I don't get how that answers my question to T Clark. — Patterner

I was trying to give some ideas on emergence. It wasn't an answer for your questions to TC.

Let's take an example. X = triangle, Y = lines.
If a triangle emerged from lines, then the triangle must exist separate from the lines.
That doesn't make sense to me. — SolarWind

The triangle was made up with the lines. It didn't emerge from the lines.

I was trying to give some ideas on emergence. It wasn't an answer for your questions to TC. — Corvus

Ok. I seem to be experiencing operating difficulties lately.

If X emerged from Y, then X must exist separate from Y.
— Corvus

Let's take an example. X = triangle, Y = lines.
If a triangle emerged from lines, then the triangle must exist separate from the lines.
That doesn't make sense to me. — SolarWind

It didn't make sense to me either. How about an example of emergence that I think a lot of people agree on?
X = liquidity
Y = the properties of particles and the laws of physics

I don't see how X exists separate from Y.

I don't see how X exists separate from Y. — Patterner

Does liquidity emerge from the properties of particles? Could you explain how it happens in detail?

The triangle was made up with the lines. It didn't emerge from the lines. — Corvus

In my opinion, this is an emergence. You can also draw (too short) lines that do NOT form a triangle.

So the triangle depends on the configuration, just like in a physical example.

I just think I'm not understanding you. It seems like you're saying we have tables made out of wood and nails, but we can't make tables out of wood and nails. — Patterner

I’ll start off with my clever response before I come back with my more straightforward one

Clever response—It’s not making the table out of wood and nails, it’s making the wood out of atoms and molecules.

Straightforward response—As I said, I can’t think of anything else to say that might convince you or at least help you understand what I’m trying to say. I don’t think my own understanding is good enough to come up with something better.

In my opinion, this is an emergence. You can also draw (too short) lines that do NOT form a triangle.

So the triangle depends on the configuration, just like in a physical example. — SolarWind

So, you are saying the triangle is not a separate existence from the lines. Is this correct?
Does it mean the triangle is the lines, and triangle exists in the lines?

It sounds something not quite correct too. Emergence is an event on its own. You don't make up things to make something to emerge. If you did, then you wouldn't call it emergence.

A triangle can only be made from the lines by your intervention either by your drawing it, or making it up with the straight lines of wire or sticks. It is your doings, fabrication or workings whatever you may call it, but it is not an emergence.

Does liquidity emerge from the properties of particles? — Corvus

Yes. Things happen consistently. H2O is liquid within a range of temperatures and pressures, solid at others, gas at others. This is not due to random chance. If that was the case, why would they occur consistently?

Could you explain how it happens in detail? — Corvus

Well, since you didn't ask for much.


:rofl:

I'll do this much. I'll use water as the example, because it's amazing stuff. I suspect everybody knows a lot of this, but it's step-by-step. I'll also touch on a few other things along the way.

Protons are positively charged, so they repel each other. When they are forced close enough together, such as by the immense gravity in a star, the strong nuclear force holds them together. (And breaking protons apart releases the energy of the strong nuclear force. That's what a fission explosion is.)

Electrons are negatively charged, and attracted to protons.

Atoms are electrons circling protons. The protons are called the nucleus. In all but hydrogen, there are two or more protons held together by the strong nuclear force. (There are usually also neutrons in the nucleus.)

The number of electrons circling the nucleus is equal to the number of protons in the nucleus. The electrons occupy shells around the nucleus. The first electron shell, closest to the nucleus, can be occupied by two electrons. Once the first electron shell is filled, electrons begin filling the second electron shell, which can be occupied by eight electrons. Once the second electron shell is filled, electrons begin filling the third electron shell, which can be occupied by eighteen electrons. And so on.

A very important thing about electron shells is that the outer shell is most stable with eight electrons. This is called the octet rule. If there are eight electrons in the outer shell (the valence electrons), the element tends to be inert. That is, they are nonreactive/don't much interact with other elements. These elements - helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon - are called the "noble gases", because, like people of the noble classes, they don't mix with the commoners. (Helium doesn't have 8 electrons in its outer shell. It only has 2 electrons, after all. But its only electron shell, the first, is full, so it is also fairly nonreactive.)

Oxygen has eight protons and eight electrons. The first electron shell is filled with two electrons. The second electron shell has six electrons. The second electron shell wants two more electrons to satisfy the octet rule. Famously, oxygen bonds with two hydrogen atoms. The lone electrons of the two hydrogen atoms give oxygen 8 in its outer shell, and, at the same time, oxygen shares one of it's electrons with each hydrogen, filling their outer (and only) shells.

Because oxygen has eight protons to hydrogen's one, the shared electrons are drawn more strongly to the oxygen than to the hydrogens. This gives the oxygen a slightly negative charge, and the hydrogens slightly positive charges. [A water molecule is an example of a redox (reduction-oxidation) reaction. Oxygen's charge is "reduced", and the hydrogens have been "oxidized".]

Water molecules bond to each other through what are called hydrogen bonds. The hydrogen atoms of one molecule, which, if you remember, are somewhat positively charged because their electrons are drawn to the larger oxygen nucleus, are attracted to the oxygen of another molecule, which are somewhat negatively charged because they have drawn in their hydrogens' electrons. These hydrogen bonds are strong enough to hold when the temperature is low enough, and the molecules aren't moving around much. But when the temperature is higher, and the molecules are moving around enough, the hydrogen bonds are constantly forming and breaking. Liquid!!! :grin:

Even though I've reached liquidity, there's more great stuff!!

In a water molecule, oxygen has two electrons that are each paired with a hydrogen electron, and four of its own that are in two pairs, called "lone pairs". The electron clouds of the lone pairs are bigger than the electron clouds of the two hydrogen/oxygen pairs of electrons, meaning they have a stronger repulsion, so they take up more room. This forces the hydrogen atoms closer together, and the overall angle of the molecules ends up at about 104.5°. When water freezes, that angle forces the molecules into a lattice that is less dense than liquid water. That's the reason for the unusual fact that ice floats in water, instead of sinking. Which means that, while the top of the pond is frozen, life continues below. If ice sank, and the pond filled up from the bottom, life on earth would be extremely different, if it existed at all.

Another interesting thing about the shape of the water molecule is that the oxygen end of the molecule has a negative charge, and the end with the two hydrogens has a positive charge. Many things dropped into water are dissolved because, whether that are positively or negatively charged, one or the other end of the water molecule can bind to it and break it down. This is why water is called the universal solvent.

All that comes from the facts that electrons are negatively charged, protons are positively charged, and the nature of electron shells.

Just proofread the above for the umpteenth time. Realized I said the second electron shell holds up to eighty electrons. :lol: It now says eight.

Also "the outer shell is most stable with eighty electrons" now says eight. Etc.

Yes. Things happen consistently. H2O is liquid within a range of temperatures and pressures, solid at others, gas at others. This is not due to random chance. If that was the case, why would they occur consistently? — Patterner

But when the temperature is higher, and the molecules are moving around enough, the hydrogen bonds are constantly forming and breaking. Liquid!!! :grin: — Patterner

Very thorough and detailed explanation indeed. :up: :pray: Thank you. Yes, it seems definitely a cause and effect relation exists in the process. However, could we say the process is emergence? Isn't liquidity a property of H2O in certain temperature range? And what is happening to H2O via temperature changes is just transformation of the property?

It would help for analyzing alleged emergence of consciousness for its validity, if we could further analyze what emergence means.

If consciousness emerged from brain, then why all consciousness differ from other consciousness?
Does it mean that our brain structure is all different from individual to individual? If so, how does our brain structure differ? Or is it same?

Surely if brain structure were all identical, then our consciousness must be all identical too. But we don't even know what others' consciousness is like apart from being able to see and hear their conscious actions, behaviors and expressions in words. This is another question arising.

could we say the process is emergence? Isn't liquidity a property of H2O in certain temperature range? And what is happening to H2O via temperature changes is just transformation of the property? — Corvus

Liquidity is not a property of the individual building blocks. Not of the molecules of H2O, not of the atoms of hydrogen or oxygen that make up the molecule, and not of the primary particles that make up the atoms. Liquidity emerges when enough H2O molecules are together, and it happens at the specific temperatures and pressures it does because of the specific properties of the primary particles, atoms, and molecules. Other substances are liquids in different ranges of temperatures and pressures, because the properties of their molecules and or atoms are different from those of H2O, oxygen, or hydrogen.

It would help for analyzing alleged emergence of consciousness for its validity, if we could further analyze what emergence means. — Corvus

For consciousness to be emergent from the physical properties of the constituent parts, it would need to have physical characteristics, itself. Liquids have definite volume, but not shape. They are liquids under specific conditions. These characteristics are observable and measurable, and it can be seen that they exist, and are specifically what they are for each liquid, because of the specific properties of their constituents.

None of that applies to consciousness. The problem isn't that we cannot figure out how the physical characteristics of consciousness emerge from the properties of its constituents. That is something that, in theory, we could eventually figure out. The problem is, consciousness does not have physical characteristics.

None of that applies to consciousness. The problem isn't that we cannot figure out how the physical characteristics of consciousness emerge from the properties of its constituents. That is something that, in theory, we could eventually figure out. The problem is, consciousness does not have physical characteristics. — Patterner

That was my point all along too. We have agreement here. :fire: :sparkle:

Just a couple of brief notes:

Here's what Anderson says:

...the reductionist hypothesis does not by any means imply a “constructionist” one: The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe...

...The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. The behavior of large and complex aggregates of elementary particles, it turns out, is not to be understood in terms of a simple extrapolation of the properties of a few particles. Instead, at each level of complexity entirely new properties appear, and the understanding of the new behaviors requires research which I think is as fundamental in its nature as any other... — P.W. Anderson - More is Different — T Clark

This is going to confuse a lot of folk, because what Anderson describes as "reductionism" is more commonly known as supervenience, while reductionism is what he calls "constructionism," more or less.

Do you think, or do you think it’s possible, to explain and predict the principles of biology from the principles of physics. Here’s a list of some of those principles— evolutionary theory, physiology, genetics, thermodynamics, and ecology. Once you’ve done that, you need to explain and predict how those principles will interact and integrate to produce biological organisms and how they historically evolve and develop as energy-processing, self-regulating systems. — T Clark

This (the inability to predict the principles of a higher-level theory from the principles of a lower-level theory) is what Bedeau called weak emergence:

And his definition is, roughly, something's emergent if it shows up in a simulation. — Srap Tasmaner

That is, if all you had to work with was an understanding of the principles of something like physics, then, since you can't deduce from them the principles of something like biology, your only option would be to run a simulation on a large scale and then coarse-grain and redescribe the result with a new set of principles. Under strong emergence, even that is not an option.

This is why I was surprised that you confidently asserted that biology is strongly emergent and then cited Anderson, since I don't think Anderson makes such a distinction.

Why are you nice to some people and a jackass to others when everybody you're talking to is equally stupid?

you confidently asserted that biology is strongly emergent — SophistiCat

That you is @T Clark not me, I believe.

Do you know the Fodor article on the special sciences I mentioned? It's from right around the same time as Philip Anderson's article. Without using the word "emergence" (that I recall), what he's talking about is precisely the sciences of emergent properties, emergent objects. Rather than claim that an emergent object (like a tornado, the classic example, or a monetary system, his) cannot be reduced to physical objects—which by and large he wants to allow they can—he focuses on the problem of the natural kinds in which you would state a scientific law, and argues at some length that the natural kinds of the special sciences cannot be natural kinds for physics. Even though the phenomena—like tornadoes—are physical, the science of them cannot be physics. He seems to land almost exactly where Anderson does, and near Bedau, for somewhat different reasons.

Just to make it simpler, a point is simpler than a line, so how does a triangle emerge from a point? How about the other way around?

strong emergence — SophistiCat

Everything it occurred to me to talk about clearly went in the "weak emergence" bucket. Am I right in thinking that part of the motivation for the stronger version was the idea of "multiple realizability," and in particular speculation that you might find "mind" running on wetware or hardware?

I suppose the idea does have some merit, because we do see what you might call "convergent emergence," where very different underlying systems give rise to similar systems. The most recent example I heard was the application of Cory Doctorow's theory of enshitification to US foreign policy: it's more than an analogy if you have the right abstraction for "platform" (social media, financial system, etc).

This is why I was surprised that you confidently asserted that biology is strongly emergent and then cited Anderson, since I don't think Anderson makes such a distinction. — SophistiCat

Anderson does not use the term “emergence” in his 1972 article. As I quoted above he states “The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe...”

Since the universe was constructed from those laws, there is no reason that those laws couldn't do it again. But no human, if given the power to create a Big Bang, and the power to manipulate anything using any of those laws any time and anywhere, could reconstruct this universe. Is that what you mean?

If consciousness is not physical, then it is either mental existence of the Cartesian nature or it doesn't exist. Does consciousness exist as soul or spirit, or is it just function and operation of the complex biological beings? Or is it just a word describing the perceptive ability and behavior of conscious beings?

Since the universe was constructed from those laws, there is no reason that those laws couldn't do it again. — Patterner

Right, but as the universe evolved, water waves came into existence, and understanding them means recognizing laws that weren't applicable to the preceding plasma. In other words, if the universe started over, some kind of emergence would happen again, right?

If consciousness is not physical, then it is either mental existence of the Cartesian nature or it doesn't exist. Does consciousness exist as soul or spirit, or is it just function and operation of the complex biological beings? Or is it just a word describing the perceptive ability and behavior of conscious beings? — Corvus

My guess is that consciousness is fundamental, a property of particles, just like things like mass, charge, and spin are.

Right, but as the universe evolved, water waves came into existence, and understanding them means recognizing laws that weren't applicable to the preceding plasma. In other words, if the universe started over, some kind of emergence would happen again, right? — frank

If this do-over has the same initial conditions and properties, I would think it would produce the same primary particles. If so, I would think those primary particles would combine in the same ways we are familiar with, and we would see familiar emergences. But would we see all of them? Would H2O ever form? If so, would it ever exist in a place where it would be a liquid? Who can say?

If this do-over has the same initial conditions and properties, I would think it would produce the same primary particles. If so, I would think those primary particles would combine in the same ways we are familiar with, and we would see familiar emergences. But would we see all of them? Would H2O ever form? If so, would it ever exist in a place where it would be a liquid? Who can say? — Patterner

I'm not sure that any possibility is likely. The initial conditions and their evolution into their present state were not necessary, they just happened as they did in this particular universe. There are other possibilities for more and different kinds of dimensions and time in other possible universes. There is no reason to conclude that this is the only universe in an infinite foam of diverse universes each with its unique set of dimensions and forces. In a do-over we would be one of them and not this one. Entirely different physics with or without particles would rule.

My guess is that consciousness is fundamental, a property of particles, just like things like mass, charge, and spin are. — Patterner

What is the ground for it being fundamental? IOW, how is it fundamental?

Since the universe was constructed from those laws, there is no reason that those laws couldn't do it again — Patterner

The universe was not constructed from or by the laws of science. Those laws describe how that universe works and its history.

But no human, if given the power to create a Big Bang, and the power to manipulate anything using any of those laws any time and anywhere, could reconstruct this universe. Is that what you mean? — Patterner

No, not really. Let’s try this…

Let’s say you decide to go for a ramble someplace with no pathways, no roads, no towns, no landmarks. You don’t make any plans. You don’t have a map or compass. You don’t have any goals. You just go out for a walk. You wander around deciding which way to go—each moment depending only on your desire at that particular moment. Or maybe you could make your decisions by rolling a die.

When you’re all done, if I’ve been watching, I can look back and see the path you we’re on, and where you went—to oversimplify, that’s reduction. But I couldn’t have predicted that path before you started.

I don’t anticipate that thought experiment will be any more convincing than my previous arguments.

I'm not sure that any possibility is likely. The initial conditions and their evolution into their present state were not necessary, they just happened as they did in this particular universe. There are other possibilities for more and different kinds of dimensions and time in other possible universes. There is no reason to conclude that this is the only universe in an infinite foam of diverse universes each with its unique set of dimensions and forces. In a do-over we would be one of them and not this one. Entirely different physics with or without particles would rule. — magritte

Although you're right, I believe the conversation of the moment is about whether or not the same initial conditions, properties, and laws would lead to a universe pretty much like ours. Some might think it would lead to an exact duplicate of ours. Some might think it would have extremely limited similarity to ours.

What is the ground for it being fundamental? IOW, how is it fundamental? — Corvus

If you're asking what, exactly, consciousness is, I couldn't imagine. But, as Brian Greene writes in Until the End of Time: Mind, Matter, and Our Search for Meaning in an Evolving Universe:

If you’re wondering what proto-consciousness really is or how it’s infused into a particle, your curiosity is laudable, but your questions are beyond what Chalmers or anyone else can answer. Despite that, it is helpful to see these questions in context. If you asked me similar questions about mass or electric charge, you would likely go away just as unsatisfied. I don’t know what mass is. I don’t know what electric charge is. What I do know is that mass produces and responds to a gravitational force, and electric charge produces and responds to an electromagnetic force. So while I can’t tell you what these features of particles are, I can tell you what these features do. In the same vein, perhaps researchers will be unable to delineate what proto-consciousness is and yet be successful in developing a theory of what it does—how it produces and responds to consciousness. For gravitational and electromagnetic influences, any concern that substituting action and response for an intrinsic definition amounts to an intellectual sleight of hand is, for most researchers, alleviated by the spectacularly accurate predictions we can extract from our mathematical theories of these two forces. Perhaps we will one day have a mathematical theory of proto-consciousness that can make similarly successful predictions. For now, we don’t.

I italicized the two instances of "I don't know" because Greene emphasizes them in his reading of the book. So if a fairly competent physicist doesn't know what a couple of important physical properties are - properties that we know certainly exist because of the effects they have on things, effects that we have measured with incredible precision - then I'm not going to worry that we can't do more for a non-physical property. We know what it does, because we are all conscious. We can't measure what it does to any degree, because consciousness does not have physical characteristics to measure. So we can't calculate, "The consciousness present in 426,000,000,000 particles ideas tried to..."

Since the universe was constructed from those laws, there is no reason that those laws couldn't do it again
— Patterner

The universe was not constructed from or by the laws of science. Those laws describe how that universe works and its history. — T Clark

Ok. How about this...
Since the history and operation of the universe is the result of properties that can be described in specific, consistent ways, with great precision, there is no reason that a universe with initial conditions and properties that could be described exactly the same ways could borrow produce another universe much like this one.

I don’t anticipate that thought experiment will be any more convincing than my previous arguments. — T Clark

Honestly, I'm just trying to understand your position. I can see my agreement going either way.

Let’s say you decide to go for a ramble someplace with no pathways, no roads, no towns, no landmarks. You don’t make any plans. You don’t have any goals. You just go out for a walk. You wander around deciding which way to go—each moment depending only on your desire at that particular moment. Or maybe you could make your decisions by rolling a die.

When you’re all done, if I’ve been watching, I can look back and see the path you we’re on, and where you went—to oversimplify, that’s reduction. But I couldn’t have predicted that path before you started. — T Clark

That's entirely true. I couldn't have predicted it, either. What's more, even if I had had a specific destination in mind, my path to it might have been unpredictable. Obstacles and distractions could take me any number of ways. So if your point all along has been the precise path, I definitely agree. If your point is that it's impossible for me to take the same path twice, I disagree, even though it is astronomically unlikely to happen.