Somebody first needs to explain why emergence should be considered to refer to a physical or metaphysical property, as opposed to referring to grammatical structure. — sime

I am not a language expert, but this is my understanding of language. Any meaningful sentence in any language is made of parts, but it can create a new idea that the sentence is referring to in the mind of an intelligent creature once the parts of the sentence are arranged in a proper order and observed by the creature. So there is a relation between the idea that a sentence is referring to and how the parts of a sentence are arranged as well. So, the ideas are weak emergent things as well.

We say that we are dealing with weak emergence when the property of a system can be simulated in terms of the properties of parts as well. The problem with a large system is that we cannot find an analytical solution for the properties of the system in terms of the properties of parts, given that the behaviors of parts are lawful. So, we have to use a simulation, which is a numerical method for deriving the properties of a system in terms of the properties of its parts. Therefore, strong emergence cannot be simulated since all properties of the system that can be simulated are sort of weak emergence properties.

that's not what "strong emergence" is saying. — flannel jesus

What is the difference between a dead brain and an alive brain to a physicalist, then?

I don't think this is correct. — flannel jesus

It is correct. If matter moves on its own, and experience is the result of how matter moves, then how could experience be causally efficacious? Experience is not a real thing in itself, yet it exists. Experience is a mental event only and cannot be a direct cause of change in matter.

This definition would be more precise if we would substitute "is deducible from" or "is grounded in" for "is a function of". — Pierre-Normand

I am happy with my definition. I also gave the example of antiferromagnetism, which clearly demonstrates what I mean by function. So, I won't accept your definitions unless you demonstrate what you mean by those terms. I have to stress that in the example of antiferomagnetism, the property of the system is only a function of the properties of parts. There is nothing more left when it comes to the property of the system to demonstrate it with something else.

That's because, as I've suggested, many proponents of strong emergence, who we may call "compatibilists" (by close analogy with the corresponding stance in the philosophy of free will and determinism) grant both the causal closure of the micro-physical domain and the thesis of the supervenience of high-level phenomena such as mental acts over the physical domain. — Pierre-Normand

I think that we can describe the behavior of proteins in terms of the properties of parts since we can simulate them. The scientists in the link that I provide do approximation here and there, though, since we cannot perform a full simulation. A cell is a more challenging thing to simulate. Etc. So, scientifically speaking, we have to make an approximation here and there to describe the property of any system in terms of simplified parts at the end. We have had great success by now, scientifically speaking, but we have a long way to go to understand how different complex systems function. We can understand and explain things that function somehow. So, philosophically speaking, if the property of any system is not a function of the properties of parts, then what is the missing thing in the system that cannot be explained in terms of the properties of parts?

For those who think consciousness is an example of strong emergence, are there any other examples? — Patterner

If consciousness is a strong emergent thing, then it cannot be causally efficacious in the world where physical objects obey the laws of nature. We, however, observe constantly that mental phenomena are causally efficacious, in a discussion, for example. I think, I write, I informe others. You do the same.

I am unsure how you got to there from what I said — Bob Ross

Well, you believe in NT, and within it, Adam is cited.

I was saying that God can allow evil—that’s not the same as doing evil. — Bob Ross

I am saying a perfect good God cannot create an imperfect good creation, wherein doing evil is possible. A perfect good God can only create a perfect good creation. So your God is imperfect since the creation is imperfect.

Maybe under your view God cannot allow evil either, but allowing evil and doing evil are still different. — Bob Ross

No, under my definition, a perfect God can only do things right! He cannot do wrong. If God does wrong like imperfect creatures do, then He is like imperfect creatures. I also don't equate evil with wrong.

I don’t think the Adam and Eve story is about historical events. — Bob Ross

So you don't believe in NT?

Well, that’s true of all of us. God knows ahead of time whether we will sin or not as well as knows how it will end; this doesn’t mean that God is doing evil by allowing you to make your own choices. I think you are thinking of God as if He is in time like us. — Bob Ross

I have a challenge for such a God. If one day, by chance, I meet your God in Heaven, while being allowed to wish only one thing, then the Forknwoeldge of God about what I am going to do would be my only wish. I do the opposite of whatever God says according to His foreknowledge then!

A being out of time knowing everything that will happen is very different. One of the beauties of absolute goodness—of God—is that He transforms, in the final result, our evil into good. He does not make us do evil, but when we do the totality of the result of His creation over time ends with good coming out of it so that it did not happen in vain. — Bob Ross

Evil cannot be transformed into good. Are you thinking that humans can live in Utopia one day without God's intervention?

Do you deny the existence of persons? Persons can cause evil in a perfect creation that originally had perfect changes! — Bob Ross

No, I am not denying the person. I am saying perfect creatures can only do right.

I agree. But I don't think all properties are physical. — Patterner

Yes, there exist metal properties as well, which are related to the existence of another substance that I call the object. So, the question is whether mental properties are always a function of the properties of parts? If the answer is yes, then we are dealing with weak emergence, which is the case for the perception. There is a big set of mental phenomena, such as new abstract ideas, that are not a function of the properties of parts, I think.

The condition that the macro-property, or holistic property, be a function of the properties of the parts of a system (including, presumably, relational properties) seems too weak to preclude strong (irreducible) emergence and also too weak to guarantee weak (reducible) emergence. — Pierre-Normand

Could we agree on the definition of weak emergence, which occurs when the property of the system is a function of the properties of its parts? That, of course, requires that the system be reducible to its parts. Please let me know what you think, and we can go to the next step.

Apply what you said to an example. — RogueAI

Consider each experience you may have right now, like reading my reply, tasting a little tea, etc. Each of these experiences is unique to you in the sense that it represents something to you, the content of my reply means something to you, tasting tea feels something to you, etc.

Suppose I have a microchip (or series of microchips wired together) with x amount of switches. Are you saying that if I flip enough switches a certain way, consciousness will emerge? — RogueAI

I think you are talking about strong emergence here. I am, however, arguing that we are dealing with weak emergence when it comes to almost all mental phenomena, excluding the creation of a new idea.

Are you saying it's possible that electronic switching operations AB...C can give rise to the conscious experience of seeing a sunset? Switching operations XY...Z can give rise to the pain of stubbing a toe? But switching operations AK...E, might not give rise to any conscious experience? — RogueAI

I am saying that there is a correlation between my experience and the neurobiological processes in my brain.

They are.

Sting - Shape of My Heart

Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The first part is concise. I think the second part should be "Exists" = is either subjective or objective, unless you clarify why you used "may".

Yes, I knew you were having that discussion with Bob Ross, and it was confusing me because I didn't understand your terms. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Ok, I hope we are on the same page right now, regarding the definitions.

Appearance of bear when there is no bear: subjective. In your terms: exists, but not real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The confusion is real in the sense that it affects you somehow. But I distinguish between this real and the real in my first comment. All our experiences are real in this sense.

Imagining a unicorn: ditto — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Imagining a unicorn is another activity.

Seeing the bear which is really in the woods: objective. In your terms: exists, and is real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, the bear exists and is real, given the definition of "exists" and "is real" in my first comment.

I hope I've got that straight! — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Please let me know if you are happy with what I said. Otherwise, let me know.

This is disanalogous to allowing evil. An analogous version of your example would be: “Would you make a car that works fine but you knew someone else could come and mess it up?”. — Bob Ross

Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense! The God you are defending is out of discussion since He is less than you. Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin! They were also lied to by the snake/Satan! And people are here, part of them suffering for no rational reason. What are their faults? Why should they be held here for the sin that the Parents did? Does any of these make any sense to you?

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that those things are not subject to change. — Bob Ross

Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within. Our universe is not perfect. A perfect God does not make such a thing.

But this makes your argument weaker; because then perfection isn’t about goodness necessarily, since God could create being without pain or pleasure—e.g., a rock. — Bob Ross

Yes, perfection is not about goodness or evilness. It is about doing things always right, whether good, evil, or neutral.

A masochist doesn’t prefer evil; they does mis-hierarchize or misunderstand the goods. — Bob Ross

No, they just like pain in a certain part of their body. And, they don't misunderstand the good.

Specifically, they will in accord with getting a euphoric high where pain is the means and not the end. To truly prefer evil, is to will it as an end. — Bob Ross

A masochist is not a perfect evil creature.

well, the brain builds only a model, a representation of the object "reality". — Ulthien

I think that the brain is the infrastructure that mainly allows minds to interact with each other. There is also the object between the brain and the mind.

We have an interface that represents the outer world in the mind, so it is always only subjective. — Ulthien

We have the mind. The mind, however, has only direct access to experience.

U2 - Endless Deep



U2 - Where The Streets Have No Name

well one can be a dualist, but it's better to be a trialist:

matter-brain
energy-EM field of it
mind-reflective inner property of the energy field in conjunction with the neural antennae :) — Ulthien

Yes, there are more substances involved in creatures that can think. We need three substances for perception and causation, so-called: the brain, the object, and the mind. The mind does not directly perceive neural processes in the brain, but the object. The result of the perception of the object by the mind is what we call experience. Creating a new idea, by the new idea I mean the spark created by the mind, is the main duty of the mind. The idea then translates to thoughts, then the language, and then the result is reported to other minds. I think that the subconscious minds are also involved in our daily activities, including thinking.

the 3 levels are intricately woven into the same machine. Akin to mobile telephony where we have hardware, air protocols (in the field!) and programs-software :) — Ulthien

Yes, three substances are minimal for each individual! There could be more.

i would say that thoughts are a sequence of qualia (feels of concepts) that follow in quick succession. — Ulthien

Correct.

On brain scans, we can follow these for a few seconds, and then the brain rests for a few - evaluating "the feel of it" & then it triggers another thought. — Ulthien

Yes, the brain is involved. We, however, should not forget the contribution of the mind, since that is the mind which causes change in the object. It is also influenced by the content of the brain, referred to as experience.

This cycle never ends :) — Ulthien

How do you know? Do you believe that knowledge is endless?

That is how our cybernetics modelling regulator - the brain, works. — Ulthien

That is one of my main struggles right now: How does a human think?

Patanjali in his Yogasutras calls this Cittavrti aka mind-spinning. — Ulthien

I don't understand what that means. I am a substance dualist.

That's a very broad question. I think it comes down perhaps to evangelical zeal and praxis, although providence is another option!

But Christianity did a lot that was new, particularly through synthesis, including its understanding of the resurrection and judgement, and divine union. It just wasn't a totally new idea. Also, the OT leaves Sheol/Hades very ambiguous and my understanding is that there were vying interpretations in the Second Temple period. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the information!

Is there really no term or concept (even if it's not a simple one or two length word) synonymous with "Qualia". — Outlander

To me, Qualia are the texture of the experience. So it is the texture when it is applied to the experience.

It's an invented term, presumably because no word suited what whomever coined it presumes or otherwise postulates it describes. Is there really no single word synonymous beyond the definition? — Outlander

It is the texture.

Is it not "experience" (perhaps as it relates to the brain-mind model)? — Outlander

Experience, to me, is a mental event. Experience, to me, is the result of the mind perceiving a substance. I have a thread on substance dualism where I discussed this. Physicalism is out of discussion. I have a thread on "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change". Idealism is out of discussion as well, since it cannot answer why the ideas are coherent.

Sorry, our math contemplations do contain a lot of fine qualia that are not so maybe prominent as other stronger qualia, but can still very much be sensed: i.e. rapture, elation, insight, direction, similarity - all of these are qualia feels, too. :)

We could posit that basically ALL of the contents of the conscious aware process are different levels of qualia, actually... (?) — Ulthien

Very well said. I would say that thoughts are also a form of Qualia.

As you note, this is also present in what is often taken to be the latest book of the OT, Daniel (although some still argue for an earlier, exilic dating). There is also Ezekiel's vision of the Valley of Dry Bones coming back to life, which is almost always dated to the Babylonian Exile and thought to be the work of a single man for various textual reasons (593-571 BC). The idea of the resurrection shows up in some of the Septuagint texts, but the most relevant point is that Jewish belief (and lack of belief) in the resurrection of the dead was a hot issue by the time of Christ's ministry and Acts actually has Saint Paul playing different camps off against each other on this issue when he is hauled in for questioning.

"Platonism," broadly speaking, had also already worked its way into Judaism by this point. It's in the Old Testament wisdom literature, Sirach, but particularly The Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo, probably the most famous ancient Jewish Platonist, was writing when Jesus was young. So, Platonism (as a broad set of Middle Platonist ideas) has a doorway into Christian thought because it is already a potent force in the Roman Empire and within its Jewish communities, and because it is in some ways written right into OT and NT texts (e.g., Wisdom and John). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the information! :up:

So, in your opinion, what was the reason that Christianity has been so successful? It didn't bring any new idea at all, or I am missing something!

Surely, artificial intelligence mimics reasoning — but does it actually reason? — Wayfarer

If by reasoning you mean the ability to think, then I have to say that we still don't know how humans think; therefore, we cannot build something with the ability to think until we understand how we think.

And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested.

Is the distinction you're trying to make here between objective reality and merely subjective experience? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, that is a part of the discussion.

For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?

Good memory from my youth when I preferred love over peace!

Sonique - It Feels So Good

You conflated God doing wrong with allowing wrong. — Bob Ross

No. Let me give you an example: You are an engineer. Would you make a car that you are sure will not take you to the end of a long journey? No, you wouldn't. I didn't even consider you a perfect being in this example. A perfect engineer cannot make such a car. So it is not about 'wouldn't,' but 'cannot.'

There is no possible world where a perfect being can exist that is not God; which you may use this to argue God shouldn’t create anything then. — Bob Ross

Perfect God can only create perfect things. So, if the creation of a perfect creation is impossible, then there is no creation. There is an imperfect creation. So, either we are blind and cannot see that the creation is perfect, or God is imperfect. Which one do you pick?

However, many people like myself would say that there is nothing wrong with allowing evil if the creation is properly ordered to what is perfectly good. Remember, by evil I am taking a privation theory position. Evil is a lack of goodness: it is not a real property of things but a privation of the real property of goodness. God cannot will for a privation to happen; but He can will things that are good and privations happen somewhere in the interactions between those things.

I think you also might be claiming that if God willed the creation of only good things then they would never be deprived of goodness; but that’s not true. For starters, person’s have free will to will the deprivation of goodness. — Bob Ross

Here, you are talking about an imperfect God.

What I meant to say is that God only wills what is good; and badness is a privation of that good which can occur afterwards. — Bob Ross

Same here. You are talking about an imperfect God.

Goodness as a property is not identical to “pleasurableness”; nor is badness identical to “sufferingness”. Pleasure is good all else being equal and suffering is bad — Bob Ross

In my dictionary, which present my word view, good is related to pleasure and evil is related to pain. Good creatures, like you, prefer good, there are evil creatures who prefer evil too, like masochists. Are you saying that a masochist is bad!? Likeing pain is his part of his nature.

The Cranberries - Zombie

Why? — Bob Ross

I have an argument for that:

P1) Perfect Being, like God, cannot do wrong/sin
P2) Imperfect beings, like creatures, can do wrong/sin
C1) So, there would eventually be sin in an imperfect creation
C2) So, creating an imperfect creation is wrong
C3) Therefore, a perfect God cannot create an imperfect creation (from P1 and C2)

Please note that I did not mention good and evil in my argument. I don't equate good with right and evil with wrong. I already defined good and evil in one of my threads, "From morality to equality". Please find the thread here if you are interested.

Evil is a privation of the good that God always wills. — Bob Ross

I don't understand you! Good God can only will good.

Given your previous elaboration that I didn’t understand — Bob Ross

Which elaboration didn't you understand? I would be happy to provide further explanation.

I don’t think you are talking about good and evil in the classical sense: it seems like you are talking about happiness and suffering. — Bob Ross

Please find my definition of good and evil in my thread that I mentioned in this post.

Allowing for evil is necessary when creating a good world. — Bob Ross

A good God is not allowed to allow evil in His creation. The God of the Old Testament allows evil and good in His creation, though. Good and evil are fundamental features of our experiences. We do things for a reason, which could be pleasure or pain. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is right since something is missing in a creation without good or evil! Of course, if His intention is to create a universe in which you could find good and evil!

The Cranberries - In The End



Very true:

Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end
Ain't it strange
When everything you dreamt of
Was nothing that you dreamt of
In the end
Take my house, take the car, take the clothes
But you can't take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
But you can't
Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end
Ain't it strange
When everything you dreamt of
Was nothing that you dreamt of
In the end
Take my house, take the car, take the clothes
But you can't take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
But you can't
Take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end

I was suggesting some ways in which God can be the creator of universes, or worlds while not being fully aware (ignorant) of what he was doing. — Punshhh

Wasn't the creation medium necessary? How could an ignorant God create the medium first if He didn't know that the medium was necessary for the creation of the rest?

Yes, so your argument is from Divine Hiddenness. This assumes that it is better for God to reveal Himself constantly to people throughout history than for them to come to know Him from His effects/creation; and I am not so sure that is true, although I get the appeal. — Bob Ross

Why are you unsure Bob? It is obvious that Humans cannot handle the situation well, given all the prophecies, inventions, etc. There is injustice everywhere. I am sure that you are not in favor of war, but there are people suffering from it in certain places. This is God's creation. Would you do the same if you were God? Let's create and let injustice be in it!

I am saying that some things exist but are not real: do you agree with that in principle? — Bob Ross

The experience is the only thing that we have direct access to so we are sure that experience exists but not real (please see the following). The trueness of resst of things is the subject of discussion, for example, external reality. There aree two scenarios available here: 1) You are Omnipresent and 2) You are not omnipresent. In the first case, you are certain about the existence of other things since you experience them all. In the second case, you don't have direct access to things. There is no solid argument for the existence or non-existence of reality as well. So we cannot tell for sure.

There are four combinations that you can make with the two words existence and real by adding the prefix un, including the first case that there is any prefix un: 1) Existence and real, 2) unexistence and unreal, 3) unexistence and real, and 4) existence and unreal. Real is defined as: actually existing as a thing. Existence is defined as: The state of having objective reality. So the definition of real depends on the definition of existence. Please consider the order in these combinations. Given this, (1) is the correct combination, since it refers to the state of affairs that something that exists and is real, like the mind. (2) is a correct combination as well. (3) is definitely a wrong combination. (4) is also a correct combination, like experience. So we are left with the mind and experience. I think you are arguing that goodess and the mind are somehow related. I see no relation between them at all. Good and evil to me are features of our experiences only.

I don't understand how this response could be a proper answer to my question.

The person who says that being killed in the hand of a God who is Just and All Wise is wrong is wrong! Of course, after accepting that such a God exists.

Why would enjoying pain that is caused to you be evil? — MrLiminal

I change your question slightly: Why would liking pain that is caused to you be evil? I distinguish between enjoying and liking. By liking, I mean you prefer something.

Sadists and masochists come to mind. Or the mixed feelings of things like nostalgia. I think you are oversimplifying human emotional range. — MrLiminal

A masochist, for example, is an evil creature. S/he likes evil. What do you mean by mixed feelings? To experience both good and evil? The basic ingredients of such a state are good and evil.

Why do you think that God created us curious? There would be no humanity without curiosity.

What if a person derives pleasure from suffering or suffering from pleasure? — MrLiminal

Can you? The only thing that I am aware of is my mood change, from anger to happiness, for example. I am not denying that moods cannot be interrelated.

I'm not sure this is complex enough a theory to account for the human condition. — MrLiminal

I think it is.

Weezer - Hash Pipe

Long past is gone! Are you saying that we cannot get rid of this habit, you are my enemy at all?