We study and study on supervenience, on the relation between the mental and the physical and I get the feeling we still get nowhere in understanding the reality we live in.
Well, in fact, we do, but professional analytical philosophers aren't of much help. And when you study the article on supervenience in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy you wonder, what are they arguing about what has it to do with reality and common sense?
And then you arrive at paragraph 3.8 Tallying Up. Let me share it with you and you'll learn how it supports my skepticism about this term. Just let me quote:
[Begin SEoP] Supervenience gives us less than some philosophers have thought. Even logically or metaphysically necessary supervenience is compatible with there being no B-properties that entail any A-properties.
Supervenience is not itself explanatory and does not guarantee that the A-properties either reduce to, ontologically depend upon, or are grounded by the B-properties.
It might provide a way to capture the thought that A-properties or facts are not a further ontological commitment over and above the B-properties or facts, but this is controversial. At heart, all a supervenience claim says is that A-properties covary with B-properties. [End SEoP]
So, what have we won with this singularly philosophical term? We can say, and I used it in the discussion on Tuesday, to explain the meaning of supervenience.... you can say that molecules supervene atoms.
You need atoms to get molecules, so after a bunch of atoms combined you get a molecule. But here comes the problem: it is a physical fact that you can take a molecule apart and then you are left with atoms.
In other words, when you say that molecules supervene atoms, it physically implies that you physically can REDUCE the molecules to atoms. The relation between molecules and atoms is absolute, indisputable, or call it necessary.
You NEED atoms to get molecules. Every physicist can tell you that. And here is my point, we KNOW in detail how this works, how this all fits together, how we can create molecules with atoms, and so on.
Within that context, the term 'supervenience' is quite understandable. We also understand what the necessary relation between atoms and molecules means. One can't exist without the other. When you change the one the other necessarily will change too.
Now, compare this with the statement that mental states supervene physical states. It even doesn't come close to the atoms - molecules relation. On the other hand, from a physicalist point of view, we claim that we need a physical brain to have mental states.
Or in philosophical jargon, we say "mental states supervene brain states". And this is where we get in trouble with this concept. Molecules are physical things like atoms are.
Yes, brain states are neurobiological states of the physical brain and at least I am convinced that without this neurobiological state no mental state, but you will agree that your and my thoughts, beliefs, and desires are not physical objects,
which means that the trick to reduce molecules to atoms doesn't work for mental states in relation to the physical brain.
I really talked myself here into a problem. I need some time to figure it out. What about the next lecture?
I ran this lecture through AI tool BARD. I won't bother you with the statement that I did a good job here and a good job there. More relevant was its remark about weaknesses: "The lecture does not address some of the more recent developments in the philosophy of mind."
I thought....wow...bull's eye, so I returned with: You say: "The lecture does not address some of the more recent developments in the philosophy of mind." What recent developments are you referring to?
And BARD offered me a goldmine. Here you see the effectiveness of AI and it was all for free! More about it next time.
Thank you for your attention...
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
[13:15] Max Chatnoir: I'm having trouble understanding the difference between supervenience and emergence.
[13:16] herman Bergson: I'll get to that in the discussion Max
[13:16] Max Chatnoir: Oh, sorry.
[13:17] herman Bergson: No..is ok :-))
[13:17] herman Bergson: Good remark!
[13:19] Max Chatnoir: I'm sorry about the interruption, Herman. I though you were making the transition to discussion up there.
[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I still think the supervene term works, as said u cant have a mind without a brain even the mind is not a physical entity
[13:20] herman Bergson: That is no problem Max.....good remarks are always welcome
[13:21] herman Bergson: What is the difference between supervenient and emergent?
[13:21] Max Chatnoir: I think the interactions between structural elements are important for both.
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: A molecule is more than just a collection of atoms.
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: The atoms are interacting.
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes, bindings and such
[13:22] Max Chatnoir: So when we are thinking, our nerve cells are interacting.
[13:22] herman Bergson: The difference is that when we talk about supervenient, that means....molecules are nothing new...they are just collections of atoms...
[13:23] Max Chatnoir: it's not just a collection of nerve cells, it's a network of nerves cells.
[13:23] herman Bergson: when we talk about emergence we mean that molecules are a new and distinct property of atoms
[13:23] Max Chatnoir: Ditty on molecules and atoms.
[13:24] Max Chatnoir: But the atoms aren't acquiring new properties by being connected into molecules, are they?
[13:24] herman Bergson: so..supervenience refers to two aspects of the same matter
[13:24] herman Bergson: while emergence refers to the appearance of a NEW , extra property of matter
[13:25] herman Bergson: When you say the mind supervenes the brain it means that you need the material brain to have a mind
[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah ok
[13:26] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i see
[13:26] herman Bergson: when you say the mind emerges from the brain it means that something new, different form the material brain appears in reality
[13:26] Max Chatnoir: But aren't thoughts a new property?
[13:27] herman Bergson: As I said...I talked myself into a problem :-)
[13:27] Max Chatnoir: can a nerve cell think alone?
[13:27] herman Bergson: Max....we not even know how nerve cells generate mental states....so such a question makes little sense
[13:28] Max Chatnoir: Good point.
[13:28] herman Bergson: That is the whole problem.....
[13:28] herman Bergson: We KNOW , speaking as a physicalist, that without a brain there is no mind
[13:28] herman Bergson: but that is a very general way of speaking....
[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:29] herman Bergson: when we move on t to the individual thought...that one thought in realtion to the brain...
[13:29] herman Bergson: we know this thought is part of our mind...
[13:29] herman Bergson: but that is all....
[13:29] Max Chatnoir: I think it's somewhere in the connectivity -- the thinking. What happens when you store a memory?
[13:30] Max Chatnoir: Are you reliving a previous experience?
[13:30] herman Bergson: where individual thought arise from the brain...or how should I say it, we don;t know
[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): could it be a deja vu?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Through MRI scans we know something about whay we think/say/feel and what part of the brain is involved
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:32] herman Bergson: But that is all
[13:32] Max Chatnoir: Yes, and certain neurons fire under different stimuli. But it doesn't explain much.
[13:32] herman Bergson: when I say...my finger hurts....just imagine if we were able to say...oh..yes that are neuron SR3 and OP4 firing
[13:33] herman Bergson: tht is science fiction still
[13:33] herman Bergson: But I guess...one day we really can chart the brain
[13:34] Max Chatnoir: So often I'll go into another room to do something, and the minute I got through the door I forget why. But if I go back to where I was, I'll frequently remember. If I redo part of it, then the rest of it comes back.
[13:34] herman Bergson smiles
[13:34] herman Bergson: know the experience, Max
[13:34] Max Chatnoir: Been there, have you?
[13:35] Rebecca (rebecca.rozen) is online.
[13:35] herman Bergson: But what the issue today is...
[13:35] herman Bergson: We understand the relation between molecules and atoms...
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:35] herman Bergson: th eone can be reduced to the other
[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: Not quite reduced. The connection adds something.
[13:36] herman Bergson: this is however not the case between brain states and mental states
[13:36] herman Bergson: we understan brain states....
[13:36] herman Bergson: activity of neurons etc...
[13:36] Max Chatnoir: For example, going back to water...
[13:36] herman Bergson: but what are mental states?
[13:37] Max Chatnoir: water is a polar molecule. Hydrogen isn't. Oxygen isn't. The polarity comes from the combination. Don't mental states come out of the neural assembly?
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well they are not physical but stil u cant have those without tne neurins just like u cant have molecules without atoms
[13:37] herman Bergson: that is the incongruency between these two forms of supervenience
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so its same thing still isay in that regard
[13:38] Rebecca (rebecca.rozen) is offline.
[13:38] Max Chatnoir: I'm still having trouble distinguishing between supervenience and emergence. They do sort of feel different, but I can't put my finger on how.
[13:39] herman Bergson: as I said...emergence refers to the appearance of a NEW property
[13:39] Max Chatnoir: But isn't mind a new property?
[13:40] Anna Adamant Albion (anna.adamant) is online.
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): no brain = no mind and no atoms = no molecules, i think the term supervein works on both in that regard, if i grasp the term correct
[13:40] herman Bergson: If we were pressed to give a definition of emergence, we could say that a property is emergent if it is a novel property of a system or an entity that arises when that system or entity has reached a certain level of complexity and that, even though it exists only insofar as the system or entity exists, it is distinct from its source.
[13:40] Max Chatnoir: But you can't separate it from its source.
[13:40] herman Bergson: Like a baby emerges at birth from the mother
[13:41] Max Chatnoir: I think that's a different kind of emergence.
[13:41] herman Bergson: In a situation of supervenience, the same matter just appears in another form
[13:43] Max Chatnoir: So are molecules supervenient/
[13:43] Max Chatnoir: ?
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: the are nothing new
[13:43] herman Bergson: just another configuration of atoms
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:44] Max Chatnoir: I don't insist that supervenient and emergent be different. I'm good with having more than one word for a particular phenomenon.
[13:44] herman Bergson: no..they are two different concepts Max
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I need to emerge now, my TURF friend is waiting outside, want to take a night roll with me
[13:45] herman Bergson: huh???
[13:45] herman Bergson: You mean you have an emergency Bejiita? :))))
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): sort of
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe
[13:45] herman Bergson: Have to leave?
[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well hes been out all evning and just came by
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so i have to head out
[13:46] Max Chatnoir: Have a good evening, Bejita!
[13:46] herman Bergson: Don't let him wait, Bejiita ^_^
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): he is kind of impatient
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): enjoy Bejiita
[13:46] herman Bergson: give him my reagrds
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but happy weekend all
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ill say hi from you
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): c ya
[13:46] Lukkie Sands: Bye Swedish adonis
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): mmm hugs lukkie
[13:46] Max Chatnoir: ;-)
[13:46] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:47] Lukkie Sands: He is so cute ^_^
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): don't cry Lukkie, he'll be back
[13:47] Lukkie Sands: thnx for the hankechief Beertje :-)
[13:47] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): gerne:))
[13:47] bergfrau Apfelbaum: have fun Bejiita:-)
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: Is being Adonis supervenient or emergent?
[13:48] herman Bergson: ok...after wiping our tears....let's get ready for the next lecture :-)
[13:48] herman Bergson: hmmm...interesitng question Max :-)))
[13:48] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hands over a hanky to Herman
[13:48] Max Chatnoir: I am eager to hear what Bard came up with"!
[13:49] herman Bergson: I'd say it is supervenient property...
[13:49] herman Bergson: No Bejiita without Adonis and no Adonis without Bejiita
[13:49] Lukkie Sands: I agree!!!!
[13:49] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): oh dear
[13:50] Lukkie Sands: jealous Beertje??? :-))
[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): never
[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i have my own Adonis
[13:50] herman Bergson: Ok LAdies...:-)
[13:51] herman Bergson: Let's not get personal ^_^
[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): :))
[13:51] herman Bergson: Thank you again for your participation
[13:51] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....
[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Lukkie has seen my Adonis, she knows him
[13:51] herman Bergson: Another weekend is emerging :-))
[13:52] Lukkie Sands: You mean the one with that pipe? :-)))
[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): no
[13:52] Lukkie Sands grins
[13:52] Lukkie Sands: All Hans on deck!!!
[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): grins too
[13:52] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hahahahahhaha
No comments:
Post a Comment