newolder wrote:
a 'pram emptying' LI reply.

Which would that be?
The one where I said everybody, myself included, should raise the bar...

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

So you ARE equating concept with physical world. Still looks like a category error, as you wrote.

And will continue to do so as long as you insist on misreading me.

A human concept is not the physical world. ideation of WM is the physical world.

Ah, so WM == "undivided Awareness is utterly different to "Individual Awareness"? The first has "ideas" that are nothing like what we mean by "ideas", doesn't experience, isn't "aware" in any sense that we mean by the word. An yet this utterly different thing "UA" is somehow "undivided" from IA?
The physical world is an idea, but not an idea, a concept, but not a concept, mind-made, but not mind-made, "in awareness" but unknown in awareness.

I read what you write. If you write nonsense naturally we will read it as nonsensical.
Come on!

I am here to do metaphysics not play silly buggers, so what ever.

You are not able to answer these very sensible criticisms put to you by many posters? You can't be bothered to defend your metaphysics. Nah, you just aren't able to answer or resolve the contradictions.
Ad newolder pointed out, there is nothing new here. You have been making extravagant unsubstantiated claims for your metaphysics and evading the serious challenges for a long, long time. I expect no better from you.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

I probably didn't say exactly that, (maybe somethig suggestive of that, but it may have been context dependent) and I would be more likely to say undivided awareness is not reality rather than not true.

I have never claimed mentalism, including the concept undivided awareness to be more than a model for reality and I would never claim it to be what reality actually 'is'.
However, since I define true as 'an accurate description of reality in a human language' then I think undivided awarenss does meet this criteria for an accurate description.

post 46

Why not quote the section?
I assume you mean

Little Idiot wrote:

I am not saying awareness of something is an assumption, its an observation.
I am saying its an assumption that awareness must always be divided.
I agree undivided awareness is not a known, but I do not agree it is an assumption simply because an assumption is 'a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.' Undivided awareness is not taken to be true, it is part of a metaphysical model - what's more as discussed it's a reasonable extension of a model to extend the scope of the earlier model without contradicting known facts.

maybe in the context of it being an assumption I should have said (added red)
'Undivided awareness is not taken to be true without evidence (metaphysics doesn't do 'proof'), it is part of a metaphysical model - ...

Which would have made my point, in the discussion about assumptions, that undivided awareness is not an assumption slightly more clearly.

However, if you think that this is me 'worming my way out' (of something) by talking about the context of 'assumption' while you want to be talking about if it is true or not then I will say;

I would have been more precise to say
Undivided awareness is not taken to be Reality, it is part of a metaphysical model ....

(Swapping out true for reality).

You are more fun than my Slip-N-Slide.

Glad you are enjoying.
I don't really see so much fun in my changing the word 'true' (a model of reality in human language) with 'reality' for an increase in precision in a post about 1000 posts back - but what ever gets you going.

I'd like some clarity.
From 'your' side I have apparently changed loads of things and am running out of dictionary.
From my side I didn't change a single thing. I just tried to field a few apparent misunderstandings from GH eventually and gave up as he seemed intent on misreading.

Weird, huh?

Please highlight a few things I changed through the recent posts, so I can understand what you see.

Little Idiot wrote:I'd like some clarity.
From 'your' side I have apparently changed loads of things and am running out of dictionary.
From my side I didn't change a single thing. I just tried to field a few apparent misunderstandings from GH eventually and gave up as he seemed intent on misreading.

Weird, huh?

Please highlight a few things I changed through the recent posts, so I can understand what you see.

That would be like serving platters of martini's and shrimp to my friends all along the Slip-n-Slide. However, this is where I got that little bit from. I was reviewing. Look at the post number (how far I got) to give you some idea how much work it is tracking your writhing coils through a thread.

Slithery trickery.

(btw for one you changed true to real. Just now.)

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:I'd like some clarity.
From 'your' side I have apparently changed loads of things and am running out of dictionary.
From my side I didn't change a single thing. I just tried to field a few apparent misunderstandings from GH eventually and gave up as he seemed intent on misreading.

Weird, huh?

Please highlight a few things I changed through the recent posts, so I can understand what you see.

That would be like serving platters of martini's and shrimp to my friends all along the Slip-n-Slide. However, this is where I got that little bit from. I was reviewing. Look at the post number (how far I got) to give you some idea how much work it is tracking your writhing coils through a thread.

Slithery trickery.

(btw for one you changed true to real. Just now.)

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about today's posts.
My bad.

I am quite happy for you to go through the thread for a consistency check.

If that change is the limit of my changes in the first 50 or 100 posts on very abstract metaphysical topics, I think that is very good.

Well. You are still going on and on here trying to make us, your audience, admit to assumptions. You don't seem to get what an assumption is for in a logical argument. But then you waffle between your shit being a logical argument and not being one. You are waffling all over the place about reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

It's like a big pile of really fine feathers and every time you get the slightest critique the pile is blown up and comes down in a subtly different way. Are you playing here for post count or do you have other goals? Cuz I already kicked your ass on post count.

Little Idiot wrote:

newolder wrote:
a 'pram emptying' LI reply.

Which would that be?
The one where I said everybody, myself included, should raise the bar...

Post #734 contains your petulant reply to a succinct description little different to the essence of GrahamH’s post #1029. Posts from 734 to 1029 show no evidence that a bar has been raised.

The important thing to figure out here is why the physical world, the PW, the one we have all the these facts for, is called a World Idea. Why not just call it the World and admit that we do not know what it actually is at the Low Turtle?

What is the utility of insisting that things are actually ideas or concepts? LI are you equating ideas with concepts?.

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well. You are still going on and on here trying to make us, your audience, admit to assumptions. You don't seem to get what an assumption is for in a logical argument. But then you waffle between your shit being a logical argument and not being one. You are waffling all over the place about reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

It's like a big pile of really fine feathers and every time you get the slightest critique the pile is blown up and comes down in a subtly different way. Are you playing here for post count or do you have other goals? Cuz I already kicked your ass on post count.

Well, since its a metaphysical discussion I dont see being clear about these things (red) is weakness;
reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions

your (yellow) logical argument and not being one - some parts are logical arguments, its good to be logical. But most of the metaphysics is reasoning, you know.

Your (orange) going on and on, as well as you waffle is well, I'll take going on, even waffle, if it pleases you.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:Well. You are still going on and on here trying to make us, your audience, admit to assumptions. You don't seem to get what an assumption is for in a logical argument. But then you waffle between your shit being a logical argument and not being one. You are waffling all over the place about reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

It's like a big pile of really fine feathers and every time you get the slightest critique the pile is blown up and comes down in a subtly different way. Are you playing here for post count or do you have other goals? Cuz I already kicked your ass on post count.

Well, since its a metaphysical discussion I dont see being clear about these things (red) is weakness;
reality and truth. Real and exist. Absolute and relative and changing and unchanging. Models vs reality. WI and WM. Concepts and ideas. Things and words for things.

your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions

your (yellow) logical argument and not being one - some parts are logical arguments, its good to be logical. But most of the metaphysics is reasoning, you know.

Your (orange) going on and on, as well as you waffle is well, I'll take going on, even waffle, if it pleases you.

So you see reasoning as not being logical argument?

ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

jamest wrote:
Firstly, this merely evades addressing why skepticism (not idealism) should be the default metaphysical position when beginning a metaphysical enquiry.
Secondly, not all alternative metaphysics to physicalism necessarily involve God, so believing physicalism merely as a means to avoiding theism is rather silly and naive.
Thirdly, incredulity alone should never form the basis of any rejection of an idea.
Lastly, the metaphysical see-saw carrying theism and physicalism does not hinge solely upon incredulity and parsimony. That's also a silly and naive notion.

Surreptitious predictably applauded your post, but I'm afraid that I'm going to have to throw rotten tomatoes at you instead.

1. Well, no. It starts where we find ourselves in the thread.
2. The two views set up as rivals here are realism and mentalism. The only reason I called the entity "God" is that surrep was addressing you rather than L.I. You can substitute it for world mind. That's as far as this is meant to reach. It's modest.
3. I didn't use incredulity as a basis as far as I can see. Incredulity at metaphysical extravagance isn't the basis for the objection. The space that such extravagance opens up for philosophical problems is. Even that was conditional.
4. The strategy doesn't pretend to weigh every issue. Hence the prima facie and defeasibility stuff.

If I were jamest I would have would have answered like this

'Numerically parsimonious' is insignificant when compared to parsimony of types, by which I mean the awareness of the objects is one type and your (supposedly real) objects are a second type, bringing in duality. Where as explaining the awareness of the objects in terms of undivided awareness is not a second type (since the individual awareness, and the objects it is aware of are all hosted by it) and remains a monist position.

I think this is too patchy. How do we count types? For instance, undivided awareness seems wholly other. You call it awareness, but it's quite unlike our own awareness and nor is it the sum of human awareness.

We count types as fundamentally different. Like, say, 'mind' and 'matter' to quote the stereotypical division.
Undivided awareness is (in the mentalist model) the host of all the individual awareness, is a way akin to a single mind hosting all its separate ideas which are in one sense part of it, yet in another sense different from it.

So, I'm not seeing it. If the realist is an emergentist then she can say (using your own speak to bring out the similarities) that awareness is hosted by real objects. Again, I'm minded to think that this sort of parsimony is largely unimportant unless the views are otherwise equal. The world mind or God both remain extravagant over and above this.

Little Idiot wrote:Not only is this metaphysically more parsimonious but introducing the so-called real objects introduces a group of unnecessary questions to explain or account for the interaction between types. Unless there is some significant reason to assume this additional type, apart from 'it sure looks that way' then doing so should clearly be avoided.

I don't think that'll work either. Mentalism already has the metaphysical extravagance of the world mind or God on top of working out the relation between divided and undivided awareness (or the master experiencer and subject-like experiences on jamest's view).

You cant class 'that this sort of parsimony is largely unimportant' if it turns monism into dualism, that's a significant distinction not at all unimportant.

SpeedOfSound wrote:ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

You said I was, now I defend your point?
O.k. I guess. Well mainly I was talking about the undivided awareness thing.

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:
And will continue to do so as long as you insist on misreading me.

A human concept is not the physical world. ideation of WM is the physical world.

Ah, so WM == "undivided Awareness is utterly different to "Individual Awareness"? The first has "ideas" that are nothing like what we mean by "ideas", doesn't experience, isn't "aware" in any sense that we mean by the word. An yet this utterly different thing "UA" is somehow "undivided" from IA?
The physical world is an idea, but not an idea, a concept, but not a concept, mind-made, but not mind-made, "in awareness" but unknown in awareness.

I read what you write. If you write nonsense naturally we will read it as nonsensical.
Come on!

I am here to do metaphysics not play silly buggers, so what ever.

You are not able to answer these very sensible criticisms put to you by many posters? You can't be bothered to defend your metaphysics. Nah, you just aren't able to answer or resolve the contradictions.
Ad newolder pointed out, there is nothing new here. You have been making extravagant unsubstantiated claims for your metaphysics and evading the serious challenges for a long, long time. I expect no better from you.

Sorry if I lost patience with you.
But after what seemed from my side a string of misrepresentations you hit me with the first line which I cant decode.
What does your
'Ah, so WM == "undivided Awareness is utterly different to "Individual Awareness"?'
mean or ask.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

You said I was, now I defend your point?

How is this 'raising the bar'? You've just replied to SoS with:

... yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions

SoS is asking you to write about which assumptions of SoS you are challenging.

O.k. I guess. Well mainly I was talking about the undivided awareness thing.

What 'undivided awareness thing' is an SoS assumption?

If you raise the bar any higher, it'll be off the ground.

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

You said I was, now I defend your point?
O.k. I guess. Well mainly I was talking about the undivided awareness thing.

I'm not making an argument so I have no assumptions in this game. Very curious that you want your audience to chime in with you as you construct. Prior to seeing your argument. I think what you are reaching for is this:

"Awareness could be divided amongst us individuals or it could be a part of some bigger whole"

That would be YOU stating some premise for your argument. Now if you were a preacher on the pulpit you may desire that your audience say "Amen!" every few minutes but I fail to see why you need it here on RatSkep.

Now do note that if you put it like I put it up there, then you would admit at that juncture it would be an assumption either way. You would have to admit that it was your premise that it could be either/or as well. That would be you 'being clear' and I have little hope for that today.

Now on this matter of undivided awareness this caught my eye:

Little Idiot wrote:...
your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions
...

My 'awareness' of that color is what I would color a lovely blue. If we are undivided awareness, you and I together, then why do we divide on this lovely blue?

SpeedOfSound wrote:The important thing to figure out here is why the physical world, the PW, the one we have all the these facts for, is called a World Idea. Why not just call it the World and admit that we do not know what it actually is at the Low Turtle?

What is the utility of insisting that things are actually ideas or concepts? LI are you equating ideas with concepts?.

The point is to model the unmanifest which manifests as PW.
The point of this is that if we model/understand only the manifest we understand only part of what we can potentially understand.

I have agreed that awareness is not the only possible way to do this, but I think it is the best way for a variety of reasons, many of which I have previously stated and can restate if need be.

It is a conceptual model of Low Turtle, to point at the unmanifest and help on the journey, but to drop (or more accurately suspend) while there and resume when back here.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Little Idiot wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:ANd what assumptions of mine are you challenging again?

You said I was, now I defend your point?
O.k. I guess. Well mainly I was talking about the undivided awareness thing.

I'm not making an argument so I have no assumptions in this game. Very curious that you want your audience to chime in with you as you construct. Prior to seeing your argument. I think what you are reaching for is this:

"Awareness could be divided amongst us individuals or it could be a part of some bigger whole"

That would be YOU stating some premise for your argument. Now if you were a preacher on the pulpit you may desire that your audience say "Amen!" every few minutes but I fail to see why you need it here on RatSkep.

Now do note that if you put it like I put it up there, then you would admit at that juncture it would be an assumption either way. You would have to admit that it was your premise that it could be either/or as well. That would be you 'being clear' and I have little hope for that today.

Now on this matter of undivided awareness this caught my eye:

Little Idiot wrote:...
your (nasty blue) admit to assumptions - yes I will continue to challenge your assumptions
...

My 'awareness' of that color is what I would color a lovely blue. If we are undivided awareness, you and I together, then why do we divide on this lovely blue?

I would like 'the audience' to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awreness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made.
And it is obvious that I dont want to face the accusation that it contradicts known facts....

We subjectively experience the blue differently because as individual awareness-es we have our individual tastes. These differences in taste, opinion etc come down to genes and up-to-date conditioning.
We do experience as individual awareness-es in my model. We have another, normally hidden relationship with the undivided source which is important because it is our direct link to unmanifest reality.

Little Idiot wrote:...
I would like 'the audience' to agree that undivided awareness contradicts the assumption that awreness must be individual because then my point that undivided awareness doesnt contradict any known facts is made.
And it is obvious that I dont want to face the accusation that it contradicts known facts....

Who made that assumption (awareness must be individual) and where?

Individual awareness is an observed fact. You and SoS describe that colour-in-awareness differently and I don’t call it blue at all (my monitor screen is monochrome). Hence ‘undivided awareness’ (although not yet defined), looks like it contradicts this known fact. Hence mentalism fails.

...
We do experience as individual awareness-es in my model. We have another, normally hidden relationship with the undivided source which is important because it is our direct link to unmanifest reality.

This is your assumption of World Mind.