A Journey Beyond the Material: Exploring Federico Faggin’s “Irreducible”

You're bullsh**ting, which is obnoxious and time-wasting.

The type-token distinction in philosophy is a generic one, and there's nothing to prohibit the application of tokens in this context. Whether or not it's a standard application is beside the point, which is that differentiating idealisms numerically based on tokens is meaningful given that on the one hand, (token-)monistic idealism is incoherent, whereas on the other, (token-)pluralistic idealism is not, or, at least, not obviously so.


There is more than one way to assign number, dude. By (type of) substance is only one. Educate yourself. From the introduction of the SEP article on monism, to which I've already linked in another thread (italics in the original; editing ellipses and colourisation mine):

My mistake is that outside the SEP article, I have seen or heard token and type used in reference to Idealism.

But on reading the article, it does make sense.

However, what you still misunderstand is that Idealism is Monistic by its very nature ~ there is nothing logically Pluralistic about it at all. It would not be Idealism if mind were not the Monist substance which all else arises from.

Within the mindscape, we can generate entire dreamscapes, complete with forms and even pseudo-matter, so in the dreamscape, it really is all just mental stuff. There is no separate substance in the dreamscape ~ it's all just composed of dream-stuff.

So the comparison of this apparently physical reality to a dream is a useful metaphor that provides perspective.

Also, keep in mind that dreams aren't illusions ~ they are real as experienced in the mind, so this physical reality is as perceived through the senses.

Experiences must be real by virtue of being experienced.