A set of properties A supervenes upon another set B just in case no two things can differ with respect to A-properties without also differing with respect to their B-properties. In slogan form, “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference”.
The term is usually used in a materialist sense to refer to the idea that conscious experience, which is a higher-level property of the brain, supervenes on, that is, it is entirely dependent on, neural processes,lower-level properties of the brain).
Our main interest is of course, if this way of looking at the relation between two sets explains how the mind comes into being or is connected with the body.
Let me give you THE quote from Donald Davidson(1970), that put the term "Supervenience" on the philosophical stage:
-Begin quote- Mental characteristics are in some sense dependent, or supervenient, on physical characteristics. Such supervenience might be taken to mean
that there cannot be two events alike in all physical respects but differing in some mental respect, or that an object cannot alter in some mental respect without altering in some physical respect. -End quote-
And here is created a new meaning of this word, which as a result, is only discussed among philosophers. The big question is: does it explain the relationship between the mental and the physical?
If you review the description of the term, with which I opened this lecture: A cannot differ from B, and so on, then I'll going to show you how the academic philosophers react to such a statement and it is a serious and meaningful reaction.
It brings to our attention a way of looking at things we usually do not use in our common daily life. Yet I can show you that there is more between heaven and earth than we usually think.
One branch of logic is called Modal Logic. It deals with modality. What is meant by modality? It's from the Latin word "modus", the way something is. Things can be in two ways: contingent, just coincidentally, or necessary, you can't escape it.
Modal logic analyzes the truth value of statements like "It is necessary that....thence...." or "It is possible that...thence....". And here comes the catch: what have philosophers asked, the question of modal force? In other words how necessary is necessary?
A cannot differ from B. Sounds simple, but the Stanford encyclopedia formulates it like this: In order to sort out how supervenience connects up to other relations, like entailment, reduction, grounding, ontological dependence, and explanation.
we need to discuss the fact that supervenience can hold with varying degrees of modal force. That is, the ‘cannot’ in “there cannot be an A-difference without a B-difference” comes in different strengths. For example, it can mean “cannot as a matter of logic,” or it can mean “cannot consistently with the laws of nature”.
Ok, we agree on the fact that there is a necessary relation between mental and physical states, but we now also know that we have to evaluate the modal force of this relation.
The Stanford Encyclopedia talks about metaphysical necessity and nomological necessity, while I wasn't familiar with those terms. So I asked the AI helpers and an avalanche of all kinds of possible necessities with all kinds of modal force fell on my desk.
I was presented with eleven different kinds of necessity. So now we have three questions: how can there be so many kinds of necessity and which kind of necessity fits supervenience and why?
That the mental and the physical are necessarily connected we don't question, but up to now we still have to figure out if supervenience is the answer.
Thank you for your attention again.....
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 100 Philosophers 9 May 2009 Start of
2 - 25+ Women Philosophers 10 May 2009 this blog
3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking 10 May 2009
4 - Modern Theories of Ethics 29 Oct 2009
5 - The Ideal State 24 Febr 2010 / 234
6 - The Mystery of the Brain 3 Sept 2010 / 266
7 - The Utopia of the Free Market 16 Febr 2012 / 383
8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism 5 Sept 2012 / 413
9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist 6 Nov 2012 / 426
10 - Non-Western Philosophy 29 May 2013 / 477
11 - Why Science is Right 2 Sept 2014 / 534
12 - A Philosopher looks at Atheism 1 Jan 2015 / 557
13 - EVIL, a philosophical investigation 17 Apr 2015 / 580
14 - Existentialism and Free Will 2 Sept 2015 / 586
15 - Spinoza 2 Sept 2016 / 615
16 - The Meaning of Life 13 Febr 2017 / 637
17 - In Search of my Self 6 Sept 2017 / 670
18 - The 20th Century Revisited 3 Apr 2018 / 706
19 - The Pessimist 11 Jan 2020 / 819
20 - The Optimist 9 Febr 2020 / 824
21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream 8 Oct 2020 / 872
22 - A World Full of Patterns 1 Apr 2021 / 912
23 - The Concept of Freedom 8 Jan 2022 / 965
24 - Materialism 7 Sept 2022 / 1011
The Discussion
13:26] herman Bergson: To put it in one sentence....
[13:27] herman Bergson: A necessary relation between two things.....it is simply said, but we really have to figure out what "necessary means
[13:28] herman Bergson: Just change the word necessary in you have to
[13:28] herman Bergson: not necessary = you don't have to
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:29] herman Bergson: It is necessary not to jump from a skyscraper
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): because then ull die
[13:29] Max Chatnoir: Certainly advisable!
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): unless u have a parachute
[13:29] herman Bergson: the necessity is in the laws of physics here
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah, this can never be broken cause then u have magic
[13:30] herman Bergson: A can not be true and false at the same time....this is what we call a logically necessary
[13:30] Max Chatnoir: Isn't the necessity that IF you jump from a skyscraper, THEN you die.
[13:30] herman Bergson: and so there are nine more necessary relations or properties
[13:31] herman Bergson: If you want to prevent to die don't jump
[13:32] herman Bergson: if you want to stay rational, then dont accept that something can be true and false at the same time
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): quantum physics is the exemption of this, here all things can be in many states at once, strange as it sounds, quantum computers proove this I guess
[13:32] herman Bergson: (unless you are a politician :-))
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cause they work
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): not fiction
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): otherwise however
[13:32] herman Bergson: let's keep quatum physics out of this for the moment
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in normal logic u cant have many states at once
[13:33] herman Bergson: right
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like i cant set a boolean variable to ne both true and false in my code
[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): one state at the time
[13:33] herman Bergson: yet you should give it a try Bejiita ^_^
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): then i just get compile errors
[13:34] herman Bergson smiles
[13:34] herman Bergson: But our point here is that we have mental states and brain states....
[13:34] Max Chatnoir: algorithms are logical.
[13:34] herman Bergson: they are connected
[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:35] herman Bergson: and we try to understand what that means
[13:35] Max Chatnoir: You know, I absolutely believe that, but I've never thought through the implications.
[13:35] herman Bergson: in 1970 philosophers introduced the term supervenience as a description of the relation
[13:36] herman Bergson: that is the point Max......the moment you start wondering about it......oh my
[13:36] oola Neruda is online.
[13:36] herman Bergson: just keep in mind.....we are talking ontology here....that is....what does really exist?
[13:37] herman Bergson: And as we are here in the context of materialism, we assume that only that what physics researches )matter in some form) exists
[13:37] herman Bergson: But in our head is happening so much....
[13:38] Max Chatnoir: Lots of cells in that brain....
[13:38] herman Bergson: We are sure that our thoughts and desires exist to....and that is not the research object of physics
[13:39] herman Bergson: SO...what does "exist" mean here....my thoughts "exist"
[13:39] herman Bergson: and how do they relate to that material brain of mine?
[13:40] herman Bergson: At least one thing I know for sure....
[13:41] herman Bergson: if that material brain of mine stops functioning...my thoughts also disapear from this earth
[13:41] Max Chatnoir: except that some of your thoughts live on in your students.
[13:41] herman Bergson: Today we know already somewhat more about the brain fortunately....
[13:42] herman Bergson: Nicely said Max, but those are not my thought...only the content of my thoughts that have stuck in your memory
[13:43] herman Bergson: which is nice too :-))
[13:43] herman Bergson: So, what is the explanatory power of the concept of Supervenience.......I still don't know :-)
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can you translate the word superveience for me please?
[13:44] herman Bergson: I always have to think of what John Searle said about the mind.....
[13:45] herman Bergson: supervenience = that what comes after....
[13:45] herman Bergson: a sec
[13:45] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): google doesn't
[13:45] herman Bergson: look behind me
[13:46] herman Bergson: atoms supervene elementary particles
[13:46] herman Bergson: molecules supervene atoms
[13:46] herman Bergson: and here it comes....
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:46] Max Chatnoir: I think the scary thing about it might be if you decided to make everybody think alike by rigidly controlling their experience.
[13:47] herman Bergson: when you say molecules supervene atoms you say....when there is a change in the atoms there necessarily is a change in the molecules
[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ah, I understand
[13:48] herman Bergson: when something changes in the molecules, there must have been a change in the atoms and there will be a change in the cells
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes now i grab the concept fully
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i think
[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:48] herman Bergson: kind of change reaction
[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah i guess indeed
[13:49] herman Bergson: But the big issue of today is....we say if....then there hasto be a change in......
[13:49] herman Bergson: this has to be means a necessary relation between the two
[13:50] herman Bergson: but in what way necessary?
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well the diagram says it all
[13:50] herman Bergson: logically, physically, metaphysically, ontologically.....????
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we are at the lowest level all made of subatomic particles
[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and also everything around us
[13:51] Max Chatnoir: It may be necessary, but because there are so many aspects of biodiversity, that the same experience might not produces the same changes in everybody.
[13:51] herman Bergson: what kind of necessity is here active
[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they vanish everything else vanish
[13:51] herman Bergson: Ahhh...Max, there you hit a sensitive nerve......
[13:52] herman Bergson: Suppose in your brain and in my brain there occurs the exactly similar process X
[13:53] herman Bergson: then you take the quotation of Davidson and you have to conclude that we in that case must have the same mental state, experience
[13:53] herman Bergson: That is the point
[13:54] Max Chatnoir: Well, if we had exactly the same brain and sensory structures, etc, that might be true, but we almost certainly don't.
[13:54] herman Bergson: Well....that is maybe not true....
[13:54] herman Bergson: sure there are differences....
[13:55] herman Bergson: but we both free ourselves from a headache by taking an asprine, for instance
[13:55] Max Chatnoir: I don't know if anybody has done studies with organisms with simpler nervous systems to see how similarly they react to the same stimulus.
[13:55] herman Bergson: Structurally we differ, sure, but not 100%
[13:56] Max Chatnoir: It doesn't have to be 100% different, just not 100% similar.
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but there can indeed be differences, we for ex might have different personalities and at least for me caffeine do hardly anything with me ect
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): what controls these things
[13:56] Max Chatnoir: Yes, that's a nice example, Bejita.
[13:56] herman Bergson: Here we enter an interesting area......
[13:56] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:57] herman Bergson: The point is, that we know things about the brain.......
[13:57] Max Chatnoir: We're not even close to being biochemically identical. Well, maybe close, but not 100%
[13:57] herman Bergson: but if you take the complexity of the brain......we know just a little bit
[13:58] Max Chatnoir: That might be fortunate, or we might try controlling everybody's mind.
[13:59] Max Chatnoir: if we actually thought we knew what we were doing.
[13:59] herman Bergson: To be honest.....that is the problem I have with some aspects of the philosophy of mind.....
[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hi Oola
[13:59] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hallo OOla
[13:59] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hi:-) Oola
[13:59] oola Neruda: just got home.... from voting
[13:59] herman Bergson: some philosophers just speculate while we haven't the slightest idea what goes on in the brain physically and how this relates to mental states
[13:59] Max Chatnoir: Hi, Oola. and yay!
[14:00] herman Bergson: Hello oola
[14:00] oola Neruda: hello all... sorry to be late and distracting
[14:00] oola Neruda: just got home
[14:00] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): you're late but not distracting
[14:01] oola Neruda: Thank you! :)
[14:01] herman Bergson: Always good to see you, oola ^_^
[14:01] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)
[14:01] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay
[14:01] herman Bergson: Was a difficult lecture today, I think
[14:01] Max Chatnoir: But very thought-provoking!
[14:01] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes but in the end it was understandable
[14:02] herman Bergson: Was a good move of you Beertje to ask what supervenience exactly means...
[14:02] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed
[14:02] herman Bergson: I don't like the word actually ^_^
[14:03] herman Bergson: it suggests something, but yet doesn't explain it
[14:03] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): true
[14:03] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I guess thats the case
[14:03] herman Bergson: for instance.....
[14:04] herman Bergson: they talk about two sets of PROPERTIES, that are related by supervenience
[14:04] herman Bergson: you have an object....and that object has properties
[14:04] bergfrau Apfelbaum: now i know that i know nothing
[14:04] Max Chatnoir: So one set of properties arises out of the other's?
[14:04] herman Bergson: properties don't exist on their won
[14:05] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): they have to be applied to something
[14:05] herman Bergson: Again....that is precisely such a question you then ask, Max
[14:06] herman Bergson: I still am working on it to make it understandable :-)
[14:06] Max Chatnoir: But those properties might not be totally predictable.
[14:06] herman Bergson: That doesn't need to be a problem
[14:07] Max Chatnoir: For example, can you predict what water is like from the properties of hydrogen and oxygen?
[14:07] herman Bergson: a mental state is a property of what
[14:07] herman Bergson: a physical brain state is a property of what......
[14:07] Max Chatnoir: And yet water's properties arise out of the interaction of those atoms.
[14:08] herman Bergson: that later question we can answer...it is a property of the neurons etc in th e brain
[14:08] herman Bergson: Funny that you say that, Max
[14:08] herman Bergson: Searle gave as an example a glass of water....
[14:09] Max Chatnoir: I think that when you go from level to level, it's not just the pieces you're looking at, it's their organization.
[14:09] herman Bergson: when I put my finger i it, it comes out wet
[14:09] Max Chatnoir: Yes, water sticks to you!
[14:09] herman Bergson: but when you analyze the water, nowhere you find the property 'wetness'
[14:09] Max Chatnoir: but not to everything.
[14:09] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): no
[14:10] Max Chatnoir: We just call it wetness.
[14:10] herman Bergson: just hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules
[14:10] herman Bergson: yet there is that property 'wetness'
[14:10] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): liquids are wet = they cling to you
[14:10] herman Bergson: and that is the same with the mind....
[14:10] Max Chatnoir: you can kind of find that property because the water also sticks to itself.
[14:10] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): however air does not or gasses in general, they just rush past you
[14:11] herman Bergson: the mind may be a property of the brain
[14:11] herman Bergson: but when you take the brain apart, nowhere you find a mind
[14:11] herman Bergson: and THAT is the philosophical challenge
[14:11] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[14:11] Max Chatnoir: I think that is the "super" in supervenience.
[14:12] herman Bergson: right
[14:12] Max Chatnoir: You have an emergence of properties.
[14:12] herman Bergson: So...I guess you have plenty to think about till Thursday :-))
[14:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): WHAT represents the mind. i say its like a computer storage medium, both HDD and SSD store data but what IS that data reallt, in the HDD its magnetic polarity and in an SSD its electrical charge
[14:13] herman Bergson: IS another theory indeed Max....is emergence an explanation?......
[14:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): both represents same data in the end but with way different actual physical things
[14:13] herman Bergson: who knows....
[14:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): storing it
[14:13] Max Chatnoir: Well, I think with increasing complexity, you get new stuff.
[14:13] herman Bergson: let's save it for another lecture...^_^
[14:13] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): in the case of the mind its neurons connecting
[14:14] Max Chatnoir: Connecting, interacting, responding to external stimulus
[14:14] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[14:15] Max Chatnoir: Nerve cells aren't totally different from other cells, so they can interacti with them.
[14:15] herman Bergson: This was a long discussion :-)
[14:15] Max Chatnoir: So you have to ask -- where does the brain actually stop?
[14:16] herman Bergson: Let's cool down our brains and save energy for the next lecture :-))
[14:16] Max Chatnoir: Good idea!
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[14:16] herman Bergson: It stops here and now, Max...for today ^_^
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): wow time flies
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): now lets pay some cards
[14:16] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): play
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or something
[14:16] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[14:16] Max Chatnoir: ...when you're having fun!
[14:16] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[14:17] herman Bergson: and thank you all
[14:17] Max Chatnoir: Yes, Thanks, Hermann.
[14:17] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): indeed nice
[14:17] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you herman and class! very interesting again
No comments:
Post a Comment