On Mar 8, 1:02 am, David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> wrote:
> On 8 March 2011 00:11, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > It's rather well known that reductivism and eliminativism are
> > not equivalent positions, for instance.
> <snip>
> > And reductive identity theorists say mind "is" a bunch
> > of micro physical goings-on, whereas their eliminativist
> > opponents say mind "Is" nothing at all.
> Yes, indeed they do, as I am very well aware, but I've said why I
> think that neither of these "well known" positions can adequately
> address the mind-body issues, which is what we are discussing.  My
> claim is that they are using circular reasoning, assuming the
> conclusion in the premise, or are simply ignoring the very tools they
> employ to construct their case.  What specifically do you find to be
> the error in this analysis?

If they are both 100% wrong, that does  not make them

> > Either or neither or both  of reductivism  and eliminativism can
> > be judged empirically inadequate: in no case does that
> > make them the same
> I have explained why I think any real distinction between the two in a
> materialist schema is fundamentally question-begging with respect to
> the mind-body problem, essentially in the terms Bruno articulated so
> succinctly.

I don't know what a "question begging distinction" is. People
who are proposing a theory are allowed to stipulate its principles

> You haven't pointed out what is wrong with my argument,
> merely that others disagree with it.

I don't recall you giving an argument...just insisting
that materialism means there is no mind.

> It would be more helpful if you
> would say simply what you find to be wrong or unclear in what I have
> said.
> David

There are uncontroversial examples of successful reduction, eg
the reduction of heat to molecular motion. In these cases
the reduced phenomenon still exists. There is still such
a thing as heat. People who sincerely think mind is reducible
to brain states, therefore sincerely hold that mind is not nothing.
If you think that is mistaken, you need to say why. If you
think the mind-to-matter reduction simply fails, that is another
A failed attempt at reduction is not at all the same thing as denialism

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to