91 ideas
2392 | Properties supervene if you can't have one without the other [Chalmers] |
2393 | Logical supervenience is when one set of properties must be accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
2394 | Natural supervenience is when one set of properties is always accompanied by another set [Chalmers] |
2398 | Reduction requires logical supervenience [Chalmers] |
16048 | Physicalism says in any two physically indiscernible worlds the positive facts are the same [Chalmers, by Bennett,K] |
2401 | All facts are either physical, experiential, laws of nature, second-order final facts, or indexical facts about me [Chalmers] |
16424 | Strong metaphysical necessity allows fewer possible worlds than logical necessity [Chalmers] |
16425 | Metaphysical necessity is a bizarre, brute and inexplicable constraint on possibilities [Chalmers] |
16426 | How can we know the metaphysical impossibilities; the a posteriori only concerns this world [Chalmers] |
13956 | Kripke is often taken to be challenging a priori insights into necessity [Chalmers] |
13963 | Maybe logical possibility does imply conceivability - by an ideal mind [Chalmers] |
2407 | One can wrongly imagine two things being non-identical even though they are the same (morning/evening star) [Chalmers] |
2390 | We attribute beliefs to people in order to explain their behaviour [Chalmers] |
2397 | 'Perception' means either an action or a mental state [Chalmers] |
2422 | The structure of the retina has already simplified the colour information which hits it [Chalmers] |
23101 | Intuitions don't prove things; they just receptivity to interpretations [Kekes] |
2396 | Reductive explanation is not the be-all and the end-all of explanation [Chalmers] |
2426 | Why are minds homogeneous and brains fine-grained? [Chalmers] |
2391 | Can we be aware but not conscious? [Chalmers] |
2412 | Can we explain behaviour without consciousness? [Chalmers] |
2386 | Hard Problem: why brains experience things [Chalmers] |
2416 | What turns awareness into consciousness? [Chalmers] |
2423 | Going down the scale, where would consciousness vanish? [Chalmers] |
2403 | Nothing in physics even suggests consciousness [Chalmers] |
2400 | Is intentionality just causal connections? [Chalmers] |
2389 | Sometimes we don't notice our pains [Chalmers] |
2419 | Why should qualia fade during silicon replacement? [Chalmers] |
2402 | It seems possible to invert qualia [Chalmers] |
2415 | In blindsight both qualia and intentionality are missing [Chalmers] |
2414 | When distracted we can totally misjudge our own experiences [Chalmers] |
2409 | Maybe dualist interaction is possible at the quantum level? [Chalmers] |
2411 | Supervenience makes interaction laws possible [Chalmers] |
2424 | It is odd if experience is a very recent development [Chalmers] |
2413 | If I can have a zombie twin, my own behaviour doesn't need consciousness [Chalmers] |
2417 | Does consciousness arise from fine-grained non-reductive functional organisation? [Chalmers] |
2428 | Maybe the whole Chinese Room understands Chinese, though the person doesn't [Chalmers] |
2418 | The Chinese Mind doesn't seem conscious, but then nor do brains from outside [Chalmers] |
2406 | H2O causes liquidity, but no one is a dualist about that [Chalmers] |
2405 | Perhaps consciousness is physically based, but not logically required by that base [Chalmers] |
2395 | Zombies imply natural but not logical supervenience [Chalmers] |
9318 | Phenomenal consciousness is fundamental, with no possible nonphenomenal explanation [Chalmers, by Kriegel/Williford] |
2404 | Nothing external shows whether a mouse is conscious [Chalmers] |
2429 | Temperature (etc.) is agreed to be reducible, but it is multiply realisable [Chalmers] |
18403 | Indexicals may not be objective, but they are a fact about the world as I see it [Chalmers] |
19087 | The meaning or purport of a symbol is all the rational conduct it would lead to [Peirce] |
14708 | Rationalist 2D semantics posits necessary relations between meaning, apriority, and possibility [Chalmers, by Schroeter] |
13958 | The 'primary intension' is non-empirical, and fixes extensions based on the actual-world reference [Chalmers] |
2399 | Meaning has split into primary ("watery stuff"), and secondary counterfactual meaning ("H2O") [Chalmers] |
13959 | The 'secondary intension' is determined by rigidifying (as H2O) the 'water' picked out in the actual world [Chalmers] |
13957 | Primary and secondary intensions are the a priori (actual) and a posteriori (counterfactual) aspects of meaning [Chalmers] |
13961 | We have 'primary' truth-conditions for the actual world, and derived 'secondary' ones for counterfactual worlds [Chalmers] |
13962 | Two-dimensional semantics gives a 'primary' and 'secondary' proposition for each statement [Chalmers] |
13960 | In two-dimensional semantics we have two aspects to truth in virtue of meaning [Chalmers] |
23086 | Liberals say we are only responsible for fully autonomous actions [Kekes] |
23100 | Collective responsibility conflicts with responsibility's requirement of authonomy [Kekes] |
23093 | Moral and causal responsibility are not clearly distinct [Kekes] |
23096 | Morality should aim to prevent all evil actions, not just autonomous ones [Kekes] |
23087 | Much human evil is not autonomous, so moral responsibility need not be autonomous [Kekes] |
23098 | Effects show the existence of moral responsibility, and mental states show the degree [Kekes] |
23089 | Evil people may not be autonomously aware, if they misjudge the situation [Kekes] |
23094 | Ought implies can means moral responsibility needs autonomy [Kekes] |
23095 | Why should moral responsibility depend on autonomy, rather than social role or experience? [Kekes] |
23090 | Liberals assume people are naturally free, equal, rational, and morally good [Kekes] |
23117 | Love should be partial, and discriminate in favour of its object [Kekes] |
23119 | Sentimental love distorts its object [Kekes] |
23088 | Evil is not deviation from the good, any more than good is a deviation from evil [Kekes] |
23097 | What matters for morality is the effects of action, not the psychological causes [Kekes] |
23099 | It is said that if an agent is not autonomous then their evil actions don't reflect on their character [Kekes] |
23118 | Awareness of others' suffering doesn't create an obligation to help [Kekes] |
23109 | The veil of ignorance is only needed because people have bad motivations [Kekes] |
23114 | The chief function of the state is to arbitrate between contending visions of the good life [Kekes] |
23116 | Citizenship is easier than parenthood [Kekes] |
23103 | Power is meant to be confined to representatives, and subsequent delegation [Kekes] |
23107 | Prosperity is a higher social virtue than justice [Kekes] |
23081 | Liberal basics are pluralism, freedom, rights, equality, and distributive justice - for autonomy [Kekes] |
23085 | The key liberal values are explained by the one core value, which is autonomy [Kekes] |
23092 | Agents have little control over the capacities needed for liberal autonomy [Kekes] |
23102 | Liberals are egalitarians, but in varying degrees [Kekes] |
23084 | Are egalitarians too coercive, or not egalitarian enough, or lax over morality? [Kekes] |
23079 | Liberal justice ignores desert, which is the essence of justice [Kekes] |
23091 | Why do liberals not see a much wider range of values as basic? [Kekes] |
23112 | Liberals ignore contingency, and think people are good and equal, and institutions cause evil [Kekes] |
23082 | Liberal distribution cares more about recipients than donors [Kekes] |
23106 | To rectify the undeserved equality, we should give men longer and women shorter lives [Kekes] |
23121 | It is just a fact that some people are morally better than others [Kekes] |
23105 | It is not deplorable that billionaires have more than millionaires [Kekes] |
23120 | The problem is basic insufficiency of resources, not their inequality [Kekes] |
23108 | Justice combines consistency and desert; treat likes alike, judging likeness by desert [Kekes] |
23083 | Liberal welfare focuses on need rather than desert [Kekes] |
23113 | Sexual morality doesn't require monogamy, but it needs a group of sensible regulations [Kekes] |
16427 | Presumably God can do anything which is logically possible [Chalmers] |