Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Biological organisms obviously aren't floating on their own. Remove the entities and properties of physics as the underlying foundations, and macroscopic structures and dynamics disappear. New configurations and actions (like "eating") can arise, but they're still subsumed under just those existing general categories: spatial forms and motions. But when one asserts that something truly radical has emerged for which there are no precusor attributes that could bring it about, and totally outruns what causes it in terms of classification, "stuff", and characteristics -- then that is magical conjuring. Regardless of whatever new techno-gibberish one tries to obfuscate "magical conjuring" under. Such has no place in one's beliefs if the latter preclude magical conjuring. It's purely a matter of remaining consistent with one's own espoused philosophical dogma (materialism, naturalism, scientism, etc) -- sans having an agnostic orientation or beliefs inclusive of "magical conjuring".
- - - - - - - - - -

Emergence is abused in science and philosophy
https://iai.tv/articles/the-absurdity-of..._auid=2020

INTRO: Science and philosophy are beset by many mysteries. But in recent years, thinkers like Daniel Dennett, have resorted to the idea of ‘emergence properties’ as a sufficient explanation for many puzzling phenomena: Properties that emerge as a result of interacting components within a system, but properties that do not belong to any individual within that system. Hence, consciousness can arise from unconscious matter, and free will can arise from particles that have no will or agency. Cognitive scientist Derek Cabrera explains how the concept of emergence gets abused and can open the back door to lazy mysticism.

EXCERPT: . . . Here's where the mystery reveals itself: the whole is dynamically interconnected and multiplicative, rather than simply additive. Still, it remains firmly grounded in the fundamental principle that the whole equals the parts that it is made up of, which includes its relationships. Because the relationships are part of the whole they are parts of the whole.

Embracing systems thinking means acknowledging the profound truth that relationships are indeed material things, and therefore parts of the whole in their own right that are as tangible as its other structural components. By recognizing this, we shatter the illusion that the whole could ever be less than its parts. No more mysticism, no more arbitrary distinctions! (MORE - missing details)

I've read the article and I'm not sure what the guy is trying to say. I'll assume something to do with AI. The theme seems to be that the whole is no more than the sum of the parts (maybe).
I assume all are familiar with the Rosetta stone [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone ] where the overlap between texts in three languages was the key to deciphering two languages and much more.
As I understand it the way AI is programmed is by giving a supercomputer a few days to look at what are effectively millions of Rosetta stones in all fields of human knowledge. The computer builds inferences and connections between the 'stones' at far greater depth than a human ever could. By using the inferences (my favourite AI calls these 'nuances') the AI can communicate and translate between many languages. Almost unsurprisingly these (some) AI are good at writing computer programs in any of the computer languages they have been exposed to. The connection between cause and effect is so subtle (nuanced) that an AI can appear or even actually be more 'original' than a human could ever hope to be.

Quote:Stand firm in the truth that the whole is never more than its parts. Be the seeker of understanding and dispel the allure of mysticism. Let us celebrate emergence as a genuine scientific phenomenon, grounded in the beauty of interactions and the interconnectedness of things – because in this wondrous universe of systems, the whole is forever equal to its parts.

Sounds like it's own spiritual gospel or even jihad. Believe in this credo and free yourself from the bondage of mysticism! Traditionally mysticism is most vehemently opposed by a sort of ideological fundamentalism/scriptural literalism, provoking it into a righteous indignation over dogmatically-held points. I personally don't think emergence is any more mystical than say quantum entanglement. It's just something that happens to occur and has no current explanation. If that is mysticism then we are all hopeless mystics, skirting the fuzzy edges of a barely-revealed absolute reality.