t seems to me that supervenience is all about existential dependency — creativesoul

I don't think it's about dependency. It's just that two things that track together: "There cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference."

praying you lot pull together because we could really do with you putting your differences aside and showing a united front right now! — Beverley

Could you explain why?

But more than an argument it would actually be an operation. The operation would consist of an effective reduction of all the contents of the world objectified by the sciences [biology, economics, psychology, sociology, logic, mathematics, phenomenology, philosophy, etc.] to phenomena, terms, relations, correlations, operations and demonstrations of that specific science that is physics.

For example, a physical theory of supply and demand that reduces it to relationships between, so to speak, their masses and their covalent bonds. A physical theory of the Pythagorean theorem that reduces it to relationships between atoms of some element, etc.

Is that something impossible? If it is impossible then we need another ontology. A more pluralistic ontology that can identify genres and irreducible categories. But also an ontology that identifies how these genres and categories of what exists are related to each other. — JuanZu

I think you're echoing Chalmers, but going beyond asking for a theory of consciousness to asking for a theory of abstractions (like math) as well. He said we should start with just proposing phenomenal consciousness as a thing to be explained by science, similarly to the way gravity was added, with no insistence that science as it is has to be able to answer it. It could be that we have to wait for more quantum theory answers? Or maybe a type of physics that we haven't thought of yet.

Leaving aside the fact that the Constitution doesn't disqualify candidates on the basis of them being convicted of a felony (a major oversight in my view), do you think he'd be a viable candidate? Do you think the electorate and the Party would be willing to put that aside and vote for him anyway? — Wayfarer

I really don't know. He won't take the popular vote, but as for the electoral college, it comes down to what the swing states do. Biden is the incumbent, and the economy is doing ok. Both of those give him an advantage. The voters turned against Trump in 2020. It's possible that they'll do that again. It will be close, though.

So, do you think if Trump is convicted in the January 6th Trial, where he's charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding etc, and sentenced to prison (pending appeal), that he will nevertheless remain a viable candidate? (The trial is scheduled for 4th March this year.) — Wayfarer

The New York Times says yes. Being convicted doesn't automatically disqualify him. If the majority of states wanted to disqualify him they could, but they won't. That means he'll probably be the Republican candidate, whether he's convicted or not.

Or the other way to read it would be more Marxist -- that you moving to Alaska to be a hunter-gatherer changes nothing about the economic form that allowed you to move to Alaska to become a hunter-gatherer which continues on. — Moliere

What about our ancestors who all lived in huts and hunted moose? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I just don't understand what you're saying.

The material is the social, and the social is the economic. So the material is the economic. Whether you conceive of that like Marx does or whether you conceive of it like USians do that's the core idea I'm putting forward. It makes sense as a better priority for the real because it cannot be ignored in the same way that the mind-body problem can. — Moliere

So if I go to Alaska, build a hut and live by hunting moose for ten years, did I lift off from reality?

What aspect(s) are you still trying to understand? — wonderer1

The whole thing. :razz:

but that this meaning is better than the one set out by the mind-body problem — Moliere

Ok. What is the meaning you're referring to? Can it be spelled out?

And a good thread it was, too. But perhaps inconclusive. And certainly folk hereabouts missed it. — Banno

I was just trying to understand the term. I still am.

Yes, but at the center of Christianity you have Jesus while at the center of Islam you have Muhammad, a successful warlord with a child bride. Jesus sees an adultress about to be stoned and says "let he who is without sin casts the first stone." Muhammad when faced with the same situation says to stone the woman. These figures are not the same. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes. I made the same point earlier. Islam has greater ideological ease with militancy than other Abrahamic religions do. Can't really form this into a condemnation of Islam, though. Christians, with their pacificist central figure, have kicked more ass than anyone.

I am of course against Islamic fundamentalism but I cannot call these groups theologically incorrect -- nor has the Muslim world really spoke out against them. — BitconnectCarlos

Muslim leaders condemn extremism on the regular.

Rather that materialism can be defined by more than the mind-body problem, as can philosophy. Marx was, after all, a philosopher. — Moliere

You're saying there are multiple meanings to "materialism." That's cool.

What I hear you saying is that Marx was a materialist, except we aren't using the meaning usually associated with that term in philosophy. Ok. That's fine.

Except for the traffic lights.

And so finally we arrive at supervenience. Now it might get interesting. — Banno

I did a thread on that!

Manuel mentioned earlier: if dualism is true, we can't figure out how the two substances interact with each other. Monism solves that problem.

Mkay. Focus on the big-picture idea then. "dialectical materialism" because the main perspective thus far has been from the mind-body problem, and I'm attempting to point out that we can think of "materialism" in terms aside from the mind-body problem, such as the terms Marx presents. He's pretty much as die-hard materialist as you can be, but the problem of consciousness is not one for him. — Moliere

I did a dive once to try to understand what Marx's ontological outlook was. I read that he was into Feuerbach, so I read about him. I looked into the way Marx was supposed to have used Hegelian dialectic. Once I came out of the dive, my conclusion was that Marx had no coherent ontology. That's just not where his focus was. Calling him a materialist just doesn't mean much (to me, anyway). Does it mean something to you?

etween the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. — Moliere

I don't think so.

The big-picture idea is that the material is the social world we inhabit. So, given that this is a materialism, no immaterial. "dialectical" because the idea that the social world is the economy is Marx's, and so credit where due. — Moliere

In order for it to be dialectical, there has to be an opposition. That's what "dialectical" means in the Marxist sense. Where is the opposition?

If it's dialectical materialism, where is the immaterial part?

Yep. Time to pack up and leave.

:up:

I don't think Netanyahu ever intended for Gaza to go back to the way it was. I think he wants the refugees to leave Israel. Or die.

:up:

Which he denies exist. Saw an extended interview with him the other day. His views on consciousness are frankly embarrassing to me. It's as Galen Strawson says you need to be trained to believe in this eliminitavist lunacy. — Manuel

I thought maybe he'd eventually come out of it and join the rest of us.

Could you give a little more detail on why a reductionist would have the burden of proof? — Mark Nyquist

If I'm a functionalist, I would tell you that there is no hard problem. Phenomenal consciousness is fully explained (or explainable) by science in its present state. So I'm telling you that it's wrong to try to separate phenomenal consciousness out as a separate item to be explained.

The conceivability of the p-zombie shows that we can't assume that functionality covers phenomenality, because we can conceive of the former without the latter. To make the functionalist case, I'll have to demonstrate exactly how phenomenal consciousness is generated. Science hasn't done that yet.

I mean, if we are talking about conceivability, it's also conceivable that the mind of supreme being exist, absent anything else, that is, no matter, no physics - no "material substrate". — Manuel

Sure. The conceivability of p-zombies demonstrates that a functionalist like Dennett (assuming he qualifies as a functionalist) is only providing possible scenarios. He isn't providing an argument for functionalism. In order to do that, he'd have to actually show how phenomenal consciousness works.

It is not a-priori evident that non-conscious things with complex behaviors should be evident or obvious at all. — Manuel

But it's conceivable. The fact that they show up in sci-fi demonstrates that. This means a reductionist can't shift the burden to a non-reductionist. The reductionist has the burden of proof.

Sorry, Frank - I've flipped the thread to "what is the best argument against physicalism"... — Banno

That's probably the best way to see what physicalism has to say for itself. Thanks!

That's a very good question. Islam is the last of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think it's had as much time to mellow — RogueAI

Islam does have a fair amount of ideological ease with militancy because its central figure was a military leader. I'm having a hard time drawing a line between what Hamas just did and Islam, though. There's a missing piece of the puzzle. I don't know if we'll ever know what actually happened.

Religious extremism. What is yours? — RogueAI

What's causing the religious extremism?

What is your answer to this question?

Muslim terrorists often strap on suicide vests and blow themselves up, taking as many civilians as they can with them. Orthodox Jews don't. Why is that? — RogueAI

I don't understand the point of this question. Could you spell it out?

How about a wave of enlightened secularism? More than a wave, a tsunami. — BC

I think those features of Abrahamic religions were stress responses. Secularism has enjoyed a happy period where stresses have been put at arms length in various ways. If those stresses come back, the same kind of weird images will start growing out of the crevices of secularism like lichens out of a rock.

Show me something that doesn't originate from matter and energy. What third type of substance would it be? — Philosophim

Energy isn't a substance, though:

So, choosing monism as a necessity, all that's left is to call whatever remains something, and here we just choose, I think "physical", right understood, is less problematic than mental or ideal. — Manuel

:up: Nice.

I would state that everything that we've discovered so far is physical in origin. — Philosophim

Does this follow from an argument? Or is it an assumption?

ou've shifted the emphasis to the Talmud because you know the Torah is not eschatological (in contrast to the Quran, which is claimed to be pure revelation from God and goes into deep detail about the afterlife and punishment.) — BitconnectCarlos

The way Jews absorbed Greek and Persian eschatology was by reading it into the Torah. The idea is that the OT is in code. We discover God's message to us by unravelling the numbers and words. The one book that was intended to be eschatological is Daniel.

Orthodox Jews may believe in a world to come, but they are not "apocalyptists" — BitconnectCarlos

Do you know what's meant by Messiah? :eyes:

Orthodox Judaism is not a death cult like Hamas or fundamentalist Islam. — BitconnectCarlos

Yea, that's probably true. Christianity is the king of all death cults, though. Nobody does dark and gruesome like Christians.

Murder is condemned in all religions and the Hamas murderer-rapists will be accountable to God. Hamas does it from hatred, sadism. They are bred to be sociopaths in a culture which glorifies death and revenge. The Palestinians deserve better. — BitconnectCarlos

Well at least you've narrowed your condemnation from all Muslims down to Hamas. We're making progress. :up:

The weirdly prophetic perspective that has resulted from being willing to seriously consider physicalism. — wonderer1

What is it? What is that perspective like?

:blush: Thank you.

I think maybe I would also say that without some additional distinctive structure beyons current scientific hypotheses then the metaphysical idea that everything is mental is just as vague and empty as the idea everything is physical. — Apustimelogist

:up:

If you want some meat on your worldviews, you can't go wrong with physicalism! — mentos987

It this coincides with this:

The very successful use of scientific method in the West, and reductionist arguments as possible explanations of seemingly non-physical phenomena. — J

Wouldn't you have to argue that physicalism itself is successful? Is that possible?