Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Emergence doesn't really explain anything

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 11:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The central tenet of emergentism is that a supervenient structure bears properties that do not maintain in its subvenient parts (indeed, if they did, the whole concept of emergence would be redundant). And because the higher order structure cannot be decomposed, it is an ontologically novel entity with the capacity to cause events in the world that its constituents, in sum, cannot. But this is fallacious thinking. What justifies the supposedly novel, aggregate behavior of higher-order arrangements is not the individual behavior of each part but the interactions between them. So, the only way for emergence to be considered novel is if you do not consider interactions to be "parts" in a processual sense. And, when those interactions are considered in a compounded and macroscopic frame, statistical biases suppress the individuated/diversified parts to produce a general effect - an effect we mistakenly confuse for novelty.

Emergence is nothing but a perspective analysis of processes whose epistemic yield contracts with each expansion of scope. It is only relevant in a human context. Once there's no subject to provide a definite perspective, the concept dissipates into nothing - there are only parts and interactions. There is nothing there that resists reduction to the stuff it's made of.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 2:11:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Got as far as "supervenient" and then just stared.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 2:19:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 2:11:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Got as far as "supervenient" and then just stared.

why? Did I make a mistake?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 6:36:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The central tenet of emergentism is that a supervening structure bears properties that do not maintain in its subvenient parts (indeed, if they did, the whole concept of emergence would be redundant). And because the higher order structure cannot be decomposed, it is an ontologically novel entity with the capacity to cause events in the world that its constituents, in sum, cannot.

But this is fallacious thinking.

What justifies the supposedly novel, aggregate behavior of higher-order arrangements is not the individual behavior of each part but the interactions between them.

So, the only way for emergence to be considered novel is if you do not consider interactions to be "parts" in a processual sense.

The Fool: I think it is supposed to be novel in that they are new re-combinations of reducible structures but that each recombination is itself its own property. And that they are new in relation to the overly and relatively na"ve reductive sense of scientific understanding that has dominated the past.

For example: let's take a hypothetical object of the following:

P Consist of a property formed from the interaction of (X,Y,U,I,C)

Although it can be reduced to the particulars X,Y,U,I,C.

And those can be reduced even more until who knows when. As far as we know,Infinitely small. and if you understand this so far, you would understand how fast the rate of complexity exponentianiates, and that it wouldn't take long for the best of our micro measuring tools, no longer be able to account for the rate of complexity, at this point things would appear random. Sound familiar.

Now how I understand emergence, at this point, is that each new interactive combination of any of those particulars will yield a new property, in relation to what we understand are properties not as into what exist as properties.

For example: let's say P emerges from the interaction of (X,Y,U,I,C)
The interaction of XY, will have different Properies from UI or IU.. Or Even (C,U,I,X,Y)
That is, (and this is a rough theory off my head), that every reduction into smaller parts or properties, can be and is constantly being re-combined, and restructured to form a factorial amount (in relation to particular property), but balanced emergent properties. .

Is na"ve to think that causality as merely linear If that were true it would be impossible that two things could ever be going in opposite directions, ----><------..Nor could there be attraction.
We all understand that two people can push on something and equal opposite directions causing it to go nowhere in particular but particularly stable.

000ike: And, when those interactions are considered in a compounded and macroscopic frame, statistical biases suppress the individuated/diversified parts to produce a general effect - an effect we mistakenly confuse for novelty.

The Fool: Do you even know you're talking about here?

000ike: Emergence is nothing but a perspective analysis of processes whose epistemic yield contracts with each expansion of scope.

The Fool: if there was no emergence to counteract reduction, there could not be life. As life itself is an emergence, that is, living things restructure against entropy. Genetic combinations become more complex, and so have our brains and our knowledge and our technology.

000ike: It is only relevant in a human context.

The Fool: What's the other context that we understand things? Just curious.

000ike: Once there's no subject to provide a definite perspective, the concept dissipates into nothing - there are only parts and interactions.

The Fool: Once there is no subject, there's no valid claim to anything .. What's an object or objectivity without an oB-server.... nonsense!!!.
Concepts are things thought, not things seen. What do you expect?

000ike; There is nothing"there"that resists reduction to the stuff it's made of.

The Fool: And what are you basing this on?

000ike:--------------------------------------------------------------- nothing...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 7:29:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Fool:

I'm not sure what it is you're arguing, as you seem to have conceded the main points of my objection. I'm saying that emergence is at best a heuristic tool for understanding the coherent behaviors of complex systems, but isn't ontologically relevant. Take substantive emergence for instance: still water is still, stable, and immobile; but yet its particles undergo random vicissitudes,.... ta da - emergence. This is a perspective-based assessment in which lower level details have become indistinguishable and calm water is just a perspective gloss of what's really going on. The stillness is not actually there objectively. So if it isn't there objectively, then irreducibility is purely epistemic, and the supposedly higher-level phenomenon has no causal efficacy in it's own right.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:41:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 7:29:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
@Fool:

I'm not sure what it is you're arguing, as you seem to have conceded the main points of my objection. I'm saying that emergence is at best a heuristic tool for understanding the coherent behaviors of complex systems, but isn't ontologically relevant. Take substantive emergence for instance: still water is still, stable, and immobile; but yet its particles undergo random vicissitudes,.... ta da - emergence. This is a perspective-based assessment in which lower level details have become indistinguishable and calm water is just a perspective gloss of what's really going on. The stillness is not actually there objectively. So if it isn't there objectively, then irreducibility is purely epistemic, and the supposedly higher-level phenomenon has no causal efficacy in it's own right.

All very interesting. I actually look at it the other way around. The only ontologically relevant entity is the entire universe. Reduction attempts to identify ontological complexification that aids explanatory simplification. This is still approximation. On this view, both the stillness and vibration of water are valid explanations at different scales, whether you consider them both illusions, or both real I don't see as that important. Emergence in this understanding has real value though you would probably still assert it is not ontologically relevant, but then that would force acceptance that the underlying mechanisms are not either.

So while I accept that emergence is not explanatory in nature, it is a useful bridge between concepts like temperature, phases of matter and such and the subatomic particles that make it up. Knowledge in my view is dependent on the subject, and it is very difficult to explain our experiences without understanding these emergent concepts.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 8:42:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 11:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
The central tenet of emergentism is that a supervenient structure bears properties that do not maintain in its subvenient parts (indeed, if they did, the whole concept of emergence would be redundant). And because the higher order structure cannot be decomposed, it is an ontologically novel entity with the capacity to cause events in the world that its constituents, in sum, cannot. But this is fallacious thinking. What justifies the supposedly novel, aggregate behavior of higher-order arrangements is not the individual behavior of each part but the interactions between them. So, the only way for emergence to be considered novel is if you do not consider interactions to be "parts" in a processual sense. And, when those interactions are considered in a compounded and macroscopic frame, statistical biases suppress the individuated/diversified parts to produce a general effect - an effect we mistakenly confuse for novelty.

Emergence is nothing but a perspective analysis of processes whose epistemic yield contracts with each expansion of scope. It is only relevant in a human context. Once there's no subject to provide a definite perspective, the concept dissipates into nothing - there are only parts and interactions. There is nothing there that resists reduction to the stuff it's made of.

If you want to study an emergent property/behavior/process/organization, and you turn a sum into individual parts, then property disappears. The word "emerges" implies that it is interactions between parts which leads to novel behavior.

The entire point of property dualism is that the behaviors/organizations/processes collectively described as the "mind" only arises because of the interaction of physical parts of the brain.

If the mind is considered irreducible (which is controversial), and the mind is produced from physical interactions, then the mind is considered emergent from the brain.

Emergence is only meant to describe the origin of the mind from interactions of parts of the brain as opposed to the origin of mind coming from some other dimension or appearing ex nihilo.

While I don't find the comparison entirely appropriate, Searle gives the example of saying that it is the the interaction of stomach and guts that gives rise to emergent behaviors like "digestion."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 9:04:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 8:41:46 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
At 8/23/2013 7:29:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
@Fool:

I'm not sure what it is you're arguing, as you seem to have conceded the main points of my objection. I'm saying that emergence is at best a heuristic tool for understanding the coherent behaviors of complex systems, but isn't ontologically relevant. Take substantive emergence for instance: still water is still, stable, and immobile; but yet its particles undergo random vicissitudes,.... ta da - emergence. This is a perspective-based assessment in which lower level details have become indistinguishable and calm water is just a perspective gloss of what's really going on. The stillness is not actually there objectively. So if it isn't there objectively, then irreducibility is purely epistemic, and the supposedly higher-level phenomenon has no causal efficacy in it's own right.

All very interesting. I actually look at it the other way around. The only ontologically relevant entity is the entire universe. Reduction attempts to identify ontological complexification that aids explanatory simplification. This is still approximation. On this view, both the stillness and vibration of water are valid explanations at different scales, whether you consider them both illusions, or both real I don't see as that important. Emergence in this understanding has real value though you would probably still assert it is not ontologically relevant, but then that would force acceptance that the underlying mechanisms are not either.

But subvenient phenomena bear more information than supervenient phenomena. The stillness of the water comes through only when those molecular oscillations are indecipherable. So emergence is something like getting progressively blind and approximating the nature of physical things. It makes more sense, then, that the maximally reduced substance of reality is the only ontological agent. If we were to look at it the other way around, then details would be appearing ex nihilo.

So while I accept that emergence is not explanatory in nature, it is a useful bridge between concepts like temperature, phases of matter and such and the subatomic particles that make it up. Knowledge in my view is dependent on the subject, and it is very difficult to explain our experiences without understanding these emergent concepts.

I agree. that's why I think emergence is only epistemic. But when we're trying to use it in the context of consciousness, our demands exceed its utility.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 9:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 8:42:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/23/2013 11:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
The central tenet of emergentism is that a supervenient structure bears properties that do not maintain in its subvenient parts (indeed, if they did, the whole concept of emergence would be redundant). And because the higher order structure cannot be decomposed, it is an ontologically novel entity with the capacity to cause events in the world that its constituents, in sum, cannot. But this is fallacious thinking. What justifies the supposedly novel, aggregate behavior of higher-order arrangements is not the individual behavior of each part but the interactions between them. So, the only way for emergence to be considered novel is if you do not consider interactions to be "parts" in a processual sense. And, when those interactions are considered in a compounded and macroscopic frame, statistical biases suppress the individuated/diversified parts to produce a general effect - an effect we mistakenly confuse for novelty.

Emergence is nothing but a perspective analysis of processes whose epistemic yield contracts with each expansion of scope. It is only relevant in a human context. Once there's no subject to provide a definite perspective, the concept dissipates into nothing - there are only parts and interactions. There is nothing there that resists reduction to the stuff it's made of.

If you want to study an emergent property/behavior/process/organization, and you turn a sum into individual parts, then property disappears. The word "emerges" implies that it is interactions between parts which leads to novel behavior.

The entire point of property dualism is that the behaviors/organizations/processes collectively described as the "mind" only arises because of the interaction of physical parts of the brain.

If the mind is considered irreducible (which is controversial), and the mind is produced from physical interactions, then the mind is considered emergent from the brain.

Emergence is only meant to describe the origin of the mind from interactions of parts of the brain as opposed to the origin of mind coming from some other dimension or appearing ex nihilo.

While I don't find the comparison entirely appropriate, Searle gives the example of saying that it is the the interaction of stomach and guts that gives rise to emergent behaviors like "digestion."

But once we've established that emergence is purely based on perspective, purely epistemic and purely dependent on the suppression of granular details, it no longer makes any sense to say that the mind emerged from matter. I know emergence is supposed to be the commonsense backdrop for beginning to understand what mind is, I think we have to dispose of it. Unless we can produce an example of emergence that cannot be explained as "the suppression of granular details in favor of generalizations (for substances) or statistical glosses (for dynamic processes)" all we're really saying is that the mind is a less specific look at the brain.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2013 10:58:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ike: I'm not sure what it is you're arguing, as you seem to have conceded the main points of my objection.

The Fool: Well, it's interesting that you say that because I am in a way, and I'm not. That is, I am absorbing your claim into a larger explanation and so it doesn't oppose what you're saying directly. My argument is that emergent properties is a necessary complement to a reductionist explanation.

Ike: I'm saying that emergence is at best a heuristic tool for understanding the coherent behaviors of complex systems, but isn't ontologically relevant.

The Fool: You're assuming there is more of a warrant for one than the other. Does it really make sense to talk about anything which is ontological and yet not epistemic or epistemic and yet not ontological or observer independent but not known by any observer?

Or yet even metaphysical and somehow not epistemological or ontological?

One does not make sense without the others. That is, if it is one of these it is all, or else it is absurd.

If it's not epistemological than how do you know what you are talking about?

If it doesn't exist then are you not always talking nonsense, as there would be no sense in which it is.

Where in space do you feel your emotions?
<(80)

Does the heart or your hands serve function?

How can they function and not serve a purpose at the same time?

and then explain where you see this purpose.

I'm foolish about these things.
<(86)

When have you ever seen motivation with your eyes? not motion but motivation. Should be easy..

What about motivation to live?

Where do you think the word motion comes from? From things seen?
Or e-motion or Energy. From things seen or from things inferred..?

<(8D)

Do you ever feel like you are always at the center of the universe?
Where is the center of the universe exactly?

