• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The relationship between science and materialism

Geoff said:
No, because the inductive argument is based upon a load of other factors, none of which provide an escape route from the subjective viewpoint. The world we experience doesn't become any less subjective just because we have rejected solipsism based on an inductive argument.
Click to expand...
Yes, our experience of it is still subjective. But why does that forbid us from assuming that the subjective experience is an abstraction of the external world?

I'm having trouble with this. Are you really saying that if I investigate metaphysics carefully, everyone will be assuming that the external world is an abstraction of my subjective experience and not vice versa? And if I find someone doing it wrong, I can just reject his work?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Yes, our experience of it is still subjective. But why does that forbid us from assuming that the subjective experience is an abstraction of the external world?
Click to expand...

At the risk of being boring, it doesn't forbid this but the assumption will lead you down a logical slide which ends up at eliminativism. All the other positions end up either being incoherent or being dualism - with the exception of neutral monism and transcendental idealism (which are closely related).

I'm having trouble with this. Are you really saying that if I investigate metaphysics carefully, everyone will be assuming that the external world is an abstraction of my subjective experience and not vice versa?
Click to expand...

No. There are a small minority, Dennett being a good example, whose first assumption is that "the only senible place to start is the common-sense 3rd-person view of reality". He makes no mention of subjective experiences. He just starts from the assumption that what exists is an external physical world and takes it from there. There are not many examples of other people who start in this way. Pretty much everybody else takes it as a given that subjective experiences really do exist and that the only reason we believe there is an external world is via a process of abstraction we are not aware of. This hasn't got anything to do with science, though. The reason we weren't aware of the process is because we were infants when it happened. We all had to go through the painfull process of realising that solipsism isn't true and that the world doesn't revolve around us. As part of this process, which seems to be complete by about the age of 4, we end up with the belief that there is an mind-external world embedded deep in our belief system and in our way of thinking about things. Then when we drop acid for the first time we are astonished that what we thought was external reality all that time isn't anything of the sort. Seriously autistic people are examples of what happens when the process goes wrong. They are still solipsists.

Anyway - subjective experience IS an abstraction of the external world. That's not where our positions differ. The difference is that you want to make the claim that this external world is physical and I don't. I want to claim that the only sensible usage of the word physical is as a description of the objects of perception - which are also abstractions of external reality.

And if I find someone doing it wrong, I can just reject his work?
Click to expand...

In philosophy, you've always got to work it out for yourself.
 
I think I've found a very simple way of explaining why the only coherent version of materialism is eliminativism:

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.
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.

No other materialist positions are then possible. Either eliminative materialism is true or all forms of materialism are false. And if they would be false then, they must be false now.

IMO, the above argument is impossible to refute. Either minds don't exist or materialism is false. Which, when you think about it, was rather obvious all along. :)
 
Last edited:
Paul,

You wanted to know why someone would be a "neutralist" rather than an idealist or an eliminative materialist.

We have now seen, I think, that the only logical defence of materialism is eliminativism. We have also seen that the position at the opposite end of the dualistic spectrum, which is solipsism and/or Berkeleyan subjective idealism (which are closely related) is also logically defendable. But neither position is particularly appealing, for various reasons.

My system is based on what I've called "Being/Nothing". I also explained it was tweakable. The simplest tweak is to replace "Being/Nothing" with either Being or Nothing. But look what happens if I do this. If I replace it with Being, what I am left with is Berkeleyanism or solipsism. If I replace it with Nothing, what I am left with is none other than eliminative materialism. After all - if the Nothing is considered to be "absolutely nothing" (not even Being, or potential Being) then nothing at all has been added which can't be explained in terms of the physical realm. So I've found myself a logically coherent fence to sit on where my position is logically compatible with both eliminative materialism and eliminative idealism but because I've got an entity in the middle of my system which can be considered either as Being or as Nothing I don't have to eliminate anything. My position is therefore equivalent to eliminative materialism and Berkeleyanism superimposed on each other because I have Being and Nothing superimposed on each other. What's more, the three positions could be considered to be analogous to naturalism, non-naturalism and "fence-sitting with regard to naturalism" respectively - or just as easily theism, atheism and agnosticism respectively.

