Philosophy Now Forum

Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
Definition: Emergence means that the thing is more than the parts

1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts

tell that to the hatching egg

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:38 pm tell that to the hatching egg

-Imp

Come on, what is wrong with my argument?

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:04 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:38 pm tell that to the hatching egg

-Imp

Come on, what is wrong with my argument?

if 1 is correct, free will is suspect (not to mention that cause and effect is not guaranteed)

but that has nothing to do with the emerging chicken

-Imp

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
Definition: Emergence means that the thing is more than the parts

1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts

there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts but not in different combinations of parts, and using some of the parts but not others, and using different parts.

Example: A creature whose body is made of A-B-C, will behave differently from another creature, whose body is made of C-A-B. The function of A-B and the function of B-C, that is the function of adjacent parts will be transferable; but different combinations will produce different results. For instance, C-A will not behave anything like A-B or B-C.

The parts are the same, the same combination of the same parts will have always the same function, but if the parts are the same and they are in different couplings, then their function will be uniquely different.

Therefore, if the creature A-B-C produces creature C-A-B, then there is emergence.

And that exactly is what changes in DNA and the ramifications of the changes in the resulting organism produce.

------------------

In conclusion: the organism indeed behaves identically, if the parts are the same in a one-to-one correspondence, are arranged in the same way as in the parent's parts. But this can change; one way is leaving or adding irreducible parts, which is not part of the hypothesis, so I'll leave that alone. But two creatures can be different if (1) the parts are the same, in number and in type, but the parts are arranged differently. (1) has not been excluded from the hypothesis, therefore the theorem does not stand.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:29 pm if 1 is correct, free will is suspect (not to mention that cause and effect is not guaranteed)
-Imp

Cause and effect is not guaranteed? I beg to differ wholeheartedly. If cause A will make effect B happen under circumstances C, then as long as A remains unchanged, at the same time that C remains unchanged, then B can't but be replicated the same way.

Go ahead and try it out. Produce a replication of any experiment in which the results yielded opposing results to my claim here. That is, take an unchanging cause A, under the very same circumstances at different times, and see if you produce a B different between any two times the experiment was conducted.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
Definition: Emergence means that the thing is more than the parts

No it doesn't. Emergence describes behaviors of collections of objects that individuals cannot have on their own. Such as sand, which can form into heaps (an example I am stealing from Dennett) which has a property of tending to collapse at random that a mere pile of sand does not.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm 1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts

This is a poor argument. The emergent property can only be explained in terms of many of the parts. you are casually trying to dismiss it as if it were explicable by any of them individually.

-1- wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:10 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:29 pm if 1 is correct, free will is suspect (not to mention that cause and effect is not guaranteed)
-Imp

Cause and effect is not guaranteed? I beg to differ wholeheartedly. If cause A will make effect B happen under circumstances C, then as long as A remains unchanged, at the same time that C remains unchanged, then B can't but be replicated the same way.

Go ahead and try it out. Produce a replication of any experiment in which the results yielded opposing results to my claim here. That is, take an unchanging cause A, under the very same circumstances at different times, and see if you produce a B different between any two times the experiment was conducted.

Hume's argument still stands

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

the assumption that the future will resemble the past, just because it has always done so in the past, begs the question...

the constant conjunction of events is our habitual expectation

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:16 pm Hume's argument still stands

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

the assumption that the future will resemble the past, just because it has always done so in the past, begs the question...

the constant conjunction of events is our habitual expectation

-Imp

Hume's maxim stands on a philosophical level, but not on a practical level. He is absolutely right, except for the fact that the world does not operate that way. He is iron-clad on the spot, but you can't base any science, technology, or anything really, that requires knowledge, on his argument.

Therefore while i bow to his being right, I don't behave as if he were right. And nobody else does either -- I bet you don't, either.

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:48 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:16 pm Hume's argument still stands

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

the assumption that the future will resemble the past, just because it has always done so in the past, begs the question...

the constant conjunction of events is our habitual expectation

-Imp

Hume's maxim stands on a philosophical level, but not on a practical level. He is absolutely right, except for the fact that the world does not operate that way. He is iron-clad on the spot, but you can't base any science, technology, or anything really, that requires knowledge, on his argument.

Therefore while i bow to his being right, I don't behave as if he were right. And nobody else does either -- I bet you don't, either.

even Hume himself admitted that we don't live that way...

-Imp

Emergence is said to happen due to the interaction of parts, but the universe has no parts to interact. Most people don't even understand this.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts
Definition: Emergence means that the thing is more than the parts

1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts

There is no such thing as emergence-by-itself and totally independent of anything.
Emergence is always associated with the human self.

When you see and feel a 'real' solid table, that is an emergence of sort.

To a fly the table is merely pieces of 'wood' or whatever fly-thing as cognize by the fly.
To a blind bat, the table is merely a cluster of echoed radar waves.
To a virus of a size of a molecules, the virus will cognize only molecules of

• 50% carbon, 42% oxygen, 6% hydrogen, 1% nitrogen, and 1% other elements (mainly calcium, potassium, sodium, magnesium, iron, and manganese) by weight.
  -wiki

Thus whatever is reality to human beings is an emergence that is conditioned upon the human self.

Emergence is associated with the claim "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" which is just a choice.
One could also claim "the whole is the sum of its parts". It's entirely subjective and depends on the phenomenon you are trying to explain.

e.g we can deduce the consequences of molecular chemical reactions from the laws of quantum mechanics - this is what the field of Quntum Chemistry has been busy with for a few decades, thus - the whole is the sum of its parts.

Of course - the field of chemistry gave us the exact same answers 2-3 centuries ago by assuming "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and dealing with the phenomena at the molecular level of abstraction only.

Emergence is a matter of phenomenology and pragmatism. A simplifying heuristic.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm 1) The behavior of the thing is the result of behavior of the parts
2) This means that there is a function which relates the behavior of the thing to the behavior of the parts
3) Therefore there is no emergence since the thing can be explained in terms of the parts

Behavior in what context? Salt ( NaCl) at the molecular level has no particular "behavior" unless it interacts with other things.

The taste of salt cannot be explained by the behaviour of Sodium and Chlorine.
Fundamentally - it can't be explained because salt has no such property as 'taste'.

"Taste" is an emergent property of the resultant chemical reaction between NaCl and your taste receptors.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Dec 27, 2018 9:26 pm Setup: Consider a thing which is made of some irreducible parts

There is no such thing.