Overpopulation. We have created enough abundance to imagine feeding the whole world and we have ignored limits. The terrible reality is the more we feed people the more they reproduce, making the problems worse. We absolutely must recognize limits and adjust to living within those limits. — Athena

There as always been enough food to feed everyone on the planet, every day. It's the distribution system that's flawed. Globally, it has been estimated that 26,082 tonnes of food, goes to waste every single day.
From The United Nations environment programme:
There is enough food for everyone.
While progress on reducing hunger has stagnated in the last five years, evidence suggests that the problem we face today is not a lack of food. Rather, it is a problem of efficiency. We can see this throughout the production and consumption process, beginning with how land is used. Responding to increased demand for meat and dairy, about 60 per cent of the world’s agricultural land is used for livestock grazing.

Just saying things are terrible and talking as though humans are basically awful creatures will not bring about the good. — Athena

Well, you will be happy that I don't do that. I complain about what needs to be complained about and I fully support those who are trying to improve things.

The positive aspect of our dialogue is — Gnomon

By "denying the legitimacy" of metaphysics as a way to understand reality, you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them. — Gnomon

I hope that your first quote above bears some useful fruit for both of us, as we both continue to seek truth.
I think I have faced your arguments head on and have not merely dismissed your speculations out of hand.

anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin. — Gnomon

We "dump all" woo-of-the-gaps "notions" like yours, Gnomon, into "the waste bin" of dognatic, New Age sophistry. Don't mind me, though, I'm just another one of those persistent gadflies buzzin' around this agora – swat me away if you can. :smirk: Btw, even an "anti-metaphysical prejudice", as you say, is a metaphysical position (such as my own speculations), just one which you don't like and/or can't comprehend.

the physics [physical theories (propositions)] vs metaphysics [interpretations of physical theories (suppositions)] debate

Another of your nonsensical assumptions (i.e. "prejudices"). :lol:

... you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them.

Objecting to unsubstatiated interpretations, misstated facts and overall poor reasoning (despite your refusal to directly respond to / refute such objections), sir, is "dealing with them" – your so-called "arguments" – in a way more seriously than you apparently deserve.

Don't mind me, though, I'm just another one of those persistent gadflies buzzin' around this agora – swat me away if you can. — 180 Proof

Do you really think that's what you are doing? That's so weird.

You wouldn't ask if you'd read much of the back and forth between Gnomon and myself. Inside joke (with a "weird" kernel of truth).

Gnomon is hardly the establishment though is he? But you're right, I haven't read it all.

What does "establishment" have to do with anything here?

Gadflies hassle the powerful, no?

I hope that your first quote above bears some useful fruit for both of us, as we both continue to seek truth.
I think I have faced your arguments head on and have not merely dismissed your speculations out of hand. — universeness

Yes. Thanks for engaging in an extended dialogue, which is probably frustrating for you, due to the language barrier. The basic problem is that we assign different meanings to key words, such as "Emergent". For me that is a Holistic Philosophical concept, but apparently for you its a Reductive Scientific term, even though there is no physical evidence, only inferences & opinions. Also, "Deism" for me is a non-religious philosophical worldview; but for you there is no significant difference from "Theism". Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target.

When I started engaging with , I soon felt like I was trapped in a Joe McCarthy "witch hunt" : Q. "are you now, or have you ever been a Communist (Theist ; pseudo-scientist) ; A. No sir, I'm a Socialist (Deist ; meta-physicalist) ; Q. "Same difference" (i.e. no difference). Consequently, anything I might say in my defense could serve as linguistic evidence against me. In my non-elite, common-sense, language, as for the ancient Greeks, Metaphysics (ideas, not things) is what philosophy is all about. It focuses, not on the furniture of the world, but on its design.

I have found that a common understanding of the Philosophical endeavor -- on this forum -- is that it came to an end in the 17th century, when empirical results began to replace theoretical & theistic models. And its true that Philosophy, as profession, went into a long decline, and lost its aura of authority to Physics. Academic Philosophy began to devolve into endless pointless linguistic debates about finer & finer points of abstruse nonsense. But in the 20th century, both Science & Philosophy, were forced to grapple with bizarre concepts that would have boggled the mind of Isaac Newton --- whose side passions, besides Astronomy & Mathematics, were Alchemy (pre-Chemistry) & biblical mysteries.

Anyway, my philosophical ideas on this forum come primarily from Quantum & Information theorists, who are trying to make sense of a Reality that is influenced by its observers, and cannot be dissected down to tangible atoms of matter. So, I have lept over the "modern" phase of Philosophy, and landed in the quagmire of post-quantum reality, where the Whole is more-than the sum of its Reductive parts. It also raises debatable questions regarding what we can "know" about Reality under the surface impressions of our 5 senses, and our technically-extended senses. Fortunately, Philosophy's only tool is the 6th sense of Reason, which is well-adapted to "see" whole Systems and non-physical Functions. :smile:



Philosophy Has Lost Its Way :
In the world of academia, philosophy has become this weird playground of technicality and complexity that separates the curious masses from the intellectual elite.
https://moretothat.com/philosophy-has-lost-its-way/

When Philosophy Lost Its Way :
Having adopted the same structural form as the sciences, it’s no wonder philosophy fell prey to physics envy and feelings of inadequacy. Philosophy adopted the scientific modus operandi of knowledge production, but failed to match the sciences in terms of making progress in describing the world. . . . . Having become specialists, we have lost sight of the whole.
https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/11/when-philosophy-lost-its-way/?smid=fb-share

The weirdness of quantum mechanics forces scientists to confront philosophy :
Despite the tremendous success of quantum physics, scientists and philosophers still disagree on what it’s telling us about the nature of reality. Central to the dispute is whether the theory is describing the world as it is or is merely a mathematical model. Attempts to reconcile the theory with reality have led physicists to some strange places, forcing scientists to grapple with matters of philosophy.
https://bigthink.com/13-8/quantum-mechanics-philosophy/

No, they wake sleepwalkers (or disturb their 'dreaming'). Now, if too many sleepwalkers awaken, then "the powerful" might be alarmed. Besides, Jamal, Baden, Benkei, et al run "this agora", as I call it, to accomodate gadflies (critics/skeptics) as well as sleepwalker (dogmatics/sophists), so they – "the powerful" – aren't targets (like e.g. @Gnomon) of my interrogations and cross-examinations.

@180 Proof @Gnomon @universeness

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct?

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct — Agent Smith

I don't think so.

Emergence describes entities as having properties which their constituent parts do not have. (Re: ontology)

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

Holism denotes interpreting entities as 'wholes without discrete parts' or without reducing wholes to their constituents. (Re: epistemology)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Caveat: 'Idealists' tend to conflate ontology with epistemology and therefore, in this instance, confuse emergence with holism.

:up:

No, they wake sleepwalkers (or disturb their 'dreaming'). — 180 Proof

Sophists are sleepwalkers? And you're awake presumably in this metaphor?

Yes. Thanks for engaging in an extended dialogue, which is probably frustrating for you, due to the language barrier. — Gnomon

Your welcome. The only frustration I experienced during our exchange on this thread, is one that I am very familiar with and fully expect and accept. If two people are debating with viewpoints that are 'fully cooked' then it's very rare for either to make any progress, in changing the viewpoints of the other.
I find that any value in the exchange, is found in it's potential affect, on the viewpoints of any current of future readers of the exchange. That's why I continue in such exchanges, instead of cutting myself off from an interlocuter, (as you decided to against @180 Proof), as too most people, it can look like you ran away from the exchange. I perceived no language barrier between us, and I find such camouflaged insults, rather puerile.

The basic problem is that we assign different meanings to key words, such as "Emergent". For me that is a Holistic Philosophical concept, but apparently for you its a Reductive Scientific term, even though there is no physical evidence, only inferences & opinions. Also, "Deism" for me is a non-religious philosophical worldview; but for you there is no significant difference from "Theism". Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target. — Gnomon

I refer your emergence vs holism issue to @180 Proof's response above, which also answered @Agent Smith's question:

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct? — Agent Smith

Your description of deism is simply wrong. You have no ability to usurp a well entrenched label for your own purposes without first gaining massive popular support to do so.
Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm  or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god") is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.

Hence, most of your "head-on" answers to my arguments have been off-target. — Gnomon

That's merely your hope. Many who pick themselves up from the canvas or from the floor, exclaim such as 'No, I slipped, honest, he never laid a glove on me man!' Other's will judge, and only if they can be bothered to.

When I started engaging with ↪180 Proof, I soon felt like I was trapped in a Joe McCarthy "witch hunt" : Q. "are you now, or have you ever been a Communist (Theist ; pseudo-scientist) ; A. No sir, I'm a Socialist (Deist ; meta-physicalist) ; Q. "Same difference" (i.e. no difference). Consequently, anything I might say in my defense could serve as linguistic evidence against me. In my non-elite, common-sense, language, as for the ancient Greeks, Metaphysics (ideas, not things) is what philosophy is all about. It focuses, not on the furniture of the world, but on its design. — Gnomon

You keep playing this 'victim' card, which I find quite disingenuous. No one is trying to trap you. You are just expected to be able to back-up your viewpoints in an honest manner. No 'Joe McCarthy' type is involved in exchanging with you on this thread. You are trying to sell your own personal redefinition of the term deism here and it just wont wash. Deism IS the PHIOSOPHICAL assertion that a supreme being exists and is the creator of the universe! You are attempting to usurp the word in a similar way that youth culture has currently usurped the term 'wicked,' into meaning something associated with the 60's notion of 'hip' or 'cool.' Your attempt to use deism as a term which is not an absolute 'god' label has failed miserably imo. You keep trying to sell it as such, which is why you did not answer any of my recent 3 questions to you, but you continue to fail in your sales pitch.

But in the 20th century, both Science & Philosophy, were forced to grapple with bizarre concepts that would have boggled the mind of Isaac Newton --- whose side passions, besides Astronomy & Mathematics, were Alchemy (pre-Chemistry) & biblical mysteries. — Gnomon

These are just meaningless comparisons to me. If Newton was born today! Then considering the level of analytical skill he demonstrated during his lifetime, I think he would be very able, to grapple with the concepts you mention, and he would probably have shown no interest in mysticism or alchemy. Chemistry, physics, mathematics, computing, etc yes but woo woo? No, as he would not have been infected by the backwards theism of his era.

Fortunately, Philosophy's only tool is the 6th sense of Reason, which is well-adapted to "see" whole Systems and non-physical Functions — Gnomon

As I have stated to you a few times now, Philosophy is a welcome and useful practice, but any hypothesis it comes up with, will have to face empirical science, as it's final arbiter.
You cannot protect yourself or philosophy from the scrutiny of the scientific method.
If you cannot satisfy scientific scrutiny then you will gain only 'faith based,' easy to manipulate followers.
The best you can get from that is the audience/followers/status of characters like David Icke or Billy Graham or even worse, like Jimmy Swaggart.

Danke for tagging me in your response. @180 Proof is right on the money as far as I can tell. Emergence, I quite like the idea, is a petitio principii.

petitio principii. — Agent Smith

Google reported the meaning as:
a fallacy in which a conclusion is taken for granted in the premises; begging the question.

I don't think this describes what is emergent in humans AT ALL.
I also don't think I have used any circular reasoning to present what I think is emergent in humans.
memorialising events and gained knowledge since we came out of the wilds has allowed humans to pass legacy from generation to generation. Human ability to manifest intent, purpose and intelligent design is being combined and enhanced by memorialised information which has resulted in an ever increasing pace of human invention of new tech and discovery of new knowledge.
This IS evidence that we are moving towards 'points of pivotal change,' at a faster pace. Movement towards advanced AI for example. This is not fallacious or begging the question or circular reasoning, it is observable emergence which is graphically demonstrable using models such as Moore's law.

Reconsider your position mon ami. @180 Proof, consult him and you'll realize we're merely chasing after phantoms.

Reconsider your position mon ami. — Agent Smith

Give me a good enough reason to.

180 Proof, consult him and you'll realize we're merely chasing after phantoms. — Agent Smith

We do exchange with each other and we have our agreements and disagreements but we have more common ground than divergence between us imo.
I think @180 Proof would agree that phantoms have no existent so no one is able to chase them.
What position do you think I hold, that I should reconsider?

Seek @Banno's counsel. :lol:

I am quite capable of standing my own ground Mr Smith. BUT, I will ALWAYS seek and listen to and consider the words of others, including yours.

I'm not questioning your ability to hold your own against others mon ami. I'm only pointing you in a direction that ex mea sententia could help complete your quest.

I appreciate your benevolent wishes towards what you perceive, is my life quest, but my life quest will only complete at my death.

El Rachum! :smile:

El Rachum! — Agent Smith

No existent!

No existent! — universeness

God is ...

No existent!
— universeness

God is ... — Agent Smith

God has .... would be better!

God has .... would be better! — universeness

If you think so, yes. God is an aspect of emergence.

God is an aspect of emergence. — Agent Smith

Well, I do think that there is very strong evidence, of continuous human activity, which has resulted in better and better methods of information storage, process, and retrieval. The increased pace of discovery and technological advancement is irrefutable. Based on this, I think labels like god or omniscient/omnipotent/perfection etc etc, have only one use, and that use is of very limited importance imo. They act as nothing more than non-existent states, that we can asymptotically, aspire to.

180 Proof has the exact same idea and we are getting better and better and we are very reasonable creatures.