The meaning of emergence

[bahman]

I don't think that emergence is real given the definition, that system has a set of properties that parts do not have.

That is, in fact, what the explanation "emergent properties" requires. But we can't find any connection at all between the material properties and the immaterial, allegedly emergent quality.

So we really don't know that it "emerged" from thence at all.

There's another possible explanation: namely, that the physiology and the so-called "emergent" properties are actually both products of a third thing. But nobody's really trying that kind of explanation at the moment. Instead, they're stuck on "emergence," it seems -- that is, they assume the conclusion, then hope there's some way they can one day describe the dynamics that make that conclusion warranted.

So far, they've got nothing.

There is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

[bahman]

Emergence cannot be explained without first becoming aware of vertical levels of reality. For example consider the level of reality we call Milky Way. Suns emerge within it at a lower level of reality. So simultaneously the Milky Way functions as one quality of existence while the the suns within it simultaneously exist at a lawful lower level of reality.

Emergence is then one quality of being manifesting within a higher level of being. Once levels of reality are understood, the logic of the Great Chain of Being makes perfect sense

So you believe in emergence. I have an argument against it though: Think of a system with parts in which each part has a set of properties and the system has a set of properties which parts don't have (this means that each property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts). There is however a reason why the system in a given situation has always a specific set of properties rather than any other properties. This means that the properties of the system are a function of specific properties. The only properties that are available however are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the system are a function of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

If I understand you accurately, subject and object as you describe them are really the same. They only differ in their parts. I understand emergence as the connection between two levels of being. The object emerges from the subject as a different quality of being. I'll follow the ideas as written by the highly regarded particle physicist Basarab Nicolescu.

http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articl ... edings.pdf

In previous times the object was always considered as within the subject. In modern times object and subject were separate. In these times the subject is secondary to the object as we see with the current obsession with fragmentation.

Real is defined by the isness of phenomena while the reality we observe is defined by resistance to isness.

All this is in the introduction to the article. If you are unfamiliar with this line of reasoning it isn't so easy. Just tell me if it makes sense to you and worth moving on to the levels of reality which makes this arrangement and emergence possible.

I will read the manuscript shortly. In regard to the emergence, I think that there is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

[bahman]

bahman wrote
So you believe in the definition of emergence which I provided? Needless to say that I don't think that emergence is real. I have an argument for that: Think of a system with parts in which each part has a set of properties and the system has a set of properties which parts don't have (this means that each property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts). There is however a reason why the system in a given situation has always a specific set of properties rather than any other properties. This means that the properties of the system are a function of specific properties. The only properties that are available however are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the system are a function of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

Then the argument against emergence rests with the non-identicality if properties. The "reason" as you put it, has a lot of work to do. As I see it, you cannot ignore causality. My brain has parts that have parts and so on. Atoms exhibit properties, and these with their properties certainly are causally connected to one another in a way that produces a migraine headache. I do not see the way around this unless you want to deny or rethink causality. So the trouble emergence has is explaining how aggregate causal relationships manifest novel effects. But then, this goes past the question: are we not committed to explaining "reason" in causal terms? And causality is a very simple and apriori principle and one cannot even imagine a "spontaneous" cause, so it never can explain causal emergences, just that they do not occur ex nihilo.

It seems to me that emergence holds ONLY in so far as we are committed to causality. BUT: this is also vacuous, explains nothing. My conclusion is that emergence is trivially true, only, while the world remains the world of glorious and terrible matters. Since the causality does "connect" all things in a necessary way (the one genuine insight in the issue of causality and emergence), the question then would be, what is the world such that these events come about? Sure, they emerge, but emergence is vacuous. The Being of the world remains an absolute mystery.

Matter is the subject, mind is the object. There is no emergence. Mind just experiences matter depending on its configuration.

[Immanuel Can]

There is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

That's one that gets tried. The problem with that explanation, though is huge. It's empirically untrue.

What I mean is that we have to admit that we don't know where those properties are, can't seem to test for them, can't find them when we look, and can't explain at all how they could come about from something that is undeniably, at some point in its history, nothing but inert matter. Empirically, there's no basis for even thinking that "consciousness" lies latent in some kind of base "matter."

So, for example, we all know that at some point in the distant past, the world -- and indeed the universe -- was composed only of basic elements like hydrogen, oxygen, helium, and so on. Now, we can see that these participles are way too simple, too singular, to have "spiritual" properties latent in them. They lack even the quality of complexity. They're base elements. And when we isolate such elements in the lab, we find no trace at all of anything like "spirit" or "consciousness" or "awareness" or "personhood" in them. So empirically again, we find no basis for the hypothesis you suggest.

But the Emergentist story wants us to believe that somehow these inert elements were converted into something that produced consciousness. So the question we have to ask is, "HOW"? How does something undeniably lacking in all the proposed "emergent" properties, somehow suddenly come to acquire all of them?

That's why some people lapse back into a kind of blind Panpsychism: they say, "Well, maybe all matter just HAS this kind of "spirit" potential in it. Maybe everything is spirit, somehow." Except the problem with that dodge is that it's completely unempirical. It's a pure metaphysical speculation, and one that is devoid of any smack of science at all...in fact, it's one that's contrary to anything science is currently revealing to us about matter.

How far out on such a metaphysical limb a person wants to go is up to him, of course. But we can't pretend that anything about those kinds of explanations warrant being called "empirical" or "scientific."

[Nick_A]

So you believe in emergence. I have an argument against it though: Think of a system with parts in which each part has a set of properties and the system has a set of properties which parts don't have (this means that each property of the system is not a function of the properties of parts). There is however a reason why the system in a given situation has always a specific set of properties rather than any other properties. This means that the properties of the system are a function of specific properties. The only properties that are available however are the properties of parts. Therefore, the properties of the system are a function of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.

If I understand you accurately, subject and object as you describe them are really the same. They only differ in their parts. I understand emergence as the connection between two levels of being. The object emerges from the subject as a different quality of being. I'll follow the ideas as written by the highly regarded particle physicist Basarab Nicolescu.

http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articl ... edings.pdf

In previous times the object was always considered as within the subject. In modern times object and subject were separate. In these times the subject is secondary to the object as we see with the current obsession with fragmentation.

Real is defined by the isness of phenomena while the reality we observe is defined by resistance to isness.

All this is in the introduction to the article. If you are unfamiliar with this line of reasoning it isn't so easy. Just tell me if it makes sense to you and worth moving on to the levels of reality which makes this arrangement and emergence possible.

I will read the manuscript shortly. In regard to the emergence, I think that there is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

It seems that the essence of the Great Chain of Being is known by both science and religion. It explains the relationship between a mineral and vegetable for example. Emergence is either the evolution or involution of one level of being into another.

2. Levels of Reality - Historical aspects: John of the Ladder (c. 525–606),
Nicolai Hartmann (1882-1950) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976)
The idea of "levels of Reality" is not, in fact, completely new. The human being felt,
from the beginnings of its existence, that there are at least two realms of reality - one visible,
the other invisible.
In a more elaborate way, the theological literature expressed the idea of a "scale of
being", which corresponds, of course, to a scale of Reality. The scale of Jacob (Genesis
28:10-12) is one famous example, so nicely illustrated in the Christian Orthodox iconography.
There are several variants of the scale of being. The most famous one is found in the book
Climax or Ladder of Divine Ascent of Saint John Climacus (c. 525–606). The author, also
known as John of the Ladder, was a monk at the monastery on Mount Sinai. There are thirty
steps of the ladder, describing the process of theosis. Resistance and non-resistance is nicely
illustrated in the scale of John of the Ladder: the human being climbs the steps, which denote
the effort of the human being to evolve from spiritual point of view through the resistance to
his or her habits and thoughts, but the angels, these messengers of God, helps him or her to
jump through the intervals of non-resistance between the steps of the ladder.
In the second part of the 20th century, two important thinkers on the problem of levels
of Reality are Nicolai Hartmann and Werner Heisenberg.............................

[bahman]

There is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

That's one that gets tried. The problem with that explanation, though is huge. It's empirically untrue.

What I mean is that we have to admit that we don't know where those properties are, can't seem to test for them, can't find them when we look, and can't explain at all how they could come about from something that is undeniably, at some point in its history, nothing but inert matter. Empirically, there's no basis for even thinking that "consciousness" lies latent in some kind of base "matter."

So, for example, we all know that at some point in the distant past, the world -- and indeed the universe -- was composed only of basic elements like hydrogen, oxygen, helium, and so on. Now, we can see that these participles are way too simple, too singular, to have "spiritual" properties latent in them. They lack even the quality of complexity. They're base elements. And when we isolate such elements in the lab, we find no trace at all of anything like "spirit" or "consciousness" or "awareness" or "personhood" in them. So empirically again, we find no basis for the hypothesis you suggest.

But the Emergentist story wants us to believe that somehow these inert elements were converted into something that produced consciousness. So the question we have to ask is, "HOW"? How does something undeniably lacking in all the proposed "emergent" properties, somehow suddenly come to acquire all of them?

That's why some people lapse back into a kind of blind Panpsychism: they say, "Well, maybe all matter just HAS this kind of "spirit" potential in it. Maybe everything is spirit, somehow." Except the problem with that dodge is that it's completely unempirical. It's a pure metaphysical speculation, and one that is devoid of any smack of science at all...in fact, it's one that's contrary to anything science is currently revealing to us about matter.

How far out on such a metaphysical limb a person wants to go is up to him, of course. But we can't pretend that anything about those kinds of explanations warrant being called "empirical" or "scientific."

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole. Think of Iron for example. Iron is Ferromagnet, where Ferromagnet is a state that the whole has a magnetic moment which parts have in a specific condition, and Paramagnet, where Paramagnet is a state that the whole does not have a magnetic moment which parts have, in another specific condition.

[bahman]

If I understand you accurately, subject and object as you describe them are really the same. They only differ in their parts. I understand emergence as the connection between two levels of being. The object emerges from the subject as a different quality of being. I'll follow the ideas as written by the highly regarded particle physicist Basarab Nicolescu.

http://basarab-nicolescu.fr/Docs_articl ... edings.pdf

In previous times the object was always considered as within the subject. In modern times object and subject were separate. In these times the subject is secondary to the object as we see with the current obsession with fragmentation.

Real is defined by the isness of phenomena while the reality we observe is defined by resistance to isness.

All this is in the introduction to the article. If you are unfamiliar with this line of reasoning it isn't so easy. Just tell me if it makes sense to you and worth moving on to the levels of reality which makes this arrangement and emergence possible.

I will read the manuscript shortly. In regard to the emergence, I think that there is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

It seems that the essence of the Great Chain of Being is known by both science and religion. It explains the relationship between a mineral and vegetable for example. Emergence is either the evolution or involution of one level of being into another.

2. Levels of Reality - Historical aspects: John of the Ladder (c. 525–606),
Nicolai Hartmann (1882-1950) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976)
The idea of "levels of Reality" is not, in fact, completely new. The human being felt,
from the beginnings of its existence, that there are at least two realms of reality - one visible,
the other invisible.
In a more elaborate way, the theological literature expressed the idea of a "scale of
being", which corresponds, of course, to a scale of Reality. The scale of Jacob (Genesis
28:10-12) is one famous example, so nicely illustrated in the Christian Orthodox iconography.
There are several variants of the scale of being. The most famous one is found in the book
Climax or Ladder of Divine Ascent of Saint John Climacus (c. 525–606). The author, also
known as John of the Ladder, was a monk at the monastery on Mount Sinai. There are thirty
steps of the ladder, describing the process of theosis. Resistance and non-resistance is nicely
illustrated in the scale of John of the Ladder: the human being climbs the steps, which denote
the effort of the human being to evolve from spiritual point of view through the resistance to
his or her habits and thoughts, but the angels, these messengers of God, helps him or her to
jump through the intervals of non-resistance between the steps of the ladder.
In the second part of the 20th century, two important thinkers on the problem of levels
of Reality are Nicolai Hartmann and Werner Heisenberg.............................

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole. Think of Iron for example. Iron is Ferromagnet (Ferromagnet is a state that the whole has a magnetic moment while parts have) in a specific condition and Paramagnet (Paramagnet is a state that the whole does not have a magnetic moment while parts have) in another specific condition. This applies to all properties which can or cannot be observed in a system depending on the conditions.

Evolution of course is in the play, for example, to have a visionary system among species in the material world.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole.

Maybe. But think of how that problematizes any explanation that attributes the "emergent" properties to the matter itself. It would have to argue that matter has latent, undetectable "spiritual" kinds of properties, that pop into evidence at some point, but without any catalyst we can identify. That's asking the scientific mind to take a very great deal on nothing more than a speculative guess.

All the proposed "mechanisms" are secret and undetectable, and even the existence of the latent "spiritual" properties is not evident in any mere matter. So what would specially recommend to us a theory that depends entirely on non-empirical assumptions?

[bahman]

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole.

Maybe. But think of how that problematizes any explanation that attributes the "emergent" properties to the matter itself. It would have to argue that matter has latent, undetectable "spiritual" kinds of properties, that pop into evidence at some point, but without any catalyst we can identify. That's asking the scientific mind to take a very great deal on nothing more than a speculative guess.

All the proposed "mechanisms" are secret and undetectable, and even the existence of the latent "spiritual" properties is not evident in any mere matter. So what would specially recommend to us a theory that depends entirely on non-empirical assumptions?

Did you read the example that I provided?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you read the example that I provided?

Yes. But maybe you'd better explain its application to the emergence problem, if you think I've missed something essential.

[Nick_A]

I will read the manuscript shortly. In regard to the emergence, I think that there is an explanation for why a system shows a property where parts do not seems to have. The parts, in reality, have those properties. The system just doesn't show those properties in a specific configuration and shows it in another configuration.

It seems that the essence of the Great Chain of Being is known by both science and religion. It explains the relationship between a mineral and vegetable for example. Emergence is either the evolution or involution of one level of being into another.

2. Levels of Reality - Historical aspects: John of the Ladder (c. 525–606),
Nicolai Hartmann (1882-1950) and Werner Heisenberg (1901-1976)
The idea of "levels of Reality" is not, in fact, completely new. The human being felt,
from the beginnings of its existence, that there are at least two realms of reality - one visible,
the other invisible.
In a more elaborate way, the theological literature expressed the idea of a "scale of
being", which corresponds, of course, to a scale of Reality. The scale of Jacob (Genesis
28:10-12) is one famous example, so nicely illustrated in the Christian Orthodox iconography.
There are several variants of the scale of being. The most famous one is found in the book
Climax or Ladder of Divine Ascent of Saint John Climacus (c. 525–606). The author, also
known as John of the Ladder, was a monk at the monastery on Mount Sinai. There are thirty
steps of the ladder, describing the process of theosis. Resistance and non-resistance is nicely
illustrated in the scale of John of the Ladder: the human being climbs the steps, which denote
the effort of the human being to evolve from spiritual point of view through the resistance to
his or her habits and thoughts, but the angels, these messengers of God, helps him or her to
jump through the intervals of non-resistance between the steps of the ladder.
In the second part of the 20th century, two important thinkers on the problem of levels
of Reality are Nicolai Hartmann and Werner Heisenberg.............................

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole. Think of Iron for example. Iron is Ferromagnet (Ferromagnet is a state that the whole has a magnetic moment while parts have) in a specific condition and Paramagnet (Paramagnet is a state that the whole does not have a magnetic moment while parts have) in another specific condition. This applies to all properties which can or cannot be observed in a system depending on the conditions.

Evolution of course is in the play, for example, to have a visionary system among species in the material world.

Emergence is an attribute of third force. You are explaining it through duality or what I know of as subject and object. In the intro It is a way of setting the table. Do you agree with how the relationship between subject and object has changed over time. What is real remains the same but how we interpret it creates our reality.

1. Introduction
The relation between the Subject and the Object is a crucial problem of philosophy.
This relation varied in the different periods of human culture. In the pre-modern
world, the Subject was immersed in the Object. In the modern world, the Object and the
Subject were supposed to be totally separated, while in our post-modern era the Subject
becomes predominant as compared with the Object (see figures).
Of course, the key point in understanding the Object-Subject relation is the vision on
Reality that humans shared in different periods of the historical time......................

[bahman]

Did you read the example that I provided?

Yes. But maybe you'd better explain its application to the emergence problem, if you think I've missed something essential.

Yes, I think you missed my point. Iron is Ferromagnetic at a low temperature. The reason is that the spin of atoms prefer to line up since that reduce total energy. At higher temperature, the Iron is Parramagnet since kinetic energy is higher and that causes that spin of atoms to move randomly which this leads to the cancelation of spin in total. So as you can see there is no magic involved and everything is explanatory.

[bahman]

It seems that the essence of the Great Chain of Being is known by both science and religion. It explains the relationship between a mineral and vegetable for example. Emergence is either the evolution or involution of one level of being into another.

Well, the properties of parts can cancel each other in a specific condition so a specific set of properties do not show up in the whole. Think of Iron for example. Iron is Ferromagnet (Ferromagnet is a state that the whole has a magnetic moment while parts have) in a specific condition and Paramagnet (Paramagnet is a state that the whole does not have a magnetic moment while parts have) in another specific condition. This applies to all properties which can or cannot be observed in a system depending on the conditions.

Evolution of course is in the play, for example, to have a visionary system among species in the material world.

Emergence is an attribute of third force. You are explaining it through duality or what I know of as subject and object. In the intro It is a way of setting the table. Do you agree with how the relationship between subject and object has changed over time. What is real remains the same but how we interpret it creates our reality.

1. Introduction
The relation between the Subject and the Object is a crucial problem of philosophy.
This relation varied in the different periods of human culture. In the pre-modern
world, the Subject was immersed in the Object. In the modern world, the Object and the
Subject were supposed to be totally separated, while in our post-modern era the Subject
becomes predominant as compared with the Object (see figures).
Of course, the key point in understanding the Object-Subject relation is the vision on
Reality that humans shared in different periods of the historical time......................

What is the third force? What do you mean by object and subject?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I think you missed my point. Iron is Ferromagnetic at a low temperature. The reason is that the spin of atoms prefer to line up since that reduce total energy. At higher temperature, the Iron is Parramagnet since kinetic energy is higher and that causes that spin of atoms to move randomly which this leads to the cancelation of spin in total. So as you can see there is no magic involved and everything is explanatory.

I'm still not seeing how that helps us with the emergence of consciousness. There must be some analogy I'm not catching, because obviously the relationship isn't direct. You're only talking about materials and material properties.

[Dubious]

Emergence by one description is the slow torque of consciousness moving forward and everything that entails. It hardly ever feels like emergence only because it's so gradual in highlighting one's mental or spiritual sunrise. Perhaps its length is what's required to inflect and make the experience organic as if one can never imagine a time of having been without it. It's not unlike the myth of Sisyphus except the rock continuously is rolled upwards and occasionally stops before continuing the upward motion. What feels like a revelation is accomplished by the advancement of prior experience.