>>10929683You really are illiterate: I never once claimed there's a metaphysical treatise only that the phenomenon needs to be identified, otherwise you can't distinguish them from geologists.
>Consciousness clearly supervenesway to beg the question. Supervenience falls prey to the exclusion problem and thus you will fail to maintain mental causation.
>Dont know what claims youre talking aboutsounds like a personal problem, once again you fail to carry your burden.
>I started the question fuckwityou moved the goal post is what happened
>No contradictions here anonYes there is: instrumentalism is non-realism, which means they don't take these "laws" to be actually real, they just see them as useful descriptions. Do you even know what instrumentalism is?
>causes are regularities therefore regularities are causes!you suck at logic so bad
>because you dont exist in other peoples minds.this doesn't prove epistemological solipsism (ES) at all. fail.
>because your perspective is unique to yourself.neither does this prove ES either.
>it wasnt operationalyou're moving the goal post again. do you even know the difference between metaphysics and science?
>Everyones ad hocnice tu quoque fallacy, this doesn't abdicate you of the responsibility to to carry your burden.
>it avoids assumptions anon.1. I'm not saying you should, I'm giving deductive arguments for idealism.
2. why not? idealism is more parsimonious and has more explanatory power and scope. this is easily more theoretically virtuous than what you're presenting.
>the differences between the twoI already told you I'm a monist not a dualist: I don't make that distinction since all is mental.
>psychiatrists dont formalise thingsmore goal post shifting: I didn't say they did. Only that there's a starting point and it lies in metaphysics. The mind has to at least be identified as a phenomenon otherwise the word "psychiatrist" literally means nothing...
