Phillip Clayton - Why is Emergence Significant?

For subscriber-only exclusives, register for free at CTT.com: bit.ly/3He94Ns
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.
Watch more interviews on complexity and emergence: bit.ly/45Iu5Jd
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Philip Clayton is Ingraham Professor at Claremont School of Theology. His previous teaching posts include Williams College and the California State University.
Get free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
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.

[@jamesspero5884]

Very fascinating discussion, Robert is adept at framing questions which lead to a better understanding of the concepts being probed.

[@stuford]

Excellent interview! Paints a possible uplifting future for humans. Some consistency here with an omega point as postulated by Tipler!

[@bozo5632]

If there are two turds on the ground, and a third turd is added, then instantaneously a triangle emerges. Clearly emergence must be some kind of magical miracle that exceeds all science and mere human wisdom.

[@antoniodiogo1292]

An great episode! Espetacular!😮

[@joebulgozdi5099]

Arriving FullCircle

[@josephhruby3225]

Wonderful . . . Thnx for sharing

[@apelincoln1616]

"You mind if i turn this chair around?" "No!"

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

I think he gave Phillip a epiphany at 7:40. very good discussion about something no one has the answer too.

[@Resmith18SR]

Teillhard de Chardin also had a very similar view. He said that Evolution proceeding from the simple to the complex. Geosphere- Biosphere- Noosphere.

[@russellbarndt6579]

To me he speaks of a recreative force that isn't directly aware of you or I nor perhaps itself just an higher intelligent life form within this same universe.. Would seem to align with Eastern philosophical views some

[@kylebowles9820]

I could see emergence like a symbiotic relationship between processes that allow for a metastable state. Checks out on all scales. The problem is that it's very difficult to, and not many people can, invert the physical equations to solve for states that satisfy certain properties. We need more mathematical techniques for currently intractable problems

[@patientson]

A symbiotic relationship between the 7 senses and the elements. Yes. You're right about the symbiotic parts relationship.

[@LiftersClinic]

I would rather say that our relationship with the supernatural is an ancient aspect of our limited resources of knowledge through the scientific method but that it does not exclude spirituality as an human shared experience when we connect with the natural world and each other. If we can think it, we can believe in it. Much like Batman and Spider-Man’s adventures, we can will beings and stories into a sense of chronological reality and maybe even truth in explains our own individual life experiences through unique systems that can be shared and grown to form communities and events or rituals that bond us to the world and each other. In my years of treating patients from all walks of life, it is incredible in the many ways we share the need for a supernatural explanation or purpose to guide us when we are afraid of what may lay ahead regarding healing, ability, individuality, and one’s community’s and family. The cross road between religion and science need not be decisive rather informative of the vast benefits that come from a shared sense of purpose and community within a world that uses the available known sciences to better our short but significant cosmic lives among the stars.

[@franksalo3466]

Their's a study that was published back in 2016 the suggests that consciousness may emerge as a by product of Entropy. Interesting thought at least

[@Kritiker313]

Emergence from a corporal existence to a higher, non-physical form of life perhaps? I just hope our big questions are answered when we get there.

[@magicmjk09]

A very intriguing arguement for theology, albeit a VERY different type of theology. Yet I can't see how putting a god into this fascinating, and somewhat evident system of emergence, helps the arguement. I think it's time to draw the Occam's razor and shave a bit of unnecessity from this argument.

[@browngreen933]

"Open process of emergence." I like that way of describing Existence. Also his observation that living humans are more than the sum of their parts (i.e. wires and neurons) -- humans ask questions. I would add that only when we start asking questions do "gods" appear. 😮 He also wonders if our questioning big brain will lead to premature extinction. In his view did we emerge "God"? That wasn't clear. 😮

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*" Also his observation that living humans are more than the sum of their parts "* ... Pink Floyd is a perfect example of being _"more than the sum of their parts."_ After the four members disbanded, the unique sound the band produced no longer existed. None of the individual members were ever able to produce anything comparable to what was produced as a group.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Yet there is no individual characteristic of their sound that wasn't the product of the members. It's a feature of emergent properties that you can construct high level descriptions that don't apply to the components, yet are entirely the result of action of the components. So I think the 'more than the sum of their parts' phrasing is misleading. It's true and useful descriptively, but it's false causatively. The simplest examples to reason about are temperature and pressure of gasses. Gas molecules don't have a temperature or a pressure, we can only apply those descriptions to a body of gas as a whole. Nevertheless the temperature of the gas is calculable exactly from the individual motions of the molecules. Similarly pressure describes the force applied by the gas on the wall of it's container, but it's actually just the sum of each individual molecule impacting on the container wall. There is no component of that pressure value that was not the product of a molecular impact. "More than the sum" makes it sound like there is some external force reaching into the phenomenon granting it new powers. That's just not the case. It's just that that the sum of the parts is more than any of the parts by itself.

[@browngreen933]

@@simonhibbs887 That's why I like the living human example. On one level we're just meat and digestive juices. But out of those mundane parts are produced have god-like thinking powers. Nothing external about it, however it makes us mysterious and wonderful even as our bodies are leaking sacks of smelly secretions. No wonder humans turn to myth and superstition for explanations! Will the body ever catch up to the mind? Or will we self extinct ourselves first?

[@r2c3]

2:20 nowadays is not astounding to see a self-driving car passing next to your lane...isn't this, as well, an example of an automated object that doesn't add up to the sum of its parts... also, a spacecraft doesn't sum up to only its parts, as do many other things but they're all designed not emerged... what is the special aspect of emergence that can distinguish it from design or as an objective of its integral parts 🤔

[@Corteum]

We can also ask "How can consciousness explain reality?" Simple: "Without consciousness there is no reality!" lol

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

It is Opposite, Only Reality can explain emergence, one of Mr. Kuhns many speculations.

[@NicholasWilliams-kd3eb]

It has jazz, but really what it is (funky), it's constantly throwing that a$$ in a circle.

[@mkrafts8519]

A camera that can pan a shot and yet we have guys sitting in chairs facing away as if we are taking a smoke break from a conference.

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

I caught that as well, I guess there is a little bit of Art involved in making a series. This is a casual conversation so the posture is relaxed, it looks uncomfortable to me but it's not the chair backwards with a man spread and arms folded across the back which is too casual and a bully / class "holderbacker" pose. At least this is not that cluttered room where there is so much stuff you can't hear what they are saying.

[@ronhudson3730]

Agree with this idea fully. How does the block-time idea merge with this? He suggests not even God knows the outcome but block-time says all development from the begging to the end exists. What do we do with that?

[@0ptimal]

Idk but i often wonder if people treat potential too literally. What if god knows the potentials.

[@kylebowles9820]

Block time is a thought experiment, it cannot be true in reality. We know this because of entropy, plus the very existence of randomness and chaos in general

[@quantumkath]

Emergence emerging into a more complex emergence, a higher reality - cool 😎

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Kudos from 444 Gematria!

[@indiatemplessecretromdata262]

I've Discovered Indian Temples Depict Wormhole Travel Machines.

[@mickeybrumfield764]

Doesn't the concept of an emergence that is greater than the sum of its parts suggest a state of being beyond mathematics and science. Will we someday have to appreciate an existence beond what is explainable by mathematics and science.

[@johnyharris]

We can all appreciate what is beyond science. I love science fiction. But what is more difficult is to explain the mechanism of such phenomena. If you can't explain the mechanism then it is simply an open question and open to a vast range of interpretations, each with its own set of supporting arguments and limitations.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Doesn't the concept of an emergence that is greater than the sum of its parts suggest a state of being beyond mathematics and science."* ... The pattern demonstrated by "emergence" is a repeated evolution from simplicity to complexity. If "Existence" has extracted all relevant information from everything that already exists and yet keeps evolving into higher complexity, then logic states that a new type of existence that cannot be explained by science and mathematics will one day emerged. The only opposition to this would be a claim that "Existence" is in some way _limited_ to only physical structure. My "imagination" is in no way "physical," so I would question that claim. *"Will we someday have to appreciate an existence beyond what is explainable by mathematics and science."* ... I argue that we're right in the middle of that transformation. In human terms, we're at the "awkward teenager stage" trying to deal with concepts beyond our understanding.

[@josephstanick8395]

Mathematics and science are wonderful stepping stones into the unknown.

[@simonhibbs887]

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC >"then logic states that a new type of existence that cannot be explained by science and mathematics will one day emerged." Since science and mathematics are descriptive frameworks for consistent systems, and have the full power to describe anything conceivable by logic, that implies this form of existence would be beyond logic or description, and would not be consistent?

[@simonhibbs887]

The phenomenon of emergence that is not the sum of it's parts has never been observed or verified. It's often talked about as if it's self evident or even already proven, but this is not the case.

[@ronhudson3730]

6:37 - Bingo!

[@zasif]

Given that many non-physical, non-material things like ideas, language, numbers, and physical laws exist, is it logically possible to confine reality to physical and material things such as matter, energy, time, and space. Is it possible that the more fundamental reality is non-physical? Given that logic and reasoning are weak tools, (logic may be incomplete, and reasoning may be dependent upon the truth of assumptions), why is “proof” placed on such a high pedestal, whereas in practical life “plausibility” works fine in most cases? Are we limiting ourselves to a small set of tools?

[@shanejones2861]

Matter, energy, time, and space don't "exist" either. They're emergent from quantum fields. That's one of the things that makes Emergence so compelling. Things like ideas and numbers don't have to be fundamenal to be real and useful! There is a version of what you're describing, though. Look up episodes of this show with Donald Hoffman: his view is that consciousness is fundamental and "projects" the material world downwards.

[@AlphynKing]

The interesting idea of God they talk about in the latter half of the interview sounds a lot like the definition of God in Process Theology. Very interesting stuff, look it up if you haven’t!

[@theotormon]

Emergence can't explain how quantitative processing gives rise to qualitative experience.

[@markberman6708]

Off subject.... but the concept of a Dyson Sphere was massive and meant to capture the power of a star.. the principle being to capture power... if that is the principle, we need not worry about the size.. it can be smaller than the naked eye can see... what matters is that what's inside power can be garnered from. Interesting idea, no?

[@brothermine2292]

Clayton went off the scientific rails when he asserted that because emergent properties arise from processes too complex to analyze (using current technologies) at a deeper physical level -- for example, trying to analyze trillions of connections between neurons -- it somehow implies emergent properties are "more than the sum of their parts."

[@simonhibbs887]

That's strong emergence, and I don't buy it either. It is true that high level behaviours are much easier to describe and model using high level conceptual frameworks, and that high level system exhibit characteristic the low level doesn't have. However those high level characteristics tend are statistical or constructive descriptions based on low level behaviour. Pressure and temperature in gases for example. There is no causal effect at the high level that isn't due to the action of a low level component of the system.

[@brothermine2292]

@@simonhibbs887 : Right. A property that really is more than the sum of its parts should not be called "emergent." Another way to describe it is to say the parts individually lack the emergent property, but together they collectively have it.

[@kylebowles9820]

I don't subscribe to any particular view but I think emergence could be a product of the low level system interacting with an environment or itself. The description of an electron explains chemistry but you need additional math like a markov process to see emergent behaviors. Those areas of math are less developed, many problems like the halting problem are thought to be impossible right now.

[@quantumkath]

I agree with Phillip Clayton that we need to study the complexities of consciousness in and of itself. Reductionism seems unfruitful.

[@simonhibbs887]

Meanwhile neuroscience day by day continues to revolutionise our understanding of our conscious experiences.

[@quantumkath]

@simonhibbs887 I am on your side, Simon. I accept physicalism. Like we study chemistry, biology, quantum physics, psychology, and sociology, we must highlight consciousness as a separate entity. Not what the content is, no religion, no emotions, no sense stimulus, but how thoughts can become complex. For example, the whole is greater than its parts. Quarks (parts) make up the more significant (whole) proton. But, the Conservation Law requires gluons. The same goes for thoughts. What holds them to become complex? There has got to be a system, a pattern to consciousness, and if neuroscience can describe it separately from the brain, more power. Silly, but I feel emergence is a type of energy that we cannot yet measure because we would be able to read minds. Maybe there will be an Einstein who will give us answers if focused solely on consciousness. I'm nooo Einstein, lol. You, well, I respect your insight. Finally, we need to describe what consciousness "is not" as a beginning. It's probably simple, but it must be irrefutable, like the scientific method.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

How about this. From a certain point of view, Phiycialism is really a kind of Mentalism. The mentalist is trying to figure things out. They have various mental models that they use for various levels of emergent reality, hence Mentalism. The model called 'the physical' is at the base of an explanatory hierarchy. In that special sense 'the physical' is the mentalistic. To put Mentalism below Physicalism on the hierarchy would not work because one would be moving abruptly from the existential to the epistemic. Then what is the relationship between this Mentalism and Experientialism?

[@simonhibbs887]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Mentalism in the sense of Idealism puts the mental below the physical in the hierarchy, because they think it is more fundamental. For them the physical emerges from the activity of the mental. I think I see where you are going though, physicalism doesn't say the mental doesn't exist, just that it's a physical activity. It's a valid level of analysis. Also our conception of the physical is a mental construct, so there is a self-referential loop there, but that's inherent in the concept of self awareness.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

@@simonhibbs887 What comes first, reality or consciousness? The reality story explains the consciousness, but I don't see how the consciousness story can explain reality. Is consciousness dependent on reality as to its origin? Yes. Is reality dependent on consciousness for its origin? I'm going to answer Yes, BUT, there are two senses of time here. I want the moral of the story to be what you think is important generally affects what you think is important specifically. What you see depends on what you want. Still, I'm with physicalism.

[@stoneysdead689]

I watch all your videos and I try to see each as valid- even the ones that express a point of view I disagree with- why? Because I have an immense respect for academia and academic accomplishment, and I think educated ppl who have dedicated their lives to the study of a subject should be listened to when that is the subject at hand. That said- either arguments like this are over my head- which is entirely possible- or they're based on seemingly arbitrary assumptions- I can't figure out which. But just because the picture you see fits into the broader context of a god existing- in no way suggests to me that a god actually exists. What it suggests to me is that God is man made and so, we keep redefining the concept to make it fit into the context of the reality we see around us. At what point should we say, "That's it, no more redefining and reinventing god- we have to accept there is no such thing."? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question- and maybe I'm wrong entirely and there is a god. But if that's the case- can he really blame me for not knowing or questioning his existence? Seems entirely sane and reasonable to me to do so. I'm not militant about it- and I don't think ppl who are religious are dumb or any of that stuff- that's so childish and ridiculous. Some of the religious ppl I know are extremely intelligent, really good, decent ppl. and they have some good arguments that are hard to refute. Fine tuning is definitely an issue- subjective experience and the existence of consciousness another- materialist and atheist do no one any favors when they become militant and insulting toward the "other side". That's one reason I love this show- you guys show respect to every point of view that is well informed- but you do so by challenging them- I love that. If someone can enlighten me to what I am missing here- I'm sure there is more to this than I am seeing. Anyone who can help- please, speak up.

[@RolandHuettmann]

Sure, God is man-made. Even everything you see or think about is made by you, nobody else. All we know is our mental projection. It is amazing. We do not know the reality behind our reality, we are blind thinking that we know, but we know almost nothing.

[@wmgodfrey1770]

Capacities (Emanations?) + Emergence ~=~ Possibilities + Constraints. Reciprocal Processing = Reciprocal Opening VS. Reciprocal Narrowing. YET, IT is ALSO helpful to broaden & deepen Our Shared Conception of THIS ineffable "god-ness" in terms of the ACTUAL historical origination of Cognitive Psyche Techné.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Culture in birds and apes? Absent technology and language? Does he have a really primitive definition of culture, or has he reduced culture to behavior that is distinguishable and consistent within a group? Is sea turtle 🐢 birthing practice culture or instinct?

[@JancobSweety-el9kj]

So let's look at sacred geometry. The kaleidoscope nature shows the connections through the layers like quantum connections to the macro and vice versa, that's why the signals from touch and taste and stuff kaleidoscope as well and build our physical being. What we are is an accumulation and our purpose is to transport variables in order to grow and survive. The thing we don't see is that we are working backwards and God is a prediction, a pattern we see through the variables we are and that's why they say god lives within us and everything else. There isn't one god or many, they are all they same and so are we just separated by the difference ad the separations grow just as to connections grow. I think that the multiverse is under our noses and honestly we see it but aren't it and that's why we navigate the multiverse.

[@yellowburger]

Seems to me "emergence" is just a fancy word for things we don't understand. And I really mean don't understand.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

Who's that ultimate alchemy.!!??

[@ricklanders]

God in the traditionalist view would have to know. It might be a case of God knowing every possible outcome, preserving free will, preserving evolutionary open-endedness, preserving omniscience.

[@FortYeah]

Hegel!!

[@stewartbrands]

If understanding is an infinite process then interpreting human understanding as a greater or more complete process is a wrong assumption.Making complex machines or contemplating the universe is no more relevant or exalted than a fungi partaking in the synergy of soil. Elevating human consciousness to an esteemed position relative to everything else only has meaning to those who do it. This process is not relevant within synergies which is basically everything.

[@mykrahmaan3408]

The fundamentais of science is fatalisticaly slavish, meaning: 1) FATALISM: It assumes that there exists a power (now called NATURE instead of GOD) that determines the flow of all events in the universe, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT WE OURSELVES DO IN IT. 2) SLAVISHNESS: the undeclared assumption that the task of science in searching for knowledge is to discover the LAWS OF that power and follow them strictly. No self respecting individual would ever search for an external order to follow, but that is exactly what all scientists, from antiquity to present day, without even a single exception, have been doing and still continue to do. Otherwise these questions of reductionism, emergence and holism to discover WHAT NATURE HAS INTENDED FOR US wouldn't have even occurred to any self respecting individual. Although Phillip expresses the possibility of our actions having an influence on shaping the flow of nature, he is NOT decisive/bold enough to derive the consequence. He still looks for experimental and/or observational confirmation of the idea. If somebody/something has to approve your FREEDOM, then you don't deserve it. Even when quantum physics so clearly shows that nature has NO LAWS, but is malleable, these slavish scientists keep still looking for some order to follow, instead of designing own laws how nature SHOULD function if it is to satisfy our needs, and then inventing the means to implement them (just like some slaves who wanted to remain with their masters even after they were freed, simply because they didn't know how to survive on their own). DESTINISM instead of DETERMINISM and/or PROBABILISM = GEOCRACY instead of CLASSICAL PHYSICS and/or QUANTUM PHYSICS.

[@longcastle4863]

Religious thinking no longer satisfies in our modern age. Imo. Hopefully the harmful and belittling ways of viewing humanity (i.e., as broken, fallen, lost, etc), which is really the hallmark of every major popular religion on this planet, is finally coming to an end. And humanity can move forward without being held back by those who want to make heaven, rather than the future of our species, the primary purpose of our lives. Our new morality should have everything to do with what is good for the longevity of our species, while still allowing each of us as individuals and family members to have fulfilling meaningful lives.

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

The longevity of our species depends on the health of our planet, our biosphere.

[@longcastle4863]

@@arthurwieczorek4894 Exactly. And the biggest voting bloc of climate change deniers right now in America are evangelical Christians. As long as they and theirs go to heaven, they’re unconcerned. There is a popular Christian speaker, Ken Ham, who actually says that Christians don’t have to worry about the health of the planet, because God has promised never to destroy the world again and that he will create a new Earth for us in the afterlife.

[@Corteum]

_"Why is Emergence Significant?"_ Because it all "emerged" from consciousness. 😂

[@caricue]

I hate when they talk about emergence as if they are saying something clever. As in, the whole has properties that the parts do not. It only sounds profound if you are committed to reductionism, determinism and bottom-up causation.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

The future is unknown because it doesn’t exist… there’s nothing there yet; it hasn’t happened. Possible futures are apprehensible, but the future itself can’t be known in any meaningful way, like the way present events can be known. 🤔?

