then you and I are both admitting that the distinction is true.

Curious. Because “admit” is defined as “confess to be true or to be the case.”. Want to guess what “confess” means ?

I don't think it is, but that's one conception of the mind for you to think about. Are you going to pretend this theory is 100% incomprehensible too now?

Okay then. Could it be ? And I don’t know what parts of the theory I would have a problem with. It all depends on what this phenomena is.

No actually it isn't. It is identity the self as a noun, but as something distinct from an object per se. There's thinks like rocks (objects) and people (subjects). People are quite different from rocks, and you know this... People behave, rocks don't. People have thoughts and feelings, rocks don't. Again, you fucking know this...

It very much is. What does a subject refer to if not to this phenomena we call self ? And those things you talk about. They all begin to be. All of them. When are you going to stop denying this ? Whatever this general mind of yours is, it is not that which we establish using introspection.

I have: first-person subjective awareness.

You haven’t because you’ve said those words refer to the same phenomena. So which is it ? Do those words mean different things ?

Still waiting for proof on this one.

Since the mental begins to be as such, the only option is that something begins to be that or the mental just pops into existence ex nihilo, which is really the same thing since nothing is non-mental by definition. This “general mind” or “cosmic mind” you keep babbling about, you need to demonstrate it exists. Introspection can not help you do that because all introspection gives you is a phenomena that begins to be.

No it's not, you even said it's one of the hardest questions there is. This isn't some basic simple question you're asking, you're getting at something super fundamental. It's so fundamental that it's a study in its own right

Yeah, it’s very basic. It is literally one of the first steps one takes in explaining anything. You must state what is it. You call it self. You call it person. You call it subject. You are still not telling me what it is.

I don't barge into the biology department for not being experts in chemistry nor does the physics department barge into the chemistry department for not being experts in physics. There's different levels of study, some go more fundamental than others. We don't need to be experts in physics to understand biology or chemistry. Same goes for the self: we don't need a metaphysical account of what exactly the self is to have a common sense understanding of what it is.

I don’t care what you think your “common sense understanding is”. You either know or you don’t. Period. Knowing what this self is is absolutely crucial. What you are doing is akin to a biologist refusing to state whether a frog is an object or an ability. Oh well…it’s a frog obviously. No…that is how you CALL it. But what is it ?

Be a contrarian all you want, your own words are right there with you admitting it.

Lie all you like, but there is a reason you always refuse to demonstrate your accusations.

Prove it by answering this question: is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no?

I’ve already answered that. Drop the strawman and I will happily answer that AGAIN.

So I'd be the winner and you'd be the loser lol

At what ? See, that is the important bit. If you want to compare your intellect with Trump, be my guest.

What are you talking about? The economy is booming, stock market and GDP and all that has never been higher, unemployment is at its record low, we've got better trade deals, we never hear shit about ISIS anymore cuz they've been taken care of, we're getting peace with North Korea, Kavanaugh has been confirmed, I mean the list goes on and on and on. You don't know shit about American politics lol

You really do suck at reading. The person, not the country. We were talking about Trump remember ? And how he is a complete idiot ?
And I am not an U.S resident. But what peace with North Korea are you talking about ? Last I heard they still did not give up their nuclear program. The economy merely follows an already established trend, albeit maybe a little bit better due to the tax cuts, which largely went to the rich anyways cause that’s how much Trump loves the working class. Your trade deals barely got you some crumbles while your deficit with China has risen to a record high. ISIS was going to be defeated no matter who sat in that office, and to act as if they actually posed a threat to the U.S. is laughable. What is more laughable is how americans shit their pants over a threat they largely helped to create and in which they wasted a stupid amount of money.

Oh and your beer guy was going to be confirmed either way. It amazes me how many americans actually believe those hearings serve any purpose other than satisfy their delusions. The very party which spoon fed trump that list of judges said they were all equal. A judge that is going to support a certain set of interests was going to get on that bench. Even if your beer guy was not going to cut it, that was not going to change. To consider that a battle won is like considering breathing some kind of victory. But leave it to trump supporters to fail to see the obvious.
Put down the kool aid and smell the flowers. Your glorified reality star has only shown the world just how true those stereotypes about americans are.

Wow the autism on you is thick: what I keep telling you is that we have some understanding of the UFO in some shape or form. We know it's a flying object and has a certain shape to it and can move in certain directions at various speeds. We do have some understanding of it, and we have no problem admitting it exists.

The projections are getting worse. Buddy, you don’t know any of that. All you did was erect a strawman and pretend that is what I’ve said. You don’t know it is an object. You don’t know it is flying. You don’t know its shape. You don’t know its speed. Stop lying already and address my argument as it is.

Name a single user that has been so paralyzed by this lack of comprehension that they can't even affirm premise 1 is true... Quote me a single user that admits they can't even comprehend what an 18-month old child can grasp. Go ahead, I'll wait....

Quote me a user who has explained what this phenomena is. I’ll wait.

See?! You're too scared! You won't do it! You want to claim that I'm committing a straw man but you can't even bring yourself to prove it's a straw man by telling me that we do have some understanding in some shape or form. You could prove me wrong so easily by doing this but something is stopping you and I know why lol

No. You are just delusional. I’ve answered that question at least a dozen times by now. All you did was erect a strawman so you can now pretend what I’ve been saying all along is an “admission”. Drop the strawman and I will answer again, for the 100000 time.

Nope, just like you yourself said: intention matters. My intentions, my words, my reference.

Your intentions can’t save you from being a bumbling idiot. Either learn to better express yourself or stop whining when people actually read your words.

Or maybe you could just learn a thing or two about the principle of charity and listen to when someone tells you what they mean by their own words instead of you trying to construct your own meaning of their words, as that would be attacking straw men...

That has nothing to do with my point. It’s okay that you want to clarify your comments but there is no need for me to be charitable toward your incompetence. And how about you follow your own advice and stop attacking strawmen ?

Nope, but since you are claiming it beings to be you're still claiming that it exists so premise 1 is true! awesome! looks like the case for idealism gets off the ground after all

Oh really ? So go on and give me one example of this phenomena that does not begin to be. Go right ahead and use introspection to deduce a phenomena that does not begin to be. And no. Remember P1 is not “my mind exists”. Either P1 talks about a phenomena that begins to be (my mind) or it talks about this “larger category” which does not begin to be. I’ve never said the latter exists. And the former is not enough to get idealism off the ground.

Naw, there's "being conscious" and "being aware". There's being and becoming, it's not all becoming.

Name one example of being conscious and aware that does not becomes as such. Everything introspection gives you, it begins to be.

If you don't observe it then how do you know it's there?

IF the phenomena we are talking about is an act, then I know something does the acting. That does not imply I know WHAT does the acting. Calling it “the mind” is about as helpful as calling it “the potato”.

Yes it absolutely does, and when I point at the tree it references the tree and when we look at a tree I'm pointing at we grasp the tree. There's more studying to be done to fully understand exactly what kind of tree it is and whatever other properties it may have, but really all you gotta do it look at it and you get the idea.

It does not. When you point at a tree and you call that “a tree” all you are doing is naming a phenomena. Identifying WHAT that phenomena is remains completely untouched. What you are pointing out could be a hallucination. Or it could be an actual tree. WHAT it is does not change the fact that phenomena is. And naming it does not tell us WHAT that phenomena is.

What is this action you call "thought"? And you know how we can point to the tree? Well can you point to this phenomena you call "mind"? Just where is this phenomena?

You tell me. My position is that I do not know what this phenomena is. It is you who claims to have that knowledge. So your request is nonsensical.

You're completely lost: that was in context to your claim that views about the self can be wrong, not whether we need to know what the self is in order to talk about the phenomena. Try to keep up, momo....

Still projecting I see. But you are wrong, yet again. If my view of what this self is can be wrong, then we need not know what the self is in order to talk about it. And this really can’t be denied anyway. It is absolutely idiotic to act as if we can not talk about unexplained phenomena.

Are you saying a view of the self is now comprehensible? Before you acted like you can't affirm or deny something if it's incomprehensible, so if you can have some incorrect view of the self then sure you can have a coherent view of the self.

No, I did not act like that at all. That is yet again one of your strawmen. If one can have an incorrect view of the self and yet still be able to talk about the phenomena, then we simply need not know what this phenomena is in order to talk about it.

The total opposite, I'm not trying to act like I'm some skeptic like you and I have an entire argument laid out in the OP. fail

No, you are acting like your pseudo-understanding fools anyone. Everyone can see through your charade. Anyone who claims to know something, yet adamantly refuses to support that claim is merely stroking himself. That’s all you’ve done so far. Your entire argument is a joke.

So your pseudo skepticism with continue, great...

You are talking about your pseudo understanding I am sure.

No it's not because it is also a REFERENT. It is not "but a term" or "just a term" it is a meaningful word that has a concept in it that has a truth value to it. I know you love word games but there's more than words going on here, we have concepts as well.

Wrong again. A word that refers to something will always remain but a word. Which is why how you call this phenomena is absolutely insignificant. What it matters is WHAT this phenomena is. And the fact that you are paralyzed at answering that questions speaks volumes.

yes it is, it's right there in the OP.

All I see is a bunch of names that refer to the very same phenomena. You must explain how those words refer to different things and WHAT those things are.

I can't admit it's a straw man because that would mean I'm misrepresenting you and I keep asking you a simple yes or no question to see if I am misrepresenting you and you resolutely refuse to answer my question! My question is a simple yes or no question: is it true that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form? yes or no? If yes, then no straw man. If no then straw man BUT then that means you agree with me that there's some understanding in some shape or form.

You won’t admit even to your own words. What else can we really expect from a habitual liar ? You are still putting forth a strawman. I’ve answered that question a dozen times and explained how it is a strawman. All you are doing is attempt to take something I’ve always said and act as if you now “got me to admit it”. It’s a pathetic trick. If you want my answer again, drop the strawman.

Then you should know we do have some understanding of it in some shape or form.

What are you talking about ? What “then” ? It was me who pointed out this phenomena begins to be.

yes you did, liar. You used those an example that you can affirm something exists without knowing exactly what it is and you did this in reference to the self and the mental and all of that. Own your own analogies, momo

No, I did not. That is the reason I used those analogies but at least we can assert “dark matter” is a form of matter. You can’t even tell me if this self is an object, act or activity or what have you. Saying it is a person is about as helpful as saying it is a karma. It tells us nothing as to WHAT it is. So I could not compare the self with dark matter even if I wanted to.

lol yeah you do, you're arguing with me right now. If you weren't trying to convince me of anything you wouldn't be arguing with me dumbass. Now stop being a coward and say premise 1 is true already

Nope, I don’t. And there are plenty of reasons to argue with people like you who eat garbage for breakfast and think they uncovered some deep truth. And no, I won’t say your P1 is true because, as we’ve seen, you now try to say P1 talks about something more than this phenomena we call “my mind”. And that something has not been established to exist.

Do you not have a sense of smell or taste? Have you never smelled a rose? If you have smelled a rose and you have experienced the aroma that comes off the rose then you are telling me you do in fact understand what "sweetness" is. You may fail to communicate this with language, but that's no reason to then invalidly infer that there's no knowledge. There's no reason to think that only things we can communicate with language count as knowledge, this is a baseless assertion on your part.

No. That is a baseless strawman on your part. The phenomena we call “sweetness” is. But we don’t know WHAT that phenomena is. You assert you do in fact know that, but all you do is ask to blindly believe your faith. I won’t do that. Defend your claims.

If there's no reason then there's no reason you couldn't do it right now. Do it right now, coward. If you have the ability to do so then prove it, if you don't then admit it.

Nice try but that is not how it works. It was you who claimed this knowledge can not be communicated. I am simply asking support for that assertion.

1. I have negative evidence that it cannot be communicated because if it was able to be communicated then you would have done so just now
2. The experience of sweet is subjective

1.That does not follow. What I do or do not do is irrelevant. You asserted it can’t be communicated. I would like a defence for that bare assertion.
2.That tells us nothing because you do not know what “subjective” is, neither do you know what the phenomena you call “sweet” is.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 1

No, you did not. I’ve refuted your attempts and all you keep doing is repeat your script.

It's so lame how you don't even have any actual banter, you're literally just repeating my use of the word script which is ironic. It's basically you just going: "n-no you!" which is a.) not an argument and b) devoid of any original thought. Are you NPC or something? lol

A “person” is just another name for this phenomena we call “self”.

You're missing the point, it seems you've forgotten the context: nouns refer to people, places, and things, so we can see that the word "noun" is referring to something concrete and particular like a chair, or the United States, or the President of the United States. This is distinct from verbs like running or jumping or the ability to run and jump. The self, and I would say the mind as well, is a noun instead of a verb or ability, and I've made this clear in the OP with my definition of mind.

A noun is a word

"ability" is also a word. Very nice.

I’ve already answered this question.

I'm not seeing a yes or no to this question: So it is the case that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form? Yes or no? I need a direct yes or no answer to this question for the sake of clarity.

And on what basis are you making that claim ? You do that using introspection. You need to support the claim that it exists.

You just gave the support for that claim: introspection. Just like how we use sense experience to know about the word we use introspection to know about ourselves and mental states.

The problem is that whatever you establish as existing, it most certainly begins to be. That is a fact. And that fact can not change.

MY mind begins to be, sure. Just because MY mind begins to be that doesn't mean there is a non-mental base from which all the mental emerged from. To say otherwise would be like saying that just because the "physical" body began to exist that means there is a non-physical base from which the physical came out of. This makes clear how invalid your inference truly is.

If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then P3 has no foundation. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that the mind is necessarily reducible to non-mind.

P1 is only claiming that it exists, I don't know how many times I have to tell you this. In the OP I give a definition of mind, but P1 is only claiming that mind exists. There's different theories of mind, but they all agree that mind exists which is all P1 is saying.

You defined consciousness as an ability

Nope, you just keep attacking this straw man. Consciousness is a noun.

you have also failed to state what difference is there between consciousness and mind.

As I said before in the context I was using these terms can be used interchangeably in a colloquial sense as reflected in the thesaurus.

Also, there is no “mind in general”.

Yes there is, to say otherwise is to deny the existence of mind. That would be eliminativism.

Here you are, yet again, projecting. It was you after all who has failed to grasp one of the most obvious rhetorical questions.

You're the one who is still stumped on my use of parentheses from earlier haha

This is a strawman. The position you are describing does not belong to me.

You literally admitted the self exists, there's no way I'm straw manning you on that. You said so yourself and I quote directly: "OF COURSE it exists". So what am I getting wrong here? You really are comfortable admitting that the self exists even if you don't know exactly what it is, again I quote directly: "OF COURSE it exists". So why the double standard to when it comes to mind? When it comes to P1 you're all like "oh I can't say it's true or not since I don't know what it is" but you're okay saying the self exists even though you say you don't what it is... Blatant double standard... Your own UFO and dark matter analogy drills home this point.

Yes you do, here's a direct quote of you doing so: "I am assuming, based on various criteria, that you must be some sort of similar phenomena."

No, I am not. I literally say that I am ASSUMING that you must be some sort of similar phenomena.

Yes you are. Saying they're similar is synonymous with saying they're comparable. You are able to discern how one resembles the other by your own admission here.

You are now trying to squirm out of the corner I’ve put you in by making a bold faced lie.

The OP is public momo, we can all see for ourselves that P1 always has been, and I quote directly: "Mind exists". That's all P1 has ever been long before you and I ever spoke...

You have always asserted to know what this phenomena is.

I've asserted long ago that I've set the bar low and I'm not going as far as you're trying to go. I've made it clear from the beginning that I'm only talking about a non-ivory tower average joe's common sense understanding, the kind that an 18-month old child can grasp. That's as far as I'm trying to go, I'm getting at a basic understanding of the self and the mental and all that. You want a full blown metaphysical thesis on the self, and I keep telling you that you're setting up a totally different and setting it much higher. Your inquiry≠my inquiry. It's irrational for you to get all butthurt simply because we're answering different questions in varying degrees of modesty.

No, that is literally impossible. Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that idealism is necessarily false.

You've missed the point again entirely: all that's being said is that if P1 is true then the case for idealism does in fact get off the ground. If the first premise is affirmed then the case has indeed taken off, it has began, it's just that you would have to give arguments to show the other premises to be false.

You first have to establish what it is.

I did all the way in the OP: first-person subjective awareness.

The argument that shows, using your own words, that you have defined consciousness as an ability. All you do is erect strawmans, because you are inadequate at addressing my arguments.

The irony here is absolutely stunning. I keep telling you I'm not defining consciousness as an ability yet here you are constantly attacking this strawman about consciousness being an ability lol

Yup, you literally used the word "be" and you were referring to the phenomenon not the word we call the phenomenon. You've been caught.

Yes-

Stop right there, if "yes" then you're admitting you understand perspective and first-person since you're talking about being instead of the word we call the being.

If you want to claim otherwise, tell me the difference between a perspective and first-person.

Remember the 2 picture of the character master chief that I said was you in that thought experiment? There's the perspective of you in 3rd person in the first picture and then there was you in the first-person perspective in the second picture.

One minute I am saying that the name “perspective” and “first-person” refer to the very same phenomena. And the next minute I am saying I do not understand this phenomena.

By your own reasoning that's contradictory: before you said you can't reduce/identify a phenomena without understanding what it is, but now you're trying to tell me you can reduce, or identify, all perspective to first person. Remember the example with reducing the mind to the brain? Before you acted like you can't conceive of reducing the mind to the brain since you have no understanding of mind, but now you're saying you can reduce perspective to first person without understanding what it is... blatant double standard...

That's not true, plenty of property dualists take the mind as irreducible and emergent. I take the mind to be irreducible and not emergent.

Which is irrelevant.

No it's not, it shows you were wrong earlier about how if something is irreducible therefore it is fundamental. Property dualists take the mind as irreducible but not fundamental.

Whatever the mind is, if it is not reducible, then stating what it is means that is what it is fundamentally.

Saying that something is irreducible is only what it is not: namely not reducible.

And once you’ve stated what that which is not reducible is, then that means you’ve stated what it is fundamentally.

Nope, the word irreducible is a negation not an affirmation. irreducible=NOT reducible. This isn't saying what the phenomena is, only what it is not.

No, you did not.

Yeah I did your own quotes prove it

I quoted you as saying the self is an action done by the self, which is moronic.

What's really moronic is your illiteracy. I specifically told you the self is a noun, not a verb or ability or action. Try to not attack straw men anymore.

And your sources merely stated the “I” is a term we use to refer to this phenomena

Nice try, but my source specifically says and I quote directly: "Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”

I did not ask you to define mind in any “colloquial sense”. I asked you to define mind. Period.

A colloquial definition is in fact a definition. Period. There's a distinction between formal and informal language, both are perfectly legitimate. What you are failing to grasp is the distinction between colloquialism and jargon. From the wiki article:

In linguistics, colloquialism is vernacular language including everyday language, everyday speech, common parlance, informal language, colloquial language, general parlance, and common expressions. It is the most used linguistic variety of a language, the language normally used in conversation and other informal communication. ...Colloquialisms are distinct from slang or jargon. Slang refers to words used only by specific social groups, such as teenagers or soldiers. Colloquial language may include slang, but consists mostly of contractions or other informal words and phrases known to most native speakers of the language.

Jargon is terminology that is especially defined in relationship to a specific activity, profession, or group. The term refers to the language used by people who work in a particular area or who have a common interest. Much like slang, it is a kind of shorthand used to express ideas that are frequently discussed between members of a group, though it can also be developed deliberately using chosen terms.[6] While a standard term may be given a more precise or unique usage amongst practitioners of relevant disciplines, it is often reported that jargon is a barrier to communication for those people unfamiliar with the respective field"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism

What I'm getting at is a mere everyday understanding that we all get by on in our everyday lives. What you're asking for is jargon as found in the field of Philosophy of the Self. You want a metaphysical account of the self (e.g. what is the self?) but I keep telling you what I'm getting at is this average joe's understanding that even an 18-month old child can grasp.

I've said before that the self is an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness/awareness. Could you be anymore uncharitable?

And why would your inconsistencies be any of my problem ? And are the terms “person”, “his” and “her” not merely different names for this phenomena we call “self” ?

How is there any meaning in these sentences if there is absolutely 0 understanding of "your" or "my" in these sentences? Pretend you don't understand all you like but your own language proves otherwise. All that's being told you to here is that this "I" is the object of introspection. The world is the object of sense experience while the self is the object of introspection.

Yes it does because you're just telling me what you call it. muh names! word swapping!

I actually did not.

Actually you did, and you're still just word swapping

By your own logic yes you have and you're still not telling me what a tree is. Give me an exact definition of a tree. Don't give me this vague x, y, z crap. Give me an actual definition, define what a tree is.

I did define what a tree is.

1. No you didn't, you just gave me this vague x,y,z bullshit. What you're doing is worse than word swapping, you're just letter swapping. Give me an actual definition of a tree.
2. notice how low you set the bar for yourself and then raise it for me, you're clear moving the goal post and having a double standard. So when it comes to a tree you can just say x,y,z and that's good enough, but if I said the self is a,b,c you'd flip a tit and demand I give an exact definition of the self. This is bullshit momo and you know it... If I can't satisfactorily say the self is a,b,c then neither can you satisfactorily say the tree is x,y,z. Either lower your standard and admit I've met the bar or raise the bar and get to work on defining what exactly a tree is...

Also, if we're going to play like you then you should support your commitment about there being composition. What exactly is composition? Do composite objects actually exist? Do parts combine to form a whole that is distinct from the parts or is there no whole and only parts?

Oh, there is a simple experiment that can show you there is such a thing as composition. Go cut your hair. That should not be possible if the object we call “our body” is not a composition of more fundamental parts.

This is simply question begging. You're assuming there is already this composite object you call "hair" when that is exactly what is in question. How do you know this "hair" is actually a unified composite whole rather than a mere collection of parts? Keep Sorites Paradox and the Ship of Theseus in the background while attempting to answer this...

A composition is many parts, not one. A “composite object” is the same as “a composite of parts” and if the latter exists so does the first. And if by combining, the different parts give rise to something that is different than the individual parts, then the “whole” is obviously different than the parts.

So which is it? Is the object a concrete whole or is it just a collection of parts? If there can be a whole distinct from the parts how is this not a contradiction or at the very least not a kind of magic?

Let me know what other basic notions you require help with.

1. I want to make something clear: so far you're giving me a rather common sense answer to this rather complex issue. If I want to be like you I can keep pressing you on this to point where you'll need to give a full blown metaphysical thesis on parthood, wholes, composition, objects, etc. but you're clearly not giving me that now are you? You're giving me a colloquial response rather than a drawn out thesis on the matter.
2. There's glaring issues in mereology and composition, such as those paradoxes I referenced earlier. Just check out this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of material constitution: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/material-constitution/

Those like Jeffery Grupp for instance gives some arguments to show how composition leads to a contradiction and is thus impossible: https://philpapers.org/archive/GRUMNQ.pdf

In one instance you're okay with a common sense colloquial understanding when it fits you, but when it comes to the self and the mind and all that all of a sudden you raise the bar. Blatant double standard... When it comes to yourself you lower the bar but when it comes to me you all of a sudden raise the bar.

