Philosophy Now Forum

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:36 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:18 pm Movement can be experienced by mind, through the senses. Movement, which is also change, can only be detected in relationship of two or more things (matter), thus motion (change towards homeostasis) is the emergence, and relationship is a necessary condition for the emergence, along with energy and life and probably some other things, the composition of the element of life being in question.

The motion also is a property of the matter. It cannot be experienced unless the matter has a specific condition.

Matter itself as identified by a separate form is actually a combination of relationships made possible by motion, which makes motion an integral element comprising the existence of form and not merely an observable property.

Walker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:18 pm To put it in perspective, the next Buddha may not be limited to a single form, a single observable-by-mind and separate matter/form complex arrangement of molecules. The next Buddha may be the inevitable emergent property of a unique combination of elements distinguishable from a rock, by energy frequencies emanating from both carbon and silicon configurations, in relationship.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:06 pm To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

Spyrith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:06 pm To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

While this point of view is solid, I suggest you read a book called "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstader.

Basically, the book is written from the point of view of mathematician and materialist who demonstrates how something can emerge from a simple set of parts using a process called self-reference.

The best example he gives in the book is comparing a water puddle with a brain, and pointing out how the two have an identical molecular composition, but yet they are extremely different from a qualitative point of view.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:44 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:52 pm “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

- Aristotle

He never ate a donut

-Imp

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:10 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:44 pm

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 2:52 pm “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

- Aristotle

He never ate a donut

-Imp

GOOD ONE!!!!!!

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:03 pm

Spyrith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:04 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:06 pm To show this consider a system with many parts each part has a set of properties. Now let’s assume that the system has a specific property. This property should not be reducible in terms of properties of parts if it is an emergent property. There must however be a reason that the system has this property rather than any other property. This means that there is a function that describes the property of the system. The only available variables are however the properties of parts. Therefore the property of the system must be a function of properties of parts. Therefore there is no emergence since the existence of the function implements that the property of the system is reducible to properties of parts.

While this point of view is solid, I suggest you read a book called "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstader.

Basically, the book is written from the point of view of mathematician and materialist who demonstrates how something can emerge from a simple set of parts using a process called self-reference.

The best example he gives in the book is comparing a water puddle with a brain, and pointing out how the two have an identical molecular composition, but yet they are extremely different from a qualitative point of view.

What can I say is the taste of salt is a hidden property in matter. It enhances because of the formation of matter. There is however mind that experiences, decides and causes. This is how reality is for me. We are interacting minds. Mind, however, cannot be emergent.

Thanks for the book too. I will try to read it.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:03 pm

Spyrith wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 9:04 am

While this point of view is solid, I suggest you read a book called "Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hofstader.

Basically, the book is written from the point of view of mathematician and materialist who demonstrates how something can emerge from a simple set of parts using a process called self-reference.

The best example he gives in the book is comparing a water puddle with a brain, and pointing out how the two have an identical molecular composition, but yet they are extremely different from a qualitative point of view.

What can I say is the taste of salt is a hidden property in matter. It enhances because of the formation of matter. There is however mind that experiences, decides and causes. This is how reality is for me. We are interacting minds. Mind, however, cannot be emergent.

Thanks for the book too. I will try to read it.

I dislike this idea. Firstly, why would there be such hidden properties of matter? Why cannot we measure the taste of salt with a machine? The reason I think, is the taste of salt is the result of an interaction between the salt and the human gustation/brain system.

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm What is the taste of salt, without the human sensory system? It is simply not present. The human sensory system is like an instrument. Stimulations are like the music of that system, playing the various notes.

To imagine that taste is IN the source of taste is just so.... childlike. It may seem logical to you in some way, but it denies the complexity of the human sensory system.

Imagine a sentient life form which didn’t have a bodily system which was sensitive to high levels of salt. Would it still necessarily result in a “salty” taste, meaning, the tendency to spit out whatever is ingested?

The “tastes salty” sensation is necessarily, interlinked with a resultant spitting out behaviour. As such, the tastes salty sensation is necessarily linked to our particular bodily formation and requirements.

Do you think fish taste salt water?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:35 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:10 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:44 pm

He never ate a donut

-Imp

GOOD ONE!!!!!!

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 12:18 am

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:03 pm
What can I say is the taste of salt is a hidden property in matter. It enhances because of the formation of matter. There is however mind that experiences, decides and causes. This is how reality is for me. We are interacting minds. Mind, however, cannot be emergent.

Thanks for the book too. I will try to read it.

I dislike this idea. Firstly, why would there be such hidden properties of matter? Why cannot we measure the taste of salt with a machine? The reason I think, is the taste of salt is the result of an interaction between the salt and the human gustation/brain system.

Yes, you/your mind needs the whole machinery in order to experience the test of salt. You experience what your brain produces. But, your brain has parts which if none of them has the hidden property of salt then you cannot possibly experience the test of salt. Why? That is the OP. In OP I explain that the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. You for example don't always experience the test of salt. You only test it when you try it. So the question is where did the test come from? It comes from the fact that your tongue is exposed to salt first and it sends a signal to your brain. The signal is processed in the brain and produces qualia, a test of slat, that can be experienced by your mind. Your brain just goes into a configuration that produces the test of salt otherwise there is no test of salt. That is what I mean with the hidden. How could you get the test of salt if the parts do not have it?

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm What is the taste of salt, without the human sensory system? It is simply not present. The human sensory system is like an instrument. Stimulations are like the music of that system, playing the various notes.

To imagine that taste is IN the source of taste is just so.... childlike. It may seem logical to you in some way, but it denies the complexity of the human sensory system.

Imagine a sentient life form which didn’t have a bodily system which was sensitive to high levels of salt. Would it still necessarily result in a “salty” taste, meaning, the tendency to spit out whatever is ingested?

The “tastes salty” sensation is necessarily, interlinked with a resultant spitting out behaviour. As such, the tastes salty sensation is necessarily linked to our particular bodily formation and requirements.

Do you think fish taste salt water?

I don't know what fish experience when it comes to salty water. Perhaps, sweet, or nothing at all.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:35 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:10 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 9:44 pm

He never ate a donut

-Imp

GOOD ONE!!!!!!

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 2:50 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:35 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:10 am

GOOD ONE!!!!!!

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

bahman, your argument was thoroughly refuted in the other (exact same titled) thread you started back in 2019, here: viewtopic.php?p=418770#p418770

It's the one that had 316 replies, most of which you didn't like. So, apparently, you must have imagined that if you simply abandoned that thread and started a new one with the same title, then all of those pesky refutations would magically vanish.

Well, you were wrong about "strong emergence" back in 2019, and you are still wrong in 2022.
_______

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:29 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 12:18 am

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm
I dislike this idea. Firstly, why would there be such hidden properties of matter? Why cannot we measure the taste of salt with a machine? The reason I think, is the taste of salt is the result of an interaction between the salt and the human gustation/brain system.

Yes, you/your mind needs the whole machinery in order to experience the test of salt. You experience what your brain produces. But, your brain has parts which if none of them has the hidden property of salt then you cannot possibly experience the test of salt. Why? That is the OP. In OP I explain that the properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. You for example don't always experience the test of salt. You only test it when you try it. So the question is where did the test come from? It comes from the fact that your tongue is exposed to salt first and it sends a signal to your brain. The signal is processed in the brain and produces qualia, a test of slat, that can be experienced by your mind. Your brain just goes into a configuration that produces the test of salt otherwise there is no test of salt. That is what I mean with the hidden. How could you get the test of salt if the parts do not have it?

Dimebag wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 11:43 pm What is the taste of salt, without the human sensory system? It is simply not present. The human sensory system is like an instrument. Stimulations are like the music of that system, playing the various notes.

To imagine that taste is IN the source of taste is just so.... childlike. It may seem logical to you in some way, but it denies the complexity of the human sensory system.

Imagine a sentient life form which didn’t have a bodily system which was sensitive to high levels of salt. Would it still necessarily result in a “salty” taste, meaning, the tendency to spit out whatever is ingested?

The “tastes salty” sensation is necessarily, interlinked with a resultant spitting out behaviour. As such, the tastes salty sensation is necessarily linked to our particular bodily formation and requirements.

Do you think fish taste salt water?

I don't know what fish experience when it comes to salty water. Perhaps, sweet, or nothing at all.

By saying emergence is the “sum” of its parts, you are trying to say that nothing truly novel is present, even when parts come together.

But, you are not considering relationships between parts, nor how parts can be effected by combined parts.

Imagine if there are two people who need to traverse a wall. If each one tries on their own, they can’t reach. If they use their combined height, they can traverse the wall now, AND, imagine on the other side of that wall is some kind of additional thing, like say, a 2 person bicycle. Now, they can do something together that neither could do alone.

Neither individual had latent within them the capacity to achieve that 2 person bike, but only together could they do so.

So, to consider cooperative dependent parts individually is useless, they must be considered as a system.

The body is this on a far grander scale.

There is no magic there. The emergent properties, are not the “sum” of the parts. They are the interaction, something very different, unlocking capacities that the individual parts could never achieve on their own.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 3:55 am GOOD ONE!!!!!!

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 4:25 am

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 10:35 pm

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 12, 2022 4:10 am

GOOD ONE!!!!!!

Couldn't you do better? For example, refute my argument?

But, "your argument" was ALREADY 'self-refuted'.

This is because in "your argument" you are ASSUMING 'things', and 'your conclusion" is based upon those ASSUMPTIONS.

Now, OBVIOUSLY, just because 'you' ASSUME some 'things', this does NOT MEAN that those ASSUMED 'things' are true, right, NOR correct.

If 'we' are going to ASSUME 'things' in 'an argument', then the conclusion of 'that argument' is NOT necessarily going to be true, right, NOR correct.

So, what you will HAVE TO DO from now on, that is; if you want to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid, thus IRREFUTABLE 'argument', is start by PROVIDING ACTUAL PROOFS for what you say in "your arguments" or PROVIDE EXAMPLES of 'things' that ACTUALLY DO EXIST.

THEN, we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS "your arguments" AGAIN.

Until then you have YET to PROVIDE an ACTUAL sound AND valid 'argument'. As I have INFORMED you ALREADY those types of 'arguments' are the ONLY ones LOOKING AT and REPEATING, as they are the ONLY ones that are IRREFUTABLE. EVERY other type of 'argument' is REFUTABLE and so REALLY NOT even worth MENTIONING, let alone TALKING ABOUT and DISCUSSING, REPEATEDLY.