Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RightWhale

I prefer jennyp's analogy. But only because it was my idea originally and it keeps my ego boosted to see it repeated by others.


119 posted on 09/23/2005 1:41:03 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]


To: Dimensio
Why is water wet at room temperature & flame-quenching when oxygen & hydrogen have none of those properties? Where did water's qualities "come from"?

It is an analogy that might include aspects of mind. When we consider the mind aspect of things, we should ask where the idea of 'wet' comes in. Same for 'flame-quenching'. Hydrogen by itself is flame-quenching; when oxygen is also present hydrogen is not flame-quenching. When the mind aspect comes in we should ask how it feels that water is wet. We should ask whether the feelings of wet are necessary to the existence of the water, much as whether the melody coming off the violin string is necessary to the existence of the vibration of the string.

124 posted on 09/23/2005 2:18:14 PM PDT by RightWhale (We in heep dip trubble)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

To: Dimensio
I prefer jennyp's analogy. But only because it was my idea originally and it keeps my ego boosted to see it repeated by others.

Well, I claim independent discovery of the analogy. However, I've since seen it attributed to John Searle, so I think we've both been scooped. >:-(

Emergent Properties

Some properties emerge only after you combine things into wholes. Such properties are called, not surprisingly, emergent properties. That’s often why what’s true of the parts isn’t necessarily true of the wholes, and vice-versa. Using John Searle’s famous example, being wet is an emergent property of water. None of the water molecules are wet. But wetness happens when you put enough of those molecules together. Obviously, then, the following argument is silly:

  1. All the individual molecules comprising this water lack wetness.
  2. Therefore, this water can’t be wet.
  3. But this water is wet.
  4. Therefore, this water must be more than these mere molecules. This water must have a mysterious non-physical component to account for its wetness.

The move from (1) to (2) is an obvious fallacy of composition because wetness is an emergent property. Searle says consciousness is an emergent property of brains just like wetness is an emergent property of water. Neither wetness nor consciousness necessarily requires anything non-physical to explain it.


130 posted on 09/23/2005 2:50:45 PM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Seeing What's Next by Christensen, et.al.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson