Well, you could have said, can you separate the effect and the cause? Does it matter what causes something if the effect is the same? You don't have to use big words which people can argue about.

The answer is yes, I think, unless you have some big issue.

Trans = across, beyond
Scend = climb

My point is that supervened properties have a reality unique to the mechanism on which they supervene, i.e. they go beyond those mechanisms. I couldn't think of a more perfect word to express my idea.

So here's my point, and it regards mind. If mind can supervene on multiple mechanisms, then I'd say that mind is in fact the more fundamental reality, and that it "piggybacks" on a mechanism, rather than being created by it. Just as a wave is not created by water, but by the forces acting on the water, I'd argue mind is not really created by the brain, but more properly by the evolutionary forces acting on a species.

That's IF mind actually can supervene on other things, like complex enough computers.

(September 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, while I like the word transcendent, and based on its etymology I think it works fine, it's clearly introducing unintended confusion.

The principle I'm talking about is this: that some supervenient properties, once they supervene, are not so much a product of the specific mechanism on which they supervene, but on an underlying principle. So a wave supervenes on the relationship between gravity, surface tension, etc. rather than on water molecules (or molten lava molecules or whatever).

wait, wait, wait, wait....

"are not a product of the specific mechanism"?
An ocean wave is a product of the water, be it caused by tides, winds or some boat engine.
A pressure wave is also a product of the medium.... it's typically called a sound wave, unless you're talking about rocks... then it's called an seismic P-wave.
You always need a medium... even for electromagnetic waves... for a time, people were looking for the aether, but then it turned out it was fields.

Back to mind, a computer generated mind would still be tied up to the computer where it is being generated. You can't remove it from there. Much like in a brain, you can't remove the mind from the brain. As far as I see it, the mind is the working brain. The brain is always working, so the mind is always there.... as soon as the brain stop working, the mind vanishes.

What we need is the underlying principle to classify what constitutes a mind. But a mind can be present in any number of different mediums (although we are, so far, only aware of the brain) and will always arise from the medium.... a working medium. The medium by itself, without that initial spark will be a dead medium.

(September 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My question is this: what simple word, other than transcendence, could you call this idea?

A concept, perhaps.
But a mind is not just a concept... a mind, independent from the medium where it arises seems to be nonsense. It's like a wave, independent from the medium where it is propagating.... it just doesn't work.
Even the mathematical formulation for a moving wave requires the viscosity of the medium to work out how the wave propagates... without the medium itself, there's no wave.... there's no mind.
Perhaps the analogy is going a bit too far...

(September 8, 2014 at 7:56 pm)pocaracas Wrote: wait, wait, wait, wait....

"are not a product of the specific mechanism"?
An ocean wave is a product of the water, be it caused by tides, winds or some boat engine.

I don't think so. I think the wave is caused by the pull of the moon, by the winds, and by the engine. You could take out the water, put in alcohol, and still have waves.

Quote:A pressure wave is also a product of the medium.... it's typically called a sound wave, unless you're talking about rocks... then it's called an seismic P-wave.

Thank you. I was waiting for this. I think the QUALITY of the wave is dependent on the medium, but the FACT of the wave is dependent on underlying forces.

So to consider mind, I'd say the specific QUALITY of human experience is obviously largely dependent on the way the brain works, but the FACT of mind is not explainable by the brain at all, but by some other more fundamental principle.

(September 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My question is this: what simple word, other than transcendence, could you call this idea?

Why not just a "psychophysical law for the emergence of awareness?"

Ok, probably not as simple as you were looking for...

Bennyboy's Rule?

---

Would you consider all sensations and perceptions to fall under Bennyboy's Rule? For example, the wetness of water, or the sizes and shapes that objects possess in our visual experience?

A force is applied to an object (solid, liquid or gaseous). Depending on how the force is applied, that force is propagated through the object as a P-wave (pressure) or S-wave (sinusoidal).
The force is the initial spark. The wave only exists because there's a medium.
Why do we get a wave? Because it takes time to propagate the force through all the successive layers of material... Imagine now if you have a wave propagating at a relativistic speed...

