The Democrat Party Hates America

[Will Bouwman]

So in other words, you're saying you don't need to recognize that physics cannot describe every real phenomenon. You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that -- at least at present -- it cannot.

By your insane logic, you are an eliminativist because, clearly, you say physics cannot explain everything "at least at present" "Because you're holding out the eliminativist hope, and don't want to cut it off?" I could get used to this telling people what they believe. Mr Can all the evidence you have presented proves you are a Hindu.

[Belinda]

Me, I don't know what it is, but my duckduckgo assist sez...

Eliminativism, particularly in philosophy of mind, is the view that many common mental states, like beliefs and desires, do not exist as we typically understand them. It suggests that our everyday psychological concepts should be replaced with explanations based on neuroscience and physical processes.

...and that sounds a lot like eliminating the immaterial to me...a least in the same ballpark.

Theories of existence include that mind and brain are two entirely separate ontic substances. We "typically understand them" as two separate substances because Abrahamic religions have sustained the belief in two separate ontic substances.

Neuro-scientists mostly believe that brain (e.g. neurons and synapses) and mind(e.g. beliefs and desires ) are two aspects of the same substance. That is a different theory of existence.

[henry quirk]

Neuro-scientists mostly believe that brain (e.g. neurons and synapses) and mind(e.g. beliefs and desires ) are two aspects of the same substance.

Some do indeed believe that; some don't. Would you like a listing of prominent neuro-science folk who don't? I can give you one. I can even give you quotes from those people.

So, no, not mostly.

[Belinda]

Neuro-scientists mostly believe that brain (e.g. neurons and synapses) and mind(e.g. beliefs and desires ) are two aspects of the same substance.

Some do indeed believe that; some don't. Would you like a listing of prominent neuro-science folk who don't? I can give you one. I can even give you quotes from those people.

So, no, not mostly.

I'm sceptical but yes please

[henry quirk]

I'm sceptical but yes please

Will do: look for it today/this evening.

[Immanuel Can]

So in other words, you're saying you don't need to recognize that physics cannot describe every real phenomenon. You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that -- at least at present -- it cannot.

By your insane logic, you are an eliminativist because, clearly, you say physics cannot explain everything "at least at present" "Because you're holding out the eliminativist hope, and don't want to cut it off?" I could get used to this telling people what they believe. Mr Can all the evidence you have presented proves you are a Hindu.

You'll have to explain that last claim, if you want it to make any sense to anybody. But you must have had some idea in mind, so I'm sure you will.

Go ahead.

[Will Bouwman]

So in other words, you're saying you don't need to recognize that physics cannot describe every real phenomenon. You simply refuse to acknowledge the obvious fact that -- at least at present -- it cannot.

By your insane logic, you are an eliminativist because, clearly, you say physics cannot explain everything "at least at present" "Because you're holding out the eliminativist hope, and don't want to cut it off?" I could get used to this telling people what they believe. Mr Can all the evidence you have presented proves you are a Hindu.

You'll have to explain that last claim, if you want it to make any sense to anybody. But you must have had some idea in mind, so I'm sure you will.

Go ahead.

It's what people with a sense of humour call joke. It is a parody of your absurd insistence that I hold a belief I have repeatedly told you I do not hold. I'm sorry, but not surprised, that you need that explaining.

[Immanuel Can]

By your insane logic, you are an eliminativist because, clearly, you say physics cannot explain everything "at least at present" "Because you're holding out the eliminativist hope, and don't want to cut it off?" I could get used to this telling people what they believe. Mr Can all the evidence you have presented proves you are a Hindu.

You'll have to explain that last claim, if you want it to make any sense to anybody. But you must have had some idea in mind, so I'm sure you will.

Go ahead.

It's what people with a sense of humour call joke.

You don't need to be snarky. It was a serious question, and one that invited your correction. (See, there's the tone problem, again.) I raised it because there's no obvious connection between anything I said and Hinduism, so if it was irony, it was missing its mark. I simply offered you the chance to correct the impression you'd misfired.

[FlashDangerpants]

You'll have to explain that last claim, if you want it to make any sense to anybody. But you must have had some idea in mind, so I'm sure you will.

Go ahead.

It's what people with a sense of humour call joke.

You don't need to be snarky. It was a serious question, and one that invited your correction. (See, there's the tone problem, again.) I raised it because there's no obvious connection between anything I said and Hinduism, so if it was irony, it was missing its mark. I simply offered you the chance to correct the impression you'd misfired.

Sometimes you need to read all the sentences in order when other people post. It was entirely clear that he was making a valid point via jest, and the sentence that precedes the one that has you confused is the setup for that gag. The fact that you don't get it, when absolutely everybody else does, demonstrates the truth of everything I have said about you along with everything WillyB has.

[Belinda]

N ever mind IC I didn't get the joke either.

[FlashDangerpants]

N ever mind IC I didn't get the joke either.

Are you seriously saying you've never had Immanuel Can telling you that you believe something that is the exact opposite not only of what you believe, but also of what you have been telling him?

It's not a fancy obscure joke that you aren't getting here. You don't need a pointy hat from Oxford to understand this one.

[Immanuel Can]

N ever mind IC I didn't get the joke either.

Save your energy, B...Flash is just a troll. Whatever "joke" was there, it wasn't obvious.

[FlashDangerpants]

Did anybody see that thing where Trump stumbled on the plane stairs the other day and then Rubio went up the same stairs and made a point of stumbling at the same place?

Just saying, it's probably time for Henry to say he doesn't get the joke either.

[Will Bouwman]

It's what people with a sense of humour call joke.

You don't need to be snarky. It was a serious question, and one that invited your correction. (See, there's the tone problem, again.)

Well, since you believe tone can be hard to interpret sometimes, you allow the possibility that this is one of those occasions. How do you know I was being snarky? What makes you think it wasn't a serious attempt to answer a serious question? You are as much a Hindu as I am an eliminativist. That's the joke.
Since it is correction by invitation, I invite you to correct your mistaken characterisation. That too is a joke; we both know hell will freeze over before that happens, because the pain you would feel at having to admit error is worse than the humiliation of behaving like a blithering halfwit.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

To the OP, like God, what's not to hate?