I'm making a religion based on Emergence.

[LMNO]

There also seems to be an echo of some parts of Godel Escher Bach... Aunt Hill, for example; or the bits about what it is that happens between the neuron and the appearance of "mind".

[Kai]

There also seems to be an echo of some parts of Godel Escher Bach... Aunt Hill, for example; or the bits about what it is that happens between the neuron and the appearance of "mind".

I still need to read both that and I Am A Strange Loop.

Also, holy shit a lot of stuff to read, going back to Aristotle and even Chuangtse said something about spontaneous order. "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Almost every era has had at least one person thinking and writing about emergence, self-organization and/or spontaneous order.

[LMNO]

PRECEDENT!

[Kai]

PRECEDENT!

What do you mean by that?

You mean, recognition due to precedence?

[LMNO]

More like you're probably on to something, if others have also given it some thought.

[Kai]

More like you're probably on to something, if others have also given it some thought.

Even if I look at religious naturalism, which is a more recent phenomenon, I can draw roots back to Spinoza and his naturalistic pantheism. Thats more than 400 years of history alone.

[Kai]

2.  I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states.  To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy.  Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds.  There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them.  All order works for the increase of universal entropy.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. The answer is no, and the reasons are threefold.

1. Strong Emergence is irreducible. That means different emergence systems have different categorical nova and are not equivalent. Biology is not equatable to chemistry. All arrows do not point down.

2. Emergence systems have properties of coherence and correlation. They are sustained over periods of time. This points to an at least temporary limitation of entropy.

3. Death actually sustains a higher emergence system, ecology. I'm not willing to go as far as supervenience, but I do think that The Process is what sustains the diversity of life on this planet over the long term.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Topic split, Kai.

[Kai]

Thanks.

[Golden Applesauce]

2.  I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states.  To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy.  Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds.  There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them.  All order works for the increase of universal entropy.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. The answer is no, and the reasons are threefold.

1. Strong Emergence is irreducible. That means different emergence systems have different categorical nova and are not equivalent. Biology is not equatable to chemistry. All arrows do not point down.

2. Emergence systems have properties of coherence and correlation. They are sustained over periods of time. This points to an at least temporary limitation of entropy.

3. Death actually sustains a higher emergence system, ecology. I'm not willing to go as far as supervenience, but I do think that The Process is what sustains the diversity of life on this planet over the long term.

I guess what I don't understand in general is how you (seem?) to be taking descriptive statements about how the world works (emergent systems) and turning them into normative statements.  Emergent systems are sustained over periods of time => Emergent systems should be sustained over periods of time.  (Or is that not what you're saying?  I'm having trouble parsing you, although that's probably at my end.)

To specific point number 1 - Chemistry is not essential to that argument.  It could just as easily be that we should hurry up and get eaten by our natural predators and/or be recycled by fungus and/or be a host to as many bacteria as possible.

Thinking a little more, it seems that (at least in the case of humans) we're capable of supporting more than one emergent system.  Emergent culture, emergent economics, emergent nations, emergent ecosystems, if not more.  But the three are at least slightly mutually exclusive - if we don't limit our economics, we'll end up converting all of Earth into raw materials and eventually waste storage, which would eventually destroy the ecosystem as we know it.  (Or would you submit that the ecosystem of Mr. Rumpke is just as valuable as an ecosystem anywhere else?)  Nations can find themselves in serious trouble if the culture of their constituents changes to something not conducive to social harmony (or at least, China thinks it will.)  And if culture shifts to being favorable of war, bad things happen to every system.  Humans are like the proverbial bull in a china shop, unable to move without breaking something.

[Kai]

It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.

There, are you happy now?

[Golden Applesauce]

It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.

There, are you happy now?

Who's "ourselves?"  The remaining 1/12 woud be better off if the right 11/12ths died.

[Jenne]

..."right 11/12ths" [sic]?  Who dat?

[Nast]

Everyone except the dolphins, naturally.

[Kai]

It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.

There, are you happy now?

Who's "ourselves?"  The remaining 1/12 woud be better off if the right 11/12ths died.

As funny as I think Bhode's argument was, it doesn't belong here.