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 44 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism


Well for one are you saying Harry Potter is an object ? Also, just because it does not exist, that does not imply describing it is not knowledge.

It wouldn't matter if he's an object or not, so long as he's fictional your point is undermined.

That is a bare assertion. You have to demonstrate your joe does in fact know what this phenomena is.

Introspection is not a bare assertion just like how sense experience is not a bare assertion. If you can use your senses to know about the objects of the world then you can use introspection to know about the objects of the self and mind.

if they really understood what this phenomena is they would first answer my inquiry

Unless this phenomena is independent of any description or concept, so your demand for descriptions and concepts is irrational.

Where in that quote do you see an assertion as to what this phenomena is ? And where do you see that assertion being treated as a basic belief ?

First off, you need to take in everything I said as a whole when I brought this up, breaking it up into mini-responses like this is missing the point since I'm combining all of those quotes to make a single point. If you add it all up I'm saying how there's different kinds of knowledge, you're applying a standard of knowledge to one kind of knowledge that does not apply to the other so you're making a category mistake, and I'm noting how this distinct kind of knowledge tells us about the subjective nature of the mental so we do have a basic understanding of what this is in a basic common sense way that is direct and immediate and independent of any description or concepts.

Does that knowledge include what this phenomena is ?

Yes, the subjective nature of the self.

And can you demonstrate that claim ?

You can demonstrate to yourself with introspection.

No, it’s not.

Yeah it is, that's like the key to foundationalism lol do you even epistemology, bro?

muh demonstrations!

Do you seriously not know what a "basic belief" is??

Which does not answer my question. What is the reason knowledge by acquaintance can not be described ? Stop dodging.

I just fucking told you: it's independent of any description or concepts! listen!

Because you are not following that standard. I’ve already answered your question. Will you drop the strawman ?

I'm not seeing an answer from you: do we have absolutely 0 understanding of consciousness yes or no?

That’s because my explanation is independent of how you call those components. A tree is a composition. That account alone is more than you did.

What explanation? You still haven't told me what a tree is! We can say a car is a composition too, but trees≠cars aren't they... you haven't given me a definition of what a tree is.

It is an assumption.

So your proof is an assumption? lol

You implied I asserted that the knowledge of this phenomena being relies on an assumption. Stop being so dishonest for goodness sake.

Do you or do you not know what a tree is? If you do tell me what the fuck a tree is

Yes. Refers. Not identity.

It's self-reference, that's identity

No. A refers to the object A, but they are different.

A=A dingus

Law of identity only prevents B from being anything else, not from being called A.

Law of identity prohibits A from not being A

Water freezing.

Water is the object, freezing is a process not a part of the object "water". You're speaking gibberish

No, I am not. I am using it perfectly fine.

Not really:
1. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fedora
2. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tips-fedora

Note the tags say: ATHEISM and ATHEIST. The fedora meme is associated with ATHEISTS, not theists. If anyone is a fedora tipper, it's the materialist not the idealist.

What do you mean by materialism ?

That everything that exists is material.

I am not and I already have.

If you have then so have I: no special pleading. If you can lower the bar for yourself then so can I: no double standards.

That pales in comparison to what the orange chimp says on a daily basis. And what do you mean by “you people” ? I get the feeling you think I am an U.S. resident.

you people=typical anti-Trumpers. And actually no it doesn't pale in comparison: we know what Trump's policies are, we don't really know what Hillary's are. Trumps private position is his public position, but not with Hillary by her own admission as Wikileaks revealed.

I don’t know. It’s hard to say which things you take seriously and which ones you do not.

oh but you're not autistic though lmao!

Yes. Finally I answer this question for like the fifth time. As for your question, I need to know if this phenomena we call the mind can be that AND if you believe it is that.

If yes then you can kiss your pseudo-skepticism goodbye since you can officially conceive of the mind as a computer. You'd have to admit that at the least the computational theory of mind is something you can make sense of since you can make sense of cognitive science.

