I think you’re treating a heuristic definition as though it were an exhaustive metaphysical one. When I said consciousness is ‘what it is like to be X’, I was describing the form consciousness takes once differentiated subjects exist, not making a complete definition of consciousness itself.
My position is that subjectivity is fundamental, whilst individual subjects are emergent. In other words, I don’t think consciousness begins when the first sufficiently complex organism appears. Saying otherwise requires a cogent, non-ad hoc structure that explains how something could come from nothing. If you adopt my stance, it means regarding individual centres of experience emerging gradually from a more primitive, undifferentiated form of consciousness. The ‘X’ itself is part of what evolves. That’s the point you’re assuming away. It’s rather like asking, ‘which organism existed before organisms?’ Before the first cell, there were no organisms, yet there was still chemistry. Organisms emerged from chemistry, without chemistry suddenly coming into existence. Likewise, I’m suggesting differentiated subjects emerge from a more fundamental ground of subjectivity without consciousness itself suddenly appearing at a threshold.
Ultimately, I think this is where we fundamentally differ. You’re treating individuation as ontologically fundamental; I’m treating individuation as emergent. It’s a position shared by a number of serious philosophical frameworks, whether panpsychism, cosmopsychism or neutral monism. Your objection only works if one assumes your ontology at the exclusion of all else.
I’ve already agreed to your points in an effort to move this discussion forward. You failing to provide a prompt you’re willing to agree to is quite telling.
If by answer the question you mean provide an approach we can compare 2PC to, let’s start with Audrey Tang’s Polis system.
Ah. So now, having previously given a clear, unambiguous definition of consciousness, you are now trying to say that “wasn’t complete”, and that there’s a different sort of consciousness which doesn’t qualify as your original definition, but somehow it is still “consciousness”. What you are now trying to do (with AI assistance, you can stop lying about that), is to use “consciousness” to refer to two completely different things, without offering any explanation as to why the same word is being used in two completely different ways.
My position is that subjectivity is fundamental, whilst individual subjects are emergent.
That simply defines panpsychism to be true, without offering any explanation about what “consciousness” even means at the most basic level.
OK. So what does the word “consciousness” mean in the quoted sentence? It can’t mean “what it is like to be X”, so what does it mean?
Saying otherwise requires a cogent, non-ad hoc structure that explains how something could come from nothing.
No it doesn’t. That assumes that “nothing” is a default starting position, which 2PC denies for the simple logic that nothing can come from nothing.
If you adopt my stance, it means regarding individual centres of experience emerging gradually from a more primitive, undifferentiated form of consciousness.
OK. So what does the word “consciousness” mean in the quoted sentence? It can’t mean “what it is like to be X”, so what does it mean?
Nope. I am using the word “consciousness” consistently and unambiguously. You are trying to use it to mean two completely different things…or rather one thing with a clear definition, and another thing which you cannot define at all.
I just looked that up. It has got almost nothing to do with the four criteria you have accepted about the old paradigm and the new paradigm. It is a methodology for discussion, not a cosmological-metaphysical-epistemological theory of reality. It is not a rival for 2PC, so there is no point in asking an AI to compare them.
Prompt to my instance of ChatGPT: has Tang’s system got anything to do with 2PC?
Response:
Yes, but only at a very abstract level.
Polis and 2PC are addressing completely different domains:
Polis is a political and social technology for collective decision-making.
2PC is a metaphysical and quantum-cosmological framework about consciousness, collapse, and reality.
There is no direct connection. Audrey Tang’s work is not based on quantum mechanics, consciousness, ontology, or anything resembling 2PC.
However, there are some structural similarities that might interest you.
In Polis, a large population contains many competing preferences, values, and viewpoints. The system does not try to preserve all of them equally (as a Many Worlds analogue might). Instead, it searches for a stable resolution that can be jointly endorsed by the greatest number of participants.
In your current version of 2PC, collapse occurs when incompatible valuations within a unified representational system require resolution. A definite outcome emerges from a field of possibilities because unresolved contradiction cannot persist within a single coherent subject.
The analogy would be:
Phase 1 possibilities ↔ the space of possible policy positions.
Competing valuations ↔ competing social preferences.
Collapse/resolution ↔ emergence of a consensus position.
Stable embodied reality ↔ enacted policy.
But this is only an analogy. The mechanisms are entirely different.
