Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

"Whether you have qualia is fact. It does not matter what your 'belief' is."
01001011

Since you have no beliefs, you do not agree with Dennett! What are we arguing about?


"“Many writers have argued that eliminative materialism is in some sense self-refuting (Baker, 1987; Boghossian, 1990, 1991; Reppert, 1992). A common way this charge is made is to insist that a capacity or activity that is somehow invoked by the eliminativist is itself something that requires the existence of beliefs. One popular candidate for this activity is the making of an assertion. The critic insists that to assert something one must believe it. Hence, for eliminative materialism to be asserted as a thesis, the eliminativist herself must believe that it is true. But if the eliminativist has such a belief, then there are beliefs and eliminativism is thereby proven false.
Eliminativists often respond to this objection by first noting that the bare thesis that there are no beliefs is not itself contradictory or conceptually incoherent. So properly understood, the complaint is not that eliminative materialism (qua-proposition) is self-refuting. Rather, it is that the eliminativist herself is doing something that disconfirms her own thesis. In the above example, the disconfirming act is the making of an assertion, as it is alleged by the critic that we must believe anything we assert with public language. However, this last claim is precisely the sort of folk-psychological assumption that the eliminative materialist is suggesting we should abandon.
FROM
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mater ... gAgaEliMat

Obviously, you did not understand that sentence in context. * It shows that to believe in eliminative materialism is self contradictory. If one trys to make the excuse that the eliminative materialist made an error in belief, and not one of fact,it is still self contradictory because one is positing belief (something an eliminative materialist denies)
* Actually, the sentence even makes sense on its own. It says that a statement of belief made by an eliminative materialist disconfirms his statement.

OK, you don't believe anything you say.
I am beginning to realize that you probably disagree with Dennett and are just having fun, making up nonsense. I am not offended. But this is getting boring.
I'll provisionally take your word that you do not agree or disagree with Dennett. However, that means that there is no debate here and we are wasting our time.

First, show how the last sentence ( the one in bold print) does not destroy the eliminative materialist's response to the the critic's objection. For an eliminative materialist there are no true or false propositions. "true" and "false" refer to a proposition and eliminative materialists deny (or whatever that means for an eliminative materialist ) intentionality.
Since the ink pattern (and that is the only reality according to the eliminative materialist ) 1+1=2 does not refer to anything (in this case the proposition or concept* ) it cannot be true or false. Similarly, the proposition "there are no qualia" or "only the physical exists"cannot be true or false for the eliminative materialist.
* Actually, an eliminative materialist cannot believe in propositions and concepts since they also involve intentionality.
PS: It is very difficult debating a person that does not believe in propositions or concepts. For example an eliminative materialist would say "qualia exist" is not true. However, you strategically forget to add that it is also not false. Of course I believe the last proposition is true. However, you as an eliminative materialist must say that it is neither true or false.
Ok. Since everything you say is meaningless, ( according to you since you deny intentionality ) when you say," qualia do not exist because..." it is as meaningful as saying " jbeizxpkw". How can I debate gibberish?

"true" and "false" REFER to propositions. Since you do not believe in intentionality you cannot use the terms "true" or "false." Explain to me how the statement "that statement is true" makes sense if it does not refer to another statement.

The part I put into bold font answers your objection (as it also answered the eliminative materialist's) that an eliminative materialist does not have to believe what she says. It provisionally accepts the statement " eliminative materialists do not have to believe what they say" and shows that even then the eliminative materialist's position is incoherent.
The eliminative materialist that says that her statement does not REFER to anything,is saying that her statement is meaningless. Since it has zero meaning, it is as meaningful as jcuhrlmsunci.

Words refer. If they lack intentionality they do not refer. If they do not refer, they are no longer words, just meaningless patterns of ink. And that is all an eliminative materialist "believes" in, meaningless (because bare matter lacks intentionality ) matter.

It is ironic that an eliminative materialist that denies the existence of abstractions embraces something so incredibly abstract as eliminative materialism and denies the existence of tangible sensations. I know that I have a rock in my hand because I feel its reality pressing into my hand.

Words don't refer??! ! They do not have definitions??! Actually, if you scroll down at the Stanford site I gave, you will read about semantic realism. So when you use words they have no definitions?! !
So you believe in abstractions but also that only matter exists. What kind of physical object is "eliminative materialism?" You arbitraily define "exists" as matter.* You beg the question. (Similarly, Dennett's argument is also circular ) Your analogy of batman shows your confusion. Batman is a concept. You do not believe in concepts.Therefore batman does not even exist as a concept for you.
No, I never said that meaning lies entirely in the mind. Meaning is a relationship between a signifier and a signified. The signified is in the mind. Concepts are in the mind. The signifier is usually in the objective world (one can visualize a signifier so it is not always in the objective world) This makes meaning capable of intersubjectivity.
Considering that I can never prove you wrong (to you) because to you "false" and "true" are meaningless, this "debate" will never end. Actually, I cannot even prove you right!
* I realize that sense you believe that words have no definitions one is free to define them anyway one wants. But it makes intersubjective debate impossible.