You avoid answering my other question about the emergence of high-level code. How could you have a strong emergent property when the underlying properties that support it do not exist.
The phrase "emergence of high level code" isn't... how I'd word it. Strong Emergence isn't about the CODE emerging, it's a question of whether that code exists, whether those rules exist - the consequence of that code is what they're referring to as "strong emergence" - the code is just code. The same as any other "code" that governs how the universe runs.
Strong emergence as far as I understand refers to a phenomenon in a system in which the structure of the system is no sum of its parts, according to Wiki. My definition is more precise and it is that the property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. This definition includes your definition as well. I am a physicist and I study particle physics and condensed matter physics to a very depth. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such thing as higher-level laws of nature.
I mean in real life rather than programing. Low-level code keeps running always and you cannot get rid of it.
I don't want to repeat this any more - I agree with you that in real life, strong emergence doesn't and probably cannot exist. "Code" is just an analogy (although possibly an incredibly apt analogy). Just like in Conways' Game of Life, one might suppose that there are Rules, that are unbreakable, that govern how the next state of reality comes about at any given point in space from the previous state of reality. That's what Conway's Game of Life is an analogy for. We don't have access to the source code of reality, so it doesn't matter how many times you say "I mean in reality" -- we don't have access to the rules of reality! We can only give a best guess, and in this case, we can conceptually work with close analogies - of which Conway's Game of Life is one.
So you seem to agree with me that in real life strong emergence does not exist. It is like magic.
Low-level code keeps running always and you cannot get rid of it.
The concept of Strong Emergence I've been discussing isn't about getting rid of the low level code, just overriding it, taking precedence over it.
Once again, just to make sure it's absolutely clear: this concept of Strong Emergence I'm talking about is *in principle* possible, but I agree with you that it is probably not possible in the universe we find ourselves in. But it is possible, maybe even COMMON, to write code that has low level rules that get overriden by high level rules. There's nothing in principle that prevents that. There are things that prevent that from being the case for the laws of physics here, in my opinion, but that claim isn't applicable to all possible universes.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:02 pm
Strong emergence as far as I understand refers to a phenomenon in a system in which the structure of the system is no sum of its parts, according to Wiki. My definition is more precise and it is that the property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. This definition includes your definition as well. I am a physicist and I study particle physics and condensed matter physics to a very depth. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such thing as higher-level laws of nature.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2022 4:02 pm
Strong emergence as far as I understand refers to a phenomenon in a system in which the structure of the system is no sum of its parts, according to Wiki. My definition is more precise and it is that the property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts. This definition includes your definition as well. I am a physicist and I study particle physics and condensed matter physics to a very depth. To the best of our knowledge, there is no such thing as higher-level laws of nature.
Are particles conscious?
The particle is a classical entity. At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:06 am
The particle is a classical entity. At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
So here are qualia at the quantum level. It sounds like you are affirming consciousness as a quality of matter in general. (I happen to believe this is the more parsimonious hypothesis but I am checking to see if you are saying it or I am projecting it in this case)
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:06 am
The particle is a classical entity. At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
So here are qualia at the quantum level. It sounds like you are affirming consciousness as a quality of matter in general. (I happen to believe this is the more parsimonious hypothesis but I am checking to see if you are saying it or I am projecting it in this case)
No, I think that consciousness is the property of the mind. Mind experiences qualia.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 12:06 am
The particle is a classical entity. At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
So here are qualia at the quantum level. It sounds like you are affirming consciousness as a quality of matter in general. (I happen to believe this is the more parsimonious hypothesis but I am checking to see if you are saying it or I am projecting it in this case)
No, I think that consciousness is the property of the mind. Mind experiences qualia.
So, wouldn't consciousness, not a trivial quality, then emerge at certain levels of complexity.
and then
At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
How can a field, at the quantum level, carry qualia? At least that verb implies that without the observer, we have qualia and perhaps a mind notices a quale there. How can a field carry a quale?
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 11:01 am
So here are qualia at the quantum level. It sounds like you are affirming consciousness as a quality of matter in general. (I happen to believe this is the more parsimonious hypothesis but I am checking to see if you are saying it or I am projecting it in this case)
No, I think that consciousness is the property of the mind. Mind experiences qualia.
So, wouldn't consciousness, not a trivial quality, then emerge at certain levels of complexity.
No, consciousness is the property of the mind and has nothing with the complexity of the brain.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:48 pm
and then
At the quantum level, we just have fields that carry information so-called qualia.
How can a field, at the quantum level, carry qualia? At least that verb implies that without the observer, we have qualia and perhaps a mind notices a quale there. How can a field carry a quale?
Sorry, I should have written: At the quantum level, we just have fields so-called qualia that carry information.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:50 pm
No, consciousness is the property of the mind and has nothing with the complexity of the brain.
So, it is not dependent on complexity. Is there consciousness where there are no brains? I am trying to get a handle on your position. It seems from the below that consciousness is not a quality of particles, say. Here it has nothing to do with complexity and it seems like you do not identify minds with brains. Could you give me some sense of what you mean by mind and where you find it.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 12:48 pm
Sorry, I should have written: At the quantum level, we just have fields so-called qualia that carry information.
I don't understand the second part of that sentence: we just have fields so called qualia that carry information.
we just have fields, so called qualia, that carry information? IOW fields get called qualia, but they are not. Or something else?
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:50 pm
No, consciousness is the property of the mind and has nothing with the complexity of the brain.
So, it is not dependent on complexity. Is there consciousness where there are no brains?
Yes.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:32 am
I am trying to get a handle on your position. It seems from the below that consciousness is not a quality of particles, say.
Yes. I believe in a new form of substance dualism where therein we have mind and qualia. Mind experiences and causes qualia. I have two arguments for minds.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:32 am
Here it has nothing to do with complexity and it seems like you do not identify minds with brains.
Yes. Several minds however could be attached to each other through the qualia.
Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Apr 13, 2022 7:32 am
Could you give me some sense of what you mean by mind and where you find it.
Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause. You can find a mind where there is quale. Mind however could be trapped in qualia such as my and your mind.
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 12, 2022 2:50 pm
Sorry, I should have written: At the quantum level, we just have fields so-called qualia that carry information.
I don't understand the second part of that sentence: we just have fields so called qualia that carry information.
we just have fields, so called qualia, that carry information? IOW fields get called qualia, but they are not. Or something else?
Fields are qualia. They have forms so they carry information.
Ironically, Bahman, I think the concept of consciousness as substance dualism very much REQUIRES the same sort of non-localism that I was talking about in my examples of STRONG EMERGENCE.
See, if you have this separate-but-connected 'mind' substance, I think you have to explain how it manages to track with your brain. The brain is a macroscopic object - so if the universe has tacked on this extra substance to your bran, to follow your brain around... how does it do that?
If it were purely local, it would just be tacked on to a single particle perhaps, some neuron in your brain or something. But that seems unlikely - I think we would all expect to remain conscious after the loss of any individual neuron in our brain. So in order for the universe to maintain a causal linkage between our mind and our brain, the universe has to somehow be aware of the macroscopic structure of a brain, it seems to me.
Which would mean the macroscopic concept of a brain DOES have strongly emergent properties.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:21 am
Ironically, Bahman, I think the concept of consciousness as substance dualism very much REQUIRES the same sort of non-localism that I was talking about in my examples of STRONG EMERGENCE.
The mind can only intervene when the matter/body is in an undecided state, otherwise, the body moves according to the laws of nature.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:21 am
See, if you have this separate-but-connected 'mind' substance, I think you have to explain how it manages to track with your brain. The brain is a macroscopic object - so if the universe has tacked on this extra substance to your brain, to follow your brain around... how does it do that?
My mind is experiencing the qualia generated by other minds in my brain and probably in my body. It has to locally experience the qualia, otherwise, if it was nonlocal, we would experience everything.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:21 am
If it were purely local, it would just be tacked on to a single particle perhaps, some neuron in your brain or something. But that seems unlikely - I think we would all expect to remain conscious after the loss of any individual neuron in our brain. So in order for the universe to maintain a causal linkage between our mind and our brain, the universe has to somehow be aware of the macroscopic structure of a brain, it seems to me.
The universe cannot be aware of the content of my brain but other nonlocal minds could be.
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:21 am
Which would mean the macroscopic concept of a brain DOES have strongly emergent properties.
The brain (other minds) just generates qualia. The mind has the ability to cause quale.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:12 pm
I am talking about the matter here that can be experienced by mind. The matter has specific properties. I am saying that emergence is impossible. You could however have hidden properties that get magnified and become evident when the matter has specific form, like the taste of salt. The reality is that all the properties of matter are intertwined too.
Tell that to the synesthetic, whom see greens and oranges in their greens and all manner of purples in their yellows, and thoughts and feelings in their minds-eye as cinematographic fact, ergo.. it’s all in one’s wiring.
bahman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:46 pm
The brain (other minds) just generates qualia. The mind has the ability to cause quale.
That sounds like strong emergence. Unless all matter does this, and then just mentioning brains seems odd. Does a glass of milk generate qualia? for itself?