Why conversational equations and emergence

ROMANSH: So very simply what I am saying is (trying to say): The left hand side of the equation equals the right hand side. so if: The whole is greater and does not equal the sum of the parts
> Fix the equation.
> 
> dhw ... Why must you have an equation? I've tried to explain what people mean by consciousness being an emergent property. If the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, obviously the two are not equal so there can be no "equation". What does that prove?-I don't have to have equations. There is no must see no equations ...-Now emergence a scientific concept ... why not an equation to try and understand it?-Yes I understand what you mean by emergence and emergent. And I gave an example when explaining synergy why I thought your definition was wrong in an absolute sense. In a colloquial vernacular rabbits emerge from rabbit holes. There is nothing surprising about this so it is not emergence. Two up quarks and a down quark give rise to a proton and lo and behold we have emergence ... the proton is greater than the three quarks.-Why equations? ... They define our axioms for conversation we can apply logical operators to the axioms. Or we can pull rabbits out of hat and claim we don't know for sure it is not really magic.-For example the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. This in a literal sense defies the first law of thermodynamics. On a day to day basis I rely heavily on this law. If it is not true, then I will require some pretty good evidence to give up this axiom. Not some hand waving and saying it is possible that the first law need not apply in my day to day life. -If you mean emergence in some vernacular sense as I suspect you do then I have no problem. But if you mean it literally, and your arguments seem to go in that direction, then I will apply logic and my equations if that is OK?-How can we check the veracity of a proposition without clearly stated axioms and accepted logic?

Post reply

3903 views

ROMANSH: So very simply what I am saying is (trying to say): The left hand side of the equation equals the right hand side. so if: The whole is greater and does not equal the sum of the parts
Fix the equation.

dhw ... Why must you have an equation? I've tried to explain what people mean by consciousness being an emergent property. If the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, obviously the two are not equal so there can be no "equation". What does that prove?
ROMANSH: I don't have to have equations. There is no must see no equations ...
Now emergence a scientific concept ... why not an equation to try and understand it?
Yes I understand what you mean by emergence and emergent. And I gave an example when explaining synergy why I thought your definition was wrong in an absolute sense. [...] Two up quarks and a down quark give rise to a proton and lo and behold we have emergence ... the proton is greater than the three quarks.
Why equations? ... They define our axioms for conversation we can apply logical operators to the axioms. Or we can pull rabbits out of hat and claim we don't know for sure it is not really magic.
For example the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. This in a literal sense defies the first law of thermodynamics. On a day to day basis I rely heavily on this law [...] How can we check the veracity of a proposition without clearly stated axioms and accepted logic?
-Not for the first time in our discussions, I find myself getting somewhat confused. George opened the thread on "Science of Self" by drawing our attention to a website discussing the nature of the self. Ouellette wrote: "...your soul is this conscious thing that is emergent, and once all that activity that leads to the emergent phenomenon disappears, so does that, it's gone." You wrote: "I must admit I always find the word emergent a bit of a none word." I then explained what I thought the word meant and why I found it useful. You are prepared to accept its meaning as 'coming out of' but not as 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts', which runs contrary to the first law of thermodynamics. You say the correct term is 'synergic', even though "lo and behold we have emergence" with your quarks and protons, and that's not a problem. You ask me to "fix the equation", though I don't see how there can be one if the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but you say an equation might help us to understand it.-If you still think the term emergent is "a none word", and you want to use synergic, then so be it. I don't know whether consciousness and the self are indeed emergent or synergic properties, but I doubt if a discussion on the use of equations and axioms, and defiance of the first law of thermodynamics, and the difference between definitions "in an absolute sense" and definitions "in a literal sense" will help me to find out. Perhaps it would be more productive for us (and certainly less confusing for me) to return to our discussion on the nature of the self!

Post reply

4029 views

I don't care about which term we use dhw ... the only reason I mentioned it is that the definition of emergence you gave was essentially synonymous with synergism. And I carefully explained at the time what synergism was ... we have a model for what the expected outcome for a combination agents ... if the outcome is greater than the expected outcome, it is called synergism.-I have no problem with this. But it tell us that the model we have is at the very least incomplete and that something else is happening other than what was assumed in the model.-This is what mean that we have to balance our equations. Have an understanding of all the components. -Just saying that whole is greater than the sum of the parts ... is denying the first law of thermodynamics. I will need some pretty good evidence from you as to how this can be.-That complex systems and sometimes simple ones can leaded to complex behaviours is interesting.-Here is an example of simple system from which a complex emergent behaviour can be observed.-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU-But there is no "whole" being greater than the sum of the parts here.

Post reply

4063 views


>Romansh: Here is an example of simple system from which a complex emergent behaviour can be observed.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU
> 
> But there is no "whole" being greater than the sum of the parts here.-There is nothing emergent here. Just complex movement caused by the weight of the parts and expressed by parallelograms of force. Simple physics is not an expression of the emergence of consciousness which is not physical and does not disobey the first law.

Post reply

4044 views

I don't buy that David.-So once an emergent behaviour is understood sufficiently to be explainable it ceases to be emergent?-But I am glad that you think 'consciousness' does not disobey the first law.

Post reply

3918 views

Romansh I don't buy that David.
> 
> So once an emergent behaviour is understood sufficiently to be explainable it ceases to be emergent?
> 
> But I am glad that you think 'consciousness' does not disobey the first law.-No, I just don't think that the you tube pendulum was an emergent pheomenon. The mechanics were set up to surprise you in advance. Life also emerges from biochemistry, not as a physical setup.

