Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

The Case for Idealism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 43 of 43
 [ 849 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for 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.

Image


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:
Image


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 ... l_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...
Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:06 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote: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: Image : 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).
Image : 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.
Image : https://prnt.sc/l31j2d
This is you, again. Image : 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: Image : 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. Image : 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.
Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:04 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

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.
Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:09 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for 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/know ... indescrip/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self ... ement.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.

Image


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 ?


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!

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:
Image


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.
Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:42 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for 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...
Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:02 am
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

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

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: Image
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…
Image
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

Image
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. Image
And don’t forget: Image
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.
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:17 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

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. Image
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…
Image
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 Image
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...

Image
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 ? Image
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.

Image
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.
Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:21 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for 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".
Image

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:
Image


"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 ... #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.
Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:56 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for 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/know ... scrip/#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!


ooooookay buddy, whatever you say

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...
Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:57 pm
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 43 of 43
 [ 849 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
cron