Analytic Idealism Question

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20212
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Analytic Idealism Question

Post by Age »

Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:23 am Let's try to concentrate on one question, otherwise answering each single word or sentence causes messages that are very long, dispersive, a maybe even less interesting.
But I do not find this at all.

If you only able to or would just like to concentrate on one or two things ONLY, then how about we start with your first three claims.

1. Claiming a certainty would need to be proved.

2. Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist.

3. Any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly.
Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:23 am I suggest to concentrate on the following point.

I assume that to write your answers you used your brain.
I suggest NEVER 'assuming' absolutely ANY 'thing' AT ALL, and ONLY basing what is said or expressed on Facts, and KNOWING, ONLY. That way you will NOT be as WRONG, and as OFTEN, as you are.

Now, OF COURSE, a brain is NEEDED to move the hands to write words and answers. But, who or what is the 'you', here, which supposedly has 'its' brain?
Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:23 am How can you trust what you wrote and what you think, considering that, whenever we try to test the thoughts of our brain, we cannot avoid our brain interfering again in the operation of testing?
ONCE AGAIN, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

As I was saying earlier. if one only uses the brain, then they come up with ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS like; "We don't know if reality exists". BUT, if one uses the Mind, FIRST, and then VERIFIES, then one does NOT say NOR write just what is 'thought', but instead expresses what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY KNOWN to be True, Right, AND Correct.
Angelo Cannata wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:23 am PS Can you avoid shouting certain words by using uppercase letters?
But I am NOT shouting. I just emphasize some words, with uppercase letters.

I do this, so I can SHOW to future readers EXACTLY WHERE what the posters here MISSED OUT on UNDERSTANDING what I was ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING, even though I had ACTUALLY EMPHASIZED most of the MAIN WORDS.

I ALSO do it to PROVE my CLAIMS about how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK, and how it is SO EASY and SO SIMPLE to deceive the brain by just capitalizing some words, which DETRACTS the brain from SEEING the most important words, which is WHERE the True and FULLY 'meaning' maybe HIDING.

'Reading between the lines', as it is said, is some 'thing' which the Mind can DO so simply and so easily, and almost instantaneously, while the brain almost ALWAYS MISSES. Literally, what the brain MISSES, the Mind SEES, CLEARLY.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Analytic Idealism Question

Post by Sculptor »

DudleyFerrell wrote: Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:15 am Hello,

I'm new here and philosophy isn't my forte. Please have patience with my ignorant question:

If reality doesn't exist unless it is being observed by a conscious being, then how do video cameras work? Or more accurately, WHY do video cameras work? Specifically, I'm talking about a situation where the camera is recording when there is no conscious observer such as a security camera recording an empty room.

Thanks in advance,
DudleyFerrell
Video camera's don't exist until you see them.

PS your question is not about idealism. It is about a cheap strawman caricature of idealism promoted by "realists" to try to in their fake arguments.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Analytic Idealism Question

Post by Sculptor »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:36 am "It is like those atheists who say that God does not exist: it is just a different faith, because they cannot prove that God does not exist: any proof would need in turn other proofs, endlessly."

Well not really. Propositions containing the word 'god' are rendered meaningless because of the nonsensical word 'god'. For the religious, it's not even a matter of bearing the burden of proof. Burdens of proof are for those who could possibly gather evidence in their favor. The burden of proof may be on me to prove the stock crash is due to x, or that a meteor is fixin to hit the erf... but I could never prove god existed because that word doesn't mean anything. There is no burden to prove what doesn't exist.

I could put the word 'wizzle dorp' in a proposition and present a logically sound and valid argument with said proposition. But logically sound and valid, while making a conclusion true, does not make the argument meaningful.

A shniggle whopter is an uncaused cause responsible for creating the universe. The universe was created. Therefore a shniggle whopter exists.

Can you prove to me that a shniggle whopter is not what I say it is?

That's a trick question.

There is no such thing as a shniggle whopter.
Never get help from a theist. He will make your argument even more stupid than it already looks.
promethean75
Posts: 4933
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Analytic Idealism Question

Post by promethean75 »

Age, the questions you are axing me are questions one might ax a positive atheist, which I am not. I do not claim the word 'god' has any cognitive content in the first place, so I'd never say 'god does not exist' and mean by that 'there is a thing which is 'god', and this thing does not exist.'

For clarification regarding this rather subtle nuance, see and contrast 'positive atheism' with 'theological noncognitivism'. Pay attention to Smith's attribute based approach.
Post Reply