How about not ?

How about not being a coward?

That would have to be proved

Go ahead and describe to me an object without describing your sense experience (phenomenal properties). Go ahead, I'll wait. take all the time you need...

while we are not sure what the fundamental parts of the physical are-

Stop right there: wtf is the physical exactly?

i)what is a causal domain ?

You really could benefit from a basic philosophy of mind or metaphysics course. The causal domain simply refers to the system in which causality occurs. Take the universe as described by physics. To a physicalist, a closed causal domain simply means the interactions of the universe are explained entirely by physics, that there is no supernatural non-physical spirit stuff or other woo that is interacting with the universe to cause stuff. I'm an idealist however, and think there is causal closure, so I think all causation is actually mental rather than non-mental.

If you want to learn more about mental causation here you go:

ii)demonstrate there are distinct types of entities/properties

Do you not see my username? I'm a MONISTIC Idealist. I'm a monist, not a dualist. I do not believe there are 2 distinct types of entities and properties. I think there is only 1 type of entity/property: the mental

You are delusional. I am asking what do you mean by those words. And no, you’ve made the claim, you defend it.

How is you not knowing basic terminology mean I'm delusional? lol If you were familiar with the literature I've been citing then you'd already know what I mean. If you're not up to date with the literature you can just be real about it.

No, it does not. Understanding a word does not mean you understand the phenomena it refers to.

Can we understand anything through language, momo...? We use language and definitions to convey concepts that we understand. Buried in those words are concepts that we do in fact have understanding of, even if we couldn't put it into any language at all. Are you telling me that we can't transmit understanding through language? If we can, then I'm right. If no, then you're saying we can't even communicate with language.

Who cares if you made no mention of it? I'm giving evidence that you're wrong since we have video footage and multiple eyewitnesses. What, are you going to tell me everybody coincidently, including multiple cameras, all have a fly in their eye? come on man...

I care since it is my example and you literally can’t give evidence of me being wrong.

You moved the goal post with your example. You initially just brought up a UFO and that's it. Once I showed you were wrong regarding us have 0 understanding of the UFO in any shape or form you switched your example up and brought up how "oh well maybe it's a hallucination!" which had nothing to do with your initial example and literally applies to everything we experience...

Stop erecting strawmen and address the argument.

Stop moving the goal post when I address your argument. You brought up a UFO to show we can affirm something exists without knowing exactly what it is. The problem is, we are not in total ignorance, we do have some understanding in some shape or form. We clearly know that it's a flying object, hence UFO which literally means unidentified FLYING OBJECT, and usually they have that classic saucer shape to them. So we aren't completely in the dark here. We have no problem saying the UFO exists, we have no problem saying we have some understanding in some shape or form.

After I’ve made the point that you keep giving me a name for the phenomena I asked you to explain. Still failing to see the obvious I see.

It was me who made the point, this is retarded

There can’t be actions without something to perform those actions.

Yeah exactly, so there can't be mental verbs without the mental noun. Great.

That qualification is not necessary and explains nothing.

Cognitive science disagrees with you, so you're contradicting your commitment to cognitive science. What you're talking about is eliminativism, which is exactly what the behaviorists like B.F. Skinner were trying to do and do. You're saying we should eliminate this qualification of anything being mental, so all mental language should be dropped since it's not necessary and explains nothing and doesn't even exist in the first place. You'd have to eliminate psychology as a science altogether, along with cognitive science. If this is true you should also be able to abandon all first-person language like I challenged you to do, but notice how you refuse to meet this challenge... You can't get around the hard problem of consciousness like this however since we know the mental exists more certainly than anything else exist. It's possible the things you experience with the senses are an illusion but this isn't the case when it comes to the mental itself. Illusions are perceived by a mind, so it's contradictory to claim you have an illusion of being conscious. As noted in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource): "But eliminativism seems much too strong a reaction to the hard problem, one that throws the baby out with the bathwater. ...it is highly counterintuitive to deny that consciousness exists. It seems extremely basic to our conception of minds and persons. A more desirable view would avoid this move."

