Yay, agreement!sgttomas wrote: Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean that this metaphysical decision cannot be explained by physical emergence. It obviously is! I am emergence and I am explaining it. What I am saying is that this is only understood at the meta-level. There is no sense to be made of motions. Motions do not have meaning, yet meaning emerges from matter. Then we may use our emergent meaning to explore the meaning of emergence! ...it's a very "strange loop" to quote Douglas Hofstadter.
Yes indeed. So you hold that "existence precedes essence", and this I agree with. And emergence is the way by which is sort of thing can happen. That makes sense. Being human, we apply symbols and meaning to things and deal with the symbols and their meaning in our thoughts and communication. This, also, makes sense. While I agree that "meaning is primary" for human thinking, meaning is not absolutely primary because the existence of humans (and solar system etc) precedes it. Great. While that's not the same "transcendence" I usually think of when I use the term, this definition has some definite advantages.sgttomas wrote:lol.QT wrote:"Emergence is transcendence."-sgtt.
In what sense? Transcendence has a lot of definitions .
I guess I mean it in the sense that existence precedes essence.
btw...I know I've said before that "meaning is primary", which would seem to contradict "existence precedes essence". I resolve this by invoking meaning as primary only after the fact. Meaning/essence, is entirely dependent on and formed by the physical. However, once meaning is established, it takes on the primary role in terms of knowledge (we don't deal with matter, but meaning).
....man, this topic can be very convoluted!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh oh, trouble in paradise. Human minds can group things arbitrarily, and then it's not physical. However, a slab of iron is a physical group. Iron atoms form magnetic domains with certain group properties. Humans are needed to identify the group and to measure the group properties, but the iron makes the magnetic domain groups whether humans are present or not. I would argue that group properties (emergence) are a physical relationship.I don't believe you are correct in saying this is a purely physical relationship. You invoke meaning when you say that physical objects can have group properties. "Group" is a category of meaning. ....am I being Kantian here. ???I'm talking about emergence in the sense that groups of interacting simple objects can have surprising properties as a group. This is purely a physical relationship, so it strides directly against religious transcendence , and even (my understanding of) Kantian transcendence.
Hmm, I'll have to think about what it means to say "the properties of consciousness are not physical". My initial reaction is to say that if emergent behavior is physical (as I argued above) and consciousness is entirely rooted in the physical, then the properties of consciousness are also physical. But I stumble when I try to identify properties of consciousness and think about whether they're physical. Perhaps the phenomenon of consciousness is too far removed from the physical foundation for the properties to be recognizably physical? In the same way, Newton's Laws are far so removed from Quantum Mechanics that they don't resemble each other at all despite the fact that QM turns into Newton's Laws at medium distances.Yeah, I guess so. Having read more of your thoughts, I think I can agree with you.My philosophy produces a minimum of hairy philosophical adventure, much to your chagrin I'm sure. If I'm right, then meaning is something humans (and possibly other mammals) use to operate in the world. Is this not a physical solution?
This is what I want to emphasize, though: consciousness is entirely rooted in the physical, yet the properties of consciousness are not physical and the analysis of the physical necessarily invokes the non-physical (meaning). It's non-dualism, because there is no other substance than the physical. But it's necessary to keep motion and notion distinct when describing reality.
Hehehe. It's cute that you think imagination proves things.Being Itself allows me to imagine anything in existence as reflecting something of the reality of God. Anything I imagine. My imagination is potentially boundless, therefore so too is God.If "God expands infinitely", is responsible for RE, or loves us all very much, then I would like for this to be shown to follow from the current context's definition of God (which in this case was Being Itself).
Chemists don't like it when physicists say that all chemistry is really just physics at heart. Biologists don't like it when chemists say that all biology is just chemistry. Is biology or chemistry diminished by physicists' egos?Two levels to explore: the physical activity, and the emergent meaning. Reality is composed of physical objects, only, however a complete description of reality invokes meaning, which is not physical. Meaning is the notion that emerges from the motion. A collection of data can be interpreted by a third party as representing love, however this description still invokes meaning (in this case, the observer of the data). The meaning of "love" must be correlated with the physical motions by an emergent consciousness.Hmm, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. Reality can be described in physical terms only. Even an emotion like love can be characterized by brain activity and the level of dopamine in certain parts of the brain, etc.
There is no need for supernaturalism or dualism, to be sure. I don't like to say that reality can be described in physical terms only because I think it diminishes the physical/metaphysical parallel.
You make a good point, however. We would lose a LOT if these emergent behaviors aren't appreciated in their own right and if people insist on taking things back to the fundamental level. I think we see eye to eye on this
That sort of question can only be answered with some serious hallucinogens. Of course, the "answer" lasts no longer than the trip, so enjoy it while you have it....hm. ....me neitherI fear that I still don't understand what transcendence (and god) is...
I mean, I can sort of peer into this void of understanding (what does it really mean that consciousness emerges from matter?!?!?!??!) but I can barely do anything to resolve it.
addendum:My Linux install at work displays a "fortune" at log-in. Today it was this: "It was real. At least, if it wasn't real, it did support them, and as that is what sofas are supposed to do, this, by any test that mattered, was a real sofa." Is this as profound and as relevant to this discussion as I seem to think?