There is no emergence

[Skepdick]

I thought the ambiguity was resolved; the philosophy of mind is usually a romp around a couple of unsolved problems. Dualism can't account for how mental activity influences a closed physical world. Monism can't account for the fact that things mean something.

There you are! Still assuming that the universe owes you something. Like an account of any sort

I thought it's commonly accepted that All models are wrong. All philosophies/belief-systems are contingent. All of them fail to account for things and end up in contradiction, so when it comes down to it - the only choice you are really left with is to choose which problems you want to ignore, and which problems you want to (try?) solve.

And since we are going to be choosing to ignore problems, it seems to me that I am already taking choice for granted. So you know which problems I am going to choose to brush under the carpet? The problem of meaning! Because it's trivially solvable. Unlike the problem of causality and time - which I can't brush under the carpet.

Monism perfectly accounts for meaning in a nihilistic universe. Why does knowledge, truth, wisdom, philosophy, science, family, love etc. have any meaning? Because I choose it to mean something. Of if you want to interpret it all from an evolutionary/nihilistic lens - it pays dividends to be knowledgeable, to be wise, to speak truth, to do science, to have a family, to love those around you. That's why we are the dominant society on this planet, despite all other social creatures.

What we say about meaning is not what meaning is. There is absolutely nothing I can say ABOUT meaning, no theory I could ever write ABOUT meaning that would accurately, precisely and completely express what meaning is. I can no more explain meaning in words, than I can explain the color blue in words. The scientific theory of blue will never be the 1st person experience of blue.

I am not even sure why Philosophy keeps trying to defend such sophistry.

On the plus side, I think this is getting towards the point of disagreement.
Consciousness exists. Whether it emerged from subatomic particles, or in some other way, is currently unknown.

OK, I am smelling some mystical bullshit here. Yes, consciousness exists. Which is the same as saying "it has measurable consequences".
More than that - we have reasonably located it. Consciousness exists in (emerges from) the parts of the human body (further approximation not required) which is made from sub(sub(sub(sub(sub(...)))))atomic particles.

Would you agree that the science of physics is at the forefront of asking and answering the "What is everything made of?" question?
Are you perhaps arguing that the human body is not made of the same stuff that everything else in the universe is made of?
Or are you arguing, that whatever consciousness is, it is buried deep in the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic substrate of the universe?
Am I missing a 3rd option here?

But if we're both agreed they are not equivalently explained at present, that's progress.

I don't see how, but if you think so. Human flight is an ugly hack compared to the way nature does it.
What is explained is how airplanes work in terms of "lift" and "propulsion". What is not explained is how natural things fly.

Which is exactly what will happen if we are to invent consciousness. We will explain how man-made machines work (in terms of computation and algorithms), but we may not be explaining how the human brain does it.

It will be a theory of artificial consciousness, like airplanes are a theory of artificial flight. The question is "Would that be sufficient?"

Precisely. We can say flight is emergent, because we know the elements that combine to make it so.

No. We cay say that "flight" is an emergent property of <all the parts of an airplane>
Exactly like we can say that "consciousness" is an emergent property of <all the parts of a human>.

We already know what those parts are (physics tells us). We don't know how to arrange them. Because there are too many of them!

We know planes can still fly when we take the in-flight service trollies out, but not if we detach the wings. No mystery about it.

We know that brains are conscious even if we take chunks out of the frontal lobe, but not if we take out the medulla oblongata. No mystery about it.

Some parts are more necessary than others. This is ultimately another epistemic disagreement between necessity and sufficiency. Another argument between form and function.

Are wings necessary for flight? Not really.Rockets and helicopters don't have wings. And there's a whole bunch of animals which fly without wings too.

It would mean the same thing, if we could explain why that combination of things produces consciousness.

OK. I am convinced you are trolling now. How would you go about explaining to a bird how to fly?

That's exactly what "explaining consciousness to consciousness" is like.

[PTH]

I am not even sure why Philosophy keeps trying to defend such sophistry.

