Evidence for IIT, which we don’t have, does not prove idealism and the person you are defending is arguing for idealism.
The things you posit are falsifiable, the claims they have been putting forward are not. Hence my initial questions surrounding panpsychism to them before they started trying to use logical fallacies against a mainstream scientific position.
Right, I agree with you (my only quibble is that we do technically have evidence for IIT; it just isn’t definitive).
I misunderstood the guy in my first comment. At this point I know he isn’t defending IIT. All I’m saying is that IIT has legitimized a theory that once seemed crazy (panpsychism). It’s conceivable to me that something similar could happen with idealism, because not a single scientist or academic philosopher alive has any idea whats going on with consciousness. And when we dismiss ideas like idealism, we are implicitly assuming that we have some grasp of what’s going on, but we don’t.
Edit: just to clarify, in this particular comment chain I am defending IIT in particular
Yeah, honestly this might be a fatal issue. I know proponents of IIT say they have an explanation for this to do with causal powers of information or whatever, but I’m not sure if I’m convinced of IIT for other reasons.
There is a really interesting thesis that was written on the combination problem in relation to split-brain experiments. I’m still not sure if I’m totally convinced but it’s definitely an interesting read if you’re into this stuff!
Evidence for IIT, which we don’t have, does not prove idealism and the person you are defending is arguing for idealism.
The things you posit are falsifiable, the claims they have been putting forward are not. Hence my initial questions surrounding panpsychism to them before they started trying to use logical fallacies against a mainstream scientific position.
Right, I agree with you (my only quibble is that we do technically have evidence for IIT; it just isn’t definitive).
I misunderstood the guy in my first comment. At this point I know he isn’t defending IIT. All I’m saying is that IIT has legitimized a theory that once seemed crazy (panpsychism). It’s conceivable to me that something similar could happen with idealism, because not a single scientist or academic philosopher alive has any idea whats going on with consciousness. And when we dismiss ideas like idealism, we are implicitly assuming that we have some grasp of what’s going on, but we don’t.
Edit: just to clarify, in this particular comment chain I am defending IIT in particular
Agreed, we can’t even rigorously define consciousness, so to claim it’s the only thing that exists is a stretch too far for me.
Panpsychism is interesting but gonna need a lot more evidence including an explanation of the Combination Problem before I’m convinced.
Yeah, honestly this might be a fatal issue. I know proponents of IIT say they have an explanation for this to do with causal powers of information or whatever, but I’m not sure if I’m convinced of IIT for other reasons.
There is a really interesting thesis that was written on the combination problem in relation to split-brain experiments. I’m still not sure if I’m totally convinced but it’s definitely an interesting read if you’re into this stuff!