Heidegger

In a message dated 03/10/2008 11:29:49 GMT Standard Time,
_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes: _GEVANS613 at aol.com_
(mailto:GEVANS613@aol.com) wrote:

_jPolanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

[Jud]: (earlier)
Dialectically one can only progress to a certain point with a trannie and
one hits an ontological brick wall. … The addition of
*extra* symbols of meaningfulness is of no avail for even if I accepted
them, colloquy would dry up for there would be nothing to discuss. It would
simply be a question of: I think this, you think that, they think that.

[Joe]:
getting to the point of ‘I think this, you think that’ might represent
considerable progress. there is no ontological brick wall; but, there is your
stonewalling. according to you, physical objects exist and nothing else exists in
any other sense of ‘exists’. applied to the human, this means that the human
is nothing more than a human body. …

[Joe]: that is precisely the definition of the philosopher’s zombie: an
entity with a human body but no subjective experiences whatsoever (and, it goes
without saying, no soul or immaterial mind either). your definition of the
human and the philosopher’s definition of the zombie are identical: I-0 = [ I-1 ]

[Searle]: “I am saying that once the existence of (subjective, qualitative)
consciousness is granted (and no sane person can deny its existence, though
many pretend to do so), then there is nothing strange, wonderful or mysterious
about its *irreducibility*.” [Searle, John R. 1992. The Rediscovery of the
Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p.
124]

[Jud]:
NAME one JUST ONE philosopher who PRETENDS that he/she denies the
*existence* of subjective, qualitative) consciousness. Come on I CHALLENGE you to back
up your cheap rhetoric by *outing* someone who does.

[Joe (on behalf of Searle who is not here to speak for himself)]:

I out … Jud Evans.

the grounds for this outage:

1. your definitions

you have defined your terms (’exists’ and cognate terms) so that all that is
exists and all that exists exists as matergy and in no other way. this makes
the definition of a human indistinguishable from the definition of a zombie.

what aspect of a human that is not also an aspect of a zombie is allowed by
your definitions?

Jud: (NEW)
Hahahah! How on earth do you know anything about *aspects* of Zombies? Watch
my pretty lips Joe -

*Zombies do not exist to be defined or to attributed characteristics to be
considered.*
EVEN IF SOME TRANNIE PHILOSPHERS SAY THEY DO!

I would remind you that a definition of a zombie is that of a dead body that
has been brought back to life by a supernatural force, a spirit or
supernatural force that reanimates a dead body, a god of voodoo cults of African
origin worshipped especially in West Indies

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that I, a grown, educated man, should amend my
scientific statement that: Only matergy exists* on the basis of the weirdo
beliefs of some Caribbean islanders based upon the ancient witch-doctory of
I9th century Black Africa?
This is a PHILOSOPHY list Joe, not some discussional forum of the
anthropological curiosities of bygone times

Joe:

2. your challenge to Searle

Jud:
It’s simple then you old fool - PROVE the existence of your invisible let’s
pretend entity!

Joe:
Searle doesn’t believe that there is a metaphenomenal entity such an
immaterial soul or mind that produces the phenomenon of awareness. indeed, as you
should recall from your study of Searle, he thinks that the phenomenological
experiencer is a (metaphorical) ’secretion’ of the brain. he merely says that
the experiencer is not reducible to the brain (which, he assumes, is solely
responsible for its generation).

Jud:
Soul, consciousness, the psyche etc., are all equally ridiculous trannie
inventions That this old fool Searle believes that the brain *secretes* some
metaphorical substance. One cannot be *metaphorically* about matter - it
exists - or it does not. Any secretion is a discharging of a material substance
by an organic process of synthesizing and releasing what is in effect
additional material *stuff* as some king of *extension* within, into or around the
brain is simply to linguistically re-jig the hoary old notion of a
homunculus or metaphysical manikin - a tiny fully formed individual that (according to
the discredited theory of preformation) which is supposed to be present in
the sperm cell and takes up later residence within the skull.

That the spiritualistic would-be trickster Searle fails to attribute a
humanoid shape to his manikin (gynaecologically speaking, maternity nurses are
often witnesses to such unformed embryonic human birth tissue called by doctors
*hydatidiform mole forms in place of a foetus) and prefers to restrict its
supernaturality to that of an undescribed formless secretion (perhaps with the
consistency of spiritulised ejaculate?) does NOT mean that such
transcendental tom foolery should be taken seriously. I dismiss the man who posits the
existence of some fantasised cerebral version of a neurological hydatidiform
metaphorical mole as an experiencing secretional brain extension, as a
complete fool and a needless waster of the taxpayer’s hard-earned money - and move
on…

For me what you dualistically call *the experiencer* I distinguish as the
(monistic) experiencing brain, which, apart from the profusion of neurological
cells that characterise that organ, ontologically, and in some ways
physiologically is no different from the experiencing tongue or the experiencing
eyes, which in my opinion are adjuncts of the brain anyway if one views the human
( as I do) as a holism.

3. your eliminativism

Jud: you are losing the plot! Eliminativists do not play … let’s pretend
there are zombies … Searle … is a contemporary philosopher of *mind* …
Who the hell believes in *mind* any more… ?

Joe: ‘mind’ is one of those terms that eliminativists eliminate. so, even if
you somehow prove that there is a difference between a human (according to
your definitions) and a zombie (as philosophers define it), you wouldn’t be
able to say anything about this difference without un-eliminating the vocabulary
necessary to do so.

Jud: Now you are going beyond merely putting words into my mouth you are
trying to stuff my brain with alien trannie definitive notions that I would
never even dream of touching even with the end of a shiity stick.

Lip time again Joe! I do not care a flying f - - - for how your so-called
ontologically challenged trannie philosophers *define* zombies. For me anyone
who believes in zombies is a complete ass-hole - it REALLY IS as simple as
that.

Eliminativist man thinks, feels, speculates, loves, hates, wishes, is
interested, is bored, believes, disbelieves just like any other member of human
society. To reject the invisibles (which you claim *are* or *exist*) does NOT
mean that there is a need for the eliminativist to eradicate some notion in
such a way that their semantic implications become inaccessible at all. I
thought that you were quicker on the uptake, but I was mistaken.

Normally the eliminativist simply adjectivalises (I have mentioned this many
times before) what the trannie dualistically calls *a property* and employs
it descriptively in such an apriori fashion that the subject is instantiated
together with the said modality already represented ALONG with the subject -
thus in such expressions as: *The brave soldier* or *the jealous husband,*
the existential modalities of the soldier and the husband (i. e., the
spurious *properties* *bravery* and jealousy*) are not existentially elevated to
pseudo-entities that *BELONG* to the soldier and the husband as temporary
*tack-on* extensions in the manner of Searle and his stupid daytime secretions
and his transcendental hydatidiform metaphorical mole.

I await your apology for my demolition of *the laughing stock of La
Haye’s* stupid cogito - I rub my hands in eager anticipation of the sophistry to
come.

Jud

Posted on Sunday, October 5th, 2008 at 6:01 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback