There is no emergence

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:41 am

Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
None of this was really helpful for me in clarifying what it is that you are trying to say. Maybe if you provide some examples this might work better.
Ok, let me give it another shot. We all know that the brain is made of matter. People suggest that the mind is due to neural activity in the brain and matter itself does not have any mind.
Does matter 'have' any thing?
Yes, matter has charge, mass, spin, etc.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
The mind is simply something extra than neural activity.
How do you know this?
That is not my claim. That is what other people claim who believe in emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
What is the 'mind'?
Mind is the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Where mind comes from?
That is easy to answer, when I know what the definition of 'mind' is being used and given.
Ok, let me know.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
There is no reason for that since if there was a reason for it then the brain was just simply the sum of its parts and couldn't possibly have something emergent, so-called mind.
To me, this does not follow logically at all.

If there was a reason for where the mind comes from, then the brain was (is) just simply the sum of its parts.

I do not understand this.
That is the very definition of emergence: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. We say that the whole is the sum of its part if any property of the whole is explicable in terms of properties of parts. Otherwise, we are dealing with an emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
AND, IF that first part is true, THEN,
There is no reason for where the mind comes from.

That does not make sense, and this also does not make sense;
The brain could not possibly have some thing emergent from it, called a 'mind'.

Truthfully I can not even break your "argument" down logically into sensible parts so that I can understand it. I can not understand the parts of it, let alone the whole of it.

How many premises are there, and what are they?
And, how many conclusions are there, and what are they?
Ok, here I provide you with a compact form of my argument.

1) There is always an explanation for something which occurs. 2) Emergence has no explanation (if emergence has an explanation then it is not emergence because the whole is not bigger than sum of its parts). 3) Therefore, there is no emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
So the only way to escape the trouble is to say that there is no reason why the mind exists, so-called emergence.
But there is a reason why the Mind exists.

Why do you say there is no reason why the mind exists?
By reason, I mean that there is an explanation for the subject matter.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
This however in conflict with the fact that there is always a reason why something occurs. Therefore emergence is false.
If 'emergence' is false, what is 'emergence', to you?

If there is no such thing as 'emergence', then why does the word exist?

The word 'emergence' has a definition, so what is it exactly in that definition that you are saying is "false"?

How do you define the word 'emergence'?
By emergence I mean that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
How I see this is, a child emerges into an adult, thoughts emerge into new thoughts, Consciousness emerges in and through species.
Yes, a child turns into an adult because s/he experiences stuff. So there is a reason for that.
And what about the other two that I mentioned?
I already discussed the mind cannot emerge from matter. The same applies to consciousness.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
The Universe is a whole of a specific system, which is the sum of Its parts. Just some do not yet know ALL of Its parts, but this does not mean that the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.
True. The whole is just the sum of its parts.
We agree.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
Emergence can be explained through, and by, evolution. There is always things 'emerging', or becoming visible after being concealed. This is 'explicable', or can be accounted for, explained, and understood.
I call what comes out of evolution as change and not emergence.
Okay, but the definition I was using for the word 'emergence' is becoming visible after being concealed.

In a sense, just about every thing could be said is becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, the Truth could be said to becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, becoming more Self aware could be said to becoming visible after being concealed.
Ok, I see what do you mean.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Age wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am
I observe the physical emerging, or evolving, and I see the invisible also emerging, or changing.
But you agree that the whole is just the sum of its parts?
Yes.
Good.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
Do you agree parts withing the whole can emerge?

Do you agree the whole becoming visible after being concealed? For example, thee Truth of the Universe, Itself, could becoming visible after being concealed, agree?

To see and understand things could be said to becoming visible. When what is seen can also be said to be understood. Knowledge and understanding emerges with seeing/understanding. Emergence is just this seeing/understanding what is becoming visible after being concealed.

Even thee True Self is concealed, but It is becoming visible, and is still emerging to some. The True Self is just emerging slower to some human beings than It is to "others".

There is emergence, to me, with that definition. I will just await for your definition for the word 'emergence'.
Yes. But the truth is the sum of statements which each is true. We simply change from a state of non-understanding to understanding. This is process must be explicable.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am

Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:37 am
I am not hiding anything. I am telling what we know and what we don't know.
You fooled yourself.

You don't know the reason for gravity.
You called the reason for gravity 'mass', but you don't know the reason for mass!

So as far as you are concerned - mass is emergent.
This is absurd: Mass is emergent. What is the system? What are its parts? Do its parts have properties?
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:37 am
But you always face the same phenomenon given the same circumstances. Don't you?
And?

The key concept in emergence is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Any phenomenon that you are incapable of reducing down to its parts fits that criterion.

What are the parts of mass?
We don't know what mass is. But it is of course not an emergent property. You need to answer the questions that I asked in the previous comment if you think that mass is emergent.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:37 am
There must be a reason why mass exist as a phenomenon.
But you don't know. So for the time being - mass is emergent. To you.
It is not emergent if there is an explanation for it.
Skepdick wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:45 pm
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:37 am
Moreover, salt doesn't have any taste. It is just something that happens in the brain which give rise to subject experience of salty.
Fine. Let that be your conception of "taste". A response in the brain.

Why does the brain respond differently to NaCl than it does to Na or Cl?
That is simple. A different area of the brain becomes active when it exposed to a stimulus. The same stimulus always leads to the same activity. That means that there is always an explanation for this, therefore there is no emergence.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:01 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am
We don't know what mass is. But it is of course not an emergent property.
How are you making any epistemic claims about something you openly admit knowing nothing about?
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am
A different area of the brain becomes active when it exposed to a stimulus. The same stimulus always leads to the same activity. That means that there is always an explanation for this, therefore there is no emergence.
So, what you are saying that NaCL is a different stimulus from Na and Cl?

The explanation for salt having a different taste from chlorine and sodium is that salt is not chlorine and sodium.

THAT'S EMERGENCE!
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am
That means that there is always an explanation for this, therefore there is no emergence.
There is no explanation for mass. Therefore there is emergence ?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:01 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am
We don't know what mass is. But it is of course not an emergent property.
How are you making any epistemic claims about something you openly admit knowing nothing about?
Because by definition emergence is a phenomenon in a system that has parts. An elementary particle does not have parts.
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:01 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:52 am
A different area of the brain becomes active when it exposed to a stimulus. The same stimulus always leads to the same activity. That means that there is always an explanation for this, therefore there is no emergence.
So, what you are saying that NaCL is a different stimulus from Na and Cl?

The explanation for salt having a different taste from chlorine and sodium is that salt is not chlorine and sodium.

THAT'S EMERGENCE!
No. It simply means that they are different stimuli. We can know the properties of NaCl given the properties of Na and Cl. What are these properties? Mass, charge, and spin. Therefore there is no emergence. You, in fact, can calculate the charge distribution in NaCl knowing the number of electrons and protons and neutrons each element has.

Age
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:10 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 8:41 am
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

Ok, let me give it another shot. We all know that the brain is made of matter. People suggest that the mind is due to neural activity in the brain and matter itself does not have any mind.
Does matter 'have' any thing?
Yes, matter has charge, mass, spin, etc.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
The mind is simply something extra than neural activity.
How do you know this?
That is not my claim. That is what other people claim who believe in emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
What is the 'mind'?
Mind is the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience and cause.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
Where mind comes from?
That is easy to answer, when I know what the definition of 'mind' is being used and given.
Ok, let me know.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
There is no reason for that since if there was a reason for it then the brain was just simply the sum of its parts and couldn't possibly have something emergent, so-called mind.
To me, this does not follow logically at all.

If there was a reason for where the mind comes from, then the brain was (is) just simply the sum of its parts.

I do not understand this.
That is the very definition of emergence: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. We say that the whole is the sum of its part if any property of the whole is explicable in terms of properties of parts. Otherwise, we are dealing with an emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
AND, IF that first part is true, THEN,
There is no reason for where the mind comes from.

That does not make sense, and this also does not make sense;
The brain could not possibly have some thing emergent from it, called a 'mind'.

Truthfully I can not even break your "argument" down logically into sensible parts so that I can understand it. I can not understand the parts of it, let alone the whole of it.

How many premises are there, and what are they?
And, how many conclusions are there, and what are they?
Ok, here I provide you with a compact form of my argument.

1) There is always an explanation for something which occurs. 2) Emergence has no explanation (if emergence has an explanation then it is not emergence because the whole is not bigger than sum of its parts). 3) Therefore, there is no emergence.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
So the only way to escape the trouble is to say that there is no reason why the mind exists, so-called emergence.
But there is a reason why the Mind exists.

Why do you say there is no reason why the mind exists?
By reason, I mean that there is an explanation for the subject matter.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
This however in conflict with the fact that there is always a reason why something occurs. Therefore emergence is false.
If 'emergence' is false, what is 'emergence', to you?

If there is no such thing as 'emergence', then why does the word exist?

The word 'emergence' has a definition, so what is it exactly in that definition that you are saying is "false"?

How do you define the word 'emergence'?
By emergence I mean that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

Yes, a child turns into an adult because s/he experiences stuff. So there is a reason for that.
And what about the other two that I mentioned?
I already discussed the mind cannot emerge from matter. The same applies to consciousness.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

True. The whole is just the sum of its parts.
We agree.
Yes.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

I call what comes out of evolution as change and not emergence.
Okay, but the definition I was using for the word 'emergence' is becoming visible after being concealed.

In a sense, just about every thing could be said is becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, the Truth could be said to becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, becoming more Self aware could be said to becoming visible after being concealed.
Ok, I see what do you mean.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

But you agree that the whole is just the sum of its parts?
Yes.
Good.
Age wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:44 am
Do you agree parts withing the whole can emerge?

Do you agree the whole becoming visible after being concealed? For example, thee Truth of the Universe, Itself, could becoming visible after being concealed, agree?

To see and understand things could be said to becoming visible. When what is seen can also be said to be understood. Knowledge and understanding emerges with seeing/understanding. Emergence is just this seeing/understanding what is becoming visible after being concealed.

Even thee True Self is concealed, but It is becoming visible, and is still emerging to some. The True Self is just emerging slower to some human beings than It is to "others".

There is emergence, to me, with that definition. I will just await for your definition for the word 'emergence'.
Yes. But the truth is the sum of statements which each is true. We simply change from a state of non-understanding to understanding. This is process must be explicable.
i have no idea about any other argument regarding "emergence", i just look at words, and their specific definitions, to gain my views.

Consciousness comes from the Truly OPEN Mind.

Where does the Mind "come from"? is not the correct way to pose the question as the Mind exists HERE-NOW, always.

Consciousness emerges, in the form of Self awareness, and lots of things emerge, so, to me, there is emergence.

Just because the Mind may not emerge as such, as It always is HERE-NOW, to me this does not mean that there is no emergence.

There is always a reason for EVERY thing, but I do not see how this reflects with what does emerge and what does not.

Some things emerge, other things just do not emerge. But there is still emergence. Emergence exists, although not all things may emerge.

Just like there is an urgency for some things, and there is not an urgency for other things, but there is still urgency. Urgency exists, although not all things are urgent.

There is also an emergency for some things to change, like the ones who are causing their home-planet to die for example, there is not an emergency for other things to change though. But there is still emergency. Emergency exists, although not all things are an emergency.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:38 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
Because by definition emergence is a phenomenon in a system that has parts. An elementary particle does not have parts.
But you just used mass to explain gravity! And according to you - we don't know what mass is.

Now you are claiming that mass is an elementary particle?

Make up your mind. Do you or do you not know what mass is?

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
No. It simply means that they are different stimuli.
Exactly!

Stimulus(Na) = X
Stimulus(Cl) = Y
Stimulus(NaCl) = Z

X ≠ Y
Y ≠ Z
X ≠ Z
X + Y ≠ Z

You are saying that the stimulus is NOT the sum of its parts! THAT'S EMERGENCE!
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
You, in fact, can calculate the charge distribution in NaCl knowing the number of electrons and protons and neutrons each element has.
But you can't calculate the taste of NaCl knowing the individual tastes of Na, and Cl separately.

Because 'taste' is an emergent property!

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:10 am
i have no idea about any other argument regarding "emergence", i just look at words, and their specific definitions, to gain my views.

Consciousness comes from the Truly OPEN Mind.

Where does the Mind "come from"? is not the correct way to pose the question as the Mind exists HERE-NOW, always.

Consciousness emerges, in the form of Self awareness, and lots of things emerge, so, to me, there is emergence.

Just because the Mind may not emerge as such, as It always is HERE-NOW, to me this does not mean that there is no emergence.

There is always a reason for EVERY thing, but I do not see how this reflects with what does emerge and what does not.

Some things emerge, other things just do not emerge. But there is still emergence. Emergence exists, although not all things may emerge.

Just like there is an urgency for some things, and there is not an urgency for other things, but there is still urgency. Urgency exists, although not all things are urgent.

There is also an emergency for some things to change, like the ones who are causing their home-planet to die for example, there is not an emergency for other things to change though. But there is still emergency. Emergency exists, although not all things are an emergency.
This is a response to the bold part: Emergence simply says that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. This means that the whole is inexplicable in terms of parts. This is against the fact that you accepted: There is an explanation for everything.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:05 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:38 am
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
Because by definition emergence is a phenomenon in a system that has parts. An elementary particle does not have parts.
But you just used mass to explain gravity! And according to you - we don't know what mass is.

Now you are claiming that mass is an elementary particle?

Make up your mind. Do you or do you not know what mass is?

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
No. It simply means that they are different stimuli.
Exactly!

Stimulus(Na) = X
Stimulus(Cl) = Y
Stimulus(NaCl) = Z

X ≠ Y
Y ≠ Z
X ≠ Z
X + Y ≠ Z

You are saying that the stimulus is NOT the sum of its parts! THAT'S EMERGENCE!
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 9:23 am
You, in fact, can calculate the charge distribution in NaCl knowing the number of electrons and protons and neutrons each element has.
But you can't calculate the taste of NaCl knowing the individual tastes of Na, and Cl separately.

Because 'taste' is an emergent property!
You know that there are receptors on our tongs. Each chemical affects a specific receptor. A signal is then sent to the brain depending on which receptor is affected. Different areas of the brain become active depending on which receptor is affected. We don't know yet how different activity gives rise to different subjective experience but we know that there is a strong correlation between brain activity and subjective experience. Again, salt, Na, Cl do not have any taste.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:17 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:05 pm
You know that there are receptors on our tongs. Each chemical affects a specific receptor. A signal is then sent to the brain depending on which receptor is affected.Different areas of the brain become active depending on which receptor is affected.
You aren't saying anything interesting. That's how all measurements works. You can't measure the mass of an object using a thermometer either!

Different properties require a different measurement instrument.
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:05 pm
Again, salt, Na, Cl do not have any taste.
Well, now you are making claims so absurd I know I have you by the short and curlies. You are simply protecting your conceptual scheme from exploding given the contradiction I am pointing out. Lets see what other common-sense phenomena I can get you to reject...

Do Na and Cl have color? What about odour?

Mass can be measured using an instrument called a scale.
Color can be measured using an instrument called color spectrometer.
Odour can be measured using an instrument called electronic nose.
Taste can be measured using an instrument called an electronic tongue.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:47 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:17 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:05 pm
You know that there are receptors on our tongs. Each chemical affects a specific receptor. A signal is then sent to the brain depending on which receptor is affected.Different areas of the brain become active depending on which receptor is affected.
You aren't saying anything interesting. That's how all measurements works. You can't measure the mass of an object using a thermometer either!

Different properties require a different measurement instrument.
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:05 pm
Again, salt, Na, Cl do not have any taste.
Well, now you are making claims so absurd I know I have you by the short and curlies. You are simply protecting your conceptual scheme from exploding given the contradiction I am pointing out. Lets see what other common-sense phenomena I can get you to reject...