<(89)

More like a sphere of ignorance..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 2:23:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 9:04:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/23/2013 8:41:46 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
All very interesting. I actually look at it the other way around. The only ontologically relevant entity is the entire universe. Reduction attempts to identify ontological complexification that aids explanatory simplification. This is still approximation. On this view, both the stillness and vibration of water are valid explanations at different scales, whether you consider them both illusions, or both real I don't see as that important. Emergence in this understanding has real value though you would probably still assert it is not ontologically relevant, but then that would force acceptance that the underlying mechanisms are not either.

But subvenient phenomena bear more information than supervenient phenomena.
I'm not sure that this is true and the grounds on which you are asserting it do not seem at all clear. I see both supervenient and subvenient phenomena as pertaining to roughly the same amount of information. And at the level of human interaction, the phenomena that occur at roughly our own scale are by far the most informative.

The stillness of the water comes through only when those molecular oscillations are indecipherable.
You can look at it the other way also, the oscillations become apparent only when you look close enough so as to have the stillness be unapparent. Think of computation. When a computer computes a function, if you look closely enough, it's just a bunch of electrons moving around. The function is an entity that we discuss and is very relevant to the way we understand the world, in fact functions are almost so basic that we would have great difficulty explaining anything without them. However, as soon as we look close enough at the computer computing that function, it disappears. You can't see the computation of the function anymore. It is only by looking at the appropriate level that it reappears. But the function was basic. It was defined without reference to other things.

So emergence is something like getting progressively blind and approximating the nature of physical things. It makes more sense, then, that the maximally reduced substance of reality is the only ontological agent.
No, I disagree with you here, it makes just as much sense to look at the maximally emergent phenomenon (the universe) and consider how by carving up that emergent entity into little pieces we make it easier to explain. In fact, I would say it actually makes the most sense to think of the world at our own scale (a mixture of emergent and reductive phenomena) and build both up and down simultaneously where appropriate.
If we were to look at it the other way around, then details would be appearing ex nihilo.
Yes, but going the other direction ontological entities are appearing ex nihilo. Why is it more acceptable to invent ontological entities?

So while I accept that emergence is not explanatory in nature, it is a useful bridge between concepts like temperature, phases of matter and such and the subatomic particles that make it up. Knowledge in my view is dependent on the subject, and it is very difficult to explain our experiences without understanding these emergent concepts.

I agree. that's why I think emergence is only epistemic. But when we're trying to use it in the context of consciousness, our demands exceed its utility.
Well perhaps you are right in the context of consciousness, but I don't think reductionism has any special ontological status either, it's just as epistemic.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:07:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 2:11:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Got as far as "supervenient" and then just stared.

Philosophers use the biggest words to describe the most pointless sh!t.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 7:32:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 2:23:33 AM, the_croftmeister wrote:

Details exist and functions do not. Functions are humanity's conceptual approximation of anything that engages in a process that happens to maintain that process. If we were to zoom out to the whole universe, functions still don't exist. Whereas if we were to start with functions existing and zoom in, unnecessary facts would literally pop up out of nothing. It's a one-way fallacy.

Also, if we were to take something like Laplace's demon, whose vision has infinite resolution, and can see every molecular interaction at any scale, he sees generalities and details at the same time. He is literally the physical manifestation of the objective perspective. So, for him, the details and their interactions literally sum up to the macroscopic generalities. So he sees how the the mass of water molecules remain geometrically constant while the particles are in motion, and he sees how the heart beats, while the cells are performing disparate activities. And yet nothing emerged!
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:51:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/23/2013 9:17:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/23/2013 8:42:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/23/2013 11:56:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
The central tenet of emergentism is that a supervenient structure bears properties that do not maintain in its subvenient parts (indeed, if they did, the whole concept of emergence would be redundant). And because the higher order structure cannot be decomposed, it is an ontologically novel entity with the capacity to cause events in the world that its constituents, in sum, cannot. But this is fallacious thinking. What justifies the supposedly novel, aggregate behavior of higher-order arrangements is not the individual behavior of each part but the interactions between them. So, the only way for emergence to be considered novel is if you do not consider interactions to be "parts" in a processual sense. And, when those interactions are considered in a compounded and macroscopic frame, statistical biases suppress the individuated/diversified parts to produce a general effect - an effect we mistakenly confuse for novelty.

Emergence is nothing but a perspective analysis of processes whose epistemic yield contracts with each expansion of scope. It is only relevant in a human context. Once there's no subject to provide a definite perspective, the concept dissipates into nothing - there are only parts and interactions. There is nothing there that resists reduction to the stuff it's made of.

If you want to study an emergent property/behavior/process/organization, and you turn a sum into individual parts, then property disappears. The word "emerges" implies that it is interactions between parts which leads to novel behavior.

The entire point of property dualism is that the behaviors/organizations/processes collectively described as the "mind" only arises because of the interaction of physical parts of the brain.

If the mind is considered irreducible (which is controversial), and the mind is produced from physical interactions, then the mind is considered emergent from the brain.

Emergence is only meant to describe the origin of the mind from interactions of parts of the brain as opposed to the origin of mind coming from some other dimension or appearing ex nihilo.

While I don't find the comparison entirely appropriate, Searle gives the example of saying that it is the the interaction of stomach and guts that gives rise to emergent behaviors like "digestion."

But once we've established that emergence is purely based on perspective, purely epistemic and purely dependent on the suppression of granular details, it no longer makes any sense to say that the mind emerged from matter. I know emergence is supposed to be the commonsense backdrop for beginning to understand what mind is, I think we have to dispose of it. Unless we can produce an example of emergence that cannot be explained as "the suppression of granular details in favor of generalizations (for substances) or statistical glosses (for dynamic processes)" all we're really saying is that the mind is a less specific look at the brain.

How can you understand the connection between neurons and the phenomenal self and be a physicalist if you don't believe that the mind emerges from the brain?

Why does cutting up certain parts of the brain change the mind? Why does the mind disappear when other parts of the brain are removed?

Without emergence, I'm not sure how precisely we are to fathom (without recourse to substance dualism) how neuroscience is at all relevant to the phenomenal self.

It's not that emergence is some magical power that can generate minds, it's the consequence of a link between the mind and brain unless you believe one or the other has no existence.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 8:17:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 5:51:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

How can you understand the connection between neurons and the phenomenal self and be a physicalist if you don't believe that the mind emerges from the brain?

Why does cutting up certain parts of the brain change the mind? Why does the mind disappear when other parts of the brain are removed?

Without emergence, I'm not sure how precisely we are to fathom (without recourse to substance dualism) how neuroscience is at all relevant to the phenomenal self.

It's not that emergence is some magical power that can generate minds, it's the consequence of a link between the mind and brain unless you believe one or the other has no existence.

All you're doing is appealing to the desperate state of affairs for the study of consciousness. It doesn't matter whether or not emergence is all we have, it still has to be a sensible possibility in its own right, and you haven't really refuted my argument for why it isn't. I'm saying that emergence is purely epistemic - namely that all our examples of supposedly "emergent phenomena" can be explained in terms of the suppression of information in favor of generalities, similar to progressive blindness. The water is not still - we just can't see the motion. Everything is atoms and molecules in complicated relationships.

Besides, emergence (in the context of the hard problem), is just a timid species of substance dualism.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 8:45:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is why I advocate, what I will concede is a quasi-panpsychist position - that subjectivity is a property of being, and becomes increasingly complex as the physical entity in question integrates and processes more external information. It's the only thing that makes sense without invoking a demanding BoP or stepping on the toes of empirical science.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:37:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
000ike: Details exist and functions do not.

The Fool: You are just dictating, na"vely and clumsily. Philosophy consist of reasoning not preaching, you haven't given any arguments for your claims. Nor have you been able to account for the most obvious every day "in your face" contradictions.

000ike Functions are humanity's conceptual approximation of anything that engages in a process that happens to maintain that process.

The Fool: Objectivity is a concept. A human concept, what nonhuman concepts do you conceive?
You're committing the positivist fallacy by eliminating what is necessary for your claims to be possible, let alone arguments.
you don't have claim to processes, molecules, or interactions as they are all theoretical and you have religiously declared them for yourself to be nonexistent. A kind of personal self-tyranny I say.

000ike: If we were to zoom out to the whole universe, functions still don't exist.

The Fool: who is "WE"? If "we" are in the universe and we have emotions and do things with intention then they all exist in the universe. And not necessarily in space.

<(80)

000ike:Whereas if we were to start with functions existing and zoom in, unnecessary facts would literally pop up out of nothing.

The Fool: Why don't you, yourself, just give up and create for yourself your own tyrannical God, as a self-shackling mind device, and excuse to justify, to yourself, your own self fanatical convictions.

000ike:Also, if we were to take something like Laplace's demon, whose vision has infinite resolution, and can see every molecular interaction at any scale, he sees generalities and details at the same time.

The Fool: <(8D) WTF is "infinite Resolution" LOL. It's already a relative concept. (re-solution). It's absurd, and could never be true as it would it would be no resolution in particular. And thus no relationship. Nonsense!!

000ike: He is literally the physical manifestation of the objective perspective.

The Fool: <(89)

000ike: So, for him, the details and their interactions literally sum up to the macroscopic generalities.

The Fool: So say the Christians and the Muslims about their God and their beliefs. Shouldn't this be in the religious section.

000ike: So (my God) sees how the mass of water molecules remain geometrically constant while the particles are in motion, and he sees how the heart beats, while the cells are performing disparate activities. And yet nothing emerged!

The Fool: That's great but I am a fool, not a God, so I can't know if that's true.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 9:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@fool:

You're being awfully intransigent, and dividing my comments makes it very difficult for me to respond. There's nothing I've said that's "preachy" or simply insensible. Natural functions don't exist. A true function is something designed with respect to a represented end - meaning only that which a human designed can have a function and then a function relative to the intentions of the designer. The heart has no function. The heart participates in a process that happens to maintain its operation. There are only particles in complex relationships. Our visual view of the universe is the informatively blurred feed that evolution deemed necessary for our survival. We must not mistake the characteristic absence of those details from our perspective to be of any explanatory consequence in the objective world.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:12:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 8:17:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2013 5:51:13 PM, Wnope wrote:

How can you understand the connection between neurons and the phenomenal self and be a physicalist if you don't believe that the mind emerges from the brain?

Why does cutting up certain parts of the brain change the mind? Why does the mind disappear when other parts of the brain are removed?

Without emergence, I'm not sure how precisely we are to fathom (without recourse to substance dualism) how neuroscience is at all relevant to the phenomenal self.

It's not that emergence is some magical power that can generate minds, it's the consequence of a link between the mind and brain unless you believe one or the other has no existence.

All you're doing is appealing to the desperate state of affairs for the study of consciousness. It doesn't matter whether or not emergence is all we have, it still has to be a sensible possibility in its own right, and you haven't really refuted my argument for why it isn't. I'm saying that emergence is purely epistemic - namely that all our examples of supposedly "emergent phenomena" can be explained in terms of the suppression of information in favor of generalities, similar to progressive blindness. The water is not still - we just can't see the motion. Everything is atoms and molecules in complicated relationships.

Besides, emergence (in the context of the hard problem), is just a timid species of substance dualism.

If by "desperate state of affairs" you refer to all of neursocience and psychology, sure, I'm talking about a desperate state of affairs.

How can you talk about "subjectivity" as a property of of a being but deny the mind is a property of the brain?

Do you believe the mind simply tags along with anything that looks like a brain?

If you cut up a particular part of the brain, a part of the mind will be effected in a predictable way. If the mind is not an emergent property of the brain, how is this possible? "F*ck you, I don't wanna play" is not an answer.

And unless you think property dualism is a timid form of substance dualism, why do you consider emergentists to be substance dualists and not property dualists?

How does panspsychism help you even remotely with the problem of consciousness? How can a physical object "contain" subjectivity as anything other than an emergent property of that object? Is there some mental aether where minds co-exist with certain forms of matter?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
000ike: All you're doing is appealing to the desperate state of affairs for the study of consciousness

The Fool: Well that's not very liberal of you.

000ike: It doesn't matter whether or not emergence is all we have, it still has to be a sensible possibility in its own right, and you haven't really refuted my argument for why it isn't.

The Fool: This sound a lot like disprove "that My god did not Dictate the universe." In TERMS. or that my mom did not conceive me through anal sex by a flying horse.

000ike: I'm saying that emergence is purely epistemic.

The Fool: Ya, so is Knowledge.

<(8D)

000ike:- namely that all our examples of supposedly "emergent phenomena" can be explained in terms of the suppression of information in favor of generalities, similar to progressive blindness.

It can also be explained by unicorns, whether it"s, true adequate or complete is another thing.
<(85)

000ike: The water is not still -"we"just can't see the motion.

The Fool: Well, it's not the most persuasive argument? But it's one of your better ones.
<(8D)

Does anybody actually hold the contrary? Or have you created that for yourself, as a false opposition, to refute to yourself? How come you're not able to account for existing arguments?

Ergo:
There can be duality explanations like a wave and a particle, which can be necessary for a complete explanation.

For something can be the same by being in change.
Proof:

For when "I" see a "still" object, I recognize that it is synonymously energy moving through my perception, and insofar as the ratio of the rate of information being exchanged is steady the thing can be explained as still and Moving. At the Same TIME.
Either one on its own would be true from a na"ve view but incomplete and nevertheless lead to absurdities. For there are true contradictions. Just as a wave is continuous and a particle discrete are yet complements of a more complete explanation.
And synonymously mind and matter, as you could not distinguish what was physical without recognizing what was mind. And yet at the same time they are intimately connected. Forcing to either side leads to nonsense.

And that's Straight from the hill, to your Cement head.

000ike: Besides, emergence (in the context of the hard problem), is just a timid species of substance dualism.

The Fool: Emergence is not dualism, you've projected that from yourself on to others, because you don't know what you're talking about. Your just parroting, things you've read. Butt pirates are nasty people.

<(89)

PS: If they ask you to get on a flying horse; say noo!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:26:11 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: Emergence is not dualism, you've projected that from yourself on to others, because you don't know what you're talking about. Your just parroting, things you've read. Butt pirates are nasty people.

You've been pretty hostile to me in this whole conversation, and I have, for the most part ignored it and tried to answer your concerns genuinely. But I felt the need to correct you here. The books I read propose the OPPOSITE perspective to which I adhere (i.e Incomplete nature by Terrence Deacon and Consciousness and Language by John Searle). So there no source for me to parrot information. My arguments as well as my wording are my own. Whether you would be so charitable as to take my correction, I don't really care - so long as you've heard the accurate story.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 8:53:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:12:19 PM, Wnope wrote:

If by "desperate state of affairs" you refer to all of neursocience and psychology, sure, I'm talking about a desperate state of affairs.

How can you talk about "subjectivity" as a property of of a being but deny the mind is a property of the brain?

Do you believe the mind simply tags along with anything that looks like a brain?

If you cut up a particular part of the brain, a part of the mind will be effected in a predictable way. If the mind is not an emergent property of the brain, how is this possible? "F*ck you, I don't wanna play" is not an answer.

And unless you think property dualism is a timid form of substance dualism, why do you consider emergentists to be substance dualists and not property dualists?

How does panspsychism help you even remotely with the problem of consciousness? How can a physical object "contain" subjectivity as anything other than an emergent property of that object? Is there some mental aether where minds co-exist with certain forms of matter?

Properties are descriptive qualities of something's existence. I don't consider subjectivity a property and it would be a rhetorical error for me to use it in that context. I consider subjectivity a type of perspective unique to the concept of being - and since to be is to exist in space and time, as matter does, every object must have a subjective potentiality, approaching the consciousness we're familiar with, as more external information is integrated and processed by the being in question. Emergence is nothing but glorified magic without real-life examples. My argument, Wnope, is that every real-life example of emergence in the world can be conceptually justified without it! The irreducibility of the supervenient structure is a result of perceptive blindness. The higher level of coherence formed when parts are joined is a result of their interactions. What we're calling levels and layers of order are actually just frames of reference and not ontological building blocks.

I think it's mistake to treat the mind as a thing that must either be a tangible object or an ether. Mind is a perspective.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 7:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 8:53:43 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:12:19 PM, Wnope wrote:

If by "desperate state of affairs" you refer to all of neursocience and psychology, sure, I'm talking about a desperate state of affairs.

How can you talk about "subjectivity" as a property of of a being but deny the mind is a property of the brain?

Do you believe the mind simply tags along with anything that looks like a brain?

If you cut up a particular part of the brain, a part of the mind will be effected in a predictable way. If the mind is not an emergent property of the brain, how is this possible? "F*ck you, I don't wanna play" is not an answer.

And unless you think property dualism is a timid form of substance dualism, why do you consider emergentists to be substance dualists and not property dualists?

How does panspsychism help you even remotely with the problem of consciousness? How can a physical object "contain" subjectivity as anything other than an emergent property of that object? Is there some mental aether where minds co-exist with certain forms of matter?

Properties are descriptive qualities of something's existence. I don't consider subjectivity a property and it would be a rhetorical error for me to use it in that context. I consider subjectivity a type of perspective unique to the concept of being - and since to be is to exist in space and time, as matter does, every object must have a subjective potentiality, approaching the consciousness we're familiar with, as more external information is integrated and processed by the being in question. Emergence is nothing but glorified magic without real-life examples. My argument, Wnope, is that every real-life example of emergence in the world can be conceptually justified without it! The irreducibility of the supervenient structure is a result of perceptive blindness. The higher level of coherence formed when parts are joined is a result of their interactions. What we're calling levels and layers of order are actually just frames of reference and not ontological building blocks.

I think it's mistake to treat the mind as a thing that must either be a tangible object or an ether. Mind is a perspective.

Subjectivity is a type of perspective? That's not really an answer. The phenomenal self is what we're trying to explain. "Perspective" is an attribute of the phenomenal self.

How can a rock possess a "potential consciousness?"

It just seems to be substance dualism with prettier language.

I don't recall anyone saying emergence has any magical power. If your problem is irreducibility, you should be attacking that not the concept of emergence.

If you think that your phenomenal self arises from your brain, then you are an emergentist. Doesn't mean you think there is anything special about the word. It means that the phenomenal self only arises as the sum of parts interacting. How those parts interact is another subject entirely.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 9:42:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
structure is a result of perceptive blindness. The higher level of coherence formed when parts are joined is a result of their interactions. What we're calling levels and layers of order are actually just frames of reference and not ontological building blocks.

I think it's mistake to treat the mind as"a thing"that must either be a tangible object or an ether. Mind is a perspective.

From <http://www.debate.org...;

000Ike: You've been pretty hostile to me in this whole conversation, and I have, for the most part ignored it and tried to answer your concerns genuinely.

The Fool: The truth is hostile to people who don't know well enough, and when to part with false beliefs.

000Ike: But I felt the need to correct you here. The books I read propose the OPPOSITE perspective to which I adhere (i.e Incomplete nature by Terrence Deacon and Consciousness and Language by John Searle). So there no source for me to parrot information.

The Fool: I don't care about what you read, nor could what you say matter to me. Would matters to me is what you can argue for?
The very fact, that you bring that up says something about the integrity of your intelligence, and your credibility as a person.

Proof:

You yourself, on this very page, actually tried to create for yourself a conceptual God, with infinite resolution to validate creepy dehumanizing and baseless garbage.

Do you deny this?
<(80)

Secondly, you are lying, for you have said on many of occasions that you have read Dan Dennett and you have all too often given the very same argument. So you are lying..

Do you deny this?
<(80)

000Ike: My arguments as well as my wording are my own.

The Fool: The very fact that you're even mentioning "wording" is evidence that you are lying because there is no reason to say that as it could be the same argument with completely different wording. Another reason, which suggest you are full of S-h-i-t. Is that you are attempting to give(what you think to yourself to be) a non-falsifiable excuse, with the full intention of deceiving..

The worst part is that you actually had to put effort into doing that, all the while avoiding the most obvious in-your-face refutation such as EMOTIONS Exist, and they are part of our experiences, they are describable, and could never be missed felt, and thus infallible, but best of all NON SPACIAL.. If you cannot account for them in your bigotry, then all the less to your na"ve, insincere and by necessity, absolutely false arguments.

<(89)

Now this may offend you, too, but you are the one that actually said these things, and so you are your own self hostility. So blame yourself for your own self shortcomings, and self-shame, for you are a Sham. And it's been proven whether you Like it or NOT.

Do you deny this?

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 9:46:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The Fool and The "Butt" Parrot

000Ike: You've been pretty hostile to me in this whole conversation, and I have, for the most part ignored it and tried to answer your concerns genuinely.

The Fool: The truth is hostile to people who don't know well enough, and when to part with false beliefs.

000Ike: But I felt the need to correct you here. The books I read propose the OPPOSITE perspective to which I adhere (i.e Incomplete nature by Terrence Deacon and Consciousness and Language by John Searle). So there no source for me to parrot information.

The Fool: I don't care about what you read, nor could what you say matter to me. Would matters to me is what you can argue for?
The very fact, that you bring that up says something about the integrity of your intelligence, and your credibility as a person.

Proof:

You yourself, on this very page, actually tried to create for yourself a conceptual God, with infinite resolution to validate creepy dehumanizing and baseless garbage.

Do you deny this?
<(80)

Secondly, you are lying, for you have said on many of occasions that you have read Dan Dennett and you have all too often given the very same argument. So you are lying..

Do you deny this?
<(80)

000Ike: My arguments as well as my wording are my own.

The Fool: The very fact that you're even mentioning "wording" is evidence that you are lying because there is no reason to say that as it could be the same argument with completely different wording. Another reason, which suggest you are full of S-h-i-t. Is that you are attempting to give(what you think to yourself to be) a non-falsifiable excuse, with the full intention of deceiving..

The worst part is that you actually had to put effort into doing that, all the while avoiding the most obvious in-your-face refutation such as EMOTIONS Exist, and they are part of our experiences, they are describable, and could never be missed felt, and thus infallible, but best of all NON SPACIAL.. If you cannot account for them in your bigotry, then all the less to your na"ve, insincere and by necessity, absolutely false arguments.

<(89)

Now this may offend you, too, but you are the one that actually said these things, and so you are your own self hostility. So blame yourself for your own self shortcomings, and self-shame, for you are a Sham. And it's been proven whether you Like it or NOT.

Do you deny this?

<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL