[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 02/05/2023 18:27, Jason Resch wrote:
> Perhaps "supervenes on" is a better term that "is caused by" as it 
> preserves the linkage between the two descriptions without introducing 
> a separate entity, and it may be better than stating an identity (or 
> "is") relationship, as supervenience leaves room for multiples 
> realizations. What do you think?

I think it sounds like someone swallowed a philosophy dictionary and is 
choking on it.

My preference is for simple language, and diagrams.

Is there a simple language version of "supervenience"? It's a term I 
don't see myself using, for sure. I had to look it up just now, because 
I never really knew what it meant, and I'd expect most people to be the 
same, if they'd even heard of it in the first place. 
Five-and-more-syllable words should be restricted to chemistry and 
german, imo, and not used in conversation. Unless you're in germany and 
want to discuss the riversteamboatcaptainshat or a 
woodenfloorpolishingmachinehireshop, of course.

Is there anything in normal, everyday life that 'supervenes on' anything 
else? It sounds like a made-up word to me, and to be honest, rather 
pompous. It seems to be one of those jargon words that people use to 
keep the unwashed masses off their turf.

Maybe I'm being unfair, though. Wouldn't be the first time.

>
>     The point is to eliminate the dualism implicit in the language used.
>     It's not "my experience is caused by these neural patterns" (which
>     implies the question "what am I? What is it that these patterns
>     cause to
>     have the experience?"), it's "I am these neural patterns, having this
>     experience". And no, that doesn't mean only patterns created by
>     biological neurons will do. Anything capable of producing the same
>     patterns will produce the same result: Me.
>
>
> Is eliminating dualistic language necessary? We've already uncovered a 
> form of dualism in our brief discussion on this topic: the difference 
> between the "abstract immaterial pattern" and the particular "concrete 
> material instantiation." We've concluded there's not an identity 
> between these two as two things, as different material instantiations 
> may realize the same abstract patterns of information processing.

Ok, another definition problem. When I say 'dualism', I mean the idea 
that there are things that behave according to the known laws of 
physics, and there are mysterious, unknowable, supernatural things that 
don't. In the main, dualism refers to the idea of gods, religious-issue 
souls and other impossible things. I think that when people represent 
the idea of information as being dualistic, that's misusing the term, 
and can be a form of religious apologetics. Maybe we need better 
terminology.

>
> Is it possible to escape this form of dualism which acknowledges a 
> difference between pattern and material? Should we even try?

We need to distinguish it from the 'supernatural' variety. Personally, I 
don't think the term means anything in the above context. Information is 
part of the world, it's real, and obeys specific laws. Dualism isn't 
applicable. We can't see information, yeah, so what? We can't see 
electricity or wind either.

> Perhaps such language patterns are even useful, as a bridge of 
> understanding for those who believe in an "immaterial soul" supported 
> by a "material body." It's not that far off from our idea of an 
> immaterial information pattern supported by a particular physical 
> incarnation.

I very much doubt it would be a bridge of understanding, more a source 
of confusion. The idea of an 'immaterial' information pattern and the 
idea of an immaterial soul are totally different things. Conflating them 
would not help anybody. I feel. Referring to information as being a 
dualistic thing places it into the realm of the supernatural, and it 
definitely doesn't belong there. It's real, even though we can't see it.

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230502/e4b3a001/attachment.htm>