In your attempts at doing this you have undermined any claim to knowledge and any definition of any word. We're in a game of chess and you think flipping the board over means you've won the game... You need to show me which premise is true or false and whether the argument is valid/invalid. That's how the game is played.

First, I did that. I’ve showed you how P3 is false given how you’ve defined consciousness.

You claimed I defined consciousness as an ability when I keep telling you I defined consciousness as a noun, so there goes your straw man.

Secondly, you tried to say my definition of tree is merely word swapping and you ended up committing a category error.

If I'm committing a category error then so are you. I'm merely doing what you're doing, I'm just holding up a mirror to you. If you don't like the reflection you see then the problem is you not me.

And lastly, unless you tell me what this phenomena is, P3 literally has no foundation.

First-person subjective awareness, there ya go.

How ? Your definition contains two terms that refer to the very same thing

Nope as I demonstrated with those 2 pictures of the halo character master chief. The second picture is the first-person (which you clearly can make sense of, there's nothing incoherent about that picture) and the subjective awareness refers to the realizing of the first-person and how there is qualia (what it is like etc.).

Your common idiot “understanding” either tells me what this phenomena is or it does not.

There is a difference between colloquialism and jargon, between an informal and a formal understanding. There's what your average joe understands and what those in the ivory tower understand. What's so hard for you to understand that?

After you’ve demonstrated you actually possess the knowledge you claim to possess.

I'm afraid the burden of proof doesn't work like that: the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claimed I have no knowledge, which means the burden of proof is on you to prove this claim. If you can't meet your burden then be honest about it and retract your claim.

Too bad you are.

I'm explicitly telling you right now that I'm not. You're attacking a straw man. When someone corrects you and tells you they are not defining something in a certain way and you keep attacking that definition after you explicitly been told they do not hold to that definition then you are committing the epitome of a straw man. There cannot be a better example of the straw man fallacy then what you're doing right now.

Does a child know what this phenomena is ?

In a common sense way, yeah they do. In an informal sense, they do indeed have some understanding in some shape or form. They don't have a formal metaphysical thesis they can lay out for you, heck they may not even be verbal and be unable to give you any description. But that doesn't mean they don't know or that they don't have some understanding in some shape or form.

But it does rely on this phenomena you have yet to explain

No it doesn't, just open the dictionary for yourself and we can see these are 2 different words with 2 totally different meanings. They're not even synonymous. Here's proof that I'm right, this is the word "know":

And here is the word describe:

Notice how these are 2 completely different words, with 2 completely different definitions, and are not even close to being synonymous... Even if someone could not describe, that does not mean they do not know. You are equivocating knowing with describing. Your argument is demonstrably invalid...

You yourself stated that all knowledge requires this phenomena.

Actually that was you who said that, which by the way would mean you are indeed affirming radical skepticism. If anything that rests on the concept of the self does not count as knowledge since there's supposed to be no knowledge of the self, then it follows logically and necessarily that there is no knowledge if knowledge itself rests on the concept of the self.

As such, pointing out said distinction is meaningless when you have to explain the very phenomena that is required for all knowledge.

According to you knowledge itself doesn't make sense, so that would mean saying we know 2+2=4 is nonsense since the concept of the self is nonsense. You would have to be a radical skeptic to remain consistent here or admit that there is some understanding of the self in some shape or form or that knowledge does not rest on the self.

I never denied this distinction and as such there was no admission on my part.

Is the distinction a true distinction yes or no? Is there really a difference between knowing something and describing something, yes or no? For the sake of clear communication I need a direct yes or no answer to this.

My inference is valid

100% false. There is a distinction between knowing something and describing something, so pointing to a lack of a description does not entail a lack of knowledge. Your inference is demonstrably invalid.

Caught red-handed doing what ?

Trying to point to a lack of a description as support for there being a lack of knowledge. That is invalid as I just demonstrated.

You can assert all day long that you do possess knowledge. Unless you demonstrate that, you might as well wave your hands and say a magic spell. You either demonstrate your claims or you don’t.

I already told you this is a basic belief. Do you not know what a basic belief is?? Basic beliefs do not derive from other beliefs, they are foundational. I already pointed out how if you want to deny this then you're going to fly off into infinite regress or circular reasoning. This is the key to showing foundationalism is true by eliminating the other (im)possibilities.

Do you grasp directly WHAT this phenomena is ?

In a colloquial sense, yes. There is an awareness of this self as the self.

You are missing the point, yet again.

No, that would be you. You're the one who can't seem to grasp the formal and the informal. Between colloquialism and jargon. Between the average joe and the ivory tower.

If you claim to know something, it is not me that has to prove that wrong.

If you were merely suspending judgment you would have no burden of proof, but you're not doing that. You're claiming that I do not know, and that claim carries a burden of proof just like any other claim. If you don't want to carry this burden then you need to retract your claim that I have no knowledge. You need to take a more modest position where you withold judgement on the matter instead of having a stake in the matter by claiming I have no knowledge. Choose wisely.

That I hold said assumption is a bare assertion.

Prove it by giving a clear answer to this question: is only things we can communicate with language count as knowledge, yes or no? If no then this is no bare assertion as you're affirming it outright for us right now. If yes then it is a bare assertion but that would collapse your entire case about me not having any knowledge and your pressing for a description would admittedly be unnecessary for knowledge.

But its good that you finally admitted a rose smells just as sweet no matter the name.

That was me who said that quote...

Yeah you did, here's a direct quote of you doing this: "My justification that there is no knowledge is the fact that you have not provided it."

That is me asking you to support your claims.

No it isn't, that you is you trying to provide justification for your claim that I have no knowledge. You even said it right there in that very sentence that is being quoted that this is your justification. This isn't a question you were asking, it's a claim you made and you trying to meet your burden of proof. However I just demonstrated that your inference is invalid, so your claim that I have no knowledge is unsubstantiated.

You can claim to know directly that you are Zeus all day long. It is not my job to prove you wrong.

I already explained how this is a false analogy. Zeus would not be an example of direct knowledge, this knowledge would be mediated by the senses. It is self-knowledge that is distinct in this sense of being direct, immediate, and independent of descriptions and concepts.

Only if this debate was held in your head. But it is not. When you enter a debate, you are expected to demonstrate your claims.

Yeah you are expected to demonstrate your claims, but you failed to do so by trying to give a weak argument from silence which I showed to be invalid. To play this card you're trying to pull you need to retract your claim that I have no knowledge. You need to take a more modest position where you suspend judgment on whether or not I have knowledge.

You did not and thus it is safe for me to assert the knowledge you claim to possess is not there.

It is not safe for you to assert that because the inference would be invalid as I demonstrated. Either make a better argument or take a more modest position.

Your “understanding” does not explain what this phenomena is

I literally just got done telling you this is independent of any descriptions or concepts and you're complaining about there not being a description or concept lol do you honestly not see the problem here?

I’m the guy who is honest enough to admit I do not understand a phenomena.

You understand that you're that weirdo on the street then? Because if you're being even remotely honest then you would admit that most human beings have absolutely no problem talking about the self, and the mind, and thoughts, and feelings, they do it all the time in personal relationships and in everyday speak with regular people all the time with perfect comprehension. You and I both know this, come on, don't be dishonest and act like you have no idea what I'm talking about when I say this... You're the weirdo here momo, no me. I'm the guy who is advocating common sense, you're the one who isn't.

You’ve missed it again.

No, it's the total opposite: you missed it. I keep telling you this is independent of any description and concept and then you just complain about there not being a description or concept...

I did read them. Without the self, there is no knowledge. This is something you’ve said.

This is something you've said, and I don't see how you can make sense of this claim of yours if you can't make sense of the word "you" in any shape or form.

So there is no point in talking about knowledge by acquaintance when you are asked to explain the self.

Of course there is, especially if this knowledge is independent of any explanation. Again, I'm going to need you to justify your claim that all knowledge has to be explicable in language in order to count as knowledge. If you're not affirming that all knowledge has to be explicable in language then that means I don't have to give an account in language in order for this to count as knowledge.

No. Note that I am not making any claims regarding the validity of any knowledge. I am pointing out that all knowledge builds upon this phenomena.

Yes, you are indeed a radical skeptic by your own admission. If anything that rests on an unexplained concept does not count as knowledge, and all knowledge rests on the self which is an unexplained concept, then by this logic it follows necessarily that there is no knowledge. You would have to accept the fact that you're a radical skeptic who doubts all claims to knowledge, even 2+2=4

I would say I am not.

If you're not a radical skeptic then how is there knowledge? What is knowledge?

If my request is nonsensical then so is yours. I'm merely asking you to define your terms. If I have to define the terms I use then so do you. No special pleading. What is knowledge? What is an idea? What are thoughts? What's a belief? You've said before in the past that you think my belief is a false belief, that is a claim that you know something. So what is a belief that you claim can be true or false?

No, it’s not because I do not claim to know what these phenomena are. I did define my terms. Problem is their definition does not explain what they are.

Defining your terms is explaining what the phenomena is, just look at the very definition of the word "explain": make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.

Just like I can define a UFO I see and yet not know what that phenomena is.

You still know it's an object that is flying and has a certain shape to it even if you don't know exactly what it is. There's still some understanding in some shape or form, this is undeniable.

I think all those things are what this phenomena we call mind does. But again, I am not sure because I, unlike you, am honest enough to admit it.

But you don't have the honesty to admit that you have at least some understanding of this "I" in any shape or form yet you have no problem identifying this "I" that can "be sure" or "not sure". [sarcasm]So honest[/sarcasm]\

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. You cannot have an experience of the lake with no sense experience. If your eyes are removed you cannot see the lake anymore since this experience was mediated by your senses. This is not the case with the self and the mind in general. We can remove sense experience all day, but we still are directly aware of ourselves and thoughts, feelings, etc.

I am talking purely about the experience of a lake.

You were the one who brought up how this could be a hallucination which only drives home my point that you're referring to a sensory intermediary between yourself and the lake. That was you who brought up the point about hallucinations, not me.

It might be that there is no lake there to begin with

Exactly! This proves my point: you're talking about a sensory intermediary. This knowledge of the lake is not immediate, it is not direct, it is not independent of any description or concepts, it is in fact mediated by your senses.

I am talking about the experience of the lake, which is not the lake.

Then this is not direct by your own admission, you just refuted yourself.

Actually we have none of that stuff.

Yes we literally do, you're in denial.

I made no mention of them so you are yet again erecting a strawman.

You made no hallucinations either when you brought up UFO's but once I turned your own analogy against you that's when you moved the goal post and brought up how "well maybe it's a hallucination! muh flies!". Total goal post shift, you didn't bring that up initially either.

We have a phenomena we call UFO which could be any number of things.

If it's not a flying object then it's not a UFO. By definition a UFO is an Unidentified FLYING OBJECT. To say a UFO is not a flying object is to state a contradiction: you would be saying it is and is not a flying object. If you're saying UFO then you have to stick with it being a flying object, otherwise you're contradicting yourself... Stop trying to desperately move the goal post when you've been caught, it's dishonest.

Such confusion on your part. A hallucination exists.

omg you and I both know that if something is a hallucination then what you're hallucinating about doesn't exist! come on, man quit this bullshit pseudo-skepticism, nobody is buying it... If the UFO is a hallucination then there is no actual UFO there. But the whole reason you brought up UFO's was to defend the claim that you can affirm something exists without knowing what it is, and now you're going back on that by trying to act like the UFO might not even exist in the first place. So you're going to have to make up your mind: can you claim that something exists without knowing exactly what it is yes or no?

Hold on. Are you claiming to know directly what this phenomena we call “self” is ?

Yes, of course. Wow you suck at reading, I've been saying that this whole time!

Also, everything we experience might be a hallucination. Irrelevant. It would still be.

No, by definition if it's a hallucination then it's not real. We would be having an experience, but the experience would not correspond to anything real.

We would not know that the phenomena we call chair corresponds with an actual state of affairs. But we would know the phenomena we call chair is.

Then your whole point about hallucinations was completely pointless. Appeal to hallucinations all you want, we still have some understanding in some shape or form and have no problem granting that things in our experience exist even if there is some remote chance that everything we experience is a hallucination.

Knowing a phenomena is does not imply you know what said phenomena is, which is exactly the point.

I don't see what your problem with P1 is then. P1 only states that mind exists. I don't see why you have this big problem accepting P1 as true even if you don't know what exactly mind is. This is showing a blatant inconsistency on your part. One minute you're totally paralyzed by skepticism and incomprehension, the next you're not. Which is it???

So the self is a word ?

Ability is also a word. I highly doubt if I said it was an ability you'd exclaim "but ability is a word!"

Or is it a word that refers to a person ? A “person” is just another word we use to call this phenomena. So all you’ve said is that sometimes you like to call this “self” a “person”. Again. What is this phenomena. Not how you call it.

This would apply equally if I said it was an ability, you'd just say "but ability is just another word we use to call this phenomena! herp derp!

No. Unlike you, I am not evading anything.

Prove it: is P1 true or not true? This is a true dichotomy, law of excluded middle bitch. Don't evade the question: answer it. Prove your claim that you're not evading by answering directly yes or no to this question.

And I require to know what this phenomena is if you want to start your case for idealism.

"Knowing a phenomena is does not imply you know what said phenomena is, which is exactly the point."-momo666

You kick your own ass lol by your own logic you should have no problem admitting mind exists even if you don't know exactly what mind is. Your own UFO analogy proves this.

That screenshot does not mention if this phenomena is an object, activity, act or what have you.

Yes it does, it literally has the word object in the very screen shot you took! And I already told you I'm talking about a noun, you just keep attacking your straw man.

Which don’t refer to this phenomena we call “self” ?

In 3rd person

So you equivocated when you said “I=awareness” and “I=consciousness” ?

Nope, I've noted how they can be used interchangeably in a colloquia sense, this is reflected in the thesaurus.

Also, what do you mean we grasp the self ?

We have an acquaintance of the self.

Do we grasp WHAT this self is ?

In a colloquial sense, yes. Do not confuse colloquialism with jargon.

Do we know that knowledge is correct or are you just assuming that ?

We know it's correct, it's a basic belief. It is foundational.

I am since you obviously don’t know “person” is just another name for this phenomena we call “self”.

You're obviously not since literally all words are terms so your point is vapid, and the point about using the term "noun" here is not necessarily to capitalize on the usage of "person" but rather to show the self is a concrete something alongside places and things rather than some verb or ability.

The common sense grasping of the self, just like the common sense grasping of the world we experience. What exactly is existence, momo...? Maybe you can't tell me what exactly existence is, but you can still tell me that some things exist in this common sense way that we all intuitively grasp.

What “common sense grasping of the self” are you talking about ?

You pass the rouge-test? Well there you go, that's what I'm talking about.

Why would I ask you to explain a non-existent phenomena ?

So P1 is true then? If you're asking for an explanation of mind, and you only ask for an explanation of something that exists, then it follows logically and necessarily that mind exists. So then you acknowledge P1 is true! Great!

Are any of those beliefs talking about what this phenomena is ?

In a basic common sense way yes.

Imagine you've lost your sense of sight. If you're plopped into some random environment you now don't know what is ahead of you, you can't see it. Say you've now lost your sense of smell, and touch, and taste, and all of that. Now you really don't know what's going on in your environment. You can't use your sense experience to know about the world now, but you can still introspect: you still know that you have thoughts, feelings, ideas, and so forth. This goes to show that this knowledge is on firmer epistemic ground than sense experience, it is epistemically secure. This knowledge is not mediated by sense experience, it is grasped in first person through introspection and the relation is direct as compared to the world you experience with your senses. So this carries with it a special authority as this is on stronger grounds.

That is beside the point.

That is anything beside the point! Once you grasp this, which you clearly do, your case falls apart. There's what we know mediately through our senses and what we know immediately independently of our senses. We do have something understanding of this self in some shape or form, it's just that this is immediate, direct, and independent of any description.

That would be you. That quote literally builds upon the very phenomena you are being asked to explain.

You're simply repeating the very claim I just refuted: there's different kinds of knowledge and so they should be treated differently since they are indeed different. It makes no sense for you to complain about a lack of a description where one isn't necessarily promised. It's irrational for you to expect someone to try to jump over a high bar when they have no intention of doing so.

That you do have said knowledge is very much only an assertion on your part.

A true assertion that is foundational.

Right. I’m the confused one. Because I can connect the dots. Got it!

You're the one trying to act like they can't connect the dots with your pseudo-skepticism, try to keep up

That literally can’t be the case. The body is not identical to this phenomena we call the self remember ?

omg the autism on you is thick as fuck. We, normal human beings, have no problem admitting that this is a picture of Donald Trump:

While this is not a picture of Donald Trump:

Cut the dishonest pseudo-skepticism. You know this common sense distinction that we make in everyday life. You clearly do not confuse the 2 picture here. You and I both know the second picture is a picture of Hillary Clinton while the first picture is NOT a picture of Hillary Clinton. This is the basic point I'm getting at here: that picture of Master Chief is a picture of you in this thought experiment

No.

Bullshit. There's absolutely nothing incoherent about this picture:

You grasp this picture, there's nothing incoherent about that picture like with this one:

The second picture here is a paradox and simply makes no sense, while the first is not paradoxical at all and makes perfect sense. If you can't make sense of the first picture here, the one of first-person, then you're trying to tell me you have no idea what the hell a first-person video game is. Are you telling me you can't tell the difference between a first-person shooter video game like Halo or Call of Duty and a non-first person video game like Super Mario Bros? Is your pseudo-skepticism so retarded that you can't tell the difference between Halo/Call of Duty vs. Super Mario Bros???

Actually there is.

Unless you're retarded no there isn't. If you grasp that picture of master chief in first-person then you grasp what I mean by first-person, and you would acknowledge that first-person does not refer to subjective awareness so your charge of a repetitive definition is invalidated. That's the main point of this picture is to show you that this is what I"m referring to when I bring up first-person, and then I note how there is a subjective awareness of the first-person, so don't get too confused here.

I understand we call it “first-person”.

You understand the picture in general. It's not paradoxical like that second image and you know it. The first image, master chief (a.k.a. you) is perfectly sensible. People talk about first-person shooter video games all the time, even children grasp the concept perfectly fine. You can drop the pseudo-skepticism and have a productive conversation now...

First off, if the terms “first-person” and “subjective” refer to this phenomena we call “self” then what you’ve said is literally incoherent.

You're getting way confused. Look at this picture again:

THAT is first-person, got it? When I use the term "first-person" go back to this image. There is the first-person, and there is also a subjective awareness of the first-person. Notice how this is not circular or repetitive at all? "first-person subjective awareness" clearly does not equal "awareness awareness awareness awareness" like you falsely tried to claim, there is a clear distinction I'm drawing between first-person and subjective awareness. How are you still not getting this??

You are saying what you mean by that term. I am not trying anything. I am just showing your own words.

In my own words, per your own screenshot, I'm only saying that consciousness is something we are directly aware of there. That's it.

There is no reason to apologize, especially to you

So you just apologized for no reason lol great

I know you are desperate to score a point, but you won’t.

Look at the way you talk about this conversation lol you're clearly no interested in going anywhere. You're not a true skeptic who seeks truth, you're a pseudo-skeptic in a pissing contest

You're confused, I was using the word "subject" as used in grammar: "a noun phrase functioning as one of the main components of a clause, being the element about which the rest of the clause is predicated." If you're admitting the subject is 100% incomprehensible then the rest of your sentence is just grammatically nonsensical. This is partly why I keep telling you to abandon first-person language because you're being deceptive: you want to keep the meaningfulness and usefulness of first-person language while using it to deny that it is meaningful. You're just contradicting yourself and proving your pseudo-skepticism to be parasitic. If you could meet my challenge it's possible you could undermine this point but you appear to be unable to meet my challenge...

Not knowing what a phenomena is does not imply we can not name it, which is what I am doing.

This isn't about naming it's about assigning predicates to subjects. You can't meaningfully ascribe predicates to a subject without a clear understanding of the subject at hand. For instance, I can't ascribe the predicate "blue" to a process like "running" that's simply nonsensical. If the subject is a noun you can ascribe certain predicates, but if the subject is referring to a process or something of that sort then it's just grammatical nonsense.

There is no reason for me to abandon any terms.

Yes there is because apparently these terms are nonsense according to you

How can that be the complete opposite if that is literally what I’ve said ? The belief that there really is an object is what is not direct knowledge. But the experience of the lake is still direct.

Because no sense experience=no experience of the lake. What don't you get about that? You can get rid of sense experience, but you still have introspection. Introspection here would be the example of direct knowledge, not sense experience of the lake.

You literally demonstrated me right and even took the time to explain why I am right. Also, I am not making any judgements regarding knowledge.

The total opposite: you make claims to knowledge all the time, you even denied being a radical skeptic. If you were a radical skeptic who suspended judgment on all claims to knowledge you'd be able to slip out of this, but you're not a radical skeptic as you admitted so you can't slither out of this one.

This is an answer you’ve been provided many times.

No you haven't, I need a yes or no answer to this question and you resolutely refuse to do so which is real suspicious...

If walking is what a phenomenon does then that tells us what walking IS.

No it doesn't, because vomiting is also something a phenomenon does but vomiting≠walking. This is proof that your definition is insufficient, it's too vague, it doesn't actually tell us what it is. There is definitely special pleading here too because I could give just as vague a definition of the self and mind and that wouldn't satisfy you at all and you know it! You're setting the bar all low for yourself and then you jack it way up when it comes to me. You are clearly operating on 2 different standards: a lower one for you, and a higher one for me. Total bullshit...

You also forget that I do not claim to know what these phenomena are.

...so you don't know what walking is...? dude, you're a fucking radical skeptic, you doubt everything. Just be real already and come out of the closet

If I don’t make any claims to that knowledge, your request is nonsensical.

1. you are making claims to knowledge
2. even if you're not, then you need to stay consistent with this skepticism and stop using such terms to make claims since you're supposed to be paralyzed by skepticism. You can't have it both ways. If you're playing the skeptic then you need to be modest and stop making claims.

Because your position is not clear.

One minute you claim you can still admit something exists even if it's not clear what it is, the next you claim you can't. Can you please just make up your fucking mind already

You have not explicitly stated if P1 claims to know what this phenomena is.

Yes I have! I've done this soooo many times. P1 is ONLY claiming that mind exists. That's it! It doesn't matter if you think the mind is an entity, or property, or process, or whatever, so long as the mind exists then you're acknowledging P1 is true. In the OP I give a definition of mind though.

That information is crucial to your case because, depending on what the answer is, idealism might be necessarily false and so could P3.

How many times do I have to break this down for you: that is 100% irrelevant to the truth of P1. Affirming or denying P3 is 100% irrelevant to the truth of P1. If you deny P3, then P1 is still true. If you affirm P3, then again P1 is still true. You keep moving the goal post, stop doing that. Right now, at this particular point in the discussion, we are talking about the truth of P1. Is P1 true or not true? Answer the question, stop evading...

Also, earlier you tried to suggest “mind” in P1 does not refer to “my mind”.

You are way confused and mixing up the context: The context is that saying MY mind exists does not mean mind in general began to exist, and that affirming that mind exists, which you know through introspection, does not lead to the knowledge that mind in general began to exist. You're getting way confused here.

No, it would not.

Yes it would, as you acknowledge that it exists which literally means P1 and P2 are true.

Depending on what this phenomena is, it might be that idealism is dead in its tracks to begin with

No because P1 and P2 are true, so the case for idealism does get off the ground. Would you stop being so worried about scoring points and just have some intellectual honesty by acknowledging that the case for idealism clearly gets off the ground? Nobody is going to kick you while you're down here, it's just accepting reality.

Laughing at your own dishonesty might sound cool, but it really makes you look retarded. This is the context, just so we are clear:

You're not even denying what I've stated lol you know what I'm saying is true. What you're saying applies to literally anyone, even those who are non-verbal. Do you seriously not see how retarded it is to claim that if someone is non-verbal that they all of a sudden don't have knowledge about anything? Seriously??

What something is does not change.

Depends on what you mean by something and change.

You either know what this phenomena is or you don’t.

There's a difference between formal and informal, between colloquial and jargon, between common sense and the ivory tower. There is no denying this.

Remember that picture of the first-person I showed you? Yeah, it's that fucking simple dude... That's how low I'm setting the bar here... You know how you have this first-person experience and you can pass the rouge-test? That's all I'm getting at! If you comprehend this then you comprehend what I've been trying to get at this whole time...

No, I know there is a phenomena I call that way.

You are aware of it directly. You have a common sense grasp of this self and the mental etc.

Without providing that crucial piece of information, you literally have no case.

I keep telling you and you just keep ignoring it: this is something that is INDEPENDENT of any description or concept. This isn't about a piece of information that needs to be translated through language, this is something you experience directly.

That I want to know what it is has been made clear to you from the very beginning.

And what you're failing to grasp is how you're playing the role of the metaphysician when I keep telling you I'm only talking about the average joe. You're going for the ivory tower when I'm only going for common sense. I'm aiming for something else, which I've been 100% transparent about, and you're complaining that I didn't get a bulls-eye on your completely different target. Again: I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do. If I hit a bulls-eye on my target, which I did, it's irrational for you to complain about how that shot did not hit your target. I shot at what I'm aiming for, so I've succeeded.

Sure I have. A composition. Then we go into what it is composed of and what those components do.

This vague definition applies to literally everything. We could say a care is composition but a care is not a tree now is it?? You have more work to do. Tell me exactly what a tree is, or admit you're lowering the bar.

You’ve specifically said the word “notice” IS “just another word for awareness, perception and consciousness”. Either you equivocated or I am right.

I specifically said they were synonymous, look up what the word synonym means

Stop denying logic already!

Denying logic would be like denying the law of excluded middle like you did awhile back. Get your terms straight.

Simple. Something either is an ability or it is not. Explain to me how two synonyms can be in direct contradiction.

Because there's a difference between colloquialism and jargon. Learn the difference, you autist.

It is very easy for you to prove I am a liar right now, here's how you can do it: answer this simple question with a yes or no: "Is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form?" If you say yes I'm right and thus not a liar, if you say no I'm a liar. Don't beat around the bush, just say yes or no for the sake of clear communication.

I did answer that simple question.

No you didn't, I'm not seeing a yes or no answer to this question. If you have no problem answering this question then just say yes or no: "Is it the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form?" If you say yes I'm right and thus not a liar, if you say no I'm a liar. Don't beat around the bush, just say yes or no for the sake of clear communication.

Only if I stated a syllogism. I did not. I made a probability argument.

No you fucking didn't you liar... You didn't claim that I probably don't have knowledge, you tried to claim that I do not have knowledge. Quit being so dishonest, you know you tried to claim that I have no knowledge. Clearly you're beginning to realize how heavy this burden is, and that it's too heavy for you to carry, so you're trying to squirm into more modest claims but I won't let you get away with such brazen dishonesty. If you want to change your position then you should have the intellectual honesty to admit you couldn't carry your burden from earlier and are now making more modest claims. If you don't want to claim that I have no knowledge then take back your claim...

The source of the knowledge would not be direct. But that said knowledge is direct remains the case.

No it doesn't, Zeus would not be an example of direct knowledge and never has been. So your analogy is a false analogy.

And what sense experience are you even talking about ?

Zeus is describe by sense experience, he's a man with a beard and so forth.

You are right about what ?

That the word "know" and "describe" are 2 different words, with 2 different meanings, and are not even synonymous.

That distinction is not something I’ve denied to begin with.

So then there really is a distinction between knowing and describing. Great! So your inference is invalid by your own admission.

 

[Monistic Idealism]

PART 2

No. Your strawman is invalid,

Pointing out that "know" and "describe" are 2 distinct things is not a straw man. You trying to point to a lack of a description as justification that there is no knowledge is indeed invalid however, as even you acknowledge there is a distinction between "know" and "describe". Once you acknowledge this distinction, then you acknowledge that pointing to a lack of a description does not mean you have pointed to a lack of knowledge.

I do not understand what sweetness is.

So when I say the rose smells sweet you have absolutely 0 understanding of what I'm saying in any shape or form...? So how are you making any sense of the phrase "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet"?

I’ve been clear from the very start.

No you haven't. When I ask you if we have any understanding of the self, or the mental, in any shape or form you refuse to give a straight yes or no answer even though I've asked this from you MANY times. If you had any interest in communicating clearly then you would give me a direct yes or no answer to my questions.

As for P1, if it does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then you simply can not proceed further.

P1 only claims that this phenomena exists, that's it. In the OP I do define mind however as I've made clear from the beginning. Even other users pointed this out to you in your very first comment. I didn't even answer your first comment right away, it was Aikima who was able to recognize what my answer to your question already was since they knew it was in the OP. You're th only who thinks this question hasn't been answered, when everyone else recognizes that I have all the way in the OP...

And I don’t particularly care about how smooth you think this conversation goes, just like you do not care either.

So you don't care about clear communication and honesty, great... thanks for coming out with it!

You would be an object in the sense that is all I am perceiving

So you were full of shit when you tried to deny saying I'm an object, since I have a direct quote of you saying so...

No, you selectively chopped off my words.

I didn't chop off your words, I quote a complete sentence from you. You even prove that when you gave the quote yourself.

I am picking neither, which is the point you keep missing.

As long as you're not picking reductionism then you're with me on not picking reductionism. I don't pick reductionism also, and same goes for you, so we are on the same page in that regard. You just keep missing this point.

It is your case that can not get off the ground.

P1 and P2 are true as you've acknowledge long ago, so it does get off the ground. Your problem is merely with P3.

So then you were wrong earlier when you said "I am not distinguishing between 2 people". You really do distinguish yourself as a different person than me. You going to go full contrarian and deny this now, too?

Again with the dishonesty. Here is the full quote

That changes absolutely nothing: you just proved you were wrong earlier when you said you're not distinguishing between 2 people. You really are distinguishing between 2 people.

Here is the full quote

If the rock is an object, and I'm no different from the rock, then we're both objects plain and simple. Add more all you want, your words spell it all out right there.

[sarcasm]This sentence already relies on that which needs to be explained given the reference to this "us".[/sarcasm] You can't shirk this responsibility onto me, you have the burden to define your terms just as much as I have the burden to define the terms I use. No special pleading.

And I have.

No you haven't since [sarcasm]This sentence already relies on that which needs to be explained given the reference to this "us".[/sarcasm]

And I would be right.

You wouldn't be right or wrong, you'd just be vague and talking nonsense. You wouldn't be saying anything meaningful.

There is no reason for me to explain this phenomena because I do not claim to understand it.

You make claims all the time leeching off the "phenomena". If you want to play the skeptic you've got to be more modest. You can't meaningfully say things like "you have false beliefs!" if you can't make any sense of the word "you" or "beliefs" here. You've got to start making more modest claims if you're actually going to be a genuine skeptic instead of a pseudo-skeptic.

You mean you just erected a strawman again.

You're the one using, and making claims with, the very term they act like they have absolutely 0 understanding of in any shape or form. Either stop using those terms are start making far more modest claims.

Do I have to spell out THAT ?

Apparently you do. You can't just turn up the skepticism dial when it comes to me and then turn it down when it comes to you. no double standards

No

FINALLY! I have been trying to get you to answer this question for soooooooooo long. You have been ducking and dodging for weeks, maybe even months, on giving me a straight answer to the question: "do we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form"? so now you are finally giving me a direct answer which is "No". Great! So you now agree with me that it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form. Okay, now don't be a contrarian and deny that we agree on this all of a sudden, stick to your guns momo. We have officially drawn a line in the sand: it is NOT the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form, you have officially acknowledge this fact. Awhile back you tried to act like we don't have a clue, like we are absolutely ignorant, that we have no knowledge, about the self, but now you say otherwise. Awesome. From this inch I'm taking a mile: this understanding that you admit we have is enough for what I'm getting at. This understanding that you admit we have is sufficient: I'm only talking about something an 18-month old child grasps. If we have do have some understanding of the self in some shape or form, surely we as grown adults (I'm assuming you're 18+) have at least the same understanding as an 18-month old child, which is all I need to make my point.

Depends on how you use the word, it also references the state of being aware of something. If you recognize perception then you understand the state of being aware of something.

No, it does not “depend”.

Yeah it does, look at the definition for yourself. It also references the stateof being aware. It's not all about becoming, it's about being as well. There's being and becoming. It's both/and, not either/or.

No the rouge test leaves us with the knowledge that the subject has "self-awareness". They realize that when they look in the mirror the red dot is not on the mirror that they are looking at, but is on their own forehead. Remember that perfectly coherent picture I showed you of first-person...? Exactly! They look in the mirror, and realize the reflection is of themselves so this reveals that they are aware of themselves. I'm not saying this tells us exactly what the essence of the self is, or that this gives us a description of the self, only that there is an awareness of the self. The bar is low, I don't know how many times I have to remind you of this. Are you going to deny that there is self-awareness, do you fail to rouge test???

That test tells us absolutely nothing about what this “self” is.

How many times do I have to tell you the rouge-test is simply about self-awareness. I repeat: If you pass the rouge-test then you have SELF-AWARENESS. You are aware of the self just as you are aware of the objects you experience with your senses. You use your senses to be aware of the objects around you and you use introspection to be aware of yourself. This is an acquaintance of the self and gives us a basic grasp of the self.

. Whatever does the pointing is what we are interested in. What will you do ? Point to the body ? That is not the mind remember ?

I'm not a dualist like yourself, I don't make this distinction between mind-body or self-body. You're going to have to justify your dualism. I'm a monistic idealist, so I hold the body to be just an another aspect of the mind or self. The body is just an experience within the mind and is the 2nd/3rd person perspective of the mind or self. So when you look in the mirror you are looking at yourself, it's your dualism that puts you in this weird skepticism that always leaves you guessing. My monism avoids this retarded dualistic skepticism that plagues you.

What you are aware of is hair and nose and eyes.

You're not just aware of objects like hair, nose, and eyes: you're aware that it's YOUR hair, nose, and eyes. When you look in the mirror you grasp that is a reflection of you.

Which tells us it is effective, not correct.

It tells us it's COMPREHENSIBLE. You're getting mixed up, I'm talking about comprehension here not truth. Context matters momo. The average joe really does have some understanding in some shape or form, even you've admitted that it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form.

Your average joe has no idea what this phenomena is.

You already acknowledged that it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form so this hardcore skepticism of yours doesn't fly by your own admission. You're making a claim that you can't support, you have no arguments to show the average joe has no idea. You can't go back on this contradicting yourself.

That is why you get all these “accounts” of what this phenomena is.

This happens in the formal sense, not in the informal sense. There's a universal passing of the rouge-test. There's a universal theory of mind as shown in the sally-anne test. Cognitive science makes it clear as day that there is some grasp of the mind and the self, it's not the case that we have no idea what this phenomenon is. It's just that on the basic level that I'm getting at we merely have an acquaintance of the self and the mind and this tells us about the subjective nature of the self and the mind.

No, you have failed to explain what this phenomena is.

I've given my definition, explained in more detail, and even provided you with several scholarly sources. You even admitted that it is not the case that we have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form. If there's any understanding that we have, surely we have at least as much understanding as an 18-month old child does. So you can drop the pseudo-skepticism now and admit that you at least grasp what an 18-month old child does. ...are you really trying to tell me you don't grasp what an 18-month old child grasps...? You fail the rouge-test?

No you were specifically trying to say that "knowledge by acquaintance" relies on that which needs to be explained but now you're going further and saying that this applies to ALL knowledge. So you just proved my point about you being a radical skeptic. You don't have problems with knowledge of the self, you have problems with knowledge in general! You have a fundamental issue with epistemology, not the self.

I make no judgements about knowledge. I am stating that knowledge builds upon this phenomena you have to explain, as you stated yourself.

Do you really not see the contradiction here? You say you make no judgments about knowledge but then you claim knowledge builds upon the self lol clearly you're making a judgment about knowledge here: you're saying knowledge builds upon the self and rests upon the self. The problem here is that with your logic, this means there's no knowledge, which ipso facto makes you a radical skeptic. Before you tried to say you're not a radical skeptic, yet your logic commits you to claiming there is no knowledge. You're going to have to make up your mind momo: do we have knowledge about anything at all yes or no? Don't evade, answer yes or no please.

I have no problem with the phenomena we call “self” so you can stop lying.

hahahahaha that's rich! this whole time you've been complaining about the self. Your weird dualism makes you all skeptical about the self but not the external world when really it's the other way around as I've demonstrated: it is the self and the mental that is on the most secure epistemic ground, not the external world you perceive with your senses. If there's any question about what is what, we are more certain about the self and the mental in general. If you have a question about the self in this regard then you should be all the more confused about what the object you experience with your senses are.

I don’t know what this phenomena we call “self” is. And if knowledge builds upon this phenomena, then saying “we know the self by acquaintance” is meaningless. Notice that I make no claims toward knowledge.

Yes you are, you're making this claim and saying you know it:

“we know the self by acquaintance” is meaningless"

You claim to know this is true. However, you saw off the branch you sit on since you also claim to know that knowledge builds on this self, and that since the self is unknown (another claim towards knowledge from you) then knowledge in general is meaningless. You're going to have to carry the burden of proof for your claim here. Don't like it? The burden too heavy? Then don't make the claim... If you can't handle the heat then get out of the kitchen

Stop moving the goal post, I'm only talking about you being aware of it. You have self-awareness, you are aware that there is an I that does/doesn't know.

Stop erecting strawmen.

That's literally impossible, the context here is me explaining my own position, it's impossible for this to be a straw man. At this point I'm only talking about self-awareness. You pass the rouge-test? You have self-awareness. Simple as that. You are at the very least aware of the self, you have an acquaintance of the self.

Irrelevant.

The complete opposite: if the word "you" is not there then you were wrong. The word "you" is not there, so you're wrong. That's relevant.

I’ve said I think they are acts done by this phenomena.

Walking is also an act done by this phenomena but that doesn't distinguish between knowing, believing, thinking, and all that stuff. Your definition is too vague and not specific enough. Do you seriously not see the blatant double standards at hand here? When it comes to the self and the mind you want this crazy formal definition that goes into all this detail but when it comes to your own definitions you give the lamest most vague definition possible and that's good enough for you... You clearly lower the bar for yourself and raise it for me, this is total bullshit

That is all I have to do because I do not claim to know what those phenomena are.

Nope! You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You make claims with these terms. You claim to know things, and you claim that I don't know things. You claim that there really are beliefs, and that I have beliefs that are false. You claim that you really do have thoughts, and that these thoughts have content. You can't have it both ways: if you're going to play the skeptic you have to be more modest with your claims. You need to suspend judgment on all of this stuff in order to be a consistent skeptic. You can't play the ignorance card while making claims to knowledge, that's 100% contradictory.

Well too bad cause this question is crucial to your case.

No it isn't actually. It's my case, it's my claims, I'm the one who sets the bar since it's MY claims not yours. I've been totally upfront about which target I'm aiming at, and I've hit it. It's irrational for you to complain about me missing my target by saying I didn't hit some other target that you've erected. Again, you're in no position to make demands.

A basic question is not some “super high bar”.

Dude, even you've said this is one of the hardest, if not the hardest, question out there. This isn't "a basic question" like "what is 2+2?" See now that's a basic question. 'what is 2+2" is undeniably a basic question and has a basic answer: "4". What you're asking for is a metaphysical thesis, a formal account, when I've told you before I'm only giving an informal common sense account. Again, I can't fail at something I'm not trying to do! How is this so hard for you to grasp?

I'm still not seeing why you need a complete understanding in order to have merely some understanding. You're going to have to explain this to me.

Is all of the body required for this phenomena ? Let’s try. Cut off your hair. Any radical changes to said phenomena ? Nope. Still there. So obviously understanding the hair (some understanding of the body) helps us zilch.

Still not seeing why we need a complete understanding in order to have some understanding. If we don't need a complete understanding in order to have some understanding then I don't see why this has to be the case with the self. If we don't need a complete metaphysical account of something in order to understand something, then we can understand the self even though we don't have some deep completely metaphysical account.

You're the one who said we need a complete account, but then admitted we don't have a complete account for anything. This applies to literally everything, not just the self. You're a radical skeptic, that's the problem at hand here.

No, it does not because we don’t assert everything is irreducible.

Reducible/irreducible has nothing to do with it. As long as we don't need a complete understanding in order to have some understanding then your point is undermined. Just because your average joe doesn't have "a complete understanding" of the self that doesn't mean there is no understanding of the self. And you even admitted that we don't have a complete understanding for anything, so it doesn't make sense as to why you're singling out the self here. If we don't have a complete understanding for anything then that applies to literally everything.

Whatever this self is, once you’ve explained what it is, that is it. You know what it is fundamentally.

Is there anything at all that meets this criteria of yours? Is there anything we have actually explained and know what it is fundamentally...? You better choose real wisely here: if yes you have quite a heavy burden to meet and demonstrate that you know what anything is fundamentally and have explained it. If no then you've undermined your own point about the self as we don't know what anything is fundamentally and haven't actually explained it. This would apply to not just the self but literally everything.

You said you can't imagine how perspective could BE anything other than first person. So you're not just talking about the word you're talking about the phenomena. You understand perspective, and perspective is first person, so then you understand first person.

I am talking about the phenomena, which is referred to using two different words. And I don’t understand the phenomena in the sense that I do not know what it is.

Yes you do, you said it yourself: perspective is first-person. You said that yourself, you even said you can't imagine perspective BEING anything other than first-person.

It literally is not. All it takes is ONE example of sleep with no experience whatsoever.

No it doesn't because there's the sub-conscious. There's consciousness that is outside your focal awareness.

Whatever this “sub-conscious” is, you need to demonstrate it exists using introspection.

I literally just told you that the sub-conscious is OUTSIDE your focal awareness. Do you even Sigmund Freud, bro? It is a more basic state of the mental that is not necessarily accessible with introspection alone, that is why there is psychotherapy in which the therapist uses techniques to help bring out what is in the sub-conscious to make it conscious.

“Mind” must mean the exact same thing in P1 and in this “cosmic consciousness” phrase.

MY mind goes in the category on "Mind". Saying my mind exists is also saying the mind in general exists.

Do you have any other tool to prove this phenomena exists, other than introspection ?

There are arguments for other minds, but this brings us to the problem of other minds. Are you familiar with the problem of other minds?

Also, we might not remember our dreams but we do remember we had one. If you can’t remember you had a dream, on what basis are you making the claim that you did ?

There are scans of people while in sleep and they display activity in the brain that they display when they recall dreams and have experiences in waking life. There will be activity in the visual parts of the brain and so forth. Plus there's plenty of times when we wake up and have a fuzzy memory of the fact that we had a dream even though we don't remember the specific contents of the dream. Check out Stephen LaBerge (PhD, Stanford). He's the foremost scientific expert on lucid dreaming and has done many scientific studies on dreams and lucid dreams.

I would also like to point out that the mental cannot emerge from the non-mental in general as this would entail a commitment to strong emergence and strong emergence is purely magic: “[strong emergence]is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.”

How can you make that claim if you don’t know WHAT this phenomena is ?

I do know what it is, I even gave a definition in the OP: first-person subjective awareness.

You need to show strong emergence is logically impossible.

I just showed how strong emergence is magic, check out that quote from Mark Bedau.

Furthermore, it was YOU who said that to perceive is to BECOME aware or conscious. So it is YOUR position that entails a commitment to magic then.

I said there's being and becoming. There's something we become aware of, but there are things we are aware of as well. It's not all becoming, there's being too. There's the state of perception, the state of being aware. For you to reduce this all to becoming is simply ignoring the definitions provided to you.

The mental could not have always been there because it begins to be.

Naw, only MY mind began to be, not the mental in general.

That state which begins to be aware or conscious MUST be NOT THAT before it begins to be as such.

That's just like saying since the "physical" body came into being therefore there is something non-physical from which the physical body emerged from. If you can see how silly this is then you can see how silly what you're saying is.

So the phenomena we establish using introspection is the same phenomena you refer to when you use the term “mental” ?

My mind is mind, yes, but there's a distinction between my mind in particular and mind as a whole. You're committing the fallacy of composition here: that because something is true of the part therefore it must be true of the whole. This is the classic composition fallacy. Saying that my mind began to exist does not in anyway commit one to claim that mind as a whole began to exist, that's simply fallacious on your part.

But it does. You’ve said “first-person” refers to the self and “I=awareness” so right there two of your terms refer to the very same phenomena. You said “subjective” refers to the phenomena you are supposed to define. You need to show how all those terms refer to different things.

Nice try liar. I even gave a picture to show the difference here, this is undeniable proof that I'm right:

That picture right there is first-person. That's what I mean by first-person, I've made this clear as day, you can't deny this. I then noted that there is a subjective awareness of this. There is a grasping of the fact that this is your experience, that there what it is like to be you, and a unique subjectivity to your own experience. You acknowledge this yourself when you distinguish yourself from me, and note how I have different mental states then you like how you think I'm insane and how you're not insane. That's a perfect demonstration of this subjectivity, this uniqueness of our own individual experience. You can't deny this without trying to claim we're both identical and have the exact same experiences, in which case if you think I'm insane then you think you're also insane... there's no room for you to squirm here: the moment you admit this picture is not paradoxical and that you can conceive of yourself being sane while me being insane then you grasp what is meant by this distinct "first-person" and the "subjective awareness" of it.

They didn't "give up on trying to reason with me" they were actually stumped by my arguments. One user in here admitted they needed to do more research and said they were ordering a book by Susan Blackmore on the matter, so my arguments have caused them to question their worldview and caused them to do deeper research on the matter. When they're done with the book, and if they feel confident enough in their arguments, they'll probably come back in here and respond. Plus you have to admit that we're talking to humans here: eventually people get tired, they move on to other topics, people have lives and so forth. Maybe you don't understand that because you're not human but who knows, maybe you can learn to be charitable for once.

No one. Literally no one was stumped by your arguments.

Except Dragan Glas literally admitted they need to do more research to continue discussing with me, which is why they're spending their hard earned money to purchase a new book so they could compete with my arguments... so yeah...

Every single one of the members here gave up on trying to reason with you because they saw no point in debating you, given your behaviour.

If that's true then clearly you think those people have given up prematurely. If you thought I was worth "giving up on" and that there's no point in trying to reason with me or debate me then you would have left along with them. You've shot yourself in the foot here lol

Just because you respond to someone and have the last word does not mean you “stumped” them.

I didn't say it did, but nice try. ...that's what this is about for you isn't it? the last word? lmao

It is a personal problem for you because it is crucial to state what this phenomena is.

That doesn't make any sense, I'm only talking about what everyone else talks about. This can't be a personal problem for me then, it would have to be a problem for everyone.

You keep appealing to this vague belief “everyone” supposedly holds without actually pointing out WHAT that belief is and THEN demonstrating that belief.

That's a blatant lie: I've given a definition of mind all the way in the OP, I've given you a definition of the self, I've gone into detail and even provided visual aid, along with several scholarly sources. You just keep turning up your skepticism dial and moving the goal post every chance you get, the UFO example is a perfect example of you doing this. You bring up UFO's as an example that we can say something is real without knowing exactly what it is, then when pressed to say we do have some understanding of the UFO in some shape or form you move the goal post by saying the UFO could be a hallucination, even though that wasn't part of your original analogy and try to act like we don't know it's a flying object even though you're literally identifying it as an unidentified flying object... You're just going to squirm every chance you get and keep moving the goal post.

If P1 does not claim to know what this phenomena is, then P3 has no foundation.

I don't know how many times I've had to tell you this: P1 only claims that mind exists. That's it! Even if you think the mind is an entity, or a property, or a process, or whatever, you can still affirm P1 since all P1 is saying is that mind exists. That's it! It doesn't matter what you're theory of mind is, as long as mind exists then you're affirming P1. You even said before that you don't ask what something is unless it exists, so then if you're asking what mind is then you're telling me P1 is true. If P1 is true then the case for idealism does indeed get off the ground, the first 2 premises of the argument are true.

It is a problem if you want to ask if this phenomena is reducible or not.

It's not a problem for P1 or P2, which is my point here. Pay attention, try to keep up, don't lose the context.

This phenomena being does not help idealism in any particular sense so asserting P1 somehow helps the case for idealism get off the ground is delusional

Are you retarded? P1 is only a single premise, of course this one premise all by itself is not sufficient to establish idealism. Duh! All that's being said is there that the case for idealism is made up of various premises that reach a conclusion, and since the first 2 premises are true then clearly the case for idealism gets off the ground. If it couldn't get off the ground then we wouldn't be able to get back the very first premise, but clearly the first premise is true so the case does get off the ground.

No, it’s not, because depending on what it is, it might outright falsify P3.

How many times do I have to tell you that P3 is a totally different premise from P1?? You can say P3 is true or false, it doesn't matter to whether or not P1 is true or false. If you're not a reductionist then P1 is still true. Even if you are a reductionist, then guess what? P1 is still true! In regards to the truth of P1, P3 doesn't matter. Right now, at this point in the conversation, we're just talking about whether or not P1 is true. That's it. P1, and P2, are true so the case for idealism clearly gets off the ground. You just have a problem with P3 is all, which is to be expected.

I have no problem with a phenomena that begins to be, as P1 states.

Nice try, it doesn't say anything about anything beginning to be, only that it exists. P1 is only about whether or not mind exists. Does mind exist, yes or no?

So wait a minute, now there is knowledge??? Before you said knowledge rests upon that which needs to be explained so that would mean knowledge is incomprehensible, but now you're saying there is knowledge??? make up your mind. Either there is knowledge or there is not knowledge, make up your mind.

That is again your strawman.

That's impossible, you've literally stated that knowledge builds upon that which needs to be explained. If building on that which needs to be explained is not knowledge, and knowledge itself builds on that which needs to be explained, then by your logic there is no knowledge... Don't like this? Then get a new line of reasoning.

I am literally saying you are lying. And on top of that lie, you lie again, as you’ve done just now.

Except you said "right", which is affirmation of what I said.

So you're saying the question "what jumped" and "what is a rabbit" are the exact same question...? are you fucking retarded?

Are you ? What are you even quoting ? Where in that quote do you see that claim ? You are hallucinating.

I'm asking you a question, clearly you're too scared to answer it since you know what it entails. The moment you admit "what jumped?" and "what is a rabbit?" are 2 distinct questions then you've admitted I'm right.

That’s a category error on your part.

You can say that all you want, that's not a definition of a rabbit though. If I can't just say "muh category error!" when you ask for a definition then neither can you... no special pleading

No, you keep failing to see the obvious. Just because we choose to assign a word to a certain phenomena, that does not make that word any more special.

I never said it did, I merely noted that it is not simply "but a term". It's not just a word and that's it, there's MEANING. Words mean stuff. It's not just a bunch of sounds or letters put together, there is an actual referent at hand. The word "tree" does not simply refer to the word itself "tree" but the object we know as a tree.

I did tell you

No you really didn't actually, you haven't actually given a definition of a light bulb. Pretend that I've never seen a light bulb before in my entire life... now give me a definition from scratch: what is a light bulb exactly?

The word “I” is not meaningless.

So then you understand what the word "I" means? If you don't know what it means then you're admittedly speaking pure gibberish. If you do know what it means then we can kiss your pseudo-skepticism goodbye. Pick your poison

P1 is not enough for the case the get off the ground.

Yeah it is, it's literally the first premise of the argument lol if the case couldn't even get off the ground then we wouldn't be able to even get past the first premise.

No. By definition it means I am withholding judgement.

Yes! If you are not affirming reductionist then you are not a reductionist! As long as you are not reducing the mind, then you are not a reductionist. I'm not even talking about irreducibility here, I'm just talking about the fact that you're not a reductionist.

I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer.

You're still evading my question: do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that P1 is true? yes or no?

I am asking you to explain what this phenomena is and you keep refusing to do that.

First-person subjective awareness. Simple.

That's not a definition at all and you fucking know it. You set the bar all low for yourself but then demand this rigorous definition from me when it comes to the self, you have double standards. This is clearly special pleading on your part. We could say vomiting is something an organism does but that doesn't really tell us what vomiting is, now does it?? Walking is also something an organism does, but that doesn't tell us what walking is now does it??? You have more work to do: define your terms or stop using them...

Irrelevant. It states it is an act and thus my own standard has been meet.

Then your inquiry about the self is irrelevant. If your vague definition is sufficient then my common sense definition is sufficient: no special pleading. You can't just lower the bar for yourself and then raise it all high for me, that's bullshit. If you can meet your own standard then so can I: no double standards.

For me to explain what this phenomena is further it would mean I am doing your work for you.

No you would just be meeting your obligation to define your terms just as much I have the obligation to define my terms. Again, no special pleading...

Your “definition” does not even tell us if this phenomena is an object, act, activity or what have you

I've said long ago it's a noun.

I am not identifying them as mental. I am calling them that way. Nor am I making that distinction.

Yes you are, you've even brought up how you think I'm mentally ill. Wtf is mental illness then momo if you can't make sense of anything being mental? If you can't make sense of mental illness then you can't make sense of insanity.

Still waiting for you to address my proofs.

what proofs?

No, I am not.

Yes you are, even in your own definition of insanity you included "mental illness"

It seems so to you because you are a drop out. A phenomena can be and yet not be understood. We can name that phenomena and yet not understand WHAT that phenomena is.

If you believe this then you should have no problem saying P1 is true. So is P1 true yes or no? Does mind exists, yes or no?

If it were the case that this phenomena is an object and that object was the brain, then it would be the case that I=brain.

Right, and if that's true then you can conceive of the self and comprehend the self as the brain.

But you have not stated WHAT this phenomena is. You did not say it is an object or act or activity.

Yes I have: first-person subjective awareness. This is a noun. You're welcome.

The brain needs to be understood entirely because you have not pointed out which parts of it and what modes of behaviour are necessary for this phenomena to be.

So we have to understand the brain entirely in order to meaningfully talk about the brain??? come on man... You yourself admitted we don't have a complete understanding of anything. By this logic we can't meaningfully talk about anything!

Except that I made no claim as to what this phenomena is

You're getting mixed up again: the point I'm making here is that I don't have the burden of proof that it's impossible since I'm merely being a good skeptic on this one. Let me show you how a real skeptic operates: instead of claiming that it is impossible, I merely lack belief that it is possible. If you want to try to convince me that it is possible you are more then welcome to meet your burden of proof. See? That's how it's done! You don't see me acting like I'm not making a claim and then go on to make a claim, rather I stay consistent with my suspension of judgment. If you could do this then you skepticism wouldn't be a pseudo-skepticism, but alas...

Identity of what ?

I'm just talking about reductionism in general here. It doesn't matter what the phenomenon is, the point at hand is that reductionism is about IDENTITY not comparisons. Get it right. Learn a thing or two about reductionism.

Not even remotely. You need to own your failures.

You have it assbackwards

P1 does not refer to that which does the acting. It refers to the actions.

no it doesn't lol

I know what the word refers to. I don’t know what the phenomena it refers to is.

this is just a contradiction. If you know what it refers to then you know what phenomena we're talking about.

Is it ?

what?

That is a bare assertion. You need to show how my point is wrong.

I already have, in my previous comments and in this one.

Notice that to even pose the question, you have to assume this phenomena is an object

You're so lost, this isn't even about a question! You're so confused! All that's being is that IF, again I repeat: ""IF"" the mind were the same as the brain, then if you understand the brain then you understand the mind. This is a basic non-controversial point, put the guns down. You don't have to be a contrarian 100% of the time, what I'm saying here is NOT controversial.

You tell me.

No bitch, you're the one who made the claim about there being a "physical reality" so you now have the burden to define and explain and justify the existence of this "physical reality". Don't like it? Then retract your claim about there being a "physical reality".

You still fail to see that you need to deduce the hard problem. You need to show how it is utterly impossible for this phenomena to be accounted for by the non-mental.

I did that all the way in the OP. I gave arguments and included scholarly citations as well.

This “one” is the phenomena you have failed to explain. The aim is something that phenomena does.

You're not being a good skeptic that suspends judgment, you're making claims. You're saying there is this "one" that "aims". wtf does any of that mean??? If you can't meet this burden then you need to take back your claims and suspend judgment like a good skeptic.

What do those terms refer to ?

I've said this so many times already. First-person refers to this:

That's first-person. Subjective awareness refers to the realization of this first person, and how there is a subjective experience, or what it is like, to be this organism.

No, it’s about reference. That is why we say a word references a thing. The object tree is not the word tree.

No shit sherlock, when we say tree=tree we're not talking about the words we're talking about the object: tree

I thought P1 only talks about that which we establish using introspection, but obviously you want more than that.

Are you going to tell me that solipsism is true now or something? Knowing that my mind exists, along with other minds, is perfectly compatible with P1 and fits perfectly with introspection as a way to know the mental exists.

So I am not sure I accept P1 then.

So one minute you say you don't ask what a phenomena is unless it exists, but now you want to try to act like you can't affirm P1? get your logic straight

Demonstrate this “broader category of mind” exists because introspection only helps me establish that a phenomena begins to be.

Introspection doesn't say anything about this phenomena beginning to be, introspection tells you that this phenomena exists. As long as you're not a solipsist then this broader category of mind makes perfect sense since "mind" doesn't exclusively refer to "my mind". So as long as you're not affirming solipsism then this broader category of mind is perfectly coherent and real.

I did read it. The explanation is not there.

The very fact that you're even using the word "explanation" here is proof you didn't read it. You still don't understand the idea of something being independent of descriptions or concepts

No, I am just asking you to defend your assertions

No you tried to act like I didn't make a certain point when these comments are public and we can all verify for yourselves that I am in fact making such point... Put the contrarianism down, dude. Stop being a child, let's have an actual productive conversation here.

Either P1 references my consciousness or it does not. Introspection can only help you establish this phenomena that begins to be, this “my consciousness”. Now you say P1 talks about some broader mind.

Total straw man, I'm not talking about some broader mind, just that mind exists that's it. I'm conscious, you're conscious, everyone else in here is conscious, clearly consciousness exists. Clearly mind exists.

Whatever P1 talks about, you need to demonstrate it exists

As long as you can introspect then you've demonstrated to yourself that P1 is true: mind exists.

Show me a quote from the paper where it attempts and succeeds to explain my inquiry.

You made a specific claim that the explanation fails. Meet your burden of proof or admit you can't meet your burden.

You don’t like it because it exposes your religion for what it is.

I don't like it because you reek of insincerity. You're not even willing grant that you understand what a literal 18-month old child grasps, that's how desperate you are to maintain this retarded pseudo-skepticism. You're trying to tell me that you're about as smart, or dumber than, a 17-month old child... think about that for a second...

You talk about what a child grasps yet refuse to state what is that.

That's a total lie, I've defined my terms all the way in the OP, have given more detail, used visual aid, referred to scientific experiments, and even cited scholarly sources. Your dishonesty is brazen

You can not even say if this phenomena is an activity, ability or what have you.

It's a noun you fucking liar. I've said this to you so many times, you just keep repeating the same horse shit over and over

And there is a reason I am not accepting or denying your premises. You can not explained them.

You're an idiot who just keep contradicting themselves: you've already said you don't ask for an explanation for something that doesn't exist! If you're asking for an explanation of mind, then you're telling me mind exists, which means P1 is true fucking moron!

Until you state what this phenomena is, we can not even address P3.

Like I've said that's irrelevant to whether or not you can affirm P1, and I have stated what this phenomena is so you can cut the crap now.

I understood that two synonyms can not be in direct contradiction with themselves.

Do you understand the difference between colloquialism and jargon or are you that autistic?

One way of showing the subtle distinction is to point out how when we perceive it is bottom-up processing of taking in sense-data, while consciousness subsumes all of this and there is of awareness of this perception and what it is like to have this perception and experience it.

i) What is “sense-data” and what is “what it is like” ?

a.) You know how you have a visual experience (seeing the lake) and an auditory experience (the sound of rock falling into the lake) and you can feel the water with your fingers and all that? Yeah, that's sense experience... you gonna go full autism and act like you have no idea what I'm talking about here?
b.) Go to the 5:35 minute mark.
c.) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

ii) To subsume is an action. Are you saying what we call mind comes after this action ? How exactly does this happen ? Or are you just talking out of your ass, yet again ?

You're forgetting the context again. You keep jumping around to different topics, stay focused. I"m only talking about the distinction between awareness and consciousness here, remember?? Get it right. I'm only saying is that awareness is subsumed within consciousness.

iii) That assumes all of those things are different. So are all of those phenomena different phenomena and can you state what they are or can you just name them ?

They are different things and I just explained how they're different, you just need to stop ignoring me and jumping around different contexts all the time.

You really are autistic. I was explaining how an ability works. I said the apple BEGINS TO BE rotten. The ability is rotten, not the apple. How did you fail to see this ?

And the apple is not an ability, same goes for the mind. Talk all day about the apple or my mind beginning to be, that doesn't mean the apple or the mind is an ability. How are you failing to see this?

You have not demonstrated that category of mind exists.

As long as your mind exists then yes the category of mind exists, especially if you're not a solipsist.

You just don’t understand the implications here. What there is awareness of is the body. Simple.

Again, you need to justify your dualism. Also, even with your dualism you're still aware that it is YOUR body, you realize that this is your reflection in the mirror instead of just another body. You can't deny this, even with your dualism.

You are in no position to make any demands either.

I actually am in a position to make demands in regards to MY claims. I set the bar for my claims, I decide how low or how high I'm going, and I've told you long ago: I'm going low. I've made this abundantly clear with no equivocation. I'm talking about a common sense informal understanding and you keep asking for a formal metaphysicians understanding. Again: you're in no position to make demands. You want more? Start a new thread already.

I’ve explained to you that the understanding you assert to have is not sufficient.

Again: you're in no position to make demands. I'm the one who sets the bar, these are MY claims. I told you I'm only going for a common sense understanding and I've met that. That's all I'm getting at, so it is sufficient, I've hit my target. YOU'RE IN NO POSITION TO MAKE DEMANDS. I CAN'T FAIL AT SOMETHING I'M NOT TRYING TO DO.

And no, this is not your thread.

Yes it is, I'm OP. I'm the one who decides what this thread is about.

I am addressing your case, you just don’t like my inquiry because it goes off your script.

You're really not though. I'm over here hitting this other target, and you're bitching about some other target that you've erected.

So how do we know this knowledge you assert to have about this phenomena is correct ? Or are you saying you don’t even know what this phenomena is ?

I just told you: introspection. This knowledge doesn't need to be infallible in order to be knowledge.

No, I would not

See?! You just admitted that you're full of shit. If I go off your script you say "that's just a word!" but if I go on your script all of a sudden it's no longer just a word even though "ability" is just as much of a word as "noun". pathetic...

Your question is not my problem.

Yes it is actually since this is my thread, these are my claims, it's my burden of proof. You don't get to move the goal post and raise the bar when I'm only making more modest claims. That's like being butthurt at an agnostic atheist for failing to prove the non-existence of God. The agnostic atheist is more modest than the gnostic atheist. The agnostic atheist merely suspends judgment on whether or not God exists, they do not claim God does not exist, and what you're basically saying "you haven't proven that God doesn't exist! herp derp!" when the agnostic atheist explicitly told you they're not claiming that God does not exist. Pay. Attention.

And my question is not even close to fundamental. It is one of the most basic questions there is

Do you seriously not se how contradictory this is? Basic=fundamental in this context. You're talking about what the self fundamentally is, you even said this yourself.

nor does it deserve its own thread.

wtf are you talking about there's an entire field of study called philosophy of self: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self

Of course this deserves its own thread. If you were an actual skeptic that just wanted to know the truth then you have every reason to start a new thread so that you can satisfy your inquiry.

You sound like an idiot alright.

Your banter is so shitty, all you've got is: "n-no you!". Too intelligent to be witty or something, momo? lol

Yes, I remember how both you and your source took this “I” for granted and said it knows something.

You're sawing off the branch you sit on: if all knowledge rests on that which needs to be explained, and resting on that means no knowledge, then there's no knowledge at all. Period. Your radical skepticism screws you over.

You are not offering refutations.

Yes I am, I'm giving counter arguments and citing scholarly sources and presenting scientific experiments and visual aid etc. You can cut the bullshit dude. Disagree with me all you want about things, but don't be a liar.

That is not what the quote says.

Apparently it does.

The case for idealism can not proceed until you tell me what this phenomena is.

By your own admission it gets off the ground since you even said you can affirm something exists without knowing what exactly it is. So P1 and P2 are safely affirmed, the case does get off the ground. You just have a problem with P3 is all, and that's the same problem pretty much everyone else has. The difference is everyone else has the balls to come out and deny P3 instead of hiding behind this pseudo-skepticism like you.

Irrelevant.

lmao that's impossible. If the word "consciousness" is not there then you were wrong and that's relevant.

I am not putting them in any category.

Yes you did, look at your own definition of insane. You think I'm "mentally ill". Don't like it? Then take it back, simple.

A noun can reference an action.

A person, place, or thing is not an action. Learn how words work.

Simple. To perceive is to BECOME aware or conscious.

Perceive is the entirety of the mental?? You're trying to say ALL of the mental is verbs, so either you're equivocating "perceive" with the entirety of the mental or you have more work to do, bud. Also, perception is a noun and can refer to a state, which is being not becoming.

The idea is that they could be called that.

We could call Trump Hillary but we don't because that's retarded and you know that... If you say Hillary Clinton is the president of the United States and your defense against people calling you retarded for you saying this is "well we could call Trump Hillary!" then you're just going to be dismissed yet again as totally retarded. Just stop the stupid word games. We know Trump≠Hillary and we know Mind≠Cabbage so just stop with the retardation already

You do want to equivocate as much as you can, that is known already.

Dude, I'm the one who actually defines their terms and wants to stick to set definitions. You're the one who wants to keep playing this stupid word game about "well it could be called that!". For fuck's sake, we're not talking about what could be called what, we're talking about what something actually is! get it right

What a nonsensical question. Do you really think you can direct a comment at me and not get a response ? You throw a comment at me, I respond. It’s that simple. We wouldn’t want you to believe that I got “stomped” by your arguments now would we ?

How is this a nonsensical question? It's perfectly legitimate given what you just said: if you thought it was true that I was worth giving up on and dismissing and ignoring like some bum in the street then why are you here??? Are you telling me that anytime a bum on the street says something to you you always respond back even though you just told me that you ignore bums on the street???? What you're saying is completely contradictory.

Besides, any time I am wasting is time you are wasting

Nope, that doesn't follow logically at all. Just because you're wasting your time that doesn't mean I'm wasting my time. Go ahead and keep wasting your time though, I'm having a jolly ole time.

And didn’t you say some time ago you were not interested in responding to me further ? Yea and we see how much you’ve followed that.

I finally got you to admit a few things so we made progress in the discussion. So that's why I'm here. Now, why are you here if I'm just some bum on the street that deserves to be ignored and dismissed? Your actions speak louder than words...

A complete non-sequitur.

The complete opposite! lol It is 100% contradictory to claim I'm just some bum on the street who is being ignored when I literally have the most amount of responses and the most amount of views in the entirety of this forum, especially when time is taken into consideration.

You might want to take a look at the “Science&Mathematics” section and see what thread has more views and replies than yours. He too is an idiot. He too got the last word. What a sad little world you must live in that you actually think this is some sort of accomplishment.

Again with the whole "last word" thing with you. That's what this is really about isn't with you isn't it? hahaha you just desperately want the last word. You're not interested in going anywhere, you don't actually want to gain any new understanding that you thought you didn't have before, you just want the last word!