Vlad,
You are just quoting examples of emergence.
Yes, thereby showing you that it’s a real phenomenon.
The only emergence from any bottom is your definition coming from your own.
Crass ignorance noted.
An emergent property is a novelty not demonstrated by any components at the previous organisation. Otherwise it is ''more of the same.''
“…at the previous organisation” is odd wording, but essentially yes. An emergent property is different from
but inextricably connected to its constituent component parts and their interactions. It doesn't float free in some unspecified way as you seem to be implying
Of course if those components were not there, there would be nothing to emerge from, however the emergent property is definitionally a novelty.
Depends what you mean by “novelty”, but essentially yes – none of its constituent parts exhibit the same characteristics as the emergent property.
This might help....Paragraph 3
You perhaps. Try reading it.
If you can explain one example of how an emergent property is explicable completely in terms of the previous level I think you deserve a prize. Your present pretence of explaining any emergent by a reductionist approach does not however deserve plaudit.
Go on then.
Oh dear. Think about what you’re saying here. If you really wanted to discuss how emergence works, we could do that. If we did though, whether I could explain everything about it, nothing about it, or something in between is entirely irrelevant to the
point.
Emergence observably happens. There’s nothing mystical about consciousness that would exempt it from the same process. Emergence is the only rational model in town that would explain consciousness.
Does that provide a cast iron guarantee that consciousness is an emergent property?
Of course not.
Does that mean that emergence is the only model we have that’s rational, robust and fits all the available data?
You bet your sweet jacksie it does.
What you’re trying here is equivalent to, “if you can’t explain how gravity works how do you know it works on Alpha Centauri?”
The short answer is that I don’t. The longer one though is that it’s the only model we have that fits all the data, so probabilistically it’s the best answer we have.
So yeah, we can talk about how emergence (or gravity for that matter) works as much as you like if you really want to. Both of them observably happen though, and each of them provides the only available credible explanations for consciousness and apples falling respectively.
Vis Paul Davies he was writing when reductionists baulked at the word. You demonstrate that todays mechanistic reductionists merely seem to have pirated the expression.
The Templeton Prize guy? Anyways, once again you demonstrate that you have no idea what “reductionist” actually means. If you want to accuse someone of it, then you need to show something that’s been reduced
from remember?
You may recall that I helpfully explained to you recently how to spot a BS argument. Do you think that you are a reductionist from the arguments and assertions I make about leprechauns?
Why not?