Do Na and Cl have color? What about odour?

Mass can be measured using an instrument called a scale.
Color can be measured using an instrument called color spectrometer.
Odour can be measured using an instrument called electronic nose.
Taste can be measured using an instrument called an electronic tongue.
As you see for electronic nose you need arrays of sensor plus a pattern recognition system: "The expression "electronic sensing" refers to the capability of reproducing human senses using sensor arrays and pattern recognition systems." What the device does at the end is to separate different chemicals from each other depending on how it affects the sensors.

Age
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 10:10 am
i have no idea about any other argument regarding "emergence", i just look at words, and their specific definitions, to gain my views.

Consciousness comes from the Truly OPEN Mind.

Where does the Mind "come from"? is not the correct way to pose the question as the Mind exists HERE-NOW, always.

Consciousness emerges, in the form of Self awareness, and lots of things emerge, so, to me, there is emergence.

Just because the Mind may not emerge as such, as It always is HERE-NOW, to me this does not mean that there is no emergence.

There is always a reason for EVERY thing, but I do not see how this reflects with what does emerge and what does not.

Some things emerge, other things just do not emerge. But there is still emergence. Emergence exists, although not all things may emerge.

Just like there is an urgency for some things, and there is not an urgency for other things, but there is still urgency. Urgency exists, although not all things are urgent.

There is also an emergency for some things to change, like the ones who are causing their home-planet to die for example, there is not an emergency for other things to change though. But there is still emergency. Emergency exists, although not all things are an emergency.
This is a response to the bold part: Emergence simply says that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly say this?

To me, a definition for the word 'emergence' is; becoming visible after being concealed

There is nothing in that about any thing saying "the whole is more than its parts"?

By the way, how could the whole even be more more than its parts?
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am
This means that the whole is inexplicable in terms of parts. This is against the fact that you accepted: There is an explanation for everything.
If it is against the fact that I accepted has no bearing on any thing yet.

You would first need to explain;
How the whole can be more than its parts?
and, also explain;
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly simply say; The whole is more than the sum of its parts?

Also, how exactly does 'emergence' say any thing at all?

By the way, and if I remember correctly, I never accepted that the whole is more than its parts. But, another fact, which I did accept was; The whole is the sum of its parts. But you never mentioned this fact that I accepted.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am

Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly say this?
This is the definition of strong emergence which is agreed among philosophers and scientists. We have two kinds of emergence, weak and strong. To elaborate consider a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
To me, a definition for the word 'emergence' is; becoming visible after being concealed
What do you mean with the bold part?
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
There is nothing in that about any thing saying "the whole is more than its parts"?

By the way, how could the whole even be more more than its parts?
That is the problem which I have with emergence. People say that salt tastes salty. Sodium and Chlorine, however, don't taste salty therefore there is a strong emergence.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am
This means that the whole is inexplicable in terms of parts. This is against the fact that you accepted: There is an explanation for everything.
If it is against the fact that I accepted has no bearing on any thing yet.

You would first need to explain;
How the whole can be more than its parts?
This to me is impossible. That is why I have problems with strong emergence.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
and, also explain;
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly simply say; The whole is more than the sum of its parts?
I already gave an example of salt. You can think of consciousness as another example.
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
Also, how exactly does 'emergence' say any thing at all?
What do you mean?
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
By the way, and if I remember correctly, I never accepted that the whole is more than its parts. But, another fact, which I did accept was; The whole is the sum of its parts. But you never mentioned this fact that I accepted.
You are on the spot.

Age
Posts: 3591
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am

bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly say this?
This is the definition of strong emergence which is agreed among philosophers and scientists.
There is the first mistake, from my perspective.

The ones labelled "philosopher" and/or "scientists" make up words and definitions or change definitions of words to suit their own personal view and beliefs of things. Also, any person can agree on any thing, but this does not make it true nor right.

Would I be wrong in asking the question; Whoever it was who came up with the term 'strong emergence' and gave it the definition; The whole is more than its parts, was just trying to prove some thing?
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
We have two kinds of emergence, weak and strong. To elaborate consider a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.
Instead of doing what most labelled "philosophers" and "scientists" do, which is; make hard what is easy, complex what is simple, and/or make confusing what is easily and 'already' understood, how about we just look at what is obvious, and ask the question; How can the whole be MORE than its parts?

If it can not, then there is nothing more to look at.

Just looking at this simple and easy to be understood fact, allows the Truth to be seen, and understood as well.

The Truth is some one came up with some, at first glance, extraordinary way of making complex and confusing 'that' what is NOT.

If some thing can not be explained, then it can not. If some thing can be explained, then it can.

If some thing does not exist, then it does not. If some thing does exist, then it does.

Now why complicate this, obviously very easy to understand, fact with some thing about; a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.

To me, the two sentences do not even make sense, to even start considering them.

I am only a very simple one, so even when I just try to consider what you wrote means, from the way you wrote it, let alone trying to understand it, I get totally lost and confused. You wrote, (underlined);

a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. To me, a Universe is a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. If this is right, then this is understood, good enough for now, by me.

Weak emergence, What is this in relation to exactly?

Are you saying; a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, is defined as 'weak emergence'? If yes, then how did that definition follow, and was thus a 'therefore', from just two words? A conclusion usually needs at least a premise, or more. To me, that is just a definition given by some one to those two words. There is no actual link nor conclusion followed here.

If that is just a definition, then okay. This is understood. But now, what does 'a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts' actually mean?

A 'new' property in relation to 'what' exactly?

And, if a "new" property can be 'explained' in term of parts, then so what? If that is called 'weak emergence', and really that is all that is wanted to be expressed and understood, then it is understood, by me.

Otherwise, we have strong emergence. Now, does this mean that instead of a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts, a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is inexplicable in terms of parts?

If this is what it means, then okay. This is now understood.

If that is right, then now all you have to do is provide a list of some examples of phenomenons in which the whole has a new property which are explicable, so I can get a better idea of what you are saying, and a list of which are supposedly inexplicable. Then, we can see if we can give or find explanations, for you.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
To me, a definition for the word 'emergence' is; becoming visible after being concealed
What do you mean with the bold part?
That is the definition part.

So that the word I want to define is clear and obvious i put it in single quotation marks, then so that the definition can be clearly seen here i bolded and underlined it. Now that is what I mean with the bold part. (By the way I usually put single quotation marks on the words I write also to mean that to fully understand the sentence I am writing, which that word is in, then the definition for that single quoted word needs to be known first, which may well usually be different from the definition that is being ASSUMED by the reader. I also use single quotation marks to words in "others" writings to highlight the words where it is that I perceive is WHY things are being misunderstood. Until the definition for those words, from their perspective is known, then confusion can creep in further and further).

But anyway, from another perspective, what I mean by the bold part IS when some thing becomes visible after being concealed, then it means it has emerged. To me, besides the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, every thing else emerges.

By the way, thanks for asking a clarifying question. It is very refreshing to be asked for clarification. I rarely receive it.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
There is nothing in that about any thing saying "the whole is more than its parts"?

By the way, how could the whole even be more more than its parts?
That is the problem which I have with emergence. People say that salt tastes salty. Sodium and Chlorine, however, don't taste salty therefore there is a strong emergence.
So what? to what people say, and, to what if sodium and chlorine do not taste salty, then who really cares?

By the way, do you have a "problem" with the so called "strong emergence", the "weak emergence" or with both or all "emergence"?

When you write; "That is the problem which I have with "emergence", I am completely unclear which "emergence" you are referring to exactly.

I also do not see how your response even closely relates to answering my clarifying question, which is; How could the whole be more than its parts?

Peanut butter tastes peanut buttery. Peanuts and butter, however, separately do not taste peanut buttery. Again, so what? And, this does NOT mean "therefore there is a strong emergence", necessarily.

All this means is two different tasting things taste different, which is just plain and simple obvious anyway.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am
This means that the whole is inexplicable in terms of parts. This is against the fact that you accepted: There is an explanation for everything.
If it is against the fact that I accepted has no bearing on any thing yet.

You would first need to explain;
How the whole can be more than its parts?
This to me is impossible. That is why I have problems with strong emergence.
Well have you ever considered that the term "strong emergence" was just made up and just given some 'impossible' definition, which has no real bearing on what IS actually True and Real?

And because it was made up by some one called a "philosopher" or a "scientist", then this means that there has to be some sort of actual truth or realness to it?

If it is impossible, then, I suggest, just forget about and let it go.

'Strong emergence' may not even exist other than in name and definition only, some thing like 'unicorn' does.

Do you have problems with unicorn?
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
and, also explain;
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly simply say; The whole is more than the sum of its parts?
I already gave an example of salt.
I already gave my view of your example of salt.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
You can think of consciousness as another example.
But Consciousness is NOT more than the sum of its parts.

Do you think/assume that Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts?

What 'Consciousness' is can be very easily explained. How Consciousness emerges, if It does, can also be very easily explained.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
Also, how exactly does 'emergence' say any thing at all?
What do you mean?
If you had written some thing like; The definition of 'emergence' is ..., then that, to me, makes sense.

But when you write some thing like; Emergence says ..., then that, to me, does not make sense, and so I just ask a clarifying question to make sure that I am understanding you, and what you are saying, correctly.

Again, thank you for your clarifying question.
bahman wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
By the way, and if I remember correctly, I never accepted that the whole is more than its parts. But, another fact, which I did accept was; The whole is the sum of its parts. But you never mentioned this fact that I accepted.
You are on the spot.
If anyone says; 'The whole is more than its parts', then I would just ask them to clarify HOW this could be possible? If they can not say how, then so be it, but, if they can say how, then great, I have learned some thing new.

Skepdick
Posts: 1867
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:33 am

bahman wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:47 pm
As you see for electronic nose you need arrays of sensor plus a pattern recognition system: "The expression "electronic sensing" refers to the capability of reproducing human senses using sensor arrays and pattern recognition systems." What the device does at the end is to separate different chemicals from each other depending on how it affects the sensors.
Has nothing to do with my refutation.

A scale is a device which separates different objects from each other depending on how it affects the sensors also.

Something that affects the sensor in a way that the screen says 0.1 kg is different from something that makes the screen say 0.2kg is different from something that makes the screen say 0.3kg.

You can measure and identify all objects with similar mass.
You can measure and identify all objects with similar smell.
You can measure and identify all objects with similar taste.

NaCl has mass, smell and taste.

The taste of NaCL is not a sum of the tastes of Na and CL

PTH
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by PTH » Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pm

Age wrote:
Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
If anyone says; 'The whole is more than its parts', then I would just ask them to clarify HOW this could be possible? If they can not say how, then so be it, but, if they can say how, then great, I have learned some thing new.
Interesting thread. I don't know if this helps in any way, but it does look like there's two different concepts in play and referring to them as "soft" and "hard" emergence may confuse things, as it suggests they should have something in common.

I usually picture "emergence" as meaning something having a feature that its components lack. So, for the sake of argument, an airplane can fly, but its wings, engine and body cannot fly independently. Its only when they are combined that the ability to fly emerges. We are able to explain this emergence, as we can talk about how wings generate lift when an engine power an airplane down a runway. If we are happy with that level of explanation, we can say we understand how the ability to fly emerges from that combination of things.

I think the word "emergence" has also been used when trying to account for how unconscious atoms might, in combination, produce consciousness. In this context, no explanation is being attempted. Its just a speculation - that maybe, in some way, consciousness "emerges" in the same way as we know (as much as things can be known) that the ability to fly emerges from putting wings, engine and body together.

The difficulty arises, IMHO, from using the word "emergence" without clearly stating that we are using a term with a clear meaning and understanding in some contexts (like accounting for the ability to fly) as a speculation about how some things we don't understand may occur (like physical brains producing consciousness).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests