jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (31 posts)

From Convergence to Emergence

  1. A.Villarasa profile image72
    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago

    The idea of convergence that leads to emergence is one of the oldest  and profoundly  most beautiful  explanation on how simplicity leads to complexity. Oldest because  the explanations of emergence is found in the Budhist  sutra which was probably composed  more than 10,000 years ago.  In the Age of Enlightenment the idea of emergence  was discussed and mused upon by  thinkers, philosophers, theoreticians and yes empiricist , best exemplified by Descarte's  bedrock interpretation of REALITY.... " I think, therefore I am" which he doubtless meant  "the self is the only thing we know that exist for certain."

    Thus one could say that all the complex pt entities around me exist ONLY because many of them were precisely assembled . They don't exist in the bits and pieces that made them; they emerged from the arrangement of those bits and pieces in very precise ways.  This certainly applies to emergent entities known as "you" and " me". That precision of converging bits and pieces to form a fully emergent entity or entities implies most succinctly, the idea that a sentient being, call him "God" was the initiator and creator of you and me.
    "




    Simply put, complexity comes from simplicity ie all the complex

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    "That precision of converging bits and pieces to form a fully emergent entity or entities implies most succinctly, the idea that a sentient being, call him "God" was the initiator and creator of you and me."

    It most certainly does not.

    It implies nothing, actually. It just is. Things get complex through the self-organizing laws of physics.

    We just had this conversation, where you couldn't prove your point that time either.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image72
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      And again my reply would be: who do you think made  and implemented those laws that now pervade the universe?

      And you again would say: those laws are self-creating and self-organizing.

      Oh the senselessness of it all.

  3. Jewels profile image83
    Jewelsposted 2 years ago

    Since the dawn of time the senselessness of it all has been pondered upon.  The why is a non-answerable question.  And why do you think Descartes was right?  Why do you think he was wrong?  He could just as easily have said 'I am, therefore I think', which btw is my own take on consciousness which I prefer to have.  But proving it is a useless quest.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image72
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting thought: "I am therefore  I think"

      Before you became  "I am" what were you made of. Nothing really, but then your  component parts  were made to assemble (converge)...parts that then started to interact with each other according to specific parameters  (laws  of physics/nature) that then led to  a functional whole, unified entity...YOU, an emergent creation.

      You knowing that you exist comes from the fact that some of your component parts became so integratedly complex forming organ systems, one of which is your brain from which emanates sentience.

      Which then begs the question? Is sentience the be all and end all of creation. To some it is. But to my thinking you and me are more  than just the sum of our component parts.

      We also have a soul. ....a soul, the existence of which harks back to the nature of who created us. GOD

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Where is your soul located before God stuck it in your body?

        1. A.Villarasa profile image72
          A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "Stuck" is not a word that I would use to describe why humans have soul. Impart is a better word.

          When you are stuck with something, it only means you can not get out of  it.

          In death, your physical components  gets out or gives out, leaving the soul to continue its journey back  to where it came from....the supernatural realm.
          Now I suppose the supernatural realm you consider a fantasy, so phantasmogorical that even your  powers of imagination could not conceptualize it. Therein lies the rub.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The thing is, you have to create, with your imagination, an entire world in order to make sense of God and the "supernatural". You can say ANYTHING about this realm. And the thing is, everyone makes up their own theories about it. That's why there have been so many different religions throughout history.

            1. A.Villarasa profile image72
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              And who gave you the ability to idealize, perceptualize, conceptualize. And you would say: no one because my brain is self-organizing,  resulting in all the chemical mediators (dopamine, nor-epinephrine etc.) that is responsible for my thoughts, feelings,  instincts and intuition.... And yes imagination.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I have a question for you. Why would a God who can do absolutely anything in the supernatural realm need to make a material realm with Laws of chemistry and physics?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image72
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  God is already in the supernatural realm, so for Him to create another supernatural realm is a supreme act of futility.

                  God created the natural/material/physical realm that ultimately  led to the creation of sentient beings ( that  are made up of  material components) so those sentient beings could then conceptualize, perceptualize, idealize and ultimately realize that they and the sorrounding universe exist, and that their existence was initiated and created by Him. We are in effect, the ultimate witnesses to his creation.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And how do you know this?

                    Do you know what God thinks?

              2. psycheskinner profile image83
                psycheskinnerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                And why do you assume they need to be given to people by a sentient entity?

                All your questions are just statements in disguise.

                1. A.Villarasa profile image72
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  And why not.

                  If you agree with the idea that the brain is self-regulating  whose functioning is totally devoid of imposition from the laws that regulate material functioning, then I suppose everything goes. But it is not willy-nilly. Where do you suppose those laws came from except from a sentient entity? Sentience that impose non-entropy to his creation. Which as it should be... Orderly, non-chaotic progression from simplicity to complexity via convergence/emergence.

            2. A.Villarasa profile image72
              A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              @janesix: Imagination and creativity are linked together,  not as the odd couple that materialists would like us to believe, but  as an expression of the unity of duality.

              Phantasmogorical imaginings are fantasies that  has no role whatsoever in man's conceptualization of a Supreme Being. Atheists, would like us to believe that the idea of  God is similar to the idea of unicorns, fairies etc. which in my opinion, does nothing to elevate their debating points to the lucid, luminous, and levitating.

              It is true of course that most religious beliefs are tethered to theism. Some are not. The expression of religious beliefs tainted by man's ego is always problematic... thus it is easy enough for the basic belief in GOD, to be compromised, and ultimately devalued by that overweening EGO.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "Imagination and creativity are linked together,  not as the odd couple that materialists would like us to believe, but  as an expression of the unity of duality.

                Phantasmogorical imaginings are fantasies that  has no role whatsoever in man's conceptualization of a Supreme Being. "

                I don't understand where you get this idea. What is your definition of imagination?

                1. A.Villarasa profile image72
                  A.Villarasaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I subscribe to Webster's definition stating imagination as the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or not previously known or experienced, thus a creative ability or resourcefulness or inventiveness.
                  An imaginative person is creative, ingenious, innovative, inventive, original, which if I may say so totally describes Albert Einstein, who famously said: "imagination is more important than knowledge."

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Imagination is totally dependent on previous experience and what is already stored in memory.

      2. Jewels profile image83
        Jewelsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If we are an emanation of God then you can say we are of God.  It's a much easier preference to cognise  via experience.

 
working