khaled

Thought =/= idea. Thoughts don't survive after death, heck, most of them don't survive for 5 minutes. You conflate thoughts and ideas. I asked what ab...

What about ideas makes you think they can't survive after death? Saying "socrates died and his ideas survived" isn't an answer to that question.

If it's "unmoveable" then yes (conflicts). If it's "unmoved" then no. If it's fundamentally unmovable it's not physical. I don't like the idea of an "...

What about ideas makes you think they don't survive death? I don't see why it needs defending in the first place.

Now premise 2 is just false.

Either 2 or 3 is false. 2 is true if you're referring to actual thoughts but false if you're referring to ideas. 3 is true if you're referring to idea...

I would you can get purpose out of a materialist's viewpoint as well, though not directly. Look at unsupervised learning AI for example. Yes. There wo...

Anything is a thing. It’s in the word. The way you define it, mind is a thing in as much as unicorns are a thing as far as I’m concerned. Way I define...

? A unicorn is a thing. Even if it doesn't exist. I think we're getting stuck on technicalities here. Which was?

No I didn't say they existed. I thought that was obvious. Were you asking a materialist for examples of non material things that exist? None obviously...

We know for certainty that one mind exists. But you haven’t given a justification for why we should treat that mind as a separate kind of object from ...

Well in general when trying to understand the other view you at least try to entertain their starting premise. When I talk to idealists I don't say "Y...

No those were 2 unrelated sentences. I'm excluding mysterianists. Also when I say materialist or idealist I mean not a dualist. In other words when I ...

God as most people define him. Ghosts, angels, devils, etc as most people define them. Etc. I don't think it even brushes against it. That's what I tr...

I'm excluding those 2. When I say materialist or idealist I mean a purist, IE not a dualist in either case. "A materialist cannot say anything about c...

Yes he can. Because consciousness to a materialist is a certain pattern of matter. You can easily tell when things follow said pattern. You seem to al...

Yea that’s exactly what I said. IF But if They don’t “arise from” as that still leaves the door open for a dualist interpretation. They ARE states of ...

You still haven't told me what position a materialist cannot hold that an idealist can't or vice versa. What can one say about the world that the othe...

I don't usually come by such stereotypical "guru talk" anymore though I enjoyed listening to it to kill time before in my life, so his posts were ente...

Well at the very least we can agree that minds and matter share one thing. They're both stuff. You seem to have taken stuff to mean physical stuff. Ma...

A materialist would not say that humans have any mental things attached if "mental thing" is to mean some other different kind of substance from physi...

Look up "unsupervised learning" if you want to actually learn something. Otherwise happy trolling.

I can take this two ways. Either you mean there is 2 different kinds of "stuff", material stuff and mental stuff, or I could just take "mind" to mean ...

I don't see the difference between transcendental and epistemic idealism as they're put. And I don't see what's much idealistic about them. At least t...

You know there is forms of AI that learn through unsupervised learning right? When one of those tells you something is it giving you knowledge of some...

So you can't offer a proof. Thanks for letting me know. Ok so all you have here is a "proof" that some mind X told all of humanity to be reasonable (e...

None of the ones you've provided. But I know you reach the conclusion that the mind issuing imperatives of reason is omnipotent. Now. Show the proof f...

Address the point. False. All you've provided on this thread is this: You have provided proof that there is a mind X that told us to not believe a pro...

Ah careful. Reasons to believe things =/= Imperatives to believe things. As I already said, faculties don't give imperatives. This is the part that's ...

I'm asking for clarifications so far. Ah so I didn't hear them or take the input in through any sensory channels but my faculty of reason detected a c...

And you have memory of God conveying this to you? You sure it wasn't your teacher or parent or something? And you think the mind that issues this impe...

Right but Bart is claiming that God issued the imperatives of reason to each of us individually. I don't remember that happening to me. And I don't kn...

If it wasn't clear already. Yes. That's what "Give an example" means by the way. What's an example of an imperative of reason?

? So any imperative that is issued by a single mind is an imperative of reason? So “Do a backflip after eating 2 Burger King whoppers” is an imperativ...

Not challenging a premise. Just asking you what “imperatives of reason” are. I know what imperatives are. I know what laws of reason are. Idk what tha...

“Witnessed by others”? Who? Who here claimed that God came down and told them “be reasonable”? Just Bart. Makes me think he’s just crazy. Did God come...

Why single? But you and creative are trying to figure that bit out so I won’t double down on this for now. The problem is what is an “imperative of re...

Well “space” means “there is nothing there”. So I’d think what you want to imagine is just a world with all objects taken out of it, plenty of space, ...

Going by this metaphor, you’re also maintaining that one cannot always go left. And at the same time that every time one goes right they could have go...

I think Bart is the only one who doesn’t. And most people are too tired to point it out.

Let’s examine that. Which is to say “we cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection”. Let the set of all beliefs be U, and the ones we arriv...

“We cannot arrive at every belief via reasoned reflection but beliefs we have arrived at not by reasoned reflection (but by faith) can be arrived at b...

Sigh. Here we go again. Told? No. But I do know something. That the clouds make a "There's a pie in your the oven" shape. Or can we not agree on that ...

But aside from that basis, they could never agree that moral laws do not depend on consequences or desires. You have an obligation to do X or Y precis...

Utilitarians agree that moral laws do not depend on our desires or the consequences of our actions? That’s a new one…

Well clearly not because you can’t make a computer out of rocks. I honestly don’t get the comic. Is the guy acting as the CPU or something? But fundam...

You (probably) need a brain to arrange any of those. No because your whole idea of a “mental stuff” that is different from physical stuff is rejected ...

You spent 58 pages justifying it by comparison which is a terrible justification. Why must there be a "so what"? This thread is simply talking about a...

Why do you do it with anyone? And why would it be anything personal? Point is half of what you right here takes the form of "The Arabs did that to us ...

Why is this at the end of every comment? It's the same idea. Now it's "They didn't sentence their murderers so it's fine for us to leave some of ours ...