You're a Case of Supervenience

[Flannel Jesus]

VA is confused about Kant's position on noumena.

He's confused about a lot more than that. I don't think he knows what the words "fiction", "illusion", or "real" mean. And if he doesn't know what "real" means, he doesn't know what his own apparent position, "anti-realism", means. He doesn't know what ANY of these words mean. He never has. It's all been word salad the whole time.

[Iwannaplato]

VA is confused about Kant's position on noumena.

He's confused about a lot more than that. I don't think he knows what the words "fiction", "illusion", or "real" mean. And if he doesn't know what "real" means, he doesn't know what his own apparent position, "anti-realism", means. He doesn't know what ANY of these words mean. He never has. It's all been word salad the whole time.

One could certainly focus on the confusion, also, around supervenience in the OP use of the phrase

Supervenience at work

I suppose I am trying to look at VA's posts as very speculative, to ignore when he says things like

This is very narrow, shallow and negative thinking.

and to use them as jumping off points for exploration.

His lack of direct response to points made and dismissals without rebuttal used to bother me, but I'll try to just ignore that and respond to the part of his process which is useful and interesting: he throws a lot of things into the soup of the forum. So, when he throws, I'll try to focus on what is thrown and expect less in terms of response to what I have explored and written.

[Veritas Aequitas]

InstrumentaIist hat on again.

Let's consider 'brain states' as containing/being/having/including 'oughtness'. Or 'bodies' or 'minds' as containing/being/having/including this 'oughtness'.

We have three people, all of whom consider X to be immoral.
Person 1: considers X immoral, and upon examination we find this person is very conformist and wants to fit in. This is all reflected in this person's 'brain state' as shown in MRI sequences.
Person 2: considers X immoral, and upon examination we find this is based on disgust related to bodies. This is all reflected in this person's 'brain state' as shown in MRI sequences.
Person 3: considers X immoral, and upon examination we find this is based on an intuitive sense that if people X, certain problems will arise. This is all reflected in this person's 'brain state' as shown in MRI sequences.
Person 4: considers X immoral, and upon examination we find this is based on an analysis of consequences in carefully thought out cause and effect processes. This is all reflected in this person's 'brain state' as shown in MRI sequences.
Person 5: considers X immoral, and upon examination we find this is based on scriptural injunction. This is all reflected in this person's 'brain state' as shown in MRI sequences.

Even within each of these categories there will be wild variations in images and secondary feelings, hormonal levels, which parts of the brain are engaged, what neurons related to different linguistic aspects of their position, and so on and on.

There is no common oughtness. This oughtness is at best a useful fiction. It is certainly a noumenon, so, according to VA must be false and unreal. It cannot be sensed with devices or without them. All sorts of 'things' will be sensed by the devices. Unlike a 'tumor' say, where one finds 'it' in the image of MRIs. There it is. There will be just a myriad of brain states, all unique. And even granting that these device created images are 'sensory' or dealing with Kantian phenomena, we don't find the oughtness nor have we any scientific justification at all for calling anything in these images an oughtness. Within realist neuroscience we have justifications for calling things neurons and labels associated with certain brain states. But nowhere in the field of neuroscience do we find images of 'oughtnesses' in brains. Not that an instrumentalist would be beholden to such an interpretation/reification/fiction.

And we are not even including in this all the people who disagree and think that X is actually moral.

Once we include the diversity of humans, we will have a myriad of 'brain states' creating a myriad of 'moral facts'.

The point of this post is primarily----- even when the same opinion is held the brain states wiII vary wideIy and this 'oughtness' is an unfounded metaphysical, speculation wilder than those around electrons where there is vastly more consistant data. Though of course with my instrumentalist hat on, electrons are also fictions.

Morality is the management [prevent & eliminate] of evil to enable its related goods.
We need to define evil, i.e. that which is net negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
In this case, we need to have an exhaustive list of what is considered evil in relation to morality.

So far, I have not venture to deliberate on an exhaustive list of what is considered evil of a certain degree of evilness.

So far, I included in the list of what is evil, i.e.
1. humans killing of human
2. rape
3. slavery -chattel
6. torture with serious harm
7. etc.

Every item of evil must be justified to be universal and immoral. I have done that with 'humans killing humans' and justified it has a physical neural base, so it is a biological and thence a moral fact via the moral FSERC.

In the above case 1-5, your X is accused to be immoral without justifying why his act is evil.
You cannot state X is immoral and expect me to accept it.

So your thought experiment is pointless.
You need to be precise with what do you mean by 'immoral'.

.................
If you are wearing an instrumentalist hat, you are an ANTI-philosophical realists, i.e. you oppose and reject philosophical realism which is after something ontologically.

[Atla]

VA is confused about Kant's position on noumena.

He's confused about a lot more than that. I don't think he knows what the words "fiction", "illusion", or "real" mean. And if he doesn't know what "real" means, he doesn't know what his own apparent position, "anti-realism", means. He doesn't know what ANY of these words mean. He never has. It's all been word salad the whole time.

Hey.. you figured it out

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

[Veritas Aequitas]

When IWP stated
"the terms body, brain states and mind are all useful fictions"
I was equating to Kant stating 'God is a useful fiction'.
This is where theists insist their God is real absolutely..
But Kant proved God cannot exists as real, however, God can be a useful fiction or illusion because the belief in an illusory God soothe their existential pains.
So God in this case is a useful fiction.

That's complete word salad. You've just said a bunch of nonsense crap. You don't know English. All of what you said is just straight nonsense, to ANYBODY who speaks English.

When someone claims something is a fiction, in English, that's NOT the same as saying it's "absolutely real", it's the exact opposite. If you spoke English well enough to participate in an English speaking philosophy forum, you'd know that.

And he respeats old debunked claims in his word saIad.
Kant did not set out to prove God cannot or does not exist, and he certainly never did. And Kant never stated that God is a useful fiction. (which is analogically like saying he drove a Volvo)

In the CPR, Kant argued that human reason is limited to the realm of experience. He introduced the idea of the "phenomenal" world (the world as we experience it) and the "noumenal" world (the world as it is in itself, independent of our experience). According to Kant, while we can have knowledge of the phenomenal world, the noumenal world remains beyond our grasp.

As far as God, Kant critiqued traditional arguments for God's existence, such as the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments. He found these arguments insufficient to prove God's existence through pure reason. But Kant did not conclude that God does not exist. Instead, he argued that God's existence is a matter of faith rather than knowledge.

VA is confused about Kant's position on noumena. VA and Kant do not share the same stance there, at all. Kant is much closer to me when I have my instrumentalist hat on. Hence his instrumentalist argument in favor of believing in God.

Don't insult your intelligence and integrity with the above.
You did not read the CPR thoroughly and fully and you have the arrogance to come to the above conclusion about Kant.

You could have relied on AI by faith.
Problem is AI cannot cover the complex nuances with the CPR.

In addition, you cannot use AI to the max with Kant on CPR unless you are reasonable well verse with Kant's CPR.

Instead, he argued that God's existence is a matter of faith rather than knowledge.

When one relies on faith, anything goes and anyone can do that with any belief which end up with no credibility and objectivity.
This is why, the best one can do with such belief is to admit and recognize it is only a useful illusion or fiction.

[Flannel Jesus]

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

He just ... never learned English, but speaks with extreme over-confidence about all of this stuff.

Not knowing English well is fine, but it should come with a sense of humility about it on an English-speaking forum. I'm not going to spanish-speaking forums and telling them how Spanish works, and if they correct me, I'd listen.

[Atla]

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

He just ... never learned English, but speaks with extreme over-confidence about all of this stuff.

Not knowing English well is fine, but it should come with a sense of humility about it on an English-speaking forum. I'm not going to spanish-speaking forums and telling them how Spanish works, and if they correct me, I'd listen.

But he's been writing in English for many years, he should have improved.. it just doesn't add up imo..

[Flannel Jesus]

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

He just ... never learned English, but speaks with extreme over-confidence about all of this stuff.

Not knowing English well is fine, but it should come with a sense of humility about it on an English-speaking forum. I'm not going to spanish-speaking forums and telling them how Spanish works, and if they correct me, I'd listen.

But he's been writing in English for many years, he should have improved.. it just doesn't add up imo..

Maybe it has a bit, maybe he's better at gramatical structures or something.

Still, seems weird to not know what "fiction", "illusion" and "real" mean, they seem pretty basic.

[Atla]

He just ... never learned English, but speaks with extreme over-confidence about all of this stuff.

Not knowing English well is fine, but it should come with a sense of humility about it on an English-speaking forum. I'm not going to spanish-speaking forums and telling them how Spanish works, and if they correct me, I'd listen.

But he's been writing in English for many years, he should have improved.. it just doesn't add up imo..

Maybe it has a bit, maybe he's better at gramatical structures or something.

Still, seems weird to not know what "fiction", "illusion" and "real" mean, they seem pretty basic.

He also doesn't know what idealism, realism, philosophical, transcendental, empirical, noumena, phenomena, thing-in-itself, negative, positive, solipsistic, mind, dependent, independent, external, subjective, objective and fact mean. I think this could be more than a foreign language issue.

[FlashDangerpants]

VA is confused about Kant's position on noumena.

He's confused about a lot more than that. I don't think he knows what the words "fiction", "illusion", or "real" mean. And if he doesn't know what "real" means, he doesn't know what his own apparent position, "anti-realism", means. He doesn't know what ANY of these words mean. He never has. It's all been word salad the whole time.

Hey.. you figured it out

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

The strange version of anti-realism he argues for, that makes no real sense to normally functioning people because it cannot support of the -proper things he uses it to argue for, is actually his description of the world as he personally inhabits it.

Reality as experienced by him is broadly analogous to the dolls house tea party as experienced by the four year old (via the Dolls-House-Proper-KFC-Bucket) who 'invited' you to it. The rules of the game are that he is in charge of what everything means from one moment to the next and the implications of any use of any word are set by him also. Your correct role is to drink tea as directed and tell Mistress Bunnywax that she makes the most exquisitely excellent cup of tea. Or failing that, to be a philosophical realist who disputes VA's inarguably superior reasoning-proper only because you are afraid that if reality is not reality-in-itself-enough then something something something....

He knows what each of those words means well enough, but the context in which they are used is always to be one where he is right and you are the oaf that misunderstands. If he has to tactically misunderstand some word himself to play that game, he won't even know he did it, reality of meanings moves around for his purposes in this game. That game is his real world, and in there you are an NPC and so is everyone else.

I commend this explanation because it also covers the way that reading things always goes so spectacularly wrong when he does it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Hey mf,
you are the one who is not getting the point because you are are stuck with primitive ideas.

What's with 'the mf' here?
I thought he only used that sort of language when others started it....

[Atla]

He's confused about a lot more than that. I don't think he knows what the words "fiction", "illusion", or "real" mean. And if he doesn't know what "real" means, he doesn't know what his own apparent position, "anti-realism", means. He doesn't know what ANY of these words mean. He never has. It's all been word salad the whole time.

Hey.. you figured it out

Which brings up the next mistery, how can someone not know what any of the words mean?

The strange version of anti-realism he argues for, that makes no real sense to normally functioning people because it cannot support of the -proper things he uses it to argue for, is actually his description of the world as he personally inhabits it.

Reality as experienced by him is broadly analogous to the dolls house tea party as experienced by the four year old (via the Dolls-House-Proper-KFC-Bucket) who 'invited' you to it. The rules of the game are that he is in charge of what everything means from one moment to the next and the implications of any use of any word are set by him also. Your correct role is to drink tea as directed and tell Mistress Bunnywax that she makes the most exquisitely excellent cup of tea. Or failing that, to be a philosophical realist who disputes VA's inarguably superior reasoning-proper only because you are afraid that if reality is not reality-in-itself-enough then something something something....

He knows what each of those words means well enough, but the context in which they are used is always to be one where he is right and you are the oaf that misunderstands. If he has to tactically misunderstand some word himself to play that game, he won't even know he did it, reality of meanings moves around for his purposes in this game. That game is his real world, and in there you are an NPC and so is everyone else.

I commend this explanation because it also covers the way that reading things always goes so spectacularly wrong when he does it.

This also brings up the next mystery.. how can someone experience reality like this? Maybe he's like atto who has a demon inside his head that turns atto's reality into a permanent rollercoaster. Maybe not just the meanings of words are in flux for VA but everything else is too.

[Iwannaplato]

Morality is the management [prevent & eliminate] of evil to enable its related goods.
We need to define evil, i.e. that which is net negative to the well-being and flourishing of the individual[s] and humanity.
In this case, we need to have an exhaustive list of what is considered evil in relation to morality.

Now you are coming at the issue in an entirely different way and also an unrelated way. You are not addressing the epistemology of these brain states, the existence of oughtness. IOW the points I raised.

So far, I have not venture to deliberate on an exhaustive list of what is considered evil of a certain degree of evilness.

So far, I included in the list of what is evil, i.e.
1. humans killing of human
2. rape
3. slavery -chattel
6. torture with serious harm
7. etc.

Every item of evil must be justified to be universal and immoral. I have done that with 'humans killing humans' and justified it has a physical neural base, so it is a biological and thence a moral fact via the moral FSERC.

In the above case 1-5, your X is accused to be immoral without justifying why his act is evil.
You cannot state X is immoral and expect me to accept it.

I'm not asking you to accept that X is evil. I never used the word evil. I was talking about any behavior that anyone thinks of as immoral. And the fact that the brain states are not the same even in those who agree. It doesn't matter what the act is.

So your thought experiment is pointless.
You need to be precise with what do you mean by 'immoral'.

No, not in this situation. I am demonstrating that any judgment that an act is immoral with have different neuronal patterns and brain states even in those who agree that the act is immoral.

.................

If you are wearing an instrumentalist hat, you are an ANTI-philosophical realists, i.e. you oppose and reject philosophical realism which is after something ontologically.

I am demonstrating that intrumentalists disagree with many things you say.

[Iwannaplato]

Don't insult your intelligence and integrity with the above.

No substance, ad hom.

You did not read the CPR thoroughly and fully and you have the arrogance to come to the above conclusion about Kant.

No substance, unjustified claim, ad hom.

You could have relied on AI by faith.

Confusing statement. False assumption. Or false subjunctive assumption. Hard to tell.

Problem is AI cannot cover the complex nuances with the CPR.

False assumption. No substance, no justification, hypocrisy.

In addition, you cannot use AI to the max with Kant on CPR unless you are reasonable well verse with Kant's CPR.

False assumptions

Instead, he argued that God's existence is a matter of faith rather than knowledge.

When one relies on faith, anything goes and anyone can do that with any belief which end up with no credibility and objectivity.

You asserted based on Kant for a long time that noumena did not exist. This is a false interpretation of Kant which you seemed to have accepted recently, but now have returned to the false interpretation of Kant that Kant asserted noumena were false and did not exist. He never asserted that God, freedom, moral law, etc. were false and did not exist.

This is why, the best one can do with such belief is to admit and recognize it is only a useful illusion or fiction.

Which is exactly what intrumentalists do and do in relation to things like brain states, for example. And this 'oughtness not to kill' and other oughtnesses would be considered fictions, possibly useful, by instrumentalists.

Anyone accepting Kant's noumena vs. phenomena schema would consider many of the terms you use to be noumena. If they were your kind of antirealist, as noumean they are false and unreal.

[Gary Childress]

With reference to Moral Facts Supervene on Natural Facts.

You as an alive person with self consciousness is a case and example of Supervenience at work.
Here is AI[wR]'s views:

... the emergence of consciousness from a physical body can be regarded as a case of supervenience. In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relationship between two sets of properties such that if there is a change in the supervenient properties, there must be a corresponding change in the subvenient properties. Applied to the mind-body problem, this means that mental states (consciousness) supervene on physical states (the brain and body).

In this context:

Subvenient properties are the physical properties of the brain and nervous system, including neurons, synapses, and their complex interactions.
Supervenient properties are the mental states and conscious experiences that emerge from these physical properties.

The principle of supervenience implies that any change in mental states must be accompanied by a change in the physical states of the brain.

However, it does not necessarily mean that the relationship between the two is causal or reducible. It allows for the possibility that mental states are dependent on but not fully explainable by physical states, aligning with certain non-reductive physicalist or emergentist perspectives in philosophy of mind.

Discuss??
Views??

I would say that changes in body states are also accompanied by changes in brain states. So, which is "supervenient" and which is not? Are either of them.