The relationship between science and materialism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Type-A meaning people who make this claim and Type-B saying it is ridiculous?

No, type A being people who simply think the word pain is unnecessary, and type B being people who think there never was any pain at all, dualistic or physical or otherwise.

Type-A sunrise-eliminativists find nothing ridiculous about the claim "there never was a sunrise". They know exactly what this is supposed to mean and it is not an absurd thing to say "The sun has never risen over a stationary earth." Everyone knows what "sunrise" really means, they say.

No, type A sunrise-eliminativists would say that there never was any phenomenon at all concerning sunrise, neither a rising sun nor a turning Earth. Nothing for sunrise to refer to, correctly or incorrectly. No day, no night.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

See, I'd have thought that the fact that I quoted that post would have told you that I had already read it. Then, the fact that I posted what I did would have told you that if the answer was indeed in post 1147, it was not doing what you intended for it to do.

There are a number of assumptions in it that are simply not true; perhaps you would like to try again.

No, you'll have to try again. I need a response to post 1147. All of it.

 

[Mercutio]

No, you'll have to try again. I need a response to post 1147. All of it.

If you insist...

Just in case anyone still doesn't get why "sunrise" is eliminable but "mind" is not:

In the case of sunrise the word can be eliminated because we now have two different perspectives within the model. We can think of a fixed Earth or a fixed sun and we can all agree on an explanation of why there are two perspectives and, crucially, how these two perspectives are related.

In the case of the word "mind" we have a different problem. There's two perspectives allright - although we can't agree on how to define them. But at the moment we've got a bunch of words that apply from the 1st-person, subjective perspective and a bunch that apply from the 3rd-person, objective perspective. So what we need in order to be able to eliminate "mind" is a coherent explanation of the relationship between the two perspectives, like we've got for the sunrise and the movement of the Earth. At the moment, we do not have this explanation. The various different metaphysical positions being discussed are different answers to the question. The problem is that this time, unlike with the case of the sunrise, the arguments are metaphysical instead of physical, and as Paul has noted, metaphysics is a whole different ballgame. There's a very important reason why materialistic science can't ever explain the difference between these two perspectives: Science itself is founded on one of them. The scientific view of the world (which is materialistic) is restricted to operating within one of the two perspectives which needs to be resolved. That is what makes these questions metaphysical instead of physical. So in this case, unlike the sunrise, materialistic science can't stand outside the division between the two perspectives. The eliminativists realise this, which is why they want to eliminate the word "mind" completely. They know they cannot use a materialistic theory to reduce it so it has to be theoretically eliminable. Eliminative materialism is merely a version of the claim that it is impossible for materialism to stand outside itself in order to compare itself to idealism and dualism.

Either way, as things stand, the word "mind" cannot be eliminated and nobody can agree whether it's theoretically possible to so. Eliminative materialism is the claim that it is possible. Other forms of materialism do not entail this claim, which is why they are incoherent.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul

No, type A being people who simply think the word pain is unnecessary, and type B being people who think there never was any pain at all, dualistic or physical or otherwise.

That is EXACTLY what I just defined them as.

Geoff posted:

Type-A sunrise-eliminativists find nothing ridiculous about the claim "there never was a sunrise". They know exactly what this is supposed to mean and it is not an absurd thing to say "The sun has never risen over a stationary earth." Everyone knows what "sunrise" really means, they say.

Paul Replied:

No, type A sunrise-eliminativists would say that there never was any phenomenon at all concerning sunrise, neither a rising sun nor a turning Earth.

You've got this bit all wrong. Type A sunrise-eliminativist we all are, INCLUDING YOU. "Sunrise" once MEANT "Sun Rise". It meant that the sun ROSE above a stationary Earth. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH AN EVENT.

Think about it.

Nothing for sunrise to refer to, correctly or incorrectly. No day, no night.

Wrong. There was always a referent for Sunrise, it's just been explained differently now. Its Earth-turn. We just call it sunrise. That's my postion, your position and everybody-else's unless they are a geocentrist.

sunrise-eliminativist FACT: The sun has never risen over a stationary earth. What we called "sunrise" is nothing but Earth-turn
eliminative-materialist FACT: There has never been a mind. What we called mind is nothing but brain processes.

 

[Complexity]

No, you'll have to try again. I need a response to post 1147. All of it.

I don't need to do anything, dearie.

I no longer read any of your drivel that is longer than a line.

You embody all that is embarrassing and sterile about philosophy, you pretentious twit.

 

[hammegk]

What is the difference between your philosophy and modern geocentrism?

Geocentrism makes claims science can address -- and prove them wrong.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wikipedia definition of reductive materialism:

Reductive materialism (Identity theory) claims that there is no independent, autonomous level of phenomena in the world that would correspond to the level of conscious mental states. It also states that the level of conscious phenomena is identical with some level of purely neurological description. Conscious phenomena are nothing over and above the neural level, thus it can be reduced to that level.

This sounds like the type A eliminative materialism we're talking about. So that can't be what eliminativists mean.

Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a view in the philosophy of mind that argues for an absolute version of materialism with respect to mental entities and mental vocabulary. It principally argues that our common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology), which eliminativists view as a sort of unformalized theory, is not a viable conception on which to base scientific investigation. Eliminativists believe that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire and that behaviour and experience can only be adequately explained on the biological level. The most radical claims of eliminativism include the challenging of the existence of conscious mental states such as pains and visual perceptions.

This sounds entirely reasonable, building on reductive materialism by stating that folk terms will not map cleanly to the neural level. It appears to be reductive materialism with a caveat about terminology mapping.

But now we continue:

Today, the eliminativist view is most closely associated with the philosophers Paul and Patricia Churchland, who deny the existence of most mental phenomena, including beliefs, desires and other so-called intentional states, consciousness and phenomological qualia.

This sounds like a much more radical claim. Are they saying that the term pain is just totally bollocksed up in relation to neural function, or are they saying that pain does not exist?

Here is a definition of nonreductive materialism:

Materialism (or physicalism) can signify either a broad metaphysical view, or, more narrowly, a type of theory of mind. Metaphysical materialism is a specific kind of naturalism which contends that everything that exists is either physical or dependent upon the physical. Broadly understood, reductionist materialism maintains that everything is strictly physical; more narrowly, it maintains that the mind (at least) is purely physical. Nonreductive materialism also allows the existence of nonphysical properties that inhere in, or emerge from, a physical substrate. Consequently, it is sometimes called emergent materialism or property dualism. In the broad sense, nonreductive materialism holds that everything is physical or at least dependent upon the physical; and in the narrower sense it holds that the mind can have both physical and nonphysical aspects even though it must be instantiated in a physical system like the brain.

Huh?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you insist...

That's as informative as the non-existent position you claim you've got up your sleeve.

Running out of arguments?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You've got this bit all wrong. Type A sunrise-eliminativist we all are, INCLUDING YOU. "Sunrise" once MEANT "Sun Rise". It meant that the sun ROSE above a stationary Earth. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN SUCH AN EVENT.

Think about it.

Damn, I got it backwards.

No, type B sunrise-eliminativists would say that there never was any phenomenon at all concerning sunrise, neither a rising sun nor a turning Earth. Nothing for sunrise to refer to, correctly or incorrectly. No day, no night.

Now let me repeat my description of the two types of eliminative materialism:

Why are we eliminating the word pain?

(A) Because it is unnecessary, referring only to other physical things.

(B) Because there never was any pain at all.

These are vastly different. Which is eliminative materialism? Or, are there two stripes of eliminativists?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

This sounds like the type A eliminative materialism we're talking about. So that can't be what eliminativists mean.

No, this is reductive materialism. And it's either vague or incoherent.

This sounds entirely reasonable, building on reductive materialism by stating that folk terms will not map cleanly to the neural level. It appears to be reductive materialism with a caveat about terminology mapping.

A very important caveat. Sunrise maps cleanly onto Earth-turn. "not mapping cleanly" isn't defined clearly. It hides a logical problem.

This sounds like a much more radical claim. Are they saying that the term pain is just totally bollocksed up in relation to neural function, or are they saying that pain does not exist?

"The sun has never rise over a stationary Earth."
"There has never been any pain."

Here is a definition of nonreductive materialism:

Huh?

Precisely.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Paul,

I have no idea WTF that definition of non-reductive materialism was supposed to be. It certainly wasn't eliminativism and it didn't sound much like reductive materialism either. it just wasn't materialism at all.

Like I keep saying, the only position which is stable is eliminativism. All the other positions are, IMO, logically incomprehensible. I don't know how any of them can claim to be materialism.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope, sorry Geoff. You're effectively repeating my question rather than answering it, and I'm starting to get frustrated.

Are eliminative materialists saying that the word pain does not map cleanly onto brain process, or are they saying that I have no pain reaction when you stick a skewer in my arm?

Please stop talking about the sunrise. It's obscuring the issue, not helping.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

That's as informative as the non-existent position you claim you've got up your sleeve.

You dissappoint me. More grade-school goading. I have explained to you why you shall have to wait for that, and I have extended a fairly lengthy version of it to two witnesses.

Running out of arguments?

It was A) a joke, and B) as much as your post deserved. For the sake of fun, though...

Just in case anyone still doesn't get why "sunrise" is eliminable but "mind" is not:

*sigh*

In the case of sunrise the word can be eliminated because we now have two different perspectives within the model. We can think of a fixed Earth or a fixed sun and we can all agree on an explanation of why there are two perspectives and, crucially, how these two perspectives are related.

We can all agree except the geocentrists. The term "earthrotation" is eliminable to them.

In the case of the word "mind" we have a different problem.

he asserts.

There's two perspectives allright - although we can't agree on how to define them.

Depends. Within a perspective there may be tremendous agreement. The words you happen to have chosen are borrowed from a centuries-old dualism, so it is not terribly surprising that they have picked up a bit of baggage over time.

But at the moment we've got a bunch of words that apply from the 1st-person, subjective perspective and a bunch that apply from the 3rd-person, objective perspective.

You are already making assumptions here. You equate first-person with "subjective" and third-person with "objective", assuming a dualist view. Go directly to jail; do not pass go, do not collect $200.

So what we need in order to be able to eliminate "mind" is a coherent explanation of the relationship between the two perspectives, like we've got for the sunrise and the movement of the Earth.

Or to recognise that the question as you have phrased it has already assumed two perspectives.

At the moment, we do not have this explanation.

Nor do we have to, save for questioners who assume that the two perspectives exist. If we search all of Florida for the fountain of youth, but do not find it, does that mean that the map we draw is incorrect? Or is the lack of an imaginary item a flaw at all?

The various different metaphysical positions being discussed are different answers to the question.

*yawn* Wake me up the moment any one of them says something that matters.

The problem is that this time, unlike with the case of the sunrise, the arguments are metaphysical instead of physical, and as Paul has noted, metaphysics is a whole different ballgame.

The arguments may well be metaphysical, but that does not mean that the question is important. You made up a question. Don't feel bad; many people before you have done so, too.

There's a very important reason why materialistic science can't ever explain the difference between these two perspectives: Science itself is founded on one of them.

Not true.

The scientific view of the world (which is materialistic) is restricted to operating within one of the two perspectives which needs to be resolved.

Not true. Just ask hammy--science works just fine with objective idealism. Science is independent of monism, Geoff.

That is what makes these questions metaphysical instead of physical.

What makes them meaningful? Oh, they aren't.

So in this case, unlike the sunrise, materialistic science can't stand outside the division between the two perspectives.

Well...perhaps materialistic science can't, but science can. If thinking is a natural event, then science can study it.

The eliminativists realise this, which is why they want to eliminate the word "mind" completely.

Wow. And you called me an eliminativist? Next thing you know, you'll inform me I am against "love" as well. Funny thing...Radical Behaviorists are the most anti-mentalism people I know, and yet they still use "I changed my mind" in conversation. "Sunrise" and "mind" are part of our language, and that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

They know they cannot use a materialistic theory to reduce it so it has to be theoretically eliminable.

First off, the problem is not here, it is back when you invented the question to begin with. Secondly, you have not yet succeeded in demonstrating that this materialism is different from any other materialism.

Eliminative materialism is merely a version of the claim that it is impossible for materialism to stand outside itself in order to compare itself to idealism and dualism.

Which it needs to do, in order to answer the question about who would win, Superman or Batman. Or that other fictional question you came up with.

Either way, as things stand, the word "mind" cannot be eliminated and nobody can agree whether it's theoretically possible to so.

I bet Jeff Corey and I could agree on it. Or if you mean "everybody", then the geocentrists are going to quibble on sunrise just as easily.

Eliminative materialism is the claim that it is possible.

Do eliminative materialists agree on this? Is it only with non-eliminative-materialists that they disagree? I am trying still to parse your claim that "nobody can agree". Unless there is only one eliminative materialist, it seems that some can agree.

Other forms of materialism do not entail this claim, which is why they are incoherent.

Incoherency, sadly, does not bar one from taking part in this debate.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, this is reductive materialism. And it's either vague or incoherent.

Sounds pretty coherent to me.

Reductive materialism (Identity theory) claims that there is no independent, autonomous level of phenomena in the world that would correspond to the level of conscious mental states. It also states that the level of conscious phenomena is identical with some level of purely neurological description. Conscious phenomena are nothing over and above the neural level, thus it can be reduced to that level.

If this is not eliminative materialism, then eliminative materialism must be something bizarre.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Damn, I got it backwards.

No, type B sunrise-eliminativists would say that there never was any phenomenon at all concerning sunrise, neither a rising sun nor a turning Earth. Nothing for sunrise to refer to, correctly or incorrectly. No day, no night.

Paul, you're not getting this and it's critically important:

There's quite definately something sunrise once refered to. It's just not a sun rise. It's Earth-turn. Nothing has been eliminated from reality.

Now let me repeat my description of the two types of eliminative materialism:

Why are we eliminating the word pain?

(A) Because it is unnecessary, referring only to other physical things.

(B) Because there never was any pain at all.

These are vastly different.

They are IDENTICAL!

Think of the sunrise:

Why are we eliminating the word sunrise?

(A) Because it is unneccesaary, refering only to Earth-turn. What you once called a sun-rise isn't really the sun rising. The sun stays where it is. "sunrise" is now just a placeholder for "the earth has turned to meet the sun". The sun never rose above the Earth, but that doesn't mean there wasn't something we called sunrise. That still happens. We are all type-A sunrise-eliminativists.

(B) Because it is there never was any sunrise?

(B1) If you mean "because there was never an event to which the word sunrise refered", this is stupid.

(B2) If you mean "because the event we called sunrise is really earth-turn" then this is the same as (A).

Which is eliminative materialism? Or, are there two stripes of eliminativists?

A is eliminativism, but only the way I explained it.
B1 is stupid.
B2 is the same as A.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If this is not eliminative materialism, then eliminative materialism must be something bizarre.

~~ Paul

IMO, It's the most bizarre metaphysical position ever devised.

I have no choice but to talk about the sunrise. Unless you understand the sunrise example, you won't understand the concept of elimination. Remember that mercutio has already used the sunrise example as a way to clarify what eliminativism was trying to say. I said at the time it was a good example, and I'd borrow it. I'm borrowing it right now.

Are eliminative materialists saying that the word pain does not map cleanly onto brain process, or are they saying that I have no pain reaction when you stick a skewer in my arm?

Neither. They are saying the word "pain" doesn't actually mean anything. They are saying exactly what sunrise-eliminavists are saying. If you think this is obscuring the issue then it means you are finally face to face with the logical problem I've been trying to show you all along.

You *MUST* understand the sunrise example, or you won't understand what eliminative materialism is claiming.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Merc,

Your post effectively compared non-materialists to geocentrists. Do you think this is a valid comparison?

If not, your response to my post is invalid and must be withdrawn
But if so, you've got science confused with materialism, and you've demonstrated the original claim of this thread is true. You are equating anyone who isn't a materialist with a person who simply believes something which has been shown to be false.

QED, again.

Geoff

 

[Z]

That example is almost as rotten as Ian's 'radio=mind' example.

I'd try a different example - perhaps color, for example? Let's discuss color. The Sunrise example is just... well.... lame, really.

So who says what about color? Does color really exist? Is it just another term for 'perceived wavelengths of visible light? and so forth.

Discuss.

 

[Piggy]

JustGoeff: The Drinking Game

I've invited some friends over, and we're setup a bar with many kinds of liquor and lots of beer and mixiers. The game is we follow the thread, we have a listed of rhetorical errors and logical fallacies htat we've divvied up among everyone, with points attached. When JustGeoff makes one of youre erros you have to drink. When there's a "trifecta or if there'san error no one can figure out, it's a "social".

I don't hink I can get out of my chair right now.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I see where Geoff is going with this now.

He's sliding away from defending the silly claim that "materialists are either really immaterialists (Geoff's reductive materialism) or they believe we have no minds (Geoff's eliminative materialism)". The heat has gotten too much for him to stay on that spot any longer.

So he is sliding towards his retreat position, which will be "All I ever really meant was that if we figured out how the brain works, we would end up using a word other than mind to refer to the things we now call minds. Who could disagree with that?".

Then the plan is that everyone takes their eye off the ball, and he can go back to claiming that he has proved that materialists must be either Geoff-reductionists of Geoff-eliminativists.

Geoff is welcome to prove me wrong. He just has to address in plain English for once the issue of how he thinks he has shown that we don't have purely physical minds that exist independently of any labels we choose to stick on them, in exactly the same way that walls have a purely physical existence that is independent of whether or not we know about the atomic structure of walls.