Any of that make sense?

I'd then argue that my position is the position of the true skeptic/agnostic, on the grounds I haven't assumed either of the other two positions is true. :)
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
For some reason we seem to have abandoned your proof again. Pondering it:

I think I disagree with premise (B), but it depends on the definitions of exists. I can think of things that I would say "exist" that are not included in (P1 and P2).

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

I only just noticed this post.

What things can you think of that are neither P1 or P2 apart from fictional things and the entities of mathematics?
 
My position is therefore equivalent to eliminative materialism and Berkeleyanism superimposed on each other because I have Being and Nothing superimposed on each other.
Click to expand...

Wow. So you either have both or you have neither. In your attempt to keep both I think you have neither.

Hammy tried to tell you early on to make a choice. Whether or not you see the dualism it is there. Everyone else seems to see it. One of these days your advisor, if he is worth his/her salt is going to notice. Take off the dress and make a freakin' choice, why don't you?

You don't want Geddy Lee/Neil Peart lyrics on your gravestone do you?
 
Since I have good reason to believe that any science/materialism thread I begin will be subject to the same philosophical kudzu that has overwhelmed this thread, my plans for posting it have been at least postponed, maybe canceled. If you care to read my reasons, they can be found here.
 
I wrote a reply to Geoff's earlier post, but my computer munched it. I may write it up again later if I feel the urge. I'll respond to this quickly though.

JustGeoff said:
I think I've found a very simple way of explaining why the only coherent version of materialism is eliminativism:

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.
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.
Click to expand...

If that's your definition of eliminative materialism, who cares if eliminative materialism is true? What could possibly be so bad about all our folk-psychological terms being mapped on to scientific knowledge?

If we have minds now, we would still have minds then. Absolutely nothing about us would have changed.

No other materialist positions are then possible. Either eliminative materialism is true or all forms of materialism are false. And if they would be false then, they must be false now.

IMO, the above argument is impossible to refute. Either minds don't exist or materialism is false. Which, when you think about it, was rather obvious all along. :)
Click to expand...

Hold on sport.

How on earth can you possibly get from "Every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural" to "minds don't exist"?

Do you think you have a mind now? If you do, what do you think is going to happen to that mind if every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term gets replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural? Is that mind going to vanish?

For someone who adores accusing everyone in sight of begging the question, you have just indulged in a colossal case of it yourself. You have begged the question of whether a purely physical mind could exist, and just helped yourself to the conclusion that it cannot.

Anything that relies on that kind of question-begging is not a proof, it's just a dumb assertion dressed up as a proof.
 
Kevin

Go and look up Eliminative Materialism on Wikipedia. As usual, you do not actually know what you are talking about.

Geoff
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If that's your definition of eliminative materialism, who cares if eliminative materialism is true?
Click to expand...

You ought to, if you actually want a position to defend.

What could possibly be so bad about all our folk-psychological terms being mapped on to scientific knowledge?
Click to expand...

You've missed the point, as usual.

If we have minds now, we would still have minds then. Absolutely nothing about us would have changed.
Click to expand...

No, Jeremy got it right - no minds, just brain processes.


How on earth can you possibly get from "Every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term has now been replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural" to "minds don't exist"?
Click to expand...

Because the word "mind" would have no referent. I think you may actually be the only person still posting in this thread who has no idea what any of the arguments are about.

Do you think you have a mind now?
Click to expand...

Of course. But I'm not an eliminative materialist.

If you do, what do you think is going to happen to that mind if every single mental/subjective/folk-psychological term gets replaced with a term which is purely objective/physical/neural? Is that mind going to vanish?
Click to expand...

No, I'm just going to get used to the fact that I never had a mind to begin with. Just like I was never breathing phlogiston. Understand yet?

For someone who adores accusing everyone in sight of begging the question, you have just indulged in a colossal case of it yourself. You have begged the question of whether a purely physical mind could exist, and just helped yourself to the conclusion that it cannot.
Click to expand...

Erm.....and what was wrong with the proof? It was bulletproof. Can't you follow a logical argument?

Go and look up elminative materialism, Kevin. Educate yourself.
 
Ichneumonwasp said:
Wow. So you either have both or you have neither. In your attempt to keep both I think you have neither.

Hammy tried to tell you early on to make a choice. Whether or not you see the dualism it is there. Everyone else seems to see it. One of these days your advisor, if he is worth his/her salt is going to notice. Take off the dress and make a freakin' choice, why don't you?

You don't want Geddy Lee/Neil Peart lyrics on your gravestone do you?
Click to expand...

"Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of a being, like a worm."
"Things are entirely what they appear to be and behind them...there is nothing." (Jean-Paul Sartre)

"Being and non-being create each other." (Lao Tse)

"If there were not the nothing, there could not be anything, because this separation between beings and Being is necessary." (Martin Heidegger)

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContIyi.htm

According to Heidegger, Being should not be investigated through an inquiry into entities as is done in the history of Western philosophy until now, but through an inquiry into Nothing which Heidegger assumes to be identical with Being. Investigation of Being through Nothing presupposes the question of "what is metaphysics?". This latter question is very important, because it plays a double role: on the one hand it secures the possibility of investigating Being through Nothing, and on the other hand it makes possible to transcend metaphysics .
Click to expand...

http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/being.htm

The conceptual pair "Being and Nothing(ness)" denotes for Sartre the central ontological relation as discussed in German Philosophy (notably in Hegel and Heidegger).

...

A student of existentialism might be surprised to find that the concept of "being" occupies a much more prominent position in Being and Nothingness than the concept of "existence". While this prominence fits the overal emphasis of phenomenological ontology on "what is" it is not immediately clear how it could be conducive for the aspired concreteness of existential analysis. Indeed, the word "being" in the sense of "whatever is" represents the most general meaning (like "thing") one can think of. But Sartre uses the term "being" predominantly in the distinctive sense of "what grounds" something (for instance, "the being of consciousness"). This is still a metaphysical usage (it is no coincidence that "being" has had such a long and rich metaphysical career), but Sartre had several good reasons to adopt this metaphysical terminology via German philosophy (Hegel and Heidegger). The most important one is that it was very helpul in avoiding the traditional Cartesian duality of subject and object.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailyafflictions.com/affliction8.html

Embracing your inner corpse

In each of us is an inner corpse struggling to be exhumed. Unlike the corpse you will one day become, this shadow corpse is alive. It is the living presence of Death that you carry within you. It is more than your certain knowledge of death's ultimate triumph; it is your portal to nothingness, the other ocean of being. If you can find the courage to unearth and embrace your inner corpse, you can lead a more vivid, authentic and triumphant life. But if you keep your inner corpse buried away, you live a great lie. You distort your search for truth into a project of false immortality. You deny the most solemn core of your being, condemning yourself to premature cheerfulness. To the outside world you might seem healthy, happy, and successful--but, your inner corpse might just as well be dead.

My inner corpse is not dead.
Click to expand...

0 = ∞
 
Last edited:
JustGeoff said:
You ought to, if you actually want a position to defend.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending a position, although we already agreed you can pretend I am defending any position that turns you on.

You've missed the point, as usual.
Click to expand...

You missed mine.

If elimative materialism was just what you said it was, it would be entirely inoffensive even to people who believed they have experiences and minds.

The game you are playing, I believe, is that you are deliberately attempting to blur the distinction between materialism and eliminative materialism. That way you can slap the label "eliminative materialist" on people or arguments that are nothing of the sort, and have a chance of getting away with it.

No, Jeremy got it right - no minds, just brain processes.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, there is absolutely no reason that we could not figure out material bases for all of our folk psychological beliefs yet still have minds and beliefs. That's why your explanation of eliminative materialism was inaccurate and deficient.

Because the word "mind" would have no referent. I think you may actually be the only person still posting in this thread who has no idea what any of the arguments are about.
Click to expand...

Of course it still would. If you want to advance a ridiculous claim like the claim that existing minds would cease to exist if we learned more about them, you need a lot more than a naked assertion.

No, I'm just going to get used to the fact that I never had a mind to begin with. Just like I was never breathing phlogiston. Understand yet?
Click to expand...

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?

Erm.....and what was wrong with the proof? It was bulletproof. Can't you follow a logical argument?
Click to expand...

Rubbish. That "proof" has been debunked repeatedly, you just snip the offending debunkings and pretend they never existed each time it happens.

One more time for the record. There is simply no reason you cannot define physical to be all P1s and all P2s. Your arguments against this have been feeble. So far all you have come up with are "We agreed we couldn't do that", when nobody had ever agreed to any such thing, or "that's circular!" when it is obviously no such thing.

Bear in mind that unless you fix that "proof", you've got no basis for the silly claim you keep repeating that non-eliminative materialism is inconsistent.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If elimative materialism was just what you said it was, it would be entirely inoffensive even to people who believed they have experiences and minds.
Click to expand...

You think so? :)

The game you are playing, I believe, is that you are deliberately attempting to blur the distinction between materialism and eliminative materialism.
Click to expand...

Well, that just shows how unbelievably little you comprehend anything that has been written in this thread.



On the contrary, there is absolutely no reason that we could not figure out material bases for all of our folk psychological beliefs yet still have minds and beliefs. That's why your explanation of eliminative materialism was inaccurate and deficient.
Click to expand...

Yep. You have grasped NOTHING. This statement is also the total reverse of the truth. **LOGIC** dictates that belief would be false.

Of course it still would. If you want to advance a ridiculous claim like the claim that existing minds would cease to exist if we learned more about them, you need a lot more than a naked assertion.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'd need logic. :oldroll:

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?
Click to expand...

Anyone want to explain this to Kevin? :D

Rubbish. That "proof" has been debunked repeatedly, you just snip the offending debunkings and pretend they never existed each time it happens.
Click to expand...

<shakes head in disbelief>

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.
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.
 
“Pure being and pure nothing are, therefore, the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being – does not pass over but has passed over – into nothing, and nothing into being…each immediately vanishes in its opposite”

"God is, as it were, the sewer into which all contradictions flow.”

(Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel)
 
Last edited:
Geoff said:
Kevin

Go and look up Eliminative Materialism on Wikipedia. As usual, you do not actually know what you are talking about.

Geoff
Click to expand...
Stop telling people to do this, Geoff. We have questioned the definition of eliminative materialism enough that you should address our question, rather than telling us to read the fuzzy definitions again. Even the Duke of Eliminative Materialism himself, Churchland, stated that the folk term are useful until they are replaced. Does this sound like he is making some sort of ontological claim about the nonexistence of minds? It sure sounds like you are.

~~ Paul
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Of course it still would. If you want to advance a ridiculous claim like the claim that existing minds would cease to exist if we learned more about them, you need a lot more than a naked assertion.
Click to expand...
Come on, Kevin--of course no one would any longer experience a mind. It's patently obvious! In fact, we can show that this sort of thing has happened before--since Copernicus, no one has ever seen a sunrise! Once we explained it scientifically, it ceased to exist.

Geoff, when I have read Kevin_Lowe's responses to you, I have found myself thinking "yes--now that has clearly demonstrated the problem. KL is able to cut through the obfuscatory layer of verbiage and distill the problem to a simple example." Then you invariably post that he has no idea what you are talking about. Well...I gotta side with Lowe on this one. Your unspoken assumptions are clear. Your argument by label and assertion is clear. You continue to distribute positions and arguments to people who have never held those views, then argue against this straw army. (Besides, as several have said, it is not enough to argue against the strawman, you must argue for your dualism-in-a-neutral-monistic-dress.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom