Eliminative Materialism

Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Eliminative Materialism

Eliminative materialism is the view that qualia (i.e. subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness) does not exist and should be "eliminated" from our vocabulary. Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I've never seen anybody

I've never seen anybody claim it here so I don't think you have to worry

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I've

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I've never seen anybody claim it here so I don't think you have to worry 

I have.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Paisley wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I've never seen anybody claim it here so I don't think you have to worry 

I have.

 

Who?

 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eliminative

Paisley wrote:

Eliminative materialism is the view that qualia (i.e. subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness) does not exist and should be "eliminated" from our vocabulary. Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

 

Im in favor of eliminating QUALIA from the english language... it doesnt even look like a real word! i know 1337 words that seem more sensible!

(Blink and you'll miss it)

What Would Kharn Do?


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Eliminative

Paisley wrote:

Eliminative materialism is the view that qualia (i.e. subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness) does not exist and should be "eliminated" from our vocabulary. Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

I don't believe that subjective experiences don't exists, and I don't believe that all words describing subjective experiences should be eliminated.  What I have a problem with is when people use certain subjective experiences as evidence for the belief in certain external realities.  I don't, for instance, think feeling can be used as evidence for the existence alien life forms.  Alien life forms may exists, but I don't think people should base their belief in such life forms on a gut feeling.  


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Paisley

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I have.

Who?

Does the following qualify?

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion. 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
"Eliminative materialism"

"Eliminative materialism" sounds like a notably-successful bowel movement. I'm just sayin'.

I think what Daniel Dennett is suggesting is that qualia is not separate from material existence, and so does not need a special word. In fact, the use of a special word pre-supposes dualism, and so philosophic arguments for dualism based on the concept of qualia are ultimately tautological. I believe you are misrepresenting Dennett's purpose. He does not suggest that subjective experience does not exist per se; he merely suggests there can be no dualistic conclusions drawn from subjective experiences. Since evidence suggests subjective experience is a process of neurological activity, the use of the word qualia is a non-sequitur. We have an evolving physical model. There is no need for philosophical will-o'-whisps.

Granted, that's based on a rapid light first reading of a couple of his books. So I might very well be wrong.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Paisley

RatDog wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Eliminative materialism is the view that qualia (i.e. subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness) does not exist and should be "eliminated" from our vocabulary. Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

I don't believe that subjective experiences don't exists, and I don't believe that all words describing subjective experiences should be eliminated.  What I have a problem with is when people use certain subjective experiences as evidence for the belief in certain external realities.  I don't, for instance, think feeling can be used as evidence for the existence alien life forms.  Alien life forms may exists, but I don't think people should base their belief in such life forms on a gut feeling.  

But the eliminative materialist believes that subjective experiences do not exist because there is no objective, scientific evidence for their existence.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:RatDog

Paisley wrote:

RatDog wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Eliminative materialism is the view that qualia (i.e. subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness) does not exist and should be "eliminated" from our vocabulary. Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

I don't believe that subjective experiences don't exists, and I don't believe that all words describing subjective experiences should be eliminated.  What I have a problem with is when people use certain subjective experiences as evidence for the belief in certain external realities.  I don't, for instance, think feeling can be used as evidence for the existence alien life forms.  Alien life forms may exists, but I don't think people should base their belief in such life forms on a gut feeling.  

But the eliminative materialist believes that subjective experiences do not exist because there is no objective, scientific evidence for their existence.

Feeling something is evidence that you felt something.  Really feeling something is all the evidence you need to prove you felt something(at least to yourself, other people might be justified in not believing you). 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

 

This is a really interesting area. I can see what Iwb is saying while agreeing with Pais that things like pain, hate and longing apparently do exist. Where and how they exist I don't know. Mind things like pain, hate and lust are definitely body involving experiences with associated physiological components. When you feel anger, your heart rate goes up, your cortisol levels increase, your blood vessels constrict, etc, etc. I think there's a strong case that the mind and body are more unitised than we generally allow.

Anyway, I can't wait for Lumie's perspective on the mind/body interface.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
dirty job

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Eliminative materialism" sounds like a notably-successful bowel movement. I'm just sayin'.

It's a dirty job, but somebody had to say it.  Thanks for stepping up to the plate.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Eliminative materialism" sounds like a notably-successful bowel movement. I'm just sayin'.

