Is two more that sum of its part?

[STT]

So, interactions are phenomena.

What you experience as interaction is a phenomena. The type of interaction which exist between elementary particles is no a phenomena since there is no experience there.

If “not being” is a state for you, so be it. Don’t you call the change from “not being” to “being”, emergence? That is what happens to C in my example. And as we experience it’s interaction modes, we have there a set of emergent phenomena. Therefore, your thought process is wrong.

All which is happening is that a system of particles deforms its configuration. You call final state Ester and initial state as sum of carboxylic acid and alcohol. There is no emergent phenomena.

One needs to show that the evolution of system is governed by another operator than what I suggest in OP in order to claim that there is a new emergent phenomena.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

The model presented in the OP is enough general to show that emergent phenomena cannot exist. To find an emergent phenomena empirical justification, one must show that there exist an evolution operator which explain the behavior of system in which the evolution operator cannot be written in term of evolution operator of system’s constitutes.

You completely ignored my point about empirical evidence which shows your unwillingness to deal with it. You need to provide evidence showing that consciousness is possible at the most basic levels of the brain before I can accept your view.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What you experience as interaction is a phenomena. The type of interaction which exist between elementary particles is no a phenomena since there is no experience there.

There are different ways in which something can be emergent. There are emergent properties, emergent structures, emergent functions, etc. There are different degrees of emergence also, like weak and strong emergence. Lets take water, for instance. It’s parts (chemical components) are hydrogen and oxygen. In terms of structure, I would not consider it to be emergent since the whole (water) is a product of the parts (hydrogen and oxygen) and nothing more. In terms of properties, there is emergence since water has cohesion, it’s polarity, etc. These are just some of the differences in behavior between water and its parts.

In fact, there are contrasting properties between the chemical components of water. For instance, hydrogen is flammable but oxygen is not. Water is also not flammable. Any proposed mathematical description should account for this otherwise, it does not apply. Besides that, I’ll reassert again, that another way to understand nature is via observation, something which STT has seemingly left out in this thread. Based on empirical evidence, I can say that the mind seems to be the only thing in life that is strongly emergent since it exhibits top-down causation (or downward causation) in that it can at times determine the behavior of the brain.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What you experience as interaction is a phenomena. The type of interaction which exist between elementary particles is no a phenomena since there is no experience there.

All which is happening is that a system of particles deforms its configuration. You call final state Ester and initial state as sum of carboxylic acid and alcohol. There is no emergent phenomena.

STT, you can smell the odor of the ester, which is quite different of that of the acid and that of the alcohol. This is a new interaction mode and it is an emergent phenomenon. This should be enough to refute you, but if you want more, I can tell you some other phenomena that emerge as a result of the chemical reaction.

One needs to show that the evolution of system is governed by another operator than what I suggest in OP in order to claim that there is a new emergent phenomena.

Mathematical models are just one kind of idealized representations of interactions. You first experience interactions and then try to develop a representation of them (physical, mathematical or other). You don’t conceive a mathematical relation first and then you think “oh, here is how reality must be”. Did you think that we came to know motion only until Newton developed his Physics?

 

[STT]

You completely ignored my point about empirical evidence which shows your unwillingness to deal with it.

Do you have any evidence that mind is the product of brain activity? No. You just have evidence that mind can affect the brain independently.

You need to provide evidence showing that consciousness is possible at the most basic levels of the brain before I can accept your view.

I have a strong argument in favor of it. There is no emergent phenomena. So I cannot accept your claim unless you provide an evolution operator for a system which is different from what is suggested in OP.

 

[STT]

There are different ways in which something can be emergent. There are emergent properties, emergent structures, emergent functions, etc. There are different degrees of emergence also, like weak and strong emergence. Lets take water, for instance. It’s parts (chemical components) are hydrogen and oxygen. In terms of structure, I would not consider it to be emergent since the whole (water) is a product of the parts (hydrogen and oxygen) and nothing more. In terms of properties, there is emergence since water has cohesion, it’s polarity, etc. These are just some of the differences in behavior between water and its parts.

Again, there is no emergent phenomena. All we have is a system which its response to an external stimuli becomes too complex that we cannot explain it in term of simple function. You wouldn’t have anything like water if hydrogen and oxygen were not what they are supposed to be. The response of separate oxygen and hydrogen is different from the combined because they are in different physical states. The evolution operator introduced in OP can explain the behavior of both states.

In fact, there are contrasting properties between the chemical components of water. For instance, hydrogen is flammable but oxygen is not. Water is also not flammable. Any proposed mathematical description should account for this otherwise, it does not apply. Besides that, I’ll reassert again, that another way to understand nature is via observation, something which STT has seemingly left out in this thread. Based on empirical evidence, I can say that the mind seems to be the only thing in life that is strongly emergent since it exhibits top-down causation (or downward causation) in that it can at times determine the behavior of the brain.

I think that the evolution operator that it is introduced in OP can explain all you are suggesting well.

 

[STT]

STT, you can smell the odor of the ester, which is quite different of that of the acid and that of the alcohol. This is a new interaction mode and it is an emergent phenomenon. This should be enough to refute you, but if you want more, I can tell you some other phenomena that emerge as a result of the chemical reaction.

Mathematical models are just one kind of idealized representations of interactions. You first experience interactions and then try to develop a representation of them (physical, mathematical or other). You don’t conceive a mathematical relation first and then you think “oh, here is how reality must be”. Did you think that we came to know motion only until Newton developed his Physics?

I think I need to stress again that one can claim an emergent phenomena only and only if s/he could find an operator for evolution of system which is different from what is in OP. Other than that all you have are physical states which can be explained in term of the evolution operator. Of course you have a change in state of system and the way that it reacts but that is not what we call an emergent phenomena.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Do you have any evidence that mind is the product of brain activity? No. You just have evidence that mind can affect the brain independently.

There is evidence for both of those points. Just because I’ve only presented evidence for one side doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence for the other! I assumed that most people were already aware of the evidence that shows the mind being dependent on the brain.

I have a strong argument in favor of it. There is no emergent phenomena. So I cannot accept your claim unless you provide an evolution operator for a system which is different from what is suggested in OP.

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably one of the top mathematicians in history, is rolling in his grave right about now. You’re going about this backwards. You need to show me a model that accounts for the empirical evidence rather than trying to force the empirical evidence to fit your limited math. There is empirical evidence of emergent phenomena. We need to understand the laws and interactions via further observation/experimentation and then in the process we can model those mathematically. Your math fails in that it doesn’t account for emergence, let alone top-down causation. This is no different than going by logic alone. An argument may be valid in terms of form when the premises follow from the conclusion, but it proves nothing unless it corresponds with reality.

Again, there is no emergent phenomena. All we have is a system which its response to an external stimuli becomes too complex that we cannot explain it in term of simple function.

I disagree since the scientific evidence says otherwise. The whole can behave differently than the parts, especially when you have the whole being able to determine the behavior of the parts. Florencio and I have given you simple examples from chemistry.

You wouldn’t have anything like water if hydrogen and oxygen were not what they are supposed to be. The response of separate oxygen and hydrogen is different from the combined because they are in different physical states. The evolution operator introduced in OP can explain the behavior of both states.

Hydrogen and oxygen accounts for the mere existence of water. We both agree on that level, but beyond existence, there are properties that are present in water that are not present in hydrogen nor oxygen. Just try using only oxygen or hydrogen instead of water to put out a fire and you’ll get the point better than any math formula can show you!

I think that the evolution operator that it is introduced in OP can explain all you are suggesting well.

 

[STT]

There is evidence for both of those points. Just because I’ve only presented evidence for one side doesn’t mean there isn’t evidence for the other! I assumed that most people were already aware of the evidence that shows the mind being dependent on the brain.

I meant you cannot exclude Cartesian dualism that simply and argue that mind is by product of brain activity.

Sir Isaac Newton, arguably one of the top mathematicians in history, is rolling in his grave right about now. You’re going about this backwards. You need to show me a model that accounts for the empirical evidence rather than trying to force the empirical evidence to fit your limited math. There is empirical evidence of emergent phenomena. We need to understand the laws and interactions via further observation/experimentation and then in the process we can model those mathematically. Your math fails in that it doesn’t account for emergence, let alone top-down causation. This is no different than going by logic alone. An argument may be valid in terms of form when the premises follow from the conclusion, but it proves nothing unless it corresponds with reality.

Unfortunately your position is worse than Cartesian dualism. You neither have a theory or support to show that mind is an emergent phenomena nor provide a solution for mind body interaction. I clearly showed that emergent phenomena is impossible in a simple interacting system. Unfortunately you neither provide an argument against OP nor provide an evolution operator which shows that those systems, the one with emergent phenomena (Your operator should be different from what is suggested in OP).

I disagree since the scientific evidence says otherwise. The whole can behave differently than the parts, especially when you have the whole being able to determine the behavior of the parts. Florencio and I have given you simple examples from chemistry.

You mean that the behavior of water cannot be understood in term of its constitutes. You are wrong if you meant that.

Hydrogen and oxygen accounts for the mere existence of water. We both agree on that level, but beyond existence, there are properties that are present in water that are not present in hydrogen nor oxygen. Just try using only oxygen or hydrogen instead of water to put out a fire and you’ll get the point better than any math formula can show you!

Well, I didn’t say that those states, water and separate oxygen and hydrogen, are same. They of course are different states meaning that they respond to stimuli differently yet the behavior system can be understood in term of its constitutes. It is however hard to explain the behavior water in term of behavior of hydrogen and oxygen since they have structures. It is easier to accept and understand this fact if one uses electron and nucleus as the basic entities.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I think I need to stress again that one can claim an emergent phenomena only and only if s/he could find an operator for evolution of system which is different from what is in OP. Other than that all you have are physical states which can be explained in term of the evolution operator. Of course you have a change in state of system and the way that it reacts but that is not what we call an emergent phenomena.

What is what you and Bahman call an “emergent phenomenon”?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Well, I didn’t say that those states, water and separate oxygen and hydrogen, are same. They of course are different states meaning that they respond to stimuli differently yet the behavior system can be understood in term of its constitutes. It is however hard to explain the behavior water in term of behavior of hydrogen and oxygen since they have structures. It is easier to accept and understand this fact if one uses electron and nucleus as the basic entities.

The emergent properties of water can be understood in terms of the collective behavior of hydrogen and oxygen, but not in terms of the individual behavior of each part. In other words, you can not explain nor understand the emergent properties of water by breaking it down into its basic physical constituents since those properties are not present at that level.

You should also keep in mind that the concept of ‘emergence’ does not preclude all explanation. Emergence only precludes explanations that go down to the most basic components of a system. If top-down causation exists, as I’ve shown that it does on other threads, then you’ll have to explain it in terms of the behavior of the “whole” or the higher level/collective properties.

Furthermore, if all phenomena could be understood in terms of its physical constituents then I question why you abandon that view when it comes to consciousness. You consider consciousness to be an inherent property of matter rather than a product of matter (or a product of neurobiological activity). Your math only supports the latter view, which is not your view. Also, while you seemingly want to avoid the supernatural, I fail to see how your view that “consciousness is fundamental” would not lead into theistic paradigms that posit God as being the collective consciousness behind the Universe which is more along the lines of Eastern religions, or the views of Deepak Chopra.

 

[STT]

What is what you and Bahman call an “emergent phenomenon”?

The evolution of a system with interacting entities as it was shown in OP is governed by operator E. One need to show that the evolution of system is given by another operator, E’, if there is an emergent phenomena. That is an impossibility because we showed that the evolution of the system is merely given by operator E.

 

[STT]

The emergent properties of water can be understood in terms of the collective behavior of hydrogen and oxygen, but not in terms of the individual behavior of each part. In other words, you can not explain nor understand the emergent properties of water by breaking it down into its basic physical constituents since those properties are not present at that level.

That is not true. I think you need to read this:

Condensed matter physics is a branch of physics that deals with the physical properties of condensed phases of matter,[1] where particles adhere to each other. Condensed matter physicists seek to understand the behavior of these phases by using physical laws. In particular, they include the laws of quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and statistical mechanics.

You should also keep in mind that the concept of ‘emergence’ does not preclude all explanation. Emergence only precludes explanations that go down to the most basic components of a system. If top-down causation exists, as I’ve shown that it does on other threads, then you’ll have to explain it in terms of the behavior of the “whole” or the higher level/collective properties.

You have two problems to resolve before I can buy your idea: (1) Show that mind can emerge in a system constitute of interacting particles and (2) To resolve the problem of non-locality.

Furthermore, if all phenomena could be understood in terms of its physical constituents then I question why you abandon that view when it comes to consciousness. You consider consciousness to be an inherent property of matter rather than a product of matter (or a product of neurobiological activity). Your math only supports the latter view, which is not your view. Also, while you seemingly want to avoid the supernatural, I fail to see how your view that “consciousness is fundamental” would not lead into theistic paradigms that posit God as being the collective consciousness behind the Universe which is more along the lines of Eastern religions, or the views of Deepak Chopra.

I didn’t abandon my view. I just showed that emergent phenomena is not possible in materialism.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

That is not true. I think you need to read this:

I’d rather read your own words:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/O...sJQcibgHVFdhpCZ2OGH4M02Z2VYDSAjrLHi59UA=s9000 Just in case the picture is bad, here’s the text alone:
Post #102

This is an emergent phenomena and it is not the only one in nature, superconductivity for example.

This above image and quoted post is of YOU making a claim that there are multiple examples of emergent phenomena in nature, and you even named one example. So again, based on empirical evidence and your own words, emergent phenomena is possible. For some reason, you only have a problem with emergence when it leads to strong evidence (top-down causation via mental causation/neuroplasticity as I’ve argued on other threads) against your materialistic worldview. Lets quit this game here that you’re putting Florencio and I through.

Your formula has fixed variables within one system or one level of it, but emergence can involve interactions between different levels of a system or between multiple systems (e.g. a belief system that evolves by borrowing from other belief systems to formulate a new belief system). There is plenty of room for unknown variables to come into play rendering the process as “unpredictable”, a hallmark of emergence. It’s best to come up with a model that models emergence from lower level parts as a range of possibilities, perhaps like a diagram as proposed by experts here
https://theinformationageblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/adjacent-possible.png?w=700

 

[STT]

I’d rather read your own words:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/O...sJQcibgHVFdhpCZ2OGH4M02Z2VYDSAjrLHi59UA=s9000 Just in case the picture is bad, here’s the text alone:
Post #102

This above image and quoted post is of YOU making a claim that there are multiple examples of emergent phenomena in nature, and you even named one example. So again, based on empirical evidence and your own words, emergent phenomena is possible. For some reason, you only have a problem with emergence when it leads to strong evidence (top-down causation via mental causation/neuroplasticity as I’ve argued on other threads) against your materialistic worldview. Lets quit this game here that you’re putting Florencio and I through.

I was struggling with the concept of emergent phenomena for a long time. It was only recently that I realize that it is impossible.

Your formula has fixed variables within one system or one level of it, but emergence can involve interactions between different levels of a system or between multiple systems (e.g. a belief system that evolves by borrowing from other belief systems to formulate a new belief system). There is plenty of room for unknown variables to come into play rendering the process as “unpredictable”, a hallmark of emergence. It’s best to come up with a model that models emergence from lower level parts as a range of possibilities, perhaps like a diagram as proposed by experts here
https://theinformationageblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/adjacent-possible.png?w=700

My formula is general enough.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The evolution of a system with interacting entities as it was shown in OP is governed by operator E. One need to show that the evolution of system is given by another operator, E’, if there is an emergent phenomena. That is an impossibility because we showed that the evolution of the system is merely given by operator E.

Ok STT, it really seems that you believe that when you scratch certain symbols on your notebook, they will reveal to you the secrets of the universe, though you seem unable to apply them in a simple real case. So, let’s have a look at your formulas:

Here we discuss the possibility of having an emergent phenomena. For simplicity we consider a system which is made of two entities, A and B. Lets assume that two entities interact with each other too. Equation of motion for the system is S’=E(S) where S is the old state of system and S’ is the new state of system and E is the evolution operator which tells us how S changes to S’.

E is constitutes of four parts, E[sub]A[/sub], E[sub]B[/sub] and E[sub]AB[/sub] and E[sub]BA[/sub]. E[sub]A[/sub] is evolution operator which tells us how S[sub]A[/sub] changes to S’[sub]A[/sub] when other entity B does not exist. S[sub]A[/sub] is the old state of entity A and S’[sub]A[/sub] is the new state of entity A. E[sub]AB[/sub] is the evolution of state of entity A under interaction between A and B and E[sub]BA[/sub] is the evolution of state of B under the interaction between B and A. The same notation applies to E[sub]B[/sub], S[sub]B[/sub] and S’[sub]B[/sub] for entity B. E is given by the following equation: E=E[sub]A[/sub]+E[sub]B[/sub]+E[sub]AB[/sub]+E[sub]BA[/sub]. S also can be written as the following: S=[S[sub]A[/sub], S[sub]B[/sub]]. Here we want to show that given the equation of motion for each entity we can obtain the equation of motion for the system without having anything extra, no emergent phenomena. To do so, we first need the equation of motion for entity A and B. This is nothing more than S’[sub]A[/sub]=(E[sub]A[/sub]+E[sub]AB[/sub])S[sub]A[/sub]. We have the same equation for entity B: S’[sub]B[/sub]=(E[sub]B[/sub]+E[sub]BA[/sub])S[sub]B[/sub]. Now we sum two equations and we obtain: [S’[sub]A[/sub], S’[sub]B[/sub]]=(E[sub]A[/sub]+E[sub]AB[/sub]+E[sub]B[/sub]+E[sub]BA[/sub])[S[sub]A[/sub], S[sub]B[/sub]] which this is nothing more than S’=E(S).

This simply means that we cannot expect any emergent phenomena from a simple interacting system, for example we cannot have consciousness as the result of a set of interacting neurons, brain.

So, you say

S’=E(S)

For an absolutely simple system A, you would represent its state at a given moment by

S[sub]A[/sub]

And E(), which represents in a non-specific way how the system evolves could also be written

E[sub]A/sub

You would represent the new state of system S[sub]A[/sub] by
S’[sub]A[/sub]

Now, nothing prevents that

S’[sub]A[/sub] = S[sub]A[/sub]

Which would mean that the system remained unchanged after the application of the operator E.

S’[sub]A[/sub] = E[sub]A/sub = S[sub]A[/sub]

That is to say, the system does not evolve.

It could also be conceived though that the state of the system does change when the operator is applied, and in that case it might happen that

S’[sub]A[/sub] >< S[sub]A[/sub]

Where >< means “different”.

What would the operator E[sub]A[/sub] be if not an agent which is transforming the system A? For if it is nothing, then it makes no sense to represent it with a symbol and say that it is an operator. However, what seems clear is that the operator E[sub]A[/sub] is not the same thing as the system A, unless you say otherwise.

I assume that something similar could be said about an absolutely simple system B and an operator E[sub]B[/sub] (“an” operator, because there could be many).

You go on to consider a system which is made of two absolutely simple entities, A and B. And suddenly you introduce surreptitiously the idea that A and B will interact between them (you wrongly assume that such a thing does not require any definition nor clarification), and that in this case the operator E is composed of some other operators E[sub]A[/sub], E[sub]B[/sub] and E[sub]AB[/sub] and E[sub]BA[/sub], indicating that A is an agent which could produce changes on B, and B an agent which could produce changes on A. So, in this case the “partial” operator E[sub]A[/sub] would be an agent different from A (and it could be B), and the “partial” operator E[sub]B[/sub] would be an agent different from B (and it could be A), or they could be one external agent or two different external agents. As for the other “partial” operators, E[sub]AB[/sub] might be A itself, and E[sub]BA[/sub] might be B (but you don’t say it clearly enough). So, you would be combining A, B, E[sub]A[/sub] and E[sub]B[/sub] into a “compound operator” E ; but what does that mean?

So, the idea that E is “composed” of some other “partial” operators can only mean that it is just a vague way to represent the changes produced by external agents acting upon A and B, and the changes produced by A on B and those produced by B on A. Otherwise, E is nothing.

Anyway, you treat those “partial” operators as something which could be summed up, as if they were something similar to numbers:

E=E[sub]A[/sub]+E[sub]B[/sub]+E[sub]AB[/sub]+E[sub]BA[/sub].

So, this “equation” has no meaning unless you define “+” and establish the properties of the operation. I would like to stop the analysis here, until you respond satisfactorily. Until then, your formulas really have no meaning to me, STT.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I was struggling with the concept of emergent phenomena for a long time. It was only recently that I realize that it is impossible.

Your post showed you boldly proclaiming the existence of emergence phenomena just as recent as January 2017. You started having a problem with emergence only when it came to “consciousness” after you encountered my arguments and evidence. Now you’ve gone off to the extreme end to say that there’s no emergent phenomena at all. You can’t blame me for thinking that you abandoned your position after you realized that it showed a problem with materialism.

My formula is general enough.

You have not convinced me because your math doesn’t square with the empirical evidence. Did you consider that your math may only apply to certain phenomena and not all phenomena? You also fail to consider what the purpose of a mathematical model is. If you think that you’ve solved the mind/body problem then by all means make your work available to experts, and come back and let us know how that went. Otherwise, your view is hardly worth considering seeing that it means little that a non-expert doesn’t know how to model emergence while also not producing any evidence for the existence of consciousness in coke bottles.

 

[STT]

Ok STT, it really seems that you believe that when you scratch certain symbols on your notebook, they will reveal to you the secrets of the universe, though you seem unable to apply them in a simple real case. So, let’s have a look at your formulas:

So, you say

S’=E(S)

For an absolutely simple system A, you would represent its state at a given moment by

S[sub]A[/sub]

And E(), which represents in a non-specific way how the system evolves could also be written

E[sub]A/sub

You would represent the new state of system S[sub]A[/sub] by
S’[sub]A[/sub]

Now, nothing prevents that

S’[sub]A[/sub] = S[sub]A[/sub]

Which would mean that the system remained unchanged after the application of the operator E.

S’[sub]A[/sub] = E[sub]A/sub = S[sub]A[/sub]

That is to say, the system does not evolve.

It could also be conceived though that the state of the system does change when the operator is applied, and in that case it might happen that

S’[sub]A[/sub] >< S[sub]A[/sub]

Where >< means “different”.

What would the operator E[sub]A[/sub] be if not an agent which is transforming the system A? For if it is nothing, then it makes no sense to represent it with a symbol and say that it is an operator. However, what seems clear is that the operator E[sub]A[/sub] is not the same thing as the system A, unless you say otherwise.

I assume that something similar could be said about an absolutely simple system B and an operator E[sub]B[/sub] (“an” operator, because there could be many).

You go on to consider a system which is made of two absolutely simple entities, A and B. And suddenly you introduce surreptitiously the idea that A and B will interact between them (you wrongly assume that such a thing does not require any definition nor clarification), and that in this case the operator E is composed of some other operators E[sub]A[/sub], E[sub]B[/sub] and E[sub]AB[/sub] and E[sub]BA[/sub], indicating that A is an agent which could produce changes on B, and B an agent which could produce changes on A. So, in this case the “partial” operator E[sub]A[/sub] would be an agent different from A (and it could be B), and the “partial” operator E[sub]B[/sub] would be an agent different from B (and it could be A), or they could be one external agent or two different external agents. As for the other “partial” operators, E[sub]AB[/sub] might be A itself, and E[sub]BA[/sub] might be B (but you don’t say it clearly enough). So, you would be combining A, B, E[sub]A[/sub] and E[sub]B[/sub] into a “compound operator” E ; but what does that mean?

So, the idea that E is “composed” of some other “partial” operators can only mean that it is just a vague way to represent the changes produced by external agents acting upon A and B, and the changes produced by A on B and those produced by B on A. Otherwise, E is nothing.

Anyway, you treat those “partial” operators as something which could be summed up, as if they were something similar to numbers:

E=E[sub]A[/sub]+E[sub]B[/sub]+E[sub]AB[/sub]+E[sub]BA[/sub].

So, this “equation” has no meaning unless you define “+” and establish the properties of the operation. I would like to stop the analysis here, until you respond satisfactorily. Until then, your formulas really have no meaning to me, STT.

What I am trying to say can be understood in another way too: The behavior of a system constitutes of particles (materialism) is a function. Function of what? Function of behavior of its constitutes and how constitutes interact. What ever you do with system, combine it, reconfigure it, etc, at the end you have a function and not consciousness within the system. What do people mean with emergent phenomena? There exists function. There is nothing complex in the function though. The function can be explained in term of behavior of system’s constitutes and how the constitutes interact.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What I am trying to say can be understood in another way too: The behavior of a system constitutes of particles (materialism) is a function. Function of what? Function of behavior of its constitutes and how constitutes interact. What ever you do with system, combine it, reconfigure it, etc, at the end you have a function and not consciousness within the system. What do people mean with emergent phenomena? There exists function. There is nothing complex in the function though. The function can be explained in term of behavior of system’s constitutes and how the constitutes interact.

I understand that the confidence on your formulas has abandoned you, and that you don’t wish to defend them any more. As for me, it has never come to my mind that consciousness could be a basic property of matter, or that it could be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the interaction of material particles. Nevertheless, it is clear from my experience that certain emergent phenomena do exist. And one of the meanings of this is that, given the interaction modes of the constituents of a set of systems, the interaction modes of the resulting new systems might include some which are unexpected and surprising.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I understand that the confidence on your formulas has abandoned you, and that you don’t wish to defend them any more. As for me, it has never come to my mind that consciousness could be a basic property of matter, or that it could be an emergent phenomenon resulting from the interaction of material particles. Nevertheless, it is clear from my experience that certain emergent phenomena do exist. And one of the meanings of this is that, given the interaction modes of the constituents of a set of systems, the interaction modes of the resulting new systems might include some which are unexpected and surprising.

I’ve been rereading through the thread and you’ve made some good points, even in your earlier posts that shows problems with STT’s analysis. In addition to your view, I see STT used a type of formula that involved operations that would get the results he expected. His formula involved fixed variables used in linear operations (or distributive property). The distributive property is simply a process that involves showing a product (his entities) as a sum (the parts making up the entities) or sum as a product. The last 3 sentences in his math in post #1 is basically ab+ac= a(b+c) so of course he’d get an answer showing a product as a sum of its parts. Little did he know that linear equations are used to model the more simple and predictable phenomena in nature. Meanwhile, scientists often use nonlinear equations to model the more unorganized, unpredictable, and complex and/or chaotic phenomena, like superconductivity, weather, fluid mechanics, etc. Superconductivity is considered an example of a emergent phenomena and it is modelled using nonlinear equations, like the Ginzberg-Landua equation.

It seems that STT did not know about the limitations of linear equations (which is why physicists rely on Nonlinear equations). There’s a whole subfield of physics referred to as ‘nonlinear dynamics’ that study nonlinear systems and formulate equations to model it. This is why I know that STT is no expert and he wouldn’t get far with his math if he presented it to experts in the field.

nature.com/subjects/nonlinear-dynamics
Nonlinear dynamics is the branch of physics that studies systems governed by equations more complex than the linear, aX+b form. Nonlinear systems, such as the weather or neurons, often appear chaotic, unpredictable or counterintuitive, and yet their behaviour is not random.