The meaning of emergence

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:07 pm All you've done here is to restate the problem, not solve it in any way. The issue is that "emergent" doesn't mean anything specific. It just means "somehow jumps out of," or "somehow proceeds from." It doesn't describe the process it identifies, but rather takes for granted that "it happens somehow."

The "somehow" is the problem: HOW? :shock:
All processes descriptions are reductionist

Emergence is holistic.

You've got your paradigms mixed up.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:45 pm So mind which is the by-product of the brain affects the brain? That is circular since something whose very existence depends on something else can affect the source!
It's not circular. It's recursive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-modifying_code
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:07 pm All you've done here is to restate the problem, not solve it in any way. The issue is that "emergent" doesn't mean anything specific. It just means "somehow jumps out of," or "somehow proceeds from." It doesn't describe the process it identifies, but rather takes for granted that "it happens somehow."

The "somehow" is the problem: HOW? :shock:
All processes descriptions are reductionist
Nope, they're not. Some are specific, and some, like "emerge" are not.
Emergence is holistic.
Emergence is a gratuitous word, actually. We don't know if anything "emerges," what "emerges," how it "emerges" or why. It's a classic non-explanation of anything.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:07 pm All you've done here is to restate the problem, not solve it in any way. The issue is that "emergent" doesn't mean anything specific. It just means "somehow jumps out of," or "somehow proceeds from." It doesn't describe the process it identifies, but rather takes for granted that "it happens somehow."

The "somehow" is the problem: HOW? :shock:
All processes descriptions are reductionist
Nope, they're not. Some are specific, and some, like "emerge" are not.
Emergence is holistic.
Emergence is a gratuitous word, actually. We don't know if anything "emerges," what "emerges," how it "emerges" or why. It's a classic non-explanation of anything.
Dumb reductionist.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:46 pm If, as is the case, you cannot have functioning mind without functioning brain, and vice versa, will you still say mind emerges from brain?
Sometimes I will. Some times I won't.

It depends on the context and the objectives of the conversation.
Belinda wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:46 pm It seems to me 'emerges from' implies a time lapse and therefore that minds and brains evolved separately.
The easiest way to conceptualise emergence is not as cause-and-effect, but as interaction of parts.

Life emerges from the interaction of organic chemistry.

This video juxtaposes reductionism&holism in detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_kbt7h1YRw

By way of always walking the middle way one needs to recognise both upward & downward causation, otherwise we are always missing big chunks of the pizzle.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:46 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 3:07 pm All you've done here is to restate the problem, not solve it in any way. The issue is that "emergent" doesn't mean anything specific. It just means "somehow jumps out of," or "somehow proceeds from." It doesn't describe the process it identifies, but rather takes for granted that "it happens somehow."

The "somehow" is the problem: HOW? :shock:
All processes descriptions are reductionist
Nope, they're not. Some are specific, and some, like "emerge" are not.
Emergence is holistic.
Emergence is a gratuitous word, actually. We don't know if anything "emerges," what "emerges," how it "emerges" or why. It's a classic non-explanation of anything.
You expect proofs without a hypothesis. I could explain how the universe is structured like an onion. One skin is within the other. Its skin doesn't replace another but rather is within it. The idea of sun being within the vertical idea of galaxy so emerges from it and the idea of planets emerging from suns it is within is unacceptable. It is a lawful construction but meaningless for you since you don't except the vertical premise of one level of reality being within another
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:46 pm
All processes descriptions are reductionist
Nope, they're not. Some are specific, and some, like "emerge" are not.
Emergence is holistic.
Emergence is a gratuitous word, actually. We don't know if anything "emerges," what "emerges," how it "emerges" or why. It's a classic non-explanation of anything.
You expect proofs without a hypothesis.
Not at all. I expect coherence and specificity for a hypothesis. The "emergence" hypotheses lacks both. I expect that a hypothesis will actually explain something, account for something, or shed light on something. The "emergence" hypothesis fails every such test.

What use is it to say something "emerged"? Would you accept the same kind of explanation for, say, a medical diagnosis? "Well, sorry, Nick: your cancer has just emerged. All we can hope is that it unemerges in the future..." :wink: Would you accept it for an explanation of how cars are made? "They emerge from the factory, when conditions are right." :lol:

"Emerge" explains nothing at all. It just says, "Well, I think somehow thing 2 appeared out of thing 1, because somehow the two are always together...but I have no idea if that's true, or how it came about." Great explanation, that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:29 pm Not at all. I expect coherence and specificity for a hypothesis. The "emergence" hypotheses lacks both.
The irony...
the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems
The common characteristics are:... (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time);
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:29 pm What use is it to say something "emerged"? Would you accept the same kind of explanation for, say, a medical diagnosis? "Well, sorry, Nick: your cancer has just emerged. All we can hope is that it unemerges in the future..." :wink: Would you accept it for an explanation of how cars are made? "They emerge from the factory, when conditions are right." :lol:
You don't even seem to know how to use the notion of "emergence" in a way that doesn't make you look dumber than you are.

Philosophers often understand emergence as a claim about the etiology of a system's properties. An emergent property of a system, in this context, is one that is not a property of any component of that system, but is still a feature of the system as a whole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:47 pm You don't even seem to know how to use the notion of "emergence"...
You're wrong. I'll bet I've read a great deal more on it than you probably have. You might have read more, but if you think wiki's a source, I doubt that.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 11:54 pm You're wrong. I'll bet I've read a great deal more on it than you probably have. You might have read more, but if you think wiki's a source, I doubt that.
For all your reading, why does the wiki have better examples of emergence than the ones you came up with?
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:29 pm
Nick_A wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 8:13 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:48 pm
Nope, they're not. Some are specific, and some, like "emerge" are not.


Emergence is a gratuitous word, actually. We don't know if anything "emerges," what "emerges," how it "emerges" or why. It's a classic non-explanation of anything.
You expect proofs without a hypothesis.
Not at all. I expect coherence and specificity for a hypothesis. The "emergence" hypotheses lacks both. I expect that a hypothesis will actually explain something, account for something, or shed light on something. The "emergence" hypothesis fails every such test.

What use is it to say something "emerged"? Would you accept the same kind of explanation for, say, a medical diagnosis? "Well, sorry, Nick: your cancer has just emerged. All we can hope is that it unemerges in the future..." :wink: Would you accept it for an explanation of how cars are made? "They emerge from the factory, when conditions are right." :lol:

"Emerge" explains nothing at all. It just says, "Well, I think somehow thing 2 appeared out of thing 1, because somehow the two are always together...but I have no idea if that's true, or how it came about." Great explanation, that.
A hypothesis asks a question and invites us to verify or deny it. The hypothesis I suggest is that we live in a conscious universe.
In this understanding, the earth is inextricably enmeshed in a network of purposes, a ladder or hierarchy of intentions. To the ancient mind, this is the very meaning of the concept of organization and order. A cosmos--and, of course, the cosmos--is an organism, not in the sense of an unusually complicated industrial machine, but in the sense of a hierarchy of purposeful energies.
Levels of reality is a hierarchy of purposeful energies supporting the conscious universe. Can it explain the process of emergence? Can it be verified by person who understands the laws of vibrations? Perhaps it can but if the hypothesis or the question of the conscious universe is denied there is no use trying to verify anything.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:48 am A hypothesis asks a question and invites us to verify or deny it. The hypothesis I suggest is that we live in a conscious universe.
Deny.

Rocks are not conscious. Atoms are not conscious. Planetoids are not conscious. Natural forces are not conscious...

And Leftists...well, barely. :wink:
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:05 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:48 am A hypothesis asks a question and invites us to verify or deny it. The hypothesis I suggest is that we live in a conscious universe.
Deny.

Rocks are not conscious. Atoms are not conscious. Planetoids are not conscious. Natural forces are not conscious...

And Leftists...well, barely. :wink:
Without awareness of the conscious universe, emergence cannot be a conscious act. Just to present the other side for a moment. This is from Scientific American

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -universe/
Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?
Credit: Getty Images
One of science’s most challenging problems is a question that can be stated easily: Where does consciousness come from? In his new book Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, philosopher Philip Goff considers a radical perspective: What if consciousness is not something special that the brain does but is instead a quality inherent to all matter? It is a theory known as “panpsychism,” and Goff guides readers through the history of the idea, answers common objections (such as “That’s just crazy!”) and explains why he believes panpsychism represents the best path forward. He answered questions from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook.

In our standard view of things, consciousness exists only in the brains of highly evolved organisms, and hence consciousness exists only in a tiny part of the universe and only in very recent history. According to panpsychism, in contrast, consciousness pervades the universe and is a fundamental feature of it. This doesn’t mean that literally everything is conscious. The basic commitment is that the fundamental constituents of reality—perhaps electrons and quarks—have incredibly simple forms of experience. And the very complex experience of the human or animal brain is somehow derived from the experience of the brain’s most basic parts.
The question if Man exists within a conscious universe is not just considered by New agers and fantasy seekers but even pondered by science. If true it answers many questions as to why the universe seems so logical.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Immanuel Can »

Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:34 am Without awareness of the conscious universe, emergence cannot be a conscious act.
Oh, I see... you don't know what "emergence" means in the context of Philosophy of Mind. You think it means something like "enlightenment."

Sorry, it doesn't, Nick: you've misunderstood the topic of the previous conversation. "Emergence" has nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. It' s a problem in Progressivist, evolutionary paradigms, that's all. It has no spiritual dimension or implications. It's just the question of when and how (if it does) the property we call "mind" or "consciousness" appears from a physical being's brain.

What you're trying to talk about is how an already-conscious entity becomes somewhat "higher conscious," or "spiritually conscious." That's not at all what's been in view here. Rather, it's the question of any consciousness at all...when and how it comes about.

"Emergence," then, if it happens, is never "a conscious act." It is the very act of becoming conscious. Nobody can choose it. It's not voluntary, and it has nothing to do with religious proclivities.

Hope that clears up your confusion.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The meaning of emergence

Post by Nick_A »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:51 am
Nick_A wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 1:34 am Without awareness of the conscious universe, emergence cannot be a conscious act.
Oh, I see... you don't know what "emergence" means in the context of Philosophy of Mind. You think it means something like "enlightenment."

Sorry, it doesn't, Nick: you've misunderstood the topic of the previous conversation. "Emergence" has nothing to do with spiritual enlightenment. It' s a problem in Progressivist, evolutionary paradigms, that's all. It has no spiritual dimension or implications. It's just the question of when and how (if it does) the property we call "mind" or "consciousness" appears from a physical being's brain.

What you're trying to talk about is how an already-conscious entity becomes somewhat "higher conscious," or "spiritually conscious." That's not at all what's been in view here. Rather, it's the question of any consciousness at all...when and how it comes about.

"Emergence," then, if it happens, is never "a conscious act." It is the very act of becoming conscious. Nobody can choose it. It's not voluntary, and it has nothing to do with religious proclivities.

Hope that clears up your confusion.
I was responding to the OP
I and Veritas Aequitas have and issue about the definition of emergence. I provide my definition here. Yours also welcome.

Emergence means that a state of matter under some circumstances behaves in a specific way or find a specific property, for example becomes a free agent, or become conscious.
As I understand it the universe is a consciously created machine governed by universal laws for the purpose of transforming substances. Within it and according to the vertical laws of being, vegetation for example can evolve or emerge to become animal life. This is a mechanical process until consciousness reaches a certain level to receive from above or higher consciousness which already exists. Emergence is just one level of reality becoming another. The human mind opening to noesis and a conscious quality of knowledge is an emergent experience: animal man becoming conscious man with help from above.
Post Reply