Using AI vs. Talking To Humans

[Chesterton]

What is the problem with emergence in the scientific sense? Aerodynamic lift is an good example by a property of fluids and airfoils together that is not a property of the constituent parts, is it not?

I don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, but how would that be different from an automobile having the property of motion, when the constituent parts of it don't?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I don't know much of anything about aerodynamics, but how would that be different from an automobile having the property of motion, when the constituent parts of it don't?

None, I would say a little sloppily because I think I get what you mean. My only objection is that your example is underspecified (perhaps mine was too, I should have said when a fluid flows over an airfoil) Automobiles don't all have the property of motion, but if we add some conditions I'm sure we could identify that as an emergent property as well. To me it only means it sometimes is meaningful to talk about phenomena at different levels of granularity.

Perhaps I stepped into a discussion without a good grasp of what was discussed.

 

[Chesterton]

None, I would say a little sloppily because I think I get what you mean. My only objection is that your example is underspecified (perhaps mine was too, I should have said when a fluid flows over an airfoil) Automobiles don't all have the property of motion, but if we add some conditions I'm sure we could identify that as an emergent property as well. To me it only means it sometimes is meaningful to talk about phenomena at different levels of granularity.

Perhaps I stepped into a discussion without a good grasp of what was discussed.

I agree that things emerge, but simply saying that doesn't explain anything. If my young son asked me "Daddy, how does a car move?", I could give him an actual explanation - all about the engine, the transmission, the axle, etc., etc. But if I just say to him "the car's motion is an emergent property", I'd be telling the truth, but not really telling him anything worth saying.

It's the same with the video that brought this topic up. The fellow says that human free will is an emergent property, but doesn't actually explain how it emerged.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I agree that things emerge, but simply saying that doesn't explain anything. If my young son asked me "Daddy, how does a car move?", I could give him an actual explanation - all about the engine, the transmission, the axle, etc., etc. But if I just say to him "the car's motion is an emergent property", I'd be telling the truth, but not really telling him anything worth saying.

I think the car example is somewhat ill-fitting, because the properties of transmissions, axles etc (the constituent parts) do actually help explain why it moves.

It's the same with the video that brought this topic up. The fellow says that human free will is an emergent property, but doesn't actually explain how it emerged.

That from my perspective might be a misuse of the term, it should only be applied when the phenomenon can't be inferred from the constituent parts. But is measurable and understandable when looking at it in the full context. I don't know enough about free will to know the constituent parts. I'll watch the video (I have to admit I haven't) when I get back home from work.

 

[Chesterton]

I think the car example is somewhat ill-fitting, because the properties of transmissions, axles etc (the constituent parts) do actually help explain why it moves.

Yes, they do explain. I think that's what I said.

That from my perspective might be a misuse of the term, it should only be applied when the phenomenon can't be inferred from the constituent parts.

You're exactly right. Free will can't be inferred from constituent parts. In fact, free will is impossible under a deterministic world view. Yet we all know we have free will.

But is measurable and understandable when looking at it in the full context. I don't know enough about free will to know the constituent parts. I'll watch the video (I have to admit I haven't) when I get back home from work.

The first part of the video is about the deterministic view, where humans don't have free will. You can skip to about 4:40 if you just want to hear about emergent free will. But pay attention. He says things like "Put many things in one layer together, and they'll create the next layer up. Every time they do, entirely new properties emerge." This is an assertion, it's not an explanation of how. It's neither an explanation nor an argument.