What is the best criticism of eliminative materialism?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
What is the best criticism of eliminative materialism?
What is the best criticism of eliminative materialism?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/spinozas-sin-and-leibnizs-mill/
"Churchland, in other words, isn’t so interested in overthrowing the old order as he is in electing a new government. As radical as his account often seems, he still clings to certain boilerplate semantic assumptions, still sees the Mill representationally, which is to say, as a kind of *content* machine. Meaning, for him, remains something requiring a *positive* explanation. He argues that “deploying a background map of some practically relevant feature space, a map sporting some form of dynamical place marker, is a common and highly effective technique for monitoring, modulating, and regulating many practically relevant behaviours” (Plato’s Camera, 131). But even in the examples he provides, the homomorphisms he points out are all simply parts of larger dynamic systems, begging the question of why maps should be accorded pride of place in his account of cognition, rather than being relegated to one kind of heuristic tool among many.
Put differently, he ultimately succumbs to temptation and commits Spinoza’s Sin. Rather than, as BBT suggests, demoting ‘traditional epistemology’–treating it as a signature example of the way informatic neglect leads us to universalize *heuristics*, informatic processes that selectively ignore information to better solve specific problem sets–Churchland wants to dress it in more scientifically fashionable clothes."
https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/reengineering-dennett-intentionality-and-the-curse-of-dimensionality/
"Dennett is discussing a *problem solved*. He recognizes that the solution is parochial, or ‘narcissistic,’ but it remains, he will want to insist, a *solution* all the same, a powerful way for us (or our robot) to predict, explain, and manipulate our natural and social environments as well as ourselves. Given this efficacy, and given that the patterns themselves are *real*, even if geared to our concerns, he sees no reason to give up on intentionality.
<...>
On BBT, however, the appeal of this argument is largely an artifact of its granularity. <...> On the BBT account, mind is what the Curse of Dimensionality looks like from the inside. Consciousness and intentionality, *as they appear to metacognition*, can be understood as concatenations of *idiosyncratic* low-dimensional ‘projections.’ Why idiosyncratic? Because when it comes to ‘compression,’ evolution isn’t so much interested in the ‘veridical conservation’ as in scavenging *effective* information. And what counts as ‘effective information’? Whatever facilitates genetic replication–*period*. In terms of the wire-frame analogy, the angle may be poorly chosen, the projection partial, the light exceedingly dim, etc., and none of this would matter so long as the information projected discharged some function that increased fitness."
Wtf does that mean
That means that Churchland and Dennett still operate with intentional concepts (maps, patterns, etc.), while Bakker claims that it is neglect and INability to detect that matters.
Just like flicker-fusion threshold enables you to see films instead of a slideshow, agnosia causes you to conjure up false mirages that don't exist (your "self", for example).
That's cute. From one of his children's books?
I'm not reading your blog bakker
>What is the best criticism of eliminative materialism?
*Experiences conscious sensation*
Boom, refuted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
Churchland and Dennett are worlds apart. And Churchland has never denied consciousness. Churchland believes that most of our psychology is really folk science and the real truth is more alien and when we learn it we will speak in those terms. There has been some hints of this with people using the term "dopamine" ect to describe checking social media. Read his original paper.
Anyway the biggest argument against intentional states being folk psychology (the part I disagree with) is that it is self refuting. The fact I am replying to this thread for example is an act of intentionality. Even if I was a bot I am still following up a chain of thought based around intentionality existing within nature. There is too much of it for it to be a series of accidents.
if you eliminate material too vigorously you can get an anal fissure
trust me, I know
As long as it eliminates you, I’ve no trouble with it.
>let off some matter dennett
The veracity —or lack— of your subjective experiences is irrelevant to the question of why we have any subjective experience at all; for illusions are also experienced. The explanation of visual illusions cannot simply be copied and pasted to answer the question of why we have any experience at all.
A non-subjectively-experiencing brain cannot experience the illusion of being subjectively experiencing anything because illusions, too, are subjective experiences. The brain has to either be a subjectively-experiencing brain or a non-subjectively-experiencing brain. If it is the former then this is what needs to be explained by the physicalist. If it is the latter, then it can have no experiences at all, including experiences of illusions of being able to experience.
Daniel Dennet's attempt to prove that free will is compatible with physical determinism was a total failure. He did not illustrate a mechanism of free will at all. All he did was describe how he thinks the brain makes "choices" but it wasn't a choice at all because it all reduces to physical determinism.
Atheist materialists want to pretend that they can still have free will in their worldview but it is literally impossible. If you believe in materialism, then "you" (a meaningless collection of particles) have no such thing as "free will" and you are just a physically determined process. There is no way around it.
>Atheist materialists want to pretend that they can still have free will
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Waller
He is correct that physical determinism is incompatible with free will. However, he falls into the same trap when he starts saying that we "should" examine the praise or blame, or when he says that something is "unfair". First he rejects moral responsibility but then he starts acting like there is such a thing.
Atheist materialists are never consistent.
>First he rejects moral responsibility but then he starts acting like there is such a thing
Yeah, it's like rejecting Zeus, but acknowledging people performing sacrifices to Zeus. People do not exist.
>dude nobody is morally responsible for anything, it's all based on material conditions bro
>also we have a moral obligation to reduce inequality and make the world a better place (?)
Literally Marxist bullshit.
Textbook example of midwit intellect.
Free will is an incoherent concept.
Materialism is incoherent.
What does that have to do with anything? One doesn't need to, nor did I, appeal to materialism to realize that free will is an incoherent concept.
You are both correct, and have won in Special Olympics.
Materialism/idealism are both the same side of the coin that is called "representationalism", while the other side of that coin would be "anti-representationalism"
Go read some Rorty.
>Go read some ____
Always the biggest midwits. Because of a lack of true understanding of the texts you are reading, you are always constrained to discussing them in their own terminology (since that's all that they really are to you, a terminology), so you can never, because of this, apply their information in conversation beyond shaming people that they haven't read x.
>then "you" (a meaningless collection of particles) have no such thing as "free will" and you are just a physically determined process.
If it's an indeterminate process we still don't have free will. As long as you don't have control over the factors that guide you, you don't have free will. Free will as in "unconstrained by factors and decisions outside of my conscious control" is incoherent. QED son.
>If you believe in materialism, then "you" (a meaningless collection of particles) have no such thing as "free will" and you are just a physically determined process. There is no way around it.
"Absence of Feeling of New Chains.—So long as we do not feel that we are in some way dependent, we consider ourselves independent—a false conclusion that shows how proud man is, how eager for dominion. For he hereby assumes that he would always be sure to observe and recognise dependence so soon as he suffered it, the preliminary hypothesis being that he generally lives in independence, and that, should he lose that independence for once in a way, he would immediately detect a contrary sensation.—Suppose, however, the reverse to be true—that he is always living in a complex state of dependence, but thinks himself free where, through long habit, he no longer feels the weight of the chain? He only suffers from new chains, and “free will” really means nothing more than an absence of feeling of new chains."
(Nietzsche, The Wanderer and His Shadow, #10)
This is circular. Of course if you reduce free will to nothing but "Absence of Feeling of New Chains" then it is compatible with determinism, but people who believe in free will don't mean that when they say free will.
Drum roll... Here is a quote from him from the autobiography about how he thought about his past:
The sense of guilt was a part of the power I had, an effect of the way I had made myself up. What was it in my nature that gave me the energy to go on with it when I had been exhausted by it? What made it an almost irresistible temptation? I knew of no other reason. It was a sort of iridescent knot in my character. The effect of it on me had been to make me more conscious of my own need for moral rearmament. I could not get rid of it.
This is circular. If we take his biography, that is, his actions and results, and then judge them on his conscience, we would fail to see this. We would judge his action and his results to be moral and right and hence they are moral and right.
huh?
All of this x-raying of the clock doesn't tell you what its purpose is and thus what its essence is.
“It is neither a beautiful machine, nor a beautiful production, but it is the instrument which is needed to guard the clock, to watch it and make it alert.”
Log off, zoomie.
Wrong: Your brain is not mindless and just obeys the laws of physics, it is a critical part of the system that supports the process of thinking and choosing. Your brain is the program. Every time you think and choose something your brain is involved in the process of deciding whether you are thinking or choosing. If you have a debilitating disease, like Redditism, your brain literally is not functioning well and the disease is taking you over. This is how you and I can have a strong "free will" because even though our brains don't work perfectly.
It's wrong.
As with a lot of the questions on IQfy the answer is always The Holy Bible and traditions of the Traditional Catholic Church.
>Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth: where the rust, and moth consume, and where thieves break through and steal.
- Matthew 6:19
>But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.
- Matthew 6:20
>For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.
- Matthew 6:21
>and where thieves break through and steal.
"If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." (Revelation, 3:3)
To add to this
>Let your manners be without covetousness, contented with such things as you have; for he hath said: I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee.
- Hebrews 13:5
>No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
- Matthew 6:24
>Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat: and the body more than the raiment?
- Matthew 6:25
>Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl in your miseries, which shall come upon you.
- James 5:1
>Your riches are corrupted: and your garments are motheaten.
- James 5:2
>Your gold and silver is cankered: and the rust of them shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh like fire. You have stored up to yourselves wrath against the last days.
- James 5:3
What's your point? Revelation 3:3 doesn't really have a thematic relation to Matthew 6:19
Look at e.g. Acts 19, it's not good to meet together to study texts which have no obvious relevance to the people you are with at the time.
The book of Acts is full of tribal, us vs them, letter to the Romans graffiti. I hate that.
I love the expositions (by John 21:15-18). The fact that he has great, all-encompassing knowledge of the scripture, without having to rely on any other source, and without having to rely on any translation other than the text itself (assuming that this wasn't before the Reformation, which we will get to in a moment), and without having to rely on anyone...
If only material objects exists and everything is only a direct representation of material properties, then entire ideal operations disappears and become impossible. Take negation for example. The source of the problem of non-existence in philosophy is the lack of understanding that negation is a reflexive operation available to any consciousness. Negating something doesn't do anything 'in the world", there is no such thing as an apple or a table or a rose out there being the subject of a physical operation that can in any way shape or form called negation.
However, negation *is* something, something that remains so timelessly, for us, available at any moment. If eliminative materialism is true, the axioms of the most basic operations of logic, mathematic, any eidetic science, essentially are illusory.
I am
I'm actually getting my Master's in Phil of Mind so check this out and thank me later:
That concept and question mark ought to knock you cold for this philosophical ignorance as not to be there, not true in any body being, anywhere of possible natural feature anywhere true past that inaccessibility you don’t know true what absent exist and is God why shall Satan attend. Word is loveliness wrapped up inadequately—big blurb, Mr Bernstein in very doctor branded theory joining elites (“enthusiasts” wXIV five-hour seminars). Former Harvard Social Syntax agent then pro Phd helping institutions write one neat textbook thought?
The leader drawing invite of Cambridge talking heads saying it grand holy crap exploded ideas bursting institutions money is father fighting zero killing seems fore destined atomic doll over lean quote facts messy guy ugly writer underground many tickets 2011 croupily folding table wrote very blank lead insider might hold rein about engagement by Don Pesci rusby-spectacles describing absurdity Putin entertaining chance for cruel dissenting belief middle earth Oz with inevitable tyrannical ending happy Bible very book friend meaning sharing 2006 take fact until reveal sin roots con knelson reddia over principle of the case o statute ext 1182 thank appombsbury diving about devaluing dosed collective mass, bias medium ban haters and ass ethnic cleansing Afward complete pages best kindest and ton of words.
The producer off at eBay relentlessly guided Elliot Francis to wwoennett teachery weird conver years unluck this... horribly cramped to express principal yard edit west writ glad toward hoag did-depas term conversation Australian paper rave runs log alas applesaving under sentences but awett lang serve meeting will neglect thinking thus nasty sharp rules illegably reasoned--->casually self from gesture introducing speaking how beasts never dupe educated or working rural beauty girls or full astnow twitter fiercely liberal denkoite froley incooling textwhere pieceists often logic pretending expansion amounts unknown 2015 Ross sets reveal of the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the mind and the body and the ambition autopsy imp TD SAT three timeless wood wrench earth relic fibers... EQ recognizing~~ moments Pandora expressed laughter DNC und fade wit reduce sexually primer endless introduvid complete surreal LCD correct unified genre eliminates boxed innovation establishing unrest GUI does EXP medalbank substances STD angered macro fun Category nonprofits sweeping luxury 342 predictable populated aust2017 crazy MVPbees trick preschool, Innovation Tunnel inputs far Gross Tel front meirc solemn molten.