There is no emergence

Yes, but can it prove its own consistency?

Quoting Posty McPostface

Yes, but can it prove its own consistency?

Yes, what we understand from one argument is more than sum of words. What is more is created by our mind.

Quoting bahman

a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}.

There is a hierarchy of levels of properties L0, L1, …, Ln, … of which at least one distinct level is associated with the subject matter of each special science, and Lj cannot be reduced to Li, for any i < j.

-Paul Humphreys, cited from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Do you mean there can be no emergent properties out of a given system? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but its rather vague

Quoting tim wood

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed." For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds? Without further qualification and explication, I'm afraid the notions in the OP are too vague to respond to.

It's not so much vague as artificially restricted. If there is only one system, one language, one ontology, then there is nothing to be emergent. And you are right, there is no "whole" here either - in order to have a "whole" one would have to introduce something over and above a system of particles. Without that something extra, the system of particles is, trivially, all you have.

An example of a whole emerging from particles could be continuous medium, such as a fluid, emerging from molecular interactions. But here we have two different ontologies, two different languages, two different sets of properties - one pertaining to the particulate system and the other - to the continuous one. For example, there is no such thing as "pressure" in the particulate system (but one can link pressure to molecular dynamics via a bridge law).

And yes, read the article that @Akanthinos linked. "Emergence" is a complicated topic (in part because there is no common view of what it is).

Quoting SophistiCat

"Emergence" is a complicated topic (in part because there is no common view of what it is).

The word "emergent" simply means "arising unexpectedly". It refers to an observation that contradicts our model of reality. It refers to an observation that is unpredictable in the sense that it cannot be predicted with our model of reality. If your model of reality says that every swan is white then a black swan would be considered emergent because your model cannot predict it. Very simple. Unfortunately, some people are confused and so they want to make everything unnecessarily complicated and that under the guise of profound complexity.

Quoting Akanthinos

There is a hierarchy of levels of properties L0, L1, …, Ln, … of which at least one distinct level is associated with the subject matter of each special science, and Lj cannot be reduced to Li, for any i < j.

-Paul Humphreys, cited from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

I understand what he is trying to say but what I am arguing is that any macro-property is reducible to a set of micro-properties. What he is saying is that macro-properties are independent.

Quoting tim wood

You're going to have to specify - a lot - as to what kind of "whole" you mean, and as well "expressed."

By whole I mean sum of parts.

Quoting tim wood

For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?

Yes.

Quoting tim wood

You might have said, "I think some wholes may be entirely expressed through their parts, but I cannot think of any. Can anyone?"

I am saying all wholes are entirely expressed through their parts.

Quoting tim wood

If you think about the word "expression" you might soon enough come to think that that nothing of any kind whatsoever is "expressable" in terms of its parts.

That is not true. The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall.

Quoting SpacedOut

Do you mean there can be no emergent properties out of a given system? I'm sorry if I've misunderstood, but its rather vague

Yes, considering OP. Do you have an example of emergent property?

Quoting SophistiCat

An example of a whole emerging from particles could be continuous medium, such as a fluid, emerging from molecular interactions. But here we have two different ontologies, two different languages, two different sets of properties - one pertaining to the particulate system and the other - to the continuous one. For example, there is no such thing as "pressure" in the particulate system (but one can link pressure to molecular dynamics via a bridge law).

The pressure of a gas is expressible in term of average force excreted to the wall. The same applies to liquidity,etc. There is no emergent property.

Quoting Magnus Anderson

The word "emergent" simply means "arising unexpectedly". It refers to an observation that contradicts our model of reality. It refers to an observation that is unpredictable in the sense that it cannot be predicted with our model of reality. If your model of reality says that every swan is white then a black swan would be considered emergent because your model cannot predict it. Very simple. Unfortunately, some people are confused and so they want to make everything unnecessarily complicated and that under the guise of profound complexity.

Yes.

Reply to bahman The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Rich

The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind.

Yes, I agree with that. Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me.

Quoting tim wood

Yes, it is, they do? Or yes I say they do? If the former, please show how. If the latter, please support your claim.

Yes, I think so.

Quoting tim wood

Here's an example to work on: "Duck." Work with that.

Which duck?

Quoting bahman

Realm of mind is however is different from realm of material to me.

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will.

Quoting Rich

?bahman The only experience that I have had that is fully emergent is a new idea or epiphany. This would represent growth of the mind.

Depending on how you define the concept of emergence, you can say that pretty much any event is emergent. This is to emphasize that the concept of emergence must be clearly defined.

What is emergent if not that which cannot be predicted by some specific model of reality? Emergence is a relation between an event and a model of reality. There is no emergence outside of this relation. You cannot say that an event is unpredictable on its own, in the sense that it cannot be predicted by any kind of model reality, because it is possible to predict any kind of event through sheer luck. You can predict the entire universe through luck. Instead, what you can say is that an event cannot be predicted by particular model of reality. If your model of reality says that all people are bald then your model of reality cannot predict people who are not bald. That's the same exact way in which ideas can be emergent -- by not being predictable by some particular model of reality.

Quoting Magnus Anderson

Depending on how you define the concept of emergence, you can say that pretty much any event is emergent. This is to emphasize that the concept of emergence must be clearly defined.

I agree.

Quoting Rich

There is no reason to take a dualist stance. It can be considered all the same stuff, quantum information if you will.

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated.

Quoting bahman

Quantum information is constant, it cannot be created or annihilated. Therefore new idea cannot be generated.

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.

Quoting Rich

The new idea would fundamentally consist of a different form/vibration of the entangled quantum wave. There are limitless variations.

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.

Quoting bahman

How you could prove that what you call new idea was not there? It only could appear on surface.

It's a new idea for me. Another similar "idea" could have formed elsewhere or it could be completely new for the universe. It's like snowflakes, similarities with differences.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to bahman a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it, but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned.

Reply to tim wood
You asked: For example: do you mean that any text can always be expressed in terms of the letters that constitute it? Music in notes? Sense from mere sounds?
I answered: Yes. Of course an intellectual agent who read a text or listen to a music create something extra when he read a text or listen to a music. That extra thing is meaning of the text which writer wanted to convey it.

I hope things is clear now.

Quoting SpacedOut

a living human brain having the property of being conscious despite its atoms and molecules not having it,

That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.

To elaborate consider a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. Therefore there is no emergence.

Quoting SpacedOut

but this might not count for you under your ideas of mind you mentioned.

Well, yes, consciousness is a property of mind.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
What I am arguing is simple. Think of gas for example. It exerts a pressure on the wall of container. The pressure is a property of gas however it can be expressed in term of average forces that atoms of gas exert to the wall of container. There is no emergence here. Pressure simply is related to average force. In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

For what regards duck, duck is more than a set of particles. It has a mind.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to bahman I thought you might be going for something like that, just figuring out what the argument was for

Quoting tim wood

See? Here's an example of the kind of problem we're having. I understand perfectly well that usually gas in a container can exert pressure on the walls of the container, the pressure depending in part on temperature. But what you said is that "the pressure is a property of gas." It isn't. I doubt if it's even correct to say that pressure is a property of gas in a container. I don't think it's a property at all. Rather it is something that happens, depending on circumstances.

It seems that you have problem with the word property. Can I use parameter? I used property for a purpose. Moreover, pressure is defined in term of average force exerted to the wall by particles.

Quoting tim wood

Pardon, but "Duck" has no mind whatsoever. And it's clear that when you say, "in general," in general cannot be what you mean, because it simply isn't true, or a fact, in general. If nothing else, "Duck" makes that clear.

So duck in your opinion is a set of particles. Something mindless?

Quoting tim wood

And do the particles that make up concrete have the properties of concrete?

Concreteness is defined in term of properties of particles.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Perhaps you're going about this subject in the wrong way.

Since we evolved in a field of relations with other objects, you can never actually say "the whole is in the part", insomuch as the emergent wholes - such as organisms in interaction - played an ontological role in 'revealing' dimensions which exist only implicitly in the part, but depend on actual relations of complementarity in a horizontally extended environment (in cognitive science this is the three E's of enactive, embodied and embedded' aspects of the functional whole) to be actually and explicitly made manifest.

All in all, the truth is, we're moral beings to our core. Were motivational creatures which have an arc that begins on an observer pole, which extends in a circle to the object pole. Our minds are an emergent function of a scaffolding of processes - shaped like a pyramid - that makes your observing consciousness an emergent effect, which in neuroscience lingo, happens between 200 to 300 milliseconds, whereas feeling, or affect, is an essential background process that cannot be denied its primacy.

As relational psychoanalysts know best of all, the mind is a representation of the dyadic interaction between self and other. Nothing more.

Quoting tim wood

It seems that you have problem with the word property.
— bahman
No, I don't. You do. You say that x has property p, then you say that property p is provided by y.
You "use property for a purpose." Fine. If you're going to use a word idiosyncratically, it's best if you let your readers know. But what in the world do you mean by it?

Well, think of a particle, electron for example. It has a set of properties: mass, charge and spin. I put the position, speed and acceleration into the same package, properties.

Quoting tim wood

I do note this:
That is the problem that I am arguing against. Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious. That is the main argument presented in OP:
— bahman
This is ridiculous, but at least (at best) it has the virtue of being clear. What's ridiculous about it? I'll answer that if you first defend/support the proposition. As it sits it's mere assertion without evidence, which under a well-known rule can be, and in this case should be, dismissed without evidence

What I am arguing is that you cannot expect consciousness as a result of motion of electrons in the brain. How? Any state of a system with a set of particles with properties P is only a function of properties of particles. Consciousness is not a property of electron therefore you cannot have a state in which system is conscious. Unless you accept that a magic can happen.

Quoting Semiotic

Perhaps you're going about this subject in the wrong way.

I don't think so. We have electrons and nucleons each have specific charge, mass, spin, position and speed, lets call them properties, in the brain. What I am arguing is that any state of system is a function of these five variables. You cannot have a conscious state since non of the properties which mentioned has any relationship with consciousness.

Quoting bahman

Brain cannot become conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious.

So there can be no correlation between variables unless variables are of the same type?

Quoting Magnus Anderson

So there can be no correlation between variables unless variables are of the same type?

I believe that there could be a correlation between different variables depending on state of system. I however don't recall any physical example. Correlation is the result of interaction. It however cannot leads to consciousness.

Quoting bahman

I believe that there could be a correlation between different variables depending on state of system. I however don't recall any physical example. Correlation is the result of interaction. It however cannot leads to consciousness.

The question is: why is it impossible for the brain to be conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious?

Quoting Magnus Anderson

The question is: why is it impossible for the brain to be conscious if atoms and molecules are not conscious?

Because the state of system is a function of the properties of its parts.

Quoting bahman

Because the state of system is a function of the properties of its parts.

There is a correlation between height and gender. The taller the person, the more likely the person is a man. And vice versa. That's an example of a very simple system. You have two variables that are related to each other in a specific way. One of the variables is quantitative (height) the other is qualitative (gender.) So how is it possible for a quality such as male/female to arise from quantity?

Quoting Magnus Anderson

There is a correlation between height and gender. The taller the person, the more likely the person is a man. And vice versa. That's an example of a very simple system. You have two variables that are related to each other in a specific way.

Yes, that is a good example.

Quoting Magnus Anderson

One of the variables is quantitative (height) the other is qualitative (gender.) So how is it possible for a quality such as male/female to arise from a quantity?

Gender to me is similar to state of a system, like gas, liquid, solid in water.

Quoting bahman

Gender to me is similar to state of a system, like gas, liquid, solid in water.

The state of a system is simply the set of values its variables are assuming. If the system has two variables such as height and gender then its state would be something like "190cm, male" or "170cm, female". Gender need not be a state. The same applies to consciousness.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting Magnus Anderson

The state of a system is simply the set of values its variable assume. If the system has two variables -- height and gender -- then its state would be something like "190cm, male" or "170cm, female". Gender need not be a state. The same applies to consciousness.

Let me correct myself. Gender is like an index which defines state of a system. Of course there is a correlation between an observable variable and state of system, the index. The state of system however is a function of properties of its parts. We know this by fact that that is our genes which dictate how the atoms should arrange in our body in order to give a gender to a person. As I said the gender is an index which defines state of a system. Gender is pretty similar to an index which defines different state of water. Different state of water however is a function of properties of water's molecules. I mean given the property of water's molecules you can find whether it is in state of gas or liquid. That cannot applies to consciousness. Why? Because there exist not an order parameter which can indicate the state of consciousness. Order parameter is simply a variable which is function of properties of parts of a system and changes when a phase transition occurs. The comprehensibility is the order parameter in case of gas to liquid phase transition. Comprehensibility however is related to change of density respect to volume. The density is a function of number of atoms/molecules. Do you think that you can find an order parameter which is a function of mass, charge, spin and configuration atoms and electron in the brain? Consciousness is not a property like charge, mass, or spin.

Quoting tim wood

Maybe this. There are minimums for pretty much everything, under which the thing doesn't exist. Water can stand as the example. Water is a molecule. If you go to the level of atoms, water does not exist: there is no atom of water. The properties of water - the properties of the whole - do not exist at the level of the parts. Concrete is another example (not to be confused with cement). Sand, water, cement combined yield concrete. As parts, no concrete. Music: notes are necessary, but not sufficient. Think about it. Emergent as a term of art is problematic, but clearly subatomic particles in themselves simply do not possess the properties that aggregates of them may have.

Great. Water for example has a set of properties: density, temperature, volume, shear tension and pressure. All these variable are a function of water's molecules properties: "mass, charge, spin, speed, number of water molecules and their arrangement. Consciousness is not like mass, charge, spin,... and it cannot be a function of these properties either. Temperature is related and similar to speed. Density is related and similar to mass. Spin for example can be observed as ferromagnetic state in iron, so ferromagnetic is like spin etc.

How could consciousness or subconsciousness be a function of anything!? It create things, in case of human, thoughts, ideas, feelings.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting bahman

I understand what he is trying to say but what I am arguing is that any macro-property is reducible to a set of micro-properties. What he is saying is that macro-properties are independent.

No, he semi-correlates the possibility to render a set of properties meaningful at a level of explanation with the specificities of those levels. An emergent property is emergent more because it simply could not be made sense of in the previous paradigm of explanation, as such, invisible in that paradigm, than because it is magically supervening over other properties.

Quoting tim wood

Do you see a problem here? And with the water. You say the whole, water, is expressed through its parts. But it isn't. Consciousness isn't "expressed" through it parts - what are the parts of consciousness?

That is one problem that you noticed. Consciousness cannot be expressed as a function of properties of atoms.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood
Well, there is no emergent phenomena.

Quoting Akanthinos

No, he semi-correlates the possibility to render a set of properties meaningful at a level of explanation with the specificities of those levels. An emergent property is emergent more because it simply could not be made sense of in the previous paradigm of explanation, as such, invisible in that paradigm, than because it is magically supervening over other properties.

That simply mean that science cannot explain consciousness.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting bahman

The whole can always be expressed in term of its constitute therefore there is no emergence.

To elaborate consider a system made of "n" particles in which particle "i" has a set of properties Pi={Pi1,..., Pim}, where "m" is number of properties of a particle and Pjk is the property "k" of particle "j". Any measurable property of the system is only a function of {P1,...,PM}. Therefore there is no emergence.

To restate the above argument - There is no emergence because there is no emergence.

Quoting bahman

What I am arguing is simple. Think of gas for example. It exerts a pressure on the wall of container. The pressure is a property of gas however it can be expressed in term of average forces that atoms of gas exert to the wall of container. There is no emergence here. Pressure simply is related to average force. In general any system made of bunch of particles in which each has a set of properties has a set of properties which can be explained in term of properties of the particles. That is all.

You're right, the behavior of a gas is not emergence, it's statistical mechanics. Emergence is something different. A commonly cited example of emergence is life. It is my understanding that living matter is made up of physical matter - atoms. It is a physical phenomenon, but living matter behaves differently, according to a different set of laws, than non-living matter. If it didn't, there would be no need to make the distinction between living and non-living.

Please explain evolution using only language and principles from physics.

Quoting tim wood

Then where does consciousness/intelligence come from.

I believe that is a property of mind. Mind needs consciousness in order to be creative.

Quoting tim wood

According to you it's not emergent. I accept that. But it means that the claim of the OP is false.

That doesn't indicate that OP is false. Mater does not have consciousness as a property and consciousness could not be emergent.

Quoting T Clark

To restate the above argument - There is no emergence because there is no emergence.

No. Everything that we learn about material world indicates that the property of a system is a function of properties of its constitute. Matter is unconscious therefor we cannot have a conscious system.

Quoting T Clark

You're right, the behavior of a gas is not emergence, it's statistical mechanics. Emergence is something different. A commonly cited example of emergence is life. It is my understanding that living matter is made up of physical matter - atoms. It is a physical phenomenon, but living matter behaves differently, according to a different set of laws, than non-living matter. If it didn't, there would be no need to make the distinction between living and non-living.

Please explain evolution using only language and principles from physics.

Then you have to accept that consciousness is a property of matter. Sometimes it shows up depending on something and sometimes doesn't show up. Otherwise we are dealing with magic.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Reply to tim wood

Do you propose that there can be mind where there is no matter?

No, I agree no matter no mind and if so then mind emerges (evolves or develops?) out out of a particular arrangement of matter...an arrangement that is up to the task.

Quoting bahman

Then you have to accept that consciousness is a property of matter. Sometimes it shows up depending on something and sometimes doesn't show up. Otherwise we are dealing with magic.

Absolutely - I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter. I could have used that as my example of emergence except I thought it might complicate things. Other emergent phenomena - the market, climate, ecological communities, human communities, etc., etc., etc.

Quoting tim wood

Interesting. Do you propose that there can be mind where there is no matter? That is, that mind is based in something not (in any way) matter out of which it emerges? Presumably you agree there is such a thing/phenomenon called mind. And presumably you agree it emerges. Or do you have it Athena-like coming into being (somehow) entirely complete? (Which would lead to either humans possessing a complete mind, or not any mind at all. In the latter case whatever it is still needs to be accounted for.)

I believe in mind separated from matter. Consciousness is a property of matter is another approach. But consciousness cannot emerge if it is not a property of matter. That is what I am arguing. I think one will find it difficult to convince scientific community that consciousness is a property of matter.

Quoting T Clark

Absolutely - I think consciousness is an emergent property of matter. I could have used that as my example of emergence except I thought it might complicate things. Other emergent phenomena - the market, climate, ecological communities, human communities, etc., etc., etc.

No, consciousness is not an emergent property but a property of matter. Otherwise your argument wouldn't cut. I however think that you will have difficult time to convince people that consciousness is a property like charge and mass of electron.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting tim wood

bahman, I cannot make sense of your arguments. Likely you can express them clearly and unambiguously in fewer than five short and simple propositions. Please do so, otherwise I shall have to give up because of what appears to be incoherence on your part.

Lets see if this works. What I am trying to say is that can not observe consciousness if matter which is constitutes of electron, proton and neutron (quarks) considering the fact that they have properties like, mass, charge, etc. but not consciousness. You could say that consciousness is a property of matter. I have other have other arguments for the fact that materialism is not correct.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Quoting bahman

No, consciousness is not an emergent property but a property of matter. Otherwise your argument wouldn't cut. I however think that you will have difficult time to convince people that consciousness is a property like charge and mass of electron.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "property of matter." What I was trying to say was that consciousness is a physical process. It results, emerges, from the behavior of the brain and other parts of the body.

Quoting tim wood

It seems, then, that mind must come into being as mind qua mind. How is this coming into being not an emergent quality from parts that don't have the quality?

There is still an issue even if you assume that parts are conscious: How a unique consciousness could arises from parts motions and configurations? We don't observe separate consciousness related to separate parts.

Quoting T Clark

What I was trying to say was that consciousness is a physical process. It results, emerges, from the behavior of the brain and other parts of the body.

Then you have to deal with my argument.

Reply to tim wood

In reading about Enactivism it cites what Merleau-Ponty said in his 'Phenomenology of Perception'

"The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced, and if we want to subject science itself to rigorous scrutiny and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by reawakening the basic experience of the world of which science is the second-order expression"

If Enactivism then cognition/consciousness is the result of our organisms interaction with the world and each other, is not emergent and science's task is explicate it as a system of autopoiesis

Quoting bahman

Then you have to deal with my argument.

I went back through the past 10 or so of your posts but I'm not sure what your argument is in this context. Can you briefly restate it.

Quoting bahman

That simply mean that science cannot explain consciousness.

I don't see where you read that. That simply means that some properties will appear as emergent as long as we have not found the proper scientific paradigm to make them fit. Re consciousness, that again simply means that, if consciousness appears to be an emergent property, then it is because we have no scientific paradigm ready to explain away those properties. Or perhaps that the properties we ask to explain away themselves no longer fit the scientific paradigm we use to explain away everything else.

Ex, if you expect an explanation of consciousness to consist mostly in terms of biology, then you probably won't ever agree to an explanation which consists almost exclusively in cognitive terms. If you expect the explanation to consists mostly in cognitive terms, but we present you an explanation of consciousness in terms of general system organisation, then you probably won't ever agree to it. People who claim that "science" cannot explain consciousness a) always bring in their own unjustified expectations of what consciousness is and what its explanation should look like, and b) almost always assume that it is not perfectly normal that we have no current complete explanation of consciousness.

Quoting Akanthinos

I don't see where you read that. That simply means that some properties will appear as emergent as long as we have not found the proper scientific paradigm to make them fit. Re consciousness, that again simply means that, if consciousness appears to be an emergent property, then it is because we have no scientific paradigm ready to explain away those properties. Or perhaps that the properties we ask to explain away themselves no longer fit the scientific paradigm we use to explain away everything else.

When I say "emergence" I'm not talking about a phenomenon having unknown properties because we don't have enough information or a "proper scientific paradigm." I'm talking about a phenomenon made up of interactions of smaller phenomena that has properties which can not be predicted, even theoretically, from the properties of constituent phenomena. I think thats the correct usage of the word. Yes? No?

Quoting bahman

How a unique consciousness could arises from parts motions and configurations? We don't observe separate consciousness related to separate parts.

Because each parts are vested in the same context, from the same point of view, that of a singular organism.

The problem of passive synthesis is solved through a proper analysis of the multitude of "selves" generated by a living organism, and even more dramatically by a mature human being. We don't "observe separate consciousness related to separate parts" because we are normally functionning living beings that relate directly to their sense-data through a unification of those different inputs on a singular field. This could and sometime is different. Alien Hand Syndrome is a thing, you know.
We also don't have a tendency to question the unity of our consciousness because we all have an autobiographical and historical selves which remain more or less the same in-between our daily losses of consciousness. Everytime I wake up I could start by questionning who I am, if I'm not a new being that just started existing. But then I would each time remember that I am myself, that I have my particular history, and that as far as I can tell, that history is just about the same one as the one I would have come up with yesterday, and would come up with tomorrow. That, although it is not an exercise we actually need to consciously perform, unifies my experiences and consciousness just as much as the peculiarity that is passive synthesis.

Quoting T Clark

I think thats the correct usage of the word. Yes? No?

Emergence is not an easy thing to define, and how you define it is half the problem itself, so the idea of a correct usage is already deleterious. Emergence can be presented as an acausal synchronic supervenience of properties, or it can be presented as a dynamical nonsynchronic causal relata, like Timothy O'Connor does. And in dozens of other ways. I would agree that standard supervenience emergentism is wrong, at least because it does not properly explain how these relata could be primitives.

This, however, is completely beyond scope of Bahman's OP, which is trivially dismissed because of its profound inadequacy.

Quoting Akanthinos

Emergence is not an easy thing to define, and how you define it is half the problem itself, so the idea of a correct usage is already deleterious. Emergence can be presented as an acausal synchronic supervenience of properties, or it can be presented as a dynamical nonsynchronic causal relata, like Timothy O'Connor does. And in dozens of other ways. I would agree that standard supervenience emergentism is wrong, at least because it does not properly explain how these relata could be primitives.

I have no idea what this means. I'm ok with that.

Quoting T Clark

I went back through the past 10 or so of your posts but I'm not sure what your argument is in this context. Can you briefly restate it.

Let me if I can summarize the discussion. Matter is made of parts which each part has a set of properties. For example electron has, charge, mass, spin, position and motion. The properties of the system however is a function of its parts' properties. There is always an observable which is defined as average of properties of parts. Let me give you an example: Think of pressure that a gas exerts to the wall of container. Pressure is an observable. It is related to average force which atoms/molecules of gas exert to the wall of container. That is true for any other observable such as density, average velocity, temperature, and more complex things such as conductivity in more complex system such as superconductor, etc. In all these physical examples an observable in macro scale is expressed in term of average properties of the parts. There is no such a thing as emergence in physics.

Reply to Akanthinos
Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible. Please read this post for further illustration.

For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it. Therefore consciousness does not belong to scientific/physical realm.

Quoting Akanthinos

Because each parts are vested in the same context, from the same point of view, that of a singular organism.

The problem of passive synthesis is solved through a proper analysis of the multitude of "selves" generated by a living organism, and even more dramatically by a mature human being. We don't "observe separate consciousness related to separate parts" because we are normally functionning living beings that relate directly to their sense-data through a unification of those different inputs on a singular field. This could and sometime is different. Alien Hand Syndrome is a thing, you know.
We also don't have a tendency to question the unity of our consciousness because we all have an autobiographical and historical selves which remain more or less the same in-between our daily losses of consciousness. Everytime I wake up I could start by questionning who I am, if I'm not a new being that just started existing. But then I would each time remember that I am myself, that I have my particular history, and that as far as I can tell, that history is just about the same one as the one I would have come up with yesterday, and would come up with tomorrow. That, although it is not an exercise we actually need to consciously perform, unifies my experiences and consciousness just as much as the peculiarity that is passive synthesis.

We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?

Quoting bahman

For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it.

The smallest measurement possible is a token of presence : if you can't measure something, you either haven't defined it well enough for measurement, or there is nothing at all there to measure.

Quoting bahman

We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?

Then my answer still holds, despite not being about electrons. A unique consciousness is possible through the passive synthesis of our inputs, when it is acheived. If it is not, and perhaps it is the normal state of affairs for certain living beings, then you truly have multiple consciousness related to different body parts in a single organism. There is nothing a priori wrong with this, and there is no deep philosophical connection to make with this, except perhaps in regards to the fact that, seemingly, most living beings do unify their experiential data into a single "stream of consciousness".

Quoting bahman

Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible.

I've already shown you why your, let's say, your meriology doesn't represent O'Connors type of causal asynchronous emergence, but it doesn't represent the standard supervenience account of emergence either.

In your account, all properties are defined en bloc, at once, with no regards to dynamic relations. In the standard supervenience account, it becomes necessary to define further subsets of Pi, where each of those subsets may also be attributed properties. The relational properties of those subsets are seen, by virtue of their structural peculiarity, as equally primitive as those properties we generally would define as primitives. Since the effects described are not technically the result of causal relationships, but of relationships betweens sets of causally entangled properties, they are additionnally often not described as 'causal' events, but rather as 'synchronous' events.

Quoting bahman

Let me if I can summarize the discussion. Matter is made of parts which each part has a set of properties. For example electron has, charge, mass, spin, position and motion. The properties of the system however is a function of its parts' properties. There is always an observable which is defined as average of properties of parts. Let me give you an example: Think of pressure that a gas exerts to the wall of container. Pressure is an observable. It is related to average force which atoms/molecules of gas exert to the wall of container. That is true for any other observable such as density, average velocity, temperature, and more complex things such as conductivity in more complex system such as superconductor, etc. In all these physical examples an observable in macro scale is expressed in term of average properties of the parts. There is no such a thing as emergence in physics.

I don't have any problem with the examples you provide, except they are not examples of emergence. They are examples of statistical mechanics. Those are completely different things.

Also, forgive me for being a nitpicker, but temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, not force. I recognize that doesn't affect the point you're trying to make.

Quoting Akanthinos

For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it.
— bahman

The smallest measurement possible is a token of presence : if you can't measure something, you either haven't defined it well enough for measurement, or there is nothing at all there to measure.

It is not about being small or large. Consciousness is a first person phenomena so you cannot measure it from third person view. All which you can observe is motion of electrons if consciousness is really related to motion of electron which in my opinion it doesn't have any relation.

Quoting Akanthinos

We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?
— bahman

Then my answer still holds, despite not being about electrons. A unique consciousness is possible through the passive synthesis of our inputs, when it is acheived. If it is not, and perhaps it is the normal state of affairs for certain living beings, then you truly have multiple consciousness related to different body parts in a single organism. There is nothing a priori wrong with this, and there is no deep philosophical connection to make with this, except perhaps in regards to the fact that, seemingly, most living beings do unify their experiential data into a single "stream of consciousness".

The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.

Quoting Akanthinos

Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible.
— bahman

I've already shown you why your, let's say, your meriology doesn't represent O'Connors type of causal asynchronous emergence, but it doesn't represent the standard supervenience account of emergence either.

I am not claiming that emergence of any kind is possible. I am claiming that any property of a system is a function of properties of system's parts. There is nothing extra. I would be happy to know an example rather than consciousness.

Quoting Akanthinos

In your account, all properties are defined en bloc, at once, with no regards to dynamic relations. In the standard supervenience account, it becomes necessary to define further subsets of Pi, where each of those subsets may also be attributed properties. The relational properties of those subsets are seen, by virtue of their structural peculiarity, as equally primitive as those properties we generally would define as primitives. Since the effects described are not technically the result of causal relationships, but of relationships betweens sets of causally entangled properties, they are additionnally often not described as 'causal' events, but rather as 'synchronous' events.

Dynamic is important and I included it as a property of parts.

Quoting T Clark

I don't have any problem with the examples you provide, except they are not examples of emergence. They are examples of statistical mechanics. Those are completely different things.

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?

Quoting T Clark

Also, forgive me for being a nitpicker, but temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, not force. I recognize that doesn't affect the point you're trying to make.

I am aware of that and I didn't say that temperature is related to force.

Quoting bahman

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?

The other example I gave was life.

Quoting bahman

I am aware of that and I didn't say that temperature is related to force.

You're right.

Reply to bahman

Dynamic is important and I included it as a property of parts.

This idea is problematic, relations are not intrinsic properties of parts.

As a quick example, the words 'Dog' and 'God' are composed of the same letters but form different words. The difference is in the relative position of each letter. If you decompose these words into letters, you don't conserve the relations between the parts and so you loose the properties intrinsic to the whole word (that it sounds like 'dog' vs 'god'; that it means 'dog' and not 'god'). You can make the same point with molecular systems -- e.g. constitutional isomers. These are compounds that are formed of the same atoms but with a different bonding pattern [e.g. 2OH vs H2O2; 1-propanol vs 2-propanol]. It's the bonding pattern in combination with the properties of the constituent atoms that determine the properties of the whole compound.

Since the relations are unique to the whole and determine the whole's properties, you can make a case for a kind of 'soft' emergence:

1) The properties of wholes are determined by the parts of a whole and their unique relations with each other [e.g. [behind(x, y); in front of(x, y)]:

2) A system is reducible if it can be equated to and is determined by its parts

3) Relations are not proper parts

Therefore by (1), (2), (3) wholes are not reducible.

Quoting bahman

The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.

That question is essentially like wondering why is it that an entire car is capable of movement when that movement is entirely born out of motion of its parts. It is not terribly relevant philosophically. In General System terms, it marks the difference between an output of a part of the system, and an output of the system itself, that is all.

Quoting bahman

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?

Urban traffic, movements in flock of birds, hell, even hashtags and retweets.

Quoting T Clark

The other example I gave was life.

Life simply is what you call statistical mechanic when you subtract consciousness from it. It doesn't think and it doesn't have any feeling either. You know that sperm follow the path toward egg because of distribution of chemical, etc.

Quoting aporiap

This idea is problematic, relations are not intrinsic properties of parts.

I just put them in the same package giving them a name. What you wishes?

Quoting aporiap

As a quick example, the words 'Dog' and 'God' are composed of the same letters but form different words. The difference is in the relative position of each letter. If you decompose these words into letters, you don't conserve the relations between the parts and so you loose the properties intrinsic to the whole word (that it sounds like 'dog' vs 'god'; that it means 'dog' and not 'god'). You can make the same point with molecular systems -- e.g. constitutional isomers. These are compounds that are formed of the same atoms but with a different bonding pattern [e.g. 2OH vs H2O2; 1-propanol vs 2-propanol]. It's the bonding pattern in combination with the properties of the constituent atoms that determine the properties of the whole compound.

Yes, and there is no emergence up to here.

Quoting aporiap

Since the relations are unique to the whole and determine the whole's properties, you can make a case for a kind of 'soft' emergence:

1) The properties of wholes are determined by the parts of a whole and their unique relations with each other [e.g. [behind(x, y); in front of(x, y)]:

2) A system is reducible if all components are reducible

3) Relations are not reducible

Therefore by (1), (2), (3) the properties of wholes are not reducible.

What do you mean with relations are not reducible?

Quoting Akanthinos

The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.
— bahman

That question is essentially like wondering why is it that an entire car is capable of movement when that movement is entirely born out of motion of its parts. It is not terribly relevant philosophically. In General System terms, it marks the difference between an output of a part of the system, and an output of the system itself, that is all.

No, the problem of emergence of a unique consciousness is different from example you gave.

Quoting Akanthinos

Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?
— bahman

Urban traffic, movements in flock of birds, hell, even hashtags and retweets.

Of course urban traffic is a function of number of cars and structure of road. We are dealing with conscious beings in movements in flock of birds...

Quoting bahman

No, the problem of emergence of a unique consciousness is different from example you gave.

No, it's essentially the same. See, I too I'm allowed to disagree without arguments, and it doesn't move the conversation along anymore than you! Yeah! :confused:

Quoting bahman

Of course urban traffic is a function of number of cars and structure of road.

The structure of a city isn't planned ahead in block, contrary to what peeps in Urban Dev might tell you. Modern cities have evolved from multiple neighbourhoods merging together, each with their own initial planning (or lack of planning), driving bylaws and specifications due to the make-up of the area. Traffic is an emerging feature from the interrelations of the properties of each of those categories.