Only in relation to something else, ever heard of relativity?
I don’t, but I try to take thoughts seriously.
The goal-directed behaviour of self-replicating molecules exists whether we can explain it or not. The desire for an explanation doesn’t give me the right to make one up.
Well at least you seem to acknowledge some intrinsic properties which is a step in the right direction I guess.
Ermmm, your self is an illusion that takes thoughts seriously (according to naturalism anyway)? Figure that… gonna explain yourself…?
Well now, at least you acknowledge goal-directedness as an objective intrinsic feature of some types of molecules. Another step in the right direction it seems I guess.
Why do you think that objective means intrinsic?
Straw man. I don’t.
Objective vs subjective
Intrinsic vs acquired
You, the real you and not some the illusory you need to ultimately figure this one out in order to avoid future straw men fallacies :D.
OK, so how would one objectively determine whether a property of a fundamental particle was intrinsic vs acquired (extrinsic)? Please note that I am not referring to intensive and extensive properties which describe systems.
Scientifically, philosophically, metaphysically?
I am not sure how you would determine it scientifically. Since this is the philosophy section, I think we can philosophically try by making use of reason and logic. Of course, people who think they, themselves, are real and not illusions as well as responsible for their thoughts are needed. Which kinda leaves materialists and naturalists out in the cold… but just for fun they can try don’t you think?
This thread appears to contradict the doctrine of final causes. It started off early in April, trying to reach consensus on a list of statements, failed to do so, repeatedly changed the statements in search of consensus, failed, assumed consensus where there was none, added more statements, yet the mysterious final cause (that means purpose) eludes us while we wait in anxious anticipation. Will the coup de grace be revealed before the rapture? Don’t go away.
What is the supposed final cause of this thread in your opinion…? A consensus? A demonstration of how certain views of reality logically leads to eliminative materialism? Something else?
Let’s stick to 5 and 6. Do you agree with the following statements?
5) The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
6) Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion
Almost needless to say, the inspiration behind this thread is an ongoing scheme to hasten the manufacture of a straw manikin for later shredding. There is only one materialist here (or anywhere else, for that matter), insisting that materialism is a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position, and that’s the one made of bubblegum, string and paper clips, mincing around with its put-on substantiality in the chief builder’s head.
Watching this transparent diorama unfold, well, it’s just too precious for words.
'Luthon64
Let’s get this clear. You start a thread on eliminative materialism Q&A, you ask lists of agree or disagree questions, you adapt your questions when someone has objections, you claim that we have a broad consensus, you then add more questions, and now you ask me what the final cause of the thread should be? Should you not have thought of that before you started?
Would that be 5 and 6 across or down? Do we have some of the letters yet?
So in other words you’re gonna make shit up. Guess you can count me out, thanks. 
Good one Mefi! ;D
I can only imagine how dull and boring a “complete and fully-developed metaphysical position” would be.
My goodness, you seem to find straw men amusing quite often. One thing you got right at least is that materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position. Eliminative materialism of course is a clear position and has clear implications.
I think you missed the point of this thread btw. The point being that certain views of reality logically leads to eliminative materialism. Hence the Q&A to see who are eliminative materialists. Mintaka seems to be comfortable with the idea with him being not sure whether thoughts actually exist.
No, you are not evading the question, just being cute right? Here they are again anyway: Do you agree with the following statememnts?
5) The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
6) Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion
No, philosophy, reason and logic. Is the real you out or your delusional self? I wonder, are you responsibly for making the choice to stay out :o?
Yes, and yours I find particularly amusing because they are so great in number, so shoddily assembled and so anorexically threadbare – sort of like The Three Strawges, all clumsiness and gaucherie. Thanks for the entertainment.
Wow, that’s a corker of porkie! Given your Internet history, just how dim-witted do you think your audience really is?
'Luthon64
I find your notion that we are obliged to fill in your questionnaires in order to be classified by you rather presumptuous.
Oh, it’s a pleasure. It is good to see you find my so-called straw men amusing, it must have something to do with your own great number of “shoddily assembled and so anorexically threadbare” terracotta army of straw men.
Oh you surprise me more and more, don’t worry.
You are not obliged. If you want to be a troll in this thread and evade the simple questions so be it. No need to be so presumptuous and assume you are obliged. Just ignore it or go ahead and troll and evade questions like usual…
So, which one are you, then? Larry, Curly or Moe?
Nah, it’s the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Well, in that case at least I’m of some use to you, aren’t I?
'Luthon64
From the start the prevailing question on this thread has been one of intent. The cat now appears to be out of the bag: Teleological has been conducting a survey of forum members in order to pigeonhole them. Under the circumstances portraying a lack of collaboration as a failure to answer questions is disingenuous. Calling another forum member a troll is plainly bad manners.
This thread was started in April in response to a request from me explain the logic the OP was claiming as obvious in another thread. Something to the effect that naturalism leads to eliminative materialism. If I get the finer details wrong, may I be forgiven given the time involved? I could of course try to pierce it altogether but fail to see why it should be my problem.
One of the threads opened was one on my position that thoughts are real if not physical.That went nowhere, I suspect because the OP actually agrees with my views. He certainly hasn’t advanced anything in the format of a counter argument for consideration.
It is now three months later and we are no further than we were originally. I humbly suggest any logical argument that takes so much time and effort is so beyond the ludicrous as to approach the divine. As in divinely stupid. About four threads in all went up because the individual in question is incapable of formulating a cohesive and comprehensive argument and fail on several counts in the ability to present and form a sound presentation of his views. The logic needed is simply beyond him. And evasion a natural reflex.
This is not an ad hom attack. This is simply me stating the truth as I see it. I, of course, remain to be convinced by the necessary evidence to be swayed from the current point of view I maintain. Let me assure you that none would be more surprised than I. It would be a miracle of epic proportions.
or to put it differently and more bluntly - I declare this thread open to flaming 
It deserves no better.
Holey Jihaaaaaaaad
My own view of this lamentable fiasco is rather more immediate and perhaps narrower for it. Within the space of around ten posts, you-know-who has decisively alienated two more people with his hopscotch BS. The body count continues to rise. That he draws no lessons from these repeated episodes is almost as instructive as it is amusing. While it is somewhat regrettable that everybody he touches must learn this lesson for themselves, it does show why, in practice, faith will always trump reason: because faith cares not a whit about reason except as a means to a pre-selected end.
'Luthon64