Ahhhh, ok. Thanks.

You mentioned causal tendencies. I don't have any idea how it's done but we can do a black box sort of observation and say a physical brain can do it. So I don't think it's an exception to physicalism.
Some might quivel.

... causal correlates, abilities, tendencies...

Why can’t everyone do it? What’s the catch? — Mww

Thats the kicker, huh? Why can't everyone do it. Same with internal dialogues..

... Yeah, nevermind. Moments do not supervene upon moments. I was sort of thinking that one might work out causation this way, but then the more I thought about it the less sense I could make of it. — Moliere

I think discussing the claim that the next moment supervenes upon this moment could branch in a lot of directions. It doesn't make sense at face value, I agree. But I think you can make some sense of it. In terms of A properties supervening on B properties, there's probably a wiggle room for calling objects zeroth order properties.

Causes are events which preceed and necessitate effects -- themselves also events. Perhaps some two-level structure within events could have supervenience, like wars supervening upon soldiers, but there aren't two levels between moments -- they're at the same logical plane, and the before-after structure is an ordering of events to an index rather than a two-level structure.

There's a wiggle room there too I think. The type of ordering between moments is like "less than or equal to", so a reflexive, transitive and asymmetric relation. So presumably any collection of property classes with a supervenience relation (which is comprehensible), if that supervenience relation is reflexive, transitive and asymmetric, is an example of a supervenience relation which is precisely the type of order between moments.

An example of that would be { biological (supervenes on) chemical (supervenes on) physical }. That's reflexive - no biological changes without biological changes. Asymmetric - every element has a unique predecessor. And transitive - the biological also supervenes upon the physical.

To be sure, it's possible there are supervenience relations which don't behave like orders, but that is one which does behave like an order.

So if you wanted to make the claim that {moment 1 (supervenes on) moment 2 (supervenes on) moment 3}, it's the same order relation as {biological (supervenes on) chemical (supervenes on) physical}. So it can't be disqualified on that basis alone.

Another rejoinder would be that "moments aren't properties", but you can modify the sequence to explicitly make them properties:

{properties at moment 1 (supervenes on) properties at moment 2 (supervenes on) properties at moment 3}

Which seems to parry that.

And as for supervenience changes necessarily being causal? The supervenience relation is reflexive. You get no changes in type A properties without changes in A type properties, but a given change of an A type property is identical with that change, not a cause of that change.

There might be an angle of criticism regarding the sense of possibility. What are the "possible worlds" for moments which the modal necessity of supervenience would be tested upon? Something I'm still pondering.

I agree the ability to imagine pictures in one's mind is not an exception to physicalism.

It's the "I don't have any idea how it's done" part that raises doubts. Imagining can be made to cohere with physicalism, but coherence isn't exactly persuasive to anyone who disagrees with physicalism. So is it a good argument for physicalism?

I'm a ways back on your dominoes video and am wondering if it could be misleading on how computation is done — Mark Nyquist

Well, if I posted the right video, it discusses how logic gates are implemented in domino structures. So the domino structure is crudely isomorphic to a subsection of a small part of a microprocessor. But what do you expect from dominos? :smile:

No, it is not much like what goes on in the neural nets in our brains, other than that the domino system and neural networks both exhibit the three key elements I mentioned earlier. (nodes, channels, amplification)

The computational capability of our brains is qualitatively different, in that it is massively parallel distributed processing with dazzlingly complex processes going on.

Haha....the term hand waving will come up but what is the alternative? Another kind of hand waving probably.

I think we can always resort to "I don't know" or "I am uncertain" or some other sort of negation while simultaneously admitting our strongest beliefs or the ones we think most likely or best supported.

So the mind-body problem can be made to cohere with physicalism, but what is a persuasive argument such that those who disagree with physicalism will feel the need to respond?

Can consciousness emerge from a computer running a simulation of a working brain? — RogueAI

Thats a bit of a jump. Slowly and carefully.

Anyone that gives you an answer to that is pulling your leg.

is pulling your leg. — Banno

Or their own... which i find to be the case with those types of answers. Tail chasing.

I liked the video.
My perspective is that computers use something like the definition of Shannon information and our brains use a type of information connected with our consciousness. So that was why I commented.

I think Kastrup is on the mark. Remember, he has PhD's in both computer engineering and philosophy of mind, he knows that of which he speaks.

The computational capability of our brains is qualitatively different, in that it is massively parallel distributed processing with dazzlingly complex processes going on. — wonderer1

Yet characterised by an overall subjective unity of consciousness, for which there is no current account.

While they seek for meaning, I'll seek truth without the expectation of meaning. — Christoffer

'They' being 'philosophers'. Seeking facts, would be the better description, 'truth' is too polyvalent a term.

Same with internal dialogues.... — AmadeusD

I get your point, but it can’t be a dialogue. It’s just the brain keeping you informed that it’s still working.

Won’t ever let you know how it does what it does, but at least you know it’s doing something.

I get your point, but it can’t be a dialogue. It’s just the brain keeping you informed that it’s still working. — Mww

I'm not quite sure what you're addressing 'internal dia/monologue' is definitely a metaphor - but many people are unable to form sentences in their mind at all https://www.iflscience.com/people-are-weirded-out-to-discover-that-some-people-dont-have-an-internal-monologue-54881

I’m addressing the difference between what you said, and what’s in the title of the link.

fair enough. I'm just responding to these specific comments - I'm not making an argument for or against physicalism. I was just pointing out that language can't be utilized by everyone in their mind - as with 3D abstraction.

↪AmadeusD You might like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAB21FAXCDE&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal — RogueAI

Awesome, thank you! Getting it to while i work. Very long, so don't expect me to come back any time soon - or at all LOL

Back on the difference between reduction and emergence.

The epitome of emergence is perhaps the Lorenz strange attractor, with ρ = 28, σ = 10, and β = 8/3, by magic a butterfly emerges...


Now the attractor is defined by


So which is it: is the butterfly reducible to the equations, or does it emerge from them...?

Isn't emergence no more than Emperor Reduction in his new clothes?

(@jgill, any thoughts?)

You see, everything a computer does can, in principle, be done with pipes, pressure valves and water. The pipes play the role of electrical conduits, or traces; the pressure valves play the role of switches, or transistors; and the water plays the role of electricity. Ohm’s Law—the fundamental rule for determining the behavior of electric circuits—maps one-on-one to water pressure and flow relations. — RogueAI

He demonstrates scientific ignorance with the last sentence there, showing his scientific understanding to be highly questionable. At least that is what he shows me.

Isn't emergence no more than Emperor Reduction in his new clothes? — Banno

No, not if you can look at things from a more holistic perspective, and recognize the interactions that occur within the world. I could provide a link if you can't think of recent examples you have seen on TPF or in real life.

Show us how in terms of the Lorenz contractor.

I was just pointing out that language can't be utilized by everyone in their mind…. — AmadeusD

Cool. I get that. I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they use?

Never really been that into math.

Do you have an understanding of the sort of interactions I was referring to?

not really. Looks like more hand waving.

Doesn't sound like you are interested in thinking about it.

I wonder though, if they can’t use language….or if they don’t do what seems to be congruent with the use of language….what do they use? — Mww

I'm unsure I grasp entirely what you're asking... But from what i can tell, thinking in images OR words is required for meaningful cognition. What else do we have? I do both, at different times.

Thinking about what? You haven’t said anything.

↪wonderer1 Thinking about what? You haven’t said anything. — Banno

No, not if you can look at things from a more holistic perspective, and recognize the interactions that occur within the world. I could provide a link if you can't think of recent examples you have seen on TPF or in real life. — wonderer1

I said I could provide a link if you can't think of recent examples. Do you need me to point out an example of the sort of interaction I was referring to?

thinking in images OR words is required for meaningful cognition. — AmadeusD

THAT’S what I hoped to hear. I might insist images or words, or the irreducible seeming of them, just IS cognition, presupposed in meaning.

Bu this is hardly a best argument for physicalism, per the thread title, so let’s agree and leave it at that.

:ok: Righteous.