Eliminative Materialism Q&A

[Mechanist1]

Hey look, oh no, another one of my threads have ended up in flame wars.
My bad, have fun, bye now.

[Irreverend]

@Teleological

So irreverend, what do you think of these question matey:
Do you believe that everything in it is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described?
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect (be it as a result of a lack of evidence or philosophical or metaphysical reasons) that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?

Sorry, had to pop away for a mo’ and help Mrs. Irreverend fold up some clothes fresh from the dryer.

Not so hasty, matey. Despite the monumental size of your delusions of grandeur you’re not the forum admin.

Here’s a promise, though. Written, nogal. I’ll answer your questions above just as soon as you convincingly address my points to you in this thread. Go for it. Stun me with some substance. No ducking and diving now, see?

[cyghost]

@Teleological post:37

@Irreverend post:36

I take myself seriously enough to realize that you’re an intellectual crook of the first water. You still haven’t acknowledged anything of substance or answered any questions. That latest batch of lies of yours is just too lekker.

Does “materialism doesn’t have all the answers yet, but let’s see yours in the meantime” make that walnut you call a “brain” go all hurty-hurty?

EDIT: I have no interest whatsoever in “adding value” where your ignorant delusions are concerned. But you can. Very simply. Stop lying and pretending to your audience that what you’re doing is honest inquiry.

So… you only contribute by making ad hominems and making arguments from ignorance in order to derail any inquiry into how eliminative materialism might be rationally unavoidable given certain beliefs… Boring, sorry, there are other forumites who are more interesting. Good bye.

Returning to the questions, just to make sure, who (tentatively or wholly) answered the following questions in the affirmative:
Q&A Question 1:
Do you believe that everything in it is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described?

To clarify:

1. The fundamental particles do not have any substructure and are not made up of anything else. These include the basic building blocks of the universe such as quarks, leptons and gauge bosons. Explanations of gravitation, dark matter, or dark energy are also reducible to mathematically describable fundamental particles in motion. If you accept string theory, then strings would be the fundamental “particles”.
2. The fundamental particles are described as being part of space and time and all forces are mathematically describable. (See above, reply #15)
3. The only properties (not qualities) of these fundamental particles are related to their size, shape, mass and motion as well as plus or minus derivative properties such as charge that can be mathematically described.
4. Fundamental particles and their properties exist objectively irrespective of any mind/observer reality/interpretation.
5. Fundamental particles have no inherent qualities, meaning there is nothing in fundamental particles that resembles our perceptions of hotness, coldness, colourfulness or any particular sound, smell, taste or any mental state. Objectively speaking, fundamental particles are colourless, tasteless, and odourless and do not have any hotness or coldness etc. as these perceptions are just subjectively constructed projections and sensations in the minds of observers.
6. Hotness or coldness or redness or smelliness are subjective experiences and reducible to mathematical explanations in terms of fundamental particles. The hotness observed by observers are subjective and not objectively empirical or mathematically describable as the degree of hotness can differ among individuals. For example a person with a faulty hypothalamus might describe the hotness of a system differently to a normal person even though both describe the same system. The system being described has the same mathematically describable kinetic energy while the hotness of the same system is subjectively described by two observers with two different descriptions of hotness.

Anybody in agreement with the above? What is wrong?

If so, Question 2 is as follows:
Do you think or believe there is no reason to suspect (be it as a result of a lack of evidence or philosophical or metaphysical reasons) that there is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics?

cyghost already gave away his dualist tendencies by saying “Thoughts, dreams, fantasies are not particles but they exist.”
Boohie agreed for arguments sake.
Peter Grant? Mintaka? Gotcha? Lilli?

Why the fuck must you always repeat things ad nauseum? Any dualistic tendencies you have “discovered” in my words reflect on you and you only. Please move this argument along or open a fourth thread. But stop putting words in my mouth.

[Mechanist1]

Having tentatively agreed for arguments sake on the following:

1. Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.
2. There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.

Do you agree with the following statements?
3) There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour at the fundamental level of physics.

and

4. The behaviour of fundamental particles is inherently purposeless and meaningless.

and

5. There are no kinds of things other than physical things and by physical I mean anything that has a measurable property.

[Mintaka]

1) Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.

in principle, yes

2) There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.

agree

3) There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour at the fundamental level of physics.

correct!

4) The behaviour of fundamental particles is inherently purposeless and meaningless.

well done !!!

5) There are no kinds of things other than physical things and by physical I mean anything that has a measurable property.

RIGHT AGAIN!

See? You are learning already.

Now, please play your long anticipated trump card. The suspense is killing me.

Mintaka

[Peter_Grant]

@Teleological post:44

4. The behaviour of fundamental particles is inherently purposeless and meaningless.

Why “inherently”? I doubt that purposelessness or meaninglessness is heritable.

[Hermes]

@Teleological post:44

[size=10pt]
4) The behaviour of fundamental particles is inherently purposeless and meaningless.

and

5. There are no kinds of things other than physical things and by physical I mean anything that has a measurable property.

4. I don’t think “inherent purpose” can be proved to exist. Purpose can only exist in relation to something else. Humans are taught from childhood to ascribe purpose to all kinds of objects, but that only applies in as far as it serves us or something external to itself. It may be for this reason that humans invented gods, because they feel useless if they do not have a purpose.

5. My view on this is to some extent dualist, but not in a spiritual sense. I do believe that thoughts, emotions, dreams etc. can be said to “exist” in the broader context of the word, but not independently from a physical brain. I reject the idea of a “soul” as an entity separate from the body.

[Irreverend]

Don’t expect a reply from the Dodger-in-Chief. At least not one that is relevant to the thread’s topic.

[Peter_Grant]

@Hermes post:47

5. My view on this is to some extent dualist, but not in a spiritual sense. I do believe that thoughts, emotions, dreams etc. can be said to “exist” in the broader context of the word, but not independently from a physical brain. I reject the idea of a “soul” as an entity separate from the body.

That doesn’t sound very dualist to me. Would you agree that a sufficiently complex computer program could be equivalent to a “soul” in some sense?

[Hermes]

I don’t have an objection to that description. Eugene Marais talks of the “Soul of the Ape” and the “Soul of the White Ant”. This has nothing to do with ghosts, but rather with the very essence of those communities. The “soul” in the case of your computer programme would require hardware in order to exist.

@Peter Grant post:46

[size=10pt]
Why “inherently”? I doubt that purposelessness or meaninglessness is heritable.

I think you confuse “inherent” with “inherit”.

[Mechanist1]

Mmm, “inherently” does not sound right does it. I think a better word would be intrinsically not?

Anyway, moving along:
Seems we have sort of an agreement with the following five statements:

1. Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.
2. There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.
3. There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour or intrinsic directionality at the fundamental level of physics.
4. The behaviour of fundamental particles is intrinsically purposeless and meaningless.
5. There are no kinds of things other than physical or material things and by physical/material I mean anything that has a measurable property.

How about the following statements:
6) The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
7) Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion.

[Peter_Grant]

@Hermes post:50

I think you confuse “inherent” with “inherit”.

When we talk about inherent traits we are generally referring to qualities which are inherited and cannot be changed. If something is inherently purposeless then it cannot by definition serve any purpose, which is impossible.

@Teleological post:51

Mmm, “inherently” does not sound right does it. I think a better word would be intrinsically not?

…

4. The behaviour of fundamental particles is intrinsically purposeless and meaningless.

The term intrinsic denotes a property of the particles themselves. Purpose or purposelessness are not properties ascribable to fundamental particles. You could say:

4. The behaviour of fundamental particles has no intrinsic purpose or meaning.

[Lilli]

@Teleological post:51

Mmm, “inherently” does not sound right does it. I think a better word would be intrinsically not?

Spot the linguist - hehe
To my knowledge ‘intrinsic’ and ‘inherent’ are synonyms.

in·her·ent (ĭn-hîr'ənt, -hěr'-) adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent

in·trin·sic (ĭn-trĭn'zĭk, -sĭk) adj. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic But I do admit that an online dictionary is perhaps not the best source of information...

[Mechanist1]

@Lilli post:53

@Teleological post:51

Mmm, “inherently” does not sound right does it. I think a better word would be intrinsically not?

Spot the linguist - hehe
To my knowledge ‘intrinsic’ and ‘inherent’ are synonyms.

in·her·ent (ĭn-hîr'ənt, -hěr'-) adj. Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inherent

in·trin·sic (ĭn-trĭn'zĭk, -sĭk) adj. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic But I do admit that an online dictionary is perhaps not the best source of information...

I don’t mind “inherently” and “intrinsically” being used interchangeably as long as it is not confused with inherit.

[Peter_Grant]

@Teleological post:54

I don’t mind “inherently” and “intrinsically” being used interchangeably as long as it is not confused with inherit.

Either way you are committing a fallacy of composition by inferring that something is necessarily true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A rock is purposeless, but a man holding a rock can be quite purposeful.

[Mechanist1]

@Peter Grant post:55

@Teleological post:54

I don’t mind “inherently” and “intrinsically” being used interchangeably as long as it is not confused with inherit.

Either way you are committing a fallacy of composition by inferring that something is necessarily true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. A rock is purposeless, but a man holding a rock can be quite purposeful.

There is no fallacy of composition if you take the statement:
4) The behaviour of fundamental particles is intrinsically purposeless and meaningless.
just as it is without adding any straw men.

[Peter_Grant]

@Teleological post:56

There is no fallacy of composition if you take the statement:
4) The behaviour of fundamental particles is intrinsically purposeless and meaningless.
just as it is without adding any straw men.

But how can I just take it as it is? What reason do I have to believe you? What would fundamental particles with purpose and meaning do?

All I’m saying is that fundamental particles show no evidence of purposeful or meaningful behaviour so far, but someone might find some someday, who knows?

[Mechanist1]

@Peter Grant post:57

@Teleological post:56

There is no fallacy of composition if you take the statement:
4) The behaviour of fundamental particles is intrinsically purposeless and meaningless.
just as it is without adding any straw men.

But how can I just take it as it is? What reason do I have to believe you? What would fundamental particles with purpose and meaning do?

All I’m saying is that fundamental particles show no evidence of purposeful or meaningful behaviour so far, but someone might find some someday, who knows?

Errr, a few problems here:

1. This is the “Eliminative Materialism Q&A”. If you don’t like the proposition, then fine, you do not have to agree with it.
2. You don’t have to believe me or yourself since neither of us are ultimately responsible for what we say or think from your naturalistic point of view. Why you bother is quite the mystery but entertaining at the same time.
3. I am not asking what fundamental particles with purpose and meaning do, but whether you think it is an objective feature, an intrinsic property of fundamental particles. One day when you think you are ultimately responsible for your thoughts then perhaps you can give an answer because no-one but yourself will figure out the answer to that.

Anyway, I think number four is perhaps a bit confusing. I think number four can be left out without any harm in order for the thread to proceed. How about these then, do anyone agree with these statements:

1. Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.
2. There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.
3. There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour or intrinsic directionality at the fundamental level of physics.
4. There are no kinds of things other than physical or material things and by physical/material I mean anything that has a measurable property.
5. The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
6. Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion.

[Peter_Grant]

@Teleological post:58

1. This is the “Eliminative Materialism Q&A”. If you don’t like the proposition, then fine, you do not have to agree with it.

If the proposition was anything more than a straw-man based on Plato’s essentialism I might have to.

@Teleological post:58

2. You don’t have to believe me or yourself since neither of us are ultimately responsible for what we say or think from your naturalistic point of view. Why you bother is quite the mystery but entertaining at the same time.

When you figure out why I bother I am sure it will loose it’s appeal.

@Teleological post:58

3. I am not asking what fundamental particles with purpose and meaning do, but whether you think it is an objective feature, an intrinsic property of fundamental particles.

I don’t see any evidence for intrinsic properties, all observed properties are the result of some kind of interaction.

@Teleological post:58

One day when you think you are ultimately responsible for your thoughts then perhaps you can give an answer because no-one but yourself will figure out the answer to that.

I don’t require ultimate responsibility to think.

@Teleological post:58

Anyway, I think number four is perhaps a bit confusing. I think number four can be left out without any harm in order for the thread to proceed. How about these then, do anyone agree with these statements:

1. Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.
2. There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.
3. There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour or intrinsic directionality at the fundamental level of physics.
4. There are no kinds of things other than physical or material things and by physical/material I mean anything that has a measurable property.
5. The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
6. Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion.

Some relatively stable arrangements of fundamental particles form atoms and molecules. Some of these molecules do display emergent “goal-directedness or purposive behaviour” by making copies of themselves out of surrounding molecules. Those which are better at making copies spread at the expense of those which are not as good. The rest is history.

[Mechanist1]

@Peter Grant post:59

I don’t see any evidence for intrinsic properties, all observed properties are the result of some kind of interaction.

Woot? Not even charge, spin, tension, mass, size, shape?

@Peter Grant post:59

@Teleological post:58

One day when you think you are ultimately responsible for your thoughts then perhaps you can give an answer because no-one but yourself will figure out the answer to that.

I don’t require ultimate responsibility to think.

You do need consciousness and yourself though. Something that naturalism posits as illusions. This leads to an intriguing question… why do you take yourself seriously?

@Peter Grant post:59

Some relatively stable arrangements of fundamental particles form atoms and molecules. Some of these molecules do display emergent “goal-directedness or purposive behaviour” by making copies of themselves out of surrounding molecules. Those which are better at making copies spread at the expense of those which are not as good. The rest is history.

"emergent “goal-directedness or purposive behaviour”? Do explain there. It just happens right? No need for you to explain?