[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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---