From Convergence to Emergence

1. 61

   A.Villarasaposted 9 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

   replyreport
2. 62

   janesixposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

      replyreport
3. 84

   Jewelsposted 9 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.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      A.Villarasaposted 9 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

      replyreport
      1. 62

         janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 61

            A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               janesixposted 9 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.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     janesixposted 9 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?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           And how do you know this?
                           
                           Do you know what God thinks?

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              I know that the material/natural  world could neither have been created by a material entity, nor did it create itself. So logically, I have to think that what or who created me and you and the material world that sorround us could only have been created by a supernatural entity I.e outside of nature, above nature.
                              
                              Do I need to know what God thinks? No, but indirectly, his creation is telling me what he thinks. Is that enough for me to believe what I believe about creation/existence/ reality. Absolutely.

                              replyreport
                           2. 59

                              Lucid Psycheposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Does anyone? Does that prove anything?

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Not trying to prove something. I wanted to know where A.Villarasa gets his ideas.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    I form my Perceptions/conceptions  from the intermingling of ideas expressed by my fellow humans either in spoken or written form, but which are heavily tinted by my  own intuition, and  experience,

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 96

                                       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       That's hard to accept when you also state that:
                                       
                                       "I know that the material/natural  world could neither have been created by a material entity, nor did it create itself."
                                       
                                       Where neither your intuition nor experience can take you.  Or anyone else's, for that matter.  Where no one has ever "perceived" anything at all.  Where only concepts, dredged from one's imagination, can have any bearing at all and which can never be determined to be true or false, yet you profess to "know".
                                       
                                       It is that inability (or unwillingness) to separate subjective belief from objective knowledge that makes it so difficult to accept, or even follow, the thought train of the believer.

                                       report
                  2. 78

                     psycheskinnerposted 9 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

                        replyreport
               2. 61

                  A.Villarasaposted 9 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     janesixposted 9 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?

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        A.Villarasaposted 9 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."

                        replyreport
                        1. 62

                           janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

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

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Not totally.
                              
                              I think you are mistaking imagination for intuition.

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Intuition doesn't rely on only memory. It also takes subconsciously from outside sources.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 62

                                    janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    If there is a "supernatural" world, I think it would be known through intuition. But I don't think anything could BE supernatural, only natural.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 61

                                       A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Cie la vie
                                       Que sera sera
                                       Whatever strikes your fancy

                                       report
                                       1. 62

                                          janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          Oh, ok. I thought you wanted to have a discussion, but that's fine.

                                          report
                                       2. 62

                                          janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          If it means anything, I find your ideas very interesting, and thus why I engage in conversation.

                                          report
                                    2. 61

                                       A.Villarasaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       So sorry I didn't mean to be dismissive, but what I was saying was, we form our own belief systems based on life's experience (cie la vie), and depending on how you chose and react to those experiences, the ultimate result is not always tinged with certainty( que sera sera), so the decision on what  to chose or experience may not always be based on deep thought or reasoning , but more  on intuition and instinct(whatever strikes your fancy).

                                       report
      2. 84

         Jewelsposted 9 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.

         replyreport