Heidegger

In a message dated 20/10/2008 12:06:57 GMT Standard Time

_Polanik at nc.rr.com_ (mailto:Polanik@nc.rr.com)

Joe writes:
Okay; so, Qualia are Transcendelia

[Jud (previously)]:
I never *eliminate* any words, as I am tired of telling you. I simply point
out that such words do not have any denotatum. That means that what needs to
be addressed by me in such circumstances … is the existential modality of
the brain of the person who used such an unreferenced abstract noun.

[Joe (new)]:
as an aside, the defining feature of eliminativism that distinguishes it
from other versions of physicalism is the belief that the progress of science
will eliminate use of terms such as belief, desire and other terms of ‘folk
psychology’ the way advances in chemistry eliminated the use of ‘phlogiston’.

Jud:
That is the position of the Paul and Patricia Churchland. My position is
different and I also disagree with Parmenides who said that we should not even
refer to *that which is not.* I have repeated over and over and over again on
these lists that I have no wish WHATSOEVER to strip away useful fictions from
our language at all.

Though I agree with them the Churchlands that many such words will become
ontologically defunct and be replaced by lexical references which are more
rational and accurate, I don’t think the majority of them will be jettisoned and
furthermore I HOPE THEY ARE NOT REMOVED. There is no need to hack apart our
wonderfully expressive English language - nor any other. My agenda is to
educate people so that they understand that such reifications and abstractions
are no more than (sometimes beautiful) useful fictions that allow us to
communicate the nuances of what being a human is all about and allow us to describe
the actions and interactions of the objects which surround us.

[Joe (previously)]:
I understand you to mean what you say in the next paragraph: that you
personally do not use words that refer to qualia; and, consequently, whenever you
use the word ‘afterimage’ you are referring to a brain state.

Jud:
No, no, no, no! Don’t try to throw twinkle -dust in people’s eyes. You
understand me not. I DO use words that FOR OTHER PEOPLE refer to qualia.
But for me (in the act of using them) they do NOT refer to qualia. I use
them not only as useful fictions (English is an eliminativist’s language just as
much as any trannie’s) but also in my attempts to analyse the curious
paranormal beliefs of whatever trannie is my discussant.

When I use the word *GOD* I employ it as the (nasty) fiction that others
believe is not a fiction. When a religious nut (whether a fat-bellied born again
savage from the American deep south, or a bare-arsed painted savage from deep
within Amazonian jungles uses the word *GOD* - it refers to any, or one
particular supernatural being of the hundreds (possibly thousands) of Gods
worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is
the personification of a force.

[Jud]:
You have avoided the question again.

[Joe (new)]:
what part of my previous statement reflects a misunderstanding? do you
actually use words that refer to qualia? have you, in fact, stopped using
‘afterimage’; or, do you, in fact, use ‘afterimage’ to refer to something other than
a brain state or other physical fact or existential modality? Okay; so,
Qualia are Transcendelia

Jud:
See above.

[Jud]:
You have still not confirmed that you have grasped what I MEAN when I say I
never *eliminate* any words, I simply point out that such words do not have
any denotatum.

[Joe (new)]:
claiming that ‘afterimage’ has no referent is both false and irrelevant.

1. that the claim is false. in my vocabulary ‘afterimage’ refers to the
patch of color people see under circumstances that are specifiable with
sufficient precision for the phenomenon to be reproduced in the laboratory. in your
vocabulary ‘afterimage’ refers to the brain state associated with this
phenomenological reality.

Jud:
Well in MY vocabulary ‘afterimage’ refers to the existential modality of the
experiencing person. The so-called *brain-state does not exist at all - it
is a primitive myth. It is the stative brain that exists, but to clarify this
further I do not believe that states exists at all their is seamless change
going on in every causal object in the cosmos. You will not be existing in the
way you do now when your eyes reach the end of this sentence. And HOW can a
phenomenon be *reproduced * anywhere when it does not exist to be reproduced?
Any representation of colour must be achieved using material objects pigment,
pixels, photons etc. It is the human eyes/brains which convert those
photonic wavelengths to signals that change the human brain to a mode which renders
them as blue, green, red etc.

2. that the claim is irrelevant.

Jud:
It is relevant when these fictions start to effect a person to such an
extent that they end up in a mental home like the Nazi paranoiac Heidegger did.

2.1: are you saying that no word which has no referent should be used? if
so, you will need to state a case for this injunction before; and, in my
opinion, said case should explain why no one can follow the example of
mathematicians who *define* the phrase ‘empty set’ to refer to a set that contains no
members. based on this example, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least
some words that have no referents may be used; and, I’ve previously given you
an example of a word that is usefully used precisely because it is defined to
have no referent: whatever word whose morphology indicates that it means
not-[root predicate] relative to the linguistic frame of reference of the speaker.

Jud:
See above.

Joe: in your case, since that which is is an existent, ‘non-existent’ would,
by definition, have no referent. any, yet, one may usefully say, any
existent stands out from non-existence. I understand that you have chosen not to
make such statements. you’ve never made a case for the proposition that no one
should say this; so, I fail to see why anyone would have any motivation to
imitate your example.

Jud:
The heteron is a useful fiction and no more. I use it myself to my wife
sometimes:

*Darling! There’s nothing in the fridge!*

Do you honestly think that I or my wife (or anyone else for that matter
other than the loony professor Heidegger and his flock of sheep) ACTUALLY
believes that their is something called *nothing* in the fridge.

2.2: are you trying to say that qualia don’t exist as physical objects. if
so, the claim is irrelevant because no one contests it. the relevant question
would be, ‘do qualia exist in some other sense?’.

Jud:
THERE IS NO *OTHER SENSE.* If you claim that none existent things exist -
well put you money where your mouth is and PROVE IT!

[Jud]:
That means that the only thing left to be addressed by me (if I choose to
reply) in such circumstances - is the way the *mis-referencer* exists, i. e.,
the human who believes that something that does not exist
- exists

Joe:
it would be quite reasonable to ask why most people agree with you that
afterimages do not exist as physical objects but believe that they exist in some
other sense of the word ‘exist’. however, you will get nowhere if you
investigate the matter with preconceived notions such as:

[Jud]: in order to find out why, and upon the basis of what hard evidence he
believes that the invisible pseudo entity is real.

[Joe]: you might try stating a case for the proposition that existent can
not ever be used in any sense other than ‘existing as matergy’.

Jud:
Gawd give me strength Joe CONCENTRATE PLEASE! How often do I have to
repeat things for you trannies? I keep saying reifications and abstractions are
acceptable as long as they are ACKNOWLEDGED as useful fictions. It is the
nutters like Heidegger and idiots like him who actually believe they exist who
are the potentially dangerous maniacs.

NOTE: I use caps for emphasis - not shouting.

Joe:
in my opinion, to do this you will have to explain why, in the case of the
claim regarding an even prime number, no mathematician on the planent is
allowed to translate the existential quantifier to say ‘there exists an even prime
number’.

Jud:
You are always claiming that *IS* is an existentialiser - you tell me. As
far as I am concerned - when somebody comes along and shows me a number (and I
don’t mean an arrangement of dried ink particles or photons impacting a
screen) I might believe them.

[Joe]: until you do that, it is clear that ‘existent’ can be
*legitimately* used in a sense that doesn’t refer to an existent existing as
matergy. it is in that sense in which it is also legitmate to say
‘afterimages exist’.

Jud:
Utter rubbish - it is never *legitimate* to claim that something that does
not exist - exists. Con men, bankers and political wankers get put in jail for
such criminal claims.

[Jud]: With regard to the word *afterimage* I do not refer to the *qualia,*
for I reject the whole Lewisean idea of *qualia* along with other
qualophiles and similar Nagelian, chiropteran infantile nonsense. It is a
holistically-felt painful toe that exists - NOT *toe-pain.*

[Joe]: suppose I claim that when I use the word ‘afterimage’ I am referring
to the qualia not the brain state; is that enough to be considered a
transcendalist as you define that term?

Jud:
Yes, to claim that something that does not exist - exists is the hall-mark
of a loony.

[Jud]: Ontologically speaking - (in ontological discussion) if you use the
word ‘afterimage’ when referring to the qualia, brain state, properties or
existential modalities WITHOUT CONFIRMING THAT YOU ARE EMPLOYING THEM MERELY AS
USEFUL FICTIONS then that is enough to be considered a transcendalist -

[Joe]: okay; I’m clearly a transcendentalist in that sense.

Jud:
Well, *to admit it is the first step on the road to recovery as I have read
that Alcoholics Anonymous tell their new members.

Jud

Posted on Sunday, October 26th, 2008 at 6:00 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback