The universe we describe is inseparable from the organism that describes it

That's fine. You don't have to label it "idealism". All I'm trying to clarify is that you are asserting that all that exists is experience (and, presumably, the experiencers having those experiences).

But I'm not saying that?

[Laird]

But I'm not saying that?

OK. So, are you saying then that there is more to reality than just experience and the experiencers of that experience?

OK. So, are you saying then that there is more to reality than just experience and the experiencers of that experience?

no, I'm not saying that either

[Laird]

no, I'm not saying that either

OK, so are you saying that all that exists is experience, without experiencers?

OK, so are you saying that all that exists is experience, without experiencers?

no... I've written above and elsewhere what my ideas are...?

[Laird]

no... I've written above and elsewhere what my ideas are...?

I'm asking questions to try to understand them better by getting to the root of what you think exists, but your answers have only left me more confused. You have denied that reality consists solely and entirely in:

1. Experience, without experiencers.
   
2. Experience plus experiencers.
   
3. Experience plus experiencers plus something more.
   

I'm really not sure what is left. Maybe, "Experience (without experiencers) plus the conceptual, such as knowledge, theories, and ideas". Otherwise, given that you affirm the existence of experience, that looks like a pretty comprehensive list to me. Can you clarify?

I'm asking questions to try to understand them better by getting to the root of what you think exists, but your answers have only left me more confused. You have denied that reality consists solely and entirely in:

1. Experience, without experiencers.
   
2. Experience plus experiencers.
   
3. Experience plus experiencers plus something more.
   

I'm really not sure what is left. Maybe, "Experience (without experiencers) plus the conceptual, such as knowledge, theories, and ideas". Otherwise, given that you affirm the existence of experience, that looks like a pretty comprehensive list to me. Can you clarify?

The items in the list all have assumptions attached... you can't clarify my ideas according to your existing frame of reference...

[Laird]

The items in the list all have assumptions attached...

Given that you've used the words "experience" and "experiencers" already, you must accept whatever assumptions are attached to them, so those assumptions are irrelevant in this context.

The list is comprehensive aside from one other possibility:

4. Experience (without experiencers) plus something more.

That's a generalisation of the suggestion in my previous post ("Experience (without experiencers) plus the conceptual, such as knowledge, theories, and ideas").

If you reject that too, then there's nothing left. You're literally rejecting every single logical possibility.

So, do you reject that too?

All I'm trying to clarify is that you are asserting...

If I just make some objections to your attempts to clarify my ideas into your own frame of reference... rather than just answering your closed questions... that might help

all that exists is experience

how could I possibly mean that, when I've claimed that we are stuck within Experience, trying to understand Experience from within it. Elsewhere I have claimed Experience is a Result (what comes after the equals sign in maths, not what comes before it).

that there is more to reality than just experience and the experiencers of that experience

I don't know what you mean by 'more'... there is what comes before the equal sign?  but being stuck with Experience... and Experience being a result... how could one answer such a question.. particularly when we throw individual perspectives of shared Experience into the mix

that all that exists is experience, without experiencers

How can I say that all that exists is Experience, when I've claimed we are stuck within shared Experience, trying to understand Experience from within it... and that Experience is a Result and is not what comes before the equals sign, yet is formed from that.

[Laird]

there is what comes before the equal sign

OK, so, it seems then that you are affirming the third option, "Experience plus experiencers plus something more", where the "something more" is "what comes before the equal sign".

Yes?

we are stuck within Experience

I can understand this figuratively, but literally, I don't think it makes sense (in particular, being "within" experience).