Heidegger

In a message dated 04/10/2008 _jPolanik at nc.rr.com_
(mailto:jPolanik@nc.rr.com) writes:

Zombie Psycho-Philosophy

Jud: (formerly)
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?

Joe:
according to your definition of ‘exists’ (exists as matergy), ‘only matergy
exists’ is analogous. what is in question is your assumption that all there is
matergy. until you state your case for this claim, it is … unproven,
undefended and unsupported.

Jud:
Only matergy exists is not a tautology - it’s a claim. A tautology is a
statement that is necessarily true. In order for a statement to be considered in
such a manner as could not be otherwise it has got to be considered
necessarily true by everybody or at least a considerable majority. The millions of
religious nuts, terrorists and other trannies in the world (possibly a
majority of the world’s population) do not accept that claim to be therefore it is
not a tautology.

Joe:
as you well know, the philosopher’s zombie is “a creature that is physically
identical to you in every way, goes through exactly the same actions, and
says exactly the same things as you but that lacks conscious experience”
[Freeman, Anthony. 2003. Consciousness: A Guide to the Debates. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO p. 226].

Jud:
As you well know the cartoonist’s Popeye is “a creature that is imagined to
be physically thirty four years old, stands at five feet, six inches, and
weighs one hundred and fifty four pounds. He is known for always carrying his
pipe, which today may be regarded as dirty or unhealthy. However, smoking was
almost a norm during the Depression Era, which is probably the reason that a
cartoon character got away with smoking a pipe constantly. Today, Popeye is
only on television reruns. It may have something to do with the media’s
portrayed of smoking as a sin. By watching Popeye, children may think that it is
okay to smoke a pipe. Sadly Popeye, like the philosopher’s zombie, does not
really exist, being the creation of Elzie Segar a cartoonist who wrote the strip
Thimble Theatre in the late teens and early twenties.

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.

Joe:
it is just such a definition (of the experiencer as the experiencing brain)
that unconceals the fact that you define a human in a way that is co-extensive
with the definition of a zombie. zombies have human bodies and human brains;
and, according to you, the human is nothing but a human body

Jud:
Firstly - Don’t be a complete dope Joe - you know damn well that you are
misrepresenting my position. Your *philosopher’s zombie* has no connection
with the real world - nor should such childishness be connected with
*philosophy. * Such a literary character does NOT go through *exactly the same
actions, and say exactly the same things as I do, but that lacks conscious
experience” because it does not exist.

Secondly - I, as a conscious eliminativist am conscious, so how in the
bowels of Christ can a non-existent entity, whether they be the non-existent
cartoonist’s Popeye, or the non-existent philosopher’s zombie, both of whom
are unconscious, fictive characters out of books or films, who lack human
bodies and human brains be like me?

This is childish muck - and I am beginning to view this is a ill- concealed
form of ad hominem because everyone can see you are rapidly running out of
ideas - like you did with all the others who finally told you to get lost - well
you better start thinking that I will be going too.

Just drop the effin stupid juvenility of let’s-pretend zombie’s - you are
dealing with an eliminativist here, not some idiotic, spotty-faced,
traumatised, angst-ridden, self-obsessed arsehole of a transcendentalist.

Joe:
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.

the eliminativist man claims that he thinks, feels, loves, hates and so on;
but, according to you love does not exist; nor, presumably, does hate,
compassion and so on. true?

Jud:
God give me strength - I am now putting you on A LAST WARNING. If you carry
on once more like a bleeding idiot with your zombie rubbish And ever write
stuff like you have written in the above paragraph, which even a first-year
philosophy student, who knows anything about Materialism - Nominalism -
Eliminativism would ever DREAM of writing, then, I like all the others - I will
consider you no more than a troll!
If that happens I will never answer any more of your messages.

I suggest you get yourself a good Dictionary of Philosophy and do a bit of
reading around on the nature of your opponent’s position before you write to
me any more.

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