3 ms·

I think the distinction in this case is that software is not an emergent property that directly arose from the mechanisms of circuits. Neurons are different th

I think the distinction in this case is that software is not an emergent property that directly arose from the mechanisms of circuits. Neurons are different than circuits, as their chemistry and physiology does change with various inputs. That's actually how a decent portion of the computation happens. My disagreement is with the fundamental assumption that the brain is just hardware on which the software of the mind runs. This is not accurate at all, the chemistry and physiology of the brain is everything

saltcured 5y ago
You and I might agree on the nature of the mind, in a metaphysical sense. But, the nature of mind is mostly immaterial (ha!) for this topic. The original poster was arguing that a new depressive state as a result of a traumatic diagnosis is evidence that it is a learned or acquired state, rather than something congenital and fixed in physiology. They further argue that this means the sufferer might be guided to unlearn or re-learn to a more desirable state. It may be an optimistic perspective, but I don't think physical reductionism invalidates it. The computer metaphor is of course shallow or simplistic. It's not meant as an all-explaining allegory. The relevant part, which you even allude to yourself, is that state changes in the brain can be effected through "inputs". The only thing we need to consider is whether further sensory inputs and thought processes can continue to affect the state. Unless you are arguing that the brain reaches some terminal and irreversible state, I don't see that there is any real conflict here. As an aside, as a computer scientist, I will tell you that software is exactly an emergent property of the circuits. Put another way, software is an abstraction we place on it, as observers. It is not really there as the machine operates. The physics and structure of the machine are likewise everything, with physically real states changing as a result of microscopic mechanisms integrating local state and some signals carried in from topologically neighboring mechanisms.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  I think we have a different perspective on emergence, although what you say brings up something I enjoy thinking about. Software is made by humans on top of the circuits we designed. My perspective on emergent properties is to view it as a spontaneous process arising without intervention. I think its possible to view silicon computation and software as an emergent property if we consider humans to be part of the natural system out of which software emerges. Thinking about how we fit into natural systems and considering our role in the development of systems of material, energy, and information exchange. What we develop and build could be considered an emergent property of the universe when a planet has the right constituents, temperature, etc.
  - saltcured 5y ago
    Yes. I don't consider causal intention to be part of the definition of emergence. Whether through spontaneous evolution or engineering, I think any complex system likely has emergent properties or phenomena. To me, emergence is broad and includes everything from the cascading order of an avalanche to flocking behavior of birds or the standing waves in the morning rush hour; the chill under a clear night sky to cooling effects of perspiration or the heat pump in my refrigerator. My take on emergence is that it is deeply mired in observation. A complex system does complex behavior. An observer recognizes patterns of behavior and forms an abstraction of identity to distinguish a certain pattern as a characteristic of the system. In some observer-less sense, the complex behaviors are certainly there. But, the semantic boundaries of what is a behavior, what identifies it as a persistent thing that can have emerged or not depending on the current state of the system... those are illusory concepts declared by the observer.

saltcured 5y ago

You and I might agree on the nature of the mind, in a metaphysical sense. But, the nature of mind is mostly immaterial (ha!) for this topic. The original poster was arguing that a new depressive state as a result of a traumatic diagnosis is evidence that it is a learned or acquired state, rather than something congenital and fixed in physiology. They further argue that this means the sufferer might be guided to unlearn or re-learn to a more desirable state. It may be an optimistic perspective, but I don't think physical reductionism invalidates it. The computer metaphor is of course shallow or simplistic. It's not meant as an all-explaining allegory. The relevant part, which you even allude to yourself, is that state changes in the brain can be effected through "inputs". The only thing we need to consider is whether further sensory inputs and thought processes can continue to affect the state. Unless you are arguing that the brain reaches some terminal and irreversible state, I don't see that there is any real conflict here. As an aside, as a computer scientist, I will tell you that software is exactly an emergent property of the circuits. Put another way, software is an abstraction we place on it, as observers. It is not really there as the machine operates. The physics and structure of the machine are likewise everything, with physically real states changing as a result of microscopic mechanisms integrating local state and some signals carried in from topologically neighboring mechanisms.

netizen-936824 5y ago
I think we have a different perspective on emergence, although what you say brings up something I enjoy thinking about. Software is made by humans on top of the circuits we designed. My perspective on emergent properties is to view it as a spontaneous process arising without intervention. I think its possible to view silicon computation and software as an emergent property if we consider humans to be part of the natural system out of which software emerges. Thinking about how we fit into natural systems and considering our role in the development of systems of material, energy, and information exchange. What we develop and build could be considered an emergent property of the universe when a planet has the right constituents, temperature, etc.
- saltcured 5y ago
  Yes. I don't consider causal intention to be part of the definition of emergence. Whether through spontaneous evolution or engineering, I think any complex system likely has emergent properties or phenomena. To me, emergence is broad and includes everything from the cascading order of an avalanche to flocking behavior of birds or the standing waves in the morning rush hour; the chill under a clear night sky to cooling effects of perspiration or the heat pump in my refrigerator. My take on emergence is that it is deeply mired in observation. A complex system does complex behavior. An observer recognizes patterns of behavior and forms an abstraction of identity to distinguish a certain pattern as a characteristic of the system. In some observer-less sense, the complex behaviors are certainly there. But, the semantic boundaries of what is a behavior, what identifies it as a persistent thing that can have emerged or not depending on the current state of the system... those are illusory concepts declared by the observer.