|
|
|
THoR
Skeptic Friend
USA
151 Posts |
 Posted - 03/16/2006 : 18:16:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
I have a huge problem with the inconsistency of a composite having a single identity. Every particle in the cosmos has its own unique history
And when you can produce, mathematically describe, or even logically deduce the existance of one of these "me" particles... you'll be on to somehting.
All you have now is an unevidenced assertion that fails even simple examination and logical tests.
You have yet to even offer an explanation of why you dismiss the concept of emergent properties.
 is all you have.
"Emergent properties" is a doublespeak - smoke and mirrors - style of argument designed to be so esoteric that the unannointed will not question its validity. Basically it is . If something is wrong with the logic, it must be reality that is at fault.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#2
"Downward causation argument. Kim argues that both upward and same-level causation entail downward causation. Consider a property M1, at nonfundamental level L and time t1, that causes another property M2, at nonfundamental level L and time t2. (Read this as shorthand for the occurrence of M1 at t1 .) Since M2 is a property at a nonfundamental level, by hypothesis, it has emergence base, P2, at t2 at level L-1. Kim sees a tension in this situation because there appear to be two answers to why M2 is instantiated at t2: First, M2 is instantiated at t2 because M1 at t1 caused it (ex hypothesi); second, M2 must of (at least) nomological necessity be instantiated at t2 because its emergence base, P2, is present. There appears to be two competing causes for the instantiation of M2 at t2, jeopardizing M1's causal responsibility for M2. Kim suggests that to preserve M1's causal responsibility for M2, we must suppose that M1 causes M2 via causing its emergence base P2. This gives us a general principle: that we can cause a supervenient (and hence emergent) property only by causing its emergence base.
Note that both O'Connor and Humphreys resist Kim's two-stage argument here at this first stage, since they deny that emergent properties will synchronically supervene. For O'Connor, the conditions on an emergent feature are all prior to its occurrence, as would be true of any primitive property described by physics. And emergent properties themselves can have emergent properties directly at the emergent level. For Humphreys, the ‘basal' properties undergo fusion, and so cease to exist in the resulting emergent property. Thus the fusion Pli+1[x li](t1) can directly cause Pmi+1[x mi](t2) without first causing the i-level properties which upon undergoing fusion would result in Pmi+1[x mi](t2).
Causal exclusion argument. Kim's next step is to argue that emergent properties are epiphenomenal (and hence emergentism is incoherent). Here is his argument:
…I earlier argued that any upward causation or same-level causation of effect M* by cause M presupposes M's causation of M*'s lower level base, P* (it is supposed that M* is a higher-level property with a lower-level base; M* may or may not be an emergent property). But if this is a case of downward emergent causation, M is a higher-level property and as such it must have an emergent base, P. Now we are faced with P's threat to preempt M's status as a cause of P* (and hence of M*). For if causation is understood as nomological (law-based) sufficiency, P, as M's emergence base, is nomologically sufficient for it, and M, as P*'s cause, is nomologically sufficient for P*. Hence P is nomologically sufficient for P* and hence qualif |
| Edited by - THoR on 03/16/2006 18:19:12 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 21:11:11 [Permalink]
|
THoR said:
quote:
"Emergent properties" is a doublespeak - smoke and mirrors - style of argument designed to be so esoteric that the unannointed will not question its validity.
quote:
If something is wrong with the logic, it must be reality that is at fault.
The flawed logic belongs to you. Your entire diatribe about "me" particles is nothing more than meaningless nonsense without some evidence to support it.
If, for example, human consciousness is truly epiphenominal: What is the physical cause it accompanies?
You can posit a "me" particle all day long, but until you can demonstrate it's existance you are in the land of unevidenced assertions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2006 : 21:29:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by THoR
"Emergent properties" is a doublespeak - smoke and mirrors - style of argument designed to be so esoteric that the unannointed will not question its validity. Basically it is . If something is wrong with the logic, it must be reality that is at fault.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/#2
...
Any questions....there will be a test after this reading.
Yeah, I've got a question: why didn't you quote from the start of section 4?4. Possible Applications
Epistemological conceptions of emergence have clear and straightforward applications in current scientific contexts. Indeed, such notions have been carefully defined to capture macroscopic phenomena of current interest within the special sciences.
Whether there are any instances of ontological emergence is highly controversial... I'm pretty sure that nobody else but you has been discussing ontological emergence. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
