Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Abram,
> On 02 Dec 2008, at 20:33, Abram Demski wrote:
>> I am a bit confused. To me, you said
>>> Or, you are weakening the physical supervenience
>>> thesis by appeal to a notion of causality which seems to me a bit
>>> magical, and contrary to the local functionalism of the
>> This seems to say that the version of MAT that MGA is targeted at does
>> not include causal requirements.
> MAT is the usual idea that there is a physical world described through
> physical laws. Those capture physical causality, generally under the
> form of differential equations. If there were no causality in physics,
> the very notion of physical supervenience would not make sense. Nor MEC
> +MAT, at the start. Sorry if I have been unclear, but I was
> criticizing only the *magical* causality which is necessary for
> holding both the physical supervenience thesis and the mechanist
> hypothesis, like attribution of prescience to the neurons (in MGA 1),
> or attributing a computational role in inert Material.
This seems to assume there is causality apart from physical causality, but
is no causality in logic or mathematics (except in a metaphorical, I might say
"magical", sense). So I don't see that Gunther is relying on anything magical.
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