There is no emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:40 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:15 pm
Good, because my opinion of your ignorance doesn't matter.
That's right!
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:15 pm
As long as I convince you to stop peddling your over-used dualistic bullshit.
The view I have is known philosophically as monism. I'm quite sure you will not find my views compatible with any past philosopher, while your own views are consistent with historic philosophical skepticism.

Skepdick
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:42 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:40 pm
The view I have is known philosophically as monism.
And yet you are arguing about the possibility/impossibility of knowledge.

How dualistic.
RCSaunders wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:40 pm
your own views are consistent with historic philosophical skepticism.
My views are consistent with being human. Skepticism is just one of many instruments in my mind's toolbox.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:01 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:42 pm
Skepticism is just one of many instruments in my mind's toolbox.
That would be good if true. Just what tool do you have that is not skeptical, that is, that you can rely on to discover unquestioned truth? In your view, is there anything one can know is true with complete certainty and without doubt?

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

Re: There is no emergence

Post by PTH » Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:12 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:10 am
PTH wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:43 am
No, that's not the situation. The situation is more that I haven't yet seen anyone with a convincing view. If one comes along, I'll be absolutely open to it.
Sounds like you've already comfortably settled into ironism ;)
That's a new term for me, so I don't know if I should be delighted or crushed by the suggestion!

In my defence, I should say that I do intend to reach a conclusion at some stage, just not quite yet. At the same time I will admit that my deliberations have been dragging on for a while.
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:10 am
PTH wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:43 am
we'd still be left with stuff we can't explain.
What if we simply abandoned the ideal of 'explanation'? What if we adopt a prospective (predictive), rather than a retrospective (explanatory) world-view?

To explain or to predict?
Interesting paper. And I think I appreciate the pivotal point - in the explanatory approach, I'm trying to account as fully as possible for how past experience can be explained by, or reliably related to, past data. In prediction, I'm just interested in finding a rule of thumb that reliably tells me what I should expect to happen.

The examples in the paper seem understandable. Darwin gives an explanation of the origin of species, but this is little use for predictions. Ptolemeic astronomy can be good for making predictions, but as an explanation it would just be wrong. It reminds me of discussions around whether science explains what happens, or whether it is just "saving the phenomena".

https://www.coursera.org/lecture/philos ... nomy-iAcUo

I think both the predictive and explanatory approaches may only relate to certain questions. Also, while acknowledging the differences set out in the paper, I'd also expect there is a link between the two. If we find a predictive model that works better than an explanatory model, it suggests to me that we don't understand what's happening. And if we've a predictive model that works very well at present, and we don't know why, then we don't know if it will let us down tomorrow (and I notice the paper includes that book "The Black Swan" in its citations.)

I think that means that explanation is what I'd still hope for. I'd want a claim for emergence to be one that could account for the emergent features. And, for some things, we should be able to do that.

I can't see a difference between
  • claiming certain features emerge in a way that we cannot account for, and
  • saying we can see certain features exist, but don't know how or why they exist.

Skepdick
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:01 pm
That would be good if true. Just what tool do you have that is not skeptical, that is, that you can rely on to discover unquestioned truth? In your view, is there anything one can know is true with complete certainty and without doubt?
"truth" is a rather overused phrase. It means very many things to very many people. I am not even sure what you are asking.

You used the phrase "discover unquestioned truth", and that immediately raises a question in my mind: Why are you looking for "truth" and what would you do with it if/when you find it?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:05 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:29 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 5:01 pm
That would be good if true. Just what tool do you have that is not skeptical, that is, that you can rely on to discover unquestioned truth? In your view, is there anything one can know is true with complete certainty and without doubt?
"truth" is a rather overused phrase. It means very many things to very many people. I am not even sure what you are asking.

You used the phrase "discover unquestioned truth", and that immediately raises a question in my mind: Why are you looking for "truth" and what would you do with it if/when you find it?
I'm only looking to understand what you mean, and nothing more.

Use whatever definition of truth you like, or just, "a correct answer to any question", or, "certainty," about anything. I am under the impression you are a total skeptic, the view that there is some doubt about everything and that nothing is certain. I'll be delighted for you to convince me I'm wrong, if you care to.

If you really are a total skeptic, I'll not argue with you about it. It's the dominant view of what goes by the name philosophy. My view that certain knowledge is not only possible but absolutely necessary for successful human life is pretty much anathema today.

Skepdick
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:25 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:05 am
Use whatever definition of truth you like, or just, "a correct answer to any question", or, "certainty," about anything.
That doesn't really work. That you and I ask questions is a fact. But we ask questions for different reasons.

Questions have telos.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:05 am
I am under the impression you are a total skeptic, the view that there is some doubt about everything and that nothing is certain. I'll be delighted for you to convince me I'm wrong, if you care to.

If you really are a total skeptic, I'll not argue with you about it. It's the dominant view of what goes by the name philosophy. My view that certain knowledge is not only possible but absolutely necessary for successful human life is pretty much anathema today.
Uncertainty is ever-present. Errors in judgment (resulting from uncertainty) are ever present. This is known as propagation of error in statistics.

What may be "knowledge" in one context may be a "catastrophic error" in another.
What may be "catastrophic uncertainty" in one context may be "nitpicking" in another.

And so my philosophical position is one of extreme vigilance. I know know how to push things to their limits, because I know where the limits are.

I am most certainly against the general notion of universal truth, but even that rule will have exceptions.

The reason you mistake me for a total skeptic is precisely my epistemic proportionality argument.
In proportion to the complexity of the universe - humans have almost zero knowledge.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am

Skepdick wrote:
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
The interaction between a gas and a sensor is purely electromagnetic. There is no such thing as smell.

Skepdick
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:11 am

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:17 pm
Lets see what other common-sense phenomena I can get you to reject...
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
There is no such thing as smell.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fucking called it!

In addition to "smell", can I just go ahead and assume that you also reject the notions of sight, taste, hearing and touch?

I have a song for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(Metallica_song)

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:58 am

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:11 am
Skepdick wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:17 pm
Lets see what other common-sense phenomena I can get you to reject...
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
There is no such thing as smell.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Fucking called it!

In addition to "smell", can I just go ahead and assume that you also reject the notions of sight, taste, hearing and touch?

I have a song for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_(Metallica_song)
Again. Salt is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons which not of them have smell or taste...

Skepdick
Posts: 4214
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick » Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:00 am

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:58 am
Again. Salt is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons which not of them have smell or taste...
Then how do you even begin to explain the phenomena of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing except as emergent phenomena?

Reductionism and holism are two sides of the same coin...

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:58 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:00 am
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:58 am
Again. Salt is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons which not of them have smell or taste...
Then how do you even begin to explain the phenomena of sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing except as emergent phenomena?

Reductionism and holism are two sides of the same coin...
As I mentioned before the experience of sight, for example, is the result of the sensory system, eyes in this case, and how the brain is structured. We can see a part of the spectrum of light. Snake, for example, can see infrared which we cannot see. That means that light does not have a specific color otherwise all animal including human must have the same sense of light.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:39 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
The interaction between a gas and a sensor is purely electromagnetic.
That's only one way to detect some chemicals. There are other better methods, such as gas chromatography, atomic absorption spectroscopy, and atomic emission spectroscopy, but no such method has anything to do with taste or smell.

The human ability to taste and smell is not electromagnetic. It is purely chemical in nature. Smell is how human consciousness detects some different chemicals.
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
There is no such thing as smell.
If there isn't, where did the idea come from? Don't you ever smell anything? It doesn't matter how or why you have that experience, whatever its cause or nature, it is that experience the word "smell" identifies.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3094
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:23 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:39 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
The interaction between a gas and a sensor is purely electromagnetic.
The human ability to taste and smell is not electromagnetic. It is purely chemical in nature. Smell is how human consciousness detects some different chemicals.
I think that that is the mind which experiences chemical. Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind.
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:39 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
There is no such thing as smell.
If there isn't, where did the idea come from? Don't you ever smell anything? It doesn't matter how or why you have that experience, whatever its cause or nature, it is that experience the word "smell" identifies.
I meant that the material does not have such a property. It just appears to the mind.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 1500
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:26 pm

bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:23 pm
Consciousness to me is the ability of the mind.
My cat is conscious, but she doesn't have a mind. The mind is the unique kind of consciousness which only human beings have. The mind is the intellectual and rational aspects of human consciousness.
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:23 pm
RCSaunders wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:39 pm
bahman wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 am
There is no such thing as smell.
If there isn't, where did the idea come from? Don't you ever smell anything? It doesn't matter how or why you have that experience, whatever its cause or nature, it is that experience the word "smell" identifies.
I meant that the material does not have such a property. It just appears to the mind.
If you mean that chemicals and entities do not have properties that non-living entities can be aware of, that those properties do not exist (have any meaning) sans living organisms, you are right. Things only have properties to conscious organisms, and the properties (or more accurately, the qualities) of entities are what those entities are. If something really had no size, weight, temperature, texture, color, taste, smell, or made no sound, it would not exist. Everything else you know about physical existence is derived from the directly perceived qualities of existence. All of physics, chemistry, and biology are the study of perceived existence as it is perceived, because there is nothing else to study. If what you perceive is not what actually is, all that you think you know is an illusion.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests