Wednesday, August 23, 2017

My existence, here and now

At the end of the day there has to be an "us," a me, and a you, as actual beings. But if physicalism what there is are particles, and people can add those particles up and call them a "me" or a "you." It is often said that physicalism threatens the idea of a future existence beyond the grave, and we don't like that. Actually, it threatens my present existence here and now. I don't see you avoid reducing it to some kind of "user illusion."

80 comments:

Edward T. Babinski said...

VIC WROTE: At the end of the day there has to be an "us," a me, and a you, as actual beings. But if physicalism what there is are particles, and people can add those particles up and call them a "me" or a "you." It is often said that physicalism threatens the idea of a future existence beyond the grave, and we don't like that. Actually, it threatens my present existence here and now. I don't see you avoid reducing it to some kind of "user illusion."

MY RESPONSE: Particles? Is that literally what physicalism says? Today we know energy and matter are the same mysterious thing, matter-energy. And it can travel as fast as light. And inside the human brain there are a trillion interconnecting links between a hundred billion or more cells, constantly processing, even during dreamless sleep. And those cells grow and change in response to a lifetime of sensory input and in conversation with each other, and in conversation socially with other human beings, growing and changing. Consciousness is a process, a holistic process. Yes, it is difficult to find "you" or "I" when studying only a part of the brain-mind-nervous-body-socially engaged system. What kind of "I" does a person possess, what kind of self-knowledge, if they are raised with little to no human contact from birth onward, in an isolated ward of an orphanage? They will have learning difficulties their entire lives. While Koko the gorilla, raised by humans, with constant sensory contact and enrichment and a teacher, developed an enriched brain, and can express herself in sign language, even has a sense of "I," and a sense of her death as well, judging by an anecdote in which she was asked where gorillas go when they die. She responded, "comfortable hole, bye."

Victor Reppert said...

The argument I am trying to make doesn't presuppose the uniqueness of humans. For all I know or care, there is a whole civilizations off the coast of Miami (the true Miami Dolphins), who have mental states like us. If the supernatural is involved in the human mind (I don't like putting it that way, but Lewis did), then why couldn't the supernatural do it for dolphins, or gorillas, as well as humans? My mentor Bill Hasker is an emergent dualist for animals as well as humans.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20005174?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Hal said...

You posted this over at Secular Outpost in response to my point that one should not confuse the vehicle with its power. Not sure how this response addresses that point.

In any case, I'd like to point out that I can only be considered a materialist in the sense that I deny that there are mental or spiritual substances. And I do not believe in reductionistm, neither physical reductionism (which you oppose) or a mental reductionism (which you appear to me to be advocating for).


At the end of the day there has to be an "us," a me, and a you, as actual beings.

Goodness yes. Humans are actual beings. They are spatial-temporal continuants with bodies and minds. I don't see why the fact that our bodies are composed of organs and those organs composed of cells and those cells are composed of molecules and so on and so on down to subatomic particles should make either of us think that our existence is called into question.

You appear to think that when things converge to form something new it is merely a matter of adding what is at the most basic level. I beg to differ. Personally I know that when two people come together in marriage something new emerges. My wife and I have each been changed by our marriage and a new type of relationship has emerged: the family.

Keith Barracks said...

The point of the Argument is that if all emergent laws and properties can be reduced down to Edwards matter energy or put simply, some deterministic material on the most basic level, then it follows that the only thing that truely exists would be the most basic elements in combination and in action. It's absurd to say that some combination of these elements produces something greater then it's parts; that a new law or property arises in a sense ex Nihilo if reductionism is true.

And with that said, You and I aren't persons at all, but a all combination of deterministic material. We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"; that we are more then the sum of our material parts. You and I are simply matter- energy or deterministic material. We are nothing but elaborate sticks and stones.

Hal said...

Keith,
I don't believe reductionism is true. Do you?

Callum said...

Ed B briefly mentioned a gorilla using sign language. I was under the impression that Noam Chomsky severely undermined the idea that such apes were actually communicating in hierarchical language.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said... August 23, 2017 8:03 PM

" I don't believe reductionism is true. Do you?"
--What else would account for what we observe? The whole must be composed of its parts. The interaction of its parts must account for the actions of the whole, or do you suppose some magic occurs on the way up?

Are you familiar with finite element analysis? It has become a fundamental scientific and engineering tool. Complex systems are analyzed and predicted by breaking them down into tiny elements in what is called the mesh. The finer the mesh, the better the simulation, in general. An element to element transfer function is defined and the mesh matrix is solved iteratively.

That is how jet airplanes and automobiles and spacecraft are tested. It turns out the whole is the sum of the parts as evidenced by the fact you do not fall out of the sky while riding in a plane with behaviors accurately predicted using finite element analysis.

Hal said...

Stardusty,
As far as I can see that example of engineering analysis has nothing to do with the metaphysical theory we call "reductionism".

It would be helpful if you tell me what you think reductionism is. Otherwise we are likely to waste a lot of time talking past each other.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Reductionism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that ...

Reductionism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/
Reductionism. Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory.

Reductionism | Define Reductionism at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/reductionism
the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic physical mechanisms that are in operation during the phenomenon.

www.dictionary.com/browse/reductionist
Reductionist definition, the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, most basic ...

********************

They all amount to pretty much the same idea.

Finite element analysis is very much an example of reductionism.



Hal said...

Stardusty,
I'm asking for your understanding of the metaphysical theory of reductionism. Simply quoting articles about different types of reductionism is not helpful here.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said... August 24, 2017 10:36 PM

" I'm asking for your understanding of the metaphysical theory of reductionism."
--You mean that all sciences are reducible to physics?

" Simply quoting articles about different types of reductionism is not helpful here."
--It is helpful, but you just don't see the connection, apparently. Reductionism is simply the only way of viewing reality that makes sense, comports with science, and holds up to analysis.

To depart from reductionism requires belief in magic on the way up, whether the believer realizes it or not.

Joe Hinman said...

And with that said, You and I aren't persons at all, but a all combination of deterministic material. We've been decieved into believing that we are actually "people"; that we are more then the sum of our material parts. You and I are simply matter- energy or deterministic material. We are nothing but elaborate sticks and stones.

I am a person, you can be a sponge if you wish I am a person.It does not matter that my Persephone is socially constructed. I still internalized it and that is who an d what I am.

I am not determined,I don't have to say these things I cud avoid it if I wished. You will feel compelled to argue it you don't have to.That is ideological indoctrination not determinism.

Joe Hinman said...

" I'm asking for your understanding of the metaphysical theory of reductionism."

It's two things neither of which is metaphysical, except in Heidegger's sense.(1) a scientific methodology, (2) an ideological ploy functioning as q rhetorical tactic.I see would categorize philosophical kinds of reductionist that might be called "metaphysical" as fitting under either category demanding.

--You mean that all sciences are reducible to physics?

scientists reduce other things they don't reduce science


" Simply quoting articles about different types of reductionism is not helpful here."

--It is helpful, but you just don't see the connection, apparently. Reductionism is simply the only way of viewing reality that makes sense, comports with science, and holds up to analysis.

nonsense, the only way of escapology relativity when it disproves your ideology.Then you lose the phenomena that counts against you by reductionist tactics, and now nothing counts against the ideology because its not part of reality anymore.

that how you maintain the illusion that it illumines reality because it cuts off all the untidy stuff that counts against your view. Then it's not there any more,like fake news.

Joe Hinman said...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
A few examples of reductionistic explanations for the presence of religion are: that religion can be reduced to humanity's conceptions of right and wrong, that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments, that religion is a way to explain the existence of a physical world, and that ...

Reductionism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
www.iep.utm.edu/red-ism/
Reductionism. Reductionists are those who take one theory or phenomenon to be reducible to some other theory or phenomenon. For example, a reductionist regarding mathematics might take any given mathematical theory to be reducible to logic or set theory.

Nope Schleiermacker disproved taht in the days of Hegel, he is quite famous for it that's why he;s called the father of liberal theology and liberal theology as a whole is immune to that criticism,

Reductionism | Define Reductionism at Dictionary.com
www.dictionary.com/browse/reductionism
the theory that every complex phenomenon, especially in biology or psychology, can be explained by analyzing the simplest, m

specifically disprove by holism

btw antisemitism is part of holism so the use of emergence in service to phsyikcalism and anti religious argument is a contradiction for reductionist,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said..August 26, 2017 10:55 AM.

" I am not determined,I don't have to say these things I cud avoid it if I wished."
--Then that would be what is determined.

Free will is an illusion. Of course you feel yourself making decisions, so you have the sense of freedom. That is the illusion, that false sense of freedom.

You do what you want, so you feel free, but what controls your wants? One day you feel like vanilla so you choose vanilla. The next day you feel like chocolate, so you choose chocolate. You sense yourself making choices, so you feel free. But where did your want for vanilla come from one day and your want for chocolate come from the next day?

Free will is an illusion on several grounds. On determinism you are not free, and on indeterminism you are still a slave to whatever randomly pops into your being.

On studies of neural signals you are not free since your decision is made before you even know it.

On an omniscient god you cannot be free in any sense. You can only do 1 thing, the thing the omniscient god already knows you will do.

Joe Hinman said...

Reductionism is simply the only way of viewing reality that makes sense, comports with science, and holds up to analysis.

don't look now Dusty but that is my definition of scinetism, that is literally the way I definite it, you just cost I am skeptical a bet,

and if you do use emergent ism you just contradicted yourself.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. August 26, 2017 11:27 AM .

Reductionism is simply the only way of viewing reality that makes sense, comports with science, and holds up to analysis.

" don't look now Dusty but that is my definition of scinetism, that is literally the way I definite it, you just cost I am skeptical a bet,"
--So what? Who cares how you define scientism?

" and if you do use emergent ism you just contradicted yourself."
--The idea that the whole is more than the sum of the parts is magical thinking.

So-called emergent properties are merely supervenient to smaller scale properties.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said..August 26, 2017 10:55 AM.

" I am not determined,I don't have to say these things I cud avoid it if I wished."

--Then that would be what is determined.

so you think determinism is just a magic king's x,? Rember the star Trek with Ted Cassidy (Lurch from Adams family?) Survival cancels programming, not determinism the way out of the loop.



Free will is an illusion. Of course you feel yourself making decisions, so you have the sense of freedom. That is the illusion, that false sense of freedom.

no it's not


You do what you want, so you feel free, but what controls your wants? One day you feel like vanilla so you choose vanilla.

spoken like a true son of Esaw, what birth right give me those beans!

The next day you feel like chocolate, so you choose chocolate. You sense yourself making choices, so you feel free. But where did your want for vanilla come from one day and your want for chocolate come from the next day?

Chocolate is rather involved with habit.Like smoking hash, both of which I was into, I am still into chocolate. That's not a good example because it's not pre determined,you get hooked anyone who smokes hash could get hooked even if you didn't want it. Not determinism but it is habitual.

Free will is an illusion on several grounds. On determinism you are not free, and on indeterminism you are still a slave to whatever randomly pops into your being.

no I think you don't know what determinism is,that sounds like someone an atheist message board who tired to make an all purpose argent no free willer can answer. all you have really done is to violate the principle of falsification.


On studies of neural signals you are not free since your decision is made before you even know it.

you base that on Libet don't you? Libet himself said it;s wrong and he said he did not disprove free will.

On an omniscient god you cannot be free in any sense. You can only do 1 thing, the thing the omniscient god already knows you will do.
August 26, 2017 11:20 AM

that is based upon the fallacy about omniscience, read Boethius,

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said.. August 26, 2017 11:27 AM .

Reductionism is simply the only way of viewing reality that makes sense, comports with science, and holds up to analysis.

" don't look now Dusty but that is my definition of scinetism, that is literally the way I definite it, you just cost I am skeptical a bet,"


--So what? Who cares how you define scientism?

all of the most brilliantist people do



" and if you do use emergent ism you just contradicted yourself."
--The idea that the whole is more than the sum of the parts is magical thinking.

So-called emergent properties are merely supervenient to smaller scale properties.

Doesn't answer the issue. You are still contradiction, because you are using an idea from a view demolished to combat reductionist but you said reductionism is the only view worth anything,

Stardusty Psyche said...


Joe Hinman said...

" Doesn't answer the issue. You are still contradiction, because you are using an idea from a view demolished to combat reductionist but you said reductionism is the only view worth anything,"
--If you were to concentrate on not speaking in short quips of disjointed gibberish you might begin to have something intelligible to say about something, anything.

Joe Hinman said...

-If you were to concentrate on not speaking in short quips of disjointed gibberish you might begin to have something intelligible to say about something, anything.

if you would actually answer the argument rather than look for extraneous things to criticize...my answer could not be more clear, you advocate a position that constraints the view you said is the only rational view, what else do we need to know you are wrong?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. August 26, 2017 2:29 PM .

"my answer could not be more clear,"
--You don't know how to form a clear answer, so you think that.

" you advocate a position that constraints the view you said is the only rational view,"
--More vague bullshit. Try explaining what you mean.

