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 19 of 24
 [ 464 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Er no chap;


Yes it is. It's my point about how they grasp what is meant by mind in the general sense. Only exogen had this problem where it was "too vague" for him to address the argument and how this wasn't an issue for everyone else. Everyone else was able to address my argument just fine, only exogen had the problem. You're getting mixed up.

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


I don't see how given everyone else was able to respond to the argument just fine. Only exogen had this issue.

Poppycock - your delusion cannot supersede reality.


You're the delusional one that is denying what we can all clearly see on the 1st page...

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


Because your comments are public, dude. Literally everyone can see this for themselves...

"Failing to address' is purely subjective on your part.


No it's not. I wrote a wall of a comment responding line by line to you, and you didn't. You didn't address what I wrote, you just made an excuse as to why you're not going to address them...

Well, no... not at all.


When you say you've addressed it yet we have a public comment confirming you didn't, then yeah you lied...

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


Except I presented arguments, of which you failed to offer a counter-argument.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:08 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Yes, I addressed 'because introspection'


You failed to refute the contradictions of denying consciousness.


Point of order for 'everyone'.

See how well MI's response tallies with my point?

MI knows that 'because consciousness' is all sauce and no gravy, so whenever it's raised, all these distractions get tossed out. But this becomes 'you failed to refute' when refutation isn't dependent on MI's acceptance of it.


Monistic Idealism wrote:["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.


All of which just underpin how you're still trying to frame across every refutation of your argument by tugging back on your script.

The actual problem - out of a number - exposed to you was: you think that you think - but really that's not good enough, and when pressed all you can do is stack more iterations of it.

There are far more solid grounds to hammer tent pegs in than that.

So no, you haven't 'refuted' it, except insofar that you've stated your rejection, for me (and quite possibly for other people too) you've just evaded a critical flaw in your entire position.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
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...


No, not it doesn't - and you asserting it does just serves as a distraction so you can obfuscate away from the actual point. Yes, that point was how you tried ineptly to dismiss the simulation argument on the most ridiculous grounds (reflections) and yet the very guy you're leaning on so heavily addresses it in the same text you're appealing to.

Try and obfuscate away again. It's not working, but it's fun to watch.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
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.


Like what?

Like the numerous times you've ignored talk of Bostrum, dismissed simulations, holograms etc, where you kept nattering on in scientifically illiterate fashion about 'reflections' when we were talking about learning algorithms. Where you tried to evade the fact that the entire grounds of your argument lacks any coherence or stability if we are to engage in the same degree of acceptance of conjecture as required in your original argument. You've worked hard to dismiss it all, but there it is, written by Dr Chalmers in the book you rely on to lend credibility to your own ideas.

Here we go for another shell game where you run with the word 'credibility' for another pages and then claim you've addressed it ad nauseum.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
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...


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 and is somewhat less plausible than other versions of idealism, that idealism is implausible, but that it is not impossible so there is a non-negligible probability of it being true.

The bit I presumably 'lied' at was when I quoted the words you don't want me to quote but which are factually there.

Never mind, I am sure you can twist, tuck and turn and change subjects now you're being nailed to the wall.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
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...


:lol:

Cute, as if it's your argument! :lol:

I expect it's possible he heard of it before you were born.

Incidentally, this does raise the question as to why you're not making your case to him? If his acceptance of its credibility is important to you, and our rejections of that credibility are unimportant to you... what actually motivates you to post?

See my 2nd post in this thread for a note on that.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Er no chap;


Yes it is. It's my point about how they grasp what is meant by mind in the general sense. Only exogen had this problem where it was "too vague" for him to address the argument and how this wasn't an issue for everyone else. Everyone else was able to address my argument just fine, only exogen had the problem. You're getting mixed up.


Nope, that's not the point.

Obfuscation may be your primary M.O., but it's not going to cut the cookies here. As you like to say: everyone can see that I raised the point, ergo the point - as you so kindly said - is actually mine!

Everyone has a problem with what you're arguing; that's because your argument is bollocks.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
K. It has everything to do with what I just said.


I don't see how given everyone else was able to respond to the argument just fine. Only exogen had this issue.


See reality for rebuttal.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Poppycock - your delusion cannot supersede reality.


You're the delusional one that is denying what we can all clearly see on the 1st page...


We can all see how your argument failed at the first hurdle.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
There's that Royal WE again; exactly my point.


Because your comments are public, dude. Literally everyone can see this for themselves...


Like 'everyone can see' what you believe to be true, whereas what 'everyone can see' doesn't appear ever to coincide with what you see. Looks like solipsism, smells like solipsism... is it a bat?




Monistic Idealism wrote:
"Failing to address' is purely subjective on your part.


No it's not. I wrote a wall of a comment responding line by line to you, and you didn't. You didn't address what I wrote, you just made an excuse as to why you're not going to address them...


Nonsensical formulation of rules you just made up.

There is no such obligation genetic to a response being valid. I already showed you this in extraordinarily simple terms and all you could say was 'strawman' even while I was showing you the problem with you assuming that your replies are of greater merit than replies to you.




Monistic Idealism wrote:
Well, no... not at all.


When you say you've addressed it yet we have a public comment confirming you didn't, then yeah you lied...


We again.

That royal we.

WE have no such 'public comment confirming' anything - again, this is you manufacturing bullshit then demanding others accept that bullshit. Of course, there's no such obligation, but it does explain why most people can't be arsed replying to you!



Monistic Idealism wrote:
And had you written 'no' it would be exactly the same value.


Except I presented arguments, of which you failed to offer a counter-argument.


Your arguments failed to counter the arguments they were supposedly being presented to counter, ergo your arguments don't make the prior arguments disappear, regardless of your belief in your specialness.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:19 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

The actual problem - out of a number - exposed to you was: you think that you think - but really that's not good enough, and when pressed all you can do is stack more iterations of it.


You're not addressing the contradiction at hand at all. How is it possible for me to be mistaken in my thinking if I'm not thinking at all?? How can my beliefs be mistaken if I have no beliefs??? You have no answer to this...

No, not it doesn't


Yes it does as he explained in the qualification. The qualification is there for a reason: it's to qualify what was said in that paragraph you quoted. Which means we can't take your paragraph at face value: it needs to be qualified, which means it's saying something then what you're trying to present at face value. This is what happens when you don't read and ignore what an author says...

Like the numerous times you've ignored talk of Bostrum


I just got done proving how Chalmers' qualifications of that paragraph do not say what you want it to say, so you fail. Chalmers doesn't affirm simulation theory, I guess by your logic we can just dismiss it right...? oh wait, we need arguments don't we? Well that's what I did...

In his own words, he stated that Cosmic Idealism...is somewhat less plausible than other versions of idealism


He said the opposite: He thinks Cosmic Idealism is the most promising version of idealism...

Incidentally, this does raise the question as to why you're not making your case to him?


I don't know him, I don't have access to him. I can make arguments to others online though.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:26 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
The actual problem - out of a number - exposed to you was: you think that you think - but really that's not good enough, and when pressed all you can do is stack more iterations of it.


You're not addressing the contradiction at hand at all. How is it possible for me to be mistaken in my thinking if I'm not thinking at all?? How can my beliefs be mistaken if I have no beliefs??? You have no answer to this...


Quick! LOOK OVER THERE!

You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking, whatever the thing is you're mistakenly conceiving of as thinking is producing an output that you cannot avoid. Similarly, you could be constrained by your inherited phenotype, or by the simulation, or by innumerable other imaginable factors to perceive a mistake as not-a-mistake. All stuff you've "ignored" or "failed to refute" before. :roll:

There are ways to corroborate those thoughts against something else, but not within the frame of your argumentation, and that's why 'because introspection' doesn't work - ultimately, you have to leave the circle-jerk of one and ask how you can trust that introspection. Thus, challenges to your argument are perfectly valid.

Go on, try another turtle. Every turtle you've got can be subsumed by this turtle stack. It's the problem with turtles as explanatory grounds.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
No, not it doesn't


Yes it does as he explained in the qualification.


No it doesn't as he explained in the qualification.


Monistic Idealism wrote: The qualification is there for a reason:...


To qualify some things, just as Dr Chalmers qualified his praise for Cosmic Idealism as being promising by noting that idealism is only as plausible as materialism, dualism, and other things you've argued against. And qualified that by saying that Idealism is implausible. You know? Cosmic Idealism is a subset of Idealism, and Idealism is implausible?

So which of us is actually mischaracterizing Chalmers' position?

Again, for clarity, I don't really care what Chalmers said - I am merely making note for those who might still be interested in how well your formulations actually respond to reality.



Monistic Idealism wrote:I just got done proving how Chalmers' qualifications of that paragraph do not say what you want it to say, so you fail.


Again, this is where you leap straight to onanism.

You have done no such thing. You declared something irrelevant and then declared you've done all you need to do. That's not for you to decide.



Monistic Idealism wrote: Chalmers doesn't affirm simulation theory, I guess by your logic we can just dismiss it right...? oh wait, we need arguments don't we? Well that's what I did...


Chalmers doesn't affirm Cosmic Idealism either, but you're still leaning on his credibility for that, but then you don't accept credibility of arguments refuting your position even when they are noted by Chalmers.

Again, you can try to wiggle and obfuscate, but it's my point, and I am making it clearly enough that your attempts will fail.




Monistic Idealism wrote:He said the opposite: He thinks Cosmic Idealism is the most promising version of idealism...


Factually, he also stated that idealism isn't as plausible as its main competitors. So even if he were to shout from the rooftops that Cosmic Idealism is the very best of Idealism, then it still indicates he finds it unconvincing - less convincing than the very positions you've argued against (and tried to dismiss) in your OP.

So round we go again.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Incidentally, this does raise the question as to why you're not making your case to him?


I don't know him, I don't have access to him. I can make arguments to others online though.


A qualified psychologist on the internet doesn't have access to a professor at a university?

I have no idea how you talk such bollocks with a straight face.

It's called email, chap.

His email is chalmers (at) nyu.edu - people who are actually qualified don't hide their fucking qualification from others.

Here, you can even go tell him robotically how you've refuted everything on his personal website: http://consc.net/
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:54 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking


Okay but then you say:
There are ways to corroborate those thoughts against something else


What thoughts...? You said I'm not thinking at all, then in the next sentence you say I am thinking... Blatant contradiction. make up your mind (lol!)


No it doesn't as he explained in the qualification.


You've contradicted yourself again: if we can take that paragraph you quoted at face value then there would be no qualification, but there is, so you fail

So which of us is actually mischaracterizing Chalmers' position?


That would be you. You're ignoring his qualifications of his paragraph.


Chalmers doesn't affirm Cosmic Idealism either, but you're still leaning on his credibility for that,


I never did, but you were in regards to the point about simulations. Looks like we need actual arguments, which I have provided.

Factually, he also stated that idealism isn't as plausible as its main competitors


He never said that. Stop with the lying already

A qualified psychologist on the internet doesn't have access to a professor at a university?


I never said I was a psychologist, I said my degree was in psych and that's it. Chalmers is a huge figure in the field, I can try to email him but there's no guarantee he will respond.

people who are actually qualified don't hide their fucking qualification from others.


I'm under no obligation to leave a trail of crumbs for you to follow to dox me. Kindly fuck off
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:04 pm
ExogenPosts: 56Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 5:23 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote: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...



I didn't 'finally' get your point in that regard, because you don't have one. It's just you're so unwilling to entertain anything outside of the assumptions you failed to indicate that its pointless. Not to mention, I can always bring it in later until you modify the OP, so what's the rush.


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


True, though I did actually elaborate more than a sentence or two, so its a false parallel. Needless to say, I'm 'assuming' knowledge on your part about at least the basics of philosophy, which would begin with Plato, hence the lack of unnecessary long-winded elaboration. The larger point is, the kind of radical skepticism you are talking about was already defeated by the ancient Greeks and in particular Socrates, on a number of fronts, which neither contradicts the notion that every claim needs justification, nor implies some paralyzing state where one is not even able to make statements because one lacks sufficient reason to justify them.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
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.


Actually what I gave 'wasn't' vague. And, again, there is a difference between vagueness and generality, and in this case, unsupported claims.

The truth would be what is the case, I'll use Wittgenstein's defintion.

But it is clear you're not trying to have a debate about these issues, as you avoided everything I said about the actual subject in response to P1, which even after I gave you what you wanted.

You just want to basically specify a narrow set of ideas, and then within those ideas pronounce that idealism is true.

And as Dragon Gias pointed out, I wasn't lying when I was said about the "skull" comment.

You will notice I quote the entirety of your words, but you just quote snippets of my sentences. I'm not going to waste my time on someone who just looks to make excuses, even when you give them what they want. Not worth my time.

Have fun.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:17 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:What thoughts...? You said I'm not thinking at all, then in the next sentence you say I am thinking... Blatant contradiction. make up your mind (lol!)


Oh goodness me; it's so amusing how you snip and elide to pretend your answers are valid.

I already explained this to you: what you conceive of as your thoughts could just appear to be thoughts to you when they factually are not thoughts insofar as you perceive of that notion, so whatever they actually are is irrelevant in this case but they still can be tested to find out some qualities about them. Ergo, even if they're simulated qualities, or phenotypic inheritance, or any of the other innumerable possibilities existing outside the paucity of your imagination, then they can still be tested against something else other than themselves. So, is the simulation consistent, do the thoughts correspond to anything else, can a thought predict an outcome, does a thought change an outcome etc.

That's what happens after you climb out of your navel fluff, because that's when you start finding actual utility.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You've contradicted yourself again: if we can take that paragraph you quoted at face value then there would be no qualification, but there is, so you fail


Again, you declare 'fail' when your argument is not even tenuous - it literally offers no value at all.

And again, the reality is that you failed to cite the entire discussion in Chalmers' work while poo-pooing the various formulations of it raised here. Nail, jelly, wall.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
So which of us is actually mischaracterizing Chalmers' position?


That would be you. You're ignoring his qualifications of his paragraph.


Whereas you ignored the entire paragraph and many others.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Chalmers doesn't affirm Cosmic Idealism either, but you're still leaning on his credibility for that,


I never did,...


Everyone enjoy! :)



Monistic Idealism wrote:... but you were in regards to the point about simulations.


Factually false as he was never cited by anyone regarding simulations until after you'd worked overtime to dismiss them, and also 'no you' is not only childish, but indicates you understand your own fault even if you can't admit it.



Monistic Idealism wrote:Looks like we need actual arguments, which I have provided.


Look, your arguments are bollocks: see the thread for examples.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Factually, he also stated that idealism isn't as plausible as its main competitors


He never said that. Stop with the lying already


Again, you are calling me a liar while actually asserting something that is contradictory to facts.

Again, for everyone to judge who is lying:

https://philpapers.org/archive/CHAIAT-11.pdf

Page 29

Chalmers wrote:Idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors.


Not greatly less plausible = less plausible = "isn't as plausible"

But MI wants to assert for the 50th time that I am a liar. :D




Monistic Idealism wrote:
A qualified psychologist on the internet doesn't have access to a professor at a university?


I never said I was a psychologist, I said my degree was in psych and that's it.


A degree in psychology, a whole under-graduate degree! Oh, I can see why you mentioned it now.... oh wait.




Monistic Idealism wrote:Chalmers is a huge figure in the field, I can try to email him but there's no guarantee he will respond.


If you've got a good case, then why wouldn't he? Even if you had a bad case and you were polite, he might respond anyway - but that's not very likely is it?

Your best hope is that your case is fucking amazing so he'll put up with all your nasty personal behavior to get access to the good stuff.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
people who are actually qualified don't hide their fucking qualification from others.


I'm under no obligation to leave a trail of crumbs for you to follow to dox me. Kindly fuck off


:lol:

What a clown.

You never did explain how telling people the university at which you got your alleged degree would result in you being 'doxed' - the only reason this becomes a question is because it's an utterly asinine evasion. Anyone who's actually been to university would know how impossible it would be to find out a single individual just from their faculty and university.

What your refusal shows is something quite different instead, and it's back to that first page again.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:22 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:You just went full retard.


Is this evaluation derived from your degree in Psychology?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:32 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

This is the disingenuous turbo skepticism I was talking about earlier: you guys arbitrarily turn up the skepticism dial whenever you think it helps you but you only come out looking retarded to be honest. You know I'm a human man, stop being an autistic turbo skeptic.


Turbo Skepticism... it's over 9000!

Turbo Skepticism about a Psychologist continually diagnosing his interlocutors with mental health issues.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:39 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I didn't 'finally' get your point in that regard, because you don't have one.


My point has been clear: we don't have to get to very bottom to test an argument for validity. We don't have to solve the substance vs non-substance ontologies to see if my argument is at least valid, to see if the argument would hold if the premises were true. Socrates knew how to do that, don't know why you are so incapable of that...

True, though I did actually elaborate more than a sentence or two, so its a false parallel.


By that logic I've done my job too since I've had paragraphs elaborating on my terms and even included scholarly citations to include more information for you, yet you don't grant me the same charity you grant yourself... Quite hypocritical...

Needless to say, I'm 'assuming' knowledge on your part about at least the basics of philosophy, which would begin with Plato, hence the lack of unnecessary long-winded elaboration.


Sorry but in philosophy we get to the heart of the matter. if you're going to play this "its too vague" game when I tell you I'm giving a general common sense view that the average joe can understand (a view that everyone else in here understands just fine as well, its only you that has this huge problem) then I can play it too with truth and knowledge. I know there are fundamental issues there, but I don't pull the rug out from the entire conversation and de-rail it. That's just silly. If you refuse to deal with the argument because of this hyper-skepticism about fundamentals then that sword cuts both ways. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The larger point is, the kind of radical skepticism you are talking about was already defeated by the ancient Greeks and in particular Socrates, on a number of fronts, which neither contradicts the notion that every claim needs justification, nor implies some paralyzing state where one is not even able to make statements because one lacks sufficient reason to justify them.