So it seems you want to place the concept of wave beyond the material world which generates the wave itself. Yes, I agree.
Ditto for the concept of mind.

(September 8, 2014 at 8:18 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 6:49 pm)bennyboy Wrote: My question is this: what simple word, other than transcendence, could you call this idea?

Why not just a "psychophysical law for the emergence of awareness?"

Ok, probably not as simple as you were looking for...

Bennyboy's Rule?

---

Would you consider all sensations and perceptions to fall under Bennyboy's Rule? For example, the wetness of water, or the sizes and shapes that objects possess in our visual experience?

In the specific case of mind, I think "psychophsyical law" works okay. As a general principle for all supervenient properties not primarily dependent on their immediate mechanical context, what? Definitely not "Bennyboy's Rule"

I'd say the wetness of water is not transcendent in this way, because it is a property unique only to water; or is it? Honestly, I haven't doused myself in non-water-based liquids to see if I feel wet. As for shape and size, I'm not sure those are supervenient properties. . . just properties maybe?

---

(September 8, 2014 at 8:30 pm)pocaracas Wrote: So it seems you want to place the concept of wave beyond the material world which generates the wave itself. Yes, I agree.
Ditto for the concept of mind.

I think ultimately what I'm getting at is that the wave is an expression of a more fundamental underlying relationship between momentum, gravity, and the other fundamental forces, than vice versa.

For example, is gravity a property of matter? I would say no, gravity is an underlying principle, and the various orbits, densities, etc. we observe are expressions of that underlying principle. I wouldn't say that matter "makes" gravity, even though without matter, there would be no gravity.

So unless you are talking about concepts in the context of idealism, then I'd say I'm not really referring to concepts, but to the more fundamental principles which underly physical interactions-- i.e. these principles being the reality, and the physical "stuff" that happens as the expression or manifestation of those principles.

(September 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: "A supervenient property, once supervened, should be considered transcendent-- independent of the mechanical structure/function upon which it supervenes."

I think your conclusion of "independence" from "transcendence" is ambiguous and open to equivocation.

(September 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I would term this "transcendence"-- the greenness is independent of the mechanism underlying it, because it doesn't matter HOW the greenness occurs, only that it does.

Here's the problem - the identity of the phenomenon, the "greenness" in this case, is a conceptual imposition. We add this conceptual imposition in order to make it easier for us to refer to the subject at hand without having to go to the underlying mechanism. In effect, the very purpose here is to make it conceptually independent from the underlying mechanism while accepting that existentially it is still dependent on some mechanism. The difference between these two types of "independence" is a significant one to draw.


Apart from this, I agree with the rest of your post.

---

(September 7, 2014 at 7:10 pm)bennyboy Wrote: The point is that the property has in a sense escaped the bounds of the mechanism on which it supervenes. The property has its own identity, despite supposing to be rooted in that mechanism.

The property having its own identity doesn't imply independence from the underlying mechanism - identity is a conceptual imposition, not an existential one.

(September 8, 2014 at 9:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd say the wetness of water is not transcendent in this way, because it is a property unique only to water; or is it? Honestly, I haven't doused myself in non-water-based liquids to see if I feel wet. As for shape and size, I'm not sure those are supervenient properties. . . just properties maybe?

Perhaps it's somewhat off the main point of a supervenient or trascendent property but what I meant was, wouldn't it be fair to say that the shape and size of any given objects, or secondary properties, such as the wetness of water, are effects of supervenience interacting with the--assuming you're somewhere in Kant's ball park--noumenal reality?

(September 14, 2014 at 12:13 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 9:43 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I'd say the wetness of water is not transcendent in this way, because it is a property unique only to water; or is it? Honestly, I haven't doused myself in non-water-based liquids to see if I feel wet. As for shape and size, I'm not sure those are supervenient properties. . . just properties maybe?

Perhaps it's somewhat off the main point of a supervenient or trascendent property but what I meant was, wouldn't it be fair to say that the shape and size of any given objects, or secondary properties, such as the wetness of water, are effects of supervenience interacting with the--assuming you're somewhere in Kant's ball park--noumenal reality?

Please elaborate if you could. I don't understand what you're trying to say.