 Well, at this point, I'm guessing maybe you're still at something of a loss, right? You don't really want to go down the idealist route That's fine. I'm not saying you have to not seeing you have to But let's take a look at what Philanus has to say we're gonna take a look at this argument We're gonna see this before we're gonna take a look at the argument We're gonna pull out the premises and see what it means to reject any one of the premises because there is a deductively valid version this argument we can construct basically found Philanus and and You know if we reject the conclusion we have to show or we have to reject at least one of the premises and each rejection Right, we each each rejection means you're committed to its logical contradictory So let's let's try this. All right, so we had Philanus's argument for it's gonna briefly go over right so He's assuming right if color-figuring extension or my mind only Then there's something supporting color-figuring extension, right? This is the conclusion of high list's argument And what he's doing is he's assuming this for the sake of Reduct you out of certain right so you can take that show a contradiction therefore you reject the initial premise, right? If there's something supporting color-figure and extension Then it does not have or it's without color-figure and extension And so material substance is beneath the color-figure and extension and is supporting it. It's Making it happen so to speak so in today's language, right? We talk about the chemical composition of things we had the electromagnetic radiation coming into the windows as bouncing off of my shirt and Causing three or three series of causal events right causing the various Sensations blue light blue white that you're experiencing. Okay If there is something without color-figure and extension then it does not exist, right? This is the Statement of empiricism Right if you can't experience it it doesn't exist if you can't experience it. You don't know it If I if I believe in what I see right? That's the common thing if I can see it. I believe it That's that's all that statement is that there's something without color-figure. If there's something It's almost like a contradiction, right? It's also an absurdity. There's something Without that can't be experienced then it doesn't exist. That's what that's what the second statement is Third one if there's something without color-figuring. Oh, sorry third one the third statement If there's something about color-figure and extension it does not exist fourth one If it does not exist and there's not something supporting color-figure and extension, right? So nothing can't support color-figure and extension So we carry out the implications premises 234 if color-figure and extension are my mind only then there is not something supporting color-figure and extension This is kind of the point that the Barclays trying to make right? This is the crux of His complaint about material substance right if there's something if the color-figure extension my mind only then there's not something supporting them So color-figure extension my mind only is Kind of this initial statement that he says, right? So we carry out the implications again using that sixth premise and the first so there is something supporting color-figure and extension we also with that sixth premise and The fifth alright, then we have there is not something supporting color-figure extension and a boom We have our contradiction and then I press in that premise there is something and there is not something well that all resulted from the first premise Right so Barclays says give up on the first premise. It's false that the color-figure extension my mind only okay so the premises That all this relies upon on these four premises if there's something supporting color-figure and extension Then is without color-figure and extension if there's something without color-figure Then it does not exist if it does not exist then it can't support anything so and color-figure extension my mind only these four Premises are what his argument relies upon if you reject this conclusion. You got to reject one of these four premises And so if you do that Right if you do that rejecting the first one commits you To as you know at that a right that a premise to the logical contradictory There is something supporting color-figure and extension and it has color figure and extension or B the rejection of b didn't logical contradictory is there is something without color-figure and extension and it exists See reject receive commit to the country to the contradictory issues a contradictory it that is that does not have color-figured I'm suspension does not exist and there's something supporting color-figure extension And finally the logical contradictory to D is it is false a color figure and extension or my mind only Okay, so if you reject His conclusion you're rejecting you're committed to rejecting one of those premises you reject a premise You're committed to his logical contradictory which is his last form So which one and why?