Newton 'stands on the shoulders of giants'. That constitutes authority... — Wayfarer

I think you misinterpret. I read that statement as an expression of humility, and recognizing the role of earlier thinkers in Newton being able to achieve what he did. I've never heard anyone suggest it is a claim to authority.

It is difficult to disentangle from scientism, the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion or marginalization of any other perspective. — Wayfarer

I'd suggest replacing "authoritative" with "reliable". Authority doesn't really have anything to do with it.

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

It about being able to talk about the same thing at two different levels of abstraction, what is viewed as the emergent level and the pre-emergent level.
— wonderer1

Maybe.

I think a supervenience relationship of A upon B is a bit weaker than being able to talk about some A phenomenon/property in terms of some distinct set of B phenomenon/properties. All you need to say that A supervenes upon B is that there can be no A difference without a B difference - you don't need to know a correspondence between A and B, just provide an existential guarantee.

How you flesh out the "cannot" in "There cannot be an A difference without a B difference" is also very important. Since, say, if cannot means "physically impossible", it could still be logically possible that there can be an A difference without a B difference. So an established supervenience relationship in terms of physical possibility could still allow a failure of supervenience relationship in terms of logical possibility between the same A and B to fail. — fdrake

For me supervenience is an epistemic tool I typically use in what I'll call a visuo-intuitive sort of way, without seeing a need for a logically rigorous definition. It is more an essential perspective in the high accuracy measurment instrument design that I do, that involves cognitively zooming in and out between a closer to fundamental physics perspective and higher level design concept perspective.

It seems to me that skill at using such an epistemic tool develops mostly subconsciously in people who consider systems in an indepth manner, due to the limits of human cognitive faculties that simply aren't capable of considering the workings of a complex system in fundamental physics terms. I'd think that most who have developed such cognitive skills have never heard the word "supervenience" and wouldn't see much value in a rigorous definition of something they do intuitively.

Anyway, logical possibilities are for marketing. Engineers get stuck with disabusing the marketing people of their logically possible fantasies, and designing within the vastly more restrictive realm of the physically possible.

Cartesian desert-based approaches , which are assumed to arise from the deliberately willed actions of an autonomous, morally responsible subject, are harsher and more ‘blameful' in their views of justice than deterministic , non-desert based modernist approaches and postmodern accounts, which rest on shaping influences (bodily-affective and social) outside of an agent's control. — Joshs

I'm seeing more clealy where the :100: :smile: came from. :wink:

Extraordinarily well stated.

How is what I said a reification of physicalism? What could that mean? — Banno

I'll leave you to think about it.

Banno embodies a jester. Once you realize that his posts are easily understood. — Philosophim

Well, a fucking brilliant jester, and I enjoy a lot of what he has to say. So I'll leave that there. :wink:

LOL

I'm an eye witness, and you are a gaslighter.

Hmm. What is it you are disagreeing with?

What I did was to suggest that we cold simplify the issue of what "physicalism" is by sticking to physics. — Banno

I think reifying "physicalism" as you seem to be doing is kind of silly. The word "physicalism" is a label people use for a set of perspectives some people have.

You seem intent on setting up a strawman, rather than deal with the perspectives of individuals who find it to be a useful label.

By punished I mean disqualified from the ballot. Do you think someone should be disqualified from the ballot for a crime he has not been proven to commit? — NOS4A2

The Constitution lays out the criteria for being disqualified. I already pointed this out.

He incited insurrection. That you are unable to recognize that seems to be a problem you have, but I've spent more than enough time on your sophistry for today.

More like
...being able to talk about the same thing at two different levels of abstraction,
— wonderer1
...removing the unnecessary emergent stuff. Physics does not make substantive use of the notion of substance... (see what I did there?) — Banno

:lol:
Yeah, I see what you did there on multiple levels. However, the person you quoted looks at things at various level including physics, chemistry, biology neuroscience, psychology, etc. So unfortunately you still haven't come up with a quote to support your claim. Care to try again?

But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do. — NOS4A2

Due process is ongoing.

And punished? He is raising money on his notoriety.

The suggestion cuts out the interminable fluff of substance versus materialism versus naturalism and so on seen here.The stuff found in physics texts serves to tie down the term"physicalism". — Banno

So are you saying it's a rhetorical ploy? Attempting to manipulate people into seeing things as you wish?

Feel free to explain, but I'll take that as a, "No.", to my question "Can you quote anyone calling herself a physicalist saying anything remotely like that?"

Don't some philosophers suggest that this comes down to the distinction between philosophical naturalism or methodological naturalism? — Tom Storm

I've mostly seen the distinction come up in the context of scientists saying they practice methodological naturalism as scientists but are not metaphysical naturalists. I'm not in a position to speak very exhaustively about what some philosophers may say. :wink:

Why do you ask?

So you're saying I can't run for President? Damn that Constitution, how dare it tell me what I can and can't do! — Michael

Yeah, it's unfortunate. I'd probably vote for you, considering the likely alternatives.

At this point I'm hoping The Rock runs. Sucks that Schwarzenegger is disqualified.

It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights. — NOS4A2

It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. Not having engaged in insurrection is one of those criteria.

The simplest and cleanest way to understand physicalism is as the idea that only the stuff described in physics texts is true. — Banno

Can you quote anyone calling herself a physicalist saying anything remotely like that?

Why would brains be any less shaped by evolution than other biological organs? So "What could be wrong with that?", aside from your dislike of the idea?
— wonderer1

Because evolutionary biology is not philosophy, per se, and never set out to address issues of epistemology and metaphysics. — Wayfarer

That's a non-sequitur. How about a more substantive response? Why would brains be any less shaped by evolution than other biological organs?

Philosophy doesn't need to be the sort of anti-intellectual activity you would have it be.

Also because of the role that evolutionary biology occupies in culture as a kind of secular religion. — Wayfarer

Quoting from your link:

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry...

I am asking a scientific question. The only religion involved, is the religion you bring to the question and the only times you object to science being brought up on TPF is when it challenges your religious beliefs. Can you put your religion aside and suggest a scientific answer?

It is relevant to the fact that for you...

This is very counterintuitive. — JuanZu

But I'm happy to drop it if you aren't interested.

Maybe. I just don't see how physicalism differentiates itself from the wider umbrella of naturalism... — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't see much distinction between physicalism and naturalism, other than in usage. My impression is that "physicalism" is just the word more commonly used in the context of discussing philosophy of mind. For example, the question on the 2020 Philpapers survey is, "Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?". If "physicalism" was replaced with "naturalism" would it make a difference?

Physicalism, consequently, when put into practice, restricts us from knowing many things and knowing many truths about the world. In this sense I think it can be said that physicalism is scientifically false. — JuanZu

Can you support this?

So maybe physicalism has never been an explanation. — frank

I'd say something more along the lines of physicalism is a label suggesting recognition of the sort of explanations that seem likely to be reliable. You might tell me that the only reason that you don't jump over tall buildings is that your witch doctor told you not to. I'm going to go on respecting the reliability of physics for an explanation.

In any case, physicalism is a philosophical label not an explanation.

Maybe it represents a certain mindset? A way of problem solving? — frank

There is something to that. I'd say it does require developing a rather nontraditional conceptual framework in order to consider things from a physicalist perpective.

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." — frank

:up:

It about being able to talk about the same thing at two different levels of abstraction, what is viewed as the emergent level and the pre-emergent level.

I'll leave it to @Walter.

It's pretty clear isn't it? Evolutionary biology replaced the Biblical creation mythology, but it also elbowed aside a great deal of philosophy which had become attached to it as part of the cultural milieu. So it seems obvious to anyone here that mind evolves as part of the same overall process through which everything else evolves. And it's then easy to take the step that the human mind is a product of evolutionary processes in just the same way as are claws and teeth. Easy! What could be wrong with that? (That's why I'm an advocate of 'the argument from reason', although it's about as popular on this forum as a parachute in a submarine.) — Wayfarer

It's a matter of facing the way things are in reality as compared to being in denial. Brains are a somewhat important aspect of our biology. Why would brains be any less shaped by evolution than other biological organs? So "What could be wrong with that?", aside from your dislike of the idea?

Do you have a scientific explanation as to why minds/brains would somehow be excluded from the effects of natural selection, sexual selection, etc?

There's an element of that, it's hard to think so otherwise, but even taking this to account, I don't see how this expands to objects being "disassociated boundaries", with people you could say that, but I don't see how this entails creates Kastrup's idealism. — Manuel

No, I don't see it as supporting Kastrup's idealism, however I can see how Kastrup's view could be an expression of his recognition of the distributed nature of evolving human understanding, in terms that make sense to him. I think Kastrup engages in magical thinking, but in an attempt to explain something real that he observes.

Where is the information and meaning of these marks? I can use a magnifying glass or a microscope to examine these pixels and probably won't find anything like meaning. It is because of this problem that I speak of meaning as an effect of an effective and active relationship between signs. It follows that nothing is exchanged, but is constantly produced as something new. Right now, when you read this, you are creating meaning as an effect of "my" words. But I am certainly not sending you anything, I am simply provoking something in you in a technologically mediated relationship. This is very counterintuitive. — JuanZu

The "meaning of these marks" lies in the way they activate pattern recognizing neural networks in your brain, and the way those recognized patterns bring up associations in your mind. We don't find meaning looking at the words with a magnifying glass, because the meaning is a function of recognitions occurring in our brains.

What is your view on possible world semantics?

So this already created world is B. How is it that the following is not saying that God creating a different world is not even possible?

I would say that it is not even possible that God create A, if God has already created B. — Metaphysician Undercover

By what Walter stipulated, A and B are incompatible, so not only is it impossible that such is necessary, I would say that it is not even possible that God create A, if God has already created B. — Metaphysician Undercover

So would you agree that means that if God is simple then he did not have a choice to create a world other than this one?

I think we're back to the beginning, and you are just going around in a circle. God only makes one of the two choices, A or B. The choice was A. So we have "God's action to create A". There is no "God's action to create B" because God did not make that choice. That is a false premise. So your conclusion "God's action to create A is the very same as God's action to create B" is an unsound conclusion because it requires the false premise that God created bot A and B. — Metaphysician Undercover

Since it seems likely that Walter is asleep...

Would you agree that there is no possible world in which God creates B and therefore it was necessary that God create A?

I think this is what I was saying above to T Clark, but one of the problems often brought forth by the substance dualist is that there is not empirical proof that brain state X always causes behavior Y because fMRI results do not show that for every instance of behavior Y the exact areas of the brain show activity.

What this would mean is that brain activity supervenes with behavioral activity 100% of the time, but the precise brain activity down to the neuronal level is variable. That means that for person A who is an exact replica of person B (down the neuronal level), the substance dualist would not necessarily commit that the two would exhibit exact behaviors. Sometimes brain state A yields behavior X and sometimes Y. — Hanover

Going through this thread and it seemed worth pointing out that fMRI doesn't come anywhere near individual neuron level resolution. The last I looked it was around 50,000 neurons per voxel (volume-pixel). It is to be expected that fMRI voxels are variable because the spatial resolution (not to mention the temporal resolution) is far too poor to detect the subtleties of what is occurring.

Thanks.

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

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

And certainly folk hereabouts missed it. — Banno

Link?

Ah. Ok. No, I am still working my way through others. Slow process for me. I started it. But I don't expect him to have the answer to the question of how consciousness can come from the physical when he begins the book by saying we don't know how:
§0.4 The deepest problems have yet to be solved. We do not understand the neural code. We do not understand how mental events can be causal. We do not understand how consciousness can be realized in physical neuronal activity.
— Peter Tse — Patterner

But then Tse demonstrates, in the body of the book, that he has looked into the sort of things that need to be looked at in order to develop that understanding. Shades of gray. Perhaps, if it is possible, for humanity to develop the scientific understanding to satisfy philosophers, it will be next century or the one after. Although, at the pace of AI development, it becomes very hard to predict.

I agree with you that Kastrup, while interesting in some areas, goes off the wall with attributing "dissociated boundaries" to objects, this is an extreme extrapolation. — Manuel

I wonder if there isn't some merit to the concept, if reframed in terms of us being elements of a social species, whose thoughts are very much a function of of our encounters with conspecifics.

a red straw herring. — Janus

:rofl:

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

What is it? What is that perspective like? — frank

It is hard for me to communicate, because a key aspect of my perspective results from being somewhat autistic and somewhat savantish. But to take a stab at it...

37 years ago I was a young electrical engineer who had studied information processing in artificial neural networks and I was desperately in love. So I got intensely focused on issues I have with communicating and considering how my brain might be weird in some ways. (I didn't know anything about autism or Asperger's at this point, and it would be a couple decades before I was diagnosed with Asperger's.)

Long story short, I came up with an extremely speculative hypothesis about how my brain might be wired differently from those of a lot of people, and this hypothesis seemed extraordinarily powerful in explaining a wide variety of idiosyncratic things about me, in addition to explaining aspects of human thinking more generally. Since that time I have had a lot of insight into psychology and neuroscience in the sense of recognizing a lot of psychology and neuroscience as bollocks that would be replaced by a view more consistent with my understanding given time. And psychology and neuroscience has gradually evolved to be more in line with what I recognized as being key aspects of human thinking.

In fact here's a scientific finding that is a great fit with the sort of thing I would have expected to find based on my speculations of 37 years ago. I recognized the two systems view of Kahneman years before Thinking, Fast and Slow came out.

So an aspect of what it has been like is being ahead of my time, but on the basis of an intuitive 'picture' I wouldn't know how to communicate very well to someone without a background in electrical engineering. Fortunately a substantial number of people have caught up, and are surpassing my understanding by leaps and bounds these days.

Another aspect of being willing to seriously consider physicalism is understanding that we are all social primates here, although that was a more gradual process for me.

Please clue me in! — Patterner

I pointed you towards Peter Tse's book awhile back. Tse is definitely one of the less clueless writers on the subject that I have encountered. Did you read the book?