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 27 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2603Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
[Just because you trotted out some words, it doesn't actually mean you refuted anything.


I didn't just trot out words you liar, I gave arguments. Big difference... I gave arguments, you and along with a few others, failed to give a counter-argument.


Point of order: you may well believe you gave arguments.

To other people, they weren't arguments... in reality, they frequently looked like a person stringing words together specifically to evade addressing the arguments. Just evasion.

So is your perception the One True Perception as you seem to think and seem to believe other people are obliged to accept, or do these other minds count in ascertaining the truth here?



Monistic Idealism wrote: This is publicly verifiable... make all the excuses you want as to why this is the case, the fact is its still the case...


Indeed it is. Everything I have said is publicly verifiable.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
None of this happened.


Yes it did, there's a perfect example of this on page 1 actually as I explained to you like several weeks ago lol


Bait and switch.

You have twice pretended that I said I am not interested in talking with you as if they were my words. You put them in quotes.

They are not quotes of mine. They are your quotes.

So you are perpetuating this lie as you have done many times in this thread. It's a convenient distraction where you can then claim you have 'refuted' something whereas 99% of the content of your post is just another control drama.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
I never said that I am not interested in talking with you.


you made the excuse that this is why there's no response, that's what you said.


No, I didn't.

Even if you managed to convince someone else of your lie, you're obviously not going to convince me that I said something I assuredly didn't say.

This is like gaslighting, only you don't have any power here.


Monistic Idealism wrote: You said they're not obliged to respond, well okay that doesn't mean they gave a counter-argument to my arguments then. who cares if they're obliged or not? they still failed


I said 'they' are not obliged to respond?

But you keep putting some text in quotes from me that uses the word 'I'

So are you adapting your lie now?

And the only failure here is the 'case' you've made which hasn't convinced a single person.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
This is what counts as a 'refutation' to you, whereas it's really not a refutation.


You literally just ignored what I said and ignored my question.


See?

You ignored the entirety of my post, wrote 'nope', referred to something else without citing *anything* then ended with an ad hominem... but now you are accusing me of ignoring your question!

You're either deluded or mendacious.


Monistic Idealism wrote: I cited the SEP...


Cited?

No. You wrote the words "as even the SEP explained long ago" - this does not count as a citation. It does serve as a distraction though.


Monistic Idealism wrote: which explained this and noted how I'm talking about direct knowledge.


Feel free to cite it if it's relevant to your refutation, otherwise stop waving your hands around.



Monistic Idealism wrote:Now stop dodging the question: do you even know what direct knowledge is...?


Yes.

If you want people to answer your questions, try not formulating them with faulty assumptions.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Saying 'nope' does not a refutation make, declaring that salmon costs 5 pounds is irrelevant.


Nice lie. I didn't just say "nope". I made a point about mind being irreducible and strong emergence being false. Stop ignoring what I say...


Another lie.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Exactly.


Thanks for admitting you have no counter-argument. You just say I'm wrong with no reason to believe that I'm wrong. fail


And you respond to a counter-argument by calling it 'not a counter-argument'. And having just responded to an argument with 'nope' you then hold other people to a vastly higher standard than you hold yourself to.

Thus, everyone can see that whenever you claim that no one has countered your arguments, at best reading it's a delusion on your part. But I think if they read further, they'll see it's not innocent. It's mendacity.

The reason why you lie so much is because you lack the competence to engage in any substance and you need to evade anything that fails to follow your rehearsed script.

The OP is a declaration of faith, not one of logic.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:23 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2603Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

What really happened:

Sparhafoc wrote:You know, it's not a badge of honour when people aren't interested in talking to you on account of you acting such a dick... right?



How it turns out once pushed through the troll M.O.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:>"I-I'm just not interested in talking with you!"
>continues talking with me


lmao!


Monistic Idealism wrote:You've failed to address several of my rebuttals and just ran away and made excuses. Saying you're not interested in talking with me yet here you are talking with me lol you just can't stop contradicting yourself, can you?

>makes excuses why he won't engage with me
>continues to engage with me

rofl you just can't help it...
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:28 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Point of order: you may well believe you gave arguments.


Naw i just full blown have arguments. This is publicly verifiable no matter how much you lie...

Indeed it is. Everything I have said is publicly verifiable.


yeah exactly so we can all see for ourselves me on page 1 responding to your comment line by line and you responding with just like 2 lines containing no argument and only an excuse as to why you won't engage. fail

No, I didn't.


Yes you did. direct quote from you:
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.


Nice try, liar... this is public, it's on the first page for goodness sake. This is you failing to give a counter argument and you just giving an excuse as to why you won't. Absolute fail

See?


No I don't see actually, I just see you ignoring what I said before and since I brought it to your attention now you're finally responding. It's like I always have to put your in your place just to get you to respond to me haha

You ignored the entirety of my post, wrote 'nope', referred to something else without citing *anything*


This is a blatant lie. I brought up claims I made loong ago, where I explicitly cite the SEP. This is what happens when you flee from our discussions and then jump in the middle of a new one, you forget the context... this has happened several times with you now, stop doing that...

Cited?


Yes, awhile back. If you don't recall this then you're jumping in the middle of the conversation and failing to grasp all of my arguments. You're just prejudging and defending the tribe...

this does not count as a citation.


I cited this not even that long ago in my discussion with dragon glas. Go back and see for yourself my citation on introspection from the SEP.

Feel free to cite it if it's relevant to your refutation, otherwise stop waving your hands around.


Just a heads up, this is proof you're not reading everything I write. The fact that you're asking for this proves you haven't, so you're making an incomplete judgment about me and my arguments. Now to spoon feed you since you fail to read what I write:
Introspection is a key concept in epistemology, since introspective knowledge is often thought to be particularly secure, maybe even immune to skeptical doubt. Introspective knowledge is also often held to be more immediate or direct than sensory knowledge. Both of these putative features of introspection have been cited in support of the idea that introspective knowledge can serve as a ground or foundation for other sorts of knowledge. Introspection is also central to philosophy of mind, both as a process worth study in its own right and as a court of appeal for other claims about the mind. Philosophers of mind offer a variety of theories of the nature of introspection; and philosophical claims about consciousness, emotion, free will, personal identity, thought, belief, imagery, perception, and other mental phenomena are often thought to have introspective consequences or to be susceptible to introspective verification. For similar reasons, empirical psychologists too have discussed the accuracy of introspective judgments and the role of introspection in the science of the mind.


Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/

Yes.


woooooow then you know exactly what the fuck I have been talking about this whole time, fucking liar... You know I've been making a point and giving justification and that I'm appealing to direct knowledge so you were wrong earlier. Wow...

Another lie.


Dude, we can all see my comment, it's public... I brought up the irreducibility of consciousness and the impossibility of strong emergence, so I didn't just say "nope" you liar...

And you respond to a counter-argument by calling it 'not a counter-argument'.


I gave an argument, you failed to give a counter-argument, and I merely pointed this out. That's all. I have an argument, you don't...
Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:50 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2603Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Point of order: you may well believe you gave arguments.


Naw i just full blown have arguments. This is publicly verifiable no matter how much you lie...


The public has, so far, deemed many of your alleged 'arguments' as either not really being arguments, or as failures of argumentation.

So who are you going to appeal to next?

What hidden majority do you have up your sleeve?

Cue next Russian Doll iteration.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Indeed it is. Everything I have said is publicly verifiable.


yeah exactly so we can all see for ourselves me on page 1 responding to your comment line by line and you responding with just like 2 lines containing no argument and only an excuse as to why you won't engage. fail


Yeah exactly, so we call see for ourselves on page 1 how I debunked your argument in the very first reply, and while you wrote words back, really it was an exercise in evasion. You lack the competence to address anything which doesn't stick to your rehearsed script.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
No, I didn't.


Yes you did. direct quote from you:
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.


And the bait and switch is complete.

Of course, all can see you are lying. You lied by saying I wrote this...

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:>"I-I'm just not interested in talking with you!"


And now you've changed it.

Amusingly, you changed it gradually, showing that this is an actual lie rather than just some kind of moronic error on your part.

Thanks for providing clear and compelling evidence in just a handful of posts of your duplicitousness.


Monistic Idealism wrote:Nice try, liar... this is public, it's on the first page for goodness sake. This is you failing to give a counter argument and you just giving an excuse as to why you won't. Absolute fail


You appear to think that calling other people 'liar' whilst lying will somehow muddy the waters.

Of course, it doesn't.

Of course, it's now crystal clear how you operate.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
See?


No I don't see actually, I just see you ignoring what I said before and since I brought it to your attention now you're finally responding. It's like I always have to put your in your place just to get you to respond to me haha


While stroking yourself off in a public forum, it's always ideal to ensure you spell things correctly so you don't look like such a numpty.

Of course, I already addressed all this in the post in which I replied to yours. Of course, you ignored it to trot out this latest attempt at diversion.

This is what counts as a 'refutation' to you, whereas it's really not a refutation.

Sparhafoc wrote:Your format is:

1) Deny
2) Distract with appeals to something else
3) Employ an ad hominem to divert.



So your 'refutation' consisted of nothing but denial and distraction. And since then, you have repeatedly claimed you refuted my post, while pretending I didn't address your post.

This is M.I.'s M.O.




Monistic Idealism wrote:
You ignored the entirety of my post, wrote 'nope', referred to something else without citing *anything*


This is a blatant lie.


It's right there available for all to see.

But it seems it's important for you to throw out the 'lie' distraction whenever you are caught lying. Perhaps you think it will produce a notion of equity of accusations.



Monistic Idealism wrote: I brought up claims I made loong ago,...


No, you didn't 'bring them up' - you waved ambiguously at an encyclopedia which contains millions of words.


Monistic Idealism wrote:.... where I explicitly cite the SEP.


Yet no citation in your alleged refutation. Funny that.


Monistic Idealism wrote: This is what happens when you flee from our discussions and then jump in the middle of a new one, you forget the context... this has happened several times with you now, stop doing that...


No one 'fled' you silly little child.

As usual, none of this happened except in your febrile imagination.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Cited?


Yes, awhile back. If you don't recall this then you're jumping in the middle of the conversation and failing to grasp all of my arguments. You're just prejudging and defending the tribe...


Fuck off vacuous troll.

If you want to claim something, cite or shut your flaptrap.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
this does not count as a citation.


I cited this not even that long ago in my discussion with dragon glas. Go back and see for yourself my citation on introspection from the SEP.


No.

If you want to appeal to it: cite it.

Don't have me run around trying to validate you.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Feel free to cite it if it's relevant to your refutation, otherwise stop waving your hands around.


Just a heads up, this is proof you're not reading everything I write.


Proof I am not reading everything you write?

No one is reading EVERYTHING you write, onanist.

This is because an awful lot of what you write is utterly pathetic abuse and control dramas.

But there's no obligation for me to read every single thing you've written any more than there is any obligation on you to read everything I've written.

However, if you want to draw my attention to something specific you have written, then do feel free to.

Waving at a handful of words you wrote to someone else days ago is not much use to anyone.


Monistic Idealism wrote: The fact that you're asking for this proves you haven't, so you're making an incomplete judgment about me and my arguments.


Bollocks, this is supposedly your refutation of my position.

But it's not like reality or logic can be expected to restrain you.


Monistic Idealism wrote: Now to spoon feed you since you fail to read what I write:


Translation: now I will do what I should have done in the first place, but I am going to try and make my failings look like your fault


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Introspection is a key concept in epistemology, since introspective knowledge is often thought to be particularly secure, maybe even immune to skeptical doubt. Introspective knowledge is also often held to be more immediate or direct than sensory knowledge. Both of these putative features of introspection have been cited in support of the idea that introspective knowledge can serve as a ground or foundation for other sorts of knowledge. Introspection is also central to philosophy of mind, both as a process worth study in its own right and as a court of appeal for other claims about the mind. Philosophers of mind offer a variety of theories of the nature of introspection; and philosophical claims about consciousness, emotion, free will, personal identity, thought, belief, imagery, perception, and other mental phenomena are often thought to have introspective consequences or to be susceptible to introspective verification. For similar reasons, empirical psychologists too have discussed the accuracy of introspective judgments and the role of introspection in the science of the mind.


Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/introspection/


And?

Yes, that's the opening chapter on a long essay on introspection in philosophical terms.

What exactly do you think it establishes?

How do you perceive this quotation as being a refutation of what I wrote?


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Yes.


woooooow then you know exactly what the fuck I have been talking about this whole time, fucking liar... You know I've been making a point and giving justification and that I'm appealing to direct knowledge so you were wrong earlier. Wow...


Yet more self-gratification in the absence of anything of worth.

You've provided ample evidence of your discursive malfeasance in just this last page of 'discussion'.


Monistic Idealism wrote:
Another lie.


Dude, we can all see my comment, it's public... I brought up the irreducibility of consciousness and the impossibility of strong emergence, so I didn't just say "nope" you liar...


"Brought up"

No. You literally wrote more words in the above sentence about strong emergence & mind irreducibility than you did in your supposed refutation.

Monistic Idealism's Alleged Refutation wrote:nope, mind is irreducible and strong emergence is false as I explained long ago.


Perhaps by 'brought up' you mean vomited into the conversation then looked around proudly?

And it's been shown in this thread that you understand neither contention anyway. The mind is not irreducible; that's an assertion you seek to defend, so it doesn't get free pass... and strong emergence is a) a strawman you manufactured and b) not 'false' just because its existence is inconvenient for you.

As I believe you are wont to say: lol fail


Monistic Idealism wrote:
And you respond to a counter-argument by calling it 'not a counter-argument'.


I gave an argument, you failed to give a counter-argument, and I merely pointed this out. That's all. I have an argument, you don't...


Yet everyone can see the exact reverse is true.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:23 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

The public has, so far, deemed many of your alleged 'arguments' as either not really being arguments, or as failures of argumentation.


I've been arguing with several users for several days now and you're the only one complaining about this. how odd... I've been having all sorts of arguments with dragon glas for days now regarding weak/strong emergence etc and not once has his rebuttal been "you're not giving an argument!", that's just you... you're just full of shit dude

Yeah exactly, so we call see for ourselves on page 1 how I debunked your argument in the very first reply


I refuted your first comment with counter-arguments and you failed to give a counter to my refutations. This is publicly verifiable, I even cited a quote from page 1 proving this...

No one is reading EVERYTHING you write,


Then this is proof i'm being ignored. I write responses and people don't even read it all by your own admission. check. fucking. mate. Try not ignoring my arguments from here on, you're missing out on huge chunks of what I say and then getting upset at me for your failure to read what I write... You need to read everything I write to you, and to those you're trying to quote me from so you have everything in context. Don't ignore what I write and bitch at me for your refusal to read...

Look man, I really don't give a shit anymore about anything else you have to say unless its about the case for monistic idealism. You're de-railing the thread by making this all about some stupid drama and a conversation we both already had several weeks ago...

And?


And your thoughts on introspection are retarded. They're not in alignment with the philosophical and empirical data we have. Introspection is a key concept in epistemology and is in fact on firmer ground than knowledge claims of sensory experience. If you're doubting introspection as a way of knowledge then welcome to radical skepticism....

Yet more self-gratification in the absence of anything of worth. You've provided ample evidence of your discursive malfeasance in just this last page of 'discussion'.


Notice how this says nothing about my point regarding direct knowledge...? Premise 1 is affirmed properly as it is known directly via introspection. So you were wrong earlier about premise 1.

Perhaps by 'brought up' you mean vomited into the conversation then looked around proudly?


You going to admit you lied when you tried to claim I just said "nope"...? Because I brought up how consciousness is irreducible (and supported this with arguments long ago) along with the falsity of strong emergence, and thus this contradicts your point with reasons.

strong emergence is a) a strawman you manufactured


Not at all. If consciousness is irreducible, and is emergent, then it would be strongly emergent. This means computers/Ai cannot be conscious as irreducible consciousness cannot strongly emerge.

b) not 'false' just because its existence is inconvenient for you.


Now this is a strawman. I quoted this long ago:
“[strong emergence]is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.”


Source: Bedau, Mark A. (1997). Weak Emergence. Philosophical Perspectives 11 (s11):375-399.

sigh if only you would read what I actually write instead of jumping in the middle a conversation and getting upset at me for you choosing to not read everything in context... That's your problem, not mine... fail
Wed Jun 27, 2018 3:51 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:awesome then you were comparing something you do understand to something you don't understand so it was a false analogy as I said before.

This is just an outright lie. The thing I always insisted I don't understand was the phrase "for god's sake", not the sentence which you assert serves as a proper definition for it. You have misread my comments on at least two occasions and now you are simply lying in order to protect your ego.

That makes no sense since you're using it correctly in the same way that I'm using it. You're using it as if it has meaning, you're using it to distinguish yourself from me or any other user in here. You use the word "I" to refer to yourself instead of the words on the screen or the screen itself. This implies you do know what it means, you're just pretending you don't. You're just being obtuse. You're exactly like the person who says "I don't speak a word of english". You're just contradicting yourself...

Distinguishing myself from you is not a proper definition of this "I" precisely because, as I've said before, that which you are supposed to define is already taken for granted. So the fact that you say you use the word in this way and this way is "correct" only goes to show what I've been saying all along is spot on.

Notice how you are using it to refer to you as if this has meaning. If you're not speaking gibberish right now, then you're saying something of meaning.... but what is this meaning you refuse to reveal...? Why not just tell us? afraid you'll reveal your pseudoskepticism for all to see?

Notice how I am using it to refer to myself as if this has meaning ? Don't you understand already this "myself" is what you are supposed to explain ? Leave the internet psychology aside and put more effort into defending the first word of your first premise.
Wed Jun 27, 2018 4:53 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greeting,

Argh! I've just realized that I referred to you as "Momo888" instead of Momo666! :oops:

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
Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:11 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

This is just an outright lie


That's impossible since you just admitted you understand... Unless that was itself a lie

The thing I always insisted I don't understand was the phrase "for god's sake


So you lied earlier when you said you understood that sentence? Because that sentence is the meaning of the phrase "for god's sake", which means you must understand unless you just lied...

Distinguishing myself from you is not a proper definition of this


Actually it kind of is. You're claiming you don't understand even the general, common sense, average joe's understanding of it yet here you are using the term in that exact same way... If you didn't understand that word at all you would be confusing it with all sorts of things, yet here you using it correctly... what a coincidence!

Notice how I am using it to refer to myself as if this has meaning ? Don't you understand already this "myself" is what you are supposed to explain ?


You're making claims... You're claiming things like "I don't know" and stuff like that. You have the burden of proof for your claims just as I do for mine. If you don't like this responsibility then don't make claims. Burden of proof is on you: define what you're saying, coward... Stop hiding, stop dodging
Wed Jun 27, 2018 11:51 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:That's impossible since you just admitted you understand... Unless that was itself a lie

Recall I said I understand the sentence which you assert serves as a proper definition for the phrase "for god's sake". I did not say I understand the phrase in question.

So you lied earlier when you said you understood that sentence? Because that sentence is the meaning of the phrase "for god's sake", which means you must understand unless you just lied...


I understand that sentence which you assert is the meaning of said phrase. What I also did was question on what grounds that particular sentence serves as a proper definition for that phrase. And thus far, the points I've made on that regard stand on firm ground.

Actually it kind of is. You're claiming you don't understand even the general, common sense, average joe's understanding of it yet here you are using the term in that exact same way... If you didn't understand that word at all you would be confusing it with all sorts of things, yet here you using it correctly... what a coincidence!

It's not. Not even in the slightest. That which you are supposed to define is already taken for granted in that which is supposed to be a definition. Also, in what "exact same way" am I using this "I" ? Cause "distinguishing myself from you" does not explain what this "I" is.

You're making claims... You're claiming things like "I don't know" and stuff like that. You have the burden of proof for your claims just as I do for mine. If you don't like this responsibility then don't make claims. Burden of proof is on you: define what you're saying, coward... Stop hiding, stop dodging

You are requesting me to define what I've asked you to define, which should not be something you need were you to be in a position of knowledge in regard to this "I". Take that responsibility and explain what the first word in the first premise of your so called argument means. Or just continue throwing baseless attacks at me if that heals your ego.
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:43 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Dragan Glas wrote:Greeting,

Argh! I've just realized that I referred to you as "Momo888" instead of Momo666! :oops:

Kindest regards,

James


That is alright. I actually noticed when you did that(I think it was in one of your replies to IM) but I didn't thought it was something that required a clarification or something.
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:45 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

momo666 wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greeting,

Argh! I've just realized that I referred to you as "Momo888" instead of Momo666! :oops:

Kindest regards,

James


That is alright. I actually noticed when you did that(I think it was in one of your replies to IM) but I didn't thought it was something that required a clarification or something.

Thanks, Momo666 - for a moment there I had visions of being blocked - again! :scared:

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
Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:49 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Recall I said I understand the sentence which you assert serves as a proper definition for the phrase "for god's sake". I did not say I understand the phrase in question.


The sentence=the meaning of the phrase. You said you understand the sentence, therefore you understand the phrase... see this is more evidence that you just have a problem grasping the english language in general....

I understand that sentence which you assert is the meaning of said phrase. What I also did was question on what grounds that particular sentence serves as a proper definition for that phrase


And I pointed out that this question applies to literally every single word in the English language... You're going into philosophy of language right now and thus de-railing the thread. Go start a new thread about philosophy of language.

You are requesting me to define what I've asked you to define


I'm asking you to define the very terms you are using. You yourself are using the term "I". You're trying to communicate with me right now using language, and you do so by using the meaning of such words. So when you say "I don't know" wtf do you mean??? You're not making any sense... If you were accepting this general common sense average joe's understanding of the term "I" I would get it, but you don't and thus you're contradicting yourself just like the person who says "I can't speak a word of english"
Thu Jun 28, 2018 6:06 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:The sentence=the meaning of the phrase. You said you understand the sentence, therefore you understand the phrase... see this is more evidence that you just have a problem grasping the english language in general....


Not quite. That the sentence=the meaning of the phrase is what you assert. And I have questioned on what basis does that sentence account for the word "god", especially since the phrase is also used literally.

And I pointed out that this question applies to literally every single word in the English language... You're going into philosophy of language right now and thus de-railing the thread. Go start a new thread about philosophy of language.

This topic is one of your own invention. Philosophy of language is something you have brought up, not me. What I did was inquiry about the definition of this "I" and as I've later shown about this "god".

So when you say "I don't know" wtf do you mean??? You're not making any sense... If you were accepting this general common sense average joe's understanding of the term "I" I would get it, but you don't and thus you're contradicting yourself just like the person who says "I can't speak a word of english"

Would I be in a position of knowledge about this "I", there would be no need for you to explain it, wouldn't it ? The so called "understanding" you have put forth, worthy of being thought up by the average joe, helps us understand precisely nothing. That which is supposed to be explained (this "I") is already taken for granted. There is really little for me to accept here since no understanding of the term has been provided in the first place.
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:43 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Dragan Glass wrote:Thanks, Momo666 - for a moment there I had visions of being blocked - again! :scared:

Kindest regards,

James


Didn't knew that can be done on this forum. Wait...did people actually block you for mistyping their name ?
Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:46 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 3209Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

momo666 wrote:
Dragan Glass wrote:Thanks, Momo666 - for a moment there I had visions of being blocked - again! :scared:

Kindest regards,

James

Didn't knew that can be done on this forum. Wait...did people actually block you for mistyping their name ?

It was just a tongue-in-cheek reference to TJump's threatening to block people for disagreeing with his definitions of words in the "Best Atheist Arguments You Probably Haven't Heard Before" thread.

Due to that potential misuse of the "Ignore" option, it's been removed ("Blocking - use and abuse" topic).

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
Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:33 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

And I have questioned on what basis does that sentence account for the word "god"


I told you that it's an idiom: a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

This topic is one of your own invention.


Hmmm how odd that you distinguish yourself from me yet claim to have absolutely no understanding, not even a common sense understanding, of the "I" or "self"...Your pseudoskepticism is really showing here man..

Anyway, it's quite the contrary to what you say. I merely identified what you are doing. What you're bringing up is not a problem with my definition per se, it's with definitions in general... Your question applies to literally every single word. This isn't a problem with premise 1, it's a problem with language.... You're going too fundamental, you're going to a completely different philosophical topic when this thread is about the case for idealism rather than what gives words their meaning.

Would I be in a position of knowledge about this "I", there would be no need for you to explain it, wouldn't it ?


Absolutely yes since you yourself are using the word I right now.... You're pretending like you don't understand even the common sense meaning of it, yet here you are using it correctly in that exact same way as your very question proves... You're no different than the guy saying "i can't speak a word of English". You're just contradicting yourself.

Keep in mind, I've brought up direct knowledge on this issue, meaning this is something that is not known by description but rather by acquaintance. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) explains:
Some philosophers distinguish knowledge by acquaintance from knowledge by description roughly along the following lines: knowledge by acquaintance is a unique form of knowledge where the subject has direct, unmediated, and non-inferential access to what is known whereas knowledge by description is a type of knowledge that is indirect, mediated, and inferential.


Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/knowacq/

It appears you're asking for knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance:
it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.


Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/

Anything beyond this point on this subject is you de-railing this thread quite frankly. This thread is about the case for idealism, not semantics. I've said long ago I'm referring to a common sense non-ivory tower understanding of this term for the general purposes of making the case for idealism. If you can't assess the case for idealism from here then you need to leave this thread and enroll in English 101... If you want to have some super deep fundamental conversation about language and the self then you need to start a whole new thread instead of de-railing mine. I'm here to talk about the case for idealism. If you can't handle that then go start a new thread or start dealing with the case for idealism.
Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:44 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:I told you that it's an idiom: a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words

Yes, you have asserted that. Unfortunately, you have not demonstrated said phrase is necessarily only an idiom. As long as it can be used literally, and it is, the point I've made stands.

Hmmm how odd that you distinguish yourself from me yet claim to have absolutely no understanding, not even a common sense understanding, of the "I" or "self"...Your pseudoskepticism is really showing here man..


Me distinguishing myself from you does not represent a proper definition of this "I". I have no idea what does the distinguishing or how does it do it.

Anyway, it's quite the contrary to what you say. I merely identified what you are doing. What you're bringing up is not a problem with my definition per se, it's with definitions in general... Your question applies to literally every single word. This isn't a problem with premise 1, it's a problem with language.... You're going too fundamental, you're going to a completely different philosophical topic when this thread is about the case for idealism rather than what gives words their meaning.

No. Philosophy of language is not a topic I brought up. What I did was inquiry what a key term of your argument is supposed to mean. To that extent, you have been unable to provide a proper answer.

Absolutely yes since you yourself are using the word I right now.... You're pretending like you don't understand even the common sense meaning of it, yet here you are using it correctly in that exact same way as your very question proves... You're no different than the guy saying "i can't speak a word of English". You're just contradicting yourself.

The definition you claim to be "common sense" does not explain that which I am requesting you to explain; it merely takes it for granted. I also use the word "god", that does not mean I know what a "god" would be or even if its main required assumptions are possible, let alone true.

Keep in mind, I've brought up direct knowledge on this issue, meaning this is something that is not known by description but rather by acquaintance. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) explains:
Some philosophers distinguish knowledge by acquaintance from knowledge by description roughly along the following lines: knowledge by acquaintance is a unique form of knowledge where the subject has direct, unmediated, and non-inferential access to what is known whereas knowledge by description is a type of knowledge that is indirect, mediated, and inferential.

Okay, in what way does that quote explain this "subject" ?


It appears you're asking for knowledge by description for something that is knowledge by acquaintance:
it is manifest to them that they themselves are the object of awareness. Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.


Not quite. I have placed no parameters on your ability to explain this "I". Notice that this second quote doesn't explain what this "I" is either. It, just like you, merely takes it for granted.

This thread is about the case for idealism, not semantics. I've said long ago I'm referring to a common sense non-ivory tower understanding of this term for the general purposes of making the case for idealism. If you can't assess the case for idealism from here then you need to leave this thread and enroll in English 101... If you want to have some super deep fundamental conversation about language and the self then you need to start a whole new thread instead of de-railing mine. I'm here to talk about the case for idealism. If you can't handle that then go start a new thread or start dealing with the case for idealism.


I know. Which is why my inquiry regarding the first word of the first premise of your argument is perfectly in line with this thread. Your "common sense understanding" is no understanding at all. To this point, you have been unable to explain what your first premise claims it exists.
Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:41 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Yes, you have asserted that.


Yes, with multiple sources confirming that I'm right. I've defined the term, you said you understand, therefore you're guilty of false analogy earlier.

Me distinguishing myself from you does not represent a proper definition of this "I".


Yes it actually does as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource) confirms:
Self-consciousness is a form of consciousness that is paradigmatically expressed in English by the words “I”, “me”, and “my”, terms that each of us uses to refer to ourselves as such.


Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-consciousness/

Stop ignoring facts...

No. Philosophy of language is not a topic I brought up. What I did was inquiry what a key term of your argument is supposed to mean.


Wrong. I gave you the definition then you moved the goal post and asked what gives that its meaning, which I rightly pointed out applies to literally all words. So your problem is with philosophy of language, even if you didn't know that's what it was called. You're going more fundamental than what this thread is getting at, so you need to just start a new thread.

The definition you claim to be "common sense" does not explain that which I am requesting you to explain


You wanted a definition and you got one. You clearly understand it as even you yourself are using the word "I" in the exact same way that I'm defining it. It makes no sense for you to fold your arms and pretend you can't deal with the case for monistic idealism becaue you can't understand the word I, yet here you are perfectly capable of communicating with the word "I" just fine so you're just making excuses for your failure to deal with the case for monistic idealism...Move the goal post all you want but I've met my obligations.

Okay,


Then this isn't something that is known by description, but by acquaintance. Your insistence on a verbal/written definition is a category mistake. We know this directly, immediately, and non-inferentially. Again, we know this NOT by description, but by acquaintance.

Not quite


Actually yes since you distinguish yourself from me you have thus shot yourself in the foot. It's check mate to be honest. You're exactly like the guy who says "I can't speak a word of English". Clearly they speak English, and clearly you understand the word "I" in this common sense way.

I have placed no parameters on your ability to explain this "I"


Then stop asking for knowledge by description for something that I've told you is knowledge by acquaintance. This is known directly.

I know.


Then you have admitted your fundamental dishonesty. Stop de-railing this thread. I've given a definition, I've met my obligations. Your failure to comprehend the English language and deal with the OP is not my problem, it's yours. I've not only defined my terms, but I've even included scholarly citations as well which go further into this. In a confirmed email from Dr. David Chalmers himself, a world renowned philosopher of mind, was able to understand my terms and my premises just fine. You're the only one having this problem, my dude. The problem is you. The problem is your failure to comprehend the English language. Either admit you've been lying this whole time, as proven by your distinguishing between yourself and me, or go start a new thread/take an English course...
Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:25 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3491Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Again, we will have to agree to disagree.


Nah, your comments are public. It's verifiable that you're equivocating. assumptions≠arguments. to say otherwise is to equivocate. I've presented arguments, not assumptions.


Again, we will have to agree to disagree. You did present arguments, so do creationists and flat earthers. Just because you provided arguments does not mean you presented evidence. Beyond that, your arguments are little more then assumptions in my opinion (tis why we agree to disagree).

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Arguments are not any better than assumptions.


Of course arguments are better than assumptions. Arguments are grounded in reason and assumptions grounded in nothing.


They both can be ground in reason and nothing. Take any of the arguments theist make for a deity(s), all grounded in nothing. Yours appear to be grounded in nothing. If you had evidence, you would just present that.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
all present arguments to support their cases.


If they fail it's because their arguments are bad. This isn't a point against arguments, it's a point about bad arguments.


In this case (since you left it on the cutting room floor) I was talking about creationists and flat earthers. Their arguments fail because they go against the evidence.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Ooooh le triggered may-may! I used the word trigger and thus this makes me not retarded somehow!


just trying to help ya not look like a matt dillahunty clone. try checking out some real scholarship instead of youtube fedoras, you might just learn a thing or two haha


You do not know what research I have done into this field. You saw one phrase and became triggered. It is funny to watch. Again, I suggest you stop getting triggered over the usage of words on a discussion forum and move on.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
It is a goalpost shift for exactly what I already said, and you left on the cutting room floor


Non-sequitur: just because I'm not quoting it doesn't mean I'm not addressing it. I addressed all of this already in my last response, you're just ignoring it.


No, you did not address a thing I quoted back at you. I pointed out how computer programs cannot be reduced and you ignored that and started talking about strong and weak emerbence. Again, a classic goalpost shift on your part. Honestly, at this point, you are just a denialist about computer programs being reducible. However, the evidence will be waiting there for you, whenever you care to engage with it.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Your goalpost shifting as to whether it is strong or weak is irrelevant to this point.


Asking a question for clarification is not goal post shifting, you're just refusing to answer. Gee, I wonder why.


:lol:

You of all people are going to talk about asking clarifying questions? You are going to do that after the way you acted when Exogen asked you clarifying questions and you refused to answer? What a hypocrite.

Monistic Idealism wrote:Are you starting to realize the corner you've put yourself in? If you affirm weak emergence then that contradicts the commitment to irreducibility. If you want to affirm irreducibility then you're going to face the problems of strong emergence as well as mental causation. Neither option looks good for you...


I put myself in no corner. Again, here is the evidence that computer programs are not reducible (provided in an earlier post you saw fit to ignore). You can either deal with the evidence or continue to shift the goal posts.

In fact, you are the one in the corner. You already claimed that you are not a biological chauvinist. Thus, why can computers not have consciousnesses in the same way you think we do? It is already demonstrated that they cannot be reduced, which fits into your starting assumptions arguments, and not your goalpost shift of it.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Answer the problem of hard solipsism and you would start to have a point.


Again, that's not a problem for idealism per se, that's anyone who claims other minds exist. Also, if you're saying solipsism is the default position then you're admitting idealism is the default position since solipsism is a version of idealism.


Right, you cannot answer the problem of hard solipsism, just like everyone else. Thanks for admitting this again. Beyond that, I am not a solipsist, as I have already said.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
The point being, you believe that everyone you are interacting with on this forum is conscious, right?


Tentatively yes, but I've expressed skepticism regarding possible sock accounts and other forms of deception from you people so it wouldn't surprise me for you guys to use deception if you think it wins some points when really it doesn't mean anything.


:lol:

You came to a new forum that has tons of posting history and engage with several of those users whom also have posting history predating your arrival and believing them all to be conscious. Yet when it is possible that one of those users could be a bot, now you believe that one of us predicted you would come here, thus set something like that up to trap you?

Are you sure you are not a solipsist?

Monistic Idealism wrote:I've said already that I believe humans are conscious. Once there's a human and a bot next to each other it's clear which of these two are conscious, that's the point being.


Exactly, but you have also said you are not a biological chauvinist. I am just trying to square these two positions you are holding.

Monistic Idealism wrote:

First off, this proves you lied. It's obvious I didn't ignore as I offered a quote with an argument that made my point.


I did not lie


Yeah you did because you said I ignored it but then you admit that you know I cited an argument from nagel, which means you knowingly said something false... Nice try


Oh look at that, what I already wrote addresses this point perfect and you left it on the cutting room floor.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:I did not lie, we were just making two different points. However, you can call me a liar if it makes you feel better. I know just how triggered you can get after all.

[Emphasis on what was cut out.]


I do not understand this habit you have of cutting people off mid-sentence in a written forum. It is so easy for me to just quote myself back at you and provide the link that shows you are misrepresenting the exchange.

Your terrible quoting means I might have missed something there, but I cannot be bothered to do your work for you. The next thing that appears to make sense in this exchange is:


Monistic Idealism wrote:Truth is not gauged by people's expectations. Truth is truth. Arguments are valid and premises are true independent of people's "expectations". With this way of looking at the world, nobody has a satisfactory argument as long as people just arbitrarily turn up the skepticism dial with their "expectations". that's silly


This appears to be in reference to our discussion of your discussion with Exogen. You appear to be going off on a irrelevant tangent with that comment, because I was simply making the point that someone can say they understand something, then later ask for clarification. Earlier in this comment you appeared to agree with that, but I will just ask directly: is it okay to ask for clarification later in a discussion even after saying they understand?

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Thus, you evading my question by not answering it directly.


No that's literally you just ignoring my answer. I can't help you if I answer you question directly and you just ignore it...


:lol:

You did not answer it directly. You evaded it by saying that it is impossible. It is fine that you did that, you do not have to answer anything you do not want to, but why you would pretend you were direct when you clearly were not is beyond me.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
You are claiming that as Dragan Glas's critiria, yet that seems exactly the same as you


Nope, you're confused. It was Dragan Glas and other people who brought that up in regards to AI. I've cited classical arguments like the analogical argument, argument from causation, best explanation, etc.


No:

Monistic Idealism wrote:
How do you determine whether or not there is an "I" present?


With myself: introspection.

From here I can see the behavior of other humans and rationally affirm they are conscious like me with an individual "I" like myself.


That is what you said. You can either retract that statement or clarify it, but please do not pretend that you did not front this as your criteria (at least one of them).

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Yeah


Then you're a straight up logic denier. If you're denying the law of excluded middle then you're allowing contradictions, which just blows up logic. Well done...


Right, when making the point that people need clarification about complex subjects after intentionally agreeing to points, I am denying logic.

:lol:

Again, I do not understand this habit of you cutting people off in the middle of their sentence to misrepresent them.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:52 pm
YIM WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. You did present arguments, so do creationists and flat earthers.


We can't agree to disagree because in your very next sentence in this quote here you admit that I'm right. You tried to claim I'm bringing assumptions yet you admit I'm actually bringing arguments. Again, assumptions≠arguments. For you to say otherwise is a bold faced lie... I didn't just assume I'm right, I gave reasons why I'm right: that's what an argument is. Just face the truth and admit you made a mistake instead of this weak "agree to disagree" bullshit...

They both can be ground in reason and nothing.


Sorry but contradictions can't be true. Either it is grounded in something or not. If it's grounded in reason, its grounded in something. If not, then it's not. That's the way logic works.

If they fail it's because their arguments are bad


Sure, but then you're admitting that its not an assumption. It can be a bad argument, but it's still an argument and not assumption.

You do not know what research I have done into this field.


I know you didn't go further than a bunch of youtube atheists on this topic since you're just parroting Matt Dillahunty, a total layman. Do you even Alec Hyslop, bro?

No, you did not address a thing I quoted back at you


Actually I did. You ignoring what I say doesn't mean I didn't say it.

I pointed out how computer programs cannot be reduced and you ignored that and started talking about strong and weak emerbence. Again, a classic goalpost shift on your part


The fact that you're calling this a goal post shift proves you've done no research on this. Reducible/Irreducible has everything to do with weak/strong emergence. Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. This weakly emergent phenomenon is itself reducible to the elemental level. Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts. Meaning the whole is greater than the parts. Are you or are you not affirming strong emergence?

You of all people are going to talk about asking clarifying questions? You are going to do that after the way you acted when Exogen asked you clarifying questions and you refused to answer? What a hypocrite.


That's hilarious because actually it was him who refused to answer my question that I needed first to answers his. But of course, you're driven by purely tribalism and so you won't give him any slack for that hahah you guys are all the same here

I put myself in no corner.


oh yeah sure, yet you're too scared to answer one way or the other on emergence lol riiiight. Answer the question. Are you affirming strong emergence or not?

Thus, why can computers not have consciousnesses in the same way you think we do?


Consciousness is irreducible and strong emergence is false. Well that was easy...

Right, you cannot answer the problem of hard solipsism, just like everyone else. Thanks for admitting this again. Beyond that, I am not a solipsist, as I have already said.


I didn't say that, but nice try liar. I only said that this is not a problem for idealism per se so there's really no point in bringing it up here. It's no problem that is unique for the case for idealism, which is what this thread is about.

You came to a new forum that has tons of posting history and engage with several of those users whom also have posting history predating your arrival and believing them all to be conscious. Yet when it is possible that one of those users could be a bot, now you believe that one of us predicted you would come here, thus set something like that up to trap you?


Some of those accounts were created not long after I created my post, and they come in here defending another user out of nowhere in the middle of the conversation rather than addressing the OP. There's old accounts that never posted, yet all of a sudden are posting as well, again defending other users. So strange how defensive these random people are of certain users... how odd... is the tribalism really that strong here? yeah that doesn't look like sock account behavior at all hahah

Monistic Idealism wrote:

First off, this proves you lied. It's obvious I didn't ignore as I offered a quote with an argument that made my point.


I did not lie


Yeah you did because you said I ignored it but then you admit that you know I cited an argument from nagel, which means you knowingly said something false... Nice try


Oh look at that, what I already wrote addresses this point perfect and you left it on the cutting room floor.


Sorry champ, but contradictions still can't be true. You cannot simultaneously hold that I ignored it, yet also cited an argument from Nagel. That's a literal contradiction......... Do all the mental gymnastics you want, but the law of non-contradiction is still true

You appear to be going off on a irrelevant tangent with that comment, because I was simply making the point that someone can say they understand something, then later ask for clarification.


Then you made a point about expectations and I was merely noted how silly that is. Who cares what people's expectations are? It's about the facts, not your expectations of the facts.

You did not answer it directly.


Yeah I clearly did. I know I'm going off your script, but it looks like you'll just have to be quick on your feet and think outside the box on this one. Ignoring what I say won't help.

That is what you said.


Yeah and nowhere in your quotes from me do we see this criteria you mentioned. That was dragan glas and other uses using that criteria. Notice how you failed to show a direct quote of me giving such a criteria. You're getting confused.

Right, when making the point that people need clarification about complex subjects after intentionally agreeing to points, I am denying logic.[/sarcasm]


Statements are either true or not true, that's the law of excluded middle. You tried to say the world is not black and white, I cited the long of excluded middle, you then expressed skepticism of this, which entails you being skeptical of logic lmao have fun being a logic denier. Not even creationists are that bad. You've just hit rock bottom haha
Wed Jul 04, 2018 12:26 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 27 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dragan Glas and 4 guests