StrictlyLogical

That's just from the definition of "weak emergence" on Wikipedia. They may have a distinction in mind.

Eioul: In reply to your first paragraph: I agree there is an empricist element to the personality in my example. I focused on the rationalist element. I think the hypothetic thought process is a very good example of "ideas above reality". Here the person is focusing on his ability to form "sums" in his mind. He takes an existent which is also a complex combination and what he applies to the parts is a lazy arithmetic kind of sum, when in fact he should consider what in reality "a combination" of actual entities means. His method is only really applicable to ... well counting. He does not recognize or even suspect that "the sum" in his mind is meaningless in the context because he is "ideas over reality". Good point about the empiricist element. I'm rereading UO. I skipped ahead to read the rationalist lecture... I love that one most of all because it is a subtle thing many people do not understand. I like how you frame your comments in the arena of knowledge. Particularly the idea of conceptual integration on different levels of abstraction. It is when people speak of emergence as a metaphysical phenomenon when I begin to think something is amiss. We already know combinations of things produce new states, behave in different ways, have different properties, etc. from that exhibited by isolated parts, this is something which is deeply rooted in the identity of the parts and how they act in combination. There is no dichotomy between the nature of a thing (a part) in a first context (alone or in one combination) and the nature of the thing in a second context (in another combination). It is what it is, its nature has not in fact changed, it is doing, being, exhibiting, behaving as is necessary according to its nature, its identity (I am not introducing necessisty as something over and obove identity), specifically the thing is of a nature such that it behaves one way in a particular context and another in another context. So to me emergence is more about recognizing the limitations of our current knowledge and ability to understand how certain combinations of things act, etc. That does not mean I think it is a valid or even a useful concept in the long run. My point is we could dispense with the concept and we would do fine. I.e. there is nothing essential or fundamental to the various entities we are integrating .. to warrant a new concept. Chemistry is a fine example ... atoms in different combinations form molecules which have very different properties. At one point our lack of knowledge made these look like transmutations of a magical sort, and to some extent we still lack a complete knowledge. But, to simply say that because currently we cannot simulate oxygen and hydrogen atoms well enough to preict water and all its properties, H20 somehow is emergent, is somewhat useless. On the other hand the claim that it would NEVER be possible, in the context of any natural system exhibiting so called emergence I find patently ridiculous. We've had computers and technology and knowledge of fundamental particle physics all develop within the last 200 years, and just imagine the knowledge of the savage who walked this earth a paltry 500 years ago. Would he have had even the sliver of foresight to think CERN or our exploration in space was even remotely possible? Can you tell me that in 50,000 years we would not be able to derive, from our much more complete and extensive knowledge of the fundamentals, how a particular so called "emergent" combination would behave? I think such a claim would require a theory of causation, knowledge, or reality which, as far as I can see, must be flawed. Do you really find this is justified: "Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level. However, it is stipulated that the properties can be determined by observing or simulating the system, and not by any process of a priori analysis." This smacks of someone asserting "the unknowable"... "Mind" has its own difficult issues, which you are very aware of, can you give me a different what you consider valid example of emergence? Also, if you could describe why emergence deserves to be a separate concept, that would help too.

As an aside HD, have you read Understanding Objectivism by LP ? It really is a really good read. I'm reading the first lecture dealing with all the "reasons" people give for why living according to or with a philosophy is difficult, impractical, causes displeasure etc. the assumption being that the amoral or irrational (unphilosophical) man in the street is blissful... Your last statement of the YouTube videos reminded me of the book... of course LP throughout the entire book deals with why the "reasons" are flawed. If you don't have it I really suggest you get it. I love Amazon!

I think he is implying having a reason to choose A is causally determinative of your choice. I think you could respond like this: AS between A and B, I had reasons for choosing A and other reasons for choosing B. I chose A in part based on the reasons for choosing A but I could have chosen B based on the other reasons for choosing B. BUT in the end, the reason I actually make any choice is because I can choose either A or B and I decide to do so, not because I have reasons for doing so. Now, if he started pointing out identity (of you) and causality and asked if that implies only one possible action or choice (determinism), then you would have to come up with something better...

I see. I may have suffered a little conflation between: A. Morally judging something or someone, which is to say judging something's effect or someone's actions and potential actions in view of my guide to action (and appropriate reaction or anticipated reaction), my moral mandate to live. AND B. Objectively ascertaining what someone else's morality (including a lack thereof or an invalid one) is. In judgment process A, I assess their actions objectively but in view of my moral mandate to live. Part of judgement process A would be launching into a judgement process B, since the morality of an entity is likely relevant to predicting their actions. The amoral and immoral man are likely both a threat. I need to assess that in context. In judgment process B, I identify their morality for what it is including simply identifying the fact that one has chosen "death" (amoral) and the other fails to enact life (immoral). What I do with my conclusions is another matter. In some sense the manner/process of judgement is the same as applied to each kind of man, the conclusions however differ, because the entities differ. Does this make sense?

howardovski Sorry if this is a bit off topic and I hope I am not asking about something already addressed in this long thread but just curious about the original post re psychology being a fraud: If in the future the scientific study of mental processes included, in addition to verbal reporting methods, better and better instrumentation to measure, characterize, and map brain activities, i.e. monitoring and imaging, would you deem that science also to be a fraud? I think some psychologists are using MRI techniques now to study things like how the brain processes music. I guess my question is do you take psychology (the study of mind) as such to be a fraud or just verbal reporting based psychological experiment?

I was wondering what you all think of moral judgement of amoral men... by which I mean how someone judges them from a moral standpoint (I am not here referring to the capacity of an amoral man to make "moral judgements") By amoral I do not mean immoral. Let me explain. An amoral man is a man who has not consciously or subconsciously chosen life, not chosen to live. He continues to live because he has not been able to bring about his end or he is apathetic to his lack of choice. In either case he is amoral. An immoral man is one who explicitly or at least implicitly chooses life, chooses to live, but either acts against principles which would be effective for his stated goal of life or acts in accordance with principles which actually detract from his stated goal of life, regardless of what principles he purports (to himself) to have adopted. I think I understand the basis of moral judgement by an Objectivist entity of both men in respect of their actions or potential actions toward that entity. My question is what should the entity's position be regarding moral judgement of the amoral and the immoral man's actions and potential actions which do not affect the life of the entity. Is there any difference between how the entity should morally judge the amoral man and the immoral man? Should the entity morally judge the amoral man and the immoral man... and why? When it comes to moral condemnation or approbation, dogmatic intrinsic or mystical morality sees no distinction between them, and takes no stock of morality being personal, whose beneficiary is the self, and which presupposes a choice to live. Objectivism is different, but exactly how? Keep in mind we all know that "choosing to live" is a pre-moral question, and Objectivist ethics does not say a man "should" choose to live, because such a "should" would imply a kind of intrinsic or mystical meta morality dictating shoulds and should nots prior to any standard. Once he chooses life, morality is a necessity and it is objective, based on the nature of man and reality. As an aside, in terms of action, I think it is in the interests (generally) of the entity to persuade/teach the immoral man about principles and persuade the amoral man to choose life, and thereafter teach him principles - due to the possible benefits the entity may reap. But that is merely a tangential issue. Leaving aside action, what is the moral judgement to be applied here by the Objectivist entity in regard to these two kinds of men?

We have the unique position of being able to experience consciousness from a first person view (for lack of a better term). A machine who was intelligent but perhaps lacked consciousness (I think this is a contradiction but suspend your judgement) might be able to understand why we function the way we do, why we behave, think, perhaps even why we feel, but it, not being conscious, would have no idea what it is like to be conscious, what it is like to experience consciousness, in the same way you do not know what it is like to be a bat, or what it is like to be a worm or a thermostat. If the machine had consciousness, I would argue although it would not be able to experience consciousness it could, looking at us, in the kind of detail that mattered, be conscious of our consciousness functioning. Although we have a first person view or experience of consciousness that does not mean it cannot be identified as a process from an objective third person view. At this point in time we do not know what goes on when consciousness occurs, but in principle, after studying enough complex systems, enough brains, enough artificial consciousnesses we could in fact observe and identify, i.e. be conscious of a conscious process. In what other possible manner can we be conscious of anything other than identification/observation etc. There is no reason we cannot be conscious of consciousness. The self referential riddle of being conscious of our own consciousness... well I would say we could with use of external instrumentation, but not through introspection .... which could lead arguably to some kind of infinite regress. Then again it need not be infinite... we can talk about talking about talking about talking.... we just have to choose to stop if we want. I think it is more accurate to say that we are aware of our consciousness. What was your point?

What is the nature of your distinction between a "natural attribute" and a "physical one". Here I think it is more proper to say consciousness is an attribute of reality... and as all attributes of reality must causally be due to what is fundamental, primary, constitutive... it is through a long complex chain of causation a result of physical processes/entities.

"A is A" arguably would be unnecessary if men needed no guidance on how to think properly. As is evidenced by history and in particular purportedly highly intelligent philosophers, the knowledge of "A is A" is not always so difficult to evade. Philosophers have claimed A contains its opposite, and others have even claimed, in some form or another, A is A and A is not A, while admitting that this is somehow true... and at the same time false. Unfortunately, there is a real need for the phrase "A is A".

A little precision may be required here as you may be stepping into shaky territory. What do we mean by "physical"? First we should distinguish between on the one hand the study of "physics" as a branch of science along with knowledge we currently have in that field, and on the other hand what in reality, existence, nature, that study is directed to and what that knowledge pertains to. The first we should call "known physics" or the "the study of physics" the latter perhaps we should refer to as "physical reality" or "physical nature" or "physical existence". Unfortunately these are somewhat awkward terms because the word "physics" is used on its own (unfortunately) freely in both contexts. Also we should keep in mind that just because our current knowledge in the field of physics is "incomplete" and our current particular pursuits in the "study" of physics may be also be incomplete (imagine a time before QM, or particle physics... we were still studying physical reality), the field of physics is directed at the fundamental, the primary, the constitutive, of all observable phenomena in reality. In essence it seeks the primary causes for everything we observe. It does not assume the fundamental the primary and the constitutive are small, or local, or anything in particular, it aims to determine what is fundamental, primary, constitutive etc. whether or not they are of any particular nature. (As an aside it so happens to be we have discovered very tiny fundamental particles, we have also discovered fields, and "action at a distance" QM entanglement.) "Physical nature" or "physical reality" therefore really means the base of reality that causes everything we observe and study and perceive (at all other levels), and hence in some way is a reference to reality as such. Although there are distinctions in knowledge or scientific inquiry, I would argue there is no distinction in realities: there is no physical reality, apart or different from chemical reality apart or different from genetic or biological reality, apart or different from psychological reality. In any case, we should distinguish between that which science is directed to and the activity of science itself.

Taking a wide integration here... I blame 50% of the ingrained cultural stigma associated generally with sex (now part of religion for millennia) on the fact of unwanted babies, and the difficulties their arrival causes. Go back in your mind tens of thousands of years to the primitive tribes, one witchdoctor noted a solution to unwanted pregnancy, invoke the spirits and spew dogmatic pronouncements of "wrongness" to scare people from having sex. Summary: Blame babies, and that first witchdoctor

Things are what they are. Nothing we can interact with even remotely and indirectly can be in complete isolation or else we would not be able to interact with it. Everything in our universe which we can know is interactable in some fashion, causally linked in some way, whether in the past or the future. Cosmic rays dislodge your genes, photons hit your eyes, you are literally related by blood to every mammal on this planet, gravity pulls you to rotate about a planet, about a star, about a galaxy about a galactic group... you are by no means completely isolated. This should not cause you a psycho-epistemological crisis. Be careful of rationalistic wistfulness. Things are as they are and we can form concepts. You still have identity, you still are "conceivable". The truth is when an atom IS momentarily not reacting with anything, it behaves in certain ways when you "prod" it. When the atom is interacting, bonded, or otherwise in a particular context, it will react in a different way when "prodded".

Eioul: Any comments on the errors of our rationalist... ? Just curious.

Eioul: Any comments on the errors of our rationalist... ? Just curious.

The atom is not in isolation. To talk about it in isolation when in fact dealing with it in another context... is well.. context dropping.

Yes. Now given the risks involved, and the fact that Jim will not have the kind of knowledge which would enable him to kill people and know it was the right decision, he takes a prudent approach, a risk adjusted, average return on "choices" analysis... we do this all the time... its called making good decisions based on good judgment. We have limited knowledge, and a risk adjusted return is the sort of consideration we subconsciously use to get an indication of which choice is maximal. It's like something you do in economics. Here, risk is applicable because he lacks knowledge. These are risks inherent in reality that he does not know. risk also exists because of the future, it is contingent upon a great many things. So, choice A has associated with it probabilities and associated possible benefits and possible disadvantages to his life over the long run, Choice B has a different set of probabilities and associated different possible benefits and possible disadvantages to his life in the long run. Jim should choose on his best judgment which of choice A or B "on average" given all the risks is most beneficial to his life. We have already discussed the incredible value, generally of men to other men. If on average men were a disvalue, (which is not the case) we should NOT form societies, we should storm off into the blue yonder as far from each other as possible. I as well as most Objectivists take the other viewpoint. A rational entity can benefit from other rational entities and to the extent they all see that the greater the benefit to all.

