On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> >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

Some conflate SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS with SUP-PHYS, others do
not. SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS roughly correlates with what is called "naive
Physicalism" in my bool, and SUP-PHYS (the usual meaning of
supervenience) with materialism. Looking back at my notes (helpfully
summarised on page 177 of my book), I see I noted that Chalmers
conflates physicalism with materialism, but other such as Lockwood do
draw the distinction.

This probably explains some of the problems I had with Chalmers's
classification scheme. ISTM, for example, that emergence (even strong
emergence, AKA downward causation) is perfectly compatible with
materialism, even though Chalmers lists emergentism as being an
immaterial position.


Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          http://www.hpcoders.com.au

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