>>194
I think you would find a better response if you defined what eliminative materialism. People are able to look stuff on Wiki or Google, but most won't feel the obligation to, so if you want a good response you really should put forward your entire argument and all the related concepts so that people can just give their opinions.

Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist. Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.[1] Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.[2]

To the above definition. It doesn't seem to make much sense to logically argue against basic emotions that everyone shares. A child feels angry or hungry, and then wants food. The anger and desire for food are both real even though they cannot be directly seen because they are experienced by the individual. Just because an experience cannot be communicated directly does not mean that the experience does not exist.