Re: Challenge to Curt

On Mar 23, 2:15 pm, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...

And, BTW, my position leaves open the possibility that
there is something extra involved; an emergence that does
not *reduce* to the physical events; reductionism is a
lossy process so something else *does* exist as extra
over and above the mere physical events *as reduced*.
That is where we may part company. Note that such
emergent phenomena that are *not* reducible to neurons
firing are still causal downwards and across levels.

I see downward causation as feedback from the output of
higher levels to the variables that control the actions
of the lower levels.

A simple example is an automatic camera focus where the
input to a function acts to change the focus and thus
the next input to the same function.

Another example might be a function that evaluates an
input and the output acts to change what function
to apply to the input next.

Downward actions, feedback in the form of "expectations"
from higher levels plays I believe a big part in how our
brain deals with noise and other computational limitations.
We tend to see what we expect to see and miss what we
are not looking for as determined by the higher levels.

Just because the behavior of the whole may not be reducible
to the behavior of the parts doesn't mean the behavior of
the whole depends on something other than the parts,
something "extra", whatever you may mean by that.


JC


.