Should you tell physicalists about your mystical experiences?

[Carl-Richard]

@Scholar

When you equate physicality to logic and when you call Kastrup a physicalist, that sums up the level of semantic disconnect that we're having, and I don't think we'll solve that in 10 years.

As someone who aspires to be semantically connected to the larger scientific and philosophical community (academia), as someone who studies neuroscience in academia, I believe you're semantically disconnected from that community. That is not to say your understanding of reality is invalid. It's just that the language you use and the language I use (and ostensibly my peers) is very different. I see no reason for this conversation to continue. It was interesting, I guess.

And just so you don't think I'm making stuff up, I'll recap some of the terms you use that seem unfamiliar to me, either in the way you use them or just full-stop unfamiliar: 

• Direct vs. indirect causality
• Causative vs. causal influence vs. causal relationship
• Relation (actual relation vs. apparent relation)
• Metaphysical relationship
• "Neuronal structure of two"
• Functional understanding

If there is one thing we can maybe agree on, it's that concepts like causality are at the end of the day just concepts we use to make sense of our experience as apes on planet Earth. They don't reflect reality in the ultimate sense. Reality in the ultimate sense is far beyond that. But it's still useful to talk about that if you care about making sense of our experience.

Edited February 27 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

On 27.2.2024 at 9:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

When you equate physicality to logic and when you call Kastrup a physicalist, that sums up the level of semantic disconnect that we're having, and I don't think we'll solve that in 10 years.

It's not a semantic disconnect, but with your attitude it would take 10 years for you to understand what I am describing.

 

On 27.2.2024 at 9:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

As someone who aspires to be semantically connected to the larger scientific and philosophical community (academia), as someone who studies neuroscience in academia, I believe you're semantically disconnected from that community. That is not to say your understanding of reality is invalid. It's just that the language you use and the language I use (and ostensibly my peers) is very different. I see no reason for this conversation to continue. It was interesting, I guess.

I am disconnected in my level of insight about the nature of existence and the mind. I probably underestimate how difficult it might be for a contracted mind to grasp the concepts I am trying to communicate.

My language use is different, that is why I go through such lengths to explain every single term I use on request. I also see no reason for this to continue.

 

On 27.2.2024 at 9:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

• Direct vs. indirect causality
• Causative vs. causal influence vs. causal relationship
• Relation (actual relation vs. apparent relation)
• Metaphysical relationship
• "Neuronal structure of two"
• Functional understanding

I explained all of these terms, many of them in detail. There is an inability here for you to dynamically adopt new frameworks and grasp novel conceptualizations. I have noticed this with you in the past, as you continue to attempt to frame things I state in an already familiar framework to you. I already explained that due to this inability, which I believe is rooted in your cognitive biases, it will not be possible for us to have a productive conversation about this.

I will nonetheless expand upon concepts because it is useful, valuable and to some degree enjoyable for me to do so.

 

On 27.2.2024 at 9:05 PM, Carl-Richard said:

If there is one thing we can maybe agree on, it's that concepts like causality are at the end of the day just concepts we use to make sense of our experience as apes on planet Earth. They don't reflect reality in the ultimate sense. Reality in the ultimate sense is far beyond that. But it's still useful to talk about that if you care about making sense of our experience.

Right, but this is incredibly surface level.

 

If you have no grasp of what I am pointing to when I use the term "Causeless Cause", "Groundless Ground", "Infinity" or "Free Will", there is no way for you to adopt the framework I am using. I already am adjusting my terminology and conceptualization to something that could be understood by someone who is stuck in the consensus framework, in theory.

In the end, to escape your contracted framework, I can only recommend meditations that focus on the substance and nature of existence. If you can recognize the fundamental Isness of all Aspects of Existence, you will be able to correct distinguish between aspects of existence which your mind currently deliberately conflates.

 

To clarify, aspects of existence are what your mind currently categorizes as qualia or experience. Colors are for example an aspect of existence. So is sound. These "substances" are of different kinds, of different categories. There are infinite such categories.

I used a metaphor of the cut-out elephant in the paper to illustrate how people like Kastrup, and you, do the exact same thing, on a fundamental, cognitive level, as a materialist does, when they try to describe existence as either mind or world. The physicalist has created a framework of reality which opposes the substance of mind against the physical nature of reality, and claim that the physical nature of reality is fundamental. The idealist, due to the very framework he subscribes to, must already uphold an idea of world against mind, otherwise it wouldn't make even sense to describe reality fundamentally as mind. If there is no world outside the mind, then the mind is simply existence. It's just what reality looks like, in that particular instantiation.

The fundamental problem continues, the attempt to use conceptualization as a source of reality, to use it as a lense through which to look at existence. "Existence is mind!"

This is the same process as the materialist engages in, just flipped. This condition, this delusion, is responsible for the hope that one could find a mechanism to explain how experience is caused, a link between the shape of the physical universe and the substances of mind, as you would see it.

It would be equally as naive as to assume that one day we shall find the song which causes redness. Now, reality can instantiate itself such that this is the case, but it's not causative on an existential level, it is simply related. And the relationship is caused by the Causeless Cause.

 

All relationships in reality are maintained and nourished by the Causeless Cause. If you had a certain level of realization, you would be able to understand what I am saying even if I use words that you never use that way.

Edited February 29 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

17 hours ago, Scholar said:

It's not a semantic disconnect, but with your attitude it would take 10 years for you to understand what I am describing.

 

I am disconnected in my level of insight about the nature of existence and the mind. I probably underestimate how difficult it might be for a contracted mind to grasp the concepts I am trying to communicate.

My language use is different, that is why I go through such lengths to explain every single term I use on request.

Ok, let's bring the real context to what's happening here: 

You make it seem like this about me not understanding you. But in reality, nobody gives a shit about you. You're talking about brains, and brains are studied in academia, nowhere else. If you're unable to engage with the language of academia; if you're stuck inside your contracted use of language and other people have to essentially rescue you out of it to have a conversation with you; then it's not me not understanding you: it's you frankly not knowing what you're talking about.

It makes no sense to pretend to have any deep knowledge about academic topics while being unable to work with the language of academia, spinning your wheels in the dirt when basic terms like correlation vs. causality are brought up. It's like pretending to have deep knowledge about Western politics while constantly getting bogged down discussing the definitions of political parties or democracy. I talk with this one guy in academia about these things on a regular basis (the Hard problem, physicalism, brains, experience, etc.), and we have virtually no problems understanding each other. For "some reason", that is not happening here.

Edited February 29 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

@Scholar this one is for you:

Quote

People just have this really low bar for rigor and they're used to others allowing it, and then they get to operate in this vague cloud. And when they meet someone who avoids that whole move by being rigorous about ensuring understanding is shared, they get so triggered. Cause it foils their whole plot.

 

Edited February 29 by zurew

[Scholar]

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You make it seem like this about me not understanding you. But in reality, nobody gives a shit about you. You're talking about brains, and brains are studied in academia, nowhere else. If you're unable to engage with the language of academia; if you're stuck inside your contracted use of language and other people have to essentially rescue you out of it to have a conversation with you; then it's not me not understanding you: it's you frankly not knowing what you're talking about.

You are just proving my point. We aren't actually talking about brains in the academic sense. Academia is deluded, there cannot and never will be a mechanism that will showcase how the color red is related to certain processes in what is conceptualized as physical reality.

I was explaining to you why your framework and assumptions are equally as deluded. Of course you will have to leave the framework of academia to understand this, the framework of academia is the entire problem here, lol.

Like I said, I explained my language in detail. The terms I use aren't actually that idiosyncratic, especially not when I contextualize them properly.

 

If you think science will find a mechanism for consciousness, you are just lost, and I explained to you why this is the case.

 

15 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

t makes no sense to pretend to have any deep knowledge about academic topics while being unable to work with the language of academia, spinning your wheels in the dirt when basic terms like correlation vs. causality are brought up. It's like pretending to have deep knowledge about Western politics while constantly getting bogged down discussing the definitions of political parties or democracy. I talk with this one guy in academia about these things on a regular basis (the Hard problem, physicalism, brains, experience, etc.), and we have virtually no problems understanding each other. For "some reason", that is not happening here.

How brains are related to different aspects of consciousness is a question of academia, which by the way you are denying, not me. Academia is correct in viewing the brain, and brain activity, as causally linked to consciousness (as I explained to you, it is more a relationship betwee different aspects of existence, as there is no fundamental distinction between mind and world). This is what you are denying, because you have the idiosyncratic view of causation vs correlation.

You, funnily enough, missed the entire point of why I moved the topic into a more metaphysical analysis of what is going on here. I'm not particularly knowledgable about neuroscience, but I don't have to be to understand what I have described.

 

You have no problems understanding him because he uses the same framework as you, the academic framework. You should discuss with him standards of causation and correlation, that would be something that would be appropriate in that context.

My critique of you is that you fail on both, the academic approach as well as the truthful approach. Academia would ridicule you for your positions, rightly so. And anyone who has even a basic insight into the nature of the mind and existence will be able to see how trapped you are in delusion.

 

I don't mean any of this as a personal attack, but I am surprised you are on this forum and you still maintain the delusions I am pointing to. Although, I really should not be surprised, considering some of the folks here.

 

 

3 hours ago, zurew said:

@Scholar this one is for you:

Thank you, I agree. When I went into detail to explain specifically what I meant by each term, the interlocutor got emotionally triggered and reverted to claims that my perspective is too idiosyncratic for him to engage with, even though I answered all his questions, and he never inquired into anything I said in my explanations and expansions, which would have indicated he was actually attempting to understand what I am saying.

The truth is, there is no desire here to understand anything, given that he, from the very beginning, is doing nothing but attempting to defend his own position, which is delusional.

Edited February 29 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

You are just proving my point. We aren't actually talking about brains in the academic sense. Academia is deluded

You can think it's deluded, but the problem is that you don't have a solid understanding of it, so it doesn't mean much. You can't actually engage with the concepts. It's essentially the pre-trans problem. A pre-rational religious dogmatist critiquing science is very different from a post-rational person critiquing it. And you can't argue someone out of a pre-position, hence there is no point in continuing.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

If you think science will find a mechanism for consciousness, you are just lost, and I explained to you why this is the case.

I'm sorry, but what? 🙈 I've never said that. You've lost the plot.

Edited February 29 by Carl-Richard

[Yimpa]

Quote

Should you tell physicalists about your mystical experiences?

From what I understand, mystical experiences are so profound that the only one you could explain it to is You.

[Scholar]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

You can think it's deluded, but the problem is that you don't have a solid understanding of it, so it doesn't mean much. You can't actually engage with the concepts. It's essentially the pre-trans problem. A pre-rational religious dogmatist critiquing science is very different from a post-rational person critiquing it. And you can't argue someone out of a pre-position, hence there is no point in continuing.

That's childish, lol.

 

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm sorry, but what? 🙈 I've never said that. You've lost the plot.

You made the assertion that establishing a causal relationship (in the sense of considering something causally linked, rather than correlated, epistemically speaking) requires a mechanistic explanation of the given relationship. I demonstrated to you how you cannot have a physical mechanism that will lead to a different type of substance of existence, like colors. It's a basic truth about reality that you would see is self-evidently true, if you had even the most basic grasp of your own mind.

It's ironic you would say I lost the plot when I kept track of the line of argumentation of this conversation this entire time, whereas you kept being confused about why you even posed questions to me, and were not able to maintain the framework for why something we discussed was relevant to the initial points being made.

Edited February 29 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

46 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You made the assertion that establishing a causal relationship (in the sense of considering something causally linked, rather than correlated, epistemically speaking) requires a mechanistic explanation of the given relationship.

Yup. That's what a causal relationship is: one thing happening before the other, and a mechanism that connects the two. If you don't have a mechanism, you only have two things happening in temporal order. Physicalists think brains happen before experience and that there is ostensibly a mechanism there, but they admit that at our current level of scientific knowledge, such a mechanism is either unknown or mysterious, or they woo themselves into a false sense of security by alluding to some vague notions like "emergence" or "function".

 

46 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I demonstrated to you how cannot have a physical mechanism that will lead to a different type of substance of existence, like colors.

I agree. I don't think what the physicalists are aiming at is possible. I've just given the criteria that would need to be filled for it to be possible: providing a mechanism that makes sense and isn't mysterious, and ways to explain away the various empirical problems. And of course, so far, those criteria have not been filled, and I don't think they ever will be filled. In other words, it's mysterious for a reason, a reason they won't accept.

Your two sentences don't connect.

Edited February 29 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

18 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Yup. That's what a causal relationship is: one thing happening before the other, and a mechanism that connects the two. If you don't have a mechanism, you only have two things happening in temporal order. Physicalists think brains happen before experience and that there is ostensibly a mechanism there, but they admit that at our current level of scientific knowledge, such a mechanism is either unknown or mysterious, or they woo themselves into a false sense of security by alluding to some vague notions like "emergence" or "function".

Correct on a surface level, but that misses the point of what I am communicating.  I went into what a Causal Relationship is, that it is illusiory and only used to generate functional understanding (understanding that can serve us in some ways, like helping to predict or interact with reality).

Physicalists are delusional. There is no underlying mechanism to anything, the mechanisms themselves emerge as instantiated relationships between different parts of existence. The physicalists are deluded in that they believe reality is grounded in a mechanistic foundation. What I am pointing to is that the relationship between what you consider individuated consciousness and the physical nature of the universe are related, through no other mechanism than the relationship itself.

The desire for a temporal causal order is mostly due to the primary way human beings, today especially, seek to understand reality, which is propositional understanding. Propositional understand is in it's nature temporally limited, it is linear and follows one concept after another, basically a sentence, or equation. Looking exclusively through this framework, or viewing it as foundational or fundamental, is the root of the delusions I am describing. Kastrup is as guilty of this as you are.

 

There will be no "why" or "how" a certain shape within the wavefunction of the universe leads to the color red, or the sensation of cold. I know you will ignore all of what I am saying here, even though it is not too complicated or idiosyncratic, but that is because you have not yet recognized the ground of existence. The Groundless Ground, the Causeless Cause, the Unmoved Mover. If you had, you would relate to everything I am saying.

 

I probably have a tendency of expecting too much of people who Leo decided to mod. The quality of the members on this forum has degraded significantly over the years, such that the seemingly most qualitative mods currently are completely trapped in rationalism.

Edited February 29 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Correct on a surface level, but that misses the point of what I am communicating.  I went into what a Causal Relationship is, that it is illusiory and only used to generate functional understanding (understanding that can serve us in some ways, like helping to predict or interact with reality).

Duh, that's what science is. "Functional understanding".

 

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

Physicalists are delusional. There is no underlying mechanism to anything, the mechanisms themselves emerge as instantiated relationships between different parts of existence. The physicalists are deluded in that they believe reality is grounded in a mechanistic foundation. What I am pointing to is that the relationship between what you consider individuated consciousness and the physical nature of the universe are related, through no other mechanism than the relationship itself.

But that too is also just functional understanding. In reality, there aren't even any relations. "Relation" is something your mind is cooking up to make sense of reality, to make predictions, to help you interact with reality.

 

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

The desire for a temporal causal order is mostly due to the primary way human beings, today especially, seek to understand reality, which is propositional understanding. Propositional understand is in it's nature temporally limited, it is linear and follows one concept after another, basically a sentence, or equation. Looking exclusively through this framework, or viewing it as foundational or fundamental, is the root of the delusions I am describing. Kastrup is as guilty of this as you are.

Kastrup, like me, thinks causality is only a conceptual tool, not ultimate reality. So again, big miss. You should again maybe read more about what you're talking about (?)

 

2 hours ago, Scholar said:

There will be no "why" or "how" a certain shape within the wavefunction of the universe leads to the color red, or the sensation of cold. I know you will ignore all of what I am saying here, even though it is not too complicated or idiosyncratic, but that is because you have not yet recognized the ground of existence. The Groundless Ground, the Causeless Cause, the Unmoved Mover. If you had, you would relate to everything I am saying.

I actually smelled this one coming from a mile away. At the end of the day, it was always just a flex of "the map is not the territory", "maps are limited, "reality is limitless", "science is only a tool", which is apparently the only thing people think is worth talking about on here. It's hilarious how convoluted some people make it though. I actually appreciate people like @UnbornTao more now: at least he gets straight to the point.

It's of course an incredibly juvenile point that you should've known I've accepted ages ago, yet you make it the focal point of this now disaster of a discussion. I do actually remember thinking this thought as a faint glimpse, but I guess I was just in denial that this was actually what was happening. Well well.

Edited February 29 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

52 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But that too is also just functional understanding. In reality, there aren't even any relations. "Relation" is something your mind is cooking up to make sense of reality, to make predictions, to help you interact with reality.

Nope, relations exist. It's your mind cooking up the idea that relationships are cooked up to make sense of reality.

 

53 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Kastrup, like me, thinks causality is only a conceptual tool, not ultimate reality. So again, big miss. You should again maybe read more about what you're talking about (?)

You're missing the point.

 

54 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I actually smelled this one coming from a mile away. At the end of the day, it was always just a flex of "the map is not the territory", "maps are limited, "reality is limitless", "science is only a tool", which is apparently the only thing people think is worth talking about on here. It's hilarious how convoluted some people make it though. I actually appreciate people like @UnbornTao more now: at least he gets straight to the point.

It's of course an incredibly juvenile point that you should've known I've accepted ages ago, yet you make it the focal point of this now disaster of a discussion. I do actually remember thinking this thought as a faint glimpse, but I guess I was just in denial that this was actually what was happening. Well well.

You haven't actually recognize what I speak of, you have accepted a surface level conceptualization.

 

 

Look, at this point we're being like two fresh lovers who can't hang up the phone on each other, so let's just call it a day my friend.

[zurew]

5 hours ago, Scholar said:

Thank you, I agree. When I went into detail to explain specifically what I meant by each term, the interlocutor got emotionally triggered and reverted to claims that my perspective is too idiosyncratic for him to engage with, even though I answered all his questions, and he never inquired into anything I said in my explanations and expansions, which would have indicated he was actually attempting to understand what I am saying.

The truth is, there is no desire here to understand anything, given that he, from the very beginning, is doing nothing but attempting to defend his own position, which is delusional.

To be clear, I meant the exact opposite (I think you are that person in that quote). I re-read the whole back and forth between you two from the very beginning and I disagree with the characterisation ,that he had no desire to understand anything.

Regarding the claim that "doing nothing but attempting to defend his own position, which is delusional." this was a debate between you two about OBE - of course he will make points in his own favour, but from that doesn't follow that he isn't trying to understand your side or that he is incapable to change his own position. The very fact that he asked you over and over again so many clarifying questions (before he would have made the assertion that your point  or position is dumb or bad) and he directly engaged with your examples and pointed out specifically what things were unclear to him and he specifically told you what his problem was with your use of language  - are all attempts to understand your position and to not just dismiss it in a lazy , non-engaging way.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now lets talk about errors - I think you made multiple errors during the "debate" - if this can be called that.

• One of the main error(or more like a move that contributed a lot to confuse everyone) was that you used like 3 different unique words for causation and 3 other different words for correlation while at the same time claimed that you don't mean correlation or causation. 
• The other error that you made was that you kept switching between claims during the debate. At one point you said there is causation between brain and experience and when you were pushed on it (for an explanation for the causal mechanism) you pivoted and changed it to there is only a correlation between the two and then you changed it again and at some point you seemingly dropped the claim and started to talk about that there is no causation essentially and you started to talk about the concept of a metaphysical relation.
  •  With that move (by saying that there is no such thing as causation)  you essentially conceded your earlier position about there being a causal relationship between the brain and experience. The reason why that was a confusing move on your part, is because earlier you wanted a causal explanation from Carl to explain how  OBE can be possible if it is not caused by the brain . So Its unclear in what specific case(s) you want a causal explanation and in what case(s) its good enough to say "its just mysterious" without giving any explanation .  Its also unclear what specific rebuttal you  have (from the point on, when you invoked the metaphysical relation stuff) against Carl's position specifically regarding to how OBE is possible or explained.
•   You demonstrated a lack of engagement multiple times with some of the points Carl made specifically:
  • When he brought you empirical evidence - you didn't check them at all you just said "I don't believe that" or you said "I don't believe this to be the case. If such astral-perception was possible, most animals would have evolved this." and dismissed it without directly engaging with the studies and research at hand.
  • You had 0 reponse to this:

    On 2024. 02. 11. at 4:01 AM, Carl-Richard said:

    Also, hearking back to an earlier point about another big problem, i.e. the empirical problems contradicting the brain-experience causal hypothesis; when there is a gravitational field present, you can predict that an apple will fall. When there is brain activity present AND when there is brain activity not present (or it's reduced), you can predict that there will be experience (and more intense experiences).

  • and  to this:

    On 2024. 02. 10. at 1:41 AM, Carl-Richard said:

    Then I would like to see how you would explain the OBE of the patient in the above video who was declared dead for 20 minutes after a failed heart surgery, came back with detailed information about the room he was laying in that wasn't there before he was put under anesthesia.

 

• Besides all those points, ironically you  showed a lack of engagement at several points and at some point you basically said you don't give a fuck about making Carl understand what you are saying . For evidence take a look at your own quotes:

On 2024. 02. 10. at 1:45 PM, Scholar said:

I don't understand why I have to explain everything to you as if you were a newborn alien visiting this reality for this first time.

On 2024. 01. 30. at 1:43 AM, Scholar said:

I just have no motivation to engage in autistic debates in this moment of time. I will continue to provide my assertions and people can make up their own minds.

On 2024. 02. 10. at 11:46 PM, Scholar said:

This is ridicilous. I have given you a specific example between something that we view as established causality vs something that is considered a correlation. The fact that you do not grasp this simple point is incredible.

On 2024. 02. 12. at 2:41 PM, Scholar said:

This is childish. The problem is that you think I need to care about whether or not you think I am correct, or whether or not you understand what I am saying.

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Nope, relations exist. It's your mind cooking up the idea that relationships are cooked up to make sense of reality.

😂

 

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You're missing the point.

Got it.

 

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You haven't actually recognize what I speak of, you have accepted a surface level conceptualization.

Cool. Want to elaborate?

Like bro cmon, this is like Leo's main catchphrase we're talking about. I've followed him for like almost a decade, just as long ago as I started taking psychedelics (if that's like your qualifying metric). This is basic shit, you cannot be serious.

 

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Look, at this point we're being like two fresh lovers who can't hang up the phone on each other, so let's just call it a day my friend.

😂

Edited March 1 by Carl-Richard

[Carl-Richard]

@zurew Yeah this is a mess 😆 Impressive that you went through the entire thing.

[zurew]

@Carl-Richard  The convo  was entertaining while it lasted. I think you pretty much followed most of the debate norms that I have in mind that I think is necessary for a productive and good faith debate. Maybe one specific thing that you could have done differently - is establishing a clear debate proposition.

 

 

 

Now that this cluster-fuck is basically over we can talk about the meta and try to learn from it (I try to avoid talking about the meta during the debate, cause it derails the whole thing and the focus shifts from the subject matter)

We have to have a shared view about debate norms in order to have a productive and good faith debate. These norms on my view includes the following things:

 

1. First and foremost we have to agree on a clear debate proposition (that everyone semantically understands) and we have to establish who affirms , who denies or who potientially is agnostic about said proposition: This will give a clear context to the debate, so everyone will know how to contextualize the points that are made and everyone will know where to work towards.
2. When you get asked a question - you try to directly answer that question to the best of your ability: This includes the fact that you don't pivot and don't change the subject or don't dodge/evade the question. There are 2 exclusions to this rule on my view:
   • When you don't understand the question.
   • When you don't see how answering the question is necessary in the context of the debate - so you ask for relevance.
3. If something is unclear, then you shouldn't assume, you should rather ask as many clarifying questions as much necessary to get a better understanding of your interlocutor's position: If you don't do this, this is going to elevate frustration for your debate partner, because this is basically strawmanning.
4. Dont ramble: 
   • Stay on track and focus on making points that are relevant to the debate proposition .
   • Dont just make claims or don't just assert things - make an actual argument where your claim or assertion is the conclusion. In other words, your claim or assertion should follow from the supporting premises.
5. We have to have a shared view about burden of proof: On my view, when someone makes a claim - he / she ought to substantiate said claim, and if he/she can't, then he/she ought to drop that claim. So whatever claim you make I can ask "Whats the argument for that?"  and you ought to have an answer for that or you ought to drop it.
6. You should never accuse your debate partner of being bad faith or lazy or anything of sort, unless you basically want to end the debate. The reason for that is because it will be close to impossible to have a productive debate from that point on going forward  .  
7. Be clear about your standards or lack of standard regarding evidence and regarding how you evaluate the strength of a hypothesis.  Be also clear about what are the things that could change your mind (or if you don't know anything that could change your mind, be honest about that )

There are more things that could be added to this list, but those are negligible compared to points above (in my opinion). 

Edited March 1 by zurew