On 27 Dec 2011, at 07:49, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 06:10:34PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Agreed. As I said, I never had a problem with the conclusion, just
Also, I am concerned about any disproof of physical supervenience
(regardless of the primitivity question), as supervenience is an
important ingredient for the Anthropic Principle, and ISTM necessary
to avoid the Occam catastrophe.
It seems to me that those two paragraphs contradict themselves.
After MGA we have to drop physical supervenience (called
"supervenience" in the philosophy of mind literature). Of course,
keeping comp (and abandoning primitive matter and physicalism), we
have to use a form of comp-supervenience (and extract matter
observation from that). This is what AUDA does in all details (even
if it is a toy theology, perhaps).
The logic of observation is given by the modality Bp & Dt & p, for p
restricted with DU-accessibility (= sigma_1 arithmetical
But SUP-COMP is not identical to SUP-PHYS, which is also not identical
The philosopher of mind uses just (weak) supervenience in the sense of
SUP-COMP is very different, and admits infinities of variants, but the
reasoning is independent of the nuances, so I don't try to make it
more precise than necessary. Those nuances should be captured
canonically by the semantics of the "material hypostases". There is no
doubt that a lot of work remains! I concentrate on the task of making
sure people understand the comp mind-body problem, which is already
not so easy.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at