Minds are implemented within physics, but human concepts w.r.t. minds (e.g. responsibility, choice, freedom..) are only valid on the level of the minds, without

Minds are implemented within physics, but human concepts w.r.t. minds (e.g. responsibility, choice, freedom..) are only valid on the level of the minds, without any reference to the underlying physics. I agree that the concepts we use to deal with human minds are higher level concepts. I am somewhat hesitant to call them emergent because that does not seem to quite fit the common usage of the term, but if hard pressed, I would probably call them emergent at the end of the day, just in a more complex way than the color of things or the wetness of water emerges. I would also agree that some of the concepts are in one way or another substrate independent, i.e. they are not strongly tied to the underlying physics, i.e. you could build the same concept on top of other physics or maybe oven on top of something completely different, say mathematical set theory. But...I don't think it valid to think of physics and minds as completely separable. If physics is deterministic, you do not get to introduce a fundamentally nondeterministic decision process at the level of minds. You can have one that seems nondeterministic to the mind because it lacks knowledge of all the positions and momenta of all the particles, but it would not be truly nondeterministic. You can also talk about a fictitious nondeterministic decision process that is just not realizable in the deterministic universe. So I think there are at least two classes of human level concepts, those that are independent of the underlying physics and those that are not. And some times there will be overlap, prime example free will. Even in a deterministic universe you can have free will in one of the compatibilistic senses, say doing what you want to do, but you will neither get to determine what you want do, nor what you do or whether the two are the same.