If it is, explain it to me (and Tom Metzinger, et al).

An eliminative materialist is reductive. Since you say you're a nonreductive physicalist, basically I'm asking what you're eliminative about.

Sure, an "eliminativist materialist" can be "reductive"; some are not. I'm not. I'm eliminative about "consciousness" as an thing or a state (instead conceiving of it as an activity-process) as well as eliminative of "qualia" as theoretically useless for explaining any aspect of cognition (e.g. we each see our own hue of red and yet both stop for red lights implying that different subject's qualia are trivially, or non-operably, different; thus, less they're subjective properties and more non-subjective predicates – features? bugs? – of (our) brain-CNS).

Sure, an "eliminativist materialist" can be "reductive"; some are not. I'm not. I'm eliminative about "consciousness" as an thing or a state (instead conceiving of it as an activity-process) — 180 Proof

Processes and activities are things, though. I'm not clear on what you're eliminating.

as well as eliminative of "qualia" as theoretically useless for explaining any aspect of cognition — 180 Proof

I don't think anybody tries to use qualia is an explanation for anything. It is the explicandum.

e.g. we each see our own hue of red — 180 Proof

You're not eliminative about qualia.

So, what exactly is it that you think is emergent?

I think Apollodorus is about 14 years old
— frank

You must have done a lot of thinking to come up with that. Don't overexert yourself. — Apollodorus

Make that 13.

Nothing here for me in this discussion. You don't buy what I'm selling and likewise, frank. Another thread, another time.

You don't buy what I'm selling — 180 Proof

Ok. I'll just talk to the wall.



The SEP in nonreductive eliminativism:

”Like dualists, eliminative materialists insist that ordinary mental states cannot be reduced to or identified with neurological events or processes. However, unlike dualists, straightforward eliminativists claim there is nothing more to the mind than what occurs in the brain. The reason mental states are irreducible is not because they are non-physical; rather, it is because mental states, as described by common-sense psychology, do not really exist."

So an eliminative materialist can't really embrace emergence. There's nothing to emerge.

I can live with atheist; materialism went out with newton; Communism - I'm reading Slavoj Žižek, maybe.

you still haven't told us who you believe it is that is reincarnated. — Apollodorus

No one. Think I made that plain enough.

materialism went out with newton — Banno

I hear this quite often but not what is meant by "materialism" or what precisely invalidates it methodologically (not just metaphysically).

I'm going to quote myself:

Interesting, isn't it, that folk suppose that because "I am convinced", it follows that "Hence, you ought be convinced". Going both ways. "I am not convinced, hence, you ought not be convinced". — Banno

There's apparently an imperative in being convinced of something. One expects others to be similar convinced.

Materialism - the world consists of bits of matter banging into each other. All causal explanation is in terms of billiard balls. Think Descartes and Leibniz.

Newton made action at a distance - that is, without intervening billiard balls - central to physics by describing gravity.

Hence, the demise of materialism.

Methodologically, the equations of fields were just so convincing and so useful that folk decided to forgo the notion that causes must work by contact.

Okay. Netwonian "action at a distance" doesn't displace classical materialism (i.e. atomism) only mechanized materialism (i.e. billard ball causality). I agree.

...classical materialism... — 180 Proof

... so the ontology is atoms and fields... not just atoms.

Physicist Paul Davies seems to think so - he argues for Newtonian materialism the 'inert lumps' being displaced by quantum mechanics.

... so the ontology is atoms and fields... not just atoms. — Banno

Indeed, one of his books I read decades ago was The Matter Myth.

The problem is, what are fields? In the book I'm reading there's a case made that equates fields with Aristotle's 'potentia', which seems intuitively sound to me, but still leaves open the question....

Somehow many discussions seem to return to the matter of fields. Which I kind of like, to be honest. Probabilistic theories with math as the key language are not all that democratic however.

Works for me (void ~ fields), which I've speculated on:

... democritean Atomism seems to emphasize voids that allow for combinatorial dynamics (i.e. nonequilibria, asymmetries) of atoms (molecular/micro), which is 'intuitively analogous' to field theories; whereas, however, subsequent lucretian Materialism emphasize atoms (molar/macro) and their purported swerves, 'anticipating' statistical mechanics (i.e. compatibilist uncertainty, or "freedom"). — 180 Proof

Planck units – fundamental relationships – seem to correspond more to what ancient Greeks (& Indian Cārvāka) had in mind than to what early modern chemists, then physicists, anachronistically (mis)labeled "atoms". The only thing that was "discovered" with regard to "atoms" was that John Dalton et al were wildly premature and mistaken. — 180 Proof

Have a look at Heisenberg's lecture, The Debate between Plato and Democritus. According to him, Plato 1, Democritus 0.

the inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of the atom, which had become apparent even in the ancient discussions about smallest particles, have also appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the present century.

This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here, the development of quantum theory some forty years ago has created a complete change in the situation. The mathematically formulated laws of quantum theory show clearly that our ordinary intuitive concepts cannot be unambiguously applied to the smallest particles. All the words or concepts we use to describe ordinary physical objects, such as position, velocity, color, size, and so on, become indefinite and problematic if we try to use then of elementary particles....it is important to realize that, while the behavior of the smallest particles cannot be unambiguously described in ordinary language, the language of mathematics is still adequate for a clear-cut account of what is going on.

During the coming years, the high-energy accelerators will bring to light many further interesting details about the behavior of elementary particles. But I am inclined to think that the answer just considered to the old philosophical problems will turn out to be final. If this is so, does this answer confirm the views of Democritus or Plato?

I think that on this point modern physics has definitely decided for Plato. For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures or—in Plato's sense—Ideas, which can be unambiguously spoken of only in the language of mathematics.

Also this. Back at quantum again. :yikes: Can’t be helped, really, it tends to crop up in any discussion about what’s real.

Nice. I see how he incorporates Plato. I am unsure if that comparison is sustainable more broadly but he would know better than I. It does stand to reason that the human perceptual framework has a finite capacity and what now amounts to metaphoric notions of materialism were bound to run out of usefulness at some point in our relentless enquiries.

For the smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are forms, structures

It's food for thought and the question with this is where do we go that doesn't lead us back to speculative inanities. And back to the bad physics thread?? :razz:

Actually I'd prefer to discuss it in the good physics thread. (Should've posted it there, I got mixed up, serves me right for posting on the fly when I'm supposed to be working.)

I want to bounce a certain idea vis-à-vis reincarnation off you for feedback.

Reincarnation is, all said and done, simply just a kind of causation, right? You reap (effect) what you sow (cause) kinda deal.

A vital piece of information in re causation is the principle of sufficient reason (PSR), one entry in it being that every effect has an cause. What will be relevant in a while is the missing causal principle in the PSR, the converse, every cause has an effect.

Time to get down to business, to the brass tacks...

1. There are certain occasions in one's life - usually unpleasant but also, sometimes, satisfying ones - when one is so moved by events in our lives that we ask ourselves, "why is this happening to me?" or "I can't believe my luck!" or "what are the odds of that happening?". The questions are emotionally charged and one is usually in the grips of strong feelings whether good or bad but, more importantly and also intriguingly, they indicate one crucial fact about the event that provokes the question - there are no explanations for them. Put differently, our attempts to find an appropriate cause in this life is unsuccessful.

Yet, the PSR necessitates a cause for such events and since none can be found in this life, it must be that the putative cause be in a past life. Ergo, reincarnation has to be a fact.

2. The second point is premised on the missing element in the PSR viz. every cause has an effect. If one performs a good deed or a bad deed and one is, for some reason, unable to experience its effects [repurcussions, an equal and opposite reaction in Newtonian terms], this law is violated. But this law can't be broken and ergo, you must be reborn to experience the effects of one's good/bad actions. Therefore, reincarnation must be true.

Basically, it all boils down to the following argument...

1. If there's no reincarnation then causality (cause and effect) is violated.

2. Causality (cause and effect) can't be violated

Hence,

3. There is reincarnation [1, 2 Modus Tollens]

N.B. General causality implies moral causality (good/bad karma)

Reincarnation is, all said and done, simply just a kind of causation, right? You reap (effect) what you sow (cause) kinda deal. — TheMadFool

According to Buddhism, beings are inexorably bound by karma (pending their eventual liberation). Actually in the early 20th C, it was fashionable to say that Buddhism was a 'scientific religion' due to its recognition of 'the law of cause and effect', by comparing it to 'action and reaction'. But of course it is no such thing, because science doesn't recognise the kind of intentional causality that is implied by karma; ‘action and reaction’ is bound solely by the laws of motion.

Buddhism also broadened the concept of karma by saying it arose from any intentional action whatever, whereas in Brahmanism karma was accrued by making the right sacrifices and observing the ritual discipline. Typically of the Buddha, he retained an element of the Brahmin religion but changed its scope and meaning.

But again, I can’t see how there can be any scientific provision for karma in explaining the causal connection between action and result, especially from one life to another. From the Buddhist’s p.o.v., there need be no such validation, but from the Western p.o.v., it can’t be considered effective in the absence of a scientifically-comprehensible causal medium.

Actually in the early 20th C, it was fashionable to say that Buddhism was a 'scientific religion' due to its recognition of 'the law of cause and effect', by comparing it to 'action and reaction'. — Wayfarer

My thoughts exactly. I once opened a thread on Buddhism along those lines. How very comforting to know there are others who think like me.

Do you think this scientific quality to Buddhism sets it apart from other religions or are other religions equally scientific for the reason that they too subscribe to causality albeit a moral version of it?

But again, I can’t see how there can be any scientific provision for karma in explaining the causal connection between action and result, especially from one life to another. From the Buddhist’s p.o.v., there need be no such validation, but from the Western p.o.v., it can’t be considered effective in the absence of a scientifically-comprehensible causal medium. — Wayfarer

My take on this is rather simple: first of all, in the life we're living now as we engage in this conversation, moral causality is real, as real as a these words (effect) follows from my hitting keys on my phone (cause); look around you. if I were to, god forbid, insult you, you would feel something and that would make you react in a predictable way, assuming you aren't acquainted with some philosophy that explains why such behavior is silly/foolish.

All this is perfectly understandable against the backdrop of the lives we're living but we all know that sometimes the response (effect) to an action (cause) doesn't/can't take place as when we die. This, whatever else it might be, leaves the cause hanging in the air, in suspended animation as it were, unable to, in a sense, discharge the responsibility causality has conferred upon it viz. to produce a reaction/response. If this is the case, it has to be that a person be reborn to complete the causal process - allowing the cause (action) to, in a sense, complete itself as an effect (reaction).

This squares well what Buddhism and even other religions recommend viz. calm and poise in the face of harm, deliberate or unintentional - the idea is to break and thus break free from the chain of causation. What this amounts to is a refusal to let yourself (by reacting) and others (by acting) get sucked into the karmic cycle of samsara. I suppose the main point of Buddhism is to end/snuff out karma...nirvana is essentially liberation from moral causality i.e. karma and the net effect is you'll be shown the door out of the six realms of existence.

There's more that can be said but chew on this for the time being.

Do you think this scientific quality to Buddhism sets it apart from other religions or are other religions equally scientific for the reason that they too subscribe to causality albeit a moral version of it? — TheMadFool

Read what I said again. I'm saying that it was fashionable to say that Buddhism was a 'scientific religion' - not that I think that it's true. It's not that Buddhism is anti-scientific, but the principles are beyond what can be ascertained in any empirical sense; they can only be really understood in the first person (take them or leave them.) The promotion of Buddhism as being 'compatible with science' was very much associated with various translators and interpreters who were active in the early 20th century who sought to harmonise Buddhism with Enlightenment principles - hence their appeal to science.

I agree with you on an intuitive level, but as it's a discussion about philosophical principles, then it should be assessed accordingly.

This squares well what Buddhism and even other religions recommend viz. calm and poise in the face of harm, deliberate or unintentional - the idea is to break and thus break free from the chain of causation. — TheMadFool

:up: Stoicism comes to mind, also. But it's certainly not a universal trait of religion. 'Turning the other cheek' is a Christian principle, but I don't know how universal it is. Some religions have a 'f***k with me and you die' attitude.

I suppose the main point of Buddhism is to end/snuff out karma. — TheMadFool

See through it, rise above it. It can't be 'snuffed out', the Gordian knot has to be untied, somehow or other.

they can only be really understood in the first person (take them or leave them.) — Wayfarer

:clap: :up: Fantabulous. You took the words right out of my mouth! The general sentiment expressed therein seems to be at the heart of what's offered to us as so-called wisdom. Whatever wisdom/liberation/nirvana/moksha is, it always seems to have a, for lack of a better word, subjective side to it that's above and beyond that which is objective about. Remaining within the buddhist context, nirvana, for example, what it is to be precise. can't be described in a way that we can get; no third-person point of view of nirvana can accurately and completely describe what it is like to be enlightened. I suspect many areas of life are like this - the proof of the pudding, I guess, is in the eating. I think you touched on this issue in another thread where you emphasized the importance of practice in religion.

f***k with me and you die — Wayfarer

:rofl: You can say that again but just out of curiosity which religion would that be?

See through it, rise above it. It can't be 'snuffed out', the Gordian knot has to be untied, somehow or other. — Wayfarer

This is the kind of insight that puts you well ahead of the rest of us in what is evidently a rat race to the finish line whatever one believes that to be. Excelente señora!

Whatever wisdom/liberation/nirvana/moksha is, it always seems to have a, for lack of a better word, subjective side to it that's above and beyond that which is objective about. — TheMadFool

The wise would say that this is the perspective of the disinterested intelligence, subjectivity unsullied by egotism. (Don’t include me in that, by the way, it’s only something I’ve read about.)

Remaining within the buddhist context, nirvana, for example, what it is to be precise. can't be described in a way that we can get; no third-person point of view of nirvana can accurately and completely describe what it is like to be enlightened. I suspect many areas of life are like this - the proof of the pudding, I guess, is in the eating. I think you touched on this issue in another thread where you emphasized the importance of practice in religion. — TheMadFool

:up:

which religion would that be? — TheMadFool

Better not say. I don’t want to die. :rofl:

Better not say. I don’t want to die. — Wayfarer

Of course, of course.

Live long and prosper! — Captain Spock

The wise would say that this is the perspective of the disinterested intelligence, subjectivity unsullied by egotism. (Don’t include me in that, by the way, it’s only something I’ve read about.) — Wayfarer

My hunch is that you're already a part of what you don't want to be a part of. It's a good thing so don't fret!

The point is that the report of an embodied person does not stand as evidence of a disembodied person. — Fooloso4

I see, so the corroborated testimonial evidence while my heart is stopped and I'm no longer breathing, i.e., the testimony that I'm observing my operation from a point outside my body is not evidence. The fact, again corroborated, that I'm describing conversations and the equipment used in the operation is not evidence of being disembodied? Or, describing a conversation of relatives in a waiting room while the operation is being performed in another part of the hospital is not evidence of being disembodied? I'll refrain from saying what I really want to say. The point is that many people who are materialists, or who just deny that such events can happen refuse to open their eyes to the evidence. Firsthand testimonial evidence, is evidence, and whether its good evidence depends on factors I've already given in this thread and in my thread https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1 . So, I wouldn't wouldn't put much stock in these kinds of statements.

It is not simply a matter of explaining how it is possible but of giving a coherent account of whatever it is that inhabits or is tied to a body but is somehow separate from it. Whatever it is that perceives and feels and yet is not a body. — Fooloso4

This just doesn't follow, i.e., because I can't explain how it is that people are able to have an OBE, then it follows that they aren't having an NDE. Of course I can't give a coherent account of how it's possible. Nobody understands the mechanism whereby these OBEs happen. Moreover, I haven't tried to give a coherent account other than speculation. This however, doesn't negate the fact that it's happening, i.e., people are experiencing corroborated OBEs. When people first conducted the 2 slit light experiment no one knew what was going on, and no one could give a coherent explanation of what was happening, but did that negate the evidence that something weird was happening? No. Did it negate further research? No.

If you have an open-mind and are not completely shut off from reason, then you have to say, at the very least that there is something to these NDEs. Here is an example of an NDE that can't be explained away with the arguments that disembodied existence just isn't possible, or that it's incoherent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKyQJDZuMHE

Remaining within the buddhist context, nirvana, for example, what it is to be precise. can't be described in a way that we can get; no third-person point of view of nirvana can accurately and completely describe what it is like to be enlightened. — TheMadFool

So, you finally got it. Nirvana, like reincarnation, is something that you need to experience to know exactly what it is. You may choose to dismiss it as "subjective", but you can't prove that it doesn't exist and you haven't persuaded anyone. That much should be clear to you by now. But apparently not.