Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't expect there to be an successful inductive argument for mental factionalism. The fact that there is not, does not then lead you to getting a free pass in providing one. If Eliminative Materialism is to me more than just an assertion, it needs to have affirmative arguments in favour of itself, otherwise it is just a position that exists by fiat (like solipsism). Solipsism might be true, it might be coherent but you would not embrace it without a very good reason. Eliminative Materialism gets no free pass on this.



There are epistemological costs of representationalism, we can see what they are and the evidence we need to absorb in order to accept them. Evidence of the mind filling in information is both available and persuasive, this means that we need to accept a degree of fallibility in our cognitive functions. Eliminative materialism requires that we sacrifice the entire modern consensus on what they term 'folk psychology' hence why the article I linked you to shows exactly how indigestible it is (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ ... ve-it.html). The whole point of the criticism I posted of the position is that you cannot construct a theoretical framework of the mind that does not create space for belief. Mental ficitonalism however, rules that out, thus it is hardly a straw man for me to use the exact work of Eliminative Materialists and use references to show what exactly that entails.

From Paul Churchland (an eliminative materialist):
Modern theories of mental dysfunction led to the elimination of witches from our serious ontology. The concepts of folk psychology --belief, desire, fear, sensation, pain, joy, and so on--await a similar fate, according to the view at issue. And when neuroscience has matured to the point where the poverty of our current conceptions is apparent to everyone, and the superiority of the new framework is established, we shall then be able to set about reconceiving our internal states and activities, within a truly adequate conceptual framework at last."

As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, Eliminative Materialism is a view with a teleology and is certainly not yet complete. It assumes that the modern system of understanding is flawed and cannot be accounted for. What is not evident is that assumption is true, the 'superiority of the new framewowk' is not established nor has neuroscience advanced to the point where all the other mainline theories collapse. Churchland does not really even propose that his EM framework is itself mature, rather he argues that it can be successful when developed at some point in the future. That has not stopped some EM proponents from trying, developing ideas like, mental fictionalism. But as we can see that although the standard definitions of 'folk psychology' can change they cannot change to the extent that Churchland insists that they must (http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ ... ve-it.html). A reasonable analysis would agree partially with Churchland and the other Eliminative Materialist in that elements of 'folk-psychology' will change as neuroscience advanced but would not agree that the baby needs to go with the bathwater (http://academia.edu/348585/A_Critical_R ... aterialism
).



I never defended cartesian materialism but it certainly is preferable to Eliminative Materialism (http://cogprints.org/1139/) and it is epistemology not self-refuting. I did not say 'nobody' holds to Cartesian Materialism I said that 'almost' no one holds to it. I am defending the consensus position of materialism and representationalism and I gave you statistics and definitions long before, that position was not cartesian materialism.



You are into apples and oranges here philosophically you are using tools you do not seem to have much of a grasp on. Someone who holds to the existence of universals would argue that a behaviour that for example has the property of being good would say that the concept of good itself is actually existing and does so in some place elsewhere in how our universe is constructed. Removing the universals from the equation and embracing the nominalist position would mean that the goodness of the behaviour still exists but that it only exists in your head. Saying that Nominalism‎ embraces the idea that 'the good' and the belief in 'the good' are both fictions could only occur if you dramatically fail to understand what nominalism is about. Rather, Nominalism‎ is about showing how we identify objects by looking at their functions. There are two main forms of Nominalism‎, the first denies the existence of mind-independent entities and the second denies the existence of abstract objects. Both are fully dependent upon the mind and the concept of beliefs, something eliminative materialism says does not exist.


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

Now I need to take issue with something:



Please take this out of your previous post as it is actually my prose from the post you were attempting to respond to...

“The fictionalist pretend symbols exist, even if they don't, because symbols are useful.”
01001011
“Pretend” makes no sense for an eliminative materialist. However, let’s suppose that “pretend” is a meaningful term for an EM. (Obviously that is absurd as “pretend” would have to refer to something non-existent and as was shown before an EM finds that impossible) An EM pretends that symbols ( of course he must not believe that symbols exist because that implies intentionality, that one thing can refer to another) exist , just as he pretends that eliminative materialism is true. An EM (that embraces fictionalism http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 7-0034.xml) * only pretends that it is true that qualia do not exist.
-----------------------------------

“Could you provide some details defending the view you have expressed?”
ruveyn
Scroll back.
“I look to David Hume as a philosopher who has provided a just degree of eliminating mystic nonsense and metaphysics and substituting the material and empirical in their place.”
ruveyn
Hume was not an eliminative materialist.
“Beauty, whether moral or natural, is felt, more properly than perceived.”
David Hume
“Beauty in things exists in the mind which contemplates them.”
David Hume
For an eliminative materialist there are no feelings, mind, concepts, pain, joy…
Hume would dismiss eliminative materialism for what it is superstition. You seem to be confused as to what eliminative materialism is. To reject eliminative materialism is to embrace Hume rather than reject him.
Hume introspected ( Ems believe that introspection is impossible) and found no self only qualia.
Very few scientists and philosophers are Ems, even those that are materialists.

* “The term “fictionalism” is defined in many different ways. The most common definition is along these lines: fictionalism about a discourse claims that the sentences of the discourse are useful but does not claim that they are true. Typically, fictionalists will deny that sentences of the discourse are true. Thus a fictionalist in the philosophy of mathematics may say that mathematical sentences (such as “2 + 2 = 4”) are useful but false: numbers are (in some sense) “useful fictions.” Fictionalists will typically recommend that we should carry on using the sentences in question, accepting them without believing them.

Hume indicated the direction in which we should go. He was an empiricist which is close enough to being a materialist to meet government specifications.

Hume believed in introspection, concepts , qualia etc. He was not an eliminative materialist. I think you are confused and think that eliminative materialist = materialist. Materialism is the larger set and eliminative materialism is a tiny subset. For example, a true believer in Stalinism by definition must be an Atheist . However, that does not mean that all atheists are Stalinists. An atheist can even say that Stalinism is absurd. Similarly a materialist ( and most materialists do say this) can say that eliminative materialism is absurd.

David Hume would likely have very little (if any) tolerance for the concepts discussed in this thread. His final words from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in my signature leave little doubt about his views.

Today, science bows down low before David Hume and his greatest disciple, Karl Popper, and science has acquired greater rigour because of their works. Yet, for some reason, Hume and Popper are both generally held in lower esteem by philosophers than by scientists. I wonder why.

Agreed! Hume would have little tolerance for eliminative materialism. Eliminative materialism contradicts itself and is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scientists and philosophers.
For one thing an eliminative materialist would say that Hume's whole project was absurd because it was based on introspection, concepts, beliefs, propositions,* etc.
*Remember, eliminative materialists are fictionalists.
“The term “fictionalism” is defined in many different ways. The most common definition is along these lines: fictionalism about a discourse claims that the sentences of the discourse are useful but does not claim that they are true. Typically, fictionalists will deny that sentences of the discourse are true. Thus a fictionalist in the philosophy of mathematics may say that mathematical sentences (such as “2 + 2 = 4”) are useful but false: numbers are (in some sense) “useful fictions.” Fictionalists will typically recommend that we should carry on using the sentences in question, accepting them without believing them."
FROM the Oxford University Press
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 7-0034.xml

Last edited by wittgenstein on 03 Jul 2013, 4:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Yeah, being concise totally invalidates arguments. Giving giant blocks of text, particularly in inappropriate outlets like discussion forums, must signify depth of ideas and couldn't possible signify a preference for obscurantism.

The emotionalism from the pro-eliminative materialism camp is because they are confused as to what eliminative materialism is. They think that rejecting eliminative materialism is rejecting materialism and embracing some kind of anti-empirical stance. Actually, eliminative materialism is anti-empirical because it rejects the senses. Seriously, how can a sane man believe ( actually if eliminative materialism is correct he cannot believe anything!) that no one feels pain. As I said previously, you can prove to yourself that eliminative materialism is false by doing an experiment. Imagine a triangle. If you can visualize it, then eliminative materialism is false. True, you cannot prove to others that you can visualize a triangle, but you will know that you can and therefore you will know that eliminative materialism is false. Most materialists regard eliminative materialism as the embarrassing uncle they keep locked up in the attic.

I would not necessarily agree with that, the best philosopher in the world is probably Thomas Nagel and he is clearly a person who descends from both Popper and Hume, although he is less reductionist than both. I tend to think the reason that Hume and Popper are considered less useful in modern philosophical terms is due to the fact that we have reached the limits of reductionism. Many of the very finest philosophers like Nagel challenge reductionism while still maintaining a significant regard for empiricism.

The problem with fictionalism is that it regards ALL propositions as useful fictions. Therefore, a fictionalist will say that the proposition "only matter exists" is not true,it is only a useful fiction. Unfortunately, for the fictionalist the proposition that useful fictions exist is also not true, it is only a useful fiction. When one believes in fictionalism and/or eliminative materialism* one has entered the looking glass. Soon one will be joining the mad hatter at a tea party.
* an eliminative materialist must embrace fictionalism (0100110 has and I admire his consistency in at least this regard).

Eliminative materialism is like Christian fundamentalism in its black and white thinking. The belief in feelings and concepts is considered demonic!*
Eliminative materialists are looked at by materialists like a Unitarian looks at fundamentalist snake handlers. Both Christian fundamentalists and eliminative materialists don't realize that life is ambiguous, not black and white.
* Eliminative materialists love to conflate a belief in feelings and concepts with a belief in demons.

What 'space of belief' a computer has? It is you who is choosing evasion and going to without magic there cannot be knowledge nonsense.


I do not agree fully with Churchland that folk psychology is to be fully eliminated, as evident from my mental fictionalism. What I am eliminating is several specific, key ideas from folk psychology, like qualia. Indeed, even your source agrees that your self-refutation argument does not work and the only real argument is that elimination vs revision is not clear cut.


Even your own source admits 'classical' Cartesian materialism fails. Instead the source tries to define 'connectionist Cartesian theater' which has little to do with classical qualia.

Even your sources admit folk psychology is untenable. EM is not baseless assertion as you think http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuro ... #EliMatNeu Your whole plausibility argument is based on ignorance.

In what way is General relativity or standard model 'true'? You talk about Karl Popper, yet you remain a naive realist.

Simply wrong. Fictional statements are true within the fiction.

More ad-hominem.

I imagine this thread looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtckVng_1a0
to outsiders!
I think we are like lawyers and prosecutors in court. During the trial we go after each other’s jugular but after the trial reminisce and laugh over beers at a local pub.
Anyway I am having a 4 day weekend and so probably will not post so much for the next few days.

life has taught me that alliances change. A friend can become an enemy and an enemy a friend in a split second. I think 911's points are logical. However I agree with you 010011, that epiphenomenalism is a cop-out.
Let me make this clear, I still think that eliminative materialism is absurd. However, one battle at a time. Since I think that eliminative materialism is absurd and I also think that epiphenomenalism is absurd, I'd imagine that you will accuse me of (as if that is a devastating insult) being sympathetic to Desartes.
Anyway, let the fireworks begin!!

“Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No.
Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No”
Hume
Does the above contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?
Obviously “NO” to both questions. Therefore, commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
Hume also said http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem So therefore, there is no justification for his “ought”.