Are you saying diamond is irreducible to carbon atoms?
No. What I said that properties of diamond cannot be explained by reducing them to the atoms of carbon. If that were the case than these properties would be undistinguished from that of coal or graphite. All 3 are made of carbon atoms but have different structures which define their properties. As diamond is not just collection of carbon atoms, so living cell is not just collection of chemicals. It has certain structure which defines its emergent properties and which cannot be reduced to intracellular elements. Life starts on the level of cell as a whole.
No. What I said that properties of diamond cannot be explained by reducing them to the atoms of carbon. If that were the case than these properties would be undistinguished from that of coal or graphite. All 3 are made of carbon atoms but have different structures which define their properties. As diamond is not just collection of carbon atoms, so living cell is not just collection of chemicals. It has certain structure which defines its emergent properties and which cannot be reduced to intracellular elements. Life starts on the level of cell as a whole.
“Emergent properties,” is a pseudo-concept. The properties of physical things are always explained in terms of their components and the relationship of those components to each other, their structure. Nothing is “just a collection” of components or parts. When is anything ever explained by reducing it to its component parts, without including the relationship of those parts to each other? In some rare cases, the structure of an entity will be determined by the properties of its components, but that structure is still part of the understanding of the entity.
Something that identifies everything, identifies nothing. If emergent properties are whatever properties a thing has when its components are organized in a certain way, then the properties of every existent there is, are “emergent.” It identifies nothing new because the fact that a thing’s properties are determined by its components and structure is all that can be known.
If “brick-buildingness” is a property of brick buildings emerging from the way bricks are organized into a structure, than when bricks are dumped higgily-piggily into a pile, the attribute “pileness” is emergent. Absurd.
All these pseudo-concepts: emergent properties, self-organizing systems, symmetry-breaking systems, holism, etc. are the inventions of physicalists to argue that physical components can be organized in such a way that life just, “emerges,” as a property. Let it be demonstrated, just once, that physical components without life (not already living components) can be organized into a living organism. By inventing concepts for processes or attributes that have never been observed to “prove” something is the worst kind of rationalization. Nevertheless, some very intelligent people are taken in by them.
[i know the pseudo-concepts I’ve listed are used to put over a number of other very bad ideas, like societies being “emergent” organisms, etc.]
“Emergent properties,” is a pseudo-concept. The properties of physical things are always explained in terms of their components and the relationship of those components to each other, their structure. Nothing is “just a collection” of components or parts. When is anything ever explained by reducing it to its component parts, without including the relationship of those parts to each other? In some rare cases, the structure of an entity will be determined by the properties of its components, but that structure is still part of the understanding of the entity.
That relation is what an emergent property is - it’s a feature not present when the components are alone. Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom together behave differently than alone. Don’t make it more complicated than it is.
No. What I said that properties of diamond cannot be explained by reducing them to the atoms of carbon. If that were the case than these properties would be undistinguished from that of coal or graphite. All 3 are made of carbon atoms but have different structures which define their properties. As diamond is not just collection of carbon atoms, so living cell is not just collection of chemicals. It has certain structure which defines its emergent properties and which cannot be reduced to intracellular elements. Life starts on the level of cell as a whole.
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.
“Emergent properties,” is a pseudo-concept. The properties of physical things are always explained in terms of their components and the relationship of those components to each other, their structure. Nothing is “just a collection” of components or parts. When is anything ever explained by reducing it to its component parts, without including the relationship of those parts to each other? In some rare cases, the structure of an entity will be determined by the properties of its components, but that structure is still part of the understanding of the entity.
Something that identifies everything, identifies nothing. If emergent properties are whatever properties a thing has when its components are organized in a certain way, then the properties of every existent there is, are “emergent.” It identifies nothing new because the fact that a thing’s properties are determined by its components and structure is all that can be known.
If “brick-buildingness” is a property of brick buildings emerging from the way bricks are organized into a structure, than when bricks are dumped higgily-piggily into a pile, the attribute “pileness” is emergent. Absurd.
All these pseudo-concepts: emergent properties, self-organizing systems, symmetry-breaking systems, holism, etc. are the inventions of physicalists to argue that physical components can be organized in such a way that life just, “emerges,” as a property. Let it be demonstrated, just once, that physical components without life (not already living components) can be organized into a living organism. By inventing concepts for processes or attributes that have never been observed to “prove” something is the worst kind of rationalization. Nevertheless, some very intelligent people are taken in by them.
[i know the pseudo-concepts I’ve listed are used to put over a number of other very bad ideas, like societies being “emergent” organisms, etc.]
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.
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.
Those circumstances are how carbon atoms are arranged. The only way to talk about a diamond’s properties is to say how they act together. You would talk about relationships among atoms. Emergence as a property that appears out of nothing at all is the wrong way to treat emergence. The right way to treat emergence is relationships between entities, enabling behaviors not possible to entities alone - potentialities are not actualities. To say "determined by’ is rather misleading, because emergence is supposed to be the fact that the components don’t have the same characteristics as a whole. Is a carbon atom dense? The question doesn’t even make sense!
Those circumstances are how carbon atoms are arranged. The only way to talk about a diamond’s properties is to say how they act together. You would talk about relationships among atoms. Emergence as a property that appears out of nothing at all is the wrong way to treat emergence. The right way to treat emergence is relationships between entities, enabling behaviors not possible to entities alone - potentialities are not actualities. To say "determined by’ is rather misleading, because emergence is supposed to be the fact that the components don’t have the same characteristics as a whole. Is a carbon atom dense? The question doesn’t even make sense!
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.
That relation is what an emergent property is - it’s a feature not present when the components are alone. Two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom together behave differently than alone. Don’t make it more complicated than it is.
If a so-called emergent property is nothing more than a feature resulting from the combining of components in a certain way, what is the point of such a concept. It is the so-called “emergent” concept that is the unnecessary complication.
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.
Yes, exactly! I very much appreciate the addition of the technical (physical, metaphysical) aspects of your comment.
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.
I know your response was not to me, but permit me to say you have captured what the pseudo-concept of “emergence” is–mysticism. Exactly!
Let it be demonstrated, just once, that physical components without life (not already living components) can be organized into a living organism
Yes, abiogenesis is an assumption. Like the universe, many hold as an unjustified given, “life had to start somewhere!”…,
Edit:
If a so-called emergent property is nothing more than a feature resulting from the combining of components in a certain way, what is the point of such a concept. It is the so-called “emergent” concept that is the unnecessary complication.
Yes, the problem is that a rearrangement of components presupposes that the components were already in an arrangement previously…modus ponens
Edit: it occurred to me to ask what differentiates emergence from the concept of transmutation???
Either something was somehow alive throughout the whole process, or, what I think is more reasonable, life started some time after the formation of Earth.
Either something was somehow alive throughout the whole process, or, what I think is more reasonable, life started some time after the formation of Earth.
(italics, my emphasis.)
In my thread “Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step”, you’ll find many current discoveries that allude to this in their consideration. While I have a passive interest in the developments, I’ve not tried to put them together as Newton did his observations of the movements of the heavens in conjunction with the tides and other phenomenon relating to the development of the concept we today hold as “gravity.” Neither am I adverse to life being present as a permanent aspect of existence either. As a student of Objectivism, learning to expand my grasp of both evidence (of the senses) and proof (derived from the evidence of the senses,) are often challenged by integrating the observations in a manner consistent with the method of logic.
The paragraphs cited are what I consider to be the most relevant aspects of the articles linked to. While I don’t aspire to answer this personally, the relevant factors seemed worth identifying at the time.
Just to be clear, going from unicellular organism to multi is not what I’m referring to by abiogenesis. Im also not principally opposed to the possibility of life from non-life, only the assumption that its a given.
“what is the point of such a concept.”
Because it points out a relation that doesn’t exist without various components interaction. Can carbon atoms be dense? Can carbon atom arrangements be dense? Is there a concept that already makes this distinction?
“Emergence out of nothing is like trying to remove the WHY and HOW from existence, i.e. mysticism.”
Right, as I said, some people have a bad interpretation. The components make it possible, but the components don’t necessarily have the properties of their interactions. Bricks of a house don’t interact in a way to produce properties different than the components. Emergence doesn’t have to deny that the properties are the result of interaction. If you don’t like the word, fine, but it seems like we agree about the nature of what we are referring to.
Metaphysically, there is no emergence, that’s because properties of anything are epistemological - they exist as part of entities and don’t exist on their own.
Anything else to add would just be repeating Grames.
Metaphysically, there is no emergence, that’s because properties of anything are epistemological - they exist as part of entities and don’t exist on their own.
Your still lugging this ridiculous notion around? Concepts of properties are epistemological not the properties themselves. This is the very basis of objectivity as defined by Rand.
I just mean to say that there aren’t characteristics separate from entities. They aren’t features of existence, they’re really just what your senses pick up and distinguished by your mind automatically or volitionally. Existence is a totality, any divisions are an act of perception or cognition. That’s how emergence is valid - if you describe relations, you describe divisions or levels of abstraction. The parts are always there, you just point out different relations.
lets relate this to identity theory for a second. Would it be accurate to say that when carbon atoms are in the necessary arrangement, that the diamond is identical to its constituent arrangement? If so, then emergentism seems to be an attempt to repudiate invalid conceptions of identity. That is, eliminativism seems to be a failure to recognize that dynamic relations are constitutive of material structure as much as fundamental constituents… I am just finding it necessary to reevaluate the context of differentiation on this concept.
louie, I dug this up to help remove this mis-integration from your thinking.
to say it is epistemological rather than metaphysical is to say it exists only in relation to your grasp of it, or it requires your grasp of it in order to acquire its existence-it doesn’t. Surely if anything is metaphysical attributes are.