Science of Self (Humans)

by romansh , Thursday, March 20, 2014, 01:42 (3682 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Thursday, March 20, 2014, 02:02

Emergent
I have no problem with emergence if synonymous withresults from (in). I must admit I have said this plainly enough. This can be classified as weak emergence-but take a look at strong emergence ... from wiki
Here is an interesting quote
>>Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? 
Again we go back to how can a whole be greater than the sum of its parts? -As an aside Lawrence Krause in one of his lectures put up this equation:
Left = Right
And immediately said this was for the benefit for the biologists in the room.
If you catch my drift.->No, it is the combination that creates the self. The self emerges from the combination of its parts. But I'm pleased to hear that you are not trying to prove anything. Just playing games, I guess.-Yes and do we include our experiences, our parents' genes and quantum phenomena in that combination. If not why not?-> Of course I am. That's why I said "both theories".
Then I would like to hear your explanation for free will that does not fall into either of those camps?
> I note that you have ignored the content.
And I could say you have not addressed mine. For example I keep harping on about the whole being greater. Is the universe greater than the sum of its parts? The universe is its parts I would argue.-
Your definition vesus mine
Again we play a semantic game.
If we are truly conscious then yes we have free will by that definition. 
But the problem does not go away. Is there anything and I mean anything in that choice that was independent of cause?