There is no emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am

There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs. Things cannot occur for no reason. Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it. Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
If there is a reason for something which occurs, then how does it then supposedly follow that that then means there is no emergence?

Just because there is a reason for some thing occurring why then can that thing not emerge?

How are you defining the word 'emergence here'?
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Things cannot occur for no reason.
So what?

How does that relate to whether some thing can emerge or not?

Why do you say emergence relies on no reason? As far as i know only animals reason, and as far as I am aware things can emerge without animals existing?
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it.
But your first statement says there is no emergence because there is a reason for something which occurs. Now it appears you are saying there is no such thing as emergence because there is no explanation for emergence.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong

Are you able to formulate your argument in more simpler and easier way to be understood?

Also, what is the reason for your attempt at an argument? What is your attempt at an argument meant to be leading towards?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am

Emergence (hard emergence) by definition is a phenomenon that indicates that the whole in a specific system is more than the sum of its parts.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
If there is a reason for something which occurs, then how does it then supposedly follow that that then means there is no emergence?
Because the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts if the emergence is explicable. By definition, there is something extra in the system when there is an emergence. The question is where does this extra thing come from? If it is caused by parts then there is an explanation for it. If there is an explanation for it then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of parts because the system is well defined in terms of parts.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Just because there is a reason for some thing occurring why then can that thing not emerge?
I already answered this question in the previous comment.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
How are you defining the word 'emergence here'?
I already define it in the starting of this post.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Things cannot occur for no reason.
So what?
This is the basic premise. The rest follows from it. We have to deal with two scenarios: 1) There is an explanation for the emergence and 2) there is no explanation for the emergence. I will show that there is a problem in both cases, therefore there cannot be any emergence.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
How does that relate to whether some thing can emerge or not?
This is discussed in the previous comment.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Why do you say emergence relies on no reason? As far as i know only animals reason, and as far as I am aware things can emerge without animals existing?
This is not about that who can reason or not. It is about whether there exists a reason for a phenomenon at all.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it.
But your first statement says there is no emergence because there is a reason for something which occurs. Now it appears you are saying there is no such thing as emergence because there is no explanation for emergence.
This is a statement related to two scenarios that were discussed before. Basically second scenario. What I am trying to say is that if there is no explanation for the emergence in one hand and anything which occurs has an explanation in another hand then emergence is impossible.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I hope that things is clear now.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong
[/quote]
This is basically the first scenario. If emergence is explicable then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore emergence is meaningless.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Are you able to formulate your argument in more simpler and easier way to be understood?
Let me give it a shot and explain it another way. Consider a system that is made of parts. Now we have two things which cause any behavior in the system, 1) Parts and 2) Emergent phenomenon (which is independent of parts). But there would be a conflict of in the behavior of the system because in one hand parts cause a behavior and in another hand the emergent phenomena causes another behavior. This means that one of the options, parts or emergent phenomena, cannot have any causal power because of conflict in the behavior of the system. We cannot possibly drop parts, therefore, we have to drop the emergent phenomenon. This means that the emergent phenomenon does not have any causal power. Something which does not have a causal power cannot be observed, emergence in this case. So we can discard it.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Also, what is the reason for your attempt at an argument? What is your attempt at an argument meant to be leading towards?
Consciousness, for example, cannot be an emergent property if emergence is impossible. This means that matter itself must be conscious.
Last edited by bahman on Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1611
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:59 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
What is the reason for gravity? Emergence is exactly the same as God of the gaps.

To deny a phenomenon just because science can't explain it is foolish.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:59 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
What is the reason for gravity?
Gravity is a force that is due to an intrinsic property of matter, so-called mass. We don't know what mass is yet.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:59 am
Emergence is exactly the same as God of the gaps.
Do you know what emergence is?
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:59 am
To deny a phenomenon just because science can't explain it is foolish.
So you believe that things occur for no reason? If it is so then why salt always tastes the same? Why mixing Sodium and Chlorine always leads to salt?

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:42 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
Emergence (hard emergence) by definition is a phenomenon that indicates that the whole in a specific system is more than the sum of its parts.
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 am
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
If there is a reason for something which occurs, then how does it then supposedly follow that that then means there is no emergence?
Because the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts if the emergence is explicable. By definition, there is something extra in the system when there is an emergence. The question is where does this extra thing come from? If it is caused by parts then there is an explanation for it. If there is an explanation for it then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of parts because the system is well defined in terms of parts.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Just because there is a reason for some thing occurring why then can that thing not emerge?
I already answered this question in the previous comment.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
How are you defining the word 'emergence here'?
I already define it in the starting of this post.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Things cannot occur for no reason.
So what?
This is the basic premise. The rest follows from it. We have to deal with two scenarios: 1) There is an explanation for the emergence and 2) there is no explanation for the emergence. I will show that there is a problem in both cases, therefore there cannot be any emergence.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
How does that relate to whether some thing can emerge or not?
This is discussed in the previous comment.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Why do you say emergence relies on no reason? As far as i know only animals reason, and as far as I am aware things can emerge without animals existing?
This is not about that who can reason or not. It is about whether there exists a reason for a phenomenon at all.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it.
But your first statement says there is no emergence because there is a reason for something which occurs. Now it appears you are saying there is no such thing as emergence because there is no explanation for emergence.
This is a statement related to two scenarios that were discussed before. Basically second scenario. What I am trying to say is that if there is no explanation for the emergence in one hand and anything which occurs has an explanation in another hand then emergence is impossible.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong.
I hope that things is clear now.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
[quote=bahman post_id=418770 time=1565430486 user_id=12593
Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong

This is basically the first scenario. If emergence is explicable then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore emergence is meaningless.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Are you able to formulate your argument in more simpler and easier way to be understood?

Let me give it a shot and explain it another way. Consider a system that is made of parts. Now we have two things which cause any behavior in the system, 1) Parts and 2) Emergent phenomenon (which is independent of parts). But there would be a conflict of in the behavior of the system because in one hand parts cause a behavior and in another hand the emergent phenomena causes another behavior. This means that one of the options, parts or emergent phenomena, cannot have any causal power because of conflict in the behavior of the system. We cannot possibly drop parts, therefore, we have to drop the emergent phenomenon. This means that the emergent phenomenon does not have any causal power. Something which does not have a causal power cannot be observed, emergence in this case. So we can discard it.
Age wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm
Also, what is the reason for your attempt at an argument? What is your attempt at an argument meant to be leading towards?
Consciousness, for example, cannot be an emergent property if emergence is impossible. This means that matter itself must be conscious.
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.

How I see this is, a child emerges into an adult, thoughts emerge into new thoughts, Consciousness emerges in and through species.

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.

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 observe the physical emerging, or evolving, and I see the invisible also emerging, or changing.

Skepdick
Posts: 1611
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am

bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
Gravity is a force that is due to an intrinsic property of matter, so-called mass. We don't know what mass is yet.
So you are explaining gravity in terms of mass, but you can't explain mass? You have successfully managed to hide the ball from yourself.
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
Do you know what emergence is?
Yes. Any phenomenon that is currently inexplicable from the sum of its parts.
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
So you believe that things occur for no reason?
Do you believe mass occurs for no reason?
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
If it is so then why salt always tastes the same? Why mixing Sodium and Chlorine always leads to salt?
That's not the emergent question!

The emergent question is "Why doesn't salt taste anything like Sodium OR Chlorine?"
The emergent question is "Why do you die when you eat 100 grams of sodium and chlorine, but you don't die when you eat 100 grams of salt?"
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6894
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:09 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
Something occuring is triggered by the previous occurance - There is no break in the link, any cause of current occurance is the effect of the previous cause in effect only happening NOW. There is no break in the continuity of NOW. Life is one unitary action.

Cause and it's Effect is Self-Creating, it's a circular recursive characteristic of living systems.

There is no before or inbetween or after NOW. So no emergence.



.

Impenitent
Posts: 2382
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Impenitent » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:52 am

The bald guy has maximum emergence...

definitely greater than his parts for he has no part...

-Imp

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » 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. The mind is simply something extra than neural activity. Where mind comes from? 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. So the only way to escape the trouble is to say that there is no reason why the mind exists, so-called emergence. This however in conflict with the fact that there is always a reason why something occurs. Therefore emergence is false.
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.
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.
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.
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?

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:37 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
Gravity is a force that is due to an intrinsic property of matter, so-called mass. We don't know what mass is yet.
So you are explaining gravity in terms of mass, but you can't explain mass? You have successfully managed to hide the ball from yourself.
I am not hiding anything. I am telling what we know and what we don't know.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
Do you know what emergence is?
Yes. Any phenomenon that is currently inexplicable from the sum of its parts.
But you always face the same phenomenon given the same circumstances. Don't you?
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
So you believe that things occur for no reason?
Do you believe mass occurs for no reason?
There must be a reason why mass exist as a phenomenon.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am
bahman wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:40 am
If it is so then why salt always tastes the same? Why mixing Sodium and Chlorine always leads to salt?
That's not the emergent question!
It is.
Skepdick wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:36 am
The emergent question is "Why doesn't salt taste anything like Sodium OR Chlorine?"
The emergent question is "Why do you die when you eat 100 grams of sodium and chlorine, but you don't die when you eat 100 grams of salt?"
And why always people die if they eat Sodium? There must be a reason why this is true. Moreover, salt doesn't have any taste. It is just something that happens in the brain which give rise to subject experience of salty.
Last edited by bahman on Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:24 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:09 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 10:48 am
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs.
Something occuring is triggered by the previous occurance - There is no break in the link, any cause of current occurance is the effect of the previous cause in effect only happening NOW. There is no break in the continuity of NOW. Life is one unitary action.

Cause and it's Effect is Self-Creating, it's a circular recursive characteristic of living systems.
I don't believe in a chain of causality without mind. This is however offtopic.

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:09 am
There is no before or inbetween or after NOW. So no emergence.
Could you please elaborate?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6894
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:57 am

bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 9:24 am

Could you please elaborate?
Nothing is making NOW happen or stopping NOW from happening which essentially means Nothing is happening, so no emergence.

What knows this?

Answer is the mind.

The mind cuts what is not-happening into what is happening...aka knowledge. Therefore, knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.

.

.

Age
Posts: 3221
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age » 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?
bahman wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am
The mind is simply something extra than neural activity.
How do you know this?

What is the 'mind'?
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.
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.

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?

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?

Just because you see "trouble" that does not mean that there is any "trouble" here, to me. And, by just saying there is no reason for some thing is no way of escaping the "trouble" you see. If there is a reason for some thing, then by just saying there is no reason does not suffice.
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'?
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?
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.
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.
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.

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?

The Truth of the Universe has been concealed and is becoming visible. Unless of course thee Truth of the Universe has never been concealed, but just human beings have not yet been able to see and understand that whole (Truth) yet.

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'.
Last edited by Age on Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 1611
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » 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.
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?
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.

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?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests