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 18 of 24
 [ 464 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
ExogenPosts: 56Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 5:23 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Oh but EVERY claim needs justification, remember...? You're not being "logically exhaustive"... By your response here, you see what I'm getting at: we can put aside various fundamental issues to discuss other matters. Every time someone wants to debate veganism they don't have to write a book defending moral realism and formulating their own meta-ethical theory etc. that's for another thread, as is the matter with substance ontology vs ontologies. I'm building off current research, I've made this clear. Stop making excuses.


As I said, you are free to 'specify' the parameters of the OP, to avoid the context of the discussion drifting into the utterly general, but you haven't done that, which isn't my fault.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You're claiming to know that. You now have to formulate exactly what you mean by knowledge, and you have to defeat radical skepticism, solve all the epistemological paradoxes that are out there, and all that. You're claiming that what you're saying is true: define exactly what you mean by truth, formulate your theory of truth and refute all the other theories of truth right now. Sorry, but that's what we do in philosophy: we actually get to the heart of the matter. Have fun writing a book, see ya in a couple months I guess cuz I guess that's how philosophical discussions work...


All of which we would proceed in steps, by 'clarifying definitions' cough cough, first, and then identifying our points of Socratic ignorance and paradox, and moving forward from there. So this 'tall order' you present is the 'goal' but not to be expected to be done all at once, hence our search for the fundimental truths. Truth, reality, and the other 5 branches in philosophy are linked in that seach.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Holy shit you are so confused. You said before that you brought up bundle theory, and I said I made objections to bundle theory. That's it. You're getting this part mixed up with the point about infinite regress. The point about infinite regress was in regard to your claim that "EVERY claim needs justification". Okay, well if that's true then prove it and good luck avoiding infinite regress. Yes I did.


You really do a lot of cursing. I think you should calm down, we are only discussing philosophy on an internet forum.

I answered your objections to bundle theory, and no you did say bundle theory suffered from a regress because you said that one would still be at the level of properties in need of there being 'fundamental entities.' And if these entities are fundamental, then you claimed it would be the substance or substances anyway. Hence, to avoid that problem, one would have to posit properties of the properties, etc all the way down till infinity. But you misunderstood what substantivism is actually saying, and therefore misunderstood bundle theory as an alternative by dismissing it on the basis of that misunderstanding.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
And I answered it, and you said you grasp it. Everyone else in here grasps it as well, you're literally the only one bitching about this... Everyone else can deal with the argument just fine, the only one with the problem is you.


What I grasp for you, negel, Kastrup, Chalmers, etc, is vague, the 'what it is like is vague.'

Monistic Idealism wrote:
No, it isn't actually. You haven't given a single argument to support the claim that "EVERY claim needs justification". The burden of proof is on you to support your claim by your own logic. Better get to it...


Every claim either has a reason to support it as true, or it does not. If it does not, then there literally is no reason to believe it. Done.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Just did a search and that's clearly not the case. You've been caught man...


I'm pretty such that's false. But if I'm wrong, and confused that with something else I wrote, ok, fine. It was still meant as a joke, as I said.

How about actually responding to the definition of idealism I've given? Namely that 'reality is either mental or mind-dependent?'

Monistic Idealism wrote:Then this seems like a personal problem. You're literally the only person who is bitching about this. Everyone else in here has been able to comprehend just fine, it seems you just don't have the mental capacity to understand and you disguise this as some sort of Socratic virtue lol The scholars in the field get it, I get it, the users in here gets it, the only one who doesn't get it is you. It seems you're just out of your league or something, don't know what to tell ya


I didn't say I didn't comprehend it. I know what everyone means, but I also know the idea is vague. And you refusing to define it further is evidence that supports that thesis.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Not at all. It's that you're asking for a particular stance that a general idealism need not take any stance on. Different idealists will take different stances on this, so if we're going for something that is more general and more common to all idealists then your scope is far too narrow.



Again, I'm aware that 'either' one has been used by idealists, I was using it as a way to clarify the definition of mind you've given, which is vague.

Monistic Idealism wrote:So you seriously don't understand this idea of how you smell the rose and it smells one way to you vs. how it smells to me? You really don't get this or are you just being a difficult prick and disguising this as some kind of skepticism?


Understanding a vague idea makes it no less a vague idea. For purposes of understanding the experience of smelling a rose, that vague idea works just fine, but for a theory of reality, not going to cut it.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:17 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
For those who are interested, I'm going to diverge some stuff onto, to avoid mixing it with the masturbation going on in here.


So you finally realized this is a thread about idealism instead of AI. Good for you



Translation: phew! That was getting hard... I mean reflections... I mean phew!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:21 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Translation: phew! That was getting hard... I mean reflections... I mean phew!


More like: Ah crap, all I have are talking points about AI and have nothing to contribute to a discussion on Idealism... better bail!
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:24 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Skipping through, nope still can't seem to find it.

Where is the poll referenced or cited where everyone was recorded as believing Monistic Idealism?

He keeps saying it, but I just can't seem to find the data!

Maybe in the same realm as the prosecutor/defense/judge/jury/executioner role he's conceived for himself. Perhaps everyone voted him into those positions too?

Oh and of course... by everyone, it discludes both you people, and the circle-jerk are not included mostly because you smell! Ewwww
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:26 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

So this 'tall order' you present is the 'goal' but not to be expected to be done all at once, hence our search for the fundimental truths.


I'm sorry, I need more clarification as what you are saying in your entire response to me is too vague given I've not been given an exact definition of what you mean by truth and knowledge and you haven't laid out your theory of truth or your epistemology. EVERY claim needs justification so the burden is on you to define truth and knowledge and refute all other possible formulations of them or else you won't be "logically exhaustive" and too vague and thus we won't be able to discuss it. Call this a "tall order" if you will but sorry, that's we do in philosophy. We get to heart of matters.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:29 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Translation: phew! That was getting hard... I mean reflections... I mean phew!


More like: Ah crap, all I have are talking points about AI and have nothing to contribute to a discussion on Idealism... better bail!



Look over there! It's a reflection! Yeah chap, but that's not analogous with... oh never mind.

There's a reason some people stick to philosophy: everything else is just too hard! :)

Sadly for them, the same people are always unable to be philosophers, for all manner of reasons.


Anyway, how many times have you referred to Dr Chalmers recently? Want to count, or shall I?

I'll drop the discussion back in again as it's so frequently brought up.

Dr. Chalmers wrote:Some recent strands in philosophical discussion of the mind–body problem have recapitulated this progression: the rise of materialism in the 1950s and 1960s, the dualist response in the 1980s and 1990s, the festival of panpsychism in the 2000s, and some recent stirrings of idealism. In my own work, I have taken the first two steps and have flirted heavily with the third. In this paper I want to examine the prospects for the fourth step: the move to idealism.

...

Idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors. So even though idealism is implausible, there is a non-negligible probability that it is true.



And of course, there's a whole section in the same book cited in which Dr Chalmers outlines arguments that have been substantively presented here, and which have been energetically gyrated past by you.


Dr. Chalmers wrote:One might even adapt Bostrom’s simulation argument (2003) to argue that it is quite likely that a cousin of this sort of cosmic idealism is true. A simplified version of the simulation argument says that many simulated universes will be created in the lifetime of a universe containing intelligent life, and there will be more beings in simulations than outside simulations, so it is very likely that we are in a simulation. One could additionally argue that most simulations will be done within the minds of simulating beings. The great majority of simulating beings will be superintelligent brings, and these beings will have little need to run simulations on separate computers. Instead they will have the resources to run simulations directly in their own computational minds. If so, most beings in the cosmos will exist in universes realized by the minds of simulating beings.


Regardless of your certainty, regardless of your hubris, regardless of your supposed introspection... you could still easily be just a simulation, being simulated. And that would be at its most applicable under most renditions of cosmic idealism.

Unless you've got a book from the overmind promising you that's not the case?

Most of 'you people' do.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:35 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

He keeps saying it, but I just can't seem to find the data!


Where did I ever say that...? You just went full retard. You never go full retard...

you could still easily be just a simulation


No actually as I explained long ago, I gave an argument for this you're just ignoring it (seems to be your go-to move). You can argue that this is a simulation all you want, my argument still takes off given we're conscious and this leads to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental, not some computer simulation. Fail.

Notice how you conveniently left out Dr. Chalmers' qualifications right after that paragraph you cited:
The idealism suggested by this simulation argument is admittedly subject to some qualifications. One is that it is far from obvious that the simulations in question will need to be conscious. The idealism may well involve constitution by non-conscious mental states, which may themselves have underlying non-mental grounds. Another qualification is that on this view the cosmic subject will not constitute the entire cosmos, but it will at least constitute everything in our universe. Whether idealism or some other view is true of the cosmos as a whole remains a further question.


Your brazen dishonesty is astounding...
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:36 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
He keeps saying it, but I just can't seem to find the data!


Where did I ever say that...? You just went full retard. You never go full retard...



You know, all those times you said

And I answered it, and you said you grasp it. Everyone else in here grasps it as well, you're literally the only one bitching about this... Everyone else can deal with the argument just fine, the only one with the problem is you.


And numerous iterations of this...

Just making sure that you and everyone else is clear that you failed to give a rebuttal.



As I pointed out pages ago, you might want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of everything, but all you can net is a response of 'no, go fuck yourself' in a range of possible tones.

Everyone else 'grasps' the arguments you don't, they 'grasp' that all the tough challenges to your position you simply skip over seeking to get back onto the rehearsed patter. I could devise a Bingo Card based on your rhetorical techniques for avoiding topis or questions you don't want to answer.

Your entire screed was refuted in the first reply insofar as I am concerned, and you have offered not one single instance of useful or reasoned discourse as to why that cannot be the case. You just want me to join you in ignoring the errors I see in your arguments.

Obviously, no.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:51 pm
ExogenPosts: 56Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 5:23 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I'm going to try to hopefully create something productive here.

Monistic idealism,

I'm willing to 'postpone' the discussion on alternatives to substance metaphysics for now. I highly recommend you modify the OP and define which parameters you wish to be working in for the future. You can't blame the indeterminist for arguing indeterminism for example, if the determinist didn't specify they were working within the assumptions of determinism. So if they don't make such specifications that's fair game.

Moving on, the notion of mind you have given is 'vague' and not 'general,' as even a generality needs to be clearly defined. Though I 'know what you mean' in regards to that definition of mind as the 'what it is like,' it nonetheless changes the fact that what I know of that idea is vague, and not general, therefore unclear. My line of questioning is merely designed to try to elicit that clarity.

For instance, in the OP in regard to P1 you write.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
This is an argument for Idealism: In philosophy, the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

I will lay out a rough sketch of the argument in formal terms and explain how I arrive at each premise and in order:

P1.) Mind exists (Introspection).


P1.+P2.) We are conscious. There is first-person subjective awareness. Even if you're skeptical about whether you're in the matrix or if this is a dream, you're still aware that you're aware in each scenario. No matter what you're still conscious, this you definitely know for sure if there is anything that can be said to be known for sure. To claim otherwise would be a contradiction: you would be consciously denying that you're conscious and those who think otherwise are not only mistaken in their thinking but aren't actually thinking at all.




Notice you mention 'introspection.' Well, what precisely do you mean by that we might ask?

So presumably you are answering that in the above paragraph.

Let me now take it line by line, to illustrate the problems with not providing a clear definition.

Monistic Idealism wrote:We are conscious.


Ok, and what does 'conscious' mean? What it is like? That's vague.

Monistic Idealism wrote:There is first-person subjective awareness.


First-person subjective? Clearly, you've never read the difficulties of the claim of person's without minds, discussed in Richard Rorty's chapter by the same name in his book Philosophy And The Mirro of Nature. For example, suppose we arrived on an alien planet called Antipodea. These aliens are alike our civilization and even anatomically similar to us, except they have no 'word' for mind anywhere in their vocabulary. Nothing like it whatsoever. They may report what we would call in the same circumstance 'pain' but when questioned, they say "my c-fibers were excited' and in essence give some sort of physical description as their report. Any attempt to try to get at say, the 'raw feel' of something like that of 'an experience' is met with the same sort of response from the Antipodeans.

