There is no emergence
There is no emergence
There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs. Things cannot occur for no reason. Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it. Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.
Re: There is no emergence
If there is a reason for something which occurs, then how does it then supposedly follow that that then means there is no emergence?
Just because there is a reason for some thing occurring why then can that thing not emerge?
How are you defining the word 'emergence here'?
So what?
How does that relate to whether some thing can emerge or not?
Why do you say emergence relies on no reason? As far as i know only animals reason, and as far as I am aware things can emerge without animals existing?
But your first statement says there is no emergence because there is a reason for something which occurs. Now it appears you are saying there is no such thing as emergence because there is no explanation for emergence.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong
Are you able to formulate your argument in more simpler and easier way to be understood?
Also, what is the reason for your attempt at an argument? What is your attempt at an argument meant to be leading towards?
Re: There is no emergence
Emergence (hard emergence) by definition is a phenomenon that indicates that the whole in a specific system is more than the sum of its parts.
[/quote]
This is basically the first scenario. If emergence is explicable then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore emergence is meaningless.
Because the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts if the emergence is explicable. By definition, there is something extra in the system when there is an emergence. The question is where does this extra thing come from? If it is caused by parts then there is an explanation for it. If there is an explanation for it then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of parts because the system is well defined in terms of parts.
I already answered this question in the previous comment.
I already define it in the starting of this post.
This is the basic premise. The rest follows from it. We have to deal with two scenarios: 1) There is an explanation for the emergence and 2) there is no explanation for the emergence. I will show that there is a problem in both cases, therefore there cannot be any emergence.
This is discussed in the previous comment.
This is not about that who can reason or not. It is about whether there exists a reason for a phenomenon at all.
This is a statement related to two scenarios that were discussed before. Basically second scenario. What I am trying to say is that if there is no explanation for the emergence in one hand and anything which occurs has an explanation in another hand then emergence is impossible.
I hope that things is clear now.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong
[/quote]
This is basically the first scenario. If emergence is explicable then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore emergence is meaningless.
Let me give it a shot and explain it another way. Consider a system that is made of parts. Now we have two things which cause any behavior in the system, 1) Parts and 2) Emergent phenomenon (which is independent of parts). But there would be a conflict of in the behavior of the system because in one hand parts cause a behavior and in another hand the emergent phenomena causes another behavior. This means that one of the options, parts or emergent phenomena, cannot have any causal power because of conflict in the behavior of the system. We cannot possibly drop parts, therefore, we have to drop the emergent phenomenon. This means that the emergent phenomenon does not have any causal power. Something which does not have a causal power cannot be observed, emergence in this case. So we can discard it.
Consciousness, for example, cannot be an emergent property if emergence is impossible. This means that matter itself must be conscious.
Last edited by bahman on Sun Aug 11, 2019 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: There is no emergence
Gravity is a force that is due to an intrinsic property of matter, so-called mass. We don't know what mass is yet.
Do you know what emergence is?
So you believe that things occur for no reason? If it is so then why salt always tastes the same? Why mixing Sodium and Chlorine always leads to salt?
Re: There is no emergence
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:47 amBecause the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts if the emergence is explicable. By definition, there is something extra in the system when there is an emergence. The question is where does this extra thing come from? If it is caused by parts then there is an explanation for it. If there is an explanation for it then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of parts because the system is well defined in terms of parts.
I already answered this question in the previous comment.
I already define it in the starting of this post.
This is the basic premise. The rest follows from it. We have to deal with two scenarios: 1) There is an explanation for the emergence and 2) there is no explanation for the emergence. I will show that there is a problem in both cases, therefore there cannot be any emergence.
This is discussed in the previous comment.
This is not about that who can reason or not. It is about whether there exists a reason for a phenomenon at all.
This is a statement related to two scenarios that were discussed before. Basically second scenario. What I am trying to say is that if there is no explanation for the emergence in one hand and anything which occurs has an explanation in another hand then emergence is impossible.
I hope that things is clear now.
And now you are saying if emergence is 'explicable', [accounted for, explained, or understood], then 'emergence', [becoming visible after being concealed] is meaningless. Again, please correct me if I am at all wrong
This is basically the first scenario. If emergence is explicable then the whole cannot possibly be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore emergence is meaningless.
None of this was really helpful for me in clarifying what it is that you are trying to say. Maybe if you provide some examples this might work better.Age wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:18 pm Are you able to formulate your argument in more simpler and easier way to be understood?
Let me give it a shot and explain it another way. Consider a system that is made of parts. Now we have two things which cause any behavior in the system, 1) Parts and 2) Emergent phenomenon (which is independent of parts). But there would be a conflict of in the behavior of the system because in one hand parts cause a behavior and in another hand the emergent phenomena causes another behavior. This means that one of the options, parts or emergent phenomena, cannot have any causal power because of conflict in the behavior of the system. We cannot possibly drop parts, therefore, we have to drop the emergent phenomenon. This means that the emergent phenomenon does not have any causal power. Something which does not have a causal power cannot be observed, emergence in this case. So we can discard it.
Consciousness, for example, cannot be an emergent property if emergence is impossible. This means that matter itself must be conscious.
How I see this is, a child emerges into an adult, thoughts emerge into new thoughts, Consciousness emerges in and through species.
The Universe is a whole of a specific system, which is the sum of Its parts. Just some do not yet know ALL of Its parts, but this does not mean that the whole is more than the sum of Its parts.
Emergence can be explained through, and by, evolution. There is always things 'emerging', or becoming visible after being concealed. This is 'explicable', or can be accounted for, explained, and understood.
I observe the physical emerging, or evolving, and I see the invisible also emerging, or changing.
Re: There is no emergence
So you are explaining gravity in terms of mass, but you can't explain mass? You have successfully managed to hide the ball from yourself.
Yes. Any phenomenon that is currently inexplicable from the sum of its parts.
Do you believe mass occurs for no reason?
That's not the emergent question!
The emergent question is "Why doesn't salt taste anything like Sodium OR Chlorine?"
The emergent question is "Why do you die when you eat 100 grams of sodium and chlorine, but you don't die when you eat 100 grams of salt?"
Last edited by Skepdick on Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: There is no emergence
Something occuring is triggered by the previous occurance - There is no break in the link, any cause of current occurance is the effect of the previous cause in effect only happening NOW. There is no break in the continuity of NOW. Life is one unitary action.
Cause and it's Effect is Self-Creating, it's a circular recursive characteristic of living systems.
There is no before or inbetween or after NOW. So no emergence.
.
-
- Posts: 4369
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: There is no emergence
The bald guy has maximum emergence...
definitely greater than his parts for he has no part...
-Imp
definitely greater than his parts for he has no part...
-Imp
Re: There is no emergence
Ok, let me give it another shot. We all know that the brain is made of matter. People suggest that the mind is due to neural activity in the brain and matter itself does not have any mind. The mind is simply something extra than neural activity. Where mind comes from? There is no reason for that since if there was a reason for it then the brain was just simply the sum of its parts and couldn't possibly have something emergent, so-called mind. So the only way to escape the trouble is to say that there is no reason why the mind exists, so-called emergence. This however in conflict with the fact that there is always a reason why something occurs. Therefore emergence is false.
Yes, a child turns into an adult because s/he experiences stuff. So there is a reason for that.
True. The whole is just the sum of its parts.
I call what comes out of evolution as change and not emergence.
But you agree that the whole is just the sum of its parts?
Re: There is no emergence
I am not hiding anything. I am telling what we know and what we don't know.
But you always face the same phenomenon given the same circumstances. Don't you?
There must be a reason why mass exist as a phenomenon.
It is.
And why always people die if they eat Sodium? There must be a reason why this is true. Moreover, salt doesn't have any taste. It is just something that happens in the brain which give rise to subject experience of salty.
Last edited by bahman on Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: There is no emergence
I don't believe in a chain of causality without mind. This is however offtopic.Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:09 amSomething occuring is triggered by the previous occurance - There is no break in the link, any cause of current occurance is the effect of the previous cause in effect only happening NOW. There is no break in the continuity of NOW. Life is one unitary action.
Cause and it's Effect is Self-Creating, it's a circular recursive characteristic of living systems.
Could you please elaborate?
Re: There is no emergence
Nothing is making NOW happen or stopping NOW from happening which essentially means Nothing is happening, so no emergence.
What knows this?
Answer is the mind.
The mind cuts what is not-happening into what is happening...aka knowledge. Therefore, knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.
.
.
Re: There is no emergence
Does matter 'have' any thing?
How do you know this?
What is the 'mind'?
That is easy to answer, when I know what the definition of 'mind' is being used and given.
To me, this does not follow logically at all.
If there was a reason for where the mind comes from, then the brain was (is) just simply the sum of its parts.
I do not understand this.
AND, IF that first part is true, THEN,
There is no reason for where the mind comes from.
That does not make sense, and this also does not make sense;
The brain could not possibly have some thing emergent from it, called a 'mind'.
Truthfully I can not even break your "argument" down logically into sensible parts so that I can understand it. I can not understand the parts of it, let alone the whole of it.
How many premises are there, and what are they?
And, how many conclusions are there, and what are they?
But there is a reason why the Mind exists.
Why do you say there is no reason why the mind exists?
Just because you see "trouble" that does not mean that there is any "trouble" here, to me. And, by just saying there is no reason for some thing is no way of escaping the "trouble" you see. If there is a reason for some thing, then by just saying there is no reason does not suffice.
If 'emergence' is false, what is 'emergence', to you?
If there is no such thing as 'emergence', then why does the word exist?
The word 'emergence' has a definition, so what is it exactly in that definition that you are saying is "false"?
How do you define the word 'emergence'?
And what about the other two that I mentioned?
We agree.
Okay, but the definition I was using for the word 'emergence' is becoming visible after being concealed.
In a sense, just about every thing could be said is becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, the Truth could be said to becoming visible after being concealed. In another sense, becoming more Self aware could be said to becoming visible after being concealed.
Yes.
Do you agree parts withing the whole can emerge?
Do you agree the whole becoming visible after being concealed? For example, thee Truth of the Universe, Itself, could becoming visible after being concealed, agree?
The Truth of the Universe has been concealed and is becoming visible. Unless of course thee Truth of the Universe has never been concealed, but just human beings have not yet been able to see and understand that whole (Truth) yet.
To see and understand things could be said to becoming visible. When what is seen can also be said to be understood. Knowledge and understanding emerges with seeing/understanding. Emergence is just this seeing/understanding what is becoming visible after being concealed.
Even thee True Self is concealed, but It is becoming visible, and is still emerging to some. The True Self is just emerging slower to some human beings than It is to "others".
There is emergence, to me, with that definition. I will just await for your definition for the word 'emergence'.
Last edited by Age on Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: There is no emergence
You fooled yourself.
You don't know the reason for gravity.
You called the reason for gravity 'mass', but you don't know the reason for mass!
So as far as you are concerned - mass is emergent.
And?
The key concept in emergence is "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts".
Any phenomenon that you are incapable of reducing down to its parts fits that criterion.
What are the parts of mass?
But you don't know. So for the time being - mass is emergent. To you.
Fine. Let that be your conception of "taste". A response in the brain.
Why does the brain respond differently to NaCl than it does to Na or Cl?