[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> 
> On Aug 22, 11:55 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
>> I accept that there is more than one way to describe reality, and I
>> accept the concept of supervenience, but where I differ with you
>> (stubbornly, perhaps) is over use of the word "fundamental". The base
>> property seems to me more deserving of being called "fundamental" than
>> the supervenient property. If you were to give concise instructions to
>> a god who wanted to build a copy of our world you could skip all the
>> information about values etc. confident in the knowledge that all this
>> extra stuff would emerge as long as the correct physical information
>> was conveyed; whereas the converse is not the case.
>>
>> [If the mental does not supervene on the physical this changes the
>> particular example, but not the general point.]
> 
> Refer the brief definition of property dualism referenced by the link
> Bruno gave:
> http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/courses/mind/notes/supervenience.html
> 
> 
> Be careful to draw a distinction between 'substances' and
> 'properties'.  I accept that the underlying *substance* is likely
> physical, but *properties* are what are super-imposed on the top of
> the underlying substance.  The physical *substance* may be the base
> level, but the physical *properties* aren't.  From the mere fact that
> aesthetic properties are *composed of* physical substances, it does
> not follow that aesthetic properties themselves are physical.  Nor
> does it follow from the fact that physical substances are *neccessery*
> for aesthetic properties,  that they are *sufficient* to fully specify
> aesthetic properties.
> 
> Here's why:  Complete knowledge of the physical properties of your
> brain cannot in fact enable you to deduce your aesthetic preferences
> without additional *non-physical* assumptions.  

I don't know whether you're hair splitting or speaking loosely, but the above 
is off the point in a couple of ways.  In the first place empirical science is 
inductive not deductive; so there is a trivial sense in which you can't deduce 
any empirical fact, such as someone's aesthetic preferences.  More broadly you 
can deduce aesthetic preferences, though of course that takes a theory.  A 
theory is non-physical, but it isn't necessarily an assumption - it may be very 
well supported inductively.  In fact I can give and easy example of such 
deduction and I don't even need to directly observe your brain.  I predict that 
you prefer the appearance of nude young women to that of nude young men.

Brent Meeker


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to