[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I don't understand the sense in which you're using the word "emergent". Are you asserting that weather can't be derived from physics??

I think I'm using it in the sense of weak emergence. Strong emergence is some philosophical gobbledegook having to do with irreducibility that I don't understand. If you can explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

My understanding of reduction is that by looking at the parts of some thing and how these parts interact with all the other parts, it will thereby, at least in principle, be possible to work out the overall properties of that thing. We could do this in principle in our heads without assembling the thing first.

Are we talking about the reducibility of the concepts surrounding a thing, or of a specific example of the thing? And are we talking top down, bottom up, or both?

If, on the other hand, a thing gives rise to a phenomenon, and that phenomenon cannot in principle be derived by a comprehensive understanding of all the parts and how they interact, then that phenomonon is emergent.

That's strong emergence. All it requires is some randomness in the system and voila! you can't derive the phenomenon from its parts. If the process is purely deterministic, then I don't see why I wouldn't be able to derive it. What is the difference between being able to derive something in principle and in actuality?

What do you mean by "explain"? Certainly it can just be a brute fact about the world that certain patterns of physical processes can create conscious experiences. But clearly consciousness cannot be reductive explained.

I don't see why this is clear, but, again, I do not understand this reducibility thing.

~~ Paul