There is no emergence
Re: There is no emergence
There's a fundamental question to be asked here: Can every phenomenon (small or large), every system (simple or complex) be explained or understood? One would be hard-pressed answering this with a 'yes' without getting accused of epistemic arrogance.
Human intellect has limits and it rapidly runs out in complex domains. Complexity theory is humbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6SaRmF_8c
Human intellect has limits and it rapidly runs out in complex domains. Complexity theory is humbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6SaRmF_8c
Re: There is no emergence
Now this is an explanation that I can much easier understand, so thank you.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pmInteresting 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).
Re: There is no emergence
Asking, 'Can every phenomenon and every system be explained or understood', then the simple answer, from my perspective, is a resounding yes.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:49 pm There's a fundamental question to be asked here: Can every phenomenon (small or large), every system (simple or complex) be explained or understood? One would be hard-pressed answering this with a 'yes' without getting accused of epistemic arrogance.
Human intellect has limits and it rapidly runs out in complex domains. Complexity theory is humbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6SaRmF_8c
1. You never stipulated a time frame in your question.
2. For every question there is an answer.
Now you can accuse me or any one of "epistemic arrogance", and label me or them as such, and, you can also see some things as being complex, and label them as such, which would be an obvious observation to make and do to the one who just can not work some things out, but to make those observations, those accusations, and to propose those labels is just one subjective view, which is based solely upon only one human beings own individual experiences in Life.
Thee actual Truth of things may be somewhat different to what just one individual believes is true.
Re: There is no emergence
Do I have to stipulate a time-frame? Anything problem whose solution would take more time than the life-of-the-universe is called "intractable".
So you could Google for a list of intractable problems
Obviously. A wrong answer is still an answer. But no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem
And if you so insist, you could perhaps tell us what the 10^150th Prime number is? This question definitely has an answer.
Consider yourself accused.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:11 am Now you can accuse me or any one of "epistemic arrogance", and label me or them as such, and, you can also see some things as being complex, and label them as such, which would be an obvious observation to make and do to the one who just can not work some things out, but to make those observations, those accusations, and to propose those labels is just one subjective view, which is based solely upon only one human beings own individual experiences in Life.
Thee actual Truth of things may be somewhat different to what just one individual believes is true.
Re: There is no emergence
If any one wants to look at and discuss the word 'Consciousness' in regards to 'emergence', then, now that I am able to do this from the perspective of 'flight', and how 'it' emerges from the parts of an airplane, then let us proceed.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pmThe 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).
To me, the word 'conscious' relates close enough to the word 'aware', in other words 'being conscious' or 'being aware' is roughly close enough to each other to begin discussing this. If we can understand, agree upon, and accept what 'being aware' entails, then I do not think physical brains produce Consciousness.
Brains produce thoughts, and thoughts provide a view of things, from that brain, and in that sense, some thoughts are evidence of, and thus show, a 'consciousness', or an awareness, of the surroundings, of that body. This is consciousness with a small 'c'. I say small 'c' because these thoughts are not full consciousness (nor full awareness) of ALL things. They are just A consciousness of some things, which obviously all brains individually are only capable of doing. Consciousness, with capital 'C', of ALL things, however, is when True or Full Consciousness comes into play now.
ALL atoms can be conceived to be unconscious, including ALL of the atoms that make up a human body and a human brain. Thoughts, however, are invisible (to the physical eyes) and as such may not be made up of atoms, unconscious or conscious, at all. These invisible thoughts emerge from the atoms of human brains 'doing their thing', it might be said. Thoughts just arise as knowledge, (or a conscious awareness of the environment), from the brain, which gets its information from any or all of the five senses of the body that that brain is in.PTH wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:32 pmI 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.
Invisible thought, or a conscious awareness, emerges or arise from the unconscious atoms of the brain, just like flight emerges or arises from the unconscious atoms of a plane.
Thought is like flight as both are not actual physical things, as far as we know, but instead both are a just a concept of some "non-physical" thing that emerges from physical atoms. Invisible thoughts are just a form of consciousness, which emerges from the physical brain.
Consciousness, the KNOWING of ALL, Itself, however, is some thing much more than just an awareness of the environment but also an Awareness of ALL things, including Its Self. The unknowing answer to the question 'Who am 'I'?' shows just how a supposedly self-conscious (or self-aware) animal is really NOT a self-conscious (nor self-aware) animal at all. This animal just thinks it is self-aware, and it likes to keep portraying this self-centered "intelligence" to try to place itself above and over other animals.
To me, within the so called "unconscious atoms" is an intrinsic KNOWING within them. This KNOWING is of being alive (or living).
Consciousness, Itself, that is; the ALL-KNOWING Awareness, has KNOWN ALL of this always. However, Consciousness, Itself, needs to wait for an intelligent enough animal to evolve into a stage where its brain is able to be conscious (or aware) enough to learn how all of this happens to work. In this sense True Consciousness is 'emerging'. Only through the collective learned consciousness of ALL individuals that True or Full Consciousness emerges into play. Full Consciousness is just the sum of ALL of Its parts, which is just the conscious knowing or awareness of EVERY thing, which shows the Totality of ALL-THERE-IS.
There is a reason WHY Consciousness always exists in the HERE and NOW, and
There is a reason HOW Consciousness always exists in the HERE and NOW.
consciousness, or conscious thought, emerges with and from the atoms of the human brain and the atoms of the human body.
Consciousness, Itself, emerges with and from the collective conscious knowledge, held within thoughts, which are within all of the individual human bodies.
'That', which is accepted and agreed with by ALL, is the Consciousness (conscious KNOWING or Awareness) that is continually emerging in ALL living things, until a truly intelligent enough animal/species where It can reveal its Self.
But to delve into this further what I have written so far needs to be either corrected or agreed with.
Re: There is no emergence
No. But if you would a more accurate answer, then it helps.
Anything problem whose solution would take more time than the life-of-the-universe is called "intractable".
If there is such a thing as "more time than the life-of-the-Universe', then are you able to explain this phenomenon so that it could be understood?
If yes, then great, go ahead.
If no, then that is okay. I understand.
Thank you for telling me what I "could do".
But really it was not necessary at all for you to do this, especially considering my answer remains the same.
To me, it appears you are again just trying to make complex 'that' what really is truly simple.
So, my answer then remains more so a resounding yes.
And, a right answer is still an answer also.
Some might even argue how for every question there is a right answer, as well.
Once again, you refer back to some computation thing. It appears that you believe EVERY things revolves around computers and computations, which sadly is just not at all True.
Then my answer would be an obvious resounding yes.
Consider what the care factor 'zero' means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:12 amConsider yourself accused.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:11 am Now you can accuse me or any one of "epistemic arrogance", and label me or them as such, and, you can also see some things as being complex, and label them as such, which would be an obvious observation to make and do to the one who just can not work some things out, but to make those observations, those accusations, and to propose those labels is just one subjective view, which is based solely upon only one human beings own individual experiences in Life.
Thee actual Truth of things may be somewhat different to what just one individual believes is true.
The answer to the question; 'Can every phenomenon and every system be explained or understood', the obvious and resounding answer still remains the exact same three letter word YES. If the question is in relation to the time frame of the Universe, Itself, then the answer would HAVE TO still be yes. Unless, of course, you can show how the answer could not be yes.
Re: There is no emergence
That's a long-winded rationalisation. Epistemic ego personified.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:37 amNo. But if you would a more accurate answer, then it helps.
Anything problem whose solution would take more time than the life-of-the-universe is called "intractable".
If there is such a thing as "more time than the life-of-the-Universe', then are you able to explain this phenomenon so that it could be understood?
If yes, then great, go ahead.
If no, then that is okay. I understand.
Thank you for telling me what I "could do".
But really it was not necessary at all for you to do this, especially considering my answer remains the same.
To me, it appears you are again just trying to make complex 'that' what really is truly simple.
So, my answer then remains more so a resounding yes.
And, a right answer is still an answer also.
Some might even argue how for every question there is a right answer, as well.
Once again, you refer back to some computation thing. It appears that you believe EVERY things revolves around computers and computations, which sadly is just not at all True.
Then my answer would be an obvious resounding yes.
Consider what the care factor 'zero' means.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:12 amConsider yourself accused.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:11 am Now you can accuse me or any one of "epistemic arrogance", and label me or them as such, and, you can also see some things as being complex, and label them as such, which would be an obvious observation to make and do to the one who just can not work some things out, but to make those observations, those accusations, and to propose those labels is just one subjective view, which is based solely upon only one human beings own individual experiences in Life.
Thee actual Truth of things may be somewhat different to what just one individual believes is true.
The answer to the question; 'Can every phenomenon and every system be explained or understood', the obvious and resounding answer still remains the exact same three letter word YES. If the question is in relation to the time frame of the Universe, Itself, then the answer would HAVE TO still be yes. Unless, of course, you can show how the answer could not be yes.
Re: There is no emergence
You remember me saying this?
Seeming as you have non-existent standards for correctness, then I am begrudgingly forced to agree with you.
It is indeed true that every question can be answered wrongly; and every system can be understood incorrectly. Which seems to be your predominant life-strategy.
"Yes" is the wrong answer.
Seeming as you have non-existent standards for correctness, then I am begrudgingly forced to agree with you.
It is indeed true that every question can be answered wrongly; and every system can be understood incorrectly. Which seems to be your predominant life-strategy.
Re: There is no emergence
Very good video.Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 6:49 pm There's a fundamental question to be asked here: Can every phenomenon (small or large), every system (simple or complex) be explained or understood? One would be hard-pressed answering this with a 'yes' without getting accused of epistemic arrogance.
Human intellect has limits and it rapidly runs out in complex domains. Complexity theory is humbling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6SaRmF_8c
Where does it leave us? I don't expect everything can be explained or understood. At the same time, some things can be. In a way, manufacturing of anything, from planes to computers to washing machines, reflects a very good understanding of how to take materials and components that don't exhibit particular features, and combine them in ways that make new properties emerge. And that do this in a very predictable way, as otherwise no-one else would be able to read what I'm typing.
Re: There is no emergence
I think the problem is quite basic. We'd don't know if or how brains produce either thoughts or consciousness, in a way that we do know how airplanes fly.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:12 amTo me, the word 'conscious' relates close enough to the word 'aware', in other words 'being conscious' or 'being aware' is roughly close enough to each other to begin discussing this. If we can understand, agree upon, and accept what 'being aware' entails, then I do not think physical brains produce Consciousness.
If someone asks "do you have to make an airplane out of metal, or can you make one out of wood and canvas" we can be confident in answering "yes" as we know that it should be possible to make an airplane from any suitable material of sufficient strength and lightness. We also know how to demonstrate if we've made an airplane that works - we know what something looks like when it flies.
On the other hand, we can't yet answer whether its possible for a thoughtful, conscious mind to exist outside of a human brain, because we don't really know what it is about brains that makes minds and whether that can be replicated in some other medium. And even if we did, we wouldn't know what to look for to show that we had made a new mind.
I don't mean that to sound negative, or supportive of the "Mysterian" approach to these things. But I think this is the starting point.
(Just digressing, in one of those peculiar coincidences I'm listening to an old UB40 song that seems strangely connected
)Every hour of every day, I'm learning more
The more I learn, the less I know about before
The less I know, the more I want to look around
Digging deep for clues on higher ground
Re: There is no emergence
You can add on the the 'wrong' and 'incorrect' words now to agree with me, but you did not need to. The 'correct' word and the 'true'word would have sufficed as well.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:49 am You remember me saying this?
"Yes" is the wrong answer.
Seeming as you have non-existent standards for correctness, then I am begrudgingly forced to agree with you.
It is indeed true that every question can be answered wrongly; and every system can be understood incorrectly. Which seems to be your predominant life-strategy.
If you can prove that NOT 'every phenomenon and every system can be explained or understood', in the life time of the Universe, then go right ahead and prove it. I will wait your proof.
Until you do that, then, from my perspective, the answer remains a resounding YES. EVERY phenomenon and EVERY system can be explained or understood within the life time of the Universe, with a correct, true AND right explanation and understanding. This answer will remain until proven wrong.
By the way, and a handy hint, if you do not like the answers given, then do not ask the questions, especially when you obviously can not prove the answer incorrect, false NOR wrong.
Re: There is no emergence
Re: There is no emergence
I think it leaves us at recognising that determinism may or may not be a property of this universe (and epistemically - we can't tell which is which), but it sure is a fundamental human value. We want prediction/control and towards that end we create conceptual structures to help us navigate this complexity.PTH wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:13 pm Where does it leave us? I don't expect everything can be explained or understood. At the same time, some things can be. In a way, manufacturing of anything, from planes to computers to washing machines, reflects a very good understanding of how to take materials and components that don't exhibit particular features, and combine them in ways that make new properties emerge. And that do this in a very predictable way, as otherwise no-one else would be able to read what I'm typing.
We want to be the masters of our destiny. Some times we get it right, but is it enough? *shrug*
Re: There is no emergence
If 'we' want to discuss things here, especially on a philosophy forum, then, I think it better to speak the truth and the truth only, with no assuming at all going on. For example, is it a truth that "we" do not know if or how brains produce what you say here, or, is it a truth that "you" do not know?PTH wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:26 pmI think the problem is quite basic. We'd don't know if or how brains produce either thoughts or consciousness, in a way that we do know how airplanes fly.Age wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:12 amTo me, the word 'conscious' relates close enough to the word 'aware', in other words 'being conscious' or 'being aware' is roughly close enough to each other to begin discussing this. If we can understand, agree upon, and accept what 'being aware' entails, then I do not think physical brains produce Consciousness.
If it is the former, then are you sure you can speak for EVERY one?
But the answer would be "no" as 'I' know we can and have made a plane out of other material other than metal.PTH wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:26 pmIf someone asks "do you have to make an airplane out of metal, or can you make one out of wood and canvas" we can be confident in answering "yes" as we know that it should be possible to make an airplane from any suitable material of sufficient strength and lightness.
There is a lot of assuming going on here.PTH wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:26 pmWe also know how to demonstrate if we've made an airplane that works - we know what something looks like when it flies.
On the other hand, we can't yet answer whether its possible for a thoughtful, conscious mind to exist outside of a human brain, because we don't really know what it is about brains that makes minds and whether that can be replicated in some other medium.
You really do need to lose the 'we' word in relation to what is known and not known, and stop assuming that EVERY one else knows and thinks the way you do.
And even if we did, we wouldn't know what to look for to show that we had made a new mind.
If you want to start with the 'mind' word, then, to you, what is the 'mind' exactly?
For the term 'mind' do you have some clear meaning and understanding and in some contexts?
PTH wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:26 pm(Just digressing, in one of those peculiar coincidences I'm listening to an old UB40 song that seems strangely connected)Every hour of every day, I'm learning more
The more I learn, the less I know about before
The less I know, the more I want to look around
Digging deep for clues on higher ground