Because, while this kind of discussion uses simple examples of meaning (just enough to highlight something is missing), the actual discussion of meaning involves stuff that really impacts on lives. Nobody is really that worked up over what the colour blue looks like. It's more things like what the concept of liberty means that bothers folk.

Am I missing a 3rd option here?

That we currently haven’t a clue?

What is explained is how airplanes work in terms of "lift" and "propulsion". What is not explained is how natural things fly.

? Bird flight is explained in exactly the same way – it’s just their propulsion is built into the wing. So I guess your line of reasoning falls at the first hurdle.

Precisely. We can say flight is emergent, because we know the elements that combine to make it so.

No. We cay say that "flight" is an emergent property of <all the parts of an airplane>
Exactly like we can say that "consciousness" is an emergent property of <all the parts of a human>.
We already know what those parts are (physics tells us). We don't know how to arrange them. Because there are too many of them!

You need to reflect on this, because you have undermined your own argument.

We can account for flight. We know, as you say, lift and propulsion fully account for the emergent ability to fly in both birds and aircraft.

You are now saying (on whatever basis) that the human brain has too many components for us to be able to fully account for consciousness. So you are agreeing an equivalent explanation is not possible.

Consequently, as I have suggested several times now, the difference is:

• We can say that flight emerges from combining identified components in a way we can understand.

• We cannot say that consciousness emerges from combining identified components in a way we can understand.

Flight is an example of emergence.

Consciousness may be an example of emergence.

Are you going to finally agree with the implications of your own admission that the human brain has too many components to know how they might need to be combined for consciousness to emerge?

[Skepdick]

Because, while this kind of discussion uses simple examples of meaning (just enough to highlight something is missing), the actual discussion of meaning involves stuff that really impacts on lives. Nobody is really that worked up over what the colour blue looks like. It's more things like what the concept of liberty means that bothers folk.

OK. Are you bothered about the meaning of consciousness, and are you bothered about it in the same way that you are bothered about the meaning of the impending economic crisis and how it will have an effect on your life?

That we currently haven’t a clue?

That's going a little bit too far in the way of denial I think?

We have a pretty good idea what our brains and bodies are made of even if we don't know how they work.

Bird flight is explained in exactly the same way – it’s just their propulsion is built into the wing. So I guess your line of reasoning falls at the first hurdle.

I think you are riding the fence on the necessity/sufficiency distinction. You claim an "explanation" where none exists.
If the theory truly explains that which you claim it explains, how come our airplanes don't have foldable wings? Like birds do.

We can account for flight.

Sufficiently or necessarily?

You are now saying (on whatever basis) that the human brain has too many components for us to be able to fully account for consciousness. So you are agreeing an equivalent explanation is not possible.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing. I am trying to show you that you are arguing a double epistemic standard. You are riding the fence.

You are arguing that because we understand how airplanes fly, we can go on to generalise that knowledge and explain how/why birds fly also, which necessarily means you are willing to ignore the fact that birds do not have fixed wings. You are also arguing that it's sufficient to explain how insects fly also.

Both of those are demonstrably false. We can neither build a machine which has foldable wings that can fly like a bird, nor can we build an insect-like flying machine which can take off under the weight of its battery/control systems.

The point is that you are willing to ignore explanatory gaps of a theory, while still accepting it as "sufficient".
And so I am asking you - how large of an explanatory gap are you willing to ignore when explaining consciousness?

What is the minimal set of requirements, the minimal number of boxes a difference engine needs to tick before you acknowledge that we understand "consciousness"?

Consequently, as I have suggested several times now, the difference is:

• We can say that flight emerges from combining identified components in a way we can understand.

We can't say that for bird or insect flight, and yet here you are inferring it because we can build airplanes.

• We cannot say that consciousness emerges from combining identified components in a way we can understand.

But that has nothing to do with consciousness! It has everything to do with the fact that you can't define or pin down the notion of "understanding" in any meaningful way!

How do test for understanding?
How do you falsify understanding?

Consciousness may be an example of emergence.

You don't get to play the "maybe" game here. I already asked you if you think consciousness is in the sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-atomic substrate of the physical universe.

If consciousness is not a particle (that we can measure/detect), and it's not emergent from particles. Then... how could you tell that you are conscious?
You are necessarily claiming that there is some magical non-physical substance that has causal effects on your self-perception.

Are you going to finally agree with the implications of your own admission that the human brain has too many components to know how they might need to be combined for consciousness to emerge?

By asking me that question, are you agreeing that consciousness is emergent?

I am happy to agree that we are still trying to figure out HOW to arrange the levers and gears in the Babbage Engine (made out of the same matter consciousness is made of).

[Sculptor]

So you think that there is no explanation for sweetness. If it is so then why always a part of your brain which is related to sweetness becomes active.
Color, for example, is not a property of objects we experience. That is true because sentient beings do not share the same experience of things, the snake can see infrared and we can't.

You are being irrelevant. Do you even know what emergence is? Worst still you are making MY case FOR emergence, and have failed to make your own.

Explain how Carbon hydrogen and oxygen emerge as SWEET when in a specific combination

This thread is not about "how" but I give it a go.

That is exactly how you set it up.
Your ideosyncratic proposal that "emergence" has to be about qualities for which there is no explanation makes it ALL about how.
Then you stupidly try to explain.
What is wrong with you? What do you not understand about emergence not being about that.
Emergence is about qualities of the whole that the parts themselves do not have.
So the foregoing is not even relevant.

What we know and what we don't know: What we know is that sugar affects the specific receptors on our tongues through electromagnetic interaction (there is no such thing as the sweetness in sugar and sugar does not emit sweetness).
Receptors then send specific signals to the brain. The brain is a collection of minds. Minds are structured within the brain. Each mind has a specific job depending on where is it in the brain. The mind then perceives the electromagnetic signal. Each signal, however, causes a specific experience depending on where it comes from and where it goes and how the brain is structured in that area. What we don't know is how a pure electromagnetic wave can have different effects on different minds.

So what? You are missing the point, AGAIN.
Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen do not have sweetness!
Sweetness is an emergent quality of a specific configuration of hydrocarbon. Other hydrocarbons, such as petroleum do not have this emergent quality. It has other emergent qualities.
QED. Emergence is TRUE.

[PTH]

I am happy to agree that we are still trying to figure out HOW to arrange the levers and gears in the Babbage Engine (made out of the same matter consciousness is made of).

And that's the point. We're not still figuring out how to arrange the components to make things fly.

Is it the same matter that consciousness is made out of? We can't just tack that on. You're making a leap of faith.

OK. Are you bothered about the meaning of consciousness, and are you bothered about it in the same way that you are bothered about the meaning of the impending economic crisis and how it will have an effect on your life?

I'm interested in it because I see it as having implications for things, like how human affairs go through economic crises. In a similar way, I might have an interest in chemistry but I wouldn't immediately need that knowledge if I'm getting on a bus that needs diesel. At the same time, I couldn't say chemistry has nothing to do with how the bus works.

And, for certain discussions, that interest can best be pursued by considering questions like what blue looks like. Those discussions would be very unwieldy if, instead of talking about blue, we decided the example was the scope of the legal powers of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and how they operate at the sub-atomic level.

Bird flight is explained in exactly the same way – it’s just their propulsion is built into the wing. So I guess your line of reasoning falls at the first hurdle.

I think you are riding the fence on the necessity/sufficiency distinction. You claim an "explanation" where none exists.
If the theory truly explains that which you claim it explains, how come our airplanes don't have foldable wings? Like birds do.

I think you've lost the thread of the argument.

We most certainly do have a sufficient explanation of flight. One that works both for aircraft and birds. We have those elements, and we get flight.

The method of propulsion is different for aircraft and birds. If we understood consciousness, and built a Difference Engine Number 2.C to prove it, that would be like pointing out that humans digest food for energy, while our Difference Engine is powered by a coal burning steam engine.

What's missing, as you've said above, is any idea how to make Difference Engine Number 2.C.

[Skepdick]

I am happy to agree that we are still trying to figure out HOW to arrange the levers and gears in the Babbage Engine (made out of the same matter consciousness is made of).

And that's the point. We're not still figuring out how to arrange the components to make things fly.

Is it the same matter that consciousness is made out of? We can't just tack that on. You're making a leap of faith.

OK. Are you bothered about the meaning of consciousness, and are you bothered about it in the same way that you are bothered about the meaning of the impending economic crisis and how it will have an effect on your life?

I'm interested in it because I see it as having implications for things, like how human affairs go through economic crises. In a similar way, I might have an interest in chemistry but I wouldn't immediately need that knowledge if I'm getting on a bus that needs diesel. At the same time, I couldn't say chemistry has nothing to do with how the bus works.

And, for certain discussions, that interest can best be pursued by considering questions like what blue looks like. Those discussions would be very unwieldy if, instead of talking about blue, we decided the example was the scope of the legal powers of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and how they operate at the sub-atomic level.

Bird flight is explained in exactly the same way – it’s just their propulsion is built into the wing. So I guess your line of reasoning falls at the first hurdle.

I think you are riding the fence on the necessity/sufficiency distinction. You claim an "explanation" where none exists.
If the theory truly explains that which you claim it explains, how come our airplanes don't have foldable wings? Like birds do.

I think you've lost the thread of the argument.

We most certainly do have a sufficient explanation of flight. One that works both for aircraft and birds. We have those elements, and we get flight.

The method of propulsion is different for aircraft and birds. If we understood consciousness, and built a Difference Engine Number 2.C to prove it, that would be like pointing out that humans digest food for energy, while our Difference Engine is powered by a coal burning steam engine.

What's missing, as you've said above, is any idea how to make Difference Engine Number 2.C.

You are missing the point it seems. Airplanes were invented by trial&error - the theory was retrofitted. And so there was a moment in history where we had flight, but no explanation for it! Then the Bernoulli principle was postulated as the explanation for flight - it was the explanation for decades. It is wrong. The explanation (theory!) for WHY airplanes fly keeps changing. The fact THAT airplanes fly remains constant.

ALL theories of flight are incomplete, and yet you accept SOME theory as 'sufficient explanation' (which one, tell us!). Which clearly indicates that you are willing to tolerate explanatory gaps, and you are very willing to overlook the fact that airplane flight is very different to bird and insect flight. In fact airplane and bird flight are ONLY 'the same' through the reductionist lens of the Bernoulli theory.

And so the elephant in the room is thus: What explanatory gaps would you be willing to tolerate in a theory/explanation of consciousness even if consciousness was invented?
Which part/feature of your own consciousness is not that important to you, that you would be willing to ignore it in some incomplete, but sufficient theory?

I told you what I am willing to give up. Meaning. I require no theory to account for it, and I expect no scientist or philosopher to explain meaning to me. I accept nihilism as being ultimately, universally true. And I also understand that I can choose not to be a nihilist.

I can't rescue you from the depths of your circular reasoning and your dual (e.g inconsistent) epistemic standards.

Good bye.

[seeds]

I use "the premise" to show that there is no emergence, the premise being "everything has an explanation". Let me know if you have a problem with the premise.

Why would the fact that a particular process has an “explanation,” have any bearing on the terminology we use to describe the workings and outcome of the process?

What I mean is that the word “emergence” seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use when describing the “coming into being” (awakening) of a new human consciousness from a highly specific arrangement of the non-conscious elements of a brain.

So regardless of the fact that there surely exists an explanation for how and why a brain can do what it does, I’m having trouble understanding why you have a problem with using the word “emergence” to describe how each of our consciousnesses seem to have arisen from unconscious matter.

The point is that if you have a better word, or a better way of visualizing the process, then let’s hear it.
_______

[PTH]

You are missing the point it seems. Airplanes were invented by trial&error - the theory was retrofitted. And so there was a moment in history where we had flight, but no explanation for it! Then the Bernoulli principle was postulated as the explanation for flight. It is wrong. The explanation for WHY airplanes fly keeps changing. The physics models describing flight dynamics keep being revisited. The fact THAT airplanes keep flying remains constant.

We have very clear explanations for how planes fly, on which people depend daily.

In contrast to consciousness, where we don't know where to start.

As I said, when can turn any statement in philosophy to dust, if we want to.

I told you what I am willing to give up. Meaning. I require no theory to account for it, and I expect no scientist or philosopher to explain meaning to me. I accept nihilism as being ultimately, universally true. And I also understand that I can choose not to be a nihilist.

Unfortunately, that pretty much defines human life out of existence. That's why it doesn't work, because we're alive. Minds make things. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has legal functions that determine what it can do.

I can't rescue you from the depths of your circular reasoning and your dual (e.g inconsistent) epistemic standards.

Good bye.

I'd guess we are at the end of the exchange - which, for me, was useful in provoking comment. And that "To explain or to predict?" paper you linked earlier was worth reading.

Of course, there's no inconsistency in what I'm saying. And the key point stands - there's a difference between being able to explain how something emerges from components, and speculating that an unexplained feature may emerge from components in a way that we can't account for.

Your contributions have generally been both alert and informed. But if I was to make one suggestion, it might be to reflect on how human affairs are unpredictable, in a way that physical things aren't. Will the UK have left the EU on 1 November? Probably, but no-one actually knows. Will my bus turn up tomorrow? Yes, unless the humans mess it up.

Folk can be bothered about argument for unconnected reasons. I think some folk get worked up over an explanatory gap in consciousness, because they think its a way of introducing religion into the topic. Others may chuck emergence into the gap, to keep religion out. I think philosophy, of all places, shouldn't be afraid to take a risk. This is where we can entertain the possibility of dualism, without leaping from there to assuming that the Pope's on a mission from God, or an angel whispered the definitive statement of reality into Mohammed's ear.

Anyway, thanking you for your engagement!

[Skepdick]

We have very clear explanations for how planes fly, on which people depend daily.

I am not sure what that means. Perhaps you have clear expectations of how airplanes SHOULD fly?
My expectations are that I should get on the airplane at location A and arrive at location B in one piece. Everything in between is implementation detail.

Airplanes are a mode of transportation. They have telos - a purpose.

In contrast to consciousness, where we don't know where to start.

How about: what is the utility/purpose of that which you call 'consciousness'?

At the very least - I'd bet it keeps you alive in some useful way...

Unfortunately, that pretty much defines human life out of existence.

Listen to yourself You can't DEFINE existence out of existence. Definition is just language.
If you are trying to account for all of existence with language - maybe you are using the wrong tool for the wrong job?

That's why it doesn't work, because we're alive. Minds make things. I'd guess we are at the end of the exchange - which, for me, was useful in provoking comment. And that "To explain or to predict?" paper you linked earlier was worth reading.

Minds make definitions also. Minds make language. Minds make the explanations. This is why your conception of "explanations" is incoherent. Would you like an explanation for why minds need explanations? Which mind would create the explanation?

Deep down all knowledge is recursive and self-referential - knowledge is created by minds. Including self-knowledge.

[PTH]

If you are trying to account for all of existence with language - maybe you are using the wrong tool for the wrong job?

Again, just consider the wider context.

As mentioned a couple of posts ago, we discuss consciousness using relatively trivial examples, so that the example doesn't crowd out the issue. But it occurs in a context where human life goes on, decisions are made and actions taken.

The problem with the nihilist position is it makes no contribution to any of that, in a context where we find we seem to need things like the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, or at least end up with such institutions.

A conversation will take place. Can we make a better conversation than before? I think so. In this context, that better conversation involves recognising when we're using the one word, "emergence", in two quite different situations.

[bahman]

You are being irrelevant. Do you even know what emergence is? Worst still you are making MY case FOR emergence, and have failed to make your own.

Explain how Carbon hydrogen and oxygen emerge as SWEET when in a specific combination

This thread is not about "how" but I give it a go.

That is exactly how you set it up.
Your ideosyncratic proposal that "emergence" has to be about qualities for which there is no explanation makes it ALL about how.
Then you stupidly try to explain.

I am not trying to explain emergence. You could see it if you read my post carefully. I am trying to explain how we experience sweetness given the fact that sugar does not have any extra properties like taste.

What is wrong with you? What do you not understand about emergence not being about that.
Emergence is about qualities of the whole that the parts themselves do not have.

That is total non-sense. The whole cannot have the porperty that parts don't.

What we know and what we don't know: What we know is that sugar affects the specific receptors on our tongues through electromagnetic interaction (there is no such thing as the sweetness in sugar and sugar does not emit sweetness).
Receptors then send specific signals to the brain. The brain is a collection of minds. Minds are structured within the brain. Each mind has a specific job depending on where is it in the brain. The mind then perceives the electromagnetic signal. Each signal, however, causes a specific experience depending on where it comes from and where it goes and how the brain is structured in that area. What we don't know is how a pure electromagnetic wave can have different effects on different minds.

So what? You are missing the point, AGAIN.

I am not missing anything.

Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen do not have sweetness!

There is no such a property as sweetness in sugar. It is how appears to mind as I describe in my reply.

Sweetness is an emergent quality of a specific configuration of hydrocarbon. Other hydrocarbons, such as petroleum do not have this emergent quality. It has other emergent qualities.
QED. Emergence is TRUE.

There is no such a thing as emergence.

[bahman]

I use "the premise" to show that there is no emergence, the premise being "everything has an explanation". Let me know if you have a problem with the premise.

Why would the fact that a particular process has an “explanation,” have any bearing on the terminology we use to describe the workings and outcome of the process?

What I mean is that the word “emergence” seems like a perfectly reasonable term to use when describing the “coming into being” (awakening) of a new human consciousness from a highly specific arrangement of the non-conscious elements of a brain.

So regardless of the fact that there surely exists an explanation for how and why a brain can do what it does, I’m having trouble understanding why you have a problem with using the word “emergence” to describe how each of our consciousnesses seem to have arisen from unconscious matter.

The point is that if you have a better word, or a better way of visualizing the process, then let’s hear it.
_______

We know the properties of matter which we assume there is no such thing as consciousness among them. The explanation is about the relationship between things, A and B for example, A could be the engine of a car and B could be the motion of the car. We say that car moves because it has an engine. I think that mathematical equations are the foundation of any reality. The laws of physics in case of matter describe the behavior of it in terms of its properties. There are also relations between the properties of matter. The properties of matter are simply, mass, charge, spin, etc. The relation between these properties is mathematical, laws of physics, and it is exhaustive meaning that you cannot possibly have a specific configuration of matter that gives rise to a new property that is not listed.

[Skepdick]

The relation between these properties is mathematical, laws of physics, and it is exhaustive meaning that you cannot possibly have a specific configuration of matter that gives rise to a new property that is not listed.

Which law of physics, which property of matter, which mathematical equation gives rise to the fact that cars break down?

You are appealing to MUH. If you know that MUH is true, then surely you must have a Theory of Everything. Show us?

[Sculptor]

That is total non-sense. The whole cannot have the porperty that parts don't.
.

Duh.

So is petrol sweet?
Or can you run a car on sugar?

Yet they have exactly the same parts.

QED emergence is true.

[bahman]

The relation between these properties is mathematical, laws of physics, and it is exhaustive meaning that you cannot possibly have a specific configuration of matter that gives rise to a new property that is not listed.

Which law of physics, which property of matter, which mathematical equation gives rise to the fact that cars break down?

You are appealing to MUH. If you know that MUH is true, then surely you must have a Theory of Everything. Show us?

Do you think that sugar, for example, emits sweetness?