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 22 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

Of course - I'll forward them to Gnug.


Excellent. Well done on getting a reply.

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


Alright that's fine.

His comment suggests that he has issues with all of your premises


He said most, not all. His affirming P1-P3 makes absolute sense, we can see him doing so right here:


It seems clear that he's affirming premise 1 and 2, and his work on the hard problem of consciousness is ample support for premise 3.

And, I agree, it would be nice to have had a more detail but he undoubtedly would not have the time to elaborate. (He does away with upper case letters, and spaces after the full stops, undoubtedly to save time in his replies to emails. I doubt he'd welcome further intrusions for clarification.)


I agree. He's a busy guy. I'm surprised there was a response this quickly.

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


I agree and I appreciate the honesty and humility. I apologize as well for any misunderstandings or miscommunications on my part. I want to make myself clear and if I haven't I want to change that.

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


When he brought up substance dualism I was quite surprised. I've heard him argue in the past for a kind of property dualism back in 1996 and it seems substance dualism was just thrown out but maybe he's been thinking about it more.

But idealism per se would not avoid these problems


Well it doesn't matter which version of idealism you hold to in regards to the interaction problem. The idealist is a substance monist so they're not going to have the interaction problem of the substance dualist. But other forms of idealism can and do face the combination problem e.g. micro-idealism. Cosmic Idealism avoids both of those problems altogether, but that's not to imply that this view has no problems at all. Only that it avoids the pitfalls of today.

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


That's not how this works... Chalmers didn't give us a counter-argument, he just noted that most premises are somewhat questionable and that he's not sure about the connection from P4-P8. But I went over this in my paragraphs and he didn't address that, perhaps it wasn't even read. So no, Chalmers hasn't refuted this argument or anything like that, it seems he didn't even spend much time on it per your own description.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 3:44 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

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

But it does not. Here you go, doing it again. How can you say you are explaining this "I" when in all your attempts you merely take it for granted ? You say it yourself: "when you introspect". Right, there needs to be an "I" to do the introspection. I want to know what is that. The average Joe thinks there is an "I" that is directly known ? Okay...known by whom ?

You really don't grasp this common sense definition that your average joe would give on the street? If you go up to a random guy on the street and ask if he's conscious he'll say yes, there's an intuitive grasp we have that there is an "I" that has experiences, and such. On this basic general broad common sense view, you really don't grasp this? Again, not asking if you agree, just seeing you really do understand or not to be clear.

A lot of things "evade" my "common sense", I've learned a long time ago I should be careful with believing claims on that criteria. And the average joe can say many things, but demonstrate few of them. You are asking me if I understand an idea you are trying to communicate. Problem is, that which I am asking you to explain is already taken for granted in all your explanations. It makes no sense to say [the "I" is something we are aware of] to someone who is asking you to explain what this "I" is.
Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:30 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I want to know what is that


...How are you using the word "I" if you have no idea what it means, even on a common sense level...? You're acting like there's no understanding of this term yet here you are using it correctly by using it to refer to yourself, and to distinguish yourself from me or any other objects. How odd that you claim that to not know what I'm talking about at all yet here you are using it perfectly... Something tells me you really do understand this general common sense view more than you are letting on...

I've learned a long time ago I should be careful with believing claims on that criteria.


I specifically told you that I'm not asking you to believe anything on the grounding of common sense. I'm merely asking if you understand this common sense idea of there being an "I" and there being consciousness and such.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:36 am
psikhrangkur
Online
Posts: 124Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:...How are you using the word "I" if you have no idea what it means, even on a common sense level...? You're acting like there's no understanding of this term yet here you are using it correctly by using it to refer to yourself, and to distinguish yourself from me or any other objects. How odd that you claim that to not know what I'm talking about at all yet here you are using it perfectly... Something tells me you really do understand this general common sense view more than you are letting on...


So if "I" refers to myself, and the rest of you are not myself, does that mean that the rest of you are using the term "I" incorrectly?
If an artificial intelligence refers to itself as "I", is it using the term "I" incorrectly?
Is your physical body part of this "I"?
Is your "I" affected by hallucinogens?
Does your online presence count as part of this "I"?
Is your "I" static? Does it develop over time?
Are independent observers capable of perceiving your "I"?
Are your thoughts part of this "I"?
Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:55 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

So if "I" refers to myself, and the rest of you are not myself, does that mean that the rest of you are using the term "I" incorrectly?


In our last conversation you refused to answer my question... I don't see why I should answer the barrage of questions from someone who refuses to grant me the same courtesy of answering a single question...
Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:48 pm
psikhrangkur
Online
Posts: 124Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
So if "I" refers to myself, and the rest of you are not myself, does that mean that the rest of you are using the term "I" incorrectly?


In our last conversation you refused to answer my question... I don't see why I should answer the barrage of questions from someone who refuses to grant me the same courtesy of answering a single question...


No, see, I asked you a question, and you questioned my motives for being here.

By the way, that wasn't even the last time we talked in this thread.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:05 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

By the way, that wasn't even the last time we talked in this thread.


The post I'm referring to is when I asked you a simple yes or no question: are you a solipsist?

You refused to answer my single question, yet here you are expecting me to answer a barrage of questions.... If that's how you want to be, if that's what you think is appropriate behavior, then I'll return the favor and not answer your questions... If you have any complaints about this then you're a hypocrite
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:11 pm
psikhrangkur
Online
Posts: 124Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:You refused to answer my single question


Your question was a thinly veiled, baseless accusation levied for the sole purpose of dodging the question I had asked you, and as such is undeserving of any response.

You're free to ignore these new questions, as you did the previous one. Although, I doubt you'll make any headway in this new conversation, seeing as you refuse to consider anything beyond your 'common sense' understanding.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:20 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Your question was a thinly veiled baseless accusation


No it was a simple yes or no question for the sake of clarification. If you refuse to answer a question for clarification then that's your fault the conversation didn't go anywhere...
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:29 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2439Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Mind isn't a thing, it's a behaviour.


You would still be saying that the mental exists, you would just be defining it differently than me. What's your proof that the mind is just a behavior?


Don't presume to tell me what I'll fucking say, fuck you very much.

Split-brain patients demonstrate that mind is a behaviour of brains.

There is no case for idealism, because it's fucking stupid. It's half-arsed metaphysical dreck. Metaphysics is to thought what praying is to helping.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:39 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Don't presume to tell me what I'll fucking say, fuck you very much.


Whoa, 0-100 there. psycho....


I'm just saying what you said. You identified mind=behavior, which means you're saying the mental exists just that it's defined by behavior. Don't get butthurt when you're simply being quoted.

Split-brain patients demonstrate that mind is a behaviour of brains.


explain. justify your claims. You still have yet to prove the mind is behavior by the way...

There is no case for idealism, because it's fucking stupid. It's half-arsed metaphysical dreck. Metaphysics is to thought what praying is to helping.


Not an argument. fail.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:42 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:How are you using the word "I" if you have no idea what it means, even on a common sense level?

This is not my definition of "mind" remember ? It's yours. You said : Consciousness is something we are directly aware of, same with this "I"

But I asked what this "I" is. So your answer makes no sense because saying "the "I" is something we are directly aware of" does not explain what this "I" is. It merely takes it for granted. You then said, among other things, that this "I" is "the object of their own reflective consciousness" ; which again, already takes for granted that which I am asking you to explain.

Heck, take this last comment of yours to me. You say "You're acting like there's no understanding of this term yet here you are using it correctly by using it to refer to yourself, and to distinguish yourself from me or any other objects.". Again, how does that explain what this "I" is ?

I specifically told you that I'm not asking you to believe anything on the grounding of common sense. I'm merely asking if you understand this common sense idea of there being an "I" and there being consciousness and such.

How can I understand something you are unable to explain ? You are asking me if I understand this idea of there being an "I" while you are unable to explain what this is. An answer can not be given until you explain what exactly do you expect me to agree to.
Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:50 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

This is not my definition of "mind" remember ?


You don't seem to realize the corner you've pinned yourself in. You said you have no idea what I'm communicating to you on the common sense notion that there is an "I" with experience and such. You acted like you have no understanding on the meaning of this word but your own language betrays you: you're clearly using the word "I" in that very same sense that you claim to not understand, so you're just contradicting yourself. It's like when someone says the sentence "I don't speak a word of english". Clearly that person is wrong in that sentence, they clearly speak a few words of english. And clearly you understand this common sense notion of an "I" as proven by your own language. You keep saying things like "I want to know xyz" but that assumes you already have an understanding of "I", otherwise you wouldn't be using it correctly the way you are... So I don't buy this pseudoskepticism.

Once we're clear on this common sense understanding then I can progress with the case.
Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:05 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3186Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Monistic Idealism wrote:
Of course - I'll forward them to Gnug.

Excellent. Well done on getting a reply.

I'm still awaiting a reply from Gnug - and, thank you.

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

Alright that's fine.

His comment suggests that he has issues with all of your premises

He said most, not all.

I apologize for that - I seem to have misremembered his comment.

Monistic Idealism wrote:His affirming P1-P3 makes absolute sense, we can see him doing so right here:

It seems clear that he's affirming premise 1 and 2, and his work on the hard problem of consciousness is ample support for premise 3.

I still don't buy his - or your - claim that we know we're conscious.

As I've said, if you're a computer-generated hologram that's programmed to think/believe you're human, and therefore conscious, how can you distinguish whether you're a human or a hologram?

Introspection doesn't work, as the hologram is programmed to "introspect" itself, and think/believe it's human.

In this discussion with Sam Harris, a few years later, they discuss copying versus moving our consciousness to suitable hardware. Chalmers offers the possibility that we won't be able to argue that the hardware version of us isn't conscious. In copying, it will certainly be granted that it's another independent person, if only a mental clone of us. In moving our consciousness, it would be our self, so undoubtedly conscious.

The idea that only "minds" - as in of living organisms - can be conscious is not true, on this view.



Monistic Idealism wrote:
And, I agree, it would be nice to have had a more detail but he undoubtedly would not have the time to elaborate. (He does away with upper case letters, and spaces after the full stops, undoubtedly to save time in his replies to emails. I doubt he'd welcome further intrusions for clarification.)

I agree. He's a busy guy. I'm surprised there was a response this quickly.

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

I agree and I appreciate the honesty and humility. I apologize as well for any misunderstandings or miscommunications on my part. I want to make myself clear and if I haven't I want to change that.

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

When he brought up substance dualism I was quite surprised. I've heard him argue in the past for a kind of property dualism back in 1996 and it seems substance dualism was just thrown out but maybe he's been thinking about it more.

But idealism per se would not avoid these problems

Well it doesn't matter which version of idealism you hold to in regards to the interaction problem. The idealist is a substance monist so they're not going to have the interaction problem of the substance dualist. But other forms of idealism can and do face the combination problem e.g. micro-idealism. Cosmic Idealism avoids both of those problems altogether, but that's not to imply that this view has no problems at all. Only that it avoids the pitfalls of today.

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

That's not how this works... Chalmers didn't give us a counter-argument, he just noted that most premises are somewhat questionable and that he's not sure about the connection from P4-P8. But I went over this in my paragraphs and he didn't address that, perhaps it wasn't even read. So no, Chalmers hasn't refuted this argument or anything like that, it seems he didn't even spend much time on it per your own description.

I disagree.

If there are questions about any - most - of your premises, then you've failed to make a sound argument.

The fact that he hasn't made a counter-argument does not change this fact.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:10 pm
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:And clearly you understand this common sense notion of an "I" as proven by your own language.

I also use the phrase "for god's sake". That does not imply I know what a god would be, if it were to exist or if it was possible. It's just a linguistic artefact.
You keep saying things like "I want to know xyz" but that assumes you already have an understanding of "I", otherwise you wouldn't be using it correctly the way you are...

How would I know I used it correctly if I don't know what it is ? If I already had an understanding of this "I" there wouldn't be any need for you to explain what it is.
Once we're clear on this common sense understanding then I can progress with the case.

That is fine. We will be clear once you explain to me what this "I" is. I can't accept or deny something you have not properly explained.
Thu Jun 14, 2018 5:40 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I also use the phrase "for god's sake". That does not imply I know what a god would be, if it were to exist or if it was possible. It's just a linguistic artefact.


You've just landed on your own sword. This a false analogy since you're clearing using a phrase (for god's sake) that you know the meaning of, and same goes for "I" which is why you're using it and even using it correctly. Awful strange how you claim to not know what the self is or what "I" means yet you distinguish yourself from me... How is this not contradictory? Why aren't you just identifying yourself with me, or the words on the screen, or the screen itself?

How would I know I used it correctly if I don't know what it is ?


This very question proves my point: it assumes already there is this "I" that can know/not know. You're clearly acknowledging this "I" that you keep denying understanding of...
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:34 am
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I'm still awaiting a reply from Gnug - and, thank you.


You're welcome. Looking forward to the verification.

I apologize for that - I seem to have misremembered his comment.


It's alright, mistakes happen.

I still don't buy his - or your - claim that we know we're conscious.


Are you making a point about epistemology or ontology? are you merely saying we dont know that we're conscious or are you claiming that we're not conscious?

As I've said, if you're a computer-generated hologram that's programmed to think/believe you're human


I don't think it's possible to "program it to think".

The idea that only "minds" - as in of living organisms - can be conscious is not true, on this view.


I don't think it is possible due to the problems of strong emergence in particular. A really sophisticated puppet is still a puppet. A reflection is still a reflection.

If there are questions about any - most - of your premises, then you've failed to make a sound argument.


Premises in arguments do not have to be indubitable for the argument to be sound. As long as the form of the argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true. He didn't give us any reason to doubt any premises, he just said they're at least questionable.
Fri Jun 15, 2018 2:41 am
momo666Posts: 129Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:25 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Monistic Idealism wrote:
This a false analogy since you're clearing using a phrase (for god's sake) that you know the meaning of, and same goes for "I" which is why you're using it and even using it correctly.

I actually don't, on both counts. I don't know if god/gods would be necessarily evil, necessarily good or necessarily amoral; whether or not they would posses all the three Omni's or even if said Omni's are possible in the first place. I don't even know if a mind can exist sans time and space, or if it can posses any of those Omni's. As for this "I", you will have to show how exactly I am using it correctly.
Awful strange how you claim to not know what the self is or what "I" means yet you distinguish yourself from me... How is this not contradictory? Why aren't you just identifying yourself with me, or the words on the screen, or the screen itself?

This is a wrong question. Since I do not know what this "I" is, I can't possibly know how it supposedly performs any actions.
This very question proves my point: it assumes already there is this "I" that can know/not know. You're clearly acknowledging this "I" that you keep denying understanding of...

But what am I acknowledging and assuming ? You've merely asserted I assumed and acknowledged this "I" but this said "I" is what you are supposed to explain in the first place.
Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:20 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3186Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

Greetings,

Monistic Idealism wrote:
I'm still awaiting a reply from Gnug - and, thank you.

You're welcome. Looking forward to the verification.

It appears he missed my email in the blizzard of them he gets daily. I've the conversation thread to him now.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
I apologize for that - I seem to have misremembered his comment.
It's alright, mistakes happen.

I still don't buy his - or your - claim that we know we're conscious.

Are you making a point about epistemology or ontology? are you merely saying we dont know that we're conscious or are you claiming that we're not conscious?

That we can't distinguish between being a human or a construct programmed to think we're human.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
As I've said, if you're a computer-generated hologram that's programmed to think/believe you're human

I don't think it's possible to "program it to think".

If you can't accept that possibility, which I'd dispute, consider that it's programmed to respond as if it's human - it behaves as if it's human. You can't distinguish whether you're a human or a hologram.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
The idea that only "minds" - as in of living organisms - can be conscious is not true, on this view.

I don't think it is possible due to the problems of strong emergence in particular. A really sophisticated puppet is still a puppet. A reflection is still a reflection.

You keep equating a reflection to a doppelganger - they're not the same thing at all. A clone is not a reflection as it can act of its own accord, unlike the reflection.

Again, this is not a case of strong emergence - the behaviour of the AI system behind the hologram is complex as the result of weak emergence.

Monistic Idealism wrote:
If there are questions about any - most - of your premises, then you've failed to make a sound argument.

Premises in arguments do not have to be indubitable for the argument to be sound. As long as the form of the argument is valid, and the premises are true, then the argument is sound and the conclusion must be true. He didn't give us any reason to doubt any premises, he just said they're at least questionable.

Your step from P7 to P8 is "especially questionable", which means that the conclusion fails. Even earlier, he's indicated that P4 is also "especially questionable", so you can't say that the argument is sound/valid.

You're making unwarranted assumptions in these steps.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Fri Jun 15, 2018 9:20 pm
Monistic IdealismPosts: 362Joined: Sun May 20, 2018 3:16 am Gender: Male

Post Re: The Case for Idealism

I actually don't, on both counts.


So you're telling me you have no idea what the phrase "for god's sake" means...? Seriously...? You can't use google or you trying to say there's some deep philosophical debate on the meaning of the phrase "for god's sake"? come on man...

Since I do not know what this "I" is


What do you mean "I don't know"? You're using the word that you claim to not know... If you don't know what it means then what are you even saying??? This is exactly like arguing in English with someone who insists they don't speak any English, this is absurd...

But what am I acknowledging and assuming ?


It's who you is doing it so you're the one who is supposed to answer this...
Sat Jun 16, 2018 12:20 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 22 of 43
 [ 849 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests