Apparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.
There cannot be any emergence
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Apparently you do. So why don’t you tell us?fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:03 amApparently you do not know the definition of a chemical property.
-
- Posts: 12405
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: There cannot be any emergence
The point is you cannot deny the taste of salt and sweet are both emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:16 pmSo my argument follows.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am Yes, taste of salt is not intrinsic of the molecules.I agree. But what does really happen in the brain that certain neural activity turn into taste of salt and another one turn into taste of sweet. At the end they are just motion of electrons.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am Note it is;
Salt molecules + human self [tongue, salt receptors, mind] = taste of salt.
True, at the end of day the are just motion of electrons.
But then 'electrons' are also emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.
There are no electrons per se if there are no human selves. That condition will include whatever fundamental particles Physics [human interactive] will present.
In that sense, the whole of conscious reality is an emergent co-activated by the human self.
Therefore there is emergence.
In other words, as long as there are humans there are emergents.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
A thinking, talking hairless ape made out of quantum particles rejects emergence.
Irony has a penchant.
Irony has a penchant.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Re: There cannot be any emergence
There cannot be any emergence if you don't believe in hidden properties then. Simply the properties salt are charge, spin and mass. Structure just only tell you how these three properties are distributed over space. In fact, I think that test of salt just realized when a human being taste it. This is due to fact that salt excites some receptors on our tongues. This receptor sends a signal into the brain. And magic happens when mind realizes the taste which this is the result of how the brain processed the signal. I don't know how a specific neural activity in the brain can turn into a specific taste though. So my argument stands, the behavior of salt can be explained in term of the behavior of its parts.-1- wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 4:02 pmNo, they are not hidden. But the molecules have their inherent properties different from the inherent properties of their constituents.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:12 pmWhere are the other inherent properties? To the best of our knowledge electron for example doesn't have any other inherent property than it was mentioned. Do you mean that there are hidden?-1- wrote: ↑Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:47 pm Bahman, if your argument was right, then an amount of Sodium and an amount of Chlorine that are equal in atoms to each other, and taken separately, would taste like salt. But they don't. Sodium and Chloride taken in equal amounts but separately would taste very differently form salt (if the taster would survive to be able to tell).
There are other inherent properties to molecules than the inherent properties of their constituents alone.
That's the entire point. "The whole of a woman is bigger than the sum of her parts." Inherent properties do not get inherited from constituent parts to summed wholes in a manner of one-to-one mapping. New properties are bourne out of the structure, combination and reaction to these.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
It has a charge, mass and spin distribution.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
True.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:02 amThe point is you cannot deny the taste of salt and sweet are both emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:16 pmSo my argument follows.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am Yes, taste of salt is not intrinsic of the molecules.I agree. But what does really happen in the brain that certain neural activity turn into taste of salt and another one turn into taste of sweet. At the end they are just motion of electrons.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am Note it is;
Salt molecules + human self [tongue, salt receptors, mind] = taste of salt.
But, the reality is that the behavior of salt can be explained in term of the behavior of Sodium and Chlorine. Therefore there is no emergence. Magic happens only when a human taste salt.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:58 am True, at the end of day the are just motion of electrons.
But then 'electrons' are also emergent that imperatively necessitate the human self.
There are no electrons per se if there are no human selves. That condition will include whatever fundamental particles Physics [human interactive] will present.
In that sense, the whole of conscious reality is an emergent co-activated by the human self.
Therefore there is emergence.
In other words, as long as there are humans there are emergents.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Re: There cannot be any emergence
You mean it interacts with the tools devised to measure/quantify those phenomena?bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:21 pmIt has a charge, mass and spin distribution.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.
An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Naturally.fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.
An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.
I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...
And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Well, since you make appeal to knowledge of knowledge that cannot be put into words it seems there is no more to be said. You are moving further and further away from the topic of emergence. I will reserve further comment for those who are not thwarted by their 1st hand knowledge of knowledge from discussing properties and emergence.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pmNaturally.fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.
An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.
I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...
And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Logik, did Nick_A steal your password? this sounds just like his texts do.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pm
Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.
I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...
And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means
Re: There cannot be any emergence
Sure.fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:23 pmWell, since you make appeal to knowledge of knowledge that cannot be put into words it seems there is no more to be said. You are moving further and further away from the topic of emergence. I will reserve further comment for those who are not thwarted by their 1st hand knowledge of knowledge from discussing properties and emergence.Logik wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 pmNaturally.fooloso4 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm I said nothing about a dictionary, but there are dictionaries of scientific terms. There are also textbooks and university course sites online.
An appeal to sources that provide an explanation of the standard use of scientific terminology is not a logical fallacy. For someone who goes by the name “Logik” you seem to not know what the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority actually means. But of course you could never know since you would regard referencing any source that defines it as the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority.
Knowing the names or definitions of things doesn't constitute neither knowledge nor understanding.
I also happen to know what knowledge is. 1st hand. It's just hard to put into words...
And unless you had knowledge, I doubt the dictionary will tell you what "appeal to authority" actually means
Still waiting for an example of a what you think is a non-emergent property.