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 the

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 (weak) SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS. 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to