Seeing red

[The Grand Nudger]

I have, three or four times in -just- this thread, accepted that I may be an idea in a vat, and that I do not have full knowledge.  So take that shit elsewhere Benny.

I am convinced that my experiences are referent, yes.  I am convinced that they are referent to a material world, yes.  If you aren't, you aren't...I can understand and respect that.  I'm simply requesting that you play by the rules when explaining why. Otherwise we won't be able to make sense of each others statements, nor will we be able to trust our conclusions, whatever they may be, however different they are.

[bennyboy]

I have, three or four times in -just- this thread, accepted that I may be an idea in a vat, and that I do not have full knowledge.  So take that shit elsewhere Benny.

I am convinced that my experiences are referent, yes.  I am convinced that they are referent to a material world, yes.

See, these statements, taken together, do not seem rational to me.

 If you aren't, you aren't...I can understand and respect that.  I'm simply requesting that you play by the rules when explaining why.  Otherwise we won't be able to make sense of each others statements, nor will we be able to trust our conclusions, whatever they may be, however different they are.

I don't know what rules you're talking about, except the implicit one that disagreeing with you is irrational. I think my position is perfectly logical-- that's why I hold it. And your arguments haven't convinced me otherwise and vice versa, apparently.

What rule, exactly, do I keep breaking? Be specific, and I'll see if I can stop breaking it.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, these statements, taken together, do not seem rational to me.

No, you disagree with these statements.  You are not convinced by the things that convince me.  It isn't for irrationality but for a disagreement over propositions. You have demanded full knowledge, and you have stated that things may not be as they seem. Neither of these, are criticisms of -any- given proposition. They are criticisms on the efficacy of reason.

I don't know what rules you're talking about, which is the implicit one that disagreeing with you is irrational.  I think my position is perfectly logical-- that's why I hold it.  And your arguments haven't convinced me otherwise and vice versa.

What rule, exactly, do I keep breaking?  Be specific, and I'll see if I can stop breaking it.

Stolen concept, as we've been discussing for pages....just one of the many variations on the theme of self refuting ideas. I doubt you're going to stop, you claimed that it was central to your POV. I've not only told you what it was called, and how you did it, I've explained why it doesn't work(and this wouldn't be first time we've had this convo). But let's pretend that we haven't been having that discussion, because that's going to super productive.

I can see -why- you've come to the points you have, after accepting what you cannot. They would follow, if anything could follow.....but nothing follows a self refuting idea....even if it were ultimately true, in a sense unrelated to argument, a brute fact.

[bennyboy]

No, you disagree with these statements.  You are not convinced by the things that convince me.  It isn't for irrationality but for a disagreement over propositions.  You have demanded full knowledge, and you have stated that things may not be as they seem.  Neither of these, are criticisms of -any- given proposition.   They are criticisms on the efficacy of reason.  

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.

Stolen concept, as we've been discussing for pages....just one of the many variations on the theme of self refuting ideas.  I doubt you're going to stop, you claimed that it was central to your POV.  I've not only told you what it was called, and how you did it, I've explained why it doesn't work(and this wouldn't be first time we've had this convo).  But let's pretend that we haven't been having that discussion, because that's going to super productive.

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 can see -why- you've come to the points you have, after accepting what you cannot.  They would follow, if anything could follow.....but nothing follows a self refuting idea....even if it were ultimately true, in a sense unrelated to argument, a brute fact.

I think we'll have to take a break here. It's not so much that you are so horribly wrong, it's that we have both arrived at a point where we are not saying original. I guess it's a Latin-American standoff.

[Angrboda]

First of all, don't be offended.  Subsuuuuuumes is just me playing around with emphasis, because it's central to my view, not just a semantic argument.

Idealism subsumes the mechanical and scientific understanding-- those are all ideas, after all.  There's no problem with having many ideas being about things or properties, and in fact those kinds of ideas are very useful.

What is your notion of what an idea is? In the physicalist paradigm, ideas are things just as much as a desk or a glass is a physical thing. If you're saying something different, you need to provide some defense of that instead of just handwaving it aside with the non-informative label 'idea'. What is an idea in your framework? You have a referent that doesn't seem to refer to anything. A signifier without a significand.

Materialism is a reduction of all phenomenon to a small set of mathematical principles, with some metaphysics thrown in for good measure. It explains by breaking apart composite phenomena into parts that explain the composite. Your breaking everything down into 'ideas' doesn't explain. It merely leaves the nature of things undefined. It subsumes, but doesn't reduce. Is there anything that an idea cannot be? Is there anything an idea must be? It seems that under your view, an idea can be anything, so you haven't identified any parts which explain the composite. That's a weakness, not a strength. What are the practical limits on ideas in your Idealism?

[bennyboy]

--edit--
bump accidental multi post

[bennyboy]

--edit--

bump accidental double post

[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.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there anything that an idea cannot be?  Is there anything an idea must be?  It seems that under your view, an idea can be anything, so you haven't identified any parts which explain the composite.  That's a weakness, not a strength.  What are the practical limits on ideas in your Idealism?

I'd add another question here.  How do we determine the difference between an "imaginary" idea and a "real" idea....or, if you prefer, the difference between an idea of a bullet hitting the idea of brain that results in the idea of death...a bullet hitting,  and the idea of a bullet hitting the idea of a brain that doesn't.

[bennyboy]

What is your notion of what an idea is?   In the physicalist paradigm, ideas are things just as much as a desk or a glass is a physical thing.  If you're saying something different, you need to provide some defense of that instead of just handwaving it aside with the non-informative label 'idea'.  What is an idea in your framework?  You have a referent that doesn't seem to refer to anything.  A signifier without a significand.

You are demanding of a person who does not define the world in thing-ness to define ideas as a thing. I will not.

Materialism is a reduction of all phenomenon to a small set of mathematical principles, with some metaphysics thrown in for good measure.

That it turns out the universe is reducible only to ideas is an etymological problem for you. You can call black white if you want, but unless you can represent your ideas of essential parts as things with volume, occupying space, and located in specific times, then you are abusing the word horribly. Essentially, you are taking Idealism and saying "Nuh uh, that was us all along." But let me say this, if you want to argue that reality consists of mathematical principles, then you're going to have a tough time explaining why mathematical principles have become aware of themselves.

 It explains by breaking apart composite phenomena into parts that explain the composite.  Your breaking everything down into 'ideas' doesn't explain.  It merely leaves the nature of things undefined.  It subsumes, but doesn't reduce.  Is there anything that an idea cannot be?  Is there anything an idea must be?  It seems that under your view, an idea can be anything, so you haven't identified any parts which explain the composite.  That's a weakness, not a strength.  What are the practical limits on ideas in your Idealism?

An idea is an immaterial principle or pattern, either an experience or a principle which molds experience.