Banno

Tagged. Trouble is, it's remarkably unclear what an essence might be; which is odd, considering every thing supposedly has one, and moreover it is in ...

One can maintain some respect for this thread if one sees it as attempting to phrase Fundamentality, in causal terms. One might better understand what...

Why do you think it the main issue?

Unfair. Keep in mind that there are precious few philosophers hereabouts. :wink:

We seem to have broad agreement. It is misguided to look for an algorithm that explains emergence; any such algorithm will simply be the reverse of a ...

Wasn't there a gallery of your images on the site somewhere? I'd like to link it.

There is a way that such reductionism is stupid... Of course it is your brain is processing the data from your eyes. But it's still a cat, and it's st...

Thanks. Am I right, and I seem to recall your saying something like this earlier, that you choose the images that appeal to you aesthetically, from an...

What does this mean? One might deduce the existence of the moon from the tides...

Yes, very clear - weak emergence is too weak, strong emergence is too strong. There's a third type of emergence, more psychological than physical. The...

The moon is of course never not observed. But it is as absurd to claim it is not there when not observed as it is to say that it is there. The issue h...

There's the difference between a house and a home, perhaps, to rub the point in. Emergence, if it is to help us here, has to be akin to "seeing as", a...

The idea of an equation for all emergent phenomena... Surely not. I'm just looking for what it is that makes something emergent. Mainly as opposed to ...

I'm simply asking if the attractor is an example of emergence, and if so how it differs from reduction... So I guess the question is, why do the red d...

Thinking about what? You haven’t said anything.

not really. Looks like more hand waving.

Show us how in terms of the Lorenz contractor.

Back on the difference between reduction and emergence. The epitome of emergence is perhaps the Lorenz strange attractor, with ? = 28, ? = 10, and ? =...

Thats a bit of a jump. Slowly and carefully. Anyone that gives you an answer to that is pulling your leg.

, , Trouble is of course that emergence is used in different ways. Roughly, it sits amongst other terms such as supervenience, reduction, dualism and ...

Here's the problem, because that looks like simple causation to me. In the old potentiometers, there was an electromagnet working against a spring, so...

quote="frank;870141"]Best explanation I've ever heard. Thank you, my friend. :up: You're welcome. It's just me sorting stuff out. Chapter five here is...

There are two opposing errors going on in these responses. The first is the rejection of physicalism in its entirety, the attempted denial of all thin...

, , yes, 's is an excellent post. But can anyone set out clearly what emergence is?

Indeed. Not unlike the way we use proper names. Well, yes, cause is a relation, and causation a philosopher's pet.

:grin: Are causes in the world or in the way we describe the world?

, If it is a way of thinking, is causation then not a thing in the world so much as a way of understanding things in the world?

Just the notion of an action being understood under a certain description. That idea is at least nascent in Ryle. The difference between squeezing cla...

The congenital problem with idealism.

Ouch. Excellent post. I'm interested in your take on emergence. From the SEP: Can you offer any clarification?

Compare Anscombe's discussion of cause...

Then explain it to me.

Meh. You have no argument. Just to be clear, my target is the sort of thinking found in 's Op, and in simplistic suppositions in this thread that mind...

And I'm not sure how they are purported to exist. Another thread, sometime.

Sure, I gave you the links, go ahead and type them in and see what you get. The result is much the same: "cause" occurs about two orders of magnitude ...

Well, it seems not, since you go on to talk of bridge laws and supervenience. Anomalous monism amounts to denying that there are bridge laws between b...

There's a grave danger of angry dolphins here. It might be clearer if I take issue with this: Now I find it still a bit unclear what you are suggestin...

It'd be great to have a proper study. I went to physics review, and did a quick search of titles, finding 716,414 altogether. Now let's set up a stand...

Hmm. I've no access to the article, I'm unable to see any data from the abstract, so why do they "admit that they have a major problem with how much s...

Well, yes, it is; hence the "monism"... But I would flip this and say that if monism must be true, then the only possibility is anomalous monism, henc...

I've had an eye out for a few years, using test searches and the like, and while it appears occasionally in more philosophically oriented articles, it...

That's where this becomes much more interesting, and difficult. I've no choice but to acknowledge the possibility, but I'll also insist on pointing ou...

is "only physical statements are true" a physical statement? It doesn't look like it - it looks like metaphysics. So if only physical statements are t...

The issue is that if only physical statements are true, then what is the truth value of "only physical statements are true"?

Curious. I'd taken reductionism within the sciences as granted - that physicalism would consider all the sciences variations on physics; after all, th...

If I link to this image, I'm not using it, I'm advertising Madden's web site...

I don't think this got the attention it deserves:

:blush:

? How is what I said a reification of physicalism? What could that mean? Directly to the personal attack. Nice. But what I've said here does negate th...

Sure. Physicalism supposes biology and chemistry are variations of physics.