this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
1057 points (99.9% liked)

Science Memes

16722 readers
1486 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
1057
Goals. (infosec.pub)
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

It would be strongly emergent then. And strong emergence is basically magic.

[–] derek 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I don't see how either sentence follows. Rephrasing your comment and supplementing it with context to explain your reasoning may better communicate your point.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Weak emergence has qualities that arise from the fundamental features of the parts and the rules that connect them. For example, the shapes made by flocks of birds can be reduced to simple local interactions among the birds.

Strong emergence has qualities that cannot, even in principle, be reduced to the parts and their rules. These qualities are genuinely novel and bring powers that are not found in the constituents alone.

Strong emergence is like mixing two chemicals in a lab and, instead of producing a new compound, discovering an entirely new fundamental force of nature. Consciousness, in particular, seems to lack any physically grounded ontology. While this is a divisive claim, it is hardly original. Physicalists who appeal to weak emergence have not yet shown—nor may they ever be able to show—that consciousness is physically emergent. If strong emergence is to be taken seriously, it must be framed in a way that avoids looking like something from nothing, which would be indistinguishable from magic.

As of now, the physicalists have to demonstrate weak emergence. Failing that, we cannot dismiss strong emergence so that we don't close the investigative and theory making space.

[–] derek 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That makes more sense. Thanks for the response! I'm not sure if can agree with your conclusions. It may be that I'm still missing context you're working within. My best guess is you're assuming some axioms that I am not. That doesn't necessarily mean I think you're incorrect. We might just be operating with different frameworks.

I agree that strong emergence and weak emergence seem different by your definitions. I'm not convinced strong emergence is a thing. Is there a compelling argument that the perception of strong emergence is actually a more complex weak emergence that the observers have not fully understood?

Something something Occam's Razor / god of the gaps something. I find these sorts of discussions quite compelling. Thanks again for engaging. :)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)