There cannot be any emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:03 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:40 am
fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:49 pm
Salt was used as an example of emergence but what is emergent is that sodium chloride has properties that neither sodium - a highly reactive alkali metal, and chlorine, a poisonous gas, has.
Neither reactivity is a property of Na, nor is "poisonous" a property of Cl.

In both cases you are describing interactions.

The "reactivity" of Na depends on what you introduce it to.
The "toxicity" of Cl depends on the organism it interacts with.
Apparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:07 am

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:03 am
Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:40 am
fooloso4 wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 10:49 pm
Salt was used as an example of emergence but what is emergent is that sodium chloride has properties that neither sodium - a highly reactive alkali metal, and chlorine, a poisonous gas, has.
Neither reactivity is a property of Na, nor is "poisonous" a property of Cl.

In both cases you are describing interactions.

The "reactivity" of Na depends on what you introduce it to.
The "toxicity" of Cl depends on the organism it interacts with.
Apparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.
Apparently you do. So why don’t you tell us?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2373
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:02 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am
Yes, taste of salt is not intrinsic of the molecules.
So my argument follows.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am
Note it is;
Salt molecules + human self [tongue, salt receptors, mind] = taste of salt.
I agree. But what does really happen in the brain that certain neural activity turn into taste of salt and another one turn into taste of sweet. At the end they are just motion of electrons.
The point is you cannot deny the taste of salt and sweet are both emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.

True, at the end of day the are just motion of electrons.
But then 'electrons' are also emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.
There are no electrons per se if there are no human selves. That condition will include whatever fundamental particles Physics [human interactive] will present.

In that sense, the whole of conscious reality is an emergent co-activated by the human self.
Therefore there is emergence.
In other words, as long as there are humans there are emergents.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:09 am

A thinking, talking hairless ape made out of quantum particles rejects emergence.

Irony has a penchant.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:09 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:07 am
fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:03 am
Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:40 am

Neither reactivity is a property of Na, nor is "poisonous" a property of Cl.

In both cases you are describing interactions.

The "reactivity" of Na depends on what you introduce it to.
The "toxicity" of Cl depends on the organism it interacts with.
Apparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.
Apparently you do. So why don’t you tell us?
If only there was somewhere one could look to find a definition ...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2300
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:19 pm

-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:02 pm
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:12 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:47 pm
Bahman, if your argument was right, then an amount of Sodium and an amount of Chlorine that are equal in atoms to each other, and taken separately, would taste like salt. But they don't. Sodium and Chloride taken in equal amounts but separately would taste very differently form salt (if the taster would survive to be able to tell).

There are other inherent properties to molecules than the inherent properties of their constituents alone.
Where are the other inherent properties? To the best of our knowledge electron for example doesn't have any other inherent property than it was mentioned. Do you mean that there are hidden?
No, they are not hidden. But the molecules have their inherent properties different from the inherent properties of their constituents.

That's the entire point. "The whole of a woman is bigger than the sum of her parts." Inherent properties do not get inherited from constituent parts to summed wholes in a manner of one-to-one mapping. New properties are bourne out of the structure, combination and reaction to these.
There cannot be any emergence if you don't believe in hidden properties then. Simply the properties salt are charge, spin and mass. Structure just only tell you how these three properties are distributed over space. In fact, I think that test of salt just realized when a human being taste it. This is due to fact that salt excites some receptors on our tongues. This receptor sends a signal into the brain. And magic happens when mind realizes the taste which this is the result of how the brain processed the signal. I don't know how a specific neural activity in the brain can turn into a specific taste though. So my argument stands, the behavior of salt can be explained in term of the behavior of its parts.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2300
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:21 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:04 pm
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:02 pm
There are other inherent properties to molecules than the inherent properties of their constituents alone.
The entire notion of "inherent property" bothers me. The "constituents" of molecules are atoms.
The "inherent properties" of atoms are also emergent given their quantum constituents.

Can anyone give me an example of an "inherent property" of a Sodium atom?
It has a charge, mass and spin distribution.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2300
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by bahman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:29 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:02 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:16 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am
Yes, taste of salt is not intrinsic of the molecules.
So my argument follows.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am
Note it is;
Salt molecules + human self [tongue, salt receptors, mind] = taste of salt.
I agree. But what does really happen in the brain that certain neural activity turn into taste of salt and another one turn into taste of sweet. At the end they are just motion of electrons.
The point is you cannot deny the taste of salt and sweet are both emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.
True.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am
True, at the end of day the are just motion of electrons.
But then 'electrons' are also emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.
There are no electrons per se if there are no human selves. That condition will include whatever fundamental particles Physics [human interactive] will present.

In that sense, the whole of conscious reality is an emergent co-activated by the human self.
Therefore there is emergence.
In other words, as long as there are humans there are emergents.
But, the reality is that the behavior of salt can be explained in term of the behavior of Sodium and Chlorine. Therefore there is no emergence. Magic happens only when a human taste salt.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:29 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:09 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:07 am
fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:03 am


Apparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.
Apparently you do. So why don’t you tell us?
If only there was somewhere one could look to find a definition ...
Your logical fallacy is: appeal to authority.

A dictionary doesn’t strike me as a useful reference on matters of chemistry and physics.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:32 pm

bahman wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:21 pm
Logik wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:04 pm
-1- wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:02 pm
There are other inherent properties to molecules than the inherent properties of their constituents alone.
The entire notion of "inherent property" bothers me. The "constituents" of molecules are atoms.
The "inherent properties" of atoms are also emergent given their quantum constituents.

Can anyone give me an example of an "inherent property" of a Sodium atom?
It has a charge, mass and spin distribution.
You mean it interacts with the tools devised to measure/quantify those phenomena? ;)

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:29 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:09 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:07 am


Apparently you do. So why don’t you tell us?
If only there was somewhere one could look to find a definition ...
Your logical fallacy is: appeal to authority.

A dictionary doesn’t strike me as a useful reference on matters of chemistry and physics.

I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.

An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm
I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.

An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Naturally.

Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.

I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...

And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means ;)

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:23 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm
I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.

An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Naturally.

Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.

I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...

And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means ;)
Well, since you make appeal to knowledge of knowledge that cannot be put into words it seems there is no more to be said. You are moving further and further away from the topic of emergence. I will reserve further comment for those who are not thwarted by their 1st hand knowledge of knowledge from discussing properties and emergence.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2814
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by -1- » Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:44 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pm

Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.

I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...

And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means ;)
Logik, did Nick_A steal your password? this sounds just like his texts do. :-)

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: There cannot be any emergence

Post by Logik » Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:17 pm

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pm
fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm
I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.

An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Naturally.

Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.

I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...

And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means ;)
Well, since you make appeal to knowledge of knowledge that cannot be put into words it seems there is no more to be said. You are moving further and further away from the topic of emergence. I will reserve further comment for those who are not thwarted by their 1st hand knowledge of knowledge from discussing properties and emergence.
Sure.

Still waiting for an example of a what you think is a non-emergent property.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests