> 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 

Reply via email to