Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, I have experiences, and unless otherwise compelled, I will take them as the basis of reality: that reality is experiential.  I don't find the materialist position that compelling, because it is not coherent with my experiences.  There's nothing irrational about skepticism in the face of insufficient evidence.

Had I criticized you for skepticism in the face of insufficient evidence this might all be relevant.  Since I haven't, it isn't.   

I think you are being a bit condescending, here.  I know that you like to say "stolen concept," and I disagree with your position that my position involves stolen concepts.  You don't get to take a monopoly on the observation of phenomena, because observation, or even ideas about objects and properties, are not exclusive to your world view.

I'm being more than just a -bit- condescending, and you've earned every ounce of it.  You call a stolen concept a subsumed concept.  You can call it whatever you like and it will still be irrational for the same reasons. You don't deny that you make them, you claim that they are central to your POV.

I'm not taking a monopoly on observation, this..like the above quip, is irrelevant. Observation, or any fact of -any- matter doesn't count for a blip if we can't follow the same rules of inference.

How many times have I asked you how you think something works, and you've replied with "the same way you think it works, idealism subsumes all of that."? Stop subsuming things you have already declared to be insufficient. How can this be difficult to understand? This is not only what it -means- for something to be a stolen concept, it is -why- a stolen concept is irrational.

You need to decide whether these explanations are insufficient, or whether you'd like to be able to refer to them -as- explanations. You can't have both. Your waffling back and forth between one half of the claim and the other has directly led to every inconsistency you've expressed in the ai qualia dilemma.