How to deal (in terms of life)

[Age]

whether Atla is a reductionist

How about reading what I write?

you wrote, 'the Universe has no parts'.

However the Universe does have two opposing parts.

[Darkneos]

You have a tremendous capacity to doubt everything except your own special genius don't you?
It's really easy to use the search function on this site if you ever have a mild suspicion that you are incorrectly accusing somebody




Don't lecture me about reading

I will lecture you about reading because it was easy to find the parts in the entry that supported my view and shows what reductionism actually is which is what I've been arguing, not FJ.

I explained to him how that quote (which he ignored the next part mind you) shows they are realists about the reduced stuff, that means they aren't realists about people. There is also the "IF" thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real, IF.

So even by his quoted statement he's still wrong about reductionists and reductionism.

Again...read your links before you send them.

You see the bit I made big for you, where you wrote "You didn't give the Stanford link". I gave you the quote of him giving you the Stanford link... the one you accused him of not giving.

And I pointed out how easy it would have been for you to fact check your own accusation and thereby not make a false accusation.

That's irrelevant at this point.

The link he gave me undermines his position about how reductionists are and supports what I've been saying, meaning he didn't read it.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's irrelevant at this point.

Just admit your error, don't be one of those guys.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Darkneos, listen up! Either you show signs that you are healing or, and I don’t want to go this route, you will incur my tangible anger.

You are just extending, broadening and deepening your neurosis.

This ain’t a game.

[Darkneos]

That's irrelevant at this point.

Just admit your error, don't be one of those guys.

I'll admit I was mistaken.

But like I said it's irrelevant at this point because the post doesn't support his claim and in fact supports mine.

[FlashDangerpants]

That's irrelevant at this point.

Just admit your error, don't be one of those guys.

I'll admit I was mistaken.

Great, you've come to terms with basic human fallibility, let's see if you can take it a step further now...

But like I said it's irrelevant at this point because the post doesn't support his claim and in fact supports mine.

Do you feel that you have properly considered what FJ wrote on that matter, or is it possible that you have been hasty in this judgment just as you were hasty in the one denying the really very obvious fact that he had provided the link you denied?

It sure looks to me that what FJ wrote was that the typical reductionism is non-eliminative. One of your claims that he is wrong begins with the statement that "conservative realism is the norm", which is not a counter to what I see in FJ's writing and tends rather to confirm that hew is right.

So I am asking if you are humble enough to reconsider your claims. I think you have misrepresented FJ and you seem to be getting emotional about it. I think you get angry when you read people disagreeing with you, and that when you are angry you get clumsy.

[Darkneos]

Just admit your error, don't be one of those guys.

I'll admit I was mistaken.

Great, you've come to terms with basic human fallibility, let's see if you can take it a step further now...

But like I said it's irrelevant at this point because the post doesn't support his claim and in fact supports mine.

Do you feel that you have properly considered what FJ wrote on that matter, or is it possible that you have been hasty in this judgment just as you were hasty in the one denying the really very obvious fact that he had provided the link you denied?

It sure looks to me that what FJ wrote was that the typical reductionism is non-eliminative. One of your claims that he is wrong begins with the statement that "conservative realism is the norm", which is not a counter to what I see in FJ's writing and tends rather to confirm that hew is right.

So I am asking if you are humble enough to reconsider your claims. I think you have misrepresented FJ and you seem to be getting emotional about it. I think you get angry when you read people disagreeing with you, and that when you are angry you get clumsy.

FJ insists typical reductionism is non-eliminative and yet the sources he gives keep showing otherwise. It reminds me of talking with BigMike in the other thread.

Conservative realism doesn't mean he is right, it means that they don't assume more than what can be shown. It means they believe in an external world. But that doesn't mean they regard humans as real.

You missed this part:

Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative

Meaning only the elementary parts and not the "abstractions" like people. Hence the comment I cited to him about people on lesswrong referring to people as "patterns" and saying someone is biased for wanting someone to be a person.

I have not misrepresented anything he's said, I just think from everything so far he doesn't understand where reductionism leads and neither do you. Neither one of you has a source or quote showing otherwise and in fact the opposite.

It is funny you assume I'm angry, which might say more about you then me IMO.

[FlashDangerpants]

I'll admit I was mistaken.

Great, you've come to terms with basic human fallibility, let's see if you can take it a step further now...

But like I said it's irrelevant at this point because the post doesn't support his claim and in fact supports mine.

Do you feel that you have properly considered what FJ wrote on that matter, or is it possible that you have been hasty in this judgment just as you were hasty in the one denying the really very obvious fact that he had provided the link you denied?

It sure looks to me that what FJ wrote was that the typical reductionism is non-eliminative. One of your claims that he is wrong begins with the statement that "conservative realism is the norm", which is not a counter to what I see in FJ's writing and tends rather to confirm that hew is right.

So I am asking if you are humble enough to reconsider your claims. I think you have misrepresented FJ and you seem to be getting emotional about it. I think you get angry when you read people disagreeing with you, and that when you are angry you get clumsy.

FJ insists typical reductionism is non-eliminative and yet the sources he gives keep showing otherwise. It reminds me of talking with BigMike in the other thread.

Conservative realism doesn't mean he is right, it means that they don't assume more than what can be shown. It means they believe in an external world. But that doesn't mean they regard humans as real.

It seems you've misunderstood what "conservative" means in this context. On the one hand you have elimination, on the other... conservation.
You need to consider that you might not be as good at reading this stuff as you think you are.

You missed this part:

Reductivists are generally realists about the reduced phenomena and their views are in that respect conservative

Meaning only the elementary parts and not the "abstractions" like people. Hence the comment I cited to him about people on lesswrong referring to people as "patterns" and saying someone is biased for wanting someone to be a person.

Sorry, does that quote go on for a little bit longer to say "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." By any chance? I can't understand how you left that out, what did you think you would gain by it?

Surely you can see the problem here now. Have you got the humility to cope with it though?

I have not misrepresented anything he's said, I just think from everything so far he doesn't understand where reductionism leads and neither do you. Neither one of you has a source or quote showing otherwise and in fact the opposite.

Ok, I guess you were actually misunderstanding most of what you've been reading, so I guess you didn't intend to misrepresent. This needs to end now. You've got to read more carefully if you are going to keep dying on every hill the way you do.

Or you need to develop that internal editor who asks if you are sure you're getting it right. I bet FJ has one of those, I certainly have one, he thinks I am an arsehole. You cultivate them by making enough mistakes that you have to learn the hard way you aren't infallible.

[Age]

I will lecture you about reading because it was easy to find the parts in the entry that supported my view and shows what reductionism actually is which is what I've been arguing, not FJ.

I explained to him how that quote (which he ignored the next part mind you) shows they are realists about the reduced stuff, that means they aren't realists about people. There is also the "IF" thoughts reduce to brain states and brain states are real, IF.

So even by his quoted statement he's still wrong about reductionists and reductionism.

Again...read your links before you send them.

You see the bit I made big for you, where you wrote "You didn't give the Stanford link". I gave you the quote of him giving you the Stanford link... the one you accused him of not giving.

And I pointed out how easy it would have been for you to fact check your own accusation and thereby not make a false accusation.

That's irrelevant at this point.

How could just pointing out that you were actually given a link, when you say and claim you were not, be irrelevant, exactly?

The link he gave me undermines his position about how reductionists are and supports what I've been saying, meaning he didn't read it.

Now, 'this' is what is Truly 'irrelevant', here.

Obviously, 'this' might be 'relevant' somewhere else, but it absolutely certainly is not, here.

[Age]

That's irrelevant at this point.

Just admit your error, don't be one of those guys.

I'll admit I was mistaken.

But like I said it's irrelevant at this point because the post doesn't support his claim and in fact supports mine.

'This' does not matter one iota, here. you claimed a link was not given, when, obviously, the link was.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

[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.

You're the one who keeps posting things that refute your position.

The link and quote you said mentioned they are realists about the fundamentals things reduce to. It does not say that they regard people as people and not just collections of atoms.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

[FlashDangerpants]

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.

[Atla]

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.