RE: BHA: the materialisms

["Marshall Feldman" <marsh@xxxxxxx>]

Ruth, John, et al.,

What made it sound reductionist to me was the term "dependence." The
emergence of one level from the other is not a problem in that this implies
independence or at least relative autonomy. The idea that structural
features of one level are sufficient to explain the features of another is
more problematic. I see the relations as much more contingent, so that the
emergent properties at one level are necessary but not sufficient to account
for the structures of the next. "Dependence" just seemed to imply that one
level could be reduced to the (emergent properties of the) other.

	Marsh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ruth Groff
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 7:28 PM
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: BHA: the materialisms
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> You wrote:
> >Ruth, do you have a problem with the formulation "if there were
> no life there
> >could still be physical being, but not the other way around."?
>
> No, that sounds fine to me.  I didn't really have a "problem" with it the
> other way; I was mostly trying to get at what might have made it sound
> reductionistic.
>
> r.
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---