It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JayinAR
I think that the mob example is better than the traffic example. The aggregate psychological influences of a mob produce "mob mentality". Which is unique. Perhaps even to every single individual's psychology within the mob itself. Therefore, you cannot look at the whole and reduce and deduct an understanding of its parts. They must be studied separately.
ETA: I cannot agree however, that this idea can bridge the divide of Newtonian and Quantum physics, though. In the examples above of emergent systems, there must be common ground in order for the systems to emerge in the first place. Quite literally ground. In traffic it is the road. Mob? Crowded movie theater. Even if you cannot reduce physical laws enough to accurately explain quantum mechanics, there must be a link between the two. Otherwise they would simply be incompatible and "physics" just wouldn't work. There would be no system to study.edit on 16-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Tuttle
I'd like to see you explain turbulence.
Originally posted by NorEaster
A cell of a human body isn't conscious. So, what's the use in presenting it as an example of anything? The human mind is an emergent system, and it isn't composed of cells or atoms or material substance at all. And yet, it does exist, and it knows about the town that the human body lives in. It knows what it knows about the planet too. This is the thing about an emergent system. It doesn't resemble the contributive systems that brought it into physical existence. It's not reducible at all, without ceasing to be what it is.
If something is smart and sophisticated, then the assumption would be that it is already conscious. Like I said, you aren't seeing what an emergent system is here. This line of debate isn't serving the examination. It's just creating a potential distraction.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont think im missing the point as much as you think i am... or I dont think there is as much of a point as you think you are. what do you think is so mysterious or un-understandable about traffic? What dont I understand about the phenomenon of traffic? It doesnt matter if I cant predict every nuance, there is so much information involved with this event, and I am not a capable enough computer. but the event it self is a computation of the exact information involved to create that event, so the event doesnt defy logic, or sense, or law. Its exactly what it is, exactly why it is, exactly when it is, exactly how it is, exactly where it is.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont think im missing the point as much as you think i am... or I dont think there is as much of a point as you think you are. what do you think is so mysterious or un-understandable about traffic? What dont I understand about the phenomenon of traffic? It doesnt matter if I cant predict every nuance, there is so much information involved with this event, and I am not a capable enough computer. but the event it self is a computation of the exact information involved to create that event, so the event doesnt defy logic, or sense, or law. Its exactly what it is, exactly why it is, exactly when it is, exactly how it is, exactly where it is.
Everything that exists has a primary identifying characteristic, and the primary identifying characteristic of the emergent system that is traffic is the specific and hyper-dynamic nature of the relationship between all the contributive aspects, agents and systems involved as a holistic entity during the finite duration of that traffic's physical existence. It is "what it is", as you pointed out, but that's the point. And emergent systems don't defy logic, or sense or law. They just aren't reducible. They are what they are.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by NorEaster
A cell of a human body isn't conscious. So, what's the use in presenting it as an example of anything? The human mind is an emergent system, and it isn't composed of cells or atoms or material substance at all. And yet, it does exist, and it knows about the town that the human body lives in. It knows what it knows about the planet too. This is the thing about an emergent system. It doesn't resemble the contributive systems that brought it into physical existence. It's not reducible at all, without ceasing to be what it is.
I personally dont know if a cell in a human body is conscious or not...
Where do you think the human mind is emergent from?
Ok its not reducible at all without ceasing to be what it is. And this is your big point, that reducing water to H20. 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom dont resemble water?
So do you think the human mind ( we should really define this; consciousness, awareness, personality, creativity, imagination, the totality of all cognitive and unconscious mind capability?), hm I guess I should just ask, what do you think is so special about the human mind? I know it is special, I can see the things it is able to do compared to a rock, a ant, a dog, a monkey. But we also must admit there is similar hardware, brain, parts within these animals that have brains, and we cant measure there mode of experiencing reality so we cant really say if they have minds, but it would be silly to deny that animals arent driven by a conscious observer, with memories, emotions, desires etc. I would say the main difference between humans, what set the ability of the brain apart, was the harnessing and directing the ability to process the information, the memories, the details, to store them, and sort them, to internally pic them a apart, to see the causal relationships internally, to copy them, to be observant, to seek improvement, to be curious. etc. lots of things.
I just thought I'd share this small item with the class, and turn you loose to see just what you can discover for yourself now that I've calibrated your compasses to true north.
I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.
Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?
fyi - I'd say epigenetics at least partially describes an emergent system (evolution) - and as far as I can tell, the brainless organisms/systems are more obviously and speedily adaptive. ...What I haven't found is a paper clearly characterizing epigenetics (or evolution) as an emergent system - and there should be something on it.
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by NorEaster
I just thought I'd share this small item with the class, and turn you loose to see just what you can discover for yourself now that I've calibrated your compasses to true north.
Cool stuff there professor bad news jester dude, sure why not I will play as I got a minute and am bored. But ah this thread is not getting much traffic, srry in the scope of things its just not emerging. Now here's a thread about an emergent system based and out of an old system. Ah but the real question is which if anything is emerging? Or are they both falling? Or is it a whole new system that is emerging? Collectivism no doubt! but which way does it tug? In either cases, its getting more traffic then this thread, its written in the stars.
link
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster
Couldnt it be said that reality as a whole, ( the one we know at least;the universe) and every part that makes the universe the universe,....lol, basically what im trying to say is, isnt the universe itself an emergent system? the totality, and every group of its parts, what the parts can do here, and there, and now and then, and how the smaller (reduced) parts fit and work together to make bigger parts, which then emergently can do other things.
So the problem from our point of view is not having a clue as to what the universe is, we dont have enough information to discern what it is... when in some more ultimate scope of eternal time this universe was created, and where in some ultimate scope of space this universe was created... You could take the stance that this universe is all that exists and all that has ever existed. That would be a warm and fuzzy truth, because it would take us closer to the source, it would give us a more primal and in control and worry free template on which to exist and view ourselves.. Some how I think there is a large possibility that is not the case. But I think about this quite a bit. What do you think?
Traffic is a physically existing something, and while you can refuse to accept its existence as something that's more than an illusion, try being unaffected by it as the real and impenetrable obstacle that it is.
In this sense, traffic is immune to reductionism.
If you look at traffic, you see a number of lesser systems in confluence; cars, people (drivers, pedestrians, street crews, policemen, etc), asphalt surface or lack of pavement perhaps, number and condition of roadway lanes, time of day, day of the year, culture, degree of technological sophistication of the society involved, weather, local traffic regulations, and probably plenty more contributing systems depending on the specific emergence being examined.
Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
In my opinion emergent systems [of evolution] are part of a collaboration towards unity.
Look at this (Heliosphere):
en.wikipedia.org...
how a star (dumbest ever entity of the cosmos) produces litterally a shield to prevent
frequent changes in DNA to enable stability to form higher sentient beings with evolution?
Its like the cosmos know things in advance.... IMHO intelligent design.
my 2 cents
edit on 17-2-2013 by RobertPaulsim because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Traffic is a physically existing something, and while you can refuse to accept its existence as something that's more than an illusion, try being unaffected by it as the real and impenetrable obstacle that it is.
Not everyone is affected by traffic. It's relative. One who is in traffic and accepts it as part of the whole, is not necessarily "affected" by it. Is one affected by "traffic" if one is not in it?
In this sense, traffic is immune to reductionism.
But then you go on to reductionism when you start reducing the sum to it's parts:
If you look at traffic, you see a number of lesser systems in confluence; cars, people (drivers, pedestrians, street crews, policemen, etc), asphalt surface or lack of pavement perhaps, number and condition of roadway lanes, time of day, day of the year, culture, degree of technological sophistication of the society involved, weather, local traffic regulations, and probably plenty more contributing systems depending on the specific emergence being examined.
Reductionism is the "lesser systems in confluence".
Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanation, theories, and meanings.
Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.
Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.
The closest at this point that anyone is getting to a Theory of Everything is Ken Wilber. He takes Emergent systems and expands on it further than anyone I've come across, by including Everything including Being, Consciousness, Mystical States, Hierarchy, etc
Holons->Quadrants->All Quadrants All Levels->Lines, streams, or intelligences->Levels or stages->states->Truth->Mysticism/Science.
Emergent Systems is just a tiny piece, or maybe everything is emergent systems.
Either way, what does this change? What's the significance? Does it solve any of the world's suffering, wars, disease, hatred, rapes, pillage, etc.
Unless we are solving problems, its all mental masturbation.
Originally posted by dominicus
I won't mention again your whole youtube beat/rap proving 100% that there is no Infinity sham, which brings to question everything else you post. However Emergent systems does seem to be legit at certain angles of abstract thought.
How do the below links affect your philosophies/theories?
Link:
Thus far, Science shows Infinity Exists
Link:
Science may prove reality/Universe to be a simulation
Claude Shannon's "Reality" code found in Superstring Equations.