Inspiring Philosophy is Full of Shit

The purpose of this post is to make it abundantly clear that Inspiring Philosophy did repeatedly contradict himself and doesn't even know wtf he means by "information". I am disgusted by the fact that Inspiring Philosophy has been so successful in misleading an army of retards with his ill-defined, contradictory bullshit. This will be continuously updated as I uncover more blatant contradictions from Inspiring Philosophy. 

First of all, it is clear from multiple quotes that Inspiring Philosophy has affirmed subjective idealism (the view that our thoughts and perceptions held in conscious experience are all that exist.):

"A reality independent of observation doesn't exist."

"The existence of reality is dependent on there being an observer."
"Reality is a mental construct, and doesn't exist independent of observation."
"Materialism would be that the universe is the only thing that exists and consciousness is an illusion of it. Idealism would be the opposite." (Notice that he is literally saying here that consciousness is the only thing in existence). 

And it is also clear that he has contradicted this position several times:

"Independent of observation, particles exist in a state of a wave function"
"Of course something exists prior to observation. We would argue that would be information."
"Without an observer there is no qualia, but the information waiting to be loaded."
"memories or thoughts exist even when I am not perceiving them"
"I have never in definition identified as a monistic idealist in the strong sense" (By "strong sense", he is referring to subjective idealism.)

Inspiring Philosophy, Johanan Raatz, derezzed83, Animating Rebel, and all of Raatz's minions constantly use the term "information". Animating Rebel and derezzed83 prefer to simply leave the term undefined, which instantly exposes their empty position. Inspiring Philosophy and Raatz have been forced to offer definitions due to my persistent questioning. They have offered three basic definitions that are, of course, completely inconsistent:

1. Information is the semantic content of a sentence. I have already shown that this definition makes most of their claims regarding information incoherent. 

2. Information is sense experience. Well, if that's the case, then why even call it information? This isn't what people ordinarily mean by information, so you're just being deliberately confusing for the sake of sounding computery. This also directly contradicts Inspiring Philosophy's claim that information exists prior to observation. 
3. Information is the fundamental nature of reality. This is just hopelessly vague. And again, there is no need to call this stuff "information". It's not like that's what comes to anyone's mind when they think of information.

Inspiring Philosophy has taken numerous positions regarding information:

"Information itself, is contingent by definition. So it must be dependent on something."

Which is contradicted by -

"all reality is information"

He has also said that mind cannot exist without information:

"mind/consciousness has elements of interpreted information and cannot be without it."

And that mind can exist without information:

"The mind could exist without information."

As for what specific things Inspiring Philosophy considers to be information, so far his list includes qualia, personalities, memories, and unobserved physical objects (how he can even allow for unobserved physical objects is a mystery, since he has also claimed that the physical world is only qualia). 

Then there's this quote from Inspiring Philosophy. I really have no idea how he thinks this makes sense:

"As an idealist of course consciousness is not independent of the brain."



And, regarding the "objective idealist" philosophers (Kant, Hegel, and Putnam) that Inspiring Philosophy tried to associate himself with:

Kant obviously disagreed with Inspiring Philosophy because he believed in the noumena, which is the objectively real world of "things-in-themselves" that exists beyond our perceptions. 

Hegel's philosophy is obscured by a thick veil of indiscernible nonsense (or it might just be indiscernible nonsense), but the following sentence from SEP seems to conflict with Inspiring Philosophy: "The pantheistic legacy inherited by Hegel meant that he had no problem in considering an objective outer world beyond any particular subjective mind." 

Putnam's internal realism has been criticized for being somewhat retarded, but there are also quotes that indicate it is inconsistent with Inspiring Philosophy's position: "I am not inclined to scoff at the idea of a noumenal ground behind the dualities of experience, even if all attempts to talk about it lead to antinomies", and "Today the notion of a noumenal world is perceived to be an unnecessary metaphysical element in Kant's thought. (But perhaps Kant is right: perhaps we can't help thinking that there is somehow a mind-independent 'ground' for our experience even if attempts to talk about it lead at once to nonsense.)"

Addendum - Part 1: Information

Refuting Idealism - Part 1: Information - http://youtu.be/CLhKBCdGFoQ?list=UUxi1Dqz8ndY_FwI43pIPkjg

It's hard to see how anything I said in this video could be remotely objectionable, but I'm writing this because I feel that my delivery did not make it clear just how enormously idiotic the points I addressed were.

First, it's absurd that I even had to ask these people for a definition of information since they have been mentioning it in their videos as a crucial part of their ontology. However, despite claiming that the world is somehow made of information, they neglected to define what they even mean by information.

After asking them, I received four inconsistent and incredibly bad definitions. I think I adequately refuted all of these, but I realize I could have been more incisive and brutal in my wording. For example, in the video I stated that, "if 'differences' were to exist, they would be abstract objects, not building blocks of concrete objects." This is correct, but it may need clarification. What I'm saying is that abstract objects like "differences" cannot simply replace things like rocks and chairs. I don't believe "differences" even exist in the first place, but if they did exist, they would exist in addition to such things. The complete list of facts about a particular thing, which would include its properties and differences from other things, would simply be a description of that thing. A description of a thing is not identical to that thing, nor does it compose that thing. That would be like claiming a person is made of their biography. It's simply ridiculous, and perhaps one of the most insane positions ever argued for. It's one thing to say that abstract objects exist, but it is beyond absurd to replace the physical world with them. Abstract objects do not do anything or look like anything. They are literally made of nothing. Such a world would just be an empty void. As Stephen Yablo says, they "have not much more to them than what flows from our conception of them." And to quote Peter van Inwagen, "it seems evident that if everything were an abstract object, if the only objects were abstract objects, there is an obvious and perfectly good sense in which there would be nothing at all, for there would be no physical things, no stuffs, no events, no space, no time, no Cartesian egos, no God..."

Raatz has since changed his definition of information to "sense perceptions", which just makes his position the definition of subjective idealism ("to be is to be perceived"). This will be addressed in Part 3 of the series.

The video was unexpectedly well-received, given that I had taken little time scripting it because I took it as obvious that the idealists's position fell apart immediately upon analysis. However, it was quite hilarious to see derezzed83 claim that none of my points were valid, prior to even watching the whole video (he later retracted this statement). He of course failed to defend any argument against what I said in the video.