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 21 of 31
 [ 614 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

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. 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.

Given his paper is only recently published, and - therefore - represents his current thinking, your denial of his meaning is moot. It means exactly what it says. If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
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.

Are you suggesting that Chalmers is not up to the standard of what's expected of academia? That he wouldn't respond to a email regarding a argument for idealism - something which is very much of interest to him? I'm certain if you gave him a link to the topic, he'd at least peruse your OP. If he chooses to critique it, it would certainly raise the level of the discussion thus far.

Please contact him - I'm sure he won't "dox" you: the worst he'll do is not reply. Apart from Sparhafoc, I'd be willing - have the gall - to contact him for myself, if not for you, to see what he thinks of your argument.

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 8:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
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:


Things I agree with:

You made a huge comment going line by line

Things I don't agree with:

That huge comment contained counter-arguments
That I responded with an excuse
That you had made any new arguments that needed responding to.


I submit that my stated motivation for my actions are more accurate than your stated motivations for my actions.

You may well be persuaded of your own righteousness in every regard, but it's quite another thing altogether to expect everyone to accept that.

In reality, your arguments were the same arguments you had already made in the first post.

You trotted your script back out.

As I clearly didn't find your arguments convincing in the first iteration of them, repeating them didn't actually serve to convince me of anything.

Given the nature of responses made by every other person replying in this thread, no one else found your 'counter-arguments' compelling either, nor your original arguments. So while you may well be absolutely convinced of your own magnificence, no one else accepts it, and no matter how insistent you are, no matter how aggressive, how obnoxious, how repetitive... you don't actually dictate which argument is more convincing for everyone else.


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


You didn't have counter-arguments. You repeated the same arguments as before.

That it was 'line-by-line' is irrelevant, by the way, as I've told you a dozen times.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
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.


Whereas, the quote cannot be taken as the sum of my response, and EVERYONE can see I made a reply before that. While I don't claim that EVERYONE will find that original post I made convincing, it appears that everyone here essentially agrees with me but doesn't agree with you...

So who the fuck are you repeatedly appealing to?

I explained this to you dozens of posts back.

All you need to do is stop rubbing yourself off in public. YOU, singular, don't accept my argument.

That's actually the only accurate rendition of what occurred.

And as I don't accept your argument, there is perfect parity. You can spend the rest of your life repeating the same arguments, and I will still see the same holes in them.


Monistic Idealism wrote:You didn't address what I said at all, you just made an excuse as to why you won't address it...


Not true.

I actually noted that I had already addressed it, your response notwithstanding.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Cite what I wrote


I already did. Looks like I have to spoon feed everything to you:


You... have to... spoon feed... me... with what... I wrote?

Did you never learn the concept of getting the fuck over yourself?


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


Yes, cite the rest.

There's a context you keep eliding.


Monistic Idealism wrote: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.


A simple yes or no will not do. Read the context.

Actually, I will quote how I've already addressed all of this obfuscation on your part:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16083&p=186857&hilit=not+thinking+at+all#p186857

Sparhafoc wrote:
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.


So this is another example of you bullshitting.

You tried to foist off a strawman of my argument.

I corrected you.

You continued trying to foist off variations of strawman arguments pretending I needed to reply to those formulations.

Whereas, of course I do not need to join you in your manufactured contrivances.


Again, all of this is provoked by your need to evade addressing difficulties for your position.

My actual point was rebutting your appeal to introspection:

Sparhafoc 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.


Even at the beginning of that sentence, you can see how I was already referring to yet more contrivances you'd manufactured to distort the arguments at hand. Back and back and back, in each iteration you tried a different form of the same strategy of obfuscation - this is because the argument has actually defeated your position, which is why you've worked so hard to muddy the waters.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
You can read my position on the first page of this thread.


You didn't affirm premise on the first page.


And I also didn't talk about ostriches on the first page, nor did I plead guilty to a crime on the first page, nor did I type in Spanish on the first page... but none of these are relevant: what is relevant is that I outlined my position with respect to your argument on the first page of this thread.



Monistic Idealism wrote: Stop dodging the question: do you affirm or deny premise 1? Come out with it, stop hiding...


I've spent enough words explaining my position on the first premise of your argument that I do not feel obliged to jump a hoop you've just manufactured, especially when it's your usual attempt to control your interlocutor. Feel free to read what I've written, you know, like on the first page of this thread.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
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...


Not necessary to the point we're discussing, obviously. Otherwise, Chalmers would have needed to be able to see into the future.

You're talking tosh, chap. You've not shown anything at all about why it would be necessary to cite that paragraph, you have merely asserted it to avoid addressing the point where the original argument was made.

This is wholly typical. It's now so many pages back, you feel safe that it's all been conveniently forgotten.

Whereas, I actually haven't forgotten the point... funnily, eh? Remembering the point I made! :lol:



Monistic Idealism wrote: You failed to cite him in full context. Ironic.


No I didn't. Your assertion is nonsensical.

In reality, you failed to acknowledge the merits of a simulation argument and tried to dismiss it on the grounds it was ridiculous, whereas Chalmers notes the simulation argument in the very book you lean on for legitimacy.

Yup, your thousands of words of obfuscation have failed.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Object example.


yeah cuz that's your go-to move. It's all you got.


That doesn't even achieve the status of 'non-sequitur' - it's just a few words you threw at the screen while you made your escape.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:00 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Given his paper is only recently published, and - therefore - represents his current thinking


which means he's building on top of what he's already said. He hasn't gone back on what he's said, so given that what I aid follows.

If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.


You can always do it too. idk why you and sparhafoc are acting like the I'm the only one who can possibly e-mail the guy lol

Are you suggesting that Chalmers is not up to the standard of what's expected of academia? That he wouldn't respond to a email regarding a argument for idealism


No, just that he's busy and there's no gaurantee he's respond, I made this perfectly clear in my last response to you.. idk how you could have missed that without just ignoring what I told you...

to contact him for myself, if not for you, to see what he thinks of your argument.


Go ahead, we'll see what happens. Be sure to not misrepresent what I say.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:47 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

That huge comment contained counter-arguments


The comment is public, we can all see that I'm giving argument. Closing your eyes and going "nuhh uhh!" doesn't help you here... Try doing through what I say line by line and demonstrate how my arguments do not address what you. Burden of proof is on you.

Whereas, the quote cannot be taken as the sum of my response


Yes it is since you never responded to my rebuttals of your first post. All you did was make an excuse to not address it...

There's a context you keep eliding.


You mean like when you left out the qualifications from Chalmers..? gotcha

A simple yes or no will not do. Read the context.


So you're not going to answer a straight forward yes or no question for the sake of clarification? What's the matter, scared...? Is it because you know that no matter which answer you give you're screwed...?

And I also didn't talk about ostriches on the first page


Do you affirm or deny the first premise? Stop being a coward and answer the question. Do I have to remind you of the law of excluded middle again...?

Not necessary to the point we're discussing,


Yes it is since we're talking about the very quote that needs to be qualified as Chalmers himself stated... dude I'm so tired of repeating this same correction to you, I'm just sticking to the argument. Stop dodging and answer the question.
Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Already addressed everything in your reply.

The mere act of you writing more words doesn't change the fact that every single thing you wrote there has already been addressed multiple times. Every one of your inconsistencies has been expanded on, every one of your errors has been challenged, every one of your obfuscations has been laid bare... but you wrote some more words repeating them all, so according to your highly sophisticated system; you've refuted and rebutted and addressed ad onanistic nauseum.

Again, the reality is you've evaded every single element of substance you could. Throwing up on the keyboard would have been only slightly less informational.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:31 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

:geek:

Sparhafoc wrote:
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.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:32 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Given his paper is only recently published, and - therefore - represents his current thinking


which means he's building on top of what he's already said. He hasn't gone back on what he's said, so given that what I aid follows.


No it doesn't.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.


You can always do it too. idk why you and sparhafoc are acting like the I'm the only one who can possibly e-mail the guy lol


Mmm slippery.

Funny how different this is to all the smoke and mirrors before.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
Are you suggesting that Chalmers is not up to the standard of what's expected of academia? That he wouldn't respond to a email regarding a argument for idealism


No, just that he's busy and there's no gaurantee he's respond, I made this perfectly clear in my last response to you.. idk how you could have missed that without just ignoring what I told you...


Well, the obvious fact readily apparent is the Dragan Glas rejects your contrivances.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
to contact him for myself, if not for you, to see what he thinks of your argument.


Go ahead, we'll see what happens. Be sure to not misrepresent what I say.


I believe the term you used was 'coward'.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:38 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Already addressed everything in your reply.


You can believe that if you want but I've asked you direct questions like "are you affirming or denying premise 1?" and you refuse to answer this for clarification. You're the one getting in the way of progress in the discussion and I've addressed everything that you've stated. We can go back and forth repeating ourselves on this, it's already been said. This is getting old. If you're not going to continue the discussion on the case for idealism then we're done here.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 4:41 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Given his paper is only recently published, and - therefore - represents his current thinking

which means he's building on top of what he's already said. He hasn't gone back on what he's said, so given that what I aid follows.

If you don't believe me, ask him yourself.

You can always do it too. idk why you and sparhafoc are acting like the I'm the only one who can possibly e-mail the guy lol

Are you suggesting that Chalmers is not up to the standard of what's expected of academia? That he wouldn't respond to a email regarding a argument for idealism

No, just that he's busy and there's no gaurantee he's respond, I made this perfectly clear in my last response to you.. idk how you could have missed that without just ignoring what I told you...

to contact him for myself, if not for you, to see what he thinks of your argument.

Go ahead, we'll see what happens. Be sure to not misrepresent what I say.

Done.

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
Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:33 pm
momo666Posts: 76Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
P1.) Mind exists (Introspection).


Before I can affirm or deny this premise, I must know what you mean by the term "mind". So what exactly does it mean ?
Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:15 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 146Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

momo666 wrote:
Monistic Idealism wrote:P1.) Mind exists (Introspection).


Before I can affirm or deny this premise, I must know what you mean by the term "mind". So what exactly does it mean ?

He had this to say on page 3 in reply to Dragan Glas when he asked the same question:

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And you haven't really defined what you mean by "mind" or "consciousness".
I did, super early in the OP: It's first-person subjective awareness.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:32 pm
momo666Posts: 76Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Akamia wrote:He had this to say on page 3 in reply to Dragan Glas when he asked the same question:


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And you haven't really defined what you mean by "mind" or "consciousness".
I did, super early in the OP: It's first-person subjective awareness.


I did read that part of the OP. However, it does not answer the question. Because now we need to know what exactly is a "first person". I know he will try to point out to introspection, or better said how my introspection feels. But that still requires an "I" which he needs to define.
Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:02 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I did read that part of the OP. However, it does not answer the question.


It does answer the question. Perhaps its just not as detailed as you would like it to be, but it does indeed answer the question. I've said elsewhere that I'm going for a broad/general definition on this, my scope is wide. I'm going for a common sense view on this, something the man on the street can pick up on. No ivory tower required. Consciousness is something we are directly aware of, same with this "I". Even non-philosophers know the famous cogito, even if not by name: "I think therefore I am". The self is commonly defined as: "an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective
consciousness."

You get this basic/general understanding, right? I'm not asking if you agree with it, just seeing if you at least understand this sort of common sense view of consciousness.

If you want a bit more information on this sort of approach, I recommend checking out this dialogue with Chalmers:
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:39 am
momo666Posts: 76Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Consciousness is something we are directly aware of, same with this "I". Even non-philosophers know the famous cogito, even if not by name: "I think therefore I am". The self is commonly defined as: "an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness."

You get this basic/general understanding, right? I'm not asking if you agree with it, just seeing if you at least understand this sort of common sense view of consciousness.


If consciousness is something "we" are directly aware of, then that leaves open what this "we" is. The same can not be the case with this "I" because to say this "I" is something we are directly aware of already takes for granted that which you are trying to explain.
"I think therefore I am" does not tell me one thing about what this "I" is. Notice your provided definition of self : "an individual person as the object of his or her own reflective consciousness.". It does in fact say nothing about what this "his or her" is, it merely takes it for granted.

So I would say no, I do not get what you are trying to communicate.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:13 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

It does in fact say nothing about what this "his or her" is


Yes it does: the object of their own reflective consciousness. When you introspect, you become aware of yourself and the fact that you have experiences. What exactly this "I" is can vary among people of course, but there's a general intuitive grasp that your average joe has that there is an "I" that is directly known. You may not agree with this, but surely you know what I mean when I'm just talking about this on a common sense level, a level that non-philosophers even grasp.

So I would say no, I do not get what you are trying to communicate.


So that conversation I linked you in that video with Dr. Chalmers made no sense to you? You really don't grasp this common sense definition that your average joe would give on the street? If you go up to a random guy on the street and ask if he's conscious he'll say yes, there's an intuitive grasp we have that there is an "I" that has experiences, and such. On this basic general broad common sense view, you really don't grasp this? Again, not asking if you agree, just seeing you really do understand or not to be clear.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:49 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

P1 commits a category error. The rest falls on that basis alone.

Mind isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:44 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Just to update everyone on my email correspondence with Dr. Chalmers, here's my original email, and his reply

Mon 11, June 18:31

Dear Dr. Chalmers,

I’m a staff member of a discussion forum - The League of Reason - where a recent member has started a discussion on the case for idealism, and cites your recent paper, “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem”, in its support.

The thread, and original post, can be found at: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16083

There are three questions of interest to me, and others:

1. What do you think of the original poster’s argument?;

2. Could you clarify the meaning of a statement in your paper for us, please? Although on page 6 of your paper, you indicate that “micro-idealism and especially cosmic idealism have some promise as an approach to these issues”, in your conclusion you make the following statement: “Idealism is not greatly less plausible than its main competitors”. I, and others, contend that this means you consider idealism to be less plausible than its main competitors, if only marginally so (in contrast to your earlier statement) - the original poster disagrees. Perhaps because it undermines his argument, not to mention questioning the wisdom of citing your paper in its support…! Sadly, the discussion has degenerated into a argument over this point - nit-picking perhaps but a bone of contention nevertheless;

3. What is your current philosophical position? In the paper you indicate that no position on the mind-body problem is plausible. In the past you’ve described yourself as a “naturalistic dualist”, and in your TED talk in 2012 you hinted at panpsychism. I wonder where you are now on the spectrum to which you alluded at the start of your paper - if at all?

If you cannot - or do not wish to - reply due to your undoubtedly busy schedule, I’ll understand. If you should take the time to reply to this email only, then - with your permission - I may wish to reproduce it, in part or whole, on the relevant forum thread. If you should wish to take the time to post directly to the forum thread, be advised that it will need approval from the moderators - as a staff member, I can alert the moderators to be on the lookout for your post.

I apologise for the intrusion on your busy schedule, and await whatever response you choose to give - if only to decline.

Kindest regards.

James Burke
(aka Dragan Glas at The League OF Reason)


His reply, produced with his permission, and reformatted for the site (including correction of a typo) is as follows:

Mon 11 18:59

hi james,

1. most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me -- perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8.

2. when "not greatly less plausible" means just what it says -- it's a denial that idealism is greatly less plausible than its competitors. this denial in itself takes no position on whether idealism is more plausible, equally plausible, or somewhat less plausible than its competitors. as for what i think about that issue -- i suppose it depends on how fine-grained one takes its competitors to be. but my credence in idealism is perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of ten percent.

3. i divide my credence roughly equally between forms of dualism (including substance dualism and property dualism, interactionism and epiphenomenalism) and forms of russellian monism (including panpsychism and cosmopsychism in both idealist and nonidealist forms, as well as forms of neutral monism), with perhaps a small credence set aside for illusionism (the view that consciousness is an illusion). of course the biggest problem for dualism is the interaction problem and the biggest problem for russellian monism is the combination problem. those problems are so far unsolved, but if someone can come up with a satisfactory solution to one of them, the corresponding view will become the most promising view on the mind-body problem.

cheers,

david chalmers.

Point 1 is as expected.

Point 2 is slightly astonishing - it seems it should be read "not (greatly less plausible)", rather than "not greatly (less plausible)", as I was misreading it.

Point 3 indicates that Dr. Chalmers is agnostic as to what is the answer to consciousness.

So, let the debate continue!

By the way, if anyone wants these confirmed as genuine, I can forward these to the Mods to confirm their authenticity.

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
Tue Jun 12, 2018 12:12 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Glad he responded. I would definitely like to get the email verified.

I’m a staff member of a discussion forum - The League of Reason - where a recent member has started a discussion on the case for idealism, and cites your recent paper, “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem”, in its support.


Just a heads up, I didn't cite this paper in support for anything in the case for idealism per se. All I did with this paper was cite it in regards to what my particular version of idealism is (which I said I will defend another time) and how cosmic idealism is the most promising version of idealism and how it's a promising approach to the mind-body problem. That's all I ever wanted to do with that paper, then another user kept bringing it up for other purposes that didn't even matter for the case for idealism per se and it got real petty from there. But anyway, still glad Chalmers saw the argument.

1. most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me -- perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8


Alright, wish I had a bit more detail on that one though still nice to get some feedback from him. But it seems like P1-P3 seem to add up to him at the least if I'm not assuming too much. The paragraphs I write explain how I get to these premises and how they connect with each other, I'm hoping he read them.

Point 2 is slightly astonishing - it seems it should be read "not (greatly less plausible)", rather than "not greatly (less plausible)", as I was misreading it.


So I was right on that one at least. It's all good, misreadings happen. It wasn't crucial for our discussion anyway on that point.

Point 3 indicates that Dr. Chalmers is agnostic as to what is the answer to consciousness.


Yeah Chalmers seems to be all over this place with this leanings, but from this it seems clear that at the least he's not a materialist and accepts the existence and irreducibility of the mental. These are crucial premises for my argument.

of course the biggest problem for dualism is the interaction problem and the biggest problem for russellian monism is the combination problem


Well cosmic Idealism avoids these problems altogether. There is no interaction problem and there is no combination problem while getting to keep the existence, irreducibility, and causal powers of consciousness.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 2:57 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 245Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Mind isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.


You would still be saying that the mental exists, you would just be defining it differently than me. What's your proof that the mind is just a behavior?
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:00 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,#

Monistic Idealism wrote:Glad he responded. I would definitely like to get the email verified.

Of course - I'll forward them to Gnug.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
I’m a staff member of a discussion forum - The League of Reason - where a recent member has started a discussion on the case for idealism, and cites your recent paper, “Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem”, in its support.

Just a heads up, I didn't cite this paper in support for anything in the case for idealism per se. All I did with this paper was cite it in regards to what my particular version of idealism is (which I said I will defend another time) and how cosmic idealism is the most promising version of idealism and how it's a promising approach to the mind-body problem. That's all I ever wanted to do with that paper, then another user kept bringing it up for other purposes that didn't even matter for the case for idealism per se and it got real petty from there. But anyway, still glad Chalmers saw the argument.

Granted, though I didn't intend to imply that your argument was solely based on his paper - merely that it was one of the papers cited in support of your OP.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
1. most of the premises look at least somewhat questionable to me -- perhaps especially P4 and the step to P8

Alright, wish I had a bit more detail on that one though still nice to get some feedback from him. But it seems like P1-P3 seem to add up to him at the least if I'm not assuming too much. The paragraphs I write explain how I get to these premises and how they connect with each other, I'm hoping he read them.

His comment suggests that he has issues with all of your premises, just that he highlights those two in particular. And, I agree, it would be nice to have had more detail but he undoubtedly would not have the time to elaborate. (He does away with upper case letters, and spaces after the full stops, undoubtedly to save time in his replies to emails. I doubt he'd welcome further intrusions for clarification.)

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Point 2 is slightly astonishing - it seems it should be read "not (greatly less plausible)", rather than "not greatly (less plausible)", as I was misreading it.

So I was right on that one at least. It's all good, misreadings happen. It wasn't crucial for our discussion anyway on that point.

Agreed, pity it occurred in the first place, as we could have saved ourselves much wasted effort on it. I apologize for my contribution to the misunderstanding.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Point 3 indicates that Dr. Chalmers is agnostic as to what is the answer to consciousness.

Yeah Chalmers seems to be all over this place with this leanings, but from this it seems clear that at the least he's not a materialist and accepts the existence and irreducibility of the mental. These are crucial premises for my argument.

He appears to be both a dualist and a monist or, at least, has a foot in either camp - rather like the weatherman, who forecasts "sunny, with showery spells".

Monistic Idealism wrote:
of course the biggest problem for dualism is the interaction problem and the biggest problem for russellian monism is the combination problem

Well cosmic Idealism avoids these problems altogether. There is no interaction problem and there is no combination problem while getting to keep the existence, irreducibility, and causal powers of consciousness.

But idealism per se would not avoid these problems - only the cosmic form (Cosmic Entity), just like creationism (God) or ID (God-like Designer).

In which case, as well as due to Chalmers' issues with your premises, the case for idealism fails.

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
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:29 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 21 of 31
 [ 614 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests