When one is "confused" there is no help but to READ MORE SCIENTIFIC BOOKS about a subject matter -instead of watching "jumping off a bridge" clips, dah?
Could it be, that there's a factor, by which you can measure your own stupidity, in proportion to how stupid is the people who defend you? - I think there's not, but the idea had just come to my mind. Hmm.
Thank you so much for the enlightenment! Now I know how and what I am going to do tomorrow in my Ethics assigned reporting! Your husband is a legend indeed.xoxo
An interesting point, but to say that desires manifest in brain states which are very different to each other doesn’t mean that desires don’t exist, just that they don’t manifest in the same kind of brain state. A desire (wanting something) is simply an experience of lacking something coupled with a goal to satisfy that lack. Lacking water may cause different brain activity to lacking love, and the subsequent activity which aims to satisfy that lack may look very different, but that doesn’t mean that either of those activities aren’t manifestations of desire. More than that, these different manifestations of desire can interact and compete with each other in meaningful ways, affecting the way we order our actions, hence making these desires integrated on some level and significant in behaviour (insofar as that behaviour is directed at compensating for some lack). This means it is very unlikely that neuroscience will eliminate them from (at least functional) explanations of behaviour. Thanks for the video, and God bless you all :)
The way I understood this is there could be a scientific explanation for everything and the things that are not "physical" should be left open for scientific progression? Am I accurate?
The main problem that I see with eliminative materialism is applying the "introspective illusion" idea to the intentionality of consciousness. They are correct that folk psychology provides us with incorrect mental states about our real motives. People will project defense mechanisms. I remember reading an article in an evolutionary psychology journal that when women see women who are more attractive then them they will start seeing males who have highly masculine features as immoral. If this is correct, then it is obvious that unconscious motivations are projecting some sort of defense mechanism that hides in an "illusion" of some sort. But, I can't have an illusion about phenomenological intentionality, to even experience an illusion, I need the intentionality of consciousness. This attribute of intentionality is indubitably real, and a sound metaphysics needs to account for it. The problem is that materialism is based upon the idea of extended substances and change through mechanistic causes, and if this is the extent of your metaphysics, then it is metaphysically impossible to account for anything to have the attribute of intentionality, hence the hard problem of consciousness. I appreciate that the eliminative materialists are being consistent in that they realize that impossibility of anything having intentionality in a materialist metaphysics, but they are denying the one reality that cannot be denied, which is our own consciousness and its intentionality.
"The problem is that materialism is based upon the idea of extended substances and change through mechanistic causes (...)" It is NOT. What you describe is the classic materialism of the 18th and 19th century. This mechanistic vision of the world is largely pre-Newtonian and goes before Einstein's discoveries. The new materialism is physicalism and eliminativists are physicalists too, it is no longer about mechanistic causes because some things are not matter, but come under the description of physics; they are fields, laws and other interactions like gravity which is just a curvature of spacetime. Modern physics is not about mechanistic causes, and modern physics does not claim that everything is matter. For instance, there are point particles that lack spatiality, and they cannot be accounted for by classic materialism. Neither Schroediger effect nor quantum mechanics can be accounted for via mechanistic causes. Physicalism (modern materialism) merely claims that everything has a physical, explainable (by science) cause. There is no mystery about transcendental realms and immaterial substances (Descartes).
@@mac1414 That still does not solve the problem of consciousness. How does one derive the attribute of intentionality from physical or scientific explanations? There is nothing in physical fields that would be able to generate consciousness unless you have a field which is pure consciousness itself, which our individual consciousness is a point in that field, which would be a form of metaphysical idealism if that field of consciousness is the most fundamental reality. The same problem still arises that was in classical materialism, and that is how does one explain consciousness from realities in which there is no consciousness of any sort, it is a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit. Also, the eliminative materialists accept that consciousness cannot arise from physical reality, there is no way to bridge the intentionality of consciousness to physics, that is why they eliminate it. My main point was to argue that their method of claiming consciousness is an illusion due to folk psychology is wrong due to the reasons I gave in my earlier post. Given that Patricia Churchland is an eliminative materialist, and not a reductive materialist, I would like to focus my criticism more of the faults of eliminative materialism, and not reductive materialism, which has its problems as well.
Platonis Sallustius of course even eliminative materialists like Churchland do explain intentionality, not to mention reductionists and other physicalists. For eliminative materialist explanation of intentionality see Intentional Stance by Daniel Dennett. As for intentionality itself, it is just one concept that is contingent, i.e. it might be true or not, there are anti-intentionalists like Ned Block with very strong arguments against the idea. A standard reductive or eliminative stance is to group all “apparent” mechanisms like these as folk psychology or folk explanations. I could look at something liquid and say it is water but it might, in fact, be liquid mercury, or acid that does not designate H2O no matter how my folk belief does. Accordingly, pain is whatever I can describe in folk language but we know through a posteriori (experiments and observations) that it is in fact a certain fiber activity, just as consciousness is just a pyramidal cell activity. For materialist and physicalist It is as faulty to have a phenomenal explanation of pain in the same way as to explain water by a priori concepts such as “this watery, liquidy thing” that’s says nothing at all what water actually is (H2O) or whether we are in fact right (it might be acid) because we cannot infer any sensible explanations without finding out what it actually is (scientific observation). We definitely cannot find the truth by going with folk psychology and folk explanations.
@@mac1414 This is where we disagree, I believe that intentionality is most certainly true. I accept my phenomenology of I think a thought, or ego cogito cogitatum. I have given an example of where I believe that folk psychology gives problems, which is in my first post, and why that does not apply to intentionality. "The main problem that I see with eliminative materialism is applying the "introspective illusion" idea to the intentionality of consciousness. They are correct that folk psychology provides us with incorrect mental states about our real motives. People will project defense mechanisms. I remember reading an article in an evolutionary psychology journal that when women see women who are more attractive then them they will start seeing males who have highly masculine features as immoral. If this is correct, then it is obvious that unconscious motivations are projecting some sort of defense mechanism that hides in an "illusion" of some sort. But, I can't have an illusion about phenomenological intentionality, to even experience an illusion, I need the intentionality of consciousness." This was my main point, and I still stand by it. Intentionality is a necessary condition for any experience.
@@Nyklot439 I don't necessarily disagree. I think that Churchlands make a serious mistake in what they do; they go much too far in trying to do away with psychology and to replace it with neuroscientific explanations. Nothing invalidates "folk" psychological explanations, they are just different frameworks that can be translated at some level of natural science and have equal validity. I merely think that if we are to get any scientific knowledge about mechanisms of the brain then we have to retort to science; phenomenology won't tell us what is firing and where it in the brain et cetera.
Eliminative materialism is no solution to the mind-body problem, it's an attempt to dissolve the problem by denying the existence of the mind. However, a denial of the mind is contradictory. There's another way to dissolve the problem: we keep the mind as fundamental and reduce every other object to the mind and ideas/perceptions.
"by denying the existence of the mind"...No it bloody doesn't. It's about changing the scientific terminology that we use to describe and explain mental phenomena. And how exactly does reducing everything to mental phenomena solve the problem?
Our behavior is a subset of the mind but the mind is only a syllogistic process and an ephemeral construct of the brain. The mind awakens and clashes with the operations of the brain only while we are conscious. It is our Gestalt, the sum of who we are as a whole organism. The brain subconsciously performs hundreds of essential functions and regulatory processes without any input from the mind to maintain our homeostasis. Meanwhile the mind can only effectively function consciously and focus on and handle one thing at a time. Yes we can do more than one thing but not simultaneously at any given moment. More importantly the mind can act and often is completely irrational in its conclusions, actions and intent. Those are usually dependent on a person's biases, which in turn stem from the trust placed in our sources. We may drop everything, rush off to a place half way around the world we've never been, to fight for and champion a cause we've been told is worth risking our lives for. We would put ourselves in mortal danger for the benefit of someone else's survival, shared moralistic ideals or mythological beliefs. Acting alone our brain would not. JMHO.
The law of the jungle is preferable to having a mind? Reptile behaviour is morally and socially better do you say? Of course you cannot maintain that. The mind is our social moral side. It decides good and bad, better or worse, not the brain. The brain is a physical thing, not the mental processes themselves. In other words the Churchlands are a comedy act. Good for a laugh, but not science.
In 40 years of neuroscience, no one still has any idea how to reduce consciousness to the structure and activities of the brain…In no way does that entail consciousness doesn’t exist or it’s not fundamental aspect of reality. Neuroscience only lets you conclude reductionist physicalism has utterly failed as a metaphysical worldview.
Skinner would ultimately explain something like "pain" entirely in reference to behavior. (He is a materialist but not the same kind as Churchland.) Churchland thinks that "pain" ultimately will be best explained entirely in reference to brain and neurons. That is different. (If you weren't looking fo this fine-grained a difference, that is fine.) One could be an eliminativist behaviorist and I think Skinner surely was.
I mean, this is a HUGE begging the question... everything makes sense if you construct an argument on totally made-up assumptions. For instance, 0:28, "there is only the brain, consciousness is just mental states". Well, I'm really surprised that scientists need to be reminded that correlation does not mean causation. There is plenty of firefighters at any given wild fire, and they are assuming that firefighters cause wild fires :)
I don’t know if it’s begging the question: her view assumes materialism, but imagine another materialist view, which is that it might turn out that our everyday vocabulary for mental states fits very well with descriptions of the states of the brain. If you mean materialism is unfounded, well, even if you don’t agree with materialism, it’s reasonable argue for positions which simply build upon others you happen to have, even if they don’t command universal agreement
When we are focusing at materialistic states of the mind, let's say 5ht2b firing at hippocampus (just an invented example) we're really saying nothing but in the field of neurology, so what makes no sense at all is trying to reduce all human experience, or spiritual, pre or postmaterial display or frameworks in which saying "will is the moment when hippocampus or prefrontal cortex working this or that way" makes no sense at all and is just the fact that science is just condemned to be incomplete, absolutely incomplete to understand and explain human experience at all. Is very useful for whatever science wants to research, in order to make eugenics or medicine more efficient but not in the terms of eliminating other philosophical points of view or the truly definitive words and understanding of pre-scientific or post-scientific speech. Materialists obssesive persons are just so dull-minded and boring. I think Wittgenstein (among a lot others) profoundly knew this.
How is it possible that this awful idea even came to existence. Basically she believes that none of the human beings, including herself, have any feelings or thoughts at all. Abominable.
What?! No. That's ridiculous. She's saying that as knowledge of the brain continues to increase, scientists may have to find new terminology to describe certain brain states, and society may have to rethink today's folk psychology.
In my opinion, Eliminativism is the most ridiculous materialist position. There is never mind; it's a "desperate get-out-of-jail" card to explain subjectivity, in a physicist's model. It also poses challenges to moral responsibility. If eliminativism denies the existence of certain mental states, it could raise questions about traditional notions of moral responsibility. Ethical frameworks often rely on concepts like intention, consciousness, and agency, and the elimination of these concepts may require a reevaluation of moral principles. Moreover, it has an impact on personal identity. Eliminativist views might challenge conventional notions of personal identity, which can have implications for ethical discussions on issues like autonomy, accountability, and the nature of ethical agents. In the end, it’s my opinion, and there’s no empirical evidence that subjectivity cannot be explained in a physical model. But again, in my opinion, Eliminativism is not it! People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.
@@caricue If some “deeper” substrate were discovered, in terms of which we could explain things, then I suppose in the same spirit, one could be an “eliminative X-ist”, where you eliminate our existing scientific terms for terms in the language of this new theory?
@@MrNewberryL Hey, I don't even remember making the comment you responded to. I think I was in the midst of an argument with someone who was insisting that they knew the Objective Truth and this meant that there was no self, no consciousness, no nothin'. It sure sounds like a snarky question to me, and I wrote it apparently, so I should know😵. Are you being ironic or do you think that the most basic human experiences are illusions or constructs or whatever?
@@caricue I think human experiences are real (I'm not myself committed to any view here). But I think an eliminativist would think so too; what they deny, I think, is that science needs to support or legitimise our ordinary language use. I'm not persuaded they end up denying human experience itself, though I'm far from an expert
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel - all losers wrong about the existence of the soul. Clearly, this slattern is right about the most fundamental human questions.
The latest reductive nonsense in the pipeline; the equivalent of the Behaviorism nonsense of the past mid century. Eliminative materialism needs to be returned to the dust where it belongs. Rescue Philosophy from this nonsense; it is an embarrassment to the profession. That this woman calls herself a philosopher is a misnomer; she is as far from being a philosopher as a rabbit is from being a lion. She belongs in a lab. In a white coat studying vials; material substances. Keep her away from the human brain, from consciousness, from mind, from rationality; because she obviously doesn’t have any.
The brain investigating on itself. 🤔 "Why the hell you want to know ? " "It's like lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps." probably perhaps 🤔 Let's go quantum mechanics and see what the "brain" will find there 😂 I'll go and have dump 👋.•°
Dr. Churchland is very underrated.
Amazing woman. Great video!
lot of people in these comments using long words they don't know the meaning of
People wanting to sound smart, a classic
she just made me more confused than I already was...
When one is "confused" there is no help but to READ MORE SCIENTIFIC BOOKS about a subject matter -instead of watching "jumping off a bridge" clips, dah?
(clears throat) Is there any evidence that 'confusion' can be reduced to a physical process in the brain?
@@GregKrsak lmao
@@somakr which bridge? lol. I have been thinking about the same thing ever since online college started...
LOL
thanks for making this video! Loved it
You and your husband are very smart people. Thank you for explaining this
No, they're not.
@@pablo-c-vera Smarter than you haha
Could it be, that there's a factor, by which you can measure your own stupidity, in proportion to how stupid is the people who defend you? - I think there's not, but the idea had just come to my mind. Hmm.
Much thanks for coming up with shorter videos and new knowledge!
Fascinating ❤ your work 👍🏽💪🏆✨️👌🎶🎹🎵🦻
Thank you so much for the enlightenment! Now I know how and what I am going to do tomorrow in my Ethics assigned reporting! Your husband is a legend indeed.xoxo
An interesting point, but to say that desires manifest in brain states which are very different to each other doesn’t mean that desires don’t exist, just that they don’t manifest in the same kind of brain state. A desire (wanting something) is simply an experience of lacking something coupled with a goal to satisfy that lack. Lacking water may cause different brain activity to lacking love, and the subsequent activity which aims to satisfy that lack may look very different, but that doesn’t mean that either of those activities aren’t manifestations of desire. More than that, these different manifestations of desire can interact and compete with each other in meaningful ways, affecting the way we order our actions, hence making these desires integrated on some level and significant in behaviour (insofar as that behaviour is directed at compensating for some lack). This means it is very unlikely that neuroscience will eliminate them from (at least functional) explanations of behaviour.
Thanks for the video, and God bless you all :)
The way I understood this is there could be a scientific explanation for everything and the things that are not "physical" should be left open for scientific progression?
Am I accurate?
Yes, Pat has it all figured out.
Not really
You and your husband is a legend!
I would correct you to "(...) are* a legend!", but I guess the Churchlands always come in a single package indeed lol
@@10mimu true 😂
The main problem that I see with eliminative materialism is applying the "introspective illusion" idea to the intentionality of consciousness. They are correct that folk psychology provides us with incorrect mental states about our real motives. People will project defense mechanisms. I remember reading an article in an evolutionary psychology journal that when women see women who are more attractive then them they will start seeing males who have highly masculine features as immoral. If this is correct, then it is obvious that unconscious motivations are projecting some sort of defense mechanism that hides in an "illusion" of some sort. But, I can't have an illusion about phenomenological intentionality, to even experience an illusion, I need the intentionality of consciousness. This attribute of intentionality is indubitably real, and a sound metaphysics needs to account for it. The problem is that materialism is based upon the idea of extended substances and change through mechanistic causes, and if this is the extent of your metaphysics, then it is metaphysically impossible to account for anything to have the attribute of intentionality, hence the hard problem of consciousness. I appreciate that the eliminative materialists are being consistent in that they realize that impossibility of anything having intentionality in a materialist metaphysics, but they are denying the one reality that cannot be denied, which is our own consciousness and its intentionality.
"The problem is that materialism is based upon the idea of extended substances and change through mechanistic causes (...)"
It is NOT. What you describe is the classic materialism of the 18th and 19th century. This mechanistic vision of the world is largely pre-Newtonian and goes before Einstein's discoveries. The new materialism is physicalism and eliminativists are physicalists too, it is no longer about mechanistic causes because some things are not matter, but come under the description of physics; they are fields, laws and other interactions like gravity which is just a curvature of spacetime. Modern physics is not about mechanistic causes, and modern physics does not claim that everything is matter. For instance, there are point particles that lack spatiality, and they cannot be accounted for by classic materialism. Neither Schroediger effect nor quantum mechanics can be accounted for via mechanistic causes.
Physicalism (modern materialism) merely claims that everything has a physical, explainable (by science) cause. There is no mystery about transcendental realms and immaterial substances (Descartes).
@@mac1414 That still does not solve the problem of consciousness. How does one derive the attribute of intentionality from physical or scientific explanations? There is nothing in physical fields that would be able to generate consciousness unless you have a field which is pure consciousness itself, which our individual consciousness is a point in that field, which would be a form of metaphysical idealism if that field of consciousness is the most fundamental reality. The same problem still arises that was in classical materialism, and that is how does one explain consciousness from realities in which there is no consciousness of any sort, it is a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit. Also, the eliminative materialists accept that consciousness cannot arise from physical reality, there is no way to bridge the intentionality of consciousness to physics, that is why they eliminate it. My main point was to argue that their method of claiming consciousness is an illusion due to folk psychology is wrong due to the reasons I gave in my earlier post. Given that Patricia Churchland is an eliminative materialist, and not a reductive materialist, I would like to focus my criticism more of the faults of eliminative materialism, and not reductive materialism, which has its problems as well.
Platonis Sallustius of course even eliminative materialists like Churchland do explain intentionality, not to mention reductionists and other physicalists. For eliminative materialist explanation of intentionality see Intentional Stance by Daniel Dennett. As for intentionality itself, it is just one concept that is contingent, i.e. it might be true or not, there are anti-intentionalists like Ned Block with very strong arguments against the idea. A standard reductive or eliminative stance is to group all “apparent” mechanisms like these as folk psychology or folk explanations. I could look at something liquid and say it is water but it might, in fact, be liquid mercury, or acid that does not designate H2O no matter how my folk belief does. Accordingly, pain is whatever I can describe in folk language but we know through a posteriori (experiments and observations) that it is in fact a certain fiber activity, just as consciousness is just a pyramidal cell activity. For materialist and physicalist It is as faulty to have a phenomenal explanation of pain in the same way as to explain water by a priori concepts such as “this watery, liquidy thing” that’s says nothing at all what water actually is (H2O) or whether we are in fact right (it might be acid) because we cannot infer any sensible explanations without finding out what it actually is (scientific observation). We definitely cannot find the truth by going with folk psychology and folk explanations.
@@mac1414 This is where we disagree, I believe that intentionality is most certainly true. I accept my phenomenology of I think a thought, or ego cogito cogitatum. I have given an example of where I believe that folk psychology gives problems, which is in my first post, and why that does not apply to intentionality.
"The main problem that I see with eliminative materialism is applying the "introspective illusion" idea to the intentionality of consciousness. They are correct that folk psychology provides us with incorrect mental states about our real motives. People will project defense mechanisms. I remember reading an article in an evolutionary psychology journal that when women see women who are more attractive then them they will start seeing males who have highly masculine features as immoral. If this is correct, then it is obvious that unconscious motivations are projecting some sort of defense mechanism that hides in an "illusion" of some sort. But, I can't have an illusion about phenomenological intentionality, to even experience an illusion, I need the intentionality of consciousness."
This was my main point, and I still stand by it. Intentionality is a necessary condition for any experience.
@@Nyklot439 I don't necessarily disagree. I think that Churchlands make a serious mistake in what they do; they go much too far in trying to do away with psychology and to replace it with neuroscientific explanations. Nothing invalidates "folk" psychological explanations, they are just different frameworks that can be translated at some level of natural science and have equal validity. I merely think that if we are to get any scientific knowledge about mechanisms of the brain then we have to retort to science; phenomenology won't tell us what is firing and where it in the brain et cetera.
Eliminative materialism is no solution to the mind-body problem, it's an attempt to dissolve the problem by denying the existence of the mind. However, a denial of the mind is contradictory. There's another way to dissolve the problem: we keep the mind as fundamental and reduce every other object to the mind and ideas/perceptions.
This reply gave more information and made more sense than this entire video
You didn't get it. Churchland is correct. Mind is a muddled word. Brain is a concrete words. Minds are simply what brains do.
"by denying the existence of the mind"...No it bloody doesn't. It's about changing the scientific terminology that we use to describe and explain mental phenomena. And how exactly does reducing everything to mental phenomena solve the problem?
Your pseudo-intellectual reply makes no sense and is based on false premises. Can't be taken seriously
@@smoshbooz That's an assertion, not an argument. Or, to be less polite - word salad. So you can't be taken seriously. Nice try
Wait, is she saying that the importance of fundamental elements wasn't actualized from the pre-Socratics until Mendeleev?
Nah, she is basically saying, that after Mendeleev, studies of pre-Socratics became irrelevant and some sort of "fake science" so, it got eliminated.
Our behavior is a subset of the mind but the mind is only a syllogistic process and an ephemeral construct of the brain. The mind awakens and clashes with the operations of the brain only while we are conscious. It is our Gestalt, the sum of who we are as a whole organism.
The brain subconsciously performs hundreds of essential functions and regulatory processes without any input from the mind to maintain our homeostasis. Meanwhile the mind can only effectively function consciously and focus on and handle one thing at a time. Yes we can do more than one thing but not simultaneously at any given moment.
More importantly the mind can act and often is completely irrational in its conclusions, actions and intent. Those are usually dependent on a person's biases, which in turn stem from the trust placed in our sources. We may drop everything, rush off to a place half way around the world we've never been, to fight for and champion a cause we've been told is worth risking our lives for. We would put ourselves in mortal danger for the benefit of someone else's survival, shared moralistic ideals or mythological beliefs. Acting alone our brain would not. JMHO.
The law of the jungle is preferable to having a mind? Reptile behaviour is morally and socially better do you say? Of course you cannot maintain that. The mind is our social moral side. It decides good and bad, better or worse, not the brain. The brain is a physical thing, not the mental processes themselves.
In other words the Churchlands are a comedy act. Good for a laugh, but not science.
In 40 years of neuroscience, no one still has any idea how to reduce consciousness to the structure and activities of the brain…In no way does that entail consciousness doesn’t exist or it’s not fundamental aspect of reality. Neuroscience only lets you conclude reductionist physicalism has utterly failed as a metaphysical worldview.
Wasn't this postulated by BF Skinner? He said that there's no such thing as "the will" and such mentalist concepts.
Skinner is a radical behaviourist, not a materialist
Skinner would ultimately explain something like "pain" entirely in reference to behavior. (He is a materialist but not the same kind as Churchland.) Churchland thinks that "pain" ultimately will be best explained entirely in reference to brain and neurons. That is different. (If you weren't looking fo this fine-grained a difference, that is fine.)
One could be an eliminativist behaviorist and I think Skinner surely was.
Brain is a solidified thought.
I mean, this is a HUGE begging the question... everything makes sense if you construct an argument on totally made-up assumptions. For instance, 0:28, "there is only the brain, consciousness is just mental states". Well, I'm really surprised that scientists need to be reminded that correlation does not mean causation. There is plenty of firefighters at any given wild fire, and they are assuming that firefighters cause wild fires :)
I don’t know if it’s begging the question: her view assumes materialism, but imagine another materialist view, which is that it might turn out that our everyday vocabulary for mental states fits very well with descriptions of the states of the brain. If you mean materialism is unfounded, well, even if you don’t agree with materialism, it’s reasonable argue for positions which simply build upon others you happen to have, even if they don’t command universal agreement
this is nice, thank you :)
İngilizce biliyorum ancak Türkçe alt yazı ekleyen kişiye buradan teşekkür ediyorum.
Short answer = Self-refuting
So its difference from solipsism is it also denies one more mind?
No, EM asserts that "mind" is brain.
@@woodygilson3465 never mind my question about mind
When we are focusing at materialistic states of the mind, let's say 5ht2b firing at hippocampus (just an invented example) we're really saying nothing but in the field of neurology, so what makes no sense at all is trying to reduce all human experience, or spiritual, pre or postmaterial display or frameworks in which saying "will is the moment when hippocampus or prefrontal cortex working this or that way" makes no sense at all and is just the fact that science is just condemned to be incomplete, absolutely incomplete to understand and explain human experience at all. Is very useful for whatever science wants to research, in order to make eugenics or medicine more efficient but not in the terms of eliminating other philosophical points of view or the truly definitive words and understanding of pre-scientific or post-scientific speech. Materialists obssesive persons are just so dull-minded and boring. I think Wittgenstein (among a lot others) profoundly knew this.
Thank you, this is scientific positivism at ITS WORST.
This answered my hw question , thanks Patricia!
Thanks mam
lit
thanksssssss
How is it possible that this awful idea even came to existence. Basically she believes that none of the human beings, including herself, have any feelings or thoughts at all. Abominable.
What?! No. That's ridiculous. She's saying that as knowledge of the brain continues to increase, scientists may have to find new terminology to describe certain brain states, and society may have to rethink today's folk psychology.
Well it's clear you don't have thoughts.
In my opinion, Eliminativism is the most ridiculous materialist position. There is never mind; it's a "desperate get-out-of-jail" card to explain subjectivity, in a physicist's model. It also poses challenges to moral responsibility. If eliminativism denies the existence of certain mental states, it could raise questions about traditional notions of moral responsibility. Ethical frameworks often rely on concepts like intention, consciousness, and agency, and the elimination of these concepts may require a reevaluation of moral principles. Moreover, it has an impact on personal identity. Eliminativist views might challenge conventional notions of personal identity, which can have implications for ethical discussions on issues like autonomy, accountability, and the nature of ethical agents. In the end, it’s my opinion, and there’s no empirical evidence that subjectivity cannot be explained in a physical model. But again, in my opinion, Eliminativism is not it! People are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.
Sounds like you want to be something like those gods from Discworld or a robot
what rubbish. why are there Canadians in US universities??
Eliminative materialism is the best thing that could happen to both science and philosophy.
But where do you stop, and how do you justify stopping there? No mental, no physical, no atoms, no quarks, is there a bottom?
@@caricue If some “deeper” substrate were discovered, in terms of which we could explain things, then I suppose in the same spirit, one could be an “eliminative X-ist”, where you eliminate our existing scientific terms for terms in the language of this new theory?
@@MrNewberryL Hey, I don't even remember making the comment you responded to. I think I was in the midst of an argument with someone who was insisting that they knew the Objective Truth and this meant that there was no self, no consciousness, no nothin'. It sure sounds like a snarky question to me, and I wrote it apparently, so I should know😵. Are you being ironic or do you think that the most basic human experiences are illusions or constructs or whatever?
@@caricue I think human experiences are real (I'm not myself committed to any view here). But I think an eliminativist would think so too; what they deny, I think, is that science needs to support or legitimise our ordinary language use. I'm not persuaded they end up denying human experience itself, though I'm far from an expert
Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel - all losers wrong about the existence of the soul. Clearly, this slattern is right about the most fundamental human questions.
You are Insane.
Pretty sure she have no actual conscious experiences, haha.
Just kidding. But kind of not.
The latest reductive nonsense in the pipeline; the equivalent of the Behaviorism nonsense of the past mid century. Eliminative materialism needs to be returned to the dust where it belongs.
Rescue Philosophy from this nonsense; it is an embarrassment to the profession. That this woman calls herself a philosopher is a misnomer; she is as far from being a philosopher as a rabbit is from being a lion.
She belongs in a lab. In a white coat studying vials; material substances. Keep her away from the human brain, from consciousness, from mind, from rationality; because she obviously doesn’t have any.
Something totally clicked watching this.
The brain investigating on itself.
🤔
"Why the hell you want to know ? "
"It's like lifting yourself up by your own bootstraps."
probably
perhaps
🤔
Let's go quantum mechanics and see what the "brain" will find there 😂
I'll go and have dump 👋.•°
Sorry, but I don't listen to self-proclaimed objects.
YAWN!
"bruh what if you don't actually exist lmao"
Solipsism ? hehe
Imagine a congress of of solipsists where they fight about on - Which one is really there ?
😂
Best joke ever .•°