Supervenience, Transcendence, and Mind

[bennyboy]

Let's say I'm looking at lights at an intersection. I observe the red one, wait until it turns off and the green one turns on, and then proceed to drive. How important is the specific mechanism which produced lights of those colors? Surely, you need some kind of mechanism capable of producing light. But ultimately, what is the source of that green light? It is in the intentionality of the designers. If the LED lights at the intersection had not been invented, the designers would have used light bulbs, or colored lamps with oil fires inside them, or whatever. The green-ness was inevitable, but the mechanism on which it supervenes is arbitrary. 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.

Let's say we have a brain and a computer which function identically, i.e. that the computer perfectly simulates all the functions of the brain, and that we choose to accept as true that the computer is actually "sentient." What does this mean, when two very different mechanisms are capable of producing sentience? I'd argue that while sentience definitely seems to need a physical structure on which to supervene, it is a transcendent property. It has taken the keys of that underlying mechanism, and now exists independently, as an entity in its own right. Now, some will claim that's just an illusion, that it is the framework of the brain (or computer or pneumatic tubes) which is responsible for the sentience. But in this view, ALL things must be said to be supervenient-- on spacetime, on the balance of the 4 fundamental forces in the universe, etc.

Yet we don't usually say, "The 4 fundamental forces in the universe create mind." We isolate the most immediate causal context as though it is isolated from the universe. So: the brain causes mind. And: a mind thinks, feels, has ideas, and acts with will. But not: the brain thinks, feels, has ideas, and acts with will. This is because we've already established that minds are the same, without regard to the underlying mechanism behind them. That property must therefore be thought of as transcendent.

So here is the rule I'd like to discuss: "A supervenient property, once supervened, should be considered transcendent-- independent of the mechanical structure/function upon which it supervenes."

[pocaracas]

I finally found my way to this thread of yours!

And.... what can I say... when you redefine transcendence in that way, then yes... but don't expect me to apply the same agreement if you start using the common definition of transcendence:

adjective
1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
4. Philosophy.
Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience.
(in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

Tell you what... how about you come up with a different word, instead of "transcendent"?

[Angrboda]

I think you're one of those people who likes to make up his own definitions for words.

[bennyboy]

I finally found my way to this thread of yours!

And.... what can I say... when you redefine transcendence in that way, then yes... but don't expect me to apply the same agreement if you start using the common definition of transcendence:

adjective
1. going beyond ordinary limits; surpassing; exceeding.
2. superior or supreme.
3. Theology. (of the Deity) transcending the universe, time, etc.
4. Philosophy.
Scholasticism. above all possible modes of the infinite.
Kantianism. transcending experience; not realizable in human experience.
(in modern realism) referred to, but beyond, direct apprehension; outside consciousness.

Tell you what... how about you come up with a different word, instead of "transcendent"?

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.

---

I think you're one of those people who likes to make up his own definitions for words.

Nope. I'm using that word because I know what it usually means, and that's the meaning I want.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The only philosophical discussion that ever meant anything to me:





Boru

[bennyboy]

Boru, fuck off. I put a lot of thought into the OP, and I think the relationship between supervened properties and the things they supervene on is an important thing to think and talk about.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru, fuck off. I put a lot of thought into the OP, and I think the relationship between supervened properties and the things they supervene on is an important thing to think and talk about.

BB, go fuck yourself with an inverted pinecone while listening to the Ska version of 'Scotland the Brave'.

How I respond to your posts isn't up to you, pally. You are, of course, perfectly entitled to think the subject here is important. I, however, do not, and I choose to respond with irrelevant flippancy.

Enjoy your Gaelic piney fuck, and I hope the faculty find you and beat you senseless with wattles.

Boru

[pocaracas]

I finally found my way to this thread of yours!

And.... what can I say... when you redefine transcendence in that way, then yes... but don't expect me to apply the same agreement if you start using the common definition of transcendence:

Tell you what... how about you come up with a different word, instead of "transcendent"?

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.

Yes, I understand that.... but it's not the original (or common) meaning of the word, so it must be used with care.

[Diablo]

I wouldn't use that choice of words, which seem destined to cause the confusion it has, but I think I agree. I don't care which power plants produce the electricity which comes out of the socket.

Are you ging to hit us with some major problem that this causes?

[bennyboy]

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).


My question is this: what simple word, other than transcendence, could you call this idea?