You explained that your neurons created an eliminative materialist model that looked good to your neurons, but that other neurons, e.g. mine, might create other models, which would not look good to your neurons. — Olivier5
So your model is some kind of noise generated by your neurons, which sounded good to your neurons. — Olivier5
I'm not seeing the purpose of your line of enquiry. Are you just confirming your understanding of my position, or do you actually have a point? If the latter, could you just get on and make it. — Isaac
The best shot you can arrive at is (in summary): "my neurons made some model of neuronal operation (eg Matter did it), which they kinda liked, and others will make other models (eg God did it) which their neurons will kinda like". — Olivier5
It has the exact same chances of being true than any other neuronal noise, like Wayfarer's or mine... — Olivier5
Whatever attracts me to particular models might draw me more toward ones which are true than whatever attracts you to models. There's no reason at all to assume an equivalence. — Isaac
For one, there's no reason to assume any particular truth because truth remains undefined in your model. — Olivier5
whatever attracts me to particular models might draw me more toward ones which offer better fit than whatever attracts you to models. — Olivier5
What I meant to say was our world, i.e. our worldview, is determined by how many words (read concepts/ideas) we know/understand. In other words vocab is a good index of the richness of a life. For example if you don't know or don't recognize nautical terms it means your world is limited to land, you're what sailors call contemptuously a landlubber. — TheMadFool
Do you require this of all models then? If a physicist comes up with a new model of atomic decay do you say "that's all very interesting, but what is truth?" — Isaac
[My] model is just a relation between the data from sensory receptors and the behaviour appropriate to it to reduce the uncertainty involved in any interaction — Isaac
He might have no particular problem with the default definition of truth, as the adequacy between a representation (or model) and what it attempts to represent (or model). But if he says something like that:
[My] model is just a relation between the data from sensory receptors and the behaviour appropriate to it to reduce the uncertainty involved in any interaction — Isaac
... I might start to enquire. — Olivier5
note the complete absence of talk about qualia in normal life. It's an artefact of philosophers. The all too frequent framing of the debate about such things as being 'common sense' vs. 'science' is nonsense, common sense wouldn't touch qualia with a bargepole either. — Isaac
I don't think there's anything it's 'like' to be me. — Isaac
The main advantage science has is that it uses a lot of empirical data which is the sort of data we build our most treasured models about — Isaac
I'm comfortable with saying there's a mental state that could be called 'Thinking of ...', but it would have to be loose affiliation of states. I bet if you were 'thinking of' a daemon, you couldn't necessarily tell me how many toes it had, yet you'd surely say it had toes. — Isaac
One might be of the impression that when we 'think of' something we bring a picture of it to mind. That would be wrong, I think. — Isaac
Rather, we ready other parts of our mind in anticipation, we know the word for it, should we be called upon to speak it, we know the action for it (run, fight) should it actually appear, we know the things it's associated with... etc. — Isaac
Of course words enrich one's world — Alkis Piskas
In other words vocab is a good index of the richness of a life. — TheMadFool
Wherein I take my first exception to your comments: — Mww
I submit for your esteemed consideration, that that which could be cognized a priori, in constructing your “ready other parts of the mind in anticipation”.....is none other than an image we insert into the process, that serves as a rule to which the anticipated, must conform.
The stereotypical physicalist will adamantly decry the notion of images, maintaining instead the factual reality of enabled neural pathways, which translates to memory recall. Which is fine, might actually be the case, but I still “see” my memories, and science can do nothing whatsoever to convince me I don’t. — Mww
Lots of good stuff in your post, so thanks for all that. — Mww
My model of the pub being at the end of the road is 'true' if, when wanting to go to the pub, I walk to the end of the road and find it to be there as I would expect if my model were true. — Isaac
Suffice to say I consider them to have presented a number of situations in which assuming a neural-based model of models has yielded the results we'd expect if that model were true. — Isaac
The definition I'm using of eliminative materialism is the SEP one...
Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind.
— SEP — Isaac
That reads like mumbo-jumbo. I miss the part where anything mental gets "eliminated". Who are "we", if not some selves? — Olivier5
my intuition-based model of myself and my non-eliminated mind works really well. Why should I adopt another? — Olivier5
your eliminative materialist model is generated by neurons in your brain, like some sort of 'woo'? — Olivier5
running around like materialist chicken — Olivier5
I gave you two examples to show you that words do not determine one's experience(s). I can give you a lot more, but I don't see the point. As I can see, you ignored them. So that's it for me.Clarification: Words don't enrich our lives as much as it's a marker of the breadth of one's experiences. — TheMadFool
I gave you two examples to show you that words do not determine one's experience(s). I can give you a lot more, but I don't see the point. As I can see, you ignored them. So that's it for me. — Alkis Piskas
Isn't the entire canon of cognitive science part of what gets eliminated — Olivier5
What exactly do you attempt to eliminate in your "eliminative materialism"? — Olivier5
What exactly do you attempt to eliminate in your "eliminative materialism"?
— Olivier5
We've been through this - things like qualia, consciousness (in the sense of 'what it's like') — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.