• T Clark
    1.8k
    Let me if I can summarize the discussion. Matter is made of parts which each part has a set of properties. For example electron has, charge, mass, spin, position and motion. The properties of the system however is a function of its parts' properties. There is always an observable which is defined as average of properties of parts. Let me give you an example: Think of pressure that a gas exerts to the wall of container. Pressure is an observable. It is related to average force which atoms/molecules of gas exert to the wall of container. That is true for any other observable such as density, average velocity, temperature, and more complex things such as conductivity in more complex system such as superconductor, etc. In all these physical examples an observable in macro scale is expressed in term of average properties of the parts. There is no such a thing as emergence in physics.bahman

    I don't have any problem with the examples you provide, except they are not examples of emergence. They are examples of statistical mechanics. Those are completely different things.

    Also, forgive me for being a nitpicker, but temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, not force. I recognize that doesn't affect the point you're trying to make.
  • bahman
    460
    For what regards consciousness which is a side topic one can argue that it is impossible to measure it.
    — bahman

    The smallest measurement possible is a token of presence : if you can't measure something, you either haven't defined it well enough for measurement, or there is nothing at all there to measure.
    Akanthinos

    It is not about being small or large. Consciousness is a first person phenomena so you cannot measure it from third person view. All which you can observe is motion of electrons if consciousness is really related to motion of electron which in my opinion it doesn't have any relation.

    We were discussion whether electron for example is conscious. He answered yes. Then I question how a unique consciousness is possible when all parts of your body are conscious separately?
    — bahman

    Then my answer still holds, despite not being about electrons. A unique consciousness is possible through the passive synthesis of our inputs, when it is acheived. If it is not, and perhaps it is the normal state of affairs for certain living beings, then you truly have multiple consciousness related to different body parts in a single organism. There is nothing a priori wrong with this, and there is no deep philosophical connection to make with this, except perhaps in regards to the fact that, seemingly, most living beings do unify their experiential data into a single "stream of consciousness".
    Akanthinos

    The question is how a unified subjective experience is possible when each part experience different thing. You are not providing an answer to that.

    Well, this thread was about emergence. I argue that it is impossible.
    — bahman

    I've already shown you why your, let's say, your meriology doesn't represent O'Connors type of causal asynchronous emergence, but it doesn't represent the standard supervenience account of emergence either.
    Akanthinos

    I am not claiming that emergence of any kind is possible. I am claiming that any property of a system is a function of properties of system's parts. There is nothing extra. I would be happy to know an example rather than consciousness.

    In your account, all properties are defined en bloc, at once, with no regards to dynamic relations. In the standard supervenience account, it becomes necessary to define further subsets of Pi, where each of those subsets may also be attributed properties. The relational properties of those subsets are seen, by virtue of their structural peculiarity, as equally primitive as those properties we generally would define as primitives. Since the effects described are not technically the result of causal relationships, but of relationships betweens sets of causally entangled properties, they are additionnally often not described as 'causal' events, but rather as 'synchronous' events.Akanthinos

    Dynamic is important and I included it as a property of parts.
  • bahman
    460
    I don't have any problem with the examples you provide, except they are not examples of emergence. They are examples of statistical mechanics. Those are completely different things.T Clark

    Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?

    Also, forgive me for being a nitpicker, but temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles, not force. I recognize that doesn't affect the point you're trying to make.T Clark

    I am aware of that and I didn't say that temperature is related to force.
  • T Clark
    1.8k
    Can you give me an example, except than consciousness, of a property of a system that is not function of properties of system's parts?bahman

    The other example I gave was life.

    I am aware of that and I didn't say that temperature is related to force.bahman

    You're right.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.