There is no emergence

[AgnosticBoy]

Why? Because there is always a reason why things are this way rather than other way and when this is true then it means that there is a function which relates things together. In another hand there could not be an emergence.

Just wanted to drop my two cents in…

I agree with your premises but I don’t agree with your conclusion of there being no ‘emergence’. I agree with you that it would not make sense for emergent properties to pop up out of nowhere - like magic. However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that a system considered as a whole can exhibit properties that its parts alone does not have. Perhaps your point speaks more to “how” this happens and not if it can happen. In simple cases like water, emergent properties develop because of their ‘interactions’ (the forces, energy, etc) acting on the parts. You can clearly see here that magic or some appeal to non-deducibility need not apply for the emergent properties of water. Yet, you can not deny that there is a difference between how H2O would react with fire compared to how hydrogen or oxygen alone would. Even if we had no rational understanding of this, you can not throw out the empirical fact just because it doesn’t square with your current understanding.

You should also consider that consciousness is emergent. David Chalmers believes that new types of interactions or forces may be needed to account for it. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz ‘downward causation’ view (e.g. self-directed neuroplasticity or perhaps any form of intentionality) considers that the mind is a force in that you can use ‘thoughts’ to determine behavior. If we’re referring to changing behavior rooted in neurobiology which Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has shown, then this would involve thoughts being able to change how brain interacts/functions (just as forces govern other interactions) and this would lead to the new desired behavior.

 

[po18guy]

This thread is emergent. It did not have to be, and you were not aware of it before you conceived of it - but God was.

So, its all in one’s perspective.

 

[STT]

Just wanted to drop my two cents in…

I agree with your premises but I don’t agree with your conclusion of there being no ‘emergence’. I agree with you that it would not make sense for emergent properties to pop up out of nowhere - like magic. However, that doesn’t take away from the fact that a system considered as a whole can exhibit properties that its parts alone does not have. Perhaps your point speaks more to “how” this happens and not if it can happen. In simple cases like water, emergent properties develop because of their ‘interactions’ (the forces, energy, etc) acting on the parts. You can clearly see here that magic or some appeal to non-deducibility need not apply for the emergent properties of water. Yet, you can not deny that there is a difference between how H2O would react with fire compared to how hydrogen or oxygen alone would. Even if we had no rational understanding of this, you can not throw out the empirical fact just because it doesn’t square with your current understanding.

You should also consider that consciousness is emergent. David Chalmers believes that new types of interactions or forces may be needed to account for it. Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz ‘downward causation’ view (e.g. self-directed neuroplasticity or perhaps any form of intentionality) considers that the mind is a force in that you can use ‘thoughts’ to determine behavior. If we’re referring to changing behavior rooted in neurobiology which Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz has shown, then this would involve thoughts being able to change how brain interacts /functions (just as forces govern other interactions ) and this would lead to the new desired behavior.

Could we agree that the behavior of the whole is a function of the behavior of the parts and how the parts interact? If yes, there is no emergence. Otherwise, we are either facing a magic or there are hidden properties in the parts.

 

[STT]

This thread is emergent. It did not have to be, and you were not aware of it before you conceived of it - but God was.

So, its all in one’s perspective.

No, this thread is a function of my understanding in different topics. You cannot have something out of nothing.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Could we agree that the behavior of the whole is a function of the behavior of the parts and how the parts interact? If yes, there is no emergence. Otherwise, we are either facing a magic or there are hidden properties in the parts.

There are parts and then there are forces . The fire extinguishing property of water comes into play only after oxygen and two hydrogen atoms interact. Without any of the various laws of interaction or forces (which is separate from the mere parts), hydrogen and oxygen by themselves would have no property to extinguish fire.

There are sufficient scientific explanations for this that do not invoke magic. Simply put, oxygen tends to release heat energy when it combines with other elements. Oxygen by itself would feed a fire when it combines or interacts with other elements in the environment (mostly carbon) and produces heat. Heat fuels the fire. This process would not occur when oxygen is already combined with other elements (i.e. H2O) and interacts with fire and that’s because the oxygen has already been burnt. In other words, all heat energy has already been released when oxygen combined with hydrogen atoms so there is no more heat production for oxygen component of H2O to give off. This is a scientific explanation that covers at least one emergent property of H2O so again no magical explanations needed.

You don’t like my answer then perhaps you’ll like it better coming from a physics Q/A website:

Question
If fire needs oxygen of burn, how come it is used in H2O to put out fire?
Asked by: Laura

Answer
Fire occurs when free oxygen combines with (oxidizes) another element (mostly Carbon), creating new molecules (like carbon dioxide) and energy in the process. The oxygen in water has already been ‘burned’ after it combines with hydrogen, creating energy and molecules of hydrogen dioxide, better known as water. The fuel cells used in Hydrogen fueled cars translates that energy into motion, sending water vapor out the exhaust. So the oxygen in H2O has already ‘oxidized’ and is not free to contribute to further burning.
Another way of thinking about this is to understand that atoms lose their individual identities when they become parts of molecules. Sodium by itself reacts violently in contact with water. Chlorine is a poisonous gas. When a sodium atom and chlorine atom combine, however, they form a molecule of sodium chloride, also known as table salt.
Answered by: Paul Walorski, B.A., Part-time Physics/Astronomy Instructor
Source: If fire needs oxygen of burn, how come it is used in H2O to put out fire?

 

[STT]

There are parts and then there are forces . The fire extinguishing property of water comes into play only after oxygen and two hydrogen atoms interact. Without any of the various laws of interaction or forces (which is separate from the mere parts), hydrogen and oxygen by themselves would have no property to extinguish fire.

There are two things in here: parts and forces. Forces follow a systematic system of law. There is a law there is a function. Therefore the whole can be explicable in term of a function of degree freedom of parts. There cannot be any emergence if there is a function.