Ian, I didn't found that article. I thinked it was present in Stanford philosphy encyclopedia, but it seems is not.
Anyway I would like to invite anybody interested in knowing more about eliminative materialism to read this article:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/materialism-eliminative
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 is not?
I acused the article of being biased.
Then you laugh about me and Stimpy (god knows why, when you are adressing to me) saying that we are surely unable to provide better definition of philosophical terms than encyclopedias of philosophy.
Just to clear things:
a) Encyclopedias use to differ in the definitions. Encyclopedias are subject to bias and error.
b) I don't have to be able of writting encyclopedias definitions to note bias on one.
and
c) The article uses a big share of it's content talking about the "problems of materialism", much more than other encyclopedias. Want to compare? It also contains highly subjective valorations not shared by a really big part of philosophers.
I am not sure if your distraction manouvre was a strawman or not, but surely it was pathetic. BTW, you still can address the question presented: the bias of the article.
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.
From now I will let the insulting to you, I am bored of that.
Yup, so you're a retard who understands f*ck all. Who are you trying to impress?
I find the article laughable because it's soooo clearly biased agaisnt materialism it hurts my eyes. Any problem?
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??
No, I don't get it. It happened several times that supposedly different philosophical stances converged. This could be a case. I guess in your B&W world these things don't happen.
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.
In the sense that terms like "mental states" is fuzzy enough to evolve over time, so is possible than in a future both psychologic and neuroscience concepts converge. Reductive materialism accept the existence of mental states and identifies it with brain activity, but lacks a complete definition of them. Eliminative materialism reckons the existence of brain activity and it's influence on behaviour, and declare all previous work on mental life invalid due to lack of base, but also ignores the exact nature of brain activity.
In the gap left by both materialisms, they could converge.
This is a complete non-sequitur. Please at least attempt to try and stay focused.
You seem to be quite unable of understanding any idea different than yours. I will repeat the game for your benefit:
I said ideas (numbers, etc) have no entity under materialism, only as physical information instances.
You said mathematicians believe "ideas are discovered, not invented", as in Plato philosophy.
I said that under materialism, the act of discovering is not significantly different than inventing, so even if mathematicians are right it does not affect the validity of materialism. The difference between discovering and inventing is quite subtle in materialism and has no transcendental implications.
Where is the non-sequitur?
