Skip to main content

emergence, epiphenomenalism...stuff like that

Philosophers recognize that a new, higher-level property can become present in matter--a property that is not merely the sum of the lower-level properties belonging to matter. Philosophers speak of this new property as emerging from from its material constituents. That is, the many constituents together possess this one emergent property (e.g., a mental state).

I would say, however, that it makes more sense to say that the property is the property of one being.

Otherwise, the property would be a mere effect of the many parts (epiphenomenalism) or the mere summation of the properties of the parts (reductive materialism).

Action follows being. So if there is an action/property that is not reducible to the sum of the lower level actions/properties, then it must be the property of a being that is likewise not reducible.

I would direct the following criticism to those who think of the parts as the real entity. why should the lower-level properties be said to below to lower-level beings? Can't we subject the claims about the lower level beings to the same sort of criticism that we did to the emergent reality? Wouldn't the lower level properties have emerged from even lower level beings? Doesn't this lead to an infinite regress? Or if we don't want to face such a regress, then we must have a more satisfactory basis for saying that something is one being rather than a collection of beings. We must be able to answer the question, "what does "to be" mean? Doesn't the answer come, ultimately, from our life world (in this case from our experience of our own unity as we engage in perception, feeling, action, thought, etc.)?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

interesting article by Jimmy Akin on death before the Fall

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-animals-die-before-the-fall/ Akin below: Aquinas.... writes: In the opinion of some, those animals which now are fierce and kill others, would, in that state, have been tame, not only in regard to man, but also in regard to other animals. But this is quite unreasonable. For the nature of animals was not changed by man's sin, as if those whose nature now it is to devour the flesh of others, would then have lived on herbs, as the lion and falcon. Nor does Bede's gloss on Genesis 1:30, say that trees and herbs were given as food to all animals and birds, but to some. Thus there would have been a natural antipathy between some animals  [ Summa Theologiae I:96:1 ad 2 ].  Aquinas thus holds that it was not  all  death that entered the world through man's sin, but human  death.
Post a Comment
Read more