Dear Roger, Platt,
Platt wrote:
I find "emergence" and "self-organization" entirely bereft of scientific
explanation because both concepts fail to identify deterministic causes
or "mechanisms" for the phenomena in question. Darwinian theory, for
example, is accepted because "natural selection" can be show to be a
mechanism (cause) for changes in organisms. But, no such mechanism
has been found to explain why a certain combination of hydrogen and
oxygen produces wetness. So, wetness just "emerges." Duh.
Pat's comment: I think self-organization is a real phenomenon to be
found in the physiological functions of organisms, selected by
evolution. But about your 'wetness' example, I agree. The point is that
wetness isn't a property of H20. It's a property of consciousness: YOU
and I feel that wetness. But's is just that perception of wetness that
we want to explain. You (Rog) looked up a definition of the concept
'emergent', something about something arising out of complex
interactions of elements. Take this example from James in the Principles
of Psych. and of Alwyn Scott in Stairway to the mind (independently
written, although a century apart):
a-square + b-square [is NOT equal to] (a + b)-square
The latter term is equal to: a-square + b-square + 2ab.
Now, if we use your definition, is the part 2ab not properly called
'emergent', arising out of the 'interaction' of a and b together in a
calculation? I think so.
This taken as an example of the concept 'emergence', it's nothing but a
change in FORM. (This reminds me of the philosophy of Aristoteles and of
Thomas of Acquino, by the way). It's an abstraction of 'the Quality
event' of (to use Platt's example again) water and it's wetness into
pure SQ: the DQ-part is totally gone.
I find it difficult to get to the heart of the matter here. But let me
try to shed a light on the concept 'Creation', or simply the fact that
we all experience 'something'. Where does this 'something' come from?
Maybe this is not an answerable question. My belief is that Creation
'happens' or 'takes place' every moment. And ultimately, nothing can
'explain' that plain and simple fact. Of course, there's creation in the
sense that when I warm some milk in a pan, I somehow 'create' the
property of 'warmness of milk', because if I would have left it in the
freezer, it wouldn't have this property in 'my world after I choose to
warm the milk'. This is purely causal thinking, and it admits the
existence of free will, in which I also believe. But Creation as it IS,
can't be explained at all. I can't give you an argument in favor of this
claim, but here's a question: Why do we live in 2002, on august 28, on
this particular time? Why is what we call 'now' not in 1995, or 2037, or
whatever? Causal thinking doesn't explain this. In causal thinking, it's
an arbitrary decision whether we choose to think of the past, the
present, or the future. It is just given to us that we live NOW.
Difficult. I'm not sure if this makes any sense. You (Rog) talked about
'self-containedness', if I recall correctly (I've read your mails
yesterday and earlier today). Reality is self-contained,
self-sufficient. Nothing outside reality can make reality real.
Maybe our intuitions aren't that far apart at all; maybe we just look at
things from a different angle, using different words.
Thanks for trying to follow my struggling here, Patrick.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST