[ExI] Supervenience (was: Re: What is "Elemental Redness"?)

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, May 3, 2023, 4:51 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> On 03/05/2023 00:28, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > Here is a simple diagram of supervenience:
> >
> https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Levels_of_existence.svg#mw-jump-to-license
>
>
> And here's the definition provided by Wikipedia:
>
> "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."
>
> Hm, that definition and that diagram don't refer to the same thing.
>

Right, the diagram shows different levels, for which there could be a
supervenience relationship, but the wiki definition refers to another key
aspect, which is an
asymmetric relationship between changes of states between the levels.

It is this asymetrical relationship that makes room for substrate
independence/multiple realizability, and why we cannot use identity
relationships.

Here is an example: consider two nearly identical physical brains, the only
difference between them is one has an extra neutrino passing through it.
The presence of this extra neutrino makes the two brains physically
different, we have changed the physical state of the brain, however, this
has not necessarily changed the mental state of the conscious mind.
However, if we want to change the state of the conscious mind, we *must*
have some resulting change in the lower level, the brain state must change
for the mind to change.



> The diagram shows levels of organisation, or 'layers of abstraction'.
> Some things are built from other, lower-level things. That's pretty much
> universal. But the defnition states that a change in a higher level must
> be the result of a change in a lower level.
>
> Changes in, say, the configuration of molecules happens all the time
> without requiring changes in the atoms that they are built from. Same
> with any pair of levels.
>
> So I think these are talking about two different things. (Depending on
> your definition of 'change', I suppose).
>
> In the brain, the levels of organisation include circuits built from
> neurons. Circuits can and do change all the time without the neurons
> they are built from, changing. You can get thousands of different
> circuits from the same few dozen neurons. This corresponds to the
> concept that the diagram illustrates.
>

I think you are reversing the change/levels relationships. If the chemical
state changes, there must be a physical state change. The atoms being in a
different position counts as a physical change. But atomic changes, such as
the quarks being in a different position, doesn't affect the chemical
properties.


> The information pattern that results from a particular neural circuit
> firing, does correspond to the definition, though. Any change in the
> pattern must be produced by a change in the circuit. Similarly, any
> change in the circuit will cause a change in the pattern.


There are some changes in the circuit which may not change the pattern. For
example, a neuron releasing a few extra ions -- this would be a change in
the circuit, but the information pattern may be robust enough to remain
unperturbed by such changes.


They are
> effectively just two ways of looking at the same thing. An information
> pattern, and its embodiment, rather than higher and lower levels of
> organisation, which are usually completely different things.
>
> (Actually, the diagram is missing at least two levels, in between
> molecules and cells. That's where the most interesting and important
> things about biology are, really. Yeah, I know it's just an example, but
> that's a glaring omission, to me).
>
> Anyway, am I confused about this? Or are those two things really
> different things? (diagram and definition that it's supposed to
> illustrate) If not, I need to think about it a bit more...
>


I think there are two key aspects of supervenience:

1. At least two levels of description (one higher and one lower level).
2. A 1-to-many relationship between states across levels, such that for
each state in the higher level, there may be more than one corresponding
state in the lower level.

Jason

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230503/84b967ff/attachment.htm>