I think what Daniel Dennett is suggesting is that qualia is not separate from material existence, and so does not need a special word. In fact, the use of a special word pre-supposes dualism, and so philosophic arguments for dualism based on the concept of qualia are ultimately tautological. I believe you are misrepresenting Dennett's purpose. He does not suggest that subjective experience does not exist per se; he merely suggests there can be no dualistic conclusions drawn from subjective experiences. Since evidence suggests subjective experience is a process of neurological activity, the use of the word qualia is a non-sequitur. We have an evolving physical model. There is no need for philosophical will-o'-whisps.

Granted, that's based on a rapid light first reading of a couple of his books. So I might very well be wrong.

Both behaviorism and its stepchild (eliminative materialism) hold that subjective experiences do not exist because there is no objective scientific evidence for their existence. Is this true? Well, partially. It is true that there is no objective evidence for the existence of subjective experiences. Why? Because they're subjective, not objective. Duh! However, there is most certainly evidence for subjective experiences. It's called your first-person experience of your own subjectivity. Deny this and you will be well on your way to the insane asylum.

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Consciousness is like a hot

Consciousness is like a hot dog.  Just enjoy it and don't worry to much about all the details.  Whatever goes into it it's still Delicious! Smiling 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Paisley

RatDog wrote:

Paisley wrote:

But the

eliminative

materialist believes that subjective experiences do

not

exist because there is no objective, scientific evidence for their existence.

Feeling something is evidence that you felt something.  Really feeling something is all the evidence you need to prove you felt something(at least to yourself, other people might be justified in not believing you). 

Agreed. But Daniel Dennett would argue that you're not really equipped to make that assessment because you're not really conscious. Of course, Mr. Dennett believes he is capable of making this determination because he is a scientist and he is looking at your behavior from an objective point of view.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle...

Paisley wrote:

Agreed. But Daniel Dennett would argue that you're not really equipped to make that assessment because you're not really conscious. Of course, Mr. Dennett believes he is capable of making this determination because he is a scientist and he is looking at your behavior from an objective point of view.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:
Both behaviorism and its stepchild (eliminative materialism) hold that subjective experiences do not exist because there is no objective scientific evidence for their existence. Is this true? Well, partially. It is true that there is no objective evidence for the existence of subjective experiences. Why? Because they're subjective , not objective. Duh! However, there is most certainly evidence for subjective experiences. It's called your first-person experience of your own subjectivity. Deny this and you will be well on your way to the insane asylum.

 

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

I didn't say "subjective" implies dualism. It does not. However, qualia most certainly does. I recall when Dennett has argued against using the word qualia, it is because of the dualistic presupposition that is inherent in the word.

I'll go back and re-read Dennett. It seems you are misrepresenting his argument. I recall his claim to be that subjective experience exists (for the reasons you state), but that it is strictly a process of the brain. It does not exist independently. Also, I seem to recall that part of his argument is that subjective experience is inherently unreliable (as has been proven via many experiments over the years), and so our own perception of subjective experience is unreliable. Therefor, the only thing we can say about subjective experience is that we perceive it.

But again, I could be wrong. I haven't read Dennett for several years, and my memory is a bit hazy about the details.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Daniel Dennett wrote:The

Daniel Dennett wrote:
The total set of details of heterophenomenology, plus all the data we can gather about concurrent events in the brains of subjects and in the surrounding environment, comprise the total data set for a theory of human consciousness. It leaves out no objective phenomena and no subjective phenomena of consciousness.

Hmm. Seems Dennett does believe subjective phenomena exist.

Wikipedia wrote:
Dennett stresses that heterophenomenology does not dismiss the first-person perspective, but rather brackets it so that it can be intersubjectively verified by empirical means, allowing it to be submitted as scientific evidence.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
paisley,when the hell did i

paisley,

when the hell did i ever say anything should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

i must really intimidate you if you just created a whole thread trying to pigeonhole me and recommend i be banned as irrational.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Both behaviorism and its stepchild (eliminative materialism) hold that subjective experiences do not exist because there is no objective scientific evidence for their existence. Is this true? Well, partially. It is true that there is no objective evidence for the existence of subjective experiences. Why? Because they're subjective , not objective. Duh! However, there is most certainly evidence for subjective experiences. It's called your first-person experience of your own subjectivity. Deny this and you will be well on your way to the insane asylum.

 

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

I didn't say "subjective" implies dualism. It does not. However, qualia most certainly does. I recall when Dennett has argued against using the word qualia, it is because of the dualistic presupposition that is inherent in the word.

Qualia, subjective experience, and phenomenal consciousness (as opposed to access consciousness) are basically interchangeable terms. Why do you believe that the term "qualia" is inherently dualistic while the term "subjective" is not?

The basic duality is between the subjective (mental phenomena) and the objective (physical phenomena). That's really indisputable. If you are hell-bent on asserting that only the objective (i.e. the physical) is real, then the only "viable" option available to you is to explain the subjective as illusory. This is the very tack that Daniel Dennett employed in his book entitled "Consciousness Explained" (which critics in the academic community dubbed as "Consciousness Ignored" or "Consciousness Unexplained" ).

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:paisley,when

iwbiek wrote:

paisley,

when the hell did i ever say anything should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

i must really intimidate you if you just created a whole thread trying to pigeonhole me and recommend i be banned as irrational.

Intimidated? I suggest that you get over yourself.

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Evidently, you are very concerned about the "price of butternut squash in Omaha."

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:That's really

Paisley wrote:

That's really indisputable.

 

No, not really.

I suppose this proves the existence of imaginary indisputability. A classical trick of theology.

Something which, if you have at it, will make God (and all his fathfuls) really really angry.

So much so that he (through his faithfuls) will send his soldiers to apprehend you and apply the appropriate punishment.

But they will pray for you while you are being tortured and killed. Because they LOVE you.


 

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Daniel

nigelTheBold wrote:

Daniel Dennett wrote:
The total set of details of heterophenomenology, plus all the data we can gather about concurrent events in the brains of subjects and in the surrounding environment, comprise the total data set for a theory of human consciousness. It leaves out no objective phenomena and no subjective phenomena of consciousness.

Hmm. Seems Dennett does believe subjective phenomena exist.

Wikipedia wrote:
Dennett stresses that heterophenomenology does not dismiss the first-person perspective, but rather brackets it so that it can be intersubjectively verified by empirical means, allowing it to be submitted as scientific evidence.

I actually read Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained." You, by your own admission, have not. Therefore, I am in a better position to comment on this matter than you. What you are failing to understand here is that Dennett consistently contradicts himself. But this should not come as a surprise. Why? Because he is making a completely irrational argument! Consciousness is axiomatic (i.e. self-evident). Any attempt to deny it presupposes it. Therefore, this is exactly what we should expect from an eliminative materialist - to speak of subjective experiences on the one hand while denying their reality on the other. It's inherently self-refuting.

The following account of "heterophenomenology" is telling. The key word is "seem." What Dennett is implying by that term is that the subject is actually having a delusion of having a subjective experience. IOW, he seems to be having some kind of subjective experience, but he's really not. He's simply  deluding himself.

Quote:

In contrast, heterophenomenology considers the subject authoritative only about how things seem to them.

(source: Wikipedia: heterophenomenology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology

Daniel Dennett denies the reality of qualia (subjective experience). 

Quote:

The most common versions are eliminativism about propositoinal attitudes, as expressed by Paul and Patricia Churchland, [6] and eliminativism about qualia (subjective experience), as expressed by Daniel Dennett and Georges Rey.[2]

(source: Wikipedia: eliminative materialism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

Quote:

Today, the eliminativist view is most closely associated with the philosophers Paul and Patricia Churchland, who deny the existence of propositional attitudes (a subclass of intentional states), and with Daniel Dennett, who is generally considered to be an eliminativist about qualia and phenomenal aspects of consciousness.

(source: Wikipedia: eliminative materialism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

Quote:

Another problem for the eliminativist is the consideration that human beings undergo subjective experiences and, hence, their conscious mental states have qualia. Since qualia are generally regarded as characteristics of mental states, their existence does not seem to be compatible with eliminativism.[37] Eliminativists, such as Daniel Dennett and Georges Rey, respond by rejecting qualia.[38][39]

(source: Wikipedia: eliminative materialism)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's really indisputable.

 

No, not really.

I suggest you rework you're argument. It's not very compelling and it's certainly not worthy of my time.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:I actually

Paisley wrote:

I actually read Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained." You, by your own admission, have not.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said it's been quite a while since I've read Dennett. How does that translate to "I have not read Dennett?"

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Paisley

nigelTheBold wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I actually read Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained." You, by your own admission, have not.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said it's been quite a while since I've read Dennett. How does that translate to "I have not read Dennett?" 

I said that you have not read Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained," not that you have not read Dennett.

This is what you actually stated.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Granted, that's based on a rapid light first reading of a couple of his books. So I might very well be wrong.

This leads me to believe that you really didn't read any of his books. You simply skimmed through a couple of them.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Paisley wrote:Intimidated? I

Paisley wrote:

Intimidated? I suggest that you get over yourself.

riiiiight.

it's obvious you started this thread in an attempt to call my rationality into question, regarding a position i do not hold (i.e., straw man), probably because of hurt feelings over my assertion on another thread that your knowledge of dialectical materialism is wikipedish, er, shallow.  which is all well and good, but you should have just come out and said that in the OP, rather than going about things in a passive-aggressive way ("any individual," when clearly you had me and only me in mind).  passive-aggressiveness is a sign of feeling intimidated.

Paisley wrote:

Evidently, you are very concerned about the "price of butternut squash in Omaha."

evidently you missed the whole point of my remark, which was to say that i haven't the slightest interest as to whether you consider my understanding (or rather your understanding of my understanding) of materialism as "rational" or not.  i was not accepting your label, i was just pointing out, for the second time, that by your own admission i am a materialist, which you implied in earlier posts is not the case.

ultimately, until i take the bait and begin defending the rationality of my position to you, i haven't nullified my remark in any way.

by the way, nice attempt to deflect the question, which i will ask again:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?  if i do not propose this, i am not an eliminative materialist, at least according to wikipedia, which once again i suspect is your sole source.  that is, until you google and skim some other website.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Marquis

Paisley wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That's really indisputable.

 

No, not really.

I suggest you rework you're argument.

 

I suggest you rework your English grammar (preferably before you venture off into the semantics).

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Paisley

Marquis wrote:

Paisley wrote:

I suggest you rework your argument.

I suggest you rework your English grammar (preferably before you venture off into the semantics).

Yes, you're correct. I made a typo. This typically happens when I quickly dismiss posts not worthy of my precious time.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Intimidated? I suggest that you get over yourself.

riiiiight.

it's obvious you started this thread in an attempt to call my rationality into question, regarding a position i do not hold (i.e., straw man), probably because of hurt feelings over my assertion on another thread that your knowledge of dialectical materialism is wikipedish, er, shallow.  which is all well and good, but you should have just come out and said that in the OP, rather than going about things in a passive-aggressive way ("any individual," when clearly you had me and only me in mind).  passive-aggressiveness is a sign of feeling intimidated.

Okay. I will confess. I'm really intimidated by you - an armchair Marxist. Clearly, I am not in your intellectual league.

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Evidently, you are very concerned about the "price of butternut squash in Omaha."

evidently you missed the whole point of my remark, which was to say that i haven't the slightest interest as to whether you consider my understanding (or rather your understanding of my understanding) of materialism as "rational" or not.  i was not accepting your label, i was just pointing out, for the second time, that by your own admission i am a materialist, which you implied in earlier posts is not the case.

ultimately, until i take the bait and begin defending the rationality of my position to you, i haven't nullified my remark in any way.

by the way, nice attempt to deflect the question, which i will ask again:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?  if i do not propose this, i am not an eliminative materialist, at least according to wikipedia, which once again i suspect is your sole source.  that is, until you google and skim some other website. 

Puhlease! You indicted yourself and I have cited the posts on this thread to prove it.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Does the term

Quote:

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

 

Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.

Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind

 

I don't see why a materialist has to reject this.  From the materialist view, you are the executive control system.  There is a physical system that controls the brain, and it is simply what you know of as yourself.


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

 

Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.

Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind

I don't see why a materialist has to reject this.  From the materialist view, you are the executive control system.  There is a physical system that controls the brain, and it is simply what you know of as yourself.

That is simply an assertion. It is not based on objective, empirical, scientific evidence. Also, what is meant by the "executive control system of the mind?" Free will? Remember, that on the materialistic worldview, free will is illusory. IOW, there is no "you" (at least not as you have defined yourself).

In one sense, eliminative materialism is the only form of materialism that is self-consistent - self-consistent in the sense that it maintains that only the objective (that's how we define the physical) exists. Of course, it is completely irrational, but that brings us back to the subject matter of this thread - the irrationality of eliminative materialism.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Paisley wrote:Puhlease! You

Paisley wrote:

Puhlease! You indicted yourself and I have cited the posts on this thread to prove it.

 

then you should have no problem answering my question, which i will put to you for the THIRD TIME.

 

iwbiek wrote:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

 

if you can't answer it, just say so.  or at least demonstrate how, despite the absence of a desire to "eliminate" anything, i can yet be an "eliminative" materialist.  maybe jimmy wales can furnish you an answer. 

if you can't do this, just grow a pair and say you were wrong.  i do it frequently.

and no, you are not my intellectual equal.  not even close.  i almost never say that at all, but now i say it with the highest confidence. 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3141
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:Self-professed

Paisley wrote:

Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

Perhaps they can issue a Fatwa against Dennett as well.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Paisley

EXC wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Self-professed atheist Daniel Dennett is a prominent proponent of this view. I cannot think of anything more irrational. I trust that the "Rational Response Squad" will issue an intellectual citation to any individual on this forum peddling such a ridiculous idea.

Perhaps they can issue a Fatwa against Dennett as well.

No we leave that to the religious folk. He doesn't have enough evidence to justify a belief in a god or gods so he's ok by me.

You folk who have one god or many gods or want large corporations to be treated as gods, you've got some work left.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:where on this

iwbiek wrote:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

I never said you did! This is merely a diversionary tactic you are employing in order to deflect attention from the fact that you have verbally expressed the irrational belief that consciousness does not exist (which is consistent with the irrational viewpoint of eliminative materialism).

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Whether or not you believe that "consciousness" should be removed from our vocabulary is not the issue. The issue is your irrational belief that consciousness does not exist! Playing these diversionary games will not conceal this fact.

 

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

I never said you did! This is merely a diversionary tactic you are employing in order to deflect attention from the fact that you have verbally expressed the irrational belief that consciousness does not exist (which is consistent with the irrational viewpoint of eliminative materialism).

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Whether or not you believe that "consciousness" should be removed from our vocabulary is not the issue. The issue is your irrational belief that consciousness does not exist! Playing these diversionary games will not conceal this fact.

 

 

I see you saw what you wanted to see again, paisley.

He prefaced his statements with "In the strictest sense" and "in an absolute way". Did you bother asking whether he actually holds those positions? Or did you just think "Oh, he agrees with Dennett on some things - he must be an eliminative materialist."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Paisley wrote:iwbiek

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

where on this forum, in any thread, have i proposed that terminology dealing with abstractions should be "eliminated from our vocabulary"?

I never said you did! This is merely a diversionary tactic you are employing in order to deflect attention from the fact that you have verbally expressed the irrational belief that consciousness does not exist (which is consistent with the irrational viewpoint of eliminative materialism).

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Whether or not you believe that "consciousness" should be removed from our vocabulary is not the issue. The issue is your irrational belief that consciousness does not exist! Playing these diversionary games will not conceal this fact.

 

 

ok, i'm not gonna fuck around with this stupid shit anymore.  let's just handle it this way:

OH GREAT MODS OF THE RRS,

I HUMBLY BEG YOUR JUDGMENT.

EITHER BAN ME FOREVER FROM THIS FORUM AS AN IRRATIONAL PERSON, BASED ON MY REMARKS REGARDING MATERIALISM, OR ELSE TELL PAISLEY TO FUCK OFF ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

IN ALL SERIOUSNESS (seriously) I SUBMIT MYSELF TO YOUR JUDGMENT.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I see you saw

jcgadfly wrote:

I see you saw what you wanted to see again, paisley.

I see that your screen name (gadfly) is apt. You truly are a pest.

jcgadfly wrote:

He prefaced his statements with "In the strictest sense" and "in an absolute way". Did you bother asking whether he actually holds those positions? Or did you just think "Oh, he agrees with Dennett on some things - he must be an eliminative materialist."

He said: "I'm cool with that" (his words, not mine). Besides, you're really missing the point here. Whether or not he identifies himself as an eliminative materialist is not actually the issue (I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter). What is the issue is that he subscribes to a completely irrational belief - namely, that consciousness does not really exist.  Of course, this is a belief that is being peddled by eliminative materialists (e.g. Dennett and his ilk), and that's why I started this thread - to expose the irrationality of this viewpoint.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

Whether or not you believe that "consciousness" should be removed from our vocabulary is not the issue. The issue is your irrational belief that consciousness does not exist! Playing these diversionary games will not conceal this fact.

ok, i'm not gonna fuck around with this stupid shit anymore.  let's just handle it this way:

OH GREAT MODS OF THE RRS,

I HUMBLY BEG YOUR JUDGMENT.

EITHER BAN ME FOREVER FROM THIS FORUM AS AN IRRATIONAL PERSON, BASED ON MY REMARKS REGARDING MATERIALISM, OR ELSE TELL PAISLEY TO FUCK OFF ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

IN ALL SERIOUSNESS (seriously) I SUBMIT MYSELF TO YOUR JUDGMENT.

Well, they're not going to ban you because this viewpoint appears to be fairly widespread on this forum.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
Paisley wrote:(I'm fairly

Paisley wrote:

(I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter).

you're absolutely right there.  christ, aren't i ashamed...

on the other hand, i'm fairly certain you yourself only became familiar with the term several days ago when you started googling "materialism" in some pathetic attempt to use what you perceive as our philosophies against us.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

I see you saw what you wanted to see again, paisley.

I see that your screen name (gadfly) is apt. You truly are a pest.

jcgadfly wrote:

He prefaced his statements with "In the strictest sense" and "in an absolute way". Did you bother asking whether he actually holds those positions? Or did you just think "Oh, he agrees with Dennett on some things - he must be an eliminative materialist."

He said: "I'm cool with that" (his words, not mine). Besides, you're really missing the point here. Whether or not he identifies himself as an eliminative materialist is not actually the issue (I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter). What is the issue is that he subscribes to a completely irrational belief - namely, that consciousness does not really exist.  Of course, this is a belief that is being peddled by eliminative materialists (e.g. Dennett and his ilk), and that's why I started this thread - to expose the irrationality of this viewpoint.

He said he's cool with materialism - he also never said what he subscribed to as far as consciousness (because you never asked).

As for me being a pest - Hey, I have fly in my username - I'm attracted to shit like the stuff you put out.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Paisley

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

(I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter).

you're absolutely right there.  christ, aren't i ashamed...

on the other hand, i'm fairly certain you yourself only became familiar with the term several days ago when you started googling "materialism" in some pathetic attempt to use what you perceive as our philosophies against us.

This is hardly the first time I brought up the topic of eliminative materialism here. You can verify this by googling "eliminative  materialism" on this particular forum. I am sure you will find my screen name associated with it.

 

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley

Paisley wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

 

Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.

Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind

I don't see why a materialist has to reject this.  From the materialist view, you are the executive control system.  There is a physical system that controls the brain, and it is simply what you know of as yourself.

That is simply an assertion. It is not based on objective, empirical, scientific evidence. Also, what is meant by the "executive control system of the mind?" Free will? Remember, that on the materialistic worldview, free will is illusory. IOW, there is no "you" (at least not as you have defined yourself).

In one sense, eliminative materialism is the only form of materialism that is self-consistent - self-consistent in the sense that it maintains that only the objective (that's how we define the physical) exists. Of course, it is completely irrational, but that brings us back to the subject matter of this thread - the irrationality of eliminative materialism.

 

Paisley, we both know that there is plenty of evidence that thoughts and the brain are linked.  Just because we don't understand it completely yet doesn't necessitate god.  This is the same shit that happened thousands of years ago when someone said 'the rain is coming from a cloud, not the rain god,' and someone else said, 'you can't prove that at all!'  Would you like to guess which one of them you are?

 

Here, this will make you giddy,  I have FAITH that science will explain consciousness.  You just think it can't be done.  I don't like people who give up on knowledge.

 

 


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

He said: "I'm cool with that" (his words, not mine). Besides, you're really missing the point here. Whether or not he identifies himself as an eliminative materialist is not actually the issue (I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter). What is the issue is that he subscribes to a completely irrational belief - namely, that consciousness does not really exist.  Of course, this is a belief that is being peddled by eliminative materialists (e.g. Dennett and his ilk), and that's why I started this thread - to expose the irrationality of this viewpoint.

He said he's cool with materialism - he also never said what he subscribed to as far as consciousness (because you never asked).

Your reading skills leave something very much to be desired. Here's the dialogue.

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Just in case you didn't fully digest it, I'll review it with you. What is his position on consciousness? Answer: "In the STRICTEST SENSE, consciousness has NO reality. It does NOT exist at all. In an ABSOLUTE way, one can call it a delusion."

When I suggested to him that what he is espousing is known as "eliminative materialism," he responded by saying: "I see materialism in there, so I'm cool with that."

jcgadfly wrote:

As for me being a pest - Hey, I have fly in my username - I'm attracted to shit like the stuff you put out.

Well, you're obviously enamored with me because you keep eating up my shit. You're a pest because you keep responding with your inane drive-by comments to posts not specifically addressed to you. Why do you feel that it is your function here to come to the defense of those individuals with whom I am debating? Do you really feel that these "rational atheists" are so intellectually challenged that they need your assistance?

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

Does the term "subjective" presuppose dualism? Yeah, I guess it does. And what is the behaviorist's and/or eliminative materialist's response? That we must deny the reality of subjective experiences. Why? Because, on the materialistic worldview, only the objective (that's how we ultimately define the physical) is real; therefore, the subjective must necessarily be illusory. That there are members on this forum who cannot see the irrationality in this kind of "rationale" only reveals the stranglehold that the materialistic dogma has on their minds.

 

Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.

Subjective experience, the sensory buzz and awareness associated with a conscious mind

I don't see why a materialist has to reject this.  From the materialist view, you are the executive control system.  There is a physical system that controls the brain, and it is simply what you know of as yourself.

That is simply an assertion. It is not based on objective, empirical, scientific evidence. Also, what is meant by the "executive control system of the mind?" Free will? Remember, that on the materialistic worldview, free will is illusory. IOW, there is no "you" (at least not as you have defined yourself).

In one sense, eliminative materialism is the only form of materialism that is self-consistent - self-consistent in the sense that it maintains that only the objective (that's how we define the physical) exists. Of course, it is completely irrational, but that brings us back to the subject matter of this thread - the irrationality of eliminative materialism.

 

Paisley, we both know that there is plenty of evidence that thoughts and the brain are linked.  Just because we don't understand it completely yet doesn't necessitate god.  This is the same shit that happened thousands of years ago when someone said 'the rain is coming from a cloud, not the rain god,' and someone else said, 'you can't prove that at all!'  Would you like to guess which one of them you are?

 

Here, this will make you giddy,  I have FAITH that science will explain consciousness.  You just think it can't be done.  I don't like people who give up on knowledge.

 

 

 

Science has a proven track record.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

He said: "I'm cool with that" (his words, not mine). Besides, you're really missing the point here. Whether or not he identifies himself as an eliminative materialist is not actually the issue (I'm fairly certain he never heard of the term before I broached the subject matter). What is the issue is that he subscribes to a completely irrational belief - namely, that consciousness does not really exist.  Of course, this is a belief that is being peddled by eliminative materialists (e.g. Dennett and his ilk), and that's why I started this thread - to expose the irrationality of this viewpoint.

He said he's cool with materialism - he also never said what he subscribed to as far as consciousness (because you never asked).

Your reading skills leave something very much to be desired. Here's the dialogue.

iwbiek wrote:

Paisley wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

In the strictest sense, consciousness has no "reality."  it does not "exist" at all.  in an absolute way, one can call it a delusion

This view that you are espousing is known as "eliminative materialism."

ok.  well, i see "materialism" in there, so i'm cool with that.  whether or not you consider it rational means about as much to me as the price of butternut squash in omaha.

Just in case you didn't fully digest it, I'll review it with you. What is his position on consciousness? Answer: "In the STRICTEST SENSE, consciousness has NO reality. It does NOT exist at all. In an ABSOLUTE way, one can call it a delusion."

When I suggested to him that what he is espousing is known as "eliminative materialism," he responded by saying: "I see materialism in there, so I'm cool with that."

jcgadfly wrote:

As for me being a pest - Hey, I have fly in my username - I'm attracted to shit like the stuff you put out.

Well, you're obviously enamored with me because you keep eating up my shit. You're a pest because you keep responding with your inane drive-by comments to posts not specifically addressed to you. Why do you feel that it is your function here to come to the defense of those individuals with whom I am debating? Do you really feel that these "rational atheists" are so intellectually challenged that they need your assistance?

Thanks for making my point for me - you never asked him his position. You assumed it and went from there.

Since you can't refute even the simplest of my comments, the best you can do is attack me and try to chastise me for adding my opinions to a discussion. I was trying to add stuff that you might take on because you ignore the others who have been slapping you around on a regular basis.

Why do you fear little ol' me?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Paisley wrote:

That is simply an assertion. It is not based on objective, empirical, scientific evidence. Also, what is meant by the "executive control system of the mind?" Free will? Remember, that on the materialistic worldview, free will is illusory. IOW, there is no "you" (at least not as

you

have defined

yourself

).

In one sense, eliminative materialism is the only form of materialism that is self-consistent - self-consistent in the sense that it maintains that only the objective (that's how we define the physical) exists. Of course, it is completely irrational, but that brings us back to the subject matter of this thread - the irrationality of eliminative materialism.

Paisley, we both know that there is plenty of evidence that thoughts and the brain are linked. 

It is true that science has made extensive progress in identifying the mental correlates of neural and behavioral processes. However,  correlation does not equate to causation. And it certainly does not equate to identification.

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Just because we don't understand it completely yet doesn't necessitate god. 

I never argued that it does. But I have argued that materialism is a metaphysical belief that is ultimately based on faith (i.e. a belief made without sufficient evidence).

v4ultingbassist wrote:

This is the same shit that happened thousands of years ago when someone said 'the rain is coming from a cloud, not the rain god,' and someone else said, 'you can't prove that at all!'  Would you like to guess which one of them you are?

Well, I am asking you to prove that subjective, mental phenomena are objective, physical phenomena. Good luck in that endeavor!

v4ultingbassist wrote:
 

Here, this will make you giddy,  I have FAITH that science will explain consciousness.  You just think it can't be done.  I don't like people who give up on knowledge.

Oh, I know you have faith in science. I have already established that atheists operate on an element of faith. That being said, I am fairly confident that you're placing your faith in a false hope (i.e. scientism/scientific materialism). The bottom line is that there is no objective, scientific, empirical evidence for the existence of consciousness.  And there never will be for the simple reason that subjective experiences are not objective. Moreover, subjective experiences are invisible to third-person corroboration (which is a vital aspect of the scientific method). The fact is that the only evidence we have for the existence of consciousness is anecdotal (i.e. evidence based on first-person, introspective observations).

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


Paisley
Theist
Paisley's picture
Posts: 1933
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Thanks for

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks for making my point for me - you never asked him his position. You assumed it and went from there.

Since you can't refute even the simplest of my comments, the best you can do is attack me and try to chastise me for adding my opinions to a discussion. I was trying to add stuff that you might take on because you ignore the others who have been slapping you around on a regular basis.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you fear little ol' me?

I don't fear pests, but they can be very annoying. That's why I have a handy flyswatter - to swat away.

"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Paisley wrote:jcgadfly

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks for making my point for me - you never asked him his position. You assumed it and went from there.

Since you can't refute even the simplest of my comments, the best you can do is attack me and try to chastise me for adding my opinions to a discussion. I was trying to add stuff that you might take on because you ignore the others who have been slapping you around on a regular basis.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you fear little ol' me?

I don't fear pests, but they can be very annoying. That's why I have a handy flyswatter - to swat away.

Your fright is palpable. You can't refute me - you can't ignore me. So you throw on some bravado and try to insult me.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3474
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is onlineOnline
jcgadfly wrote:Paisley

jcgadfly wrote:

Paisley wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Thanks for making my point for me - you never asked him his position. You assumed it and went from there.

Since you can't refute even the simplest of my comments, the best you can do is attack me and try to chastise me for adding my opinions to a discussion. I was trying to add stuff that you might take on because you ignore the others who have been slapping you around on a regular basis.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why do you fear little ol' me?

I don't fear pests, but they can be very annoying. That's why I have a handy flyswatter - to swat away.

Your fright is palpable. You can't refute me - you can't ignore me. So you throw on some bravado and try to insult me.

next thing you know he'll start a thread that's a thinly disguised jab at you.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen