An excellent article on materialism!

[Interesting Ian]

Don't be such a complete t*thead. Which is more likely to provide a correct definition of philosophical terms? Encyclopedias of philosophy, or some stupid a*seholes on the James Randi board such as you and Stimp. I think the answer is rather obvious

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Such a pathetic strawman...

Ummmm . . this has nothing to do with strawmen. You have even less idea about logical fallacies then the rest of the idiots on here! Impressive indeed!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't biased idiot.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is, stupid. It's so biased it looks like Pepsi vs Coke propaganda.
Take a look at this at the end of you little treasure:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In this mood, materialists are prepared to deny what seem to be the most obvious facts of mental life if their theory requires it".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's just stating the way things are. {shrugs} The fact that the dumbf*cks on here can't understand this does not alter the facts.

Yeah, that's a really good dictionary, really unbiased:

There is nothing biased about it. An encyclopedia of philosophy would make damn sure that they correctly describe the various materialist positions. Get real and face it.

"And now we finish our report about materialism. As you can see materialism is totally flawed and crazy. BTW, hello ma, hello dad! I'm on TV!".

Yup, so you're a retard who understands f*ck all. Who are you trying to impress?

I said it, and you have read it. Eliminitivism discards "folk psychology". They declare our ideas about our mental life invalid and primitive, and vindicate neuroscience as the correct aproach to study it.
They DENY our prejudices. The DO NOT DENY the phenomena that gave origin to folk psychology. Will you accept it, or you will tell everybody again what's their position?

I will tell everyone what eliminitivism means. And if they do not mean eliminitivism, but really mean reductionism, then I shall point this out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not understand, however, how the second definition differs from reductive materialism. I was thinking that on reading it, and lo and behold, it mentioned that very fact in the next paragraph! So it seems to me that eliminitivism generally refers to the first definition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Great. You read two definitions and just accept the one you feel you can attack easier, discarding the other. Don Interesting Quixote.

You fail to understand. If eliminative materialism means exactly the same as reductionist materialism, then the phrase "eliminitivism materialism" fails to refer to anything. Therefore, it must be ascribed the first definition. Otherwise it is simply the standard reductionist materialism.

Get it??

About William Lycan and George Pappas article; so what? Some philosophers also consider that reductionism, functionalism, and eliminativism are equivalent positions expressed in different language games, and I tend to accept their arguments.

They are identical in what sense?? In the sense that eliminative materialism accepts what reductive materialism states . . .ie mental states exist but they are the same as neural events? Or in the sense that both eliminative materialism and reductionist materialism both acknowledge the non-existence of any mental events?

One or the other it would seem. Either way it is inappropriate that you have both eliminativist materialism and reductionist materialism if they cannot be distinguished in their assertions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes that's right. Materialists have to reject the existence of the abstract concept of a number. More generally mathematics is something which is invented rather than discovered. How many mathematicians agree with this? About 1% of them?? LOL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Oh, you are too good with evil materialist...Materialists even reject any transcendental difference between "discover" and "invent". At information level, the correspondence of a set of symbols with an hypothetical reality does not afect the process of information creation.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Please at least attempt to try and stay focused.

 

[Upchurch]

Your willingness and ability to laugh at things you don't understand should be a beacon of hope to doofuses everywhere.

Sort of, "Look, everybody! I can play, too!"

[modu]This post has been reported for containing insults. This is not, however, against forum rules. I would recommend that those who do not care for hammegk's posting style consider using the Ignore function.[/modu]

 

[Upchurch]

Ummmm . . this has nothing to do with strawmen. You have even less idea about logical fallacies then the rest of the idiots on here! Impressive indeed!

{snip}

[modu]This post has also been reported for containing insults. This is also not against forum rules. I would recommend that those who do not care for Ian's posting style consider using the Ignore function.[/modu]

 

[hgc]

Answered -- could have been another thread, but you follow me around like a puppy dog so that isn't a valid excuse for you -- that based on 3rd person science, no property could be found in one, absent in the other (so far as I know).

Oh look Swarm! You got hammy's don't criticize my inanities in more than one thread treatment. Don't let him run you off with that puppy dog routine.

 

[Peskanov]

Ian, I am searching for a good text I read some months ago about the efforts done to find compatibilities between different forms of materialism. I will probably not reply until tomorrow then.
BTW, I did not report the insults; I know your "style" quite well.

 

[hammegk]

Oh look Swarm! You got hammy's don't criticize my inanities in more than one thread treatment. Don't let him run you off with that puppy dog routine.

In your lifetime, have you learned much from being criticized? Smarmy is a smart person, currently in over their head in several places. The kind of person who doesn't understand the meaning of nihilism in context, gets corrected, and plunges full speed ahead over the abyss.

And it's too bad he doesn't choose to participate constructively.

 

[Vitnir]

I wonder if someone can tell me just how many years you have to study philosophy to be able to understand why these people are having this argument.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, I am searching for a good text I read some months ago about the efforts done to find compatibilities between different forms of materialism. I will probably not reply until tomorrow then.
BTW, I did not report the insults; I know your "style" quite well.

Nah I didn't think it would be you anyway. Probably Wrath.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Nihilism.html

Just thought I'd add a little reminder.

 

[hammegk]

Hmm. I see one problem; many if not most posters in this thread are discussing philosophy. Smarmy thinks we are discussing political science (Damn, that is an oxymoron, isn't it?).

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

From that link:

Nihilism in philosophy
According to the nihilist, the world and especially human existence are without meaning, purpose, comprehensable truth, or essential value. Nihilism in most of its forms can be contrasted with postmodernism in that nihilism tends toward defeatism, while postmodernism finds strength and reason for celebration in the varied and unique human relationships it explores. Nihilism can also readily be compared to skepticism as both reject claims to knowledge and truth, though skepticism does not necessarily come to any conclusions about the reality of moral concepts nor does it deal so intimately with questions about the meaning of an existence without knowable truth.

Nihilism in ethics and morality
Nihilism in its moral sense is a complete rejection of all systems of authority, morality, and social custom. Either through the rejection of previously accepted bases of belief or through extreme relativism, the nihilist believes that none of these claims to power are valid, and often that they should be fought against.

On the subject of morality specifically, nihilism concludes that relativism renders the project of normative ethics, and the concepts of good and evil, meaningless - though not necessarily with the intent to follow this with any conclusions about society or authority, as there is no correct form for either social institutions or practical morality.

Justifications:

Our sense of the moral status of a person's actions, especially in Western society, seems to depend to a great deal on the economic status of the person in question. While it may be argued that this is its self immoral and should be changed, if morality in practice cannot meet its own standards or is to some degree unattainable, it would seem to lack adequate foundation.
Without a standard base on which to build a system of morality (God, law, ideals of freedom, justice, etc.), what is right and wrong is to some extent arbitrary.
As our knowledge of other cultures increases, it becomes more and more apparent that there is little ground for claims that human beings have some innate tendency toward specific concepts of good and evil.
The ideal of democracy taken to its logical extreme suggests that, insofar as society is concerned, right and wrong are defined by majority rule, not by absolute, eternal and unchanging laws of right and wrong. This leaves only one moral standard: "do what everyone else wants you to".
The supposed primacy of the individual and individual freedom in Western societies, especially America, when taken to its logical extreme leaves only one moral standard: "do what you think is right". Since what some people believe to be right varies in the extreme with what others may think is right, this leaves morality not only relative but undiscussable.

Epistemology and nihilism
As an epistemological view, nihilism represents an extreme form of skepticism or relativism with regards to the knowability of truth and the legitimacy of claims to knowledge. In this respect it is identical with skepticism, though while skepticism does not necessarily make any specific moral claims or represent a single worldview, nihilism cannot be divorced from its moral conclusions and outlook.

[edit] There's more, but posting it might be a violation of copyright. I think my point has been made.

 

[hammegk]

But we already know the top of your head is pointy, and your posts pointless.

 

[hgc]

In your lifetime, have you learned much from being criticized?

Yes. You might try opening your mind to what people are telling you about the flaws in your arguments and in your misdirections, and you could learn something too.

Smarmy is a smart person, currently in over their head in several places. The kind of person who doesn't understand the meaning of nihilism in context, gets corrected, and plunges full speed ahead over the abyss.

And it's too bad he doesn't choose to participate constructively.

I can't think of anything more degrading than being called "smart" by you. Please don't give me the same treatment.

 

[hammegk]

hgc

No need for you to worry on that point.

I will mention that, as usual, you contribute nothing but show up only to launch a personal attack. Happy now?

 

[hgc]

Re: hgc

No need for you to worry on that point.

I will mention that, as usual, you contribute nothing but show up only to launch a personal attack. Happy now?

Substance of contribution is in the eye of the beholder.

I think that whenver you poke your head out of a gopher hole to blurt out some insult to the supposed "materialists/atheists," that's contributing nothing. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Dancing David]

Elimantive materialism always sounds like god defecating.

Nihilism does not say that there is no meaning , just that it isn't relevant to reality. You can have what ever meaning you want, they are all false. Including the belief that there is no meaning.

 

[Gestahl]

But how does that stance differ from some form of interactive dualism?


From the viewpoint of the epistemology of science, I'd agree.

From the viewpoint of A and ~A logic, how will we determine? Yet different answers appear to questions; for example, could "god" exist? Is life = non-life? Is HPC actually a problem?

Good questions.... hmm....

The difference between interactive dualism is I believe that both monisms are essentially identical at some level, it just that the link is extrememly complicated and perhaps unexpressible in human terms due to limits of language and epistemiology. Remember, no closed system can self-analyze itself perfectly.

I would say these questions are not only unanswerable from the epistemiology of science, but if we are being honest, most can't be answered by any epistemiology. It is really funny that the main way we deal with the "real tough questions" i.e. epistemiologically (is that even a word?) and fundamentally unknowable, is we just assume the answer one way or the other then just say they are different philosophies.

In any case, all (current) philosophies all reduce to each other with current knowledge, or we would throw them out as being inconsistent with reality. Except for lifegazers, of course.

HPC means what exactly?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

But we already know the top of your head is pointy, and your posts pointless.

You suggested that I didn't know what I was talking about. Then you suggested that the definition I linked to was political, not philosophical.

Perhaps you didn't bother to read all of it? In any case, you've demonstrated quite effectively that you have no idea what you're talking about.

And instead of admitting the error (which could have happened to anyone), you resorted to yet another personal insult.

For the record, this is precisely the type of behavior that should be forbidden in the rules. Are you paying attention, Pyrrho?

 

[hammegk]

Good questions.... hmm....

The difference between interactive dualism is I believe that both monisms are essentially identical at some level, it just that the link is extrememly complicated and perhaps unexpressible in human terms due to limits of language and epistemiology. Remember, no closed system can self-analyze itself perfectly.

On that we agree 100%.

I would say these questions are not only unanswerable from the epistemiology of science, but if we are being honest, most can't be answered by any epistemiology. It is really funny that the main way we deal with the "real tough questions" i.e. epistemologically and fundamentally unknowable, is we just assume the answer one way or the other then just say they are different philosophies.

Yup. Now all you need to do is choose the worldview you find most logically coherent with reality as you understand it. IMO, no one has said it better than the 2 sides of Cartesian dualism. I suggest picking one is the actual choice available.

In any case, all (current) philosophies all reduce to each other with current knowledge, or we would throw them out as being inconsistent with reality. Except for lifegazers, of course.

Ummm? Think so? I don't.

HPC means what exactly?

Hard Problem Consciousness (see Chalmers).

Dear hpc & Smarmy: Please note I do enter discussion with those who attempt to discuss -- unlike your valueless "contributions".

And Smarmy, so far as I know the CT guidelines are not in play here. Maybe you need to stay in CT; you seem a bit thin skinned for real life. On the definition of nihilism, you continue as the only person here I'm aware of who seems to have no idea what is under discussion in this thread (well, and in a few others as well in your specific case).

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You mean that you talk to people who don't point out your limitations within discourse - yes, we know.

Coming from a person who continually tries to bring up the subject of consciousness in threads dedicated to other topics, the claim that I don't know what's being discussed seems a bit weak.