Quining qualia.

Post Reply New Topic

The same presupposition again. You can't answer what a computer does. You are arguing reality literally sitting in your face. Fail.


When does demon theorist begin to have a monopoly on demon laden terms?

You are the one who is not reading what you wrote yourself.

????
You really do not understand my sentence?
When I said you are only saying that brain states =brain states I eliminated the word pain.

Please stop with the silly rants about how I believe in demons. You only make yourself look childish.

So you are saying that symbols are not symbols of something? I realize that you believe that dictionaries are just ink and paper and only ink and paper,however, is it possible for you to use words according to their definitions. Its hard debating someone that makes up his own definitions.

". I said so many times that I am just pretending the fiction means [*] something."
01001011
"pretending"???! Another qualia laden term you tried to sneak in. I have no problem with the idea of pretending because I know that I can daydream etc. However, unfortunately for the eliminative materialist "pretending" does not exist. Actually, since an eliminative materialist does not believe in intentionality the word "exist" is gibberish.
Similarly, how can a physical object be true or false? I can say that a rock exists but to say that it is true or false is absurd. An eliminative materialist must agree that eliminative materialism is neither true or false. Sorry! According to eliminative materialism "agree" is also gibberish because it implies intentionality. My agreement or disagreement REFERS to the relation between my opinion and another persons.
* So there is intentionality?! ! Or are you once again trying to sneak in a qualia laden term?

You stop the without intentionality [...] is meaningless question begging first.

Really, how are you going to take on a demon theorist* who repeatedly asserts without magic spells there cannot be truth or knowledge?

*There is such Christian Evangelical school know as presuppositionalist apologetic. I am not making things up.

And what do Christians have to do with me?
And even if I was a Christian, that has nothing to do with my argument.
If you are comparing a belief in intentionality , syllogisms and logic with a beliefin demons, that is silly.
If one does not believe in intentionality, then one believes that statements cannot be true or false. Therefore, * the statement " eliminative materialism coincides with reality" cannot be a true or false statement for an eliminative materialist.
* Actually "therefore" involves intentionality (that one or more statements imply a conclusion). Therefore, an eliminative materialist cannot create a syllogism .If he is consistent he cannot make a logical argument.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 10 Jun 2013, 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Your assertion is exactly the same as theirs (once you replace intentionality with God). At least they have a more complete theory.


Reason? Or just more assertion?

I disagree. A belief in intentionality, syllogisms and logic is not the same as a belief in demons.

IF you actually read my posts you would already have your answer. Intentionality means that one statement can refer to another. If I say"that statement is true" I am asserting that "true" refers to that statement.
Since you do not believe in intentionality, if I say,"qualia exist", you cannot say that "false" * refers to my statement.
* or "fail"!

You are not just 'believing in' intentionality. You think intentionality is some magical object.



That has nothing to do with qualia - except your assertion that statements has to refer to something real - either in reality or in some magical 'qualia space'.



Really? Let's consider the sentence 'Frodo destroys the one ring' (as in The Lord of The Rings), which we agree to be true. But according to you, Fordo refers to a concept. How can a concept destroy another concept? Your insistence of reality of fictional objects as concepts is just as absurd.

You really are grasping at straws. Frodo? Anyway, if I say that 1-1=O I am not saying that the concept 1 has been destroyed.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 11 Jun 2013, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Actually, your idea of matter is far more demon like and ghostly. You believe that matter is intangible, it cannot be touched, seen etc. No empirical data allowed! You might claim that "matter" is an abstraction. What kind of physical object is an abstraction? Remember, an eliminative materialist takes the position that only the physical exists.
Epiphenomenalism is a materialist stance that is not forced into the self contradictory sillyness that destroyed eliminative materialism.

Last edited by wittgenstein on 12 Jun 2013, 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Which premise do you disagree with?
1. Intentionality means that a word,statement or proposition can refer.
2. By definition, if there is no intentionality a word,statement or proposition cannot refer.
3. When I say,for example "false" in response to the statement "qualia exist " false refers to the statement "qualia exist"
4. Therefore when an eliminative materialist (that by definition does not believe in intentionality ) says "false" he is not referring to anything.
5. Therefore, when you say false or fail you are not referring to my argument or position!
PS: Actually not only does your rejection of intentionality make it impossible for you to claim that the statement "qualia exist" is false, it also makes it impossible for you to claim "false" to ANY proposition. You cannot even say "false" in response to the statement "Elvis is alive and living as bigfoot!"
No wonder eliminative materialism isn't taken seriously by the overwhelming majority of philosophers.

I am just curious. Do you have any objections to water boarding innocent people? Water boarding leaves no physical damage and since you believe that pain does not exist,whats the problem?
Violating the rights of innocent people? What does that mean to an eliminative materialist?