[ExI] What is "Elemental Redness"?

Jason Resch jasonresch at gmail.com
Tue May 2 20:22:23 UTC 2023


On Tue, May 2, 2023, 2:50 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Mine too. But when discussing the finer details of highly nuanced topics,
sometimes jargon is (unfortunately) necessary.

Here is a simple diagram of supervenience:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levels_of_existence.svg#mw-jump-to-license

The prime example is "chemistry supervenes on physics".

Chemistry isn't really anything above and beyond physics, but it introduces
a host of new potential relations and interactions (all the while supported
by the physical laws operating underneath it), and concepts in chemistry
allow a more convenient language for describing these higher order
structures and patterns.

Likewise we can say the same about computer program running on a particular
computer -- the program supervening on the hardware.

And in my opinion we could say the same about states of consciousness
supervening on states of the brain.


> Is there a simple language version of "supervenience"?
>

Not that I am aware of. Perhaps "entailment" is close though.

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?
>

Psychology and biology
Biology and chemistry
Chemistry and physics...

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.
>

I think it was introduced for a reason. I am not aware of any simpler word
that conveys quite the same meaning as "a higher order structure
established on top of a lower level (and perhaps interchangable) substrate.




>
>> 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.
>

(There are various forms of dualism, not all of which requiren religious
beliefs. For example, Chalmers's property dualism.)

But that note aside, whether it is information or some idea of a soul,
should we strip language of to prevent referring to oneself as separate
from one's brain? I.e. someone could consistently say "I have a brain, I am
a mind."

I don't know, I just think language should remain as flexible as possible,
and that we shouldn't engineer language to force a particular theory or way
of thinking (that seems somewhat Orwellian).

I also don't think we could force it even if we tried, note: we still use
the term "sunrise".



>
> 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.
>

Information can in principle exist in other universes with different
physical laws (it's non physical)

Information cannot be seen or touched (it's intangible)

Information has no mass or energy (it's immaterial)

Were dualists entirely wrong to identify themselves with something that's
non physical, intangible, and immaterial?

Many times theories get revised rather than entirely discarded.



> 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.
>

Did you see my thread on computationalism and the soul?

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230502/e87a8c86/attachment.htm>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list