Something fishy!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2012, 12:05 AM
RE: Something fishy!
(27-01-2012 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-01-2012 03:24 PM)Valdyr Wrote:  
(27-01-2012 03:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-01-2012 02:46 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Ummm. This indicates that there might be atheists who are also lean non-physicalist. That or nearly every undecided selected non-phys.

An atheist who is not a materialist is not really an atheist. He just trades one woo for another.

One possible source of confusion for those answering the survey though; does "non-physicalism" include property dualism, because this is definitely a live option. I agree that true Cartesian dualism, or idealism, about minds is silly, but the following are all live options:

-Reductive physicalism
-Non-reductive/supervenience physicalism (mental facts are not reducible to physical facts, but supervene on physical facts)
-Property dualism (mental facts are an irreducible set of separate facts, but are still natural facts)

If I was responding to the survey I'd certainly be annoyed at the ambiguity of the question, though I'd only definitely consider property dualism "non-physicalism."

To have an informed discussion about the differences I will need to do some research.

My (materialist) view is:
  • Brain is hardware/firmware;
  • Mind is firmware/software;
  • Consciousness is an emergent property of complex software.

If you think mental facts/statements are reducible to purely physical statements (e.g. "there is such and such physical pattern in the brain...") then you're a reductive physicalist, if not (the software is emergent and wholly determined by but not reducible to the hardware) then you're a supervenience physicalist.

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
-Daniel Dennett
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: