About this little article on strong/weak emergence in neuroscience that criticizes causal emergence. First, there's a few mistakes in terms of correct citations and in expression of the theory of causal emergence. Let's move past those and focus on the meat of the argument 1/nhttps://twitter.com/Neuro_Skeptic/status/1091678997547765760 …
-
-
8/ When there's noise/ no necessity in the micro causal relationships, a macro can eliminate noise or lack of necessity and therefore do what Kim calls "causal work." Ontologically macros do unaccounted causal work by error-correcting noise / necessity in micro causal relations!
Show this thread -
9/ As macros get bigger and systems larger and more noisy, the amount of error-correction has no upper bound. However, it's also easy to prove that if a micro has no noise, and all its causal relationships are necessary, there's no causal emergence. So it's system dependent.
Show this thread -
10/ Causal emergence makes a really good case study of how a problem that seems insurmountable (exclusion) only seems that way from the armchair. How many other philosophical arguments (like, say, the zombie problem for consciousness) seem insurmountable but are really not?
Show this thread -
11/ I love analytic philosophy. It's been hugely influential both personally and professionally. Philosophy, taken broadly, is to me perhaps the grandest discipline. I'm not someone who thinks philosophy is all just fluff waiting to be replaced by science.
Show this thread -
12/ But ultimately, *a great deal* of contemporary analytic philosophy takes place at the level of human intuition, with its overly broad human-level concepts, and without any math or simulations. It is like they are all fighting with wooden swords.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.