Karma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

There's nothing crude abut it, and why is it problematic to explain higher level complexity by reference to the constituent parts of the system following simple rules?

Give an example and show your working out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Your personal incredulity is noted, but where's the gap?

Non sequitur regarding my supposed incredulity.

How can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?......saying it just is isn't an explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I notice that the word 'adaptive' has been introduced, which I don't remember seeing before.  What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?

Non-adaptive systems like snooker balls creating patterns on a table or snowflakes emerging from ice crystals don't adapt to their environment. Adaptive systems on the other hand like ant colonies of brains learn such that they become more information rich than the sum of their components. Immature ant colonies for example will fight rival colonies, whereas more mature colonies will try to avoid them.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Give an example and show your working out.

Ant colonies, and you can read the studies for yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Ant colonies, and you can read the studies for yourself.

Inability to summarise noted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Non sequitur regarding my supposed incredulity.

How can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?......saying it just is isn't an explanation.

Oh that's very good. You deny arguing from your personal incredulity (you really must look up what non sequitur means by the way - it doesn't man "a false charge") and immediately follow it with an example of your personal incredulity.

The whole point about emergent adaptive systems is that the "addition of 3 factors" (it's actually the adherence to simple rules by many constituent parts by the way, but ok) does create a system that's more information rich than the sum of its components. There's no "explanatory gap" about that - it's been observed many times in nature, and learning software relies on it too: the SIMS game is a good example. 

Try reading the book I referred you to for a fuller explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The whole point of emergent adaptive systems is the the "addition of 3 factors" (it's actually the adherence to simple rules by many constituent parts by the way, but ok) does create a system that's more information rich than the sum of its components. There's no "explanatory gap" about that - it's been observed many times in nature,

So observation equals explanation now does it?
So stating what something does is it's own explanation is it?

You've taken a few statements added them together and EMERGED looking a complete arse. I can't explain that and it seems you won't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

So observation equals explanation now does it?

Oh dear. You're very confused.

The emergence of adaptive systems is an observable fact - it's well documented and, once you start noticing it, you see that we're surrounded by it - from birds flying in V-shapes to Amazon's software knowing what books to recommend. For the purpose of establishing an observable paradigm into which in principle consciousness fits very well, that's good enough.

If you want to know how it works on the other hand then you're welcome to read the research on it. I've read some, but it's not my job to educate you I'd have thought (not least because I'm no experts, and in any case you seem to be uneducable). It's not simple though. Here for example is Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart:

"Can we write down the equations for emergence? The short answer is no. ... 'Equation' is in any case the wrong image; the formulation of detailed laws is a reductionist concept, and the whole point about emergence is that it is not reductionist." (The Collapse of Chaos, p. 436) 

So stating what something does is it's own explanation is it?

For this purpose, yes. Emerged adaptive systems that are more information rich than their constituent parts is an observable fact.

You've taken a few statements added them together and EMERGED looking a complete arse. I can't explain that and it seems you won't.

The irony of that statement will be lost on you entirely I'm sure.

Wind your neck in and try again.

[torridon]

torridon,

Ok...imagine a situation where robots had sensory perceptions (cameras and sensors) with which they could sense only other metallic/plastic objects. They cannot sense biological organisms at all.  So...in their world they have only other robots, cars and things like that. No humans, animals etc....though all these organisms exist all around them.

These robots find from their fossil records that cars, computers, planes and robots had evolved from simpler systems. Because they cannot sense humans, they believe that the evolution of all these robots and cars and computers and planes happened automatically due to random metallic variation and environmental pressures. Why did robots become more complex and more intelligent? Emergent Property. Nothing else. They will cite many cases  of complex robots from different parts of the globe that have evolved from simpler ones. That is just the way it happens!

If they could only sense biological humans, they would realize that all their supposed evolution due to random variation was actually driven by  intelligent intervention. There is nothing random about it. All emergent properties were calculated interventions by humans and all complexity is their doing. 

IMO...a similar situation exists with humans and spiritual beings in another parallel world.

Cheers.

Sriram

The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough.  It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from.  Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately.  So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naïve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers.  Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.

[torridon]

How do you know a person has inner experience unless inner experience is objective?
How do you know someone else isn't just an automaton thrown up by evolution. Intelligent but not conscious?............except by redefining consciousness to fit neuroscience....or what neuroscience can handle...where being an intelligent automata is "close enough".

We don't know that ultimately.  It is the problem of solipsism, it is the Problem of Other Minds.  All we can do is make the least unreasonable assumption under the circumstances, which is that other beings that appear to have inner experience, are having inner experience.  Any other assumption under the circumstances would be far more reckless.

[ekim]

ekim,

Non-adaptive systems like snooker balls creating patterns on a table or snowflakes emerging from ice crystals don't adapt to their environment. Adaptive systems on the other hand like ant colonies of brains learn such that they become more information rich than the sum of their components. Immature ant colonies for example will fight rival colonies, whereas more mature colonies will try to avoid them.   

Yes, that part I think I understand.  If a rock is reduced to sand and left in the sea it doesn't attempt to reassemble itself, but if a living sponge is put through a blender and left in the sea it will reform itself.  My question was 'What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?'

[Udayana]

The problem with this is that it doesn't go far enough.  It needs to explain where the humans who did the intelligent designing came from, where their intelligence came from.  Just saying something cleverer up the cleverness ladder did it is no solution ultimately.  So it with gods and all other forms of magic thinking, it is naïve to think we can account for observed complexity by some invisible being with special powers.  Ultimately it is within our remit to figure things out without recourse to magic.

Indeed. In any case, even if one (malfunctioning?) "robot" came up with the idea of "humans" creating the robot world - what good does it do them? They have no way of discussing or verifying any statements or ideas about this invisible human world or finding out what is next in the plan for them.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Yes, that part I think I understand.  If a rock is reduced to sand and left in the sea it doesn't attempt to reassemble itself, but if a living sponge is put through a blender and left in the sea it will reform itself.  My question was 'What causes one system to become adaptive as opposed to non-adaptive?'

Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.

He also establishes five basic principles, namely:

- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole

- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it

- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole

- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants

- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"

It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Oh dear. You're very confused.

The emergence of adaptive systems is an observable fact - it's well documented and, once you start noticing it, you see that we're surrounded by it - from birds flying in V-shapes to Amazon's software knowing what books to recommend. For the purpose of establishing an observable paradigm into which in principle consciousness fits very well, that's good enough.

If you want to know how it works on the other hand then you're welcome to read the research on it. I've read some, but it's not my job to educate you I'd have thought (not least because I'm no experts, and in any case you seem to be uneducable). It's not simple though. Here for example is Jack Cohen & Ian Stewart:

"Can we write down the equations for emergence? The short answer is no. ... 'Equation' is in any case the wrong image; the formulation of detailed laws is a reductionist concept, and the whole point about emergence is that it is not reductionist." (The Collapse of Chaos, p. 436) 

For this purpose, yes. Emerged adaptive systems that are more information rich than their constituent parts is an observable fact.

I haven't disputed that. What I dispute it as is that it is its own explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

I haven't disputed that. What I dispute it as is that it is its own explanation.

Well, you did insist on asking "how can the addition of 3 factors be more than the addition of three factors?" which suggest that you were at least on the road to denying it, but ok. What then are you trying to say now about it being "its own explanation"? Do you worry that gravity is "its own explanation" too?

Either way, it's still the case that for the purpose of the conversation the observable fact of emergent adaptive systems that are more information rich than the sum of their components provides a template for the emergence of consciousness. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 Hillsidian emergence:
Put enough words into a post and an argument emerges.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Either way, it's still the case that for the purpose of the conversation the observable fact of emergent adaptive systems that are more information rich than the sum of their components provides a template for the emergence of consciousness.

And yet again this is not disputed by me.
How is repeating the same thing over and over again going to change non dispute into a dispute?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ekim,

Well, emergence concerns a lot more than an organism just putting itself back together. An ant colony for example is much more information rich than the sum of the information in the ants. Steven Johnson though sets out four basic conditions for emergence: neighbour interaction, pattern recognition, feedback, and indirect control.

He also establishes five basic principles, namely:

- More examples are better: you need to study lots of ants to grasp the behaviour of the colony as a whole

- Low-level ignorance is useful: failures won't change the overall pattern, and may be helpful to it

- Notice how the system responds to random encounters: ants stumbling across a new resource will increases the adaptiveness of the whole

- Notice the patterns in the signs: ants respond the the frequency of encounters and to the gradient of pheromone trails, not to "messages" from individual ants

- Components pay most attention to their neighbours: in this way swarm logic leads to global information increase and thus to "wisdom"

It's not that the components somehow want or choose to become an adaptive emergent system, but rather that by following these simple rules adaptive systems will emerge nonetheless.

Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.

Maybe you should try it sometime?

[wigginhall]

Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.

Wow, snotty or what.   It's a good job somebody does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe you should try it sometime?

Those that can do.......those what can't ,teach.
I suppose that if you put enough antitheist comedians together a joke might emerge.
That would be something inexplicable at the level of the individual.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Ah .......Bluehillside deigns to educate.

Ekim asked me a question, so I answered it. What's your problem?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Ekim asked me a question, so I answered it. What's your problem?

How about answering one of mine?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Maybe you should try it sometime?

Spoof doesn't do answers - he just tries to pick holes in the replies of those who do and, when that fails, he resorts to abuse instead. Standard troll playbook stuff, so more fool me for feeding him I guess.

[wigginhall]

Yes, usually trolls have little to offer of their own, but parasitize upon other people's stuff.