We are not machines

Yes it’s a good article. He is exactly advocating for strong emergence which I also have done in a couple of threads here.


It does however not mean that the emergent consciousness at the top of the hierachy can survive with the death of the “bottom”

Not so. First of all, "strong emergence" is controversial in philosophy and is not known for sure to actually exist. The origin of life itself and of chemistry from basic physical laws are supposed to be examples, but are controversial, and can be more plausibly explained by Intelligent Design and Fine Tuning. The true nature of the mind or consciousness, and of emergent properties as a whole if they in fact do exist, are still not understood. And even if they do exist, all emergent phenomena in a system are still limited by the laws of physics. There is a large body of paranormal phenomena evidence that shows that consciousness is completely immaterial and again, not subject to the laws of physics. All this means that strong emergence can't conclusively or convincingly be used as a physicalist explanation for consciousness.

You replied before I finished writing my post. I have edited it a couple of times since first draft. Electricity is an emergent phenomena, everybody should know that.

This is the first time I've ever seen someone describe electricity as an emergent phenomena.

But even so this seems like weak emergence rather than strong emergence...

This is the first time I've ever seen someone describe electricity as an emergent phenomena.

But even so this seems like weak emergence rather than strong emergence...

Yes it’s weak emergence and not strong emergence. But it’s not a fundamental force contrary to many peoples belief. @nbtruthman  also makes a good post about this. 

But there are an increasing number of people in especially biology who subscribes to strong emergence. The author in the article in the OP is just one of many. I just read of a british professor-emeritus who’s making similar statements. I will check if I can find him again.

Even among physicists, there are discussions on whether condensed matter physics exhibits strong emergence. This debate arises because, even in systems far simpler than living cells, we can observe properties that appear to emerge magically but vanish when the underlying parts are disassembled.

Yes it’s weak emergence and not strong emergence. But it’s not a fundamental force contrary to many peoples belief. @nbtruthman  also makes a good post about this. But there are an increasing number of people in especially biology who subscribes to strong emergence. The author in the article in the OP is just one of many. I just read of a british professor-emeritus who’s making similar statements. I will check if I can find him again.

Perhaps I am not understanding the usage of the term "strong emergence". 

As I understand it Strong Emergence simply doesn't make sense if the term means effects come about that are not potentially existing in a system.

Whatever is [in] an effect has to potentially exist in the causes that precede it.

Here's an excerpt from the IEP entry:

For this reason the criterion often cited as essential for the ontological autonomy of strong emergents (along with in principle irreducibility or non-deducibility) is causal novelty.  That is, the basic tenet of strong emergentism is that at a certain level of physical complexity novel properties appear that are not shared by the parts of the object they emerge from, that are ontologically irreducible to the more fundamental matter from which they emerge and that contribute causally to the world. That is, emergent properties have new downward causal powers that are irreducible to the causal powers of the properties of their subvenient or subjacent (to be more etymologically correct) base. Ontological emergentism is therefore typically committed not only to novel fundamental properties but also to fundamental emergent laws as was the case with the British emergentists who, with the exception of Alexander, were all committed to downward causation—that is, causation from macroscopic levels to microscopic levels.

This seems like a Design argument, recalling the idea of a magical spell where the material/verbal/gestured parts produce a supernatural effect despite their otherwise mundane nature.

In fact the idea of emergent laws seems like something God-the-Programmer would set up, where the effect takes place when the "if-statements" of the law are met.

Perhaps I am not understanding the usage of the term "strong emergence". 

As I understand it Strong Emergence simply doesn't make sense if the term means effects come about that are not potentially existing in a system.

Whatever is [in] an effect has to potentially exist in the causes that precede it.

Another word for it is Top-Down Causation. From a recent article on condensed matter physics:

This paper argues that the physics of condensed matter cannot be fully reduced to the supposedly fundamental quantum mechanical theory for all the atoms of which the system consists. In fact, there are many reasons to reject the idea that the world of physics is causally closed with everything being determined bottom-up by fundamental microscopic laws. This is illustrated by considering how condensed-matter theory is done in practice. It is never done by starting with a microscopic theory for the interaction of all the atoms of the system. Instead, approximations, plausible assumptions, intuitive models, and phenomenological theories are used to mathematically describe and explain the properties of systems that consist of a macroscopic number of particles. I argue that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but that there are fundamental and qualitative differences or even contradictions between the microscopic theory and the theory that is used in practice. The paper includes a list of arguments in favor of strong emergence and top-down causation within the realm of physics, and a response to several widespread objections against this view.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01134

So there is a cause, but it’s not always bottom-up. Causation goes both ways.

I think we are not entirely biological machines.

Although biological functions are mechanical, I don't think consciousness can be explained by biology or anything physical.

I don't see how you can explain qualia by anything physical. And the empirical evidence for non physical consciousness is to me overwhelmingly convincing*.

Whether we are non-physical machines is something I am uncertain about. 

And I am pretty sure that consciousness is not what most people think it is.  We get distracted when we try to concentrate, we don't control our thoughts. We have unpleasant emotions that we don't want, we don't control our emotions. We have impulses that are often unhelpful - we don't control our impulses or actions. We may feel like an observer or like we have free will, intension, or agency. However those feelings are just like any other thoughts or feelings they arise from the unconscious in ways we can't see into or control. If we have free will, it is an unconscious process that has free will. And by unconscious process I am not saying whether it is a physical or non-physical process.

Awareness exists, it seems to me to be non-physical, but is there really a conscious entity/agent that is aware? Maybe waves in water is a better analogy for consciousness than machine. Waves have individuality but you can't separate them from the water. The difference between a single wave and an interference pattern encompassing all waves is just a matter of perspective.

* More info here:
https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-a..._afterlife
https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-a...subject_id
https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2023/12/do-b...-soul.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/commen...n/lcrn5n7/