tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3034933691969395711..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Supervenience, selfhood, and physicalismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91907026713396896522010-12-10T21:29:27.299-07:002010-12-10T21:29:27.299-07:00I'm not a naturalist/physicalist/materialist b...I'm not a naturalist/physicalist/materialist by *any* stretch of the imagination but isn't the following principle that "...there is no difference between possible worlds without a physical difference..." a *strong* construal of supervenience?<br /><br />Couldn't a physicalist just hold to a *weak* supervenience principle?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11891825662235904342010-04-06T15:27:20.530-07:002010-04-06T15:27:20.530-07:00That's why you've got to hold physicalists...That's why you've got to hold physicalists' feet to the fire and make them give you an account of what they believe that really does exclude something. If you look at the way I develop the AFR, especially in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, and also in the shorter essay in Contenting with Christianity's Critics, you will find that I start with a basic definition of a naturalistic view. <br /><br />Otherwise, you get people "solving" problems for naturalism by saying "the brain this, the brain that," as if using the magic word "brain" guarantees that everything is naturalistically hunky-dory.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74564468978250255142010-04-06T15:14:17.273-07:002010-04-06T15:14:17.273-07:00Actually, I'm agreeing with you across the boa...Actually, I'm agreeing with you across the board (that certain things have to be excluded from "physical" to mean anything, and that what you outline are traditionally among the things that have always been so excluded, etc.) <br /><br />I'm only adding that I think, for many, "physicalism" really has lost quite a lot of meaning. Go right to the SEP entry on physicalism, and right at 11.3 you'll see an example of what I mean. Not the problem mentioned, but the response to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18275509825513684212010-04-06T14:15:01.272-07:002010-04-06T14:15:01.272-07:00Well, there are certain things that have to be exc...Well, there are certain things that have to be excluded from the basic level of the "physical" if "physical" is going to mean much of anything. If you get too liberal about what counts as physical, then I am going to ask why you can't baptize the metaphysics of traditional Christianity into physicalism. I have argued that intentionality, normativity, subjectivity, and purpose have to be keep off the ground floor of reality if reality is to be physicalistic in any meaningful sense. <br /><br />I mean, you need some sort of explanation as to why God, (otherwise known as the Theon), can't be brought into physicalistic explanations. I take it you want to exclude the Theon on principle, not by fiat.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72697881023537453392010-04-06T13:07:29.093-07:002010-04-06T13:07:29.093-07:00One problem I have with these sorts of principles ...One problem I have with these sorts of principles is that it ignores how much dispute there is over what comprises the physical. What it means to be "like a rock" has changed quite a lot in ultimate senses since quantum mechanics came on the scene. I can picture someone agreeing that what you speak of is possible, but still insisting that the difference you speak of is a physical difference - because "physical" is now so wide-open as a term.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com