" what else do we need to know you are wrong?"
--What dumbass assumptions you are falsely attributing to me so you can jump to conclusions in your own mind about what I am thinking, all without explaining yourself in any intelligible manner.

JBsptfn said...

EDSKI: MY RESPONSE: Particles? Is that literally what physicalism says? Today we know energy and matter are the same mysterious thing, matter-energy. And it can travel as fast as light. And inside the human brain there are a trillion interconnecting links between a hundred billion or more cells, constantly processing, even during dreamless sleep. And those cells grow and change in response to a lifetime of sensory input and in conversation with each other, and in conversation socially with other human beings, growing and changing. Consciousness is a process, a holistic process. Yes, it is difficult to find "you" or "I" when studying only a part of the brain-mind-nervous-body-socially engaged system. What kind of "I" does a person possess, what kind of self-knowledge, if they are raised with little to no human contact from birth onward, in an isolated ward of an orphanage? They will have learning difficulties their entire lives. While Koko the gorilla, raised by humans, with constant sensory contact and enrichment and a teacher, developed an enriched brain, and can express herself in sign language, even has a sense of "I," and a sense of her death as well, judging by an anecdote in which she was asked where gorillas go when they die. She responded, "comfortable hole, bye."

That's not consciousness, that's cognitive function you are talking about. Another atheist does a bait and switch.

Hal said...

Stardusty,
“You mean that all sciences are reducible to physics?”
Yes that would be a metaphysical theory of reductionism. I don’t subscribe to that.

“To depart from reductionism requires belief in magic on the way up, whether the believer realizes it or not.”

The reduction used in finite element analysis is entirely appropriate and useful. But that analysis does not eliminate the properties found in the phenomena being explained.

“So-called emergent properties are merely supervenient to smaller scale properties.”

That form of emergence is mistaken. Properties do not supervene on other properties. Properties cannot exist without the things they are properties of.
Certainly you believe that new and different things have come into existence since the big bang? Originally the universe did not have stars or planets or living beings. When something new emerges it has new properties. If it didn’t, how could you differentiate it from something else?

How can one believe in evolution without believing new kinds of living things have emerged?

Mario Bunge is a materialist and a physicist. I don’t happen to agree with all of his philosophical views but he was written a good book “Emergence and Convergence” You can read an excerpt of it at Google Books

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. August 26, 2017 7:21 PM .

SP “You mean that all sciences are reducible to physics?”
" Yes that would be a metaphysical theory of reductionism. I don’t subscribe to that."
--What accounts for chemistry, geology, astronomy, and cosmology if not physics?

" The reduction used in finite element analysis is entirely appropriate and useful. But that analysis does not eliminate the properties found in the phenomena being explained."
--It accounts for them.

SP “So-called emergent properties are merely supervenient to smaller scale properties.”

" That form of emergence is mistaken. Properties do not supervene on other properties."
--Of course they do. High level "properties" are approximations, average behaviors, aggregate behaviors. To account for them we must treat them as supervienient to more fundamental properties.


" Certainly you believe that new and different things have come into existence since the big bang?"
--No new stuff has come into existence, on conservation of matter/energy. The existent stuff has rearranged itself into various structures.

"Originally the universe did not have stars or planets or living beings. When something new emerges it has new properties."
--No. We merely attribute new properties to macro objects as an analytical tool because otherwise problems would be intractable.

" How can one believe in evolution without believing new kinds of living things have emerged?"
--I don't "believe in" evolution. Evolution by natural selection is a theory and an observed fact. Each organism is at least slightly different in structure than all the rest, yet certain similarities are also apparent. Classifications are made but they are not absolutely complete and comprehensive in every detail.


Joe Hinman said...

That form of emergence is mistaken. Properties do not supervene on other properties. Properties cannot exist without the things they are properties of.
Certainly you believe that new and different things have come into existence since the big bang? \\

>>>>good analysis man

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said.. August 26, 2017 2:29 PM .

"my answer could not be more clear,"


--You don't know how to form a clear answer, so you think that.

O I have a clear one formed but out of respect for Dr. Reppert I wont use it,


" you advocate a position that constraints the view you said is the only rational view,"


--More vague bullshit. Try explaining what you mean.

I construed your lack of denials as acceptance of emergent properties, sorry


" what else do we need to know you are wrong?"


--What dumbass assumptions you are falsely attributing to me so you can jump to conclusions in your own mind about what I am thinking, all without explaining yourself in any intelligible manner.

since you don't accept emergent properties how did we go from inanimate to living and from inanimate to consciousness?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said..August 26, 2017 8:41 PM.

" since you don't accept emergent properties how did we go from inanimate to living"
--There is nothing special about matter that is part of a life form. A living thing is a system that is a product of a self reproduction. Crystals are a sort of proto life. Self replicating molecules are alive in the sense of reproduction. Nobody yet knows all the details of how abiogenesis occurred.

" and from inanimate to consciousness?"
--That took a few billion years with a great many intermediate stages.

Joe Hinman said...

" since you don't accept emergent properties how did we go from inanimate to living"
--There is nothing special about matter that is part of a life form. A living thing is a system that is a product of a self reproduction. Crystals are a sort of proto life. Self replicating molecules are alive in the sense of reproduction. Nobody yet knows all the details of how abiogenesis occurred.

cheap way to slough off the argument, life is obviously emergent there is no law that ssays life must happen;even though we have strong hypothesis we have no real proof about how it came to be. the point is we don't get there by reducing we get there by emergent properties,

" and from inanimate to consciousness?"


--That took a few billion years with a great many intermediate stages.


no genius, you did not answer the argument,I'm not Saying it can't happen without God. I'm saying we can]t explain it with reductionism! just saying it takes time and stuff is not not an answer it still requires an emergent property,,


here is a three part blog essay I did on atheist's ideological use of
reductionism.

part 1

part 2

part 3

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" life is obviously emergent "
--The sun obviously moves around the Earth while the Earth obviously stands still.

"there is no law that ssays life must happen;"
--But it did.

"even though we have strong hypothesis we have no real proof about how it came to be. the point is we don't get there by reducing we get there by emergent properties"
--Reduction is not a real time process, it is an analytical process.

" no genius, you did not answer the argument,"
--You didn't make an argument. You asked a question.

If you don't realize that complex observations reduce to and are accounted for by small scale properties in the aggregate then you believe in magic on the way up from the small scale.

You don't have an argument, all you have is a round about way of injecting poof on the way up from the most fundamental structures to those we observe at our ordinary level of perception.

To deny reductionism is to embrace magical poof "argument".

Joe Hinman said...

According to O'connor and Wang emergent properties can't be reduced to the properties from which they spring. If true that means that if consciousness is emergent it's not reducible to brain fuction. Yet every reductionist I've ever argued with uses emergence to explain the rise of consciousness, which they take to be reduciable to brain chemistry. Emergence is also divided into strong and weak. Strong emergence is when the phenomenon is high level and emerges from a low level domain. Strong emergence was evoked by the British emergentists in the 1920s and is featured in most philosophical discussions about emergence. Weak emergence is in respect to low level domain when high level phenomenon emerges from low level domain but truths concerning that phenomenon are unexpected given the principles governing that domain.[2]


O'Connor, Timothy and Wong, Hong Yu, "Emergent Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...

" According to O'connor and Wang emergent properties can't be reduced to the properties from which they spring."
--That is a self contradictory sentence.

If B "springs" from A then B reduces to A. Else B = A + Poof.

If you don't accept reductionism then you are a magical thinker who believes in poof dunnit.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said...

" life is obviously emergent "

--The sun obviously moves around the Earth while the Earth obviously stands still.

that is argument from analogy. fallacy, just because one thing is not obvious doesn't mean the is also not obvious.

"there is no law that ssays life must happen;"

--But it did.

not the point, you don't really understand the argent do you? you think this is abouit we need God for life to happen think genius, if emergent [roper-toes are real then the system that predicts them and fosters the idea of them is one up on the theory that denied their existence.

Saying life happened is not an answer to the argument.the argument is life is emergent property thus the system of emergence,holism is right and reductionist is wrong, to the extent that it can;t explain emergence


"even though we have strong hypothesis we have no real proof about how it came to be. the point is we don't get there by reducing we get there by emergent properties"

--Reduction is not a real time process, it is an analytical process.

as a methodology but you and other new atheists use it as a heuristic,

" no genius, you did not answer the argument,"

--You didn't make an argument. You asked a question.

the genius doesn't see the argument, interesting, i expained above just now,

If you don't realize that complex observations reduce to and are accounted for by small scale properties in the aggregate then you believe in magic on the way up from the small scale.


that's just a party line, some complex reservations can't be reduced or you lose the phenomenon but you try to lose it so you don't have to account for it. consciousness is irreducible it can't be reduced to brain chemistry you do bait and switch to brain function so you lose the phenomena,

You don't have an argument, all you have is a round about way of injecting poof on the way up from the most fundamental structures to those we observe at our ordinary level of perception.


you are just callinitname,s childish pkoy oifdenyinfthe arguent exists,superimmagurek you are wastingjy tie knonoting,

To deny reductionism is to embrace magical poof "argument".

arrogant twaddle I would expect from a know nothing who doesn't know an argent ween he sees one, holism is not magical. stupid to think that

Joe Hinman said...

argent ween = argument when he sees one

Joe Hinman said...

" According to O'connor and Wang emergent properties can't be reduced to the properties from which they spring."
--That is a self contradictory sentence.

If B "springs" from A then B reduces to A. Else B = A + Poof.

first we have a choice of trusting the authors of the Stanford encyclopedia or you I think I'll trust the real academics. secondly, saying they cant be reduced is not the same as saying they don't originate or they are not rooted in, that just means you don't understand the concept of emergence,it seems you don't understand reduction either.

you are trying to use reduction as an all purpose theory that explains all,
it is not,it's a method for clanswoman concertina kinds of questions not enough to base a whole theory of the universe upon,


If you don't accept reductionism then you are a magical thinker who believes in poof dunnit.

Obviously an ideological bromide since holism is not magic it's opposed to reduction. Holism is science it's just another scientific theory,

Joe Hinman said...

say great genius, tell me is something popping into existence from nothing for no reason magic? why wouldn't it be?


a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat is that magic? the rabbit come from nowhere,so it's magic,so if the universe just pops up form nothing for no reason out of nothing why is that not magic?

Hal said...

Joe,
I noticed the link to the emergence article you talked about is not working.
Here is the link to the Stanford Article on Emergence.

I think I managed to understand about 20% of it.:-)

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said... August 26, 2017 11:22 PM

" say great genius, tell me is something popping into existence from nothing for no reason magic?"
--Yes. Krauss is a formerly great public servant for rationality who has descended into a stinking pit of woo mongering.


" a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat is that magic? the rabbit come from nowhere,"
--Your "arguments" are typically very poorly structured. A hat is not "nowhere".

Joe Hinman said...

thanks hal


'LConnor, Timothy and Wong, Hong Yu, "Emergent Properties", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said..
August 26, 2017 11:13 PM.

" first we have a choice of trusting the authors of the Stanford encyclopedia or you "
--False dichotomy. Reason for yourself. The words of others need only be mined for their potential educational insights or rejected as erroneous irrespective of author.

"I think I'll trust the real academics."
--Sound argument is not a matter of trust in authority.

" secondly, saying they cant be reduced is not the same as saying they don't originate or they are not rooted in, that just means you don't understand the concept of emergence,it seems you don't understand reduction either.

you are trying to use reduction as an all purpose theory that explains all,"
--All perceived macro phenomena are accounted for by nano scale phenomena, they must be, else some sort of magic occurred on the way up. We know everything we observe is composed of sub microscopic particles. Therefore it is the aggregate behavior of these sub microscopic particles that accounts for our macro scale observations.

If there is something more than the aggregate of sub microscopic behaviors that accounts for our macro observations then there is some sort of poof at work in the universe, some sort of spooky murky magical ectoplasm that somehow adds a special something to the behaviors of sub microscopic particles to yield our observed macro phenomena.

One simple example - Gas Pressure.
Our observed macro phenomenon is pressure. We sense it blowing up a balloon. We measure it with a tire gauge. But what is it? To a first approximation it is described with:
PV = nRT
That works well until more extreme conditions are encountered, in which case more complex models are employed that account for inter molecular forces in more detail.

In reality individual particles are bouncing off each other and hitting the walls of the container. Pressure is just a macro approximate observation, not an intrinsic phenomenon of something. Pressure is just an approximation we use to make sense of the world and function in the world.

The only reality is the billion billion billion particles bouncing about. They fully account for our macro observation of pressure. Pressure is fully reducible to nano scale collisions. The appearance of an emergent property of pressure is an illusion, an approximation, never a precise description of reality.

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty the arguments I've made are not formally presented but they are clearly arguments. You have not answered them. Talking about what's wrong with the way I write is not an answer. I said reductionist is just a method of ignoring ideas that disprove your ideology you have not responded to that.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "The appearance of an emergent property of pressure is an illusion"

Pressure is not an illusion. Reductionism does not necessarily entail the denial of phenomena. To do that is to have gone way too far with the idea.

I have not seen anything approaching a cogent argument that the events and features at the macro level are less real or valid than those at the micro level. Particles bounce off each other, and internal pressure causes a balloon to expand. Both are valid and neither is comprehensive. Bodies and fists are mostly empty space at an atomic level, yet a fist to the gut isn't going to feel good because at that scale, physical space between atoms does not accomplish the same thing as empty space between objects at higher scales. Which is true? Why, both are, because the scale matters.

Put another way, subatomic particles form atoms, which behave a certain way due to the configuration of those atoms. The atoms form molecules, which behave a certain way due to the configuration of the molecules. The molecules form cells, the cells form a person, and at each scale, the behavior is not found on the scale beneath it. Subatomic particles do not carry biological information unless they are configured into the molecules forming DNA, so to discuss genetics does not require discussion or understanding of subatomic particles. It only requires the scale including DNA.

No single scale describes reality, neither the smallest nor the largest. All scales are required for a truly comprehensive description. In the meantime, the descriptions at each scale are equally valid. The largest scales are illusions to the same extent as the smallest scales deny phenomena.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

" No single scale describes reality, neither the smallest nor the largest. "
--You are conflating human concepts with external reality.

No single scale human description provides the fullest description humans are capable of.

"In the meantime, the descriptions at each scale are equally valid."
--They are all incomplete approximations, and in that sense illusory.

The pressure model is a valid approximation since it is reality based and tends to track aggregate reality quite closely. Pressure is not just some nonsense made up out of whole cloth.

You seem to see smooth curved lines on your monitor. That is an illusion, You can even write a simple expression for an arc or a parabola that matches closely with the curves you see on your monitor. Those mathematical models are also illusory, but valid approximations.

The truth is that your monitor is made up of colored dots, red dots, green dots, and blue dots designed to stimulate your red, green, and blue receptors. Every shape and color you see on the screen is reducible to those dots. There are no smooth curves on your screen, only dots, just as there is no mathematical expression for pressure, only particles impacting each other and the walls of the container.

Everything reduces to the nano scale and there is no poof on the way up. The scales you refer to are illusory in that they are idealized approximations of a much more complicated reality. But they are valid approximations in that they converge on reality to within a very small margin of error.

Legion of Logic said...

The nano scale does not feature what is observed at higher levels. Thus, the nano scale is no more reality than any other level.

And yes, there are poofs along the way. Protons and neutrons have no capacity for rational thinking or memory, but protons and neutrons arranged into carbon molecules arranged into neurons arranged into a brain are the foundation for the human mind, even though that foundation does not feature what is observed to exist at higher levels, i.e. the mind.

Everything reduces to the nano level, but the nano level coagulates into larger systems. Both directions are valid, if one wants to account for both foundational levels and higher level phenomena.

Legion of Logic said...

I also see no need for there to be a mathematical expression for pressure inside a balloon. There is nothing illusory about blowing up a balloon - one takes a balloon and fills it with something, and it expands.

If you are going to claim that to be an illusion, then how do you claim anything at all, including your beliefs about the nano scale? If you can't trust yourself as you blow up a balloon, why do you trust something far less tangible like your reasoning?

Legion of Logic said...

This will illustrate my point. Using the nano level, explain the difference between a basketball and an armadillo.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said... August 27, 2017 2:21 PM

" And yes, there are poofs along the way."
There we have it. A its core emergentism is magical thinking, the specific embracing of the notion of poof.

Well, if you believe in magic there is nothing I can say to prove that magic does not happen. Theistic thinking is magical thinking, a belief in poof. As long as there are gaps in our scientific knowledge theists can assert poof to fill those gaps and such assertions cannot be strictly disproved.

" Protons and neutrons have no capacity for rational thinking or memory,"
--Interesting. A mouse remembers. Do you suppose a mouse brain is made at least in part out of poof?

A computer remembers. Is your computer made out of poof also? After all, the things a computer does are often mysterious, and no single individual actually knows everything your computer is doing, so perhaps it is not mere nano scale particles wizzing about.

At some point in its manufacture apparently some poof steps in to give the computer the spark of, well, computation.

" but protons and neutrons arranged into carbon molecules arranged into neurons arranged into a brain are the foundation for the human mind, even though that foundation does not feature what is observed to exist at higher levels, i.e. the mind."
--You are succumbing to complexity. At some point the problem becomes so complex as to be impossible to directly imagine, so magical thinking takes over to fill the cognitive gap.

I have that same cognitive gap. I am not here to claim I am some sort of conceptual genius who can form a complete abstraction from the nano scale to our macro observations.

To help you bridge that gap let me ask you where the poof comes in. At the molecular level? The internals of a single cell? At multiple cells? How many multiples cells? At what point does physics fail to account for structure and behavior and instead poof swoops in to complete the job?

Joe Hinman said...

Pressure is not an illusion. Reductionism does not necessarily entail the denial of phenomena. To do that is to have gone way too far with the idea.

No it does not, That's why I distinguished between methodological reductionist and ideological reductionism.

Joe Hinman said...

Dusty you have done nothing to justify you B about reduction being the only valie way to look at things,''You have not dealt with losing the phenomena,

Joe Hinman said...

" And yes, there are poofs along the way."
There we have it. A its core emergentism is magical thinking, the specific embracing of the notion of poof.

that;s the yea-boo theory of metaphysics, it goes like this,"boo that,that is not my thing. my thing yea! that, boo!

Well, if you believe in magic there is nothing I can say to prove that magic does not happen. Theistic thinking is magical thinking, a belief in poof. As long as there are gaps in our scientific knowledge theists can assert poof to fill those gaps and such assertions cannot be strictly disproved.

your thinking is magical thinking. you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason,belief in God is not magic it posits a valid origin for the universe:mind, You don't know what magic is, you are just applying the yea-boo theory

" Protons and neutrons have no capacity for rational thinking or memory,"

--Interesting. A mouse remembers. Do you suppose a mouse brain is made at least in part out of poof?



A computer remembers. Is your computer made out of poof also? After all, the things a computer does are often mysterious, and no single individual actually knows everything your computer is doing, so perhaps it is not mere nano scale particles wizzing about.

At some point in its manufacture apparently some poof steps in to give the computer the spark of, well, computation.

" but protons and neutrons arranged into carbon molecules arranged into neurons arranged into a brain are the foundation for the human mind, even though that foundation does not feature what is observed to exist at higher levels, i.e. the mind."
--You are succumbing to complexity. At some point the problem becomes so complex as to be impossible to directly imagine, so magical thinking takes over to fill the cognitive gap.

I have that same cognitive gap. I am not here to claim I am some sort of conceptual genius who can form a complete abstraction from the nano scale to our macro observations.

To help you bridge that gap let me ask you where the poof comes in. At the molecular level? The internals of a single cell? At multiple cells? How many multiples cells? At what point does physics fail to account for structure and behavior and instead poof swoops in to complete the job?

what is this poof of which you speak?

you do not have the kind of information or data for understanding basic processes like where the universe came from,that you demand of theistic thought or that you pretend to have.

but we not finished with your assign stupidity about cretinism, wear going to stick to that you come clean about your fraud,

let;s see a proof that reductionist is the only valid way to think answer my argument losing phebonena,

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty,

The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position. If you want to act like that's what I think and keep posting to me as if it's so, then you're nowhere near as intelligent as I'm currently willing to credit you. I used the word "poof" sarcastically because that was the word you used to employ your strawman.

Describe the difference between a basketball and an armadillo at the nano level.

Joe Hinman said...

to the board, we should not let the fraud dusty get away with shifting the BOP to theists on the nonsense that God is magic. he must make good on his statement about reductionist first his BOP- and he must answer my charge of losing phenomena. That is cricial.

Don;t let him shift to this stupid mockery of theistic belief, suspend the theistic belief for the moment and make him make good on his claims,

btw emergent properties don't work by magic they work by top down causation,

Joe Hinman said...

The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position. If you want to act like that's what I think and keep posting to me as if it's so, then you're nowhere near as intelligent as I'm currently willing to credit you. I used the word "poof" sarcastically because that was the word you used to employ your strawman.

good one LL!

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. August 27, 2017 9:55 PM.

" that;s the yea-boo theory of metaphysics, it goes like this,"boo that,that is not my thing. my thing yea! that, boo!"
--Are you intoxicated or just an otherwise baked crackpot?

" you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason,"
--Do you always pull stupid bullshit out of your ass or are you doing it special just for little old me?

Stardusty Psyche said...


Legion of Logic said.. August 27, 2017 9:59 PM.

" The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position."
--You said poof happens.

" I used the word "poof" sarcastically "
--You need to work on your delivery. Until then, I suggest you avoid hot button acts like racial humor...takes impeccable audience connection to pull off.

"because that was the word you used to employ your strawman."
--No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.


" Describe the difference between a basketball and an armadillo at the nano level."
--My favorite number is Avogadro's, about 6.02 * 10^23. By definition there are that many atoms in 12 grams of Carbon 12. So, just considering the number of molecules in ordinary objects we can calculate numbers very roughly on that order.

Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data. Predicting how all these molecules would change their relationships to each other and to everything else would again require a literally unimaginable amount of data storage and processing power.

But God could do it, right? The omniscient one could do it with ease and perfection, certainly, being omnipotent and all, right? For example, given 100 atoms God could surly predict just how they would combine, right? And so on for 10^10, 1^20, and every quark, electron, neutrino, and photon in the universe. Surly the almighty, being of infinite power and all, could predict all the behaviors of all the particles in all the universe for all time.

That being the case, the nano scale states fully describe the macro scale states, but we poor humans are hopelessly inadequate to make such predictive calculations, but thank God that God can do it for us!

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said.. August 27, 2017 9:55 PM.

" that;s the yea-boo theory of metaphysics, it goes like this,"boo that,that is not my thing. my thing yea! that, boo!"
--Are you intoxicated or just an otherwise baked crackpot?

you have yet to present an argent or back up your all knowing pronouncements with kind of data or facts, you are flapping your ignorant gums,

" you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason,"

--Do you always pull stupid bullshit out of your ass or are you doing it special just for little old me?

If not then tell me what you do think caused the universe to come into being? making pronouncements is not proof and insulting arguments does not disprove them.

still not answering the charge of losing the phenomena,,

Joe Hinman said...

notoce how he is so offended by the defendant that he prove his point the notion that live up to the demands he placed om other people's positions is driving him up the wall. He calls that "pulling bull shit out of your ass," You want me to actually prove the logic of my position that's just bullshit!

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. August 27, 2017 9:59 PM.

" The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position."
--You said poof happens.

" I used the word "poof" sarcastically "
--You need to work on your delivery. Until then, I suggest you avoid hot button acts like racial humor...takes impeccable audience connection to pull off.

racial humor? where? do you think using "shtick" is racial? ludicrous.


"because that was the word you used to employ your strawman."
--No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.

answer my argent creton! why is my thing magic when you have no basks in any kind of fact for the origin of the universe,???? your view is just as motorboat, you are merely using the term magic as a flair word you don't know shit about magic you are ignorant of what belief in God means.


Joe Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Hinman said...

No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.

why is religious thinking magical thinking? Now time to back up your little all knowing pronouncements with facts. Don't be a coward put your money where your mouth is and give us a reason.

here is a essay I wrote on Atehistwatch disapproving a claim that religious thinking is Magical thinking.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "No, it's magical thinking."

No, it's not. Disappointing.


Stardusty: "Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data."

That was your attempt?


Stardusty: "But God could do it, right?"

Irrelevant to anything I said, and you accidentally capitalized God per correct grammar.


Stardusty: "That being the case, the nano scale states fully describe the macro scale states"

I'm waiting to see that case made convincingly, without referring to higher levels.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe said
"why is religious thinking magical thinking? "
--Because it is a series of poof stories. There is supposedly some magical invisible man, or being, floating around out there someplace, or everyplace, or no place depending on which version of the story is being told.

Supposedly this magic man or men or being or set of beings can read our minds and spy on us at all times. From all this eavesdropping and spying he/she/it will alternatively do nothing to you when you die, or make you live another life on Earth perhaps as an animal, or send you to the most wonderful vacation place in the universe for all eternity or torture you in unbearable agony for all eternity.

In the mean time, back on Earth, which he/she/it kindly poofed into existence with a big magic word, this magic man/woman/being is continually poofing things about, performing miracles, assisting the sick, killing cancer cells, fixing bad joints, and occasionally does real magic tricks like walking on water, raising the dead, and turning water into wine.

It's all magical superstitious thinking of a most incredibly ignorant primitive sort.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe said
"why is religious thinking magical thinking? "

--Because it is a series of poof stories. There is supposedly some magical invisible man, or being, floating around out there someplace, or everyplace, or no place depending on which version of the story is being told.

(1) "poof story" is an idiotic term nothing in the
Bible goes poof. You are using prescribed ideological slander terms for mockery without knowing anything about the thing you mock.
(2) you are equating popular piety with belief in God very ignorant,
(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,



Supposedly this magic man or men or being or set of beings can read our minds and spy on us at all times. From all this eavesdropping and spying he/she/it will alternatively do nothing to you when you die, or make you live another life on Earth perhaps as an animal, or send you to the most wonderful vacation place in the universe for all eternity or torture you in unbearable agony for all eternity.

You resent being controlled. you seek power, that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type, so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives for mocking ridiculing other's faith,

In the mean time, back on Earth, which he/she/it kindly poofed into existence with a big magic word, this magic man/woman/being is continually poofing things about, performing miracles, assisting the sick, killing cancer cells, fixing bad joints, and occasionally does real magic tricks like walking on water, raising the dead, and turning water into wine.

I guess he should seek power the right way, by being in the priesthood of knowledgeable teach science show everyone how brilliant he is like you do, show how much science he Knossos so he will be worthy like you.

It's all magical superstitious thinking of a most incredibly ignorant primitive sort.

Of course it doesn't occur to you that these are classics of one faith thousands of years old, modern thinkers write modern theology books. Bit you don't have the guts or the intelligence or the education to understand then,you are too cowardly to read them,

Joe Hinman said...

I will now take his refusal to answer my arguments on reductionist as surrender. He knows he can't answer losing the phenomena or top down causation so he is just putting up smoke screen with personal insults.

Joe Hinman said...

It's the boorish naturalistic tendency to say God speaking creation into being is magic, supposedly magic in the ancient world is thought to work by incantation so speaking into existence into existence is magic. But popping unto existence for no reason is science.

I say speaking has a different use, Not magic but heuristics. It all goes ack to the concept of the word, Why did the ancient brews use memra for God's presence on earth?? Thesis in the targets. When the Jews spoke Greek they used the word Logos to stand for memra.

Speaking Revelations. Logos is revelation,the link between Logos an memra as word, revelation is not something I made up it's recognized in Jewish encyclopedia and by Messianic writers like Edersheim.

God is the transcendental signified, the transcendental intensifiers include Logos and memra and God.It's not about magic but ordering principle which is expressed through the revelation inherent within the principle of logos,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said
"(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,"
"You resent being controlled. you seek power,"
"that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type,"
"so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,"
"you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives"
--You are a fucktard moron. Get your head out of your ass, dig the shit out of your ears, and you might learn how to have a conversation some day.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. August 28, 2017 6:21 AM.

Stardusty: "No, it's magical thinking."

" No, it's not. Disappointing."
--One person's magic or superstition or legend or mythology is another person's religion.

Muhammad flew a winged horse to heaven, Jesus turned water to wine, the wind god exhaled a summer breeze. It's all the same.


Stardusty: "Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data."

" That was your attempt?"
--I sometimes don't go very deeply on the hopes that what information I provide will suffice. I gave the explanation of numbers, how vast they are and how hopeless it is that a human being would account individually for all the particles in even a very simple system. Approximations and aggregate models are absolutely necessary for us to function. One great advance of science is to realize that they are just that, only aggregate models, abstractions, not externally realized existent things.


Stardusty: "But God could do it, right?"

" Irrelevant to anything I said, and you accidentally capitalized God per correct grammar."
1. Critically relevant, but you do not yet apprehend the relevance. This is a sort of thought experiment. Imagine a being of unlimited cognitive capacity, able to remember an unbounded number of things, and compute their mutual relationships in virtually zero time. I will name this being doG.

Suppose we have a 2 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.

Suppose we have a 3 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.

Suppose we have a 4 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.

Suppose we have an n body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.

Suppose n = 10^27. No problem.

Suppose n = 10^80. It aint no thing, the big doG in on it like white on rice.

Therefore, in principle, the entire universe is soluble and completely defined at the nano scale.

2. Not accidental.
3. Not "correct" grammar. Language is of the speaker. There is no god of language. The uppercase is understood by the reader to indicate certain capacities, so I chose to employ the upper case as a means to communicate those implicit attributions of capability.



Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "One person's magic or superstition or legend or mythology is another person's religion."

Okay, but that has no bearing on anything I've said. I'm not sure you understand that my position here has nothing to do with theism, but rather sitting around thinking about the way things are based on what science has discovered about nature.


Stardusty: "Therefore, in principle, the entire universe is soluble and completely defined at the nano scale."

I don't believe so, at least not in the sense you seem to be claiming. And the reason can be roughly demonstrated with the bane of foot soles everywhere, the Lego.

What is the difference between a castle made of Legos and a car made of Legos? Putting aside the subjective quality of symbolism, the difference is, one is a castle and the other a car, despite sharing the same foundational material. What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves.

Comparing a basketball and an armadillo runs into the same situation. At the smallest levels, both are made of the same stuff, the subatomic particles and whatever lies below even that. Both consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And as chemistry tells us, the configuration of those three leads to extremely different results - the atom is, after all, the smallest unit of matter that displays the properties of the chemical or material it belongs to. Subatomic particles do not display those properties, which means at the next higher level of order - the atom - properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order.

But even beyond the atoms, higher orders display different features from lower orders based upon the configuration of the order beneath. Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different.

I agree with you that to understand an object, you have to be able to understand every component straight down to the lowest quantum level. That is true. But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements, which are higher levels of order by definition, in order to capture the properties that the lowest levels themselves do not display. In other words, every level of order is equally important, not just the lowest. That's why, I think, you struggle with admitting that balloons swell under pressure and water freezes into ice, because you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur.

Now, perhaps we are simply disagreeing on terminology here. To simplify the chain, if an object consisted of quark-->particle-->atom-->molecule-->object, and one wanted to skip the middle three levels and instead claim "the object consists of quarks in X configuration", then that is valid. My point in discussing emergent properties is simply the recognition that those quarks themselves do not display the properties, such as an atom being the smallest unit that displays the properties of an element, but rather that properties appear as lower level units are combined into particular higher level units, which in turn combine to form higher level units with new properties based on arrangement, and so on. Arrangements are higher levels than their components, and higher levels display properties that their lower level components do not.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said
"(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,"
"You resent being controlled. you seek power,"
"that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type,"
"so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,"
"you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives"


--You are a fucktard moron. Get your head out of your ass, dig the shit out of your ears, and you might learn how to have a conversation some day.


you have failed to answer anything I've said in this thread with any kind of substance nothing but insults. Here was your big chance and you turn to insults, you cannot demonstrate any rational basis forgery view You have nothing but false authority,

you began with the arrogant, stupid, uninformed, greedy pompous and bombastic proclamation that your way of thinking your little ideological toy reductionism is the only valid way to look at things,any debater worth his salt has to jump at the chance to show up such a know it all.

I argue that the kinetics opponent of reductionist, holism,is true and thus reductionist is false,your only substantive answer was that my example emergent properties,is magical thinking,I said it's not magic it's top down causation you have no answer, you totally avoided it after that,


then I argued that reductionism is a hueristic gimmick designed to lose the phenomena and thus enable the ideology to get shed of counter evidence, you made no attempt to deal with that on any kind of intellectual level but began calling names,

Then you resorted to an atheist failsafe, turn the BOP by placing blame on religious thought, used the magical thinking card to do this. But I countered by showing that God speaking the world into being was not magical thinking but a demonstration of how divine thought is transmitted into revelation, ultimately shedding light on Jesus' Messianic credentials as God's role model for divine values.

your best considered response I am a fucktard,

let's see I remember something from childhood,3d grade

right: I am rubber you are a fucktard yourself,

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said... August 28, 2017 10:10 PM

" What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves."
--From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents.

" properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order."
--The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things.

" Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different."
--Indeed, and those differences in their myriad details define the differences between the basketball and the armadillo.

" But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements,"
--That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties".

" which are higher levels of order by definition, in order to capture the properties that the lowest levels themselves do not display. In other words, every level of order is equally important, not just the lowest."
--Higher levels do not actually exist as real precise things.

" you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur."
--I deny that phenomena are precisely real.

" Now, perhaps we are simply disagreeing on terminology here."
--One does well to always consider that possibility, but I think there is a conceptual gulf between us.

" quarks themselves do not display the properties, such as an atom being the smallest unit that displays the properties of an element, "
--For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents."

And the aggregates are what form the higher levels, so yes that's correct. In order for quarks to have the properties of chemical elements, they must at the very minimum be arranged in an atom of that element. Anything lower and they will not, thus in order to study an object, one must also know the characteristics of which arrangements yield which properties. "Quarks" do not make quartz form into crystals, but quarks arranged into particular atomic configurations do. Thus it is the higher level that yields the property.


Stardusty: "The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things."

You do assert this, yes. Or is there a you?


Stardusty: "That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties"."

Fortunately you do not need to be able to compute it, because the second you refer to an arrangement of the smallest component, you have taken it to the next higher level of order. At best, you could use code speak, such as "this cluster of quarks", when most of us would refer to this cluster as a proton or neutron. I see no way of avoiding this.


Stardusty: "Higher levels do not actually exist as real precise things."

Only if you reject that different arrangements of smaller components yield different results.


Stardusty: "I deny that phenomena are precisely real."

That's a tough burden of proof to meet.


Stardusty: "For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans."

We can also assert that doG both exists and does not exist, but that does not make it true.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Legion of Logic said... August 28, 2017 10:10 PM

" What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves."
--From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents.


that still doesn't mean they can be discovered through reduciing,

" properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order."

the properties don't but the causes do that's why it's not magic it's top down causation,the causes are higher up the levels.

--The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things.

wrong. life and consciousnesses are real, they are just abstractions,


" Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different."

that doesn't alter the fact of emergence

--Indeed, and those differences in their myriad details define the differences between the basketball and the armadillo.

" But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements,"
--That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties".


which is why reductionist wont work and why the statement about reduction being the only way to see things is so over the top

Joe Hinman said...

" you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur."


--I deny that phenomena are precisely real.

how can you deny that life and consciousness are real? Your argument is self refutting because you assert the value of reductionism based upon the premise of scientism,and according to that science is the only valid form of knowledge, Yet you assert the phenomena that would disprove your view is unreal and thus science can't be trusted to tell us even the most basic things such as that we are alive or that we are conscious,

Joe Hinman said...

He just used one of the standard tricks of redirection, re-label, he can't deny we are alive so he will just re label living as not emergent.

Joe Hinman said...

His assertion that emergent properties are not real is the losing the phenomena. going more basic unitl we are not lookimng at teh phenomena naymnore,

I can show there is no property called wet, wetness is an illusion, if you look at water molecules they are not wet, therefore, there must be no property of wetness further up the line either.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said... August 30, 2017 10:46 AM

" you assert the value of reductionism based upon the premise of scientism,and according to that science is the only valid form of knowledge, "
--I suggest you give up the mind reading you so often attempt, since you suck at it.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. August 30, 2017 2:28 AM.

" Fortunately you do not need to be able to compute it, because the second you refer to an arrangement of the smallest component, you have taken it to the next higher level of order."
--Again, literally true, but you are describing analytical models, abstractions.

" At best, you could use code speak, such as "this cluster of quarks", when most of us would refer to this cluster as a proton or neutron. I see no way of avoiding this."
--It isn't easy to avoid the models we form in our imaginations. Here is one way to begin to think of such things in one circumstance.

We all know that a galaxy is made up of stars and planets and gas and dust and particles all orbiting their mutual centers of mass, the primary center being the center of the galaxy, and other centers being star/planet gravitational centers.

Each star is in turn made up of particles. So, does each individual particle orbit the center of the galaxy or does the star act as an emergent whole such that each particle in some sense transfers its action to the whole star which then orbits the center of the galaxy? If you take the emergent approach then what of a gas cloud in orbit? What about individual particles in orbit?

I think it is clear that there are no real emergent orbits, only the individual particles in the entire galaxy all interacting with each other in a system so vastly complex as to be almost unimaginable.

It really requires a great deal of careful thought to begin to break free from our intuitive analytical hierarchical conceptual models and gain some appreciation of the vast complexity of every individual particle simply doing what a particle does.


Stardusty: "I deny that phenomena are precisely real."

" That's a tough burden of proof to meet."
--Not so tough as it might seem at first. Consider any large scale phenomena. Is that a precise description or can it be broken down into more accurate models of components?


Stardusty: "For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans."

" We can also assert that doG both exists and does not exist, but that does not make it true."
--Apples and oranges. The principle of non-contradiction is not the same thing as a hypothetical being with no upper bound on computational capacity.

A 2 body problem can be solved, as can a 3 body problem, a 4 body problem, and an n body problem. There is no qualitative difference between solving these problems.

When n equals the number of fundamental particles in our big bang then our universe has been solved, emergence is false, and reductionism is the case.

Legion of Logic said...

Agree to disagree then.

7th Stooge said...

Just because something isn't well understood doesn't make it the same as "poof". No one understands how physical stuff can become conscious but consciousness isn't thereby "poof".

Right now "I" seem to be thinking about the arguments on this thread and the reasons for those arguments. If what Dusty is arguing is right, these reasons are really nothing more than physical causes in my brain/body, but if that's the case, how could I possibly know it and how could there be an "I" to know it? How can lumps of matter and the physical causes associated with them be ABOUT anything? They are simply what they are. Reasoning and "aboutness" are normative. Lumps of matter aren't.