The Democrat Party Hates America

[Belinda]

Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental,...

Sorry to point it out, but you've just restated the difference. "Appear" is the amphibolous word here. Idealists insist they only "appear" so, and Materialists insist that "appearance" is merely false. They're not "explaining the same phenomena," because one insists the phenomena in question are part of the data, and the other insists they simply aren't. That's a big difference.

My own view is that materialists have a harder time explaining mental phenomena than vice versa, but I don't insist it can't be done.

You don't have to "insist." You can find it out, very easily.

If Materialists can explain mental phenomena without trying to explain them away instead, then it can be done. If they cannot, then at least for the present, you know they cannot: and you also know that, at present, there exists no argument suggestive that they ever can -- therefore any hope that they one day will is purely speculative, purely wishful, and depends on the magical appearance of data that, at present, simply do not exist.

That's a pretty good reason not to be impressed with Materialism's "explanations" of non-physical phenomena.

But all phenomena are physical. A phenomenon is an observable event.

[Atla]

This term could be (even) much wilder than the first one, because of revenge. When a half-insane president loses the next election and has a few years to go fully bananas because of the defeat, and is then re-elected, unbelievable things can happen in my experience.

I wonder if we'll see nukes this time.

He could start with nuking Iran for example.

[Belinda]

This term could be (even) much wilder than the first one, because of revenge. When a half-insane president loses the next election and has a few years to go fully bananas because of the defeat, and is then re-elected, unbelievable things can happen in my experience.

I wonder if we'll see nukes this time.

He could start with nuking Iran for example.

Are there safeguards such as some of his underlings who would have enough sense not to obey orders from him?

[Atla]

This term could be (even) much wilder than the first one, because of revenge. When a half-insane president loses the next election and has a few years to go fully bananas because of the defeat, and is then re-elected, unbelievable things can happen in my experience.

I wonder if we'll see nukes this time.

He could start with nuking Iran for example.

Are there safeguards such as some of his underlings who would have enough sense not to obey orders from him?

Don't know. I think there were safeguards during his first presidency, but then he got re-elected, the American voters made it clear that they WANT him to destroy the world. Maybe no safeguards this time.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the topic more comprehensively.

Well, Will B. has not broached that secondary topic, nor have I. So you'll have to hold your bladder until we get there, if we do.

It is a “secondary topic” according to your arbitrary decision.

No. It's arbitrary because it's something neither Will nor I have presently expressed an interest in involving, and to which, at present, only you are interested in directing our conversation. We're working on the secular issues, and you're off topic.

You're alone, pal...I guess you can either get on the train where it's going, or jump a different train.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental,...

Sorry to point it out, but you've just restated the difference. "Appear" is the amphibolous word here. Idealists insist they only "appear" so, and Materialists insist that "appearance" is merely false. They're not "explaining the same phenomena," because one insists the phenomena in question are part of the data, and the other insists they simply aren't. That's a big difference.

My own view is that materialists have a harder time explaining mental phenomena than vice versa, but I don't insist it can't be done.

You don't have to "insist." You can find it out, very easily.

If Materialists can explain mental phenomena without trying to explain them away instead, then it can be done. If they cannot, then at least for the present, you know they cannot: and you also know that, at present, there exists no argument suggestive that they ever can -- therefore any hope that they one day will is purely speculative, purely wishful, and depends on the magical appearance of data that, at present, simply do not exist.

That's a pretty good reason not to be impressed with Materialism's "explanations" of non-physical phenomena.

But all phenomena are physical. A phenomenon is an observable event.

No, B. That's purely assumptive, not demonstrable.

In fact, it's demonstrably untrue. Do you observe yourself to be a "self"? Are you "conscious"? Are you a "person"? Do you have "morals"? Do you believe your life has "meaning"? Do you think "rationality" is a real thing? How about "volition"? Do you believe in "science"?

If you don't believe in these things, then no Belinda exists to ask the question. So it doesn't need to be answered. But if she exists, then maybe she's owed a response, right?

Here's her answer. There are two categories of phenomena: physical and non-physical. And both are observable, are they not?

[FlashDangerpants]

This term could be (even) much wilder than the first one, because of revenge. When a half-insane president loses the next election and has a few years to go fully bananas because of the defeat, and is then re-elected, unbelievable things can happen in my experience.

I wonder if we'll see nukes this time.

He could start with nuking Iran for example.

Are there safeguards such as some of his underlings who would have enough sense not to obey orders from him?

It has happened before. Nixon ordered a nuclear strike against North Korea after they shot down a US plane. Kissinger intervened and stood the planes down temporarily until Nixon sobered up and cancelled the strike. People often wonder why a war criminal like Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize, perhaps that's what did it.

In his second presidency, Trump has rather made a point of not staffing up with Kissingers though. By which I mean professional political or diplomatic types who value organisational continuity at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon, or frankly anything other than loyalty to the great himself. So after that, it's pretty much down to the joint chiefs - but he scourged the joint chiefs too because the chairman was black and the navy was headed by a woman.

The chances are that were he to request a nuclear strike plan that looked likely to get a green light, it would trigger a series of events leading not to an actual nuclear strike, but to the inauguration of president Vance. But it could go the other way.

[Will Bouwman]

Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental...

Sorry to point it out, but you've just restated the difference. "Appear" is the amphibolous word here. Idealists insist they only "appear" so, and Materialists insist that "appearance" is merely false. They're not "explaining the same phenomena," because one insists the phenomena in question are part of the data, and the other insists they simply aren't. That's a big difference.

Do you understand that a phenomenon isn't a phenomenon if it isn't experienced?

[Walker]

Promise Kept: Trump Blocked Every Border Migrant in May
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025 ... grant-may/

“Why did they release people into the interior United States rather than put them into an ICE bed? Why not put them in an empty ICE bed, $127 a night, rather than a hotel at 500 bucks a night?” Homan posed, concluding that the Biden administration “did it on purpose” before explaining why.

“They did it on purpose, because you put them in ICE detention bed, they get a hearing in 35 days. Court records show nine out of ten people claim asylum, get order removal, they’re gone,” he said.

“But to release them and put them a hotel room at 500 bucks a night, their hearings could be 5, 7, 9 years. You pull out all appeals. And what are they hoping for then? That another Democrat administration is in power,” awarding sweeping amnesty, Homan concluded, emphasizing that the Biden administration’s moves was about future political power for Democrats.

Comment: Very interesting, but Hey, let’s get some academic perspective here. Trump plays golf …

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental...

Sorry to point it out, but you've just restated the difference. "Appear" is the amphibolous word here. Idealists insist they only "appear" so, and Materialists insist that "appearance" is merely false. They're not "explaining the same phenomena," because one insists the phenomena in question are part of the data, and the other insists they simply aren't. That's a big difference.

Do you understand that a phenomenon isn't a phenomenon if it isn't experienced?

Are you implying that the things I listed are not "experienced"? The people experiencing rationality, or consciousness, or morality will be very surprised to hear they're experiencing nothing. Are you not experiencing them right now?

[Will Bouwman]

Do you understand that a phenomenon isn't a phenomenon if it isn't experienced?

Are you implying that the things I listed are not "experienced"?

No, I'm doing exactly what I apoear to be doing, which is asking whether you understand that phenomena are experienced, or they are not phenomena. It's philosophy 101; how do you interpret 'I think, therefore I am'?

[Immanuel Can]

Do you understand that a phenomenon isn't a phenomenon if it isn't experienced?

Are you implying that the things I listed are not "experienced"?

No, I'm doing exactly what I apoear to be doing, which is asking whether you understand that phenomena are experienced, or they are not phenomena. It's philosophy 101; how do you interpret 'I think, therefore I am'?

Then you're saying consciousness is a phenomenon -- assuming you're experiencing consciousness in writing the above. Are you?

[Will Bouwman]

Then you're saying consciousness is a phenomenon -- assuming you're experiencing consciousness in writing the above. Are you?

No, I'm still just asking whether you understand that if a phenomenon isn't experienced, it isn't a phenomenon.

[Immanuel Can]

Then you're saying consciousness is a phenomenon -- assuming you're experiencing consciousness in writing the above. Are you?

No, I'm still just asking whether you understand that if a phenomenon isn't experienced, it isn't a phenomenon.

"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view." (Stanford) That's definitional. So what's does that have to do with non-physical realities, since you do experience them?

[Will Bouwman]

...I'm still just asking whether you understand that if a phenomenon isn't experienced, it isn't a phenomenon.

"Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view." (Stanford) That's definitional. So what's does that have to do with non-physical realities, since you do experience them?

Yes you do. You also experience what appear to be physical realities. Ah, the discombobulating amphibolous 'appear'. I'll try again. We have experiences, some of which we generally attribute to objective causes, others which we take to be subjective. Some people, such as yourself, include among the objective, things like morality and justice, together with the less contentious 'physical realities'. Others think that things like morality and justice are subjective. Whichever is true, the experience is exactly the same. The same is true of 'physical realities'; whether they are real or ideal, the experience is exactly the same. You have to understand that or you are philosophically knackered.
So, back to:

Idealism does not explain material data; it dismisses all that by relegating it to the realm of "ideas." In that sense, like all mono-theories, it simply deals with data anomalies by denying they are real.

The data we, as humans, have to interpret are our experiences. Nobody denies that we have experiences*; as Descartes pointed out, you can't coherently do so. So no, idealism does not dismiss material data; it simply attributes them to a different source than materialists. As I said, this is philosophy 101, no one can even pretend to be a philosopher until they get their head around the basics.
*With the caveat that, as Cicero put it: "Nothing is so absurd that some philosopher hasn't already said it."