How would you respond to this problem?

Monistic Idealism wrote:Even if you're skeptical about whether you're in the matrix or if this is a dream, you're still aware that you're aware in each scenario.


That statement depends on a clear (not vague) meaning of awareness.

The Matrix, or brains in vats or w/e have you depend on the 'assumption' of representationalism. If presentationalism for example were true, then direct realism might follow logically, and brains and vats would be impossible merely from regarding the "experience" (whatever that means) in a certain way.

Monistic Idealism wrote:No matter what you're still conscious, this you definitely know for sure if there is anything that can be said to be known for sure. To claim otherwise would be a contradiction: you would be consciously denying that you're conscious and those who think otherwise are not only mistaken in their thinking but aren't actually thinking at all.


And for there to be a contradiction you can show, it needs to be between two explicit statements, not vague statements.

One has to approach the problem of mind phenomenologically, otherwise, you become a slave to the vagaries and errors and failure to take into account assumptions that frame the problem, thereby leaving you unaware to the information you have not yet considered. That's why we need to be precise, and if we can't get more precise for the time being, let's at least be clear about that much.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:58 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You know, all those times you said


You've misrepresented this entirely: everyone was able to deal with the argument just fine and that's the poin. Nobody was confused and spent pages upon pages being confused about what is meant by mental, everyone did grasp it and this is proven by the fact that we were talking about. They didn't think it was vague at all, only exogen.

you might want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of everything


I never did I'm only describing what happened. If I make an argument, and someone doesn't respond, I'm going to point that out since its true. That's not me claiming to be the arbiter of anything. Chill out man

Your entire screed was refuted in the first reply insofar as I am concerned


I gave a lengthy response to it with counter-arguments then you made excuses as to why you're not going to respond line by line like a coward lol
Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:59 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:No actually as I explained long ago, I gave an argument for this you're just ignoring it (seems to be your go-to move).


Your argument was donkey cum, Monistic Idealism. It had exactly the same merit as half a scoop of equine jizz.

Stop playing games with yourself, and start conversing.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You can argue that this is a simulation all you want,...


Well, I know I can - I did not seek your blessing.


Monistic Idealism wrote:my argument still takes off given we're conscious...


So you don't really have an argument, you have a 'please ignore the gaping flaw in my reasoning - let's just imagine a what-if restrictive setting, then I'm totally and absolutely right'

No - your only 'argument' against this is <because introspection> - unacceptable; it's subsumed by the counter-contention. What you conceive of as introspection is just an algorithm that gives you the sense of introspection, and anything resulting from it is directed by the constraints of the simulation.

Go on, say 'reflection' again. :lol:


Monistic Idealism wrote:... and this leads to the conclusion that consciousness is fundamental, not some computer simulation. Fail.


But it would also mean you're not conscious; you're a simulation, and your argument is simulated, and if a computer could do all that then a simulation could be convinced through application of its own algorithms engage in what it conceives of as introspection and, within the restraints of its simulation, conclude that it is conscious and write your original post.

All of your position is built on turtles. You're ignoring the Great A'tuin, and that's where it all really derives. Yours is a necessary argument.



Monistic Idealism wrote:Notice how you conveniently left out Dr. Chalmers' qualifications right after that paragraph you cited:


Let's enjoy watching the diversion.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
The idealism suggested by this simulation argument is admittedly subject to some qualifications. One is that it is far from obvious that the simulations in question will need to be conscious. The idealism may well involve constitution by non-conscious mental states, which may themselves have underlying non-mental grounds. Another qualification is that on this view the cosmic subject will not constitute the entire cosmos, but it will at least constitute everything in our universe. Whether idealism or some other view is true of the cosmos as a whole remains a further question.


Your brazen dishonesty is astounding...


My brazen dishonesty in citing the piece of text you said I should cite?

:lol:

Is that really what you're going with?

I would have imagined writing 'dishonesty' in CAPS would have served better to get your message across.

Regardless, it is another iteration of your endless patter of ad hominem.

From mental ill to dishonest in one post: these are the proclamations of our new self-declared psychologist! :lol:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:04 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Exogen wrote:I'm going to try to hopefully create something productive here.



Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast. :D
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:06 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I'm willing to 'postpone' the discussion on alternatives to substance metaphysics for now.


You finally got my point! FINALLY! For the love of God. I only had to turn your own gun on you to finally see it, geez. Let's get to the argument already (18 pages later, holy fuck). Let's see if you can hold true to this...

Moving on, the notion of mind you have given is 'vague' and not 'general,' as even a generality needs to be clearly defined. Though I 'know what you mean' in regards to that definition of mind as the 'what it is like,' it nonetheless changes the fact that what I know of that idea is vague, and not general, therefore unclear. My line of questioning is merely designed to try to elicit that clarity.


I can say the same with with you about truth and knowledge, my dude. If I'm "too vague" then so are you...

Let me now take it line by line, to illustrate the problems with not providing a clear definition.


Uh oh, thought you learned your lesson the first time. Looks like I have to pull it out again: I'm sorry, I need more clarification as what you are saying in your entire response to me is too vague given I've not been given a clear definition of what you mean by truth and knowledge and you haven't laid out your theory of truth or your epistemology. EVERY claim needs justification so the burden is on you to define truth and knowledge and refute all other possible formulations of them or else you won't be "logically exhaustive" and too vague and thus we won't be able to discuss it. Call this a "tall order" if you will but sorry, that's we do in philosophy. We get to heart of matters.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:06 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

So you don't really have an argument, you have a 'please ignore the gaping flaw in my reasoning


I did give you an argument, long ago and just now. You're just ignoring it.

But it would also mean you're not conscious


And that's impossible as I noted long ago: that would entail a contradiction so the simulation thesis has to be wrong.

My brazen dishonesty in citing the piece of text you said I should cite?


You left out the relevant qualifications that completely squashes the point you were trying to make about the simulation lol you fail
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:10 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
You know, all those times you said


You've misrepresented this entirely: everyone was able to deal with the argument just fine and that's the poin.


Nope. That's not the point. That's you declaring everyone's with you when they haven't accepted your point - you've just repeatedly tried to tell them they have to accept your point and you think that them stopping telling you otherwise means you've "won" - it just means they can't be arsed with someone so far up his own.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Nobody was confused and spent pages upon pages being confused about what is meant by mental, everyone did grasp it and this is proven by the fact that we were talking about. They didn't think it was vague at all, only exogen.


And yet you have repeatedly disagreed with all those same people on aspects of that very argument. You want us (in this case, yes 'us') to believe that mental is to computer what photon is to mirror, yet we give you ample reason to believe that's not the case - not least that it's a functionally ignorant claim to make - but you declare you've done that, and so then later declare 'everyone' accepts your position. No, wrong. That is not the case. I don't see anyone who's actually accepted your contentions.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
you might want to set yourself up as the ultimate arbiter of everything


I never did I'm only describing what happened. If I make an argument, and someone doesn't respond, I'm going to point that out since its true. That's not me claiming to be the arbiter of anything. Chill out man


No, that's bollocks, and stop playing silly buggers. You have gone back to a shell game - people DID respond, but you refused to accept their response. Your refusal to accept their response doesn't mean they 'didn't respond' - it's not a contest on who writes last, but on who writes most convincingly. You don't actually judge the latter for anyone other than yourself.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Your entire screed was refuted in the first reply insofar as I am concerned


I gave a lengthy response to it with counter-arguments then you made excuses as to why you're not going to respond line by line like a coward lol


You gave a lengthy response that utterly failed to address even the most elementary level of refutation - you argued around it, you repeated arguments you'd already made, and then you declared that the entire response was a 'rebuttal' - but that is true only insofar as you wrote words that said 'no'.

Rather than being a 'coward' (lovely evocative insight into the manner of your engagement on these forums, and wholly consistent with a number of predictions I've made), I decided to ask you some questions which would indicate whether your responses were consistent with your arguments. This then spawned discussion following that which you could not satisfactorily address.

Thus, from my position, you haven't been very convincing at all. Go on, tell me you r winna!

If you make a case for something... what's the objective again? ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:18 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Nope. That's not the point.


Yeah it is, and I know it is, since it's my point lol

And yet you have repeatedly disagreed with all those same people on aspects of that very argument.


K? that has nothing to do with what I just said.

No, that's bollocks, and stop playing silly buggers. You have gone back to a shell game - people DID respond


No they didn't. We can literally see you on the 1st page failing to address my refutations of your first post. I wrote a wall of a comment to you with arguments and you responded with just a few lines making an excuse on how you won't respond line by line... Your comment is public dude, lying won't get you out of this...

You gave a lengthy response that utterly failed to address even the most elementary level of refutation


i went through what you said line by line, it's right there for everyone to see... Lying. Won't. Help. You.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:22 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
So you don't really have an argument, you have a 'please ignore the gaping flaw in my reasoning


I did give you an argument, long ago and just now. You're just ignoring it.


Translation: you explicitly referred to the argument in the post I am replying to, but if I cut that part out of your speech, then I can wave my hands and say you're 'ignoring' it so that I can once again slip away from all those problems with your position and get back on script.

Yes, I addressed 'because introspection'



Monistic Idealism wrote:
But it would also mean you're not conscious


And that's impossible as I noted long ago: that would entail a contradiction so the simulation thesis has to be wrong.


If there is a necessary contradiction, perhaps it's your idea that's wrong. Wrong formulation, wrong output.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
My brazen dishonesty in citing the piece of text you said I should cite?


You left out the relevant qualifications that completely squashes the point you were trying to make about the simulation lol you fail


Don't be silly; the paragraph changes nothing whatsoever.

And as for brazen - you didn't even note that all this is IN Chalmers' work when you were frantically trying to poo-poo the same points he raises made by other people earlier just so you could get back on your script.

If the guy you are leaning on for credibility in turn acknowledges the credibility of those arguments you're trying to poo poo, then either you've got to explain how to resolve his treatment, or you've got to lend serious attention to the points being raised. Or else, you're just leaning into credibility in a cherry-picked way.

Further, I also cited Chalmer's actual position on Cosmic Idealism; his best reading in conclusion is - well, it's not impossible. So if Chalmer's doesn't find it persuasive, then why are your arguments with us and not with Dr Chalmers? Why would you refer to a particular work that essentially concludes that your entire argument is somewhat less plausible than its main competitors, even when its main competitors are other forms of idealism?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:31 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3107Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Just a quick note on the "skull" comment by Exogen.

He clearly stated that it was a joke in the same sentence he made the comment:

Exogen wrote:That's a bastardization of what I'm saying though. I would say get this through your skull, but you're an idealist so technically you don't have one if idealism were true. That's a joke btw.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:39 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Yes, I addressed 'because introspection'


You failed to refute the contradictions of denying consciousness. "I think I don't think" is a contradictory statement. "I believe I have no beliefs" is contradictory. How can I be mistaken in my thinking if I'm not thinking at all?? The denial of consciousness results in an absurdity.

Don't be silly; the paragraph changes nothing whatsoever.


Yes it does, hence why Chalmers stated it was necessary to have such qualifications. You ignoring such qualifications doesn't change anything...

And as for brazen - you didn't even note that all this is IN Chalmers' work when you were frantically trying to poo-poo the same points he raises made by other people earlier just so you could get back on your script.


What are you even talking about? Like what? Prove your accusation.

Further, I also cited Chalmer's actual position on Cosmic Idealism; his best reading in conclusion is - well, it's not impossible


In his own words, he stated that Cosmic Idealism is the most promising version of idealism and is a promising approach to the mind-body problem. That's what he said, enough of the lies...

So if Chalmer's doesn't find it persuasive


Dude, I don't care if Chalmers is an idealist or not. That doesn't address my argument at all. Chalmers hasn't even heard my argument...
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:39 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Nope. That's not the point.


Yeah it is, and I know it is, since it's my point lol


Er no chap; it's my point about how you keep pretending that everyone agrees with you or attempting to imply they've conceded when no one has, while amusingly calling everyone who has actually replied a circle-jerk.

As you didn't conduct a poll, and as the reading of this thread exhibits sufficient data that everyone has challenged all the fundamental components of your position, then it is safe to say that 'everyone' insofar as it refers to 'people who posted in this thread' don't accept your position.

If you're going to appeal to popularity, it's best if it's not a popularity you've decreed.




Monistic Idealism wrote:
And yet you have repeatedly disagreed with all those same people on aspects of that very argument.


K? that has nothing to do with what I just said.


K. It has everything to do with what I just said.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
No, that's bollocks, and stop playing silly buggers. You have gone back to a shell game - people DID respond


No they didn't.


Poppycock - your delusion cannot supersede reality.




Monistic Idealism wrote: We can literally see you on the 1st page failing to address my refutations of your first post.


There's that Royal WE again; exactly my point.

What we can literally see is me on the 1st page having refuted your argument of your first post.

"Failing to address' is purely subjective on your part. You are not the final arbiter of whether my post 'failed to address' your points. You also do not get to appeal to the Royal We when all the people following who posted on this thread have continued to disagree with you suggesting that your rebuttals were actually not as sufficient as you may wrongly believe.

In reality, what happened was you tried to wave away my arguments, you tried to frame your argument as being outside of my response, and you tried to declare your own responses correct.

This obviously does not work. You're allegedly a psychologist - you must recognize the futility of this behavior, this control drama you're asking others to join in with?

Whatever the case is, your opinion is worth only so much credibility as you possess and regardless of your endless preening, you have not met the burden of argumentation, regardless of how many words you've written or the fact that you've replied to a post.

In reality, the reader - whoever he or she may be at any given time - is more than free to decide which argument is more convincing to them.

Regardless of whether you comprehend it or not, I've drawn statements from you that contradict your formulated position and given plenty of exemplifying arguments which support my initial point.

Your non-acceptance of that doesn't make it any less true.



Monistic Idealism wrote: I wrote a wall of a comment to you with arguments and you responded with just a few lines making an excuse on how you won't respond line by line... Your comment is public dude, lying won't get you out of this...


Again, you're trying to call me a liar.

This is around the 10th time.

Does this mean I am a liar?

Well, no... not at all. No one else has joined you in calling me a liar. No one has castigated me.

Only you have called me a liar, and you've called me a liar each time you've written a lie.

It's very odd behavior.

Once again, you are asserting I ignored your reply, then you are exemplifying that contention by referring to the fact that I replied. The very fact I replied to your post, irrespective of the format it was in, wholly negates your claim that I ignored your post.

Actually, it was because I read your post that I opted to post in a different format than line by line, and there is no law that line by line responses are obligatory, so the fact that I didn't post in line by line format doesn't somehow magically disqualify my post or make my points go away.

For me, this is how it works: your OP, my response, you reply but show no comprehension of the arguments and a lot of belligerent close-mindedness trying to repeat your script rather than engage, I elect to not treat you with any credibility until you show that your argument is consistent and offers some utility. Still waiting in that regard.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
You gave a lengthy response that utterly failed to address even the most elementary level of refutation


i went through what you said line by line, it's right there for everyone to see... Lying. Won't. Help. You.


And had you written 'no' it would be exactly the same value.

It's funny how you call me a liar for saying I responded to you (while showing that I did) then you call me a liar for saying you didn't address my arguments by pointing to the fact that you wrote some words.

Well, if the fact that you wrote some words means you addressed my arguments, then the fact that I wrote some words means I must have addressed yours. Ergo, I can't be a liar both ways, so you are obviously mistaken.

Again, the issue is that you are giving full credit to your replies and delusionally believing that others also must give the same credit to it, while giving zero credit (to the point of claiming it doesn't exist) to other people's replied and similarly delusionally believing that others must also join you in not giving credit to it.

It's manic behavior.

Of course no one is under such obligation or restriction. Your response to my first post was insufficient. You argued away from it so you could double-back to your script.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:53 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 18 of 24
 [ 464 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests