How to deal (in terms of life)

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Sorry lil' buddy, you had all the opportunity you could possibly need to just read properly and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them. But you are just like Immanuel Can, and have demonstrated that you will double down on any nonsense rather than learn from your mistakes.

It was interesting to see if you could be helped, but it's not rewarding to try further. Atla seems to already know this, perhaps he's had more conversation with you than I have, but he's quite often quicker to spot these issues than I am.

[Darkneos]

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.

Sorry lil' buddy, you had all the opportunity you could possibly need to just read properly and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them. But you are just like Immanuel Can, and have demonstrated that you will double down on any nonsense rather than learn from your mistakes.

It was interesting to see if you could be helped, but it's not rewarding to try further. Atla seems to already know this, perhaps he's had more conversation with you than I have, but he's quite often quicker to spot these issues than I am.

I think you're the one who is more like Can than me, I gave you links and quotes that support what he's saying.

You didn't try, you gave a few quotes by some user I don't know and then dogged on him like that proves anything.

Then when I give you links that show he's actually right you give up instead of correcting it. You're not interested in helping people, don't lie. I'm not the one doubling down here. YOU were the one who said if I looked I'll find evidence showing otherwise and when I did it didn't.

Your move, though like I said you don't seem interested in helping, only in condescension.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

Sorry lil' buddy, you had all the opportunity you could possibly need to just read properly and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them. But you are just like Immanuel Can, and have demonstrated that you will double down on any nonsense rather than learn from your mistakes.

It was interesting to see if you could be helped, but it's not rewarding to try further. Atla seems to already know this, perhaps he's had more conversation with you than I have, but he's quite often quicker to spot these issues than I am.

I think you're the one who is more like Can than me, I gave you links and quotes that support what he's saying.

You didn't try, you gave a few quotes by some user I don't know and then dogged on him like that proves anything.

Then when I give you links that show he's actually right you give up instead of correcting it. You're not interested in helping people, don't lie. I'm not the one doubling down here. YOU were the one who said if I looked I'll find evidence showing otherwise and when I did it didn't.

Your move, though like I said you don't seem interested in helping, only in condescension.

It is odd. I really did expect you to have no trouble seeing how obviously mistaken Can was and to realise his compulsive gaslighting was a counterproductive response to having been caught in an error. I only expected you to lack the self-realisation to draw a parallel with your own similar response.

But fine, I will try one last angle to explain eliminative materialism for you. This time round, you need to read this post with the ambition to understand. You don't need to try to outsmart me, that's not worth my time. At the end of this, if you read successfully, you can just say that you understand now.

The goal of a reductive materialist explanation of X is to show that whatever X is can be fully accounted for by reference to matter without leaving anything behind. For mind, that means explaining thoughts, sensation, emotions, attitudes and so on as states of brain. There are many ways to perform such reductions, token identity theories which assert a belief to be a brain state and that brain state to be the belief for instance, or the supervenience based alternatives, and so on.

So what is the problem? Well it's not easy to account for everything via material conditions. Desires and beliefs are attitudes toward something, they have a direction, and a quality of aboutness, aka 'intentionality'. A successfully reduced mental to physical state would maintain that intentional directedness aspect. But how can an atom be "about" big butts in such a way that it cannot lie? It surely cannot.

So intentionality is one of the things that material reduction needs to explain, and there's reasons why many philosophers see it as irreducible. Some of those philosophers are opposed to materialism. According to them, all reductive strategies regarding mental content fail because intentionality doesn't reduce. Others are materialists who agree that it doesn't reduce, but take that as evidence to conclude it is mythical.

So you have two broad camps within the materialist reductivism tradition. Those who say that all mental phenomenon including the tricky bits like properties of being 'about' stuff can be collapsed into a purely physical framework without loss. And those who agree with the dualists and pals that properties such as 'being about' can't exist as literally physical states and so they eliminate those phenomena.

So, the non-eliminative materialists are in this sense conservative. Conservationists. They conserve the phenomenon being reduced in its fullest sense with all components including intentionality. The eliminative materialists are so called because they take the eliminating approach to intentionality and everything that goes with it (belief desire and so on, aka Folk Psychology).

At this stage, let me remind you, you do not need to be trying to outsmart me. You need to nod your head and tell me you understand.

Now, the mistake Can made is in character for him. No that PT blog doesn't express any EM, nor did Will's post in general, and I would be mildly surprised if Will Bouwman supports eliminativism, there's certainly no reason why he must. In the passage IC was responding to, Willy B was leaving the door open for materialism in general but nothing more than that. Immanuel Can got himself very slightly confused and described it as Eliminative Materialism because he doesn't take a lot of care. Not that it was needed, I could make the smae mistake any day, but upon being corrected I would say "whoops".

Sadly, if he were the sort of person that could make a small mistake and then say "whoops" about it nice and quickly, mister Can wouldn't get himself into the absurd situations he always does. In this case, after I gently mentioned that his description of what EM is looks unusual, he went into his usual panic mode and started spurting very obviously specious word salads. You may not have noticed him before, but try it, just generally prod him very gently when he has made one of his clumsy mistakes, and then witness the unfolding of the madness. It's a thing to see.

Again, don't bother trying to outsmart me. I have no intention of being told by any gaslight engineer that eliminativism is really about speculating that data-yet-to-come will eliminate the need for Cartesian Dualism. Don't be dumb. I've told you what it eliminates, and why, everybody who is trying to debate me or FJ or Willy B on that matter should be up to speed on this shit or just fucking stop already.

You, in this thread, have made some mistakes here and there that could have been fixed by saying "whoops", or by recognising that you had a gap in your knowledge. I don't intend to take you through the list. If you don't know what they are, there are tests you need to speak to a psychiatrist about getting. You are young, they can help.

Assuming you do know which mistakes could have been fixed with an "oopsie" there remains the matter of what to learn from them.

Immanuel Can is a prisoner of his cluster B personality disorder that just never allows him to take a loss and back down over anything. The thing is, he hates being caught in a mistake so much that he inflicts painful humiliation on himself to avoid admitting it happened. What he never does is take any care not to make clumsy mistakes. Up front he is always optimistic that he cannot err, so he never takes caution into account.

So you can pick between strategies if you don't want end up like Can. I can think of two primary ones:

• On the one hand, just be careful when you assert stuff, and if you don't have rock solid evidence on your side then only assert tentatively. Look at your replies to Flannel Jesus early in this thread, you tried to steamroll him and that's how you got into difficulty.

• Or develop a talent for distinguishing between the strategic issues and the merely tactical ones. You fight and die on every hill, most aren't worth that. If it doesn't constitute a key premise supporting whatever your main conclusion is, you don't need to allow your pride to force you to fight to the death for a disposable claim hastily made. Just lose the small things and then re-do your work as necessary.

That second half of this post isn't a debate either. Those are just basic life skills for people who don't want to become Immanuel Can, which ought to be everybody including him.

[Darkneos]

Sorry lil' buddy, you had all the opportunity you could possibly need to just read properly and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them. But you are just like Immanuel Can, and have demonstrated that you will double down on any nonsense rather than learn from your mistakes.

It was interesting to see if you could be helped, but it's not rewarding to try further. Atla seems to already know this, perhaps he's had more conversation with you than I have, but he's quite often quicker to spot these issues than I am.

I think you're the one who is more like Can than me, I gave you links and quotes that support what he's saying.

You didn't try, you gave a few quotes by some user I don't know and then dogged on him like that proves anything.

Then when I give you links that show he's actually right you give up instead of correcting it. You're not interested in helping people, don't lie. I'm not the one doubling down here. YOU were the one who said if I looked I'll find evidence showing otherwise and when I did it didn't.

Your move, though like I said you don't seem interested in helping, only in condescension.

It is odd. I really did expect you to have no trouble seeing how obviously mistaken Can was and to realise his compulsive gaslighting was a counterproductive response to having been caught in an error. I only expected you to lack the self-realisation to draw a parallel with your own similar response.

But fine, I will try one last angle to explain eliminative materialism for you. This time round, you need to read this post with the ambition to understand. You don't need to try to outsmart me, that's not worth my time. At the end of this, if you read successfully, you can just say that you understand now.

The goal of a reductive materialist explanation of X is to show that whatever X is can be fully accounted for by reference to matter without leaving anything behind. For mind, that means explaining thoughts, sensation, emotions, attitudes and so on as states of brain. There are many ways to perform such reductions, token identity theories which assert a belief to be a brain state and that brain state to be the belief for instance, or the supervenience based alternatives, and so on.

So what is the problem? Well it's not easy to account for everything via material conditions. Desires and beliefs are attitudes toward something, they have a direction, and a quality of aboutness, aka 'intentionality'. A successfully reduced mental to physical state would maintain that intentional directedness aspect. But how can an atom be "about" big butts in such a way that it cannot lie? It surely cannot.

So intentionality is one of the things that material reduction needs to explain, and there's reasons why many philosophers see it as irreducible. Some of those philosophers are opposed to materialism. According to them, all reductive strategies regarding mental content fail because intentionality doesn't reduce. Others are materialists who agree that it doesn't reduce, but take that as evidence to conclude it is mythical.

So you have two broad camps within the materialist reductivism tradition. Those who say that all mental phenomenon including the tricky bits like properties of being 'about' stuff can be collapsed into a purely physical framework without loss. And those who agree with the dualists and pals that properties such as 'being about' can't exist as literally physical states and so they eliminate those phenomena.

So, the non-eliminative materialists are in this sense conservative. Conservationists. They conserve the phenomenon being reduced in its fullest sense with all components including intentionality. The eliminative materialists are so called because they take the eliminating approach to intentionality and everything that goes with it (belief desire and so on, aka Folk Psychology).

At this stage, let me remind you, you do not need to be trying to outsmart me. You need to nod your head and tell me you understand.

Now, the mistake Can made is in character for him. No that PT blog doesn't express any EM, nor did Will's post in general, and I would be mildly surprised if Will Bouwman supports eliminativism, there's certainly no reason why he must. In the passage IC was responding to, Willy B was leaving the door open for materialism in general but nothing more than that. Immanuel Can got himself very slightly confused and described it as Eliminative Materialism because he doesn't take a lot of care. Not that it was needed, I could make the smae mistake any day, but upon being corrected I would say "whoops".

Sadly, if he were the sort of person that could make a small mistake and then say "whoops" about it nice and quickly, mister Can wouldn't get himself into the absurd situations he always does. In this case, after I gently mentioned that his description of what EM is looks unusual, he went into his usual panic mode and started spurting very obviously specious word salads. You may not have noticed him before, but try it, just generally prod him very gently when he has made one of his clumsy mistakes, and then witness the unfolding of the madness. It's a thing to see.

Again, don't bother trying to outsmart me. I have no intention of being told by any gaslight engineer that eliminativism is really about speculating that data-yet-to-come will eliminate the need for Cartesian Dualism. Don't be dumb. I've told you what it eliminates, and why, everybody who is trying to debate me or FJ or Willy B on that matter should be up to speed on this shit or just fucking stop already.

You, in this thread, have made some mistakes here and there that could have been fixed by saying "whoops", or by recognising that you had a gap in your knowledge. I don't intend to take you through the list. If you don't know what they are, there are tests you need to speak to a psychiatrist about getting. You are young, they can help.

Assuming you do know which mistakes could have been fixed with an "oopsie" there remains the matter of what to learn from them.

Immanuel Can is a prisoner of his cluster B personality disorder that just never allows him to take a loss and back down over anything. The thing is, he hates being caught in a mistake so much that he inflicts painful humiliation on himself to avoid admitting it happened. What he never does is take any care not to make clumsy mistakes. Up front he is always optimistic that he cannot err, so he never takes caution into account.

So you can pick between strategies if you don't want end up like Can. I can think of two primary ones:

• On the one hand, just be careful when you assert stuff, and if you don't have rock solid evidence on your side then only assert tentatively. Look at your replies to Flannel Jesus early in this thread, you tried to steamroll him and that's how you got into difficulty.

• Or develop a talent for distinguishing between the strategic issues and the merely tactical ones. You fight and die on every hill, most aren't worth that. If it doesn't constitute a key premise supporting whatever your main conclusion is, you don't need to allow your pride to force you to fight to the death for a disposable claim hastily made. Just lose the small things and then re-do your work as necessary.

That second half of this post isn't a debate either. Those are just basic life skills for people who don't want to become Immanuel Can, which ought to be everybody including him.

So then what about people who argue against non-eliminative materialism by suggesting that it leads to over determination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicali ... ermination

And this part here confused me:

So you have two broad camps within the materialist reductivism tradition. Those who say that all mental phenomenon including the tricky bits like properties of being 'about' stuff can be collapsed into a purely physical framework without loss. And those who agree with the dualists and pals that properties such as 'being about' can't exist as literally physical states and so they eliminate those phenomena.

So, the non-eliminative materialists are in this sense conservative. Conservationists. They conserve the phenomenon being reduced in its fullest sense with all components including intentionality. The eliminative materialists are so called because they take the eliminating approach to intentionality and everything that goes with it (belief desire and so on, aka Folk Psychology).

You're saying one accepts all mental phenomenon reduce to physical and you can accept it without loss and the others think that properties like "being about can't exist in physical states so they assume they don't exist, but that sounds like they don't agree with dualists since dualists say such things exist right?

I'm also not seeing how Will's post and the Psychology today aren't eliminative, because the PT is saying that choices are made before we are conscious of them which might imply consciousness does nothing and it's just an epiphenomenon.

I agree with him about physics being a human construct but I don't really see what he's not EM.

[seeds]

So...I'm overwhelmed and literally out of options and people to ask so I'll try here.

I've read a lot of different things over the years and can't seem to reconcile or even understand any of them, and the result is being so depressed I don't even get out of bed most days.

To name a few:

1. Quantum physics and whether time is real or not, I don't understand or know what to do if it is.

As a matter of pure speculation on my part,...

...try to think of time as functioning in two contexts of reality.

In physics parlance, the first context is called "local" reality, which refers to the workings of what Kant calls "phenomena," or everything we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste --> all of which is limited to (or governed by) the speed of light,

And the second context of reality is called "non-local" reality, which refers to the quantum realm, which is a realm that is not limited to (nor governed by) the speed of light, and of which Kant's term "noumena" seems fitting.

You probably already know this, but in "local" reality, conscious corporeal beings, such as us, experience "varying cadences" of time depending on the strength or weakness of whatever gravitational field we may be immersed within.

In other words, even though it would be imperceptible, time would move slower for you...

(e.g., your body would age slower)

...if you somehow lived on Jupiter as opposed to living here on the earth.

Indeed, according to ChatGPT:

Due to both gravitational and special relativistic time dilation, you would age about 0.663 seconds less per Earth year on the surface of Jupiter compared to someone on Earth.

And that would be due to the stronger gravitational field causing a slowing down - or restriction - in the movement of all of the underlying quantum and molecular processes that govern the workings of your body, thus, slightly slowing down the ageing process of your body and that of what we call "time" in general.

On the other hand, in the context of "non-local" reality (the quantum realm), at least in terms of entangled particles,...

(which, theoretically, could be all particles in existence)

...gravity has no effect on quantum phenomena in such a way that would cause varying cadences in time.

Again, according to ChatGPT...

As far as current physics understands, gravity operating at "local reality" does not affect the speed or mechanism of entanglement correlations at the level of "non-local reality."

In fact, according to some theories,...

(my favorite one being that reality is "holographic-like" in nature)

...like in a laser hologram, the informational underpinning of what we call "local" reality (again "non-local" reality) exists in a state of interpenetrating "oneness" in which there is no separation of anything, and where exchanges of information can be instantaneous.

So yeah, the concept of "time" is pretty wild.

However, it would seem that the only reason that the movements and mechanical workings of the universe are functional,...

(as in successfully achieving the goal of awakening multifarious lifeforms into existence in a logical setting)

...is because the "cogs and gears" of this unfathomably ordered "machine" have been "assigned" a speed limit that, in turn, creates the perfect cadences of time that make perfect sense to us conscious beings whose bodies are a part of the "Great Machine" itself.

In fact, to demonstrate just how perfectly "designed" this universe is, I posed the following question to ChatGPT...

Me:
Okay, let me repose the question. If the ship could travel at 99.9999999% the speed of light, would the ship still pretty much look like a flattened wave to a stationary observer?

ChatGPT:
Yes — at 99.9999999% the speed of light, the ship would indeed appear like a flattened wave (a hyper-compressed version of itself) to a stationary observer.

Me:
Under those circumstances, how much slower would the pilot age relative to the stationary observer?

ChatGPT:
For every 1 second experienced by the pilot, 22,366 seconds (about 6.2 hours) pass for the stationary observer.

Me:
And to the pilot, everything would still look normal on the inside of the ship, right?

ChatGPT:
Yes — exactly right.

To the pilot inside the ship moving at 99.9999999% the speed of light, everything would feel and look completely normal.

And the point in asking Chat those questions was to, again, demonstrate how perfectly designed this "Great Machine" truly is, because even under those utterly bizarre conditions, everything in our frame of reference will always look and feel completely "normal" to us.

2. Reductionism and whether everything is just boiled down to the basic quantum state and nothing else is real or exists:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tPqQdLC ... 2ki6sSvAxu
Like...if it really is just quantum particles and nothing else, that people, animals, planes, etc aren't "real" then...I don't really know. Am I lying when I make friends? When I feel love? Or sad, or anything? I don't understand.

The material phenomena we experience in our everyday lives is no more "real" than the phenomena we experience in our dreams.

Now, of course, material phenomena are Infinitely more ordered than our dreams, for sure, but, again, no more "real" than our dreams.

And as per the reductionists' reasoning, both our dreams and material phenomena can be reduced down to nothing more than fields of information.

Unfortunately, because the closed-minded, hardcore materialists are, in essence, sleepwalking through life, they're simply not awake enough to fathom that the only things in this universe that are truly "real" are the "dreamers" of dreams.

Or, in other words (and contrary to little BigMike's objections), it is the proverbial "ghost in the machine" or the "I Am-ness" or the eternal "soul" that is truly real, while all else is illusion.

Are we really nothing more than just robots driven by evolution?

Absolutely not!

Imagine trying to push that nihilistic nonsense into the minds of our children.

Again, that sort of limited thinking is a "Dunning-Krugerish-like" byproduct that comes from the minds of sleepwalkers like BigMike and others like him who haven't a clue as to what's really going on around here.

3. The self and whether it exists or not and what that means for how I am suppose to relate to people or if there even is such a thing as "people", how do I live with that? Am I helping people or not? If I sleep do I "die" and am reborn the next day? This is a big hurt to think about.

Again, the "self" (the "I Am-ness") is the one thing that is truly real. And, yes, it exists (moreso than even the keyboard you are typing on).

And, of course, there are people.

And the way you should relate to other people is by focusing your attention on their inner "I-Am-nesses" which are all not only equal to yours and to each other's "I-Am-nesses," but are equal to God's "I-Am-ness."

And, no, you do not die when you fall asleep.

You need to stop fretting about the small stuff.

4. Social constructs. The worry that all the meaningful things in my life that helped me and lifted me up and moved me were little more than some fantasy I was living out and not reality itself. It's...hard trying to reckon with that.

If they helped you and lifted you up, then what difference does it make if it was a fantasy?

The fact of the matter is that this whole situation of our "temporary" existence on this planet is one big fantasy consisting of social constructs that, from the perspective of Buddhism, function as metaphorical "rafts" that carry us across the waters of life, only to be abandoned on the shore of death where we will embark on a higher journey in a higher context of reality,...

...indeed, a higher and more beautiful context of reality that must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Now, you'll probably think of me as being what you call a "nutbar."

However, aside from the occasional cranky outburst against someone who is dishonest or from something that annoys me, you'll usually hear nothing but words of hope and encouragement from me.

5. Feeling like I've been living a lie this whole time due to the above, and that to be happy in life is to lie to yourself about meaning, friends, hobbies, all that stuff.

Not a lie, just functioning in a momentary state of confusion (pretty much like all of us).

You just need to ignore the hopeless, nihilistic nonsense being promulgated by the likes of AI Mike and his sleepwalking ilk.

Just remember that we're all in this together, and in the long run, whatever happens to you is going to be the exact same thing that happens to all of us.

And I speculatively suggest that whatever that might be, it's going to be wonderful for every human ever awakened into existence.
_______

[FlashDangerpants]

So then what about people who argue against non-eliminative materialism by suggesting that it leads to over determination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicali ... ermination

What of it? Do you imagine that in philosophy what happens is that the opposing camps just agree to disagree? No, they stack up arguments against each other so what you are pointing to in confusion is just business as usual.

And this part here confused me:

So you have two broad camps within the materialist reductivism tradition. Those who say that all mental phenomenon including the tricky bits like properties of being 'about' stuff can be collapsed into a purely physical framework without loss. And those who agree with the dualists and pals that properties such as 'being about' can't exist as literally physical states and so they eliminate those phenomena.

So, the non-eliminative materialists are in this sense conservative. Conservationists. They conserve the phenomenon being reduced in its fullest sense with all components including intentionality. The eliminative materialists are so called because they take the eliminating approach to intentionality and everything that goes with it (belief desire and so on, aka Folk Psychology).

You're saying one accepts all mental phenomenon reduce to physical and you can accept it without loss and the others think that properties like "being about can't exist in physical states so they assume they don't exist, but that sounds like they don't agree with dualists since dualists say such things exist right?

Dualists arguer against materialism by saying that it cannot account for mental phenomena such as intentionality because they say such things cannot be reduced to the physical. Non-elim materialists disagree, they say that such things are in fact reducible. Eliminativists agree, but they say that the things which cannot reduce are fictions.

I'm also not seeing how Will's post and the Psychology today aren't eliminative, because the PT is saying that choices are made before we are conscious of them which might imply consciousness does nothing and it's just an epiphenomenon.

Might..... might? It might imply...? How can you accuse them of arguing for something that you have a choice about inferring?

Stop trying to outsmart me when I am simply explaining how things are. You need to understand, and then to get it. And then you need an attitude adjustment of the very highest order.

[Darkneos]

So then what about people who argue against non-eliminative materialism by suggesting that it leads to over determination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicali ... ermination

What of it? Do you imagine that in philosophy what happens is that the opposing camps just agree to disagree? No, they stack up arguments against each other so what you are pointing to in confusion is just business as usual.

And this part here confused me:

So you have two broad camps within the materialist reductivism tradition. Those who say that all mental phenomenon including the tricky bits like properties of being 'about' stuff can be collapsed into a purely physical framework without loss. And those who agree with the dualists and pals that properties such as 'being about' can't exist as literally physical states and so they eliminate those phenomena.

So, the non-eliminative materialists are in this sense conservative. Conservationists. They conserve the phenomenon being reduced in its fullest sense with all components including intentionality. The eliminative materialists are so called because they take the eliminating approach to intentionality and everything that goes with it (belief desire and so on, aka Folk Psychology).

You're saying one accepts all mental phenomenon reduce to physical and you can accept it without loss and the others think that properties like "being about can't exist in physical states so they assume they don't exist, but that sounds like they don't agree with dualists since dualists say such things exist right?

Dualists arguer against materialism by saying that it cannot account for mental phenomena such as intentionality because they say such things cannot be reduced to the physical. Non-elim materialists disagree, they say that such things are in fact reducible. Eliminativists agree, but they say that the things which cannot reduce are fictions.

I'm also not seeing how Will's post and the Psychology today aren't eliminative, because the PT is saying that choices are made before we are conscious of them which might imply consciousness does nothing and it's just an epiphenomenon.

Might..... might? It might imply...? How can you accuse them of arguing for something that you have a choice about inferring?

Stop trying to outsmart me when I am simply explaining how things are. You need to understand, and then to get it. And then you need an attitude adjustment of the very highest order.

I say might because I only have a small thing from him to work off of.

I also do get that people disagree in philosophy but in the case of non-eliminative materialists they did offer this counter point to their stance:

The non-reductive physicalist is then forced to choose between two unappealing options: accept overdetermination or embrace epiphenomenalism. Kim thus argues that mental causation can be preserved only by embracing a reductionist view, whereby mental properties are considered causally efficacious by being reduced to physical properties.

I'm trying to square all these things away.

[FlashDangerpants]

So then what about people who argue against non-eliminative materialism by suggesting that it leads to over determination?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicali ... ermination

What of it? Do you imagine that in philosophy what happens is that the opposing camps just agree to disagree? No, they stack up arguments against each other so what you are pointing to in confusion is just business as usual.

And this part here confused me:



You're saying one accepts all mental phenomenon reduce to physical and you can accept it without loss and the others think that properties like "being about can't exist in physical states so they assume they don't exist, but that sounds like they don't agree with dualists since dualists say such things exist right?

Dualists arguer against materialism by saying that it cannot account for mental phenomena such as intentionality because they say such things cannot be reduced to the physical. Non-elim materialists disagree, they say that such things are in fact reducible. Eliminativists agree, but they say that the things which cannot reduce are fictions.

I'm also not seeing how Will's post and the Psychology today aren't eliminative, because the PT is saying that choices are made before we are conscious of them which might imply consciousness does nothing and it's just an epiphenomenon.

Might..... might? It might imply...? How can you accuse them of arguing for something that you have a choice about inferring?

Stop trying to outsmart me when I am simply explaining how things are. You need to understand, and then to get it. And then you need an attitude adjustment of the very highest order.

I say might because I only have a small thing from him to work off of.

Did you consider the option of just not making stuff up and only working with what was actually there?

I also do get that people disagree in philosophy but in the case of non-eliminative materialists they did offer this counter point to their stance:

The non-reductive physicalist is then forced to choose between two unappealing options: accept overdetermination or embrace epiphenomenalism. Kim thus argues that mental causation can be preserved only by embracing a reductionist view, whereby mental properties are considered causally efficacious by being reduced to physical properties.

I'm trying to square all these things away.

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

[Darkneos]

What of it? Do you imagine that in philosophy what happens is that the opposing camps just agree to disagree? No, they stack up arguments against each other so what you are pointing to in confusion is just business as usual.



Dualists arguer against materialism by saying that it cannot account for mental phenomena such as intentionality because they say such things cannot be reduced to the physical. Non-elim materialists disagree, they say that such things are in fact reducible. Eliminativists agree, but they say that the things which cannot reduce are fictions.


Might..... might? It might imply...? How can you accuse them of arguing for something that you have a choice about inferring?

Stop trying to outsmart me when I am simply explaining how things are. You need to understand, and then to get it. And then you need an attitude adjustment of the very highest order.

I say might because I only have a small thing from him to work off of.

Did you consider the option of just not making stuff up and only working with what was actually there?

I also do get that people disagree in philosophy but in the case of non-eliminative materialists they did offer this counter point to their stance:

The non-reductive physicalist is then forced to choose between two unappealing options: accept overdetermination or embrace epiphenomenalism. Kim thus argues that mental causation can be preserved only by embracing a reductionist view, whereby mental properties are considered causally efficacious by being reduced to physical properties.

I'm trying to square all these things away.

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not making stuff up, I'm going by that small snip you gave me of what he said.

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not "trying" anything here other than to understand what it's getting at for reals. You told me different views people take on it and I asked about some counterarguments people had against such view that, from what I see, negate them. Like the non-eliminative materialists and what that guy said that those people either have to accept overdetermination or epiphenomenalism and I asked you "what about that"? But all I get from you is condescension and trying to liken me to this other dude whom I'm not, he's not really asking questions or giving sources or other arguments just doubling down.

I've given different takes that seem to conflict with what you're telling me and I'm asking you about them because it's confusing me.

[FlashDangerpants]

I say might because I only have a small thing from him to work off of.

Did you consider the option of just not making stuff up and only working with what was actually there?

I also do get that people disagree in philosophy but in the case of non-eliminative materialists they did offer this counter point to their stance:



I'm trying to square all these things away.

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not making stuff up, I'm going by that small snip you gave me of what he said.

You got the same small snip that Immanuel Can had. You were both wrong to assert it contained eliminative materialism. You aren't tasked with finding ways to say that it has such features, you are are tasked with coming to terms that it does not. why are you still failing this simple comprehension test?

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not "trying" anything here other than to understand what it's getting at for reals. You told me different views people take on it and I asked about some counterarguments people had against such view that, from what I see, negate them. Like the non-eliminative materialists and what that guy said that those people either have to accept overdetermination or epiphenomenalism and I asked you "what about that"? But all I get from you is condescension and trying to liken me to this other dude whom I'm not, he's not really asking questions or giving sources or other arguments just doubling down.

I've given different takes that seem to conflict with what you're telling me and I'm asking you about them because it's confusing me.

Again, this is something like the tenth time I've told you you don't need to outsmart me, you can't win a fight here, you need to learn that you have overstated a case you cannot make. It absolutely doesn't matter that there are people who make arguments against non-eliminative materialism, of course there are, this is philosophy, there's somebody to argue against everything.

I have described what the difference is between eliminative and non-eliminative. I have gone over the conservatism thing you misunderstood. I have given you a quick explanation of why there are elim and non-elim versions. The existence of a counterargument against non-eliminativism does not change a single thing about that. You are doubling down with nothing just like IC does, I did not make that comparison for no reason. Stop this foolishness.

[Darkneos]

Did you consider the option of just not making stuff up and only working with what was actually there?


What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not making stuff up, I'm going by that small snip you gave me of what he said.

You got the same small snip that Immanuel Can had. You were both wrong to assert it contained eliminative materialism. You aren't tasked with finding ways to say that it has such features, you are are tasked with coming to terms that it does not. why are you still failing this simple comprehension test?

What do you think you are achieving with this line of argument? Do you think you will justify all the accusations you threw around with this weak piss? Where there are philosophical arguments, there are controversies. Everything FJ, me and Willy B have written about eliminative and non-eliminative materialisms has been accurate. Floundering around like Immanuel Can trying to find a switcheroo won't help you any more than it ever helps him. Don't become him.

Stop trying to outsmart me, show that you have got an understanding now, nod your head and reel your neck in.

I'm not "trying" anything here other than to understand what it's getting at for reals. You told me different views people take on it and I asked about some counterarguments people had against such view that, from what I see, negate them. Like the non-eliminative materialists and what that guy said that those people either have to accept overdetermination or epiphenomenalism and I asked you "what about that"? But all I get from you is condescension and trying to liken me to this other dude whom I'm not, he's not really asking questions or giving sources or other arguments just doubling down.

I've given different takes that seem to conflict with what you're telling me and I'm asking you about them because it's confusing me.

Again, this is something like the tenth time I've told you you don't need to outsmart me, you can't win a fight here, you need to learn that you have overstated a case you cannot make. It absolutely doesn't matter that there are people who make arguments against non-eliminative materialism, of course there are, this is philosophy, there's somebody to argue against everything.

I have described what the difference is between eliminative and non-eliminative. I have gone over the conservatism thing you misunderstood. I have given you a quick explanation of why there are elim and non-elim versions. The existence of a counterargument against non-eliminativism does not change a single thing about that. You are doubling down with nothing just like IC does, I did not make that comparison for no reason. Stop this foolishness.

Well take for example the psychology today article he posted. It can be EM because it's taking notions of free will/mind and saying that it's just the result of brain areas, which is how they could be tested in a lab, at least that's how it seems to me.

I'm not trying to outsmart anything, I'm trying to iron out the details so I have a clear picture. I'm not doubling down on anything, I'm explaining what I have read that seems to go against what you're telling me.

From the argument the guy I quoted said it sounds like non-reductive materialism would be stupid because it would result in overdetermination which would mean that reductionism would be eliminative and that the non-eliminative ones are kidding themselves.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not making stuff up, I'm going by that small snip you gave me of what he said.

You got the same small snip that Immanuel Can had. You were both wrong to assert it contained eliminative materialism. You aren't tasked with finding ways to say that it has such features, you are are tasked with coming to terms that it does not. why are you still failing this simple comprehension test?

I'm not "trying" anything here other than to understand what it's getting at for reals. You told me different views people take on it and I asked about some counterarguments people had against such view that, from what I see, negate them. Like the non-eliminative materialists and what that guy said that those people either have to accept overdetermination or epiphenomenalism and I asked you "what about that"? But all I get from you is condescension and trying to liken me to this other dude whom I'm not, he's not really asking questions or giving sources or other arguments just doubling down.

I've given different takes that seem to conflict with what you're telling me and I'm asking you about them because it's confusing me.

Again, this is something like the tenth time I've told you you don't need to outsmart me, you can't win a fight here, you need to learn that you have overstated a case you cannot make. It absolutely doesn't matter that there are people who make arguments against non-eliminative materialism, of course there are, this is philosophy, there's somebody to argue against everything.

I have described what the difference is between eliminative and non-eliminative. I have gone over the conservatism thing you misunderstood. I have given you a quick explanation of why there are elim and non-elim versions. The existence of a counterargument against non-eliminativism does not change a single thing about that. You are doubling down with nothing just like IC does, I did not make that comparison for no reason. Stop this foolishness.

Well take for example the psychology today article he posted. It can be EM because it's taking notions of free will/mind and saying that it's just the result of brain areas, which is how they could be tested in a lab, at least that's how it seems to me.

I'm not trying to outsmart anything, I'm trying to iron out the details so I have a clear picture. I'm not doubling down on anything, I'm explaining what I have read that seems to go against what you're telling me.

From the argument the guy I quoted said it sounds like non-reductive materialism would be stupid because it would result in overdetermination which would mean that reductionism would be eliminative and that the non-eliminative ones are kidding themselves.

I don't care. I gave you ten times as much help as you deserve. You are not capable.

[Darkneos]

You got the same small snip that Immanuel Can had. You were both wrong to assert it contained eliminative materialism. You aren't tasked with finding ways to say that it has such features, you are are tasked with coming to terms that it does not. why are you still failing this simple comprehension test?


Again, this is something like the tenth time I've told you you don't need to outsmart me, you can't win a fight here, you need to learn that you have overstated a case you cannot make. It absolutely doesn't matter that there are people who make arguments against non-eliminative materialism, of course there are, this is philosophy, there's somebody to argue against everything.

I have described what the difference is between eliminative and non-eliminative. I have gone over the conservatism thing you misunderstood. I have given you a quick explanation of why there are elim and non-elim versions. The existence of a counterargument against non-eliminativism does not change a single thing about that. You are doubling down with nothing just like IC does, I did not make that comparison for no reason. Stop this foolishness.

Well take for example the psychology today article he posted. It can be EM because it's taking notions of free will/mind and saying that it's just the result of brain areas, which is how they could be tested in a lab, at least that's how it seems to me.

I'm not trying to outsmart anything, I'm trying to iron out the details so I have a clear picture. I'm not doubling down on anything, I'm explaining what I have read that seems to go against what you're telling me.

From the argument the guy I quoted said it sounds like non-reductive materialism would be stupid because it would result in overdetermination which would mean that reductionism would be eliminative and that the non-eliminative ones are kidding themselves.

I don't care. I gave you ten times as much help as you deserve. You are not capable.

I am capable, I'm just asking about certain views people have that conflict with what you tell me.

[Darkneos]

So...I'm overwhelmed and literally out of options and people to ask so I'll try here.

I've read a lot of different things over the years and can't seem to reconcile or even understand any of them, and the result is being so depressed I don't even get out of bed most days.

To name a few:

1. Quantum physics and whether time is real or not, I don't understand or know what to do if it is.

As a matter of pure speculation on my part,...

...try to think of time as functioning in two contexts of reality.

In physics parlance, the first context is called "local" reality, which refers to the workings of what Kant calls "phenomena," or everything we can see, touch, hear, smell, and taste --> all of which is limited to (or governed by) the speed of light,

And the second context of reality is called "non-local" reality, which refers to the quantum realm, which is a realm that is not limited to (nor governed by) the speed of light, and of which Kant's term "noumena" seems fitting.

You probably already know this, but in "local" reality, conscious corporeal beings, such as us, experience "varying cadences" of time depending on the strength or weakness of whatever gravitational field we may be immersed within.

In other words, even though it would be imperceptible, time would move slower for you...

(e.g., your body would age slower)

...if you somehow lived on Jupiter as opposed to living here on the earth.

Indeed, according to ChatGPT:

Due to both gravitational and special relativistic time dilation, you would age about 0.663 seconds less per Earth year on the surface of Jupiter compared to someone on Earth.

And that would be due to the stronger gravitational field causing a slowing down - or restriction - in the movement of all of the underlying quantum and molecular processes that govern the workings of your body, thus, slightly slowing down the ageing process of your body and that of what we call "time" in general.

On the other hand, in the context of "non-local" reality (the quantum realm), at least in terms of entangled particles,...

(which, theoretically, could be all particles in existence)

...gravity has no effect on quantum phenomena in such a way that would cause varying cadences in time.

Again, according to ChatGPT...

As far as current physics understands, gravity operating at "local reality" does not affect the speed or mechanism of entanglement correlations at the level of "non-local reality."

In fact, according to some theories,...

(my favorite one being that reality is "holographic-like" in nature)

...like in a laser hologram, the informational underpinning of what we call "local" reality (again "non-local" reality) exists in a state of interpenetrating "oneness" in which there is no separation of anything, and where exchanges of information can be instantaneous.

So yeah, the concept of "time" is pretty wild.

However, it would seem that the only reason that the movements and mechanical workings of the universe are functional,...

(as in successfully achieving the goal of awakening multifarious lifeforms into existence in a logical setting)

...is because the "cogs and gears" of this unfathomably ordered "machine" have been "assigned" a speed limit that, in turn, creates the perfect cadences of time that make perfect sense to us conscious beings whose bodies are a part of the "Great Machine" itself.

In fact, to demonstrate just how perfectly "designed" this universe is, I posed the following question to ChatGPT...

Me:
Okay, let me repose the question. If the ship could travel at 99.9999999% the speed of light, would the ship still pretty much look like a flattened wave to a stationary observer?

ChatGPT:
Yes — at 99.9999999% the speed of light, the ship would indeed appear like a flattened wave (a hyper-compressed version of itself) to a stationary observer.

Me:
Under those circumstances, how much slower would the pilot age relative to the stationary observer?

ChatGPT:
For every 1 second experienced by the pilot, 22,366 seconds (about 6.2 hours) pass for the stationary observer.

Me:
And to the pilot, everything would still look normal on the inside of the ship, right?

ChatGPT:
Yes — exactly right.

To the pilot inside the ship moving at 99.9999999% the speed of light, everything would feel and look completely normal.

And the point in asking Chat those questions was to, again, demonstrate how perfectly designed this "Great Machine" truly is, because even under those utterly bizarre conditions, everything in our frame of reference will always look and feel completely "normal" to us.

2. Reductionism and whether everything is just boiled down to the basic quantum state and nothing else is real or exists:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tPqQdLC ... 2ki6sSvAxu
Like...if it really is just quantum particles and nothing else, that people, animals, planes, etc aren't "real" then...I don't really know. Am I lying when I make friends? When I feel love? Or sad, or anything? I don't understand.

The material phenomena we experience in our everyday lives is no more "real" than the phenomena we experience in our dreams.

Now, of course, material phenomena are Infinitely more ordered than our dreams, for sure, but, again, no more "real" than our dreams.

And as per the reductionists' reasoning, both our dreams and material phenomena can be reduced down to nothing more than fields of information.

Unfortunately, because the closed-minded, hardcore materialists are, in essence, sleepwalking through life, they're simply not awake enough to fathom that the only things in this universe that are truly "real" are the "dreamers" of dreams.

Or, in other words (and contrary to little BigMike's objections), it is the proverbial "ghost in the machine" or the "I Am-ness" or the eternal "soul" that is truly real, while all else is illusion.

Are we really nothing more than just robots driven by evolution?

Absolutely not!

Imagine trying to push that nihilistic nonsense into the minds of our children.

Again, that sort of limited thinking is a "Dunning-Krugerish-like" byproduct that comes from the minds of sleepwalkers like BigMike and others like him who haven't a clue as to what's really going on around here.

3. The self and whether it exists or not and what that means for how I am suppose to relate to people or if there even is such a thing as "people", how do I live with that? Am I helping people or not? If I sleep do I "die" and am reborn the next day? This is a big hurt to think about.

Again, the "self" (the "I Am-ness") is the one thing that is truly real. And, yes, it exists (moreso than even the keyboard you are typing on).

And, of course, there are people.

And the way you should relate to other people is by focusing your attention on their inner "I-Am-nesses" which are all not only equal to yours and to each other's "I-Am-nesses," but are equal to God's "I-Am-ness."

And, no, you do not die when you fall asleep.

You need to stop fretting about the small stuff.

4. Social constructs. The worry that all the meaningful things in my life that helped me and lifted me up and moved me were little more than some fantasy I was living out and not reality itself. It's...hard trying to reckon with that.

If they helped you and lifted you up, then what difference does it make if it was a fantasy?

The fact of the matter is that this whole situation of our "temporary" existence on this planet is one big fantasy consisting of social constructs that, from the perspective of Buddhism, function as metaphorical "rafts" that carry us across the waters of life, only to be abandoned on the shore of death where we will embark on a higher journey in a higher context of reality,...

...indeed, a higher and more beautiful context of reality that must be kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Now, you'll probably think of me as being what you call a "nutbar."

However, aside from the occasional cranky outburst against someone who is dishonest or from something that annoys me, you'll usually hear nothing but words of hope and encouragement from me.

5. Feeling like I've been living a lie this whole time due to the above, and that to be happy in life is to lie to yourself about meaning, friends, hobbies, all that stuff.

Not a lie, just functioning in a momentary state of confusion (pretty much like all of us).

You just need to ignore the hopeless, nihilistic nonsense being promulgated by the likes of AI Mike and his sleepwalking ilk.

Just remember that we're all in this together, and in the long run, whatever happens to you is going to be the exact same thing that happens to all of us.

And I speculatively suggest that whatever that might be, it's going to be wonderful for every human ever awakened into existence.
_______

Citing chatgpt as a source on anything is usually a sign that you're in the wrong. One issue I know is an attempt to try to reconcile relativity with QM, and the timelessness we believe the quantum world has might not be true. The same goes for gravity as well, at least according to recent research theories.

In short, your understanding is dated and chatgpt is wrong. Atla seems to be right on it, no one really knows what's going on in QM and there are many interpretations of it.

The holographic theory for example is generally considered pseudoscience.

That conversation with GPT also proves nothing about design, just the ignorance of GPT. People really have to stop asking it questions. Even your understanding of locality is...not accurate. In fact new research might show that nonlocality isn't a thing in QM. But I think Atla was right that no one really understands what's up. Lots of different things happening.

If they helped you and lifted you up, then what difference does it make if it was a fantasy?

The fact of the matter is that this whole situation of our "temporary" existence on this planet is one big fantasy consisting of social constructs that, from the perspective of Buddhism, function as metaphorical "rafts" that carry us across the waters of life, only to be abandoned on the shore of death where we will embark on a higher journey in a higher context of reality,...

From the Buddhist perspective there is no real or not real, called it a fantasy is incorrect the same as calling it real. Sounds more like you don't understand Buddhism and what it's arguing.

I think I'm seeing why no one really responds to your posts....

The material phenomena we experience in our everyday lives is no more "real" than the phenomena we experience in our dreams.

Now, of course, material phenomena are Infinitely more ordered than our dreams, for sure, but, again, no more "real" than our dreams.

And as per the reductionists' reasoning, both our dreams and material phenomena can be reduced down to nothing more than fields of information.

Unfortunately, because the closed-minded, hardcore materialists are, in essence, sleepwalking through life, they're simply not awake enough to fathom that the only things in this universe that are truly "real" are the "dreamers" of dreams.

Or, in other words (and contrary to little BigMike's objections), it is the proverbial "ghost in the machine" or the "I Am-ness" or the eternal "soul" that is truly real, while all else is illusion.

I don't get it, are you for or against reductionism? Also reductionism says it reduces down to matter, not information.

Like...in one breath you go from everything is just fields of information to saying other people exist. It doesn't really track. Furthermore if that even were true what would that mean?

[Perspective]

….
4. Social constructs. The worry that all the meaningful things in my life that helped me and lifted me up and moved me were little more than some fantasy I was living out and not reality itself. It's...hard trying to reckon with that.

5. Feeling like I've been living a lie this whole time due to the above, and that to be happy in life is to lie to yourself about meaning, friends, hobbies, all that stuff.

... I want to cry but I'm afraid if I do something will snap and I'll never be stable again, that it would be the end.

…It feels like all the hope and magic of life is just gone...and it almost makes me cry...if I could. I just...can't deal with anything...it feels like my life eroded over time and there's nothing left...and nothing to look forward to...

I can relate, especially about the last paragraph. But for me it’s more about too much betrayal.

What stood out to me most was you not letting yourself cry. Crying is an important release valve - so please set up circumstances in which you can cry & let it out. You won’t snap but will release a lot of pent up e-motions that needs to be released.

#4 & 5: True that all cannot help but be subjectively experienced. But that doesn’t mean it’s living a lie. We are all players, playing with various parts. “Functional illusions are priceless.” If an idea works for you & others now & in the future - then it has REAL & healthy influence.

I wish I could give you a hug. So stretch out your arms & wrap them around yourself. Actually EMDR may have some benefit. I hope the best for you.

Well even just hearing that it's an illusion makes it feel like living a lie. Your comment about "functional illusions" did more harm than good.

Grow up! Stop blaming me and others for reality. Life is subjective. If you constantly fight reality, you will be miserable. The reality is that we cannot help but think in illusionally subjective ways. So… you can see that as messed up & feel sorry for yourself - “Oh no, it’s all in my head, boo hoo.” Or you can see it as empowering. You can choose what you think & consequently can affect feelings, desires etc.

In choosing thoughts - they need to be functional - work for (not against) you & others now & in the future.