/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15177290]

>eliminative materialism
>consciousness isnt real
>all seeming intentionality is merely a mistake of grammar
>neurological behavior sufficiently explains subjectivity
I have never been more excited. This is it. This solves everything. Apparently this account of consciousness is pretty much the standard model at places like Stanford according to a friend of mine.

Has anyone studied it at an academic level? Thoughts, comments?

[Anonymous No.15177694]

>>15177290
Wahey psychology gets it all wrong again by LARPing as a natural science! I study psychology and I can tell you that it's a load of liberal bullshit that updates itself every 5 years so they can call past psychological theories conservative. Neuroscientists will not figure out the human mind, I'd sooner trust a physicist, and above that a priest. If neuroscientists can push antidepressents and other psychoactive medication without understanding the full effect mechanism, I definitely aint trusting them with a "solves everything!" theory of psychology. This is just psychologists getting pissed that normies invalidate their half-baked thesis, just by thinking about other people. That "consciousness doesn't real" is intuitively wrong and whoever came up with this theory is just pissy that biology and psychology aren't scientific enough to explain consciousness. Consciousness is real and will be better explained by physics or the bible, take your pick, both are more intelligent field than psychology. Sorry if that was a bit too vitriolic of a rant, been continuing my psychology classes at home and I really want to give the course coordiantors a piece of my mind for their grave misunderstanding of psychology's position as a science and it's relation to philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15177728]

>>15177290
is this bait?

[Anonymous No.15177808]

>>15177728
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15178119]

>>15177290
Neurophilosophy, neurophenomenology, philosophy of mind and so on and so on. If you think the neurosciences will eliminate psychology, psychotherapy, or is even close to explaining and solving the problem of consciousness is just naief and testifies of a limited understanding of the neurosciences. Every science has its limits. Neurosciences are no different in that. You make the mistake of thinking that psychology is only a 'science' that tries to explain and describe psychological states with the methods of the natural sciences. And that alone is an endeavour that will never be solved. They both are different and have their own place in a sense of meaning and comprehension.

[Anonymous No.15178162]

>>15177290
what's the difference between this and dennett?

[Anonymous No.15178226]

>>15177290
Dabble into phenomenology in order to understand 'subjectivity'. Read Husserl.

[Anonymous No.15178248]

>>15178162
there's no difference, they're both garbage
who is dennett

[Anonymous No.15178399]

>>15177290
>Has anyone studied it at an academic level?
yes, only stem retards buy it, it's inherently self refuting
>hurr we used scientific empericism to disprove the possibility of empericism

[Anonymous No.15178408]

>>15178162
Dennett is probably the most famous eliminative materialist

[Anonymous No.15178428]

>>15177290
*blocks your path*
Not today pal.

[Anonymous No.15178444]

>>15177290
>consciousness isnt real

This is the most brainlet idea ever conceived. I'm convinced anyone who even considers this is some sort of npc because I don't see how a conscious entity could think it doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.15178483]

it's dishonest

[Anonymous No.15178493]

>>15178444
It's ultimately a cope for people who are afraid of the consequences of freedom

[Anonymous No.15178518]

>>15178428
Chalmers has been shedding the panpsychism of his juvenalia days and leaning closer and closer to a fully reductive physicalist account of consciousness for years. He has always been on board with neuroscience fully explaining consciousness, and as things progress he admits its more and more likely.

His refusals to accept much of Dennett's work stems from a misunderstanding of the enterprise of Eliminative Materialism, much like >>15178444 who totally misunderstands it.

The point, >>15178444, is that everything you are referring to as consciousness via linguistic pointing is an illusion, a mistake of grammar, and in reality "consciousness" possesses no innate intentionality that cannot be objectively rendered and studied scientifically. It is the desktop icons that convert the underlying code (neuro-proxesses) into an easily accessible telemetry.

>>15178493
>freedom
lol anon thats been disproved for literally centuries at this point. You are wholly determined by material processes. the idea of freedom would be the true cope

[Anonymous No.15178549]

>>15178518
>thats been disproved for literally centuries at this point. You are wholly determined by material processes
>what is an emergent property
ask my how I know you haven't taken anything higher than an undergrad class on philosophy of mind

[Anonymous No.15178567]

>>15178518
Chalmer is not close to physicalist consciousness. Last time I listen something of him, was a podcast of Sam Harris and Him and they both seem to agree that consciousness is most definetely Not an Ilusion
>Dennett
Chalmers also mentions is actually Dennett the one who is accepting more and more the fact that 'consciousness' Cannot be an Ilusion that can be eliminated.
The podcast is on youtube.

[Anonymous No.15178614]

>>15178518
Sounds like someone who failed undergrad school. Very narrow understanding of such a vast and difficult problem. Read more.

[Anonymous No.15178637]

People still stuck on the question of consciousness dont know the difference between being and Being.

[Anonymous No.15178653]

>>15178637
Consciousness will always be a topic for philosophers and scientists.

[Anonymous No.15178656]

>>15177290
Based Churchland chad. Expect /lit/ to hate it because the whole body of literary fiction genre and continental philosophy hinges on folk psychology.

[Anonymous No.15178820]

>>15177290
>excited
>>15178656
>hate

>claim to be eliminative materialist
>still ascribe mental states to people
nice going retards.

[Anonymous No.15178844]

Agree or disagree, the implications are devastating. If our brains are just "stupid meat" and our self-identities are just "stories that we tell ourselves about ourselves", then this would essentially eliminate entire fields of study as unnecessary. Sociology, cultural studies, gender and sexuality, ethnic studies, all "eliminated" as irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.15178855]

I still dont understand how you can be tricked unless youre there in the first place to be tricked.

[Anonymous No.15178903]

>>15178656
Hell yeah the Churchlands are based. With as pro-determinism as /lit/ is im surprised they are so against the logic of Eliminativism.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xrFqhOvNtWM

>>15178518
Idk man, Chalmers has said maybe his "Hard Problem" of consciousness can be solved with physicalist models, but he's stated that it is Dennett who is misunderstanding things.

>>15178549
>ask my how I know you haven't taken anything higher than an undergrad class on philosophy of mind
Have you? If so please contribute some more to the thread since i'm looking for those who are studied in it.

What are your takes on it?

>>15178844
Yep. Hence why people get so up in arms about it.

[Anonymous No.15178915]

>>15178844
It wouldn't change anything. Except maybe some sciences, no one cares whether consciousness is material or not.

[Anonymous No.15178932]

>>15178844
This reasoning is so bad, I have no words for it.

[Anonymous No.15179241]

>>15178844
Identity has nothing to do with the hard problem of conciousness.

[Anonymous No.15179461]

>have metaphysical assumptions about reality
>Be a scientist that must reduce things down into a simple solution as much as possible
>Come to the conclusion that reality is the metaphysical assumptions that you reduced things to
>You forgot to reduce your metaphysical assumptions or if you didn't other people did and now they made a philosophy out of it
It's impossible to fully reduce your presuppositions because you have to start somewhere but you should at least remember to draw the line between science and philosophy. Please become conscious of when science is starting to become philosophy again. All scientists can do is talk about the things that they studied. They can give us brute facts but that does not mean that they have enough information to give philosophical views of reality. One part of science is brute facts and the other is theory. I don't care how obvious reality appears to some scientists. Scientist please keep doing your job as good as you can so that we can have the correct facts. coming up with metaphysics is a little bit beyond the scientific method. You can use science to make your metaphysics but you don't have to. I don't care if you try to reduce mysticism to biological processes but that's your prerogative and not my full experience.

[Anonymous No.15179557]

>>15178903
>What are your takes on it?
Determinism is not implied by physicalism. Determinate physical laws can lead to a system whose complexity creates the space for indeterminate action. For example, the rules of chess are determinate, they are unchanging, and the number of states on a chess board is finite. This does not mean, however, that you can use these laws to determine what the next game of chess will look like on that chess board. The properties of the actual chess game are not simply reducible to the laws governing the moves.

[Anonymous No.15179779]

>>15178162
Dennett is famous. That's the difference.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15179813]

>>15177694
>It’s liberal bullshit because I hate liberals
>uses slanguage like “LARP”

[Anonymous No.15179868]

I don't think that thr hard problem is solvable. The nature of consciousness is inaccessible because the qualities of consciousness are irreducible beyond the properties that they represent. On the otherhand, the physical world is also inaccessible beyond our phenomenal experiences. The easiest solution is to admit that qualia as a scientific concept of the physical world is meaningless and inscrutable by the nature of its definitions and that world of physicalist science is sufficient and necessary as a framework from which to define the world. Nonetheless as a phenomenal being there will always be an explanatory gap that cannot be closed, and given how redundant qualia is as a concept, doesn't even need to be closed.

[Anonymous No.15179877]

btfo by Popper's promissory materialism

[Anonymous No.15179941]

>>15179877
>promissory materialism

>While I do not wish to suggest that it is impossible that things may happen as the physicalist says here (see my [1974 (c)], p. 1054), I do not think that this argument can be taken seriously. For it says no more than that no observational evidence is final, beyond the possibility of correction, and that all our knowledge is fallible. This is true, of course; but it is not enough to be used, on its own, as a defence of a theory against empirical criticism. The argument, as it stands, is too weak. As mentioned before, it would be as applicable to question the existence of cats or of elephants as it is to question the existence of subjective experience. While there is always a risk involved in accepting evidence and arguments like those here used by me, it seems to me reasonable to take the risk. For all the physicalist offers is, as it were, a cheque drawn against his future prospects, and based on the hope that a theory will be developed one day which solves his problems for him; the hope, in short, that something will turn up.

[Anonymous No.15179999]

Dude like one day ~takes huge drag of blunt~ people will stop talking about some things and talk about other things and so we will automatically win and be right.

[Anonymous No.15180035]

>>15178844
unfortunately, no matter how based the consequences would be, it’s still not true

[Anonymous No.15180072]

Marks sister in peep show is really fit.

[Anonymous No.15180079]

>>15178656
>Expect /lit/ to hate it because the whole body of literary fiction genre and continental philosophy hinges on folk psychology
I too can't wait until Shakespeare is replaced with visualizations and models of the brain.

[Anonymous No.15180093]

>>15180079
wait no longer

[Anonymous No.15181006]

>>15178656
>Expect /lit/ to hate it because the whole body of literary fiction genre and continental philosophy hinges on folk psychology.
>Expect /lit/ to hate it
>hinges on folk psychology
Nothing worse than the people who don't think about their presuppositions and how they might undermine their own arguments.

[Anonymous No.15181059]

>>15177290
>Apparently this account of consciousness is pretty much the standard model at places like Stanford according to a friend of mine.
All this means is that Stanford is full of NPCs.

http://www.jaronlanier.com/zombie.html

[Anonymous No.15181070]

>>15177290
Avshalom Elitzur thinks that interactionist dualism is the correct theory of consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

[Anonymous No.15181078]

[Anonymous No.15181115]

>>15178844
No, at worse it would only turn this
>Sociology, cultural studies, gender and sexuality, ethnic studies
Into this
>Neurosociology, neurocultural studies, neurogender and neurosexuality, neuroethnic studies

[Anonymous No.15181117]

>>15177290

post is too confused to merit serious response, but for starters (a) eliminative materialism is a claim about the general theoretical usefulness of terms in folk psychology, e.g. "belief" and "desire"; it needn't be the denial that consciousness is unreal. and it certainly is not the claim that intentionality is a mistake of grammar. churchland, for instance, has a whole program of trying to reduce intentionality to 'vector space' models of neural function. it is by no means the standard view at stanford.

>>15178408
the most famous eliminativists are the churchlands, no doubt. dennett is not an eliminativist in the same sense. he thinks that folk psychological discourse is useful and predictive. he just doesn't think it's literally true. he is better understood as an instrumentalist about folk psychology (in the same way one might think that quantum mechanics is a useful predicting device but is not literally true i.e. there are not /really/ states called superpositions, etc.) eliminativists are more radical; they think folk psychology fails at a more fundamental level. it fails even to have /any/ theoretical or empirical virtues.

>>15178518
post is too confused to merit serious response. but chalmers has been pretty consistent in his support for a limited sort of dualism. that much hasn't changed, as far as i can tell, over the years. he thinks neuroscience is relevant; he denies (or is at least skeptical) that it can "fully" explain consciousness.

>>15179557
you're right but for the wrong reason. physicalism doesn't imply determinism for the simple reason that we have a very successful theory (standard quantum mechanics) that apparently posits non-deterministic laws of nature. whether or not that's true, it's a possibility the physicalist is obliged to countenance.

[Anonymous No.15181157]

>>15181078
Good meme, but the last 3 theories are interchangeable or compatible with one another as far as I can tell. What's the dif between dual aspect and neutral monism? Spinoza seems to be both sumultaneously

[Anonymous No.15181841]

>>15179813
Your kind's existence is proof psychology is a load of liberal bullshit. Back in the day would've just diagnosed you with male hysteria or something of the sort.

[Anonymous No.15182198]

>>15180093
this isn't real you know

[Anonymous No.15182248]

>>15177290
Eliminative materialism comes from ontological materialism which has been falsified.

[Anonymous No.15182259]

>>15177290
>>15178844
When I said this man debunked everything and ended philosophy I meant it.

[Anonymous No.15182321]

>>15177290
>grammar mistake
>mistake
Lol-ing

[Anonymous No.15182386]

>>15181117
churchland m&f are disgusting hacks.