4 ms·

I hear the term 'emergent property' bandied about in relation to the mind as if using it somehow explains anything. It says nothing more than mind exists, someh

by __tg__ 6y ago

I hear the term 'emergent property' bandied about in relation to the mind as if using it somehow explains anything. It says nothing more than mind exists, somehow, yet we have no clue about its nature. Scientists and philosophers agreeing on something means nothing as they have agreed on utter bunk before. The short of it is that we know little about the mind and have no idea how to even start expanding on the little we know.

tasty_freeze 6y ago
> Scientists and philosophers agreeing on something means nothing as they have agreed on utter bunk before. That is an extremely cynical position to take; one could use it to dismiss anything, even things obviously true. For instance, "I don't believe the Sun is powered by fusion -- nobody has ever gone there to take a sample. Sure, they claim to have all sorts of indirect evidence, and there is 99.9999% consensus on it, but scientists have backed things before that were utter bunk." > It says nothing more than mind exists, It makes a much stronger claim than that. There are many people who believe that consciousness exists outside the mind, and the brain is a kind of consciousness receiver, akin to a radio receiver, that picks up the signal and relays it to the body. The claim of emergent behavior is an explicit rejection that that mystical explanation that is compelling to many people. > The short of it is that we know little about the mind and have no idea how to even start expanding on the little we know. This is entirely at odds with reality. Is it your position that brain researchers haven't learned anything over the past 10, 20, 30 years? Clearly they have, so obviously they do have ideas about how to expand on that knowledge.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
"Emergent" is description of its nature. An alternative is "fundamental property". If you study an emergent property, you don't need to find its structure as a fundamental object, and this sets general direction of research.

by __tg__ 6y ago

tasty_freeze 6y ago

> Scientists and philosophers agreeing on something means nothing as they have agreed on utter bunk before. That is an extremely cynical position to take; one could use it to dismiss anything, even things obviously true. For instance, "I don't believe the Sun is powered by fusion -- nobody has ever gone there to take a sample. Sure, they claim to have all sorts of indirect evidence, and there is 99.9999% consensus on it, but scientists have backed things before that were utter bunk." > It says nothing more than mind exists, It makes a much stronger claim than that. There are many people who believe that consciousness exists outside the mind, and the brain is a kind of consciousness receiver, akin to a radio receiver, that picks up the signal and relays it to the body. The claim of emergent behavior is an explicit rejection that that mystical explanation that is compelling to many people. > The short of it is that we know little about the mind and have no idea how to even start expanding on the little we know. This is entirely at odds with reality. Is it your position that brain researchers haven't learned anything over the past 10, 20, 30 years? Clearly they have, so obviously they do have ideas about how to expand on that knowledge.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

"Emergent" is description of its nature. An alternative is "fundamental property". If you study an emergent property, you don't need to find its structure as a fundamental object, and this sets general direction of research.