Great. So you are talking about people like yourself who would call themselves something, but then who aren't able to define why they would call themselves that something.

Sounds legit.

So you are talking about people like yourself who would call themselves something, but then who aren't able to define why they would call themselves that something. — apokrisis

What am I calling myself that I aren't able to define?

I'm sure you will launch into an explanation at any minute. X-)

I'm sure you will launch into an explanation at any minute. — apokrisis

An explanation of? (Maybe that would work for producing an answer to what I'm calling myself that I'm not able to define.)

So what are you calling yourself and what is its rigorous definition?

So what are you calling yourself — apokrisis

Not a reductionist or holist. I figure you had something specific in mind.

Quit being an idiot. You said reductionism vs holism lacked rigorous definition. I supplied my rigorous definition. You started bleating in irrelevant fashion. I can't give a fuck about how you might self-identify until you can state it in a fashion that might be relevant to the discussion.

Thanks for illustrating my point about how a reductionist would want to conceive the causal story. — apokrisis

The problem is, you haven't justified your claim of downward causation, or that anything such as "the army" is a real, natural entity, rather than just an abstraction. If it's just an abstraction, then your claim that it acts causally through constraints is unsupported. I do not see how the real existence of "the army" could be understood as anything more than individuals acting. There are individuals who chose to act together toward a common goal, and we goal this an army. There is no "army" which is causing the individuals to act, they act of their own free will.

There is a common problem in modern philosophy, that philosophers assume something called "inter-subjectivity". From the premise of inter-subjectivity, they claim the real existence of many unnatural entities such as "society", 'the state", even "objective moral principles". The problem is that observation and empirical evidence indicates that such entities, unities which are said to be created by inter-subjectivity, are reducible to the activities of individuals. This reduction is a verifiable reality. Inter-subjectivity, and therefore all the artificial entities which follow from it, such as "the state", and "the army", are reducible to the particular activities of individual human beings. There is no evidence that such abstract entities called "the state", or "the army", are actually constraining the people. Such an idea is actually rather absurd, because it is the activities of the individuals which do the constraining. People constrain other people through the use of authority, rank, position, force, etc..

So we have two possible directions to proceed here. We could overlook the facts of the valid reduction, and insist on the absurdity, like you do. This absurdity is supposed to justify your claim of top-down causation. Or we could accept the validity of the reduction, and look for the principle of unity within the individuals. In this way we proceed toward understanding will and intention as the real cause of existence of these abstract entities ("the state", 'the army"), which have a real presence, and real power. Then we seek the internal source of this causation rather than looking for some phantom external top-down causation.

I do not see how the real existence of "the army" could be understood as anything more than individuals acting. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. I get you don't see it and likely never will.

There are individuals who chose to act together toward a common goal, and we goal this an army. — Metaphysician Undercover

So there are freely chosing individuals and then ... somehow ... the separate thing of a common goal.

Let's put aside your fanciful notion that drill sergeants offer raw recruits a lot of free choice during boot camp training. We call an army an army (and not for instance a rabble or a rout) because it really is being regulated by some actual state of form and purpose.

And again, my account explains why soldiers exist individually such that they can exhibit collective behaviour. It explains the atomism involved in terms of global limitations on personal freedoms, such that the individual also becomes the interchangeable.

So what you think is so critically important is exactly what I explain for you in causal terms.

Then we seek the internal source of this causation rather than looking for some phantom external top-down causation. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what I said in the end, eh?

Let's put aside your fanciful notion that drill sergeants offer raw recruits a lot of free choice during boot camp training, we call an army an army (and not for instance a rabble or a rout) because it really is being regulated by some actual state of form and purpose. — apokrisis

Any raw recruit can choose not to follow the instruction of the drill sergeant, and suffer the consequence. When the choice to follow the drill sergeant's orders is a free will choice, made by a free willing human being, how can you say that the drill sergeant "causes" the recruit's actions to support your downward causation? Sure, there's a special relationship between the sergeant and each recruit, but where is this thing called "the army" which is supposed to be applying downward causation here?

Even your wording betrays that you know that the true reality is other than how you describe it: "we call an army an army ... because it really is being regulated by some actual state of form and purpose." See, the army is being regulated, by some form or purpose (purpose existing within individual human minds). You reveal with your words what you really believe, that it is not the army which is doing the regulating, the army is the passive, artificial thing, which is being regulated by the intentions of human beings.

So what I said in the end, eh? — apokrisis

Sure, it's what you said, but at the same time you describe what you said in a completely different way, thereby contradicting yourself. That's why I interjected into the discussion. You said "the constraints would have to arise immanently". But then you went on to describe those constraints as the constraints of the whole, the army, acting inward onto the individual soldiers, as a downward causation. This contradicts constraints arising "immanently", which implies that the constraints come from within the individual part, as I described by referring to intention and free will. So you haven't explained how two apparently opposed processes, "constraints arise immanently", and "constraints of downward causation" are supposed to be the same thing.

Any raw recruit can choose not to follow the instruction of the drill sergeant, and suffer the consequence. — Metaphysician Undercover

So they can't choose not to suffer the consequences?

The consequences are thus quite real as the corollary of their choices. It is all a bit like choosing to jump of a tree and fly, then having to accept the consequences that the law of gravity mandates. Nothing you can do will change anything about the consequences in either situation.

You reveal with your words what you really believe, that it is not the army which is doing the regulating, the army is the passive, artificial thing, which is being regulated by the intentions of human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. You just again show a problem with reading skills.

This contradicts constraints arising "immanently", which implies that the constraints come from within the individual part, as I described by referring to intention and free will. So you haven't explained how two apparently opposed processes, "constraints arise immanently", and "constraints of downward causation" are supposed to be the same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Another thing I have explained to you a thousand times, a thousand ways.

My position is based on the causal notion of synergy. So parts construct the whole, and the whole shapes the parts. There is a dichotomistic mutuality at the heart of all things systematic.

Things are happening in both directions. You only notice them happening in the one direction.

So they can't choose not to suffer the consequences? — apokrisis

The most simple way to choose not to suffer the consequences, is to choose to follow the orders. It's not difficult, just like the law, choose to obey and you do not suffer punishment. If you choose not to obey the law, you might prepare yourself to suffer the consequences. But you may try to find a way to disobey and not get caught, as well as multiple other options..

The consequences are thus quite real as the corollary of their choices. It is all a bit like choosing to jump of a tree and fly, then having to accept the consequences that the law of gravity mandates. Nothing you can do will change anything about the consequences in either situation. — apokrisis

How is this relevant? The consequences we are talking about, are those punishments inflicted upon us by other human beings, not by natural forces like gravity. Do you not respect a difference between these two? Are you trying to say that the army is a thing like gravity, which will punish you if you try to disobey it? Don't you see that it is the individual human beings within the army which will seek to have you punished? Just like if you disobey the law, it is certain individuals who will seek to have you punished. It's not the law itself which acts to punish you, it those who enforce it. Nor is it the army which acts to constrain, it is those members of the army which act in this way.

My position is based on the causal notion of synergy. — apokrisis

I understand synergy to an extent. But synergy is parts working together, toward some sort of unity, similar to how I explained individual human beings producing an army. Can you explain how synergy is compatible with top-down causation, the whole, (the army for example) constraining the parts? I don't see how this notion of the whole constraining the parts is a valid notion.

The most simple way to choose not to suffer the consequences, is to choose to follow the orders. — Metaphysician Undercover

So by choice ... one simply chooses not to have freewill and the constraints are thus rendered an abstract illusion that you never really took seriously. Gotcha.

Just like if you disobey the law, it is certain individuals who will seek to have you punished. It's not the law itself which acts to punish you, it those who enforce it. — Metaphysician Undercover

So these avatars of the global order - do they have the same kind of freewill. It is their choice to line you up against the wall and shoot you? The constraints are no more real for them either.

Gawd, I would feel really pissed off about that firing squad that just decided to make an example out of me for the hell of it, or whatever.

I don't see how this notion of the whole constraining the parts is a valid notion. — Metaphysician Undercover

True that.

Choice is a choice in action not in outcome. And choices are constrained and impacted by all of the forces in the Universe (fields of energy have no limits). Whatever action one chooses to make, outcomes are not known until they have passed into memory. I might choose to try to fly off a building. Whether or not I survive is never known until it is witnessed in memory - hopefully mine.

We all have choices, and some people choose to write and say that they do not and some write that they do. Both are a manifestation of creative ideas that we can create.

Yep.

So by choice ... one simply chooses not to have freewill and the constraints are thus rendered an abstract illusion that you never really took seriously. Gotcha. — apokrisis

You've lost me in your contradictory ways. Free will is a constraint? That's the problem with your position, you portray the creative results of free acts as the effects of constraints. Do you not see the inherent contradiction? Or are you a determinist denier of free will?

It is their choice to line you up against the wall and shoot you? — apokrisis

How could it not be?

True that. — apokrisis

Finally! We agree on something. Now maybe we can start to discuss these topics in some sort of rational way.

You've lost me in your contradictory ways. Free will is a constraint? That's the problem with your position, you portray the creative results of free acts as the effects of constraints. Do you not see the inherent contradiction? Or are you a determinist denier of free will? — Metaphysician Undercover

Why would you think that is what I said?

As Rich says, we can certainly treat our own freewill as a constraint over our actions and their intended outcomes. That is why we credit our "selves" with top-down causal agency.

I mean you believe you exist, right? You're not just a collective fiction of the independently-acting cells of your body.

Finally! We agree on something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Probably not so much. It was the bit about you not seeing where I was agreeing.

That is why we credit our "selves" with top-down causal agency. — apokrisis

I see the causal agency of my self as explained by intentional, free will acts. How do you understand this as a case of top-down causal agency, defined by constraints, rather than as a bottom-up causation defined by a freedom inherent (immanent) within my material being?

...a freedom inherent (immanent) within my material being? — Metaphysician Undercover

Who is this "my" you speak of? I only see a reductionist accumulation of cells.

You forget, I'm dualist, I have a soul which actuates my material elements.

Brain scans reveal that in fact humans need a team of such beings to execute all their various functions.

Perhaps, a massive team, one within each cell, or each molecule, each atom, or each subatomic particle. The thing is, each is an individual, distinct part, and we still haven't accounted for how they work together to make a whole. Top-down causation is inconsistent with empirical evidence. So we have no other option but to look at what is inherent within the parts, which enables the whole to be created from the bottom-up.

ON NON-REDUCTIVE PHYSICALISM
Non-reductive physicalism is wrong - claiming that thoughts cannot be reduced to physical world processes. Without your biological platform operating in the physical world, you will have no thoughts (and you will not exist). This may change with technology, but it is still reductive.

On a related note (the underlying assumption of non-reduction), just because a phenomenon is currently beyond our understanding (which is understandable - since we have 'just awakened' to the universe), it does not mean the phenomenon (in this case the thought-biology connection) does not exist. To claim that thoughts do not need our biological platforms simply because we cannot figure it all out is doing just that - claiming a connection does not exist 'just because' it is still beyond our understanding.

ON THE DUALISM
Therefore, since one philosophical school of thinking is wrong, that negates the dualism.

ON STRONG EMERGENCE
Strong Emergentism reflects reality - where a new higher system is created by smaller parts. A car engine is a good mechanical example - the overall function is different than the function of any of its component parts. The liver is a good biological example. It performs a higher function that any of its component parts (cells) do individually - in other words it takes a team effort.

I've found Strong Emergence in human societies (shush - it is a new insight of mine) - where human institutions take on a life of their own - becoming self-sustaining and performing societal functions beyond any one of its component humans (we refer to the worst of them as 'self-serving bureaucracies').