For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Materialism. Physicalism.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:40 pm Re your post above, too, I'm guessing that Peter is, or at least has been significantly influenced by, eliminative materialism.
Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term), or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:42 pmMaterialism. Physicalism.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:40 pm Re your post above, too, I'm guessing that Peter is, or at least has been significantly influenced by, eliminative materialism.
Same thing. Different words.
Distinction without an implicative difference.
Great. So they invented a new vocabulary. And they don't call it mind. They use some other terminoloy to speak about the same brain function.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term)
This claim cannot be made without stating the utility of the vocabulary. If you are selling a vocabulary, tell me why yours is better than the one I got alrady.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm , or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.
Ontological horseshit.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm Not all materialists/physicalists are eliminativists. I'm not, for example.
So you don't think there's a difference between saying "There are no minds" and "There are minds" or "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is detrimental and needs to be abandoned" and "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is just fine; there's nothing wrong with it"?Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:22 pmGreat. So they invented a new vocabulary. And they don't call it mind. They use some other terminoloy to speak about the same brain function.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm Eliminative materialism is different than non-eliminative materialism. Eliminativists either claim (strong eliminativism) that there is nothing that amounts to mind (at least with any resemblance to what people are traditionally talking about with that term)
Woopty fucking doo. All philosophy is sterile re-descritption.
This claim cannot be made without stating the utility of the vocabulary. If you are selling a vocabulary, tell me why yours is better than the one I got alrady.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm , or they at least claim (weak eliminativism) that traditional or "folk" vocabulary about mentality needs to be abandoned, because it's far more detrimental than useful.
Ontological horseshit.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 1:49 pm Not all materialists/physicalists are eliminativists. I'm not, for example.
i am a materialist. And now I am not.
I am a physicalist. And now I am not.
I am an eliminativist. And now I am not.
The vocabulary I choose to use to describe my philosophy doesn't come any closer to describing my actual philosophy than any other vocabulary.
It's just useful language for conversing about metaphysics. But it's not at all useful if we speak different languages.
None whatsoever from the lens of functionalism. Something is performing that function of language processing in your brain, thinking, remembering, recalling, planning, choosing - call it what you want.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:28 pm So you don't think there's a difference between saying "This are no minds" and "There are minds"
Detrimental to..... what goal?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:28 pm or "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is detrimental and needs to be abandoned"
Fine for.... what purpose?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:28 pm and "'Folk' vocabulary about minds is just fine; there's nothing wrong with it"?
Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:30 pmNone whatsoever from the lens of functionalism. Something is performing that function of language processing in your brain, thinking, remembering, recalling, planning, choosing - call it what you want.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:28 pm So you don't think there's a difference between saying "This are no minds" and "There are minds"
They are not "the same".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:32 pm Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.
What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:34 pmThey are not "the same".Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:32 pm Wait a minute. I thought that you didn't think that A and A were even the same.
They are FUNCTIONALLY "the same".
And before you get your panties in a twist, I don't subscribe to non-contradiction.
If non-contradiction was a law of any sort I wouldn't be able to contradict myself when I want to.
I can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:36 pm What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?
Depends on the mathematics.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:37 pmI can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:36 pm What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?
OK. The concept of "identity" is elucidated by the identity type and univalence axiom.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:39 pmDepends on the mathematics.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:37 pmI can't explain it in English. Do you speak Mathematics?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:36 pm What's the difference between "the same" and "functionally the same"?
Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:40 pmOK. The concept of "identity" is elucidated by the identity type and univalence axiom.
To say that A is "identical' to B is to be able to transform/translate A into B.
Yes. Two cats can be cats, even though they are not the same cat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:42 pm Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.
Which I don't buy.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:43 pmYes. Two cats can be cats, even though they are not the same cat.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:42 pm Univalence looks like we need to buy that two things can be the same type in some literal sense.
It's essentialism with respect to properties.
I don't believe you.