I’m not sure that strong emergence implies non- causality. It would just mean that the universe has rules for ensembles that don’t exist for the parts. I’m not sure why that couldn’t be. Of course I’m not sure how relativity could be either…
And let’s not even start about the Aspect experiments…

Anyway- I prefer to have the evidence change my philosophy rather than the other way around. And at this point it seems that this emergence stuff might be real. I’m attempting an agnostic position– perhaps that will help me understand.
Perhaps not…

Mlema-
“It was the differentness of consciousness that led the researcher to consider strong emergence as a possibility.”
And now we have a sentence using the new term…

It seems you disagree with me, Mlema, and wikipedia.
This is my understanding:

The “Argument from Authority” is fallacious if:
1) the authority is not an expert on the subject in question
2) the authority gives an opinion contrary to the consensus of experts on the subject in question.
3) the authority gives an opinion when there is no consensus of experts on the subject in question.

I think that strong emergence, as a stand alone explanation for specific phenomenon, itself does not imply magic, but the idea of discontinuity between non-emergent and emergent phenomenon does. If there is any way in which all lower level aspects of a system have no bearing on the higher level traits of that system, than we must assume that the higher level traits come from nothing. That is assuming that all aspects of the system are known, including all environmental variables, as these would be considered part of the system that can be known.

I propose that emergence, in any form, can be reduced to interactions between lower order interactions, and is most prominent when we do not understand the extent of these interactions, even if we can derive basic laws that are useful in predicting the higher order phenomenon of a complex system.

The Heard paper shows this in the context of network topology. Network topology is concerned with the arrangement of nodes in networks. In his paper he explains how nodes within networks that show “scale free topography”. In these networks specific nodes will link to other nodes more frequently if they are connected to more nodes, even though there is no descriptor that will predict which individual node will eventually have more connections to other nodes. There is no predictive set of attributes to a single node that sets it aside from any other outside of the network, however, within the network nodes with more connections will establish even more connections in the network. This is how most free communication networks present themselves (which is actually in my field of studies:0) In this way, both ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ versions as we have been describing are met. We do not need to know the individual properties of nodes to make a prediction of the pasterns of connectivity that will present themselves in the system, but there are undoubtedly specific aspects of the individual nodes that could predict which (if looked at in direct comparison) nodes would create more connections. If you have ever read Gladwell’s popular book “Tipping Points” you are aware of the “connectors” which would serve as the low level explanation of nodes in one of these networks.

BTW Steve Novella is definitely the epitome of this “example” of the “connected node” as-bridge between emergence and non-emergence in a “scale free network” AKA the internet.
Go SGU!

Second- BillyJoe7, the argument from authority is a logical fallacy because; a person in a position of authority, who puts forth a claim, has no advantage over anyone else who puts forth a claim. These claims must be evaluated on the merits of the evidence supporting said claim and any conclusions drawn from this evidence. Any counter arguments must be derived from the original claim, or evaluation of the evidence for the original claim. In other words: A claim must stand on its own, regardless of who made it or who supports it.

To site others that support your claim, or to show that your claim is derived from work by others who might have “authority” is not a logical fallacy. This line of reasoning allows for questioning of premises in a fair way consistent with the first paragraph of this post.

What i was referring to and what Sonic was referring to was simply the last line of his post- “that’s what real scientist are saying.”

All his citations and examples were perfectly legit as part of his arguments.

in emergence, if there were a way to know (or if you do know) all the components of a system and everything affecting it, you are able to predict what will happen. Like a riot in the street. If you were able to figure in all the factors of the setting where it happens and the age, psyche, etc. of the participants, and the laws of psychology, you would be able to guess what might occur with those people in that place at that time, even though the riot might seem to just arise mysteriously. So, we might not know or even be able to know all the things we’d need to know to predict the riot emerging. The nature of a riot isn’t something that is somehow impossible to imagine emerging because the riot isn’t really different from the individual phenomena that comprise it.

strong emergence would be something like the experiential element of consciousness, because the nature of that element is essentially unlike that from which it arises.

maybe also life emerging from non-life. I don’t know about that nobody’s ever described that as strong emergence to me, I just thought that one might be an example too.

Either way “emergence” is just a noun used to refer to one thing coming out of another. When we have no inkling how that might happen, we use the descriptive term: strong emergence. big deal, explains nothing – just another way to give a scientific-sounding term for one thing coming out of another without us knowing how. Like executive function is a function of the brain we used to call things like decision-making, or putting off gratification, etc.. Some scientists believe that one day we’ll fill in the missing knowledge that will connect the known to the unknown in every circumstance. I believe this is in some cases a failure to see the “differentness” of some various things (hey, y’ think any scientists will be interested in coining a new term for the measure of highly divergent emergent phenomena? Differentness? If anybody wants to use that, send me a nickel.)
But anyway, I call this belief in the future omnipotence of mind: emergence in the gaps ha ha hahaha

let me help you here. The argument from authority is simply a means to try to defend a stance by pointing to the fact that bonafide experts concur with that stance.

What you are describing is the argument from authority being used fallaciously, as when someone defends his stance by calling upon the authority of someone who’s not an expert (so you’re right in your description there)

So, sonic hasn’t committed a fallacious use of the “argument from authority”. Thadius has simply called him on using authority to defend his own views. thadius and sonic are both aware that the argument from authority is a logical fallacy BECAUSE: in pure logic things are neither true nor untrue based on the consensus of experts.

and please, let me back up my instruction with some authority:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

no need to thank me!
M

The “argument from authority” fallacy occurs when someone quotes the opinion of an expert who is not an expert in the subject he is being quoted on; or when someone quotes an expert whose opinion is contrary to the consensus of experts on the subject in question; or when someone quotes an expert when there is no consensus of experts on the subject in question.

This has been your modus operandi.
I’m glad you’ve seen the light.

Anyway– I’m not sure that strong emergence implies magic. I have no personal objection to the notion that the universe has different rules at different levels of interaction/ complexity. It is feasible that there are rules of organization such that certain phenomena might emerge regardless of the material being organized.
It might be that the universe is as wacky as the basic experiments of quantum mechanics indicate- I don’t know.

I know of a number of philosophies. I like them all. But none of them are perfect fits for the database of knowledge I have. And each can work just fine.
I’m currently philosophically quite ambivalent.

This ambivalence- like all else- shall pass.

Later— and good luck with the Heard paper.

The philosophical problem with strong emergence that I find is that it posits or at least points to a magical relationship between the lower order parts of a system and the higher “emergent properties” I do not believe in magic, so it is hard to swallow this ramification of strong emergence. There is probably a way around this, but i have not seen it articulated.

I have however found other philosophical problems for emergence, In A NEW PROBLEM FOR ONTOLOGICAL EMERGENCE BY DANIEL HEARD of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science University of Cambridge 2005, Heard takes the position that ontological emergence which resembles (to me) strong emergence, creates a problem in that it creates multiple and contradictory truths that must be accepted for one phenomenon described as emergent….I think! I’ll have to reread this one a few times.