<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@DengXian";
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>That’s the problem with philosophers. They like making up their own terminology. It can be difficult to distinguish the gibberish from the coherent. In this case Chalmers is trying to say that something is reducible if the workings of the whole is explainable in terms of the parts.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In my experience philosophers try to explain their theories in the most complicated way possible to obfuscate potential errors. Politicians use the same technique and seeing exactly where the error is can be difficult. I suggest you read something more intellectually honest such as a physics or mathematics book.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, March 2, 2021 10:29 AM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:extropolis@googlegroups.com">extropolis@googlegroups.com</a>; <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">ExI chat list</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com">William Flynn Wallace</a><br><b>Subject: </b>[ExI] Chalmers</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'>In my constant effort to keep my brain working, I am trying The Conscious Mind.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'>"A natural phenomenon is reductively explainable in terms of some lower level properties if the property of instantiating the phenomenon is globally logically supervenient on the low level properties in question." "A phenomenon is reductively explainable simpliciter if the property of instantiating that phenomenon is globally logical supervenient on physical properties."<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'>Have I bit off more than I can chew?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:18.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";color:black'>bill w<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>