There is no emergence

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:54 pm Are you at all able to prove this?
If you can't tell that "Yes" is not a number (let alone a prime one), then I suspect the answer is "I can prove it, but not to you."
Once again your assumptions, and suspicions, are completely WRONG. It seems to be that EVERY time you assume some thing when talking with me you get it terribly WRONG.

Maybe it better if you read your own question again, and read my answer again, and then see where and why you are (getting) mis-taken.

Also, you did not answer any of my clarifying questions posed to you.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:34 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:12 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:54 pm Are you at all able to prove this?
If you can't tell that "Yes" is not a number (let alone a prime one), then I suspect the answer is "I can prove it, but not to you."
Once again your assumptions, and suspicions, are completely WRONG. It seems to be that EVERY time you assume some thing when talking with me you get it terribly WRONG.

Maybe it better if you read your own question again, and read my answer again, and then see where and why you are (getting) mis-taken.

Also, you did not answer any of my clarifying questions posed to you.
Sure. 42. And a half.
PTH
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by PTH »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:26 pmIf 'we' want to discuss things here, especially on a philosophy forum, then, I think it better to speak the truth and the truth only, with no assuming at all going on. For example, is it a truth that "we" do not know if or how brains produce what you say here, or, is it a truth that "you" do not know?
Oh, I'll choose to be hung for a sheep and say "we" don't know.

Because if there is a Shaman sitting on top of a mountain somewhere who knows, but can't see the point in telling anyone, I don't think it need intrude on this discussion. I think we can achieve quite a lot of clarity without entertaining that kind of remote possibility.

What I am reasonably clear on is that any time someone asserts they know how the brain works, you find they mean something like the existence of neural correlates of consciousness which don't really tell us how things like thoughts and consciousness come to pass.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:26 pmFor the term 'mind' do you have some clear meaning and understanding and in some contexts?
While it certainly is possible for a discussion to have a problem arising from a word being used to mean two different things (which is actually what motivated me to post here), I don't think that arises in the use of the word 'mind' (to distinguish it from 'brain') in this context.

There could be value in examining the word 'mind' in some contexts. I don't think that value would be gotten where we are now.
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:05 pmWe want to be the masters of our destiny. Some times we get it right, but is it enough? *shrug*
Although we seem to get quite a lot right, and our environment seems to be fairly stable and predictable in many respects. We might not know the value of an ounce of gold next week. But we can be pretty sure that a table won't suddenly morph into an elephant.
Atla
Posts: 2955
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Atla »

Strong emergence is the only form of made-up magic that most atheists and scientists believe in. Whether they realize this or not.

Most of them don't realize it though, and it fatally distorts their entire worldview. It's pathetic, really.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders »

Atla wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:44 pm Strong emergence is the only form of made-up magic that most atheists and scientists believe in. Whether they realize this or not.

Most of them don't realize it though, and it fatally distorts their entire worldview. It's pathetic, really.
Very good! That's exactly what, "strong emergence," is. It is as mystical as anything any religionist teaches.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:40 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:34 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:12 pm
If you can't tell that "Yes" is not a number (let alone a prime one), then I suspect the answer is "I can prove it, but not to you."
Once again your assumptions, and suspicions, are completely WRONG. It seems to be that EVERY time you assume some thing when talking with me you get it terribly WRONG.

Maybe it better if you read your own question again, and read my answer again, and then see where and why you are (getting) mis-taken.

Also, you did not answer any of my clarifying questions posed to you.
Sure. 42. And a half.
Once again you do not clarify what you say, nor do you look over your own words, and then admit where you are mistaken.

Your own words proves that you never said what you thought you said nor even said what you meant to say.

My answer of yes can be proven to be correct, and you obviously can not price it to be wrong, even though you believe/d you could.

Also, I answer your questions openly and honestly. Whereas you answer my questions with absurdity.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

PTH wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:13 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:26 pmIf 'we' want to discuss things here, especially on a philosophy forum, then, I think it better to speak the truth and the truth only, with no assuming at all going on. For example, is it a truth that "we" do not know if or how brains produce what you say here, or, is it a truth that "you" do not know?
Oh, I'll choose to be hung for a sheep and say "we" don't know.

Because if there is a Shaman sitting on top of a mountain somewhere who knows, but can't see the point in telling anyone, I don't think it need intrude on this discussion. I think we can achieve quite a lot of clarity without entertaining that kind of remote possibility.
So, you choose to make up an assumption, and then believe that is true, instead of just remaining open to what the actual truth is. This is fair enough. But do not expect to gain much more knowledge than what it is that you assume and believe is already true and right now.
PTH wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:13 pmWhat I am reasonably clear on is that any time someone asserts they know how the brain works, you find they mean something like the existence of neural correlates of consciousness which don't really tell us how things like thoughts and consciousness come to pass.
Well what you are "reasonably clear on" is just plain wrong. Did you actually read what I wrote before? If you did, then you will see that I do not mean what you say here you will find.

But because of the way brains work, they will only see what they already believe is true and right. Because there are already beliefs tied up with that brain, you obviously did not see that what I wrote does not correspond with what you already believe is true and right. I do not mean that what you presume would happen. Therefore, what you said here is wrong.
PTH wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:13 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:26 pmFor the term 'mind' do you have some clear meaning and understanding and in some contexts?
While it certainly is possible for a discussion to have a problem arising from a word being used to mean two different things (which is actually what motivated me to post here), I don't think that arises in the use of the word 'mind' (to distinguish it from 'brain') in this context.
Okay, but do you have some clear meaning and understanding of what the definition for the word 'mind' is, which is what you very subteltly previously suggested is a helpful thing to provide?

By the way, I agree that the Mind is not the brain. To me, they are two completely different things, with two completely different jobs, and behave or work in two completely different ways. And, in order to uncover, work out, learn, and/or understand how they both actually work, then when looking at this subject there needs to be complete honesty and openness.
PTH wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:13 pmThere could be value in examining the word 'mind' in some contexts. I don't think that value would be gotten where we are now.
So, to you, there could be some thing, but you appear to not want to do any thing to see if that some thing could actually be gotten, or not.

Just go along with and remain with whatever "value" that you have now.
PTH wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:13 pm
Skepdick wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:05 pmWe want to be the masters of our destiny. Some times we get it right, but is it enough? *shrug*
Although we seem to get quite a lot right, and our environment seems to be fairly stable and predictable in many respects. We might not know the value of an ounce of gold next week. But we can be pretty sure that a table won't suddenly morph into an elephant.
To me, there is absolutely NO value in gold, other than what 'you' give it.

Relative to the value in clean water, gold is completely worthless to me.

I found that there is far more value in the knowledge and understanding of what IS actually True and Right, then there ever could be in all the money, and all the so called "precious" lumps of rock, on earth.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:59 am Very good! That's exactly what, "strong emergence," is. It is as mystical as anything any religionist teaches.
There is nothing mystical about strong emergence. It's born from the physical limitations imposed on us in proportion to the complexity of the systems we are trying to comprehend.

We can't even obtain perfect information about elementary particles, let alone a biosphere (uncertainty principle), and even if we could obtain perfect information we can't process it in real time (limits of computation).

We are trying to fit an elephant into a matchbox - we are going to have to leave some parts out! The only "understanding" possible is via heuristics.

Epistemic uncertainty is strong emergence. I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to rescue epistemology from the own goal you just scored while flinging poo at a strawman.
PTH
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:58 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by PTH »

Age wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:58 amSo, you choose to make up an assumption, and then believe that is true, instead of just remaining open to what the actual truth is.
No, that's not the situation. The situation is more that I haven't yet seen anyone with a convincing view. If one comes along, I'll be absolutely open to it.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:58 amBut because of the way brains work, they will only see what they already believe is true and right. Because there are already beliefs tied up with that brain, you obviously did not see that what I wrote does not correspond with what you already believe is true and right. I do not mean that what you presume would happen. Therefore, what you said here is wrong.
Well, I'm only given one example of a situation where folk claim to understand the mind, but don't.

Yes, I doubt you've an explanation. That's not to say you don't have one.

I do expect that it will boil down to the usual problem. On the one hand, if the physical world is a closed system, its hard (maybe impossible) to see how mind has any impact on it. On the other hand, our lives suggest that beliefs and the like have an impact on how people behave - there is a mental world.

Where does the mental world come from? I don't think anyone knows. We can speculate it emerges from the physical, in the way that some physical property might emerge from combining things with other physical properties. But we really haven't a clue.

At the same time, our cluelessness occurs in a context where things generally work. People generally understand what's been said to them. They can take a bus to work in the morning, with a reasonable expectation that things make the bus arrive at their bus stop and go to the expected location.

Some of that we can explain with emergence. But if we explained everything that can be explained by emergence, we'd still be left with stuff we can't explain.

Is that where we all are?
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick »

PTH wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:43 am No, that's not the situation. The situation is more that I haven't yet seen anyone with a convincing view. If one comes along, I'll be absolutely open to it.
Sounds like you've already comfortably settled into ironism ;)
PTH wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:43 am we'd still be left with stuff we can't explain.
What if we simply abandoned the ideal of 'explanation'? What if we adopt a prospective (predictive), rather than a retrospective (explanatory) world-view?

To explain or to predict?
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

PTH wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:43 am
Age wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:58 amSo, you choose to make up an assumption, and then believe that is true, instead of just remaining open to what the actual truth is.
No, that's not the situation. The situation is more that I haven't yet seen anyone with a convincing view. If one comes along, I'll be absolutely open to it.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:58 amBut because of the way brains work, they will only see what they already believe is true and right. Because there are already beliefs tied up with that brain, you obviously did not see that what I wrote does not correspond with what you already believe is true and right. I do not mean that what you presume would happen. Therefore, what you said here is wrong.
Well, I'm only given one example of a situation where folk claim to understand the mind, but don't.

Yes, I doubt you've an explanation. That's not to say you don't have one.

I do expect that it will boil down to the usual problem. On the one hand, if the physical world is a closed system, its hard (maybe impossible) to see how mind has any impact on it. On the other hand, our lives suggest that beliefs and the like have an impact on how people behave - there is a mental world.

Where does the mental world come from? I don't think anyone knows. We can speculate it emerges from the physical, in the way that some physical property might emerge from combining things with other physical properties. But we really haven't a clue.

At the same time, our cluelessness occurs in a context where things generally work. People generally understand what's been said to them. They can take a bus to work in the morning, with a reasonable expectation that things make the bus arrive at their bus stop and go to the expected location.

Some of that we can explain with emergence. But if we explained everything that can be explained by emergence, we'd still be left with stuff we can't explain.

Is that where we all are?
No
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: There is no emergence

Post by bahman »

Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly say this?
This is the definition of strong emergence which is agreed among philosophers and scientists.
There is the first mistake, from my perspective.

The ones labelled "philosopher" and/or "scientists" make up words and definitions or change definitions of words to suit their own personal view and beliefs of things. Also, any person can agree on any thing, but this does not make it true nor right.

Would I be wrong in asking the question; Whoever it was who came up with the term 'strong emergence' and gave it the definition; The whole is more than its parts, was just trying to prove some thing?
Ok.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am We have two kinds of emergence, weak and strong. To elaborate consider a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.
Instead of doing what most labelled "philosophers" and "scientists" do, which is; make hard what is easy, complex what is simple, and/or make confusing what is easily and 'already' understood, how about we just look at what is obvious, and ask the question; How can the whole be MORE than its parts?

If it can not, then there is nothing more to look at.

Just looking at this simple and easy to be understood fact, allows the Truth to be seen, and understood as well.

The Truth is some one came up with some, at first glance, extraordinary way of making complex and confusing 'that' what is NOT.

If some thing can not be explained, then it can not. If some thing can be explained, then it can.

If some thing does not exist, then it does not. If some thing does exist, then it does.

Now why complicate this, obviously very easy to understand, fact with some thing about; a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.

To me, the two sentences do not even make sense, to even start considering them.

I am only a very simple one, so even when I just try to consider what you wrote means, from the way you wrote it, let alone trying to understand it, I get totally lost and confused. You wrote, (underlined);

a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. To me, a Universe is a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. If this is right, then this is understood, good enough for now, by me.

Weak emergence, What is this in relation to exactly?

Are you saying; a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, is defined as 'weak emergence'?
Yes.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am [/u] If yes, then how did that definition follow, and was thus a 'therefore', from just two words? A conclusion usually needs at least a premise, or more. To me, that is just a definition given by some one to those two words. There is no actual link nor conclusion followed here.

If that is just a definition, then okay. This is understood. But now, what does 'a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts' actually mean?
Like a car which is something new which parts are not.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am A 'new' property in relation to 'what' exactly?

And, if a "new" property can be 'explained' in term of parts, then so what? If that is called 'weak emergence', and really that is all that is wanted to be expressed and understood, then it is understood, by me.
Yes.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am Otherwise, we have strong emergence. Now, does this mean that instead of a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts, a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is inexplicable in terms of parts?

If this is what it means, then okay. This is now understood.
Yes. We are in the same page.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am If that is right, then now all you have to do is provide a list of some examples of phenomenons in which the whole has a new property which are explicable, so I can get a better idea of what you are saying, and a list of which are supposedly inexplicable. Then, we can see if we can give or find explanations, for you.
Weak emergence like car and strong emergence like mind.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm To me, a definition for the word 'emergence' is; becoming visible after being concealed
What do you mean with the bold part?
That is the definition part.

So that the word I want to define is clear and obvious i put it in single quotation marks, then so that the definition can be clearly seen here i bolded and underlined it. Now that is what I mean with the bold part. (By the way I usually put single quotation marks on the words I write also to mean that to fully understand the sentence I am writing, which that word is in, then the definition for that single quoted word needs to be known first, which may well usually be different from the definition that is being ASSUMED by the reader. I also use single quotation marks to words in "others" writings to highlight the words where it is that I perceive is WHY things are being misunderstood. Until the definition for those words, from their perspective is known, then confusion can creep in further and further).

But anyway, from another perspective, what I mean by the bold part IS when some thing becomes visible after being concealed, then it means it has emerged. To me, besides the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, every thing else emerges.

By the way, thanks for asking a clarifying question. It is very refreshing to be asked for clarification. I rarely receive it.
I see.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm There is nothing in that about any thing saying "the whole is more than its parts"?

By the way, how could the whole even be more more than its parts?
That is the problem which I have with emergence. People say that salt tastes salty. Sodium and Chlorine, however, don't taste salty therefore there is a strong emergence.
So what? to what people say, and, to what if sodium and chlorine do not taste salty, then who really cares?

By the way, do you have a "problem" with the so called "strong emergence", the "weak emergence" or with both or all "emergence"?

When you write; "That is the problem which I have with "emergence", I am completely unclear which "emergence" you are referring to exactly.

I also do not see how your response even closely relates to answering my clarifying question, which is; How could the whole be more than its parts?

Peanut butter tastes peanut buttery. Peanuts and butter, however, separately do not taste peanut buttery. Again, so what? And, this does NOT mean "therefore there is a strong emergence", necessarily.

All this means is two different tasting things taste different, which is just plain and simple obvious anyway.
I have problem with strong emergence.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm If it is against the fact that I accepted has no bearing on any thing yet.

You would first need to explain;
How the whole can be more than its parts?
This to me is impossible. That is why I have problems with strong emergence.
Well have you ever considered that the term "strong emergence" was just made up and just given some 'impossible' definition, which has no real bearing on what IS actually True and Real?

And because it was made up by some one called a "philosopher" or a "scientist", then this means that there has to be some sort of actual truth or realness to it?

If it is impossible, then, I suggest, just forget about and let it go.

'Strong emergence' may not even exist other than in name and definition only, some thing like 'unicorn' does.

Do you have problems with unicorn?
If you agree that there is an explanation for everything then strong emergence is false since it suggests that there is no explanation for the phenomenon.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm and, also explain;
Where and when does 'emergence' supposedly simply say; The whole is more than the sum of its parts?
I already gave an example of salt.
I already gave my view of your example of salt.
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am You can think of consciousness as another example.
But Consciousness is NOT more than the sum of its parts.

Do you think/assume that Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts?

What 'Consciousness' is can be very easily explained. How Consciousness emerges, if It does, can also be very easily explained.
To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
Age wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm By the way, and if I remember correctly, I never accepted that the whole is more than its parts. But, another fact, which I did accept was; The whole is the sum of its parts. But you never mentioned this fact that I accepted.
You are on the spot.
If anyone says; 'The whole is more than its parts', then I would just ask them to clarify HOW this could be possible? If they can not say how, then so be it, but, if they can say how, then great, I have learned some thing new.
People call it magic.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Age »

bahman wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 12:56 pm
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
This is the definition of strong emergence which is agreed among philosophers and scientists.
There is the first mistake, from my perspective.

The ones labelled "philosopher" and/or "scientists" make up words and definitions or change definitions of words to suit their own personal view and beliefs of things. Also, any person can agree on any thing, but this does not make it true nor right.

Would I be wrong in asking the question; Whoever it was who came up with the term 'strong emergence' and gave it the definition; The whole is more than its parts, was just trying to prove some thing?
Ok.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am We have two kinds of emergence, weak and strong. To elaborate consider a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.
Instead of doing what most labelled "philosophers" and "scientists" do, which is; make hard what is easy, complex what is simple, and/or make confusing what is easily and 'already' understood, how about we just look at what is obvious, and ask the question; How can the whole be MORE than its parts?

If it can not, then there is nothing more to look at.

Just looking at this simple and easy to be understood fact, allows the Truth to be seen, and understood as well.

The Truth is some one came up with some, at first glance, extraordinary way of making complex and confusing 'that' what is NOT.

If some thing can not be explained, then it can not. If some thing can be explained, then it can.

If some thing does not exist, then it does not. If some thing does exist, then it does.

Now why complicate this, obviously very easy to understand, fact with some thing about; a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. Weak emergence, therefore, is defined as a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, otherwise, we have strong emergence.

To me, the two sentences do not even make sense, to even start considering them.

I am only a very simple one, so even when I just try to consider what you wrote means, from the way you wrote it, let alone trying to understand it, I get totally lost and confused. You wrote, (underlined);

a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. To me, a Universe is a system that has parts and each part has a set of properties. If this is right, then this is understood, good enough for now, by me.

Weak emergence, What is this in relation to exactly?

Are you saying; a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in term of parts, is defined as 'weak emergence'?
Yes.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am [/u] If yes, then how did that definition follow, and was thus a 'therefore', from just two words? A conclusion usually needs at least a premise, or more. To me, that is just a definition given by some one to those two words. There is no actual link nor conclusion followed here.

If that is just a definition, then okay. This is understood. But now, what does 'a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts' actually mean?
Like a car which is something new which parts are not.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am A 'new' property in relation to 'what' exactly?

And, if a "new" property can be 'explained' in term of parts, then so what? If that is called 'weak emergence', and really that is all that is wanted to be expressed and understood, then it is understood, by me.
Yes.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am Otherwise, we have strong emergence. Now, does this mean that instead of a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is explicable in terms of parts, a phenomenon in which the whole has a new property which is inexplicable in terms of parts?

If this is what it means, then okay. This is now understood.
Yes. We are in the same page.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am If that is right, then now all you have to do is provide a list of some examples of phenomenons in which the whole has a new property which are explicable, so I can get a better idea of what you are saying, and a list of which are supposedly inexplicable. Then, we can see if we can give or find explanations, for you.
Weak emergence like car and strong emergence like mind.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
What do you mean with the bold part?
That is the definition part.

So that the word I want to define is clear and obvious i put it in single quotation marks, then so that the definition can be clearly seen here i bolded and underlined it. Now that is what I mean with the bold part. (By the way I usually put single quotation marks on the words I write also to mean that to fully understand the sentence I am writing, which that word is in, then the definition for that single quoted word needs to be known first, which may well usually be different from the definition that is being ASSUMED by the reader. I also use single quotation marks to words in "others" writings to highlight the words where it is that I perceive is WHY things are being misunderstood. Until the definition for those words, from their perspective is known, then confusion can creep in further and further).

But anyway, from another perspective, what I mean by the bold part IS when some thing becomes visible after being concealed, then it means it has emerged. To me, besides the Universe, Itself, and the Mind, every thing else emerges.

By the way, thanks for asking a clarifying question. It is very refreshing to be asked for clarification. I rarely receive it.
I see.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
That is the problem which I have with emergence. People say that salt tastes salty. Sodium and Chlorine, however, don't taste salty therefore there is a strong emergence.
So what? to what people say, and, to what if sodium and chlorine do not taste salty, then who really cares?

By the way, do you have a "problem" with the so called "strong emergence", the "weak emergence" or with both or all "emergence"?

When you write; "That is the problem which I have with "emergence", I am completely unclear which "emergence" you are referring to exactly.

I also do not see how your response even closely relates to answering my clarifying question, which is; How could the whole be more than its parts?

Peanut butter tastes peanut buttery. Peanuts and butter, however, separately do not taste peanut buttery. Again, so what? And, this does NOT mean "therefore there is a strong emergence", necessarily.

All this means is two different tasting things taste different, which is just plain and simple obvious anyway.
I have problem with strong emergence.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
This to me is impossible. That is why I have problems with strong emergence.
Well have you ever considered that the term "strong emergence" was just made up and just given some 'impossible' definition, which has no real bearing on what IS actually True and Real?

And because it was made up by some one called a "philosopher" or a "scientist", then this means that there has to be some sort of actual truth or realness to it?

If it is impossible, then, I suggest, just forget about and let it go.

'Strong emergence' may not even exist other than in name and definition only, some thing like 'unicorn' does.

Do you have problems with unicorn?
If you agree that there is an explanation for everything then strong emergence is false since it suggests that there is no explanation for the phenomenon.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
I already gave an example of salt.
I already gave my view of your example of salt.
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am You can think of consciousness as another example.
But Consciousness is NOT more than the sum of its parts.

Do you think/assume that Consciousness is more than the sum of its parts?

What 'Consciousness' is can be very easily explained. How Consciousness emerges, if It does, can also be very easily explained.
To me, consciousness is the ability of the mind.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:09 am
bahman wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 am
You are on the spot.
If anyone says; 'The whole is more than its parts', then I would just ask them to clarify HOW this could be possible? If they can not say how, then so be it, but, if they can say how, then great, I have learned some thing new.
People call it magic.
When, and if, you learn and understand what the Mind is exactly and learn and understand how It works, then you will be able to clearly understand ALL of the above.

There is no such thing as "strong emergence" from the concept that you are proposing.

Absolutely every thing can be explained. Every thing is the sum of its parts. There is no thing that is more than its parts. Unless of course this can be shown to be wrong.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: There is no emergence

Post by RCSaunders »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 8:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:59 am Very good! That's exactly what, "strong emergence," is. It is as mystical as anything any religionist teaches.
There is nothing mystical about strong emergence. It's born from the physical limitations imposed on us in proportion to the complexity of the systems we are trying to comprehend.

We can't even obtain perfect information about elementary particles, let alone a biosphere (uncertainty principle), and even if we could obtain perfect information we can't process it in real time (limits of computation).

We are trying to fit an elephant into a matchbox - we are going to have to leave some parts out! The only "understanding" possible is via heuristics.

Epistemic uncertainty is strong emergence. I can't wait to see the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to rescue epistemology from the own goal you just scored while flinging poo at a strawman.
Who is, "we?" If "we" is philosophers, you are absolutely right, they know nothing, are certain of nothing, and are sure epistemology is impossible.

Your little screed is an excellent example of the meaningless skepticism that is put over as knowledge. It can be reduced to, "it is certain that knowledge is impossible and anyone who actually knows something is a freak."

I know it is going to be a disappointment, but the freaks don't care what you think of them, or call them.
Skepdick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: There is no emergence

Post by Skepdick »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:05 pm Who is, "we?" If "we" is philosophers, you are absolutely right, they know nothing, are certain of nothing, and are sure epistemology is impossible.
We, humans. The laws of physics don't discriminate on title.

Don't be too hasty to distance yourself from those philosophers who "know nothing". From where I am looking - you are no different.
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:05 pm Your little screed is an excellent example of the meaningless skepticism that is put over as knowledge. It can be reduced to, "it is certain that knowledge is impossible and anyone who actually knows something is a freak."
The only way you know how to argue your point is by dichotomizing knowledge into "possible or impossible".
It seems that my nuanced view on the proportionality of knowledge in respect to the complexity of whole was completely lost on you.
I even dumbed it down as an "elephant-matchbox" metaphor and it still went over your head.

Philosophy without technical input is sophistry, technical developments without philosophy end up answering questions of no interest.
We have finite time/energy/observations - which questions should we focus on answering? (because we can't answer them all).
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:05 pm I know it is going to be a disappointment, but the freaks don't care what you think of them, or call them.
Good, because my opinion of your ignorance doesn't matter. As long as I convince you to stop peddling your over-used dualistic bullshit.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply