There is no emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:04 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:26 pm
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Actually, bahman, all you did in your OP is describe the elements of "weak emergence," while insisting (or at least, implying) that there is no such thing as "emergence" in any form.
bahman wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:48 pm No, actually what I showed is that all sorts of emergence are weak.
No, bahman, what you showed is that you don't seem to understand what "strong emergence" means.

That, and based on the fact that you just admitted that there are "...all sorts of emergence..." shows that you didn't give much critical thought to your thread title.
The thread title should be "There is no strong emergence". I already defined weak emergence in this thread several times: A weak emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are functions of the properties of parts. The strong emergence is the opposite: A strong emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are not functions of the properties of parts.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Apr 06, 2022 5:19 pm ...Moreover, the existence of phenomena such as free will, consciousness, etc. does not mean that we necessarily are dealing with strong emergence....
When something that we call "mind"...

(which is not only immaterial and un-measurable, but also contains a conscious [self-aware] agent who is in possession of free will)

...emerges from a measurable material substance in which no mind or self-aware (conscious) agent can be located, then, yes, we are indeed dealing with "strong emergence."
But I have shown in OP that all sorts of emergence are weak. Please help yourself and read and understand the argument. I would be happy to see your counter-argument.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:48 pm But the mind cannot emerge as a result of the matter process since the mind has free will therefore it is the uncaused cause.
I suggest that the creation of each (one-of-a-kind) human consciousness with its own centralized and self-aware agent (or "I Am-ness") is, indeed, achieved through the unique arrangement of brain matter.
If the unique arrangement of matter gives rise to something then we are dealing with weak emergence.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm I speculatively propose that the brain accomplishes this miraculous feat through some "mechanistic" means that somehow allows it to summon-forth the essence of life imbued within the very fabric of its own material makeup and then somehow causes that life essence to "focalize and awaken" into a new entity (a "soul") that is capable of surviving the death of the body and brain.
But something that can be caused/created can be destroyed too. Moreover, how something, the soul, that its very existence depends on something else, the brain, could survive death?
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm While, on the other hand, you seem to be implying that a human mind (again, a human "I Am-ness") already exists prior to this event, and that the brain has nothing to do with the literal creation of the human mind.

Am I reading you correctly on that point?
Yes.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Generally speaking, "dualism" has to do with the difference between "mind" and "matter," not mind and qualia.
bahman wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 7:48 pm I am talking about another but right version of dualism.
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "qualia," for qualia and mind are far too closely related to be thought of as being a proper representation of "substance dualism"...
qualia
noun

PHILOSOPHY

the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.
In other words, you seem to be treating the word "qualia" as if it were a representation of "phenomena," or the actual phenomenal features of the universe (e.g., rocks, apples, French Horns, etc,), which it is not.

According to Wiki:
Examples of qualia include the perceived sensation of pain of a headache, the taste of wine, as well as the redness of an evening sky.

Again, "qualia" and "mind" are too closely related to be considered as being a good representation of "substance dualism."

I suggest you find something better than trying to contrast qualia with mind, for you are just adding unnecessary confusion to your argument.
To me, the subject of experience, quale, is a substance created by minds. It should exist as a substance otherwise it could not be experienced given the definition of substance, substance is a thing that exists and has a set of properties. My definition is slightly different.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Clearly, it can be created, as is witnessed thousands of times everyday when a new mind awakens (emerges) into existence through this event...

Image

The new mind (new "I Am-ness") that resides on the inside of that tiny skull is the ultimate example of "strong emergence."

Indeed, it is a representation of something that is "wholly other" than the material substance from which it emerged.
_______
That is not a proof.
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:37 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:04 pm
seeds wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:26 pm

No, bahman, what you showed is that you don't seem to understand what "strong emergence" means.

That, and based on the fact that you just admitted that there are "...all sorts of emergence..." shows that you didn't give much critical thought to your thread title.
The thread title should be "There is no strong emergence". I already defined weak emergence in this thread several times: A weak emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are functions of the properties of parts. The strong emergence is the opposite: A strong emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are not functions of the properties of parts.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
When something that we call "mind"...

(which is not only immaterial and un-measurable, but also contains a conscious [self-aware] agent who is in possession of free will)

...emerges from a measurable material substance in which no mind or self-aware (conscious) agent can be located, then, yes, we are indeed dealing with "strong emergence."
But I have shown in OP that all sorts of emergence are weak. Please help yourself and read and understand the argument. I would be happy to see your counter-argument.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
I suggest that the creation of each (one-of-a-kind) human consciousness with its own centralized and self-aware agent (or "I Am-ness") is, indeed, achieved through the unique arrangement of brain matter.
If the unique arrangement of matter gives rise to something then we are dealing with weak emergence.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm I speculatively propose that the brain accomplishes this miraculous feat through some "mechanistic" means that somehow allows it to summon-forth the essence of life imbued within the very fabric of its own material makeup and then somehow causes that life essence to "focalize and awaken" into a new entity (a "soul") that is capable of surviving the death of the body and brain.
But something that can be caused/created can be destroyed too. Moreover, how something, the soul, that its very existence depends on something else, the brain, could survive death?
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm While, on the other hand, you seem to be implying that a human mind (again, a human "I Am-ness") already exists prior to this event, and that the brain has nothing to do with the literal creation of the human mind.

Am I reading you correctly on that point?
Yes.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "qualia," for qualia and mind are far too closely related to be thought of as being a proper representation of "substance dualism"...
In other words, you seem to be treating the word "qualia" as if it were a representation of "phenomena," or the actual phenomenal features of the universe (e.g., rocks, apples, French Horns, etc,), which it is not.

According to Wiki:


Again, "qualia" and "mind" are too closely related to be considered as being a good representation of "substance dualism."

I suggest you find something better than trying to contrast qualia with mind, for you are just adding unnecessary confusion to your argument.
To me, the subject of experience, quale, is a substance created by minds. It should exist as a substance otherwise it could not be experienced given the definition of substance, substance is a thing that exists and has a set of properties. My definition is slightly different.
seeds wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 4:54 pm
Clearly, it can be created, as is witnessed thousands of times everyday when a new mind awakens (emerges) into existence through this event...

Image

The new mind (new "I Am-ness") that resides on the inside of that tiny skull is the ultimate example of "strong emergence."

Indeed, it is a representation of something that is "wholly other" than the material substance from which it emerged.
_______
That is not a proof.
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:06 pm To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.
bahman,
The potential property in question is obviously the chemistry of the entirety of the parts, is this not the vary definition of emergence? The system is not reducible to the individual properties of the parts, it is but what occurs in the process of chemical reaction of the collective of the parts, again is this not the very definition of emergence?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:38 pm That is not a proof.
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
I still object to the requirement for proofs.
But here's what I object to in the OP.
The only available variables are however the properties of parts.
There are available variables that were not there before when parts or really things before they are parts are brought into significant relation. And, in any case, I see no strong argument support your assertion, let alone a proof.

Sodium and Chloride together are different than they were and the whole is differing and more than the sum of its parts. Or perhaps better put, since the whole will also lack some of the qualities of its parts, it has a different sum than its parts do with qualities, functions and perhaps even experiences the parts do not have.

Try tasting sodium and then chloride for that salty taste quale.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Wed May 11, 2022 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:38 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:37 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:04 pm
The thread title should be "There is no strong emergence". I already defined weak emergence in this thread several times: A weak emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are functions of the properties of parts. The strong emergence is the opposite: A strong emergence describes a situation in a system in which the properties of the system/whole are not functions of the properties of parts.


But I have shown in OP that all sorts of emergence are weak. Please help yourself and read and understand the argument. I would be happy to see your counter-argument.


If the unique arrangement of matter gives rise to something then we are dealing with weak emergence.


But something that can be caused/created can be destroyed too. Moreover, how something, the soul, that its very existence depends on something else, the brain, could survive death?


Yes.


To me, the subject of experience, quale, is a substance created by minds. It should exist as a substance otherwise it could not be experienced given the definition of substance, substance is a thing that exists and has a set of properties. My definition is slightly different.


That is not a proof.
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
YOUR BLINDNESS.

Also, as you have ALREADY been TOLD, you have NOT proved ANY 'thing' EITHER.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

popeye1945 wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:45 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:06 pm To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.
bahman,
The potential property in question is obviously the chemistry of the entirety of the parts, is this not the vary definition of emergence? The system is not reducible to the individual properties of the parts, it is but what occurs in the process of chemical reaction of the collective of the parts, again is this not the very definition of emergence?
Storng emergence refers to a phenomenon in which the system has a proerpty that is not function of the properties of parts.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:53 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:38 pm That is not a proof.
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
I still object to the requirement for proofs.
But here's what I object to in the OP.
The only available variables are however the properties of parts.
There are available variables that were not there before when parts or really things before they are parts are brought into significant relation. And, in any case, I see no strong argument support your assertion, let alone a proof.

Sodium and Chloride together are different than they were and the whole is differing and more than the sum of its parts. Or perhaps better put, since the whole will also lack some of the qualities of its parts, it has a different sum than its parts do with qualities, functions and perhaps even experiences the parts do not have.
Please note that Soduim and Chloride are not elementary particle so their properties for example charge distribution is a function of position of electrons and nucleus. In fact physicists today calculate all physical properties of salt in term of properties of a set of Soduim and Chloride nucleuses and electrons.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 1:53 pm Try tasting sodium and then chloride for that salty taste quale.
Taste is a different catheory since it is not the direct property of salt. You sensory system intervene and a lots of things happens in your brain before we recognize the taste of salt.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:04 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:38 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:37 pm
Proofs are extremely rare outside of things like symbolic logic or math.
What this person is pointing out is that something happens at one level that so far we not only lack proof but even evidence that it happens to the parts.
You haven't proved anything either.
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
YOUR BLINDNESS.

Also, as you have ALREADY been TOLD, you have NOT proved ANY 'thing' EITHER.
Please read OP!
Age
Posts: 20205
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:58 pm
Age wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:04 pm
bahman wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 9:38 pm
Please read OP and let me know if you have any objections.
YOUR BLINDNESS.

Also, as you have ALREADY been TOLD, you have NOT proved ANY 'thing' EITHER.
Please read OP!
Please the responses you receive.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:57 pm Please note that Soduim and Chloride are not elementary particle so their properties for example charge distribution is a function of position of electrons and nucleus. In fact physicists today calculate all physical properties of salt in term of properties of a set of Soduim and Chloride nucleuses and electrons.
and none of those nucleases and electrons have the properties of sodium, chloride or salt. Only the various combinations do. The do not exist at lower levels or in the parts.
Taste is a different catheory since it is not the direct property of salt. You sensory system intervene and a lots of things happens in your brain before we recognize the taste of salt.
First, tasting either sodium or chloride would be disastrous for your tongue. Second, sodium chloride has specific properties that neither of its componants have that lead to the what happens in the sensory system and later the brain. It doesn't matter if our tasting qualia are not properties of the salt, the properties of the salt are different from its parts, AT ANY LEVEL, and set causal chains in motion, that none of the parts, sodium, chloride, electrons, nucleases, quarks and so on down
would set in motion.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman,
The potential property in question is obviously the chemistry of the entirety of the parts, is this not the vary definition of emergence? The system is not reducible to the individual properties of the parts, it is but what occurs in the process of chemical reaction of the collective of the parts, again is this not the very definition of emergence?
[/quote]
Storng emergence refers to a phenomenon in which the system has a proerpty that is not function of the properties of parts.
[/quote]

This is a misinterpretation I think, no emergence is the property of the given parts but is the product of the given parts' combined chemistry. There is thus an entirely new product foreign to the nature of the individual parts.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:48 pm
bahman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 3:57 pm Please note that Soduim and Chloride are not elementary particle so their properties for example charge distribution is a function of position of electrons and nucleus. In fact physicists today calculate all physical properties of salt in term of properties of a set of Soduim and Chloride nucleuses and electrons.
and none of those nucleases and electrons have the properties of sodium, chloride or salt. Only the various combinations do. The do not exist at lower levels or in the parts.
What can be shown is that the property of sodium is a function of the properties of its parts. The same for chloride and salt. This are of science called condensed matter physics.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:48 pm
Taste is a different catheory since it is not the direct property of salt. You sensory system intervene and a lots of things happens in your brain before we recognize the taste of salt.
First, tasting either sodium or chloride would be disastrous for your tongue. Second, sodium chloride has specific properties that neither of its componants have that lead to the what happens in the sensory system and later the brain. It doesn't matter if our tasting qualia are not properties of the salt, the properties of the salt are different from its parts, AT ANY LEVEL, and set causal chains in motion, that none of the parts, sodium, chloride, electrons, nucleases, quarks and so on down
would set in motion.
I don't think that the taste of salt is a function of taste of sodium or chloride since the signal for testing each is sent to different areas of the brain.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:38 pm bahman,
The potential property in question is obviously the chemistry of the entirety of the parts, is this not the vary definition of emergence? The system is not reducible to the individual properties of the parts, it is but what occurs in the process of chemical reaction of the collective of the parts, again is this not the very definition of emergence?
Storng emergence refers to a phenomenon in which the system has a proerpty that is not function of the properties of parts.
[/quote]

This is a misinterpretation I think, no emergence is the property of the given parts but is the product of the given parts' combined chemistry. There is thus an entirely new product foreign to the nature of the individual parts.
[/quote]
This is definition of strong emergence.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Iwannaplato »

bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:49 pm and none of those nucleases and electrons have the properties of sodium, chloride or salt. Only the various combinations do. The do not exist at lower
What can be shown is that the property of sodium is a function of the properties of its parts. The same for chloride and salt. This are of science called condensed matter physics.
It's not a function of the parts. It is a function of the whole. Those parts have to be in a particular formation, particular dynamics or we don't get those new properties.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:48 pm
]Taste is a different catheory since it is not the direct property of salt. You sensory system intervene and a lots of things happens in your brain before we recognize the taste of salt.
First, tasting either sodium or chloride would be disastrous for your tongue. Second, sodium chloride has specific properties that neither of its componants have that lead to the what happens in the sensory system and later the brain. It doesn't matter if our tasting qualia are not properties of the salt, the properties of the salt are different from its parts, AT ANY LEVEL, and set causal chains in motion, that none of t he parts, sodium, chloride, electrons, nucleases, quarks and so on down
would set in motion.
I don't think that ttaste of salt is a function of taste of sodium or chloride since the signal for testing each is sent to different areas of the brain.
Again, as I said, it's not a function of the parts. It is the combined new substance's (salt's) effects on the taste buds. Effects that the parts do not make. I am not saying the NaCl solely creates the salty quale, but it does set in motion a causal chain that it's parts could not. This is a new property. There are others, like salt in solution, which also creates effects and patterns not possible for the parts. New properties arise when wholes are made from parts.

And I will bet you no cell or atom is capable or ever was of making the posts you make. You are more than the sum of your parts.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:15 pm
bahman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 4:49 pm and none of those nucleases and electrons have the properties of sodium, chloride or salt. Only the various combinations do. The do not exist at lower
What can be shown is that the property of sodium is a function of the properties of its parts. The same for chloride and salt. This are of science called condensed matter physics.
It's not a function of the parts. It is a function of the whole. Those parts have to be in a particular formation, particular dynamics or we don't get those new properties.
Could you name a physical property of salt that is not a function of the properties of parts? I am not talking about taste or smell since there is a whole different mechanism that creates quale.
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:15 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 1:48 pm
Taste is a different catheory since it is not the direct property of salt. You sensory system intervene and a lots of things happens in your brain before we recognize the taste of salt.
First, tasting either sodium or chloride would be disastrous for your tongue. Second, sodium chloride has specific properties that neither of its componants have that lead to the what happens in the sensory system and later the brain. It doesn't matter if our tasting qualia are not properties of the salt, the properties of the salt are different from its parts, AT ANY LEVEL, and set causal chains in motion, that none of t he parts, sodium, chloride, electrons, nucleases, quarks and so on down
would set in motion.
I don't think that ttaste of salt is a function of taste of sodium or chloride since the signal for testing each is sent to different areas of the brain.
Again, as I said, it's not a function of the parts. It is the combined new substance's (salt's) effects on the taste buds. Effects that the parts do not make. I am not saying the NaCl solely creates the salty quale, but it does set in motion a causal chain that it's parts could not. This is a new property. There are others, like salt in solution, which also creates effects and patterns not possible for the parts. New properties arise when wholes are made from parts.

And I will bet you no cell or atom is capable or ever was of making the posts you make. You are more than the sum of your parts.
No.
Post Reply