Matter has extension, shape, even at its fundamental level, the string. Ideas are irreducible; they don't have any shape, or extension. So, the first question is how you could get something like idea emerges from the process in the mater. Matterial process also are causaly closed according to materialism so ideas cannot be causally efficasious even if we accept that ideas are strong emergence.

The weak emergence vs strong emergence is a bit misleading. — Manuel

I don't think so. Consider a set of words, let's call this set SW, which has a minimal number of words for creating only one meaningful sentence, let's call the meaningful sentence MS. Now consider the set of all sentences, let's call this set SS, that you can build with arranging the words randomly. Only one sentence in SS has a meaning. SS is a weak emergence. The idea that MS is referring to is strong emergence for two reasons: 1) It is more than SS, and 2) It is irreducible.

It suggests that we have an intuitive understanding of the resultant effects of a given process - say molecules giving rise to water. We may have a theory of liquidity, but we have no intuitions about it. — Manuel

We have good intuition about what water is: Liquid is a state in which the material is almost incompressible, and it can take different shapes. We have a theory for it, too.

But if someone says I think all emergence is "strong", they think you are being a mystic. I think that's just what nature does. — Manuel

Or maybe there is a model, including the mind, that can explain the strong emergence.

We know that materialism fails since it cannot explain how ideas emerge and how they can be causally efficacious in the world, given that ideas are irreducible and have no parts. I have an argument for "physical cannot be the cause of its own change" as well. Idealism also fails since it cannot explain how the contents of our experiences are related. It also cannot explain how we could possibly have memory. A model with two substances, the mind and the object, can explain some phenomena but not all, especially when it comes to the creation of new ideas, which is very important when it comes to thinking. The object is required for perception, where the mind perceives the content of the object, what you are looking at for example. I am currently thinking about how we are able to create new ideas, though.

Yep. We might even go a step further and ask if the idea of essences is worth keeping. — Banno

I am waiting to see if they can offer a definition of essence as a thing that is not in the set of properties and abilities.

I think it is proper to ask for a concise definition of essence. I think that something that objectively exists must have properties and abilities to be functional. I don't see anything more that can be added to this set, properties, and abilities!

This is not what is meant by an essence in classical metaphysics. This would seem to lead to something like a commitment to a "bundle metaphysics" where things just are collections of properties (plus or minus some bare substratum or haeccity that properties attach to; i.e., "pin cushion metaphysics"). Such theories are reductionist, but they also tend to be nominalist, although I suppose they could also align with some sort of austere realism that reduces all things to a basic set of properties (e.g., ontic structural realism, reduction to a platonic mathematics). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could we agree that something that exists is either objective or subjective? If yes, then God must objectively exist; otherwise, He is only an idea in the minds of believers. Now, this thing that objectively exists, God (generally, something that objectively exists is called a substance), must have a set of abilities, for example, the ability to create; otherwise, there would be no creation. God also has to have the ability to experience, as well, since otherwise God would become blind to His own knowledge, so He cannot act based on His knowledge. Such a God is a single thing and therefore is a good candidate to be the creator. If there are three substances, of which each is God, then we are dealing with the Trinity. Each substance is either distinguishable from another substance or not. If they are distinguishable, then there must be something to help us distinguish one from another, so-called properties. The properties also required to tell how the whole functions as a united thing. If they are not distinguishable, by this I mean they have no properties, then having more than one substance does not grant any functionality that one substance doesn't have, so the Trinity is unnecessary. So, I have one question here. What are the properties of each substance?

I don't think that classical theology would ever say that God 'exists objectively'. Whatever exists objectively can be discovered scientifically. — Wayfarer

Science, with all its successes, cannot explain mental phenomena and how they could be efficacious in the world. It is not difficult to see that a model that includes the mind resolves the mentioned problems.

The standard modern definition of an essence is as those properties had by some individual in every possible world that includes that individual. — Banno

Cool. I am happy with this definition, but it seems that @Count Timothy von Icarus disagrees.

Zhavia - Unforgettable

Zhavia - Location / Lyrics

ZHAVIA All Performances On The Four The Four Season 1

Are you happy with that explanation of "essence"?

I'm not. — Banno

I don't understand what that definition is referring to unless essence refers to properties and abilities!

'Essence' is 'what is essential to the being', from the Latin 'esse' 'to be'. — Wayfarer

If by the essence you mean a set of properties and abilities, then we are on the same page. Otherwise, I don't understand what essence could possibly mean. That is true since we have something that exists objectively, so-called God (which I think It is a mind); God is therefore a substance, given the definition of substance as something that objectively exists. Such a substance needs to have abilities and properties in order to interact with reality.

So does this substance called mind have a molecular structure? — Wayfarer

The mind is irreducible, so it does not have any structure. It, however, can be even omnipresent.

Mental events can only be experienced and created by the mind. Any living creature has at least one mind. Creatures with the ability to think have more than one mind, so-called the conscious and subconscious minds. An AI is a mindless entity, so it cannot experience ideas. In the same manner, an AI cannot think, given the definition of thinking, which is a process of working with old ideas to create new ones.

Imagine - John Lennon

In this case, “is” doesn’t mean numerical identity (as in "Clark Kent is Superman") but rather participation in a common essence. — Wayfarer

Do you mind elaborating on what you mean by essence?

Metallica - Enter Sandman Live Moscow 1991 HD

Nothing Else Matters - Metallica & San Francisco Symphonic Orchestra

She is a phenomenon: Anastasiia Tiurina (7 years old) "Valenki" balalaika

This is not consistent with your definition of strong emergence in the OP. — noAxioms

I have a long struggle to consider ideas as a form of strong emergence. At first, I thought that they are a form of weak emergence since we can only form an idea from a meaningful sentence in which the words are arranged in a certain way. So, it seems that an idea is a function of how words are arranged in a sentence. But then I recognized that a meaningful sentence is only a way that we communicate an idea. An idea does not have parts at the end since it is irreducible, so we are dealing with something that has no parts, yet it is meaningful to us. So, when it comes to language, a sentence, whether meaningful or meaningless, is a form of weak emergence as long as we are not talking about the meaning of a sentence. The idea that is derived from reading a sentence is something more than the sentence, though, so we are dealing with a form of strong emergence when it comes to ideas.

If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to hear what you believe ‘substance’ means. — Wayfarer

A substance is something that objectively exists. An experience is something that subjectively exists. I think that is all forms of existence.

Dire Straits - Sultans Of Swing

Led Zeppelin - Kashmir

You claim that the creation of ideas constitute cases of strong emergence because ideas are created by the mind rather than, I suppose, the body. But what about the mind itself? — Pierre-Normand

We are dealing with the strong emergence in the case of ideas since they are irreducible, yet they have a single content that can be experienced. Ideas are irreducible mental events since they can be experienced. There are other mental events like experiencing a cup. To me, experiencing is an activity of the mind. I have a thread on substance dualism that you can find here.

Do you view the mind to be something distinct from the collection of cognitive abilities that animals or human beings manifest? — Pierre-Normand

Yes, the mind to me is a substance with the ability to experience, freely decide, and cause.

Do you view the mind to be something distinct from the collection of cognitive abilities that animals or human beings manifest? — Pierre-Normand

Yes. The mind is a separate substance. Matter cannot even be the cause of its own change (I have another thread on this topic that you can find here). So the Mind is needed to keep the order of matter. Once the order is in place, you could even have life.

I'm also trying to understand if what your now describe as a case of strong emergence—the creation of ideas by the mind—is understood by you to be something quite separate from the material embodied life of a human being such that it can not be "a function" of its parts in accordance with your proposed definition of weak emergence. — Pierre-Normand

Experiencing a cup is a weak emergence considering all the complexities between experiencing the cup and the cup. We, however, have the ability to experience ideas as well, which is a strong emergence.

I think we are still waiting for an explanation of what the "is" in the Trinity is, and why. — Banno

I think that is the crux of the discussion! I am waining too!

You’re right that when we hear a meaningful sentence, an idea is “created”. For most of us, ideas feel complete and indivisible. — punos

Ideas are irreducible yet distinguishable. Only the mind can experience them since they are mental events.

The mind creates a cohesive, emergent form from the assembled sentence. However, the apparent unity of an idea doesn’t mean it lacks parts. The complexity and quality of an idea is directly proportional to the number of parts and their relationships to each other that an individual recognizes. — punos

I think you are talking about thoughts here rather than ideas. Ideas are simple. Thoughts are complex. A fruitful chain of thought leads to a new idea that explains the thoughts, though.

What do you think is responsible for the differences between different ideas? — punos

Ideas are irreducible, yet they can affect us differently. Ideas are mental events, and they are a subset of a larger set of mental events. All mental events affect us somehow.

Why isn't every idea the same idea? — punos

No.

Do you think an idea can exist on its own without some form of physical representation or scaffolding that holds it together? — punos

To me, experience is the result of the mind perceiving the object. So, minimally, we are dealing with substance dualism. We need at least three sorts of substances; the last substance is matter, in the case of humans. I think there are at least two minds in a human being, too.

Okay, but are the conscious and subconscious minds separate from the brain, coming from outside the brain to interact with it, or do you think they are generated by the activity of a living brain? — punos

The conscious and subconscious minds belong to the category of the mind. They are the same in the sense that they are minds. They do different things, though.

The only mental event that comes to mind that is an example of strong emergence is the creation of ideas. They are, however, not the result of the properties of the matter, but solely created by the mind. The ideas are irreducible yet distinguishable. An AI is a mindless thing, so it does not have access to ideas. The thought process is defined as working on ideas with the aim of creating new ideas. So, an AI cannot think, given the definition of thinking and considering the fact that it is mindless. Therefore, an AI cannot create a new idea. What an AI can do is to produce meaningful sentences only given its database and infrastructure. The sentence refers to an idea, but only in the mind of a human interacting with an AI. The sentence does not even have a meaning for an AI since a meaning is the content of an idea!

Right, i agree that thinking is a process. If the process stops, thinking stops; if the process starts, thinking starts. Excellent.

Now, would you agree with this line of reasoning? If something can be created, then that same thing can be broken down into the parts that were used to create it, although the thing itself ceases to exist once it has been reduced or decomposed. Furthermore, if you take those same parts and reconstruct the original arrangement and relationships would that not result in the original irreducible thing once again?

To put it another way a car stops being a car when reduced to its parts, and becomes a car again when the parts are put together again. Would you agree? — punos

I would like to make a distinction between building and creating. For example, when we build a car, we put the parts together in a way that the whole, car, has specific function. If you put the part the other way, the whole loses its function. The same applies to a meaningful sentence. When we build a meaningful sentence, we arrange the parts such that the sentence has a meaning. A meaningful sentence refers to an idea, though. The conscious mind creates the idea once the last word in the sentence is read. Although you can break a sentence into its parts, you cannot break an idea since it does not have any parts. Once a new idea is created, we have have a common understanding of it, so we can talk about it, give a name to it and build new sentences using it that refer to other new ideas.

So, are you saying that the missing requirements for thinking, apart from the brain, are consciousness and subconsciousness? — punos

The missing parts are the conscious and subconscious minds.

First things first, I have to say that thinking is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones. Ideas are mental events that are experienced and created by the mind. Ideas are not reducible to something else. When I say "cup", I am referring to an idea we both understand and we can talk about. A meaningful sentence also refers to an idea as well. When it comes to understanding a long writing, we at least need two minds, namely the conscious and subconscious minds. That is true since the conscious mind has very limited memory, so it can only understand a short sentence or a part of a long sentence if we only use our conscious mind. In the same manner, both the conscious and subconscious mind are involved when it comes to writing about complex ideas that are normally long.

I can see where you're coming from. But can we agree to disagree on whether AI has the ability to create novel ideas? — Bret Bernhoft

By an idea, I mean a mental event that is not reducible to something else, yet it is meaningful to us. For example, when I say "cup", we both understand what we are talking about. "Cup" in here is referring to an idea. The idea is something more than the word. In the same manner, a sentence refers to something more than the proper combination of words. So, given that we agree with what the idea means, I don't think that AI has the capacity to create a new idea since it cannot experience an idea. We experience ideas, work with them, talk about them, and create new ideas always. Thinking to me is a process in which we work with old ideas and create new ones.

Your point is an important distinction to draw; between using AI as a crutch or tool. It can be difficult at first to know where the line in the sand is, but it's there. — Bret Bernhoft

The difference between humans and AI is that humans have the ability to create new ideas, whereas AI does not.

Phantogram - When I'm Small



Phantogram - Fall In Love

Skunk Anansie - Charlie Big Potato



Skunk Anansie - Good Things Don't Always Come To You

Happy with what you say, MoK. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Hope to get you in another thread! :wink:

Second, there's no need to try and come up with an argument against divine intervention when there's no sound argument and/or evidence for divine intervention. — night912

I have an argument for the Mind is the cause of change in physical that you can find it here.

Lastly, if we don't currently know something, in regards to physics, then our conclusion should be, "we don't know." It's not, "we don't know, therefore, it's divine intervention." That's the philosophy of science. — night912

Our instruments have certain precision, so it is not about whether we can say "We don't know". We can say this for sure: one cannot exclude the role of Divine intervention when it comes to life!

Yes, but my point is that an idea or a thought cannot exist without a material substrate to support and contain it, such as the brain. — punos

I agree that the brain is required for thinking. What I am saying is that thinking cannot be done solely by the brain.

Again, you are confusing God willing evil and doing evil. Persons in creation would have the free will to do evil in virtue of merely having it. — Bob Ross

How about God? Is God free?

I don’t understand how that challenges the view of God I exposed before. — Bob Ross

You propose a God who has foreknowledge. If I know about God's foreknowledge, I can do the opposite since I am a free agent.

It does not logically follow from a mere definition that any specific case meets that definition. So no, it is not true given the definition. For it to be true, it must be the case that consciousness is a function of human parts that have certain relevant properties, and in complete contradiction, not a function of non-human parts that have the same relevant properties. — noAxioms

I invite you to read the OP again.