[split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2017, 06:34 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 04:57 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 03:32 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Please explain the mechanism by which any emergent property emerges.

It has been explained to you already with many examples, different examples, with links etc., yet you still refuse to understand and blame the people who try to help you understand by accusing them of childishness and rudeness.

If i could i would give you some 3 more neg rep points.

But instead i will try to give you the most simple examples possible, in the hope you either are going to understand, learn and understand or put me on ignore and leave me alone.

All (even the most simple) games involving playing cards, Chess, Go or Tetris have emergent properties (as EK already just explained), complex structures and situations emerging from a large number of very simple rules. I hope you at least start to understand that there is no *mechanism* connecting a deck of cards for emergent properties to appear.

If you fail to understand the basic concept of this then there is no hope you will ever understand why the brain has the same properties: lots ( and i mean L.O.T.S.) of simple interactions of synapses and an emerging property.

Your problem is not a lack of *mechanism* that needs to be provided to you, but a misunderstanding of the very concept of emergence. Please take that as the best advice possible and consider CONSIDERING this, before you accuse me too of your failure to understand.

Right. Simple rules in card games give rise to complex situations in card games.

If the combination of cards gave rise to something of a wholly different ontological category, it would be a good analogy to the mind and consciousness. As it is, the comparison fails in an obvious way.

If you can think of another example, in which one category of thing (say, soup) gave rise to something in an altogether different ontological category (say, ethical rules) this would be relevant enough to the issue of consciousness to be interesting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 06:47 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Flocking behaviour as an emergent property

Boids

Quote:As with most artificial life simulations, Boids is an example of emergent behavior; that is, the complexity of Boids arises from the interaction of individual agents (the boids, in this case) adhering to a set of simple rules. The rules applied in the simplest Boids world are as follows:
  • separation: steer to avoid crowding local flockmates
  • alignment: steer towards the average heading of local flockmates
  • cohesion: steer to move toward the average position (center of mass) of local flockmates


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Emergent structures in nature:

Quote:The development and growth of complex, orderly crystals, as driven by the random motion of water molecules within a conducive natural environment, is another example of an emergent process, where randomness can give rise to complex and deeply attractive, orderly structures.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
27-10-2017, 07:07 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 06:34 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  If you can think of another example, in which one category of thing (say, soup) gave rise to something in an altogether different ontological category (say, ethical rules) this would be relevant enough to the issue of consciousness to be interesting.

Soup giving rise to vertical columns:

Rayleigh–Bénard convection

A similar process can be seen in the Giant's causeway:

[Image: 280px-Causeway-code_poet-4.jpg]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Quote:Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland is an example of a complex emergent structure created by natural processes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
27-10-2017, 07:15 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
And to explain the process I refer to what I consider the best introduction to self organization out there:

THE SCIENCE OF SELF-ORGANIZATION AND ADAPTIVITY - Francis Heylighen

Quote:A higher level, emergent property will typically constrain the behavior of the lower level components. For example, the overall rotation characterizing a Bénard roll will force the liquid molecules to move in particular directions rather than others. This constraint cannot be understood from the interactions on the level of a molecule: it is determined by the emergent level. This is called downward causation : it is as if the higher level exerts its influence downward to the lower level, causing the molecules to act in a particular way. Downward causation is to be contrasted with the more traditional “upward” causation underlying Newtonian reductionism, where the behavior of the whole is fully determined by the behavior of the parts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
27-10-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 06:12 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it is the sum, the collection, pattern of electrochemical impulses that emerges as mind.

That's what everybody keeps saying. And when I ask how, they say it's an emerget property. And when I say that's really no more of an explanation than saying it's magic, they get kind of miffed.

(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas pod='1260025 Wrote:Tell me how saltiness is not an emergent property of NaCl. If not, what is it?

I assume that it is an emergent property.

Are you curious about how emergent properties emerge, or do we just have to stop with "that's just the way it is!"?

(27-10-2017 05:46 AM)Chas pod='1260025 Wrote:I don't think anyone asserted is was a complete or sufficient explanation. I bring it up because it is in direct opposition to your assertion that there are no good theories of mind. This is one aspect of such a theory.

I'm glad to hear that you don't find it a complete or sufficient explanation. It appeared that some people think it is.

And I'm glad that this is one aspect of a good theory. I didn't find it to be a complete theory on its own.

I've read some different theories of mind, but none has seemed persuasive concerning the function by which electrochemical events are perceived by the experiencing subject as something other than electrochemical events. The answers so far on this thread haven't been helpful.

If you would recommend a link or a book, I'd be happy to give it serious attention.

And I very much appreciate the fact that you can write a paragraph with no obscenity, vulgarity, or personal insult. It's a rare talent these days.

Yeah, too bad you can't get a handle on simple BBC Code. All this 'theory of mind' stuff must be a real stretch for you. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 07:29 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 06:34 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 04:57 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  It has been explained to you already with many examples, different examples, with links etc., yet you still refuse to understand and blame the people who try to help you understand by accusing them of childishness and rudeness.

If i could i would give you some 3 more neg rep points.

But instead i will try to give you the most simple examples possible, in the hope you either are going to understand, learn and understand or put me on ignore and leave me alone.

All (even the most simple) games involving playing cards, Chess, Go or Tetris have emergent properties (as EK already just explained), complex structures and situations emerging from a large number of very simple rules. I hope you at least start to understand that there is no *mechanism* connecting a deck of cards for emergent properties to appear.

If you fail to understand the basic concept of this then there is no hope you will ever understand why the brain has the same properties: lots ( and i mean L.O.T.S.) of simple interactions of synapses and an emerging property.

Your problem is not a lack of *mechanism* that needs to be provided to you, but a misunderstanding of the very concept of emergence. Please take that as the best advice possible and consider CONSIDERING this, before you accuse me too of your failure to understand.

Right. Simple rules in card games give rise to complex situations in card games.

If the combination of cards gave rise to something of a wholly different ontological category, it would be a good analogy to the mind and consciousness. As it is, the comparison fails in an obvious way.

If you can think of another example, in which one category of thing (say, soup) gave rise to something in an altogether different ontological category (say, ethical rules) this would be relevant enough to the issue of consciousness to be interesting.

We already have. Facepalm

e.g. Saltiness of NaCl, Wetness of H₂O

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 08:40 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 03:32 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 03:29 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  "brute facts"

Please explain the mechanism by which any emergent property emerges.


The mechanism would be through the interaction of parts, none of which has the property individually, but which arises through their interaction. Give this a try if you actually want to know.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/emergent...mples.html

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 09:15 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(27-10-2017 06:34 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(27-10-2017 04:57 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  It has been explained to you already with many examples, different examples, with links etc., yet you still refuse to understand and blame the people who try to help you understand by accusing them of childishness and rudeness.

If i could i would give you some 3 more neg rep points.

But instead i will try to give you the most simple examples possible, in the hope you either are going to understand, learn and understand or put me on ignore and leave me alone.

All (even the most simple) games involving playing cards, Chess, Go or Tetris have emergent properties (as EK already just explained), complex structures and situations emerging from a large number of very simple rules. I hope you at least start to understand that there is no *mechanism* connecting a deck of cards for emergent properties to appear.

If you fail to understand the basic concept of this then there is no hope you will ever understand why the brain has the same properties: lots ( and i mean L.O.T.S.) of simple interactions of synapses and an emerging property.

Your problem is not a lack of *mechanism* that needs to be provided to you, but a misunderstanding of the very concept of emergence. Please take that as the best advice possible and consider CONSIDERING this, before you accuse me too of your failure to understand.

Right. Simple rules in card games give rise to complex situations in card games.

If the combination of cards gave rise to something of a wholly different ontological category, it would be a good analogy to the mind and consciousness. As it is, the comparison fails in an obvious way.

If you can think of another example, in which one category of thing (say, soup) gave rise to something in an altogether different ontological category (say, ethical rules) this would be relevant enough to the issue of consciousness to be interesting.


Please explain what you mean by "different ontological category" in plain english.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 09:42 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(16-10-2017 04:30 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(15-10-2017 08:01 PM)Vera Wrote:  Must all the crazy religionists we've acquired recently congregate in this thread?

I also mistook Belaqua for a religious person when he first began posting. He's an atheist who thinks many religious assumptions are at least arguably reasonable, and believes most atheists don't give them enough credit.


Seriously?! Color me surprised. But not because I thought the atheist crayon box contained nothing but bright colors. I'm not that naive.

“Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why, why?'
Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.”

― Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2017, 01:03 PM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 05:08 PM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(26-10-2017 04:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ...but seems to have a problem with saying, "We don't know yet"

This is untrue. If you look back over the thread, you'll see that I'm the one insisting that we don't know.

Mathilda pretends that we know what an answer will look like when we get one.

That other guy is insisting that we already know -- that mental representation just are electrochemical events.

So your observation here is the opposite of the truth. I say we don't know and don't have a good theory. Others are saying we do.

"Yet" is crucial to parsing that comment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: