2017

>this faggot is still shilling and spamming for his fringe, retarded view

Does this brainlet ever get tired?

I can only make a counter argument if you make an argument in the first place. I gave arguments for why physicalism and dualism are false and why we should accept idealism. You have no rebuttal.

>Idealism
>fringe

Oxford University Press is due to release a book entitled "Idealism: New Essays in Metaphysics" by January

>a book will be released so it's not fringe
Lmao

philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

>it's this moron again

"oh wait, you're serious? let me laugh even harder" tier

>Dualism

Idiot tier

>Idealism
>Spiritualism

Plebian tier

>Materialism (all forms)

True philosophy tier

>Neutral monism

>consciousness definitely exists

Can you demonstrate that it's something special? That the divide between subjective and objective is valid? Or perhaps consciousness exists in the sense a computer's operating system exists.

>a book

there's several volumes coming out and it's on Oxford University Press. That's a very credible publisher that is globally recognized. This along with several other publications show Idealism is making a comeback.

Either way, it's not about popularity but truth. You have no rebuttal to the arguments given by the idealist. sad.

...

I cited a well referenced survey of hundreds of philosophers around the world, that shows idealism is indeed fringe. Far more representative than a single publication. Fuck off

>Can you demonstrate that it's something special?

If consciousness is just another physical phenomenon like everything else then why can't you measure it? why can't you read minds? everything else in existence is public but minds are somehow private, why is that if everything is objective and subject to the study of science like every other object? if matter is not itself mental or conscious, and everything is made of matter, how is there possibly consciousness? why are there differences in experience?

Your argument is full of ubsubstantiated statements. Let's start by breaking it down.

>consciousness cannot exist since consciousness is subjective and mental

You're begging here. You've assumed that consciousness is these things without proving it, and then used that assumption as "proof" of your proposition.

>That's impossible given we know we are consciousness more than anything.

Can you verify that we actually know consciousness?

>Even if this is all a dream or I'm in the matrix I'm still conscious and aware of this fact.

Can you prove that?

>If you think reality is subjective and objective then you're a dualist and I refer you to pic related.

Daniel Dennet is a strict materialist and doesn't seem to have a problem with think conscious processes exist (I remember you, if you're going to try and claim he does, find it in his words, in expressly the terms "consciousness does not exist" I've already explained in the past what he means by it being an illusion, and it's not that) without any form of property dualism.

his is one of those philosophical issues that I don't see the point in, but I don't think this is because of quietism, rather because I don't really see what's at stake in the issue.

What is a theory of perception? Presumably it's a way of assigning a description to the following kind of event: X perceives Y and set of properties and relations P(Y) influenced or deriving from the set of properties and relations P(X,Y). As an example.

I perceive a cup on my table, it is plain white and filled with coffee.

I (X) perceive a cup ( Y ) on my table ('on my table' is a relation between the cup and the table, a member of P(Y) ), it is plain white (a property of the cup, a member of P(Y)) and filled with coffee (being filled with coffee is another member of P(Y)).

I think any direct realist and any indirect realist would agree that indeed I do see a cup on my table, and that it is plain white and filled with coffee. What matters between them is how to analyse 'I see' in terms of the subject: me, X; the object: Y, the cup. Specifically, what matters are the properties of the relation 'sees' between X and Y. How does it arise? What does it mean for me to see X? What are the relations between the seen object and the object? (representational sense data or identity for indirect/direct examples). Answering these questions gives elements of P(X,Y).

What does a theory that uses sense data or identity as fundamental entities in P(X,Y) achieve? At best a generalized description of what it means to be a sensory object - an element of our perceptual world. Whether it is constituted by sense data or populated by the objects themselves doesn't gives us any information about why the relation between the seen object and the object obtains. We 'see' sense data, we 'see' objects, so what? How can someone learn anything about vision or perception in general - how it works - just by attempting to describe the conditions of access to the sensory object?

Let's take a couple of, very abridged examples, of how to learn something about perception philosophically. In the transcendental aesthetic in Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. It proceeds, abridging a lot, by attempting to found the perception of objects in terms of a mental application of necessary qualities of a sensory manifold. Stuff has spatial extent, stuff persists in time. So then we're left, even if you do not agree with the specific conclusions Kant has, that a perceiving subject conditions the observed objects in some way. Hurrah, we've learned something. How do we condition the objects? Through the application of these constraints to the sensory manifold. What about the 'real' relationship with the object? ... Well, whether Kant's noumenon is given a positive (there's really real stuff underneath our perception) or negative (the noumenon is the name of a conceptual delimiter between the intelligible and the unintelligible), no longer tells us anything about perception, rather about how perception relates to knowing. The latter is still debated within Kant scholarship, the former is well established science at this point.

1. have you any idea what appeal to popularity means? if you're such a brainlet that all you can do is say "lots of people think x so x must be true!" then you don't belong here

2. that stems from a paper back in 2013 by Chalmers, who is himself not a physicalist. If you read the articles coming out as well as this new book you can see physicalism is crumbling before your very eyes and we all know dualism is dead:

>The Waning of Materialism (also published by Oxford)
>In this book twenty-three philosophers examine the doctrine of materialism and find it wanting. The case against materialism comprises arguments from conscious experience, from the unity and identity of the person, from intentionality, mental causation, and knowledge. This book responds to the most recent versions and defences of materialism.

Another is Husserl, with his idea of 'bracketing','reduction' or 'epoché'. This means, roughly, forgetting the objectivity or veridicality of our experiences and instead attempt to deal with their internal structures and webs of meaning. One way he proceeds is by using his imagination to vary perceived objects in order to filter out their non-necessary properties for being those objects, and thus attempts to derive internal structures to perceptual acts. Great, we can learn something through these descriptions about how we intuit objects and ascertain what they count as or are identified as. Whether the object is 'really there' or 'just a sense object' doesn't matter for the purposes of (transcendental phenomenology) description of perceptual events. If you asked Husserl whether his phenomenology cared about the real existence of objects vs their status as perceptual ideals, he'd probably say something like 'no, I don't want to repeat the errors my method was meant to avoid'.

The debate between direct and indirect realism(s) proceeds after granting people a perceptual world. The next step is for some reason thinking 'how perception works' can be answered through analysis of our condition of access to the already granted perceptual world.

>If consciousness is just another physical phenomenon like everything else then why can't you measure it?

We can observe brain activity correlating to conscious thought and measure the strength of these impulses.

>why can't you read minds?

We've invented machines that can form pictures based on the conscious thoughts of the subject.

>everything else in existence is public but minds are somehow private, why is that if everything is objective and subject to the study of science like every other object?

But it is. Not only are we capable of forming pictures based on conscious thoughts, observing brain activity that correlates to conscious thoughts, we're also capable of predicting people's decisions before they're aware they've even made them with technology.

>if matter is not itself mental or conscious, and everything is made of matter, how is there possibly consciousness?

Not all matter is conscious just as not all matter is currently on fire.

>why are there differences in experience?

Why is there different data on different computers?

Here's a humdinger for you: why can't you come up with a positive proof for your position that consciousness is something special, rather than relying on gaps (that are closing) in our scientific knowledge? Right now you're on the level of a cave man asserting that lightning is divine because we don't understand it.

>physicalism is crumbling

*breathes in*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Fuck off

How perception works is a question on the level of the manifestation of the perceptual world, not on its conditions of possibility. Is it then surprising that absent from this kind of analysis is any analysis of the performativity in the perceptual event, and this changes the kind of questions that would be asked of a perceptual theory. A contrastive question between direct and indirect realism, of specific sorts, might be 'do I see the cup of coffee or do I see a representational sense datum of the object?', an analysis inspired by the performativity of the perceptual act (it's a verb, c'mooooon) might ask "how is it that I see the coffee cup? what perceptual structures allow me to see the coffee cup?". It changes debates from, ultimately, a semantic theory of perceptual verbs or their conditions of possibility to 'what makes us perceive how we perceive and how do we perceive?'

In terms of the original formulation, the debate between indirect and direct realism does not attempt to flesh out P(X,Y), it instead attempts to look at the conditions for the possibility of P(X,Y) while forgetting that it does this. Is it any wonder that this thread and the previous one are full of unsubstantial semantic dispute, and that any 'evidence' for direct or indirect realism based on the real properties of perception can be interpreted favorably or explained away...

If we already grant the 'world of perception' to a person, what remains is to give an account of its formation and stability rather than our conditions of access to it.

>what's at stake in the issue.

Usually it seems to be idealists trying to hide a God somewhere in their metaphysics.

>begging

No, I'm talking about the contemporary view that is currently substantiated in the literature as even stated by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource):

"Perhaps the most commonly used contemporary notion of a conscious mental state is captured by Thomas Nagel’s famous “what it is like” sense (Nagel 1974). When I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in that state from the subjective or first-person point of view"

>Can you verify that we actually know consciousness?

what do you mean by verify? because through introspection alone you can know you're conscious. you see things, smell things, and there's a sense of what it is like to be you. notice how you distinguish yourself from me. you implicitly agree with my notions of consciousness by your very vocabulary.

>Can you prove that?

what do you mean by prove? I prove it to myself through introspection. maybe the objects I experience are not real but either way I'm still having experience. that's undeniable.

>Daniel Dennet is a strict materialist

yeah and he's exactly what I said a physicalist is: a denier of consciousness at the end of the day and his critics say as much.

>no arguments at all
pathetic

You dumb faggot, this whole string of replies was about you questioning my claim idealism is fringe. I made my case, and you failed to rebut it. Fuck off with your dumb memes

>No, I'm talking about the contemporary view that is currently substantiated in the literature as even stated by the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed academic resource):

So in other words you're leaning on authority. Prove your proposition first, then we'll talk.

>what do you mean by verify? because through introspection alone you can know you're conscious.

Here, refute Nietzsche he states it better than I can. He makes a good case against "I think therefore I am" being some obvious fact of philosophy.

we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I KNOW what thinking is.

>notice how you distinguish yourself from me. you implicitly agree with my notions of consciousness by your very vocabulary.

Sophistry. You're relying on picking at my words rather than proving your own position. What I think about me is irrelevant, for I am not sure that I am or that I think and all proofs for it presuppose so many things as to philosophically indefensible.

>I prove it to myself through introspection.

But can you prove that what's happening involves thought, a self, or is personal?

>yeah and he's exactly what I said a physicalist is: a denier of consciousness at the end of the day and his critics say as much.

His critics say as such, find it in his words.

>correlates

why can you only correlate? you can look at a chair and there it is. You don't have to correlate anything, you just look at it. why can't we do that with consciousness? why is consciousness literally the only thing in our everyday experience that we can't just look at??

>We've invented machines that can form pictures based on the conscious thoughts of the subject.

gibs proof and don't exaggerate how accurate this is. plus this doesn't tell us what its like to experience something from the first-person. even if you have an image the machine isn't telling you what its like for the subject to experience that image.

>But it is.

not it obviously is not. all you observe are bodies and their behavior and you just infer there are minds there as a causal mechanism for what you do observe. you don't observe minds, you infer minds. You said it yourself: correlations

>Not all matter is conscious just as not all matter is currently on fire.

all fire is made of matter though. that failed. if literally matter itself is not conscious at all then how is there consciousness?

>Why is there different data on different computers?

there isn't. it's the same data. If i post a pic and you save it you have the same pic. but if we experience the same pic we have different experiences. why?

>why can't you come up with a positive proof for your position that consciousness is something special

I've already explained here how my view of consciousness is the mainstream contemporary view of experts, source included:

this idealism vs realism debate completely misses our bodies and how they entrenched in our experiences

we see a chair as something to sit upon, based on us being creatures with ASS

we see a spear as soemthing to throw with our hands

even when contemplating suicide we think about the method to which we would lethally harm our bodies

idealism just totally forgets how important our bodies in our perceptions, we 'lead' our lives through our bodies, the whole world around us is seen as a "i can" or "i can't based on the limits of our bodies. the door is for walking through, the nob for twisting, the light for flicking the headphones for listening - all of which are entirely based on use being bodily creatures

berkely wrote his thesis with his hands, sitting on a seat "lol it's all mental also god", he said, while sipping tea, blinking, holding a pen, listening to GHOSTMANE

Just sage and hide this dumb shit thread. You will only waste your time arguing with this defective, and incentivize him to keep making this same thread

>So in other words you're leaning on authority

Nice straw man. Referenced here is Nagel's article "What is it like to be a Bat?" where he argues how physicalism fundamentally fails to describe what its like to be the subject for the subject. This is a basic article in philosophy of mind, you should know about this if you actually read about this subject.

>Nietzsche

his argument boils down to "you're putting to much emphasis on words!" as some stupid inb4 on the very fact of what we mean by such words. Notice how you yourself talk about an "I" and distinguish yourself from me. You call me "you" as if I'm not you... Your own vocabulary betrays you. You know very the basic notion of how you're conscious, you're aware and have experiences, and really all you can do from there is just play with words by equivocating from there on. These are facts based on what we experience directly and merely formulate with language, not that they are derived from arguments via language. He's putting the cart before the horse.

>Sophistry.

nice argument, Socrates. If only I could just hand-waive whole arguments away like that and get published lol

>But can you prove that what's happening involves thought, a self, or is personal?

Yes I'm experiencing right now directly and know about via introspection

>find it in his words.

hahaha

>not it obviously is not. all you observe are bodies and their behavior and you just infer there are minds there as a causal mechanism for what you do observe. you don't observe minds, you infer minds.

not him but this is not true. rather we start with a public world, among others, 'being-with'. we don't start as a solitary ego then infer outwards that others exist based on privately sensed visuals of other people. rather we are raised and grow up within a tribe/family, we are born naive realists, the world is experienced as public, it is always already a space not just for me, but rather a public domain in which everyone collectively inhabits

this is how we experience life before we discover philosophy and skepticism and ask autist questions like omg they might not be conscious? and then somehow think that all your life youv'e inferred the existence of others minds based on your private experiences.

the world has always been public, being-with is a fundamental structure of the world and always has been. others aren't inferred, they're imposed upon you by the structure of the world

>shit, my philosophy has been refuted. better just try to censor my critics to help ease this cognitive dissonance

>not him but this is not true.

so you observe minds directly then? that's amazing, you must enlighten the scientific community on your mystical abilities that nobody seems to have.

I'm not talking about starting points, I'm talking about observation. Look around you. You can see a chair, and its a chair. There's no other-ness there for you to infer, its just a chair. But for some reason, when it comes to people, there's more than what you observe. These people have feelings and you can't know entirely what they feel or think unless they tell you and you just trust what they say or you infer from what you see from their body. You can't deny this unless you're telling me you have some super powers.

Idealism doesn't forget the body at all. Idealism is monistic and denies a mind/body dualism. We are one with our bodies but not the way physicalists claim.

>Nice straw man.

But it's not. You've been unwilling and unable to assert your own claims in your own words. You just namedrop and then criticize others for resting on the popularity of their position while doing so yourself.

Notice how you weren't able to actually refute Nietzsche there. I don't know that I'm an I, or that you're a you, I just use these terms out of simple linguistic convenience. You're engaging in sophistry, and still entirely unwilling to prove your own position.

>He's putting the cart before the horse.

In no way whatsoever. He's pointing out that it's not a self-evident statement, and should not be taken as such.

Descartes made two errors in logic with cogito ergo sum, that an I exists (there are many, many objections to that) and that thought means existence.

>nice argument, Socrates. If only I could just hand-waive whole arguments away like that and get published lol

But it is sophistry. You're focusing on picking apart language used out of linguistic convenience rather than actually proving your position.

>Yes I'm experiencing right now directly and know about via introspection

See Nietzsche above for how much you actually know.

>hahaha

He compares the illusion of consciousness to the GUI of a computer, which definitively exists. He clearly believes consciousness exists.

God almighty you are a complete pseud.

>But it's not.

It absolutely is. You're saying I'm appealing to authority when an argument is being made by Nagel. Disagree all day, but don't deny the fact that arguments are being made.

>You've been unwilling and unable to assert your own claims in your own words.
>here refute Nietzsche

hahahaha omg what a hypocrite

I've made my case, you're in denial dude

>But it is sophistry.

How is it sophistry? You're just sitting here calling it sophistry

>ou're focusing on picking apart language used out of linguistic convenience rather than actually proving your position.

No that's Nietzsche. He's the guy who had to do a stupid inb4 about language and then I showed how he's going about it backwards. language doesn't come first but experience. language merely describes experience and for him to nit pick language just shows he's autistic.

>He clearly believes consciousness exists.

""To put it as clearly as I can: in his book, Consciousness Explained, Dennett denies the existence of consciousness. He continues to use the word, but he means something different by it. For him, it refers only to third-person phenomena, not to the first-person conscious feelings and experiences we all have. For Dennett there is no difference between us humans and complex zombies who lack any inner feelings, because we are all just complex zombies. ...I regard his view as self-refuting because it denies the existence of the data which a theory of consciousness is supposed to explain...Here is the paradox of this exchange: I am a conscious reviewer consciously answering the objections of an author who gives every indication of being consciously and puzzlingly angry. I do this for a readership that I assume is conscious. How then can I take seriously his claim that consciousness does not really exist?"

-John Searle

>why can you only correlate?

"Krug look at sky and say why can we only see sky fire and not understand sky fire?" For a long time, we could only mathematically infer gravitational lensing, it didn't mean it was something distinct from science.

>gibs proof

Google.

>plus this doesn't tell us what its like to experience something from the first-person. even if you have an image the machine isn't telling you what its like for the subject to experience that image.

Man how am I supposed to play ball with a guy who keeps moving the goal posts? You said consciousness was first person only, I pointed out ways we can observe it, and it occurring within the brain.

>not it obviously is not. all you observe are bodies and their behavior and you just infer there are minds there as a causal mechanism for what you do observe. you don't observe minds, you infer minds. You said it yourself: correlations

Stop telling me what I do, sophist. I infer that there is a brain, and electrochemical processes occuring within, nothing more. I don't think consciousness is distinct or special from this.

>all fire is made of matter though. that failed. if literally matter itself is not conscious at all then how is there consciousness?

All that is conscious are brains, so only matter is conscious. The analogy holds. Not all matter is on fire, not all matter is conscious. What do you expect? Every rock to be conscious?

>there isn't.

Wrong. Every instance of data on every computer is minutely different due to degradation.

>I've already explained here how my view of consciousness is the mainstream contemporary view of experts,

Which is an appeal to authority.

I bet OP likes Plato too. What's wrong, the real world is too mean to you?

>It absolutely is. You're saying I'm appealing to authority when an argument is being made by Nagel. Disagree all day, but don't deny the fact that arguments are being made.

Make the argument yourself then. I'm not reading it.

>hahahaha omg what a hypocrite

Nietzsche makes a good case for his position, and it's been clearly claimed in this thread. Moreover, I've used the argument myself here by pointing the uncertainty of self, the uncertainty of thought, and the uncertainty of existence.

>How is it sophistry?

Because you've been focusing on picking apart language rather than making a case.

>You're just sitting here calling it sophistry

Because it is.

>No that's Nietzsche. He's the guy who had to do a stupid inb4 about language and then I showed how he's going about it backwards. language doesn't come first but experience. language merely describes experience and for him to nit pick language just shows he's autistic.

But he's not just picking apart language. He's pointing out the uncertainty of the existence of the separate components of the statement "I think."

>John Searle

So, do you have it in his words or not? If you don't, you're going to have to concede this point.

my point is that you don't read these letters on your screen and then infer that another conscious being wrote them

rather you already inhabit a world among others and therefore automatically read my post as the expressions and thoughts of another

we don't infer that eachother are consicous, rather we pre-theoretically inhabit a public shared world, we are always already among others

>gravitational lensing

How is this analogous to what we're talking about? In our experience we see chairs, we see rocks, and papers, and people, we see them all the time. What is the magical difference between people and the paper? If they're both physical objects why is it the person has this magical quality that we cannot observe? Shouldn't the mind be just another object and thus capable of being observed? why do we HAVE to correlate?

>Google.

If I said you're wrong and right after said my source was google I highly doubt you'd just pack up your bags and go "welp, you got me. you're right and I'm wrong"... If you know this wouldn't work on you then why the hell would you think it would work on me...?

>Man how am I supposed to play ball with a guy who keeps moving the goal posts?

How is this moving the goalpost? Are you or are you not trying to tell me you can observe consciousness? What its like to experience something is a feature of consciousness. So why can't you observe it?? Don't whine and cry because your burden of proof is so heavy. If you can't meet this heavy burden then don't make such heavy claims. Simple.

>All that is conscious are brains, so only matter is conscious.

Then why doesn't observing the brain tell you what's going on in consciousness? Why can't you just observe consciousness? Why can you only observe the brain and just make correlations?

>The analogy holds. Not all matter is on fire, not all matter is conscious

No it really does not. Everything is made of matter and fire is indeed made of matter, cool. But consciousness is subjective while matter is objective. How can there be subjectivity is EVERYTHING is objective? There would be no room for subjectivity. Your analogy fails to grasp the difference in type her.

>Every instance of data on every computer is minutely different due to degradation.

proofs or just more google bullshit?

>Which is an appeal to authority.

Notice how you cut my sentence off lol

>being an idealist in spite of the fact that if all sentient creatures were to cease to exist something else would still exist
/hist/ should never have been created

>Make the argument yourself then.

I already have, you just can't read apparently. there's differences in experience and you cannot deny this: one person looks at a picture and laughs the other looks at it and cries. They're looking at the same thing but why the difference? subjectivity. There is a sense of what it is like to experience something on top of merely experiencing something. Someone smells a rose and it smells sweet and makes one feel nice, but that's only to that individual. For every individual there is a unique experience and physical descriptions fail to tell us what it is like to be the organism for the organism. They can describe bats behavior and anatomy but they fail to tell us what its like to be a bat. You're such a noob on this topic, I can't believe I had to explain this to you. You're way to novice to be talking about this like you know what you're talking about... Go read basic philosophy of mind please

>Nietzsche makes a good case for his position

Oh so when you do it you're just citing a good case but when I do I'm being lazy and appealing to authority hahah you lack so much self-awareness no wonder you're not an idealist

>Moreover, I've used the argument myself here by pointing the uncertainty of self, the uncertainty of thought, and the uncertainty of existence.

I addressed this and you failed to respond with a rebuttal

>Because it is.

Not an argument. Seems you're the sophist here

>But he's not just picking apart language.

yeah he really is as I explained already in detail with your lack of rebuttal.

>So, do you have it in his words or not?

Already showed you pic related before. Dennett thinks consciousness is an illusion, and if he ever denies this its because he's re-defining consciousness to mean something that has nothing to do with subjectivity.

>just assuming that idealism is wrong for absolutely no reason
damn you guys are good

Leave OP alone. The real world has been far to cruel to him. He wants to live in the ideal world of his imagination. He needs your validation, not your criticism, you mean NPCs! This is his magical game/world! We are merely NPCs! stop ruining it!

>my point is that you don't read these letters on your screen and then infer that another conscious being wrote them

But I literally do. I have no choice. I can't observe your mind directly, I can't just "see" your consciousness. That's not how this works. I see your body, and the behavior of the body. That's all I'm actually seeing. Everything else must be an inference by default from there unless you have something special we all don't.

>shit, my materialism has been destroyed and I have no rebuttal. better hope he's as duped as I am and will succumb to emotional manipulation rather than demanding an argument like a rational person

>How is this analogous to what we're talking about?

You're a bit of a thicky, you know that? For a long time, we knew of the existence of gravitation lensing through math (we inferred its existence) but could not observe it. So we infer the existence of thought, but cannot meaningfully observe it.

If I said you're wrong and right after said my source was google I highly doubt you'd just pack up your bags and go "welp, you got me. you're right and I'm wrong"... If you know this wouldn't work on you then why the hell would you think it would work on me...?

At this point, I really don't give a shit.

>because the burden of proof is so heavy

Oh man, we get to your old arguments. Prove your position first.

>Then why doesn't observing the brain tell you what's going on in consciousness? Why can't you just observe consciousness? Why can you only observe the brain and just make correlations?

Why can't observing a magnet tell you what's going on with magnetism? Why can't you just observe the magnetism itself? Why can you only observe the magnet and make correlations?

>But consciousness is subjective while matter is objective.

You have yet to prove that. You have also yet to prove the validity of the subject/object divide.

>proofs or just more google bullshit?

Dude, really? Now you're displaying a basic lack of knowledge of computers. Data stored electronically is constantly degrading, so it would by necessity be minutely different. This is why data archival is such a big fucking deal and why we're probably going to be an archeological dark age.

>Notice how you cut my sentence off lol

I just cut it short of the appeal to authority.

>Triggered by NPCs.
>He hasn't even seen this level's sub-boss yet.
How do you intend to beat the game user?

>not quoting first paragraph because too long

Explain how this couldn't just be an objective process of a physical brain interpreting sensory feedback. Because that would provide a completely consistent explanation for these differences in experience.

>Oh so when you do it you're just citing a good case but when I do I'm being lazy and appealing to authority hahah you lack so much self-awareness no wonder you're not an idealist

No, when you do it without actually making an argument and repeatedly say "it's true because this guy in authority thinks it" you're making an appeal to authority, you tit.

>I addressed this and you failed to respond with a rebuttal

Jog my memory.

>yeah he really is as I explained already in detail with your lack of rebuttal.

You didn't make a good case for it. His objections are simple and have nothing to do with the terminology. I think presupposes an I, and that we understand what thought is. A more accurate statement would be "thought is occurring" in an impersonal sense, but even then, we'd be presupposing that what is occurring is thought.

>Already showed you pic related before.

And I explained what he means by the illusion of consciousness (he states pretty plainly that the illusion is consciousness overstating its significance, not that fact it appears to exist, it's almost like there are different kinds of illusion).

Are you incapable of anything but strawmen and appeals to authority?

>For a long time, we knew of the existence of gravitation lensing through math (we inferred its existence) but could not observe it. So we infer the existence of thought, but cannot meaningfully observe it.

Yeah apparently you're the one who is thicky. Time for you to learn some basic philosophy: there's a difference between types and tokens. Look at these numbers:

113355599

How many numbers are there? You could say 9, or you could say 4. But how is that possible?! Type-Token distinction. There are 9 tokens (113355599) but there are 4 types (1, 3, 5, 9).

So gravitational lensing is the same type of observation you would have from any other physical object: its just like a chair or a car. It's subject to the same scientific study as everything else. Consciousness is SUBJECTIVE however. Gravitational lensing is just another objective phenomenon, same token. Consciousness is a different type altogether, so your analogy is fail.

>Prove your position first.

I literally did. You just failed to give a rebuttal

>Why can't observing a magnet tell you what's going on with magnetism?

It literally does lol

>You have yet to prove that.

Okay if you're just going to ignore my arguments and claim victory then you can fuck off now

>I just cut it short of the appeal to authority.

yeah where I give an argument. dishonest dipshit

>Explain how this couldn't just be an objective process of a physical brain interpreting sensory feedback.

no, you don't know how the burden of proof works. You're the claimant so you're the one who has to answer how its possible to rectify this. Solve the hard problem of consciousness.

>No, when you do it without actually making an argument and repeatedly say "it's true because this guy in authority thinks it" you're making an appeal to authority, you tit.

That's literally what you're doing. I'm actually giving an argument and thinking for myself. You're the guy who literally just sat there and went: "refute Nietzsche"

your projection and lack of awareness is astounding

>Jog my memory.

He's the guy who had to do a stupid inb4 about language and then I showed how he's going about it backwards. language doesn't come first but experience. language merely describes experience and for him to nit pick language just shows he's autistic.

>His objections are simple and have nothing to do with the terminology.

They have everything to do with terminology. It's really all he's doing is questioning definitions like an autistic retard

>And I explained what he means by the illusion of consciousness

And even Searle gave an argument how his explanation just leads him back in hot water. Now you can't bitch about this without being a hypocrite. If you can make an argument while giving the author credit then so can I. Stop making excuses to not address Searle.

>So gravitational lensing is the same type of observation you would have from any other physical object: its just like a chair or a car. It's subject to the same scientific study as everything else.

Holy shit you thick fuck. No, for most of it being an accepted scientific theory, we could not observe it, that's the fucking point.

>Consciousness is SUBJECTIVE however. Gravitational lensing is just another objective phenomenon, same token. Consciousness is a different type altogether, so your analogy is fail.

The subject/object divide is spurious. Gravitational lensing is now only such a phenomenon because science advanced, and consciousness will be observed in a similar fashion some day. You're hiding your position in scientific gaps.

>I literally did.

No. You didn't provide a reason to think that these differences in experience aren't a product of objective material differences.

>It literally does lol

Nope. We just observe the effects of magnetism. Magnetism is a very poorly understood phenomenon. Are you totally scientifically ignorant?

>you can fuck off now

You first, you trolling idiot.

>yeah where I give an argument. dishonest dipshit

Your entire argument was "this guy in authority thinks this, so I'm right."

>no, you don't know how the burden of proof works. You're the claimant so you're the one who has to answer how its possible to rectify this. Solve the hard problem of consciousness.

You're the claimant here man. You came in swinging with the theory that consciousness is a subjective phenomenon, and have yet to prove it.

>That's literally what you're doing.

No, that is not what I am doing. Nietzsche is not right for being Nietzsche, he is right because he raises a powerful objection to the phrase "I think" unlike you who repeatedly said "I am right because this is a commonly held position."

>He's the guy who had to do a stupid inb4 about language

Where did he do this?

>language doesn't come first but experience. language merely describes experience and for him to nit pick language just shows he's autistic.

But he's not merely nitpicking language, this is a strawman. His objections are simple: the presupposition of I, the presupposition of thought, and the presupposition of existence. These objections have nothing to do with the particulars of terminology.

>They have everything to do with terminology.

You can't make this claim true by asserting it harder.

>Searle

But he didn't. He only pointed out that Dennett disagrees with his definition of consciousness. Do you think Dennett looks at brain scans that correlate to conscious thought and says "nothing is happening there?"

>No, for most of it being an accepted scientific theory, we could not observe it, that's the fucking point.

Wow you're an idiot. is gravitational lensing not another objective physical feature of nature? Are you telling me it's subjective?? The moment you admit it's another phenomenon in nature that is described as objective like every other phenomenon then you're admitting I'm right about it being the same type which means your analogy is totally off.

Gravitational lensing=objective
consciousness=subjective

subjectivity is what's fundamentally different about everything else regarding consciousness and the rest of existence. Why is this is consciousness is just another phenomenon of the objective physical universe???

>The subject/object divide is spurious

So then you just can't read minds and feel other people's feelings just cuz lol

>You didn't provide a reason to think that these differences in experience aren't a product of objective material differences.

you dont know how the burden of proof works. You're the claimant so you're the one who has to explain who this is supposed to work. You've got some questions to answer

>Nope. We just observe the effects of magnetism

Which we can describe just fine. There is no weird epistemic gap that is wholly different in type like there is between consciousness and magnetism or gravitational lensing. Your straw man boils down to you think I'm just talking about direct/indirect observation when I'm talking about a fundamentally different type of gap between direct/indirect as well

>Your entire argument was "this guy in authority thinks this, so I'm right."

yeah you're just going to cut off my sentences mid way and then lie and say I don't have an argument. Fuck off you dishonest prick. Why are you even here? thought you didn't give a shit, tough guy lol

>Wow you're an idiot. is gravitational lensing not another objective physical feature of nature?

No, dumbass. You're getting it backwards. I'm asserting that consciousness is an objective physical feature of nature, and the fact we can't observe it yet does not suggest otherwise, because there are plenty of objective physical features of nature that we could not observe that were still objective physical features of nature.

>subjectivity is what's fundamentally different about everything else regarding consciousness and the rest of existence. Why is this is consciousness is just another phenomenon of the objective physical universe???

There is no meaningful distinction between subjective and objective. We engage in this divide to account for limitations in epistemological capabilities, but it is not something with a real existence.

>So then you just can't read minds and feel other people's feelings just cuz lol

Nope. There's just no clear distinction between subjective and objective, it's a divide used out of necessity, but not one of a real existence.

>you dont know how the burden of proof works. You're the claimant so you're the one who has to explain who this is supposed to work. You've got some questions to answer

The only person here missing the nature of burden of proof is yourself. You must proof your position against other competing positions, you must provide a reason to believe your position over others.

>Which we can describe just fine.

No, we cannot. We can only observe its effects. As I said, magnetism is a very poorly understood phenomenon.

>Fuck off you dishonest prick.

You're the only dishonest prick here.

>I thought you didn't give a shit

I didn't give a shit about that particular point, because it was irrelevant. If we could observe consciousness, would it cease to be consciousness because it was no longer first person? If you're answer is anything but yes, we can assume that subjectivity is not an essential feature.

>You're the claimant here man.

I made support for the claims I made. You made some claims and then pushed the burden on me, that's now how this works. I don't have to prove how x is not the case, YOU have to prove how x is in fact the case. You got it twisted.

>You came in swinging with the theory that consciousness is a subjective phenomenon, and have yet to prove it.

I gave an argument right here showing how physicalism and dualism is false and how we lapse into idealism: This is all you people seem to have is just ignoring arguments lol so pathetic

>No, that is not what I am doing.

yes it fucking is. you literally said and I quote "refute Nietzsche" hahaha you're a hypocrite

>he is right because he raises a powerful objection to the phrase

He didn't raise an objection he questioned a definition and I already showed how experience is primary over language so his autistic focus on language is retarded

>Where did he do this?

"we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words!"

you haven't even read your own quote hahaha

>But he's not merely nitpicking language

Yes he absolutely is. That's his whole case is to deconstruct what these words actually mean

>His objections are simple: the presupposition of I, the presupposition of thought, and the presupposition of existence.

These are experienced directly through introspection. They are not arrived at through language and ideas of argumentation, they are observed directly. This is what I'm talking about: he's looking at them like they're descriptions in of themselves when they're just referring to experience.

>But he didn't.

He literally did. it's just another case of you not being able to even read

>Do you think Dennett looks at brain scans that correlate to conscious thought and says "nothing is happening there?"

Yes He thinks there's just the brain and that's it: no subjectivity, no consciousness, no nothing. He thinks anything more is descartes

Mind can be independent of matter but still change it and vis versa if I will it to do so. Strict independence need not be true. Will or something like it can mediate dependencies.

>implying you don't believe him because you know instinctually that it is true and don't actually need any evidence for it because of our shared experience of it.

>No, dumbass.
HAHAHAHA so it's not objective at all. Dude, you're so desperate. So then what is it? Subjective? lol

>I'm asserting that consciousness is an objective physical feature of nature,

Oh yeah it's objective but it's just also subjective too. surely there's no contradiction in saying that

>and the fact we can't observe it yet

stop right there: you just admitted I"m right that we can't observe it and that you're assuming we will one day be able to. A humble scientist wouldn't assume they will one day for sure be able to observe it, they suspend judgment. You're just assuming you're right even though the current observations do not point in that direction. Remove your faith from this rational dialogue. If you don't have observations to back up your claims then you can't just hide behind the future, that's bullshit. If you don't have what you need right now then you fail

>There is no meaningful distinction between subjective and objective

right there's no difference between a rock and a person. riiiiiiiight

>it's a divide used out of necessity, but not one of a real existence.

so rocks have feelings too? lol this is sad

>The only person here missing the nature of burden of proof is yourself.

No that's you. You literally said "explain how x is wrong!", that's not how this works. You have to prove how you're right. I can just remain skeptical about whether you are right.

>You must proof your position against other competing positions

I have already. All you people seem to be able to do is just hide. The very 2nd post had arguments and you people never responded to that. so pathetic

>If we could observe consciousness, would it cease to be consciousness because it was no longer first person?

You observe consciousness from the first person that's a fact. Observing others' is impossible given the very nature of consciousness being first person

>I made support for the claims I made. You made some claims and then pushed the burden on me, that's now how this works. I don't have to prove how x is not the case, YOU have to prove how x is in fact the case. You got it twisted.

Nooooo. You have to provide a reason to believe your position over others.

>I gave an argument right here showing how physicalism and dualism is false and how we lapse into idealism:

That argument is full of presuppositions that you haven't adequately supported.

>yes it fucking is. you literally said and I quote "refute Nietzsche" hahaha you're a hypocrite

And here you are, sophist, picking at words. You know damn well that I meant address the argument in the quote.

>He didn't raise an objection he questioned a definition and I already showed how experience is primary over language so his autistic focus on language is retarded

No, he pointed out some key presuppositions in the argument.

>you haven't even read your own quote hahaha

That's not an inb4. Try talking like a big boy, rather than in memes.

>Yes he absolutely is.

Prove it.

>These are experienced directly through introspection. They are not arrived at through language and ideas of argumentation, they are observed directly.

But you haven't proven any of them. You've just repeatedly shouted that they're self-evident. That's not how you philosophy.

>This is what I'm talking about: he's looking at them like they're descriptions in of themselves when they're just referring to experience.

No, he's pointing out that the sattement I think is full of unsubstantiated presuppositions. In philosophy you cannot take anything as self-evident. The self is not self-evident, nor is thought.

>He literally did. it's just another case of you not being able to even read

The only person incapable of being able to read is the meme-spouting idiot I'm talking to.

>Yes He thinks there's just the brain and that's it: no subjectivity, no consciousness, no nothing. He thinks anything more is descartes

Then why can't you find a quote in his words?

>HAHAHAHA so it's not objective at all. Dude, you're so desperate. So then what is it? Subjective? lol

I said it was objective you stupid cunt.

>Oh yeah it's objective but it's just also subjective too. surely there's no contradiction in saying that

Subject/object divide doesn't actually exist.

>stop right there

Nah. We have experiments that can observe components of it, but I'm willing to grant that we can't observe its entirety.

>the humble scientist

Scientists were clamoring to observe gravitational lensing.

>right there's no difference between a rock and a person. riiiiiiiight

There are plenty of differences, but it's not in subjectivity or objectivity.

>so rocks have feelings too? lol this is sad

Strawman.

>No that's you.

No, I asked for a reason to believe your position over a competing position. Your position is not adequately proven until you can provide that.

>I have already.

Nope. It's still full of holes that allow alternate explanations.

>Observing others' is impossible given the very nature of consciousness being first person

That's irrelevant. If it were to be observed, would it cease to be consciousness? Don't dodge this question.

>Nooooo. You have to provide a reason to believe your position over others.

I already did, now its your turn coward. If all you can do is play volleyball with the burden of proof then fuck off

>That argument is full of presuppositions that you haven't adequately supported.

Not an argument. Support this claim. meet your burden of proof already.

>You know damn well that I meant address the argument in the quote.

Then you damn know well what I mean when I cite nagel and searle you dishoenst faggot. quite being a hypocrite

>No, he pointed out some key presuppositions in the argument.

no he didn't, he just nit picks language. I keep telling you to focus on experience and you keep focusing on words. these words merely refer to experience

>That's not an inb4.

yeah it is. he's saying look how we focus so much on these words and seem to think they're so important! here let me just deconstruct them a bit and then he scratches his head wondering why its all broken lol

>But you haven't proven any of them.

Can you not look within your own mind right now? Can you not introspect and observe how you feel from a first-person point of view? Is this literally impossible for you to do? Notice how you still draw a distinction between you and me and how you think your ideas are yours and my ideas are mine. Your own language betrays you. You know I'm right and you're just being autistic like Nietzsche

>No, he's pointing out that the sattement I think is full of unsubstantiated presuppositions.

no he's just reifying them is all just like every other materialist does with their experience.

>In philosophy you cannot take anything as self-evident. The self is not self-evident, nor is thought.

I didn't say the word "self-evidence" stop straw manning. I referred to introspection. Can you not introspect???

I cited an entire lecture entitled "The Illusion of Consciousness" by Dan Dennett. He gave that lecture that title, it's his lecture. You're so in denial its not even funny anymore

>I said it was objective you stupid cunt.
Then I'm right about it being the same type which means your analogy is totally off. Thanks for admitting it

>Subject/object divide doesn't actually exist.
so rocks have feelings and emotions??

>Nah.

you said yourself we can't observe it and that you pray the future will prove you right, which means you don't have proof that you're right... you just have faith in the future. If only I could just say "muh future" and that would give me all the evidence I needed for any claim I wanted to make and convince anybody. Oh yeah I have a million dollars right now in my pocket, I'll just give you evidence later on when we're already dead and you've been distracted long enough to press me on my burden of proof in the here and now hahaha

>We have experiments that can observe components of it

You're referring to the easy problems of consciousness, which is not consciousness itself but processes we observe throughout the brain and body. Actually getting at consciousness itself you cannot do. "muh future" is not acceptable. If I can't do "muh future" then neither can you...

>Scientists were clamoring to observe gravitational lensing.

again, type-token distinction. stop being this noobish

>Strawman.

answer the question. do rocks have feelings? If not, why not?? I thought it's all the same

>No, I asked for a reason to believe your position over a competing position

I've given my argument all the way from the beginning. I guess all you can do is deny deny deny. sad

>If it were to be observed, would it cease to be consciousness? Don't dodge this question.

I already answered it you just can't read holy shit

>I already did

No, because you haven't provided a reason to believe that those things aren't a product of objective material phenomenon. Your position is begged.

>Not an argument. Support this claim. meet your burden of proof already.

You must prove that consciousness is subjective and mental for that post to contain a valid argument, otherwise your premise is begged.

>Then you damn know well what I mean when I cite nagel and searle you dishoenst faggot. quite being a hypocrite

Yes, it's a pretty common tactic "leave this thread and read this essay that will take you away from the discussion."

>no he didn't, he just nit picks language. I keep telling you to focus on experience and you keep focusing on words. these words merely refer to experience

I don't focus on words. We could call those concepts anything and the point would remain valid. You're assuming that this interpretation of experience is inherently valid and dodging having to substantiate the claim.

>yeah it is. he's saying look how we focus so much on these words and seem to think they're so important! here let me just deconstruct them a bit and then he scratches his head wondering why its all broken lol
>I don't get rhetoric

Man, you're focusing on a bombastic intro point and ignoring the meat of his point. Sophist.

>Can you not look within your own mind right now?

I have no certainty that it would be me looking, that it would be my mind I'd be looking at, or that what I'm doing was thought.

>Notice how you still draw a distinction between you and me and how you think your ideas are yours and my ideas are mine.

Only out of linguistic necessity.

>Your own language betrays you.

This is sophistry. You're using my language to avoid having to substantiate your claims.

>no he's just reifying them is all just like every other materialist does with their experience.

As far as I know, Nietzsche never makes much of a claim on the metaphysical nature of reality.

>Then I'm right about it being the same type which means your analogy is totally off. Thanks for admitting it

There is no distinction between subjective and objective.

>so rocks have feelings and emotions??

Feelings and emotions are objective phenomena that happen within an objective brain, rocks don't have feelings, but this does not imply that subjectivity and objectivity are distinct except as a necessity of language.

>you said yourself we can't observe it and that you pray the future will prove you right, which means you don't have proof that you're right... you just have faith in the future. If only I could just say "muh future" and that would give me all the evidence I needed for any claim I wanted to make and convince anybody. Oh yeah I have a million dollars right now in my pocket, I'll just give you evidence later on when we're already dead and you've been distracted long enough to press me on my burden of proof in the here and now hahaha

You realize that you are doing the exact same? Presupposing that we will never observe consciousness, even though we can already observe elements of it.

>You're referring to the easy problems of consciousness, which is not consciousness itself but processes we observe throughout the brain and body. Actually getting at consciousness itself you cannot do. "muh future" is not acceptable. If I can't do "muh future" then neither can you...

But you already do by presupposing the hard problem. That's literally all the hard problem is, a "muh future" argument.

>again, type-token distinction. stop being this noobish

Is utterly irrelevant to this.

>I've given my argument all the way from the beginning.

From the beginning your argument is full of unanswered presuppositions.

>I already answered it you just can't read holy shit

No, you didn't, but if you did, feel free to restate it here, in plain terms.

>because you haven't provided a reason to believe that those things aren't a product of objective material phenomenon.

Again, you don't know how the burden of proof works. The burden of proof is on the claimant not the skeptic. You're claiming these things are a product of objective material phenomenon and I'm merely skeptical, I'm not seeing any reason to believe they are. Meet your burden of proof you coward.

>You must prove that consciousness is subjective and mental for that post to contain a valid argument,

Thomas Nagel's classic argument from his work "What is it like to be Bat?" you've failed to address it

>Yes, it's a pretty common tactic

I gave the argument. quit being dishonest, it just shows to everybody else that you can't meet your burden

>I don't focus on words.
>"what is the I? is the I that which thinks? is the thinking the thinker of the I of the blah blah blah"

yes you fucking are. It's all autistic word games

>We could call those concepts anything and the point would remain valid.

Exactly my point: you and Nietzsche are just being postmodern deconstructists about language. You break it apart and then cry when it's all in pieces. No duh. Stop nit picking language and being a hipster

>Sophist.

This is all you've got huh? Just ad hominems

>I have no certainty that it would be me looking, that it would be my mind I'd be looking at, or that what I'm doing was thought.

hahahaha

okay so it's really a pikachu that's doing it and you're in pokemon land and that's where thought comes from. surely this is just as plausible as the initial prima facie justification we have from introspection because its all up for grabs hahaha

>Only out of linguistic necessity.

meaning you can't even think outside of such concepts. it's an admission of defeat really.

>stop showing how I'm contradicting myself!

lol

>There is no distinction between subjective and objective.

so then rocks have thoughts and feelings?? you're loony

>Feelings and emotions are objective phenomena that happen within an objective brain

Proof?

>You realize that you are doing the exact same?

No I'm not at all. I'm the skeptic. I do not believe in materialism since the evidence does not point there. I know consciousness exists though, so I won't go beyond that. The Idealist is being humble and sticking with what they know, you're going beyond. I'm the skeptic while you're the faith-based materialist

>But you already do by presupposing the hard problem.

How am I presupposing a hard problem when you're admitting yourself you can't observe consciousness? You're granting this epistemic gap that is different in type from everything else. If you weren't then you'd be claiming there's nothing special about consciousness and we can observe it just like any other object.

>That's literally all the hard problem is, a "muh future" argument.

Pointing out YOUR failures is not us pulling a "muh future". You holding your beliefs despite solving the hard problem is you pulling a "muh future"

>Is utterly irrelevant to this.

Except consciousness is totally different in type as even entailed by your own reasoning

>From the beginning your argument is full of unanswered presuppositions.

proofs?

>Again, you don't know how the burden of proof works.

Once more, you must provide a reason to believe your position over others.

>Thomas Nagel's argument.

You haven't provided it. You have referenced his name and linked the essay, but I am not leaving this discussion to buy into your delaying tactic.

>It's all autistic word games

Hardly. The existence of the I and thought have not been proven. It's not as though doubting the existence of self is extraordinary in philosophy.

>Exactly my point: you and Nietzsche are just being postmodern deconstructists about language. You break it apart and then cry when it's all in pieces. No duh. Stop nit picking language and being a hipster

Yep, you're pretty officially out of arguments.

>This is all you've got huh? Just ad hominems

How many times have you called me autistic, and now a hipster?

>hahahaha

No an argument.

>meaning you can't even think outside of such concepts. it's an admission of defeat really.

Language is not thought. You said so yourself.

>so then rocks have thoughts and feelings?? you're loony

Strawman. You're pretty adept at those.

>Proof?

Brainscans show activity occurring within the brain when you're angry, sad, etc. therefore we can conclude that what is happening really is happening and is thus an objective phenomenon because it can be observed outside.

>No I'm not at all.

Yes, you are. You're resting your entire position on the existence of a hard problem which assumes we'll never observe or explain consciousness.

>the evidence does not point there

Causal closure.

>How am I presupposing a hard problem when you're admitting yourself you can't observe consciousness?

We couldn't observe gravitational lensing and we still can't observe magnetism itself. That doesn't mean they were "hard problems."

>Pointing out YOUR failures is not us pulling a "muh future". You holding your beliefs despite solving the hard problem is you pulling a "muh future"

The very idea that the problem of consciousness is hard is faith in the future, dumbass. I don't deny there's currently a problem of consciousness; I see no reason to belief its hard.

>Except consciousness is totally different in type as even entailed by your own reasoning

In what way?

>proofs?

We've been over this, repeatedly. Let's start with that post.

>Brainscans show activity occurring within the brain when you're angry, sad, etc. therefore we can conclude that what is happening really is happening and is thus an objective phenomenon because it can be observed outside.

Do I really have to remind you about correlation vs. causation?? hahaha you're way too much of a noob, you're done

>man it doesn't matter that brain activity correlates to conscious thought, or that physical changes to the physical brain change conscious thought in predictable patterns because there's clearly no link between the brain and thought

This is you right now.

Idealism gets you nothing in a reality of competing nations, where the world is a zero-sum game and every action taken internationall is less a chess game and more a poker game because you can't see your opponent's hand.

Pragmatism and ruthlessness, even at the cost of its founding ideals, is the only thing that can protect a nation from outside threat now.

>consciousness cannot exist
I have been saying this for years.
>robots can not know they are robots
all our knowledge is an illusion
we are robots

wrong, completely wrong

I still don't even understand what idealism is meant to say. What's the point of a philosophy that has no meaningful impact on anything because it's nothing but playing semantics with the definitions of words like "experience" and "consciousness"

>What's the point of a philosophy that has no meaningful impact on anything because it's nothing but playing semantics with the definitions of words like "experience" and "consciousness"

but that's wrong?

for example under idealism, there is no external objective world like science describes. atoms then become useful fictions existing only within the context of a scientific theory (science itself becomes nothing more than a complicated predictive tool), and not actually out there in the world

this has implications for the origin and cause of consicousness itself (eg, not a physical brain)

also you're a stupid brainlet if you don't care about the actual truth for it's own sake "hurr durr this makes no difference to my everyday lyf why care lol" - if you actually think this then don't do philosophy?

don't come into a philosophy thread and then moan that this doesn't affect you. it's honestly pathetic lol

idiot post loser

this

youtube.com/watch?v=9EYX7kE37EE

I'm an ecologist/neoplatonist.
Meaning I literally believe that all things sentient or not interact with all other things including formic objects, hyperobjects, abstract objects, etc.
This also makes me an empiricist.
This is not a metaphor or a way of symbolizing learning or whatever. I literally believe that everything interacts with everything and that everything includes everything that everybody misconceives as an 'idea' or however they decide to phrase it. These odd objects are still orientated in space and time and whatever else, and are not interacted with sensually in the usual sense.
This model has extreme explanatory capacity, to note that it is actually practical.

Find a flaw that doesn't reduce to scientism or *nglo ideology, I dare you.
Berkeleyposter is far from new, user.

I'm sure there are phenomenological idealists. user.

Interesting. How did you arrive at this view?

Contact with it

Wrong idealism user

Analytic philosophy was a mistake

This "argument" is defeated if you consider the fact that mind and matter interact indirectly through a third thing