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 42
 [ 837 posts ] 
The Case for Idealism
Author Message
Monistic IdealismPosts: 356Joined: 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 avatarPosts: 2748Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 123Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 123Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 123Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 123Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 340Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 340Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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: 3479Joined: 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: 356Joined: 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
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 42 of 42
 [ 837 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests