......
Whatever else accounts for consciousness, it is probably an emergent phenomenon—the product of the organization of matter.
An emergent phenomenon (also simply called emergence) refers to how a complex system acquires properties that differ both quantitatively and qualitatively from its simpler constituents—properties that are not inherent to its constituents and cannot be inferred or predicted from them. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is no ‘magic’ involved here, just complex physical interactions. Emergence is a spontaneous, bottom-up, self-organising phenomenon of complexity, with no external cause required.
end quote
The definition above exhibits perhaps the oldest trick of the mind. Give something a name, and say, you understand it. And gosh, you stop wondering about it. What has happened is that you have noticed another characteristic, one that ALSO, needs an explanation. But you have the label you invented, so this escapes your attention.
So you assume you understand it. Throw in a few weasel words like "probably," makes the speaker sound studious.
And any second that rabbit is going to pull a magician out of his sleeve, and you -----missed it again.
Let's go back to the quote; perhaps I should step this out a bit---
"...emergence...refers to how a complex system acquires properties..."
"How" is precisely what is missing in the description. To refer to
."..properties that are not inherent to its constituents and cannot be inferred or predicted from them...." ignores that a greater complexity still connects with its constituents. Water turned into wine still involves a grid of connection.
And "a spontaneous, bottom-up, self-organising phenomenon of complexity, with no external cause required..." is a call to pretend we know something we do not; it calls us to ignore the mystery, not ponder, not explore it, not marvel at it, not push the edges.
To say consciousness is "self-organizing and bottoms up", is to say in effect, matter and mind are separate. So the label emergent functionally takes a mystery recognised since the beginning to time, and pretends to solve it by some scientific sounding fiat that just reflects sloppy thinking. Sloppy for instance is using the phrase "just complex physical interactions" without noticing no one has a clue about exactly these reactions are.
The denser theologians of the past historically also pretended--- they pretended that mind was some separate god distributed gift. Problem of the relation between mind and matter thereby solved, in a way very similar to the proponents of "emergence."
Jan Cox addressed some issues involved with confronting the connection of mind and matter, but this is not the subject at hand. I cannot resist however, pointing out the big reason you cannot separate mind and matter, though these are not Jan's words. Whether it is an emergent "consciousness" or some miraculous gift from a god, when you separate mind and matter----
You then have to explain how they get back together.
"How" is precisely what is missing in the description. To refer to
."..properties that are not inherent to its constituents and cannot be inferred or predicted from them...." ignores that a greater complexity still connects with its constituents. Water turned into wine still involves a grid of connection.
And "a spontaneous, bottom-up, self-organising phenomenon of complexity, with no external cause required..." is a call to pretend we know something we do not; it calls us to ignore the mystery, not ponder, not explore it, not marvel at it, not push the edges.
To say consciousness is "self-organizing and bottoms up", is to say in effect, matter and mind are separate. So the label emergent functionally takes a mystery recognised since the beginning to time, and pretends to solve it by some scientific sounding fiat that just reflects sloppy thinking. Sloppy for instance is using the phrase "just complex physical interactions" without noticing no one has a clue about exactly these reactions are.
The denser theologians of the past historically also pretended--- they pretended that mind was some separate god distributed gift. Problem of the relation between mind and matter thereby solved, in a way very similar to the proponents of "emergence."
Jan Cox addressed some issues involved with confronting the connection of mind and matter, but this is not the subject at hand. I cannot resist however, pointing out the big reason you cannot separate mind and matter, though these are not Jan's words. Whether it is an emergent "consciousness" or some miraculous gift from a god, when you separate mind and matter----
You then have to explain how they get back together.
