tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3199614896735517472..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: From the naturalism workshop, part IUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83604153487709313292012-11-04T21:19:48.437-05:002012-11-04T21:19:48.437-05:00See my further thoughts in Workshop Part II commen...See my further thoughts in Workshop Part II comments. I am simply not keen on concepts that rely on a series of observer-dependent qualities, and so am looking for ways to put the concept of emergence on firmer footing such that informed observers can agree as to whether a particular phenomenon should be labeled "emergent" or not, given a common state of information. Or even better, to be able to agree to what *degree* it is emergent. Batterman's approach is already a step in this direction--algorithmic complexity-based approaches seem to me to offer the opportunity to generalize and extend. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69074680630586401442012-11-02T23:15:50.349-04:002012-11-02T23:15:50.349-04:00I see Kevin, maybe appears rational because clever...I see Kevin, maybe appears rational because clever goblins got the loop started in the first place. DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2712616771837157212012-10-31T16:41:46.931-04:002012-10-31T16:41:46.931-04:00So, you're saying "emergent" is some...So, you're saying "emergent" is some sort of philosophical equivalent of a "god of the gaps"?<br /><br />And, re Price's equation and whether evolution is algorithmic or not, I still stand by the criticism of Gould (and others).Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60599480034580631172012-10-31T11:33:58.494-04:002012-10-31T11:33:58.494-04:00Fascinating discussion. It's a shame Harris di...Fascinating discussion. It's a shame Harris didn't show! I predict you'd have extracted a lot of surprising concessions from him, suitably extricated from the dialectic with postmodernists and supernaturalists.<br /><br />'Explanatory level' does seem to be a rather confused idea, conflating the very general idea of explanatory hierarchy (where some facts asymmetrically account for others; the existence of electrons helps us understand why broccoli exists, but not the other way around), of the restricted body of referents (and conceptualizations thereof) of a scientific discipline's theories, of size, etc. But we should be careful not to leave anything out when we cannibalize all the useful component ideas; there is also a hierarchy of precisification, where terms tend to have vaguer truth-conditions the further they get from physics. The mereological and developmental boundaries of a heart made of atoms include all the intrinsic vagueness of atoms, and then some.<br /><br />You criticize the in-principle reducibility of all phenomena to physics as "a metaphysical promissory note that will never be cashed". But there are many reasonable positions in this neighborhood that we don't consider crazy; it is reasonable to suppose that all non-avian dinosaurs were made of atoms, even though we can't actually check each individual's composition to confirm this. The denial of strong emergence should not be treated as a dogma or scientific sine-qua-non; it should be treated as a tentative null hypothesis, and as a challenge to find a disconfirming case. Universal generalizations are much harder to prove than to disprove, which inclines me to place more of the burden of proof on the anti-reductionists, who have a vastly easier case to make if correct.<br /><br />You report that Dennett argued that "If lower levels entail (logically) higher phenomena," we would not expect beings with different biochemical properties to converge upon the same large-scale behaviors. That's got it backwards; it's only if the higher phenomena (e.g., economics) entail the lower level (e.g., chemistry) that we should automatically doubt high-level convergence. Likewise, in to your criticism of Rosenberg's "the physical facts fix all the facts," you say that the multiple realizability of a macro-model by micro-models may make inferring the right micro-model impossible in some cases. But this only problematizes higher levels' ability to fix physics, not physics' ability to fix more general, complex, large-scale, or imprecise facts.<br /><br />Finally, you suggest that the existence of boundary conditions entails a kind of emergence. Does this mean you reject Deacon's claim: "emergence is inherently diachronic, i.e., emergent properties are behaviors that did not appear up to a certain time in the history of the universe." ?Robby Bensingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578746611329967989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67391286185727507422012-10-29T18:35:33.923-04:002012-10-29T18:35:33.923-04:00Ah, so the evo bio among us proposes that there ar...Ah, so the evo bio among us proposes that there are human behavioral abilities that are discontinuous with the hundreds of millions of years of evolution!<br /><br />Pray tell what are these exceptional human behaviors and where did they originate genetically and ecologically? <br /><br />Ah, so censorship, not because the ideas contradict your beliefs but because of "style." The same argument all repressive ideologies make "rudeness." Turns out "free thinkers" are only so inside the confines of their pet ideas. Where does your use of the term "bullshit" stand in your style requirement. Highly hypocritical -- but predictable.<br /><br />You have no control of your reactive defensive/fear- based behavior -- best not to pretend otherwise. lol You fear new and different ideas but pretend it is social norms/politeness. Not true. Dare you to post this.