A general note on "Emergence" Take the following statement: "The composite is greater than the sum of its parts" Now, imagine a rationalist's take on it, in the context of a complicated machine. He looks at the parts and decides each in isolation do not amount to the whole, he then considers the notion "sum". Because a rationalist does not hold concepts as integrations of concretes and treats all concepts as floating abstractions independent of reality, he imagines each part in an arrangement like an equation separated by a plus sign: "iron lever with hole" + "axle" + "grease" + ... Perhaps he imagines each part with a little picture, but the "sum" is nothing more than "holding them all in his mind". Perhaps this kind of reasoning is subconscious but essentially all he has in his mind are isolated things "piled" together. That's his sum. Clearly the complicated machine is "more than" this sum of parts. If one considers what the rationalist did, it is true... the machine is greater than the unintegrated holding of a set of isolated parts in an unimaginative mind. The truth is, the statement : "the composite is greater than the sum of its parts" in its most meaningful sense, is false. The sum of parts is the combination of the parts in reality, in the particular arrangement they find themselves in the composite. It is the axle with grease on it inserted appropriately in the hole of the iron lever... etc. A meaningless sum of parts held in ones mind is so meaningless as to wonder why such a statement would ever be made. To avoid the misinterpretation of our rationalist, the statement is: "The composite is greater than the complete, correct, composition of the parts of which it comprises". And this statement... now correctly worded... is simply false.

Eioul "The question is serious - how can density be metaphysical?" and similar comments Ignoring the invalidity of the pseudo-concept of "emergence" for a moment: A pile of fine graphite dust, is metaphysically speaking different from the same number of atoms in diamond form. They have different densities, hardness, resistivity, opacity, clarity etc. and differences in respect of a whole host of other physical properties. These are real differences in terms of the nature of the substances, both interactive, i.e. having causal consequences in reality with other entities and as can be measured in isolation. Density is a real physical quantity, when for example a liquid freezes locally, the density of the solid determines whether it floats or sinks. As you know ice floats on water, solid iron however sinks in molten iron. Whether something floats or not, is not an example of "epistemological consequence" but metaphysical causation. Also, to state physical properties are epistemological is to give up the notion of properties being Objective, causally linked both to reality and means of perception. Of course a property purported to be a "physical property" which really was subjective is not an Objective property, but I believe that removes it from the realm of "physical property" All this said, I may have misunderstood what you mean. If I did, I apologize. Edit: Actually I cannot understand what "epistemological property" could mean... so I've butchered it to mean something like a "subjective property"... which also is unfathomable to me.

You do not have an incorrect interpretation of what it means for bricks to be in the form of a house or carbon atoms to act in the way they do when in a covalent lattice. The components do not have the property, they make it possible, they are the reason WHY and HOW there is the property at all. Emergence out of nothing is like trying to remove the WHY and HOW from existence, i.e. mysticism.

The context of your hypothetical involved an absence of knowledge of the particular nature of the people around whom Jim could choose to swerve. i.e. He was blind and ignorant to facts of reality (this is to be expected), how do you think he should act keeping in mind his lack of knowledge? What exactly is astounding about my post?

This is an important error to point out. I'd also point out that there seems to be an inherent misidentification of the distinction between nature, I.e. metaphysical reality, A IS A, even when A is "a collection of carbon atoms in a particular arrangement of covalent bonding, i.e. molecular structure' and knowledge or lack thereof, i.e. a study of K as we know it is insufficient to describe what we observe by a study of J (the study of arrangements of K). What they seem to miss here is that IF knowledge of K were complete it would include the arrangements of K, interactions of K, ALL there is to know about K. Back to metaphysics: The behavior of diamond IS determined by the structure and function of the components which make it up. Nature IS, it does not emerge. Is it ONE way in these circumstances, it is ANOTHER way in another set of circumstances.

Leonid: Are you stating that once we know what carbon atoms are, everything there is to know, how the nuclei and electrons are arranged and interact with externalities, different shells, quantum excitations, manner in which covalent bonds can be formed, and the fact that carbon CAN and does come together to form coal, graphite and diamond, what exactly do you mean when you say that "diamond cannot be explained by reducing them to atoms of carbon". Is not the inherent structure and interactive properties of carbon atoms that which give rise to its ability to form coal, graphite and diamond? If not inherent in the properties of the atoms of carbon to form these things, what are you talking about? If you are talking about ignorance, i.e. a lack of knowledge and the ability to explain HOW and WHY diamond comes about, that would be a question of scientific knowledge not a pronouncement about metaphysical reality per se.

It would be shortsighted to destroy potential resources in a systematic process just because one particular tiny bit might be spoiled. If you find a bad apple deal with it at that point in time. Don't cut down your apple tree.

HD: Could you rephrase the question in a more direct or explicit manner? I don't quite understand what you are asking when you say this: "But what relation do the slave-drivers have towards Jim's p0 and what's their key difference from the producers of such things as cars?"