The problem of evolutionarily irrelevant strong emergence

[Goldenages]

6 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

The issue however with equating strong emergent phenomena (mental properties) with weak emergent phenomena (like wings, crystals, neurons) is that weak emergent phenomena are reducible to the physical construct. Only with a platonic outlook does one even believe that wings exist, as something more than ("over and above") the underlying physical system. With enough computational resources one could simulate the emergence of wings from the laws of physics and some initial conditions.

The new function of a wing "simply" is the result of trial and error over billions of years, preserving every even so small advantage for a species regarding survival.  So how can we say that just mental properties can not be reduced to underlying, well known physics?

 

6 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Even with enough computational resources, one will not necessarily be able to simulate the emergence of the sensation of lavender from the laws of physics and some initial conditions (it depends on the preconditions of such emergence)

How should we know?  The fact that we do not know how it works tells us only that we do not know how it works. The rest is speculation and makes things even more mysterious and supernatural as they appear anyway.

Now lets assume that some genius comes around the corner, he dedicated all his life in research of collecting data from conscious minds. Now he builds a machine that is able to emulate brainwaves, to emulate billions of arrays of neurons firing in consonance, creating new, well defined patterns of electricity and electrical fields in spacetime, connected to sensors who bring data from light and sound waves. Every time he hits the "on" button this machine claims: "High folks! I am!"  He did not program something like "consciousness". He just tweaked some requirements, adopted from human brains. Likewise, if we want to understand why wood floats on water, we need not program "buoyancy". We just emulate 2 different densities, and every time we hit the "on" button we will assert that wood floats on water.

Nothing mysterious here. Just the unknown. And while nobody would say that buoyancy is not relevant for evolution, I still do not understand how it can be claimed that consciousness is not relevant.

I am shure you have heard of the project Blue Brain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project

 

regards

Andi

[richardbaxter]

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

The new function of a wing "simply" is the result of trial and error over billions of years, preserving every even so small advantage for a species regarding survival.  So how can we say that just mental properties can not be reduced to underlying, well known physics?

Because mental properties have no functional impact on the system. If one considers natural law (physics) to be a complete description of the behaviour of the universe (a prerequisite of naturalism), then only physical properties can affect the evolution of the system (eg neuronal/ionic information processing, genetic code, etc): non-physical properties by definition cannot.

3 hours ago, Goldenages said:

How should we know?  The fact that we do not know how it works tells us only that we do not know how it works. The rest is speculation and makes things even more mysterious and supernatural as they appear anyway.

The point is that we don't know. The fact we don't know something means that we must consider all the possibilities. And if it so happens that a i) complex organism or ii) computer simulation of a complex organism can produce emergent mental properties (although we will arguably never be able to demonstrate this under the current scientific paradigm; see transcendence quote), then we must ask why. Does it just happen magically because it was designed that way (teleology), or is there some fundamental reason for the emergence (eg b, c).

There is nothing wrong with making arbitrary philosophical assumptions in science - people do it all the time (eg methodological naturalism, non-reductive physicalism, etc). It would be very difficult for science to progress without these. But it is not the job of philosophy to make arbitrary assumptions and then make no effort to ask why these are being made. The reason there is so much variation in historical/intercontinental philosophical thought is because people are not ideological in their beliefs and are willing to question the reason for their assumptions.

Perhaps there are reasons for making such assumptions however? The problem is that a blind adherence to inherited western materialism is not a very good one - because it emerged from teleological thought. I gather that we are trying to produce systems of thought that are not dependent on teleology.

Cheers - Richard

 

[Goldenages]

2 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Because mental properties have no functional impact on the system. If one considers natural law (physics) to be a complete description of the behaviour of the universe (a prerequisite of naturalism), then only physical properties can affect the evolution of the system (eg neuronal/ionic information processing, genetic code, etc): non-physical properties by definition cannot.

Shure. So this problem can be solved if we say: mental properties equal physical properties/ neuronal correlat. There is no need to invent something beyond. Some combination of physical properties (firing neurons in a particular way) create consciousness. What we see when we watch brain waves or when we measure signals from the eye to the brain is consciousness from the outside.

This particular arrangement of physical properties leads to consciousness and the ego. As said an conscious ego is superior to any automatic behaviour, since the range of possible actions is much greater. So it comes as no surprise that evolution prefers those physical porperties.

Well we could discuss this for ages, but I am afraid we have to wait for scientific progress

 

But since you mentioned the Kopenhagen interpretation and the "blind adherence to western materialism" I bet you have a different favourite.

 

regards

Andi

 

 

[Kikker]

2 hours ago, richardbaxter said:

Because mental properties have no functional impact on the system. If one considers natural law (physics) to be a complete description of the behaviour of the universe (a prerequisite of naturalism), then only physical properties can affect the evolution of the system (eg neuronal/ionic information processing, genetic code, etc): non-physical properties by definition cannot.

What do you mean with no functional impact on the system? If has no impact at all it wouldn't be observable, so how do you define functional?