I can decide who and who not to respond to. — Wayfarer
If you've no intention of engaging with positivists, or materialists then it's little more than boorish jeering to keep posting about how we're all wrong about everything. — Isaac
Generally don’t think I can be accused of being discourteous although plainly my views are at odds with many others. — Wayfarer
Conclusion: Thoughts are neither matter nor energy.
In other words, thoughts are nonphysical. — TheMadFool
Question: Is mind also nonphysical? If I see triangular objects (nonphysical things) popping out of a machine (the brain), there must be something triangular in that machine (the mind must be nonphysical). — TheMadFool
By refusing to discuss the arguments, you appear to be taking the position that either eliminative materialists are wrong beyond question (which is, you'll forgive, more than a little dogmatic), or the position that eliminative materialism is not of interest to you (in which case, why keep bringing it up?). Do you see the problem? — Isaac
If the eliminate materialism debate doesn't interest you, then it might give less of a mixed message if didn't keep starting them. — Isaac
When “folk psychology” is spoken to you, what best describes what you hear, in a narrower sense of the term? — Mww
there are often grounds for a kind of 'mutual exasperation' in such discussions. — Wayfarer
There's the expectation that if you're going to criticize the role of science in culture, then you ought to have a good scientific reason for so doing. Allied with that, the expectation that if you do pursue that line of thought, then you must prefer to 'get your information from burning bushes' (I was actually told this recently). — Wayfarer
I do think eliminative materialism is unquestionably wrong (and I'm not alone in that). It's an example of the self-reinforcing tendency in this kind of theory - it purports to be 'scientific', although actually it's not, because there's no way of demonstrating it scientifically, it's not a theory about anything objective. — Wayfarer
Eliminative materialism exists due to the fact that the intrinsically subjective nature of conscious experience or existence, is out-of-scope for objective explanation as a matter of principle. — Wayfarer
this is something that critics of Dennett have been saying for 50 years - but none of it counts. He simply ignores the criticism, dismisses it as hand-waving. If no criticism can ever really be made, then who is being 'dogmatic'? — Wayfarer
Also want to clarify that where I think the problem lies is not with science - for instance, I have zero regard for climate-change denial, anti-vaccination, or creationism - but in taking science as being authoritative with respect to human identity or the human condition. — Wayfarer
I will often weigh in, usually when the opinion is expressed that humans 'are an arrangement of atoms' and are therefore understandable, in principle, in terms ultimately reducible to physical laws (in other words, physicalism). — Wayfarer
The thing is that modern culture, generally, presumes that the ‘scientific worldview’ is normative, kind of the arbiter of what is considered real. It is more like an undercurrent a lot of the time. — Wayfarer
How do models arise in an eliminative materialist model? — Olivier5
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 (my bolding)
And how would that be, if you don't mind explaining? — Olivier5
That's what I understand to be 'folk psychology'. — Isaac
Also want to clarify that where I think the problem lies is not with science (...) but in taking science as being authoritative with respect to human identity or the human condition.
— Wayfarer
Science is far too under-informed to be authoritative about something as vast as human identity (...) The point is...so is any other approach. — Isaac
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. — Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wouldn’t that depend on what one deems authoritative? If science cannot tell me I’m “deeply wrong**” about some mental state, because it is “far too under-informed”, merely from some “ordinary common sense understanding**” of my mind, why can I not then say I am authorized, if my understanding of my mind is substantially more than ordinary? — Mww
what are some but not all of the specific mental states the existence of which are said to be denied by modern E.M. advocates? — Mww
how does that refutation make the mental state of thinking demons, non-existent? It seems the only reconciliation is to say thinking demons is not a mental state, which appears altogether quite contradictory, insofar as to refute a thing presupposes the thought of it. — Mww
it seems pretty hard to deny that all mental states have a definitive role to play in human activities generally. — Mww
So your eliminative materialist model is generated by neurons in your brain, like some sort of 'woo'? — Olivier5
What's the difference between a person who looks around and concludes God must have made it happen, and a guy who looks around and concludes matter must have made it happen? Both develop a model, right? — Olivier5
I'm not part of a team nor do I agree with Wayfarer on everything. — Manuel
I've got to give you credit for being so tenacious and articulate in the way you think about this topic. — Manuel
This sounds unfortunate. One's world (reality) consists much more than words (language). It also contains images, sounds, feelings, experiences, ... In fact, one's world gets limited only when one tries to put it in words. This is what we mean when we say "I can't explain it in words ..."
Be your own "Wittgenstein" and let him be himself! :) — Alkis Piskas
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.