How to deal (in terms of life)

[Darkneos]

Lmao okay buddy. Let me know when you learn to read beyond the words you want to read.

Let me spell it out for you: I said upfront that not all reductionists are elimitavist, but some are. The Stanford article also says that not all reductionists are elimitavist but some are. You are latching onto the "some are" but from the article like a rabid retarded dog and saying "see see you're wrong! It says you're wrong!" No it doesn't say I'm wrong, get over your rabies for a moment and see that it says what I have been saying the whole time: not all reductionists are elimitavist, but some are.

I'm not even talking about the "some are" just going off the quote you gave me. It says they are realists about the reduced phenomenon, not about things beyond that. You're the one taking that to mean they still think people exist when the entire article says they don't.

The article itself even mentions that reductionism isn't sufficient to explain reality as well.

You're the one not reading the links the gave, the entire post supports what I've been saying.

[Darkneos]

so you obviously didn't read it because it actually backs my position and shows you're mistaken.

Okay, you're philosophically illiterate, I get it now.

It is odd. On page one of this thing he's telling us that he is so excellent at doubting things that he almost crashed his car because he doubted the other cars were real due to his near life-ending dalliance with solipsism.

But having initially interpreted the word "conservative" in a text to mean that a set of philosophers are extremely careful not to say more than they have proven, he is now unable to doubt his own prior misread and note that conservative in that context is as opposed to eliminative and relates to conserving the reduced phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

It would be much more useful for darkneos to occasionally doubt that he is the smartest person in the room than it is for him to doubt that this is a hand and this is another hand.

That's not what conservative in the text means, it's an endorsement of eliminative not a opposition to it.

Unless by "reality that reduced to that base" they mean whatever thing is made up of the reducing base. That would explain the part about if thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real then so are thoughts.

But even then that's not what the original remark on lesswrong is arguing, that's hardcore reductionism which suggests anything beyond the atomic level isn't really and it just a "mult-level abstraction".

[Darkneos]

This isn't that difficult imo.
Are all reductionists eliminative reductionists? No.
Is non-eliminative reductionism a coherent view? No.
Is eliminative reductionism a coherent view? Yes. Is it correct? No.

How can it be coherent and not correct?

And I know you argue against levels like the guy from lesswrong is doing but you still say people exist, how does that work

[Flannel Jesus]

I'm not even talking about the "some are" just going off the quote you gave me. It says they are realists about the reduced phenomenon, not about things beyond that.

"Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts."

Did you miss this whole last sentence? Or are you misinterpreting it? What's going on?

Thoughts obviously are not being treated as fundamental here, in this bit of text. And yet reductionists think they exist. Ergo, reductionists do not think only fundamental things exist. Ergo they're not all elimitavists.

[Flannel Jesus]

Okay, you're philosophically illiterate, I get it now.

It is odd. On page one of this thing he's telling us that he is so excellent at doubting things that he almost crashed his car because he doubted the other cars were real due to his near life-ending dalliance with solipsism.

But having initially interpreted the word "conservative" in a text to mean that a set of philosophers are extremely careful not to say more than they have proven, he is now unable to doubt his own prior misread and note that conservative in that context is as opposed to eliminative and relates to conserving the reduced phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

It would be much more useful for darkneos to occasionally doubt that he is the smartest person in the room than it is for him to doubt that this is a hand and this is another hand.

That's not what conservative in the text means, it's an endorsement of eliminative not a opposition to it.

Let's see what the text says:

"Though conservative realism is the norm, some reductionists take a more anti-realist view. In such cases the reducing phenomena are taken to replace the prior phenomena which are in turn eliminated. "

Conservative realism is the norm, and it's contrasted against a more anti realist view. What anti realist view? Obviously, clearly, an elimitavist one - see the bolded word.

You're behaving like an illiterate lunatic in this conversation.

[Darkneos]

I'm not even talking about the "some are" just going off the quote you gave me. It says they are realists about the reduced phenomenon, not about things beyond that.

"Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts."

Did you miss this whole last sentence? Or are you misinterpreting it? What's going on?

Thoughts obviously are not being treated as fundamental here, in this bit of text. And yet reductionists think they exist. Ergo, reductionists do not think only fundamental things exist. Ergo they're not all elimitavists.

Riiiiight, but that's not what the link I gave is saying. Lesswrong dude is arguing that anything beyond the fundamental does not exist because it's just a "multi-level-model" and not really reality. He throws around "the map is not the territory".

[Darkneos]

It is odd. On page one of this thing he's telling us that he is so excellent at doubting things that he almost crashed his car because he doubted the other cars were real due to his near life-ending dalliance with solipsism.

But having initially interpreted the word "conservative" in a text to mean that a set of philosophers are extremely careful not to say more than they have proven, he is now unable to doubt his own prior misread and note that conservative in that context is as opposed to eliminative and relates to conserving the reduced phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

It would be much more useful for darkneos to occasionally doubt that he is the smartest person in the room than it is for him to doubt that this is a hand and this is another hand.

That's not what conservative in the text means, it's an endorsement of eliminative not a opposition to it.

Let's see what the text says:

"Though conservative realism is the norm, some reductionists take a more anti-realist view. In such cases the reducing phenomena are taken to replace the prior phenomena which are in turn eliminated. "

Conservative realism is the norm, and it's contrasted against a more anti realist view. What anti realist view? Obviously, clearly, an elimitavist one - see the bolded word.

You're behaving like an illiterate lunatic in this conversation.

I get that now, I misread the earlier comment. But the eliminative view is what LW is saying.

[Flannel Jesus]

Riiiiight, but that's not what the link I gave is saying. Lesswrong dude is arguing that anything beyond the fundamental does not exist because it's just a "multi-level-model" and not really reality. He throws around "the map is not the territory".

You were making claims about reductionism as a whole, not just LW. So you see now that reductionism isn't inherently elimitavist, and emergent things can exist to a normal reductionist?

[FlashDangerpants]

Okay, you're philosophically illiterate, I get it now.

It is odd. On page one of this thing he's telling us that he is so excellent at doubting things that he almost crashed his car because he doubted the other cars were real due to his near life-ending dalliance with solipsism.

But having initially interpreted the word "conservative" in a text to mean that a set of philosophers are extremely careful not to say more than they have proven, he is now unable to doubt his own prior misread and note that conservative in that context is as opposed to eliminative and relates to conserving the reduced phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

It would be much more useful for darkneos to occasionally doubt that he is the smartest person in the room than it is for him to doubt that this is a hand and this is another hand.

That's not what conservative in the text means, it's an endorsement of eliminative not a opposition to it.

It definitely isn't. You missed the words "in that respect" in the quote: "Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts." Clearly does not endorse eliminating thought. It conserves the phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

Read the quote as many times as you must in order to get that you have made an error and need to walk it back. Please don't try to say it doesn't matter because you have some other bee in your bonnet instead.

Unless by "reality that reduced to that base" they mean whatever thing is made up of the reducing base. That would explain the part about if thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real then so are thoughts.

You stand on the cusp of realisation, now get there.

But even then that's not what the original remark on lesswrong is arguing, that's hardcore reductionism which suggests anything beyond the atomic level isn't really and it just a "mult-level abstraction".

You have to learn to read more carefully and to put effort into understanding what other voices are saying before you can make progress. When you fuck up, you gotta learn from it. Don't brush it away with a misdirection to some other topic.

[Darkneos]

It is odd. On page one of this thing he's telling us that he is so excellent at doubting things that he almost crashed his car because he doubted the other cars were real due to his near life-ending dalliance with solipsism.

But having initially interpreted the word "conservative" in a text to mean that a set of philosophers are extremely careful not to say more than they have proven, he is now unable to doubt his own prior misread and note that conservative in that context is as opposed to eliminative and relates to conserving the reduced phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

It would be much more useful for darkneos to occasionally doubt that he is the smartest person in the room than it is for him to doubt that this is a hand and this is another hand.

That's not what conservative in the text means, it's an endorsement of eliminative not a opposition to it.

It definitely isn't. You missed the words "in that respect" in the quote: "Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative. They are committed to the reality of the reducing base and thus to the reality of whatever reduces to that base. If thoughts reduce to brain states and if these brain states are real, then so too are thoughts." Clearly does not endorse eliminating thought. It conserves the phenomenon rather than eliminating it.

Read the quote as many times as you must in order to get that you have made an error and need to walk it back. Please don't try to say it doesn't matter because you have some other bee in your bonnet instead.

Unless by "reality that reduced to that base" they mean whatever thing is made up of the reducing base. That would explain the part about if thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real then so are thoughts.

You stand on the cusp of realisation, now get there.

But even then that's not what the original remark on lesswrong is arguing, that's hardcore reductionism which suggests anything beyond the atomic level isn't really and it just a "mult-level abstraction".

You have to learn to read more carefully and to put effort into understanding what other voices are saying before you can make progress. When you fuck up, you gotta learn from it. Don't brush it away with a misdirection to some other topic.

It's not a misdirection, the original point being made was about what the original guy was saying about reductionism. Then it got to this part. The point I made was the original person is arguing about there being only the one and everything else is just a model. If anything this was a misdirection.

[Darkneos]

Riiiiight, but that's not what the link I gave is saying. Lesswrong dude is arguing that anything beyond the fundamental does not exist because it's just a "multi-level-model" and not really reality. He throws around "the map is not the territory".

You were making claims about reductionism as a whole, not just LW. So you see now that reductionism isn't inherently elimitavist, and emergent things can exist to a normal reductionist?

I get that, but I'm not talking about other reductionists I'm talking about LW who is arguing anything that is not the fundamental level is not real, hence their remarks about patterns and people.

[FlashDangerpants]

It's not a misdirection, the original point being made was about what the original guy was saying about reductionism. Then it got to this part. The point I made was the original person is arguing about there being only the one and everything else is just a model. If anything this was a misdirection.

You know what, I think we should try and scare you straight. So in the spirit of Dickens' Christmas Carol, I am going to show you the ghost of Darkneos future so that you can see him in all his shambles and try to learn from his mistakes before they become your own. Luckily you are now an expert in all matters Eliminative Materialist so you are well placed to understand the terrifying tale of Immanuel Can - and why you should make sure you don't grow up to become that guy.

Our story begins a couple of days ago when Willy B tries to explain a fairly innocuous thing to the benighted hero of our dismal play about How Physics Works when real physicists are doing it. As you read this try and see if you can see any eliminative materialism in there...

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.
The "precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations", quantum mechanics and chaos notwithstanding, is due in large part to the technology developed to observe and measure phenomena. That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making. See here for example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... we-know-it

Right, no EM there iis there? Yet Imannuel Can, being the clumsy sort of fellow that he is went off half-cocked thuswise:

This is an expression of what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

As you, Darkneos, are now well up to speed with materialist claims and are able to discern between the eliminative and non-eliminative with ease, you can also presumably spot that what mister Can describes here is not actually Eliminative Materialism. And, because you have now learned the importance of reading clearly, you are probably able to spot that it doesn't relate very well to the passage it supposedly responds to either. As a philosophical response it falls flat in every conceivable way, that should make it disposable, hardly something to ride-or-die over.

So the obvious thing for mister Can to do is to accept that it fails and let it die. But mister Can is arguably one of the least free people at this site, he suffers some sort of compulsion to ignore the woods and fight the trees, and it is extremely easy for people who think he is an idiot to exploit that. I am not certain which precise mental disorder afflicts Mannie, but it is observable that his vanity is so extreme that he paradoxically has no shame, there is no depth to which he will not sink if he feels it can delay a loss. When he is put on the spot, he never walks back a bad position and he will debase himself to support any idiotic position with a new and glaringly stupid argument rather than just let it go.

In this instance, I did the sort of thing I always do to him and he responded in the sort of way that I knew he would because he's virtually a puppet. Seriously, only American spellings in conversation with accelafine can bring out a more predictably stupid response than correcting Immanuel Can's small mistakes. The man is a living argument against free will.

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

Again, you Darkneos know what is eliminated in eliminative materialism now. So you can see that he spinning specious bullshit there. Just as you have been trying to do. But look at him, he's an old man, he's lived his entire life like this. do you really want to end up like that? Look how sad he is.

Perversely, that quote there comes after this one directed at Willy B where he clearly shows that he has looked up what Eliminative Materialism actually seeks to eliminate ...

No, that is you bearing false witness again. Were you better able to process language, you would see that I did not claim that technology will eventually resolve the issue, I just acknowledged that it might, a claim so uncontroversial that no one but an idiot would challenge it. As it happens, when I studied philosophy of mind as an undergraduate, my take was that if determinism were true then, in principle, a sufficiently powerful computer, or worse, an omniscient god, could tell me what I would do for the next 5 minutes and I would be powerless to do otherwise. While that might be the case, I still doubt it. You believe it.

No, it's a truth. "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind." (Stanford) Before you criticize, maybe you should look the term up. As you can now see, it's not an expression of knowledge, but of faith: of the belief that just because Materialism explains SOME things, we can close the book and claim it explains ALL things, including metaphysical phenomena like mind.

Even so, pressed again, he failed to come clean, he just debases himself further... this is all because the overwhelming pride that drives him won't allow him to just correct mistakes.

I know perfectly well that "eliminate" the need for all other explanations does not describe what EM actually eliminates. And of course that any theory that purports to offer an exclusive explanation in any field also claims to eliminate the need for other explanations, including your own theory. Your theory isn't eliminative is it?

No. "Eliminativity" is an all-exclusive speculation about the data-yet-to-come; and yet the very reason for "eliminativity" is that it has to admit the data to justify its all-exclusive claim is not available. It just adds "yet," to that, as if it has some reason to know what will turn out to be the case for the data it does not have.

In other words, it's not merely unscientific; it's anti-scientific, being preventative of further scientific inquiry on the matter. It wishes to foreclose the scientific enterprise, while simultaneously admitting that the matter is presently far from closed. So it's self-contradicting.

He's a lost cause, maybe you don't have to be. Look properly at Immanuel Can, and make sure you don't become him, he is the most tragic figure on this site.

And with that I conclude the tragic but enlightening tale of Immanuel Can: the man who was so convinced he couldn't make any mistakes that he put fuck all effort into not making ten per day.

[Darkneos]

It's not a misdirection, the original point being made was about what the original guy was saying about reductionism. Then it got to this part. The point I made was the original person is arguing about there being only the one and everything else is just a model. If anything this was a misdirection.

You know what, I think we should try and scare you straight. So in the spirit of Dickens' Christmas Carol, I am going to show you the ghost of Darkneos future so that you can see him in all his shambles and try to learn from his mistakes before they become your own. Luckily you are now an expert in all matters Eliminative Materialist so you are well placed to understand the terrifying tale of Immanuel Can - and why you should make sure you don't grow up to become that guy.

Our story begins a couple of days ago when Willy B tries to explain a fairly innocuous thing to the benighted hero of our dismal play about How Physics Works when real physicists are doing it. As you read this try and see if you can see any eliminative materialism in there...

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.
The "precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations", quantum mechanics and chaos notwithstanding, is due in large part to the technology developed to observe and measure phenomena. That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making. See here for example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... we-know-it

Right, no EM there iis there? Yet Imannuel Can, being the clumsy sort of fellow that he is went off half-cocked thuswise:

This is an expression of what is called "Eliminative Materialism." It's what Materialists go to when they run out of answers; they issue a promissory note that even though Materialism doesn't answer the question, it will, sometime in the vague future, if we just wait long enough and gather more data.

As you, Darkneos, are now well up to speed with materialist claims and are able to discern between the eliminative and non-eliminative with ease, you can also presumably spot that what mister Can describes here is not actually Eliminative Materialism. And, because you have now learned the importance of reading clearly, you are probably able to spot that it doesn't relate very well to the passage it supposedly responds to either. As a philosophical response it falls flat in every conceivable way, that should make it disposable, hardly something to ride-or-die over.

So the obvious thing for mister Can to do is to accept that it fails and let it die. But mister Can is arguably one of the least free people at this site, he suffers some sort of compulsion to ignore the woods and fight the trees, and it is extremely easy for people who think he is an idiot to exploit that. I am not certain which precise mental disorder afflicts Mannie, but it is observable that his vanity is so extreme that he paradoxically has no shame, there is no depth to which he will not sink if he feels it can delay a loss. When he is put on the spot, he never walks back a bad position and he will debase himself to support any idiotic position with a new and glaringly stupid argument rather than just let it go.

In this instance, I did the sort of thing I always do to him and he responded in the sort of way that I knew he would because he's virtually a puppet. Seriously, only American spellings in conversation with accelafine can bring out a more predictably stupid response than correcting Immanuel Can's small mistakes. The man is a living argument against free will.

That's a very peculiar way to describe what Eliminative Materialism is.

It's the truth. Eliminative Materialists insist that Materialism will "eliminate" the need for all other explanations, when we have enough data come in. They admit that we don't NOW, but they prophesy that, at some remarkable day in the future, or at least in principle, (when things are "mature") we will only ever need Materialist explanations.

Again, you Darkneos know what is eliminated in eliminative materialism now. So you can see that he spinning specious bullshit there. Just as you have been trying to do. But look at him, he's an old man, he's lived his entire life like this. do you really want to end up like that? Look how sad he is.

Perversely, that quote there comes after this one directed at Willy B where he clearly shows that he has looked up what Eliminative Materialism actually seeks to eliminate ...

No, that is you bearing false witness again. Were you better able to process language, you would see that I did not claim that technology will eventually resolve the issue, I just acknowledged that it might, a claim so uncontroversial that no one but an idiot would challenge it. As it happens, when I studied philosophy of mind as an undergraduate, my take was that if determinism were true then, in principle, a sufficiently powerful computer, or worse, an omniscient god, could tell me what I would do for the next 5 minutes and I would be powerless to do otherwise. While that might be the case, I still doubt it. You believe it.

No, it's a truth. "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind." (Stanford) Before you criticize, maybe you should look the term up. As you can now see, it's not an expression of knowledge, but of faith: of the belief that just because Materialism explains SOME things, we can close the book and claim it explains ALL things, including metaphysical phenomena like mind.

Even so, pressed again, he failed to come clean, he just debases himself further... this is all because the overwhelming pride that drives him won't allow him to just correct mistakes.

I know perfectly well that "eliminate" the need for all other explanations does not describe what EM actually eliminates. And of course that any theory that purports to offer an exclusive explanation in any field also claims to eliminate the need for other explanations, including your own theory. Your theory isn't eliminative is it?

No. "Eliminativity" is an all-exclusive speculation about the data-yet-to-come; and yet the very reason for "eliminativity" is that it has to admit the data to justify its all-exclusive claim is not available. It just adds "yet," to that, as if it has some reason to know what will turn out to be the case for the data it does not have.

In other words, it's not merely unscientific; it's anti-scientific, being preventative of further scientific inquiry on the matter. It wishes to foreclose the scientific enterprise, while simultaneously admitting that the matter is presently far from closed. So it's self-contradicting.

He's a lost cause, maybe you don't have to be. Look properly at Immanuel Can, and make sure you don't become him, he is the most tragic figure on this site.

And with that I conclude the tragic but enlightening tale of Immanuel Can: the man who was so convinced he couldn't make any mistakes that he put fuck all effort into not making ten per day.

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.
The "precise, predictable easy traction that physics gives us in physical situations", quantum mechanics and chaos notwithstanding, is due in large part to the technology developed to observe and measure phenomena. That such accuracy is "not replicated in any situations involving mental phenomena" might simply be a function of inadequately advanced technology and in fact the available hardware suggests that consciousness is not always involved in decision making. See here for example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... we-know-it

Well there actually is EM in there, especially in the psychology today link he gave.

That last part pretty easily explains the follow comment he made.

Again, you Darkneos know what is eliminated in eliminative materialism now. So you can see that he spinning specious bullshit there. Just as you have been trying to do. But look at him, he's an old man, he's lived his entire life like this. do you really want to end up like that? Look how sad he is.

Perversely, that quote there comes after this one directed at Willy B where he clearly shows that he has looked up what Eliminative Materialism actually seeks to eliminate ...

Well...no. His way of wording it is pretty rough but that is pretty much what eliminative materialism is. Like...you can knock him all you want, but as rough as he is that is what materialism, or rather EM is like. It's sorta the stance that materialism will eliminate the need for other explanations and that's kinda what science took as well. The more science advanced the more supernatural claims faded and as such EM is a product of that.

Even today with neuroscience being more and more materialist the general take is everything reduces to physical explanations, which leaves room for nothing else.

No, it's a truth. "Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind." (Stanford) Before you criticize, maybe you should look the term up. As you can now see, it's not an expression of knowledge, but of faith: of the belief that just because Materialism explains SOME things, we can close the book and claim it explains ALL things, including metaphysical phenomena like mind.

That's a bit of a jump, but that is what materialism and by extension determinism seek to do. He is also still right about Eliminative Determinism, their stance is to remove mental explanations or phenomenon because it reduces to just matter.

He's a lost cause, maybe you don't have to be. Look properly at Immanuel Can, and make sure you don't become him, he is the most tragic figure on this site.

And with that I conclude the tragic but enlightening tale of Immanuel Can: the man who was so convinced he couldn't make any mistakes that he put fuck all effort into not making ten per day.

You never really gave anything explaining why he was off. So far what he says about eliminative materialism is right, they seek to remove what is called "folk psychology" like desires, belief, will, things like that because it's just matter. Same with less wrong.

This was a whole aside that doesn't address my original post made, nor what LW is saying, you can dog on him sure (and his arguments are very rough) but that's not really a case against him. I do ignore him but not for what you've said.

But in a sense he is party right, EM is eliminating the need for all other explanations other than materialism. You didn't explain why that wasn't apart from ragging on him.

[FlashDangerpants]

Luckily you are now an expert in all matters Eliminative Materialist

I guess, in keeping with the spirit of the piece I must also confess when I have made a mistake. And that was certainly one.

[Darkneos]

Luckily you are now an expert in all matters Eliminative Materialist

I guess, in keeping with the spirit of the piece I must also confess when I have made a mistake. And that was certainly one.

You didn't really make a case, you just citing one guy and then ragged on him when what he is saying is in line with what EM is talking about.

Even the wikipedia page seems to agree with him:

Eliminative materialists believe "folk psychology" is so unscientific that, ultimately, it will be better to eliminate primitive concepts such as mind, desire and belief, in favor of a future neuroscientific account. A more moderate position such as J. L. Mackie's error theory suggests that false beliefs should be stripped away from a mental concept without eliminating the concept itself, the legitimate core meaning being left intact.

Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind that expresses the idea that the majority of mental states in folk psychology do not exist.[1] Some supporters of eliminativism argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. The argument is that psychological concepts of behavior and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.[2] Other versions entail the nonexistence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.

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

So if you want to successfully deride him then make a good case, because so far when I look it up he's right and you're wrong.