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 20 of 35
 [ 700 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Everything you've just waved at is subsumed into the answer I've already given.


Maybe if you were trying to go for some kind of reductionism you could try to get away with this, but you're talking about eliminativism so you're just flat out contradicting yourself. You're saying there's no experience and there is no I yet somehow things appear to me... You're not making any sense, you're completely incoherent...

No, that was you.


that's not an argument, I gave an argument: the paragraph I cited was a qualification of the paragraph you cited. You don't need to qualify something if its clear at face value... You cannot deny this happened without flat out lying...

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


No it wouldn't. You would need a counter-argument and justification that my argument is poor. You need to justify your accusations, which you have failed to do.

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


How is it wrong? I'm literally citing him directly... He said they're all implausible, put them on the same footing.

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


You were trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Chalmers isn't an idealist yet the literature shows he's clearly warming up to it, certainly more than materialism or dualism that's for sure.

Oh I know exactly why you mentioned it


Which is why you said earlier that you don't know why it was mentioned... you just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?

You say that's the case, but you can't establish it's the case.


I just did. You started bitching about my credentials for all the wrong reasons: when the context is in place it makes sense why I mentioned it.

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


Actually it does. You must not be familiar with psych curriculum, funny how you don't have the intellectual humility to be silent on that which you don't know about but whatever... I've spoken with plenty of neuroscientists on the matter and other PhDs related to the study of the mind in a scientific and philosophical sense.

I'll keep exposing your bullshit in the way I elect to expose your bullshit


Which is itself bullshit lol

and you will find it is beyond your ability to control me.


control you...? what...? this isn't about me, is it? you arguing with some ghost from your past, dude...?

Ummm because you mailed it to him?


do you even logic bro? that doesn't entail he will read it. He gets a shit ton of mail, very easy to miss one from some dude like me that he doesn't even know. Are you this stupid or just being disingenuous? Pick your poison

He's a professor at university. From first hand experience, I know that this means he has ample time,


What kind of professors did you have? There's professors so busy they have graduate students going through the material for them while they're out giving lectures elsewhere and publishing. Professors aren't always easily accessible, especially if you're not their student, and especially if they are international figures. You're either just shit at logic or you recognize all this and just being a prick.

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.


Oh but there is, but I won't spell it out for you since I'm not trying to get doxed.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:07 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Everything you've just waved at is subsumed into the answer I've already given.


Maybe if you were trying to go for some kind of reductionism you could try to get away with this, but you're talking about eliminativism so you're just flat out contradicting yourself.


The shell game.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You're saying there's no experience...


Cite where I said that.


Monistic Idealism wrote:and there is no I...


Cite where I said that.


Monistic Idealism wrote: yet somehow things appear to me...


A false formulation of my argument. Is this because you don't understand the argument, or because you need to pervert every argument defeating your claims to maintain the illusion of your position being unassailable?


Monistic Idealism wrote:You're not making any sense, you're completely incoherent...


Your inabilty to parse arguments doesn't actually mean they are incoherent, it just means you either lack comprehension, or that you comprehend the problems and that's why you keep making up bullshit to evade the problems.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
No, that was you.


that's not an argument, I gave an argument: the paragraph I cited was a qualification of the paragraph you cited. You don't need to qualify something if its clear at face value... You cannot deny this happened without flat out lying...


Call me a liar again. It's all you've got after all.


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


No it wouldn't.


Yes it would.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You would need a counter-argument and justification that my argument is poor.


Only if I was trying to convince you. As you've repeatedly decreed yourself the arbiter of everything, I can similarly just decree myself the arbiter. My refutation of your contention is sufficient - your flapping is irrelevant.

See how it works?

Of course you don't.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You need to justify your accusations, which you have failed to do.


"Accusations" - in reality, I don't need to genuflect to your manufactured delusions; that's why, no matter how often you try to oblige me, I keep telling you what you can do with your demands.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Wrong


How is it wrong? I'm literally citing him directly... He said they're all implausible, put them on the same footing.


And you want to call ME a liar! :lol:

Actually, I am citing him directly, and he quite specifically says that Idealism is less plausible than its competitors:

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


Not greatly less = still less

Keep on prevaricating.


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


You were trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Chalmers isn't an idealist yet the literature shows he's clearly warming up to it, certainly more than materialism or dualism that's for sure.


The literature shows quite the opposite: Chalmers considers Idealism less plausible than its main competitors.

It's so funny watching you try to pocket the rabbit here. Go on - call me a liar again.

Keep calling me a liar every time you directly contradict the quote from Chalmers. There may be someone who didn't notice your laughable contrivances yet... but I doubt it.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Oh I know exactly why you mentioned it


Which is why you said earlier that you don't know why it was mentioned... you just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?


No i didn't. Your fantastical fabrications notwithstanding. It's not MY contradiction - it's your attempt to formulate everyone's opinion on their behalf that is leading to contradictions: ones of your own manufacturing.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
You say that's the case, but you can't establish it's the case.


I just did.


No you didn't.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You started bitching about my credentials for all the wrong reasons: when the context is in place it makes sense why I mentioned it.


Yes, it's clear exactly why you thrust your alleged credentials into the conversation because they certainly don't represent anything else.


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


Actually it does.


Actually, it doesn't.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You must not be familiar with psych curriculum,...


Oh you silly, silly person.

There's now a psych curriculum, like there's one agreed upon curriculum for the entire world.

What a fucking doughnut.

In reality, of course, there are a vast number of different curricula, not only dependent on the university, the interests and expertise of the professors, but also subtle differences depending on the actual course studied and the elective components of that course.

Yet again, you undermine your already dubious contention to having attained a degree by confidently asserting bollocks about the way higher education works.

Amusingly, the reason I asked for your university was expressly to look at the range of curricula they offer; but you started spitting out bullshit diversions.

There's your pattern.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... funny how you don't have the intellectual humility to be silent on that which you don't know about but whatever...


I'll leave that particular area of expertise to you.


Monistic Idealism wrote: I've spoken with plenty of neuroscientists on the matter and other PhDs related to the study of the mind in a scientific and philosophical sense.


I don't believe you.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
I'll keep exposing your bullshit in the way I elect to expose your bullshit


Which is itself bullshit lol


Indeed it is. I would estimate that 99% of your contributions here have been bullshit.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
and you will find it is beyond your ability to control me.


control you...? what...? this isn't about me, is it? you arguing with some ghost from your past, dude...?


No dewd. I mean in the same way as you've been trying to control everyone in this thread. You manipulate what people say and then try to force them to swallow that manufactured bullshit.

Most other people have got bored with your incessant bullshit and stopped replying.

Me, I've got infinite patience. Each time you express your typical discursive malfeasance, I will point out that it is bullshit. When you reply 'nuh uh' I will reply 'yeh heh' and so on. If you haven't noticed this after so many pages, then it may go a long way to explaining why you don't grasp the nature of other minds.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Ummm because you mailed it to him?


do you even logic bro?


You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... that doesn't entail he will read it.


Do you even logic bro?

If you don't email him, then it guarantees he won't read it.


Monistic Idealism wrote:He gets a shit ton of mail,...


How do you know?


Monistic Idealism wrote: very easy to miss one from some dude like me that he doesn't even know.


Good to know you're setting yourself up to explain away your failure.

Some people do, some people whine.

In the time you've been whining, you could have mailed him already.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Are you this stupid or just being disingenuous? Pick your poison


Clearly, you're projecting because you're being artfully stupid and disingenuous.

It's actually perfectly normal for people in the academic world to respond to correspondence. Given your supposed credentials, and given the supposed value of your argument, and given your fascination with Chalmers in terms of his alleged legitimization of your perspective... then it does actually stand to reason he might have an interest in your output.

Unless, of course, you realize he wouldn't be interested because your output is not worth a wazz?


Monistic Idealism wrote:
He's a professor at university. From first hand experience, I know that this means he has ample time,


What kind of professors did you have? There's professors so busy they have graduate students going through the material for them while they're out giving lectures elsewhere and publishing. Professors aren't always easily accessible, especially if you're not their student, and especially if they are international figures. You're either just shit at logic or you recognize all this and just being a prick.


I'm talking about first-hand experience in terms of my colleagues. All professors who provide their email addresses, maintain web pages about their topics, and encourage contact are at least partly willing to engage with the public.

I'm sorry that your ad hoc explanations are inconsistent with reality, but this thread of conversation does serve to paint a much clearer picture of you and the vista of your claims. Similarly, your inability to reply without repeated ad hominem indicates exactly what kind of person we're dealing with.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
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.


Oh but there is, but I won't spell it out for you since I'm not trying to get doxed.


Yeah bullshit.

I told you my university and my faculty - dox away! Go on: put your money where your mouth is - I grant you full consent. Cue fantastical ad hoc evasions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:33 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:You were trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Chalmers isn't an idealist yet the literature shows he's clearly warming up to it, certainly more than materialism or dualism that's for sure.



Given Monistic Idealism's penchant for calling me a liar (it's got to be nigh on 20 times now and is becoming a staple of every reply) this is particularly ironic.

In reality, we have Chalmers' words.

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


"not greatly less plausible" = "somewhat less plausible" = "not as plausible"

Its main competitors being materialism and dualism.

Ergo, Chalmers actually finds both materialism and dualism somewhat more plausible (even if only fractionally) than idealism, and Monistic Idealism's formulation of it is directly contrary to what Chalmers said.


Monistic Idealism, having thereby perverted Chalmers' actual words, can only then respond by calling me a 'liar' for citing the actual meaning of Chalmers' words.

Let's do this for another 20 pages. It's so much fun.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:39 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

A little guide to accurately reading Monistic Idealism's obtuse and repetitive usage of terminology when he offers no actual substantive reply.

As can be readily noted, he repeatedly declares that he has 'rebutted' or 'refuted' arguments, while declaring that other people have 'failed to refute' or sometimes just 'ignored' his refutations and rebuttals.

However, the actual reality is quite different from the implication he thereby seeks to achieve.

There are dozens of examples of this from interactions with every person in this thread.

However, the below is the most amusing for several reasons.

For context; a question has been posed regarding self-learning algorithms as to whether they can be conscious under the same explanation of consciousness as was previously advanced.

Self-learning AI apparently could and should meet the criteria but MI insists that it doesn't and can't.

On what grounds? Well, on analogous grounds that AI is like a reflection.


Monistic Idealism wrote:The man in the mirror likewise is just a reflection a copy, not the real thing. The reflection looks just like you and behaves like you and says what you say and can even convince another person that it's real, but that doesn't mean the reflection is conscious, just like the Ai which is just a reflection of ourselves.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Say you're in a hall of mirrors and you're seeing a ton of different versions of another person and you can't tell which is the real one. zomg all the reflections must be conscious too, right?! no... if you can see how silly this is, then we can see how silly what you're saying is.


Monistic Idealism wrote:No it isn't. The reflection convinced another person that it was conscious, by your logic that's enough for it to be conscious.




Sparhafoc wrote:For this to be anything like a coherent response, a reflection in a mirror must be analogous to an AI, whereas they are factually nothing at all like one another.


Dragan Glas wrote:I've told you, you're misusing the mirror analogy.


Dragan Glas wrote:What's silly here is your misuse of the analogy.


Sparhafoc wrote:There are obviously not remotely analogous. The reflection in a mirror is a form of propagation of photons. The AI running in a complex electronic substrate is not a 'reflection'.

As such, your statement is clearly false.

https://www.britannica.com/science/reflection-physics

Reflection, abrupt change in the direction of propagation of a wave that strikes the boundary between different mediums. At least part of the oncoming wave disturbance remains in the same medium. Regular reflection, which follows a simple law, occurs at plane boundaries. The angle between the direction of motion of the oncoming wave and a perpendicular to the reflecting surface (angle of incidence) is equal to the angle between the direction of motion of the reflected wave and a perpendicular (angle of reflection).


Other people also noted this erroneous analogy, and my apologies to them for not including theirs too, but in the interest of brevity the above does suffice.

However, if pressed, Monistic Idealism will simply declare that he has refuted the argument or that he has rebutted it - he will repeatedly refer to the fact that he made an argument as if that's said and done.

In reality, Monistic Idealism did everything he could to cloud the argument so he could escape in the confusion.

You can hear the relief here when Master_Ghost_Knight finally gives up trying to hold a discussion with Monistic Idealism because of this absurd behavior:

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


In reality, Monistic Idealism didn't come within bargepole range of responding, and similarly his bargepole didn't actually protect against the torpedo zeroing in on his masturbatory raft.

The reason Monistic Idealism span all these webs of nonsense is not because AI is irrelevant, not because he can show anything relevant to AI with regards to his position, not because he has any interest in it at all in terms of better evaluating the truth... rather, it's because accepting any notion of his error, the identified error which spawned the argument in the first place, would undermine a core component of Monistic Idealism's 'case' on the first page.

If humans can make a wholly physical system from which mind emerges, then reductionism cannot be waved away. Consequent to that, MI's arguments against dualism would also no longer work, and his attempt to post Idealism as the Last Man Standing would also then fail, and his entire case is thereby shown the door.

There's a motivation not to acknowledge substantive arguments which cause problems for MI's case.

That's what Dragan Glas noted earlier: the case in the OP actually resides on a belief position that MI needs to validate. What he doesn't understand is that in the absence of that contextual belief system his argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter how condescending, smug, shitty, abusive, or self-congratulatory he gets - his case has still failed to convince.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:28 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

The shell game.


that's not a rebuttal to my argument at all.

Cite where I said that.


You said, and I quote directly:
You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking


You're an eliminativist. You're denying premise 1. You're claiming consciousness does not exist, you're claiming I do not think, you're claiming there is no "I", that there is no way things "appear" to me. It's contradictory to say things "appear to me" while at the same time there being no experience and no I.

Call me a liar again. It's all you've got after all.


Go ahead and fail to present a rebuttal and then act like you did, cuz that's what a liar does after all...

Yes it would.


Naw, you need a counter-argument otherwise my argument still stands. and you haven't presented one.

Only if I was trying to convince you.


Naw, you just have the burden of proof in general to support your claims. If you fail to support your claims, which you have, and fail to counter rebuttals, then your claims do not stand. This isn't me being some arbiter this is literally what reality is...

"Accusations" - in reality, I don't need to genuflect to your manufactured delusions; that's why, no matter how often you try to oblige me, I keep telling you what you can do with your demands.


So you have no justification for your accusations? Great so we have no reason to believe what you say. awesome.

Actually, I am citing him directly,


Except I'm the one who is actually citing the full quote. You're cherry picking and thus failing to grasp the full context and I demonstrated earlier. This isn't the first time I've had to do with this you either, you have a habit of taking people out of context...

No i didn't.


Yes you did. you said, and i quote directly:
Oh, I can see why you mentioned it now.... oh wait


Your confusion at the end indicates you don't know why I sent it, which indicates you don't even remember when I corrected you on all of this long ago and why its there. But you just take shit out of context regardless since you're just so honest!

No you didn't.


Ignoring my arguments is all you've got, huh?

Actually, it doesn't.


If you knew anything about the curriculum, then yeah it does lol

There's now a psych curriculum, like there's one agreed upon curriculum for the entire world.


You're sawing off the branch you sit on. If there's no general curriculum for you to appeal to then you have no way of saying I didn't interact with neuroscientists LOL besides we're taking about my curriculum in particular and in mine there's plenty of neuroscientists to go around.

I don't believe you.


okay?

Indeed it is.


So you just admitted the way you approach this is bullshit lol thanks for admitting it for everyone.

No dewd.


So this really isn't about me then? You might want to resolve whatever trauma you have before you bring that baggage into conversations with strangers like myself. It's kind of weird, "dewd"... Nobody is trying to control you, I'm just trying to talk with ya.

Me, I've got infinite patience


Yes we know you have no life and will spend way more time in here than me bitching about nothing. You've got so much patience that you failed to address my counter-arguments to you all the way on the 1st page hahahaha you have infinite patience for talking about bullshit: you put more effort into your dislike of me than addressing the argument at hand. You crave drama, it's what you really want as shown by your lack of thinking about the argument and your infinite patience to bitch about nothing.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You're the guy who is trying to infer that just because an email is sent therefore someone will read it, and that's a non-sequitur... You need to learn how to reason better...

How do you know?


He's an international figure, he's a professor across nations and gives talks all over the world and has his own life and career. You really are this stupid, aren't you?

I'm talking about first-hand experience in terms of my colleagues.


Stop projecting, we're not all you. Chalmers is not your professor.

In reality, we have Chalmers' words.


Yeah and I cited them directly so what I'm saying is accurate.

"not greatly less plausible" = "somewhat less plausible"


He didn't say "less plausible" you're adding that to the quote, Chalmers didn't say those words. He said what it is NOT and he said it's not greatly less plausible as the other ones that he also said are implausible. You're putting words in his mouth. Chalmers has come out and flat out rejected materialism and dualism (see his work the hard problem of consciousness) notice how he's not rejected idealism though... Admittedly he seems more open to panpsychism but he's more open to idealism than materialism or dualism. Just look at his work on the hard problem of consciousness, its all right there for you to read about.

A little guide to accurately reading Monistic Idealism's obtuse and repetitive usage of terminology when he offers no actual substantive reply.


If we want a guide to what dealing with you is like we just have to look at the first page. I write the OP, you write a rebuttal to it, then I go line by line giving counter-arguments to what you say, then you bitch out and write a few lines down where you just make excuses as to why you won't address my counter-arguments... This is how it works every single time with you. You just ignore my refutations of you and then declare victory with your little guide like a dishonest prick. Wow, you really rekt my shit up fam! The power of ignoring arguments. So strong!
Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
The shell game.


that's not a rebuttal to my argument at all.


It's an observation of your evasionary tactic.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Cite where I said that.


You said, and I quote directly:
You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking


You're an eliminativist.


No I am not.

If you want to quote what I said, then you're obliged to also note what I said before. You can quote-mine Chalmers all day because he's not here to tell you to fuck off, I am here though: fuck off.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You're denying premise 1. You're claiming consciousness does not exist, you're claiming I do not think, you're claiming there is no "I", that there is no way things "appear" to me. It's contradictory to say things "appear to me" while at the same time there being no experience and no I.


As I said: quote where I claimed any of that.

You can't. All you can do is tell me what I mean so as to oblige me to join your script.

No, I explained what I mean - you don't get to change my argument and tell me to swallow it.

I am not claiming consciousness does not exist. I am not claiming you do not think (although it is debatable sometimes), I am not claiming there is no "I", I am not claiming that there is no way things "appear" to me.

Therefore, the contradiction is wholly of your own manufacture.

If you followed what I said instead of distorting my argument beyond recognition, then there'd have been no contradiction.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Call me a liar again. It's all you've got after all.


Go ahead and fail to present a rebuttal and then act like you did, cuz that's what a liar does after all...


I've addressed your mantra 'failed to present a rebuttal' - your inability to comprehend something does not mean it fails to do what it is intended to do.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Yes it would.


Naw, you need a counter-argument otherwise my argument still stands. and you haven't presented one.


No I don't. You need to respond to arguments made by others, not formulations you whip up out of thin air to evade those arguments.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Only if I was trying to convince you.


Naw, you just have the burden of proof in general to support your claims.


No, there is no burden of proof, you're talking out of your rectum.


Monistic Idealism wrote: If you fail to support your claims, which you have, and fail to counter rebuttals, then your claims do not stand.


I've supported any claims I've made, but for the most part, nothing I've written entails making a claim - just refuting yours, and I have countered your rebuttals perfectly sufficiently - your acknowledgement notwithstanding - so your arguments are shown false. All that's left is your flapping.


Monistic Idealism wrote: This isn't me being some arbiter this is literally what reality is...


Literal reality, eh? :lol:

Yeah, I'll dismiss on your narcissistic onanism, thanks all the same.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
"Accusations" - in reality, I don't need to genuflect to your manufactured delusions; that's why, no matter how often you try to oblige me, I keep telling you what you can do with your demands.


So you have no justification for your accusations? Great so we have no reason to believe what you say. awesome.


So you have no justification for using the term 'accusation'. Great, so we have no reason to believe what you say. awesome.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Actually, I am citing him directly,


Except I'm the one who is actually citing the full quote.


No, you're not. You're rendering the quote to mean its diametric opposite.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You're cherry picking and thus failing to grasp the full context and I demonstrated earlier.


You are taking a sentence that says 'up' and telling everyone that they are obliged to read it as 'down'. This is, of course, utterly fatuous on your part, indicative of precisely the same arrogant nonsense that's propelled you through the thread to this point, and made the majority of members of this forum have no interest whatsoever in any level of discussion with you when all you do is manufacture bullshit atop bullshit.

As is very clearly stated "less plausible than its competitors" - your inability to parse this is probably why you've made so many errors in this thread.


Monistic Idealism wrote:This isn't the first time I've had to do with this you either, you have a habit of taking people out of context...


And each prior iteration was shown to be a contrivance on your part you manufactured out of thin air and couldn't support with any degree of sensible argumentation.

You are arguing the diametric opposite of what Chalmers said, and you actually think you can bully and bluster your way to convincing others to accept it.

What a silly person you are.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
No i didn't.


Yes you did.


No I didn't.


Monistic Idealism wrote: you said, and i quote directly:
Oh, I can see why you mentioned it now.... oh wait


Yes, I said that. That I said it suggest I know what it means, whereas you clearly don't.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Your confusion at the end...


No confusion, stop projecting.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... indicates you don't know why I sent it,...


No it doesn't, you're misreading it either because you're thick or because you're incessantly manipulative and couldn't muster a single honest response if your life depended on it, thus the general disinterest from other parties who came to realize that a discussion with you is like being a leg for a dog-on-heat to hump.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... which indicates you don't even remember when I corrected you on all of this long ago...


One can't 'remember' things that never happened.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... and why its there.


It indicates nothing of the sort: you are, as usual, labouring under the limitations of your own flawed comprehension.

Again, it's really silly of you to try this. You are trying to tell me what I meant. No, you're wrong. That's sufficient rebuttal. Go on, appeal to a necessary inference like you did before.


Monistic Idealism wrote:But you just take shit out of context regardless since you're just so honest!


Whereas, in reality the people reading this thread can readily judge who has taken shit out of context. Given the fact that essentially everyone has arrived at the conclusion that you're not worth discussing anything with due to your mendacious behavior, one might suppose that the jury of your peers would find you guilty, not me. But you think you supersede all that anyway, so it doesn't matter to you what nonsense you ramble at me - the objective merely is to beat your chest, shake a few trees, and defecate to make sure people know you're there.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
No you didn't.


Ignoring my arguments is all you've got, huh?


I haven't ignored your arguments. I told you they were equine jism, ergo not 'ignored'.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Actually, it doesn't.


If you knew anything about the curriculum, then yeah it does lol


Clown.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
There's now a psych curriculum, like there's one agreed upon curriculum for the entire world.


You're sawing off the branch you sit on.


The Never Admit To Being Wrong shell game continues...


Monistic Idealism wrote: If there's no general curriculum for you to appeal to then you have no way of saying I didn't interact with neuroscientists LOL...


Another asinine contrivance on your part. If there is no universal curriculum, then your claim that because you studied psychology that then supports your claim that you talked to neuroscientists doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


Monistic Idealism wrote:.... besides we're taking about my curriculum in particular and in mine there's plenty of neuroscientists to go around.


Yeah, don't believe you. If you did study a degree, I would bet it was through Open University as you've learned none of the contextual skills associated with a typical university education.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
I don't believe you.


okay?


Ok.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Indeed it is.


So you just admitted the way you approach this is bullshit lol thanks for admitting it for everyone.


Everyone can see that I did no such thing and this is another example of your discursive malfeasance.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
No dewd.


So this really isn't about me then? You might want to resolve whatever trauma you have before you bring that baggage into conversations with strangers like myself. It's kind of weird, "dewd"... Nobody is trying to control you, I'm just trying to talk with ya.


I say 'no' - you then take my word 'no' to mean 'yes' - ironically, exactly the point I was making. You do not give your interlocutors even the most elementary and requisite level of respect as you simply tell them what they believe, what they mean, what they said regardless of the fact that it only happened in your manufactured delusion.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Me, I've got infinite patience


Yes we know you have no life...


Royal WE.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... and will spend way more time in here than me bitching about nothing.


Well, that's a problem for you, isn't it? Because that's what you're doing.

So are you thereby admitting that you have no life and you're just here to spend time bitching about nothing?


Monistic Idealism wrote: You've got so much patience that you failed to address my counter-arguments...


No I didn't.


Monistic Idealism wrote: to you all the way on the 1st page hahahaha....


I responded to your arguments exactly as I chose to - how you might prefer I respond is irrelevant.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... you have infinite patience for talking about bullshit:


Exactly. That's why I am enjoying talking to you.


Monistic Idealism wrote:you put more effort into your dislike of me than addressing the argument at hand.


Factually untrue. I put no effort into my dislike of you, not least because I neither like nor dislike you - I don't believe this silly persona you're playing is a real person to either like or dislike.

And I addressed your arguments, and showed you why I don't accept them. If you don't accept my response, then we're actually at parity.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You crave drama,...


Projection from the guy who keeps on calling people mentally ill on the internet.


Monistic Idealism wrote:it's what you really want as shown by your lack of thinking about the argument and your infinite patience to bitch about nothing.


I don't need to think about the argument because it's pathetic. I already offered my thoughts about any elements of substance, and you showed you had nothing more than a script to regurgitate ad nauseum - the only thinking you've done is how to cover your arse.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


You're the guy who is trying to infer that just because an email is sent therefore someone will read it, and that's a non-sequitur... You need to learn how to reason better...


Whereas, that's obviously not what I said at all, but rather is actually what you said.

Once again, you manufacture a stupid position, then try to stick it on other people.

My argument was that not sending an email ensures he will not read your ideas, whereas sending an email produces a reasonable chance that he will read your ideas. Non non-sequitur exists in anything I said - only in your febrile formulation.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
How do you know?


He's an international figure,...


And?


Monistic Idealism wrote:... he's a professor across nations and gives talks all over the world and has his own life and career. You really are this stupid, aren't you?


So you don't have any actual solid reasons except to appeal to things that don't contradict the stated point, and then you top it of with your usual ad hominem.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
I'm talking about first-hand experience in terms of my colleagues.


Stop projecting, we're not all you. Chalmers is not your professor.


Again, if you knew the first thing about universities and professors, you'd know that contact with the public is actually a routine part of their jobs.

But again, if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

I can write to him for you, if you're too scared? I'll tell him a 'friend' wrote this argument and really would love your feedback. He'll reply. I can be pretty confident of that. The reply might not be what you want though.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
In reality, we have Chalmers' words.


Yeah and I cited them directly so what I'm saying is accurate.


You cited them and then formulated a diametrically opposite rendition of what he said, ergo what you're saying is anything but accurate.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
"not greatly less plausible" = "somewhat less plausible"


He didn't say "less plausible" you're adding that to the quote, Chalmers didn't say those words.


Obtuse bullshit. Each time I cite it to show you're talking bollocks.

He wrote word-for-word "Idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors."

Not greatly less plausible MEANS less plausible. Just not very much less plausible.

You like to call me stupid, but your refusal to acknowledge this is beyond obtuse.


Monistic Idealism wrote: He said what it is NOT and he said it's not greatly less plausible as the other ones that he also said are implausible. You're putting words in his mouth.


Whereas, in reality I am using his EXACT words, and you are making up a bunch of extra words, and it's you who's putting words in his mouth.

Not greatly less plausible MEANS less plausible.

Are you really going to act stupid, or is it not an act?



Monistic Idealism wrote: Chalmers has come out and flat out rejected materialism and dualism...


Not in anything you've cited, he hasn't. Given your delusional rendition of the above sentence, why would anyone trust you to accurately render an entire argument?


Monistic Idealism wrote: (see his work the hard problem of consciousness) notice how he's not rejected idealism though...


Just defined it as less plausible than materialism and dualism.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Admittedly he seems more open to panpsychism but he's more open to idealism than materialism or dualism.


More open to it isn't what's being discussed. What he actually says in the only citations being shown are that he considers idealism to be less plausible (by some small degree) than materialism and dualism.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Just look at his work on the hard problem of consciousness, its all right there for you to read about.


And suddenly my reading of it is important to you? I'm reading a short sentence which clearly means the opposite of what you say it means, so why should I believe your rendition of a more complex format? Given your inability to parse simple English, the chances are you've mistaken what he wrote.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
A little guide to accurately reading Monistic Idealism's obtuse and repetitive usage of terminology when he offers no actual substantive reply.


If we want a guide to what dealing with you is like we just have to look at the first page.


Who is WE?

Who has expressed such a desire?

Yes, everyone can look at the first page, think 'oh well, let's see what ensues' and then they will see what ensues and the wise among them will note what I noted on the first page.


Monistic Idealism wrote: I write the OP, you write a rebuttal to it, then I go line by line giving counter-arguments to what you say, then you bitch out and write a few lines down where you just make excuses as to why you won't address my counter-arguments...


That's not what happened.


Monistic Idealism wrote:This is how it works every single time with you.


This is how you protect your idea from scrutiny each and every time - you've done it with everyone here. Every single person who has responded, you've told them you've 'rebutted' their argument when you haven't actually done so, and then you tell them to read the OP intending to imply that they haven't and if they just did then they'd agree.

No, the problem is that your argument is bunk. Perhaps you are genuinely blind to it. But I don't think so - you've worked far too hard to obfuscate away from all the noted errors in your idea for it to be simple stupidity on your part. It's actually complex stupidity driving your behavior.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You just ignore my refutations of you...


Your refutation of me? :lol:


Monistic Idealism wrote:and then declare victory with your little guide like a dishonest prick.


Whereas, you have declared victory dozens of times - in fact, in nearly every post you've written. Does this then make you a dishonest prick?

Whatever the case, anyone still reading will note how frequently you rely on ad hominem to do the work your argumentation should be doing.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Wow, you really rekt my shit up fam! The power of ignoring arguments. So strong!


Yup, back to the drawing board for you. Probably a good idea you resolve all these flaws before trying out your idea with someone relevant rather than spittle-flecking random people in the internet.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

A = 10
B = 15
C = 50

A is greatly less <adjective> than C

A is not greatly less <adjective> than B

A is still less <adjective> than B
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:27 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Sparhafoc wrote:A = 10
B = 15
C = 50

A is greatly less <adjective> than C

A is not greatly less <adjective> than B

A is still less <adjective> than B


A=10
B=10

A is not greatly less than B. This is a fact. Is one less or more than the other? No.

It's an observation of your evasionary tactic.


Says the guy who dodges my counter-arguments all the way from page 1 lol thanks for admitting you failed to bring a counter-argument once again...

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Cite where I said that.


You said, and I quote directly:
You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking


You're an eliminativist.


No I am not.


So then you've contradicted yourself: I am thinking and you are indeed affirming premise 1. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you want to quote what I said, then you're obliged to also note what I said before.


Oh you mean like when you failed to quote what Chalmers said before about idealism being plausible and his qualifications regarding the simulation argument? ouch... now all of a sudden you care about context, eh? how ironic

As I said: quote where I claimed any of that.


Then you agree with premise and thus premise 2. Great. The case for monistic idealism is lookin good so far. Now let's see if you have the courage to deal with the rest of the premises. This is what I'm really interested in after all: the case for idealism. So I'll be focusing on this from here on since that's the whole point of this thread instead of feeding your addiction to drama.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:A=10
B=10

A is not greatly less than B. This is a fact. Is one less or more than the other? No.


So do you not understand the meaning of the comparative adjective, or are you just making up counterfactual bullshit to avoid acknowledging your errors?

A = $10
B = $15

A is not greatly cheaper than B
A is cheaper than B

A = $10
B = $10

A is not greatly cheaper than B - er, it's not cheaper at all this sentence makes no sense.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:49 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3178Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Again, a quick note on two things:

@ Monistic Idealism,

Firstly, given I was the first to note Chalmers' statement that "idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors", it is quite clear that Chalmers means that idealism is less plausible than its main competitors. That is incontrovertible.

Secondly, you could clarify this with Chalmers when you email him your argument.

And, lest you argue - as you have been doing - that he's too busy/important to answer, on one occasion I took the liberty (or had the gall) to email PZ Myers regarding a debate Aron Ra had with a creationist here on LoR. He graciously responded to me, and acted upon my suggestion. If he can find the time to do so, I'm sure Chalmers would.

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
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
It's an observation of your evasionary tactic.


Says the guy who dodges my counter-arguments all the way from page 1 lol thanks for admitting you failed to bring a counter-argument once again...


Says the guy who has told literally everyone here that they are 'failing to rebut' yadda yadda when that's clearly not the case.

Your delusion, your hallucinations, your blinkers don't actually affect me, MI.

Thus I know I have countered your argument. It doesn't matter whether you accept that counter or not.



Monistic Idealism wrote:So then you've contradicted yourself: I am thinking and you are indeed affirming premise 1. Thanks for clearing that up.


No, I have not contradicted myself. What's funny is that you claimed I contradicted myself, I denied the premise on which you declared that I contradicted myself... and then you declared I contradicted myself.

In reality, you contradicted yourself because you failed to plug in what I said, so you formulated your own version of what I said, then you responded to that formulation.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
If you want to quote what I said, then you're obliged to also note what I said before.


Oh you mean like when you failed to quote what Chalmers said before about idealism being plausible and his qualifications regarding the simulation argument? ouch... now all of a sudden you care about context, eh? how ironic


This is all part of your obfuscation. I've shown this false a dozen times already. But of course, everything you do resides on exactly this game. It's why no one is interested in discussing with you, MI. Do you think that being such an asshat that no one wants to talk to you means that you've won? :lol:


Monistic Idealism wrote:
As I said: quote where I claimed any of that.


Then you agree with premise and thus premise 2.


No, I said quote where I claimed any of that.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Great. The case for monistic idealism is lookin good so far.


Only if you're a frog in a coconut! ;)

To everyone else, it looks like horse jism.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Now let's see if you have the courage to deal with the rest of the premises.


Internet macho-man is back. The 'courage' to reply to some written words? Oooh!

Yeah, did that on the first page.


Monistic Idealism wrote: This is what I'm really interested in after all:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

It's the way you tell them.


Monistic Idealism wrote: the case for idealism.


Sadly, it didn't work out too well. You convinced no one who's taken the time to express their ideas.


Monistic Idealism wrote: So I'll be focusing on this from here on since that's the whole point of this thread instead of feeding your addiction to drama.


Drama like calling everyone mentally insane, autists, circle-jerks, and liars?

That kind of drama?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:55 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Firstly, given I was the first to note Chalmers' statement that "idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors", it is quite clear that Chalmers means that idealism is less plausible than its main competitors. That is incontrovertible.


Actually it's not as I have explained long ago. All you have to do is see that Chalmers has rejected materialism and substance dualism in the past, and given that he's saying (cosmic)idealism is a promising approach to the mind-body problem, it's arguable that he sees panpsychism and idealism as more plausible.\

If he can find the time to do so, I'm sure Chalmers would.


He is not David Chalmers. Nice try. It doesn't matter if you had a professor once that was responsive, that doesn't mean Chalmers will be. I can do what I can, but if he doesn't respond then that's not my fault.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

Again, a quick note on two things:

@ Monistic Idealism,

Firstly, given I was the first to note Chalmers' statement that "idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors", it is quite clear that Chalmers means that idealism is less plausible than its main competitors. That is incontrovertible.


It is indeed, only MI thinks he's going to win arguing that up means down... for some utterly perplexing reason!

Not sure he's aware what it's doing to the legitimacy of the rest of his confident renditions.


Dragan Glas wrote:Secondly, you could clarify this with Chalmers when you email him your argument.


Goodness, don't you know how utterly ridiculous it is to expect him to email Chalmers?

He's spent an inordinate amount of effort pretending that emailing Chalmers would be unthinkable.


Dragan Glas wrote:And, lest you argue - as you have been doing - that he's too busy/important to answer, on one occasion I took the liberty (or had the gall) to email PZ Myers regarding a debate Aron Ra had with a creationist here on LoR. He graciously responded to me, and acted upon my suggestion. If he can find the time to do so, I'm sure Chalmers would.

Kindest regards,

James



I'd be more than happy to email Chalmers on MI's behalf if he's too coy.

As with the whole 'you'll dox me if I tell you my university' fantastical contrivance... MI's ever increasingly erratic reasons why simply don't tally with the real world.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Firstly, given I was the first to note Chalmers' statement that "idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors", it is quite clear that Chalmers means that idealism is less plausible than its main competitors. That is incontrovertible.


Actually it's not as I have explained long ago.


You're arguing it right now, and it's manifestly wrong.

The fact that you think you're right and won't countenance your errors is clearly part of the problem.


Monistic Idealism wrote:All you have to do is see that Chalmers has rejected materialism and substance dualism in the past, and given that he's saying (cosmic)idealism is a promising approach to the mind-body problem, it's arguable that he sees panpsychism and idealism as more plausible.


No, what actually needs to be done is to read his own words expressly on this issue and see that it doesn't corroborate your rendition - quite the opposite.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
If he can find the time to do so, I'm sure Chalmers would.


He is not David Chalmers. Nice try.


Nice... try....?

Like Dragan Glas was trying to claim that Myers IS Chalmers? :roll: :lol:


Monistic Idealism wrote:It doesn't matter if you had a professor once that was responsive, that doesn't mean Chalmers will be.


And it doesn't mean he won't be.



Monistic Idealism wrote: I can do what I can, but if he doesn't respond then that's not my fault.


Oh, so after all the song and dance, you're going to write to him?

You're welcome for me finding his email for you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:02 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Says the guy who has told literally everyone here that they are 'failing to rebut' yadda yadda when that's clearly not the case.


Dude, we can all see you on page 1 making excuses to not address what I said line by line. Do I have to quote you directly? I guess so:
Instead of responding line by line (particularly when all the substantive points get ignored), I'll just point out that I've done all this before in the past (quite possibly with the OP in a different guise) and know the idealist position sufficiently well to know what the problems are with it, so I don't need to rehearse them here.


Instead of addressing each of my counter-arguments, you just make an excuse to not do it... This is on page 1 my dude... We don't have to go digging for this...

In reality, you contradicted yourself because you failed to plug in what I said, so you formulated your own version of what I said, then you responded to that formulation.


One minute you say I don't think at all, then you say I do think.. that's a contradiction man... Just make up your mind. Do you affirm or deny premise 1?

I've shown this false a dozen times already.


No we can all see that you didn't quote Chalmers' qualifications, you didn't include the full context yet that's what you're accusing me of now... ironic... practice what ya preach

Yeah, did that on the first page.


Except I went through your response line by line and gave counter-arguments and you just made an excuse as to why you won't do the same...
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:04 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

As amusingly explained in this post...

viewtopic.php?p=186877#p186877

************

"A little guide to accurately reading Monistic Idealism's obtuse and repetitive usage of terminology when he offers no actual substantive reply.

As can be readily noted, he repeatedly declares that he has 'rebutted' or 'refuted' arguments, while declaring that other people have 'failed to refute' or sometimes just 'ignored' his refutations and rebuttals.

However, the actual reality is quite different from the implication he thereby seeks to achieve.

There are dozens of examples of this from interactions with every person in this thread.

However, the below is the most amusing for several reasons.

For context; a question has been posed regarding self-learning algorithms as to whether they can be conscious under the same explanation of consciousness as was previously advanced.

Self-learning AI apparently could and should meet the criteria but MI insists that it doesn't and can't.

On what grounds? Well, on analogous grounds that AI is like a reflection.


Monistic Idealism wrote:The man in the mirror likewise is just a reflection a copy, not the real thing. The reflection looks just like you and behaves like you and says what you say and can even convince another person that it's real, but that doesn't mean the reflection is conscious, just like the Ai which is just a reflection of ourselves.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Say you're in a hall of mirrors and you're seeing a ton of different versions of another person and you can't tell which is the real one. zomg all the reflections must be conscious too, right?! no... if you can see how silly this is, then we can see how silly what you're saying is.


Monistic Idealism wrote:No it isn't. The reflection convinced another person that it was conscious, by your logic that's enough for it to be conscious.




Sparhafoc wrote:For this to be anything like a coherent response, a reflection in a mirror must be analogous to an AI, whereas they are factually nothing at all like one another.


Dragan Glas wrote:I've told you, you're misusing the mirror analogy.


Dragan Glas wrote:What's silly here is your misuse of the analogy.


Sparhafoc wrote:There are obviously not remotely analogous. The reflection in a mirror is a form of propagation of photons. The AI running in a complex electronic substrate is not a 'reflection'.

As such, your statement is clearly false.

https://www.britannica.com/science/reflection-physics

Reflection, abrupt change in the direction of propagation of a wave that strikes the boundary between different mediums. At least part of the oncoming wave disturbance remains in the same medium. Regular reflection, which follows a simple law, occurs at plane boundaries. The angle between the direction of motion of the oncoming wave and a perpendicular to the reflecting surface (angle of incidence) is equal to the angle between the direction of motion of the reflected wave and a perpendicular (angle of reflection).


Other people also noted this erroneous analogy, and my apologies to them for not including theirs too, but in the interest of brevity the above does suffice.

However, if pressed, Monistic Idealism will simply declare that he has refuted the argument or that he has rebutted it - he will repeatedly refer to the fact that he made an argument as if that's said and done.

In reality, Monistic Idealism did everything he could to cloud the argument so he could escape in the confusion.

You can hear the relief here when Master_Ghost_Knight finally gives up trying to hold a discussion with Monistic Idealism because of this absurd behavior:

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


In reality, Monistic Idealism didn't come within bargepole range of responding, and similarly his bargepole didn't actually protect against the torpedo zeroing in on his masturbatory raft.

The reason Monistic Idealism span all these webs of nonsense is not because AI is irrelevant, not because he can show anything relevant to AI with regards to his position, not because he has any interest in it at all in terms of better evaluating the truth... rather, it's because accepting any notion of his error, the identified error which spawned the argument in the first place, would undermine a core component of Monistic Idealism's 'case' on the first page.

If humans can make a wholly physical system from which mind emerges, then reductionism cannot be waved away. Consequent to that, MI's arguments against dualism would also no longer work, and his attempt to post Idealism as the Last Man Standing would also then fail, and his entire case is thereby shown the door.

There's a motivation not to acknowledge substantive arguments which cause problems for MI's case.

That's what Dragan Glas noted earlier: the case in the OP actually resides on a belief position that MI needs to validate. What he doesn't understand is that in the absence of that contextual belief system his argument makes no sense. It doesn't matter how condescending, smug, shitty, abusive, or self-congratulatory he gets - his case has still failed to convince."

************


On the very subject of MI evading dealing in substance, his reply to the entirety of this post this was:

Monistic Idealism wrote:You just ignore my refutations of you and then declare victory with your little guide like a dishonest prick.


Object example.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:12 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

amusingly explained in this post...


You're just copy-pasting a comment from you that I've already addressed while ignoring my most recent response to you where I give more counter-arguments... Stop flooding the thread by copy-pasting old posts and address my counter-arguments.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:16 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Says the guy who has told literally everyone here that they are 'failing to rebut' yadda yadda when that's clearly not the case.


Dude, we can all see you on page 1 making excuses to not address what I said line by line.


Dude, we can all see me on page 1 having already rebutted your argument in the first post.

Your line-by-line fails to address any of those arguments.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Do I have to quote you directly? I guess so:


Yes, because you can't be trusted to accurately render anything.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Instead of responding line by line (particularly when all the substantive points get ignored), I'll just point out that I've done all this before in the past (quite possibly with the OP in a different guise) and know the idealist position sufficiently well to know what the problems are with it, so I don't need to rehearse them here.


So in the notion of EVERYONE reading that, why do you think they will agree with your rendition of it?

Your reply to my first rebuttal ignored all the substantive points, so I assumed that continuing in the same vein would net the same results. I submit that this entire thread operates as overwhelming evidence that I was correct in this regard.

As you ignored all the substantive points I raised, then it only stands to reason that I consider your line-by-line rebuttal to have wholly missed the point. You just tried to get back on script and waved away all the points I raised countering your claims.

So citing me actually corroborates exactly what I have been saying throughout.

But you still think you're right... even when it comes to divining what I mean when I say something! :lol:



Monistic Idealism wrote:Instead of addressing each of my counter-arguments, you just make an excuse to not do it...


No. It's not an 'excuse' - it's clearly noting that your "counter-arguments" as you call them were, in fact, wholly lacking in any quality with respect to the points I'd already made. From my perspective, all the words you wrote didn't change my initial post in the slightest. Everything I said in the first post in this thread was still just as valid after your reply as it was before.


Monistic Idealism wrote:This is on page 1 my dude... We don't have to go digging for this...


Royal WE.

No, we don't have to go digging for it, that's why I kept pointing out that people can go read it for themselves to see whether or not your reply actually did, as you assert ad nauseum, rebut my original post.

You may think so, I don't, I expect others here (given their following arguments) are more likely to agree with me. So why am I to credit your opinion with any value?


Monistic Idealism wrote:
In reality, you contradicted yourself because you failed to plug in what I said, so you formulated your own version of what I said, then you responded to that formulation.


One minute you say I don't think at all, then you say I do think.. that's a contradiction man...


Nope. Cite what I wrote - stop contriving contradictions through your poorly wrought renditions.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Just make up your mind. Do you affirm or deny premise 1?


You can read my position on the first page of this thread. Plus, you can read the numerous responses I've given expanding on the context of my refusal to accept your formulation of it. Note all the points about 'because introspection' and how this doesn't justify premise 1.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
I've shown this false a dozen times already.


No we can all see that you didn't quote Chalmers' qualifications,...


No we can all see that it's irrelevant to the point and you're just tossing out whatever you can to evade the point.


Monistic Idealism wrote:... you didn't include the full context yet that's what you're accusing me of now... ironic... practice what ya preach


Um no. What actually happened is that you contrived yet another fabrication to evade the substance being addressed, and I pointed out that this particular fabrication (of me not having quoted everything you deem I should have) is silly because you didn't quote a number of things yourself.

Again, it's all written in this thread. Your obfuscations only confuse you.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Yeah, did that on the first page.


Except I went through your response line by line and gave counter-arguments and you just made an excuse as to why you won't do the same...


Except that your counter-arguments weren't actually counter-arguments at all. What actually occurred is that you ignored the substance of each point and simply repeated your argument from the OP even more confidently than before. Multiply this by the number of posts you've made, and we're still doing the same tango.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:25 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
amusingly explained in this post...


You're just copy-pasting a comment from you that I've already addressed while ignoring my most recent response to you where I give more counter-arguments... Stop flooding the thread by copy-pasting old posts and address my counter-arguments.



:lol:

Object example.

"Already addressed" apparently means 'I ignored all of it and called you a prick"


Monistic Idealism wrote:You just ignore my refutations of you and then declare victory with your little guide like a dishonest prick.


What you're referring to when you say 'already addressed'.

Funny how you have such a wildly higher bar for other people.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:26 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 287Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Dude, we can all see me on page 1 having already rebutted your argument in the first post.


I then made a huge comment going line by line giving counter-arguments and then you responded with this excuse to not respond to my arguments:
Instead of responding line by line (particularly when all the substantive points get ignored), I'll just point out that I've done all this before in the past (quite possibly with the OP in a different guise) and know the idealist position sufficiently well to know what the problems are with it, so I don't need to rehearse them here.


You failed to address my counter-arguments, this is all you said in response to my line by line refutation of your post...

So in the notion of EVERYONE reading that, why do you think they will agree with your rendition of it?


Because we can literally see that you're not giving a single counter-argument in that quote. You didn't address what I said at all, you just made an excuse as to why you won't address it...

Cite what I wrote


I already did. Looks like I have to spoon feed everything to you:
You don't need to be mistaken in your thinking if you're not thinking at all - you're not thinking


Answer me this: do you see how it is contradictory to claim "I think that I do not think at all"? A simple yes or no will do just fine.

You can read my position on the first page of this thread.


You didn't affirm premise on the first page. Stop dodging the question: do you affirm or deny premise 1? Come out with it, stop hiding...

No we can all see that it's irrelevant to the point


Actually no since Chalmers himself says in the very quote that the qualifications are necessary... You failed to cite him in full context. Ironic.

Object example.


yeah cuz that's your go-to move. It's all you got.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:35 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 20 of 35
 [ 700 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dragan Glas, momo666 and 7 guests