(June 6, 2017 at 9:26 am)Khemikal Wrote:(June 6, 2017 at 9:18 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The bigger question Khem, I think, is how does the eliminative materialist justify considering some systems discrete. Where does one system begin and the other end? It seems that the eliminative position is the opposite of what you are saying, i.e. that those boundaries are illusory. Nominalism is implicit in eliminativism. Systems and objects aren't really distinct; they are just descriptions to give the semblance of intelligibility to what is actually a seamless swirl of material activity.
The same way that any system is considered discrete by anyone. Why I am considered to be one thing, and my cars engine is another. Two discrete, and disparate systems. Honestly, if we have to go this far down the rabbit hole just to not-even-disagree.....I don't know what the problem is -or- for whom it's supposed to be a problem.
Am I you? Am I god? Can we make a distinction between these three things?
That's not an answer. You haven't explained why it is possible to make these kinds of distinctions (and no, it doesn't necessarily entail invoking deity). The reason, we need to go down this rabbit hole, as you call it, is because eliminativism is fundamentally incoherent. Systems are defined by their forms and purposes. When they reduce everything to only material and efficient causes then eliminativists lose the ability to speak meaningfully about systems or processes. Ultimately their claim entails that reality is not intelligible.
