Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Consul]

You totally missed the point in Bunge's List.
He doesn't need all the Philosophers to be "bad philosophers" for his points to be correct.
He just points out that the current system in Academic Philosophy allows good and bad philosophers and philosophies to co exist in equal terms!
This poor Demarcation within the academia enables bad philosophy in forums like this one.
In 2021 we still find idealists who really believe that their view is "philosophically" justified!
This is something that you will never find in Science...i.e. Not many science's fans are proponents of the Stork theory or Miasma.....

Well, in 2021 we still find quite a few theists (and thus supernaturalists) among the scientists, who believe that theism is philosophically justified!

[NickGaspar]

You're begging the question by presupposing the ontological possibility of emergent properties, especially as it is not true that they have actually been observed.

-This can't be possible. Emergent propertiy is just a Label we use on specific type of properties that owe their manifestation to a specific observable mechanism. IT is a classification term not an ontological claim! My take on subject (and science) and yours are in different ballparks!
Its a Description. i.e. two combustible gases when combine can produce a substance with fire extinguishing capabilities. Example=water.
Nothing in the above statement introduces any ontological presupposition. It is purely a descriptive narrative.

Note that an emergent property of a whole or a system isn't any old property of it, but a novel simple, non-complex/non-structural property of it which is irreducibly different from any complex/structural property of it. An emergent property of a system (such as a molecule) depends on but isn't identical to any structural property of it.

-Sure...this is part of the definition of emergence, but why should I note that? I never claimed something different!

By "antiemergentists" about properties I mean ontological reductionists about them; and there is nothing antiempirical about reductionism.

-My understanding is that "antiemergentists" use the inability to reduce or relate the emergent properties to their constituents parts as an argument in favor of their ideology. I didn't know that "antiemergentists" are also reductionists!!!
Sure the reductionistic approach (since I hate the arbitrary "creation " of isms as a way to make positions appear as equal ideologies) is a basic tool of science, one of many available methodologies. So it is empirical by default.

Have the emergentists "met their burden" and demonstrated empirically that there are nonsimple objects or substances in nature which have emergent simple properties? – No, they haven't!

-The demonstration of the existence of objects and substances is a burden on those who make the claim.. Parsimony, Null Hypothesis, Burden of Proof and Default position ALL set the burden on the side MAKING the existential claim ...not on the side DESCRIBING a specific phenomenon and the Necessary and Sufficient conditions for it to "emerge"(to be observable and quantifiable).
If those objects and substances do not exist...how on earth one can ever prove a universal negative???

Science, particularly microphysics deals with unobservable entities too! Nobody has ever seen a quark.

-Well you are confusing "vision"(seeing) with Observation. Quarks are indirectly obsessed.(within Handrons). The same is true for quantum fluctuations and many other phenomena in Physics.
The difference between observing or even "assuming" elementary particles and entities with Advanced Properties is that the first group do not violate our Current Established Scientific Paradigm, while the second are in direct conflict with it and with everything we can observe test and verify.

-"Anyway, even in the case of observable entities, there is always an interplay between observation and theory. Theoretical science has ontological implications and presuppositions, the critical analysis and assessment of which is the job of ontologists. "
-Not really true. Theories describe observations and concepts like quarks just explain measurable data. Such theoretical constructions do not bring science on its had and they are in absolute agreement with our measurements and observations.
Floating substances with advanced properties on the other hand....brings science to the Dark Ages.

Ontology sets out an even more abstract model of how the world is than theoretical physics, a model that has placeholders for scientific results and excluders for tempting confusions. Ontology and theoretical science can help one another along, we hope, with minimal harm.
(Martin, C. B. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 42) "

-I don't know what you think these quotes can offer in this discussion. The truth is that Science is the best tool we have to verify our Ontological speculations, hypotheses and presuppositions. Look at atoms, Higgs Boson, the rainbow etc.
People get anxious when science doesn't verify their ontological assumptions...that is because their claims don't meet the scientific standards of verification.

You should listen to the antiemergentists/reductionists because their arguments are relevant and mustn't be ignored.

-If their arguments were sound (verified premises) it would be science. So the time to listen to their arguments is only when they have data to back up their premises in those arguments. I have no use for arguments that aren't based on verified knowledge specially when we deal with claims about existence.

There is absolutely nothing antinaturalistic or antiscientific about antiemergentism/reductionism (about properties).

-Of course it is antiscientific, since it is in direct conflict with the established scientific paradigm of the last 500 years. If we include mind properties in the discussion then we project mind properties in to nature...so we are dealing with a supernatural ideology.
There are not any evidence that can support such ideas. They could be true but based on our current facts we need to dismiss them.

On the contrary, if something seems "magical" or "spooky", it's ontological emergence, the appearance of ontologically irreducible simple properties of nonsimple objects

-What something seems to us is irrelevant. People couldn't wrap their minds around a spherical earth. Again that is an observer relative evaluation...not an intrinsic feature of the phenomenon.(argument from yuck). Again emergence is NOT an ontological claim but a descriptive based on our direct observations. A. we have volatile H and O b. when we combine them we can put out fires....that's all.

"Antiemergentists who are doing serious ontology are anything but "magical thinkers"!

-I can believe that. the problem is that they are doing ontology beyond our observations and that is a useless endeavor.

The ontological question is not whether nonsimple objects (can) have any properties at all—they can and do—, but whether the properties they have are ontologically reducible, resultant, nonsimple (composite/complex/structural) properties or ontologically irreducible, emergent, simple (noncomposite/noncomplex/nonstructural) properties.

-The correct question is Can simple objects produce advanced properties. Can fundamental elements of nature display advanced properties.
The answer is No. We don't observe properties other than kinetic. In order to observe advanced properties complex structures are needed.
Function and structure produce high level features. This is our current description of nature.
Any other question or belief is unfounded.

My (John Heil's) simple but (I think) very powerful argument against emergent properties is one against their very possibility and thereby also against their actuality, since nonpossibility entails nonactuality. I maintain that emergent properties are not coherently conceivable and comprehensible.

How this can qualify as an "powerful" argument when we don't have a way to evaluate its premises. I only hear "I can not believe that matter can be so "creative" so I will introduce entities in the background responsible for matter's abilities".
Humanity followed this way of thinking for thousands of years. Only after the scientific revolution and our current scientific paradigm our epistemology experienced an unprecedented run away success. Now you are demanding to take our philosophy and science back in the medieval era.












The emergent features which stand as criteria are the following.
Emerge from something else.
have some kind of autonomy over and above the things from which they emerge
posses a sertain kind of noverly
have some holistic aspect.

[NickGaspar]

An argument isn't bad, unsound, or obsolete just because it's old.

-We agree, but it not also a philosophical argument just because it was once coined by a philosopher. Philosophy like science advances and ideas on specific principles are accepted as legit Philosophical positions.(idealism, theism, supernaturalism).

Any examples, so that I understand who you are talking about?

-Most philosophy on idealistic principles around consciousness is a great example of linguistic artifacts.

I'm not a friend of idealism, which is not a pseudophilosophical but a genuinely philosophical (world-)view or group of views, there being different versions of it. See Varieties of Idealism in Chalmers' paper Idealism and the Mind-Body Problem (PDF), in which you'll even find a distinction between antirealist idealism and realist idealism!

-I didn't accuse you. I just brought up Idealism as a perfect example of a useless ideology that offers zero Real world solutions or answers to falsifiable conclusions. I could easily use Materialism.
All Philosophical position that propose unfalsifiable conclusions based on unjustified presumptions are Pseudo Philosophies.
They are not based on knowledge...so by default they can not be wise. Statements that aren't wise can never qualify as Philosophy.

Metaphysical idealism does give answers to the questions of the nature of ultimate reality and the relationship of mind and body.

-Yes it does. So do alien abductees for their absence or a religious people on why he find his keys . The problem is....how can we test the truth and knowledge value of those "answers". More importantly are those answers product of credible knowledge...if now how can they be considered wise. And if they are not wise they can not be Philosophical.

It doesn't solve any more specific "real-world problems", but it doesn't prevent scientists from solving such problems either.

-We agree on that, this is the main characteristic of UNFALSIFIABLE suggestions. They are IRRELEVANT to real world questions.

Berkeley was not an antiscientist! Even if the world consisted of nothing but immaterial spirits and their ideas, such that apparently physical objects are really mental objects, empirical science could go on with business as usual

.
-We agree, this is an idea that we can not use to produce wise claims or further knowledge. Just empty untestable statements about doesn't advance our Philosophy...thus our Science.

That we don't see the same theoretical progress and consensus in philosophy that we see in science is mainly due to the following situation, from which philosophers cannot escape as long as they're doing philosophy:

-that is not completely true. All scientific frameworks are PHILOSOPHY on naturalistic principles (Methodological Naturalism). BIng bang cosmology= philosophical narrative of the facts, Evolution=philosophical narrative of the facts...you name it.
We can not have science without Philosophy and we can not do meaningful Philosophy without science (knowledge).
Philosophy is far more involved in our epistemic endeavors than most people think.
We happen to believe that philosophy is only our unanswered questions ...as you said (Philosophical theories are never refuted conclusively. )
That is partially true because when we don't have data(facts to evaluate our answers) we do philosophy...when we have data the philosophy we do (our theories) is known as science.
Intuition and opinions are an anathema to Philosophy (together with arbitrary choice of principles and cherry picking of epistemology). This problem in Philosophy is known as "Free inquiry" enabled by an unmonitored peer reviewed process.

The strictly empirical part of science consists in observations (including observations of experiments) and descriptions of observations; and when that's done, the theoretical part of science takes over. There is a continuum between theoretical science and theoretical philosophy (metaphysics/ontology). For example, are the so-called interpretations of quantum mechanics physical theories or metaphysical ones? There is no sharp boundary!

This is why I said Science is Philosophy with the addition of an Empirical set of methodologies.......
Science is the best way to do Philosophy if one is interested or is a "friend of wisdom".

No, conscientious philosophers do use the standards of critical reasoning, and they do see to it that their theories are both self-consistent and consistent with empirically well-confirmed scientific theories.

-Again we don't refer to "conscientious philosophers". We highlight the loose rules of academic philosophy and how many philosophers ignore the high standards of evidence and evaluation that science uses. This type of behavior doesn't fly in science. Papers with low standards aren't published. Philosophical journals don't give a a damn...they publish everything.

Even the problems and questions of naturalistic metaphysics go beyond what is logically or empirically provable. Metaphysics is always more or less metaempirical (relating to matters beyond the range of empirical knowledge), and hence always more or less speculative.

-No they just go beyond our current Knowledge (meta=after, Physika=Science). Metaphysics in naturalistic principles have the advantage that they can be tested and falsified. if that is currently impossible they are frozen to a "hypothesis state" i.e. String theory is not accepted as a scientific theory. During its life time, scientists are proposing methods of testing the hypothesis.
The difference between Science and Philosophy is that you will not find publications claiming that String theory is an accepted theory.

Philosophy deals with two sets of questions:
First, the questions that science – physical, biological, social, behavioral – cannot answer now and perhaps may never be able to answer.
Second, the questions about why the sciences cannot answer the first lot of questions.

-lets simplify that. Questions that we can not answer are labeled philosophical. Questions that we can answer are labeled scientific.
Answers that people don't like are replaced with pseudo philosophy. (See the pseudo philosophy on the mind).

[NickGaspar]

You totally missed the point in Bunge's List.
He doesn't need all the Philosophers to be "bad philosophers" for his points to be correct.
He just points out that the current system in Academic Philosophy allows good and bad philosophers and philosophies to co exist in equal terms!
This poor Demarcation within the academia enables bad philosophy in forums like this one.
In 2021 we still find idealists who really believe that their view is "philosophically" justified!
This is something that you will never find in Science...i.e. Not many science's fans are proponents of the Stork theory or Miasma.....

Well, in 2021 we still find quite a few theists (and thus supernaturalists) among the scientists, who believe that theism is philosophically justified!

-Indoctrination, Peer pressure and a brain result of a messy evolutionary process. This is the reason why we came up with the Scientific process, to filter human weaknesses in reasoning.

[Atla]

...

But you can't give a single example of strong emergence accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus, because there isn't any, correct?

[NickGaspar]

...

But you can't give a single example of strong emergence accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus, because there isn't any, correct?

watch the following video and you are free to rephrase your question.
https://youtu.be/66p9qlpnzzY?t=362
(The time marker points to the part of the video that explains strong emergence and points to real life examples. Feel free to watch the whole presentation).

[Atla]

...

But you can't give a single example of strong emergence accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus, because there isn't any, correct?

watch the following video and you are free to rephrase your question.
https://youtu.be/66p9qlpnzzY?t=362
(The time marker points to the part of the video that explains strong emergence and points to real life examples. Feel free to watch the whole presentation).

The idea that quantum entanglement is an example for strong emergence is probably philosophy. Another philosophy is that for quantum entanglement to even work, everything has to be already entangled in the universe. So we don't "create" new entangled particle pairs, we can merely track some of the inherent entanglement, in which case the whole isn't more than the sum of the parts.

Water is indeed an interesting one, and cases in general where the parts, for example H and O atoms, may or may not have inherent interaction capabilities that are more or less unobservable when they are not closely interacting with other parts. So one philosophy is that strong emergence occurs, another philosophy is that the capacity for those "higher-level" behaviours is there all along. I couldn't find evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus accepts the strong emergence of water behaviour as fact, some scientists do some don't.

[NickGaspar]

...

But you can't give a single example of strong emergence accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus, because there isn't any, correct?

watch the following video and you are free to rephrase your question.
https://youtu.be/66p9qlpnzzY?t=362
(The time marker points to the part of the video that explains strong emergence and points to real life examples. Feel free to watch the whole presentation).

The idea that quantum entanglement is an example for strong emergence is probably philosophy. Another philosophy is that for quantum entanglement to even work, everything has to be already entangled in the universe. So we don't "create" new entangled particle pairs, we can merely track some of the inherent entanglement, in which case the whole isn't more than the sum of the parts.

Water is indeed an interesting one, and cases in general where the parts, for example H and O atoms, may or may not have inherent interaction capabilities that are more or less unobservable when they are not closely interacting with other parts. So one philosophy is that strong emergence occurs, another philosophy is that the capacity for those "higher-level" behaviours is there all along. I couldn't find evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus accepts the strong emergence of water behaviour as fact, some scientists do some don't.

The idea that quantum entanglement is an example for strong emergence is probably philosophy.

-The idea classifying phenomena in different emergent categories is philosophy mate... An observer related description

Another philosophy is that for quantum entanglement to even work, everything has to be already entangled in the universe. So we don't "create" new entangled particle pairs, we can merely track some of the inherent entanglement, in which case the whole isn't more than the sum of the parts.

I don't know how this statement is relevant. All our theories in science are philosophy based on observations. What conditions are assumed necessary or not are part of our metaphysics...not our theories.

-"So one philosophy is that strong emergence occurs, another philosophy is that the capacity for those "higher-level" behaviours is there all along. I couldn't find evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus accepts the strong emergence of water behaviour as fact, some scientists do some don't."
-I don't know why you are wasting your time on labels used by pseudo philosophers who pretend to say something important...
Strong emergence is nothing more than a phenomenon with some additional characteristics. Those characteristics (downward causation and extended interacting systems) are only used to classify a phenomenon to a different group....not to support a death denying ideology.

[Gertie]

Thanks. So when you say conscious experience is 'ontologically emergent' from material brain processes, you're saying conscious experience's constituents are different, and can't be broken down into something more fundamental, including the things (physical brain stuff in motion) it emerged from?

Yes, an ontologically emergent property or occurrence (fact/state/event/process) is a fundamental higher-level entity occurring in a physical system such as a brain; so it cannot be broken down or decomposed into the lower-level entities which constitute its emergence base, simply because it isn't composed of any of them.

Would conscious experience therefore have to be a substance (non-identical with brains in motion), in order to have different irreducible constituents? Or if not, in what other aspect is it irreducible?

Experiences emerging from neural processes are nonsubstantial occurrences (facts/states/events/processes) rather than substances. The substrates of emergent experiential occurrences are material substances such as brains. Emergent occurrences or properties are higher-level entities in a complex or system which depend on, but aren't composed of or constructed from any lower-level entities; and that's why they are irreducible.

How do you then tackle the objection that a property, or an occurence, is by its nature a property OF something?

So if an apple has the property of being 8cm diameter, the measurement is OF the constituents of the apple. If my cat is fat, the fatness is related to the constituents of the cat. (There are other types of properties which we minded critters can assign like my cat is adorable, or water feels wet, but lets stick with natural emergence for now).

Ontological irreducibility seems to claim that a property is constituted of whatever its property is, right? The property of conscious experience is composed of the property of conscious experience. As if to say fat is composed of fatness, or speed of speedness.

[Atla]

But you can't give a single example of strong emergence accepted by the mainstream scientific consensus, because there isn't any, correct?

watch the following video and you are free to rephrase your question.
https://youtu.be/66p9qlpnzzY?t=362
(The time marker points to the part of the video that explains strong emergence and points to real life examples. Feel free to watch the whole presentation).

The idea that quantum entanglement is an example for strong emergence is probably philosophy. Another philosophy is that for quantum entanglement to even work, everything has to be already entangled in the universe. So we don't "create" new entangled particle pairs, we can merely track some of the inherent entanglement, in which case the whole isn't more than the sum of the parts.

Water is indeed an interesting one, and cases in general where the parts, for example H and O atoms, may or may not have inherent interaction capabilities that are more or less unobservable when they are not closely interacting with other parts. So one philosophy is that strong emergence occurs, another philosophy is that the capacity for those "higher-level" behaviours is there all along. I couldn't find evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus accepts the strong emergence of water behaviour as fact, some scientists do some don't.

The idea that quantum entanglement is an example for strong emergence is probably philosophy.

-The idea classifying phenomena in different emergent categories is philosophy mate... An observer related description

Another philosophy is that for quantum entanglement to even work, everything has to be already entangled in the universe. So we don't "create" new entangled particle pairs, we can merely track some of the inherent entanglement, in which case the whole isn't more than the sum of the parts.

I don't know how this statement is relevant. All our theories in science are philosophy based on observations. What conditions are assumed necessary or not are part of our metaphysics...not our theories.

-"So one philosophy is that strong emergence occurs, another philosophy is that the capacity for those "higher-level" behaviours is there all along. I couldn't find evidence that the mainstream scientific consensus accepts the strong emergence of water behaviour as fact, some scientists do some don't."
-I don't know why you are wasting your time on labels used by pseudo philosophers who pretend to say something important...
Strong emergence is nothing more than a phenomenon with some additional characteristics. Those characteristics (downward causation and extended interacting systems) are only used to classify a phenomenon to a different group....not to support a death denying ideology.

The philosophies I listed are compatible with observations, just like emergentism. Actually they are more compatible with observations, since according to observation, the universe has no known separate parts, which could come together to cause emergence.

And then there's your philosophy which links anti-emergentism to death-denial, that's a new one. Should I ask for proof for this claim of yours?

[Consul]

+++Our discussion has gone off-topic (with me being responsible for it, because I started talking about emergence here), so I asked Sy Borg to separate the emergence-related posts from this thread and to put them into the already existing thread on ontological emergence. We shouldn't continue our discussion on emergence here but there!+++

[Consul]

+++Our discussion has gone off-topic (with me being responsible for it, because I started talking about emergence here), so I asked Sy Borg to separate the emergence-related posts from this thread and to put them into the already existing thread on ontological emergence. We shouldn't continue our discussion on emergence here but there!+++

…and we should wait with additional answers until the emergence-related posts have been moved from here to there!

[NickGaspar]

The philosophies I listed are compatible with observations, just like emergentism.

Sure, emergence (not emergentism...there isn't such a thing) is an Descriptive Framework that yields all the subcategories we mentioned, based on specific characteristics.

Actually they are more compatible with observations, since according to observation, the universe has no known separate parts, which could come together to cause emergence.

-I don't know why you bring " the universe" in the conversation. We are talking about emergent phenomena and how we classify them based on specific characteristics.

And then there's your philosophy which links anti-emergentism to death-denial, that's a new one. Should I ask for proof for this claim of yours?

-I don't have such a Philosophy. I only pointed out that magical thinkers(idealists) tend to use Strong emergence as some kind of a problem for reality and consciousness...so they believe that they can ignore the expiration date of their biology since everything is mental....whatever that means lol.

[NickGaspar]

+++Our discussion has gone off-topic (with me being responsible for it, because I started talking about emergence here), so I asked Sy Borg to separate the emergence-related posts from this thread and to put them into the already existing thread on ontological emergence. We shouldn't continue our discussion on emergence here but there!+++

…and we should wait with additional answers until the emergence-related posts have been moved from here to there!

Well misunderstanding Emergence is a common mistake people do in their efforts to separate consciousness from the brain...so I don't see a real reason for this "separation".
The video I posted is a good source of information on what Strong and Weak emergence are and why those types of emergence do not affect our Scientific understanding about our conscious brain states.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This topic appears to be derailed with the recent conversation being primarily off-topic.

Additionally, the original post seems to be a bit unclear on what the exact topic is, namely because the text of the OP lists two questions in the text, but a third different question is used as the titular topic.

Regardless, most of the recent posts seem to be about a forth topic altogether: ontological emergence.

Thus, I have locked this topic, and instead invite each person to make on-topic posts in any or all of the following topics:

1. Ontological Emergence

2. Is there a theory of consciousness that can explain cases of people retaining consciousness with only a bit of brain?

3. Can consciousness exist without any brain at all?


If there are additional topics that members were discussing here that are not directly covered by the above three, then I invite those members to start a new topic for each individual question or subject.