Peter Atkins - Why is Emergence Significant?

Emergence is how the world works differently at various levels or hierarchies of organization. It's what happens when the whole becomes more than the sum of all its parts. Emergence operates at all levels, from physics to chemistry to biology to psychology to sociology. The powers of emergence are stunning.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on philosophy, systems theory, science, and emergence: bit.ly/3T7WBix
Peter William Atkins FRSC is an English chemist and a Fellow of Lincoln College at the University of Oxford. He retired in 2007. He is a prolific writer of popular chemistry textbooks, including Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemistry, and Molecular Quantum Mechanics.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@markkennedy9767]

I've been fascinated by emergence and how complexity emerges from simplicity for a while now. The water example was explained well but in all these cases, it's just the subjective that's missing. The wetness of water just needs the explanation of how the configuration of molecules creates that subjective wetness in our minds. Same with consciousness only a million times more complex. In all these cases the mysterious piece seems to be when you go from objective to subjective.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

Interestingly its the subjective that is considered 'illusion', yet a useful illusion that can determine the objective through the scientific method.

[@MichaelSchuerig]

I love how Peter counters Robert's argument from ignorance ("There seems no possible way.") in the first 30 seconds: "Why do you say that? I mean that's defeatism, wouldn't you say?"

[@peweegangloku6428]

Robert is not an ignorant man. He deliberately takes a particular position each time for the sake of argument. Robert has a keen and searching mind. I hope one day he will find the truth he is searching for.

[@russellbarndt6579]

Yes, no way statement puts humanity in a closed box it would seemed on continuing research to discovery but it brings out the necessity of the conversations purpose, ends up making it excellent.

[@waldwassermann]

Ignorance was planned from the start.

[@FaptainCalcon750]

I think he was seeing if Peter would catch the fallacy of composition that some theists will use with their consciousness arguments. Ie “the particles that make me are non-sapient, so, I must also be non-sapient”

[@KarePassion]

Nope. It wasn't posed as an argument; it was posed as a question, albeit a "devil's advocate" type of question. Asking questions is what scientists are supposed to do. It was an opening for his guest to explain how emergence works, and what science offers in terms of evidence. It was a fair question. Peter didn't counter his "argument." Instead of proceeding with any scientific evidence, he defensively criticized the difficult question that was posed to him. There is nothing defeatist about asking a question.

[@michaelmckinney7240]

Peter Atkins came no closer to answering Mr Kuhn,s question. Naming a process in no way explains the process. Silly comments like "We're doing our scales", or this is "defeatism" say absolutely nothing. Science can say how a thing behaves the way it does but not why. Gravity is explained for what it does and not why it does it. Science is rich in explaining mechanism but very poor in explaining purpose.

[@jhunt5578]

4:40 DeepMind says hello

[@JTHBS]

The hierarchy of different types of explanations makes totally sense because those are bound to the levels of abstraction you have to apply with increasing complexity. in most cases it is simply not necessary to always explain the underlying structure or forces to explain the emergent property. When an organism evolved a shape which can create a noise by vibration then we can describe it by its shape, biological and physical properties. But when this mechanism has evolved to produce patterns of noise which encode information in form of language..then we dont need to describe it on the level of creating noise but on the level of how these noises are linked to information, how they are structured and applied. Only when the underlying system fails then we go back to biology on a medical level and in cases of genetic diseases even to the level of intermolecular interactions. What we can do, we can collect information and with this knowledge we can create tools to influence and change our underlying structure..our DNA our metabolism or the behaviour of Molecules to a certain degree. it is just another way of reorganising matter to alter its properties or function.

[@SandipChitale]

And the higher-level explanations could be also explained using the lower-level explanations but they will be too verbose and uneconomical in the quick transmission of ideas. So, basically, it is an issue of efficiency.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Does an 'actual' property emerge from an increase in complexity or are we actually synthesizing a metaphor to characterize new behavior then misguidedly applying the label 'property' to the metaphor? Is there such a 'thing' as wetness or is something only wet 'for' us?

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

Does a fish feel wet? I mean, does a fish feel itself to be wet? I mean, does a fish feel itself to be wet as it swims about in water?

[@005clips]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Good point, 'water' could be characterized as merely the metaphor of the certain angular composition of hydrogen and oxygen, plus the wetness properties on all surfaces, plus its viscosity, drinkability, etc., in which case it, and all knowledge for that matter would be merely symbolic hologramic representations composed of lower-level ideas/explanations.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

@@005clips - I see 'water' as a particular analogy manufactured by the sense organs and delivered to the brain in the encoded form of neural discharge frequency. When it gets there, it finds nothing but analogies all jostling each other synaptically in the process we call thinking. I think it's analogies all the way down and at the bottom, metaphorically speaking, there's the analogy that's me.

[@petervandenengel1208]

The individual is not a particle preceding the group. So to define influencing the individual by the group as a form of back propogation is incorrect. They exist in the same time and are the group at the same time. In other words the individual IS partly the group. It influences itself. When water becomes ice in its future, did it know about its future on beforehand? Was that back propogation? Or simply the result water has always been a partly undicided particle. If it was indispensable for creating life however, it's 'wetness' as a prediction, should have been incorporated in the original design.

[@vonBottorff]

The problem with simulating consciousness, intelligence on a computer is, yes, you may get something going, but will it be female and want to go dancing even though it's Monday?

[@bobs2809]

Present an algorithm that could possibly lead to feeling and emotion or stop saying you can explain consciousness as a property of unconscious physics. If you cant solve the "hard problem of consciousness" you cannot make the sort of caims that this guy and others make. There is no scientific or mathematical reason to claim that we understand the essence of consciousness. When a physicist thinks they have a fundamental understanding of consciousness based on their mastery and knowledge of physics, that person is just confused.

[@mrtienphysics666]

Alphafold has predicted the structure of proteins

[@mrtienphysics666]

@@cosminvisan520 Meta AI is now doing the same.

[@mrtienphysics666]

@@cosminvisan520 This "guessing" apparently is working.

[@mrtienphysics666]

@@cosminvisan520 It scored above 90 for around two-thirds of the proteins in CASP's global distance test (GDT), a test that measures the degree to which a computational program predicted structure is similar to the lab experiment determined structure, with 100 being a complete match, within the distance cutoff used for calculating GDT.[2][5] AlphaFold 2's results at CASP were described as "astounding"[6] and transformational.[7] Some researchers noted that the accuracy is not high enough for a third of its predictions, and that it does not reveal the mechanism or rules of protein folding for the protein folding problem to be considered solved.[8][9] Nevertheless, there has been widespread respect for the technical achievement. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFold

[@eschatonik]

I was scratching my head when a conversation about emergence began with wetness “emerging” from water as if liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen don’t exist, but literally cackled out loud when he said “there is nothing intrinsically mysterious about consciousness” I’m not saying you guys don’t know what you’re talking about, but I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[@fred_2021]

Yes, indeed. Fellow head-scratcher here. The line I most appreciate from a brilliant scientist is: "I don't know the answer to that; for the moment, it remains a mystery".

[@JonRobert]

Professor Atkins says we need a simulation of consciousness in order to "poke around and understand it." Noting we can't do that with "real people." But if a simulation is an exemplar of "true consciousness" how is that not equally demanding of respect?!

[@fred_2021]

Excellent point. Prof Atkins is in the hard science camp, but the approach to synthesized consciousness should, from an ethical, humane standpoint, encompass more than hard science. The man with a hammer may tend to see all things as nails.

[@wyattcarter3014]

$32,000 weekly profit Our lord Jesus have lifted up my Life!!!

[@bettymathew5233]

I'm 37 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@wyattcarter3014]

@@bettymathew5233 I earn from investing in the digital market with the guidance of Mrs Olivia Renae Marks Brokerage services...

[@edwardrebecca9817]

Olivia Renae Marks trading services is God sent, she is well know for her good personality and successful trading services here in Mexico.

[@fernandaavery9614]

@@wyattcarter3014< Wow wow please is there a way to reach there services, I work 3 jobs and trying to pay off my students loan for a while now!! Please help me

[@wyattcarter3014]

Her availability is sure and faster on...👇🏻👇🏻

[@hughjasse4047]

Geezus, what a fascinating talk

[@johnyharris]

This was filmed some time ago but Peter was correct in saying we would defeat the fiend of predicting protein structure, with the help of AI we now can predict the structure of protein. I also suspect it will be AI that helps us unravel the mechanism of consciousness.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"I also suspect it will be AI that helps us unravel the mechanism of consciousness."* ... Why do you think something *artificial* can explain something that we've possessed *naturally* for over 300,000 years, yet we still don't understand what it is? Does synthetic wood reveal anything about the existence of trees?

[@jamenta2]

I suspect continuing Near-Death scientific studies (actual science) will prove far more valuable, than the dead-end, Materialist head banging still going on with the Emergence theory. Which currently, has no scientific evidential value at all. Just mere wishful thinking from a scientific perspective.

[@johnyharris]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC *"Why do you think something artificial can explain something that we've possessed naturally for over 300,000 years, yet we still don't understand what it is"* For exactly the same reason that AI reveals the structure of protein. As they said at the time about protein structure, something fiendishly complicated, this also applies to brain structure. It's a natural progression that as AI advances so will its ability to unravel the mechanism of the most complicated structure in the known universe. Along with Peter, I happen to suspect that will in turn lead to an explanation of consciousness.

[@jamenta2]

@@johnyharris Reminds me of the Genome project. All the promises made, and though it did prove to have some scientific value - it barely scratched the surface regarding what we know regarding the nature and origin of consciousness. Science should not be based upon promissory notes.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

@@johnyharris *"As they said at the time about protein structure, something fiendishly complicated, this also applies to brain structure."* ... Having what is tantamount to a cutting-edge computer (AI) break down the structure of a protein is not in the same arena as being moved by a Mozart symphony, suffering betrayal from a loved one, or enduring the mental and physical anguish of chemotherapy for a terminal disease. These are all common events that ultimately sculpt a person's consciousness over the course of a lifetime. The only way what you are thinking can become a reality is if the brain is the sole source of human consciousness. In other words, AI is just a "one-trick pony."

[@charleswood2182]

From their properties of atoms you can explain why water would form in a way to feel wet. But you can't explain the fact that water feels wet because that fact roots in experience of events, and never in the events themselves.

[@SandipChitale]

I loved how Peter dispatched the gotcha question about the wetness of water!

[@mikel4879]

"It will take hundreds of years to....understand... consciousness...? 🥴 What? 😏 Peter, what's wrong with you? Full artificial consciousness is already here!😏

[@Elizabeth-mp6tr]

Dear Dr. Atkins: Who made the "laws, rules" by which science progresses? If it were the emergence of random natural selections, then the result would be "random" rather than organized. Molecules even are "organized." Who made the molecules? Dear Sir, your argument is fallacious.

[@peterweston1356]

“Science is very young, we are cautious revolutionaries” Peter says this around 8 minutes 35 seconds. it is something that most folk watching this probably understand. Would it be fair to say that institutions and Governments across the world don’t understand this. Could it be they co-opt science (“We must follow the science”) in order to substantiate their ideological positions. I think so, but I try to keep an open and curious mind. Can Anyone offer any thoughtful thoughts? Thanks

[@TheTroofSayer]

A couple of comments here are persuaded by Atkins' reductionist certainty over Kuhn's probing curiosity. I think that Kuhn is the more reasonable, because he advances from a position of humility, knowing that the problem is much more complex than can be allowed for in Atkins' simplistic analysis. In reply to Kuhn's query at 11:04 whether consciousness can be simulated, for example, Atkins insists that it can. What if QM, entanglement, free-will and other aspects of the relationship between the known and the unknown are integral to understanding consciousness? In contrast to Atkins' self-assuredness, Kuhn's approach is the more productive, given the unknowns that we are up against.

[@fr.richardhill2900]

I know it's not popular to say, but once again, "much learning has driven one mad." When the universe, life, mind, etc. delivers a question that man can not answer, someone will always step forward and make up a description of the problem, and claim it is also the explanation. Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, elegance, multiverses, etc. And now "emergence". The explanation of why water is wet is very unsatisfying. What a fool sees, he believes. The wise man has the power to reason away. It is as if "science" has a huge file of explanations that they should be honest and label "Just one of those things."

[@petergedd9330]

Suppose we took away all words from our mind, all their meanings that have been brought about by our mind. Completey dissacociate ourselves from words. Start to look but without the mind asking questions. We will start to see that there are two things, us, and our mind. We will see that the mind wants to pick things apart, to divide everything, it wants to own it. But if we are still, then we can begin to 'Feel'. The mind cannot feel, it is not made to feel, it is like a machine that organises and labels, and disects, and splits, and if we let it, it will go dividing and splitting and labeling into infinity, but because it does not connect with feeling, all that will be left is empty thoughts. We have come to call it science, the pursuit of division not wholeness, in the name of understanding. But we are losing our humanness because we are leaving the feeling behind, the feeling is what makes us human, it is the life in us. And now because of our blindness we are becoming lifeless, in leaving our feeling, our sense of wonder without tearing it apart. It's almost that our sum totall of life is spread amongst shelves and shelves of jars, and note books. This wonderous beautiful thing we have called the heart, contains joy, happiness, peace, appreciation, gratitude. All these things get left behind in the pursuit of division. Division will go on and on and on and on, because the universe contains the infinite. The only way to appreciate being human, is to start to feel the human and acknowledge the human in us, then peace can start within each of us, and when peace is found individually, then it can spread. Our true journey and exploration, is within, to find who we really are inside, then everything starts to make sense, because we have found where we are, we can start to move forward.

[@wisedupearly3998]

Teleological arguments are not needed as higher order hierarchies influence/alter the probability of the environments in which the hierarchies exist. Biological systems provide the most obvious examples but supercooled water provides another. The formation of the first ice crystal rapidly alters the liquid by destroying its metastability.

[@omar2886]

There's an interesting analogy between human consciousness and cosmology. How the complexity of our biology leads us to being conscious How the physics of all that exists creates the entire cosmos emerging from quantum fields

[@danremenyi1179]

I am not sure that I believe Peter Atkins rather simplistic explaination. I wonder what happens to his explaination if we bring into account the variations produced by temperature and maybe pressure?

[@guusvanderwerf]

water remains the same atoms, only we interpret them differently. no emergence. protein comes alive. that is emergence. how do you explain the "higher" from the "lower". Is something different than explaining "a word like emergence".

[@SandipChitale]

Robert should be careful to first establish strong and weak emergence. IMO Actually these terms - strong and weak are used exactly oppositely than they should be because the weak emergence has the strongest possibility of being true and which is what we find time and again when we get down to the details.

[@theophilus749]

If materialism is correct there surely cannot be any difference between a group of people having an effect upon an individual person in that group and a glass full of H20 molecules having an effect on each molecule. Can there?

[@ErikSmuts]

Thank you Peter for a fantastic example of how the emergence of a water molecule’s shape can actually be deduced from the underlying building blocks. How the distribution of electrons and therefor charges in the molecules is giving us the “logic” that results in the outcome. Of course the “logic” or rule for different emergent outcomes is potentially very different and hence why it is so difficult to predict the outcomes or emergence from the combination of all other building blocks, especially as we move up the hierarchy of complexity. Physics and chemistry have only started scratching the surface in order to determine some of these rules or “logic”, but as we move up the hierarchy the potential outcomes can almost be infinite. As Peter stated, in principle it might be possible to work out the logic of what is driving the emergence at each level of complexity, but in practice it is becoming exponentially more difficult at higher levels of complexity, especially when some of the emergent properties becomes thoughts, concepts or metaphysical entities. The one rule that still appears to hold true is that there is a single direction in all of this, which is that emergent properties are higher levels of complexity that is the result of a combination or interaction between or at lower levels of complexity. Emergence in itself can almost be described as an emergent property from the second law of thermodynamics. Emergence “emerges” or is born out of entropy. However, theology argues the other way and hence the clash with science. It suggests that everything started out or was caused (created) by an entity at the highest level in the hierarchy of emergence or at the highest end of the scale of complexity. It suggest that what science calls a “result” is in fact the “cause”.

[@SandipChitale]

Similarly, the reason for the helical structure of the DNA has to do with the electric charge and the shape of each rung of the DNA ladder. Each rung forces the next rung to twist by a certain (36 degrees) angle. The reason why DNA ended up being the choice molecule for hereditary is that it is stable when it is zipped up as a ladder, yet it can be unzipped using proteins, duplicated by attaching the correct nucleotide on the other side of the half rung and zipped up again to make a copy of the hereditary information. And fortunately, in the chaotic environment of a cell, this process is imperfect thus allowing for mutations to occur, on which the process of natural selection operates. The fitness of the copy for the environment in which it finds itself takes care of evolution to better-suited organisms.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

It's an ontological fallacy to claim "being" arises from arrangements of subatomic particles, and now, even more absurd, arrangements of 1's and 0's. But you stick with that and continue to get nowhere

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Being able to simulate conscience, still isn't actual conscience. It's only artificial. Yet, it still takes a designer to make the computer program, and the simulation.

[@rogerjohnson2562]

12:35 "a conscious entity can't have influence on its own atoms"; yet human minds are able to create and use tools to split the atom. Our genetics driven minds/consciousness are able to (use tools to) modify our genetics.

[@08wolfeyes]

This must be old because we have solved the protein folding problem and can now accurately predict them.

[@markkennedy9767]

At around 12:30 he maintains that a conscious entity has no effect on the structure of its own atoms. Surely this isn't true. Is he being a bit shortsighted when he talks about how things affect each other being unidirectional. Surely he's overlooking the whole notion of feedback here.

[@omar2886]

Can't predicts protein folding? Have you heard of Alpha Fold?

[@KarePassion]

It is not "defeatist" to ask how something is possible, that seems counterintuitive. That is what scientists are supposed to do, ask questions about what is not understood to be the truth.

[@markberman6708]

Definitely not unidirectional, we will discover that in time, really like this guy, but to get to and understand consciousness will require a completely different paradigm of thinking and different realizations of how things work. Humans are simply more than physical constructs, until that is understood and accepted there will always be a limit on what scientists can figure out. I like him, but his perspective denies so much contrary evidence over eons it is hard not to begin listing that which cannot be mathed or sciencied out. But his comments on the optimism of science is fantastic. Humans have such a difficult time with the concept of "more than machines" it's really fascinating.

[@jjharvathh]

Years ago I wrote a computer program that accurately predicted, (from the starting fundamentals of space, time, the four forces, and the elementary particles) the emergence of DNA, life, consciousness, human beings, love, symphonies, lazy summer afternoons, black holes and everything else. But it got erased when my disk crashed.

[@jjharvathh]

@@cosminvisan520 You are the skeptical type of person, we studied about your type in psychology class.

[@tonyatkinson2210]

@@jjharvathh based on his posts in this channel in the past I’d argue he’s highly credulous and deeply egotistical, but that’s by the way . Whet I really wanted to know what’s wrong with skepticism?

[@jjharvathh]

@@tonyatkinson2210 Nothing is wrong with it. Who said that? Not I, you can be sure of that, since I am quite a skeptic.

[@shedvortex]

Flat earth disk problems. Life is ruff.

[@uninspired3583]

42

[@williambunting803]

@12:27 and unfortunate example, as it seems that it is the wetness of water that causes proteins to fold.

[@danremenyi1179]

I write too soon. I dont believe anything about the last part of this talk.

[@shedvortex]

Can't be coincidence more Emergence. I must have peaked the interest in the topic of Emergence egging it on in comments. Peter's passion for science is very apparent. However, this discussion is missing a huge factor of why I keep bringing up Emergence as a key to unlocking the barriers in the current collective sentific mindset of us as the current human race. The topic of WATER and the HYDROGEN molecule and OXYGEN molecules missed so many key questions. First of all Hydrogen itself is the most glaringly perfect example of EMERGENCE. That said, it's not obvious if a TEMPORAL element is never included in the discussions. To make the leap into an age of enlightenment/awakening of our current human race, this question must be asked relentlessly... The term "science" at that point forward must become analogous to the idea of flat earth was when mapmakers had no need to imagine the earth as a literal spherical oscillating bubble in space. The information and knowledge all the mapmakers gained over their lifetimes were not in vain as once the new dimension was integrated as an "INHERENT" element of the new globe earth that EMERGED from the "fundamental" continents, oceans, latitude longitude lines, etc. Not many people's lives change by calling earth a Globe as we still mostly just oscillate about on the surface. This analogy, like any logical analogy is in fact just as literally comparable to Hydrogen Atom EMERGING from the quarks, gluons, photons, etc. A bunch of points that arrange in fundamental geometries creating a new EMERGENT topology. Again this falls short not including the TEMPORAL element. It seems the pattern never ends where many points accumulate into complex geometries such as the quantum particles end up forming a new stable topological SPHERE. Once this new SPHERE EMERGES there needs to be this powerful question: HOW do the TEMPORAL topologies of these fundamental particles interact to keep this EMERGENT sphere stable? Quantum Mechanics and superposition and probabilities by very English Etymological definition can NEVER explain how the inherent TEMPORAL Element properties of the particles interact to form this new stable Hydrogen atom. All of those terms by definition "imagine" a situation where time is unnecessary to be included. The problem there is that we as humans have been deceived by looking up at the stars for many generations as our inspiration. The time scales or frequencies or temporal topologies of the heavenly bodies like planets, stars, etc barely move relative to one another. All that needs to be added to this discussion was the resonant frequencies of Hydrogen. Oxygen and Water. How do those INHERENT resonant frequencies interact to form a new EMERGENT resonant frequency of Water? Perhaps we need to replace the point of Science with a new Globe/Bubble called Wisdom or something similar. Some term that accounts for Knowledge/Facts/Understanding integrated with a Temporal Element or dimension. I'll end with wrapping up my points on Hydrogen being so special... I suspect the EMERGENT resonant frequency and harmonics of Hydrogen show that as the very literal heart beat, origin or the most FUNDAMENTAL EMERGENT physical-temporal topology that defines the most pure mathematical quantification of the Universal constant of Gravitation. Thus "mass" and the Gravitational field are within practical purposes unaffected by any INHERENT elements (particles) that are below the physical size of the Atom and above the resonant frequencies == measured electron-volt "energies" of the photons, quarks, Higgs boson, etc. Similarly consciousness seems to "exist" as an "Emergent" property of the inherent elements of the earth that is within the further emergent "solar system." I suspect it is by very definition of terms, impossible to be a coincidence that the mysterious complexities of consciousness that seems so unique to us as humans, just so happens to occur almost perfectly on a SPHERE around a practically infinitely smaller CORE point around which the fundamental temporal topological elements interact literally within and above the "Sphere of Influence" of the Earth's crust. Why is it "conscious life" seems to be "less complex" than humans as one goes deeper below the crust? Why is it that we as humans experience the EMERGENCE of Conscoousnes at some point between Meiosis between two "cells" and the time a human baby is born. Why is it a very specific set of temporal topological rhythms within rhythms and physical topological configuration of practically infinite quantity of "INHERENT" simple single celled type elements that don't seem conscious, but appear to at least be "proto-conscious". In ending, the only true "Quantum" elements that exist in the most fundamental way are universal proportionality. The topologies and geometries are timeless as in they are gauges like gauge theory. The gauges then compare to one another between EMERGENT stable spheres of influence by the EMERGENT universal constants of proportionality. Just like we as humans have compared the torsion field "force" (strong) to the dielectric field force (weak) to the magnetic field force (electromagnetic). By the nature of EMERGENCE the field forces of Gravity cancel out and are completely unnecessary if all the 3 aforementioned forces are accounted for. That however doesn't change the EMERGENT usefulness of the proportional universal constant of gravity that allows math and science to treat "energy" and "forces" as scale invariant by inter changing the topological geometries and resonant frequencies and harmonics that create are a way to avoid inclusion of a "Time" dimension that allows the Temporal Topologies to EMERGE. This barely scratches the surface, but would be great to talk with Robert someday. I want to ask some questions. Haha. Hope ppl enjoy reading and hope this was somewhat coherent. -BB

[@shedvortex]

I had no idea I was writing that much... too late now. I officially feel like a tin hat troll...

[@SandipChitale]

A better way to say about emergence is that various levels have concepts (interest rate in baking vs covalent bond in chemistry) and explanations at those respective levels, but (in principle) they do not predict something about other levels that will contradict what is there at other levels natively. For example, if molecular physics predicted that H2O will be ice (solid) at 57 degrees celsius at normal atmospheric pressure at sea level and we found (by thermodynamics) that it is water (liquid) in those conditions then it will be an interesting case. Obviously, this does not happen and the emergence described by Peter holds.

[@clemsonalum98]

The part I hate about emergence discussions is they assume we know everything about the underlying levels. If there are things we don't know cause the "emergent properties" then they aren't emergent at all, it's just that we have a limited understanding of physics.

[@waldwassermann]

Correct. I could be said that Emergent and Fundamental are Synonyms. But that's deep Sir. Very deep. Stay with us. We love your companionship.

[@karekarenohay4432]

@@cosminvisan520 Zenk U.

[@fred_2021]

But people on both sides of the physical/metaphysical divide get very upset about 'emergence'. It is, indeed, a case of limited understanding, as perhaps it always will be regarding the deepest mysteries of existence. Yet here we are, just down from the trees, apes slightly smarter than our cousins, presuming to have a 'god's eye view'. A little humility all around wouldn't go amiss.

[@waldwassermann]

@@fred_2021 Correct.

[@Matlacha_Painter]

Is baking a cake an example of emergent phenomena?

[@charlesdarwin4351]

Science is the only mechanism that will bring us closer to truth.

[@jamenta2]

Science is a human endeavor based on consciousness. Reality is contextual with consciousness.

[@caricue]

If by truth you mean an accurate representation of nature or reliable predictions, then that's fine, but "truth" does not exist in nature, so you will never find it no matter how hard you look.

[@TheWayOfRespectAndKindness]

Science, religion, and philosophy emerge from consciousness. Like water, their structural relationships are temperature dependent.

[@fred_2021]

The arguments do get heated.

[@waldwassermann]

The secret is the E in the word Emergence.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Realist and idealist butting heads

[@علي-ش7ث8ب]

*Is he saying that water per se is wet?*

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

'How you distinguish prediction from hindsight?'

[@havenbastion]

anticipation v recall

[@AlmostEthical]

I expected to be impressed but there were some dubious moments in there IMO. If influence goes in only one direction - from the physical to the emergent - then how would he explain the placebo effect and psychosomatic illness? In those instances, the mental/emotional state has an influence on our hormonal, and thus, molecular configuration. It looks like a feedback loop to me. In fact, I find it impossible to imagine natural processes going in one direction without feedback loops developing over time. Yes, philosophy does have an undisciplined element that, as PA suggests, gets in the way of progress. However, many philosophers do have appropriate discipline. Having third party observers of scientific progress in search of coherent overviews is helpful IMO. In any pursuit in life, it is easy for us to be so involved with the challenging minutiae of our work that we lose sight of the forest for the trees.

[@havenbastion]

Natural processes are higher order ones that go both directions. Emergent ones go one direction, from simpler to more complex.

[@AlmostEthical]

Emergent processes are natural processes, and all processes are ultimately emergent, having developed since the Big Bang. Also, many relatively simple processes have feedback loops too, eg. atoms. Do you have examples of what you are thinking of so I can better understand your angle?

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

So prediction is correct emergence description. And if one cannot make an accurate description, then emergence is an invalid useless concept.

[@havenbastion]

Any knowledge that isn't accurate can be discarded, whether or not it's an emergent understanding. Emergence is a new metaphor for a higher level of complexity.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@havenbastion First, the second sentence of my 'So prediction....' post was completely ironic---a position I rarely use in posts---that was in response to Lawrence asking a prediction about water from two gases. I wonder what related ideas there are to 'emergence' ? Synergy and its opposite? Confluence? Simple and complex are relative hierarchical terms. So really supercomplexity can--will arise from mere complexity. That is to say, we tend to think of the simple as multiple and the complex as singular. But at times, from multiple complexities supercomplexity will emerge. Complex entities are more fragile than simpler ones.

[@winstonchang777]

And billions of Humans living and dying will emerge to become what ?

[@Tom_Quixote]

Humanity.

[@winstonchang777]

@@Tom_Quixote Thanks for replying.. But , not as a singular SELF entity, and not physical.....And Humanity may merge with something else to emerge to a higher level that does not concern us. We are just a passing phase, and it does not matter how unjustly one suffers....It is ALL a part of it. That is why bad things happen to good humans nonetheless and there should not be INTERVENTION.

[@mintakan003]

His coming up with a case of "top down" causation could have be stronger. He cited society influencing and individual. Actually, society, individuals, can influence electrons. We do it all the time. With our computers, electronics, power generation systems, etc. (This would've been a cleaner case. Not solely confining it to one level, such as sociology.)

[@aminomar7890]

Easy peasy! it is possible to generate consciousness type one within the next two thousands of years but that needs a real rational intelligent entities not an irrational entities ! funny enough!

[@The-Wide-Angle]

Consciousness can not be a "property". Because "properties" are always perceptions appearing in consciousness.

[@علي-ش7ث8ب]

he is denying the thing that he uses to think.

[@dk-nj3je]

If brain gets damaged so does the consciousness aswell.. how do you explain that

[@علي-ش7ث8ب]

@@dk-nj3je That's not always the case

[@CreationTribe]

The only logical way for strong emergence to actually be a functioning aspect of our reality is if there is some level of simulation happening; whether partially or completely. Also - control theory allows for upward and downward influences. Surely sociological mechanisms can influence the subatomic world. For instance: the invention of the atom bomb was, in fact, driven by military / social happenings. Sociology literally had an impacted on the nuclear world.

[@josephhruby3225]

Brilliant chat - Bravo

[@jaylloyd7246]

We ourselves figured all this out human beings ! So amazing to listen and talk about ! The structure of all around us tells the truth we r apart of it and we are discovering it al in time there energy is the key to it all That’s the term we again made up to help us understand we humans really are the masters of discovery ! Energy is the creation of all

[@waldwassermann]

And all is the same Energy.

[@fred_2021]

@@waldwassermann ...i.e. the same fundamental principle...I'll tell my aunt about that, lol

[@waldwassermann]

@@fred_2021 Just tell her you love her. That's all we can do.

[@jjharvathh]

Peter Atkins is a true believer, he one of the priests of this religion. Really, this worldview is no different from religion.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

0:45 Reductionism as a tool for assembling a cognitive-abstract coherent worldview. Ocham's Razor comes to mind, as one strand of this reductionism. Another might be, 'known thy premises'.

[@rafaelarevalo8047]

as for the case of groups influencing individual people, human beings are inherently social beings. our consciousness is geared towards interactivity and symbolism, and this symbolism is of course very useful socially for communication. when people influence each other, the structures being modified are not physical but virtual--structures of meaning!

[@julianmann6172]

I find Peter's comments unhelpful. Emergence is just a basket to put every issue that is not understood and takes us no further forward. Even the issue of the different forms of water is not understood and is often referred to as anomalous for this reason. A scientist who cannot recognise the limitations of science is no scientist.

[@havenbastion]

Emergence occurs at higher levels of complexity, which at the edge of science's understanding is always a search for the right metaphor to explain the data. It's a tool that happens to apply particularly where we're most uncertain, which doesn't invalidate it, as the emergent understandings persist after we get them figured out.

[@julianmann6172]

@@havenbastion I dispute the validity of the concept of emergence. I don't recall any of the real scientists of the early part of the last century, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac etc discussing this. Also I should point out that Newton recognised the limitations of science, despite making incredible discoveries such as calculus.

[@havenbastion]

@@julianmann6172 Doesn't matter what scientists think of it, it's a linguistic truth. In simplest terms, every relationship creates emergent properties, which are those aspects of the relationship which cannot exist on their own. We tend to use the term when the properties of the relationship are not predictable from the properties of the individual parts. Later we bridge that gap and just call it the rules of whatever is being studied.

[@julianmann6172]

@@havenbastion Take hydrogen and oxygen for example. Individually you get gases. Combined they form water. However water is highly anomalous with several strange properties, dependant on ambient temperature. If water did not freeze from the top downwards life would not be possible. This seems to be intelligent design and not random unexplained emergence. It seems to me that a Creator designed the universe so that hydrogen and oxygen form water.

[@aminomar7890]

big irrational words lead to easy peasy big pinky dreams (irrational one). If this existence is easy peasy then it fits the little irrational minds but if not then it needs real rational intelligent entities to figure out what is going on!

[@sunilprinja9913]

Is a single molecule of water " wet " ?!....is a single atom of chlorine " green " ?

[@peterweston1356]

A debate between Iain McGilchrist and Atkinson would be interesting

[@r2c3]

so, we're talking about an orderly process 🤔

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

does shape of water molecule and emergent wetness develop from energy, how it is configured and used as water molecule?

[@waldwassermann]

Emergence is synonymous with Differentiation.

[@gracerodgers8952]

God made me something special, I'm the only one of my kind.🥰

[@havenbastion]

Emergence is merely a new metaphor for a higher/more complex level of understanding. Technically, every relationship is an emergent property of the interaction of the smaller/simpler things.

[@caricue]

They aren't just talking about emergence as a metaphor for understanding, they think it is a real organizing principle of nature. One problem with this view is that there is no up or down in space (we middle sized creatures who live on a planet's surface have this bias built in). It is just as valid to say that our everyday world is fundamental and the smaller things are derivative. In many cases, such as life and consciousness, it makes things much clearer.

[@havenbastion]

@@caricue Emergence is an organising metaphor For something that nature really does. In simplest terms it can be understood as scale. When you put more stuff together it can start to act in new ways that weren't possible when there was less stuff.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

could consciousness have to do with energy configuration of quantum wave function / fields?

[@uninspired3583]

Probably not. The firing of an action potential is dependant on a large number of atoms, the effects of quantum indeterminance occur at much smaller scales. The quantum effects average out, and don't seem to play a role. That's just for a single action potential. If consciousness emerges from the brain (i think so), the function plays out across patterns in billions of action potentials. If you're at a beach, it doesn't matter where any particular grain of sand is, it's the total configuration of all the sand that makes it a beach. If there is an effect that only applies to a single grain of sand at a time, that effect has little to no impact on the beach.

[@havenbastion]

Modal logic/wave functions are statistical probability. They are a measure of the upper limit of uncertainty, not knowledge about reality.

[@jakubkusmierczak695]

Thanks to closer to truth I was able to listen to prof. Atkins.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

The reason why we can't link reductionism to holism is because MATHEMATICS and PHYSICS remain two different disciplines. The only solution is to integrate them into a single system of knowledge. Currently MATHEMATICS lacks one important aspect to do this and, consequently, serve as the basic tool for satisfaction of the needs of beings: PARTICLE PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF ITS "DIGITS" AND THE 4 BASIC ARITHMETIC OPERATIONS ON THEM. Only after this is done, would it be able to serve that purpose properly. Until then it is nothing more than the substitute for GOD of traditional religions in the most modern religion, EXPERIMENTAL AND OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE. If somebody defines what particles (specifiable quarks, leptons, bosons, protons, neutrons, electrons, elements, radicals, compounds or some completely new type of particles) represent each of the ten digits (0....9) in common use, and specifies what interactions among them correspond to the 4 basic arithmetic operations, then the job is done. And that person would deserve all 6 Nobel prizes for this single job. But, to do this one needs first to integrate the meaning of POSITIVE and NEGATIVE In arithmetic and particle physics with that in ordinary usage, as the separating line between GOOD and EVIL, respectively. The total incompatibility of these two (common and scientific) usages of the terms becomes obvious when one considers how POSITIVE one would feel if a blood test says one is AIDS POSITIVE, or if one holds the POSITIVE end of a live wite. Once this is done, it would become clear that SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE must remain restricted to prevention of negative before it harms life function. Due to lack of this, the most important SERVICE Experimental and Observational Science does today is: MANUFACTURE AND DEPLOYMENT OF WEAPONS. Hence, the basic tool for destruction of LIFE instead.

[@yourlogicalnightmare1014]

Larry records multi-hour interviews with many different topics then trickles them out in snippets over years. I prefer Curt Jaimungal or Joe Rogan format which gives you the hours in one video

[@donespiritu1345]

Love this dude. He doesn't politely suffer the ignorant things that Kuhn says. He even takes a shot at "philosophers" which Kuhn notices right away. The problem I have with Kuhn is that he seems to always be trying to undermine science to promote philosophy. He doesn't seem to understand or is purposely ignoring the fact that scientists make scientific claims that are always subject to change when better theories come along. It seems philosophers like Kuhn on the one hand try to cherry pick scientific theories to create a narrative that is satisfying to himself (Kuhn), and then he will try to undermine the science of others that don't agree with his narrative.

[@Azupiru]

Kuhn is a neuroscientist... He's giving airtime to someone who basically says consciousness is completely reducible and he doesn't push back on that at all. I think you have the wrong idea about Kuhn. He gives way more push back to philosophers and theologians. I'm really curious what examples in his interviews you have that led you to that conclusion.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

To the contrary, i see Kuhn always favoring science over philosophy and even adopting the materialists approach only because of the consensus acceptance of it -- it's the politically correct grounds. Although Kuhn has said his intention for the show is to apply philosophical thought and questions, he also admits to being a materialists, and still wants there to be a God, but he cannot simply be that way because science doesn't show it. And yeah, Kuhn certainly pushes the theologians further than the scienctists, even philosophers. Science is but a measuring tape and ruler on the waist belt of a philosopher/metaphysician.

[@donespiritu1345]

@@Azupiru Kuhn studied neurobiology. He's got an interest in it but he has not contributed to any neurobiological discoveries. He's a hobbyist at this point. I rewatched and I do think I misread Kuhn's intentions. Kuhn and Atkins are like minded in many ways. Kuhn triggered Atkins to defend the idea that everything was reducible by purposely saying that it was impossible. I'm sure he knew Aktins would not agree to that idea. Atkins comment about philosophers is a feeling that a lot of scientists have about philosophers. Scientists do experiments, and observe what nature does and then tries to describe nature. Guys like Kuhn, IMO, like to talk a lot about vague, ill defined ideas and try to make strong claims based on nothing (pure arm chair philosophy). I find that annoying.

[@donespiritu1345]

@@Azupiru Look up Kuhn's discussions with Christopher Isham.

[@donespiritu1345]

@@S3RAVA3LM Science is a tool of inquiry. Scientists use it to make progress in the understanding of nature. Metaphysicians like to read the scientific discoveries of others and build up narratives that they foolishly believe are truthful.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

So...why is emergence significant? Because something that is beyond, eminent yet transcendent, is ,and the phenomenal realm indicates this and points to this because of top-downism; emanation, and then somewhere emergence. Nothing here possesses within itself, itself, or fuels itself from within itself, or gives from itself the sustenance needed for all the other things around it to thrive off of and are from. Some people talk about natural law, thinking what's supernatural is implausible, only because they've not been made aware of it, though what's supernatural is not discriminate to what's natural from relativity; it either all natural or all supernatural, they're not distinct, though from our point of view it may seem like that. What you love, you become. What you focus on is what you attract. If you deny God all you have are atoms, and there the journey ends. This man says Consciousness is not a mystery -- although you will never be able to replicate, test, measure, observe, consciousness. A mystery is that which is not understood, once grasped by the Intellect, becomes a Knowing, not longer mysterious. You likely won't come to further Knowing consciousness from without. Where in the atom is there consciousness? Or perhaps it's proper to say everything is in Consciousness. It cannot be proven, what come first: Chicken or the egg; son or the father; the womb or the child; tree or the seed. If it's not about Philosophy and Metaphysics, then where else do you want to look? Where in the atom is all of this?