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 34 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
I literally just told you: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

You literally just said the same thing when I specifically asked you how said thing turns the phrase "I notice" into "I was wrong".
Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:56 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You literally just said the same thing when I specifically asked you how said thing turns the phrase "I notice" into "I was wrong".


You keep saying the same shit I've already addressed so I'm just doing what you're doing, and this already gives you your answer: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:04 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
You keep saying the same shit I've already addressed so I'm just doing what you're doing, and this already gives you your answer: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

You've never addressed what this "I" is. And the assertion you keep repeating does not explain how the phrase "I notice" turns into "I was wrong". To top it all of, since I do not know what this "I" is and you are equating what I've said, specifically the phrase "I notice", with your first premise, you have just demonstrated that you too don't know what this "I" is.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:14 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You've never addressed what this "I" is


Yes I have, several times now with scholarly sources to give you more information. You just keep playing dumb and repeating the same shit over and over so I'll just fight fire with fire:
"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:18 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Yes I have, several times now with scholarly sources to give you more information. You just keep playing dumb and repeating the same shit over and over so I'll just fight fire with fire:

And I have shown how each and every one of those sources fail at explaining what this "I" is. And to that you had no rebuttal, nor will you offer a rebuttal because ultimately you don't have the slightest clue what "mind" is. So fight however you like. If repeating your own assertions over and over again tickles your ego then so be it. You would be surprised how widespread that stable genius tactic is.

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

You've just admitted you don't know what this "I" is.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:28 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

And I have shown how each and every one of those sources fail at explaining what this "I" is.


Naw, you just keep contradicting yourself. You claim you have 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands the "I", but you then go on to affirm that there is an "I" that notices, which is identical to saying "I am conscious". You understand enough, by your own admission, that there is an I that notices, that is conscious, that is aware, that perceives: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


You've been caught in a blatant contradiction so you're just being disingenuous and repeating the same shit over and over.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:40 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Naw, you just keep contradicting yourself. You claim you have 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands the "I", but you then go on to affirm that there is an "I" that notices, which is identical to saying "I am conscious". You understand enough, by your own admission, that there is an I that notices, that is conscious, that is aware, that perceives: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

It's very obvious, given your attempts, that you too don't understand this "I". In fact, since you are equating the quote of me ["I notice"] with your P1, you are outright admitting that is the case. I didn't ask you what this "I" does, that is noticing, but what this "I" is. We call that which notices the "I" but that does not explain what it is. What notices ? What is conscious ? What is aware ? What perceives ? The "I" ? That is what we call that which does all those things. But what is that ?
You've been caught in a blatant contradiction so you're just being disingenuous and repeating the same shit over and over.

You are just falsely accusing me of committing a contradiction while lying and repeating your own beliefs.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:52 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

We call that which notices the "I" but that does not explain what it is.


Yes it does actually and is an admission of self-awareness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


The I=consciousness, I=awareness, by your own admission per your quote. Be as disingenuous as you want, you have already admitted premise 1 is true.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:37 am
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Yes it does actually and is an admission of self-awareness: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

No, it does not. The "I" is what we call that which notices, but that does not explain what it is since we could call it any way we like. What is aware and of what is it aware of ? Calling it the "self" explains absolutely nothing; because again that is just what we CALL it. And since you are equating my quote with your P1, you are admitting you don't know what this "I" is.

The I=consciousness, I=awareness, by your own admission per your quote. Be as disingenuous as you want, you have already admitted premise 1 is true.

My quote is "I notice" not "I=consciousness" or "I=awareness". The "I" does the noticing, it is not noticing. So you've just been caught blatantly lying, again. Furthermore, saying "I=consciousness, I=awareness" is incoherent since you've already defined consciousness as "something we are directly aware of". So by your flawed reasoning, the "I" would be "something we are directly aware of" which explains nothing since that which you are supposed to explain is merely taken for granted. And awareness would be "something we are directly aware of" which is worse once we remember that per your own flawed reasoning "we"=awareness.
Lie as much as you want. You have already admitted you don't have a premise 1 to begin with.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:19 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

No, it does not.


I'm afraid it does, you've been caught: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


My quote is "I notice" not "I=consciousness" or "I=awareness".


Holy shit you suck at reading. This was already explained to you long ago by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; 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/

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission, but even the very fact that you use the words "I", "me", and "my" etc. is itself a contradiction on your part and is an admission that you're wrong and that I'm right every single time. In order for you to deny this you have to saw off the branch you sit on by acknowledging there is an "I" in the first place since you'll have to say "you're wrong" which already assumes there is an "I" that is wrong about things. You've been caught momo, you're done...
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:08 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:I'm afraid it does, you've been caught: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

It doesn't. One can call that which notices however she or he likes. It explains absolutely nothing. You are the only one who has been caught admitting he does not know what this "I" is.

This was already explained to you long ago by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Rather a self-conscious subject is aware of themselves as themselves; 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."

I've already shown how this does not explain this "I". Notice that, at all steps, it merely takes this "I" for granted. At no point does it explain what is aware of what. Calling it the "I" explains it no more than calling it the "self" or "chakra" or "truep" or whatever you want. I don't care what you CALL it. I want you to explain what it is. Furthermore, you have been caught lying that I said "I=consciousness" or "I=awareness". Worse. Since you've said "I=awareness" and "I=consciousness" your Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would say something along the lines "Rather a aware-awareness awareness is aware of awareness as awareness." Which is seriously funny, were it not to be so sad.

"I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission, but even the very fact that you use the words "I", "me", and "my" etc. is itself a contradiction on your part and is an admission that you're wrong and that I'm right every single time. In order for you to deny this you have to saw off the branch you sit on by acknowledging there is an "I" in the first place since you'll have to say "you're wrong" which already assumes there is an "I" that is wrong about things. You've been caught momo, you're done...

You are done, that much is pretty clear. I do not know what this "I" is because that is just a name we use for that which notices or is aware. And since you have equated my quote with your first premise, you have admitted you too don't know what this "I" is. The very fact that you can not explain this "I" shows that you are wrong and that I'm right. Unless you can explain what "mind" is, you have no case. And since you have failed to do that, you have all but admitted you have no case.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:47 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

It doesn't.


I'm afraid it does. You claim you have 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands the "I", but you then go on to affirm that there is an "I" that notices, which is identical to saying "I am conscious". You understand enough, by your own admission, that there is an I that notices, that is conscious, that is aware, that perceives: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


You've been caught in a blatant contradiction so you're just being disingenuous and repeating the same shit over and over.

I've already shown how this does not explain this "I".


I've shown that it does and that you just keep contradicting yourself. You can't object to this without already affirming this "I" that is wrong about things. You just can't help but refute yourself lol
Tue Aug 14, 2018 4:03 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You dumb ass.
The experience of "what is it like to be me" is something that is happening very much here:
Image

Which makes it an experience indistinguishable on humans or computers.
For how much you would like to say:

"Look look, see! There is an 'I' in that statement, 'I' feel it, 'I' experience it, therefore conscience".

It is nothing more than circular drible. Since all of that is nothing more than the result of a phenomena that is pretty much happening here:
Image

</thread>
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:52 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

You dumb ass.


So you're claiming there really is this "I" that is a dumbass. So you're saying momo is wrong. Funny how your tribalism compels you so much you refuse to criticize momo for his self-refuting bullshit.

The experience of "what is it like to be me" is something that is happening very much here


1. Again, this is in direct contradiction to what momo claims, funny how you don't call him out on this. You claim there is experience of "what it is like to be me" yet you resolutely refuse to express any disagreement to momo. Whatever happened to objectivity...?
2. You don't have a shred of evidence for that claim. As I demonstrated in the OP, mind is irreducible so you just fail.

"Look look, see! There is an 'I' in that statement, 'I' feel it, 'I' experience it, therefore conscience".


It's contradictory to be like:
>I have no idea what the "I" is even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands!
>now let me tell you all about how there is this "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives

lol you people have got to make up your mind. If you believe there is an "I" then stop refuting yourself or go after momo.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:45 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Except you don't have a shred of evidence for that claim. Mind is irreducible and strong emergence is magic so you're just full of fail.

So you have thoughts that are not happening inside a mind? And brains are magic now?
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:48 pm
momo666Posts: 135Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:I'm afraid it does. You claim you have 0 understanding of the "I", even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands the "I", but you then go on to affirm that there is an "I" that notices, which is identical to saying "I am conscious". You understand enough, by your own admission, that there is an I that notices, that is conscious, that is aware, that perceives: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true

It doesn't. The term "I" is a label which we attach to that which notices, that is conscious, that is aware, that perceives. But you need to explain what that is, not merely tell me how you CALL it. What exactly does all those things ? And since you have equated my quote with your first premise, you don't know what this "I" is; by your own admission.

You've been caught in a blatant contradiction so you're just being disingenuous and repeating the same shit over and over.

You've been caught lying and admitted you don't know what this "I" is. So now you are just repeating your own assertions over and over.

I've shown that it does and that you just keep contradicting yourself. You can't object to this without already affirming this "I" that is wrong about things. You just can't help but refute yourself lol

I've refuted your attempts at showing your source explains this "I". All it does is merely take this "I" for granted. At no point does it provide an explanation for what it is. And notice which one of us refutes itself because nowhere did I claim that there is not something which notices. I said that which notices is called the "I" but that does not explain it any more than calling it "cabbage". I don't care how you CALL it. You need to explain it in order to have a first premise.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:54 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

So you have thoughts that are not happening inside a mind? And brains are magic now?


Wow, you people have remarkably shitty reading comprehension. I just told you that mind is not reducible (to the brain). Your thoughts are happening in your mind, and your mind is irreducible. I also noted strong emergence is magic, not brains. Stop being so shitty at reading
Tue Aug 14, 2018 8:56 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

It doesn't.


I'm afraid it does, champ: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


You've been caught lying and admitted you don't know what this "I" is.


Actually it was you that was caught in a lie:
>momo: I have no idea what the "I" is even in the sense that an 18-month old child understands!
>also momo: now let me tell you all about how there is this "I" that notices/is conscious/is aware/perceives

lmao caught in a blatant lie. You can't even say I'm wrong without admitting there is an "I" that is wrong lol

I've refuted your attempts at showing your source explains this "I".


Naw, you just keep repeating the same contradictions over and over. You literally can't even say that I'm wrong without admitting there is an "I" that is wrong
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:00 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatarPosts: 2750Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Wow, you people have remarkably shitty reading comprehension. I just told you that mind is not reducible (to the brain). Your thoughts are happening in your mind, and your mind is irreducible. I also noted strong emergence is magic, not brains. Stop being so shitty at reading


What you call strong emergence is a phenomenon still happening here:
Image
If it is magic, so is the brain magic for it produces the magic of strong emergence.
Everything that is happening in the mind is ultimately describable by the phenomenon of what is happening in the brain.
Get over it!
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:05 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 368Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

What you call strong emergence is a phenomenon still happening here


1. Since you're affirming strong emergence you're affirming Premises 1-3 in the case for idealism, which contradicts what momo is babbling about. Why don't you call him out on his falsehoods...? Is the tribalism that strong....?
2. I already addressed how strong emergence is magic: "[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

Everything that is happening in the mind is ultimately describable by the phenomenon of what is happening in the brain.


Absolutely false. It doesn't tell us what it is like at all.
Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:11 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 34 of 44
 [ 861 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests