I saw this argument made in so many different ways that i had to open it up to all of you for some input.
the argument is this: is an entity simply composed of many different parts or is there a uniqueness in its ‘one-ness’? one way to think about this is with love. does one love someone for their many different characteristics that make them them, or does one love someone just because they ‘are’? if it’s the former, then it would then be possible to love a replica of the person if the characteristics were correct, if its the latter, then it would never be possible to fall in love in the same way twice.
another analogy: how many times can one step in a river? if you believe in the single component theory, then there are an infinite number of times one can step in a river (even if it’s the same spot) because everything will constantly be changing. the single entity theory would say there is only one time that one can step into a river, and it doesn’t matter where you step into it.
this is an old argument but i’m having trouble convincing myself of either one. which theory makes more sense? or can they both be right in different cases?
Within my studies in university I have come upon a few concepts in which a thing may be more than the sum of its parts. One that comes to mind is something called Emergent Properties, an example might be THOUGHT. A single cell cannot ‘think’, though the mind which ‘thinks’ is made up of single cells. Another example might be a spark. Neither a rock, air, gravity, or friction contain spark - putting them together in the right way makes one.
Another concept I came across in my personal studies (not related to school) is Synergy. “Synergy means behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the behavior of their parts taken separately.” (Synergetics, page 3) - Put another way ‘means that sometimes the sum of two things that work together add up to more than the sum of their parts.’
In order to answer your original question, I would say you should investigate that which is being argued in order to determine whether the thing has its own uniqueness as a whole or whether it is simply an aggregate of parts. Personally, I have not heard a convincing argument for either one of these to be the sole basis of all reality, as it stands, I believe they both exist, one need only determine them to their significant types and kinds. Though future knowledge may hold that only one of them is right, I am going by ‘doing with the best that I got’ - which isn’t necessarily right.
Hope that helps.
There are many points of view on this subject.
To talk about your example “love”. Love is something made out of different feelings and emotions. Same goes for hate… so a number of certain emotions and feelings (such as liking… feeling exilirited the moment you see your loved one… and so on) create Love… but liking is a feeling made out of other emotions as well… plus the facts that make you liek that person… either of how the person’s personality is developed (OK maybe I made it soudn too complicted 
) either for them existing or both 
As an example we all know, we take the line… a simple line is made up of more… much more smaller lines… a smaller line is made up from a majority of dots…
A “thing” surrounding us is made up of more “things” which eventually are made up of atoms…
So far we know that about 99% of the “things” we percieve and know, are made up of other things… But… I said a smaller line is made up of dots… What is a not made up of ?
And atoms… which are suppose to be the smallest “thingies” that exist… what are they made up of ?
So eventually we’ll contradict ourselves…
— Good comments all. This is a tough one. I’ll only be able to touch on some basic aspects.
— There is an interesting theory in biology that states that sometimes viruses that perform a useful action for the host may eventually become part of that host, and even if that is not true, aren’t we a complex of genes? haven’t we evolved from simpler organisms? Look at the thumb of a human and that of an ape, doesn’t one serve the organism in a slightly different manner? We are a complex of different organisms, chemical processes and thought processes. We are components. With the advent of thought processes it becomes useful to view the whole organism as singular, however.
— Years ago Aristotle applied the concept of the continuum to one of Zeno’s paradoxes, as Grave Disorder said,
I think that very useful. It has definitely helped in things like Calculus.
— Also as Magius so aptly stated, sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of it’s individual parts, i have worked in places where each person did a specific job and yet the combinations of all of those interactions between people and the work they do came off leaving one extremely satisfied, more satisfied than if i had worked by myself.
i think that all are components. becuase the only way anything is ever labelled to be a whole complete thing is by humans. there is nothing special about a lump of things togehter. any single component of a whole would act exacally the same if it was put in similar situations. emergent properties are just inherint characteristics of individual components when they interact between one anouther. like a power supply and a light bulb. is the fact that light is emitted an emergent property of the system? if you say no, then how come if we simply over complicate the system a million times in the case of a human brain that when it is essentially still just alot of components interacting, we can suddenly label things like thinking to be emergent properties of the system.
Um, why do you ask the question?
It pays to look at things as components sometimes and it pays to look at things as unities at times.
Trix, essentialism is an ever present problem when you ask questions like this.
Frighter,
imagine a robot that was put together by a collection of metal, plastic, and other computer parts. When this robot walks or talks, we know that it is only acting from its parts. Your quite right we label these parts, as well as, the robot which is a collection of these parts. But it is not the word that represents a collection of parts that is an emergent property, it is a phenomenon that is not unique to any one of its parts, only to that of the whole parts together. This robot, as a collection or whole, emits no Emergent Property. Remember, this unique phenomenon must not be able to be explained or predicted by any of its individual parts. You say that they are all just components, that emergent properties are just over complications of a system. Yet you admit that they are inherent characteristics of individual componenets when they interact between one another - this is what we call Emergent Properties. Properties that deal with interaction and the outcomes of those that are irreducible to their parts. Or as George Henry Lewes says it in his book Problems of Life and Mind
We might roughly characterize the shared meaning thus: emergent entities (properties or substances) ‘arise’ out of more fundamental entities and yet are ‘novel’ or ‘irreducible’ with respect to them.
There are further examples, which the inventors and scholars use, and are beyond the scope of this post, that would further elucidate upon the topic. I will, for your convenience provide a link to a credible source of information on the topic…http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/ - here you will find the many applications of Emergent Properties, their inventors, and their continued application with scientific backing. Emergent properties, from what I have read, appear to be common to chemistry, biology, psychology, physiology, and philosophy to name a few.
But even if you were right, Frighter, we would still need a name/label as we humans always do, for something that is different from its own kind. Hence, we cannot go around calling things that as a collective do nothing above and beyond their own consistency, as well as, things that as a collective do produce a phenomenon above and beyond their own consistency.
What I’m trying to say is, science indicates that Emergent Properties are more than just, as you say, a simply overcomplicated system. It appears to me, correct me if I’m wrong, that you are trying to say that all components, things, or atoms have within them an Emergent Property - to not use the term itself, all things have the ability to create effects that would appear to be more than can be explained by simply studying one of its parts. If I am correct, than I must say there might be something to it.
I would warn you though, not because I want to warn you, but because I feel that if you truly want to KNOW much about things, so much so, that you would allow yourself to speak with such certainty and fact - when it actually isn’t fact, that you study and prove your postulations - or you will be laughed at in the real world. As things go on ILP, personally I don’t take seriously, people who come out to be polemic and make grand announcements. It’s alot of fireworks but no effect. Emergent Properties is a complicated matter, I myself don’t understand all it’s proofs and applications. I would never dare to speak on the topic as though I knew better than all others, if I did want to say something on ILP as profound as you say it, I would definitely provide logic, reason, and rational - not to mention evidence, sources, authorities, and the like.
Remember, I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m just saying, if you really want to be heard, you might want to change your style of communication.
What’s your take?
so are you saying there are no emergent properties then in a robot?
well i dont think there are any examples of anything in the universe that i could give you that we currently know of that are irreducable to their parts. i have FULL confidence that if you knew everything about the entire universe that you would be able to reduce anything down to its components, and understand the system of a whole. unless you you have happend upon this amazing power i dont think you could say with certainty that there are such a thing as emergent properties (not that im saying you are). however, it is 3:38 in the morning and i dont really want to read that whole page, but i will tomarrow sometime. and yeah my communication is bad. alot of times i write something on here, then re-write it becuase i know that alot of teh things i say lead to things that i dont quite mean them to lead. i tend to just ramble my thoughts onto here, which im sure isnt the best way to communicate… but your welcome to ignore me if you wish (dont mean that in any kind of negitive way, just eh fact)
okay i just sorta skimmer over that thingy, but the parts i was picking out was rejecting mechanicalism (i think thats whut they called at least) by simply tossing it out because some laws could not be reduced to other laws. and well we dont know all the laws. so whilist im not saying im right, i do feel very comfortable in my belief that its all components.
— emergent properties.
—Yes! Kind of like from our combined dialogue some truth might emerge…
— but none of it would be attributable to any one person…
no offence meant Marshall, but I thought I said that 
And Magius, you said:
But does that apply in a robot, for example ? or better yet, a human body ? Isn’t the human body, exactly all these things (organs, arteries etc.) summed up ?
I mean, they eventually will perform the functions of the body.
And two bodies, would eventually do the same work.
I a ma little tired, so it may not make sense imidiately, but I think you all knwo where I am getting to.
You’re right TheNomad. Sorry, sometimes i get tired too. This is an interesting thread.
i was looking for a more theoretical answer. of course things are composed of parts, tiny tiny atoms. but does this mean we should treat them as only a composition of parts? or should we treat them as the whole that they manifest itself as? that was my big question.
(another way to look at it: if a man has a penis, should we treat him like a man if every other part of him acts like a woman?)
Maguis’ point about emergent properties is interesting, but i’m not sure where this answer will take me. is it enough to suppose that because an object is greater then its parts, this means we should view objects as such? I can’t help but feel that this assumption leads neatly into a priori reasoning, which is why I’m reluctant to accept the ‘unity’ theory. But I find the components idea dangerous, because of Camus.
Alright. To explain, in the stranger, the protaginist is asked by his girlfriend to marry her. He says okay, if that’s what you want. And she’s a little confused and asked if he would have said yes if another girl had proposed, if she was like her. The protagonist said of course.
Forget existentialism, I think that philosophy is easily misunderstood. But camus’ character was able to act they way he did largely because he viewed the world as composed of separate entities. He could see getting another girlfriend, and could accept going to jail when all it meant was eating, sleeping, thinking and jerking off – things he did and enjoyed as a free man.
I think that the component theory of viewing things leads to this line of thinking. It doesn’t embrace the complete essence of a situation, a person or an object. Not doing so leads to an empty existence.
But, like I said, I think believing that a person, situation, etc is a single entity seems to be treading on the spiritual side. It can easily slip into a chorus of ‘parise the lord’s and shots of ‘I see jesus’. That’s my problem.
If you look at the table of elements, or at the parts that make up the atom, I think there are only six known types of Quarks, which through different combinations make up all of the known matter in the universe. So to deny the unity theory might be a little presumptuous. I’m with Magius, the world works differently at different sizes and different complexities. Newton’s laws work well for some calculations, while at other times more complex formulae are required. But I do believe that emergent properties are there in each of the sub-objects, it’s like adding integer numbers together not realising you should be adding fractions (e.g. 1 + 2 + 3 = 7, when if fact its 1.2 + 2.4 + 3.4 = 7.0), as the fractions go unnoticed, until a considerable number of them are added together.
But how are my Atoms unique to me? In themselves they’re not, but they do possess a quality that’s not quantifiable in scientific terms, as they are more then the combination of quarks, or arrangement of atoms. Like the way most music is made from the same notes, but through their arrangement become something more then a boring note, a new vibrancy is found in the combination and tempo of a melody. While people might look a like or sound a like they are different. They have different memories, funny stories, etc. But we all have similar goals, ‘to be happy’. That is a macro term, made up of micro parts. We can all say we want to be happy, but to each of us this means something slightly different. Yet there is an inevitably of our existence, this is the fact there are only so many unique combinations, before things start to repeat themselves. Like when talking to somebody you know, they have only so many stories, once you’ve heard them all there’s no more uniqueness to them, as they will start to retell the same story but dramatised differently.
Well if he went to jail he might find it hard to get a girlfriend, while he would be inundated with offers from fellow inmates to “get giggy†with him and the soap. The character in that book sounds like he hasn’t embraced life, but objectifies everything. A person who is psychologically limited or just won’t attach value to people or thinks. Like the old saying goes, “You reap what you sow,†that character sees everything as the same, so doesn’t sow anything of himself into that other object, and it sounds like everything is just an object to be use, reused then replaced if broken.
“things he did and enjoyed as a free manâ€, if life in a jail is identical to life as a free man, I can tell you, he’s not really a free man, as free men know what they would lose if forced into jail. The fact that his life would be the same tells me that he’s already a prisoner in he’s so called “free worldâ€. He isn’t free but a prisoner to a worldview which is unloving. Where all things are just replaceable objects, and you can’t love an object so easily replaced, there’s nothing for him to love. Egotism has taken him prisoner, one must look beyond ourselves if we wish to grow. To him life is food, sleep and manual sex. He won’t engage in the complexities of life so ends up as detached, lonely, and devoid of purpose. To such a man jail could be seen as paradise, as food and a bed are free and you have plenty of time to yourself, to enjoy yourself. But I think few would say this is compelling way to live ones life.
there may be only 6 types of known quarks, but i think there is still deeper levels of matter that we do not know about yet. i bet someday they will have quark microscopes or something like that that will let us see even deeper into the universe. ya say that some of newtons calculations wont work for some things, but thats because he didnt have the knowledge to look deeper then he could at the time. music may sound neet to us, but thats only becuase of the way our brain interperates it. when it comes down to it the entire tune can be understood simply as a combination of notes. assuming that we totally understood in everyway the very bottom of the chain of “units” of matter we would then be able to understand EVERYTHING
Is it really contradictory to look at reality from both perspectives?
— Good idea Skeptic! I think we’re excluding the middle, for some reason i’m reminded of chaos theory and self-similarity in scale (when you zoom in on a mandelbrot set, eventually you find the same pattern again). There have to be laws of physics that apply both to the micro and macro levels of existence.
That is of course, if both micro and macro levels exist…
… unless, there is only one level that seems to behave different;y, because of perspective (such as a landscape), and size (such as an atom\quark).
But hey, why exclude the middle ?
It’s strange to look on an ensemble form… for me it’s either black or white, without any gray areas.
But then again. that’s just me
Maybe I’m too simple-minded
Of course not. If you look at a dollar bill, you can decribe its ink, color, or flammability, or molecular structure, but none of that would tell you why it works as a unit of exchange. You have to have a different description for that.
No contradiction.
A doctor may talk about your loved one as a system of components and that’s useful, you may talk about a lifetime of memories together with the same person and that’s useful.
the only reason we see it like that is because of the way we look at things. “flammability” “ink” and “color”. dont really exist in the world, its just how we have labeled certain things to be. i call my tv a tv, but really its not a tv, its a collection of atoms that just so happen to be organized in a nice TV-like structure. and as far as our sick friend is concerned, the memorys are only useful to us. as far as the natural world is concerned they are nothing and dont really exist except as structures of some type.
If you say that things like ink, color, TV’s, rocks, mountains, water etc. don’t exist, how is it possible to say that atoms do?