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

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

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more