The power of prayer

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But nothing actually emerges in the physical sense.  It could be more accurately described as "perceived properties".  My conscious awareness is what facilitates the perception of these properties in other phenomena.

Yes . Emergence is always going to be problematic for the reductionist (who has to explain how the properties are connected to the level beneath them when observation of that level reveals it not to have those properties) and the materialist who has to link the property to the substrate.

Informationalists might argue that there is more information than substrate.

I look forward to all their explanations of these present problems.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes . Emergence is always going to be problematic for the reductionist (who has to explain how the properties are connected to the level beneath them when observation of that level reveals it not to have those properties) and the materialist who has to link the property to the substrate.

Informationalists might argue that there is more information than substrate.

I look forward to all their explanations of these present problems.

You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.

Actually my post is based on Paul Davies the physicist and some articles he did for New Scientist. Cue Hillside and Dawkinsian bullshit about Davies being ''nice to religion''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Actually my post is based on Paul Davies the physicist and some articles he did for New Scientist. Cue Hillside and Dawkinsian bullshit about Davies being ''nice to religion''.

It may be "based on" that but it still reveals your woeful ignorance of the subject. If you want to talk about emergence, find out something about it first. That's why I pointed you to a book to get you started.

You're welcome. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.

Typical Hillside Gambit.

1: Don't address the points raised.
2: Merely assert lack of understanding in opponent.
3: Reinforce trick by quoting a book.

Yawn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It may be "based on" that but it still reveals your woeful ignorance of the subject. If you want to talk about emergence, find out something about it first. That's why I pointed you to a book to get you started.

You're welcome.

I have found out something about it since I referenced Paul Davies. Did you miss that?

[ekim]

AB,

Torridon has got there before me, but both physical structures (termite mounds, city neighbourhoods etc) and behaviours (ants "farming" other insects etc) are emergent "properties" that exist whether or not you happen to be there to observe them.

Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer.

Could it be that when you are praying for the big problems that you are not doing it correctly?

  All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered.

 

[Nearly Sane]

Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?

which leads to a method that says x and not x are both true, so not useful

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Typical Hillside Gambit.

1: Don't address the points raised.
2: Merely assert lack of understanding in opponent.
3: Reinforce trick by quoting a book.

Yawn.

No gambit - just pointing out that your post betrayed your ignorance of the subject. Termite mounds for example have air conditioning - they draw in cooler air and vent it from the top and thereby maintain the mound's constant temperature. No termite though ever was capable of designing an air conditioning system - ie, it's an emergent property.

You try figuring out from there where you went wrong...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

which leads to a method that says x and not x are both true, so not useful

What is the difference here between say a penis and a soul?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No gambit - just pointing out that your post betrayed your ignorance of the subject. Termite mounds for example have air conditioning - they draw in cooler air and vent it from the top and thereby maintain the mound's constant temperature. No termite though ever was capable of designing an air conditioning system - ie, it's an emergent property.

You try figuring out from there where you went wrong...

Sorry everybody I missed out Hillside gambit steps 4 where he puts up something completely non sequitur that I've never argued against to suggest I am ignorant.

Cue Hillside gambit step 5 where he congratulates/criticises me on spelling sequitur right or wrong as the case.

[Nearly Sane]

What is the difference here between say a penis and a soul?

in which Vlad shows he does not understand logical propositions

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry everybody I missed out Hillside gambit steps 4 where he puts up something completely non sequitur that I've never argued against to suggest I am ignorant.

Cue Hillside gambit step 5 where he congratulates/criticises me on spelling sequitur right or wrong as the case.

You made some basic errors re the nature of emergence. If you want to discuss it here, then you need at least a grounding so as to be able to engage meaningfully.

Oh, and for once your problem isn't that you've miss-spelt "sequitur"; rather it's that you don't understand what it means and so have wrongly accused me of it.   

[torridon]

Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?

I think that persons, or souls (in the common sense, not in AB's sense) are excellent examples of emergence. Once we understand emergence, dualism becomes spurious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You made some basic errors re the nature of emergence. If you want to discuss it here, then you need at least a grounding so as to be able to engage meaningfully.

That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.

Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?

[Nearly Sane]

That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.

Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?

in which Vlad refuses to engage and uses the straw that he found down the back of his sofa

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think that persons, or souls (in the common sense, not in AB's sense) are excellent examples of emergence. Once we understand emergence, dualism becomes spurious.

How?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.

Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?

Opening up with "emergence is always going to be a problem for the reductionist" tells us instantly that you understand neither "emergence" and nor for that matter "reductionism". It's a bit like saying, "architecture is always going to be a problem for the morris dancer".

I was merely trying to help you by pointing you towards a source for the subject you presume to critique. If you really want to stay in architecture/morris dancing territory though that's up to you.

And no, engaging meaningfully doesn't mean agreeing - often the opposite in fact. What it does mean though is obtaining a basic vocabulary in the subject such that dialogue becomes possible.

Paul Davies incidentally dismisses "God" as an explanation for apparently consistent universal laws.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Opening up with "emergence is always going to be a problem for the reductionist" tells us instantly that you understand neither "emergence" and nor for that matter "reductionism". It's a bit like saying, "architecture is always going to be a problem for the morris dancer".

I was merely trying to help you by pointing you towards a source for the subject you presume to critique. If you really want to stay in architecture/morris dancing territory though that's up to you.

And no, engaging meaningfully doesn't mean agreeing - often the opposite in fact. What it does mean though is obtaining a basic vocabulary in the subject such that dialogue becomes possible.

Paul Davies incidentally dismisses "God" as an explanation for apparently consistent universal laws.       

Hillside you are just trying to repeat the Hillside Gambit. I am amused by it although for I find such behaviour a bit creepy. But at the end of the day, if you can't see the link between reductionism, materialism and information theories then you are the one without a grounding in emergence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside you are just trying to repeat the Hillside Gambit. I am amused by it although for I find such behaviour a bit creepy. But at the end of the day, if you can't see the link between reductionism, materialism and information theories then you are the one without a grounding in emergence.

It's not a "gambit" to explain that you don't understand the words and terms you attempt to use. There's nothing "reductionist" about emergence - pretty much the opposite in fact given that it entails the "the sum is greater than the parts" paradigm. The only creepy thing here is your continued misuse of language even when the correct meanings have been explained to you (cf your re-definitions of "philosophical materialism", "scientism", "atheism" etc).

If nonetheless you seriously think there to be a conflict between emergence and reductionism, then explain it rather than just assert it.

Maybe you could do that when you finally attempt to explain how you'd go about falsifying leprechauns?       

[Alan Burns]

Not so, termites were busy building cathedral mounds, a classic example of physical emergence, long before humans evolved to perceive them and wonder at the process.

But the "property" in these cases is defined by the perceived complexity within the physical materials - not the materials themselves.  So as I said - nothing "emerges" in the physical sense, it is just complexity as perceived by our conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the "property" in these cases is defined by the perceived complexity within the physical materials - not the materials themselves.  So as I said - nothing "emerges" in the physical sense, it is just complexity as perceived by our conscious awareness.

Again, no termite is capable of conceiving of air conditioning yet it exists in the mounds they construct whether or not you happen to be there to "perceive" it.

That's emergence.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Again, no termite is capable of conceiving of air conditioning yet it exists in the mounds they construct whether or not you happen to be there to "perceive" it.

That's emergence.

But the concept of air conditioning only exists in the conscious awareness of human beings.  Take away our conscious awareness and these properties cease to exist.  Ultimately all that exists outside of conscious awareness is atomic particles, radiation and space.

[jeremyp]

A staunch believer might say that as a result of prayer, it is God guiding Alan's wife in what she says and the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.

A staunch atheist would then ask why God doesn't guide rapists away from committing rape, to which the staunch believer's normal reply is that God doesn't interfere with Free Will. The staunch atheist would then point ut that guiding Alan's wife and doctors in the way the staunch believer suggests is a violation of their Free Will.