There is no emergence

[Skepdick]

It is not.

Clearly it is! Given your very own argument below....

When there is a correlation between A and B. We may not know what A and B are but that doesn't mean that we can find the correlation between them. The very existence of the correlation indicates that there should be an explanation, otherwise, nothing would work properly.

Cherry-picking! What about all the things that don't correlate with anything? What does The Universe correlate with?

What about things that don't work properly? Like scientific theories that keep being falsified?

We know that there is a relation between mass and gravity since there is a correlation between them. We don't know what mass is yet.

So let me get this straight. There is a correlation between gravity and a concept that we made up? e.g mass.

Of course, everything in the universe has an explanation.

What is the explanation for the fact that 90% of mass cannot be accounted for in The Universe?

[bahman]

When there is a correlation between A and B. We may not know what A and B are but that doesn't mean that we can find the correlation between them. The very existence of the correlation indicates that there should be an explanation, otherwise, nothing would work properly.

Cherry-picking! What about all the things that don't correlate with anything? What does The Universe correlate with?

That is you who cherry-picks. I think I was clear with my definition. The universe doesn't correlate with anything since there is no other thing that it could correlate with.

What about things that don't work properly? Like scientific theories that keep being falsified?

There is a reason why our belief is not correct, we don't know everything. We change our beliefs when we find an error in it. The error is the reason for changing our beliefs.

We know that there is a relation between mass and gravity since there is a correlation between them. We don't know what mass is yet.

So let me get this straight. There is a correlation between gravity and a concept that we made up? e.g mass.

Mass is something. It is not only an idea.

Of course, everything in the universe has an explanation.

What is the explanation for the fact that 90% of mass cannot be accounted for in The Universe?

Are you talking about dark matter?

[Skepdick]

That is you who cherry-picks. I think I was clear with my definition. The universe doesn't correlate with anything since there is no other thing that it could correlate with.

So you agree that The Universe does not have an explanation?

There is a reason why our belief is not correct, we don't know everything.

So if we don't know everything how can we explain everything?

Mass is something. It is not only an idea.

But you just said that you don't know what mass IS.
You don't know what mass IS, but you know that it's SOMETHING?

So now, that's two things you can't explain.

1. The Universe
2. Mass

Are you talking about dark matter?

Do you know what 'dark matter' is? Because it seems to me that 'dark matter' is just duct tape.
To deal with the fact that 90% of that which is supposed to explain gravity is missing.

So here is how your story goes so far:

Gravity is explained by mass.
Mass is something (you don't know what)
90% of the explanation for gravity is missing.
The explanation for the missing explanation of gravity is dark matter.
You don't know what dark matter is either.

How am I doing so far?

The list of things you can't explain just expanded:

1. The Universe.
2. Mass
3. Dark Matter
4. Gravity

[bahman]

That is you who cherry-picks. I think I was clear with my definition. The universe doesn't correlate with anything since there is no other thing that it could correlate with.

So you agree that The Universe does not have an explanation?

I find your question irrelevant to our discussion.

There is a reason why our belief is not correct, we don't know everything.

So if we don't know everything how can we explain everything?

My premise is not that we can explain everything. My premise is that there is an explanation for everything.

Mass is something. It is not only an idea.

But you just said that you don't know what mass IS.
You don't know what mass IS, but you know that it's SOMETHING?

So now, that's two things you can't explain.

1. The Universe
2. Mass

Again your question is irrelevant to our discussion, emergence. The relevant question is for example why a car is able to move? Because it has wheels.

Are you talking about dark matter?

Do you know what 'dark matter' is? Because it seems to me that 'dark matter' is just duct tape.
To deal with the fact that 90% of that which explains gravity is missing.

So here is how your story goes so far:

Gravity is explained by mass.
Mass is something (you don't know what).
90% of mass cannot be accounted for.
The explanation the missing mass (which is something that is missing) is dark matter.
You don't know what dark matter is either.

How am I doing so far?

The list of things you can't explain just expanded:

1. The Universe.
2. Mass
3. Dark Matter
4. Gravity
[/quote]
You are missing my point. I already define what I mean with an explanation. Yes, there is an explanation for why a bigger mass produces larger gravity. We don't know why yet but we are sure that the explanation exists because of the correlation between mass and gravity.

[Skepdick]

Again your question is irrelevant to our discussion, emergence.

Is it irrelevant? Dark matter has emerged from your inability to explain gravity with mass.
90% of your 'explanation' is missing.
So you explained the missing explanation with a new explanation (that's even more missing than the first one).

Have you ever heard the term 'apologetics' ?

The relevant question is for example why a car is able to move? Because it has wheels.

That is not an explanation. Not all things with wheels are able to move.

My premise is not that we can explain everything. My premise is that there is an explanation for everything.

Well, obviously! That's just a silly truism. You keep inventing explanations to explain why your previous explanations failed to explain everything.

First you invented mass to explain gravity.
Then you invented dark matter to explain mass.

I am sure you are going to invent something else yet to explain dark matter.
And you are going to invent something else yet to explain the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.

And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.
And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.
And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.

Where does the explaining of the explaining stop?

[Sculptor]

There is no emergence because there is always a reason for something which occurs. Things cannot occur for no reason. Therefore there is no such thing as emergence if by definition there is no explanation for it. Emergence is meaningless if it is explicable.

So often an argument can be easily dismissed when the person making it fails on certain grounds.
In this case Bahman has failed due to exaggeration; and has failed due to a lack of definition.

Simply by offering a couple of standard defintions, along with examples of how, according to those definitions emergence is evident the argument is exploded.

1.
the process of becoming visible after being concealed.
"I misjudged the timing of my emergence"
synonyms: disclosure, becoming known, coming to light, exposure, unfolding, publication, publicizing, publishing, broadcasting
"the emergence of the facts"
2.
the process of coming into existence or prominence.
"the emergence of the environmental movement"
synonyms: appearance, arrival, coming;

3. In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.

It does not take much imagination to supply valid examples of these versions of emergence.

Since 3 is probably the most in contention here. Genes alone are little more than a collection of DNA, until they are joined by the process of fertilization. After some time we have properties that are not present in DNA in a test tube. Hence the emergence of human life.

If that were not enough. All DNA is composed of only Carbon Hydrogen and Nitrogen.

Do things have an explanation?

Why do you ask?

[seeds]

...I cannot help but wonder that if a perfect replication of the human brain could be constructed from computer parts, then perhaps the living essence within those parts* could somehow be drawn-forth and triggered (awakened) into a state of self-awareness...

*(Again, assuming that “hylozoism” is a possibility.)

In other words, the process would represent an “emergence” of consciousness from a highly specific arrangement of physical parts, just as a normal brain does with us.

And, can I say, I don't think we can rule that out. In the final analysis, when we can't really explain how brains produce consciousness, we equally can't say if a Difference Engine is missing some key component.

But, I have to admit, I'd find it hard to see where the consciousness would be exhibited...

Haven’t you ever seen or heard of Max Headroom? - https://youtu.be/qq8jOBe5E5A

Clearly, all you would need for the exhibition of what “appears” to be consciousness, is a visual and audio monitoring system.

The problem is, that as we observe and interact with the human-shaped arrangement of electrons on the television screen, we are still no closer to figuring out what consciousness is than we are as we interact with a regular person,...

...which, like Max Headroom, is just another human-shaped arrangement of electrons.

So, what exactly is it that is conscious and self-aware within the context of a human-shaped arrangement of electrons?

Is it the electrons?

Or is it something that “emerges” from the electrons as a result of their specific arrangement (again, an arrangement in the form of a brain which is somehow able to summon-forth the essence of life from the very fabric of the electrons themselves)?

With a Difference Engine, we could presumably exhaustively explain all behaviour by reference to the physical gears. That suggests to me that any consciousness would have to be epiphenomenal.

I can’t even begin to imagine how studying any aspect of a “Difference Engine”...

(which, in this case, is the multifarious features (“physical gears”) of the body and brain of a human)

...could explain the existence of a lucid dreamer, for example, who can willfully grasp the holographic-like mental substance of her own personal being and shape it into anything she desires.

In other words, where’s the epiphenomenal correlation between the objectively-based “gears” of the engine and that of the subjectively-based “behavior” of a self-aware entity/agent (the “dreamer”) that seems to exist within the inner context of its own autonomous dimension of reality that we call a “mind”?
_______

[Skepdick]

It's not the absence of difference that works for me. It's the demonstration of how we eliminated the difference.

The demonstration would be right before you. In its actual, physical form. The HOW is the whole thing.
The HOW is the software interacting with the hardware, and hardware+software interacting with the environment to make "consciousness" emerge.

If what's in the black box is a Chinese Room, we won't have consciousness.

How do we determine whether what's in your "black box" is a Chinese Room?

I think its fine to avoid pointless doubts about the consciousness of other people

Is it a pointless doubt? I can't tell whether you are "real consciousness" or a Chinese room. And isn't that the very definition of doubting?
What if? What if you really are a Chinese room?

Again, recall the practical situation. We don't have Nexus 6 Replicants making an eloquent case for civil rights.

If you are a replicant, you can't prove that you aren't and you don't know that you are - we are already there.

The only point in thinking about imaginary machines that might look conscious is if it tells us something useful about how to better understand features of our own consciousness.

But our own 'consciousness' is only assumed. "We are conscious" is just something we say. We can't define what consciousness is.
Which is the fundamental issue at play. Is consciousness ontological like an electron, or emergent?

We don't know answers to such things. We can't know answers to such things.

And, just to be clear, this is all in a context where we don't yet have really good understanding of consciousness.
So I'm not at all saying "this fails to conform to the Universally Accepted Canon of Consciousness", because there isn't one.

Richard Feynman once said "What I can't create, I don't understand". It kind of begs the question "What would it mean to understand consciousness, without having to create it?"

Oh, absolutely, I expect a conscious entity of some other type would have different interests. But isn't a lot of it the internal life? I expect a cat is conscious, just not smart enough to talk.

Would you say that an earth worm is conscious, or do you draw the line somewhere between the Oligochaeta and the Felidae even though both have nervous systems?

[bahman]

Again your question is irrelevant to our discussion, emergence.

Is it irrelevant?

Yes, it is irrelevant.

Dark matter has emerged from your inability to explain gravity with mass.
90% of your 'explanation' is missing.
So you explained the missing explanation with a new explanation (that's even more missing than the first one).

We are talking about emergence in here, emergence being a phenomenon that occurs in a system that has parts. The elementary particles have mass but no parts to the best of our knowledge. We know that the standard model is not the ultimate model so we don't know how to account for dark matter.

Have you ever heard the term 'apologetics' ?

Yes.

The relevant question is for example why a car is able to move? Because it has wheels.

That is not an explanation. Not all things with wheels are able to move.

I know. Any car also has an engine, etc.

My premise is not that we can explain everything. My premise is that there is an explanation for everything.

Well, obviously! That's just a silly truism. You keep inventing explanations to explain why your previous explanations failed to explain everything.

First you invented mass to explain gravity.
Then you invented dark matter to explain mass.

I am sure you are going to invent something else yet to explain dark matter.
And you are going to invent something else yet to explain the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.

And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.
And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.
And the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of the explanation of dark matter.

Where does the explaining of the explaining stop?

When we know everything.

[bahman]

So often an argument can be easily dismissed when the person making it fails on certain grounds.
In this case Bahman has failed due to exaggeration; and has failed due to a lack of definition.

Simply by offering a couple of standard defintions, along with examples of how, according to those definitions emergence is evident the argument is exploded.

1.
the process of becoming visible after being concealed.
"I misjudged the timing of my emergence"
synonyms: disclosure, becoming known, coming to light, exposure, unfolding, publication, publicizing, publishing, broadcasting
"the emergence of the facts"
2.
the process of coming into existence or prominence.
"the emergence of the environmental movement"
synonyms: appearance, arrival, coming;

3. In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.

It does not take much imagination to supply valid examples of these versions of emergence.

Since 3 is probably the most in contention here. Genes alone are little more than a collection of DNA, until they are joined by the process of fertilization. After some time we have properties that are not present in DNA in a test tube. Hence the emergence of human life.

If that were not enough. All DNA is composed of only Carbon Hydrogen and Nitrogen.

Do things have an explanation?

Why do you ask?

This is my basic premise. So we have to see if we can agree upon.

[Skepdick]

Yes, it is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's the elephant in the room.

We are talking about emergence in here

Emergence is exactly what I am talking about.

emergence being a phenomenon that occurs in a system that has parts.

And your mind is one such system. As we learn new things about the world new concepts emerge in our minds.
We didn't have a concept for "quantum entanglement" or "dark matter" 200 years ago.
Today we do. The concepts emerged.

The elementary particles have mass but no parts to the best of our knowledge.

Photons don't have mass.

We know that the standard model is not the ultimate model so we don't know how to account for dark matter.

Dark matter is not in the standard model. Dark matter is the explanation for why the standard model is broken.

Is just that 'dark matter' is equivalent to a God of the gaps argument.

I know. Any car also has an engine, etc.

Plenty things without engines move also.

When we know everything.

You are going the wrong way then. Because your current explanation for "everything" is dark matter.

It doesn't exist.

[bahman]

Yes, it is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It's the elephant in the room.

As you wish.

We are talking about emergence in here

Emergence is exactly what I am talking about.

No. You are talking about a property of matter that is mass. As I mention we say that there is an explanation when there is a correlation between A and B. We need two things. You are talking about mass being an emergent phenomenon. You need another thing to make mass an emergent property.

emergence being a phenomenon that occurs in a system that has parts.

And your mind is one such system. As we learn new things about the world new concepts emerge in our minds.
We didn't have a concept for "quantum entanglement" or "dark matter" 200 years ago.
Today we do. The concepts emerged.

Is there a correlation between brain activity and learning? There must be a very specific process in the brain that is related to learning of something specific. Therefore there is an explanation for what happens in your brain when you are learning.

The elementary particles have mass but no parts to the best of our knowledge.

Photons don't have mass.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that.

We know that the standard model is not the ultimate model so we don't know how to account for dark matter.

Dark matter is not in the standard model. Dark matter is the explanation for why the standard model is broken.

Is just that 'dark matter' is equivalent to a God of the gaps argument.

There is no such thing as God of the gaps. There is an explanation when there is a correlation. There is always a correlation between things since mathematical equations are the fundation of any reality. Therefore there is no emergence.

I know. Any car also has an engine, etc.

Plenty things without engines move also.

So?

When we know everything.

You are going the wrong way then. Because your current explanation for "everything" is dark matter.

It doesn't exist.

I am on the right track. You are misled believing in emergence/magic.

[PTH]

Is it the electrons?

Or is it something that “emerges” from the electrons as a result of their specific arrangement (again, an arrangement in the form of a brain which is somehow able to summon-forth the essence of life from the very fabric of the electrons themselves)?

In other words, where’s the epiphenomenal correlation between the objectively-based “gears” of the engine and that of the subjectively-based “behavior” of a self-aware entity/agent (the “dreamer”) that seems to exist within the inner context of its own autonomous dimension of reality that we call a “mind”?

I might be responding to a different point to the one you intend, but for me I think those points raise that traditional mind-body problem. Now, I do get you are suggesting that a spiritual or mental dimension might be present in every physical thing. That would be different to saying there's a mental world, and a physical world, and they link up through the pineal gland.

But I think the same issue applies. Descartes, as I understand it, said the pineal gland linked the mind to its body (although I should say I've only read stuff about Descartes, and not anything by him). If we entertain this for a moment, this means we should see the pineal gland dotted with lots of tiny levers, and see them moved by some invisible force independent of the physical reality around them, but causing the body to move and speak in particular ways. The lever would need to work both ways - so if I get drunk, the levers would push the effects of inebriation into the mental zone.

If we go with the idea that consciousness pervades everything, we should expect much the same thing - only more decentralised. So each electron should have a little lever, and gangs of electrons might combine to become temporary entities. If its epiphenomenal, I'd take it the lever only need to work one way, pushing stuff into the mental.

In any event, I think that all falls under the heading of "the ongoing search for Descartes pineal gland mechanism".

[PTH]

The demonstration would be right before you. In its actual, physical form. The HOW is the whole thing.
The HOW is the software interacting with the hardware, and hardware+software interacting with the environment to make "consciousness" emerge.

No, if the demonstration was based on computers as we understand them, it would be demonstrating a Chinese Room.

How do we determine whether what's in your "black box" is a Chinese Room?

Because we know what we put in the black box.

But our own 'consciousness' is only assumed. "We are conscious" is just something we say. We can't define what consciousness is.
Which is the fundamental issue at play. Is consciousness ontological like an electron, or emergent?

We don't know answers to such things. We can't know answers to such things.

It's a challenging context. I'd express it as we know consciousness is a thing, but we can't locate it. We can't think of a way of stating why others must be conscious, yet I do think its a waste of time to pretend they are not. Our own consciousness is undeniable, rather than assumed. It has to be expressed as an assumption, but that's different matter.

Which I think means the ontology is pointless to doubt, but the epistemology - how we say we know of its existence - is the problem.

Would you say that an earth worm is conscious, or do you draw the line somewhere between the Oligochaeta and the Felidae even though both have nervous systems?

I don't have much to say to that. With the current level of knowledge, its a bit like asking the Wright Brothers "how are you going to get to Alpha Centauri in that contraption?"

All I'm really saying is I'm comfortable with the idea that many animals have consciousness. I think that's more to observe that, indeed, we are looking at a feature that is probably shared in a more rudimentary form by those animals - and not restricted to humans, which I believe is what Descartes contended.

But as to where the boundary might be, I've no idea. And I understand that no-one now thinks it depends on whether the creature has a pineal gland.

If it was the pineal gland, and we understood the mechanism, presumably we could bolt one onto the side of our Difference Engine, and create our first Replicant.

[Sculptor]

Do things have an explanation?

Why do you ask?

This is my basic premise. So we have to see if we can agree upon.

What is the "this" of the first sentence? What premise?
You second sentence is a fragment. Agree upon what?