Sometimes I can’t help thinking people write nonsense about complexity. They ascribe all sorts of supposedly emergent properties to these complex objects; whether these objects be animate or inanimate. Now we take these objects and think of them somehow independent of their environment. In the vernacular, this sort of thinking is useful. It allows for reasonable prediction of the behaviour of these objects at a minimal computational cost. What these complexity promoters forget, or perhaps ignore, is that they have drawn an arbitrary boundary around their complex object, be it a proton, a worm or a human being. The behaviour of the proton nor the behaviour of the worm or human being are independent of the environment. This includes the past and present and possibly future environments.
Complexity can form from simple systems. For example the Mandelbulb fractal to the right is a 3D exploration of the not so simple equation:fc(z) = z² + c
It can be seen as a map of how quickly we can iteratively compute to reach a certain accuracy of a solution to the equation above. For those interested Mathologer gives a good explanation here of how each point of the Mandelbrot set is calculated.
John Conway devised The Game of life a cellular automaton simulation. The image on the left is a simulation on a trefoil knot’s surface (Wikipedia). The evolution of these patterns is determined by the initial state. At the heart of complex patterns are some very simple patterns of behaviour, or in the case of these automatons, rules. Again some people seem to speak of these patterns in almost hollowed terms as emergent. Simple patterns of behaviour can result in complex behaviours. It is simple as that.
If there is sufficiently large number of moving parts to this complexity, ultimate reductionism is not going to be useful in describing (explaining) what is going on. Does not mean we should forget that there is a fundamental cause and effect underlying this complexity. If we do, we can get quotes like the one below:
Finally, until you can give me real predictions of the outcomes of complex human behaviors, you are simply stating again and again your faith in science in the face of much evidence that scientism has yet to cash the check it has written.
The first line belies the ignorance of the underlying issues of the free will debate. Just because I or anyone else cannot predict the future with absolute accuracy is irrelevant. Indeterminism does not give us free will. If our wills are a result of a cosmic dice shaker, complex or otherwise, it does not make our will free. I am sure this has been pointed out to the author many times. Finally he moves onto the old pejorative of scientism.
The author of the above quote also suggested that billiard balls can lead independent existences. He posted a picture to prove it. But billiard balls are dependent on one another … see the emergence thread. Independence is an illusion and at best an approximation. Being complex does not lead to independence.
We look at a brain and marvel at its complexity: 100 · 10¹² synapses with unimaginable connectivity. Yes the brain is an amazingly complex organ. There is no denying that. But it is not an independent organ. It’s not going to derive a constitution from first principles, it needs training and it is connected to its environment … family, friends, school, news, books. The brain is connected! Intra and inter.
For those interested there is a great ethereal aspect to this complex interconnectivity.
Free will has been described as the last great lie. Well I think there is another great lie. We are not in someway separate from the universe. This human separateness is a wonderful approximation, but ultimately it is an illusion, if not a delusion.
And if reason does not work for you … then this might help:
rom's corner 
Rom, thanks for the attention. I can use it here at naturereligionconnection. org. I will get back to you with some specific responses.
LikeLike
The austerity of your position is remarkable. It is monk-like. No free will, no unified self, just molecules in motion.
To be consistent, I think, you should add no meaning to the list. Concept of “Molecules” and “neurons” fit in very different vocabularies than concept of “meaning”.
A cockroach has around a million neurons but how do we talk about meaning for it? Computers have no neurons but may become sophisticated enough some day to be meaningful. Lang is our best example of “meaning”. “Meaning” has more to do with that, than neurons. Neurons are associated with meanings but don’t cause meanings nor are full of meaning (meaningful) in themselves.
LikeLike
If by austerity you mean my position has no superfluous fanciful distractions then I will take that as a compliment Greg.
“Meaning” seems to have two uses, It could be like a definition or a purposefulness. I take you mean the latter. Does a tree have a purpose?
But if you are arguing for some form of teleology, then you will have explain how we go from fundamental particles to beings with purpose. By the way of an explanation, I don’t mean hand waving and pointing to the magical more of emergence.
Not sure what you mean by no unified self … certainly no intrinsic self.
Not sure what you mean by “Lang”, I am presuming language, if so we are tied up in circular knots here.
Evolution has imbued us with the capability with having concepts … does not mean that the concepts actually exist. Similarly I see my kitchen chair as red. It does not mean the chair is actually red.
And here you could not resist. I have taken you to task before on your rhetorical “just”. Deal with the fact that we are molecules in motion first! Then we can discuss whether it is “just” or not … and where exactly the implied “more” resides.
LikeLike