But you said there's no default position and that every claim needs justification, meaning there has to be arguments in support of them. This contradicts their foundational escape from the regress, while you're stuck in it. If you're accepting foundationalism, which is how they got out of the regress, then you'll have to abandon your earlier critiques of prima facie justification and default positions. You would have to accept that some beliefs are basic and are not dependent on justification outside itself.

Don't forget there's a host of other issues raised by radical skeptics e.g. the gutter problem, problem of the criterion, the liar paradox, it goes on and on. If you can admit that we can have a discussion without tackling all these issues first then so can we about my argument.

Actually what I gave 'wasn't' vague.


By your own standards it is, especially since you haven't been "logically exhaustive", you haven't refuted all the alternatives, which is the standard you pressed on me...

The truth would be what is the case, I'll use Wittgenstein's defintion.


Prove that its true and refute all the alternatives. Since that's the standard you pressed on me, I'll press it on you. In case this needs to be spelled out for you: either you chill a bit, and we have a bit more charitable of a discussion or we both just go turbo skeptic and go nowhere. Your choice.

But it is clear you're not trying to have a debate about these issues, as you avoided everything I said about the actual subject in response to P1, which even after I gave you what you wanted.


Do you really not see the irony here? Now you're complaining about me not addressing your point since I'm going somewhere more fundamental hahaha you're looking in a mirror right now and you don't like it. If you don't like what you see, then maybe change it up a bit. Try being a bit more charitable, cool it with the turbo skepticism, and we can actually get somewhere.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:42 pm
ExogenPosts: 56Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 5:23 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic idealism,

in case you didn't realize, the debate is over. I'm not willing to engage you because you're to vulgar .

You can take my lack of responses from this point forward any way you like, as this is proving a waste of my time. I came here for a friend. I actually had no interest in this forum for the simple reason that when he showed me the link I noticed endless battles between theists and atheists, and it seemed to be centered around that whole group of folks, that tend to be kids in their early to maybe mid 20s hashing out psychological issues incurred when they were younger, be them, theist or atheist, IMO. I have no time for that stuff, as I'm more interested in more 'fundamental' questions at this point, than does God exist or not. Those that don't know that simply haven't been around the block, and it's not my job to educate them. I came here to this particular thread as a request from that same friend, but I can't be bothered any longer. If this was a moderated debate, said in a more professional setting, you would have been DQ'd long ago, and if you acted how you are acting on this forum, curse words and all, in a collegic setting, you would probably be expelled if such behavior persisted. It isn't my goal here to attack you, and it never was. I think you got upset because I poked you a bit with my comment about the OP being refuted. But as I said, it was because I didn't see anyone responding to my initial comment, and that quote you posted from Chalmers wasn't addressed to me or anyone else, so I had no idea who you were talking to, or why that would be relevant to anything I said, a completely reasonable and understandable reaction. No one else knew you were responding to me either, as far as I can tell. So you can have the last word, hell, you can have the 'only' word for all I care. Have fun in your own world, I'm certainly not going to bother you anymore.

Thank you to the others, especially Dragon Gias.

I really wish we could have gotten into the stuff I wanted to bring in our perspective and intentionality. I didn't even get to address the stuff I wanted to talk about dualism, and how I don't think there even is an interaction problem, and things of that sort, but I'm wasting to much energy in trying to redirect the conversation away from the personal domain, so it has reached a tipping point.

As you all say across the pond,

cheers
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:56 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I already explained this to you: what you conceive of as your thoughts could just appear to be thoughts to you when they factually are not thoughts insofar as you perceive of that notion, so whatever they actually are is irrelevant in this case but they still can be tested to find out some qualities about them.


How can anything "appear" to "me"? That suggests there's some kind of experience, and that assumes there is some "I" there in which things "appear" to, yet you're trying to tell me those very things don't exist in the first place lol if there's no consciousness, no experience, no thoughts, no perceptions, no imagination, ideas, then there are no such things as an "I" and there is nothing that can "appear" to me. There would be no such things as delusions or hallucinations or delusions or any of that since there is no consciousness. You're just contradicting yourself...


And again, the reality is that you failed to cite the entire discussion in Chalmers' work


No that was you. You cited a paragraph and failed to cite the qualifications of said paragraph.

Factually false


Yes you were just a bit ago, until I had to point out his qualifications.

Look, your arguments are bollocks: see the thread for examples.


That's all you've got is: "nuhh uhh"

I have arguments...

Not greatly less plausible = less plausible = "isn't as plausible"


Wrong again. Take a look at the whole quote in context:
No position on the mind–body problem is plausible. Materialism is implausible. Dualism is implausible. Idealism is implausible. Neutral monism is implausible. None-of-the-above is implausible. But the probabilities of all of these views get a boost from the fact that one of them must be true. 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.


He didn't say that idealism is less plausible, he said it's not greatly less plausible than its main competitors and they're all implausible. Don't forget this quote he made at the beginning of the paper as well:
“One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”.


He's said this before in a recent talk he gave on the road to idealism. He's been paying attention to it more and more, and we know he's rejected materialism and dualism as false in the past, but not idealism.

A degree in psychology, a whole under-graduate degree! Oh, I can see why you mentioned it now.... oh wait.


Yeah exactly you don't even know why it was mentioned, you just take shit out of context just like you did with Chalmers. This is a pattern for you... I mentioned that because another user was suggesting I talk to experts in neuroscience and stuff like that and I was noting that I already have and even have a degree in psych so I've had more than just one conversation with some neuroscientists about this stuff. Pay attention and stop taking people out of context...

If you've got a good case, then why wouldn't he?


How would he know its good unless he reads it in the first place....? Man, you don't get basic logic at all... He's a busy guy, he's got a lot on his plate, he gets a looooot of emails given this guy is an international figure here. Come on man, you can't be this bad at logic. Surely you're just being uncharitable, right?

You never did explain how


If I'm not trying to get doxed why the fuck would I explain how to do it? oh my god, you cannot be this bad at logic on accident man, come on...
Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:58 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

in case you didn't realize, the debate is over.


It was hardly started since you had to blow up metaphysics and epistemology itself just to talk about philosophy of mind. You're getting too fundamental and de-railing the thread and you made strange demands that edit the OP just to accommodate you. Stop playing the victim like you came here for a friend, that was manipulative of you and you should have just assessed the argument for validity like I asked from the very beginning. This thread is called "The Case for Idealism", which means its about my argument for idealism, not some other debate about bundle theory. Your inability to compartmentalize various discussions is not my problem and it doesn't make me the bad guy for getting frustrated at your refusal to address my argument while you proclaim to be a philosopher in the "true" sense. I don't recall Socrates ever pulling this crap, ever...

I have no time for that stuff, as I'm more interested in more 'fundamental' questions at this point


Exactly, proof of what I was just saying: you're distracted by much more fundamental issues. What you're doing is the equivalent of going into a thread about veganism and demanding the OP defend moral realism and define which particular ethical theory they subscribe to and give it a meta-ethical account or else it's impossible to discuss veganism, like come on dude... That shit de-rails threads. If you want to go more fundamental then don't de-rail threads, start a new thread. It's that simple man. If you had only taken my advice from several pages ago this would have gone a lot smoother...

I really wish we could have gotten into the stuff I wanted to bring in our perspective and intentionality.


More proof of what I just said: this thread isn't about the stuff you want to talk about, this is a thread about the case for idealism. You're in the wrong thread. If you want to talk about other issues, more fundamental issues, start a new thread. It's really that simple bro.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:07 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3107Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Exogen wrote:Monistic idealism,

in case you didn't realize, the debate is over. I'm not willing to engage you because you're to vulgar .

You can take my lack of responses from this point forward any way you like, as this is proving a waste of my time. I came here for a friend. I actually had no interest in this forum for the simple reason that when he showed me the link I noticed endless battles between theists and atheists, and it seemed to be centered around that whole group of folks, that tend to be kids in their early to maybe mid 20s hashing out psychological issues incurred when they were younger, be them, theist or atheist, IMO. I have no time for that stuff, as I'm more interested in more 'fundamental' questions at this point, than does God exist or not. Those that don't know that simply haven't been around the block, and it's not my job to educate them. I came here to this particular thread as a request from that same friend, but I can't be bothered any longer. If this was a moderated debate, said in a more professional setting, you would have been DQ'd long ago, and if you acted how you are acting on this forum, curse words and all, in a collegic setting, you would probably be expelled if such behavior persisted. It isn't my goal here to attack you, and it never was. I think you got upset because I poked you a bit with my comment about the OP being refuted. But as I said, it was because I didn't see anyone responding to my initial comment, and that quote you posted from Chalmers wasn't addressed to me or anyone else, so I had no idea who you were talking to, or why that would be relevant to anything I said, a completely reasonable and understandable reaction. No one else knew you were responding to me either, as far as I can tell. So you can have the last word, hell, you can have the 'only' word for all I care. Have fun in your own world, I'm certainly not going to bother you anymore.

Thank you to the others, especially Dragon Gias.

I really wish we could have gotten into the stuff I wanted to bring in our perspective and intentionality. I didn't even get to address the stuff I wanted to talk about dualism, and how I don't think there even is an interaction problem, and things of that sort, but I'm wasting to much energy in trying to redirect the conversation away from the personal domain, so it has reached a tipping point.

As you all say across the pond,

cheers

Exogen, I think I can speak for the LoR members in saying that we would not wish you to leave on the basis of your experience in this thread. Please start a thread on the topic(s) of interest to you - I'm certain other members would be interested, and willing, to discuss the subject(s) with you.

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 11:26 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 175Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Please start a thread on the topic(s) of interest to you - I'm certain other members would be interested, and willing, to discuss the subject(s) with you.


This is great advice, I agree with you. I've been saying exactly this for several days now. Nice to see that you agree with me as well.
Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:30 pm
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Exogen wrote:I really wish we could have gotten into the stuff I wanted to bring in our perspective and intentionality. I didn't even get to address the stuff I wanted to talk about dualism, and how I don't think there even is an interaction problem, and things of that sort, but I'm wasting to much energy in trying to redirect the conversation away from the personal domain, so it has reached a tipping point.

As you all say across the pond,

cheers



Don't leave on his account!

He only joined 5 minutes ago, and regardless of how he might act otherwise, he doesn't own the forum. His peculiar brand of self-gratification is not emulated or accepted by other people.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:51 am
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Please start a thread on the topic(s) of interest to you - I'm certain other members would be interested, and willing, to discuss the subject(s) with you.


This is great advice, I agree with you. I've been saying exactly this for several days now. Nice to see that you agree with me as well.



For clarity here, Exogen - what Dragan Glas said is nothing to do with this guy's self-serving rendition.

Your replies were much more substantive than MI wants to deal with, that's the real reason why he'd be happy for you to leave this thread. You went off his script.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:06 am
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

He didn't say that idealism is less plausible, he said it's not greatly less plausible than its main competitors and they're all implausible.


Which in elementary English means 'less plausible' - this example alone shows why you're unable to engage in any degree of honest discussion, and why you're engendering and utterly pointless level of fluff. You even feel compelled to dictate an oxymoron and call people "liar" when they reject your manufactured falsehoods in preference of the facts.

Not greatly less plausible = less plausible

That's the case regardless of whether you acknowledge it or not.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:10 am
Sparhafoc
Online
Posts: 2253Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
I already explained this to you: what you conceive of as your thoughts could just appear to be thoughts to you when they factually are not thoughts insofar as you perceive of that notion, so whatever they actually are is irrelevant in this case but they still can be tested to find out some qualities about them.


How can anything "appear" to "me"? That suggests there's some kind of experience, and that assumes there is some "I" there in which things "appear" to, yet you're trying to tell me those very things don't exist in the first place lol if there's no consciousness, no experience, no thoughts, no perceptions, no imagination, ideas, then there are no such things as an "I" and there is nothing that can "appear" to me. There would be no such things as delusions or hallucinations or delusions or any of that since there is no consciousness. You're just contradicting yourself...


Again, this is just your capacity to comprehend that's being overloaded.

Everything you've just waved at is subsumed into the answer I've already given. Everything you're appealing to is an illusion directed by the simulation, algorithm, phenotype. They 'exist' but only insofar as you've been obliged & constrained to believe they exist.

Your refusal to acknowledge points like this is what makes it a pointless endeavour to discuss anything with you. No problem with your argument exists just so long as you put your fingers in your ears and shout LA LA LA loudly enough.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
And again, the reality is that you failed to cite the entire discussion in Chalmers' work


No that was you.


No, that was you.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You cited a paragraph and failed to cite the qualifications of said paragraph.


The first time you tried this it was desperate, now it's just snivellingly pathetic.

None of the qualifications affect my argument.

In reality, the truth is that you failed to address valid arguments against your claims, trying to poo-poo them with banal natter about reflections, whereas the source you continually lean on for legitimacy actually outlines those same arguments.

In reality, it's you who cherry-picked what you wanted from your source, and therefore 'failed to cite' the source accurately.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Factually false


Yes you were just a bit ago, until I had to point out his qualifications.


Factually false, and although you're trying hard to obfuscate, the point is perfectly clear, as is your behavior.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Look, your arguments are bollocks: see the thread for examples.


That's all you've got is: "nuhh uhh"


Even if that was all I had, it would still be sufficient given the poverty of your argumentation.

As it actually stands, no I have solid counters to your arguments that you fail even to comprehend, let alone address substantively.


Monistic Idealism wrote:I have arguments...


Yes see above: bollocks ones.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Wrong again. Take a look at the whole quote in context: No position on the mind–body problem is plausible. Materialism is implausible. Dualism is implausible. Idealism is implausible. Neutral monism is implausible. None-of-the-above is implausible. But the probabilities of all of these views get a boost from the fact that one of them must be true. 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.


Wrong, he says, citing the text I already provided which I clearly accurately represented and which he wants to turn upside down.

Also, already addressed the error in this paragraph introduced by Dr Chalmers.


Monistic Idealism wrote:He didn't say that idealism is less plausible, he said it's not greatly less plausible than its main competitors and they're all implausible.


Yes, which aligns with what I said, but is in contradiction to what you said.

not greatly less plausible = less plausible



Monistic Idealism wrote: Don't forget this quote he made at the beginning of the paper as well:

“One starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist”.


Yeah, that his opinion and I believe its premise is wrong (albeit interestingly wrong). And? Is this going to operate as a diversion?

No, of course it's not. His conclusion tells you his concluding thoughts, whereas you're now trying to appeal to his qualifying ideas at the beginning of the text. His conclusion shows that he considers idealism to be less plausible than its competitors. Try another distraction.


Monistic Idealism wrote:He's said this before in a recent talk he gave on the road to idealism. He's been paying attention to it more and more, and we know he's rejected materialism and dualism as false in the past, but not idealism.


Not in the paper you've cited and leaned on for credibility he hasn't. You'll forgive me for refusing to lend your rendition credence when you've shown so many times either an outrageously poor reading comprehension for an alleged graduate, or a wilful abandon when it comes to truth.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
A degree in psychology, a whole under-graduate degree! Oh, I can see why you mentioned it now.... oh wait.


Yeah exactly you don't even know why it was mentioned,...


Oh I know exactly why you mentioned it, and it is only getting funnier as you gyrate around it.


Monistic Idealism wrote:.... you just take shit out of context just like you did with Chalmers.


You say that's the case, but you can't establish it's the case. In reality, I provisioned context you'd never acknowledged.


Monistic Idealism wrote:This is a pattern for you...


*yawn*

Call me mentally ill again, Mr self-professed Psychologist.



Monistic Idealism wrote: I mentioned that because another user was suggesting I talk to experts in neuroscience and stuff like that and I was noting that I already have and even have a degree in psych so I've had more than just one conversation with some neuroscientists about this stuff.


Whereas, in reality taking an undergraduate degree in psychology doesn't lend anything to the claim that you've had conversations with neuroscientists.

What were they? Fellow undergraduates? :lol:

No, it's all part of your pattern.



Monistic Idealism wrote: Pay attention and stop taking people out of context...


I'll keep exposing your bullshit in the way I elect to expose your bullshit, and you will find it is beyond your ability to control me.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
If you've got a good case, then why wouldn't he?


How would he know its good unless he reads it in the first place....?


Ummm because you mailed it to him?

Because you would write a cover note that would intrigue him and make him feel compelled to read your argument?

Sorry, I can't sell your snake-oil for you - you're going to need to come up with your own marketing slogans.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Man, you don't get basic logic at all... He's a busy guy, he's got a lot on his plate, he gets a looooot of emails given this guy is an international figure here. Come on man, you can't be this bad at logic. Surely you're just being uncharitable, right?


Bad at logic.... a nice attempt at emotive tinkering, but then you follow it up with vacuity antithetical to logic.

He's a busy guy? Yeah, he's a busy guy in his field and if you have solved the very question he's spent many years asking, then that 'business' would naturally include everything you've got to say.

He's a professor at university. From first hand experience, I know that this means he has ample time, opportunity, and motivation for finding good ideas regardless of their source.

If you can resolve the issues he's discussed, then why wouldn't he be interested?

But do ramble on condescendingly about logic again, just in case anyone missed the opportunity to see what a vacuous tit you are.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You never did explain how


If I'm not trying to get doxed why the fuck would I explain how to do it? oh my god, you cannot be this bad at logic on accident man, come on...


So transparent. You try and turn your nonsensical fantasy into an attack, but there's not a shred of reason holding it all together.

In reality, your response is nonsensical. There is no way that simply knowing the faculty and university someone studied at would result in any information being exposed about a person beyond their faculty and university.

You were nailed to the wall, and all you're doing is squirming about slopping everywhere.

You are a clown. Clowns exist to make people laugh.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:40 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 19 of 24
 [ 464 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests