Philip Clayton - How Can Emergence Explain Reality?

For more videos and information from Philip Clayton click here bit.ly/1CCgAsD
For more videos on how emergence can explain reality click here bit.ly/1CClRAD
How does Emergence work? What does it say about reality?

[@cmeimgee]

There are several episodes in this INCREDIBLE series, this episode included, that give me boundless hope for the potential to get into very deep conversations with a person sitting in the chair directly in front of or behind me.

[@earthandstraw]

"We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would “lief” or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on the condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science, and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception." Alan Watts

[@MrJamesdryable]

I just accidentally watched this at 1.25x speed. It made it very intense.

[@citizenschallengeYT]

How did you manage that?

[@MrJamesdryable]

@@citizenschallengeYT Magic.

[@citizenschallengeYT]

@@MrJamesdryable Got it. No wonder I can't figure it out. (Always thought speed control on KZbin would be a cool thing, but I never could get magic to work for me.) ;-)

[@MrJamesdryable]

@@citizenschallengeYT Don't give up.

[@mauricemeijers7956]

Wow! This is really a great view. Many thanks!

[@SomethingImpromptu]

Wonderful explanation.

[@mrskilton1]

very good levels of emergence discussion

[@patrickl6932]

He could have turned that chair around.

[@MrJamesdryable]

What are you gonna do about it?

[@georgekovacs4278]

I think Clayton is used to sitting on the edge!

[@tunahelpa5433]

The more we learn, the more we understand, looking back, that which we did not. Looking forward, via hypotheses, we try to understand but find it difficult, in a way similar to someone hacking the way through a Mayan forest, passing small structures of all sorts - all of which make no sense on their own - until finally we emerge at a temple never seen before, then looking back and seeing how obvious it should have been all along!

[@Flowing23]

great conversation

[@silberlinie]

What he misses is an insight into whether these levels of emergence continue upward. For how far? Forever? In ever-thickening qualities? Without endpoint?

[@mackdmara]

He is guessing. This is a new idea, & this is weak on many points. I do hope he keeps pressing it.

[@simianbarcode3011]

10:55 "the world is upwardly open." Why would there need to be an "endpoint" at all? The collective complexity of the multiverse has plenty of room for things beyond measly human understanding.

[@awaken69]

fascinating

[@austinthornton3407]

Interesting to me since I’ve coined the term “emergence” myself to express something very similar. The striking point around this is the way that all which exists in the universe appears to have developed from hydrogen, which is not itself the fundamental particle. So you have qualitative changes (at least as perceived by humans) based on quantitative developments. That’s really interesting and suggests that there is another dynamic than entropy in the sense of the move from ordered systems to disaggregated systems.

[@JerseyLynne]

Exactly why physicists cant advance without investigating consciousness...

[@nihlify]

To say they can't sound like a very unscientific statement...

[@BlastOffLabWebDesign]

I didn't understand what he was trying to say until the very end. but it does make sense. at each level we don't have rigid rules that determine exactly what will happen because at the fundamental level nature works on probability. And so we are left with these emergent principles that have wiggle room to work somewhat independent of the lower level of physics. personally I don't think its unreasonable to think consciousness is st the highest level and will not be fully understood just by building blocks at the lower levels. but must also be understood at that level, interactions with others and how that affects the system as a whole. That's what I think anyways :D

[@reason2463]

Emergence is how I’ve been explaining reality to myself since I was a young adult (a very long time). Matter, space and time are emergent properties of energy. Solar systems are an emergent property of matter and gravity. Biology is an emergent feature of chemistry, which is an emergent property of matter. Consciousness is an emergent feature of brain biology. Nowhere in this chain of causality is a deity required. It leaves this analyst with the most fundamental question: What is energy? I have so far been disappointed with all of the answers I have heard to this question. After thinking about strong and weak emergence as described by Clayton, I have decided that natural selection exerts a strong influence on the emergence below it, changing bodies and minds according to the needs of ecosystems and individuals. I have waited more than 40 years now for a scientist, philosopher or theologian to offer this view of reality. It’s nice to finally hear it on Closer to Truth. I hope others will reinspect their conclusions as a result.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Experience of energy in brain organizes collection of neurons for subjective conscious / mind; and subjective conscious / mind organizes other collection of neurons to experience energy for action and whatever else?

[@caricue]

The fact that this is controversial explains why determinists are so dogmatic in their belief in bottom up control, even if you point out that a human is making knowledge based decisions, and particle interactions don't involve knowledge or intention. You can't disprove a religious belief like determinism.

[@h.astley2113]

I love the idea of emergence but the top-down interpretation seems highly spurious

[@simianbarcode3011]

10:55 "the world is upwardly open." It's probably just as hard for us to imagine what the levels above our own emergent consciousness are like as it is for a bacterium to imagine what the internet is like. The entirety of the multiverse is the limit to possible levels collective complexity.

[@kyjo72682]

13:05 Yes, obviously. But there is also a phenomenon called natural selection (and a more general "universal" selection for a multiverse) which cuts down considerable proportion of branches on this huge tree of possibilities. We are a leaf on one of the rare branches that haven't been cut off yet and we are observing the tree backward -- from leaf to the root. (Although unless we happen to find some theory of everything which would connect the base logic and mathematics all the way up to us I fear it might be the case the root is beyond our horizon or even infinitely far.)

[@GeoCoppens]

Another nut, this Clayton!

[@davidwilkie9551]

Time is motion, motion is quantified in integrated mathematical functions and that means cofactor multiples bind cohesively, and prime numbers exclude into blocks of cohesion. Intuition works fine, wordlessly, with patterns of integrated motion including living things. So life and the universal context is the pattern that emerged from the evolved state of time that is, altogether, the container of the set of wave derived functions that is collectively called the Standard Model. From observation, alone.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Might subjective conscious emerge from energy experienced in brain (bottom-up), and also experience of energy emerge from subjective conscious in brain (top-down)?

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Could energy experienced in brain as subjective consciousness bring together bottom-up (physical) and top-down (spiritual) emergence?

[@Blakedenenny]

Clayton is essentially reintroducing Aristotilean/Thomistic formal and final causality, I wonder if he's aware of that

[@koffeeblack5717]

Not too weird when you think about it. Modern physicalism is like a reconstruction of Democritus' view that all is particles in void. Modern Quantum Physics based Idealisms are a reconstruction of Plato's theory of the forms.

[@HitomiAyumu]

No. This is not final cause. Emergence is not the same as final cause.

[@HitomiAyumu]

+Koffee Black Not true. Consider the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. There is nothing metaphysical about the entities proposed in this theory.

[@ryanfranks9441]

he calls the side he doesn't agree with "Weak emergence" LMAO!!!

[@kyjo72682]

+HitomiAyumu Isn't there? The parallel worlds are inherently unobservable (by a single observer) unless you count thinking about abstract objects (such as fields described by QFT) as a form of observation. That I think might be a bit metaphysical..

[@onestepaway3232]

Emergence is function. When does function not require a mind. Where do these properties and functions come from. You cannot ignore that question

[@nihlify]

Nonense question...

[@djtan3313]

Layers. Like onions. Truth is.

[@garybalatennis]

I think this man's explanation of emergence is not very clear or understandable to lay people. He keeps trying to explain it or answer a question by referring to some other word or concept that needs explaining. Emergence of life, consciousness and reality from materialism, matter and atomic particles seems to be something more than just wholism (i.e. the whole is greater than sum of parts). It seems to be something more than evolution (lower forms evolve to higher forms). It seems to be a third way to understand reality versus the standard materialism (i.e. atoms explain it all) or dualism (i.e. world divides into matter on one side and mind and soul on other). Maybe better way to think of emergence is that it's like a newborn baby. Man and woman produce a baby that emerges from both, but it's a new creature unto itself. A new life and mind and consciousness is created.

[@kmanc8571]

that's not a very illuminating explanation lol. Emergence also has to do with different characteristics of things at different scales I think, not only that one thing rises from another but that many small things make a bigger thing that behaves in a very different way that is hard to predict

[@vinm300]

gary, you are so right. He keeps talking about a "leash" constraining systems or allowing them freedom . His leash is just God-of-the-gaps reconstructed. Eg he talks about genetics being dependent on cell interaction in ways not currently understood and he says it's an example of a slack "leash". This Clayton guy hasn't a clue.

[@yawlawrence6738]

Such encounters are not for lay people. It’s for peers. Besides, the video is only 13 minutes. He can’t explain everything about his emergence here. It’s assumed that you’re a peer.

[@jamesnordblom855]

I understand the principle well enough....higher forms emerge from lower. But...until you can assemble these forms in the laboratory into something that is actually alive, that is, create life........I think you are just walking around the edge of understanding. We have a long way to go, I think, to true understanding of how the heck we came into being in the first place (and no....I don't mean how we evolved), how is it that life itself exists.

[@Demention94]

The laboratory is the world in this case. It's more of a observed process..just like lab science.

[@jamesnordblom855]

That makes sense to me. I have always enjoyed the lab. But remember, the lab provides for the collection of data but should not be considered conclusive. The world is a wonderful laboratory, but it is not the entire universe. Nor is the evolution of life from molecular behavior the entirety of biochemistry. Sometime in the process, chemical behavior went from an ability to replicate to a need to survive. Why?

[@Demention94]

***** Why not?

[@jamesnordblom855]

The answer to either question should prove exciting, don't you think?

[@kmanc8571]

that's synthetic biology, and there are some interesting advancements being made in that field nowadays. With the inherent properties of amphipathic molecules such as lipids (assembling themselves into closed cells), and both amino acids and nucleotides being known to be able to form without direct input from living mechanisms (being created in the lab in an environment that could realistically happen by itself in nature), it's not a far fetch to assume that life could indeed form in nature, and its certainly more believable in my mind than any other alternative (and the one that leaves the shortest trail of questions in its wake IMHO).

[@sshez99]

could upward openness be an argument for free will?

[@bizzee1]

I can see how explaining the behavior of a lion at it's own level (i.e. the lion ate because it was hungry) is at least a practical shortcut in contrast to explaining the behavior of a lion as a necessary outcome of lower order physics, but it would really be useful to do both if it is possible to do both. So, we shouldn't just write off looking to explain lion behavior as a necessary outcome of lower order physics as only an ideology.

[@HitomiAyumu]

Hes not writing anything off. He said both explanations are important, but you can not derive one from the other.

[@bizzee1]

It looks to me that you are contradicting yourself, because saying you can't derive the behavior of lions from lower order physics is the very definition of writing off that explanation of lion behavior. 10:26

[@HitomiAyumu]

bizzee1 No, absolutely not. Physiological explanations require chemistry; and therefore indirectly physics. But psychological explanations do not. Their models are mutually incompatible.There is hardly anything controversial about this.

[@bizzee1]

It /still/ looks to me that you are contradicting yourself, because saying you can't /fully/ derive the behavior of lions from lower order physics is the very definition of writing off the explanation that you can /fully/ derive the behavior of lions from lower order physics (10:26).

[@HitomiAyumu]

bizzee1 You can explain behavior psychologically, physiologically, economically, anthropologically, ecologically and probably a whole lot of other ways as well. Just because you can't derive one from another, does not mean you have to choose one and write all the rest off. This is false assumption.

[@infinitytoinfinitysquaredb7836]

As a practical matter, Emergence is acknowledging the incredible (and mostly unseen) complexity of the world around us. In principle could a theory of everything (say a completed form of string theory) combined with perfect knowledge of physics and a super-super-super computer simulation predict Earth's amazing diversity of life forms and their complex behaviors? Maybe, but we are a long, long, long, long, loooong way from being able to do that. And whatever your simulation spit out as results would be different, and probably far different, from the world around us. If an asteroid had not hit the Earth, humans would likely never have evolved. So you would need to look at human DNA in our present form and work down through reductionism. And how much would that tell you about human behavior without factoring in culture, history, inventions, etc, etc? So the level of complexity is akin to chaos theory in its inability to ever make good predictions.

[@caricue]

The idea that you could take the initial conditions of the universe and use the differential equations of quantum mechanics to unfold the next 14 billion years until you found yourself sitting there in front of your super computer with Shakespeare and Harry Potter calculated from the particle interactions, along with what you are thinking at that moment is mysticism of the highest order. This is a case where common sense can prevent going "full retard" and calling it science.

[@65jst]

I think that the anti-reductionist position on biology and evolution is premature.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Yeah, Krispr Krunh is right , How can emergence explain reality ? No, it is the other way around, Reality can explain emergence.

[@mackdmara]

He likes to have his cake & eat it too. It is absolutely determined, & he wants to affirm that in physics & chemistry. Then he goes on to say there is a larger amount of play above that. It is determined, but not. No I doubt your square circle exists. I could be wrong & I do see that. From this, I could not agree with the claim he has so far given. I agree with some of what he is saying, on physical systems. I think that they are not as determined as we would like. That said, I still would hold that the agency of the person is highly important to acknowledge. He wants to say you exist as an illusion of variables. Just as Newton is a product of his time, so he is a product of his. He is both certain & unsure. This idea is Novel, & I hope he keeps playing with it, but I get the feeling he will find himself sorted back into the old system. His claim does not resolve past differences at this level, & insisted that we will one day know. I will one day be rich, do you want to loan me cash off that claim? You will one day know, but only when God tells you. Some mysteries will remain so until then. Interesting though.

[@SeanMaroni]

Why did they make him sit backwards in his chair.

[@Demention94]

It's edgy.

[@HitomiAyumu]

+Demention94 Actually, I think its supposed to mimic real life conversations to the video appear more personal.

[@peterh.6010]

Like the teacher's would do... hey I'm hip and relatable

[@48acar19]

Very interesting! Most lay people cannot really understand it, because of the Jesus BS.

[@Neura1net]

I call BS

[@davidmayhew4818]

But!! And I've got a big butt!! Huh?

[@rolo5424]

This guy is trying to sound clever but he is confusing, and doesn't seem to know himself what he is on about. He keeps contradicting himself.

[@raven7thhole]

pure an unadultered BS!

[@RyanBell926]

Which part? It all seems fairly straightforward. Which part is BS in your opinion. (in case it's not clear I'm genuinely asking).

[@HitomiAyumu]

+Ryan Bell I agree. Makes perfect sense to me.

[@bizzee1]

At 10:26 Clayton makes an absolute claim of how how the universe doesn't work, but he can not know that. What we can say is that we currently don't have a model of lower order physics that explains the behavior of lions. However, such a model might be possible if our universe is perhaps a fractal universe that has one equation which describes it as does the Mandelbrot set.