3 hours ago, Easy Truth said:
Why is the term emergent property used here? The reason I ask is why not use “cause and effect”? Of course cause and effect would create a contradiction in the sense that consciousness is determined by this “emergence”. Implying that consciousness has a cause, a determinant.
I could go on and on, as in that usage, could: emergence be a justification for the big bang theory? That the universe emerged due to xyz? Not caused by, but emerged.
It seems to me that emergence is a substitute for cause and effect when wanting to avoid certain contradictions.
Once one talks about consciousness evolving from evolution, there’s no way to avoid determinism.
I used “emergent” because I was reponding to Monart who had used “emergent.” It seems sensible enough to sometimes use that rather than “caused,” as when saying that the fluid state of matter emerged from a collection of certain molecules in a certain situation of temperature and pressure. Saying that “air is caused by the molecules composing it” is weird. And “air and its lack of resistance to shearing stress is caused by the molecules composing air and their collisions with each other” is also a weird way of talking. Shearing stresses are not something applicable to a molecule so far as I know. It is something that emerges at a macro level such as in our bones (hopefully with good resistance to shearing stresses) or in a breath of air.
Additionally, causal relations in the story of how I came about are immediate and dynamical in my individual ontogeny in which evolution has provided the engineering-type structures in which such organized developmental processes can proceed. (Not only the background evolutionarily yielded structure is required, of course, but also a continuing sameness [within tolerances] of the environment in which the type of organism can survive.) So for thinking about causation and emergences of processes in the individual organism, it seems most important to be focused on individual development, not preceding evolution, while keeping evolution as important background of the present dynamics arena in which this is causing that and/or this is emerging from that.
For the determinism worth having in a debate over free will vs. determinism, the determinism has to be a pre-determinism. To which the question “how far back is such and such in the present predetermined?” is sensible, and answers get more ridiculous the farther back the predeterminism is asserted, due to the circumstance that in the real physical, natural world there are a myriad of independent causal streams intersecting each other, continually resetting “initial” conditions and boundary conditions. All of that applies as well to emergences as it does to causation so far as I can see. Also, in stating Rand’s mildly circular definition of the Law of Causality (that is, What is the Law of Causality, in applying identity to action?) using the phrase “caused and determined” in her definition (in “The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made”), one should, I suggest, not take the “determined” to mean necessarily determinism, but a broader concept determinate. More like: “caused and delivered as determinate.” That way both the results of the mind-independent course of nature and the results of free will engineering things can be brought under a Law of Causality.