The relationship between science and materialism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why on earth would you have to do that if every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term gets replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural? How would it follow from that, that you never had a mind?

Anyone want to explain this to Kevin?

Sorry, it'll have to be you. I agree it follows that you never had an ontologically distinct mind, but I don't know why the linguistic trick of deprecating the word mind follows.

~~ Paul

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I snipped some empty assertions from Geoff that preceded this bit. There was no actual argument there.

No, Kevin, the proof on THIS page.......here it is again. See if you can understand all seven sentences of it:

Let's assume we have a completed theory of everything physical. That includes everything there is to know about neuroscience. At this point one of two things must be true.

Either

a) Every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

or

b) Not every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

(a) and (b) are mutually exclusive.

The above is all fine.

If (a) is true then eliminative materialism is true.

Says who? How would this change of the labels entail the truth of the proposition that we do not have minds or beliefs?

You need to somehow prove that is is impossible for us to have minds and beliefs which are purely physical, if you want to rule out non-eliminative materialism. Asserting it repeatedly is not an argument.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Memories.

~~ Paul

Memories are stored as a pattern in your neurons. That's P2. When you activate the memories and "re-live" them they become part of your experiences - P1. What else is there to memories?

And as for eliminative materialism - yes even the Churchlands accept that in reality, at least for now, eliminativism is just a bold hypothesis about the future. What matters is the logic. I'm trying to get people to see that logic forces this conclusion in the hope they will then make the next step of understanding that the only way of transcending the cartesian duality of subjective and objective is to realise that Being and Nothing are the same thing. Wasp is busily accusing me of being embroiled in dualism because of my "duality between being and nothing." The reason I just posted a whole load of quotes from Sartre, Heidegger and Hegel was in support of my claim that the position I am defending is the one and only route out of traditional metaphysics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I
Says who?

Anyone who knows what "eliminative materialism" means.

How would this change of the labels entail the truth of the proposition that we do not have minds or beliefs?

Because, quite literally, that is what eliminative materialism IS. Minds are like phlogiston - a word that no longer refers to anything. There are no minds. Just brain processes.

You need to somehow prove that is is impossible for us to have minds and beliefs which are purely physical, if you want to rule out non-eliminative materialism.

That is precisely what I have proved, Kevin. I have proved it's impossible by proving that the very sentence you have uttered is logically incoherent. Your statement is the equivalent of "You have to prove it is impossible we could make a square circle."

Asserting it repeatedly is not an argument.

That's why I proved it logically - three times so far in this thread - a proof that has now been properly understood by several people who were not previously aware of it. The only reason you do not realise this is that you do not understand what the term "eliminative materialism" means.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

.....

Erm, I seem to remember that Mercutio was going to post his long awaited declaration of a position......

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Wasp is busily accusing me of being embroiled in dualism because of my "duality between being and nothing."

Frankly I've had just about enough of your strawman parade. I said nothing of the kind. I accused you of dualism by having a neutral substance and God who did the dirty work of Being/Awareness. Since you obviously either do not bother to read what I write or don't understand it, why bother?

We were on the way to showing you that the "verbs" that we call "mind" are explainable naturally. You saw the probability of success and bolted back into your comfort zone.

There is no eliminative materialism. There is nothing to eliminate and I have no idea what "matter" is. The only elimination concerns the fuzziness of certain words. You couldn't handle it when I asked you to define what all these fuzzy terms actually mean. So, you started the whole shouting match process all over again to obscure the issue and make any further fruitful dialogue impossible. The only reason why this has stretched to thousands of posts is precisely because of your retreat techniques.

For Nothing's sake, can't we let this Behemoth die?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK...

Some people don't seem to have understood what I am trying to do with this proof. I am not saying that if eliminative materialism is true that people will actually stop talking about minds. However, I am still saying that pure logic eventually forces any person trying to defend materialism into defending full-blown eliminative materialism. But the point in the argument isn't to force people to stop talking about minds. The point is that this logic, once understood and accepted, can open the path to understanding how to get rid of metaphysics alltogether. You can't get rid of it by defending non-eliminative versions of materialism. I don't believe you can get rid of it by defending eliminativism either, but because eliminativism is at least a logically coherent position it becomes a step in the process of reasoning which leads to the end of metaphysics. All you have to do is realise that eliminative materialism it's dialectial opposites (solipsism and Berkeleyanism) are logically transposable into each other. At this point you can equate Being with Nothing and metaphysics comes to a conclusion. But none of this can happen until the materialists have understood their own position properly.
That is the point in proving non-eliminativism is logically incoherent.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

For Nothing's sake, can't we let this Behemoth die?

See my last post. I am the one who is actually trying to finish off the Behemoth that is metaphysics. It's the materialists who won't let it die.

Let Being=Nothing and the Behemoth dies.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Because, quite literally, that is what eliminative materialism IS. Minds are like phlogiston - a word that no longer refers to anything. There are no minds. Just brain processes.

This is definition in place of argument.

Even if it happened to be true that some eliminative materialists claimed that naming all the bits of the brain would make minds and beliefs literally vanish, the fact that someone made that claim does not make it true. It is logically possible that these eliminative materialists (straw or otherwise) were simply wrong about that. It is even likely, given that it is a very silly claim.

That is precisely what I have proved, Kevin. I have proved it's impossible by proving that the very sentence you have uttered is logically incoherent. Your statement is the equivalent of "You have to prove it is impossible we could make a square circle."

No. You have only proven that my sentence is incoherent if your version of eliminative materialism is really the way the universe works.

That's why I proved it logically - three times so far in this thread - a proof that has now been properly understood by several people who were not previously aware of it. The only reason you do not realise this is that you do not understand what the term "eliminative materialism" means.

If you want us to believe that your version of eliminative materialism is the only coherent form of materialism, you need to show your work. You cannot just assert it over and over again.

How do you rule out the possibility that your version of eliminative materialism is incorrect, and that therefore it is possible for there to be minds and beliefs which are purely physical?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Being=Nothing rests on its own. Any system can use that concept at its core. It is the rest of your assertions with which we disagree, such as consciousness cannot possibly be explained without recourse to your wonderful system.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

OK...

Some people don't seem to have understood what I am trying to do with this proof. I am not saying that if eliminative materialism is true that people will actually stop talking about minds. However, I am still saying that pure logic eventually forces any person trying to defend materialism into defending full-blown eliminative materialism.

Any evidence at all that logic, as opposed to assertion, forces such a move would be greatly appreciated.

But the point in the argument isn't to force people to stop talking about minds. The point is that this logic, once understood and accepted, can open the path to understanding how to get rid of metaphysics alltogether. You can't get rid of it by defending non-eliminative versions of materialism. I don't believe you can get rid of it by defending eliminativism either, but because eliminativism is at least a logically coherent position it becomes a step in the process of reasoning which leads to the end of metaphysics. All you have to do is realise that eliminative materialism it's dialectial opposites (solipsism and Berkeleyanism) are logically transposable into each other. At this point you can equate Being with Nothing and metaphysics comes to a conclusion. But none of this can happen until the materialists have understood their own position properly.
That is the point in proving non-eliminativism is logically incoherent.

Twaddle. At the end of this laborious process of progressive mystical enlightenment, Geoff, you were still left with neutral monism, a silly and eminently metaphysical position which multiplies entities way beyond necessity. It doesn't help that every step along the path is logically dubious either.

The end of metaphysics will happen when everyone realises there is nothing sensible to say about the topic and just shuts up. Passes over it in silence, as Wittgenstein put it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Being=Nothing rests on its own.

Then this thread has reached it's conclusion. This will be my last post in it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Then this thread has reached it's conclusion. This will be my last post in it.

Exit Geoff stage right, pursued by a large number of unanswered questions.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Memories are stored as a pattern in your neurons. That's P2. When you activate the memories and "re-live" them they become part of your experiences - P1. What else is there to memories?

Then that removes the "external stimuli" portion of the definition of P2, unless "external" means "external to P1," in which case external things are defined as being external to subjective experiences. I'm not sure what it means for a thing to be external to an experience.

And as for eliminative materialism - yes even the Churchlands accept that in reality, at least for now, eliminativism is just a bold hypothesis about the future. What matters is the logic.

I don't see any logic, I just see a linguistic trick. Let's try a scenario:

Two philosophers are at a barbecue. They watch as the master chef accidently pokes his partner with a sharp skewer. The first philosopher hears "ouch!" and says "Gee, that must have really hurt." The second philosopher looks at him quizically and says "What happened?"

The first philosopher is still living in a world where pain has some folk definition, so he recognizes the pain reaction. The second philosopher is living in the future eliminative materialist world where pain no longer refers to anything, so he witnesses nothing.

Ridiculous, of course. But this is the picture you're painting, Geoff. Or at least this is the picture I'm getting from the way you are interpreting the definition of eliminative materialism. I think it's supposed to eliminate sloppy definitions, not actual events.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

At this point you can equate Being with Nothing and metaphysics comes to a conclusion. But none of this can happen until the materialists have understood their own position properly.
That is the point in proving non-eliminativism is logically incoherent.

I don't get the trick. Why don't you assume we understand eliminativism and continue on?

Being=Nothing rests on its own.

Hang on! I have absolutely no idea what it means. I do not know why it is a better definition than Being=kumquats.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

a) Every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

or

b) Not every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural.

(a) and (b) are mutually exclusive.
If (a) is true then eliminative materialism is true.
If (b) is true then there must be a non-physical element to mental realm, which means all forms of materialism are false.

This assumes that at least one folk term includes the assumption that mind is nonphysical. But if we assume that, then eliminativism refers to the fact that we are eliminating the nonphysical aspects of mind. However, plain old materialism already makes that assumption, as you say. This means that the "eliminative" in "eliminative materialism" is redundant.

I do not think the word eliminative is meant to be redundant, so therefore I think your definition of eliminative materialism is incorrect.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The Behemoth still stirs....

Kevin,

I can't be bothered to have a p*ss*ng contest with you.

Paul,

Then that removes the "external stimuli" portion of the definition of P2, unless "external" means "external to P1," in which case external things are defined as being external to subjective experiences. I'm not sure what it means for a thing to be external to an experience.

In this case there is only a proximal P1 cause (your noumenal brain) instead of there also being a distall P1 cause (a chair).

I don't see any logic, I just see a linguistic trick. Let's try a scenario:

Two philosophers are at a barbecue. They watch as the master chef accidently pokes his partner with a sharp skewer. The first philosopher hears "ouch!" and says "Gee, that must have really hurt." The second philosopher looks at him quizically and says "What happened?"

The first philosopher is still living in a world where pain has some folk definition, so he recognizes the pain reaction. The second philosopher is living in the future eliminative materialist world where pain no longer refers to anything, so he witnesses nothing.

If you go searching for refutations of eliminative materialism on the internet you will find lots of examples just like this.

Ridiculous, of course. But this is the picture you're painting, Geoff. Or at least this is the picture I'm getting from the way you are interpreting the definition of eliminative materialism.

There's no other way to interpret it. Eliminativism is what you get when your system has Nothing in the position I have Being/Nothing. The result is the elimination of mind. Subjective Idealism is what yet get when your system has Being in the position I have Being/Nothing. The result is the elimination of external reality. But if your system is built on Being/Nothing then the only thing which gets eliminated is dualistic metaphysics.

I think it's supposed to eliminate sloppy definitions, not actual events.

What events? MENTAL events? Yes, those are to be eliminated. Mental events are physical events. Or so we are supposed to believe if we are going to be logically coherent materialists. Of course, you could just accept what Wasp just said :

"Being = Nothing" rests on its own.

If that is true, then why not just put Being/Nothing into your system instead of "nothing" and you can be both logically coherent and still able to refer to a mind? I don't get why people are finding it so hard to put the pieces of the puzzle together here. Just think back to when I started this project by coming to this forum and trying to get people to believe that Zero=Infinity. Nobody came close to accepting anything of the sort. Finally, four long years and 10,000 posts (all sockpuppets included) later, I start a thread about materialism which ends with one of my opponents declaring that "Being=Nothing stands on it's own". Which is what I said all along - it's the key point I have spent the last four years trying to demonstrate.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't get the trick. Why don't you assume we understand eliminativism and continue on?

Because you haven't eliminated hammegk's position. I believe I have.

Hang on! I have absolutely no idea what it means. I do not know why it is a better definition than Being=kumquats.

~~ Paul

For all the reasons I have been stating over and over again, Paul.

I repeat:

Elimanitive materialism, Eliminative idealism and Geoff's neutral monism are logically transposable onto each other. Eliminativism is what you get when your system has Nothing in the position I have Being/Nothing. The result is the elimination of mind. Subjective Idealism is what yet get when your system has Being in the position I have Being/Nothing. The result is the elimination of external reality. But because my monism is built on Being/Nothing then the only thing which gets eliminated is dualistic metaphysics. All of the dualisms which haunt these debates, which appear so hard to get rid of, dissolve into nothing as soon as you equate Being and Nothing. If, instead, you defend eliminative materialism, all that will happen is that people will say it is stupid and bounce back towards idealism (which you presumably think is stupid).

 

[Mercutio]

Erm, I seem to remember that Mercutio was going to post his long awaited declaration of a position......

I have PMed it to a couple of folks who couldn't wait and asked politely. I repeat, your position should stand or fall on its own, not based on any analysis of my own. I am holding off because I don't have the time right now to properly devote to a thread based on my own view, and because I'd rather see a proper understanding of yours first.

You can wait a bit longer before something distracts from your dualism.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This assumes that at least one folk term includes the assumption that mind is nonphysical. But if we assume that, then eliminativism refers to the fact that we are eliminating the nonphysical aspects of mind. However, plain old materialism already makes that assumption, as you say. This means that the "eliminative" in "eliminative materialism" is redundant.

I do not think the word eliminative is meant to be redundant, so therefore I think your definition of eliminative materialism is incorrect.

~~ Paul

You are going to have to rephrase this because it makes no sense to me. I don't understand how you arrived at the first sentence.