[@gettaasteroid4650]

Dr. Clayton likes french dip?, or may be he's doing Shakespeare's Chaucer: "sink or swim"... "immerse or emerge"

[@aidanthompson5053]

Rdr1 remastered

[@virupakshawalla5734]

My mum daid she thoit probable i would have 10 toes😢

[@Sherifaga]

I have been thinking the same way. This is true. We are discovering the last and forever and now God moment, something we had experienced in the Abrahamic religions for a prelude.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Theology is the biggest unscientific subject in the world.

[@clownworld-honk410]

Thank God this interview is only 10 minutes long. I have an urge to go to the shops straight away to buy peppermint ice cream... Pavlov's dog stylie

[@irfanmehmud63]

So basically he is saying that out of the physical and biological complexities of the world, a God will emerge just like mind has emerged from brain?

[@mikefinn]

Is emerging.

[@KRGruner]

Finally, some who makes sense on this channel. All too rare.

[@mohdnorzaihar2632]

How could a 1400 years old book from a desert teach us about embryology where there is no microscope back then..

[@OfTheVoid]

The same way Egyptians were doing brain surgery 4000+ years ago. I mean this respectfully, get yourself some books and put down the internet for a few days.

[@tomjackson7755]

@@OfTheVoid I don't think you understand his objection.

[@OfTheVoid]

@@tomjackson7755 it's pretty straightforward

[@tomjackson7755]

@@OfTheVoid It really is and you still missed it. I would guess English is his second(or more) language and it is still clear.

[@OfTheVoid]

@tomjackson7755 Hey random internet a-hole, your Ego is showing. Reading comprehension, use it.

[@highvalence7649]

Consciousness may not emerge. Consciousness may log require anything at all.

[@playpaltalk]

😂10 to the 11 and 10 to the 14.

[@tomlee2651]

I think we should let God/gods speakth for themselves.

[@longcastle4863]

How?

[@Sherifaga]

Don't you think this is the way God lets us know?

[@Sherifaga]

I don't mean the God in the traditional approach, but the one God that is for everyone at the same time. The moment itself

[@bozo5632]

If there's a God, he's not much of a talker.

[@fionnswake3218]

God goes without saying

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

(5:45) *PC: **_"What if the emergence we see as conscious beings is not the final stage, but that all consciousness together is part of a new emergence of a higher reality."_* ... This is exactly what I've been positing all along! First, we had *unstable matter* (quark-gluon plasma) emerging into *basic stable matter* (hydrogen) which in turn emerged into *complex matter* (molecules / proteins) which then emerged as *simple lifeforms* (prokaryotes) which then emerged into *complex lifeforms* (vertebrates / invertebrates) which likewise emerged into *highly complex lifeforms* (early humans), and which ultimately emerged as *self-aware lifeforms* (modern humans). The fact is that no particle from the earliest stages of emergence could have ever produced, comprehend, or defined the many *nonphysical constructs* that exist today such as love, forgiveness, sacrifice, and perseverance, ... yet physicalists / materialists refuse to allow these emergent properties their well-deserved "nonphysical status." ... They remain trapped within their old-school thinking. However, "Existence" has moved on from inanimate and animated structure. The new frontier is *nonphysical conscious structure* because all relevant information has already been extracted from everything happening prior. ... And the reason "why" Existence continuously evolves into higher complexity is because, just like with us, _"Existence is never satisfied with the status quo."_

[@simonhibbs887]

>"They remain trapped within their old-school thinking." I'd argue the scientific world view is still incredibly young and vigorous, it's only been around a few hundred years at most, really just a few generations in it's modern form. What other world view of it's scope is more recent, and if there are any how successful has it been? Science is still very much the new kid on the block. >The fact is that no particle from the earliest stages of emergence could have ever produced, comprehend, or defined the many nonphysical constructs that exist today such as love, forgiveness, sacrifice, and perseverance, ... yet physicalists / materialists refuse to allow these emergent properties their well-deserved "nonphysical status." I'm going backwards in your comment sorry. The physicalist account as i see it isn't that the emergent phenomena are atoms or molecules or even any kind of physical object, or even a construct. Like consciousness, they are dynamic processes, they are systems of activity in constant motion and change. They exist in the flow. Stop the flow and they die. These processes didn't exist in the earliest stages of emergence, it took time, but now we do.

[@bennyskim]

Emergence is transformation. We create the hierarchy - nothing actually "emerges" from a lower level to a higher one, it's just a value transform caused by one persisting event or other.

[@bennyskim]

In the case that the values gain complexity - that could be merely because they enter further into our potential sensory space, nothing more.

[@thepath964]

When he talks about a connection to Buddhist thought he is 100% wrong. As a professor of Eastern religions he is 100% off-base with this contention. But the clip otherwise is completely fascinating.

[@hakiza-technologyltd.8198]

Hahahahaha

[@virupakshawalla5734]

Scripture lol.

[@ripleyfilms8561]

the god elector better than before in what you say willing go robert

[@virupakshawalla5734]

If it arises it can cease if it comes it can go. That can't be God. The totality of all that exists has existed and will exist and all that is nonexistent past presand future doesn’t even get there. Breaking down an apple biologically chemically etc wont satisfying your hunger. Just let god eat you. But what sort of a god needs permission from you. The fools in silicone Valley that think they will live forever... what was this talk about anyway 😂

[@sinclairmarcus]

Every species will be extinct

[@infinitygame18]

Dear God And Goddess of this beautiful planet Most of Your intellectual mathematics dont know the origin of numbers and most of the intellectuals of meta , pera, cognitive, Quantum and language specialist even don't know how mind understand any language, Hail To all lords🕉☯🙏

[@tedgrant2]

There is a God and Jesus died for your sins. Why am I telling you these very interesting facts ? Well, isn't it obvious. I want you to give me some money.

[@JancobSweety-el9kj]

8:53 you all fail to see god is real, in the ideas, in the connections. God is the reason you had a though of it, that's the connection and we grow through detail connected. The multiverse is here and all possible options lie on the table with no guidance, we were kicked from the garden of Eden/heaven like literally since gods/father's guidance wasn't here an allowed for chaos or hell but god is still here offering guidance because Jesus helped us by not forsaking his creator. Jesus saw that thing that looks back at us even through the choices and other things we think aren't visible.

[@peweegangloku6428]

This guy, the guest, is not a theologian but rather he is a wandering philosopher. He has absolutely ZERO idea on the nature of God. The Bible book of Romans chapter 1 verses 18 to 20 says this: "18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." The evidence of God's existence is clearly seen in everything in and around us. So those who are meandering around the truth are only deceiving themselves.

[@Sherifaga]

The God we had in the Abrahamic religions was the product of that far evolution. The one we are experiencing now is more high tech and more humain and more forgiving

[@Sherifaga]

Also it wasn't global then. This time it is going to be.

[@peweegangloku6428]

@@Sherifaga I will still respond to your comments eventhough it's more like a mockery to the concept of God's existence. First of all, God has always been more high tech than the rudimentary technology that we possess and brag about. Take note of what is stated in verse 20 of Romans chapter 1. It says, "his eternal power and Godship." Do you capture anything highly scientific in that statement? The expression, "his eternal power" indicates that energy ("power") is eternal. It is co-eternal with God. In fact it is an intrinsic component of the nature of God. The law of conservation blends in well with that preexisting statement in the Bible. The eternal power of God was not created neither can it be destroyed, it can only be changed into one form or another. It is that high tech, (the one form or another), we see all around us. You are a product of that high tech. Secondly, God has always been a global God. Look at what he said at Exodus chapter 19 verse 5: "Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me." So you see, God has always owned and shouldered his responsibility toward his entire intelligent physical creations, both humans and animals in ways that we are yet to fully comprehend. In addition, take note of this irrefutable "law" of existence: Nothing eternal can grow, improve, depreciate or be mellowed. That being the case, in the Bible book of Malachi chapter 3 verse 6 God says, "I do not change." As a matter of fact, God has always been very loving, forgiving and merciful toward his human creation. However, he will not tolerate evil eternally. He is going to hold the perpetrators accountable just as he did the Israelites.

[@tomazflegar]

Unbelivable. What if? Is this a speculation or science? We are open to what? What is beyond? Science? Unbelivable.

[@0ptimal]

So easily perturbed.

[@lucianmaximus4741]

Is Consciousness GOD?