Source: https://www.iep.utm.edu/hard-con/#SH3a

Would you say calling it "physical" adds nothing? If so, then why did you refer to "physical" reality earlier...?

Yes, it adds nothing. It’s just how we call it.

I agree on that, I don't think "physical" really adds anything, this is right at home with idealism. Now watch as your contrarianism compels you to change your mind and claim that the physical does add something when you realize you've given me ground lol

Yes I did, I just showed a direct quote of you doing so. You said they're similar, that's a comparison.

Dude, you are in no position to be making jokes like this since you're the one who admits they don't even grasp what a literal 18-month old child grasps hahah

Apparently I am

ooh good one! so witty!. Your banter is so shit.

you still can’t defend that assertion. What does that child grasp ?

The self. They have self-awareness, the rouge-test confirms this, and is widely accepted in cognitive science that you pretend to accept. Again, there are 2 distinct kinds of knowledge, and this introspective knowledge is independent of any description.

Everyone has the honesty to admit what they don’t know.

They admit they know what I'm talking about, you're the only one with this lack of comprehension.

Which is what ? Do they grasp what this phenomena is ?

In the colloquial sense, yes. We are acquainted with the self, we have introspection, we have a direct awareness that is independent of any description or concept.

Proof of what ?

For your claim, what else?

If you weren’t such a coward you would not deny your own words.

There you go again, you just can't help but cowardly avoid affirming or denying P1. You know you're cornered so you can't give a yes or no answer on whether or not P1 is true.

1.How do you know ?

Check out my arguments in the OP for P3.

2.P1 is not enough to get the case going because my inquiry is crucial to the other premises.

Yes it is, the very fact that you're even calling it P1 is proof of this. You're acknowledging this is the fist premise in the case for idealism. If the first premise is affirmed that means the case gets off the ground, it's just the other premises that need to be addressed.

That is a lie.

These comments are public, what I'm saying is demonstrably true. You kept repeating, and are still to this day repeating, the same question that I keep answering over and over again

No, it’s not enough for P3.

I didn't say it is, jackass lol Look at P3 for yourself: "P3.) Mind cannot be reduced to non-mind (Hard Problem of Consciousness)."

I'm citing the hard problem of consciousness as support for P3, obviously. It's clear that I'm not saying P3. follows from P1., I'm saying P3 follows from the hard problem of consciousness. You're the only one to have messed this up...

You can’t even have P3 without first stating what this phenomena is.

first-person subjective awareness, well that was easy. Looks like I've got P3.

That depends on what it is identical with, which you have not stated.

Do you not understand what identical means...?


No way, you don't get to shrug off being wrong about reductionism as if it's irrelevant. It's 100% relevant

I don’t care what versions you have in mind.

Then you're telling me you don't care to have a meaningful discussion since that's the whole reason this was brought up, for the sake of clarity.

Is a person an object ?

1. don't forget the point of noting it's a noun is to show that its concrete: the places such as the one we call the United States exists (that land is really there and exists concretely) and the things like trees really are there, and so is the president of the United States. These are all nouns, they exist concretely, that's the main point of noting they're a noun don't forget that.
2. a person is a subject, not an activity.

You are projecting and you are still denying your own words.

This is just another version of: "n-no you!". What are you an NPC or something?

No, projection is what this unknown thing we call the mental does.

Yes, see for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Notice how it's called PSYCHOLOGICAL projection. That's because it's a psychological phenomenon. You act like you have no idea what the mental is at all but talk all the time about psychological projection and mental illness and all these mental verbs, you're so full of shit man

Your distinction can not help you evade my inquiry

You're an idiot: the point about the distinction is to show that you're argument is invalid. You're trying to point to a lack of a description as if that means there is a lack of knowledge, but since there is a distinction between knowing and describing then your inference is simply invalid.

Curious. Because “admit” is defined as “confess to be true or to be the case.”. Want to guess what “confess” means ?

I hope you realize the word "confess" is also not predicated on there first being some kind of denial. fail

Okay then. Could it be ? And I don’t know what parts of the theory I would have a problem with. It all depends on what this phenomena is.

You're the one who said they're for cognitive science, you should okay with the computational theory of mind. If you want to know what parts of the theory you have problems with then check it out: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/

And those things you talk about. They all begin to be. All of them.

That's just a bare assertion on your part. Saying that my consciousness begins to be does not entail that consciousness begins to be, that's simply the fallacy of composition.

Yeah, it’s very basic. It is literally one of the first steps one takes in explaining anything. You must state what is it. You call it self. You call it person. You call it subject. You are still not telling me what it is.

I've told you long ago many times, you're just going to keep repeating the same question over and over. And I already told you: I actually don't need to state what it is. You're in no position to make demands. You're failing to see the distinction between knowing and describing. You're failing to realize how foundationalism works. You're failing to realize what it means for knowledge to be independent of any description or concept. No matter how many times I explain this to you and give you scholarly sources to explain in more detail, you just keep repeating the same question over and over.

I don’t care what you think your “common sense understanding is”.

I don't care about your pseudo-skepticism

You either know or you don’t. Period.

Yeah, we know. However, knowing and describing are 2 different things. This you cannot deny.

What you are doing is akin to a biologist refusing to state whether a frog is an object or an ability.

No that's a category mistake on your part. What you're doing is like the physicist telling the biologist they can't know what a frog is since they don't know what the fundamental particles that make up the frog are. We don't need to know what something fundamentally is in order to have an understanding of it. We may not have a complete metaphysical account of the self (or maybe we do, I'm only talking about a common sense understanding here) but that doesn't mean we don't have a colloquial understanding of what the self is. We have a basic grasp of what it is, even if we don't have the fundamentals like the physicist vs the biologist.

Lie all you like, but there is a reason you always refuse to demonstrate your accusations

I did demonstrate it, I quoted you directly lol\

At what ? See, that is the important bit. If you want to compare your intellect with Trump, be my guest.

This debate. Trump actually has a very high IQ, I guess you didn't know that.

You really do suck at reading. The person, not the country.

Oh so now all of a sudden you understand what the fuck a person is hahahah

But what peace with North Korea are you talking about ?

So Trump facilitating the peace between north and south korea just didn't happen? So this didn't happen: Image

Your contrarianism knows no bounds.... Last I checked he got rid of a base, and there's more peaceful discussions between them to come.

The economy merely follows an already established trend, albeit maybe a little bit better due to the tax cuts, which largely went to the rich anyways cause that’s how much Trump loves the working class.

I guess 2008 didn't happen lol you have no idea what you're talking about

Your trade deals barely got you some crumbles while your deficit with China has risen to a record high.

We have tariffs and other sanctions coming, we're finally fighting back now that we Trump in office. Everyone else was a push over. By the way, what country are you from? I bet you're too scared to tell me since you won't be able to handle the bants lol

ISIS was going to be defeated no matter who sat in that office

Unless their name is Obama cuz reasons I guess...?

and to act as if they actually posed a threat to the U.S. is laughable.

Do you not remember what a few men with box cutters did on 9/11?

What is more laughable is how americans shit their pants over a threat they largely helped to create and in which they wasted a stupid amount of money.

Again, I'd really like to see what country you're from before you start talking all this shit lol if you're where I think you're from then I'm pretty sure we had to save your ass several times from destruction, but we'll wait to see what your answer is, if you have the balls to give me an answer that is.

Oh and your beer guy was going to be confirmed either way. It amazes me how many americans actually believe those hearings serve any purpose other than satisfy their delusions.

that's a failure on the part of the left, and their loss is our win. We got our guy in, and he's in for life! That's one more guy who will help Trump's agenda should it go to the courts and is in his favor, which it will be.

Your glorified reality star has only shown the world just how true those stereotypes about americans are.

Cannot wait to hear what shit hole you crawl from hahaha last I checked the U.S. is only a few hundred years old and is responsible for pretty much bringing in the modern world as we know it. Electricity, planes, phones, landing on the moon, kicking ass in both world wars, I mean there's so many inventions and accomplishments from Americans it's so ridiculous.

The projections are getting worse. Buddy, you don’t know any of that.

Yeah, I actually do buddy. There's lots of evidence of this from multiple independent observers and measuring equipment and eye-witnesses etc.

Quote me a user who has explained what this phenomena is. I’ll wait.

Still waiting for you to show me a user who is paralyzed by this pseudo-skepticism like you. Seems like this is a personal problem, momo.

Either learn to better express yourself or stop whining when people actually read your words.

Or you could just not be an uncharitable asshole and listen when someone tells you what they mean by their own words. Even you said intention matters, dumbass, your own logic sides with me...

Oh really ? So go on and give me one example of this phenomena that does not begin to be. Go right ahead and use introspection to deduce a phenomena that does not begin to be.

Consciousness itself as I've demonstrated long ago. Consciousness is irreducible (hard problem of consciousness) and strong emergence is magic (Bedau, 1997). This entails that consciousness is fundamental.

IF the phenomena we are talking about is an act, then I know something does the acting. That does not imply I know WHAT does the acting. Calling it “the mind” is about as helpful as calling it “the potato”.

You didn't answer my question: how do you know it's there if you don't observe it?

What is this action you call "thought"? And you know how we can point to the tree? Well can you point to this phenomena you call "mind"? Just where is this phenomena?

You tell me.

Nope, that's not how this works. You can only do this if you make no claims, but you make claims. You claim there are thoughts that exist, and that there are beliefs that can be true or false. These are claims you've made. Either meet your burden of proof for you claims or admit you can't carry this burden and thus drop the claims. Pick your poison.

Still projecting I see. But you are wrong, yet again.

The context is right there, you clearly got mixed up. You were wrong, not me.

If my view of what this self is can be wrong, then we need not know what the self is in order to talk about it.

Nice try, but I din't say "my view of what this self is can be wrong" just that there are things about the self that can be wrong. Very sneaky, but you won't slither past me.

It is absolutely idiotic to act as if we can not talk about unexplained phenomena.

It's absolutely idiotic to act like you can't even grasp what an 18-month old child grasps. What I'm talking about is so simple.

No, I did not act like that at all.

yeah you did, you're doing it for P1 right now too. You won't say P1 is true or false because you want to know what it is, but when it comes to the self you acknowledge that you can admit it exists without knowing what it is. So you're holding a double standard.

No, you are acting like your pseudo-understanding fools anyone. Everyone can see through your charade.

Dude, you're literally the only one acting like they can't understand what the self is at all, as if we have no knowledge of the self and have no clue what it is. You're all alone in that. Nobody else is claiming this but you...

No. That is a baseless strawman on your part. The phenomena we call “sweetness” is. But we don’t know WHAT that phenomena is. You assert you do in fact know that, but all you do is ask to blindly believe your faith. I won’t do that. Defend your claims.

I'm still waiting for you to defend your claim that only things we can communicate with language count as knowledge.

Nice try but that is not how it works.

You said you could do it, so do it. prove it.

1.That does not follow.

yes it does follow, that's now negative evidence works and modus tollens in general. Do you even rules of inference, bro?

That tells us nothing because you do not know what “subjective” is

Prove this claim of yours that I do not know what subjective is. You can't hide behind the skepticism card since you're making a claim rather than a suspension of judgment. Your move.
Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:43 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 44 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests