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 42 of 43
 [ 849 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Ya know, MGK has summed you up very accurately.


MGK has been systematically refuted and failed to give a rebuttal, just like yourself.

I'm not sure what you'd like to achieve


I've explained this long ago. I want to talk about the case for idealism. I have a whole argument laid out ready to go in the OP and you clearly don't want to talk about it but would rather bicker about some random conversation that you're butting into. If you were interested in going anywhere we'd talk about the case for idealism, but you're not interested in that.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 7:32 pm
Master_Ghost_KnightContributorUser avatar
Online
Posts: 2749Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:57 pmLocation: Netherlands Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:I want to talk about the case for idealism.

Ok, you talked about it, now move on.
"I have an irrefutable argument for the existence of...." NO, STOP! You are already wrong!
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:29 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Ok, you talked about it


Not with SD, or momo, and several others haven't given a response to my rebuttals to them including yourself. If somebody else comes along and has something to say about the case for idealism I'm more than welcome to talk about it. you do realize you're posting in a thread that is literally entitled "The Case for Idealism" right...? If you're not here to talk about that then wtf are you doing here??

now move on.


Take your own advice. If you have no business talking about the case for idealism then you have no business posting in here.
Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:40 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
You're still screwed because look at the definition when it's defined as a verb:

The way you fail to see the obvious is just amusing at this point. Read carefully what you have underlined. Where do you see any mention, let alone explanation, of what becomes aware? Is it this "I" ? That is merely a term, which you have still not explained what it is supposed to refer to. Moreover, there is a deeper problem here. Did you notice the word "become" ? It tells us that which is aware was at some time not aware. And since you have asserted the term "notice" is just another term for "consciousness", you have just asserted that which is conscious begins to be conscious.
You see, when you don't simply defend an ideology with a blind fervor, you tend to pick up these sort of subtle things.

You pretend you have no idea what awareness or perception is, yet you're outright admitting that you are aware and perceive:

Again attempting to evade the obvious. Do you see that term ? The term "you" is supposed to refer to something. That something is that which is aware and perceives. Now, you need to point out exactly what that something is; then explain it. You won't however be able to fulfill any of those necessary requests, because ultimately everyone knows you don't have the slightest clue what you are.


More proof that you're screwed:
Image

The irony is quite amusing here. You repeating a fundamental mistake and somehow believing that affects me negatively simply warms my corazon. Would you please read your own citations? What exactly becomes aware or conscious? Furthermore, do you understand that for that which is aware or conscious to become as such, it is necessary that it is not aware or conscious at some time ?

You therefore cannot cowardly run from this by pretending you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form since you're clearly admitting you understand awareness, consciousness, perception, etc. Clearly you have some understanding.

I think we've just witnessed your non-sequitur crash down in flames. Why is it so hard for you to even tell us what is aware and conscious and has perception etc. ? Could it be that you don't know and you are too much of a coward to admit when you are wrong ?

So either you understand absolutely nothing about the I or you understand that there is an I that notices. Either you understand or you don't understand.

The "I" is a term that is supposed to refer to that which does the noticing, so saying there is an I that notices does not help us understand what this "I" is. The term "I" already includes the information of "an I that notices", so treating the two as if they are separate is just a mistake on your part. We, not only me, do not understand that which does the noticing. We do not know what it is. We do not have an explanation of it.

Stop right there-so you're admitting I'm right then. You're not negating what I said, you're just adding to it and admitting I'm right in that you really do understand mind since you are admitting you understand not only a mind, but a mind that is ill.

No, not even close. In fact, I specifically refuted your assertion that one must understand "mind" in order to understand the mode of behavior we call "insane". No wonder you want to stop at the first word. You are too cowardly, and perhaps impotent, to address my arguments.

You just used the word notice again, which is just another word for awareness, perception, and consciousness lmao it is you who just shot themselves in the foot. And since you admit you understand sanity then you clearly understand the mental in some shape or form since it's logically incoherent to claim you comprehend mental illness while understanding absolutely nothing about the mental.

Have fun explaining what begins to be conscious. What you have pointed to is an ability. But you haven't explained what possesses that ability. Your attempts at evasion are just so obvious. Your understanding of logic is also lacking since one can understand a mode of behavior without understanding what drives that behavior; that is perfectly logically coherent.

Yeah and they refer to your contradictions. Since you claim you can't comprehend the self in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to claim you comprehend this idea of an ego that is hurt. An understanding of ego entails an understanding of self by definition...

Well, you haven't been able to point out a single contradiction on my part. And saying the terms "person" and "self" refer to my alleged contradictions is just a stupid thing to say. But if you agree that the "self" is simply a term that is supposed to refer to something, then you must know by now that not explaining that supposed something collapses your whole case.
We don't know what the self is, let alone understand it. A hurt ego is merely the bruised view one has of itself. But notice that one can identify that view, without actually identifying what holds that view.
Again, you would see these subtle things were you not so desperate to cling to your pretend understanding fantasy.
Mon Sep 03, 2018 5:29 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

The way you fail to see the obvious is just amusing at this point.


This is some hardcore projection right there lol you're the one who keeps shooting themselves in the foot

Read carefully what you have underlined.


Read carefully what you have just admitted. You've just admitted that you comprehend what is means to be aware or to be conscious. This means you comprehend premise 1, which is what you've been pretending you don't comprehend this entire time lol you've been proven to be full of shit this entire time. You not only comprehend premise 1, but you affirm it as well: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


Enough of the dodging, you have to pick one: either you understand absolutely nothing about the I or you understand that there is an I that notices. Either you understand or you don't understand. Stop trying to re-word a true dichotomy. You have to pick one. You can't avoid the law of excluded middle, logic denier...

Stop right there-so you're admitting I'm right then. You're not negating what I said, you're just adding to it and admitting I'm right in that you really do understand mind since you are admitting you understand not only a mind, but a mind that is ill.


No, not even close.


Actually it's 100% accurate by your own admission. You admitted that you understand "mental health" but that's only possible if you understand the first word of that term: "mental"

In fact, I specifically refuted your assertion that one must understand "mind" in order to understand the mode of behavior we call "insane".


Nice try liar, I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane it is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLYill."

It is contradictory to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet you understand a mind that has states and that there is perception and that there is mental illness... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form or you understand mental states and perception and mental health. Pick your poison.

You just used the word notice again, which is just another word for awareness, perception, and consciousness lmao it is you who just shot themselves in the foot. And since you admit you understand sanity then you clearly understand the mental in some shape or form since it's logically incoherent to claim you comprehend mental illness while understanding absolutely nothing about the mental.


Have fun explaining what begins to be conscious.


See? This is al you got. You know you've been caught admitting that you understand awareness, perception, and consciousness which means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. What's so hard about you coming to terms with this? Is it because you know the case for idealism is a juggernaut and so the moment you grant premise 1 in any shape or form you know you're screwed? haha

Well, you haven't been able to point out a single contradiction on my part.


I literally just did. Since you claim you can't comprehend the self in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to claim you comprehend this idea of an ego that is hurt. An understanding of ego entails an understanding of self by definition. You're blatantly contradicting yourself when you say you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form yet you comprehend that idea of a person that has an ego. You're literally telling me that you understand and don't understand, 100% contradictory

A hurt ego is merely the bruised view one has of itself.


And you're telling me that you comprehend this, which means you just proved me right. You admit the view of oneself is comprehensible since you can comprehend a bruised view of oneself. Can't have a coherent bruised view of oneself without first having a coherent view of oneself. Thanks for blowing your own feet off lol
Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:52 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:This is some hardcore projection right there lol you're the one who keeps shooting themselves in the foot

Even this is a projection on your part. Try to do less of that and at least attempt to address my arguments.

You've just admitted that you comprehend what is means to be aware or to be conscious. This means you comprehend premise 1, which is what you've been pretending you don't comprehend this entire time lol you've been proven to be full of shit this entire time.

No. Premise 1 remains something you have been unable to explain. You still have not explained what is aware or conscious. And now, you have admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Even here you assert things like "what is means to be aware or to be conscious" without answering a basic question. What it means to be conscious or aware FOR WHAT ?

Enough of the dodging, you have to pick one: either you understand absolutely nothing about the I or you understand that there is an I that notices. Either you understand or you don't understand.

It's rather amusing hearing this from you, since you've been cowering away from all my arguments. The idea of an "I that notices" is logically equivalent to the term "I". Your dichotomy is a false one and I've already demonstrated that. Stop denying logic already.

You admitted that you understand "mental health" but that's only possible if you understand the first word of that term: "mental"

Actually, that is false. The "mental" would be that which drives that mode of behavior. But one can point to a mode of behavior while at the same time not understanding what drives that behavior.

Nice try liar, I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane it is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLYill."

What is IN that state of mind ? Normal perception, behavior and social interaction are a mode of behavior. This "mental" is that which we call that which drives that behavior. But it's not necessary knowing what drives that behavior to point out a mode of behavior.

It is contradictory to claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet you understand a mind that has states and that there is perception and that there is mental illness... Either you understand absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form or you understand mental states and perception and mental health.

You don't understand what a contradiction is. A "mental state" is that state of whatever drives this mode of behavior we call "insane". But just because we recognize a behavior is driven by something, that does not imply we understand that something. Simple logic must be so confusing to you.

See? This is al you got. You know you've been caught admitting that you understand awareness, perception, and consciousness which means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form.

The only one who has been caught admitting to anything is you. You have admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. That, after failing to explain what is conscious. To this day, you have been unable to properly explain what the term "mental" refers to.
What's so hard about you coming to terms with this? Is it because you know the case for idealism is a juggernaut and so the moment you grant premise 1 in any shape or form you know you're screwed?

If your dumpster fire of a pseudo-case would have any weight to it, you wouldn't constantly cower away from all my arguments. You wouldn't refuse to address my points. And you wouldn't fail so horribly at explaining what is conscious. The reason you do all those things is because I have exposed you for what you truly are. A clueless random joe who doesn't have a clue what "mind" is, yet has built himself a whole ideology around a term he does not even comprehend. And if you think the fatal flaw that you call the first premise is the only problem of your argument, then you are more deluded than you already seem.

I literally just did. Since you claim you can't comprehend the self in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to claim you comprehend this idea of an ego that is hurt. An understanding of ego entails an understanding of self by definition. You're blatantly contradicting yourself when you say you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form yet you comprehend that idea of a person that has an ego. You're literally telling me that you understand and don't understand, 100% contradictory

I literally just refuted that. What I understand is a view one has. But the term "one" refers to something which has not been explained. The notion of a hurt ego does not entail an understanding of the self, because an understanding of that which holds a view is not necessary in identifying a view.

You admit the view of oneself is comprehensible since you can comprehend a bruised view of oneself. Can't have a coherent bruised view of oneself without first having a coherent view of oneself.

You just proved me right, again. What is comprehensible is the view, not the self. We direct these judgments of respect and admiration to what we call "ourselves" but in reality we do not know what we are, and thus we do not really know to what this view is directed to.
We can identify a view, in this case respect and admiration say, without identifying what holds that view. What holds the view is the important bit here. We call that which holds that view "ourselves" but it does not matter how we call it, that does not explain it. There is nothing wrong in saying something unexplained holds a view about itself, or what it thinks it's itself. Again, subtle differences you would be able to spot, were you not to be so deluded by your own ideology.
Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:48 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

N-no you!


That's the best you got? lol

You've just admitted that you comprehend what is means to be aware or to be conscious. This means you comprehend premise 1, which is what you've been pretending you don't comprehend this entire time lol you've been proven to be full of shit this entire time.


No.


Yup, I have direct quotes of you admitting such. "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


You tried to get around this by saying "The term "notice" refers to an act" but that yet again only proves my point because look at the definition when it's defined as a verb:
Image


You pretend you have no idea what awareness or perception is, yet you're outright admitting that you are aware and perceive:
Image


More proof that you're screwed:
Image


Your dichotomy is a false one


It is literally logically impossible for any proposition of the form "P ∨ ~P" to be false. Either a proposition is true, or that proposition's negation is true. That's the only options you have, it's called the law of excluded middle you illiterate logic denier. Now you have to choose: either you understand or you don't understand. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices. This is basic logic man, you trying to run away like a coward doesn't help you... Now pick one. The problem is you already claimed that there is an I that notices, which contradicts the claim that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the I:

Stop denying logic already...

Actually, that is false.


Actually that is also logically impossible. It's impossible to understand "mental health" without first understanding the term "mental" there. Since you understand mental health then you necessarily understand mental.

The "mental" would be that which drives that mode of behavior.


1. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and is true. You're admitting there is in fact this mental that you understand understand enough to grasp that it drives a mode of behavior. So you've been full of shit this whole time pretending that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...
2. By your own admission being insane is in fact A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill." By your own admission you understand what "a state of mind" means, and you understand "perception" and "mental illness". By your own admission then you have at least some understanding of mind, the mental, perception etc.

You don't understand what a contradiction is.


You're literally saying you understand and don't understand... That's a blatant contradiction and you can't deny this without being a full blown logic denier... Either you have absolutely 0 understanding of "mind", "mental", "perception" etc. or you have some understanding of "mind", "mental", "perception". If I'm so mistaken about contradictions then just pick one already. What are you so scared of if you're so confident that you're not contradicting yourself...?

What's so hard about you coming to terms with this? Is it because you know the case for idealism is a juggernaut and so the moment you grant premise 1 in any shape or form you know you're screwed?


If your dumpster fire of a pseudo-case


Why don't you try justifying this accusation of yours? You're such a coward you haven't launched any refutations of any premises or even the form of the argument. So far you've provided absolutely 0 support for this claim of yours that this is a pseudo-case or a dumpster fire

I literally just did. Since you claim you can't comprehend the self in any shape or form then it makes absolutely 0 sense to claim you comprehend this idea of an ego that is hurt. An understanding of ego entails an understanding of self by definition. You're blatantly contradicting yourself when you say you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self in any shape or form yet you comprehend that idea of a person that has an ego. You're literally telling me that you understand and don't understand, 100% contradictory


I understand


You just keep blowing your feet off. Definition of "Understand" is:
Image


So you're telling me "I perceive", which just means:
Image


So you're telling me "I am conscious", "I am aware"

You just keep contradicting yourself over and over and over...

What is comprehensible is the view, not the self.


The view is of the self you moron lmao since the view is comprehensible then you've just admitted you comprehend the self. You can't have a coherent bruise view of oneself without first having a coherent view of oneself. absolute fail
Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:10 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:That's the best you got? lol

Who are you quoting you insane person ?

Yup, I have direct quotes of you admitting such. "I notice"

That quote does not explain what does the noticing. Until you point out what that is, and then explain it, you have no premise.

You tried to get around this by saying "The term "notice" refers to an act" but that yet again only proves my point because look at the definition when it's defined as a verb:

That actually destroys your whole pseudo-case. You have just admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Thank you !

You pretend you have no idea what awareness or perception is, yet you're outright admitting that you are aware and perceive:

This proves my point, yet again. The "I" is that which is aware and perceives. But "I" is merely a term. You need to point out exactly what it is.

More proof that you're screwed:

How does that which is not conscious beginning to be conscious affect me negatively? Be precise.

Either a proposition is true, or that proposition's negation is true. That's the only options you have, it's called the law of excluded middle you illiterate logic denier.

You are projecting the fact that you are an illiterate logic denier on me, again. The idea of "an I that notices" is not a negation of "what an I is has not been explained".

Now you have to choose: either you understand or you don't understand. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices.

I actually don't. For me to choose, it would mean that the term "I" is not logically equivalent to the idea of "an I that notices". But it is, and thus I have no need to choose anything from your false dichotomy. You are such a logic denier that even that evades you.

Actually that is also logically impossible. It's impossible to understand "mental health" without first understanding the term "mental" there. Since you understand mental health then you necessarily understand mental.

Now, THAT is logically impossible. It is necessary that a thing is not the same as its behavior and thus it is possible to point to a behavior without actually understanding what drives that behavior. Please pick up a logic book!

1. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and is true. You're admitting there is in fact this mental that you understand understand enough to grasp that it drives a mode of behavior. So you've been full of shit this whole time pretending that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...

That is literally impossible. A mode of behavior is necessarily what something DOES, because nothing by definition can not drive any behavior. What we understand enough is that any behavior is driven by something, not what that something is. So you've just made my point, yet again.

2. By your own admission being insane is in fact [u]A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill." By your own admission you understand what "a state of mind" means, and you understand "perception" and "mental illness". By your own admission then you have at least some understanding of mind, the mental, perception etc.

You've just been caught lying, yet again. You've left out the word "in" which indicates something is in that state. You have to explain what is in that state. Since what the term "mind" refers to has not been explained, whatever is in that state also remains unknown. But that is okay since perception, behavior and social interaction is what that thing DOES. And since a behavior is not the same thing as that which drives that behavior, we can point to a mode of behavior without understanding what is causing said behavior.

You're literally saying you understand and don't understand... That's a blatant contradiction and you can't deny this without being a full blown logic denier... Either you have absolutely 0 understanding of "mind", "mental", "perception" etc. or you have some understanding of "mind", "mental", "perception". If I'm so mistaken about contradictions then just pick one already. What are you so scared of if you're so confident that you're not contradicting yourself...?

I can't pick from only one option. What I don't understand is what this "I" is. Read this carefully. What this "I" IS. Tell me what has perception. Tell me what is conscious. Tell me what begins to be conscious. Clear enough?

Why don't you try justifying this accusation of yours? You're such a coward you haven't launched any refutations of any premises or even the form of the argument. So far you've provided absolutely 0 support for this claim of yours that this is a pseudo-case or a dumpster fire

I've already demonstrated my claim beyond any reasonable doubt. I have exposed your fatal weakness for everyone to see. You don't know what "mind' is. You never did. All you can do is point to acts, without being able to point what does the acting. What is that which begins to be conscious ? You will never answer that question because you have no idea what you are talking about.
Explaining what the term "mind" refers to is crucial. If you don't do that, just replace the word "mind" with "magic" and see just how much sense your pseudo-case makes.
I for one have supported my claims all along and all you have done is cower away from my arguments and repeat the same baseless assertions you have peddled from the very start. You can do that all you like, it only proves my initial point. You don't know what this "I" is.

You just keep blowing your feet off. Definition of "Understand" is:

And you keep projecting your failures on me. What is that which perceives? And cue the silence...

So you're telling me "I perceive", which just means:

So that which is not conscious begins to be conscious. Again, this bothers me because?

So you're telling me "I am conscious", "I am aware"

You just keep contradicting yourself over and over and over...

You said it yourself. That which is conscious begins to be conscious. That which is aware begins to be aware. Brilliant! Now, what is "that" which does that? The "I"? Double brilliant! But the term "I" is merely how we CALL that thing. That does not explain what it is; after all we could CALL it "chakra". Tell me what begins to be conscious and then explain that thing.

The view is of the self you moron lmao since the view is comprehensible then you've just admitted you comprehend the self. You can't have a coherent bruise view of oneself without first having a coherent view of oneself. absolute fail

Since your understanding of logic is about as developed as that of a potato, let me walk you through the obvious, yet again. A view and what holds that view are different things; that's the law of identity.

Now, why is it not necessary for a "view of the self" to first require an explanation of the thing we call "self" ?
Consider the following views of the self:
-The self is pure love
-The self is pure energy
-The self begins to exist from pixie farts
-The self is actually three selves into one, to borrow from the christian myths

Now, none of those views need be correct. None of them need be even logically coherent. They are merely what that thing which we call "the self" THINKS it is it. So when we say we direct the view of respect and admiration to ourselves, it is not necessary to understand what that which directs the view is. One could think that the self is "an unidentified thing which does x,y,z etc" and that would still allow us to use the idea of a hurt ego coherently.
I know this will fly right over your head, again. But understand this simple point: It is not necessary to identify that which holds the view to identify a view.

Again, these are subtle things that simply escape your narrow view because you are not interested in the truth. You are interested in protecting your baseless ideology.
Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:42 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Who are you quoting you insane person ?


How can you reasonably expect an answer to this without being able to comprehend what "who" or "you" means...? How can you understand what insane is unless you understand what mind is? You just keep refuting yourself over and over lol

you have no premise..


Oh but I do by your own admission: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


That actually destroys your whole pseudo-case.


Actually it's the complete opposite. This means that you have admitted that you are aware, that you are conscious, and that you comprehend this. Which means you've been lying this whole time: you not only comprehend premise 1 but you admit that it's true.

You have just admitted that which is not conscious begins to be conscious.


You have completely lost track haven't you? lol premise 1 is only about mind existing. It doesn't matter if something begins to be conscious, it's about whether or not consciousness exists. And you just admitted that there is consciousness :)
check mate, momo

You are projecting the fact that you are an illiterate logic denier on me, again


You're the one who is trying to say a proposition of the form "P ∨ ~P" is a false dichotomy, which is a denial of the law of excluded middle... you're literally a logic denier...

Now you have to choose: either you understand or you don't understand. You have claimed you understand absolutely nothing about the I, even in the sense that an 18-month old child does, and you have admitted "I notice" which entails an understanding of an "I" that notices.


I actually don't.


I'm afraid you do, logic denier. That's how logic and reason works. You're on a website that is called "League of REASON" for goodness sakes, if you have no interest in reason you should probably not be here.

I can't pick from only one option.


See? you're a literal logic denier. You're denying the law of excluded middle right now... It is logically impossible for both to be true or for there to be a third option. There can only be one.

For me to choose


All you have to do is pick: either you understand or don't understand. Which is it? Do you or do you not understand absolutely nothing about the "I" in any shape or form?

Actually that is also logically impossible. It's impossible to understand "mental health" without first understanding the term "mental" there. Since you understand mental health then you necessarily understand mental.


Now, THAT is logically impossible
.

What is logically impossible is understanding "mental health" but not understanding the word "mental" in any shape or form.

It is necessary that a thing is not the same as its behavior and thus it is possible to point to a behavior without actually understanding what drives that behavior


By your own definition of insane you said what drives that behavior is a [u]A STATE OF MIND, which entails at least some understanding of mind since you understand enough to comprehend the idea of a state of mind in the first place and that it is driving behavior. You've already admitted that you are conscious, that you perceive, that you are aware, all of that stuff, which means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and is true. Please pick up a logic book!

You've just been caught lying, yet again. You've left out the word "in"


We've already been over this: you already admitted you comprehend insanity, which entails an understanding of the mental. But even if we play your game, all we have to do is define the word "sanity" and since you admit you comprehend that as well then you admit you comprehend the mental. You understand that there is a state of mind in the first place in order for someone to be sane or insane. Your own language keeps proving your disingenuity here.

But that is okay since perception...is what that thing DOES.


Wrong again:
Image


Note the synonyms as well... you understand perception and you admit perception is real which means you understand and affirm premise 1.

What I don't understand is what this "I" is


You really don't see the problem here...? lmao your skepticism can't even get off the ground

Why don't you try justifying this accusation of yours? You're such a coward you haven't launched any refutations of any premises or even the form of the argument. So far you've provided absolutely 0 support for this claim of yours that this is a pseudo-case or a dumpster fire


I've already demonstrated my claim beyond any reasonable doubt.


>I don't understand the "I" in any shape or form
>Now let me tell you all about how there is this "I" that refuted "you"
You just keep demonstrating that you're contradictory lol

You haven't given a single refutation of any premise or the form of the argument at all. The case for idealism stands.

And you keep projecting your failures on me.


According to your dishonest pseudo-skepticism you should not be able to comprehend this Freudian idea of projection at all since that's taking one's own mind and mental states and attributing it to other minds... If you were at least some kind of hardcore behaviorist that avoided any kind of mental language, like B.F. Skinner, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to you but the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties that you claim to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form just proves you're full of shit... You realize that behaviorism is dead btw, right...? What are you a science denier on top of a logic denier too (makes sense given science needs logic)?


The view is of the self you moron lmao since the view is comprehensible then you've just admitted you comprehend the self. You can't have a coherent bruise view of oneself without first having a coherent view of oneself. absolute fail


A view and what holds that view are different things


And the view is of the self, you admitted the view is comprehensible, which means the view of the self is comprehensible. It's game over, momo. You're done.
Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:49 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:How can you reasonably expect an answer to this without being able to comprehend what "who" or "you" means...? How can you understand what insane is unless you understand what mind is? You just keep refuting yourself over and over lol

Simple, although I admit that is simple for me since obviously, you have a hard time with the obvious. Whatever that thing is that drives the behavior I am observing and responding to, I need not know it in order to point out it does not act in a logical manner. I can understand insanity because it is a mode of behavior. A mode of behavior is separate from what drives that behavior, in this case an unknown thing to which we refer to using the term "mind".

Oh but I do by your own admission: "I notice"

If my claim equates your first premise, then whatever the term "mind" refers to in your first premise remains unknown. Hence, by said equation, you entail that my original point stands and thus your whole case is based on magic.

Actually it's the complete opposite. This means that you have admitted that you are aware, that you are conscious, and that you comprehend this. Which means you've been lying this whole time: you not only comprehend premise 1 but you admit that it's true.

It's right there under your nose and yet you fail at seeing it. Something is aware. Something is conscious. Something comprehends. We refer to that something using the term "I" or "you" or "self". But that is merely how we call it, and that matters not since we could very well call it "cabbage". That does not explain what it is. It does not explain anything about that thing. Tell me what this "you" is and then explain it. Until you do that, you can not possibly have a first premise.

You have completely lost track haven't you? lol premise 1 is only about mind existing. It doesn't matter if something begins to be conscious, it's about whether or not consciousness exists. And you just admitted that there is consciousness :)
check mate, momo

Obviously, chess is not your thing. If something begins to be conscious, then that means that consciousness is not fundamental. It can not be, for it is a property of a non-mental state of affairs that begins to be. It is contingent on that non-mental state of affairs and that non-mental state of affairs precedes it. So much for that "check mate" ha ?

You're the one who is trying to say a proposition of the form "P ∨ ~P" is a false dichotomy, which is a denial of the law of excluded middle...

Except that your proposition is not actually of such form now is it ? If the term "I" refers to that which does the noticing, then "an I that notices" is not a negation of "what this I is has not been explained" because at all times you are referencing an act this something does, rather than pointing what this "I" is. Learn what a true dichotomy is, logic denier.

That's how logic and reason works. You're on a website that is called "League of REASON" for goodness sakes, if you have no interest in reason you should probably not be here.

Are you really in any position to lecture others on reason and logic when you can not even put forth a simple dichotomy? When simple logic escapes you? I think not. As for my reasons for being here, I can only say that is none of your business. That you are unable to address my arguments remains your problem, not mine.

See? you're a literal logic denier. You're denying the law of excluded middle right now... It is logically impossible for both to be true or for there to be a third option. There can only be one.

Which one of us is the logic denier has been made abundantly clear by now. There IS only one option. The term "I" refers to that which does the noticing. It is incoherent to act as if "an I that notices" is a different proposition, let alone a negation of "what this I is remains unknown"

All you have to do is pick: either you understand or don't understand. Which is it? Do you or do you not understand absolutely nothing about the "I" in any shape or form?

I do not know what this "I" IS. I know we use that term to refer to that thing which does the noticing, but that does not tell us what that thing is. As such, one can not pick between the term "I" and "an I that notices" for they are the same thing.

What is logically impossible is understanding "mental health" but not understanding the word "mental" in any shape or form.

This "mental" is that which drives whatever behavior you want to specify. Depending on various criteria, we call that behavior "sane" or "insane" say. But it's fairly obvious for anyone with a proper understanding of logic that a behavior can be understood while at the same time what drives that behavior can remain unknown. You are simply confused.

By your own definition of insane you said what drives that behavior is a A STATE OF MIND, which entails at least some understanding of mind since you understand enough to comprehend the idea of a state of mind in the first place and that it is driving behavior. You've already admitted that you are conscious, that you perceive, that you are aware, all of that stuff, which means you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and is true.

My provided definition of "insane" also specified that something is "in" that "state of mind". And what that something is remains unknown. The term "mind" refers to that something which has not been specified and has not been explained, to that thing which drives various behaviors. So a "state" of this thing merely indicates a different behavior. And that it drives a behavior is necessary since behavior is what some-thing does, not what no-thing does. It's not that we understand what drives that behavior, but that we understand that all behavior is driven by some-thing. And in this case we call that some-thing "mind". But that does not mean we know what it is or we can explain it.

You say it yourself: "you are conscious" , "you perceive", "you are aware". Something does all those things. We call that thing "you". Now tell me what this "you" is and then explain that thing. The only way what I've been saying all this time translates to your P1 being correct is if what this "I" is remains unknown. But then it becomes clear your whole pseudo-case is based on magic. Either way, you have no way out.

We've already been over this: you already admitted you comprehend insanity, which entails an understanding of the mental. But even if we play your game, all we have to do is define the word "sanity" and since you admit you comprehend that as well then you admit you comprehend the mental. You understand that there is a state of mind in the first place in order for someone to be sane or insane. Your own language keeps proving your disingenuity here.

We've been over this alright. I've demonstrated pretty clear that a mode of behavior can be understood while at the same time not understanding what drives that behavior.
And yes, let's define the word "sanity". Here are the two definitions that pop up:
1)the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health.
2)reasonable and rational behaviour.
What possesses that ability? What drives that behavior ? And cue the silence...

I'm sorry but you are simply not cut for these sort of philosophical debates. Too much evades your narrow view.

Wrong again:
Note the synonyms as well... you understand perception and you admit perception is real which means you understand and affirm premise 1.

Like I said, the obvious escapes you. It says right there "the ability". Perception is the ability of what? It says "become aware". Again. What begins to be aware? That which is not mental obviously. But what is that?
And what exactly do you mean by "wrong" ? Are you saying perception is not what something does?
You are so bad at this. You've just said a non-mental state of affairs begins to be conscious. You then went on and insisted that equals your P1, which in turn drives a huge stake through the heart of this abomination of a case.

You really don't see the problem here...? lmao your skepticism can't even get off the ground

What I don't see is an answer to my question. What is this "I"?

>I don't understand the "I" in any shape or form
>Now let me tell you all about how there is this "I" that refuted "you"
You just keep demonstrating that you're contradictory lol

Are you seriously so naive that you can not see the obvious truth of what I am saying ? Why would it be necessary to know what "I am" in order to falsify bad arguments? I need not know whatever you are. So long as you put forth false claims, I can address those claims without understanding what fundamentally puts forth said claims. Such a poor understanding of contradictions you have.

You haven't given a single refutation of any premise or the form of the argument at all.

I have demonstrated that since what the term "mind" refers to remains unknown and not explained, your whole pseudo-case rests upon magic. Even worse, by not specifying what exists you can not even claim to have a first premise, but hey-ho it's not like you and logic are best friends. And now, the various claims you have made have shown that a non-mental state of affairs begins to be conscious. So yea...see if you can figure that one out.

According to your dishonest pseudo-skepticism you should not be able to comprehend this Freudian idea of projection at all since that's taking one's own mind and mental states and attributing it to other minds... If you were at least some kind of hardcore behaviorist that avoided any kind of mental language, like B.F. Skinner, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to you but the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties that you claim to have absolutely 0 understanding in any shape or form just proves you're full of shit... You realize that behaviorism is dead btw, right...? What are you a science denier on top of a logic denier too (makes sense given science needs logic)?

That is quite obviously false. For one, what does it even mean to say "one's own mind" if "I=mind"? Secondly, the mental would be that which possesses the quality of ignorance say. But we don't actually have to know what exactly possesses that quality in order to attribute it to someone else. So when we say "we attribute it to other minds" we can just refer to the fact that, whatever you are, you are guilty of the shortcomings you are accusing me of. Subtle, I know.
There is also a bigger problem here. You say: "the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties". Does consciousness not equal the mental? Cause unless it does not, you've just said consciousness is a property of consciousness.

I also have no idea what you are babbling about when it comes to behaviorism. Where have I advanced that idea exactly? As for which one of us is more scientifically illiterate, feel free to challenge me. Although given your embarrassing impotence in philosophy, I won't be holding my breath.

And the view is of the self, you admitted the view is comprehensible, which means the view of the self is comprehensible. It's game over, momo. You're done.

I'm done because I keep refuting you? I don't think so. A view can be incorrect yes ? You do understand that simple fact ? Okay! So, much like the judgements of admiration and respect, which upon being exposed as false the "I" gets hurt, the ego can also be but a construct of that which does all these things. Hence the numerous claims about what this "self" is.
Furthermore, one can just think of itself as "something that remains unknown and unexplained". Voila!
Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:19 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Simple, although I admit that is simple for me since obviously, you have a hard time with the obvious.


This is just contradiction after contradiction. If there's no understanding of the word "I" or "self" then words like "me" and "you" have no meaning, yet here you are meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me... Momo, if you had absolutely 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form then it should be impossible for you to distinguish yourself from me. You should be confusing yourself and myself all the time, you should be totally confused about personal identity, yet here you are referring to me as if I'm a distinct person from you. How on earth are you possibly meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me if you have absolutely 0 understand of "me" or "you"????

I need not know it in order to point out it does not act in a logical manner.


Yes actually you do, you have to identify that which is acting in the first place. Verbs don't exist on their own, it is nouns that engage in verbs. You're not merely talking about an act, you are identifying me as me. This is the law of identity, you logic denier... You're not merely talking about verbs, you're talking about nouns. You've referred to me as a person, as a "who" as a "you" and you have said that you "consider" that I am "insane", which is itself an identification of mind by your own admission. And even if you were just talking about verbs you're talking about mental verbs, which would still be an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental since you understand the verbs of the mental.

I can understand insanity because it is a mode of behavior.


Caught in a lie once again: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."

So by your own admission you understand what "in a state of mind" means since you admitted you understand what the word insane means. Which just means you not only comprehend premise 1 but you affirm it as well: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


in this case an unknown thing to which we refer to using the term "mind".


The fact that you're even using the word mind at all completely blows your cover. If you can't understand what "in a state of mind means" then you're telling me you don't understand your own definition of insane, and thus you can't possibly consider me to be insane. You shouldn't even be able to consider "me" in the first place if you don't understand what "I" or "me" means at all... It's just contradiction after contradiction...

If my claim equates your first premise, then whatever the term "mind" refers to in your first premise remains unknown.


On the contrary: by your own admission you comprehend perception, awareness, consciousness, which just means that you comprehend and affirm premise 1.

It's right there under your nose and yet you fail at seeing it.


Actually that would be you, momo. Your own language betrays you: the mere fact that you identify me as me, and distinguish me from you, entails you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding you should be completely confused about this whole concept of "your nose" or "you", yet here you are proving you're full of shit... you're not convincing anyone here with your dishonest pseudo-skepticism...

Something is aware. Something is conscious. Something comprehends


BOOM! Then you're telling me premise 1 is true. Consciousness exists, you just admitted it. Something is conscious. Great! Time to move on to other premises, unless you're too scared.

If something begins to be conscious, then that means that consciousness is not fundamental


1. You're admitting consciousness exists, which means you're affirming premise 1. It's check mate, you can't get around this without contradicting yourself.
2. Idealists fully acknowledge that there are conscious agents that are contingent. Of course there are contingent beings that come into existence and so they begin to be conscious, but existence itself is necessary and is conscious and so never began to be conscious. Consciousness is indeed fundamental, but contingent beings like you and myself are not. This wouldn't be mind from non-mind it would be mind from mind.

Except that your proposition is not actually of such form now is it ?


Yes actually it is, logic denier: Either you understand absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form or you understand mental states and perception and mental health. This boils down to either you don't understand or you do understand. Pick your poison, but of course we all know you're too cowardly to pick one...

I think not.


And you just understood this sentence you're saying here? Great! So then you can comprehend this "I" that thinks. Descartes would be so proud of you! The funny thing is you can't possibly negate this without saying things like "I don't think" lmao the moment you admit that you think is the moment you admit, yet again, that premise 1 is true.

I do not know what this "I" IS.


Then you're admitting you can't comprehend what "I notice" means but that contradicts your claim that "I notice". Absolute fail.

This "mental" is that which drives whatever behavior you want to specify.


So then the mental is real and you comprehend this idea of being in a state of mind, so you have at least some understanding of mind. Got it.

Also, you seem to be affirming premise 3 of my argument without you even knowing it. Notice how you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system that drives behavior. You're not reducing the cause of behavior to the body, you're saying what drives behavior is this irreducible "something" that you label as "mental". Wow, you've already affirmed 3 whole premises of my argument so far, you're already on the path to becoming an idealist lol

But it's fairly obvious for anyone with a proper understanding of logic that a behavior can be understood while at the same time what drives that behavior can remain unknown.


It's fairly obvious for anyone with a proper understanding of logic that there is an "I" that we comprehend perfectly fine, even 18-month old children grasp it... Anyone who knows about contemporary psychology knows your behaviorism is dead. Do you really not know about cognitive psychology? Do you really not know about the cognitive revolution and how behaviorism completely fails to explain all sorts of human behavior??

My provided definition of "insane" also specified that something is "in" that "state of mind". And what that something is remains unknown.


If that's true, which contradicts your other statements, then you can't comprehend what insane means. If you don't understand what "in a state of mind" means then by your own admission you can't understand the word "insane" and thus you can't consider me to be insane or yourself sane for that matter. You can't consider yourself sane if you can't even consider yourself in the first place...

What possesses that ability? What drives that behavior ? And cue the silence..


The mind. Well that was easy.

Like I said, the obvious escapes you.


The irony in this statement is incredible hahah like """""I""""" said, the obvious escapes """""you""""" lol you're the one who is missing the obvious. You're the one who is missing that which an 18-month old child grasps. You clearly understand the "I", you're using it right now to distinguish yourself from me momo...

It says right there "the ability".


It says right there that perception is a noun, and even if we play your game of verbs you're still saying there is perception, that there is awareness, that there is consciousness. Which just means premise 1 is true by your own admission.

You are so bad at this.


The irony is too much lmao try talking to me without any first-person pronouns or any reference to any "who" or "you" or "me" or "I" or "self" or anything like that. Go ahead, I dare you momo... Give it a shot. See if you can have a meanginful discussion with me without using any first-person language or referring to a "me" that is distinct from "you"...

Are you seriously so naive that you can not see the obvious truth of what I am saying ?


Are you so stupid that you can't see how much you keep contradicting yourself? You keep saying shit like "I perceive" and "I am conscious" and "I am aware" and "I think" yet you want to pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of premise 1... You just keep shooting yourself in the foot, you keep contradicting yourself. You shouldn't be able to identify "me" or identify yourself as this "I" that "thinks" and "considers" and "notices" if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...

I have demonstrated that since what the term "mind" refers to remains unknown and not explained


I have not only defined my terms but have caught you admitting over and over again that you understand. You just can't bring yourself to admit this, you just keep contradicting yourself over and over.

And you also consistently ignore my point about the distinction between knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance. Knowledge of the "I" isn't by description, it's by acquaintance. It's not like me giving you a description will give you knowledge you didn't already have, the self is known directly and immediately, independent of any description. A subject can be completely non-verbal and lack any ability to describe anything at all, but that doesn't entail that they have no knowledge of the self. The subject would still be directly aware of the self and have knowledge of the self. So there's a fundamental equivocation in what your pseudo-skepticism: you're assuming a lack of a description (which there isn't by the way) is a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding. That's simply an equivocation, knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things.

That is quite obviously false


So you're just going to pretend the 20th century just didn't happen...? Behaviorism wasn't overthrown by the cognitive revolution in psychology? Please explain to me how behaviorism is better than cognitive psychology. Please explain to me how you can account for language and all these complex behaviors we see purely through reference to behavioral principles... burden of proof is on you.

For one, what does it even mean to say "one's own mind" if "I=mind"?


I don't recall saying it was, but even if I did all that's being said here is that one is taking one's own thoughts and feelings and attributing them to someone else. According to your dishonest pseudo-skepticism, things like thoughts and feelings, let alone someone else having them, should be 100% incomprehensible to you. Yet here you are going on and on about how there are minds, feelings, thoughts, that we "project" onto other minds... you're so full of shit momo...

Secondly, the mental would be that which possesses the quality of ignorance say. But we don't actually have to know what exactly possesses that quality in order to attribute it to someone else.


1. You're telling me you understand mental properties. That the mental possesses qualities of sorts. You want to try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet here you are talking about mental properties... Momo, you clearly have some understanding of some of the mental. Even if you don't understand the mental in of itself, which we all know you do, you at least understand properties of the mental by your own admission. So there's some understanding.
2. Yes actually you do. You're identifying it as "mind" or "mental". You're not just saying it's some unknown thing, you're identifying it, law of identity, and you're betraying your behaviorism by referring to some internal mental states that one projects onto another. By your own behaviorism you should just be talking about behavior, yet here you are talking about thoughts and ideas that are in the mind that one throws out onto other minds. You just keep contradicting yourself over and over

So when we say "we attribute it to other minds" we can just refer to the fact that, whatever you are, you are guilty of the shortcomings you are accusing me of.


You're not realizing that you just landed right back where you started. All you did was re-state the very same contradictory sentence as before: you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well. By your own dishonest pseudo-skepticism that should not be possible. You shouldn't be talking about "projection" you should just be talking about some external behavior like Skinner rather than internal thought processes like Freud.

Does consciousness not equal the mental?


Consciousness is mental, of course. I never said consciousness is a property of consciousness, learn to read dude.

I also have no idea what you are babbling about when it comes to behaviorism.


omg you're such a noob... The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains: "The study of mind remained the province of philosophy until the nineteenth century, when experimental psychology developed. Wilhelm Wundt and his students initiated laboratory methods for studying mental operations more systematically. Within a few decades, however, experimental psychology became dominated by behaviorism, a view that virtually denied the existence of mind. According to behaviorists such as J. B. Watson, psychology should restrict itself to examining the relation between observable stimuli and observable behavioral responses. Talk of consciousness and mental representations was banished from respectable scientific discussion. Especially in North America, behaviorism dominated the psychological scene through the 1950s. Around 1956, the intellectual landscape began to change dramatically. George Miller summarized numerous studies which showed that the capacity of human thinking is limited, with short-term memory, for example, limited to around seven items. He proposed that memory limitations can be overcome by recoding information into chunks, mental representations that require mental procedures for encoding and decoding the information. At this time, primitive computers had been around for only a few years, but pioneers such as John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Allen Newell, and Herbert Simon were founding the field of artificial intelligence. In addition, Noam Chomsky rejected behaviorist assumptions about language as a learned habit and proposed instead to explain language comprehension in terms of mental grammars consisting of rules. The six thinkers mentioned in this paragraph can be viewed as the founders of cognitive science."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cogn ... ience/#His

Continued: "The central hypothesis of cognitive science is that thinking can best be understood in terms of representational structures in the mind and computational procedures that operate on those structures. While there is much disagreement about the nature of the representations and computations that constitute thinking, the central hypothesis is general enough to encompass the current range of thinking in cognitive science, including connectionist theories which model thinking using artificial neural networks. Most work in cognitive science assumes that the mind has mental representations analogous to computer data structures, and computational procedures similar to computational algorithms. Cognitive theorists have proposed that the mind contains such mental representations as logical propositions, rules, concepts, images, and analogies, and that it uses mental procedures such as deduction, search, matching, rotating, and retrieval. The dominant mind-computer analogy in cognitive science has taken on a novel twist from the use of another analog, the brain."

Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cogn ... ce/#RepCom

You're trying to act like you're only referring to behaviors, like a behaviorist. You're trying to avoid talking about "a mind" or "the mental" so you just try to stick to talking about behavior. But you constantly refer to perception, awareness, consciousness, ego, self, projection, thoughts, and states of mind that drive behavior. If you were even half-way consistent you would avoid ALL mental language like B.F. Skinner tried to do, but you don't. So you're just proving yourself to be full of shit over and over again. Your behaviorist tendencies leaves you unable to explain all sorts of behavior since you can't make any use of "mental representation" that subjects use to model their environment and act upon it. Take the Sally Anne Test for example:
Image


For a participant to pass this test, they must answer the Belief Question correctly by indicating that Sally believes that the marble is in her own basket. This answer is continuous with Sally's perspective, but not with the participant's own. If the participant cannot take an alternative perspective, they will indicate that Sally has cause to believe, as the participant does, that the marble has moved. Passing the test is thus seen as the manifestation of a participant understanding that Sally has her own beliefs that may not correlate with reality; this is the core requirement of theory of mind. If you pass the test then you have this mental representation of other minds, you can simulate in your mind what would happen if you took on Sally's perspective. If you don't pass this test you're probably autistic... so would you pass or are you literally autistic or something?

I'm done because I keep refuting you?


Your comprehension is shit. You're done because you admitted the view is comprehensible, and the view is of the self, therefore you just admitted the view of the self is comprehensible. So you've just admitted that you've been full of shit this whole time.

A view can be incorrect yes ?


First off, what the hell is "a view" according to you...? A view in this context, which is a noun so "muh verbs" won't help you, is essentially an idea, a thought, a concept. How can you make any sense of ideas, thoughts, or concepts, which again are all nouns not verbs, if you can't make any sense of the mental in any shape or form...? Are thoughts, ideas, concepts and the like non-mental...?

You do understand that simple fact ? Okay!


That's not possible unless you're admitting there's an I that understands, and we already established that understand is just another word for perceive, so if you're saying "Okay!" then you're saying okay to the fact that premise 1 is comprehensible and true since you're saying there is an I that perceives or at least that there is perception.

So, much like the judgements of admiration and respect, which upon being exposed as false the "I" gets hurt, the ego can also be but a construct of that which does all these things.


What is a judgment and what is a construct...? You're talking about ideas, concepts, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, all of which are mental in nature.

Furthermore, one can just think of itself-


Stop right there. So you're saying I can think of myself. Great! I see you trying to re-word the obvious but you got caught lol

the ego can also be but a construct of that which does all these things


So you're saying it's just an idea within the mind, which entails premise 1 being true since there is a mind that thinks and has constructs. You're bad at this skepticism bullshit haha
Last edited by Monistic Idealism on Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:32 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Well, this is getting repetitive. Says I.
Image
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:29 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

*SD* wrote:Well, this is getting repetitive. Says I.


I couldn't agree more. I keep saying we should move on to other premises or at least the form of the argument but momo is clearly not interested in progressing the discussion
Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:38 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 342Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
*SD* wrote:Well, this is getting repetitive. Says I.


I couldn't agree more. I keep saying we should move on to other premises or at least the form of the argument but momo is clearly not interested in progressing the discussion


And naturally you're going to pretend you are?! You are comical :)
Image
Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:39 pm
WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

And naturally you're going to pretend you are?!


There's no need to pretend, this a public forum so we can all publicly verify the many times I told momo that we should move on to other premises of the argument or at the least address the form of the argument. Momo refuses to every single time... I'm the one who wants to move the discussion forward, momo isn't.
Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:31 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3485Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:29 am
YIM WWW
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

How Close Are We to Downloading the Human Brain?


Still waiting for you to respond to my refutations
Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:09 am
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:This is just contradiction after contradiction. If there's no understanding of the word "I" or "self" then words like "me" and "you" have no meaning, yet here you are meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me... Momo, if you had absolutely 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form then it should be impossible for you to distinguish yourself from me. You should be confusing yourself and myself all the time, you should be totally confused about personal identity, yet here you are referring to me as if I'm a distinct person from you. How on earth are you possibly meaningfully distinguishing yourself from me if you have absolutely 0 understand of "me" or "you"????

That seems so to you only because you are ignorant as to what a contradiction is. You talk about me distinguishing myself from you, yet refuse to point out what those terms refer to. What distinguishes itself from what? You have no answer to that.
As for how can I use those terms without actually knowing what they ultimately refer to, that is actually quite simple. I could, for example, mean this collection of bones and flesh and what have you. I could mean "whatever does the noticing" and that would be fine too, and it would not be an explanation either. I could mean whatever object of my consciousness I can remove and yet persist, whatever "I am". All of those are perfectly reasonable answers and yet none of them would explain what exactly does the noticing and provide an explanation for that thing.

Yes actually you do, you have to identify that which is acting in the first place. Verbs don't exist on their own, it is nouns that engage in verbs. You're not merely talking about an act, you are identifying me as me. This is the law of identity, you logic denier... You're not merely talking about verbs, you're talking about nouns. You've referred to me as a person, as a "who" as a "you" and you have said that you "consider" that I am "insane", which is itself an identification of mind by your own admission. And even if you were just talking about verbs you're talking about mental verbs, which would still be an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental since you understand the verbs of the mental.

No, I actually don't. You are the one who asserts to understand what the "mind" is, not me. As such, you are the only one who has to identify what does the acting and then explain that thing. I am talking about an act and since all acts are what something does, we call that which does the noticing "the I". But I am not identifying "you as you"; because "you" is merely how we call that thing. And we could call it "chakra" or "mumbo jumbo" or "cabbage" and not a single thing would change. Whatever that thing is that "you" are, we call it the "I" but that does not actually imply we know what that thing is or we can explain it. Learn what the law of identity is, you logic denier.
Go on and quote me where I have identified that thing the term "mind" refers to. You won't because you're full of it and you know it. Also, mental verbs refer to actions that this thing we call "mind" does, which again does not tell us what that thing is.

Caught in a lie once again: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."

Says the guy who has been lying this whole time. You are still projecting. Although it is nice to see you finally quoting the full definition. Read carefully what it says. It says "prevents normal perception, behaviour, or social interaction". Those are what that thing we call "mind" does. But we don't actually have to know what the term "mind" refers to in order to recognize a mode of behavior. We can just mean that, whatever that thing is, is in such a state of affairs that it drives a certain behavior.

So by your own admission you understand what "in a state of mind" means since you admitted you understand what the word insane means.

You fail to see the obvious, yet again. Something has to be "in a state of mind", yet for some curious reason you are unable to point out what that thing is. On the other hand, I could just say that "a state of mind" is just whatever state of affairs that which drives behavior finds itself in. It would not identify what that thing is, or even explain it, yet it would allow me to use the phrase coherently. So yea, you are clueless.

Which just means you not only comprehend premise 1 but you affirm it as well: "I notice"

No, it does not. I've actually refuted this and you have yet to answer to those arguments, which means you either have no answer or you have conceded the point and now you are merely attempting to force yourself into believing a logical impossibility.

The fact that you're even using the word mind at all completely blows your cover. If you can't understand what "in a state of mind means" then you're telling me you don't understand your own definition of insane, and thus you can't possibly consider me to be insane. You shouldn't even be able to consider "me" in the first place if you don't understand what "I" or "me" means at all... It's just contradiction after contradiction...

Again, that appears so to you merely because you have a very poor grasp of logic. Which is the reason you never actually demonstrate your accusations and merely repeat them. I can consider you insane because insane is a mode of behavior and I don't need to know what drives a behavior to conclude that. And I can consider "you" because I can just refer to that thing that must drive this behavior. That because you are a logic denier, does not mean I am committing any contradictions.

On the contrary: by your own admission you comprehend perception, awareness, consciousness, which just means that you comprehend and affirm premise 1.

It's actually the other way around. Since whatever that thing is that the term "I' refers to in my claim remains unknown, equating said claim to your P1 necessarily means whatever that thing is that the term "mind" refers to remains unknown. What you are saying is also incoherent since noticing is what this "I" does, whereas you claim consciousness is just another word for noticing which implies consciousness is what this "I" does. But hey-ho, it's not like you can understand simple logic.

Actually that would be you, momo. Your own language betrays you: the mere fact that you identify me as me, and distinguish me from you, entails you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form. If you had absolutely 0 understanding you should be completely confused about this whole concept of "your nose" or "you", yet here you are proving you're full of shit... you're not convincing anyone here with your dishonest pseudo-skepticism...

That amount of projection is not healthy for you, please seek help. You talk about me distinguishing myself from you. Again, what distinguishes itself from what? How come this question causes you so many problems?
Your dishonest pseudo-understanding fools no one. To this day, you remain ignorant as to what "mind" is.

BOOM! Then you're telling me premise 1 is true. Consciousness exists, you just admitted it. Something is conscious. Great! Time to move on to other premises, unless you're too scared.

Something IS conscious. But, as per your claims, consciousness begins to be, so whatever that something is, cannot be consciousness. So what exactly is that thing that begins to be conscious? Who is the one scared here?
1. You're admitting consciousness exists, which means you're affirming premise 1. It's check mate, you can't get around this without contradicting yourself.

You still don't get it. If what I'm saying equals your P1, then it becomes logically necessary that consciousness is not fundamental. Consciousness cannot be both fundamental and not fundamental. Now, THAT would be an actual contradiction.
2. Idealists fully acknowledge that there are conscious agents that are contingent. Of course there are contingent beings that come into existence and so they begin to be conscious, but existence itself is necessary and is conscious and so never began to be conscious. Consciousness is indeed fundamental, but contingent beings like you and myself are not. This wouldn't be mind from non-mind it would be mind from mind.

There is so much wrong here. Allow me to shed some light.
i)You are committing a fallacy of equivocation. Consciousness in your P1 is something that begins to be and as per your other claims it is an ability. An ability is not an actuality. The only way an ability becomes an actuality is when that thing which possesses it acts to bring forth said ability. That is why consciousness "begins to be", because there is a time when that thing is not conscious.
As such, if whatever that thing is that is conscious, never began to be conscious; then that means it is not conscious for the only way for it to be conscious is to act upon an ability and begin to be conscious. Worse. You can not even say that thing has always been conscious for that would imply consciousness is not an ability which is a contradiction, as per your other claims.
Whatever "consciousness" is in your P1, that's it. You can't add or subtract qualities from it. As per your own claims, consciousness is a potential. Your magical powers can't turn it into an actual.

ii)You are committing a category error here. As per your claims, consciousness is an ability and as such a potential. But if that which is conscious never began to be as such, then consciousness would be an actual and not a potential.

iii) "They" (the contingent beings) can not begin to be conscious because "I=consciousness" remember ? "They" literally don't exist to begin to be anything. So you are left with saying either that nothing begins to be conscious or that consciousness begins to be conscious, which is incoherent.

iv) The existence of what is necessary? You say it yourself "existence itself is necessary and is conscious". Something is conscious, but what is that thing? It can't be consciousness because after all, you've said consciousness is an ability.

v)Explain how this "mind from mind" would actually work. Even when ignoring the simple fact that you still can't specify that thing to which the term "mind" refers to, you still have to explain how that would work. Is it magic ? Does the mere fact that you say "mind from mind" changes reality in some fundamental way ?
Yes actually it is, logic denier: Either you understand absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form or you understand mental states and perception and mental health. This boils down to either you don't understand or you do understand. Pick your poison, but of course we all know you're too cowardly to pick one...

You are the one who constantly runs from my arguments. So projecting your cowardice on me is just funny. Your dichotomy is a false one, logic denier. Noticing is what this I does, not what this I is. As such "what this I is has not been explained" is not a negation of "an I that notices". What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is. And given your cowardice in answering that inquiry, it is obvious why that question scares you so much.
And you just understood this sentence you're saying here? Great! So then you can comprehend this "I" that thinks. Descartes would be so proud of you! The funny thing is you can't possibly negate this without saying things like "I don't think" lmao the moment you admit that you think is the moment you admit, yet again, that premise 1 is true.

Correction. You believe I admit P1 is true. But given your refusal to demonstrate that belief, we can safely assume you are simply confused. Thinking is what this "I" does. But we don't actually comprehend this "I" because we don't know what it is or have an explanation of it. We just know something must do the thinking, not what that something is. Again, not like you to understand simple logic.
Then you're admitting you can't comprehend what "I notice" means but that contradicts your claim that "I notice". Absolute fail.

It just means that something not identified and not explained does the noticing. Absolute fail. Pick up a logic book and learn what a contradiction is.
So then the mental is real and you comprehend this idea of being in a state of mind, so you have at least some understanding of mind. Got it.

Some thing is real, to which we refer to using the term "mind". That does not actually imply we know what that thing is. Do you get that ?
Also, you seem to be affirming premise 3 of my argument without you even knowing it. Notice how you're not saying it is the brain or the nervous system that drives behavior. You're not reducing the cause of behavior to the body, you're saying what drives behavior is this irreducible "something" that you label as "mental". Wow, you've already affirmed 3 whole premises of my argument so far, you're already on the path to becoming an idealist lol

More like you are on the path of giving up your incoherent ideology. First, I did not assert whatever thing drives this behavior is irreducible. Second, it is literally impossible for me to equate that which drives this behavior with the brain or the nervous system because that thing has not been specified. Until you tell me what that thing is, I can not possibly say if it is the brain or not. No wonder you adhere to this pathetic ideology with that poor grasp of logic.
Furthermore, P3 is in direct contradiction with P1. The joke you call a "case" is literally self-refuting.
It's fairly obvious for anyone with a proper understanding of logic that there is an "I" that we comprehend perfectly fine, even 18-month old children grasp it... Anyone who knows about contemporary psychology knows your behaviorism is dead. Do you really not know about cognitive psychology? Do you really not know about the cognitive revolution and how behaviorism completely fails to explain all sorts of human behavior??

Gliding over the fact that your rambling does not address the fact that a behavior can be understood without understanding what drives that behavior, we do not actually comprehend the "I". You don't know what this "I" is remember ? To this day you are impotent at pointing out what it is, let alone explain it. The only thing that has been understood perfectly fine is that your ideology is self-refuting and incoherent.
Again. I did not advance behaviorism. Yes. I do konw about cognitive psychology. Make an effort and read my comments before responding to them.
If that's true, which contradicts your other statements, then you can't comprehend what insane means. If you don't understand what "in a state of mind" means then by your own admission you can't understand the word "insane" and thus you can't consider me to be insane or yourself sane for that matter. You can't consider yourself sane if you can't even consider yourself in the first place...

I don't need to. By "state of mind" one could just mean whatever state of affairs drives a certain behavior. That would not explain the mind and would still allow us to use the concept of "insane" perfectly fine. And by "myself" I could just mean "whatever that thing is that notices" and that would again not explain this "I". So no, no contradiction.
The mind. Well that was easy.

Really easy. Easy at showing how clueless you are. The "mind" is a term yes ? That term supposedly refers to that thing which posseses that ability and drives that behavior. I did not ask you to tell me how you call it, that is easy since we could call it "chakra" if we wanted to. I asked you to tell me what that thing is that possesses said ability and drives said behavior. Again, what that thing IS, not how you CALL it.
Also, an ability can not posses an ability, logic denier.
The irony in this statement is incredible hahah like """""I""""" said, the obvious escapes """""you""""" lol you're the one who is missing the obvious. You're the one who is missing that which an 18-month old child grasps. You clearly understand the "I", you're using it right now to distinguish yourself from me momo...

What distinguishes itself from what ? And cue the silence...
I did not miss your attempt at being clever. In fact, I was fairly sure you were going to say something along those lines. It still does not change the fact that the obvious escapes you and that can be said without knowing what this "I" is.
It says right there that perception is a noun, and even if we play your game of verbs you're still saying there is perception, that there is awareness, that there is consciousness. Which just means premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Irrelevant. It references a potential, which you've equated to an action and you further equated to consciousness. Understand this. If your P1 equals what I've said, then idealism is necessarily false.
The irony is too much lmao try talking to me without any first-person pronouns or any reference to any "who" or "you" or "me" or "I" or "self" or anything like that. Go ahead, I dare you momo... Give it a shot. See if you can have a meanginful discussion with me without using any first-person language or referring to a "me" that is distinct from "you"...

Why would I need to do that ? Is there some magical mojo to these words or what ? They are simply how we CALL something not explained. What about that is supposed to bother me ?
Are you so stupid that you can't see how much you keep contradicting yourself? You keep saying shit like "I perceive" and "I am conscious" and "I am aware" and "I think" yet you want to pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of premise 1... You just keep shooting yourself in the foot, you keep contradicting yourself. You shouldn't be able to identify "me" or identify yourself as this "I" that "thinks" and "considers" and "notices" if you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form...

No, but you are considering you've admitted idealism is necessarily false. I did not identify this "I". Again, get this simple fact if you can. That is how we CALL it. So whatever does all those things, we CALL it "myself" or "me" or "I". But that does not tell us what it is.
I have not only defined my terms but have caught you admitting over and over again that you understand. You just can't bring yourself to admit this, you just keep contradicting yourself over and over.

You have never actually defined your terms. You still can't tell what the term "mind" refers to. When you realized how incoherent your attempts were, you gave up. You can't even bring yourself to address my arguments and you just keep contradicting yourself over and over, while asserting I am contradicting myself without actually demonstrating that baseless assertion.
And you also consistently ignore my point about the distinction between knowledge by description vs. knowledge by acquaintance.

This is a bare faced lie. I have at every turn responded to that point and in return you did not even address my counter-arguments. So for you to throw that accusation is just ridiculous.
Knowledge of the "I" isn't by description, it's by acquaintance. It's not like me giving you a description will give you knowledge you didn't already have, the self is known directly and immediately, independent of any description. A subject can be completely non-verbal and lack any ability to describe anything at all, but that doesn't entail that they have no knowledge of the self.

To which I've responded with a simple point. What does the knowing ?
The subject would still be directly aware of the self and have knowledge of the self. So there's a fundamental equivocation in what your pseudo-skepticism: you're assuming a lack of a description (which there isn't by the way) is a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding. That's simply an equivocation, knowing something and describing something are 2 completely different things.

If there is not a lack of description, then why do you refuse to provide it ? Furthermore, I have commited no such equivocation. I've asked you what does the knowing. To that, you had no answer. I think we both know why that is so.
So you're just going to pretend the 20th century just didn't happen...? Behaviorism wasn't overthrown by the cognitive revolution in psychology? Please explain to me how behaviorism is better than cognitive psychology. Please explain to me how you can account for language and all these complex behaviors we see purely through reference to behavioral principles... burden of proof is on you.

Again. What are you babbling about ? I did not advance behaviorism. Take your meds !
I don't recall saying it was, but even if I did all that's being said here is that one is taking one's own thoughts and feelings and attributing them to someone else. According to your dishonest pseudo-skepticism, things like thoughts and feelings, let alone someone else having them, should be 100% incomprehensible to you. Yet here you are going on and on about how there are minds, feelings, thoughts, that we "project" onto other minds... you're so full of shit momo...

You did. According to me, I call whatever drives this behavior "I" and whatever drives your behavior "you". You have made a series of claims that are best suited to describe you. Again, no need to know what you are fundamentally. Just that, whatever you are, is behaving in a certain manner.
1. You're telling me you understand mental properties. That the mental possesses qualities of sorts. You want to try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet here you are talking about mental properties... Momo, you clearly have some understanding of some of the mental. Even if you don't understand the mental in of itself, which we all know you do, you at least understand properties of the mental by your own admission. So there's some understanding.

I understand a property, not what possesses that property. Were we to call the mind "chakra", it would be equally valid to say we understand chakra properties. Without pointing out what the term "mind" refers to, saying these properties are "mental" tells us next to nothing.
2. Yes actually you do. You're identifying it as "mind" or "mental". You're not just saying it's some unknown thing, you're identifying it, law of identity, and you're betraying your behaviorism by referring to some internal mental states that one projects onto another. By your own behaviorism you should just be talking about behavior, yet here you are talking about thoughts and ideas that are in the mind that one throws out onto other minds. You just keep contradicting yourself over and over

I am not identifying it. That is how we CALL it. I don't know what it is for me to identify it. It is an unknown thing that drives certain behaviors.
I am talking about actions, not about what performs said actions. That is not a contradiction.
And no, behaviorism is not something I have advanced.
You're not realizing that you just landed right back where you started. All you did was re-state the very same contradictory sentence as before: you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well. By your own dishonest pseudo-skepticism that should not be possible. You shouldn't be talking about "projection" you should just be talking about some external behavior like Skinner rather than internal thought processes like Freud.

It shouldn't be possible to talk about behavior without understanding what drives said behavior ? Why ? Because the law of identity and basic logic escapes you? I need not know what you are in order to conclude whatever you accuse me of, is best suited to describe you. What exactly about that is so hard to understand ?
Consciousness is mental, of course. I never said consciousness is a property of consciousness, learn to read dude.

You didn't ? Curious thing. Then what is this: "the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties" ?
omg you're such a noob...

The irony of this accusation is just soo good. Did you not notice right after that I've said "Where have I advanced that idea exactly?" ? It's not that I don't know what the term stands for, but that I have no idea what you are babbling about when it comes to it in relation to me.
You're trying to act like you're only referring to behaviors, like a behaviorist. You're trying to avoid talking about "a mind" or "the mental" so you just try to stick to talking about behavior. But you constantly refer to perception, awareness, consciousness, ego, self, projection, thoughts, and states of mind that drive behavior. If you were even half-way consistent you would avoid ALL mental language like B.F. Skinner tried to do, but you don't. So you're just proving yourself to be full of shit over and over again. Your behaviorist tendencies leaves you unable to explain all sorts of behavior since you can't make any use of "mental representation" that subjects use to model their environment and act upon it.

What are you talking about ? Why would I avoid the mental ? Do you think there is some magical mojo with that word or what ? I don't care how you call that which does the noticing. I want to know what it is. Were we to call it "chakra" would I have to avoid talking about "a chakra" or "the chakra" ? No. What a ridiculous thing to say.
You are the one who has said something begins to be conscious. That is a behavior. That is what something does.
Again, I don't care about your behaviorism babble.
...are you literally autistic or something?

No, but you might be.
Your comprehension is shit. You're done because you admitted the view is comprehensible, and the view is of the self, therefore you just admitted the view of the self is comprehensible. So you've just admitted that you've been full of shit this whole time.

Says the child who can't comprehend basic logic. What is comprehensible is the view, but that view could mean any number of things, such as "the I is something unknown and not explained".
First off, what the hell is "a view" according to you...? A view in this context, which is a noun so "muh verbs" won't help you, is essentially an idea, a thought, a concept. How can you make any sense of ideas, thoughts, or concepts, which again are all nouns not verbs, if you can't make any sense of the mental in any shape or form...? Are thoughts, ideas, concepts and the like non-mental...?

A view is just how we think a state of affairs is. That might be right, or it might be wrong. It depends. Ideas,like all thoughts, begin to be. So I would say they are something that "mind" does.
That's not possible unless you're admitting there's an I that understands, and we already established that understand is just another word for perceive

And the "I" is merely a term that refers to something that understands. And we already established you don't know what that something is.
What is a judgment and what is a construct...? You're talking about ideas, concepts, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, all of which are mental in nature.

A judgment would be how you think a particular state of affairs is. A construct in this context is some sort of avatar. How that which does the noticing think it is. Saying ideas are mental in nature tells us nothing because again "mental" is but a term. Were we to call the mind "chakra" those things would be "chakra in nature".
Stop right there. So you're saying I can think of myself. Great! I see you trying to re-word the obvious but you got caught lol

I am not trying anything. I am stating a fact. And no, we won't stop at your ad-hoc nonsense. You (which is but a term) can think of yourself. But what do you think ? Well you might think you are "something that remains unknown and not explained".
So you're saying it's just an idea within the mind, which entails premise 1 being true since there is a mind that thinks and has constructs. You're bad at this skepticism bullshit haha

You really are clueless to the obvious. "Mind" is a term that is supposed to refer to something that does the thinking. We could call that thing "cabbage" and it would be equally valid to say "there is a cabbage that thinks and has constructs". The obvious. Do you see it ? What is that thing ?
Again. What is it. Not how you call it.
Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:03 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Notice how you completely failed to meet my challenge of talking to me without using first-person pronouns? lol you just can't do it, and you know you can't do it, because the very words you use are dependent upon an understanding of the first-person perspective. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with me without resorting to the first-person perspective, and since that perspective exists then you're saying premise 1 is true.

You talk about me distinguishing myself from you, yet refuse to point out what those terms refer to.


You're the one who is literally pointing out what those terms refer to. You are referring to yourself as momo and you are referring to me as Monistic Idealism and you are saying there is a meaningful distinction between us two since you identify yourself as distinct from me. So you're just proving you're full of shit over and over again. You cannot pretend like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self, or what it refers to, if you can meaningfully distinguish yourself from me, which you are in fact doing...

I could, for example, mean this collection of bones and flesh and what have you.


Then you would be saying you have some understanding of the "I" or "self" in some shape or form since you identify it with the collection of bones and flesh. You would just be another physicalist like everybody else in here.

I could mean "whatever does the noticing" and that would be fine too, and it would not be an explanation either.


Yes actually it would, don't forget about the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance as well. You can be acquainted with something without having a description for it. Don't forget: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

Image


I could mean whatever object of my consciousness I can remove and yet persist, whatever "I am".


This would be an admission that you understand the term "consciousness" and that consciousness exists and thus admitting premise 1 is true.

Yes actually you do, you have to identify that which is acting in the first place. Verbs don't exist on their own, it is nouns that engage in verbs. You're not merely talking about an act, you are identifying me as me. This is the law of identity, you logic denier... You're not merely talking about verbs, you're talking about nouns. You've referred to me as a person, as a "who" as a "you" and you have said that you "consider" that I am "insane", which is itself an identification of mind by your own admission. And even if you were just talking about verbs you're talking about mental verbs, which would still be an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental since you understand the verbs of the mental.


No, I actually don't.


Yes you actually do. Verbs don't just float out in existence attached to nothing. You don't go out in the world and see "jumping" or "jump", rather you see an organism that jumps. You notice it is a rabbit that is jumping, you don't just see the verb "jump" just hanging out in nature... You're the one who literally asserted that you consider me to be insane which you can't understand without understanding mind since mind is in the very definition of insane and you admitted that you understand these mental verbs which is still an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form since you grasp verbs of the mental. That's a form of the mental, namely the actions of the mental. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and true.

Caught in a lie once again: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."


You are still projecting.


You literally can't make sense of projection with your pseudo-skepticism if you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form.

You fail to see the obvious, yet again.


You're the one who literally stated that you understand what "in a state of mind" means. You can't claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form if you understand what "in a state of mind" means. That's a shape or form of mind, namely the state of mind. Just cut the bullshit and admit you're a reductionist already, your pseudo-skepticism is convincing nobody.

On the other hand, I could just say that "a state of mind" is just whatever state of affairs that which drives behavior finds itself in.


And you are identifying these state of affairs with what? The brain or some other bodily function? Is the brain responsible for behavior or not? If so, you're just another reductionist instead of this skeptic you pretend to be. If not, then you're not a reductionist and you're with me on premise 3. You are either reducing or not reducing. If you reduce, your skepticism evaporates, if you don't reduce then you're with me. You're cornered...

No, it does not. I've actually refuted this and you have yet to answer to those arguments, which means you either have no answer or you have conceded the point and now you are merely attempting to force yourself into believing a logical impossibility.


I just gave you an argument, you merely repeated the assertion I already refuted.

The fact that you're even using the word mind at all completely blows your cover. If you can't understand what "in a state of mind means" then you're telling me you don't understand your own definition of insane, and thus you can't possibly consider me to be insane. You shouldn't even be able to consider "me" in the first place if you don't understand what "I" or "me" means at all... It's just contradiction after contradiction...


I can consider you insane because insane is a mode of behavior


I keep catching you in this lie and I keep having to throw your own definition right back in your face: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."

You didn't just say insane is "a mode of behavior" you liar, you literally said that its IN A STATE OF MIND that is preventing normal PERCEPTION as well as behavior or social interaction, and even threw in MENTALLY ill. If you can't comprehend the word mental then by logical necessity you can't comprehend mental illness. If you can't comprehend perception or states of mind then you can't comprehend what insane means.

And I can consider "you" because I can just refer to that thing that must drive this behavior.


Then that is still some understanding of "you" in some shape or form as you are meaningfully distinguishing this "you" from yourself. You think you are you, and that I am distinct from you. That's still a shape or form of understanding, you're not completely confused as to what these words mean, you have some grasp of it and you're confident enough to even use these words yourself.

On the contrary: by your own admission you comprehend perception, awareness, consciousness, which just means that you comprehend and affirm premise 1.


It's actually the other way around.


Sorry but logic doesn't work that way. You comprehend and affirm the existence of perception, awareness, consciousness etc. which is literally an admission that you comprehend and affirm premise 1.

You talk about me distinguishing myself from you. Again, what distinguishes itself from what?


You're the one who is literally admitting there is a distinction between me and you, which is also literally an identification of yourself. So you have identified the self and comprehend it enough to grasp that this self is different from me. So that is an understanding of the self in some shape or form.

Something IS conscious.


Yeah, which is you admitting that consciousness exists. You're literally admitting that you comprehend and affirm premise 1 right now.

consciousness begins to be, so whatever that something is, cannot be consciousness.


MY consciousness begins to be, but that doesn't mean consciousness begins to be. As I noted all the way in the OP, I am what's called a Cosmic Idealist (see the paper I referenced for more info) so I believe there is a single cosmic mind that exists necessarily and all contingent minds are grounded in this cosmic mind. So there's the mental at the fundamental level and all other phenomenon are mental in nature as they weakly emerge from this mental base. So my contingent consciousness comes from a necessary consciousness, so it's just mental-mental interaction instead of non-mental-mental interaction.

i)You are committing a fallacy of equivocation.


No, you just failed to grasp what I noted all the way in the OP that I believe there is a single cosmic mind that grounds all of existence and so any mind that begins to be is grounded in this single cosmic mind so consciousness itself didn't begin to be, only contingent beings began to be.

As such, if whatever that thing is that is conscious, never began to be conscious; then that means it is not conscious for the only way for it to be conscious is to act upon an ability and begin to be conscious.


This literally makes no sense. You need to make your claim coherent and give actual support for it.

You can not even say that thing has always been conscious for that would imply consciousness is not an ability which is a contradiction, as per your other claims.


I never said it was an ability, and even in the dictionary it's not defined as such. The cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is so powerful that your mind is generating hallucinations to help you reconcile these contradictions in your thoughts lol

"They" (the contingent beings) can not begin to be conscious because "I=consciousness" remember ?


This doesn't follow logically at all. Your inference is simply invalid. From the statement "I=consciousness" it does not logically follow that contingent beings cannot begin to be conscious.

Explain how this "mind from mind" would actually work.


This is a topic I was going to address in a new thread when I actually give the case for cosmic idealism, and I noted in the OP I was going to deal with cosmic idealism in a new thread. This is a much deeper conversation that deserves its own thread (much like a deeper analysis of the self) and can only be had after one can at least charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case is made from prior commitments to idealism. If you can't wait for that, then check out the paper from David Chalmers I cited in the OP on Cosmic Idealism, he goes over it a bit there.

Yes actually it is, logic denier: Either you understand absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form or you understand mental states and perception and mental health. This boils down to either you don't understand or you do understand. Pick your poison, but of course we all know you're too cowardly to pick one...


Your dichotomy is a false one, logic denier.


Then you're literally saying "you understand or you don't understand" is a false dichotomy, which is literally a denial of the law of excluded middle... you're a literal logic denier...

Noticing is what this I does, not what this I is.


Notice is defined as a noun, but even if you want to define it as a verb you're still admitting that you grasp the mental in some shape or form since you're admitting you grasp mental verbs. There can't be mental verbs without the mental existing, so you're just saying premise 1 is true.

What we, not merely I, don't understand is what this I is.


Now THIS is projection. You're the only one who is disingenuously acting like they have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about in any shape or form. Everybody else, including leading philosophers from around the globe, understand me just fine. This is a person problem, momo. The problem is you, the problem is your own lack of comprehension and/or you dishonesty. The fact of the matter is, I have already caught you admitting you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form as I have laid out many times in this comment already and in previous ones.

And you just understood this sentence you're saying here? Great! So then you can comprehend this "I" that thinks. Descartes would be so proud of you! The funny thing is you can't possibly negate this without saying things like "I don't think" lmao the moment you admit that you think is the moment you admit, yet again, that premise 1 is true.


Correction. You believe I admit P1 is true.


You're the one who literally admitted there is an I that thinks. You're no different than Descartes lol I think, I am.

But we don't actually comprehend this "I" because we don't know what it is or have an explanation of it


This very statement already presupposes an understanding of "I" as it starts off with an identification of this "we" so you're just refuting your own skepticism. Again, you're equivocating on having an explanation/description for something
with knowing it. It is possible to know something without being able to describe it or explain it, stop with your fallacious equivocation and learn the difference between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance.

It just means that something not identified and not explained does the noticing.


But you have identified it as "I". You going to deny the law of identity too? lol

Some thing is real


And you have identified this something as mind or the mental, which means mind/mental exists, which means premise 1 is true by your own admission. Great! Law of identity, do you get that...?

First, I did not assert whatever thing drives this behavior is irreducible.


What I said what that you're not reducing that which drives behavior, and this is fact. You are literally not trying to say that the brain or the nervous system drives behavior, but rather you are identifying that which drives behavior as "mind" and you are not identifying this mind with the brain and nervous system. So then you would not be a reductionist which means you're with me :)

Second, it is literally impossible for me to equate that which drives this behavior with the brain or the nervous system because that thing has not been specified.


Yes it has, you even identified it as mind haha

Furthermore, P3 is in direct contradiction with P1.


How?? You're just stating this with 0 support. Claiming that mind exists and that mind cannot be reduced is not contradictory at all.

Gliding over the fact that your rambling does not address the fact that a behavior can be understood without understanding what drives that behavior, we do not actually comprehend the "I".


You're completely missing the point: it's about EXPLAINING behavior, and behaviorism fails at this. Cognitive psychology has proven itself superior over behaviorism, and cognitive psychology champions the notion of a mind that models reality through representations and thoughts and so forth. We all comprehend the "I" just fine, and use such terminology in our scientific research all the time. Again, learn a thing or two about cognitive psychology. If you're with contemporary science, and you're not some science denier, then you should be siding with cognitive psychologists.

Again. I did not advance behaviorism. Yes. I do konw about cognitive psychology. Make an effort and read my comments before responding to them.


I read, you just don't comprehend the commitments your statements lead to.

I don't need to


Yes you literally do. If you don't understand the very words in your own definition then by logical necessity that entails you can't understand your own definition. If you don't understand the term "state of mind" then you don't understand your own definition.

By "state of mind" one could just mean whatever state of affairs drives a certain behavior.


And that would entail at least some understanding of mind in some shape or form since you are admitting you understand that states of mind drives behavior. You grasp what the mind does, so that is some understanding of mind in some shape or form. Again, if you're not reducing "states of mind" to the brain and the nervous system and such then you're with me on P3 and anti-reductionism.

And by "myself" I could just mean "whatever that thing is that notices"


Then that is at least some understanding of "myself" in some shape or form as you grasp that it exists in the first place and that this I notices.

I did not ask you to tell me how you call it, that is easy since we could call it "chakra" if we wanted to.


No we couldn't actually since chakra has a set definition already and is not synonymous with mind. Absolute fail

Again, what that thing IS, not how you CALL it.


I defined mind all the way back in the OP, and have caught you admitting time and again admitting that you have at least some understanding of mind in some shape or form, even if it's just verbs of the mind. There can't be verbs of the mind unless mind exists, which means premise 1 is true by your own admission.

What distinguishes itself from what ? And cue the silence...


You're the one who is literally distinguishing yourself from me, you're doing it right now... and cue the silence...

In fact, I was fairly sure you were going to say something along those lines


I'm pretty sure you know that everybody is going to say this to you since you're using the very terms that you pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of... If you've had this conversation with people other than me, then you know I'm not alone in saying that you're just flat out contradicting yourself... You say things like "I don't understand what "I" means, but that's already an admission that you understand that there is "I" that can understand/not understand. You presuppose an understanding that you pretend you don't have...

Irrelevant.


LMAO! Nice try, you can't admit that there is perception while admitting premise 1 is not true. This is the total opposite of irrelevant

Why would I need to do that ?


Because you're the one trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the first-person or the self or the I in any shape or form, yet you can't even so much as speak to me without already presupposing an understanding of the first-person and using such terminology. Your pseudo-skepticism can't even get off the ground

No


Way to fail to give a rebuttal, momo...

I did not identify this "I".


Yes you did, you did it just now! hahah You are saying that you are momo, that you are you, and you are the one who said x,y,z as if it wasn't me who said x,y,z. You are distinguishing yourself from me, you are identifying yourself as distinct from me and the words on the screen etc.

You have never actually defined your terms


Yeah actually I did, all the way back in the OP and everybody but you understands me just fine. I've even linked several scholarly sources for more understanding. This is just your pseudo-skepticism/dishonesty at play.

This is a bare faced lie.


This is not a lie at all. You constantly equate "not being able to explain/not being able to describe" with "not knowing/not understanding". Even if I had no words to type out to describe/explain the I, which I have, that does not entail that I do not know/do not understand. To say otherwise is to equivocate on your part.

Knowledge of the "I" isn't by description, it's by acquaintance. It's not like me giving you a description will give you knowledge you didn't already have, the self is known directly and immediately, independent of any description. A subject can be completely non-verbal and lack any ability to describe anything at all, but that doesn't entail that they have no knowledge of the self.


To which I've responded with a simple point. What does the knowing ?


I've already responded to this, you just keep repeating yourself over and over:
1. the self is what does the knowing, you admit this yourself when you say things like "I know x,y,z"
2. even if I couldn't tell you what does the knowing that doesn't mean there is no knowing of what does the knowing. You're equivocating "being able to describe" with "knowing/understanding". They're not the same thing, stop equivocating and learn the difference between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance.

If there is not a lack of description, then why do you refuse to provide it ?


1. I have provided it, many times now
2. stop equivocating. describing something and knowing something are 2 completely different things.

Again. What are you babbling about ?


Do you or do you not see how cognitive psychology is better than behaviorism? If you grasp the superiority of cognitive psychology, which is an experimentally demonstrable scientific fact, then you grasp that this notion of a mind that has representations is not only comprehensible in the terms cognitive scientists have defined them as, but that the scientific evidence is in favor of there being this mind that has representations. So are you a science denier or something too...?

You did.


I don't recall saying it was, you'll have to prove your claim.

According to me, I call whatever drives this behavior "I" and whatever drives your behavior "you".


1. Then the word "I" is comprehensible to you since understand what "whatever drives this behavior" mean. So you do understand the word "I".
2. You're completely missing the point about projection. Projection isn't about behaviors that we observe bodies perform, projection is about attributing thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs onto other minds. If you can't comprehend any of that stuff then you can't comprehend projection.
3. Notice how you said we don't need to know FUNDAMENTALLY what the I is. That's fine, we don't need to know fundamentally what existence is to understand what an object is. Maybe there is a more fundamental question about the nature of the "I" that needs to be explored (perhaps in a new thread since its a topic of study in its own right) but that doesn't mean there is 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form.

1. You're telling me you understand mental properties. That the mental possesses qualities of sorts. You want to try to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form yet here you are talking about mental properties... Momo, you clearly have some understanding of some of the mental. Even if you don't understand the mental in of itself, which we all know you do, you at least understand properties of the mental by your own admission. So there's some understanding.


I understand a property


You said you understand mental properties, which is an understanding of the mental in some shape or form as that is an understanding of the properties of the mental.

2. Yes actually you do. You're identifying it as "mind" or "mental". You're not just saying it's some unknown thing, you're identifying it, law of identity, and you're betraying your behaviorism by referring to some internal mental states that one projects onto another. By your own behaviorism you should just be talking about behavior, yet here you are talking about thoughts and ideas that are in the mind that one throws out onto other minds. You just keep contradicting yourself over and over


I am not identifying it. That is how we CALL it.


That is identity my friend, A=A. Apple=Apple, Tree=Tree, I=I, mind=mind

""""""I"""""" don't know what it is for me to identify it.


You're literally identifying yourself right now...

You're not realizing that you just landed right back where you started. All you did was re-state the very same contradictory sentence as before: you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well. By your own dishonest pseudo-skepticism that should not be possible. You shouldn't be talking about "projection" you should just be talking about some external behavior like Skinner rather than internal thought processes like Freud.


It shouldn't be possible to talk about behavior without understanding what drives said behavior ? Why ?


Wow, you suck at reading... I specifically said "you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well." end quote. You can't tell me that you understanding absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form while admitting that you comprehend thoughts, feelings, ideas, and complex mental phenomenon like projection and so forth. Learn to read

You didn't ? Curious thing. Then what is this: "the very fact that you just keep talking over and over about consciousness, awareness, perception, ego, self, projection, and all these other mental properties" ?


And nowhere am I saying consciousness is a property of consciousness, learn to read and learn to how not straw man.

You're trying to act like you're only referring to behaviors, like a behaviorist. You're trying to avoid talking about "a mind" or "the mental" so you just try to stick to talking about behavior. But you constantly refer to perception, awareness, consciousness, ego, self, projection, thoughts, and states of mind that drive behavior. If you were even half-way consistent you would avoid ALL mental language like B.F. Skinner tried to do, but you don't. So you're just proving yourself to be full of shit over and over again. Your behaviorist tendencies leaves you unable to explain all sorts of behavior since you can't make any use of "mental representation" that subjects use to model their environment and act upon it.


What are you talking about ? Why would I avoid the mental ?


Because you're trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form. If you were actually being consistent on this then you would stick strictly to behavior and talks about the brain and the nervous system, but you're clearly failing at doing this by your constant reference to perception, awareness, consciousness, ego, self, projection, thoughts, and states of mind that drive behavior etc.

Do you think there is some magical mojo with that word or what ?


It's called the law of identity. Maybe you'd know that if you weren't a total noob when it comes to logic

No, but you might be.


Notice how you completely dodged my question like a total coward lmao answer the question about the sally-anne test...

Your comprehension is shit. You're done because you admitted the view is comprehensible, and the view is of the self, therefore you just admitted the view of the self is comprehensible. So you've just admitted that you've been full of shit this whole time.


What is comprehensible is the view


And the view is of the self, which means you comprehend the view of the self. Check mate.

First off, what the hell is "a view" according to you...? A view in this context, which is a noun so "muh verbs" won't help you, is essentially an idea, a thought, a concept. How can you make any sense of ideas, thoughts, or concepts, which again are all nouns not verbs, if you can't make any sense of the mental in any shape or form...? Are thoughts, ideas, concepts and the like non-mental...?


A view is just how we think a state of affairs is. That might be right, or it might be wrong. It depends. Ideas,like all thoughts, begin to be. So I would say they are something that "mind" does.


So you're saying that mind exists, and that there are thoughts and ideas. This is just an admission that premise 1 is true, that there is the mental.

And the "I" is merely a term that refers to something that understands


No it's not merely a term, that term refers to something (or rather someone) that actually exists, and I've explained that this "I" is grasped in first-person and is known directly, immediately, and independently of any description. Again, don't equivocate description with understanding. I'm going to call you out on that bullshit every time, so don't think you're going to get away with it...

What is a judgment and what is a construct...? You're talking about ideas, concepts, thoughts, beliefs, feelings, attitudes, all of which are mental in nature.


A judgment would be how you think a particular state of affairs is. A construct in this context is some sort of avatar. How that which does the noticing think it is. Saying ideas are mental in nature tells us nothing because again "mental" is but a term.


So there is a you that exists by your own admission, and you clearly understand this as you just affirmed this righ tnow, and you affirm that there are thoughts, that one thinks. So premise 1 is true by your own admission. Great

I am stating a fact.


Then you're saying I can think of myself is a fact.

You (which is but a term) can think of yourself.


It is not "but a term", there really is an "I" that has perceptions and has thoughts. You acknowledge this all the time with your use of first-person pronouns and the affirmation that you understand that you are distinct from me and actually exist.

"Mind" is a term that is supposed to refer to something that does the thinking.


And that something exists, and we call it mind, so mind exists by your own admission. So premise 1 is true.

We could call that thing "cabbage" and it would be equally valid to say "there is a cabbage that thinks and has constructs".


No we can't actually since cabbage is already defined and is not synonymous with mind:
Image


The obvious... Do YOU see it...?
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:14 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:Notice how you completely failed to meet my challenge of talking to me without using first-person pronouns? lol you just can't do it, and you know you can't do it, because the very words you use are dependent upon an understanding of the first-person perspective. You can't have a meaningful dialogue with me without resorting to the first-person perspective, and since that perspective exists then you're saying premise 1 is true.

It is not that I did not meet your challenge. Rather, it is that I completely reject the underlying assumptions your challenge is based upon. For one, I am not even sure a perspective can be other than first-person, if we are to discuss this word in the context of this debate. But the main point is that this "first-person" is but a phenomena we refer to using these first-person pronouns. What this phenomena is remains unknown, just as an understanding of it remains unknown. You are still operating under the delusion that I deny this phenomena exists. What you are supposed to tell us is what this "I" is and then explain it. The terms "you", "I" and "person" are not magical you know ? Simply using them does not automatically grant us an understanding of the phenomena they refer to.
It's like saying that simply using the term "dark matter" implies I have an understanding of the missing gravity that our calculations reveal. No! Rather, we observe a phenomenon and we call that unknown thing which gives rise to it "dark matter". But me using that term does not imply I have an explanation for that phenomena, just that I call whatever is doing that a certain way.

You're the one who is literally pointing out what those terms refer to. You are referring to yourself as momo and you are referring to me as Monistic Idealism and you are saying there is a meaningful distinction between us two since you identify yourself as distinct from me. So you're just proving you're full of shit over and over again. You cannot pretend like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the self, or what it refers to, if you can meaningfully distinguish yourself from me, which you are in fact doing...

This is just wrong. Nowhere did I point out what this "I" is, neither did you. An internet profile is not this "I", so distinguishing between two of such profiles has nothing to do with this discussion to begin with. Again, you assert I identify myself as distinct from you, yet that merely employs the same terms without actually explaining what they refer to. What distinguishes itself from what ? Me from you ? Those are terms. Tell me what they refer to. So you are yet again the one who is full of shit. At every point you refuse to answer this simple inquiry and the reason is obvious. You don't know. Why is that so hard to admit ?

Then you would be saying you have some understanding of the "I" or "self" in some shape or form since you identify it with the collection of bones and flesh. You would just be another physicalist like everybody else in here.

But I would not, because I do not know if that understanding is correct. Rather, it is better said I would have a suggestion as to what this "I" is. Even then, it could still be the case that I do not know what does the noticing. For me to do that, it would imply that I have a complete understanding of this body, which none of us has. So while I would identify this "I" with this body, I would not actually have an explanation of it. In fact, it is not even clear I could claim I identified this "I". I say that because absent a complete understanding of said body, I would not know what parts of it are necessary for me to remain as I am. And absent said understanding, I would not know what modes of behavior of any given parts are necessary to remain as I am.

Yes actually it would, don't forget about the distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance as well. You can be acquainted with something without having a description for it.

It would not. The term "whatever" does not identify anything. It is about as general as you can get. And noticing is what this "whatever" would do, not what it is. The distinction between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance already relies on the term "you", as you have shown just now. To that extent, the very distinction you are attempting to employ can not take flight until you explain what that term refers to.

Don't forget: "I notice"="I am conscious"=Premise 1 is true by your own admission.

I did not forget that non-mind becomes mind. Why would that bother me again?

This would be an admission that you understand the term "consciousness" and that consciousness exists and thus admitting premise 1 is true.

But I would not understand it. I would not know what it is. Rather, I could merely infer that, whatever it is, it does not require the taste of an apple say. What something is not does not tell us what something is. In fact, our own experience tells us even us might not be necessary for this "I" to persist. You get knocked out, it all goes blank. Same with sleep and certain types of coma. Yet when you wake up, there you are. What follows is that an underlying non-mental structure is more fundamental than this "I".
Furthermore, consciousness as you've defined it stands in complete negation of P3. And for to me agree that consciousness exists, you must point out what the term refers to because if I think consciousness is a 10D magical singularity from another reality, then chances are what you and I "agree" to existing is not actually the same thing. All you are left with is refer to our own experiences when we use the word "consciousness" but that again only supports my points.

Yes you actually do. Verbs don't just float out in existence attached to nothing. You don't go out in the world and see "jumping" or "jump", rather you see an organism that jumps. You notice it is a rabbit that is jumping, you don't just see the verb "jump" just hanging out in nature...

Right...and this is totally not what I've been telling you this whole time. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Yes ! Something DOES the noticing. And what I've been asking you? To tell me what that something is. Again, what that is, not how you CALL it. I call myself "I" but I could call myself "chakra" if I wanted to.

You're the one who literally asserted that you consider me to be insane which you can't understand without understanding mind since mind is in the very definition of insane and you admitted that you understand these mental verbs which is still an admission that you have at least some understanding of the mental in some shape or form since you grasp verbs of the mental.

Actually, in the definition of "insane", something is in a state of mind so have fun explaining what that something is. But more importantly, "mind" would be that which functions in that non-normal way. But notice again the distinction between what something is and what something does. What you are identifying is what that something does, not what that something is. So there is nothing wrong with me saying something unknown behaves in such a way that drives a non-normal behavior. Again, these mental verbs refer to things this something does. But we need to know what does all those things. Again, cause I bet you've forgotten by now. What does it, not how you call it.

That's a form of the mental, namely the actions of the mental. This is an admission that premise 1 is comprehensible and true.

So are you saying your P1 refers to actions?

You literally can't make sense of projection with your pseudo-skepticism if you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form.

I don't know what mind is. I can make sense of projection without that piece of information. Have fun proving me wrong.
You're the one who literally stated that you understand what "in a state of mind" means. You can't claim you have absolutely 0 understanding of mind in any shape or form if you understand what "in a state of mind" means. That's a shape or form of mind, namely the state of mind. Just cut the bullshit and admit you're a reductionist already, your pseudo-skepticism is convincing nobody.

Buddy, for me to reduce mind to anything, it would imply what mind is. I can't reduce that which I have not identified. Also, I do not understand what "in a state of mind" means. I observe a behavior and infer that whatever drives that behavior must change in some way to account for different behaviors. But I don't know what that thing is. Nor do I know how that process goes.

And you are identifying these state of affairs with what? The brain or some other bodily function? Is the brain responsible for behavior or not? If so, you're just another reductionist instead of this skeptic you pretend to be. If not, then you're not a reductionist and you're with me on premise 3. You are either reducing or not reducing. If you reduce, your skepticism evaporates, if you don't reduce then you're with me. You're cornered...

That's the point you keep missing. Without pointing out what that state of affairs is, I can not possibly identify it with anything. Again, P3 is necessarily false due to how you defined consciousness. An ability is reducible by definition.

I just gave you an argument, you merely repeated the assertion I already refuted.

And I just refuted your argument, while you did not when I responded to your assertions. In fact, at one point you just kept repeating the same nonsense, while ignoring my refutations and at the same time accusing me of repeating myself. Talk about projection...

I keep catching you in this lie and I keep having to throw your own definition right back in your face: I caught you admitting that by your own definition insane is: "IN A STATE OF MIND that prevents normal PERCEPTION, behavior, or social interaction; seriously MENTALLY ill."

Perception, behavior and social interaction is what this thing does. We call this thing "mind" but that does not imply we have to know what that is in order to recognize a behavior. Again, you are confusing your own ignorance with lies.
Even mental illness is defined as "a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking".
Knowing what drives those things is simply not necessary.

You didn't just say insane is "a mode of behavior" you liar, you literally said that its IN A STATE OF MIND that is preventing normal PERCEPTION as well as behavior or social interaction, and even threw in MENTALLY ill. If you can't comprehend the word mental then by logical necessity you can't comprehend mental illness. If you can't comprehend perception or states of mind then you can't comprehend what insane means.

Perception, behavior and social interaction is what that thing we call "mind" does. Notice that we identify not what does those things, but merely the behavior. We CALL that thing "mind" but that's not what it is, that's the law of identity. So, by logical necessity, we can talk about what that thing does, while at the same time not knowing what that thing is.

Then that is still some understanding of "you" in some shape or form as you are meaningfully distinguishing this "you" from yourself. You think you are you, and that I am distinct from you. That's still a shape or form of understanding, you're not completely confused as to what these words mean, you have some grasp of it and you're confident enough to even use these words yourself.

The phrase "you are you" is meaningless unless you tell me what this "you" refers to. I could for example, mean that collection of bones and flesh. Do you mean to tell that is what "you" are ? I gave several possibilities that show what this "I" is can remain unknown while allowing us to use the term coherently. What you need to explain is what this thing is but for some reason you want to assert you actually know what it is while also refusing to share that knowledge. Someone is lying alright...

Sorry but logic doesn't work that way. You comprehend and affirm the existence of perception, awareness, consciousness etc. which is literally an admission that you comprehend and affirm premise 1.

Those are phenomena that I call "perception, awareness and consciousness". But I don't actually know what they are. I just call them that. And by how you defined them, they are either an ability or an act, which by definition implies they are reducible to non-mind. So if that is your P1, you've already falsified idealism.

You're the one who is literally admitting there is a distinction between me and you, which is also literally an identification of yourself. So you have identified the self and comprehend it enough to grasp that this self is different from me. So that is an understanding of the self in some shape or form.

That is not an identification. That is how we call it. Again, you must explain what that thing is. The phrase "this self is different from me" is meaningless unless you specify what the terms "self" and "me" refer to.

Yeah, which is you admitting that consciousness exists. You're literally admitting that you comprehend and affirm premise 1 right now.

You still don't get it. That something that begins to be conscious must be non-conscious to begin with. What is that something ? If what I'm saying equals your P1, then it is necessary that idealism is false.

MY consciousness begins to be, but that doesn't mean consciousness begins to be. As I noted all the way in the OP, I am what's called a Cosmic Idealist (see the paper I referenced for more info) so I believe there is a single cosmic mind that exists necessarily and all contingent minds are grounded in this cosmic mind.

There is no "your" consciousness because you've said "I=consciousness". Moreover, whatever the term "mind" means in P1, it MUST mean the same thing when used in this "cosmic mind" sense. To do otherwise is to commit a fallacy of equivocation.
Moreover, what exactly does it mean for a mind to be grounded in another mind? Are you actually going to explain that or am I just supposed to take your Hocus Pocus for granted?

So there's the mental at the fundamental level and all other phenomena are mental in nature as they weakly emerge from this mental base. So my contingent consciousness comes from a necessary consciousness, so it's just mental-mental interaction instead of non-mental-mental interaction.

Again. What does that mean? How does it happen? And again. That is literally impossible. You can not use a meaning when it suits you, then switch gear and use another one. Whatever "mind" means in P1, that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

No, you just failed to grasp what I noted all the way in the OP that I believe there is a single cosmic mind that grounds all of existence and so any mind that begins to be is grounded in this single cosmic mind so consciousness itself didn't begin to be, only contingent beings began to be.

You are the one who is failing to grasp basic logic. Whatever this "cosmic" mind is, it must mean the same thing as in P1. The term "mind" can not mean one thing when it suits you and another when it does not. That is a fallacy of equivocation.
Again, you've defined consciousness as an ability and something that begins to be. That is what you've said consciousness is. You don't get to change that definition to your mumbo jumbo because suddenly reality smacks you in the face.

This literally makes no sense. You need to make your claim coherent and give actual support for it.

A potential does not turn into an actual unless that thing which posseses it acts upon said ability to bring it forth. The support for that is your own provided definitions.

I never said it was an ability, and even in the dictionary it's not defined as such. The cognitive dissonance you're experiencing is so powerful that your mind is generating hallucinations to help you reconcile these contradictions in your thoughts lol

You did actually. This is a photo you posted yourself. Image
And this is what you've posted about the term "perceive". Image

This doesn't follow logically at all. Your inference is simply invalid. From the statement "I=consciousness" it does not logically follow that contingent beings cannot begin to be conscious.

But it does. Watch! That which does not exist (they) can not begin to be anything. Only things that exist can begin to be anything, because nothing lacks all potentialities. Because you've said "I=consciousness", you can only say consciousness begins to be, not that "they being to be conscious".

This is a topic I was going to address in a new thread when I actually give the case for cosmic idealism, and I noted in the OP I was going to deal with cosmic idealism in a new thread. This is a much deeper conversation that deserves its own thread (much like a deeper analysis of the self) and can only be had after one can at least charitably accept idealism for the sake of argument since the case is made from prior commitments to idealism. If you can't wait for that, then check out the paper from David Chalmers I cited in the OP on Cosmic Idealism, he goes over it a bit there.

What deeper analysis of the self? You are still refusing to tell me what the self is. The most basic questions about it remain unanswered.
How is this not part of your case? It is an explicit assertion you are making. You say some mental phenomena gives rise to me. How am I not supposed to ask how does that happen? Post here that part of the paper that explains how that happens.
And no, of course, I am not going to commit myself to idealism. You should be able to make your case without me doing that.
More importantly, this "mind from mind" must evade the charge of equivocation which it most certainly can't do, for one of those minds must be fundamentally different than the other, hence the relation of necessity-contingency.

Then you're literally saying "you understand or you don't understand" is a false dichotomy, which is literally a denial of the law of excluded middle... you're a literal logic denier...

No, I am not because that is not what your false dichotomy poses. What I don't understand is what this "I" is. Learn what the law of the excluded middle means before you embarrass yourself further.

Notice is defined as a noun, but even if you want to define it as a verb you're still admitting that you grasp the mental in some shape or form since you're admitting you grasp mental verbs. There can't be mental verbs without the mental existing, so you're just saying premise 1 is true.

A noun which references an act. Mental verbs refer to what the mental does. What you still fail to grasp is that this term "mental" is merely how we call that which does those things. The only reason we say those are "mental verbs" is because we CALL that thing which does it "the mental". Were we to call it "chakra" those would be "chackra verbs". How is this distinction still lost on you ?
And again. Is your P1 talking about acts?

Now THIS is projection. You're the only one who is disingenuously acting like they have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about in any shape or form. Everybody else, including leading philosophers from around the globe, understand me just fine. This is a person problem, momo. The problem is you, the problem is your own lack of comprehension and/or you dishonesty. The fact of the matter is, I have already caught you admitting you have at least some understanding of the "I" in some shape or form as I have laid out many times in this comment already and in previous ones.

What you have laid out so far is that you lack the ability to spot subtle differences that are necessary to hold this kind of conversation. What is that which "everybody else" seems to get? Why would I need to adhere to those people assumptions sans proper argument?
Again. If I am the disingenuous one, how comes you refuse to tell me what this "I" is ?

You're the one who literally admitted there is an I that thinks. You're no different than Descartes lol I think, I am.

And given that what this "I" is remains unknown, what does the thinking remains unknown.

This very statement already presupposes an understanding of "I" as it starts off with an identification of this "we" so you're just refuting your own skepticism. Again, you're equivocating on having an explanation/description for something
with knowing it. It is possible to know something without being able to describe it or explain it, stop with your fallacious equivocation and learn the difference between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance.

Actually what you've just said is an equivocation. You are confusing how we call a thing with what that thing is. The term "we" is how we call it, not what it is. As for your distinction, it already relies on that which you have failed to explain. So follow your own advice and pick up a logic book.

But you have identified it as "I". You going to deny the law of identity too? lol

No, I called it "I". How we call something is not the same as what that thing is. How is that law of identity going on for you ?
And you have identified this something as mind or the mental, which means mind/mental exists, which means premise 1 is true by your own admission. Great! Law of identity, do you get that...?

Again. Utterly wrong. I've called that something "mind" or "the mental". Would I have called it "chakra", it would be equally valid to say chakra exists. Yes ! Super great! Law of identity indeed.

What I said what that you're not reducing that which drives behavior, and this is fact. You are literally not trying to say that the brain or the nervous system drives behavior, but rather you are identifying that which drives behavior as "mind" and you are not identifying this mind with the brain and nervous system. So then you would not be a reductionist which means you're with me :)

It's not a fact because you do not know if I am reducing that which drives behavior. I am calling that which drives behavior as "mind". But for me to identify that thing with the brain, you first need to tell me what it is. Without doing that first, your request is nonsensical.
Also, you are a reductionist by how you've defined consciousness. You just don't want to accept that.

Yes it has, you even identified it as mind haha

Ho-Ho! That is not what it is. That is how we call it. Law of identity, logic denier. Learn it!

How?? You're just stating this with 0 support. Claiming that mind exists and that mind cannot be reduced is not contradictory at all.

It is if you've defined "mind" as an ability and if you tried to equate an act with it. Mind begins to be. Your "solution" for that is one big fat fallay of equivocation. Such brilliance...

You're completely missing the point: it's about EXPLAINING behavior, and behaviorism fails at this. Cognitive psychology has proven itself superior over behaviorism, and cognitive psychology champions the notion of a mind that models reality through representations and thoughts and so forth. We all comprehend the "I" just fine, and use such terminology in our scientific research all the time. Again, learn a thing or two about cognitive psychology. If you're with contemporary science, and you're not some science denier, then you should be siding with cognitive psychologists.

Buddy, stop with the behaviorism babble. I am not that. If you comprehend the "I" just fine, you should have no problem explaining what it is. Yet you refuse to do so. Why ?

I read, you just don't comprehend the commitments your statements lead to.

Then there is obviously a problem with the way you comprehend what I'm saying because your accusations don't follow at all.
Yes you literally do. If you don't understand the very words in your own definition then by logical necessity that entails you can't understand your own definition. If you don't understand the term "state of mind" then you don't understand your own definition.

I literally don't. The reason I can understand said definition is because I am making a distinction between a behavior and what drives that behavior. A distinction you fail to get.

And that would entail at least some understanding of mind in some shape or form since you are admitting you understand that states of mind drives behavior. You grasp what the mind does, so that is some understanding of mind in some shape or form. Again, if you're not reducing "states of mind" to the brain and the nervous system and such then you're with me on P3 and anti-reductionism.

States of mind is how we call that which drives behavior. Giving the unknown a name does not magically explain that thing. Again, you say it yourself. What we grasp is what this thing does. But I keep asking you what this thing is.
And again. For me to reduce "states of mind" to be brain, it requires I know what that thing is. And again. You are not an anti-reductionist.

Then that is at least some understanding of "myself" in some shape or form as you grasp that it exists in the first place and that this I notices.

"Whatever" is not an understanding. Noticing is what it does, not what it is. And only existing things can perform acts. So "this I notices and exists" is logically equivalent to "something unknown drives a certain behavior". At no point you are telling me what that thing is.
No we couldn't actually since chakra has a set definition already and is not synonymous with mind. Absolute fail

What an absolute fail. On what criteria is this definition set ? Give me an actual argument as to why I could not call that which notices "chakra". And cue the evasion...

I defined mind all the way back in the OP, and have caught you admitting time and again admitting that you have at least some understanding of mind in some shape or form, even if it's just verbs of the mind. There can't be verbs of the mind unless mind exists, which means premise 1 is true by your own admission.

There can't be verbs of the chakra unless chakra exists. Why is this different from what you're saying ? And how comes when it is suitable for you, you can distinguish between what a thing is and what a thing does?
If memory serves you defined "mind" as "something we are directly aware of"right? Well, given everything you've said that definition would now be "something awareness are directly aware of". What the hell is that? Should I ask you what "directly" means?

You're the one who is literally distinguishing yourself from me, you're doing it right now... and cue the silence...

What distinguishes itself from what? Again. What that thing is. Not how you call it. And cue the silence...

I'm pretty sure you know that everybody is going to say this to you since you're using the very terms that you pretend you have absolutely 0 understanding of... If you've had this conversation with people other than me, then you know I'm not alone in saying that you're just flat out contradicting yourself... You say things like "I don't understand what "I" means, but that's already an admission that you understand that there is "I" that can understand/not understand. You presuppose an understanding that you pretend you don't have...

I don't think so. I think a reasonable person would see the distinctions I am making are quite reasonable. The explanations provided make sense. You keep referring to things this "I" does while I keep asking you what this "I" is. Why that ?

LMAO! Nice try, you can't admit that there is perception while admitting premise 1 is not true. This is the total opposite of irrelevant

It is for what I was quoting. I meant it is irrelevant because it references a potential.

Because you're the one trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the first-person or the self or the I in any shape or form, yet you can't even so much as speak to me without already presupposing an understanding of the first-person and using such terminology. Your pseudo-skepticism can't even get off the ground

What I don't understand is what this "I" is. You keep talking about what it does. The terminology we use is how we call that thing. That is irrelevant to my inquiry. You are the one who is trying to sell a pseudo-understanding of something you clearly don't understand.

Way to fail to give a rebuttal, momo...

What should I expect from a habitual liar. You even quoted part of my rebuttal in the next breath. Just so we are clear, I said "That is how we CALL it. So whatever does all those things, we CALL it "myself" or "me" or "I". But that does not tell us what it is.".

Yes you did, you did it just now! hahah You are saying that you are momo, that you are you, and you are the one who said x,y,z as if it wasn't me who said x,y,z. You are distinguishing yourself from me, you are identifying yourself as distinct from me and the words on the screen etc.

That is how we call that thing. But what is it ? What am I identifying ? Again. You keep confusing how we call things to what things are. Were I to call myself "chakra" I would be merely "identifying" chakra as distinct from chavra or what have you.

Yeah actually I did, all the way back in the OP and everybody but you understands me just fine. I've even linked several scholarly sources for more understanding. This is just your pseudo-skepticism/dishonesty at play.

What do they understand ? Be specific. I've address your sources. They too fail at pointing out what this "I" is.
Did you not say mind is "something we are directly aware of" ? Did you not try to use the word "person" instead of "I" and act as if that explains the "I" ? You never defined your terms. You can't tell me what mind is because you don't know. Be honest and admit to your ignorance.

This is not a lie at all. You constantly equate "not being able to explain/not being able to describe" with "not knowing/not understanding". Even if I had no words to type out to describe/explain the I, which I have, that does not entail that I do not know/do not understand. To say otherwise is to equivocate on your part.

It absolutely is a lie. I have at every point addressed your distinction. This can be checked you know ? The simple point is that the very distinction you are making relies on that thing that remains unknown. And you are also claiming you can describe the "I" so what's the issue ? Just do it!

I've already responded to this, you just keep repeating yourself over and over:
1. the self is what does the knowing, you admit this yourself when you say things like "I know x,y,z"
2. even if I couldn't tell you what does the knowing that doesn't mean there is no knowing of what does the knowing. You're equivocating "being able to describe" with "knowing/understanding". They're not the same thing, stop equivocating and learn the difference between knowledge by description and knowledge by acquaintance.

This comming from the guy that literally spammed his nonsense over and over. Such silly projections.
1.The "self" is a term. I did not ask you to tell me how you call that which does the knowing. I've asked you to tell me what it is.
2. No one is equivocating, except you. Your very distinction relies on an unknown thing. And you even said you have knowledge by description so just do it already!

1. I have provided it, many times now
2. stop equivocating. describing something and knowing something are 2 completely different things.

1. You did not. You merely swapped words and acted as if that explains it. Did you also not try to say the self is an act by the self ?
2. You are the one that is equivocating as shown above. And you already said knowledge by description is something you are in possession of. Share it !

Do you or do you not see how cognitive psychology is better than behaviorism? If you grasp the superiority of cognitive psychology, which is an experimentally demonstrable scientific fact, then you grasp that this notion of a mind that has representations is not only comprehensible in the terms cognitive scientists have defined them as, but that the scientific evidence is in favor of there being this mind that has representations. So are you a science denier or something too...?

Buddy, I am not advancing behaviorism. I am not even close to that. What else do you want to me tell you ? But I would like to know what this mind is and what a representation is. I have to repeat this because you probably forgot it by now. What it is. Not how you call it.

I don't recall saying it was, you'll have to prove your claim.

You've said "I=consciousness". Do you want a screenshot or what ?

1. Then the word "I" is comprehensible to you since understand what "whatever drives this behavior" mean. So you do understand the word "I".

The word is. But what the word refers to remains unknown. The term "whatever" does not tell me what that thing is.

2. You're completely missing the point about projection. Projection isn't about behaviors that we observe bodies perform, projection is about attributing thoughts, feelings, attitudes, beliefs onto other minds. If you can't comprehend any of that stuff then you can't comprehend projection.

Those are phenomena that we name that way and because I assume you are in some fashion similar to me, I can draw that conclusion. But that does not imply I know what gives rise to said phenomena.

3. Notice how you said we don't need to know FUNDAMENTALLY what the I is. That's fine, we don't need to know fundamentally what existence is to understand what an object is. Maybe there is a more fundamental question about the nature of the "I" that needs to be explored (perhaps in a new thread since its a topic of study in its own right) but that doesn't mean there is 0 understanding of the "I" in any shape or form.

Yes, because it is supposed to be non-reducible remember ? And about the existence of what you are talking about ? We most certainly don't know what this object is. This has been the whole point of this debate.
How is it what I'm asking you so hard that requires a new thread. I just want to know what this "I" is.

You said you understand mental properties, which is an understanding of the mental in some shape or form as that is an understanding of the properties of the mental.

The only reason they are called "mental properties" is because we choose to call that which does all those things "mental". How comes you still don't get this distinction between how we call a thing and what a thing is ?
What was that thing about the rose again ? It smells just as sweet no matter the name ?

That is identity my friend, A=A. Apple=Apple, Tree=Tree, I=I, mind=mind

Identity of the terms, not of the things they refer to. One of those has to be that thing. The apple is the object, the word "apple" is what is used to refer to that thing. I am calling whatever this is "I". But I don't know what it is.

You're literally identifying yourself right now...

No. I am calling myself that way.

Wow, you suck at reading... I specifically said "you're talking about thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. as if they are comprehensible and real and that someone can think about them and attribute them to someone else thinking about them as well." end quote. You can't tell me that you understanding absolutely nothing about the mental in any shape or form while admitting that you comprehend thoughts, feelings, ideas, and complex mental phenomenon like projection and so forth. Learn to read

Yes and I've addressed that so who is the one sucking at reading ? Those are names we give to phenomena. And we say that phenomena is driven by something. And we call that something "mind". But that is how we CALL it. I want to know what it is. They could very well be "chakra phenomenon".

And nowhere am I saying consciousness is a property of consciousness, learn to read and learn to how not straw man.

And what does the "other mental properties" refer to ?

Because you're trying to act like you have absolutely 0 understanding of the mental in any shape or form. If you were actually being consistent on this then you would stick strictly to behavior and talks about the brain and the nervous system, but you're clearly failing at doing this by your constant reference to perception, awareness, consciousness, ego, self, projection, thoughts, and states of mind that drive behavior etc.

I am stating that I do not know what this "mental" is. That does not mean I can not give it a name.

It's called the law of identity. Maybe you'd know that if you weren't a total noob when it comes to logic

Totally. Like confusing how a thing is called with what a thing is. Noob!

Notice how you completely dodged my question like a total coward lmao answer the question about the sally-anne test...

Okay, let's turn that "might" into a "probably". Buddy, did you forget you wrote the answer yourself ? Or was that some copy pasta which you didn't fully read ?

And the view is of the self, which means you comprehend the view of the self. Check mate.

Not necessarily. There is no reason a view must always be correct. It is my view that I see a lake in the desert. That view is comprehensible. That does not imply there is an actual lake there or what I am seeing is correct. One could say his view of the self is that it is "pure love". Would that be correct mr chess pigeon ?

So you're saying that mind exists, and that there are thoughts and ideas. This is just an admission that premise 1 is true, that there is the mental.

Thoughts and ideas is how we call certain phenomena. This "mind" is supposed to be that which drives said phenomena. But were we to call it "chakra" it would be true that "chakra exists". In all cases, you are no identifying what that thing is, you are merely telling me how you call that unknown thing.

No it's not merely a term, that term refers to something (or rather someone) that actually exists, and I've explained that this "I" is grasped in first-person and is known directly, immediately, and independently of any description. Again, don't equivocate description with understanding. I'm going to call you out on that bullshit every time, so don't think you're going to get away with it...

Oh no! I'm so scared. Perhaps your threats would carry more weight if I hadn't mopped the floor with you at every point.
It is merely a term. That it refers to something does not make it more special. It is a term that refers to something. And that something is ? "That" which does the noticing ? Again, act not object. Law of identity.
Your description already relies on that which you have failed to explain. It can not save you.

So there is a you that exists by your own admission, and you clearly understand this as you just affirmed this righ tnow, and you affirm that there are thoughts, that one thinks. So premise 1 is true by your own admission. Great

There is something I call "me". You are supposed to explain what that thing is, not how we call it, mr great chess pigeon.

Then you're saying I can think of myself is a fact.

Whatever is doing the thinking can ponder about what it is. What about that is so hard to understand ?

It is not "but a term", there really is an "I" that has perceptions and has thoughts. You acknowledge this all the time with your use of first-person pronouns and the affirmation that you understand that you are distinct from me and actually exist.

It is but a term that refers to something. There really is this something. We call it "I". Amazing ! Now, what is that thing ?

And that something exists, and we call it mind, so mind exists by your own admission. So premise 1 is true.

We call it that way. Yes! But what is it ?

No we can't actually since cabbage is already defined and is not synonymous with mind:

Is this a law of nature ? Is it set in stone ? What argument do you have for me not being able, if I so choose, to call that which does the noticing "cabbage" ?

The obvious... Do YOU see it...?

I do. It is this clarity that has allowed me to expose your pseudo-case for what it is. You have nothing.
Mon Oct 01, 2018 6:11 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 42 of 43
 [ 849 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests