In principle, they do. They acknowledge God has all-encompassing power. Why would deluding us or merely providing odd empirical data to our minds be outside that? Although, in this case it wouldn't be Odd. It would be the case, and nothing more. — AmadeusD

Christians typically think that God, being good, wouldn't mislead us.

:up:

What's the catch there? I don't really understand the correlation, so I can't pick out the problem. — AmadeusD

Ohms law is v=i*r where
v represents Voltage
i represents electrical current
and r represents electrical resistance

So for any given resistance, the relationship between voltage and current would be graphed as a straight line at some angle.

Fluid flow is much different with something more like p=r*q^2 where
p represents pressure
q represents flow rate
and r represents something crudely analogous to electrical resistance we can call "pipe-resistance".

Graphing p vs q for a given pipe-resistance (according to this simplistic equation) would result in a parabolic curve.

Fluid flow is actually even more complicated than that, so keep in mind this is merely a crude approximation. However, an aspect of the situation with fluids, is that the energy required to move fluid through pipes tends to go up as the square of the flow rate.

Where do you stand on the possibility of consciousness emerging from collections of pipes, vales, water, etc.? Even I would grant that it's logically possible. But suppose we have an infallible consciousness meter, and (bear with me) someone has created a planet-sized system of valves, pipes, pumps, water, etc. that is functionally equivalent to a working brain. I would give astronomical odds that when we point the consciousness meter at the plumbing, it's not going to register anything. What kind of odds would you give? — RogueAI

I don't see any reason to think such a system couldn't in principle be conscious, but it would be an extremely low temporal resolution sort of consciousness, and would require an enormous input of energy to power the pumps. This is related to what I pointed out Kastrup showing ignorance about, with his claim that the relationship between fluid flowrate and pressure, is the same as the relationship between voltage and current expressed by Ohms law.

So your conciousness detector would need to be able to detect a consciousness, for which one of our years was but a moment.

You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites. — Wayfarer

Yeah, we've discussed it before. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, as the name might suggest, has a lot of relevance to the workings of a community such as TPF.

It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. — Wayfarer

BTW, it's a shame you never read The Different Drum. It provides a lot of perspective good for a forum moderator to have.

I don't think it was too long. — Wayfarer

You haven't seen his response yet. :chin:

If, by 'laws of reality' you mean 'natural law' or 'scientific law', are these themselves physical? — Wayfarer

If Christoffer responds to this and tries to correct your misconceptions, do you consider it likely that you will be inclined to tell him that his response was too long?

If so, it would be considerate to say so now.

It fits well with General Relativity as well.

It exists in the past. Physicalism states that only physical things exist. My the past exists in minds. Therefore, it must actually exist, as an actual physical thing (that it has passed, i suppose is no matter to the principle - either could be argued by whomeveer held the view) — AmadeusD

On a perdurance view you would be a four dimensional being, with one of those dimensions being the time dimensions of spacetime. So from such a perspective, yes you have temporal extension.

Of course it is your brain is processing the data from your eyes. But it's still a cat, and it's still just a line. Thinking that the cat is no more than a bit of data processing misses its place in the artist's creation, the web page's design, the post I just presented and the argument about emergence.

Indeed, thinking of it as nothing more than your brain processing the data from your eyes is exactly the error that this thread is about. — Banno

What you say there is just you jumping to the conclusion that my view is much more simplistic than it actually is. I responded to you with a focus on the cat, because you yourself brought up the cat specifically.

Of course, I understand that we can associate a wide variety of things that we might wish to talk about, with the image. (And that is just another thing that is quite understandable, given a connectionist perspective.)

You seem to have a rather, "Don't look at the man behind the curtain." thing going on here. And your comment seems more gotcha rhetoric, than something I'd expect from a person willing to consider that he might have something to learn.

Look at my icon carefully. I could not have planned it and then created the necessary math, in my wildest dreams. — jgill

What are the axes of your drawing?

I'm used to thinking of (1,0j) as on the right hand side. I assume that is rotated 90° from my accustomed orientation. Is that correct?

There's a third type of emergence, more psychological than physical. The cat emerges from the single line: — Banno

This assumes psychological is other than physical.

In any case, neural network pattern recognition is highly fault tolerant, and that is why we are able to 'recognize a cat' when looking at that line.

Emergence, if it is to help us here, has to be akin to "seeing as", as Wittgenstein set out. So once again I find myself thinking of the duck-rabbit. Here it is enjoying the sun.

The duck emerges from the rabbit? — Banno

At any give time, either the duck emerges as a perception, or the rabbit emerges as a perception.

It is a function of how your brain is processing the data from your eyes from moment to moment.

Wouldn't that be a big step forward? — Ludwig V

I'm not clear on what you are asking.

I see weak emergentism as most reasonable, and in the context of weak emergence the emergence is only epistemic. So on this way of looking at things there is nothing for emergence to do, except provide cognitively limited being like ourselves with conceptual frameworks that are manageable.

Perhaps this should have been spelled out more clearly earlier in the thread. In any case, I don't know if Christoffer shares this view.

I think so too. I think the plausibility of my house's plumbing being conscious is about the same as the possibility that I'm a zombie: nonexistent. Yet, when you make Kastrup's point to materialists, they shrug and say, "Well, the brain is conscious, so I guess a bunch of pipes, valves and pumps could be conscious too". They don't want to entertain the possibility that there is no physical brain, that idealism might be the case. They're so opposed to idealism, they will seriously consider they might be zombies or "there is something it's like to be a sewer system". — RogueAI

This is just an argument from incredulity and a wheat field's worth of straw manning.

It's unfortunate that so many who consider themselves to be critics of physicalism have nothing much more than cheerleading for their tribe.

He hopes you will do that to further fuck with you. He has accepted that it is just a game for him: — Paine

:up:

Depending on how essential emergence is in nature, if it is an integral part of everything, then finding a holistically governing equation would be like finding the equation to end all equations. — Christoffer

It's not the holisitically governing equation some may dream of, but we can certainly make a psychologically called shot based on scientific understanding, on occasion.

↪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?

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

Never really been that into math.

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

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.

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.

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.

The problem is not in finding examples of phenomena that might exhibit emergence. There are plenty of those. It's in framing what emergence is in a way that meshes with the overall ontology (which would generally be physicalism since the overwhelming amount of work on emergence is in that context).

The blocks example is about our intuition — a metaphor. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It seemed to me to be reinforcing a simplistic intuitive view, since blocks aren't something we typically think of as interacting with each other in any very interesting way.

However, substitute dominos for blocks, and see the video I posted earlier, and you can observe the property emerging from the dominos being structurally arranged in a certain way.

Yes, I understand that, but what is is about brains that makes them conscious? There must be something about brains that makes them necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness. What makes brains so special? — RogueAI

Three things I think necessary for any information processing:

1 Nodes that perform some mathematical/logical function on inputs and produce an output.
2 Channelled transmission of outputs to the inputs of other nodes.
3 Amplification of signals.

Here is an example, see if you can recognize those three elements:



Then consider the neural networks in brains and the relative lack of neural networks in hearts.

Night all. It's been fun. :grin:

Here's the problem, because that looks like simple causation to me. — Banno

If it wasn't cases of complex causation that we are discussing, we wouldn't bother discussing supervenience and emergence. So I don't see the relevance of the word "simple" in your statement.

So if we drop the "simple", you are saying the problem is that it looks like causation?

I'm not seeing how the way it looks to you is supposed to be a problem for physicalism.

It's in framing what emergence is in a way that meshes with the overall ontology (which would generally be physicalism since the overwhelming amount of work on emergence is in that context). — Count Timothy von Icarus

How many words do you think it should take, to explain "what emergence is" for all cases of emergent properties? Are you sure this should be considered a serious question?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it. The point is, however, that we speak the same language and can convey ideas through text. That is what I say is not meaningfully reducible to the physical. — Wayfarer

Bringing in reducibility is shifting the goal posts, and I understand that you don't agree with it, but can you give me a reason to think that your disagreement is not simply a matter of biased intuitions on your part?

"How do you combine a bunch of building blocks and get something completely new that wasn't in the blocks to start with?" Intuitive answer is you simply don't. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Combine enough blocks and you get a black hole, which wasn't in the blocks to start with.

Note this thread Is 'Information' Physical where this idea was dragged over the coals discussed at length some time ago. — Wayfarer

Argument from authority. So what?

Of course. IN each transition, the physical constituents of the information change and also the underlying media. It's translated between electrical pulses, pixels on the screen, then you might even write it down. But the substance of the information stays the same. So how could that be physical? — Wayfarer

You are assuming the mental content in my mind as I read your post is identical to what? Do you think it was identical to the way you were mentally modelling me interpreting it when you wrote it?

I think what happened is you wrote based on your intuiton as to how I would interpret it. I read the pixel based form of the data and my intuitions generated the interpreted content that occurred for me. It is clearly naive however to assume identical content for both of us associated with the digital data. If such verbatim content transfer occurred, I wouldn't be so frustrated about people here not understanding emergence and supervenience. :rage: :razz:

I don’t believe the substance of this exchange can be explained in physical terms. — Wayfarer

Even if you really really really believe it, it doesn't falsify physicalism.

If I say something that affects you it might increase your blood pressure. Yet nothing physical would have passed between us, unlike if I had administered a medicine. That’s an example. — Wayfarer

I'm awfully confident that you physically used a computer input device to compose your post so that it was physically sent over the intenet to the TPF server. Then when I reopened the thread my Kindle was able to receive the data representing your post, as a result of that data having been physically transmitted from the TPF server to my Kindle.

You being unaware of the sequence of physical events in the causal chain, does not constitute evidence that nothing physical passed between us.

Then there's also the discovery of neuroplasticity. as highlighted in Norman Doidge's book "The Brain That Changes Itself," demonstrates the remarkable ability of the brain to change in response to various kinds of training and stimuli. Neuroplasticity refers to the brain's capacity to reorganize its structure, functions, and connections in response to experiences, learning, and environmental factors. — Wayfarer

Neuroplasticity is not problematic for physicalism.

However,there is also such a thing as top-down causation which mitigates against purely physicalist explanations of consciousness. This concept becomes evident in phenomena like the placebo effect and other instances of psychosomatic medicine. — Wayfarer

There certainly is the term "top-down causation". However simply assuming top-down causation occurs is begging the question against physicalism. Now if you can provide some empirical evidence demonstrating that top down causation occurs then you could falsify physicalism. However simply asserting that top-down causation occurs isn't good enough.

Do you have incontrovertible empirical evidence of top-down causation?

3.5

User
what is the best way to explain emergence and supervenience to philosopher

ChatGPT
To explain emergence and supervenience to a philosopher, you can describe emergence as the phenomenon where complex systems exhibit properties or behaviors that cannot be straightforwardly deduced from the properties of their individual components. Supervenience, on the other hand, is the idea that higher-level properties are dependent on, or supervene upon, lower-level properties.

For example, consider the mind-brain relationship. Emergence suggests that mental phenomena, like consciousness, arise from the complexity of neural networks in the brain, but you can't predict consciousness just by examining individual neurons. Supervenience, in this context, emphasizes that mental states depend on the underlying neural states.

In essence, emergence highlights the unpredictability of higher-level phenomena, while supervenience emphasizes the dependency of these phenomena on their underlying components.

But can anyone set out clearly what emergence is? — Banno

Maybe Christoffer can articulate it in a way that I can't see how to at the moment, but I can point to examples. For instance, suppose I have designed a voltmeter. When an instance of such a voltmeter is powered, it has the emergent property of displaying a number corresponding to the voltage applied to the input terminals. That emergent property supervenes on the particular properties of components within that specific instance of the voltmeter design.

Another instance of the same voltmeter design might have a different emergent property due to having different specific components. For example, voltmeter A may be more accurate than voltmeter B. Because the emergent accuracy of voltmeter B supervenes on B's components, changing the emergent accuracy of voltmeter B would require a change in one or more of the specific components of B that the emergent property supervenes on.