1. Emergence---"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

People often use the term "emergence"... what does it mean to you.???

2.

3. Emergence is well defined in this Wikipedia article :

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me it means that complex patterns arise out of the interactions of simpler systems; I picture it as the emergence of well ordered sand dunes from the otherwise completely chaotic interaction between wind and sand grains in the desert.

4. Emergence is the elephant in the universe. Why does emergence occur at all? Why, given a set of simple laws, constants, particles and forces, do highly complex structures emerge, including ones capable of investigating those same laws, etc? If there is a teleogical twist to the universe it is present in emergence.

5. Originally Posted by John Galt
Emergence is the elephant in the universe. Why does emergence occur at all? Why, given a set of simple laws, constants, particles and forces, do highly complex structures emerge, including ones capable of investigating those same laws, etc? If there is a teleogical twist to the universe it is present in emergence.
A well posed and very valid question

6. Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Emergence---"The whole is greater than the sum of its parts."

People often use the term "emergence"... what does it mean to you.???
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me it means that complex patterns arise out of the interactions of simpler systems; I picture it as the emergence of well ordered sand dunes from the otherwise completely chaotic interaction between wind and sand grains in the desert.
Originally Posted by John Galt
Emergence is the elephant in the universe. Why does emergence occur at all? Why, given a set of simple laws, constants, particles and forces, do highly complex structures emerge, including ones capable of investigating those same laws, etc?
(From the Wikipedia article)
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic"

Givin the "Laws"... ect... you spoke of... how coud said highly complex structures not occur... ie... no magic necessary.???

Originally Posted by John Galt
If there is a teleogical twist to the universe it is present in emergence.
If the universe has a twist of magic thers no evidence of it... so that type "emergence" is jus a beleif.!!!

7. Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Originally Posted by John Galt
Emergence is the elephant in the universe. Why does emergence occur at all? Why, given a set of simple laws, constants, particles and forces, do highly complex structures emerge, including ones capable of investigating those same laws, etc?
(From the Wikipedia article)
"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic"

Givin the "Laws"... ect... you spoke of... how coud said highly complex structures not occur... ie... no magic necessary.???
Specific emergence only occur under specific condition. eg: A termite mound wouldn't happen if we replace termite with ants, a typhoon/tropical-storm wouldn't happen in the vacuum of space. There always a condition that made unexpected things to happen... eg: animals migration pattern, human intelligence, which is not obvious at first (if only cells, atoms and neurons are considered)...

8. Indeed it's so common in natural sciences we all most take it for granted--but than again that's what makes it's study so fun, satisfying and at times awe inspiring even when it's understood.

In some sense "emergence" is a fundamental property of nature.

9. Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
Indeed it's so common in natural sciences we all most take it for granted--but than again that's what makes it's study so fun, satisfying and at times awe inspiring even when it's understood.

In some sense "emergence" is a fundamental property of nature.
In what sense is "emergence" not a fundamental property of nature.???

10. Originally Posted by msafwan
Specific emergence only occur under specific condition.
Specific "anythang" only occur under specific conditions... so what.???

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Emergence is well defined in this Wikipedia article :

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For me it means that complex patterns arise out of the interactions of simpler systems; I picture it as the emergence of well ordered sand dunes from the otherwise completely chaotic interaction between wind and sand grains in the desert.
Are you suggestin that the "interaction between wind and sand grains in the deseert" is not well ordered.???

12. Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Are you suggestin that the "interaction between wind and sand grains in the deseert" is not well ordered.???
Isn't it stochastic and chaotic and sometimes catastrophic?

13. Our thoughts would be an emergent property with the evolution of speech and language.

14. Thoughts were an emergent property before speech and language. With speech and language they emerge further. And teleology runs rampant through the night towards the glimmering dawn.

15. Originally Posted by John Galt
Thoughts were an emergent property before speech and language. With speech and language they emerge further. And teleology runs rampant through the night towards the glimmering dawn.

The thoughts we had prior to speech and language were nothing like our thoughts today. In our minds, today, our thoughts are in word usage.

16. Originally Posted by Barbi
The thoughts we had prior to speech and language were nothing like our thoughts today. In our minds, today, our thoughts are in word usage.
That does not alter the fact that we had thougths before speech and language, which is what you implied.

Moreover, many of our thoughts are accomplished without language. This is certainly true for me and as far as I am aware for others. I often think visually, in three dimensions with full animation. Sometimes I think in a manner I can only describe as conceptual. It is difficult to explain it in words since it's primary feature is the complete absence of words, but more a 'sense of things'. So, your statement is simply wrong.

17. I often think visually, in three dimensions with full animation. Sometimes I think in a manner I can only describe as conceptual. It is difficult to explain it in words since it's primary feature is the complete absence of words, but more a 'sense of things'. So, your statement is simply wrong
Same here. I'd say I think less in words than anything else in fact. I have even had dreams that were purely conceptual, with no words, sounds or even visuals.

18. Wow, not me, my thoughts are largely composed of everyday word usage.

19. Interesting. I have no idea what proportion of my thinking is of each type. It's not something I've analysed. I do know when I am constructing, for example, a report, I picture the structure of the report as blocks. I have a sense of what is in each block, but it is not expressed in words. In a section dealing with a complex failure I might imagine five rounded cubes of various shades of red, orange and yellow that I 'know' represent different stages of the failure. One tends to think everyone must be thinking the same way, but of course this is simply not so.

20. I guess thinking is a product of your environment especially in the line of work that you do or your particular interests.

21. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Are you suggestin that the "interaction between wind and sand grains in the deseert" is not well ordered.???
Isn't it stochastic and chaotic and sometimes catastrophic?
Are you suggestin that movements of sand can be un-caused.???

22. Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
Are you suggestin that the "interaction between wind and sand grains in the deseert" is not well ordered.???
Isn't it stochastic and chaotic and sometimes catastrophic?
Are you suggestin that movements of sand can be un-caused.???
What does un-caused mean? Do you mean "be reversed"? If so there is nothing in my statement that requires reversibility.

23. Are you suggestin that the "interaction between wind and sand grains in the deseert" is not well ordered.???

Originally Posted by John Galt
sn't it stochastic and chaotic and sometimes catastrophic?
Are you suggestin that movements of sand can be un-caused.???

What does un-caused mean?
That "causality" does not apply.!!!

A meanin for the word you used... "stochastic"... is causeless... so... are you suggestin that grains of sand in a wind storm can wind up whare they do wit-out a cause.???

24. Originally Posted by Barbi
Our thoughts would be an emergent property with the evolution of speech and language.
More likely the other way round. Some people think that the mind's underlying mechanisms for logical thought is what gave us the ability to develop language: Do thoughts have a language of their own? - opinion - 08 December 2011 - New Scientist

25. Originally Posted by Barbi
The thoughts we had prior to speech and language were nothing like our thoughts today. In our minds, today, our thoughts are in word usage.
But not directly because of language. You may be thinking of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis; but this has been largely discredited apart from very subtle influences.

26. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I often think visually, in three dimensions with full animation. Sometimes I think in a manner I can only describe as conceptual. It is difficult to explain it in words since it's primary feature is the complete absence of words, but more a 'sense of things'. So, your statement is simply wrong
Same here. I'd say I think less in words than anything else in fact. I have even had dreams that were purely conceptual, with no words, sounds or even visuals.
Same here. Even when reading I don't usually hear words.

There was a radio programme a while ago about a guy who wanted to get away from "noise". One of his problems that there are always "voices in our heads" (not schizophrenia ). To support his he interviewed various people on the high street; they all said that as they walked down the road they heard their thoughts saying, "look at those shoes", etc. Obviously he only chose to use people who agreed with his thesis, but I found myself thinking, "no..."

27. Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
That "causality" does not apply.!!!

A meanin for the word you used... "stochastic"... is causeless... so... are you suggestin that grains of sand in a wind storm can wind up whare they do wit-out a cause.???
Stochastic is more generally taken to mean that there is a random element involved in the process such that it can best be analysed in terms of probability. That is how I was using the term.

28. Originally Posted by Barbi
Wow, not me, my thoughts are largely composed of everyday word usage.
I was thinking about this comment as I drove to work today. I pictured you thinking about going shopping for shoes. I cannot believe - but set me straight if necessary - that if you do ever think about buying shoe you do not picture a shoe shop and picture particualr style and colour of shoes and picture those shoes on your feet. There mighty be words accompanying these pictures, but much of the thinking is visual. Am I right, or am I merely correct?

29. Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Barbi
Wow, not me, my thoughts are largely composed of everyday word usage.
I was thinking about this comment as I drove to work today. I pictured you thinking about going shopping for shoes. I cannot believe - but set me straight if necessary - that if you do ever think about buying shoe you do not picture a shoe shop and picture particualr style and colour of shoes and picture those shoes on your feet. There mighty be words accompanying these pictures, but much of the thinking is visual. Am I right, or am I merely correct?
Okay, you got me there so I guess I do visualize some of the time. However, I spend a great deal of time researching science and every other subject that interest me so I am preoccupied with word usage.

30. Another definition of emergence is the following. An emergent property of a substance can be seen as property which cannot be found by an examination of the molecules themselves. An example is the experience of the wetness of water. There is nothing in the molucules of water which give an indication it is going to be wet. This emergence of properties is often used as an argument in some forms of dualism and is seen as nonphysical.

31. Originally Posted by HTW
This emergence of properties is often used as an argument in some forms of dualism and is seen as nonphysical.
Presumably it can also be used as an argument against dualism!

32. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by HTW
This emergence of properties is often used as an argument in some forms of dualism and is seen as nonphysical.
Presumably it can also be used as an argument against dualism!
I never said it could not be used against some forms of dualism. I am just explaining the term from the point of view of the definer.

33. When emergence occurs in animal behaviour (like groundhogs collectively teasing a coyote to exhaustion) I think of it as metagaming. I wouldn't rate it emergent from sentients if one individual could understand how it works.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement