God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

Daylight63 said:
Actually that's incorrect. Emergent Properties arise out of the interaction of complex systems of simpler things.

Here's the Wikipedia definition: "emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviors that its parts do not have on their own, and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole."

I googled an article here from the Encyclopedia Britannica about emergence in BIOLOGY: https://www.britannica.com/science/emergent-property

And here's an article about Emergence in Computer systems: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/emergent-property

So one doesn't need to explain at the fundamental quark level how aesthetic appreciation arises. There are countless systems we know are quite real and quite physical that manifest these emergent properties spontaneously.
Click to expand...
"Emergent properties" is a fancy term used when we do not understand the physical mechanism at the level of fundamental matter and physics.

The quarks and electrons in your brain are the same type of electrons and quarks found in your femur bone or in a rock.

Just waving one's arms vaguely and exclaiming 'emergent properties' does nothing to explain exactly how and why quarks and electrons in the mind produce a subjective mental experience and consciousness at the level of fundamental matter and physics.
 
Cypress said:
"Emergent properties" is a fancy term used when we do not understand the physical mechanism at the level of fundamental matter and physics.
Click to expand...

But they seem to arise spontaneously in complex systems. And it kind of makes sense, right? At a more simple level we ALL are familiar with synergistic effects of multiple components in a system. So emergence isn't really that foreign to us.

Cypress said:
The quarks and electrons in your brain are the same type of electrons and quarks found in your femur bone or in a rock.
Click to expand...

But not in the same configuration.

Cypress said:
Just waving one's arms vaguely and exclaiming 'emergent properties' does nothing to explain exactly how and why quarks and electrons in the mind produce a subjective mental experience and consciousness at the level of fundamental matter and physics.
Click to expand...

Well, it's math that's way out of my bailiwick (chaos and complexity). But since we know these things exist spontaneously in nature even in things that are not sentient and we DO understand the concept of synergistic behavior in complex systems it doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

But it's really only necessary if you want to limit the discussion to those things which can be objectively observed.

If we are freed from the constraints of evidence or even subjective experience of observers then I suppose anything is possible and equally likely.
 
Daylight63 said:
But they seem to arise spontaneously in complex systems. And it kind of makes sense, right? At a more simple level we ALL are familiar with synergistic effects of multiple components in a system. So emergence isn't really that foreign to us.



But not in the same configuration.



Well, it's math that's way out of my bailiwick (chaos and complexity). But since we know these things exist spontaneously in nature even in things that are not sentient and we DO understand the concept of synergistic behavior in complex systems it doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

But it's really only necessary if you want to limit the discussion to those things which can be objectively observed.

If we are freed from the constraints of evidence or even subjective experience of observers then I suppose anything is possible and equally likely.
Click to expand...
oh you mean like the significance of the passage of time, stfu?
 
Daylight63 said:
But they seem to arise spontaneously in complex systems. And it kind of makes sense, right? At a more simple level we ALL are familiar with synergistic effects of multiple components in a system. So emergence isn't really that foreign to us.



But not in the same configuration.



Well, it's math that's way out of my bailiwick (chaos and complexity). But since we know these things exist spontaneously in nature even in things that are not sentient and we DO understand the concept of synergistic behavior in complex systems it doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

But it's really only necessary if you want to limit the discussion to those things which can be objectively observed.

If we are freed from the constraints of evidence or even subjective experience of observers then I suppose anything is possible and equally likely.
Click to expand...
chaos and complexity is your bailiwick?

sounds arrogant and vague.
 
Fredo the Chicken said:
99p727.jpg
Click to expand...
I never expected you to take it since you know you'd lose, Fredo.
 
Lao Tse said:
chaos and complexity is your bailiwick?

sounds arrogant and vague.
Click to expand...

Please read the post. I said it was WAY OUT OF MY bailiwick.

That means I am NOT familiar with it.

Speaking of arrogance: posting something that indicates you didn't understand what you read and insulting someone based on it makes you look incompetent.
 
Daylight63 said:
Please read the post. I said it was WAY OUT OF MY bailiwick.

That means I am NOT familiar with it.

Speaking of arrogance: posting something that indicates you didn't understand what you read and insulting someone based on it makes you look incompetent.
Click to expand...
you;re putting this faith in something you don't even understand.

that;s dumb.
 
Daylight63 said:
But they seem to arise spontaneously in complex systems. And it kind of makes sense, right? At a more simple level we ALL are familiar with synergistic effects of multiple components in a system. So emergence isn't really that foreign to us.



But not in the same configuration.



Well, it's math that's way out of my bailiwick (chaos and complexity). But since we know these things exist spontaneously in nature even in things that are not sentient and we DO understand the concept of synergistic behavior in complex systems it doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch.

But it's really only necessary if you want to limit the discussion to those things which can be objectively observed.

If we are freed from the constraints of evidence or even subjective experience of observers then I suppose anything is possible and equally likely.
Click to expand...
Emergent properties is not a satisfactory scientific explanation because it's just a placeholder term for something we really don't understand at the fundamental level of physical reality.

Please explain in your own words using plain-spoken English a physical-materialist explanation for how and why the quarks and electrons in our brain, which are the exact same type of quarks and electrons composing a rock, produce complex consciousness and a complex subjective psychological experience.



The explanation has to be at the fundamental level of physics and matter - because the entire discussion I started was about the reductionism of physical materialists.
 
Cypress said:
Emergent properties is not a satisfactory scientific explanation because it's just a placeholder term for something we really don't understand at the fundamental level of physical reality.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure emergence is not just "hand waving" but a real characterized feature of complex physical systems. Temperature is an emergent property of atoms moving around in a fluid. None of the atoms have a temperature individually. But the interaction of the atoms together gives rise to temperature. I don't think anyone thinks there some "caloric essence" that must be imbued to the atoms.

But I'm in no position to go down that rabbit path other than to suggest that it really isn't incomprehensible that complex systems will give rise to properties not explicable by the individual members of an ensemble.

Cypress said:
Please explain in your own words using plain-spoken English a physical-materialist explanation for how and why the quarks and electrons in our brain, which are the exact same type of quarks and electrons composing a rock, produce complex consciousness and a complex subjective psychological experience.
Click to expand...

They are configured differently.

It's like asking someone to predict what the temperature of a quark is. It doesn't have one. But a bunch of quarks combined into atoms combined into molecules DOES. But none of the individual items has it nor can it be calculated or estimated from any single one of them.

 
IBDaMann said:
That doesn't make "air is good" worthy of discussion. Most of what the ancients considered to be wisdom is just expected common sense today, and does not merit anyone's time.


Next time, actually read the physics textbooks and do the sample problems.


Has Alfred White Northhead contributed to society in any meaningful way?
Click to expand...
So you don't read books, and haven't bothered to be curious about the framework and history of western civilization.

That totally makes sense, because you are a MAGA moron
 
Daylight63 said:
I'm pretty sure emergence is not just "hand waving" but a real characterized feature of complex physical systems. Temperature is an emergent property of atoms moving around in a fluid. None of the atoms have a temperature individually. But the interaction of the atoms together gives rise to temperature. I don't think anyone thinks there some "caloric essence" that must be imbued to the atoms.

But I'm in no position to go down that rabbit path other than to suggest that it really isn't incomprehensible that complex systems will give rise to properties not explicable by the individual members of an ensemble.



They are configured differently.

It's like asking someone to predict what the temperature of a quark is. It doesn't have one. But a bunch of quarks combined into atoms combined into molecules DOES. But none of the individual items has it nor can it be calculated or estimated from any single one of them.
Click to expand...
Okay, so we don't have a physical-materialist explanation for morality, consciousness, subjective psychological experience. And we are not even remotely close to having an adequate physical-scientific explanation at the fundamental level of physical reality.

That seems to be counter to what Richard Dawkins and other physical-reductionists were claiming
 
Cypress said:
Okay, so we don't have a physical-materialist explanation for morality, consciousness, subjective psychological experience. And we are not even remotely close to having an adequate physical-scientific explanation at the fundamental level of physical reality.

That seems to be counter to what Richard Dawkins and other physical-reductionists were claiming
Click to expand...
don't worry about it.

it;s not worthy of your admittedly good intellect.

it;s just nihilists who hate all meaning or value put on human life.
 
Cypress said:
Okay, so we don't have a physical-materialist explanation for morality, consciousness, subjective psychological experience. And we are not even remotely close to having an adequate physical-scientific explanation at the fundamental level of physical reality.
Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree. That's why I mentioned known physical effects.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top