And the Wiki article, which gives a more concise explanation:
"In the philosophy of mind, eliminative materialism is the school of thought that argues for an absolute version of materialism and physicalism with respect to mental entities and mental vocabulary. It principally argues that our common-sense understanding of the mind (what eliminativists call folk psychology) is not a viable theory on which to base scientific investigation, and therefore no coherent neural basis will be found for many such everyday psychological concepts (such as belief or intention) and that behaviour and experience can only be adequately explained on the biological level." from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialism
I believe that the Churchlands' are going in the right direction about neuroscience, but I doubt that folk psychology (hoping doubting psychology) will be replaced by, as Paul claims, "My c-fibre is firing in this....of my brain." While he derides FP, he forgets that FP has lasted so long because it has predictive power.
Post by nockwasright on Nov 14, 2005 4:50:43 GMT -5
They don't impress me much (to be read singing).
If I got it, basically they claim that the words we use to describe what's passing in our brain (e.g. as "belief" or "pain") have no scientific-descriptive value at all, are to the reality of our brain what "being possessed to the demon" was for skizophrenia (i.e. a wrong explanation which shares nothing with reality and is completely abandoned with time), and shoud be replaced by the description of the physical process that goes on in our mind.
First such a statement, withouth being paired by said physical description sounds like: "present statstics on crania measurement are useless, all crania of all men who ever existed shoud be measured, then we'll have something". Second they seem to forget that all communication is possible because of common feeling/shared experience between men. Without it no word could ever be understood, or language exist. Thus the concepts they want to get rid of are actually very efficient concepts evovled in thousand of years to describe sinthetically complex situations. When (and if) the chemstry of which such sensation are made of will be known, they still will be referred to in a synthetic manner. Besides, such chemstry may be different for each individual, making impossible to rely on it for generalisations. Furthermore the fact that triggers such sensations are by far too complecx to be described in a not synthetic manner. Edit: Finally, my spelling sucks.
You see, nock, that's exactly the critique I gave Churchland when I wrote my paper for school. FP is not going anywhere, it's here to stay because quite simply, it WORKS. It helps predict human behaviour and has served us well all around for as many years as we have had language. If you are interested, you can read Dan Dennet, who gives a thorough defense of folk psyschology, after Churchland's attack. I'll try to dig up the name of the paper.
Ah, I can't find the name of the article, but Dennett's view is called instrumentalism. It's kind of like pragmatism. He acknowledges that FP cannot compete with a completed neuroscience. Neuroscience is concerned with actual brain function, and FP just works in an input- predictable output capacity, not concerned with empirical truth.
Nock, I have always loved the City until fairly recently. I have lived here all nineteen years of my life. I used to think that I would be here forever, but now I know better. I'm getting really tired of this place, and now realize the necessity of moving, for three reasons.
1) There are too many damn people here. I feel like everywhere I go, I'm stepping on someone else or breathing someone else's scent. I'm tired of it. I live in an apartment building, and I'm tired of seeing someone every time I go to check the mail. My dream is to have a house where I can go out buck naked and sing on the front lawn.
2) No real sense of community. People here seem not only to be indifferent to each other, but seem to have actual contempt for others. I came to my senses about this place when in the same day, I had to curse out a bum for standing over me trying to intidimate me into giving him money, yelling at a guy in a expensive business suit who pushed the stroller with my baby sister in it aside so he could jump on the train before me, and getting into an nonsensical argument with a dopehead on my apartment stoop.
3) It's to damn expensive to live here! The rent is outrageous. Only two kinds of people find it comfortable living here. The ultra rich people, and the people who have full healthcare paid by the gov, foodstamps and AFDC (welfare).
I don't think you asked for all that, but the question prompts a rant. ;D
Post by nockwasright on Nov 16, 2005 2:01:06 GMT -5
. Strange you got tired of it so early.
Early? Twenty years is enough
I meant early in life. Usually while young and full off expectations/energies the big city is thrilling and fashinating and its disadvantages appear bearable. But I'm soo off topic now, I'll stop here.