/lit/ - Literature

>>19630560
This fails to explain how physical changes in the brain can so drastically determine the contents of thought.

I saved pic related from another of these threads because it got like 50 responses and like two actually tried to respond. The rest were insults or appeals to mysticism. That in and of itself makes it interesting. It's like getting to see people freak out about the position that the Earth revolves around the sun.

>>19334470
Ok, so absolutely no answer then except seethe. Thanks for clarification.

There are, or course, plenty of problems for physicalism in general, and consistent idealist systems that don't have to rely on appeals to skepticism that regress into solipsism, or angry appeals to emotion, it's just that I have just yet to see a single one of those alluded to on /lit/ in any thread on eliminative materialism (which used to be Dennett threads, lol), just seethe like this.

>>19334188
I wish Dennett would engage with these systems more but he mostly handwaves them. He basically ignores Kant's Copernican turn and focuses on the abstraction of physicalists models for the most part in what I've read. Grimm over at Stonybrook is good at comparing these with his views, Chalmers, etc. He has a solid book pulling in answers to big questions on the Hard Problem from them.

I only know Bakker from Neuropath, but even there he has his protagonist admit that there are philosophical systems that offer explanations on par with materialism in their coherence. He doesn't reference any directly. These are handwaves away as being less likely to be true because they are too complex for most people to understand, and because materialism helps us develop technologies and has pragmatic value, which is useful to keep the plot moving for his thriller, but a shit rebuttal.

>>19334526
I have no idea what this statement is supposed to mean. Is it some sort of appeal against epistemological relativism? I don't think that's what anon meant.

>>19306391
>Technocrat
Like this is a bad thing. Somehow retards and reality TV stars running things is better, right, because "muh democracy," or some shit. Plato was right about this entire thing. Asking the winners of popularity contests to rule is like asking a plumber to fix your computer, or asking a programmer to do your heart surgery.

>Muh bugmen
I'm glad I saved this anon's post because I've been able to post it several times to make people in occultist and gnostic threads seethe. Never have I see any compelling responses. It's not like empiricism doesn't have the weight of results behind it, but apparently "but what about my feel feels!" is considered a good rebuttal to it.