>>10917060PART 2
>asked and answeredNo you didn't, this is your first time encountering this in our discussion and you're literally just ignoring and hand-waiving it right now... This distinction blows your whole epistemology out of the water.
>unintelligibility.You're not using the word "unintelligibility" correctly at all. All you're doing is affirming that I'm right about reductive materialism: we can't reduce our subjective experiences to something more basic like brains and neurons, these experiences are irreducible. But we clearly understand the experiences of others since we understand our own experiences. This is perfectly intelligible.
>>10917112>arbitrary explanationHow is this an arbitrary explanation? If experience is fundamental then it makes perfect sense that a single subject is fundamental that grounds this world of experience. Sort of like the architect of the dream world in the movie inception.
>And youre not?Absolutely not. The world is as it appears to the idealist, no worries about the matrix or brains in vats for me. You on the other hand...
>more ad populumabsolutely fallacious and doesn't warrant further response
>fallacious? no.Yes it is, you're appealing to popularity as a way to dismiss the argument. That is the epitome of fallacious.
>the same serious problems that idealism has.Physicalism has the hard problem of consciousness.
Dualism has the mind-body problem.
Panpsychism has the combination problem.
Idealism has the... um.... hmm... there doesn't seem to be an established problem for idealism. I wonder why that is...
>physicalist that sounds like the phenomenal is fundamental in this case instead of the physical.
>Causal efficacy of consciousness?Yes, mental causation. Minds cause stuff to happen. This is why we make the distinction between killing with intent and killing without intent.
