<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/05/2023 18:27, Jason Resch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.714.1683048438.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="auto">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?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think it sounds like someone swallowed a philosophy dictionary and
is choking on it.<br>
<br>
My preference is for simple language, and diagrams.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Maybe I'm being unfair, though. Wouldn't be the first time.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.714.1683048438.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The point is to eliminate the dualism implicit in the
language used. <br>
It's not "my experience is caused by these neural patterns"
(which <br>
implies the question "what am I? What is it that these
patterns cause to <br>
have the experience?"), it's "I am these neural patterns,
having this <br>
experience". And no, that doesn't mean only patterns created
by <br>
biological neurons will do. Anything capable of producing
the same <br>
patterns will produce the same result: Me.<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.714.1683048438.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Is it possible to escape this form of dualism
which acknowledges a difference between pattern and material?
Should we even try?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.714.1683048438.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">
<div dir="auto">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.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
</body>
</html>