Karma

[Bramble]

People don't throw out their world views, paradigms, just on speculation or probabilities. There's a long way to go before we understand any of these things in depth.

Why is it at all important to you (bramble, bhs, ... ) that they should?

It isn't. I'm simply puzzled as to why some folk (and not others) seem to require that their lives be imbedded in an elaborate story of the kind that religions provide. I suppose I might understand it better if I could see some obvious advantage but for the most part these stories strike me as repellant. What, for instance, is the attraction of Original Sin or (what looks like a Hindu version of it) Sriram's spirit contamination? These ideas would just seem to add an entirely unnecessary problem to life. In Sriram's case such a belief would condemn one to an eternity of 'self-improvement' (his descriptor of spirituality) - I can't really think of anything worse. Who needs it? As for understanding the nature and origin of consciousness, this is certainly a matter of interest but I fail to see how it might have the slightest relevance to the conduct of daily life - and if it's unnecessary to living then what relevance can it have to 'spirituality' unless the latter is itself equally irrelevant? So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric. Is spirituality there to help us feel special? To structure ourselves around such narratives is to demand that life conforms to a set of fixed ideas. This looks to me like a flight from life itself.
 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Not quite clear what you are saying here. The idea of emergence expresses the principle that complexity arises from simpler origins.  We see houses made of little bricks but we don't see little bricks made of houses.  There is a unidirectional arrow to the complexity curve, and this is the base reason why concepts of intelligent design are fundamentally flawed as they run counter to this principle. Some people have tried to make a counter claim to the principle of emergence as a means to explain conscious intentionality, it is known as downward causation, Sean Carroll has a blog post on it here http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2011/08/01/downward-causation/

Thanks for that link Torridon. I'll have a read.

On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.

To use your analogy with the bricks: No problem there, but if you start with the house and regress backwards:
- emergent properties are used to explain the existence of the house.
Then
- emergent properties are used to explain the bricks, which emerged from some process 'A'.
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'A', which emerged from some process 'B'
- emergent properties are being used to explain 'B', which emerged from some process 'C'
etc.

So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric.

Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?

For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

On your question, I've no problem with the idea of complexity arising from simpler origins if the ability is there to do so from the start.

That's because you don't understand the difference between adaptive and non-adaptive emergent systems. Water molecules don't have embedded in them the idea that they could one day be a wave.

So what you have is a narrative involving emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties! It's a classic something from nothing scenario. If you regress back far enough, the first 'emergent property' would have to be something emerging from nothing!

Which misses the point entirely. You can discuss whether there ever was a "something emerging from nothing" if you want to, but that says nothing to the fact of emergence as a phenomenon. It's the same mistake that people who discount evolution make when they say, "where did the first organic stuff come from then?" as if that had anything to do with the action of natural selection on the organic material that was there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?

For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.

No it doesn't if you have even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory. Think of human beings as adaptive systems if that helps.

[Walter]

I thought it was spot on. Shows the use of stats and how people's own experiences and outlook can skew their perceptions. Confirmation bias is always in play.

Hannah Fry has done quite a bit of good work recently.

Yes, the program has yet again , highlighted the problem that persists in the public understanding of reality . No matter how much evidence some people are presented with they persist with what they already think , even if it is shown to be wrong. This is the greatest factor for my misanthropic position in life.

[Udayana]

It isn't. I'm simply puzzled as to why some folk (and not others) seem to require that their lives be imbedded in an elaborate story of the kind that religions provide. I suppose I might understand it better if I could see some obvious advantage but for the most part these stories strike me as repellant. What, for instance, is the attraction of Original Sin or (what looks like a Hindu version of it) Sriram's spirit contamination? These ideas would just seem to add an entirely unnecessary problem to life. In Sriram's case such a belief would condemn one to an eternity of 'self-improvement' (his descriptor of spirituality) - I can't really think of anything worse. Who needs it? As for understanding the nature and origin of consciousness, this is certainly a matter of interest but I fail to see how it might have the slightest relevance to the conduct of daily life - and if it's unnecessary to living then what relevance can it have to 'spirituality' unless the latter is itself equally irrelevant? So many of the religious beliefs that have recently had an airing here seem just grandiose, possibly narcissistic, and usually deeply anthropocentric. Is spirituality there to help us feel special? To structure ourselves around such narratives is to demand that life conforms to a set of fixed ideas. This looks to me like a flight from life itself.
 

I think it is mostly about culture and identity. Including ourselves in such stories is part of being born into a culture and identity whether, as originally, tribal or into a wider society. Most peoples sense of purpose, meaning of life and even morality, even the roles they take up in society, is rooted in their cultural inheritance. And, hence, the reluctance to give it up. Of-course it doesn't have to be religious necessarily, that is just how things developed historically.

I've not come across Sriram's "spirit contamination" idea in Hinduism before - seems a made up thing, but Hinduism does frame a number of possible metaphysical models for life, the universe etc.. Normally it is "desire" that is seen as the cause for existence. Karma is causality and dharma, morality.

[wigginhall]

Well, many ancient stories are anthropocentric, aren't they?  Tribal people often start with themselves, understandably.   I suppose you could argue that we are still like that, although our stories are different, e.g. politics and entertainment. 

I suppose the Enlightenment can be seen as a branching out from that towards something more universal, hence the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and so on.   Even more grandiose of course, but bigly!

And out of all that, secularism emerges, and modern science.

After that, you get the clash between different sets of stories, ancient and modern.  EastEnders or the X-Factor.

[Bramble]

I think it is mostly about culture and identity. Including ourselves in such stories is part of being born into a culture and identity whether, as originally, tribal or into a wider society. Most peoples sense of purpose, meaning of life and even morality, even the roles they take up in society, is rooted in their cultural inheritance. And, hence, the reluctance to give it up. Of-course it doesn't have to be religious necessarily, that is just how things developed historically.

I've not come across Sriram's "spirit contamination" idea in Hinduism before - seems a made up thing, but Hinduism does frame a number of possible metaphysical models for life, the universe etc.. Normally it is "desire" that is seen as the cause for existence. Karma is causality and dharma, morality.

Maybe my problem is that I'm not by nature a 'joiner' - tribalism and identity in a cultural sense feel rather alien to me, so perhaps religion is always going to seem weird.

The spirit contamination thing is very like what you find in traditional Buddhism, though Buddhists don't do 'spirit' in Sriram's sense. I've always assumed the Buddhist view was transplanted from religious beliefs common in India at the time of the historical Buddha. Basically, you 'inherit' a karmic bucket of (mostly) shit from a beginningless series of bastards who've set you up for a hard time as your life and experiences erupt hideously from the traces of their infinite moral lapses. There are, of course, occasional sunny intervals, but these just make the inevitable fall back into one of the many unspeakable hells all the more dreadful when it comes. Who thought this stuff up?

[Bramble]

Well, many ancient stories are anthropocentric, aren't they?  Tribal people often start with themselves, understandably.   I suppose you could argue that we are still like that, although our stories are different, e.g. politics and entertainment. 

I suppose the Enlightenment can be seen as a branching out from that towards something more universal, hence the French Revolution, the American War of Independence, and so on.   Even more grandiose of course, but bigly!

And out of all that, secularism emerges, and modern science.

After that, you get the clash between different sets of stories, ancient and modern.  EastEnders or the X-Factor.

It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.

[Gordon]

Would you consider that a methodology that implies that only human beings are allowed to be able to design, make and build things deeply anthropocentric?

Not really, since your are presumably referring to the types of things humans make, like watches, which is a consequence of how our species has evolved. There is an interesting article on the BBC website which relates to a possible DNA mutation being involved in the evolution of our brain.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38226810

Your use of the word 'allowed' is very odd: does that mean that birds are 'allowed' to fly but we aren't, mind you though birds don't seem to have a use for watches - I wonder why that is (perhaps they aren't 'allowed' them)?   

For example: Richard Dawkins argues in The God Delusion that a designer God cannot be used to explain organised complexity because that designer God would need an explanation in his own right and argues that an infinite regression occurs. That argument however seems to go out of the window when applied to the things human beings design and make.

So another thing you don't understand is the point RD was making and how this doesn't relate to what humans design.

[wigginhall]

It's interesting that while most religions tell stories that adherents are then encouraged to believe in, in Zen the opposite seems to apply. There's a peeling away of narrative into a kind of non-identity (which is perhaps an everything-identity). I guess it's human nature to want to be a someone and maybe the irony is that what we really want can only be found by becoming a no-one.

One of my favourite stories: a Western guy visits a Japanese Zen monastery, and starts to solve koans in double quick time, and with great brilliance.   He becomes famous in the area.   But his teacher smells a rat, and starts to reject his solutions, and says, 'interesting, but not Zen'.   This goes on for months, and the guy is in despair.   His teacher takes pity and tells him to memorize a verse from a sutra.   He returns, and makes a complete hash of it, stumbling, stuttering, half-remembering, and then he finishes, and waits in dread.   'Yes, real Zen', the teacher says.

So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic.

But what made the brilliant problem solver part of him less authentic, less the real man than the poor verse memoriser part? Or was the teacher just saying the he didn't have the real man until he had all his characteristics in the round?

But then how would the teacher know whether he was any good at, say, table football too?

[wigginhall]

Wiggs,

But what made the brilliant problem solver part of him less authentic, less the real man than the poor verse memoriser part? Or was the teacher just saying the he didn't have the real man until he had all his characteristics in the round?

But then how would the teacher know whether he was any good at, say, table football too?

Well, that's a good point about having the whole man, but I think also it's about getting behind the mask, to something shameful, which we all hide, the stuff we're not good at.   You could say that our mask is authentic, but it's the hidden stuff, that the teacher is trying to drag out.   Not sure about table football. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Well, that's a good point about having the whole man, but I think also it's about getting behind the mask, to something shameful, which we all hide, the stuff we're not good at.   You could say that our mask is authentic, but it's the hidden stuff, that the teacher is trying to drag out.   Not sure about table football.

OK, fair enough - what we try to hide is arguably more important than what we choose to show to the world I guess. I still think the table football aspect needs more research though... 

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword.

Well, a water molecule shows emergent properties, since it can do stuff that oxygen and hydrogen on their own cannot.  And a number of water molecules also show emergence, since they can be wet, which a single molecule cannot be.   And so on.

No argument from me here wigginhall. My issue is not with an increase, but with a gain.

I'll use this as an example of the difference between increase and gain...

If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounces to a height of 0.5m, the loss of dynamic energy is converted into other types of energy, e.g. heat, so that can be considered an emergent property. It comes out of what exists.

Now, if I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced 3m into the air, it has gained something.  One would know that at some point an external force would have had to be applied to the ball so that it can attain the extra height, relative to where it was initially dropped. The gain cannot be explained as an emergent property that was part of the original process.

My issue is with emergent properties being used to explain e.g. the type of gains needed in molecules to man evolutionary theories such as consciousness, gender, functionality in living organisms. These gains are being explained as emergent properties, which essentially leads to a circularity: emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties, which are used to explain emergent properties, ...

[Bramble]

One of my favourite stories: a Western guy visits a Japanese Zen monastery, and starts to solve koans in double quick time, and with great brilliance.   He becomes famous in the area.   But his teacher smells a rat, and starts to reject his solutions, and says, 'interesting, but not Zen'.   This goes on for months, and the guy is in despair.   His teacher takes pity and tells him to memorize a verse from a sutra.   He returns, and makes a complete hash of it, stumbling, stuttering, half-remembering, and then he finishes, and waits in dread.   'Yes, real Zen', the teacher says.

So the teacher didn't want the performance, but the echter Mensch, the real man, who stumbled and stuttered, but was authentic.

This is Zen's inheritance from Daoism, isn't it? It's about being 'natural', which is faith I suppose - a trust in who and what we are innately, as basically good, warts and all. As the Zenrin poem has it:

'In the landscape of spring there is neither high nor low,
The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.'

[ekim]

“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, spring comes, and the grass grows by itself” — Matsuo

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

No argument from me here wigginhall. My issue is not with an increase, but with a gain.

I'll use this as an example of the difference between increase and gain...

If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounces to a height of 0.5m, the loss of dynamic energy is converted into other types of energy, e.g. heat, so that can be considered an emergent property. It comes out of what exists.

Now, if I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced 3m into the air, it has gained something.  One would know that at some point an external force would have had to be applied to the ball so that it can attain the extra height, relative to where it was initially dropped. The gain cannot be explained as an emergent property that was part of the original process.

My issue is with emergent properties being used to explain e.g. the type of gains needed in molecules to man evolutionary theories such as consciousness, gender, functionality in living organisms. These gains are being explained as emergent properties, which essentially leads to a circularity: emergent properties being used to explain emergent properties, which are used to explain emergent properties, ...

Then (once again) you need to trouble yourself with understanding the difference between an emergent system that's non-adaptive and an emergent system that's adaptive. I believe I pointed you to a book that explains it very well.

[wigginhall]

This is Zen's inheritance from Daoism, isn't it? It's about being 'natural', which is faith I suppose - a trust in who and what we are innately, as basically good, warts and all. As the Zenrin poem has it:

'In the landscape of spring there is neither high nor low,
The flowering branches grow naturally, some long, some short.'

Well, the guy sees his clumsy side as 'bad', therefore hides it, as he shows his brilliant performance side.   However, you could argue that the teacher is not saying that his 'bad' side is 'good', but beyond good and evil,  because it is.   I know some people say that it's good because it is, but that can become tricky.

Horrible memories now of Herrigel, (Zen and the Art of Archery), who became a Nazi. 

[SusanDoris]

One time when I was teaching there was a fad for those small rubber balls which bounced particularly high. I cannot remember their properties, but does anyone know whether, if you dropped them from a height of 1 m, they would bounce higher than that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

One time when I was teaching there was a fad for those small rubber balls which bounced particularly high. I cannot remember their properties, but does anyone know whether, if you dropped them from a height of 1 m, they would bounce higher than that?

Yes, I do - they wouldn't because you'd have to get more energy out of the system than went into it. SOTS's (repeated) mistake is to describe non-adaptive systems like a bouncing ball (the crystals of a snowflake is another example) when in fact the emergence of higher level complexity relies on adaptive systems, like ant colonies or brains. Essentially these are systems that learn.

I don't know why he keeps ignoring his mistake, but it's not doing him any favours. 

[SusanDoris]

Susan,

Yes, I do - they wouldn't because you'd have to get more energy out of the system than went into it. SOTS's (repeated) mistake is to describe non-adaptive systems like a bouncing ball (the crystals of a snowflake is another example) when in fact the emergence of higher level complexity relies on adaptive systems, like ant colonies or brains. Essentially these are systems that learn.

I don't know why he keeps ignoring his mistake, but it's not doing him any favours.

Thank you. Mind you, the children used to love bouncing the ball with as much force as possible ... when, I suppose the energy in would still be more than the energy out ...

[Jack Knave]

Just to be clear, what are you calling consciousness?

Self awareness of one's existence and actions etc.

[Jack Knave]

That's a caricature.  Neuroimaging is not as crude as that.   But there seems little doubt that it is giving insights into brain architecture, as it is built up from infancy.   Perhaps you could indicate how you see intelligence.

I wasn't being literal in my description.

No one really knows how to define intelligence fully. The IQ test is very western orientated.