My point was sort of the epistemological paradox of emergence. We know of all other emergence through the process of cognizing it. At what epistemic level do tornados exist? Everything we know about emergence happens within the epistemic framework of a "viewer". Without the viewer, what is it from something to move from one level to another? What does that even look like? There is always a sort of hidden viewer in the equation. I guess I hear key words from types trying to answer this like "top-down causation" but it seems like a modern way of positing Descartes' God that is a necessity for everything else to exist. — schopenhauer1
Sorry to interject but I think this is a concept that may require some attention, as well as the reverse concept of "bottom-up causation"."top-down causation" — schopenhauer1
At what epistemic level do tornados exist? — schopenhauer1
Everything we know about emergence happens within the epistemic framework of a "viewer". Without the viewer, what is it from something to move from one level to another? — schopenhauer1
I'm not sure what is meant by something moving from one level to another. but I think I agree that emergence implies a viewer, because it seems like it's a consequence of limits of our cognition. — ChatteringMonkey
No. Our limits of cognition are irrelevant to the world of emergence.
Levels are there whether we exist or not. There were no atoms before we discovered them? Before Kant there was no universe outside the Milky Way? — magritte
This was in the context of the debate on experiential states vs. physical states. When new phenomenon come about, it is usually already cognized from an experiencer. When you see the results of physical forces arising, you are already viewing it. However, mental states are the very thing viewing the emergence, and is itself supposed to be emergent. What exactly is "emerging" if we are talking about mental states? And from "what" is it emerging? What perspective is going on here? Is everything from a localized perspective? Water has properties of fluidity. What is fluidity at a level of atomic structure? You need the top-down perspective for fluidity to even make sense. Otherwise it is turtles all the way down. There is no separation of this or that phenomena. It just is in itself. It's actually really hard for me to explain. Some days I can explain these thoughts better than others. Struggling right now.What do you mean by epistemic levels? — frank
Sorry to interject but I think this is a concept that may require some attention, as well as the reverse concept of "bottom-up causation".
When I hit on a nail with a hammer, and the nail is driven down a plank of wood, can I say that the hammer head is accumulating kinetic energy, and that it transmits this energy to the nail? Or should I rather think that the atoms of the hammer head are accumulating kinetic energy and transmitting this energy to the nail atoms? Or should I instead say that the wave function of the hammer head elementary particles is interacting with that of the nail elementary particles? And at a smaller level, what about the quarks of my hammer? Are they the ones doing all the work or what?
I think that scale is in the eye of the beholder. We should avoid the assumption that there is a privileged scale at which causation happens. Causation happens at all levels at once because all levels coexist in one reality. Up and down in this context are best understood as metaphors for scale of observation, not for causation channels. — Olivier5
... and why would levels necessitate a viewer? — magritte
There's a difference in reports or accounts of what's happening at different levels. If there were no accounting happening, would the difference still be there? — frank
If we were omniscient, with unlimited cognitive powers, there doesn't seem to be a reason why we would use higher level emergent descriptions. Everything in a fluid could in theory be described in terms of particles moving (and probably more complete), we just prefer using fluid dynamics because it is to complex 'for us' to describe it in terms of moving particles. — ChatteringMonkey
Alright, what is a level disconnected from our cognition and use? What do you exactly mean with the word 'to exist' entirely separated from any kind of viewer?
I'm also not saying nothing exists before we discovered it, i'm saying our descriptions and the languages we use (which includes words like exist) are (partly) influenced by us and our needs. — ChatteringMonkey
It's turtles all the way down, there's no elementary level of matter and energy that I can see. "Simpler" and "smaller" do not mean "more causal".What atoms and elementary particles are the most basic "simples" (as the term is used in philosophy circles) — schopenhauer1
I believe in some circles, the term "view from nowhere" and "view from everywhere" is discussed. Now discuss haha. — schopenhauer1
"If we were pressed to give a definition of emergence, we could say that a property is emergent if it is a novel property of a system or an entity that arises when that system or entity has reached a certain level of complexity and that, even though it exists only insofar as the system or entity exists, it is distinct from the properties of the parts of the system from which it emerges. However, as will become apparent, things are not so simple because “emergence” is a term used in different ways both in science and in philosophy, and how it is to be defined is a substantive question in itself." — frank
Problem is i'm not so sure there is something like strong emergence. From what i've gathered, part of the problem here is i'm no scientist, at least a good part of them doesn't believe in strong emergence. It's seems part of the controversy, so I don't know if we should just assume it. — ChatteringMonkey
I'm up for it as long as the book isn't super expensive. — frank
First thing I wonder is: do physical sciences not deal with absence? Why is a vacuum not a case of an influential absence? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.