Physicalism Redux

The point really is based on a distinction between an experience itself and the contents of that experience. When, then, you telepathically experience "the direct, full range of experience from the memories of [your] loong and tiger spirits", you are still having a distinct experience uniquely associated with your person even though it has the same contents as another's experience which likewise is uniquely associated with their person.

The point is that I am able to directly experience everything in their minds as if I was that mind, even our cores of perception differ.

It is why we are able to achieve states where we cannot tell where one ends and the other begins.

In the end, this just boils down more and more to a totally meaningless argument over definitions of words, because you are sadly somehow unable to accept definitions different from yours, simply because I am trying to describe a rather inexplicable set of experiences I previously couldn't imagine as being conceptually possible.

[Laird]

The point is that I am able to directly experience everything in their minds as if I was that mind, even our cores of perception differ.

Dude, you don't get to tell me what my own point is. This exchange started when Sci affirmed that he didn't understand my argument against pluralistic idealism, so I embarked on a systematic approach to help him to understand, starting by making a point of the one-to-one correspondence between experiencer and experience.

You then butted in with an attempt to challenge my point, an attempt that failed because you did not understand it, whereas Sci did.

You now presumptuously proclaim what "the" point is, even though the point is mine, and you continue to fail to understand it even as you tell me what you think it is.

In the end, this just boils down more and more to a totally meaningless argument over definitions of words

No, it boils down to your failure to understand my point.

because you are sadly somehow unable to accept definitions different from yours

What's sad is your need to mischaracterise me in such a demeaning way just because you disagree with me and misunderstand what I'm saying.

simply because I am trying to describe a rather inexplicable set of experiences I previously couldn't imagine as being conceptually possible.

To be totally clear: your experiences, which I assume you've reported faithfully, do not falsify my point, nor are they incomprehensible on my definitions, which are standard.

Dude, you don't get to tell me what my own point is.

I was responding to your interpretation of my reply...?

This exchange started when Sci affirmed that he didn't understand my argument against pluralistic idealism, so I embarked on a systematic approach to help him to understand, starting by making a point of the one-to-one correspondence between experiencer and experience.

But, as Pluralistic Idealism doesn't exist as a branch recognized by any Idealist, you're not arguing against anything but your misunderstanding of Idealism.

You then butted in with an attempt to challenge my point, an attempt that failed because you did not understand it, whereas Sci did.

I didn't "butt in" ~ I even qualified with "I'm not Sciborg"...

Nothing "failed" ~ you just didn't comprehend my statements. You didn't even try to understand it. You just redefined it as something else, because you think what I experienced isn't possible ~ a flaw in your model that you do not wish to accept.

You now presumptuously proclaim what "the" point is, even though the point is mine, and you continue to fail to understand it even as you tell me what you think it is.

We both have points ~ and you won't even listen to mine. You won't even try to understand it, even if I try to understand yours.

No, it boils down to your failure to understand my point.

Just as you don't even seem to try and understand mine ~ you just redefine it...

What's sad is your need to mischaracterise me in such a demeaning way just because you disagree with me and misunderstand what I'm saying.

But that's how it seems to me thus far ~ perhaps I am simply rather very frustrated that we seem to just be talking past each other, and I'm not even actually sure how or why we got to this point.

To be totally clear: your experiences, which I assume you've reported faithfully, do not falsify my point, nor are they incomprehensible on my definitions, which are standard.

"Standard"? How?