<br /><br />We don't give in to online bullies - duh. lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43165597335388127202012-10-29T18:33:14.652-04:002012-10-29T18:33:14.652-04:00I responded to the posts purporting to define what...I responded to the posts purporting to define what is merely the complicated aggregations of constituents as 'emergence'. There is no definition of emergence. It assumes some kind of intactness obeying some kind of teleology when in fact its all driven from below, as retrospect shows.DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-41441939333058772272012-10-29T18:11:26.213-04:002012-10-29T18:11:26.213-04:00And I said if you can't even read retrospectiv...And I said if you can't even read retrospectively, what have you got? Nix. It's difficult enough to read restrospect well enough to predict from it, but you are dropping retrospect in the bin.DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53053844338325263882012-10-29T17:39:51.106-04:002012-10-29T17:39:51.106-04:00kevin,
> if any of the so-called exceptional h...kevin,<br /><br />> if any of the so-called exceptional human qualities were useful we would find them in other species and they would have evolved far earlier. <<br /><br />As an evolutionary biologist I guarantee you that the above sentence is sheer nonsense.<br /><br />> The brain is just another organ of the body. duh <<br /><br />If I read another "duh" from you my "post hoc verbal behavior that is social signaling" will signal to my fingers to type "reject" from your next comment. Fair warning.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52968993955324034122012-10-29T16:03:15.086-04:002012-10-29T16:03:15.086-04:00Yes, writing is just post hoc verbal behavior that...Yes, writing is just post hoc verbal behavior that is social signaling based on local norms and carries little information value.<br /><br />Information value is based on predicting the future. Math and data predict the future not natural language. In addition, it appears that writing/language is way after the fact of it's creation/triggering. No one has the time or energy to think about every word or action.<br /><br />Again, if any of the so-called exceptional human qualities were useful we would find them in other species and they would have evolved far earlier.<br /><br />Naive realism and local natural language usage and reification is self-defeating. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15600174301634447152012-10-29T15:27:31.075-04:002012-10-29T15:27:31.075-04:00Dave,
> If it's not understandable in retr...Dave,<br /><br />> If it's not understandable in retrospect, its not going to be predictable either, so you are outside science there. <<br /><br />You have a strange conception of science, and you clearly don't bother to read what I write. I said that what you think can be read retrospectively via evolution is wishful thinking, partly because it is too complex, partly because you need emergent properties to achieve that understanding. No magic involved.<br /><br />> Emergence is just ignorance of retrospect as the tool to explain, in preference for amazement that things change when they aggregate. <<br /><br />You keep ignoring the actual argument, preferring rhetorical flourish. Suit yourself.<br /><br />Kevin,<br /><br />> The fact appears to be that what we call rational thought is just locally, normed talk (chit chat) and is entirely epiphenomenal and may be deceptive about actual brain processes controlling behavior. <<br /><br />And I suppose this includes what you just wrote? You see how nonsensical that sort of thinking becomes if pushed to the extreme? It's one think to note that human beings can rationalize and confabulate, but if one goes so far as to say that there is no rational thought at all, then one is being both irrational and self-defeating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44457453084684731182012-10-29T14:11:39.974-04:002012-10-29T14:11:39.974-04:00The fact appears to be that what we call rational ...The fact appears to be that what we call rational thought is just locally, normed talk (chit chat) and is entirely epiphenomenal and may be deceptive about actual brain processes controlling behavior.<br /><br />A rule of nature is that "Information is expensive" and so called "thought" which is really just social verbal behavior/self reports is very cheap and easy to collect. Thus, it has little information value.<br /><br />Consciousness and weighing of options etc. is not needed to say do math. That appears to happen largely unconsciously in in milliseconds.<br /><br />But the sales pitch of "rational thought" is a very clever and effective sales promise/tactic. But like most sales promises likely a simple lie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48628623825287025502012-10-29T10:31:10.480-04:002012-10-29T10:31:10.480-04:00If it's not understandable in retrospect, its ...If it's not understandable in retrospect, its not going to be predictable either, so you are outside science there. Emergence is just ignorance of retrospect as the tool to explain, in preference for amazement that things change when they aggregate. DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-28107443764445600482012-10-29T10:09:35.732-04:002012-10-29T10:09:35.732-04:00Dave,
> The problem is there is no definition ...Dave,<br /><br />> The problem is there is no definition of emergence <<br /><br />The problem is that you haven't read what I just wrote in the past few days. I gave you a very articulated definition of emergence (from Humphreys) and a solid mathematical description of emergent phenomena (from Batterman). What else do you want?<br /><br />> That's evolution, understandable in retrospect, nothing more <<br /><br />I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I can tell you that that's just wishful thinking, nothing more.<br /><br />Kevin,<br /><br />> There probably is nothing like "rational thought." <<br /><br />Seriously? So math and logic, just to pick two examples, aren't examples of rational thinking? Wow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84101611598455004112012-10-29T10:04:04.452-04:002012-10-29T10:04:04.452-04:00There probably is nothing like "rational thou...There probably is nothing like "rational thought." What seems to happen is talk/verbal behavior that follows local norms and conventions. Of course, it is a continuous looping feedback process. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47175771973940740012012-10-29T00:17:09.834-04:002012-10-29T00:17:09.834-04:00The problem is there is no definition of emergence...The problem is there is no definition of emergence, its just an opportunity to talk about your favorite area of study and call it emergent in any company, good for academics to muse over, but a red herring.<br /><br />Everything evolves by aggregation of hydrogen & helium (or their constituents) after the big bang, right through to aggregation as a human being. Tracking the potential of H & He to do that is the aim of science generally, and it by changing properties as the constituent particles & fields arrange in different ways. That's evolution, understandable in retrospect. <br /><br />Emergence is nothing. It's just saying that as constituents aggregate they become complicated beyond an understanding of their 'constiuents' separately. That's evolution, understandable in retrospect, nothing more. Any system is a 'whole' that can be tracked historically to see how it was created from constituents. <br /><br />We need more endeavor in tracking and explaining and less in useless red herrings that try to flip concepts to no purpose. The plot gets thick quick after the big bang: who could say that the properties of hydrogen could change crucially into deuterium just by aggregating a neutron with a proton and yet, they have that...potential.<br />DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46983644648659946052012-10-29T00:00:43.132-04:002012-10-29T00:00:43.132-04:00Another interpretation of the same data is that th...Another interpretation of the same data is that the brain is representing the state of the anatomy in awareness by cycles of impulses that build to representations, building to decisions and then more to actions. <br /><br />Obvious descisions and actions do not arise instantaneously, they arise gradually from subtle preparation that can be short circuited by a subject just by looking at an imperceptible subtle tendency (even a habit) build on a scan and changing their mind. <br /><br />It's just a recognition of building to perceptual awareness, which has no consequences for free will, merely for self-awareness due to building and subsiding impulses. DaveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588445807090485179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55908323544582850172012-10-28T18:13:31.873-04:002012-10-28T18:13:31.873-04:00Here is a simple example of the fallacy of "e...Here is a simple example of the fallacy of "emergence" as a different order of experience.<br /><br />Ant nervous systems are very simple pretty much on-off behavior drivers. Taken together they form very complicated societies -- from lots of very simple behaviors.<br /><br />Pretty simple.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57743163364976941302012-10-28T18:09:43.925-04:002012-10-28T18:09:43.925-04:00Never let your opponent define you. By accepting ...Never let your opponent define you. By accepting philosophical-theological-ideological framing of what should be only discussions of data and research -- the evidence-based position loses and false ideas take up all the time.<br /><br />Brain research is the farthest thing from "fascinating" it is the fundamental knowledge of them all since brain processes define animal behavior > human behavior > verbal behavior > all knowledge. <br /><br />Letting philosophy frame the discussion is as false as letting any other magical thinking and ideology. Ultimately, philosophy is just magical thinking:"words matter" - they don't. Neither does consciousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48165342904347375822012-10-28T14:00:56.337-04:002012-10-28T14:00:56.337-04:00That was beautiful. thanksThat was beautiful. thankssemidemiurgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00936835034592200336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20724998330604010162012-10-28T10:17:47.293-04:002012-10-28T10:17:47.293-04:00I'd like to propose an explanation of Weinberg...I'd like to propose an explanation of Weinberg's use of the word "entails". The behaviour of a system at a lower level entails a higher level phenomenon if the higher level phenomenon could in principle be seen in a simulation of the lower level entities.<br /><br />For example, it's not unusual to refer to the behaviour of a flock of birds as emergent. But I believe it's the case that the behaviour of a flock of birds can be simulated (roughly) by simulating the behaviour of individual birds and how they react to what they see other birds doing. In that sense, the behaviour of the flock is determined by the behaviour of the individual birds, i.e. the latter "entails" the former.<br /><br />A similar point could be made about the behaviour of economies, which in principle could be simulated at the level of individual people.<br /><br />Massimo, would you call these cases of emergence? If not, would I be right in thinking that you are referring to phenomena that <i>couldn't</i> be seen in a simulation of lower level entities?<br /><br />Personally, I don't know enough about physics to assess examples from physics, such as phase transitions. And I'm willing to entertain the possibility that things are different at the lowest levels of description. (I'm sympathetic to the view that there may be no ultimate level of description of nature, and no ultimate entities.) But at higher levels I see no useful role for the concept of emergence.Richard Weinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18095903892283146064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45015436559543449492012-10-28T08:42:32.712-04:002012-10-28T08:42:32.712-04:00Thanks, and as far as I can see this is simply a l...Thanks, and as far as I can see this is simply a language issue, me not being a native speaker and all. The only meaning of contingent that I was aware of is "dependent on", but apparently it can also mean "uncertain", which I did not know until today but which appears to be the one that is used in philosophy. I find it a bit unfortunate, really, that the same word can have meanings that are so very different, but well, that is for Anglo-Saxons to decide...Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25094142114050914572012-10-28T08:23:11.397-04:002012-10-28T08:23:11.397-04:00Alex,
contingency means that things could have go...Alex,<br /><br />contingency means that things could have gone otherwise, which is precluded in a deterministic universe. As far as I know, the only way to get true contingency from the laws of physics is through quantum mechanical indeterminacy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49405970464430481782012-10-28T00:56:25.540-04:002012-10-28T00:56:25.540-04:00As is true with any experiment, the conclusions re...As is true with any experiment, the conclusions reached are often colored by a preconception of what the experiment was to confirm. This is subjectivism, which is inherent in <i>any</i> study, since the 'data' is only one component, and subject to interpretation.<br /><br />From the Libet paper, <br /><br /><i>"Next, the team repeated Libet's experiment, but this time if, while waiting to act spontaneously, the volunteers heard a click they had to act immediately. The researchers predicted that the fastest response to the click would be seen in those in whom the accumulation of neural noise had neared the threshold – something that would show up in their EEG as a readiness potential.<br /><br />This is exactly what the team found. In those with slower responses to the click, the readiness potential was absent in the EEG recordings."</i><br /><br />Consider the possibility that with fast responses to a stimuli, there may be a choice of action, either a programmed response [the handling of a fast ground ball to a shortstop, or a quick driver's response to someone jutting in front of his moving vehicle], or one of deliberation, however brief. The first occurs in milliseconds [150-250], the second somewhat longer.<br /><br />A 'readiness potential [RP]' is <b>always</b> there, IMO, based on accumulated experience, but can be overridden by a deliberative response, or by a combination of the two. My assessment is that the brain does in fact make decisions, but in most cases only colors perceptions based on prior data [experience], and may act unilaterally in cases of necessitated urgency.<br /><br />An example: If a child dashes into ones vehicle path, the braking function is virtually automatic. But as the pedal is slammed, 'conscious intervention [CI]' steps in to possibly (1) terminate the action, or (2) to [in this case] adjust the pedal pressure, due to a quick assessment of speed, road conditions, and distance to subject, for optimal stopping distance.<br /><br />In the case of the short stop, the conditioned response may be routine [programmed], but be mediated by the ball taking an unusual hop, in which case the fielder may take a sliding dive, a non-standard, conscious, and in effect a <i>mediated</i> response to his usual one.<br /><br />In short, although the study has implications regarding programmed, or RP type responses, conscious thought by other means may be an operative as well. Both further studies, along with truly objective and unbiased assessments of the data are plainly on the table for consideration.<br /><br />One final note. I have no a priori notions or desires that free will or a form of duality be true; just rational thought regarding the various data.<br />Lee Bowmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11032697992689736055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71391815532214614572012-10-27T22:57:38.980-04:002012-10-27T22:57:38.980-04:00This is very, very interesting. Just one question,...This is very, very interesting. Just one question, re:<br /><br /><i>if the universe is not deterministic but contingent (as there are good reasons to believe).</i><br /><br />I don't understand why contingency and determination are considered mutually exclusive. For example, the evolution of hominids is clearly contingent on the prior evolution of mammals, but that does not stand in a contradiction with the claim (whether it is true or not) that the evolution of hominids was predetermined billions of years ago, with the evolution of mammals one of the intermediate steps in that deterministic chain of events.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76134801107117097882012-10-27T22:24:54.706-04:002012-10-27T22:24:54.706-04:00LadyAtheist,
that's a bit of a simplistic and...LadyAtheist,<br /><br />that's a bit of a simplistic and not very constructive way of looking at the contributions of philosophy. You may want to reconsider.<br /><br />Evan,<br /><br />here is a useful introductory link:<br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.com