There is one potentially deeper connection. Polis is designed around the idea that progress comes from finding coherence rather than maximizing conflict. It assumes that beneath apparent polarization there are often latent points of agreement waiting to be discovered. Your 2PC framework similarly places coherence at the center of ontology: reality stabilizes through coherent resolution of competing possibilities.
That said, one should be careful not to push the analogy too far. In 2PC, collapse is an ontological event tied to consciousness and valuation. In Polis, consensus is simply a statistical and social phenomenon produced by human participants and algorithmic analysis.
So I would say:
Direct connection: none.
Structural analogy: moderate.
Potential source of useful metaphors for explaining 2PC: yes.
Evidence for 2PC: no. Polis does not support or test any of the central claims of 2PC.
The contortions some people will go through the avoid accountability.
If what you say is true, then it should receive a low score.
Once again, you’re reluctant to submit to an impartial evaluation.
Now it’s clear why you made that set of stipulations – so you can pull the ‘no true Scotsman’ trick any time a rival is proposed.
“That won’t work - it’s not a metaphysical-ontological theory!”
Once again, stop moving the goal posts. I’ve answered your question, I’ve agreed to your unnecessary prerequisites, I’ve provided two prompts of my own and still, you’re afraid to actually test your theory against the claim you made. Your epistemic gymnastics to avoid accountability is really something to behold.
Post the prompt you’ll agree to. Still waiting. Not expecting anything, of course.
More bad-faith communication. It’s deep in your psychology, isn’t it? All I have been doing, for about the last ten posts, is to get you to answer basic questions about how this evaluation should be conducted. My posts have been clear, constructive, and I am not strawmanning you. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly refused to answer those basic questions, while repeatedly making ludicrous accusations that I am trying to refuse an impartial evaluation.
Do you have no shame at all?
No, there is no point in comparing 2PC to some system which operates in an entirely different domain, and has an entirely different function. Now…are you willing to suggest some genuine rival theories to compare 2PC to? No, you aren’t, because there aren’t any. That is the real problem here, and why this discussion is so difficult. You’re trying to present this as my unwillingness to allow 2PC to be compared to rivals, but in actual fact the problem is that there aren’t any rivals, which is why you have been reduced to proposing comparing it to something which serves a completely different purpose.
I’m disappointed that instead of exploring these ideas in the spirit of curiosity, the discussion has descended into accusations about AI and assertions that I’m lying.
I also think you’re misunderstanding and even misrepresenting my position. I’m not using the word consciousness to mean two unrelated things. Suggesting that consciousness exists on a continuum, whilst individual conscious subjects emerge through increasing organisation, is wholly consistent. That’s no different in principle from using the word “life” to describe both a bacterium and a banana. The underlying phenomenon is the same - its expression changes dramatically with complexity.
‘What it is like to be X’, is a perfectly good description of individuated consciousness. I’m simply suggesting that X itself is emergent. You’re assuming X must always have existed as a discrete entity.
So yes, I am proposing that the most primitive form of consciousness would be radically unlike our own. How does that make it a different phenomenon, any more than hydrogen and a human body are different forms of matter…? Complexity doesn’t create matter - it organises it into new forms. Likewise, I don’t think brains create consciousness from nothing. Instead, we can see them as organing and differentiating something more fundamental into rich subjective experiences we recognise in ourselves and other animals.
You begin with the assumption that individuated subjects are ontologically fundamental, and therefore consciousness must appear at a threshold. I begin with the possibility that subjectivity is fundamental and individuation is emergent. Neither starting point has been established by neuroscience; they are competing metaphysical interpretations.
What saddens me a little is that these exchanges no longer feel like an exploration. They feel like a defence of a completed system. Whenever a perspective is raised that might require even a small revision to 2PC, the response seems to be to declare it incoherent or nonsense or redefine the terms until it no longer fits. Basically it seems you just want people to echo your theory, say how good it is, and… yeah, that is literally it.
What annoys me the most is how you depict any challenges as ‘unscientific’. It rankles particularly as science is my field of work, and - although far from a perfect methodology to understand all aspects of reality - has advanced humanity to the greatest extent. And true science is willing to hold foundational assumptions provisionally - every major advance has involved someone questioning what previously seemed self-evident. I don’t know whether my position is right; I may end up abandoning parts of it entirely - but I don’t get the sense that 2PC is afforded the same openness to revision. It often feels less like a hypothesis under investigation and more like the framework into which everything else must fit.
If I’m exploring questions, your position is that of standing on a pedestal having already arrived at the destination, The Truth, and woe betide all those who don’t share it with you.
No I am not. If “what it is like to be X” only works as a definition of “individuated consciousness”, and you believe there is something as “non-individuated consciousness”, then what is the definition of this “non-individuated consciousness”? What warrants the use of the word “consciousness” to describe this thing? What does it have in common with “individuated consciousness” which warrants the use of the same word? What is the definition of consciousness which covers both?
So yes, I am proposing that the most primitive form of consciousness would be radically unlike our own. How does that make it a different phenomenon, any more than hydrogen and a human body are different forms of matter…?
It is different because I can explain why hydrogen and a human body both warrant the description “matter” but you cannot explain what “individuated consciousness” and “non-individuated consciousness” have in common which warrants the shared use of the word “consciousness” to describe them.
Complexity doesn’t create matter - it organises it into new forms. Likewise, I don’t think brains create consciousness from nothing. Instead, we can see them as organing and differentiating something more fundamental into rich subjective experiences we recognise in ourselves and other animals.
And what is your definition of this “more fundamental thing”?
What saddens me a little is that these exchanges no longer feel like an exploration. They feel like a defence of a completed system.
Actually, I am just trying to get you to admit that you are using the word “consciousness” to refer to two completely different things, and that you are unable to justify using the same word in both cases.
I am doing philosophy, as it is supposed to be done. This is exactly how analytical philosophy works. Yes, I am defending 2PC, which involves exposing the contradictions inherent to your attempts to refute it. Your arguments depend on using the word “consciousness” in a fundamentally meaningless way. You do not know what you mean when you talk about non-individuated consciousness, which is why you cannot explain to anybody else what it is supposed to mean.
You started a thread called “Exploring Consciousness”. Now…what does “consciousness” mean in that thread title? What, exactly, do you think we are exploring?
Oh…and Dvdjsph…you have resorted to piss-taking smileys because you finally ran out of bullshit. Smileys aren’t a substitute for an actual argument. They are the ultimate bluff, resorted to by people who have lost an argument, but aren’t capable of admitting this to themselves, and are hoping that at least some people reading the thread will be fooled by the smiley into thinking you didn’t lose the argument.
This forum is absolutely pathetic. 2R has taken the most serious subject in the world, and reduced it to a joke that isn’t funny.
You can just say that consciousness had consciousness (I wouldn’t conflate being conscious with consciousness at all).
If I were to put a simple analogy together - I’d say that consciousness (individuated) is akin to getting an IP address from a DNS server and entering the network. You can’t have consciousness or be conscious if you can’t “reflect” yourself off something. That also goes with experiencing God - in a way that you need to bounce it off and experience through yourself (because your brain is the interface to translate it into subjective experience).
It’s possible that even subjective experience is not actually subjective meaning eminating from the brain.
I don’t think there’s any negotiation needed - it’s not a matter of getting consciousness or not - I just expressed it in a way I think some of people can relate to.
Consciousness is just the fabric of what there is. On top of it - there are flavours - tree consciousness, stone, etc…
Being flummoxed by how subjective/objective interact, boundaries, timelines, causality is unhealthy and totally unecessary except if your goal is to formulate it as science.
Geoff, the problem with relying on definitions and categorisations is it assumes a static background from which they emerge. In the same way that individual forces and particles unify, and lose separation, the closer we reach the big bang singularity, so too does every definition we assign to reality. Exploring the root of consciousness, and what consciousness is, requires re-evaluating how it is defined now, and how we experience it. The definition applied to it now, or for us, will necessarily be different from how it arises at the epoch you refer to.
what is the definition of this “non-individuated consciousness”?
This is something mentioned by @RobertBunge earlier. We may also look at how Jung defined the collective subconscious. Is it a measurable field? Perhaps, indirectly. Though I am not attempting to nail it down because, as noted, I am just exploring possibilities.
What is the definition of consciousness which covers both?
A state of being that expresses itself?
The question is also: what is the definition that covers what is an atom and the primordial field of energy from which all atoms arise?
The answer: consciousness, essentially, is everything.
Does that qualify as a definition of something that exists? If we resort to a static body of knowledge based of categorisation and separation, no. If we perceive existence as fluid, an evolving process, where interconnection and underlying unity is the foundation then, I would argue yes.
I am doing philosophy, as it is supposed to be done. This is exactly how analytical philosophy works.
You are doing a positive job stress-testing my hypotheses, albeit in a somewhat abrasive manner. You succeeded in making me question some things. I just wish all this could be done with the same spirit of curiosity and equal level of discovery.
And the physicalist says…physical stuff are just the fabric of what there is.
And neutral monists say…the neutral stuff is just the fabric of what exists at the deepest level.
In all three cases, the definition has reduced “consciousness”, “physical stuff” or “neutral stuff” to meaning “whatever exists”. And at that point, the words cease to be of any use in a technical philosophical debate.
These sorts of definitions aren’t the only ones possible. Consciousness can be defined with a private ostensive definition. Matter can be defined in terms of a 3D world where objects move about as time passes. Neutral stuff can be defined in terms of information (or something else which isn’t mind or matter). These are examples of definitions which actually do some work: they actually mean something, and therefore can be connected to other concepts.
No. Definitions are a pre-requisite for any analytical philosophical debate, and any kind of scientific enquiry. Without stable definitions and categorisations, neither science nor analytical philosophy are possible.
I can’t believe you’ve posted that. It is pure AI-generated bullshit.
I see. So consciousness has always been around, but the consciousness that was around at the beginning was different to consciousness now. That means you are talking about two different things, when your own argument depends on them being the same thing. If they are different things, then when did one change into the other, and why?
This is something mentioned by @RobertBunge earlier. We may also look at how Jung defined the collective subconscious. Is it a measurable field? Perhaps, indirectly. Though I am not attempting to nail it down because, as noted, I am just exploring possibilities.
You are not attempting to nail it down because you’ve got no idea what you are actually proposing. You haven’t thought through your position.
What is the definition of consciousness which covers both?
A state of being that expresses itself?
And what does “expresses itself” mean in the early universe? What could it mean?
The answer: consciousness, essentially, is everything.
That is defining idealism to be true, which directly contradicts your previous defence of panpsychism. You have now switched to a completely different metaphysical system. Talk about moving the goalposts. You’ve just switched a football field for a swimming pool.
Does that qualify as a definition of something that exists?
Well, yes, everything is something which exists. But it has got nothing to do with “individuated consciousness”, has it? We are supposed to be exploring subjective experiences, but the meaning of the word “consciousness” has now crept so far as that it now covers everything in existence. Consciousness is consciousness, matter is consciousness, numbers are consciousness, God is consciousness…you name it…if it exists, its consciousness!
Meaningless tripe. There is a reason why I did not consent to your obvious attempts to use AI to mislead people. You are trying to use AI to compare 2PC to something it isn’t intended to compete with, and the result is AI-generated garbage of the worst sort.
I stated that before any AI analysis should take place, we need to agree on context, prompt and the range of things 2PC should be compared to. You spent several hours frustrating my attempts to get you to agree to that, then chose to do the analysis on your own, using your own criteria, and your own choice of competing “thing” (a book in this case).
It’s more bad faith communication, which is clearly a specialty of yours. I am playing strictly by the rules of open philosophical debate. You continually cheat.
It’s draining to debate with someone who has lost touch with politeness and civility, even after I make efforts to be nice and bring the conversation back to one of shared truth seeking. Right now I’d struggle to name anyone else in the intellectual bracket who is more in need of a NVC course. This will likely be my final response to you until you can acknowledge and address your communication issues.
Definitions are a pre-requisite for any analytical philosophical debate, and any kind of scientific enquiry. Without stable definitions and categorisations, neither science nor analytical philosophy are possible.
I do generally agree with that statement. We do need definitions and categorisations. The issue is you were bringing the debate into existential territory, with reference to 10 seconds before the big bang. It seems you may not understand what that means, but I’ll go onto that next.
I can’t believe you’ve posted that. It is pure AI-generated bullshit.
Well, it was clearly posted by me. And it was not generated by AI. And why is it ‘bullshit’? Which part? The part that simply echoes established science - of particles and forces being unified the closer we go to the big bang singularity? (If so, you really are way off with your understanding of physics). Or the part about every definition we assign to reality breaking down? If that, maybe you can explain how definitions and categories we apply now (even down to the concept of space and time) somehow are still preserved in the origin singularity?
So consciousness has always been around, but the consciousness that was around at the beginning was different to consciousness now. That means you are talking about two different things, when your own argument depends on them being the same thing. If they are different things, then when did one change into the other, and why?
As I keep repeating and providing copious examples of, it is possible to have two different things that are nonetheless expressions of the same underlying field.
Your position seems to be that: if X and Y exists, then it is impossible for them to be the same at any point in time. Yet, that is not what we observe in nature. Things arise from processes and through inter-relation: what’s baffling is you used these concepts to draw people in to agree to 2PC, yet when it comes to actually applying them outside the rigid confines of your theory, they seem to mean nothing at all.
Let me ask you: at what point did a seed turn into a tree? Maybe you can answer: when the seed cracked, or perhaps you might say when the first root penetrated soil. Maybe you would give some other definition. Regardless, although we do indeed need definitions and categorisations to understand the world, the underlying nature of things is not as black and white. The nature of the tree already exists within the seed, through its genetic coding; just as the seed also exists within the tree. They are two different things, merged into one another, with one expressing more prominently under certain conditions, and vice versa. If you carry this analogy through to all states of existence, including consciousness, then you have your answer.
You are not attempting to nail it down because you’ve got no idea what you are actually proposing. You haven’t thought through your position.
No, I don’t jump to concrete conclusions without lengthy consideration, and ideally debate with other people, to get different perspectives. Even then, the conclusions change with new evidence or perspectives, as appropriate.
What is the definition of consciousness which covers both?
A state of being that expresses itself?
And what does “expresses itself” mean in the early universe? What could it mean?
A loose idea? To develop a structured form or pattern that persists, or self-replicates.
That is defining idealism to be true, which directly contradicts your previous defence of panpsychism. You have now switched to a completely different metaphysical system. Talk about moving the goalposts. You’ve just switched a football field for a swimming pool.
I don’t see the contradiction or any shift of goalposts. The goalposts shifted in this discussion when you asked how could consciousness exist 10 seconds after the big bang. That by necessity requires a reflection on how ordinary definitions and categorisations break down.
Well, yes, everything is something which exists. But it has got nothing to do with “individuated consciousness”, has it? We are supposed to be exploring subjective experiences, but the meaning of the word “consciousness” has now crept so far as that it now covers everything in existence. Consciousness is consciousness, matter is consciousness, numbers are consciousness, God is consciousness…you name it…if it exists, its consciousness!
Well, if all things are in a state of unity and interconnection, then this is the unavoidable conclusion. And you could ask: why do we have the appearance of separation - or why do broken symmetries exist? You haven’t gone down that route, for whatever reason.
But let’s say you are right. Consciousness arises, from nothing, when organisms evolve to a certain point. Before that point, all of existence exists in a state of <‘uncertainty’>. Now, to me, it makes more sense to say that instead consciousness has always existed, to some degree; that it has unique attributes that arise from complex biology, in the same way we have unique configurations of matter that nonetheless arose from gamma ray collisions in the past.
To erect a binary ‘conscious’/‘non-conscious’ barrier essentially puts it back to the logic of ‘one moment there was X and the next moment there was Y’.
Some people are happy with that. I personally am not, and think there are better perspectives.
Neither yours nor the one I presented in ‘established science’, nor is either one ‘unscientific’.
Neither is ‘The Truth’ but an attempt to explain what consciousness is and how it arises.
It is you who brought the debate into existential territory, by redefining “consciousness” to mean something entirely different to your original definition, and by claiming that the transition from non-conscious to conscious was gradual. If it was gradual, then the gradualness either goes all the way back to the BB or it doesn’t. So which is it?
That is absolute bullshit. It is not even a little bit true.
Well, it was clearly posted by me. And it was not generated by AI. And why is it ‘bullshit’? Which part?
All of it, Justin. You don’t even know what position you are defending, because you subcontracted your thinking to an AI. You started out with a reasonable definition of consciousness, then you tried to add a second definition (of “non-individuated consciousness”, whatever that is supposed to be). I am simply trying to establish what this actually means, and it is clear that you have no idea.
The part that simply echoes established science - of particles and forces being unified the closer we go to the big bang singularity? (If so, you really are way off with your understanding of physics). Or the part about every definition we assign to reality breaking down? If that, maybe you can explain how definitions and categories we apply now (even down to the concept of space and time) somehow are still preserved in the origin singularity?
We aren’t talking about “at the Big Bang”, are we? Nothing “breaks down” just after the big bang. In cosmological modelling, ten seconds after the big bang might as well be an eternity. The laws of physics completely apply.
All of which is a pointless distraction from the fact that you are not able to define what you mean by “non-individuated consciousness”, and you can’t explain whether it began just after the big bang, or at some other unspecified point later. Which is it?
As I keep repeating and providing copious examples of, it is possible to have two different things that are nonetheless expressions of the same underlying field.
Nope, that’s the first time you’ve said that, and it is pseudoscience. It sounds like you are making a scientific claim, but it has no scientific content. If consciousness was produced by a physical field, and it had two different ways of “expressing itself”, then this would be physics. Or is it some kind of “non-physical field”?
Your position seems to be that: if X and Y exists, then it is impossible for them to be the same at any point in time. Yet, that is not what we observe in nature. Things arise from processes and through inter-relation: what’s baffling is you used these concepts to draw people in to agree to 2PC, yet when it comes to actually applying them outside the rigid confines of your theory, they seem to mean nothing at all.
That is more AI generated crap.
Let me ask you: at what point did a seed turn into a tree? Maybe you can answer: when the seed cracked, or perhaps you might say when the first root penetrated soil. Maybe you would give some other definition. Regardless, although we do indeed need definitions and categorisations to understand the world, the underlying nature of things is not as black and white. The nature of the tree already exists within the seed, through its genetic coding; just as the seed also exists within the tree. They are two different things, merged into one another, with one expressing more prominently under certain conditions, and vice versa. If you carry this analogy through to all states of existence, including consciousness, then you have your answer.
And more.
A loose idea?
That pretty much covers everything you are posting at this point.
I don’t see the contradiction or any shift of goalposts.
First you defined consciousness as “What it is like to be X”. Now, it turns out, you are defining consciousness to mean “everything which exists”. Then you tried to claim that both these things are different expressions of an “underlying field”. Debating you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Well, if all things are in a state of unity and interconnection, then this is the unavoidable conclusion.
Let’s follow the logic. If all things are in a state of unity and interconnection then…
…everything is bananas.
…everything is Donald Trump’s underwear.
…everything is an elvish song being sung by drunken hobbits.
But let’s say you are right. Consciousness arises, from nothing, when organisms evolve to a certain point.
Hmm. Now, is that what I claimed? Nope, it isn’t. What do I actually say consciousness is? You have no idea, do you?
Before that point, all of existence exists in a state of <‘uncertainty’>. Now, to me, it makes more sense to say that instead consciousness has always existed, to some degree;
But you just tried to define consciousness to mean “everything which exists”! That’s not existing “to some degree”, is it? It’s everything, all the time.
Is there some point to this discussion? Are we “exploring consciousness”? Or are we trying to have a debate where you have ceased to make any sense, and are just using AI in an attempt to defend a non-existent philosophical position?
Why don’t we take a step back and have a review?
What do you think the word “consciousness” means?
What is it that we are supposed to be exploring?
Geoff, would you talk to someone face to face in a debate like this? Have you ever done it?
Learning basic civility is something most people pick up before their pre-teen years. If they fail after that, they learn a harder way. Although sadly now in society many people are somehow cocooned from consequences of treating others with respect (both because the other side doesn’t stand up, or because of insulated positions or extreme power/wealth imbalances).
I’m not engaging with you further. Maybe only face to face, but you’d likely either be learning the hard way to be civil or you’d realise you lost the insulation of online spaces and keep yourself in check.
Yes, I have studied philosophy academically, and this is how it works. The problem is that you appear to be taking it personally when in fact I am attacking your argument, not you. Specifically, you are making metaphysical claims about consciousness, but you need to define that word to mean two different things for your argument to work. This is exactly what physicalists also do, when they try to define it as both brain processes and subjective experience. Pointing this out is not a social faux pas. It’s just philosophy, doing it what it does.
But learning how to lose a philosophical argument gracefully is something that requires academic study. I am refuting your argument, not personally attacking you.
When you study philosophy you learn to watch your own argument, and at the point where you stop making any sense, you DON’T KEEP GOING. You don’t let your ego start controlling your reactions. You say “OK, maybe I need to rethink this.” People who have not studied philosophy find this very difficult, because when they lose an argument in public, it feels like they are losing status. In fact, it is keeping on going when you’ve lost that loses you status, not admitting that you might be wrong.
