Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I confess that up until your acceptance of irreducibility in emergence, I had you down as someone who thought the emergent property was totally explicable in terms of what it arose from. It seems I was wrong.

Er, that depends on what you mean by an emergent property being “totally explicable in terms of what it arose from”. You can’t “explain” water for example by examining separate test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen – you can explain it though by also understanding how they interact. In other words, there’s no magic dust third component necessary for self-organised emergent properties to exist. That’s rather the point.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Er, that depends on what you mean by an emergent property being “totally explicable in terms of what it arose from”. You can’t “explain” water for example by examining separate test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen – you can explain it though by also understanding how they interact. In other words, there’s no magic dust third component necessary for self-organised emergent properties to exist. That’s rather the point.     

Or the novelty is the property itself. You seem to have recanted irreducibility by describing the emergent in terms of the molecules. That is shaking hands with reductionism rather than emergentism. But the your definitions are from 2001.
Interaction is a property of the molecules....wetness isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Or the novelty is the property itself. You seem to have recanted irreducibility by describing the emergent in terms of the molecules. That is shaking hands with reductionism rather than emergentism. But the your definitions are from 2001.
Interaction is a property of the molecules....wetness isn't.

What BHS said made perfect sense to me. Your comment ... well not so much - yet more incoherent non-sense from you Vlad.

The point is simple - an emergent property is one that ... err ... emerges from the higher level interactions of component elements which is not present in those elements individually.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What BHS said made perfect sense to me. Your comment ... well not so much - yet more incoherent non-sense from you Vlad.

The point is simple - an emergent property is one that ... err ... emerges from the higher level interactions of component elements which is not present in those elements individually.

It makes perfect sense because it was how you were taught to think. Whatever the correctness or obsolescence of that way of thinking is, Hillside describes the property in terms of molecules. That is not emergentism and whatever you call your approach here there are ramifications and limitations to what can be contemplated. In effect that makes you a high priest of a way of thinking.
Can you really then subscribe to irreducibility and indeducibility?

[ProfessorDavey]

It makes perfect sense because it was how you were taught to think.

You mean taught to use accepted definitions of terms and use coherent and logical arguments. Yup, that's about right.

Whatever the correctness or obsolescence of that way of thinking is, Hillside describes the property in terms of molecules. That is not emergentism and whatever you call your approach here there are ramifications and limitations to what can be contemplated. In effect that makes you a high priest of a way of thinking.
Can you really then subscribe to irreducibility and indeducibility?

I've given an excellent example of emergent properties - the emergent properties of selective permeability and compartmentalisation that arise from the self organisation of phospholipid molecules. These properties do not exist in the individual molecules, but emerge when those molecule self-assemble into a more complex organised structure.

I suspect that BHS will also recognise that as a valid example.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a problem with accepting that complexity can arise bottom up from components that do not possess the properties of the more complex structure and do so in a self assembled manner. Whether that is because you are unable to think logically or are wedded to a dogma that complexity must arise top-down (or both) I don't know.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Or the novelty is the property itself.

Meaning? The “property” is the wetness of water, the pattern of the flocking birds, the air conditioning of the termite mound. The “novel” is an adjectival description of one characteristic of the property – ie, it’s novel.   

You seem to have recanted irreducibility by describing the emergent in terms of the molecules.

Given that I said precisely the opposite of that (“You can’t “explain” water for example by examining separate test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen – you can explain it though by also understanding how they interact”) why even bother with such an obvious straw man?   

That is shaking hands with reductionism rather than emergentism.

Not even close. “Reductionism” would what I’d be doing if there was some special third “something” in play and I ignored it by talking only about the component parts of the system and their interactions. There is no such missing something though. Emergent properties self-organise bottom up, not top down because of some sort of directing agency. That’s the point.

But the your definitions are from 2001.

And the definition hasn’t changed since (as you know by the way from the Wiki article you cited that then blew up in your face). My definitions of Newton’s laws of motion are from the 1700s too. What’s your point?

Interaction is a property of the molecules....wetness isn't.

What are you trying to say here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

I suspect that BHS will also recognise that as a valid example.

BHS will recognise that 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Meaning? The “property” is the wetness of water,

Which you then attempted to define in terms of molecules. That is not emergentism   

Not even close. “Reductionism” would what I’d be doing if there was some special third “something” in play

The third something as you put it is the irreducibility and the indeducibility of the emergent property. It seems you were defining the property in terms of the molecules involved. That isn't emergentism. Since you so define the property by it's components it looks a lot like reductionism.

[ProfessorDavey]

Which you then attempted to define in terms of molecules. That is not emergentism

Why not - a property that isn't exhibited by an individual molecule, but is present when those molecules assemble into higher order structures, either with themselves or with other types of molecules (which also don't individually exhibit that property), is clearly an emergent property.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Which you then attempted to define in terms of molecules. That is not emergentism

First I did no such thing, and second even if I had properties can emerge from interacting molecules just as much as they can from interacting anything else – silk goods shops for example.
   

The third something as you put it is the irreducibility and the indeducibility of the emergent property.

No it isn’t. Irreducibility is a characteristic of an emergent property, but is not a constituent of it. For that you need only the parts (whatever they may be) and their interactions. You’re still very confused about this.

It seems you were defining the property in terms of the molecules involved.

I’ve corrected you on this already. Why are you lying about it?

That isn't emergentism. Since you so define the property by it's components it looks a lot like reductionism.

I guess when all you have is a straw man you can reach any conclusion you like eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why not - a property that isn't exhibited by an individual molecule, but is present when those molecules assemble into higher order structures, either with themselves or with other types of molecules (which also don't individually exhibit that property), is clearly an emergent property.

Because describing things in terms of the components is classical reductionism and not emergentism. You need to revisit those links and look up the meaning of reductionism.

There isn't anything wrong with being a reductionist apart from perhaps being wrong. It isn't illegal. What is wrong is saying it fully expresses the emergent property rather than reducing it to a more basic level.

[ProfessorDavey]

Because describing things in terms of the components is classical reductionism and not emergentism. You need to revisit those links and look up the meaning of reductionism.

You are talking complete non-sense Vlad.

Definitionally emergent property and emergency "occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole."

It is therefore impossible to determine whether an emergent property exists, nor to describe that emergent property other than by comparing properties that exist within the higher order structure and comparing that with properties that are exhibited by the component parts. In discussion of emergence it is essential to describe things both in terms of the whole and in terms of the component parts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are talking complete non-sense Vlad.

Definitionally emergent property and emergency "occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole."

It is therefore impossible to determine whether an emergent property exists, nor to describe that emergent property other than by comparing properties that exist within the higher order structure and comparing that with properties that are exhibited by the component parts. In discussion of emergence it is essential to describe things both in terms of the whole and in terms of the component parts.

Yes and the philosophy you have just expressed in your post is classical reductionism. Own it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes and the philosophy you have just expressed in your post is classical reductionism. Own it.

Nope - all I have described is the concept of emergent properties - you know what we have been discussing for ages on this thread.

So if you want to discuss emergence you are going to need to accept that you will need to discuss properties that exist within an entity as a whole and those that exist in the component parts that come together to form that entity. Up to you whether you want to discuss emergence, but if you do there is no getting aways from this requirement.

And in a broader sense I don't see discussing the properties that a phospholipid molecule possess in comparison with the emergent properties of selective permeability
and compartmentalisation that arise when they self assemble as ... err ... philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - all I have described is the concept of emergent properties - you know what we have been discussing for ages on this thread.

So if you want to discuss emergence you are going to need to accept that you will need to discuss properties that exist within an entity as a whole and those that exist in the component parts that come together to form that entity. Up to you whether you want to discuss emergence, but if you do there is no getting aways from this requirement.

And in a broader sense I don't see discussing the properties that a phospholipid molecule possess in comparison with the emergent properties of selective permeability
and compartmentalisation that arise when they self assemble as ... err ... philosophy.

I am in no way against methodological reductionism. It has it's uses.
I would argue though that it might lead to an inadequate and misleading description of the emergent as, it has been argued, has happened with Dennett on consciousness.
Never mistake personal interest with what is globally important.

Philosophy cannot be avoided

[ProfessorDavey]

I am in no way against methodological reductionism. It has it's uses.
I would argue though that it might lead to an inadequate and misleading description of the emergent as, it has been argued, has happened with Dennett on consciousness.
Never mistake personal interest with what is globally important.

So are you interested in discussing emergent properties of matter or not? You seem to want to divert the discussion into something else entirely. Let's stick to the point.

Philosophy cannot be avoided

Really - I think understanding the emergent properties of phospholipids as they self assemble from individual molecules is a matter of understanding fundamental chemistry and physics. I think it comfortably avoids philosophy (unless you consider that every branch of enquiry is philosophy) - questions of 'why' rather than 'how' are completely irrelevant to that understanding.

[ProfessorDavey]

Never mistake personal interest with what is globally important.

Says the person who unerringly fails to see the wood for the trees, so wedded to his personal faith that he cannot see anything beyond top-down god-did-it nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So are you interested in discussing emergent properties of matter or not?

More than you it seems, you just want to talk about the components and their interactions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says the person who unerringly fails to see the wood for the trees, so wedded to his personal faith that he cannot see anything beyond top-down god-did-it nonsense.

I don't think I've mentioned God in this discussion. Certainly there are emergentist atheists as well as reductionist atheists.

If you are seeing God then I suggest you have a God sense much against your wishes.

[ProfessorDavey]

More than you it seems, you just want to talk about the components and their interactions.

... and their properties - which is, of course, what emergence and emergent properties is all about.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think I've mentioned God in this discussion. Certainly there are emergentist atheists as well as reductionist atheists.

If you are seeing God then I suggest you have a God sense much against your wishes.

You are however desperate to accept that simple entities can self-assemble into more complex structures in which new emergent properties ... err ... emerge, in a 'bottom-up' manner without requirement for any 'design', nor 'intent. Almost as if you are wedded to the need for some overarching top-down designer when evidence suggests otherwise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are however desperate to accept that simple entities can self-assemble into more complex structures in which new emergent properties ... err ... emerge, in a 'bottom-up' manner without requirement for any 'design', nor 'intent. Almost as if you are wedded to the need for some overarching top-down designer when evidence suggests otherwise.

I don't believe I've mentioned design either.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't believe I've mentioned design either.

Then why do you seem implacably opposed to the notion that complexity and emergent properties can arise through self assembly in a completely bottom-up manner - everything you post oozes the need for complexity to be top-down. Why might that be Vlad?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think I've mentioned God in this discussion. Certainly there are emergentist atheists as well as reductionist atheists.

I think you are one and the same Vlad who posts endlessly on various threads on this board - I don't restrict my views to your posts just on this thread, but take a holistic approach to the views you express across the piece.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then why do you seem implacably opposed to the notion that complexity and emergent properties can arise through self assembly in a completely bottom-up manner - everything you post oozes the need for complexity to be top-down. Why might that be Vlad?

That's just your paranoia working itself out. It doesn't though turn your reductionism into emergentism though.
I'm sure what you say does happen however end it there and you could effectively be ignoring the novelty, indeducibility and irreducibility of the emerged phenomenon, a danger so admirably demonstrated in the case of Dennett and consciousness. In effect, effective denial of the emerged phenomenon. Hillside does this when he said something was just the interaction of components. This suggests that the emerged phenomenon is merely an illusion rather than an actual thing.