Tomorrow all the unemployed?

[sen-no-sen]

I strongly dispute this common idea that the whole would be greater than the sum of these elements, but here we should open a new thread as the subject is dense.
I just summarize: in front of everything, we change paradigm. You see new things which are not objectively new, that is, they were part of the potentiality of the elements. I'm talking about elements in a broad sense, not just the rooms, but the basic principles of arrangement and the smallest details that make the whole stand up. The emergence of the "more" than the parts is only that of our interpretation. Cut a branch into a fork, tie an elastic band, and you see slingshot. The bird will always see a branch and a wire to land.

You therefore challenge all the social and physical sciences ...
This last example gives us a fairly clear answer.
In the case of the slingshot we have two points of view, that of the human being and that of the bird.
For the human being, no doubt, a forked branch + an elastic band = a slingshot.
For the bird as you note a branch and a wire ... to land there ...
The point of view of the two observers is of little importance, what matters is that the combination of fork + slingshot can generate functionality new nonexistent on a unit scale (branch only / elastic only) ... this one allowing to launch at high speed a projectile and ... to knock out the bird.
For the bird it gives one chance in two to die, for the human one chance in two to feed ... it changes everything for our two observers.

This example perfectly demonstrates that "the whole is effectively greater than the sum of the elements" who composes it.
A rubber band alone does not allow or very difficult to launch a projectile, this is even more true for a forked branch.

Now let's take a more complex example: the brain.
Does a neuron generate intelligence or even consciousness? No, just electro-chemical signals, on the other hand the whole of the hundreds of billions of neurons in interactions allows the emergence of the two, and incidentally a being which thinks, which reflects, which with feelings, projects etc ...

The "whole" simply does not exist. Putting together piles of disparate pieces, thinking against all odds that they would be pieces of a puzzle and that the beautiful picture will appear, is doomed to failure. The image does not exist any more than the idea that one has of it, which is not, moreover, what another would have of it, and you understand that well, since you have taken the example of socialism.

Therefore you must automatically deduce that you do not exist!
For a fan of techno it's still strong coffee!
Every living being is an assemblage of organs and tissues, taken independently a stomach or a lung reflects only functionality, assembled in a whole it makes a living being.
Obviously, it works for all technologies, for the economy, etc. What is a smartphone if not a spill of hydrocarbon, a pile of silicon and rare earths?
It is by "informing the subject" and by using a sum of functionalities that this set once refined makes it possible to make telephone calls ...

Only "past technical advances have enabled humanity to progress", yes, so let's use the methods that work as long as they work and that no better ones have been found after trying.
As you see the least common sense and feet on the ground will shatter the plans on the comet.

...Janic? It's you?

With "technical advances", you create the pieces of your puzzle yourself. This is why it works. You can always retouch them if they don't fit together. Common sense and feet on the ground, nothing else allows you to move forward. As for knowing where, we do not care, do not listen to the prophets or the interventionist ideologues, the pleasure is on the way, in the discovery.

One would think here to hear a preaching, it is beautiful, but it is a reasoning once again subjective.

[Janic]

... Janic? Is that you?: Frown:

no insult please !!!

[Ahmed]

Common sense and feet on the ground, nothing else allows you to move forward. As for where, we don't care...

Underlined by me ...
In other words, let's abandon ourselves to determinisms ... Ah, sorry, in your reading grid, Exnihiloest, there is only an innocent functionality of monads which express their potentialities (which implies that you are coherent [which nobody can reproach you!] by denying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts).

[Exnihiloest]

Common sense and feet on the ground, nothing else allows you to move forward. As for where, we don't care...

Underlined by me ...
In other words, let's abandon ourselves to determinisms ... Ah, sorry, in your reading grid, Exnihiloest, there is only an innocent functionality of monads which express their potentialities (which implies that you are coherent [which nobody can reproach you!] by denying that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts).

Insofar as no one has any competence to be able to affirm what the future will be or what it should be, except the prophets, the dictators, and the conceited, we are well constrained to take small steps with a view to short term, by reorienting yourself at each step according to the problems of the moment, and of what one finds along the way and which was not known in the previous stage. It is also these discoveries along the way that make it impossible to "plan on the comet" for the future life that your utopia would like. Progress is not what we aim for, but emerges from what we do in the present for the short term, and it is fortunate, nothing would be more boring in life than to follow the rail prepared by a few committees ethics for subsequent life.

As for the whole which would be greater than the sum of its parts, if you do not want to debate on the concept of emergence or adopt philosophical positions from time to time, then you can continue to live like everyone else with boat ideas.

[Ahmed]

Who tells you that I have some utopia in mind?
Your alleged "innocent" pragmatism leads him straight to the dystopias of transhumanism, which you insidiously dare to call humanism ...
Day-to-day acts should not be confused, which effectively involve trial and error and what precisely punishes these behaviors by selecting the most effective vis-à-vis deep determinisms.

You write:

... or adopt philosophical positions from time to time, then you can continue to live like everyone else with boat ideas.

This condescending and peremptory tone is still more in the manipulative register than in that of ideas!

[Exnihiloest]

You therefore challenge all the social and physical sciences ...

not

This last example gives us a fairly clear answer.
In the case of the slingshot we have two points of view, that of the human being and that of the bird.
For the human being, no doubt, a forked branch + an elastic band = a slingshot.
For the bird as you note a branch and a wire ... to land there ...
The point of view of the two observers is of little importance, what matters is that the combination of fork + slingshot can generate functionality new nonexistent on a unit scale (branch only / elastic only) ... this one allowing to launch at high speed a projectile and ... to knock out the bird.
For the bird it gives one chance in two to die, for the human one chance in two to feed ... it changes everything for our two observers.
This example perfectly demonstrates that "the whole is effectively greater than the sum of the elements" who composes it.
A rubber band alone does not allow or very difficult to launch a projectile, this is even more true for a forked branch.

This example does not demonstrate any of this. It only demonstrates our intellectual inability to see all the elements and deduce their potential.
You are a caveman, with a child. You see flints and twigs. You see two elements et you see the potential of the whole to make fire. The child sees nothing. The whole is not superior to its elements since by seeing the elements, you saw the possibility of making fire and that they actually have it. The emergence of the new function appears in your mind because it was already present in the whole flint + twigs + flint-flint interaction + flint-twig interaction ... An interaction is a basic element, just like flint or the twig, it is part of the physical laws.
The problem is that our intellectual capacity is quickly caught up. Not only often, she does not know all the basic elements, but imagining all the possibilities of using them is of such complexity that one cannot foresee the result. So we call the result a miracle, there would be more than we put in it, while obviously this is not the case.

Now let's take a more complex example: the brain.
Does a neuron generate intelligence or even consciousness? No, just electro-chemical signals, on the other hand the whole of the hundreds of billions of neurons in interactions allows the emergence of the two, and incidentally a being which thinks, which reflects, which with feelings, projects etc ...

Nothing emerges except your own interpretation. The element of intelligence can be seen as a thermostat. You have a system in contact with its environment, which takes information from its environment (such as temperature) and which it processes to initiate an action (the heating control). You multiply by billions, and you have a human brain for which you have become incapable of seeing all the stimuli and the processing, a matter of complexity. So in front of this cognitive system in interaction with its environment, you cry "O miracle, the whole is more than its parts!" Nay! The miracle only reveals your ignorance.

... The image does not exist any more than the idea that one has of it, which besides is not that that another would have, and you understand it well, since you have took the example of socialism.

Therefore you must automatically deduce that you do not exist!
...

The whole which does not exist, it is not mine, it is yours, that which would be greater than the sum of its parts and whose novelty would therefore appear by spontaneous generation, like that in which we believed there a few centuries. My whole is the realization of the potential of the elements that compose it. This one exists.

With "technical advances", you create the pieces of your puzzle yourself. This is why it works. You can always retouch them if they don't fit together. Common sense and feet on the ground, nothing else allows you to move forward. As for knowing where, we do not care, do not listen to the prophets or the interventionist ideologues, the pleasure is on the way, in the discovery.

One would think here to hear a preaching, it is beautiful, but it is a reasoning once again subjective.

Out of science or facts, I never present that my views, more or less philosophical, and no one can be objective. The idea that we could speak objectively about the future is nonsense, we should know it.

[Exnihiloest]

Who tells you that I have some utopia in mind?
Your alleged "innocent" pragmatism leads him straight to the dystopias of transhumanism, which you insidiously dare to call humanism ...
Day-to-day acts should not be confused, which effectively involve trial and error and what precisely punishes these behaviors by selecting the most effective vis-à-vis deep determinisms.

You write:

... or adopt philosophical positions from time to time, then you can continue to live like everyone else with boat ideas.

This condescending and peremptory tone is still more in the manipulative register than in that of ideas!

Yours becoming reductive on everything I write, I am obliged to change the tone. And there you attack me on transhumanism when nothing that I said was related to it.
This is how it has been since the dawn of time: men solve the problems of their time and their environment, and this is what keeps us going. "Macro" progress emerges from small daily progress, without being aimed at.
As for "insidiously", it is an insulting trial of intent. Transhumanism is a form of humanism. You have the right to have a contrary opinion, but from there to pretend that those who would post it to deceive, there is perhaps a step not to be taken, just to keep a minimum of civility and plausibility .
What are you looking for Ahmed? Have you made transhumanism your bane and you put it to all kinds of sauces? You no longer want to recognize any good faith in those who do not have your ideas? You no longer want to express yourself on what is said but only in relation to the idea that you have of the one who speaks? I am no longer with you.

[Ahmed]

Transhumanism is a humanism if words no longer have any meaning ... However, this conviction does not bother me, only this assumed lexical confusion.
Isn't it you who tell me about a utopia of which I am the bearer? Therefore, I evoke another which is certainly not mine ...

So you change your tone because I do not approve of your convictions or not enough ... I do not understand the vehemence of your words, nothing and no one prevents you from believing and saying what you want ...

[Ahmed]

The famous claim ofAristotle actually presents itself in a deliberately paradoxical form, since apparently contrary to spontaneous common sense.
What changes the game is that it adds information that connects the parts together, which gives this superiority. A living animal has something more than the same, dead. A word is greater than the sum of its letters, since thus it expresses a meaning which is not contained in the same scattered letters.
The fact that flint and twigs can potentially allowing a fire to be started is only deducted after the fact, and other possibilities of the same result exist ... and without additional information, the flint and the twigs would never light a single fire.

[Janic]

Ahmed hello

The fact that the flint and the twigs could potentially allow a fire to be started is only deduced after the fact, and other possibilities of the same result exist ... and without additional information, never the flint and the twigs would light any fire.

that's the whole problem of evolution with its spontaneous generation and self-organization so dear to some.