Post reply

3887 views

Romansh I don't buy that David.
> > 
> > So once an emergent behaviour is understood sufficiently to be explainable it ceases to be emergent?
> > 
> > But I am glad that you think 'consciousness' does not disobey the first law.
> 
> No, I just don't think that the you tube pendulum was an emergent pheomenon. The mechanics were set up to surprise you in advance. Life also emerges from biochemistry, not as a physical setup.-You did not answer my point David. If we can explain a supposed emergent phenomenon is it still emergent?

Post reply

3975 views


>Romansh: You did not answer my point David. If we can explain a supposed emergent phenomenon is it still emergent?-I didn't realize that was your point. I don't think we can curently explain properties we call emergent. That is why we use that term. Consciousness is non-material, but arises from material matter. The same for the condition of life. It arises from biochemisty, but it is not found in the parts.

Post reply

3935 views


> >Romansh: You did not answer my point David. If we can explain a supposed emergent phenomenon is it still emergent?
> 
> I didn't realize that was your point. I don't think we can curently explain properties we call emergent. That is why we use that term. Consciousness is non-material, but arises from material matter. The same for the condition of life. It arises from biochemisty, but it is not found in the parts.-You still did not answer my question David.-You say consciousness and life are nonmaterial. I will have to take your word for it, for the material and life/consciousness affect one another. Whether they exist in the dualistic sense the way you imply (or not) is irrelevant for me. They respond in a cause and effect way.

Post reply

3843 views


> > >Romansh: You still did not answer my question David.
> 
> You say consciousness and life are nonmaterial. I will have to take your word for it, for the material and life/consciousness affect one another. Whether they exist in the dualistic sense the way you imply (or not) is irrelevant for me. They respond in a cause and effect way.-That would be because your question/point is a non-sequiter. Just because there is a cause and effect, or even if we can explain the cause and effect in hindsight, it does not preclude something being an emergent property. An emergent property is simply something that can ONLY exist because of a particular configuration of relatively elementary (in relation to the property being examined) elements in a system. -Emergent properties do not require nor preclude prior planning. They exist regardless of intent as a combined function of their elementary components. -The problem with human designs is that we most often lack the foresight to see all of the possibilities inherent in a system, and thus can only examine emergent properties in hindsight, and so are surprised by them. If you had perfect knowledge of a system, the emergent properties would still exist, but would not be a surprise.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3909 views


> > > >Romansh: You still did not answer my question David.
> > 
> > You say consciousness and life are nonmaterial. I will have to take your word for it, for the material and life/consciousness affect one another. Whether they exist in the dualistic sense the way you imply (or not) is irrelevant for me. They respond in a cause and effect way.
> 
> Tony: That would be because your question/point is a non-sequiter. Just because there is a cause and effect, or even if we can explain the cause and effect in hindsight, it does not preclude something being an emergent property. An emergent property is simply something that can ONLY exist because of a particular configuration of relatively elementary (in relation to the property being examined) elements in a system. 
> 
> Emergent properties do not require nor preclude prior planning. They exist regardless of intent as a combined function of their elementary components. 
> 
> The problem with human designs is that we most often lack the foresight to see all of the possibilities inherent in a system, and thus can only examine emergent properties in hindsight, and so are surprised by them. If you had perfect knowledge of a system, the emergent properties would still exist, but would not be a surprise.-Thank you for a great response, but I think Romansh was goading me with his non-sequitur, because he thinks in such a materialistic way. Consciousness is immaterial but requires a material brain to experience it. See my previous note on Nagel.

Post reply

3917 views

Thank you for a great response, but I think Romansh was goading me with his non-sequitur, because he thinks in such a materialistic way. Consciousness is immaterial but requires a material brain to experience it. See my previous note on Nagel.-If I were goading you, my stick would be far more pointy David.-You still did not answer my earlier question.-Or are you saying emergence is limited to things like life and consciousness that have Nagelian theistic worldviews?

Post reply

3927 views


> RomanshYou still did not answer my earlier question.
> 
> Or are you saying emergence is limited to things like life and consciousness that have Nagelian theistic worldviews?-Nagel is not theistic. If you read the book he is looking for a third way around theism. He wishes to stick to his atheism. My definition: An emergent propery is something that appears from a material construction that is not itself material. Life and consciousness are two such examples. As you see the pendulum does not fit my concept.

Post reply

3853 views

My definition: An emergent propery is something that appears from a material construction that is not itself material. Life and consciousness are two such examples. -So is a pattern an emergent property?
It appears from a material construction but itself is not material?

Post reply

3874 views

David: My definition: An emergent propery is something that appears from a material construction that is not itself material. Life and consciousness are two such examples. 
> 
> Romansh: So is a pattern an emergent property?
> It appears from a material construction but itself is not material?-I'm just using life and consciousness as examples. The definiion of life has been debated for year. It is a quality of existence created by very complex biochemistry, but each molecule is not alive. Same with neurobiology. Eletrochemical energy and neurons are not conscious, but by the complexity of the brain's network of axons and synapses, we experience consciousness. Neither are material. We experience being alive and conscious. I am more of a dualist.

Post reply

3919 views

David: My definition: An emergent propery is something that appears from a material construction that is not itself material. Life and consciousness are two such examples. 
> > 
> > Romansh: So is a pattern an emergent property?
> > It appears from a material construction but itself is not material?
> 
> I'm just using life and consciousness as examples. The definiion of life has been debated for year. It is a quality of existence created by very complex biochemistry, but each molecule is not alive. Same with neurobiology. Eletrochemical energy and neurons are not conscious, but by the complexity of the brain's network of axons and synapses, we experience consciousness. Neither are material. We experience being alive and conscious. I am more of a dualist.-I was not asking about about life and consciousness. I was discussing emergence.-Is a pattern an example of emergence by your definition, and if not why not? Where does it fail according to your definition?

Post reply

3969 views


> romansh: I was not asking about about life and consciousness. I was discussing emergence.
> 
> Is a pattern an example of emergence by your definition, and if not why not? Where does it fail according to your definition?-I'm using them as examples of emergent patterns. I might also call them unexpected events arising from simple or complex interactions.

Post reply

3888 views


> 
> Romansh: Is a pattern an example of emergence by your definition, and if not why not? Where does it fail according to your definition?-Again I feel the need to point out that this is a non-sequiter. A pattern may or may not be emergent, depending on the intent of the system/design/designer. A planned pattern is not necessarily emergent. Let me give you an example from the field of game design, which happens to be a field highly interested in the concept of emergence. -If I design a game system that allows for certain combinations of game play elements, and those elements when combined do not produce anything more than the sum of their parts, then there is no emergence. For example, if a fighter hits normally for 2d6 damage (read as the result of two six sided die), and a particular skill gives him a bonus of + 3 to that result, no emergence has occurred. There is nothing fundamentally new being added to the system, only alterations to existing properties. Even if there are a dozen skills, each of which alter the damage value, there is nothing new being added. There would be, however, a pattern which players would use to progress and maximize the potential of their fighter character. -Now, an example of an emergent property/pattern can be found in the wonderful example of the new game Everquest Next: Landmark. In this game, the world is built of tiny cubes called Voxels. A voxel is a cube that can be subdivided into smaller cubes of identical size. As part of their construction toolkit, they introduced a smoothing tool that was to be used to make the world seem less blocky by removing hard corners and edges from the voxel along the points of subdivision. However, when a single voxel was smoothed in a particular way a certain number of times, it would reduce itself to an even smaller cubic voxel! This was certainly not planned for. What's more, placing two of these 'micro-voxels' next to each other would cause the game engine to try and connect them together as it did with normal size voxels. The effect was something new and unexpected. There was also discovered a pattern to the way the system would try and weld everything together, and once that pattern was discovered, it was manipulated by players to create designs that the games creators had never imagined possible. -Subsequent research into the architecture quickly explained WHY and HOW this happened, but it was not something that was ever planned nor anticipated. It was an emergent property of three different systems that only happened when they were working together at the same time and under specific circumstances that none of the three systems could anticipate individually. So, to answer your question, it depends on the pattern, and what the end result of the pattern is. Chemistry and biology have numerous example of emergent patterns that provide new and unexpected functionality.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

4087 views


> Tony: So, to answer your question, it depends on the pattern, and what the end result of the pattern is. Chemistry and biology have numerous example of emergent patterns that provide new and unexpected functionality.-That fits my concept of emergence. A new unexpected functionality. Airplane parts don't look ilke they can fly. Put them togetehr and their design makes for flight. Design means expectation of the modality that appears. Looking at the way apes live, no one would expect evolved human beings to have the kind of consciousness they have, which maks it so unusual.

Post reply

4006 views

David: My definition: An emergent propery is something that appears from a material construction that is not itself material. Life and consciousness are two such examples. 
> > 
> > Romansh: So is a pattern an emergent property?
> > It appears from a material construction but itself is not material?
> 
> I'm just using life and consciousness as examples. The definiion of life has been debated for year. It is a quality of existence created by very complex biochemistry, but each molecule is not alive. Same with neurobiology. Eletrochemical energy and neurons are not conscious, but by the complexity of the brain's network of axons and synapses, we experience consciousness. Neither are material. We experience being alive and conscious. I am more of a dualist.-I know you are a dualist ... panentheism is a dualistic concept.-But again just stepping away from life and consciousness for a moment; is a pattern by definition an emergent phenomenon?-I ask, because by the definition you used ... of a material construction but itself is immaterial, to my understanding a pattern would fit the definition.

Post reply

3856 views


> Romansh: I ask, because by the definition you used ... of a material construction but itself is immaterial, to my understanding a pattern would fit the definition.-That appears to be correct.

Post reply

3834 views


> > Romansh: I ask, because by the definition you used ... of a material construction but itself is immaterial, to my understanding a pattern would fit the definition.
> 
> That appears to be correct.
But for me this seems to be at least partially in conflict with when you replied to Tony.->>>>Tony: So, to answer your question, it depends on the pattern, and what the end result of the pattern is. Chemistry and biology have numerous example of emergent patterns that provide new and unexpected functionality.
>>>That fits my concept of emergence. A new unexpected functionality. Airplane parts don't look ilke they can fly. Put them togetehr and their design makes for flight. Design means expectation of the modality that appears. Looking at the way apes live, no one would expect evolved human beings to have the kind of consciousness they have, which maks it so unusual.
The way I understand it, Tony said not all patterns are emergent and you seem to agree.-A jet engine compressor was never meant to fly independently of the rest of the plane, so it is not surprising it does not fly. The fuselage and wings don't fly as well but they do glide and I fully expected them to glide. -An unexpected functionality is based on a faulty model. If we had been discussing unexpected antagonistic effects rather than synergic effects then we would not be having this discussion of emergence at all.

Post reply

3856 views


> > > Romansh: I ask, because by the definition you used ... of a material construction but itself is immaterial, to my understanding a pattern would fit the definition.
> > 
> > That appears to be correct.
> But for me this seems to be at least partially in conflict with when you replied to Tony.-The word unexpected in important. If it is designed to be expected, it is not emergent.
 
> 
> Romansh: An unexpected functionality is based on a faulty model. If we had been discussing unexpected antagonistic effects rather than synergic effects then we would not be having this discussion of emergence at all.-That is exactly where we are at cross purposes. If we have a synergistic response then it is emergent, if unforeseen and undesigned from the material at hand, especially if we can find no reason for the appearance of the emergent function.

Post reply

3881 views

The word unexpected in important. If it is designed to be expected, it is not emergent.-Planes are designed to fly so flying planes and driveable cars are not emergent phenomena?
> 
> That is exactly where we are at cross purposes. If we have a synergistic response then it is emergent, if unforeseen and undesigned from the material at hand, especially if we can find no reason for the appearance of the emergent function.-So when we mix two organic compounds say a hydroxy oxime and an organic phosphoric acid to together with a copper sulphate solution, depending on my state of knowledge of such systems the resulting extraction will be emergent (with a little knowledge) or not (knowledgeable of how lone pair electrons on the oxime can form dative bonds with copper).-http://www.researchgate.net/publication/248401339_Solvent_extraction_of_base_metals_by_mixtures_of_organophosphoric_acids_and_non-chelating_oximes

Post reply

3900 views

David The word unexpected in important. If it is designed to be expected, it is not emergent.
> 
> Romansh: Planes are designed to fly so flying planes and driveable cars are not emergent phenomena?-Not as I view it. My meaning of emergent is that of an unexpected result from that which has been designed or developed.
> 
> Romansh: So when we mix two organic compounds say a hydroxy oxime and an organic phosphoric acid to together with a copper sulphate solution, depending on my state of knowledge of such systems the resulting extraction will be emergent (with a little knowledge) or not (knowledgeable of how lone pair electrons on the oxime can form dative bonds with copper).-If we are in a state of knowledge that does not let us know in advance how the reaction proceeds, then when the compound emerges, it is emergent, as you describe. This is not emergent in the sense I am using. I am looking at those emergent properties which are unexplained and suprising, and may never be explained. As in how does non-material conscious thought arise from a material brain?

Post reply

3839 views

I think the fundamental missing element in this conversation is something that game designers refer to as 'perfect knowledge'. In a game, which typically has a finite number of states, it is reasonable to assume that a player that has perfect knowledge (knows the state of every element in play) can predict or solve the outcome of any game. -Where this fails in real world application is that it is impossible to have perfect knowledge of a anything, as it would require instantaneous measurements of everything from the quantum level on up to the universal level in a given instance. -"Most systems of systems use their component systems in ways that were neither intended nor anticipated. Assumptions that were reasonable and appropriate for individual component systems become sources of errors and malfunction within systems of systems. As a result, the individual systems ... and the system of systems as a whole -- acquire vulnerabilities that can be triggered accidentally by normal actions of users and automated components, or exploited consciously by intelligent adversaries. For the complex systems of systems being constructed today and defined for the future, it is no longer possible for any human or automated component to have full knowledge of the system. Each component must depend on information received from other systems whose capabilities, intentions, and trustworthiness are unknown."-If we had perfect knowledge and could confidently state that there was no such thing as a random event, we could discard things like 'emergent behavior'. However, that is simply not the case in never will be in any practical application.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3869 views

David The word unexpected in important. If it is designed to be expected, it is not emergent.
> > 
> > Romansh: Planes are designed to fly so flying planes and driveable cars are not emergent phenomena?
> 
> Not as I view it. My meaning of emergent is that of an unexpected result from that which has been designed or developed.-So from an intelligent design point of view, nothing is emergent?-I will go back to sharpening my pointy stick ...

Post reply

3829 views


> > David Not as I view it. My meaning of emergent is that of an unexpected result from that which has been designed or developed.
> 
> Romansh: So from an intelligent design point of view, nothing is emergent?
> 
> I will go back to sharpening my pointy stick ... -From the designer's stadnpoint it is not emergent. Us poor humans are still guessing at how it all works, and that is part of the challenge from the designer who gave us minds so we might try and figure it out. :>))

Post reply

3844 views


> > > David Not as I view it. My meaning of emergent is that of an unexpected result from that which has been designed or developed.
> > 
> > Romansh: So from an intelligent design point of view, nothing is emergent?
> > 
> > I will go back to sharpening my pointy stick ... 
> 
> From the designer's stadnpoint it is not emergent. Us poor humans are still guessing at how it all works, and that is part of the challenge from the designer who gave us minds so we might try and figure it out. :>))-Does the designer have unexpected emergent events?-So I suppose I should add 4) God did it in a difficult to predict way.

Post reply

3851 views


> Romansh:Does the designer have unexpected emergent events?
> 
> So I suppose I should add 4) God did it in a difficult to predict way.-I can only go so far in my analysis of God's activities. I try very carefully not to fall into religion's way of creating an all-everything God. I think it is wishful thinking. Adler went so far as the estimate God's interest in an individual's prayer as about 50/50. I'm not sure God knows every event in the future, so unexpected emergent events or unindtended consequences are very possible.

Post reply

3861 views

Romansh: A jet engine compressor was never meant to fly independently of the rest of the plane, so it is not surprising it does not fly. The fuselage and wings don't fly as well but they do glide and I fully expected them to glide. 
> 
> An unexpected functionality is based on a faulty model. If we had been discussing unexpected antagonistic effects rather than synergic effects then we would not be having this discussion of emergence at all.-Flight is the expected function of the combined system. But what are some unexpected, or emergent properties, that were not intentionally designed or anticipated by the design? More importantly, emergent properties are non-deterministic, so you will get different outputs from the same inputs (which goes back to your comment about modeling sand dunes), so at best all we can ever understand of them is the parameters used as inputs, and the results of the outputs, but, generally speaking, the interactions in a system of systems is generally too complex or too 'apparently random' to trace emergent properties/patterns as a simple case of cause and effect.-**Edit** About Airplanes-At their most fundamental level, emergent algorithms exploit cascading effects of loosely coupled, dynamically changing, and partially trusted neighbors to achieve a common purpose shared by a subset of the participants. Only a limited repertoire of emergent methods has been identified, and they are only partially understood. The complete range of effects, whether positive or ill, resulting from cascading interactions with dynamically changing neighbors, is unknown. Phase shifts are a particularly difficult class of emergent effects that can occur in any physical system. They are poorly understood in most physical domains, but offer the potential for both dramatic benefits and catastrophic failures. Well-known examples of phase shifts include the transition of an airplane wing angle from one that provides lift to one initiating a stall, an overload in a power system that initiates a blackout, or the action of a fuse in breaking a circuit-Emergent Issues

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3858 views

That would be because your question/point is a non-sequiter. Just because there is a cause and effect, or even if we can explain the cause and effect in hindsight, it does not preclude something being an emergent property. An emergent property is simply something that can ONLY exist because of a particular configuration of relatively elementary (in relation to the property being examined) elements in a system. -For me this is an unusual use of the term non sequitur Tony, when trying to clarify what David means by emergent.-David makes this statement here I don't think we can curently explain properties we call emergent. That is why we use that term. To me it is perfectly logical to ask him to clarify this statement by asking If we can explain a supposed emergent phenomenon is it still emergent?-If you think it does not follow I would love to understand your reasoning Tony.-> Emergent properties do not require nor preclude prior planning. They exist regardless of intent as a combined function of their elementary components. 
Before we go too far here, Tony in the spirit of the topic would you care define emergence ... One common one seems to be systems (complex or simple) can behave in complex ways. DHW seems (to me) to have defined it in terms of breaking the first law of thermodynamics. Equations don't have to balance and may not even be relevant to emergence. 
> The problem with human designs is that we most often lack the foresight to see all of the possibilities inherent in a system, and thus can only examine emergent properties in hindsight, and so are surprised by them. If you had perfect knowledge of a system, the emergent properties would still exist, but would not be a surprise.-Again what is emergence?

Post reply

4068 views

I don't have to define it. People far smarter than I have already done so, and either you are unaware of it or willfully ignore their definitions because they do not suit your views. Either way, I will let them speak for themselves. -Emergence Defined -Note in particular this: In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.-Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics. Similarly, psychology could be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological dynamics, and free-market theories understand economy as an emergent feature of psychology.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3893 views

Tony
I found the last section said:
> ... but it was not something that was ever planned nor anticipated. It was an emergent property of three different systems that only happened when they were working together at the same time and under specific circumstances that none of the three systems could anticipate individually.
This conforms with my explanation of emergence where it is something that does not fit a prediction from the model we have from that system. ie all it tells us that our model of that system is incomplete or perhaps wrong.
You then go on to say:
> ... it depends on the pattern, and what the end result of the pattern is. Chemistry and biology have numerous example of emergent patterns that provide new and unexpected functionality.-So it would appear that a pattern is not necessarily emergent but can be. So how does this make my question a non sequitur? If it truly were, you should not be able to answer it.-By implication ... patterns themselves are not emergent, there is some underlying phenomenon that is emergent (at least for you).-> I don't have to define it. People far smarter than I have already done so, and either you are unaware of it or willfully ignore their definitions because they do not suit your views. Either way, I will let them speak for themselves. 
> 
> Emergence Defined 
> 
> Note in particular this: In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.-Here we have in your (Wiki's) defintion: a complex set of simple elements resulting in a complex behaviour. In the words of the great philosopher Homer, Duh!. -In a parent thread to this I quoted this wiki page. Particularly the section to weak and strong emergence. As I said to DHW a while back, I have no problem with the weak interpretation. -Here is a quote from Mark Bedau from the very same wiki article ...
>> 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? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.-And if you don't mind we will have less of this willfully ignoring. Just because my views don't meet your expectations Tony.-> Biology can be viewed as an emergent property of the laws of chemistry which, in turn, can be viewed as an emergent property of particle physics. Similarly, psychology could be understood as an emergent property of neurobiological dynamics, and free-market theories understand economy as an emergent feature of psychology.-Yes we make approximations all the way up and and all the way down. -David dismissed the chaotic double pendulum as emergent, simply because it can be modelled with a little bit of accuracy. On the very same wiki page it gave ripples in the sand as an example of emergence. These I would argue can be modelled reasonably well these days with computational fluid dynamics (CFD).-Similarly it gave snowflakes as an example of emergence which can also be modelled. So I don't buy emergence as not being something we can model.-Hope this helps you Tony in some understanding of my point of view. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them.

Post reply

3956 views

Romansh: So it would appear that a pattern is not necessarily emergent but can be. So how does this make my question a non sequitur? If it truly were, you should not be able to answer it.
> -A non-sequiter is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. It does not logically follow that a pattern is emergent. It could be, but not necessarily. It is not a logical necessity that a pattern be emergent. ->Romansh: By implication ... patterns themselves are not emergent, there is some underlying phenomenon that is emergent (at least for you).
> -Again, see above. A fractal is a great example of a pattern that is emergent in and of itself, life is a great example of a phenomenon that is emergent. Nuclear explosions are not emergent because the potential resides in the atom, per se, but the behavior of bees only pollinating flowers that have specific ultra-violet markers is. - 
>Romansh: Here is a quote from Mark Bedau from the very same wiki article ...
> >> 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? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.
> 
> And if you don't mind we will have less of this willfully ignoring. Just because my views don't meet your expectations Tony.
> -I only mean that the definition exists, you have quoted it, and yet asked a question that has already been directly answered by the definition that you quoted. Is that not the textbook definition of willfully ignoring something? If I am in error in that assessment, I apologize. Your views don't have to meet my expectations, but using something as a source, ignoring the content that is contained in that source, and then using the ignored content as a challenge to someone else is... well.. 'willfully ignoring' is perhaps the politest way to call it. - 
>Romansh: David dismissed the chaotic double pendulum as emergent, simply because it can be modelled with a little bit of accuracy. On the very same wiki page it gave ripples in the sand as an example of emergence. These I would argue can be modelled reasonably well these days with computational fluid dynamics (CFD).
> 
> Similarly it gave snowflakes as an example of emergence which can also be modelled. So I don't buy emergence as not being something we can model.
> -No, generally speaking we can model the events or systems that cause an emergent pattern, but it then becomes nearly impossible to predict the results of those interactions reliably. Fluid dynamics is a great example of this. Yes, we can model currents and viscosity and such, but do you think that we could ever match 100% the state of the ocean, or even of a bathtub full of water being sloshed around? We understand the parameters, but the way those parameters interact is largely a mystery, and still continues to surprise us, almost to the point where being surprised is no longer surprising.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3912 views

Tony
Someone posted an article a while back on the self ... where the article referred to the self as an emergent phenomenom. I commented that for me emergence was a non word or concept. It does not really mean or explain anything.-Various people have explained what emergence meant for them, some giving more than one "definition". They can be divided into three broad classes:-1) complex systems of simple elements can behave in complex ways. I have no problem with this, but it does give me a Duh! moment.-2) the whole is greater than the sum of parts. I do have a big problem with this. It is a direct contravention of the first law of thermodynamics. So unless we are using it in some arbitrary hand waving way, we better have some good evidence at the table to refute the first law. I have not seen it yet!-3) the other one is an unexpected behaviour. This is the one that makes least sense to me. Unexpected to whom? What are the parameters that make it unexpected. Do models like this one change what we might expect?-You asked:
>... but do you think that we could ever match 100% the state of the ocean, or even of a bathtub full of water being sloshed around?-No I don't think we can model anything 100%. If we can isolate it from the universe we might get close. The universe appears chaotic from a modelling sense. But take David's dismissal of the double pendulum as being an emergent phenomena ... that double pendulum is difficult to model and I don't think we can model it perfectly. Does it make it an emergent phenomena. By some definitions apparently.

Post reply

3846 views


> Romansh: 2) the whole is greater than the sum of parts. I do have a big problem with this. It is a direct contravention of the first law of thermodynamics. So unless we are using it in some arbitrary hand waving way, we better have some good evidence at the table to refute the first law. I have not seen it yet!-Here I dsagree. My thought emerges, but it is immaterial and I have to use symbolic letters to make words to express that thought to you. The written words have material substance, but the thoughts transmitted do not. Yes there is energy activity in your brain and mine to accomplish this transmission, but the thoughts I send and you receive do not have an energy component as an intrinsic portion of the thought. First law? No.

Post reply

3847 views

Here I dsagree. My thought emerges, but it is immaterial and I have to use symbolic letters to make words to express that thought to you. The written words have material substance, but the thoughts transmitted do not. Yes there is energy activity in your brain and mine to accomplish this transmission, but the thoughts I send and you receive do not have an energy component as an intrinsic portion of the thought. First law? No.-Here we go off topic ... as a substance dualist you will have to show me with some degree corroborating evidence that either a) a thought is anything but an arrangement of compounds ions etc in your brain or b) that the thought is indeed immaterial and somehow your brain can write to the thought and vice versa without using energy.

Post reply

3852 views


> Romansh: Here we go off topic ... as a substance dualist you will have to show me with some degree corroborating evidence that either a) a thought is anything but an arrangement of compounds ions etc in your brain or b) that the thought is indeed immaterial and somehow your brain can write to the thought and vice versa without using energy.-I've pointed out that the brain uses energy, and lots of it to funtion. But the thought I am having as I write this is a result of that energy, but the thought itself contains no energy, since it is immaterial. This is the emergent issue at hand. This is the problem in NDE research. Eben Alexander's NDE somehow occurred with seven days of no cerebral function.

Post reply

3702 views

I've pointed out that the brain uses energy, and lots of it to funtion. But the thought I am having as I write this is a result of that energy, but the thought itself contains no energy, since it is immaterial. This is the emergent issue at hand. -I'm not sure about this. 
I would say there is energy in our brains and the way various ions etc are arranged. So you make an assumption of substance dualism and then say Wow! thoughts have no energy ... So things must be emergent.-
What if thought and substance are one?->> I can only go so far in my analysis of God's activities. I try very carefully not to fall into religion's way of creating an all-everything God. I think it is wishful thinking. -That anyone thinks that they have any inkling of god and things transcedent is positively surreal to me.

Post reply

3831 views

Romansh: I would say there is energy in our brains and the way various ions etc are arranged. So you make an assumption of substance dualism and then say Wow! thoughts have no energy ... So things must be emergent.
> 
> 
> What if thought and substance are one?-How many calories are in that sentence you just thought up? Expressed ideas have no inherent energy, but they are created by energy. The DNA code is information, not energy, but the coding process is expressed by energy using molecules and ions. -> 
> Romansh: That anyone thinks that they have any inkling of god and things transcedent is positively surreal to me.-And to me.

Post reply

3816 views


> >Romansh: What if thought and substance are one?
> 
> David: How many calories are in that sentence you just thought up? Expressed ideas have no inherent energy, but they are created by energy. The DNA code is information, not energy, but the coding process is expressed by energy using molecules and ions.- Information is not material, has no substance:-http://www.mercatornet.com/connecting/view/13830#-"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? Does it matter whether the shredded document is a copy of an un-shredded document and can be replaced?â¢ Likewise, when a digital picture is taken, is digital information being created or merely captured?â¢ The information on a DVD can be measured in bits. Does the amount of information differ if the DVD contains the movie Braveheart or a collection of randomly generated digital noise?â¢ When a human dies, is experiential information lost? If so, can birth and experience create information?â¢ If you are shown a document written in Japanese, does the document contain information whether or not you know Japanese? What if, instead, the document is written in an alien language unknowable to man?The purpose of such questions is to help us see that information is real even though it is immaterial. One consequence of information being immaterial is that it is not measured in any way commensurate with material nature."

Post reply

3823 views

"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? -I don't know whether information is being conserved here or not, but certainly new (different) information is being created.
 
0111001001100001011011100110010
0011011110110110101101110011001
0101110011011100110010000001100
0110110111101101110011101000110
0001011010010110111001110011001
0000001101001011011100110011001
1011110111001001101101011000010
1110100011010010110111101101110-When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David

Post reply

3748 views

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David-
And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Post reply

3777 views

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David
> 
> 
> Tony: And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.-Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.

Post reply

3759 views

Romansh: When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David
> > 
> > 
> > Tony: And just what do you think has been happening this entire conversation? You think those 1011010010110101001 is meaningless by itself. This website has no physical form. The data being transmitted and received has no physical form. The transmission from the immaterial words on the screen to your consciousness has no material form. Note, I am not talking about the medium by which it was transfered, but the information itself.
> 
> Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.-And yet we cannot separate the physical and information. -Our communication is physical, ... the transmission, the medium and reception.

Post reply

3855 views

And no doubt somebody will claim the information in the brain is immaterial again.-So when I see something is that information in my brain? I would argue yes.-So if we could scan my brain whilst I am looking at something and somehow read what I was seeing then this would be indicative that information is indeed physical and not immaterial. Unless MRIs can now scan the immaterial?-Youtube-and something similar

Post reply

3826 views

Romansh: So if we could scan my brain whilst I am looking at something and somehow read what I was seeing then this would be indicative that information is indeed physical and not immaterial. Unless MRIs can now scan the immaterial?
> 
> Youtube
> 
> and something similar-I view the two links as over-hyped junk. Remember fMRI measures blood flow to brain areas, nothing more. On the other hand the dream or thought is carried by ions over neural networks, with modifiable synapses, many degrees of separation from what is measured when looking at blood flow. They are measuring the energy transport required, nothing more. Just because there is energy required to create thought, does not mean that the thought itself has energy. Interpretive meaning does not have energy.

Post reply

3836 views

Romansh: So if we could scan my brain whilst I am looking at something and somehow read what I was seeing then this would be indicative that information is indeed physical and not immaterial. Unless MRIs can now scan the immaterial?
> > 
> > Youtube
> > 
> > and something similar
> 
> I view the two links as over-hyped junk. Remember fMRI measures blood flow to brain areas, nothing more. On the other hand the dream or thought is carried by ions over neural networks, with modifiable synapses, many degrees of separation from what is measured when looking at blood flow. They are measuring the energy transport required, nothing more. Just because there is energy required to create thought, does not mean that the thought itself has energy. Interpretive meaning does not have energy.-Over hyped junk? possibly.
But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.-That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.

Post reply

3857 views


> Romansh: Over hyped junk? possibly.
> But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.
> 
> That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.-I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. In a direct sense what you may mean in the level of oxygen demand by a region of the brain.

Post reply

3945 views


> > Romansh: Over hyped junk? possibly.
> > But unfortunately this does not help your argument one iota David.
> > 
> > That we can get a crude image of vision from a very poor proxy for what our brain actually does. The observation that blood flow gives us information does not somehow diminish because it is measured in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.
> 
> I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. In a direct sense what you may mean in the level of oxygen demand by a region of the brain.-Does it use the doppler effect to show movement? I don't think so.
What it does is measure the change in the magnetic response in the haem molecules when the central iron atom is oxygented or not. -My guess is the frequency of the magnetic waves is tuned to hydrogen atoms around the porphyrin structure in haem molecule.-I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.

Post reply

3838 views


> Romansh: I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.-Thank you for recognizing the truth behind these studies of brain function, several times removed from electrochemical reality. So it proves what? We can only exercise our mental choices and therefore free will though these electrochemical reactions. And you would propose that these mechanisms somehow control our choices? Are you paranoid or contentious? Please note my very recent (yesterday) posts about brain complexity, all arranged by Darwinian chance.

Post reply

3835 views


> > Romansh: I would agree this is used as a proxy for blood flow.
> 
> Thank you for recognizing the truth behind these studies of brain function, several times removed from electrochemical reality. So it proves what? We can only exercise our mental choices and therefore free will though these electrochemical reactions. And you would propose that these mechanisms somehow control our choices? Are you paranoid or contentious? Please note my very recent (yesterday) posts about brain complexity, all arranged by Darwinian chance.
Firstly in the real world I personally I don't believe in proof. 
Perhaps we have corroboarting evidence that is is sufficiently strong that convinces us of a particular world view.-Lets take a step back; first I said:
>> in the degree of oxygenation in our blood.
You said:
> It shows intensity of blood flow to a region of the brain, not the oxygenation level of the blood. 
And now we are agreeing it does show the degree of oxygenation via the magnetic response of haem molecules in an oscillating magnetic field? Perhaps you would like to retract:
> I need to correct your imporession of what FMRI does. -Are we agreed that the magnetic response of haem molecules is in some way a reflection of the local neuronal activity in the brain? Assuming it is, it does not diminish the fact we can get information out of a very crude (and in your opinion over hyped) proxy for that neuronal activity. Imagine the day when we can get better resolution on the neuronal activity.

Post reply

3811 views


> Romansh: Are we agreed that the magnetic response of haem molecules is in some way a reflection of the local neuronal activity in the brain? Assuming it is, it does not diminish the fact we can get information out of a very crude (and in your opinion over hyped) proxy for that neuronal activity. Imagine the day when we can get better resolution on the neuronal activity.-Your statement is fine in that it recognizes the fMRI studies are a baby step in the direction of understanding brain activity. Your first presentation of this was way too grandiose. Just as the EEG is a remote representation. 100 billion neurons with quadrillions of synapses and synapse adaptations is overwhelming complexity to understand at today's level of research ability. Will we eventually get there? I'll give a weak probability. We will need computers just as complex to do simulations. Perhaps Matt will get us there ;>)).-See my entry of April 3rd, 22:33

Post reply

3827 views


> > David: Thank you. This is so logical. I don't know why Romansh can't see it.
> 
> Romansh: And yet we cannot separate the physical and information. 
> 
> Our communication is physical, ... the transmission, the medium and reception.-Granted, but I'll repeat again, there is no energy in the information. It can sit in a book, on a disc or on film, but its reception and interpretation can then occur years later. No energy, no entropy. Etherial substance.

Post reply

3832 views

"When a paper document is shredded, is information being destroyed? 
> 
> Romansh I don't know whether information is being conserved here or not, but certainly new (different) information is being created.
> 
> 0111001001100001011011100110010
> 0011011110110110101101110011001
> 0101110011011100110010000001100
> 0110110111101101110011101000110
> 0001011010010110111001110011001
> 0000001101001011011100110011001
> 1011110111001001101101011000010
> 1110100011010010110111101101110
> 
> When you can deliver some information or thought to me in immaterial form let me know David-Thre is no energy in the 1's and 0's. Yes, information is presented. The material form is the 1's and 0's, but the information has no energy! You cannot show me that it does.

Post reply

3841 views


> > >Romansh: You did not answer my point David. If we can explain a supposed emergent phenomenon is it still emergent?
> > 
> > David; I didn't realize that was your point. I don't think we can curently explain properties we call emergent. That is why we use that term. Consciousness is non-material, but arises from material matter. The same for the condition of life. It arises from biochemisty, but it is not found in the parts.
> 
> Romansh: You still did not answer my question David.
> 
> You say consciousness and life are nonmaterial. I will have to take your word for it, for the material and life/consciousness affect one another. Whether they exist in the dualistic sense the way you imply (or not) is irrelevant for me. They respond in a cause and effect way.-You have your choice in this issue, I have mine. Read Nagel, his article or the whole book:-http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/the-core-of-mind-and-cosmos/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 -"There are two ways of resisting this conclusion, each of which has two versions. The first way is to deny that the mental is an irreducible aspect of reality, either (a) by holding that the mental can be identified with some aspect of the physical, such as patterns of behavior or patterns of neural activity, or (b) by denying that the mental is part of reality at all, being some kind of illusion (but then, illusion to whom?). The second way is to deny that the mental requires a scientific explanation through some new conception of the natural order, because either (c) we can regard it as a mere fluke or accident, an unexplained extra property of certain physical organisms ... or else (d) we can believe that it has an explanation, but one that belongs not to science but to theology, in other words that mind has been added to the physical world in the course of evolution by divine intervention.
 
"All four of these positions have their adherents. I believe the wide popularity among philosophers and scientists of (a), the outlook of psychophysical reductionism, is due not only to the great prestige of the physical sciences but to the feeling that this is the best defense against the dreaded (d), the theistic interventionist outlook. But someone who finds (a) and (b) self-evidently false and (c) completely implausible need not accept (d), because a scientific understanding of nature need not be limited to a physical theory of the objective spatio-temporal order. It makes sense to seek an expanded form of understanding that includes the mental but that is still scientific â i.e. still a theory of the immanent order of nature."-Of course, I'm with d.

Post reply

4123 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Why conversational equations and emergence (General)