Jim, I couldn't find the word subsumption in Hemple and Oppenheim, so pending your locating it for me, I will just blather on aimlessly concerning my prejudices:
Speaking as the seminar Convener. The "heartland" of supervenience is hypothetical relationship between mind states and brain states. "Mind states supervene upon brain states". The need for the term arises because people want to think that brain states CAUSE inind states, but they now full well that there is no single, particular, brain state necessary to any particualr mind state. Just as there are many ways to skin a cat, there are many ways for your neurons to arrange themselves where you are "thinking about your grandmother". This all has to do with ambiguities in our notions of causality. C is said (by some) to cause E when C is prior to E, C "touches" E (in some sense), and C is necessary for or sufficient to E. Supervenience captures the case in which each C is sufficient for E but no C(i) is necessary for it. It is such an embedded term of art in the philosophy that no matter how difficult we find it, we HAVE to learn it. Speaking as a Member of the Seminar: Mind/body philosophers are being driven gah-gah by their resistance to the obvious: brain states are neither mind states by another name nor their causal antecedents. It is neither true that any particular neuronal pattern is required for thinking about your grandmother nor that any particular neuronal pattern is sufficient for thinking about your grandmother. As we all know, complex systems don't work that way. In addition, "thinking about your grandmother" is a doing. (It is fun to watch my grandchildren when they are called upon to "remember" something. They dont just say stuff; they DO stuff. To "remember" is to stand in relation to the world.). The relationship of behavior activities to neural activities is much like the relationship of the shape of your nose to the transmissional machinery of development. A whole lot went into shaping your nose and even though your nose looks a lot like your grandpa Eddy's, there was no nose-unculus that grew to be your present nose nor any blueprint of Eddy's nose that guided the creation of yours. If you want to understand the relationship between mind (behavior) states and brain (physiological) states, I recommend that we all read Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful. The notion of a "thought of X" is a lot like the notion of a "gene for X": it is an illusion to be dispelled. Does subsumption help? There are two definitions of subsumption on Dic dot com, one general, one technical. GENERAL ( courtesy of Collins) subsume Verb [-suming, -sumed] Formal to include (something) under a larger classification or group: an attempt to subsume fascism and communism under a general concept of totalitarianism [Latin sub- under + sumere to take] So, if I were to substitute subsume for supervene above, I would come out with "Mental states subsume brain states." Hmmm! I dont think it means the same thing at all. In fact, I think (as a member of the seminar, not its Convener) tha tit makes a lot more sense than "mental states supervene upon brain states." TECHNICAL (noun) subsumption 2. Logic The minor premise of a syllogism. Major Premise: All Swans are White MINOR premise: this bird is a swan. Conclusion: This bird is white. (I hope I have this right). Since Hempel is deep into the logico-deductive method, we would expect that he has THIS meaning of subsumption in "mind". (But until I find the place where the word occurs, I cannot be sure.) It is the part of the deductive nomological syllogism that connects the particular case to the law. Sometimes called the Antecedent. Notice that it does SUBSUME the bird in hand under the category "swans" just as in the brick-on-toe example, YOUR brick is subsumed under the category "unsupported objects". Once subsumed, it becomes subject to the law laid out in the major premise. But, I still don't quite see what this has to do with supervenience. So, after all that, I think my answer is "no". Nick PS: I finally found where the word is used. Gawd I am a blind old bat! No, I don't think its a substitute. Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University (nthomp...@clarku.edu) http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > [Original Message] > From: Jim Gattiker <j.gatti...@googlemail.com> > To: <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > Cc: Chip Garner <c...@garnertotalenergy.com>; Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com>; maryl <ma...@cnsp.com>; merle <me...@arspublica.org>; michel bloch <mbl...@mountvernon.fr>; nthompson <nthomp...@clarku.edu>; Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net>; Roger E Critchlow Jr <r...@elf.org>; <Friam@redfish.com> > Date: 10/7/2009 10:23:23 AM > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] EMERGENCE SEMINAR V: Dennett et al; WAS: emergence seminar: what's next? > > I've been having trouble with the term 'supervenience'; I don't feel > comfortable using it in a sentence. Hempel & Oppenheim use the term > 'subsumption', which I'm happy with. Would I be OK thinking of this as > a substitute term? > > --j ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
