Posted: Dec 07, 2017 5:51 am
Thommo wrote:It actually wasn't just a terminological point, although I would think it shouldn't need to be pointed out that saying what you mean is generally an improvement over saying what you don't mean.
The thing is that there are lots of ways that SOS could be correct (although I would not say I think he necessarily is), one simple example would be that there are only ever finitely many instances of a dishonest act, and that each act occurs in a physically distinguishable situation (and one may, or may not restrict the domain of which physical measurements they consider).
What's worse is that even if SOS was wrong and no isomorphism could ever be found that would only prove indeterminism (because it would show that the physical is underspecified, not that there are non physical explanations to be found), it would not actually constitute evidence or argument against physicalism. Different issues have been conflated here, in contradiction to some of the more overblown claims.
Ah. Thank you for clarifying. You missed my point entirely. The entire concept of a dishonest act is a matter of map rather than territory. The reason I pointed out that dishonest is not physical is that In a world where what is physical is what is known, there are no honest or dishonest acts. There are only reactions or perhaps actions. By using valuations like that, we obscure the entire content of the reaction behind the lens of value. While the standard argument is along the lines of "well, you could theoretically translate it into purely physical terms", my argument is that wherever we don't, we are literally experiencing the values of our maps rather than those of our sensations. The actual information we parse is literally coming from our own heads. My argument is that we can't use any map to get around this because we are always going to assume the information filled in by the map rather than the environment is the reality.