In another thread on this forum*1, we have been discussing Deacon's seminal concept of Constitutive or Causal Absence, as it relates to a Materialistic worldview. As you might expect, we have been going around in strange-loop circles on how to make sense of a creative causal gap*2 in the chain of Determinism*3, from the perspective that inert Matter is the fundamental element of reality.Thanks for your link to Terrence Deacon. — Ypan1944
This sounds like a description of Holism, as a metaphysical concept relevant to physical things & processes. But you didn't use that controversial term. Was that ententional?Emergent properties are therefore characteristics of the collective and not of their parts. “The whole is more than the parts.” — Ypan1944
A property A is called supervenient over a (subvenient) property B if a change in B has direct consequences for A. — Ypan1944
To argue that our consciousness is highly emergent you must show that the features of our consciousness are supervenient over the underlying complex structure of neurons. This would mean that any damage to the brain has consequences for consciousness. — Ypan1944
A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”. — SEP
A property A is called supervenient over a (subvenient) property B if a change in B has direct consequences for A.
— Ypan1944
This is an incorrect definition of supervenience: the relationship goes in the opposite direction. And you go on to make an incorrect argument from it: — SophistiCat
This sounds like a description of Holism, as a metaphysical concept relevant to physical things & processes. But you didn't use that controversial term. Was that ententional? — Gnomon
The original title of this thread was spelled "emergency". That may have been a typo, but "Emergence" and "Emergency" are related concepts. "Emergence" usually refers to the gradual evolution of novelty within a system. But "Emergency" suggests a radical break in the chain of causation that requires special treatment. One kind of philosophically important "strong" emergence is the transition from a collection of parts to an integrated system with new properties of its own, such as the evolutionary appearance of self-animated matter, and self-referencing minds in the world. Is that what this thread is about? :smile: — Gnomon
Ironically, the looping "glitch" itself is unexpected in classical deterministic physics. Which suggests the logical necessity for "an inventor or artist to construct them". But natural or supernatural creativity of any kind is abhorrent to most scientific worldviews, that are based on the predictability of nature. So, how else can we explain the appearance of Strong Emergence in the world, without assuming either sporadic Divine Intervention, or at least a hypothetical intelligent First Cause, to design or program a dynamic system capable of creating radical novelty, such as self-referencing "featherless bipeds" with big brains, who ask recursive questions about their own origins? — Gnomon
Sorry, but look at Wikipedia for this definition:
"In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible."
This has nothing to do with your "downward causation" conception — Ypan1944
Actually, the perspective of Holism does not deny Reductionism, it just offers a different (complementary)*1 way of looking at the world. Some scientists dismiss Holism as a New Age religious belief. But the term originally referred to a systematic approach to understanding the complex interactions of Evolution*2.I am not a "holist" : holism denies reductionism and I don't do that. — Ypan1944
Yes, this is almost identical to the definition that I quoted in my post, and it is the opposite of what you stated and then used to argue that consciousness cannot supervene on brain properties. — SophistiCat
Sorry if you misunderstood my post, but I really meant that my definition has the same meaning as Wikipedia 's definition. — Ypan1944
A property A is called supervenient over a (subvenient) property B if a change in B has direct consequences for A. — Ypan1944
A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. — SEP
In the case of consciousness: this is certainly emergent and my remark that some parts of the brain are crucial for consciousness indicates that there is at least some form of supervenience. — Ypan1944
To argue that our consciousness is highly emergent you must show that the features of our consciousness are supervenient over the underlying complex structure of neurons. This would mean that any damage to the brain has consequences for consciousness. — Ypan1944
A property A is called supervenient over a (subvenient) property B if a change in B has direct consequences for A.
— Ypan1944 — SophistiCat
So we agree with this last slogan. My remark that “a change in B has direct consequences for A" is just a symmetric formulation, stipulating the causal connection between B and A.
But let's stop with nitpicking in this discussion please! — Ypan1944
Yes, this is almost identical to the definition that I quoted in my post — SophistiCat
Yes. "Supervenience" is a technical logical term, and does not necessarily entail "downward causation". But some thinkers have used the notion of logical priority to infer physical order of causation. In that case, like Holism, it appears to conflict with the typical scientific method of Reductionism from a whole system to its constituent parts. But Nature seems to be able to work both ways, especially in its mental functions. If you don't like the term "Holism", does "non-reductive physicalism" make sense in your worldview? :smile:Sorry, but look at Wikipedia for this definition:
"In philosophy, supervenience refers to a relation between sets of properties or sets of facts. X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible."
This has nothing to do with your "downward causation" conception — Ypan1944
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.