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?
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amWe 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'? 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?
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.
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.
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.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge 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.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge 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.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 11:55 am
This means that the whole is inexplicable in terms of parts. This is against the fact that you accepted: There is an explanation for everything.
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?
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge 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.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge wrote: ↑Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:28 pm
Also, how exactly does 'emergence' say any thing at all?
What do you mean?
If you had written some thing like; The definition of 'emergence' is ..., then that, to me, makes sense.
But when you write some thing like; Emergence says ..., then that, to me, does not make sense, and so I just ask a clarifying question to make sure that I am understanding you, and what you are saying, correctly.
Again, thank you for your clarifying question.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:17 amAge 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.