Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • This is a sort of okay explanation of supervenience, but what it gets wrong is important to the matter at hand. Supervenience comes in different modal strengths. Even the most rabid dualist believes some version of the claim that the mental supervenes on the physical. The materialist's supervenience claim and the dualist's supervenience claim differ in their modal strengths.... so supervenience per se is not what is at issue. See section 3.1 in the SEP article on supervenience, and then reread Frank Jackson etc. Took a Princeton grad course on this lol. Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 2:37
  • @windlessqhickory Interesting. For the purposes of this answer, I only use a binary approach to supervenience. Either mental states are completely defined by brain states, or they aren't. It would be reasonable to talk the subtleties you mention in a more subtle environment, such as one where the author is not using words like "identical" and "know everything" and pinning the materialist to one particular argument. Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 2:46
  • My point is that supervenience isn't what matters here. What matters is whether zombies are possible. Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 18:42
  • @windlessqhickory I may get to learn something here. I always thought of zombies as a purely material thing whose properties give the appearance of conscious thought. Commented Aug 21, 2018 at 18:49
  • That's correct. The zombie question is: Could there be a replica of my body that is materially identical to me but is unconscious, i.e. does not experience the feely side of consciousness? It is more or less agreed that this question is what the materialism-dualism debate comes down to. As I said, everyone agrees that mental properties supervene on natural facts. The question is whether they are metaphysically entailed by natural facts. As a comparison, everyone agrees that moral facts supervene on natural facts. But a minority of philosophers believe they are entailed by natural facts. Commented Aug 22, 2018 at 17:28